![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
When I first learned stud and was being taught by a friend who is an excellent stud player we had a debate about certain hands. I argued that small trips on third street an aces would fair equally as well if not better in 8 handed competition than head up. I argued that while lost a great deal of the time you would be getting odds of 7-1 and you would win enough than say if you won 90 percent of the times heads up. Also the starting hands would of the full field would not be nearly as good on average as the person willing to go heads up. Does anyone have any comments of math that is would show how even as the odds increase the probability of winning the hand decreases at a faster rate?
.
I'll take rolled up trips vs pocket aces anyday. I'll run the data tonite and report it tomorrow.
When you have rolled up trip deuces, you will win against 6 random opponents approximately 55.3 % of the time.
When you have rolled up trip aces, you will win against 6 random opponents approximately 69.2 % of the time.
When you have 2 aces and an unsuited little card (AA5 rainbow) you will win against 6 random opponents 30.7 % of the time.
Heads up, Ad Ac 5h VS. 2d 2c 2h : the trip deuces will win about 84.7 % of the time.
Trip deuces against trip aces heads up - trip aces will win 72.6 % of the time.
Bottom line - I'll take rolled up trip deuces over 2 aces any day.
-SmoothB-
x
I think his point is not that trips aren't any better than aces, but rather that the two hands might make more played against a large field for a single bet than a smaller field for a double bet. This is essentially the assumption you make when you chose not to raise with your rolled up trips until 6th street.
I'm not so sure about aces. Common sense says raise to prevent the two low pair suckouts, but maybe you would make more on the few times you hit your aces up.
It's sort of like asking if you'd rather play AA in HE against 9 people in for a single bet or 1 person for a double bet, so maybe there are cases in stud where you would call with aces on 3rd. I think you'd still limp reraise if given the opportunity, though.
I am not sure exactly what he meant. He said
,"...small trips on third street an aces would fair equally as well if not better in 8 handed competition than head up. I argued that while lost a great deal of the time you would be getting odds of 7-1 and you would win enough than say if you won 90 percent of the times heads up..."
I would not want to be up against 7 callers with bare aces or even aces up. The avg winning hand in a 7-8 man game is trips 8's. Of course there are times when all the straights and flushes could bust and Aces oe Aces up (on the river) could win, and when the do, they would win a lot of money. But if you had only Aces, would you be raising against 7 callers (I think not). Also, if you were rolled up with 7 or lower, I think you should raise early. Frankly, I would raise on 3rd with low trips and depending on position, on 4th or definitely on 5th with trips >9's.
I am going to Australia (Sydney) this summer. I hear the most popular game there is a game called Manila. Is there any hold'em played there? What are the basic rules of Manila? Is Manilla a game worth playing if you don't have a clue how to play, in other words will it cost me a lot to learn? If it will cost too much to learn there won't be much point playing because I will probably never play it again.
There is no poker (as of last November) in the casino in Sydney. In Melbourne, they have a big casino that has a lot of manila and some holdem, tho the holdem wasn't at very high stakes. I recommend forgetting gambling and checking out as much as you can of Sydney; you won't regret it.
As far as strategy for Manila, I have some ideas, but I don't have enough evidence to merit expressing them. Part of the fun for me was trying to analyze a new game that my opponents had all been playing forever.
JG
clinteroo
I run a private holdem game in Canberra every week. Canberra is about 3hrs drive from Sydney. Limit 5/10 with a kill, but we could arrange a bigger game if you're interested. email if you're interested on
sorry, dropped out before could finish. contact me on
stepok@yahoo.com.au if interested.
We'll get into trouble with the WFM over this but since you asked: Manila is played with a 32 or 36 card deck and is a communal form of 7cs. Each player is dealt 2 hole-cards, with one communal card turned to start, then there are another four upcards dealt one at a time, so there are five rounds in all. It's always played with limit betting, don't know the exact structure used in Crown casino, Melbourne, but usually only the last round is the big bet in games here. You must use both your hole-cards at the end. It's a very unusual game, and you would be advised to practise before youput any money into. There are an awful lot of suck outs becuase of the stripped deck and with five rounds of betting, each hand is expensive to play. Nothing you know about other forms of poker will help you much when you play manila.
There is no body of theory associated with the game, though someone ran up some basic charts recently. Some rues of thumb which many players use (some may be mutually contradictory: I don't play the game a lot and claim no expertise, though I think I'm winning overall)
Rolled trips are very common, and many good players refuse to play "mud runners" ie, trips lower than jacks, because if the board pairs you can usually only beat a straight (flushes out-rank full houses), so when someone bets at you after the board pairs, you are in trouble.
There a lot of split pots when four cards to a straight are out, so if you make a straight on fifth and a fourth straight card falls on sixth and there is a lot of betting and calling going on it means that you are going to be sharing the pot if you win, and if the board pairs on the river someone will probably scoop it with a boat. So your upside is small, and it will cost a lot to get to the end whatever happens. So you might have to throw away the nut straight on sixth if there are two or three bets and some calls before it gets to you,or if you have some raisers behind you. Sounds strange I know, but manila is like that. If you have the top trips of course you stay till the end no matter what. The board will pair at the end about 40% of the time, so if you are in the pot against several straights you are getting beautiful odds.
Starting hands: You can never play a pair which is dominated by the first upcard. QQ,and KK and sometimes even JJ is playable when the first upcard is smaller than your pair. (A,x) Going for a top straight when you have to get two perfect cards is not considered profitable by many players:eg: (AK)T, Q or J. You can sometimes win a huge pot with a baby straight, if you start with (T,x)A, where X is 7, 8 or 9. (the Ace counts as a six) The players with (A,x) will often hang on tillthe end, but they will need to make a book to beat you if you make your straight by fifth st. After all, if you have your straight, what can they have? If a ten falls or the board pairs you should surrender though.
Flushes are hard to get, and you should generally only play those which also have straight chances.
I don't know if any of this helps, and I can't guarantee the profitablilty of these points, but like I say, many players believe various bits of what I have said.
DZ.
manila' my favorite game...
Posted by: Aussie Kangaroo
Posted on: Friday, 14 July 2000, at 2:43 p.m.
Any comments on this hand?
Game 5-10 Omaha, full kill
Key players: D and E
6 Players see the flop for 10$ each on a kill hand (no raise).
Player A small blind $2
Player B large blind $5
Player C caller
Player D kill blind (AhJs8d7s)
Player E caller (AdJc9s3h)
Player F caller (inherits button)
Flop Tc9d7c
Action on Flop
A check: B check: C bet: D raise: E call: F,A and B fold, C call
Turn 9h
Action on turn
D bet: E raise: C fold: D fold ..... E wins, no showdown, but both hands were exposed afterwords.
Suppose the 3h were the 3d, (In player E's hand) does this change you opinion and if so, explain.
======================================================
Here is another O-8 hand.
As the first player to act in a game with very little pre-flop raising, and not a lot of agression in later rounds either.
You pick up Ad4c5d6s.
Do you raise, call, or fold?
Now, suppose you called.... and get 6 way action for no extra money.
Now the flop comes Ks Jc 4d
Now the BB bets out
What do you do?
I folded. I am not sure I did the right thing. I can imagine a multitude of excellent and good turn cards
-- excellent -- -- good --
{ 2d 3d 6d 7d 8d, 9d Td Qd 3c 3s 3h 7c 7s 7h }
In addition, there are quite a few decent ones, though some of these could lead you into making a 2nd best loser.
-- decent --
{ 2c 2h 2s 4h 4s } I left off the 3 off suit 8's because I really don't think calling for a bad low and a gutshot there makes sense, though it could work well. I also left off the three Aces, since your low will be almost surely no good if there are many players and you almost surely need to fill up to win. (and if few players come along, you implied odds get much worse than my basic assumptions) If I catch an Ace, I might call to see the river, but it is not really what I want to get.
So..... almost 1/2 the deck will probably cause you to take a peek at the river
After that, you will be looking at somewhere around 8 outs for high and a less clear low picture. I think a decent guess at you number of low outs is about 4. Sometimes you will have many, but other times, you will need a perfect card and still others will leave you with no shot to win low at all. You can also assume sometimes you will make a non-nut low and call, and still lose.
If we simply multiply outs here, we see that you will "get there" somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 in 8 times. My guess is that this justifies the call, but I've never been good at doing the math here. I will try.
I know you lose 1 small bet about 1/2 the time and lose 3 small bets about 3/8ths of the time**. Finally, you probably rate to win somewhere around 60% of the pot when you do get there. You will scoop some, but win half much of these times and sometimes get quartered.
Thus, in 8 hands, you will lose (1 * 4) + (3 * 3) = 9 small bets and you will win about 0.6 * ( pot_size ) - 3 bets (discounting action on the river, which rarely wins you lots of money unless you are scooping). If we have 7, 5, 3 callers in the 3 rounds before the river, the pot is 18 small bets, which comes to a win of 7.8 bets.
Now this analysis makes me think calling is bad, though not by much (barring rasises, which will almost always be bad for you, though if you turn a 3d, turn raises might not be so bad).
Any comments. Did I miss something in my method of analyzing all this. Were any of my assumptions way out of line?
Jim Morgan
** Based on the rather sweeping generalization that you will face exactly one bet on
Hand 1: Not much to comment on. E has a reasonable shot at an A3 low holding up given that only one other hand has shown any enthusiasm. He may have also 'read' what's going on. The other cards give him some hope of winning the high side. I think whichever 3 he has, calling is really the only sensible option given the information available here.
Hand 2: Ad4c5d6s Personally, I never raise with this hand. Change the 4 to a 3 and I would raise, but missing both the 2 and 3 is more than my fragile nerves can handle, and it seems like every time I win with one of those middlish-low straights - ESPECIALLY in a loose-passive game - the high gets chopped 2 or 3 ways.
As for whether to call on the flop, I'm folding. I think your analysis is pretty good, but I would add that some turn and river cards that improve your hand are also action killers. Any A or 2 hitting, or the 4 pairing, will almost certainly induce some folds. So things are probably not even as good as your analysis indicates.
First hand. I can understand the call from player E, although it's very marginal without the three being a diamond. Bare A-3 combo has an insecure chance at low. A-J combo is fair, J-9 combo is weaker. That's it, just three combos and none for the nuts before the flop, except maybe A-3 if a deuce flops.
E has no call after the flop. Pretty gutsy play for a game with six players seeing the flop.
E has no raise after the turn.
If I were playing hand D, I would call the raise from player E after the turn, even though there is a pair on the board. Although I think player D has a clear fold here with several opponents, I think player D has a call against only one opponent. Here everyone has folded to E's raise. D is playing too weakly. Sounds like player E is running all over this game and getting away with it.
Second hand. I like to mix up my play with A-4-5-6 suited. Mostly it's just a calling hand for me, but I raise pre-flop in late position about 25% of the time with it. With a flop of Ks Jc 4d, you missed the flop. Fold.
The trouble with calling here is that you probably don't have the best hand. Wouldn't you rather have a pair of kings (or even jacks) or a queen-ten to go with this flop? Ask yourself what cards you would want after any given flop. If you don't have them, frequently your opponent does. In the situation described the big blind probably has at least (1) pair of kings, (2) a pair of jacks, (3) queen-ten, or (4) king-jack. Wouldn't you rather have any one of these combinations than what you actually have? The best times to give up in Omaha high/low are (1) before the flop and (2) after the flop.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
.
Hi, Louie. Please post the result of the "lesson" you posted below. I appreciate it.
Post deleted at author's request.
its so great to see you admit that you make mistakes like the rest of us Badger. now that person who always says you never admit to being wrong is wrong. hooray for you.
oh, one other thing Badger. your mistakes are so horrendous that it may be wise to never listen to anything you say anymore:)
What were the mistakes? He spelled duh wrong maybe?
Vince
Kind of gives a whole different flavor to the term "bad beat" doesn't it?
Even if you're the best Omaha player alive, I don't see how anybody can maintain the concentration day in and out to avoid misreading a hand at least once in a while. You'd have to be a machine.
As for lowball, I'm always amazed whenever anyone whose IQ is at least two digits manages to stay awake for more than three consecutive hands. Maybe you were sleep-fogged.
Thanks for sharing the stories.
Your first mistake seems to me a pretty good move.You could have wasted even more of your valuable time.The second is practically routine in ireland.Surely the biggest mistake was in not offering Vince a piece of the action.DoooooooH.
badger ...
will your next article be entitled," tactics and strategies..the dumb and dumber of it"
great to see you sharing a session... but as ray says can we believe what you preach now in your posts
guess we can put the faith back in there...unless of course you muck again ...then we`ll get to hear vince tilt......
jg
"raise with AQhJ6h"
A4 was bad enough. You get looser every day! No wonder you can't win tournaments anymore!
"I immediately bet $100 on former Lowball World Champion and Lowball "player of the year" Vince Burgio"
Lowball player of the year? LOL. Someone must win the most slot tournaments, but I wouldn't back that someone.
"Last night's Lowball tournament. 48 players, dull as paste Lowball."
Maybe your problem is that you play boring games. You should take up stud.
Badger thanks for sharing your infalibility, but if I were to list all my Whopper's I would never get off this computer and would end up in jail.
paul the right coast
wrong coast paul,
maybe you and badger can get together and try to find out who is the most incompetent. ill award a prize. let me know where to send it to you. yfrz
Just send it to me I make bigger mistakes than those two before I even get into my car.
ukw
RCP
STORE 24
MALDEN, MA 02175
In general when we bet or raise we are signifying a very good hand. But to balance our strategy and not be readable, we must also sometimes bet or raise with hands that are not that good. But which hands should they be? Should they be the very worst of them, thus saving the better ones for calling purposes? Should they instead be hands that are just slightly below our legitimate betting or raisng hands, thus giving us the best chance to win if called? Or should they be in between? Or does it depend and if so on what?
"Should they instead be hands that are just slightly below our legitimate betting or raisng hands, thus giving us the best chance to win if called? "
They should be in this category but not specifically for the reason of giving yourself a chance to win. The reason is that when you show the hand your opponents become confused about your raising requirements. If you were to start with a horrible hand many opponents would realize that you were just out trolling and pass it off. So a reasonable hand that is out of the realm of what to expect is the best. BTW- that could include some hands a little worse than what the above implies.
Vince.
I kind of agree with what your saying but even if you raise occasionally with hands other than you suggest, you show it down and your opponents know what your doing you still gain something. Your showing them that when you raise you likely have a big hand but not always.
For this reason I think it valuable to raise with hands just below raising hands in value (for the reasons you stated). Plus other hands like raising occasionally with 87s to show opponents that you are capable of raising with hands other than Ace-Big or a pair. Plus I feel you lose little by raising with hands you'd otherwise call with b/c they have a good chance of making a playable hand.
Raising with abosute trash makes little sense to me. You'll hit a flop less often and show it down even less so chances are that the deception you try to gain by playing these hands will be futile b/c you showdown these hands less often then other resaonable hands and when this happens you gain nothing.
In my opinion, they should be hands that A) cost you as little as possible, and B) Hit flops that aren't expected to help a raiser's hand. Therefore, I'm not gaining much by 'deceptively' raising with a hand like AJ, since any flop that helps that hand could legitimately help a 'regular' raising hand like AK or JJ.
I specifically don't want opponents running all over me when I raise and a flop comes up 568. So, I'm gaining some protection for my 'real' raising hands by ocassionally raising with a hand like 89s.
If I'm playing in a game tight enought that I have some chance of winning the blinds from an UTG raise, then an occasional raise with a hand like 55 might not be a bad idea, since you can hit the lowest of flops with it, and EV from the blind steals means the raise costs very little in the long run.
I think that, other than eliminating the most hopeless hands, the best course is generally to let the situation determine your variations from otherwise optimium strategy. A player who is alert to his opponents will often spot situations to raise a hand he might otherwise call or even fold. This is especially true if you are the one who is paying attention and thinking ahead while your opponent is daydreaming or inwardly bemoaning his previous beat. This points up the value of thinking ahead *further and faster* than your opponent. Of course, experience helps greatly (for some) in this regard.
As far as the relative strengths of hands you would want to play other than "optimally", the surprise factor is quite valuable. If you only deviate slightly from your usual standards, your aware opponemts won't be influenced much, and your unaware opponents could care less. The trick is to find hands that truly surprise the opposition, without giving up too much expected value. Examples might be limping with aces in holdem or buried aces in stud, or more to the point, reraising with 76s in holdem under the right conditions--say you see you can't get the kind of multi-way action you would like with the 76s, but the late position raiser to your right appears to be stealing, and you can read him fairly well and have reasonably good control over him. Now a reraise may well be best, and if you show down the hand you will definitely create an impression in the minds of all who were watching.
Needless to say, plays of this type should be chosen carefully and cannot be overused, but they are close to an ideal way to vary your game without giving up much (tactically you may even be gaining), and will definitely create an impression.
Once you are sure you have created an impression (of any type), look for ways to use it to your advantage._
While there may be some value to having a "frequency" for playing deceptive hands, or playing hands deceptively, I really think that you can find most or all of your opportunities to do so by looking for specific situations. If the players in your game are too tough for that, you might have to implement some sort of "frequency" method (or look for a softer game). Note that Abdul seems to place great stock in not allowing your betting patterns to be readable. While this may be excellent advice perhaps against extremely good players and worth giving up some expected value for, I don't think it would be largely necessary except in very tough games. If there are only a couple tough players in the game you must be very alert to what is happening at all times and who is in the pot, and you must try to keep good balance between exploiting the weaker players and not being exploited by the tough ones. The situation can become especially tricky with a wide mix of skill levels contesting one pot.
Even in very tough games you should be able to find some specific situations that will allow you to deviate effectively. If you don't find these situations on the surface, you may be able to find them by getting deeper into your understanding of your opponents' thinking, or by thinking on more levels than they do. Of course, some of them may be able to do the same to you.
All in all I would say that generally you should let situations help you pick the spots to deviate, but that you should occasionally deviate anyway, bearing in mind that your goal is primarily to truly surprise your opponents and to take advantage of this both immediately (the current hand) and long-term (future hands), while not giving up too much expected value in the process.
When I'm playing pot limit or no limit holdem, I'm constantly raising UTG with hands like 64o and 53o. This makes me extremely unpredictable and allows me to get a lot of action. Even I cannot put myself on a hand.
It also makes you a loser
"When I'm playing pot limit or no limit holdem, I'm constantly raising UTG with hands like 64o and 53o. This makes me extremely unpredictable and allows me to get a lot of action. Even I cannot put myself on a hand."
After a little while you would be rightly pinned down as a maniac. Nothing unpredictable about that. (Since you don't say otherwise, I assume full handed.)
Your raises will be cold-called with greater frequency by all the good hands after you; the mediocre and drawing hands will fold, robbing you of any odds that would give your move any marginal value.
I do not endorse playing total garbage hands for psychological effect. I would never consider playing a 4-3 offsuit to look ridiculous and crazy. I do play something like a 6-5 suited on occasion. If you do play small connectors to vary your game, may as well have them suited and get the benefit from that.
Bob Ciaffone is undoubtedly the tightest player in the entire world. I once heard you laid a set down to one bet on the flop! You should by a wrench, to help you clamp it down.
Youve obviously not played with Bob when hes stuck.I can remember a guy looking ruefully at Bobs hand in a game in london once upon and remarking that this (winning) hand wasnt ranked very highly in his book on omaha.Bob replied that he wasnt stuck 1500 Pounds when he wrote that chapter.
Bob might be tight but the tightest player to ever make a living at poker was George Collins. He played in LV for years, I think he was originally from upstate NY.
Do any of you guys remember George? He was the rock of rocks but got enough action to make a good living.
If you are talking about holdem, then the answer is almost exclusively a function of whether or not there are more cards to yet to come. Basically, with more cards to come, you want your deceptively-played weak hand to be as strong as possible (either to prevent free cards for worse hands, or as a semibluff). When all the cards are out, and you decide to play a weak hand deceptively (i.e. bluff), it's best to choose the weakest ones (the ones that cannot win if shown down). There is something to be said for value-betting weak hands that you plan to call with anyway, but I don't think that's what David is refering to, since such a bet is only slightly deceptive.
The same would be true of stud, except that the possibility of scare cards throws in a monkeywrench. That is, there are times in stud games that playing a very weak hand fast is correct even when there are cards yet to come.
Tom Weideman
...but the point of Deceiving is what the name says and also what Sklansky's own Fundamental Theorem of Poker suggests. It's to make your opponent play very differently than how he'd play had he known your hand.
Perhaps Sklansky's after some rigorously and mathematically correct answer here, which defines a new "sub-category" of starting hands, hands with which it's alright to bluff irrespective of early/late into the game, type of opponents, etc; I wouldn't know. When I raise with QJo UTG, early in the game, I'm not deceiving anyone; I'm just playing the hand wrong. When I raise with that hand in another game, after a couple of hours have passed and, win or lose, I have showed down respectable hands, you could say I'm trying to deceive.
So, for me, the answer is IT DEPENDS. If you've been sold as relatively tight to the rest of the players than you can afford to play even garbage, all things considered. If you've been caught one too many times stealing and everybody knows it, you should have some very legitimate outs and you should not totally bluff when all the cards are out either, not until your image at the table has changed.
With a hand like 76s, I think that you get a draw about 20% of the time. So unless you hit a miracle flop like 77x or get a draw and hit - a lot of "deceptive hands" get mucked along with several bets.
If you win with them bluffing you may gain some tactical advantage by showing them, but that's a different arguement.
I'd really like to hear some opinions and ideas on post flop play e.g. check raising with second pair when heads up - what is the effect of that on an opponent? What does he do when you check the turn? Will he reraise you when you next do it and have a legitimate hand?
There must be some dramatic plays that can seriously effect opponents perception of you that can be achieved at minimum cost.
Very true in general.
In my example however, note that I am not commonly advocating this hand primarily for deceptive purposes, but rather in very specific situations as a tactical weapon against certain types of opponents.
The deceptive value is almost a side effect.
Pre flop (sorry David), I think it is best to be deceptive with hands that cost you only a little in EV (if at all) but stand out from the crowd.
For example, Mason't play of raising with small to medium pairs in back against a large field is rarely seen at the table. If you want to do it, why not do it with 22 or 33? Or raise a large field in back with 45 suited rather than JT suited.
On the other hand, don't raise several limpers with marginal offsuit hands such as AJ. This won't even raise an eyebrow of the average player but really can cost you some money.
In early position, it is important to use some deception. I just wrote a piece under the thread AA, KK on the holdem forum that notes a few examples.
There are too many post flop examples to enumerate but one area you should make a move now and then is raise bluffing on the end. You want to do this in spots where it has a reasonable chance of working, so if you are skillful, it should make you money. When you are caught, it is good enough just to throw your hand away unless someone asks to see it. Then it looks authentic and will get you action from those players when you want it.
Regards,
Rick
David,
Pre flop (sorry David), I think it is best to be deceptive with hands that cost you only a little in EV (if at all) but stand out from the crowd.
For example, Mason't play of raising with small to medium pairs in back against a large field is rarely seen at the table. If you want to do it, why not do it with 22 or 33? Or raise a large field in back with 45 suited rather than JT suited.
On the other hand, don't raise several limpers with marginal offsuit hands such as AJ. This won't even raise an eyebrow of the average player but really can cost you some money.
In early position, it is important to use some deception. I just wrote a piece under the thread AA, KK on the holdem forum that notes a few examples.
There are too many post flop examples to enumerate but one area you should make a move now and then is raise bluffing on the end. You want to do this in spots where it has a reasonable chance of working, so if you are skillful, it should make you money. When you are caught, it is good enough just to throw your hand away unless someone asks to see it. Then it looks authentic and will get you action from those players when you want it.
Regards,
Rick
In another post I mentioned picking up the 5/26 issue of Card Player Magazine to read Badger's article. It is entitled "Rebounding". I wasn't going to post on this because I felt like I would only be doing it to pick on Badger. Believe me that is not something I like to do. O.k., O.k. I like to pick on Badger but only because I like Badger. I do. I've never met him except here on the forum but that doesn't matter. I finnd him a very willing participant that can hold his own in any arguement on the subject of poker. Plus he is more than willing to share his knowledge and experience with us less fortunate. So even though I didn't want to pick on the Badger man I am in a frustration mode and need to vent so here goes.
Badger makes this statement in the article "the most common defensive poker tactic is raising to get a free card." This statement alone points to a fundamental misunderstanding of tactical use and manuevering. Badger in earlier discussions where he accused me of trolling puts forth an arguement that discussing a tactic without discussing the underlying strategy behind it is useless. I disagreed with that in part because it was part of a larger discussion on hand analysis. Badger was not for doing much hand anaylsis.
So here I am again trolling. You see "raising to get a free card" is an offensive tactic" not a defensive tactic. The goal of the tactic is a free or cheaper card. You make an ofeesive move to obtain your goal. the free card. That's it. Badger further shows his misunderstanding of tactical manuevers with his introduction to the article. He quotes Bill Russell a famous Celtic Basketball player noted for his defensive prowess. I quote:" I get most of my rebounds before they even took their shot". He uses this tstament and Russells other statements made during an interview to emphasis his point on defensive play. What he failed to see was taht Russell was not talking defense at all. Russell was talikng about rebounds. His goal was to win the reboud battle. He studied his opponents, their strengths, their weaknesses etc and then he developed and employed tactis to win the rebound war. His goal became rebounds and he made Offensive moves or tactics to gain his goal.
There are defensive tactics in poker. They include folding, calling , checking and some others I'm sure but not raising to get a free card. I would appreciate oppinions from others on this subject. Because as I stated above this is only my opinion and such just a discussion point. However, this discussion may be fundamental to understanding poker concepts in general and well worth the time to explore.
Vince
I have heard somewhere that the best defense is a good offense. Perhaps the line between offense and defense is inherently a bit fuzzy anyway.
Vince - Defense in sports is not weakly covering up and protecting yourself (except maybe in boxing if you are really taking a beating). Put simply for ball sports, defense is what you do when the other team has the ball.
Even if you are a defensive tackle in football and are yourself attacking the quarterback, that is considered defense. In attacking the quarterback you are defending your own goal. (Would you call a goal line stand offense)?
Similarly, rebounding from the other team's basket is considered defense in basketball because in doing so you are defending your goal (which is the other team's basket).
Raising from late position to get a free card in poker is also defense, because, presumably, you are on a draw and expecting to not bet the next round. You are thus looking to get the next card for half price. Of course if you hit your draw, then you will change from defense to offense, just like the defensive tackle who takes the ball away from the quarterback. Now the roles of the two teams reverse.
Think of the raise in poker with cards yet to come as the first step of a two step process. If the second step is a check, then the raise was a defensive maneuver. However, if the first step raise is followed by a bet, then the raise either was an offensive maneuver, or the raiser just got the rebound and is now on offense. Get it?
When you raise on the small bet round and then check on the big bet round, the whole tactic becomes clear to your alert opponents, but (if they have checked to you expecting you to bet) it becomes clear too late to them.
Buzz
Post deleted at author's request.
There's no time warp here in Vegas,read your article today.Hits the nail on the head when it comes to tilt for a lot of players over miss placed expectations. Amazing how many players who get so technical over poker theory can put themselves on tilt over routine events(ie losing with AA).I know,I'm one of them,now if I can apply what I know it gets much easier.For what its worth,your articles and Cooke's are what makes reading that freebie worth my time.
I have not yet seen the issue with the coin flip at Foxwoods
"it's not really important to think about the terms seperately"
Finally. Agreement!
Vince.
What is important is to understand the tactic and it's use. I could argue with Buzz but there is no point and it would serve no purpose. The point I was trying to make about Russell was that he changed the game for himself, personally. He changed the goal from stopping the opponent from scoring to getting the rebound. For him rebounding became the game. He developed a strategy to win that game. His tactics became his offense in winning the game of rebounding. Certainly he was half the time on the defensive boards but he was also half the time on the offensive boards if you just term things as offense when his team has the ball and defense when the other team has the ball. Semantics? Maybe? Important? It's in the eyes of the beholder.
Just a side note;
Did you know that the NBA record for the highest average offensive rebounds per game for a career is 5.1 ?
Record is held by that other famous M.M.,Moses Malone.
Also,They did not keep stats on offensive and defensive rebounds until the 72/73 season.
Just a tidbit,nothing else.
By "them" I mean those who don't read this Forum. Elsewhere I brought up a hypothetical $5000 No Limit Holdem, head up freezout. Both players start with 50 one hundred dollar chips and ante one chip each. (Unequal blinds and the button don't matter due to the nature of this proposition). I assumed that one of the two players agrees to move in every hand regardless of his cards. Though it would not be true in other games, in holdem, this scenario gives the other player a surprisingly small advantage, even when played perfectly. My guess was that the all in player wins about three out of eight freezouts. Paul Pudaite told us that it is actually 39% and would be more against non perfect play.
This result is of course a lot different than many people would think. I would venture to say that many would lay 5-2, and if not that, at least 2-1 that they would win the freezout against the perpetual mover inner. That is both mathematically and psychologically interesting. But let's make it more than that. Let's punish those who don't respect math and more importantly don't read this forum. We do that by spreading across the country and getting people to play us this proposition. In other words find people who will take the non all in hand with their 50 chips, and therefore constantly have to decide whether to call your all in move with their remaining stack (a stack that is smaller than yours unless they won an earlier large confrontation or play the first hand-I say that to make sure you understand the proposition.) Meanwhile you have a bet as to who will win this freezout, getting at least 9-5 odds on that bet. Hopefully of course, you will play as many such freezouts, getting these odds, as you can. Most freezouts should only take a few minutes.
Now to do this right, you need to use a little street sense. If you broach the subject out of thin air, most will smell a rat. Rather you should talk about the World Series of Poker, how much luck there seems to be in the tournaments and how someone who merely moves in a lot before the flop can get lucky. You eventually segueway into the proposition by saying something like "what would you lay me if I moved in every hand". Keep in mind the odds quoted are for a 50 chip, one chip ante each, freezout. It is even better if it is for less chips with the same ante, but don't go above 50 unless the odds are better than 2-1. When you guys have taken as many people as you can, in every card room in the country, report back to me with your results. And don't forget to remind your customers that they paid the price for not checking out this forum. That is the only reward I want. But you might want to give Paul a little commission.
It was very easy for me to create a program where the computer goes all-in on every hand under the conditions described (well, nearly, I was playing blinds of 100 and 200 due to forgetting the exact details of the original post). On a quick test I won 14 tournaments out of 20, although this is of course a very small sample.
Of course if you released a computer program which just went all-in every hand heads-up it wouldn't look very good. However I suspect that I can beat my own program at least 70% of the time heads up and I know that certain commercial programs I could beat 80-90% of the time in heads-up equal stack conditions (especially with constant blinds). Interesting.
Should I get the time to put together a computer counter-strategy I will be able to perform a statistically significant number of runs and I will let you know what happens.
Andy.
Yes, 20 tournaments is a very small sample, statistically speaking. If you are playing well and I did my computation correctly, there's a 15% chance that you'll win 14 or more tournaments out of 20.
If you are still winning 70% of the tournaments after 200 tournaments, let me know and I will check my work.
By the way, with the extra chip in the pot (from the 2 chip big blind), you should win less frequently than 61%, because the all-in strategy becomes less incorrect.
In my younger days I wrote a nasty letter to the editor about Edward Thorpe. The reason was that when asked about a blackjack situation that he hadn't put on his computer, he referred to further computer programs rather than common sense. By saying you will "check your work" rather than "Andy's result are logically impossible" you committed the same sin mathmeticians sometimes commit. Since two overcards vs. two undercars is less than 2-1 favorite and a pair against one overcard is about 2.5-1, it is absurd to believe the all inner could win only 30%. You should have said that.
David's line of reasoning is sensible, but computational verification is still required. This is because for sufficiently large stacks, the "all inner" (cute neologism, David!) could win less than 15% of the time. (I need to acknowledge WSOP Chinese Poker Champion Jim Feldhouse for recognizing this first.)
By the way, I actually had the opportunity to get odds as high as 10-3 on the prop today. I was lucky and won 4 out of 5 times!
I think anyone willing to place 10-3 odds here isn't playing near optimal strategy to begin with. That's not to say you weren't lucky...just not as lucky as you think you were.
Dan
I noticed when I was trying it out that it's very tempting to play A-small and small-to-medium pairs which I think is probably wrong.
Andy.
I'd just like to make it clear that I was not suggesting anyone was wrong, simply stating what had happened in a statistically small, perhaps extremely small, sample.
Andy.
You can take 2-1 for sure. Now go do it.
...the next time I see Daniel Negreaunu, I can just tell him "Forget about Gary Carson, I'll play you head up no limit for 5-1"???
The first results are in from the midwest.
Tried the "all in" NLHE freezeout sidebet with a buddy at last night's game. He is a skilled tournament player (double qualified for TOC, etc) while I am just a ring game mope. I think he would have given me 2-1 odds just to play him heads-up anyway, but I used your suggestion to lead in with a "those tournaments are all luck" line.
We set up with 20 chips each with blinds of 1 and 2. He gave me 3-1 odds on the side bet and I went all in at EVERY first opportunity preflop. He was very confident that he would win the sidebet and was very interested in the arrangement---as were several others in our game.
I won two of the three freezeouts, and pocketed his cash. We would have kept going, but the other players wanted us back in the poker game. He is interested in another try later.
Should I feel bad about scamming my buddy ala a "bar bet"? Nah! This guy personally knocked me out of the last tournament I played in Tunica. Also, he will lurk/post on rgp, but just can't seem to do the keystrokes to get over here to 2+2. And to top it all off, he is now reading the "Championship" books.
I'm using my winnings to buy the new Feeney book. See? Even Mason makes some money out of this.
Abe
Abe,
You surprise me!
Vince
Nice. 3-1 with only 20 chips each is MASSIVE. If your buddy thinks hard enough about why he's not taking your money it will help his game in the long run so don't feel bad :-).
If anyone thinks this is theory which can't be applied in practice, think again. Think about the best player you know, or the best player in the world, someone you would really fear heads-up. Do you think you would only be a 2-1 dog playing "normal" heads-up poker ? While you don't necessarily have to plunge it all in every hand, the lesson is to avoid all-in confrontations against a very weak opponent but go all-in, or at least commit to the hand, more often against a very strong opponent (certainly don't make many big laydowns).
I honestly believe that Chris Ferguson was almost certainly considering this as at least a factor when he made his final call.
Andy.
I have noticed what appears to be a phenomenon and have adjusted my game on occasion because of it.
It is simply this: I feel that women in general are more intuitive than men and tend to be better "people-readers". Therefore, when it is a close decision as to whether to attempt a bluff against a woman, I am less likely to do so than I would if my opponent were a man and all conditions were otherwise equal.
I am wondering if others have noticed this phenomenon, and welcome any remarks. Please note that this is in no way a sexist observation, merely my impressions at the poker table and my assessment of the occasional value of taking this factor into consideration.
Of course its a sexist observation.Now heres another one .Id be more likely to bluff a woman if it is a close decision as you can trust them to pass if it is the logical move because they dont have the masculine preference for losing money rather than looking stupid.
An observation based on sex is not necessarily a sexist observation. Sexism implies bigotry of some sort. Observing what seem to be subtle differences is not necessarily sexist or bigoted. If these differences affect the poker arena and interactions between players, they may have some degree of value in the decision-making process.
Note that I am not saying "all women", merely that in my experience, women "tend" to be better people-readers on an intuitive level than are men. I am not talking about anyone's proclivity for throwing away money, nor their capacity for rational actions; I am only saying that if I bluff, I think a woman may be more likely to "sense it" somehow. And I don't mean all women either; just more women than men.
Perhaps bluffing just isnt your natural game or dealing with women for that matter.
Not the strongest parts of my game.
Mine neither.
Your observation is partly correct, but as with all generalizations, could cost you money against the wrong woman. Aside from the female poker stars, the average woman plays a poker hand the same way she deals with men: it's hard to get her involved, but once she does, she doesn't let go very easily.
Yes, I am aware that it is a generalization, and for me it would fall well below almost every other factor in making a decision.
However, I am just wondering whether others have noticed this phenomenon too.
yes very basic fact ..women have had this gift since mankind began..I believe it had to do with child bearing and rearing...let alone considering thier genetics
I've played with a lot of women and can't really generalize on their play. Their playing styles and tendencies seem to vary as much as men's. I treat everyone who sits at my table as an individual to be disected on his or her own merits.
Good point, and that is my preference also. I would rely on generalizations omly in cases of incomplete information and very close decisions.
"I treat everyone who sits at my table as an individual to be disected on his or her own merits."
Being a cannibal has it's downfalls always sharpening the scapel in ISO then heating it in a oven at 150c for 4 hours. Life's a beach than you eat one!!!
ukw
Women are easier to bluff because of their extra attention to your subtle body languages. As far as I can remember I have 100% success bluffing (both bluff and reverse bluffs) female players in poker so far. Men generally think of the situation and what kind of person you are (past behavior) to determine the likelihood of you bluffing this time. Females look to your feelings and body languages, i.e, breathing rate, tone of voice,expression, movements. The way you move your chips in will influence her decisions. This is more extreme, most men and females use both methods to read you. You just have to find out what composition the person is masculine/feminine. After all humans have both left and right brains, but generally males have better developed right brain which deals with spatial, mathematical thinking. For example to navigate by remembering which way is the way out from past experiences, cognitive learning. This is why females know more about someone the first time they met than males does. Men use their memories to recall past moves made by you and think accordingly,i.e. deciding whether your a maniac,tight,etc. REMEMBER you can get masculine females and feminine males. To bluff men you normally have to set it up and let them think that your not deviating from your norm. To bluff females, this is my talent, just fake your body language.
Has it rver worked?
It works for me the majority of the time. Psycology is essential in pot limit and no limit tournaments. If you want to learn more about the differences in men and women, read "Men are from mars and women are from venus" by professor John Gray. It will give you some ideas about communicating with females. It will improve your sexual relationship as well. A female friend gave me it as a present.
Your comments suggest to me that you know very little about bluffing and even less about women.
Good bluffers have a high rate of success anyway. This is because:
(1) they only bluff in situations where they can credibly represent an unbeatable hand;
(2) they avoid bluffing in situations where the cost of calling them down is small, i.e., they pick situations where it's going to cost the opponents a lot of money to see the bluffer's hand;
(3) they don't give off blatant tells.
(4) they select their victims based on the opponent's previous playing patterns (as opposed to stereotypical views of that person's gender, race, age, etc.)
Your views of how women play poker are so far wrong that they would be laughable if not for the fact that similar views are the rationalization for continued discrimination against women in other aspects of life.
However, if you really feel you would have a 100% success rate bluffing against me, you are welcome to join my table any time.
Lol, Lin You misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't suggest any stereotypical views about women. I did mention masculinity/feminity but I also said that men and women BOTH have these traits. My suggestion to M was more about dealing with different types of people. Emotional and/or Mechanical. I believed that M knows all the pricinples that you mentioned, what I suggest is extensions to a regular bluffer. These concepts are good enough for smaller tournaments but the opponents I play against doesn't have MUCH patterns to there moves. They give off opposing tells with the same hands. I do represent a believable big hand and I do make it expensive for the opponents to see our hand (most bluffs are all ins more than mathematically eliminating the odds for them to call). I have to say again I did not grouped men and women separately. This was the subject of this thread, I just suggest ideas for bluffing masculine/feminine behaviour not male and females.
Whoever at the poker table treats woman the same as men, Orientals the same as Occidentals, and Seniors the same as young adults is not destined for a great poker career. I recommend joining the ACLU and forgetting about poker. Yes, there are exceptions to the stereotypes, butsometimes at poker you are forced to take action based on minimal info, and stereotypes are a lot better than a stone guess.
Bob, I said I don't base my judgements on stereotypes because it made me sound too sexist to Lin! Its very hard to suggest something and not get an argument these days. I started with a method to bluff male/female players, then got a complaint from Lin and so I changed it to masculine/feminine players. Now you're attacking me! I will quit poker when I lose my BR. I started playing bj and poker with only £40, now I'm playing £100 min buy in pot limit tournaments weekly. This is very surprising in my country for an 18 year old.
This is very illegal in some countries for an 18 yearold
My comments about taking into account things like the sex of your opponent when playing poker does not mean an endorsement of the thesis that was proposed. For example, if you play a grayhaired lady for being on a bluff you could be right, but you are going uphill. The thesis that was proposed is that women are harder to bluff because they read opponents better. There is nothing in my own experience to support this particular idea. Women do pick up on whether a man is a member of that particular group of males who hate to lose to a woman and are likely to resort to anything in order to get the pot. Since I am not a member of that group (having had my butt kicked many times by women at bridge, chess, backgammon, etc. as well as poker) I have not noticed my bluffs picked off by women any more than by men (or any less).
Forget about treating women the same as men. If you treat all men the same or all women the same you've already made a mistake. Rather than making a decision on a stereotype which probably has no basis in reality, why not use simple observation to gain objective information?
I know we can construct a fantasy situation where we're suddenly at the river with a player of some particular group, and we're forced to make a decision with no other information. But that situation really almost never comes up in the day to day battles.
And I seriously doubt that one's EV improves by digging into some arbitrary racial stereotype to make the fantasy decision yield a profit.
In fact, even in the case of the straw man emergency situation where minority group membership is all we know, I would suggest that the individuals physical appearence (dress, grooming, weight, style of betting, how they approached the table, even how they ordered their drink) is a more valid criteria for making a decision than some half-baked, sloppily preconceived stereotype.
There are no groups in poker. Only individuals.
-Marc
I agree with this physical appearance theory.If your opponent Looks like a woman go ahead and bluff.
No, I don't think I misunderstood. I've been on the receiving end of this crap my whole life. I've heard the same arguments as yours thousands of times, also the same denial, i.e., "I'm not sexist because I say I'm not."
However, that is getting off-topic. The question is whether women are easier to bluff than men. I have never seen evidence that, given equal playing experience and knowledge of the game, this is so. Where women are at a disadvantage is that many do not have the same experience or knowledge of the game that men of similar age, education, income, etc. have. They may also be playing on smaller bankrolls, because of the continued income disparities between men and women. So if you want to make assumptions based on those factors, I don't have a problem. But this right brain/left brain we-all-have-a-masculine-and-feminine side crap just wears real thin. It's been largely refuted by recent research, by the way, especially the right-brain/left-brain stuff.
You are two beacons in this otherwise silly, sexist, pseudo-scientific stuff.
Regards,
John
Nothing scientific about it at all in my opinion!
Just curious if others might have found women a tad bit harder to bluff out of a pot.
My pseudo-scientific theory at this point says it just might be because women can "smell" a bluff a wee bit better than can the average mechanical man. And, believe it or not, I have read that it is an actual scientific fact that women do possess a keener sense of smell in the biological sense too.
Silly? Why not. Have you ever actually tracked your bluffing success ratio versus both sexes? Or maybe it's just me. That's exactly what I'm trying to find out!
I will say that anyone who summarily discounts the possibility of such a thing is not likely to have a truly scientific mind. A scientific observer does just that---observe. He/she does not form conclusions first and then admit or dismiss possible theories or evidence based upon whether or not they gibe with his/her preconceived notions. Equal rights and respect by all means! But are we all actually equal? The furthest thing from the truth!
I will now illustrate this point by submitting a pseudo-scientific hypothesis. Women are more likely to see flashed cards by the dealer than men! If you want to call this sexist by all means go right ahead. Women are on average shorter than men, and their eye level is therefore lower when sitting, making it possible to see some flashed cards that the average man couldn't see. Maybe this is it! You can't bluff your opponent if she knows what you have!
M,
My comment wasn't directed at your initial post. I took that as a valid question, but I was a bit taken aback by some of the responses. I know you can learn a lot by observing, but I'm afraid your proposed observation would not be subject to strict control, and the only valid conclusion would be that some people will have differing opinions about the subject.
But, I'll agree--many women I know do smell better than mechanical men. I'm not refering to intuition.
Now, and I hate to do this, I'll venture forth with my theory in an attempt to back up your observation. Women who play poker have entered into what might be broadly characterized as a male arena. Like many people who enter a new setting, particulary one often thought the sole province of the male, women may feel a need to both prove themselves and show they can't be intimidated. As a rough analogy, I offer the rookie cop. (I have a few friends who are police officers and they confirm this.) They need to show they are not intimidated. New teachers also report similar feelings.
Think about your own playing experience as you moved up in levels. Didn't you also feel the need to show you couldn't be intimidated, at least at first. Of course, now you know that your fold to a bluff can often be the right move and should not necessarily be seen as a sign of weakness.
I think that given so many factors impossible to quantify, my approach to your question might have some validity. Or have I drapped myself in the mantle of sexism here?
Regards,
John
Good post John and thanks for the clarification.
If you're having 100% success bluffing ANY specific group, or any specific person, either you haven't played this opponent very much, or you're not bluffing enough.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Certainly true Greg. I seem to have noticed over the years that my bluffing success ratio tends to be lower against women.
Not 100% anymore. Just failed once against this woman tonight. I was too busy thinking about my university exams tommorrow and lack a bit of aggression to go all in on the river. She told me she was going to fold her pair kings because she thought I had flop trip queens. I haven't played women players much, maybe just around 30. I played the worst I ever did tonight, with 7 buy ins, a personal record! Its a lesson to be learn, never play poker if you can't focus on it. Surprisingly I was in top form for bj. This naturally shows that poker takes more concentration.
In my experience it isn't that women "tend" to be better people readers, its that they "tend" to make more bad calls to show that they can't be bullied around. In my experience that "tends" to be the case alot in older women playing in higher limit games. I got called down by an older women the other night in a 15-30 holdem game that held a-k against my aa all the way to the river on a flop of 9 10 2, Turn Q, river J. Although it makes bluffs ineffective, you get payed off well on your winners.
Here's a question for you all: What do you think the riskiest plays are in poker? I would define that as the plays that have the highest variance combined with the lowest EV. In other words, the plays that require the largest bankroll.
I'm asking because I was going to write an article about risk-averse poker strategy, but doing some of the math surprised me. I'm interested to hear what your comments are.
Some background info: The reason this is interesting is because of the work of J.L. Kelly, who showed that the maximum log-growth of your bankroll occurs when you are betting a percentage of your bankroll equal to your overall advantage. If you bet too little OR too much, your bankroll won't grow as fast. If you bet 2X the kelly optimum, your bankroll will oscillate around its current value, and if you bet more than that it will crash to zero.
The implication here is that if you are playing a poker game where your bankroll is sized correctly for the average advantage you have over the field, there may be plays that, while +EV, cause you to overbet your bankroll. And if your bankroll is big enough to tolerate those plays, you may be better off playing a higher limit with a risk-averse strategy.
Comments?
Without any math to back up my thoughts here, I would say the high risk plays I frequently see here on the forum and at the table are:
1. Raising on the turn with a come hand.
I see this a lot. A guy puts in a power raise on the turn having just a flush draw or a straight draw. When he gets called and a blank comes at the river, he usually has to bet again since he has no hand to showdown.
2. Three-Betting Pre-flop with weak hands.
A player opens with a raise in early or middle position and our hero feels compelled to now 3 bet with a medium pocket pair like Sevens in order "isolate" and subsequently "outplay" his opponent. The problem is that he gets called in more than one spot and then catches a piece of the flop. The pot is large, his outs are few, and he ends up losing a stack on a weak hand as a result.
3. Playing in raised pots with suited connectors.
Another situation that comes up a lot is that a guy cold-calls a raise with some piece of cheese like Nine-Eight suited because he read somewhere that some hands play better against a lot of opponents and there are a lot of opponents when he makes his bad call pre-fop. The pot then gets re-raised behind him with many players so he is obliged to call that too. Now the flop comes and he catches a piece of it. Like his buddy in #2 he is thrown into a marginal situation with something like bottom-pair and a backdoor draw in a jammed pot. So he hangs around, busts out at the river, and loses a stack or two of red in the process.
Don't forget these plays need to be slightly +EV
Refrasing yours:
1) Makes a good semi-bluff raise on the turn with a flush draw and correctly bluffs on the river when missed.
2) 3-bet a loose raiser with a medium pair where he usually expects to isolate him heads up or 3 handed with a bad call behind.
3) Calls 2 bets with a suited connector because nearly everyone is in and he doesn't expect a raise from the blinds. Then correctly plays to the river because of the pot odds.
Now I have no idea if these are the most high variance plays but they sound a lot more reasonable to make at all.
D.
Okay, so I have $100 left in my pocket. I go to the horse track and in the first race the #3 horse is going off at 2:1. I think he's even money to win, and my judgment in these matters is infallible. How much should I bet?
100
The answer depends on your utility function. If it's objective, and the $100 represents your entire bankroll, the answer is different than if you are betting $100 for fun, and can replace it easily.
Assuming this is your gambling bankroll, and you will be ruined if you lose it all, then the proper Kelly fraction is $50.
This question happens to hit home on some work that I did a couple of years ago. The work related to jackpots, where big money (for my budget anyway) is involved; but, believe it or not, I can find exactly those mathematical odds (2:1 where the odds are actually 1:1). This is my first response on 2+2, I don't know how much to write, and the full answer is really more than can be given on this simple text editor. If people are interested, I will put an article in our local cards magazine. Firstly though, Kelly doesn't apply here (or in my situation) because we don't have a choice about how much to bet. Fancy saying to the dealer, "sorry but I can only call that $100 bet for $50 because otherwise I am overbetting my bankroll ratios". You could choose a higher or lower limit table though I guess, but that is before you are bet into. I will omit working, other than to give some variable definitions....
PL = Probability of losing 1 unit sometime, not
necessarily on the first bet.
PW = 1-PL; should be self explanatory.
Pl = Probability of losing 1 unit at the first bet.
Pw = 1-Pl
G = gain on a winning bet. 2:1 odds gives a gain
of 3 because your 1 unit becomes 3 units on
winning. Then comes the formula...
(Pl-1)PL**G + PL - Pl = 0 (I can provide proof in
a bigger article).
We must solve this for PL, because we want to know the probability of losing 1 unit anytime, even if it did happen to build up to 3 units first before we lost all those 3 units in similar bets later.
I know the formula is correct because I have played with it, and I should offer an example...
If Pl = 1/2, and G=2, ie we are making a break even bet, then PL evaluates to 1. This says... "A break even bet is a bad bet, because you will lose it sometime on the swings.
If Pl = 1/2, and G=3, ie the question given, then PL will be less than 1, and I leave it to you to find out with the following hint... (divide by PL-1, until you find the root that isn't = 1).
If Pl = 1/2, and G=1.5 say, then PL will come out = 1, and there will be no solution between 0 and 1.
Back to the human side...
There is a probability of losing your unit bets that you have to be comfortable with, you can never be sure that you will never lose, but with odds greater than break even, you can get a probability of NEVER LOSING your bankroll. This probability can never be 1, but the greater G is in the above equation, the greater your PW is (that is the probability of never losing your original unit bet, and therefore your bankroll too.
This is a complex area, and is deserving of more than just this small text area that I am typing into.
Play on
When you mention 'risk-averse' I think 'utility function.' The value of a high variance, close to 0 EV play would be psychological which is hard to quantify.
No, in this case I'm talking about a gambler with an objective utility function, who might find himself playing with the proper sized bankroll overall, but winding up in situations in a poker game where he is faced with a call that is +EV, yet will cause him to overbet his bankroll which, in the long run, reduces the rate of growth of the bankroll.
The reason overbetting your bankroll between 100% and 200% of the Kelly optimum decreases the rate of bankroll growth is that your bankroll swings will occasionally force you back into lower limits, where it will take longer to rebuild your bankroll. Or more accurately, you will be forced back into lower limits more often than if you bet the optimum amount, and your overall rate of growth will drop.
Basically, as I've been doing the math I've discovered that what most people think of as high-variance plays generally have a high enough expectation that you simply never run into bankroll limits. For example, Rounder's belief in lowering variance by abandoning +EV gutshots is not a good idea. Even if there is only half of a big bet more than you need to call for your gutshot, the EV is so high that you'd be foolish not to go for it. For example, let's say you're on the turn, a player bets all-in, and you count the bets in the pot and discover there are 11 big bets, and you're a 10.5-1 dog to hit your hand. Your advantage in this case is around 4.4%, and your bankroll for you to make this wager only has to be about 23 big bets. Since you should have a bankroll of at least 400 big bets to play in this game in the first place, it should be clear that plays like drawing to nut gut-shots when you have the odds to do so are extremely high profit compared to the overall percentage advantage you have, and would be poor choices for lowering variance.
Incidentally, if a blackjack player saw someone turning away a bet with a 4.4% advantage, he'd have a heart attack. Blackjack players spend their careers playing with advantages of around 1/4 of that.
With a 10.5:1 shot I want 20:1 odds to take the chance if I take it at all in a live game.
Conditions would have to be really good for me to take this shot in a tournament.
Dan,
I only have a few minutes before leaving for work and I haven't read the other answers yet.
Pre flop, I believe cold calling early raises with trouble offsuit hands is a big mistake, even in back. I think Feeney's AQ Test is a classic example. When you get in trouble here, you lose a lot of chips.
Post flop, I believe it is calling raises and reraises with a small flush draw on the turn. Too often you will make it and get beat with a bigger flush or pay off a full when you make it when the board pairs.
That being said, I'm looking forward to your article. If it is half as good as the last one, it will be a gem. And this is territory that has not been mined much and is very important if you want to play bigger on a marginal bankroll..
Regards,
Rick
Remember, I'm not talking about losing plays, I'm talking about plays that show a profit, but require a large investment for relatively little gain.
Dan,
Being in a hurry this morning, I used a poor choice of words. I understand that you mean slightly +EV plays, but those with a high variance. And my guess is that your analysis will go against conventional wisdom yet be correct.
By trouble hands above, I would include hands such as AQ offsuit when calling an early raiser with several players that have cold called between the raiser and you. Even if the other players are weak, there is a lot that can go wrong during the play of the hand and you will often have huge swings. But I think it is a slight winner played well.
Anyway, your other post above looks interesting. I'll get back to reading that :-).
Regards,
Rick
Here's an idea stolen from Mike Caro. Avoid raising with AK and such pre-flop. I'm not in love with it but conceptually it has merit in looser games. I think it trades EV for lower SD.
-Fred-
Page 166 of HPFAP 21st Century Edition:
"On the other hand, if you are in a loose, passive game where they usually call, but only occasionally raise, you should play any Axs under the gun."
My question does not concern playing Axs under the gun, it concerns the definition of a loose, passive game.
Are the following games loose passive:
1. If an average of 4 players take the flop with an average of one raise per orbit is this game loose/passive?
2. Same as above but 3 players see the flop with one raise per orbit average.
3. 5 players see the flop with one raise per orbit.
4. 4 players see the flop with two raises per orbit.
5. 5 players see the flop with two raises per orbit.
6. 4 players see the flop with three raises per orbit.
7. 5 players see the flop with three raises per orbit.
Also, what do you do if you make a call with Axs UTG and the player on your left raises and only the BB calls? I assume it is correct to call one more bet. I have a problem folding any hand I limp with preflop, once it comes back to me for a single raise (for two more bets I frequently muck).
In general if 4 or more players are taking the flop on the average then this is a loose game. If less than 30% of the pot are getting raised pre-flop then it is a passive game. Now this is Jim Brier's opinion. But with that in mind here is how I rate your 7 scenarios:
Scenario 1 is loose and passive with only 10% of the pot getting raised.
Scenario 2 is medium, not loose not tight, and passive with only 10% of the pots getting raised.
Scenario 3 is very loose and passive.
Scenario 4 is loose and somewhat passive with 20% of the pots getting raised.
Scenario 5 is is very loose and somewhat passive.
Scenario 6 is loose but mildly aggressive since 30% of the pots are getting raised.
Scenario 7 is very loose and mildly aggressive.
In general these scenarios fall into the loose/passive category in my opinion.
Yes, you have to call when raised with A-little suited at this point and take a flop since there is 5.5 bets in the pot.
(Also posted on Texas Hold'em forum)...
Last night my regular poker group was playing Texas Hold 'Em and we had an argument over who should have won. It came down to two players.
These were the up cards: Ks, Qc, 9h, 10c, 8d.
Player one held a Qh and 3s
Player two held a Qd and 2s
Obviously both players have a pair of queens.
Player one claimed victory, and everyone concured (except me, and I wasn't player two, by the way), because his three was higher than player two's two.
I argued that the pot should be split, because in poker you play with FIVE card hands. You might have seven (or more) cards to choose from, but your hand can ONLY consist of five cards. In my mind, both players one had a pair of queens, a king, a 10, & a 9.
So, what's the offical word on something like this? I know if I had been involved, I would have gotten half the pot or packed up my bags and left, lol.
you are right Scott,the pot should have been split.
If you are playing in a home poker game, it is not a bad idea to take a few minutes and ask about the house rules before you ante up.
If you ever find yourself in a dealer's choice game,and they allow wild cards,make sure you ask about the rank of hands.I have seen some pretty ugly things happen in a home poker game,that could easily have been avoided with just a few questions asked at the beginning of play.
What I meant by the rank of hands is some people play six of a kind beats five of a kind and so forth.I don't like some of the more crazy rules but some people do play with them,and it's good to know up front.
Good Luck
Howard
Howard:
Interesting you bring that up!! I've played with these same guys for about a year and a half, playing every other week, so we've swapped some chips! lol...
Yeah, house rules... I am aware of ours, but the other night I learned one I didn't know about and I sort of raised a fuss (I tend to raise a fuss, but when it comes to money, I feel I am justified)...
One player said our house rules on Royal Flushes were that spades was the highest suit and would beat diamonds, clubs, etc. I had NEVER heard this before and said that if I got in that situation I would expect to at least split the pot. I'm not sure we settled it, but I feel if you get a royal, you shouldn't lose to another royal! Especially with WILD cards, and we frequently play with wilds.
House rules in our game say five of a kind is best hand. I assume six of a kind is impossible, but I am going to ask next time we play.
PS-- I'm VERY glad I found this message board. I love talking poker and look forward to picking some great minds out there!
Scott
In all my years of playing in home games I have seen many, many,variations on the rules, as well as on the rank of hands.I have played with people who play one suit beats another,as well.I have also seen many,many,arguments break out,that could have been avoided with just a short Q/A session before play started.
BTW/Another thing to ask about when you are invited to a game you have not played in before. When they play high/low or low only games, what is the nut low ? Besides A-5 and 2-7, a lot of home games I played in in Florida used A2346 as the nut low.
Good Luck
Howard
Your understanding is correct. A poker hand consists of 5 cards. Each player uses the best 5 card combination from his two cards and the 5 community cards to make the best 5 card poker hand. Frequently, the board plays. Here is an example. The boardcards are: KhQdJcTh2s. Player 1 has AK. Player 2 has AQ. Split pot because each player has an Ace for an Ace-high straight. Any third player who happened to be in the hand with an Ace would get 1/3 of the pot regardless of what his other card was.
Absolutely correct; a split pot.
Do you play Hold 'Em with wild cards? I did once. I got dealt two wilds in the hole and managed to put the entire table all-in. It was the dumbest thing ever.
Yes, we've tried that... It makes things very interesting and keeps people in the game...
(bringing this over here because I was interested in a serious discussion, rather than seeing others attempt to apply my words to things for which they do not stand.)
"I also want to remind you that I am talking about eight handed games rather than six. This is important not only because it makes it more mathematical" he said.
I find this kinda interesting in that I always treasured the game dynamics changing based on number of players a very mathematical function. It's like the attribute of the player who has found their way into playing one mode of play for one particular game that happens to be correct, but only because they're one member of a population of every style, the others of which have failed, none of which are borne of much theoretical insight. The same thing may be true for the person who has stumbled into a good model for how to play a full 20-40 game, but as it shortens to five handed is clueless on how to adjust. Why? Because they don't have the foundation of theoretical understanding of what's going on in a poker game to regenerate a new model on the fly.
What I'm not saying is what I'm not saying. Just thought this would make for an interesting discussion.
Moving from eight handed to six handed is not something you have to adjust to on the fly. It comes up too often. The main thing is that six handed is more psychological because it is more likely to include head up pots where having knowledge is not quite as important and having "skill" becomes more so.
Well, I've read the sections in S&M's books, read Mike Caro's occasional columns dealing with it, done some thinking and played a little short-handed. So I guess I'm well on the road to successful short-handed play, if well-on-the-road means out of the starting gate. But the uncharted course ahead looks pretty barren of signposts and guidelines other than the few basic/semi-advanced ones I've picked up so far.
The irony is, short-handed/high-limit is where most of the serious money in poker really is, whether it's live or even in tournaments. Many of us could go on being grinders making occasional inspired plays, but I would like to work on my short-handed learning curve starting now, so when I do have the money to really play short/high I will be somewhat prepared at least to have a real shot at the Gold Ring.
I propose we start an ongoing thread on this topic and augment it with heads-up play on the play money tables at Paradise Poker. I just logged on and noticed that there are 7(!) play money 1-on-1 holdem tables now, and THEY ARE ALL EMPTY. We can play, discuss results and theory, etc. in an ongoing way.
This is the Last Frontier of Poker: the land where fortunes are made and far less is generally known. I say let's get to know it INSIDE OUT in a continually evolving way and win the real money in this game instead of discussing "bluffing women" or close preflop calls. I don't know much about it yet but I will really work at it and share what I learn if some others will do the same. Of course we don't have to stick to just the play money tables at Paradise--reports and analysis of real money short-handed games in our home cardrooms or on Paradise will be valuable food for thought as well.
Many of the best Short/High players in the world combine knowledge with "feel", but I'll bet even they don't know nearly as much about the game as could be known.
What say ye to making this a real project?
I have to go to sleep now but before I go back to Foxwoods tonight I will check this post. If you are interested just mention it and we can start making arrangements to get started. I think something of an organized format would be helpful. Sort of like a planned course: we could try to map it out, or, if we are lucky, perhaps David could help us with ideas for a road map. I'm ready to really explore and learn (and earn).
The ultimate goal here is not just getting pretty good at it but getting to where we know as much OR MORE than many of the top players in the word right now. Sure it will take time and work, but the payoff (and satisfaction) will be far greater for those who have the desire and the talent than a lifetime of grinding at even modestly high limits would be. That's it. That's my proposal.
Sincerely, "M" (Mark Stults)
This post meshes well with a thought I've been having. I've decided to bring it into the open, and have a full post on the other topics forum.
See you there.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I spent two months(April and May) in Vegas and have just arrived in California. Have only played in a few games but cali is poker heaven. Despite the long drives and higher collection rates Cali, so far, bests Vegas in A)loose, action players B)game selection and C)things to do that don't involve poker.
I wrote this forum early this Spring about where to play (Cali or Vegas) and just about everything said was true. The vegas games were tougher and muuuuuucch tighter. So far the Cali games I've played in (6-12,20-40 Hollywood Park and 3-6,6-12 Crystal Park)have been excellent.
Thanks for all the suggestions.
chris
Chris,I remember your questions of a few months ago.Would be interested as you get acclimated,in any info you could pass on.I currently live in Vegas,but am considering a move to Cali in a year.Good Luck
Chris and MS:
I was just about to post something similar, but now I can simply add-on...MS: move to Northern CA!!!! Here is why:
I have played all over the USA and for many years at low to middle levels. I travel to Silicon Valley on business a fair amount -- and I find the games at Garden City in San Jose area, and this week on a combo business/vacation with my wife, at Artichoke Joes near SF --- well they are the best games I have ever seen. The games here this week have the easiest to beat players I have seen in 20 years....in fact these people are worse than that. Everyone always calls, on all tables I have played at. No one raises 90% of the time, no check raises ever, free turn cards, misread cards, simply terrible play. This is in 3-6 to 6-12 which is lower than my usual limits but who cares, free $$.
And fun. I got a Royal today...2nd this year. I got 3 !!! callers. they limped and limped and limped from my pre-flop raise to the end. Over 5 years and many hours in this area I am making so many BB per hour here that i wouldn't write it, no one would believe.
Mark
PS I like the rooms here too: No smoke, well run, good dealers, at Artichoke Joes they have a jackpot with no money taken for it. $3 button drop at 6-12, which is not bad.
i agree with Mark, in northern cal. you have places with wonderful living conditions and the games are great. the big draw back though is for a small limit player, in that the living expenses are very very high. but you would make so much so quick that you could move up to 15 30 and win easily. those games i saw there were so beatable by any decent player that there would be no reason not to play them.
Ray,
Right, I forgot about the living expenses. They do have larger games here than I have seen, but my visiting times are usually off-weekend. And the 20-40 players at Garden who I watched were way too loose and gambling like mad too...
..and I am glad you confirmed this, I thought I was in the twilight zone. hehe
Mark
I agree with your assesment of Nor Cal, but would like to point out one drawback: big fluctuations. When you run bad here, you run really bad. That being said, check out the 20-40 at Lucky Chances and the 15-30/30-60 at the Oaks. Basically 6-12 with richer people. Also the 9-18 at Casino San Pablo gets great when the jackpot (double jackpot in 9-18) gets big.
I agree that these games are good but they are trickier then a lot of people seem to think.
The San Jose mid-limit games are definely not just 6-12 games with bigger chips.
D.
David,
I am sure you are right, the 6-12 is pretty weak, so I cannot imagine that the 10-20, 15-30 or 20-40 could be as easy.
But I have felt that with the $3 button drop, someone who can play well can create a nice bankroll for themselves at 6-12, learn, and then try to move up.
Mark
I agree with it stated this way. There will be quite a bit to learn for the bigger games but it is reasonable to give it a shot.
D.
If you've been winning that much money I can only say you have been running good and should be wary of your play.
Anyone who is reading these posts and salivating over NorCal action should be wary. It's easy to start running good in these games and assume it's because you are so much better than the rest of the players. Once your cards go back to normal or even start running bad, you will lose a lot of money. The variance is so high in these games that most players, even experts, are not prepared or don't understand the extreme nature. I've seen players go up $2000 in two or three hours. I've seen solid, above-average players lose 4 racks ($800) in two hours. I've seen players swing $1000 up and down MULTIPLE times in one session. This is at $6-12 and even $3-6.
Most players from other parts of the country are not prepared for a 3-6 game that requires a $1200 bankroll to play for the weekend, or to be a regular $6-12 player that requires a $6000 bankroll if not more.
I've lost about $3500 in the past 600 or 700 hours of playing 3-6 and 6-12 NorCal hold'em, which is TOTALLY within variance expectations. I've seen other players who are not good and don't understand the game well lose $9000 in a month playing 6-12.
I believe these games are really not beatable for more than a BB per hour, maybe 2 BB at best, unless you are getting better than average cards. If you get even slightly worse than average cards, the games are practically not beatable at all, because the variance can be brutal.
natedogg
I'm interested in hearing from players that have played hold-em in A.C. and Foxwoods. Would like to know where the best games are, ie. those with loose action players.
A player in my 10-20 game just came back from Vegas and said the games he found were too tight. The Mirage 20-40 he said felt like he was playing alone, and the 30-60 at Belagio was not that good either.
I would rather take a shorter trip to the east coast if the games are better.
Go to Montana. Find the nearest bear warde, Ask him where the uni bomber lives. Go there. There you will find "Pretty Boy" Ray Zee. He will probably be in the company of "little Bo Peep" At least that's his pet name for her. Treating her as the pet she is would be more appropriate but hey to each his own. He is always ready to play loose holdem. He will call Paul feney up and Paul will fly in from Massachusetts on Pegasus. Both Zee and Paul are big with four legged animals. I think that Gary Carson might play if you promise to read his book and Yell "I hate Mason" three times before every hand. Of course if Mason shows up you have to make that I hate Sklansky. Gary doesn't like either of them but he won't tell them to their face. Sklansky definitely won't show up. Your a nobody. He does nothing for "nobody". John feeney may come in his place. John is a Sklansky clone though so only say I hate Sklansky 2 times instead of three. Unless pf Course tht know it all Badger decideds to play. Oh! Wait minute. you said Holdem. Don't worry. I thought you said Omaha. Badger doesn't know anything about Holdem so he may not have anything to say about the game. Yeah! Right. If Ray offers to call his nephew Scott, that punk from Columbia,be careful. He's under age! But can he count! 1,2,3... Counting em up here boss!
Let's see that's enough to get started. Don't let that rascal Zee get away with a full rake unless he gets a full game. He's like that, you know. Ray is good for getting a full game so he can get a full rake but he hasn't played with a full deck for so long that he may invite Yogi Bear to play just to fill up the game. He thinks Yogi Bear was the greatest Yankee catcher ever! Hey! Hey! Hey! BTW - Sit in the farthest left corner of Ray's tent. It's the only dry place around. Terrible leak problem in that tent.
You might have to wait a while for the game though. I hear Ray is righting the first "lowercase" novel in history. It's going to be a mystery, No excuse me, it's going to be misery to read it! Yeah that's it! Well I gotta go. If you need an eleventh ask Abdul. I wouldn't play in the same game as Montana Man Zee if he backed me like he did the Fossilman. Besides Abdul would get along better with Scott. They both could call up Sklanky after the game and tell him how they had an EV of x and won y while ditributing z to the bears.
Hope the Game is good!
Vince.
BTW - 10-20 1/2 HE Kill at Foxwoods. At times the best Holdem game anywwhere. At other times only good if you are as good as me.
20-40 HE Game at Mohegan. Grrrreat! Always. AC used to be good. Haven't played there in a while. Hope to this weekend!
I have played in the 30-60 Game at Bellagio. If I had the Bank roll I wouldn't play anywhere else! Yes, Sklansky, I would be a favorite!
I can't add anything to Vince's post so I will just have to second him. Sure wish I knew who he was, though. You don't find a mind like that walking around every day.
M,
No, most minds like Vince's are suitably confined. :)
If you're at Foxwoods on Sat., look for me at a 5-10 table, and I'll help you find Vince if he hasn't begun his journey yet.
John
Looooooooose Low Limit Holdem (2-4 to 5-10) at the Tropicana. The 10-20 and 15-30 can be either but mostly tight.
Taj has very loose low limit. 10-20 can be either, but there are usually enough games in the summer and during the weekends to support loose and tight. As the games go up, they get tighter, but there are always a few loose players in games up to 50-100. Taj is probably a little softer due to the influx of visitors. Trop has the same old rocks during the week.
Never been to Foxwoods
Turning Stone has 10-20 and 15-30 most of the time. Thurs., Fri. and Sat.-20-40. Fri night 30-60 and 50-100. Exit 33 on the NYS Thruway. Poker room rates--$60. to stay at the casino and $40. to stay at the motel about a mile down the road. Anyone else out there play at Turning Stone? They just added a golf course.
I can not recommend Foxwoods. I had an incredibly unpleasant experience there.
The dealers were terrible. The pit bosses were intolerably rude. The players were obnoxious and rude. Players were yelling at the dealers, pit bosses were yelling at the players...... unacceptable.
Furthermore, Holdem is not that popular there. You are much more likely to find high limit stud tables (75-150). I think the highest Holdem table I saw was 30-60 and it was short handed and broke up before too long.
Everything is expensive. People are rude. No one looks as though they are having a good time. Plus, most of the players at 5-10 and higher are professionals. I played 5-10 there, and sure enough, the next time I picked up a copy of Card Player I recognized three of the tournament winners. They had played at my 5-10 table.
DON'T GO THERE.
-SmoothB-
I can not recommend Foxwoods. I had an incredibly unpleasant experience there.
The dealers were terrible. The pit bosses were intolerably rude. The players were obnoxious and rude. Players were yelling at the dealers, pit bosses were yelling at the players...... unacceptable.
Was this just one experience? I've never seen anything like that at my table and I've played there a bit. I have seen some shouting matches at other tables (for some reason mostly mid-limit O8 tables), but nothing as horrible as you are describing.
Furthermore, Holdem is not that popular there.
This is certainly true. The east coast seems to love stud for some reason.
Plus, most of the players at 5-10 and higher are professionals. I played 5-10 there, and sure enough, the next time I picked up a copy of Card Player I recognized three of the tournament winners. They had played at my 5-10 table.
Only if there are alot of "professionals" who play any ace and garbage like Kd3c in middle position (in 5-10, I haven't played higher). It's probably true that there aren't as many true loose-passive players at FW (and Mohegan Sun for that matter) as there are in some places. But I think you can have an overlay if you start with better cards than they do and play as well after the flop (that guy with Kd3c probably plays fairly well when he gets a flop he likes).
Plus since there aren't too many hold'em tables, you have to be wary when the waiting list for the higher limits gets long - that means there are probably an excessive number of better players in the lower limit games.
I've found the players to be friendly on the whole and the staff to be fairly competent for the most part. Plus it's non-smoking (both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun). Hooray!!
David
Foxwoods is the only poker room that I've played in. Maybe it's because of this that I like it, but I have found that nothing in Smoothb's post is true, except for hold-em not being as popular. I'm pretty sure that the 5-10 players aren't professials. If they are, they better find a day job, because thier not making money at poker. I have found that most of the players are friendly and the entire staff is very helpful and curtious.
I have no complaints, in fact, I'm going there tonight.
While FW does suffer from certain disadvantages relative to other cardrooms I've played in, it does not seem as bad to me as I've heard a few people say, both here and on RGP.
There are some very poor floorpeople, who just don't seem to be capable of making good decisions on a consistent basis, but many of them are also quite good.
There are some very slow dealers (and this is my biggest concern), but the majority are decent to good.
HE is very unpopular compared to stud. On a regular basis you won't find a HE game higher than 10-20 (with a 1/2 kill). During major tourney time, you will find 50-100 and sometimes higher, but not during most of the year, including holiday weekends when the casino is jammed full of tourists. You can find a regular, and loose, 20-40 HE game at Mohegan Sun, however. With the exception of this game, and the 3-6 games, the HE games tend to be MUCH tighter than SoCal, and often tighter even than the same limits in LV, IME.
Players are occasionally rude, but certainly not worse than LV and SoCal, IME.
I moved here from San Diego 1.5 years ago. I would prefer to play at Oceans 11 over FW or MS, but I'm not unhappy with FW and MS.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Even the worst dealers are tolerable here. I have only found 1 or 2 who were disrespective of the players. Dealers keep their own tips. They are very good. Floor people are hardworking and attentive. AC gives your money's worth.
Greetings,
I was recently playing a mid limit holdem game, and had been oblivious to a straight i had made when the board was 2 3 4 5 8 w/ no flush. I chekced as did the other player. (I had A K).
I said i just had A K and turned it face up, she quickly said she had J 8... another player said i had a straight, and i still had the cards in my hand. She claimed the hand was mucked and I said excuse me I still have them in my hand. She said she was being nice and let me have the pot but wanted 10 $ (a small bet). She is a dealer and wanted to bet that the had was really mucked once turned over... I thoguht once a hand is seen cards speak, AND i never let go of them!
And i thought once it is seen by the dealer/ eye int he sky if its the best hand and it goes to the best hand...
SHould I have given her 10? (she was weak and i figured i might as well keep the fish happy, and maybe i was wrong and she could make a big stink if she really wanted...) And is this hand mucked even when it is in your hand??
Not a chance. That hand is still live.
She's upset that if someone else hadn't opened up their big mouth, she would have gotten the pot. Justifiable, I suppose, but she's completely wrong and she knows it.
Dan
I agree with Dan. I have seen the same thing happen before and interestingly enough with a little wheel. She should know better. I probably would not give her $10, but it's a call you would have to make at the table.
Whether you want to give her $10 "to keep a fish happy" is up to you, but to give her the money to "stop her from making a stink" is clearly unnecessary, since your hand is live and wins the pot. I have seen a lot of stupid rulings in my life, but I have never seen a players cards ruled dead because of being facedown when that player still had them.
Thanks all for the response,
I don't think I made such a bad decision to do what I did. Although I think I was taken a little advantage of.
The odd thing is I asked one or two dealers at this casino about this and they said my hand was mucked, although now I know better.
Maybe giving her the $10 wasn't neccesary, but I don't think it was such a bad decision ( she gave way more back to the table.), and since almost 1/2 the table said I was wrong...
But now I know in the future! Thanks again.
If she's really a dealer then she _knows_ your hand is still good and is trying to take advantage of you. Politely refuse.
If she is a dealer in the same casino, if the hand played exactly as you described, and if a ruling went against you on this then _you_ should be the one making a BIG stink.
Andy.
"She claimed the hand was mucked and I said excuse me I still have them in my hand. "
Check, Check Show
Where I play This is called a SHOWDOWN !!!!! don't give her a dime....
MJ
I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for this or if anyone even wants to discuss this topic but I'll give it a shot.
I've been around poker my whole life. My dad has been playing in home games for 40 years with family, friends, in the service, etc. He taught my brother and I when we were very young and we've been playing poker with friends for years. We just got serious about playing poker a few months ago. I try to go down to the casino twice a week and play in tournaments and ring games.
Now to the point. Poker, as a hobby, is looked down upon by society. When I tell people that I go play two times a week, they immediatly think that I'm addicted and that I'm throwing my money away. Poker, just like any sport, is a skill game. People seem to understand that in basketball, football, or baseball, the best team may not win every day but in the long run, the best team or players will come out on top. Poker is the same way but people don't accept it. They think that poker is all in the cards and luck is the only thing that determines the winner. This attitude throughly annoys me and I don't know how to make people understand.
Anyways, I'm just wondering if others have run into this type of thing and have gotten discouraged. I know that this mentality from my friends, girlfriend, and family has kept me from playing more often.
Any responses would be appreciated. Sorry for the length.
"People insist on calling it luck" Rounders.
I sympathize with your problem. I have tried in vain to explain to my friends and relatives that in poker you are winning other people's money and the house just charges everyone a fee for running the game. Poker is not like slots, craps, or blackjack because you are not winning house money so you do not have to overcome a built-in house edge. You only have to play well enough to overcome the the small rake and the house really doesn't care who wins.
But I think the big problem that many people have with it is the tremendous amounts of time some people stay at a poker table and how consuming the game can become. How many top poker players are married with kids and a house? Poker pros are not exactly good role models. When you look at the Gallery of World Champions at Binion's Horseshoe in Vegas a very high percentage of these guys are drug users, alcoholics, or degenerate gamblers (craps, sports betting, etc.).
Mike I wouldnt get discouraged at all ...simply because they watch to many movies and listen to all opinions about the game except the opinions from those that know the game cause they`re few and far between... unknowledgable poeple really dont rate my anxiety period.
Its the same as my business decorating ...shit i got poeple telling me all the time how to do it cause they repainted a bathroom twenty years ago...Hell I only got 26 yrs of 365 days a year experience.
hope this brings the point in focus.
jg
I also have tied to get the idea through to family members(my wife the most who likes Black Jack).
I have found that "There mind is made up and nothing I can say to them will change it" It's a limatation on there part not to look at poker with an open mind. That maybe it is a skill game. So what do I do?
I play take the heat and invite anyone to view my records at any time.
"Poker in the long run is cheaper than playing golf. and both take a great deal of skill"
Thats my come back line to end the conversation.
Best of it !!
MJ
Everyone's been criticized about something they've done at one point, and poker's no different. I grew my hair out pretty long last year and was constantly bugged by my friends/parents about how it didn't look good, etc...but doing things differently is a great way to learn more about yourself-it's a test of character. People may hassle you about playing poker (my dad does) and all you can do is argue peacefully-if you go on tilt NOBODY will take your word as good.
As an aside, I try to convince EVERYONE that I might play with that poker is mostly luck =) jeff
Morality smorality - screw it.
We have OJ playing golf, Marv doing BB games Tyson boxing and f***ing clinton in the whit house. Let's face it morality is no longer with us.
Poker is an honorable profession - or hobby or pass time or whatever you call it - we put up our own money take our shot and live with the outcome.
Hey, I quit worring what other people thought when I realized how many other people there were.
your girl friend - if she doesn't accept your a poker player maybe it's time to consider another one, parents don't ever understand so don't bother telling them anybody else - screw 'em if they don'tlike it.
For a ring player like John, tournaments are understandable thorns. I can imagine John cringing as tremendous amounts of money are slung around hyperactive poker tables with everyone hoping to walk out with a new cadillac (a fine car to drive after a war).
But I think that John is setting up tournaments using straw man argumentation. To say that tournaments decapitalize Poker (with a capital P) ignores the curious psychological duality that leads people to play tournaments vs. ring games. In my own limited experience, ring games provide casual players with a entertaining method of disposing time (like a movie). Pro poker players extract money from casual players quite simply because their goal is not entertainment.
On the other hand, poker tournaments add a so-called life changing element. A good tournament session will increase a player's quality of life in a way that a single ring game session cannot. The downside of this life changing component to a tournament is an increased goal orientation. People win and lose, and are less able to rationalize losses. Winning and fun become more closely tied.
So, people like tournaments. So what?
Feeney writes "I am concerned about the degree to which they remove players and money from regular poker games. That is my bias".
But isn't John's bias that he believes that Poker should (in its "regular" state) give the highest possible advantage to the miniscule percentage of poker players who trade entertainment for income?
Indeed, for a group of people who cannot have a thought ascribed to them, the poker playing majority is making a shrewd choice by prefering tournaments. They like luck, cadillacs, and goal orientation. The sharks should adapt or stop swimming.
a.
"On the other hand, poker tournaments add a so-called life changing element."
I agree. When you take a close look at many of the better known tournament players you discover that
1. They are staked in almost all events that they win.
2. They usually are down a lot of money to their staker who eventually leaves forcing the tournament star to try to find another backer.
3. When they do win they only get to keep a very small percentage of the win because they have to make up losses and the backer takes a big piece anyway.
4. They loose regularly in the side games because they do not see the differences in strategy and don't play hands very well on the later street. (One by product of this is that when they do play side games they are frequently at the smaller limits.)
So I do agree that in many cases becoming a tournament star caused a life change that was not for the better. Of course there are some exceptions, but what I describe above is probably far more common than many of you think.
Mason,
Fossilman makes the best arguement for tournament play. The key, according to Fossil, and I agree, is the overlay. It is, in fact, just another form of gambling. So then let's look at a tournamnent in that light. What should an average tournamnet player look for in terms of overlay? Surely you and your brother Oz can gives us the math of it. Just sensitize the skill level of the tourney players and give us an overlay range. Piecce of Cake! Choclate cream please. Love that stuff.
vince.
BTW - Why would John think that Tournaments will take away from poker anymore than say, roulette. Two different gammlin aminals!
Vince:
Of course you are right. Getting an overlay is the key. But I suspect that this overlay is getting harder to come by. This has to do with the increasing juice on many tournaments, with growing fields encouraging shorter time intervals at each level - thus increasing the luck factor, and other incresed costs associated with attending the tournament.
Out of the last 100 tourneys I've played, probably at least 75 were with the grace of some overlay _from the house_. God bless the free market.
.
Post deleted at author's request.
I didn't know this. I am aware that many small tournaments are anti-juice. I was thinking more in terms of the larger tournaments.
This brings up an interesting point that might be worth discussing. What impact will the high juice on The Tournament of Champions have on the rest of the industry?
Vince,
How many poker players play roulette?
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Good point! Better get that old drawin board out!
Vince.
You better be nice cause John and Mary like me even if I am a little silly sometimes.
In your opinion, what is the required bankroll for someone to buy into the $10,000 main event in the World Series?
For the sake of the discussion, let's assume that this person is an excellent tournament player, and has a pretty good overlay against the field.
Now, how many winning players in the World Series are overbetting their bankrolls?
My guess is that it's a very high percentage.
Gaining entrance through a satellite makes the situation a little better, simply because I'm guessing that an excellent tournament player has a pretty good overlay against the average satellite crowd, but I'm guessing that the required bankroll is still huge.
This question does not compute. The obvious answer is that the required bankroll is $10,000 U.S. Greenbacks. No more no less. If you mean what should a person's assets be before playing in this event, the answer is still the same. So just what is it you are asking?
Vince
Bankroll considerations are extremely important if you're a professional gambler with a fixed bankroll.
Consider this: Let's say you think your EV in the tournament is $1,000, but your total bankroll is $20,000. If you play in the tournament and lose, you'll lose half your bankroll, which means you have to earn the rest of the year's income playing games with half the limit you would otherwise have been able to play. So, enter the tournament and pick up an EV of $1,000, at the expense of perhaps earning only $20/hr for the next 1000 hours vs making $40/hr.
Bankroll requirements for tournaments are typically pretty high, because of the variance. That's why so many tournament players go broke, even the ones who have an overlay.
Post deleted at author's request.
Thats the most sensible post Ive seen here for a while.PLUS the dream tournaments create is the only thing that makes it all worthwhile.Most people who are antitournaments arent getting as much of an overlay as even tyey would like to think.
Naah. Most tournament players who "go broke" do something like this: they win $20,000... they buy a car... they go to Hawaii... they bet some sports... they have a bad streak and lose $3000 in tournements... they are broke.
Hey, that's why most winning players go broke, tournament or not. Then there's the craps and baccarat habits, which eat a few more.
The bankroll requirements aren't very high for your Garden variety $100 buyin mini-tournament, especially when you're playing with a really weak field.
But the question was, how many of the players in the world series are overbetting their bankrolls with a 10K buyin? I'm still guessing most of them.
Post deleted at author's request.
I want to commend you, Alex, for not twisting, changing, or otherwise misrepresenting anything I said in that essay. In fact you have mostly left it up to others to read it if they want to comment specifically on what I wrote. Thanks for not putting words in my mouth.
I'm not sure I understand your comment about "an increased goal orientation" But the point you sum up in your last paragraph is a good one - if in fact the general public does really prefer tournaments.
But as I mentioned in the essay, the very structure of tournaments just takes away too much of the working poker player's freedom, IMO.
More important to most, I would guess, are the very high fluctuations involved in ongoing tournament play. So many of the top name full time tournament players require backers to continue their travels of the tournament trail that, well... I for one would not want to be enslaved that way.
Then there's the basic difference in what you can make in tournaments versus ring games. As it is today, I have no doubt that in the long run you can make more in the latter if you make your way up into somewhat higher limits.
If tournaments were to take over completely (which I can't forsee right now because without ring game support I think they'd die, but in the future who knows...) I suppose I'd just do something else. For me, they're not what poker's all about. But a lot of people do like them, and that's fine.
btw, I have a feeling this could become an "interesting" thread. ;-)
Look at it this way, ring game poker and tournament poker are 2 different forms of gambling, albeit very similar ones. In "Gambling for a Living", our esteemed hosts point out that there is money to be made in a wide variety of gambling activities, not just poker. Thus, the astute gambler should always be looking for the overlay.
Sometimes, the best overlay is in the ring game. Sometimes, your time is better spent in the tournament.
Here at Foxwoods, the overlay is frequently larger in the tourneys, because the regulars are better at not losing in a ring game than they are in a tourney. It's not that we're crawling with strong ring game players here, but we do have a lot of (relatively) tight ones. It seems like most of the loosest (and weakest) regulars around here like to play the tourneys. And don't even get me started on the major tourneys. They bring in some of the worst tourney players on the entire East Coast (even if a few really good ones also show up).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Oh, I have no problem with that. It's just not my thing. One thing I really don't like about tournaments is simply having to be there at a certain time, and having to stay till you bust out. (One funny exception to that I heard about the other night came from Jerry Bus (s.p.?), who said he once was in the final four remaining in a tournament, but had to go to the L.A. Forum to make a presentation. So he just said, "Deal me out", and left, taking fourth.) To me, a large part of the attraction of poker is the "come and go as you please" quality. Just personal preference.
Post deleted at author's request.
I think we ought to make the distinction between what is commonly thought of as the "tournament circuit" and the more widespread regular local cheap buy-in tournaments. Regarding the big names, although I don't move in those circles, Mason's comments ring very true to me and I have no trouble believing them. You see someone win 150K in a tournament and you think "wow, you could buy a house with that !". But it's a zero sum game and I can't believe there is anywhere near enough dead money in the big tournaments to support all the names taking part. After all, TJ has won tons more money than anyone else over the last 5 years, right ? And he needs a backer.
Having said that, I do believe that the cheap events are a different animal entirely, and do serve a purpose. Weak players can get much more time at the table for their money, and there is a sense of achievement in winning or even placing that makes you want more.
Here in England where all the games are pot-limit, I simply would not be here or involved in the game at all were it not for tournaments. It would have been financial suicide for me, and many others, to attempt to learn poker in pot-limit cash games.
John's book arrived yesterday and I have only had time to have a quick skim through the essay so I can't comment on it directly now, but while I appreciate that tournaments are not liked by everyone, I think there is plenty of room for the variety and different approach they offer. I don't think it would be good for poker if ring games took over either - vive la difference.
Andy.
Post deleted at author's request.
"I'm having my worst tournament year ever, and I am out of pocket not one red cent."
Does this mean you have won all your entry fees from tournaments or are you including live game winnings?
vince
Post deleted at author's request.
Hey Badger,
Guess what? I don't care what these other people think. Especially that Feeney guy! Love Ya!
Vince
Will buy you a lunch if you will sit and talk with me when I get to LA.
Steve,
What I'm saying is how difficult it must be playing the tournament circuit _without_ a backer.
I totally agree with your statement that those who enjoy tournaments and ring games can take their choice, that was my basic point.
Andy.
Post deleted at author's request.
I can't argue with giving people what they want. And, yeah, I knew tournament income was made over time and could be translated to hourly rate. But I think it's tougher to figure out what sort of BR you need for tournaments than it is for live games. And, based at least on what I hear, it does seem that many of those on the tournament trail can go for increadibly long stretches in the red. Similarly, I hear of highly rated winners ending up behind or only doing a little better than break even at the end of the year when the dust settles. And that's a year of, what, 250 tounraments?
Have you read David's "Is Your Wallet Fat Enough For Tournaments?" Though a simplified model, it suggests that unless you are among the VERY best tournament players, it's just not a realiable source of income. (e.g., 59 out of 1,000 of the very good, but not great, simulated players were still losing after 1,000 tourneys. A THOUSAND!) And even for the best it seems iffy. (e.g., 5% chance in the simulation that one of the great players would be winning less than half what he should at the end of a thousand tournaments.)
Also, an $8,000 loss at 30-60 is humongous. I would strongly suspect someone who did have such a loss at 30-60 of being a maniac. That's a big loss at 80-160.
Post deleted at author's request.
"The year is about 45% over and I've played 47 tournaments. I figure that's about 150 hours of play."
Is that about typical of full time or other very serious tournament players? Seems to me I've heard some higher numbers before.
Post deleted at author's request.
I finally figured out why I personally do not like tournaments. As Alex said, winning is fun. And much as I try to take Feeney's (and others') advice to feel good when I play correctly, it is just plain true that poker is much more fun when I win.
Now consider what happens almost every time you go play a tournament. You get put out! Sometimes early, sometimes late, sometimes at the final table ... everyone but one gets put out! On our Tournaments forum, and hands posted to the Hold'em or Other Poker forums from tournaments, 99% of those posts are about the hand the poster lost with. It is the ultimate Buffalo-goes-to-the-Super-Bowl frustration of losing! What a negative experience. And since I have not yet won a tournament, my experience is 100% negative.
As Mason pointed out, the top stars have the same frustration. In recent columns, both Tom McEvoy and Phil Hellmuth shared with us that they (each) had not won a major championship event in 3 years. And they are top tournament stars; what chance is there for little me?
JF, you don't have to worry about tournaments taking away my poker capital, because I rarely play. The 50% + times that I go home from a ring game with more money than I came with are a lot more fun!
Dick
I think you're focusing too much on immediate gratification, which I would hazard is contra-indicative of your personality profile for poker success. Do you get overly emotional if you finish the night stuck maybe one normal-sized pot and try to stay til you get even? I don't think so. You (and I think you, Dick, do this) gotta look at the big picture when making the gambling decisions. On those nights we're in the room together and you're playing live while I play the tourneys, I'd say you probably have a greater % of profitable nights, but at the end of the year the net win numbers aren't going to be close. Any emotional equity event horizon shorter than a year is going to work against you. Even on the nights I walk out of there down $255, I'm generally satisfied that I'm putting in the hours to get to the long run.
As far as fun as an intrinsic element of the experience, I'd hazard those tourneys beat grinding it out in the ring games. The changing dynamics, the hopeful optimism, the mathematical unforgivingness all contribute to a Capraesque/Kafkaesque experience that frankly leaves ring games wanting.
JG
please explain yourself.
a.
Kafkaesque ~= p.t. Kafka's vision of man's isolated existence in a dehumanized world.
the long walk back to the parking lot while the rest of the group relishes in the schadenfreude of your elimination.
JG
"while the rest of the group relishes in the schadenfreude of your elimination."
Sounds more like paranoiaesque to me! You are not that important for others to gloat over your losing.
Vince.
AlexB, I agree with John Feeney's point of view. Personally, I don't like tournaments for the following reasons:
1. Not all the entry fee is returned to the players so you have to win enough to overcome that portion of the entry fee that is kept by the house.
2. You cannot just beat most of the opposition to even get your money back. You have to beat the vast majority of the opposition just to break even.
3. The whole tournament effort comes down to what happens at the final table. In many cases all the money is put in before the flop so the game is reduced to showdown.
4. The hands played by these tournament superstars seem ridiculous to me. In one tournament Men Nygun had the AsKs in a final heads-up confrontation with Huck Seed who had Jd8d. Men made a big bet and Huck came over the top of him by going all in for $200,000 (not real money but tournament "funny money"). Men thought a moment and correctly called him down. The five board cards came and Huck Seed ended up winning by making a gutshot straight at the river to win first place. The writer who wrote up the tournament made the silly statement that "That Huck's play was from a champion who knew he wouldn't lose" or words to that effect.
Jim,
I'm not saying that tournaments are not the inferior investment for the poker savvy professional. If ring games provide you with more bang for your buck, then by all means play in them.
My issue is with the bias of professional poker players that card room's should be tailored to their interests. It is not a reprehensible attitude, simply a naive one. The majority of poker players is interested in different aspects of the game than you are. And they are a larger demographic group than two plus two readers. So they will dictate policy, as they should.
If, as John says, tournaments may be the superior psychological choice for lay-players (and not an unwise one for the casual sportsman) it appears that pro players will have to swallow their discontent as more and more fish swim for the life-changing lake of tournament poker.
a.
Jim, and all,
There isn't a right or wrong answer here. just people's preferences. I thought I would give my view of tournaments.
I played a few tournaments in Vegas, and I was simply hooked. I love tournaments, probably more than ring game poker which I also love. Ironically, I like tournaments for many of the reasons that Jim doesn't like tournaments, so I thought I'd comment on Jim's post ...
Jim writes: "1. Not all the entry fee is returned to the players so you have to win enough to overcome that portion of the entry fee that is kept by the house."
The same is true for a ring game when you consider the rake. Thus, it is simply a question of deciding if the fee is worth the play, just like you decide if the rake/fee is worth the play in a ring game. A big attraction of tournaments is the price vs. the play value. Because tournaments have this win or lose aura around them, the play of the game becomes more intense, which often adds more entertainment "value" for me. My first tournament was the noon Luxor, all of $27 entry fee. I had just finished playing a 1-4-8-8 game where I could put in that into the pot on the river along, yet I had far more fun playing that tournament, and I don't think I had any less of an overlay on that $27 than I did in the ring game.
Jim writes "2. You cannot just beat most of the opposition to even get your money back. You have to beat the vast majority of the opposition just to break even."
But when you do, the payoff is much bigger. Plus, the risk is lower. In a 3 hour, very loose 3-6 game, I have an expectation of maybe $27, but my risk is much, much larger. Tournaments are the reverse, I risk $27 but get paid very well when I win.
Jim writes: "3. The whole tournament effort comes down to what happens at the final table. In many cases all the money is put in before the flop so the game is reduced to showdown."
I agree here.
Jim writes: "4. The hands played by these tournament superstars seem ridiculous to me. In one tournament Men Nygun had the AsKs in a final heads-up confrontation with Huck Seed who had Jd8d. Men made a big bet and Huck came over the top of him by going all in for $200,000 (not real money but tournament "funny money"). Men thought a moment and correctly called him down. The five board cards came and Huck Seed ended up winning by making a gutshot straight at the river to win first place. The writer who wrote up the tournament made the silly statement that "That Huck's play was from a champion who knew he wouldn't lose" or words to that effect."
The writer's statement is silly, but the rest of #4 is the main reason I like tournaments. You have to play!! I use the analogy of Bridge vs. Hearts. In Hearts, you have to play the worst hands, and you have to play them very well, that is much of the excitement of the game. In Bridge, you are the "dummy" 25% of the time, and if you have a terrible hand, there is often very little play in your hand.
Tournaments require you to play different hands than in a ring game, sometimes very odd ones. Plus, they always end short handed which is tremendously more fun than full ring game play. By adding time, stack size, proportional pay outs, etc.; tournaments turn poker into a broader game than ring game poker.
Plus, it isn't funny money. Those tournament chips have real value. Yes, there value moves up and down depending on various factors, but that just adds more fun.
Pat Charlton
Pat,
Good post! But so was Jim's. I guess it is a to each his own decision. Tournament play that is. BTW - you were wrong about bridge. When I used to play I was the dummy about 90% of the time. At least that's what my partners usually told me.
Vince.
Vince,
It is 3am, I'm still at work, as I was last night. Both nights, when I can't stand looking at code any longer, I pull up this forum (including the archives) for a little relaxation.
Your post's have caused me to laugh out loud a dozen times over the course of the last two nights.
Thanks, you're the best!!
Pat Charlton
There's one thing I don't like about Joh's argument. It's the "removing money from poker" argument. The main reason that i don't like this argument is that it applies equally to John Feeney the man. In fact, John Feeney is probably more responsible for taking money of of circulation than all of the tournaments in the San Diego area combined.
- Andrew
Post deleted at author's request.
Well, I doubt I take THAT much out, though I really don't know how much that is. But I won't deny that my argument is self serving. Off the top of my head, I suppose the best poker ecomomy would result from a population of players who were all equally skilled, so that only the house would make money while the players just traded it around.
But my point is really about the same as Mike Caro's point about jackpots. When a recreational player wins say, $10,000 in a tournament, that money is a lot more likely to go to something like a down payment on a car than to go back into the poker economy. If he won the same 10k, over the course of many winning and losing sessions in live games, it seems more likely that more of it would remain in the poker economy, going for more buy-ins. (I'm aware there are exceptions, tournament winners who play some of the bigger live games for a while after a big tournament win...)
I see a lot of these tournaments with first prizes like 5k or 6k won by low limit players, many of whom probably don't maintain a bankroll per se. And they don't often take the money and step up to higher limits, so I assume they just spend it. Phhhhht! Gone. What if all that money (entry fees) stayed in the pockets of the players to start with. In time, wouldn't that be quite a boost to the ring games?
It's just a large chunks verus small chunks issue, I think.
Post deleted at author's request.
"But what is the end of "boost for ring games"? Money in the ring game winners pockets, which John Feeney presumably spends at some point. Same thing pretty much."
Yes, it's a self serving thing. I am saying that serious, winning players should generally prefer to keep that money active in the poker economy so that they can win it. Also, its remaining in play helps create more games, which means more choices, more opportunites for winning players.
Post deleted at author's request.
I find tournament play inherently more interesting and exciting than ring games. Many tournament players claim to like the "overlay," but often they are not referring to a positive expectation; they are referring to the fact that one can win a large amount of money for a relatively small investment. While this may add to the excitement, it is also what makes tournaments a less practical source of income for professionals.
Furthermore, most who believe they have a genuine overlay (i.e., positive expectation) in tournaments are mistaken. The magnitude of their edge over the other entrants is usually not sufficient to overcome the toke, the casino cut (entry fee), and especially the IRS cut (unless perhaps they file as a professional poker player and deduct all their expenses). Promotional tournaments where casinos add money to the pool are exceptions.
MJS wrote: >Furthermore, most who believe they have a genuine >overlay (i.e., positive expectation) in tournaments >are mistaken.
You played in any of the tourneys in Connecticut?
;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I am a gunslinger and I am proud of my heritage. At the risk of offending Badger who is a gentleman at the poker table I think most people who are staked in tournaments are for the most part "scum". I want players to feel the pain when they take that long walk. There is a whole sub-culture that has developed around tournament poker that I find vile and contemptable. The word leach says it best.
I think players who are staked should be required to report same to the tournament director. They should make all pertinant information public. This could be done much like duplicate bridge players using a convention card. The relevant information should include all players that are being staked in one stable.
I've played in Vegas and Connecticut and was wondering how the rake in Cali compares. At what limit do they start the time charges? What the hell is a drop on the button and how much is it? Let's assume I'll be playing 6/12 and 10/20. If the higher limit players are as bad as I've heard I'll probably play bigger. Are the rakes in LA different from Oceanside or Northern Cali? Thanks in advance. James.
James,
I can help for Oceanside and Los Angeles. Note that I work at Hollywood Park but play all the big three casinos. I have not liked the games at Hawaiian Gardens (they have hired tough props for one). I haven't been to the Normandie in ages.
In Los Angeles County, the drop is either dead on the button (usually in smaller games), or a time charge is taken (10/20 and above). By "dead on the button", I mean it is dropped no matter what (e.g., even if the blinds are chopped and there is no flop!). Obviously, no tight game can survive this "fair" (according to Badger) collection.
In the 6/12 holdem, the dead drop is $4 at the Commerce and the Bike, and $3 at Hollywood Park. At 9/18 holdem, the dead drop is $4 at both Commerce and the Bike. At Hollywood Park, they have started an 8/16 holdem, but the dead drop is $4.
Hollywood Park has the only 10/20 in town that goes on a regular basis (two great looking games last night but I was in the 15/30). The time collection is $5 per half hour. Compare this with a $4 dead drop on the 8/16 and you can do the math.
For great action, do play the 15/30 and 20/40 games if you can. I recommend Hollywood Park, as the collection is $2 cheaper per hour than the Commerce and there are several games going (five last night). The 15/30 is $6 per half hour and the 20/40 is $7 per half hour. The Bike has a lower collection (I think), but the one 20/40 and/or 15/30 game is full of silent props by the looks of it (by definition, I can't be sure).
In Ocean's 11 in Oceanside, the drop is $3 in the 8/16. But it is taken from the blinds and if there is no flop, there is no drop. In the 20/40, the drop is the same, but sometimes they play "overs". Hope this helps.
Regards,
Rick
Hi Rick. I am planning on visiting my sister in L.A the last week in June and the first week in July. I may stop by Hollywood Park and play. I would like to come by and say hello. When will you be there?
Jim,
I work the floor 10:45 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Wednesday. You will find me in middle or bottom section (I'm considered to be insufficiently obsequious for top section). I am now playing after shift most Sundays and Mondays, mostly in the 15/30 or 20/40 games. Sometimes I play on Friday from about 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
I'm not hard to spot. About 6' 1" tall, 190 lbs., a young looking forty six, with light straight 3" hair (I'm half Polish) cut with a Flowbee. Mike Caro says I look like a dork.
You will love the games at the mid limits, even if the collection is a little high (but not compared to the Commerce). Just don't make the mistake of putting your mind into your opponent's head. If you do, you will overrate their strength.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing you. Maybe John Feeney will make it up from San Diego and Badger from the Valley (he normally plays at the Commerce). Plus I heard Vince may be in town. We could have a "battle royal" of dueling AQ's ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I've never really noticed, but how many times would you guess that a person gets the button in a lower-limit game per-hour? I ask because it seems that I get the button more often now that people(in Calif.)have to leave the game to go have a smoke, leaving the game tipically one or two seats short. I'd love to play 9-18, but it seems too expensive with a $4.00 drop that's going to hit me 5 times an hour (just a guess),or more! with two or three smokers at the table.
-Don
Don,
A seven handed game 6/12 or 9/18 game is just brutal. Often when they get this short (due to walkers), they come to a standstill since many won't pay the full drop. If you have to play this limit, you must stay in a game without much walking. Yet the walkers are often the ones you most want to play with (if you could keep them in their seat).
Anyway, in a full game with only an occasional walker, I would say you get the button at least four times per hour. Now compare this with time charge for a 20/40 or what you would pay if they dropped from the pot (i.e., the loose players pay most collections).
The only good thing about the enormous button drop is that any given game can only stand a couple of tough players and no more than a few tight ones.
Regards,
Rick
The button drop in LA is called "dead" because the money you put up on the button does not play; if there is no preflop raise in 6-12, for example, you must put $6 in the pot to call on the button. I usually play at the Normandie, where they drop $3 in the 6-12 games and charge $5 per half hour in 10-20, $6 for 15-30.
James,
Hi, I have been playing in No. CA this week. 6-12 takes a $3 drop on the button. The players are so loose passive that you will love it. And at the places i've played I have seen no higher game during the day...but who needs em? Low variance *many* BB's per hour.
Mark
Mark-Thanks for the input. Where, exactly, in Northern California? Bay area?
Unlike the previous scenario, the blinds are unequal. This is necessary because I want it to be a choice between folding and moving all in. So we will say you have a one chip blind while your opponnent has a two chip blind. Your opponent always has the button so that he would never be able to actually bet. Notice that if you moved all in every time, this reduces to the earlier problem except it would have to be a 100 chip freezout since he loses two at a time. Thus if you move in every time you would win 39%, by your calculations, if your opponent played perfectly.
My new questions are this: Suppose you didn't move in every time but in fact folded sometimes, thus giving up one chip (nothing in between). Suppose further that you played a fixed strategy that did not change according to stack size and that your opponent was totally aware of. In other words you moved in with specific hands and folded the rest and your opponent knows your strategy. What would those move in hands be? And what would your chances now be against a perfect opponent? Obviously the answer must be greater than 39% but less than 50%.
The second question is similar to the first except this time you only get to look at one card before you decide whether to move in. How high should that card be? Again we will say that your opponent knows your strategy to avoid complicating the calculation with game theory consideratins. Assuming that you don't move in with all cards, your chances of winning will be above 39% but below the answer to the first question.
I ask these two questions,(both assume 100 chips per player), frankly because there is money to be made. It is easier to see through the always move in prop. But suppose you simply asked a good player for odds on a normal freezout and gave him the button everytime. You might get 3-2. A good all in strategy beats him easy. Alternatively you could suggest that you give him the button AND you only look at one card. You see where I am going here. I want to teach some people a lesson while we all make money in the process.
for this incredible forum! After many years of grinding and almost stagnating I finally feel like I am learning something every single day, almost like I am back in school. It is genuinely exciting to go back and forth from this forum to the tables and to have new food for thought on a continual basis. I don't care if "D" didn't answer some of my posts because I was just one letter.
My poker results of late have improved dramatically too; I think this may in part be the result of greater immersion in the overall subject and the interaction with real minds that this forum provides. Thanks to all serious posters here as well!
Is there a link between this post and General Theory, or did I just post this here to be sure it would be read?
Let's just say that it is My General Theory that access to and interaction with the best real minds is the fastest way to improve one's poker.
Like Cooke's famous Edge Concept, I hereby dub this M's Improvement Principle. Thanks again to all.
I know you were referring to me, M. So you are welcome.
Vince
A few years ago I read an article dealing with the Saddle Point (in Stud). I have almost never seen this mentioned in print. The article struck me as both interesting and important, although I didn't follow it all at the time. Now I don't even recall the gist of it.
Would someone please explain the Saddle Point and how to apply it in easy-to-understand terms? Thank you very much.
The last time I heard of a Saddle Point was when I was reading about Game Theory.
CV
Say you never had the opportunity to play live holdem. you started on paradise at the lowest levels and gradually moved up until you were beating the 10/20 game for 1 BB per hour. would the skills and experience you gained be just as relevant to live 10/20 holdem? would you be able to beat a live game (assuming the skills of the players broadly equivalent to the internet game) for the same amount? are there no major problems with crossing over? does live game play require a broader range of skills? thanks in advance
If you can beat the 10/20 Paradise games, you should have no problem with live 10/20....well, maybe Mirage on a weekday afternoon would still give you a hard time. The games are tight (and this is coming from a Vegas/CT player. I can't even imagine what a Cali player would think) and I wouldn't be surprised if a little collusion takes place. The only problem I can think of is that you may be developing some tells. When playing online, I find myself saying things like "Come on diamond" or "Don't pair the board". Not a good idea in a live game. LOL
I was talking with a poker friend today who has played for years in many of the highest limit games in L.A. He made an interesting observation. He pointed out that six or eight years ago there were more higher limit games there. He said, for instance that a few years back his regular L.A. hold'em game was 150-300. Now it's 80-160. The numbers of such games has dwindled too. Additionally, there used to be games like 400-800 much more regularly. I had an inkling of this, as I recall more such big games when I used to occasionally play low limit poker in L.A. in the late '80s.
His opinion was that the spread of poker all over the country is the cause of this decrease in higher limit games (at least in L.A.) It used to be, he observed, that a lot more players travelled to L.A. (and Vegas??) to play higher limit poker. Now, they have poker in their home areas, though it usually goes no higher than about 20-40. But that 20-40 poker is enough to take away their motivation to travel. Hence, many fewer such players to populate the higher limit games in a place like L.A. The result is tons of middle to smaller limit games all over the country, but fewer higher limit games than in the past.
Now, I know you may be saying, "Who cares? No one wants to play higher limits anyway." But I think some of you on the forum might be surprised at how small the gap is between yourselves and a lot of the winning players at a limit like 80-160. (I've been starting to test these waters more, and will probably have more to say about them over time.) If you have such limits at all accessible to you, you may find that at some point this topic will REALLY interest you.
So the questions are:
1. Do you think my friend's theory makes sense? If not, then what has caused the decline in limits? (at least in L.A.?)
2. Can anyone think of anything we as players (or even as writers) can do to foster the growth of higher limit games? I suggest in my book that poker books may do this to some extent (Some argue the opposite.), but is there anything else?
John,
Before I start, I want to say I just got home after playing some short-handed, late night, mid limit poker. You inspired me to play more of this in your book. The fact is, I had way the best of it against this lineup, yet years ago I would pass on this type of situation [end John Feeney suck up ;-) ].
I don't have much exposure to the highest limits, but my observation is that poker is stagnant in Los Angeles across the board, especially when you adjust for population growth and the booming economy. At the lower limits, the dead drop has hurt. Almost no one wins, and this drives away a certain class of player. I'm thinking of the low limit, unimaginative, retiree rock who populate the little games in places such as Las Vegas, and hope to win a few bucks to keep the wife off their backs.
At the middle limits (15/30 and 20/40), we have been hurt because of the looseness and bizarre play in the 6/12 games and 9/18 games (some would counter that our 20/40 games are that way, but they really are not on the average). Again, this is due in large part to the dead drop, which drives away most tight, "sort of solid" players. Playing 6/12 in Los Angeles does not allow the type of training you need to transfer to a slightly bigger limit. The difference in style between a Las Vegas 6/12 and a Las Vegas 20/40 is not that great. The difference in style between a Los Angeles 6/12 and a Los Angeles 20/40 is phenomenal.
I also think the lack of decorum tolerated by the card clubs does a lot of damage. When a high roller blows off a ton of money at the craps or baccarat table in Las Vegas, rarely is there unruly behavior. It is just not tolerated and the loser is made to feel OK with comps and things like that. But most Los Angeles card clubs are loath to lose a 40/80 player who pays a ton of collections every year yet day in and day out behaves like a cretin. I am convinced that these low lives drive away a vast number of potential customers with class who have sampled the clubs but find the atmosphere too vulgar. They leave in silence, knowing that complaining would probably waste their time.
Many would argue that things are much better than the old Gardena days. They are. But the behavior found in card clubs does not compare with the behavior found in Bingo games my Mom plays at Foxwoods or that found at countless crap and blackjack tables in Las Vegas. And this is a shame.
I have more thoughts but it's late, even for me. Flame away. Sorry I didn't answer your question, but it is hard to focus this late at night.
Regards,
Rick
Note: David Sklansky has written that when he is in a game with dealer abuse and other misbehavior, he believes he is in a good game (refer to pages 110 thru 114 in "Poker, Gaming & Life). I couldn't agree more given that this is tolerated in the clubs. It indicates players that are on tilt for one. But if it was not tolerated, I am convinced the steamers would learn to steam silently, and a new class of casual players would become attracted to the games.
Bro,
1. Do you think my friend's theory makes sense? If not, then what has caused the decline in limits? (at least in L.A.?)
Yes I think he is right and I think the increase in limits on the Net will affect play even more than anything has in the past unless there's an awakening at the casino's with come-on's etc. It's alot easier to turn on your computer without any travel and play in any outfit you prefer at 20-40 HE without the hassle of traffic, people, etc. You don't have to worry about tells you can jump up and down when you catch your card or go hit the punching bag in the other room if you don't. No tipping waitresses, waiting around for a game. You can eat or drink anything you have in the house or order anything you want from the phone. Horse racing is going thru what Casino's will be going thru in the future. The sol'n I don't see one otherwise I think casino's should get on line now and wake up this wonderful country we live in to GAMBLING IN AMERICA!! It's alright to play lotteries, scratch tickets, etc. but not to have on-line gambling in America DDDUUUUUhhhhh!!! Mass not having casino gambling and Conn does DDUUhhh!! Well Bro I could tell you how I really feel but I'll stop here.
2. Can anyone think of anything we as players (or even as writers) can do to foster the growth of higher limit games? I suggest in my book that poker books may do this to some extent (Some argue the opposite.), but is there anything else?
Have the casino's in America become on-line networks for American gambling. Stop throwing the money out to the islands keep it in America. By running on-line promo's to different casino's in LA, Vegas, Conn, AC, etc. promise the high limit players great games and great entertainment if they come for a weekend, week, etc. OK bro BTW your book is good!!!
paul TRC
X
John,
This is in regards to question two, more or less. When a high roller plays craps and makes a bad bet, does he get criticized? When a big limit blackjack player makes a bad play, does anyone belittle him? I don't play much yet I think not.
In poker, put a beat on the average "pro", and you are a favorite to be demeaned in some way. If I ran a club, I would have a "no criticize rule", and I would find a way to enforce it. In the short run I would lose a player or two, but over time we would get even more players who would enjoy loosing at poker as much as they enjoy loosing at slots and craps.
That's my two cents for now but be warned, I have a coffee can full of change in my closet.
Regards,
Rick
I think there are a few factors. Tournaments are not good overall for live action. The successful tourney players in a lot of cases were the producers in the live games. They have pretty much stopped playing live action. Satellites have also killed live action. Poker is prevalent throughout the country now. A.C. and Foxwoods now spread big games. You don't have to fly to L.V. or L.A. to play big. Games in general are tougher. I live in L.A. and the higher games, 30-60 and up are more difficult in general. Players are better and more informed. At higher levels you either learn or go broke unless money means nothing. Poker is a very time consuming and labor intensive passion or profession. With the bull market and the economy being very strong there are easier ways to make money without the extreme highs and lows.
Bruce
Have you also knowticed that not as many people play board games or card games these days. I wasn't a kid too long ago but I didn't have a PC with a billion complex games to keep me occupied. How about all those people who spend thousands of dollars on a Skidoo, or Playing the Market.
Where am I going with this? I believe that there are a lot of potential Poker players out there, but they are all being occupied by other forms of entertainment that weren't avalable 20 or 30 years ago.
Also, I've read that Hold'em doesn't seem to do well at High Stakes, and Cardrooms should spread games with more of a Luck factor. At least give the bad players a fighting chance. I was just reading David's artical on preserving forms of poker and I agree for now. Actually I'm going to try some of his suggestions at my home game for 7CS HiLo split and see if that helps a bit.
Later, CV
I believe a lot of it has to do with poker room management. The big clubs slowly learn that they make just as much or more in rake from the smaller games. (They don't need as many props and they don't have to comp meals, etc.) Thus it is in their interest to spread lots of smaller games where everyone can break even and the games last a long time.
The situation in Las Vegas is much different. Here, because of the incredible high cost of building casinos, the only way poker rooms can be really successful is if there is spill over action into the pit. This means that poker rooms need lots of bigger games. The day of the accomodation is now over.
Along this same front Poker Digest recently ran an article about the retirement of Don Archer. In the article he was praised for spreading and encouraging small limit games at many properties around the state. My reaction to this is that this attitude more than any other has hurt poker in Nevada, and if all poker rooms in Nevada were to adopt it, we would eventually have no poker here.
The day of the accomodation is now over. and what is Don Archer doing that would kill poker?
im sorry i dont understand
Although I cannot speak for Mason (he does a very good job himself), I believe what he is referring to in his comments is where and why does a casino profit from poker. In casinos that generally don't cost much to build and frequently have gaming positions vacant, small limit poker benefits the casino (or appears too) more than larger stakes.
In a city like Las Vegas, where a new casino costs more than a billion dollars, a casino must use all available space to its utmost potential. A case is the MGM Grand which only had a small-limit poker room and large floor space, yet found the poker room to be unsustainable. A ten table room that spreads higher limits will rake the same in a poker room as ten table room that spreads only low limits; but the players that play 20-40, 40-80, and higher are much more likely to go out to the craps table and throw a few thousand towards it. In other words, much like grocery stores will sell certain items at or below cost as loss-leaders in order to get customers to purchase high markup items, the smarter casinos do the same with poker. In a room like the Bellagio (which I only attended one week, and had the honor of introducing myself to Mr. Malmuth) does not consider the poker room in and of itself cost efficient when compared to what could that same square footage gross if converted to slots. Rather, the type of player that is willing to play 20-40 or 40-80 is much more likely to also be willing sit at the $25 blackjack table or bet $25 on the pass line than the 3-6 player. Yes, maybe only one in five 3-6 players plays craps and only one in twenty 80-160 does, but it is a sure bet that the casino will profit more when one 80-160 player does than when four 3-6 players do.
As this is my first post to this forum (I have been a lurker ever since the forum first began), I hope have not rambled on too long and have also answered your question.
Best wishes,
Mike Lynch
Considering all the idle slots at Bellagio, I think Bellagio management must be tickled pink by the use of the space for a poker room. Mistake #1: Bellagio overestimated the market for an exclusive high roller joint first of all, pricing the snack shop and whatnot out of the realm of medium rollers. Mistake #2: Bellagio brought in a bunch of Circus Circus types for managers who even sweated green action (on the tables) and scared away even the medium rollers, much less the high rollers. Steve forgot how the Mirage was quickly paid for... by taking the action gracefully.
-Abdul
I'm always amazed by how you are able to twist facts and your extreme paranoia. My understanding is that the cash flow at Bellagio is very good, and poker helps contribute to this by supplying players to other areas of the casino. Mirage Resorts problems were not caused by The Bellagio even though there was definitely some canibilization from their other strip properties.
It is true that they have many idle slot machines. But if you look at any major casino, even at peak times, this will always be the case. That's why you need a game like poker to help fill those machines. Small limit rooms don't do this.
This is an interesting thread for a number of reasons. First we have poker players arguing to keep poker in Casinos. Self serving? Of course. What about the other side? Casino Marketing must have research tools available to determine the profitability of poker both from a square footage point of view and as a feeder tool.
The O'rleans is the best example of a successful low limit poker room that I can think of. It would behove the Vegas Casino Community to fund a joint study on the feeder capability of Poker rooms and use the O'rleans as the study location.
The tropicana in AC is another example and just may be the best. When Poker first arrived in AC most if not all of the Casinos had a poker room. It wasn't long though before the Taj Mahal was "THE" place to play poker. Not the only place mind you but for all practicle purposes, if you played poker, you played at the Taj. A few years ago the Trop decided to challenge the Taj and put in a good size poker room. I believe that it is a success even though it is mostly low limit. The Trop and Orleans may be places to look at.
vince.
Vince.
I'm always amazed by how amazingly arrogant you can be at the same time as saying incredibly stupid things.
Bellagio has so many idle slots, way beyond all reason, that the poker room is certainly not in jeopardy. Bellagio has less customers than planned for, and so the poker scum and their slot-playing spouses are very welcome indeed. That was my point.
Mirage Resorts properties are generating large revenues, but the expense of building the Bellagio coupled with lower than expected revenues forced the sale to MGM. The Mississippi property is usually listed as the scapegoat, but another part of the problem is Bellagio competing with the Mirage, i.e., overestimating the high roller market.
The sweating of action really does detract from the bottom line, and Bellagio really did hire floor managers from Circus Circus properties. Treating high rollers like high rollers, and not like Circus Circus silver scum, is incredibly important. Considering how you treat the posters here, it's not surprising you fail to understand this.
-Abdul
I'm being a little picky. Abdul wrote in part:
>>Mirage Resorts properties are generating large revenues, but the expense of building the Bellagio coupled with lower than expected revenues forced the sale to MGM. <<
This isn't exactly right. MIR stock was in the toilet for a long time. MIR was selling for around $10 a share when MGM made their $17 a share offer. The institutions who held MIR stock were pretty frustrated and it's pretty hard to spurn an offer out of hand that increases your share price by 70%. A lot of pressure was brought to bare by the institutional share holders and Bobby Baldwin negotiated a price of $21 a share from MGM. Stock was down because earnings sucked and earnings sucked because of high MIR debt exposure (some might give other reasons as well). Although MIR was and is profitable, the leverage of the company was definitely a drag on the stock price. MGM made MIR an offer that they couldn't refuse by offering $21 (all cash BTW) a share and the assumption of the outstanding $2 billion plus in debt. Bottom line I believe that MIR stockholders got a great deal and that MGM paid a premium for the stock. If MIR management was "forced" to do anything they were forced to accept this great deal for their stockholders.
x
Tom, it looks like you are supporting what Abdul said, not being too picky..
JG
Mike,
You should post more!
Regards,
Rick
Mike has explained this very well. It doesn't do a major Las Vegas casino any good to have lots of slots or crap tables for example if they don't have the people to play them. Poker, especially poker at the medium and high limits can help to supply these people.
As I've said, the $60-$120 and up games in LA are sometimes unclean. They remain so, because the floormen never refuse a toke and always look the other way when a toker bends the rules. So, it should be no mystery why the games are dwindling.
The LA cardrooms also take an enormous bite out of the poker economy. It is hard for money to work its way up to the big tables from the small, because the time charges eat up all the money. Time charges have been going up, and comps have been decreasing, in recent times.
Your friend's thesis is probably another factor. I think it's more indirect, though. The spread of gambling across the nation has really helped Vegas, as everyone goes to the gambling Mecca once their appetite is wetted. Now when a rich person wants to go play big poker, Vegas is the natural choice, since the significant other may want to go there, and there are more big games in Vegas than there were a while ago. Vegas is poised to become the poker capital of the world, management willing. The big games are still a bit anemic in Vegas, but I think they will only get stronger.
The advent of online poker rooms will further spur the trend. People who never had a nearby poker room will start playing for the first time, and they will eventually visit Vegas.
-Abdul
"As I've said, the $60-$120 and up games in LA are sometimes unclean. They remain so, because the floormen never refuse a toke and always look the other way when a toker bends the rules. So, it should be no mystery why the games are dwindling."
Abdul -- I just wanted to respond to this comment. Though I don't have enough experience in these games to offer an opinion based on much first hand knowledge, I have queried that same friend about the cheating issue. Now, though you have only my word to go on, I believe this friend to be a VERY honest guy with a lot of integrity. His view is that cheating has not been a problem of any siginficance at all in the bigger L.A. hold'em games (and some mix games) he's played in over the last decade. Whether or not he would say the same thing about any more ambiguous 'bending of the rules', I don't know. I asked another friend who's played there a bit less, and a bit smaller (usually 80-160), but still a substantial amount (who is also very wary of any hint of cheating), and his reponse was identical.
If they are right, one factor that I think must work to keep the games clean is the daily presence of certain props and regulars, most of whom I think are quite honest. My guess is that people like Jack Ryan and Randy Kim (though I don' know them personally), as well as players such as my friend, are going to spot and intervene to stop anything illegal/unethical that they might see. I did in fact happen to see one of these guys intervene to stop an unethical ploy that two players were suggesting, concerning chopping the pot after the blinds had folded to a raise preflop. (I believe the players were basically innocently joking about it, but would have followed through with it had not this prop stepped in to say "You can't do that." )
Anyway, I don't say these things to try to prove you wrong. I'm not sure what creates the big differences in impressions of the extent of cheating. I just wanted to report this other point of view.
btw, I hope to respond more generally to some of the posts in the thread when I get time. I think the issue deserves a lot of thought and discussion.
"...siginficance at all in the bigger L.A. hold'em games (and some mix games) he's played in"
I should have added stud as well.
The $60-$120 game at Crystal Park was shut down specifically because it was completely infested with colluders from another LA casino, not because the game would not go. So, splash one higher limit LA game. How could your friend not know about that game? If he does know about it, then he's not being all that honest, is he?
Perhaps your friend spent most of his time in clean games. The upper limit games at the Bike are totally clean, for example, as far as I know.
-Abdul
I've shared all he told me. He never mentioned anything about Crystal Park. Don't know if he ever played there or not, or if he knew about the game you mentioned. I'll ask him the next time I see him. But, though anyone can be wrong in judging a person's character, I'm pretty confident in my belief that he's being very honest about what he knows. I know he's played a lot at Commerce, I think the Bike as well, and definitely some at HP (the latter maybe just more recently, but I'm not sure).
:Vegas is poised to become the poker capital of the :world, management willing.
If management is willing is a big if. Many in LV casino mgmt tolerate poker at best. Also, the change of ownership putting the Mirage and Bellagio under MGM's control can't be viewed as a big plus for the future of poker in LV. At least Baldwin will be CEO of Bellagio so perhaps it is safe for a while at least.
John,
I'm surprised Mason didn't mention this here. I've noticed a lot more high limit stud at the Commerce lately and very little holdem. And high limit stud dominates on the East coast. Could it be that the proportionally increased antes at the higher limits give the live ones a chance at stud?
Should high limit holdem be played with two equal big blinds or should we add a button blind? I'm all ears.
Regards,
Rick
Rick -- Yes, stud has been steadier at Commerce in recent months. But just right now, hold'em seems to be back as well. The explanation I heard was probably valid for the short term, but too simplistic for the long term: 'The live ones are back.'
I do think the point about ante/blind structure is probably a factor. David S., in one of his essays suggests smaller blinds plus antes for hold'em. Your two equal blinds sounds interesting too. I haven't thought about such structure changes, but could imagine that experimenting with them in some bigger games could be worth a try.
Maybe a problem with two equal blinds would be the same idea that Mason has talked about with the 2/3 bet small blind games like 15-30. The idea is that players make too many bad calls of raises in the small blind, and so lose faster. Maybe the idea of smaller binds plus antes would mitigate that?
I think your friend's theory makes sense. When I first started playing in 1991, I used to go to Vegas on the holidays and the crowds at the Mirage were tremendous. Then, when AC opened, this decreased dramatically.
I think lots of east coasters are playing 20-40 every weekend, averaging a loss of 1-2k/weekend, 50 weekends/year as compared to their 3-5 trips to Vegas/year where they would bring 20k and play high limit for a few days.
Just my opinion of what's been happening.
I'm told that if you go to a random, good sized cardroom somewhere like in the midwest, you will typically find maybe two players who would play at a limit like 80-160 or higher. But of course since there are no others there they don't have such limits. Those players used to travel to play those limits when they had no poker at all where they live. Now they just don't have the motivation.
The main problem with professional poker is that it is a wretched existence. Who are the "producers". You walk into any tournamnet and you are beseiged by railbisds who want to borrow money for satelites. I told a table of ten satelite players that I could turn all of you upside down and couldn't find $100 between you. Then there is the problem of having to listen to the drivle that comes out of poker players mouths. I have been much happier playing bridge and doing my gambling in the stock market.
hi,
could those who have read (or wrote) this book tell me a little more about what is in it, i have read the description and the excerpt but have a few questions.
What sort of topics are discussed in relation to poker and general gambling advice that would apply to poker?
thanks
Arrash
Click on books on the left under "Directory"
OOPs, you already did that.
Sysop,
This book is my personal favorite of the Sklansky Essay Books. Although only about 50% on poker, the other stuff is of great interest to poker players. The section on odds and probability is the clearest and most concise I have ever seen. Get it.
Regards,
Rick
I believe in this so strongly that I think it deserves it's own thread.
If you are thinking of going to foxwoods, first ask yourelf why. If your reason is:
a) To see lots of people enjoying themselves and having a good time - forget it. No one looks like they are having fun there. Everyone looks crabby and everyone complains about how they lost their shirt.
b) To feel spoiled - forget it. Foxwoods is one millionth the experience that Vegas is. The staff are intolerably rude. Everyone from the cleaning lady to the hotel clerk to the waitress to the pit boss - all of them are rude and act like the last thing in the world that they need is to help you.
c) To have fun - forget it. I am not sure if it is the intolerably rude and unprofessional behavior of the staff that sets the atmosphere, but the players are no treat to be around either.
I played holdem there and the player in seat 1 didn't put a chip on his cards. The dealer mucked his hand even though that player had raised preflop - not the dealers fault. The player looked down, confused, and said "where the fu*k are my cards?' We told him that the dealer mucked his hand because he didn't protect it. He turned beet red and started screaming at the dealer. The game could not continue and a pit boss was no where to be found. Finally the only other player said Here, I'll split the pot with you.' The screamer picked up the chips and forcibly threw them at the other player who had offered him the chips.
This is only one example of MANY similar circumstances.
d) To play holdem - forget it. It is not popular there. Mostly they just play stud. Yawwwwnnnn.
e) To enjoy fun entertainment when not playing - forget it. Foxwoods is so pitiful in comparison to Vegas. There is nothing fun about it. The buildings are large but unattractive. There are absolutely no marvels or speclacles there. The place is relatively grimy and dirty. It feels like walking around in a huge cheap office complex - tacky carpeting, etc.
Don't go there. I've said my piece.
-SmoothB-
There has to be a down side youre not telling us about.
How do you feel about Bingo at Foxwoods?
Bruce,
Maybe I'll talk my Mom into posting. She plays Bingo their about twice a month (or is it Mohegan?).
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I am launching a website exclusively for bingo. I will let you know when it is up and going. I am confident you will find it most enjoyable and profitable. I will also reveal for the very first time successful winning strategies on how to beat bingo. May the bingo balls be with you!
Bruce
and i have a set of lucky bingo numbers that are sure to win. ill give them away to the person that buys my one millionth book.
I enjoyed playing there. I did well and got to play a number of variations of stud I don't normally play.
I was, however, nearly involved in a fistfight by an incredibly obnoxious player. Had I not had a bad back ... well let me tell ya.
I noted more poor attitudes in my 2 visits there then I did in my 1 visit to vegas.
At Foxwoods I was involved in what I considered a "pretty tough for a 3-6" 3-6 hold'm. They were trying to play well but still made some obvious mistakes. It was so much different than those LA games.
One mistake a player made was as follows. I had a big draw (flush and straight) with 89s. On the flop I raised hoping to set up some potential for a steal later. At this time there were 3 players in. I was re-raised by a youngish player(YP) and 3 of us see the turn.
The YP bets and I now relinguish any hope of making a play for the pot. I must make the straight or flush on the river to win. The 3 of us see the river.
River is not my card and YP now checks. I also check and player behind me checks.
I have nothing. YP has no pair and has KQ. The other player wins with AQ.
YP actually won the pot for AQ. Had I been allowed to control the play then I would have bet bothe the turn and the river.
Enough rambling for now.
I'm curious--how do you feel about Mohegan Sun Poker by comparison to Foxwoods.
Smooth B.,
I was there was two years ago when I visited my parents in Rhode Island. I only had time for one midweek 10/20 holdem game but the crowd was nice. When they first opened, I actually saw them enforce a posted rule against one player criticizing the play of another.
It is awful to see another poker room degenerate.
Regards,
Rick
Rick-You should see the dealer abuse that goes on at the higher limits. I am referring more to Mohegan Sun than Foxwoods. They usually have just one 20/40 HE game during the week so they really kiss the asses of the regulars at this game. And the worst part of it, for me at least, is that you can't wear headphones in the casino. So I constantly have to listen to their BS.
Uston,
Sounds like another top section that I am "insufficiently obsequious" to work at.
Regards,
Rick, the "Andy Sipowitz" of floormen
Rick,
Given the comments that SmoothB has made concerning the staff at Foxwoods, you might consider a career move if you're not "sufficiently obsequious." Of course, you'll need to become supercilious* to have a chance. Actually, many of the floor people are quite good, but there's a few....
BTW, I'm not sure about the comment about the cleaning people--they're actually very nice.
* "Supercilious" from the L. "super" meaning "above" + "cilia" meaning "eyebrow." Describes one who is excessively haughty; that is, the eyebrows are always raised. I didn't get Cs in Latin for nothing.
PS. Did I ever tell you about translating Xenophon's Anabasis, so I could get a D in Greek and get out of high school? See what a classical education does for one?
John
...and what the hell would happen to make Smooth B hate the cleaning staff. I've been to Foxwoods about 100 times and have never had an "incident" with the cleaning staff.
Most of the staff is terrible (especially the floor people) and should not be in the business.
I've been to Foxwoods a few times and agree w/B's comments. Also, I agree w/others that the floor people are the worst in the country.
Here's one of my first Foxwoods experiences:
Long lists for Hold 'Em games. I've been waiting for close to an hour, they finally call me, and floorman lets his buddy with the same initials (they're from the same European "old country") steal my seat. I question the floorman and his only response is tough luck. Another player overhears and points out that the guy w/my initials has a habit of stealing seats - floorman says, "How do I know that?" I ask him to put me at the top of the list - "I can't do that". I ask him for a dinner comp as I won't get a seat for at least an hour - "Out of the question". Now its apparent to me that there's no such thing as a food comp for poker players at Foxwoods. The point system is a joke - .50/1.00 p/hr played. Then you can use what you've earned to buy incredibly overpriced food and merchandise - their catalog has the most expensive weedwacker I've ever seen.
Don't sugarcoat it! Tell us what you really think.
Seriously, those of us who play in the wilderness sometimes think our little casinos are the pits. The few times I have got on the dogsled and vertured forth to LV or worse, Calgary, the more I think our lot is not so bad.
a. everyone losing their shirts mean the good players may be winning the money
b. thats a shame
c. no dealer should muck a live hand whether its protected or not. that is incompetence and should be dealt with firmly. its very easy to know who is in the pot and who is not, that is one of the basic dealers job. although i hold on to my hand dearly as i do know many dealers are very incompetent and the casinos do little to correct it.
d.studs more fun than holdem
e. foxwoods is non smoking and in vegas you get gassed to death. but foxwoods may have paul feeney around and that could be reason to hide as he can drive anything nuts. and that guy with all those fossils may be lurking there as well. and if all that dont get you vince may come in and then its all over.
My question is raising with nut low. I have heard comments on raising with nut low . I HAVE ALWAYS been raising with at least 4 persons in the pot. Is this correct? I know that sometimes you are quartered, but in the long run are you further ahead to raise with 4 callers. I also realize that occasionaly you wind up with 1/6th. Thanks for your input. Bob B
Ray Zee,s concept #22) "On the end, you should raise with an ace-deuce in a four-handed pot but not in a three-handed pot".
Oops, post this in other games for a better response.
If there are 4 players in and you can trap them for 2 bets then it is good to raise. If you force a player out your raise might cost you money.
Yes, you get 1/6 but you also get the full half. If you have something like #3 high it might work to raise if you can get #2 high to drop out. If the nut high isn't there you take 3/4 or 2/3.
x
This is an interesting question.
First lets talk about the river when you have nut low.
If there are 4 people in the pot, it is always correct to make the first bet with nut low. If you have the only nut low, great. If you get quartered, no problem as long as all 4 pay off. It is relatively uncommon to split low 3 ways unless the board has, say 2345 out there. Then you can be sure there are more than one wheels out there.
Now, there are 4 or more in and the first player bets, do NOT raise. You don't want to knock out players 3 and 4 who might call one bet with losing hands but not 2 bets.
If the first player bets, and the next two call, and are last, go ahead and raise. If the first guy doesn't pop it again, the middle 2 will grumble and call your bet. If player one DOES pop it they might call 2 bets or might fold but who cares.
Now, play on the turn can be really cool in this case.
If you are against a player who you KNOW will bet his nut low, and you have nut low, then if you have a reasonable high to go with it, a raise might actually knock out a better non nut high! I have used this play many times but it only works if you know the players. I have made this play and suffered a lot of grumbling on the end when I split the nut low and took all of the high with a pair of kings.
-SmoothB-
Post deleted at author's request.
Suppose a three way 10-20 pot contains 200 dollars before the last bet. The guy on your right bets. You have the nut low and a mediocre high. A call guarantees an overcall. A raise risks losing money because you might be quartered and also because you might knock out a hand behind you. A raise however may result in your winning 3/4. If your raise turns your win to 3/4, It means that your profit from this point is, not the $110 if you just call (half of 260 minus 20), but rather $170 (3/4 of 280 minus 40). A raise could thus gain you $60. There are two downsides to a raise. One is the extra $10 you get by eliciting an overcall. But that is a dubious point because you may get overcalled even if you raise, which means that not raising COST you ten dollars. As for getting quartered, that extra $20 you put in with a raise will have $15 of it returned to you if you are quartered. Your risk is a tad more than $5 (because of occassional reraises). In other words a raise can make you $60 but for the most part can only cost you $5.
Bottom line: You should raise maybe half the time on the river because you want people to fold because you want to win 3/4 of the pot, not 1/4. Getting quartered is a miniscule concern, trying to win 3/4 of the pot should be your real concern.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger, David,
Why only raise 1/2 the time with nut low/4 players.
Is it to stop players from getting too good of a read allowing your raises to sometimes knock out players with better high hands?
I had basically promoted the same thing, in many fewer words, I might add 8-), but did not suggest the 1/2 rule.
Why not raise, as per Ray Z's advice, every time in this situation.
I didn't mean that you raise randomly half the time. I meant that almost half the time you will have a high hand that is good enough to take a shot at 3/4 of the pot. You will also sometimes raise with no high. You do that if there is a pretty good chance that you will still get overcalled. Why did you bring Badger into this discussion.?
Thanks for the clarification.
Badger who?
Post deleted at author's request.
I like DS's response better but I'll keep your advice in mind. BTW, you should introduce yourself to DS, if he's to continue elucidating your posts.
I have my own opinion on this as follows:
There is no need to raise randomly half the time. Almost half the time you will have a high hand that is good enough to take a shot at 3/4 of the pot. You will also sometimes raise with no high. You do that even if there is a pretty good chance that you will still get overcalled.
I hope this has clarified things for you two.
like to cut and paste a lot. I posted the previous with the wrong idea that DS was not knowing Badger. He was just playing at not knowing that Badger had posted.
I hate it when I stop a good joke thread.
This was a joke, right? No really, you can tell me. Aw, come-on tell me please. AH, I don't really care anyway. I taking my chips and going home.
Tournament Poker is much better than playing ring games. My biggest complaint about ring games is waiting to get a seat. There are plenty of times I left the Casino after an hour. Who wants to wait? But, tournaments are a different animal altogether. Most start on time. When I go on a trip out of town, I know exactly how much money I need to pay for entry fees. If I get stuck in a ring game and lose a significant amount of money, I get depressed, but with tournaments I know exactly how much I am going to lose. The best thing of all is when you win one.
Here's my list of the benefits of tournament poker:
Big prize if you win.
Exciting. Players can not wait for the nuts, they have to play.
Most start on time. Not much waiting.
Usually meet a lot of interesting people.
The players usually have a better attitude.
You know exactly how much you will lose.
Any comments welcome.
A lot of people in the throroughly boring debate about the relative merits of tournaments and ring games sling the term "poker economy" endlessly; the poker economy is apparently the amount of poker chips in circulation at any one time (actually, Feeney seems to augment this defination by saying that the poker economy is the amount of chips that WILL be in circulation). It is a fine difference, but an important one. For example, Feeney argues that the poker economy is injured when a tournament player wins money because the player is less likely to reintroduce this money into the economy at a later time. Some people say that expectation affects the current circulation, but blah blah blah it doesn't matter.
Whatever the fine points of the vernacular, the parallels between the poker economy and real monetary theory are too interesting to miss. Ignoring the obvious irony of a depressive agent being based upon freely inflated "play" tournament money, what is to be done to make John happy and remedy this depression? It seems that the problem arises out of John's well expressed insight that poker tournaments provide something to average patrons that ring games do not (also see mah's wednesday night post in gen. theory). So, what is the solution? How to recapitalize the system? I think the solution is jackpots.
Jackpots are an understandable nuisance. I am not interested in discussing their cost because it quickly becomes insignificant in the face of our hypothetical tournament inspired depression (clearly, this is not the case now and will probably never be....but let's pretend). The benefits of such a solution are obvious (and are probably the reason that such jackpots are instituted now...People like to play because they want big bucks). But, most serious poker players dislike them. Well, I dislike them too, but they are the lesser of two evils because they entice life-changing- wannabees into the ring games. Of course the jackpot money isn't coming back into the system. But while the jackpot is being built, and even the hand that is won on will be EV based in a way that no tournament is. Feeney appears to think that he would not be a pro poker player if all poker was tournaments. But he probably would play in a jackpotted game (even though he would grumble).
that's it. i'm finished.
a. (The last sentence of this post has been truncated.)
I'm furious.
What's a guy to do? I try to do a little serious thinking and the censors snip out the only funny line in my post. Were you worrying that I was slandering John? Sheesh, if that is the case you aren't a communist, you're just an idiot.
Next time cut the whole thing, or not at all.
a.
Fascists censor as much as communists
poker forums
a.
Alex -- I didn't care about the line, but of course there are some who would like to think that my ability to play 60 hour poker sessions comes from something other than just B-complex. Also, it does tell us that a similar line about someone that had no comic history and that was in fact destructively intended might be caught and dealt with. I wouldn't have been too surprised though to see a post censored simply for suggesting jackpots... ;) However, I actually think there could be something to the idea of jackpots that escalate in size as you go up the limits. Problem is that while they might entice some players to play higher for a while, they might get busted that way as well. What is called for is some sort of management based decisions that really address the problem at it's cause. (Not that it's clear yet what the primary causes are...)
in fact, you'd probably like several.
scott
but I see you sniffed out the text here...
with alex.
i called to compliment him on his clever ploy. i thought he censored his own post so that he would not have to think of a closing joke. also, so that the reader's imagination would create one that far suprasses any drivel he can actually write.
and that way he could be play furious. as you can see, that would have been very clever.
imagine my shock when i learned that this was not the case.
regular readers of the forum may remember alex's preliminary work on john's biography. if not, i suggest you look through the other topics archives for all the research alex has done on john.
alex did great work exposing john's heavy use of cociane, which he learned from his pet donkey named cokie.
i understand that some people may not want to hear about john's donkey, but we can't walk on eggshells just to satisfy a few overly sensitive fools.
john has no qualms about making his habits public and i, for one, applaud that.
i fully support alex in his attempts to show the world the real john feeney, in all his glory, donkey and all.
thank you for your time.
scott
the same thing about the post. The censor should identify that they are the censor.
I know you could still make it look like the censor but it might not be as funny.
Now about the donkey. I myself, am from Scottish bloodlines so I have a natural affection for sheep.
But donkeys. That might be kind of putting the cart before the Ox; or in this case the Donkey behind the feeney.
Another way to look at it might be
[CENSOR; the rest of this post has been trucated due to a complete lack of taste]
I would like to hear some opinions about these two books and what they are about. Are they worth buying, spending time reading them?
No Fold'em Hold'em by D. R. Sherer
and
The Psychology of Poker P$ymplified by David R. Whalen
here I would like to hear the difference between this book and Two Plus Two's
The Psychology of Poker
thanks
It depends upon your skill level. If you are a beginner, I think that this book will cost you a lot of money if you follow its advice (it did for me). If your are a more advanced player, I doubt that you will get much out of it. See Mason's review in Gambling Theory and other topics. I do think there is some useful information in his tournament book.
"If you ever want to ruin your game, I'll let you borrow it." A friend of mine said that to me. He was referring to the Sherer book. I had never heard him completely rip apart a poker book before and haven't heard him rip apart a poker book since.
The 2+2 book is at least 10 times better than Whalen's. Sherer's book is interesting, although he's wrong or off on a few big things (how far behind the "little cards" are from the big ones, playing Kxs in a jamming game, the relative value of suited vs. unsuited cards, your image, etc.). But I think his book is more misread than wrong.
I played in a 3-6 hold em game last night in which there were always many callers and a raise got no respect. The mentality was basicly "I have a calling hand and I'm gonna see the flop no matter what". I felt that the best stradegy in this game was to never raise unless you have a high pair that has a good chance of winning even with many opponents. My rationale was that with a lot of opponents seeing the flop, you would have to hit it to win. This seemed to work, but I'm not sure if it was correct. I'm sure this has probably been discussed on the forum before so I apologize for the repetitiveness.
Any responses are appreciated. Thanks.
question one to ask yourself...can this hand consider being raised in front and behind..
question two (should you see flop)...does the flop favor my hand or might I be drawing or holding second best....
most but not all low limit games are the mentality of building a pot...
forget any strategies except that of solid grind your ass play...
jg
Also raise with other hands that like alot of opponents. AKs up front for sure and I'd probably also raise with AQs (I might take some flack on AQs, I'm not really sure it's correct).
With lots of callers in front of you (you need to be sure you have enough callers and it's better to have position) you could also raise with small and medium pairs (mostly looking to flop a set) and maybe some other drawing hands like Axs and medium suited connectors (JTs and T9s maybe?); not always, but sometimes, especially if you have a tighter player sitting to your left and you can buy the button once in a while.
Or that's what I'd do. But what do I know? :-)
David
In this type of game, you should raise with hands in which you are getting implied odds from many callers and your raise hurts the odds of players limping with weak hands. You should also raise in situations where you are simply very likely to have by far the best hand BTF.
Raise with all big pairs in any position. Reraise if possible. Don't try for fancy plays like limp-reraises since your opponents are passive and weak and they will probably call your raise but won't raise themselves.
Raise with medium and sometimes small pairs when you are in late position and there are many limpers. When there are more than 7 players in you can raise any pair for value just on the basis that you might flop a set. Of course you don't have to raise every single time, but learn how to recognize the situations where this would be correct and take advantage of it.
Raise every time with hands like AKs, AQs, and almost always with KQs and AJs.
Although there has been some debate about it, you should probably raise almost every time with AKo in any position no matter how many players are in, mostly because your hand will be so much better than the rest of the field on average. The same thing is usually true for AQo. (I might get a little flack for this one..., see recent posts on the holdem forum regarding raising with AQo after many limpers!).
You can also occasionally raise for value with suited connectors. Keep in mind I did say "occasionally". I made a play one time where I was on the button with T9s and every single player before me limped into the pot with no one folding. I raised for value and hit the flop with an open-ended straight flush draw. When I hit the flush on the river, I won a huge pot. Keep in mind I chose this particular situation to raise since there were so many players in the pot. Most of the time I would limp, especially in a somewhat tighter game. I did in fact get lucky on this particular hand, but that is the whole point of raising suited connectors for value. You are getting implied odds from many limpers.
Because your opponents are going to be making so many mistakes BTF, your preflop raises should be routinely punishing them for doing so. If you were to almost never raise in these games you are giving up a lot of EV. These games also provide some of the rare opportunities where it is correct to raise for value with small pairs and suited connectors. Don't get carried away, but don't give up your preflop advantage by playing weakly and passively. When I play in loose passive low limit games I am usually the most frequent pre-flop raiser.
Dave in Cali
Since there is so much Omaha talk going on now, can someone suggest what kind of starting hand would be good to raise with in Omaha high/low 8 qual., from an early position. Assume the game is loose with 5 or 6 players coming in on average.
I assume hands to raise with in a late position are simply the same hands that are generally defined as good for H/L Omaha. But if you can thin your opponents I think the ideal hand will shift - perhaps with more emphasis on high draws and big starting pairs.
An example might be: AKAK unsuited. You might not play this late (?) since there's no low draw, but like it against only two opponents.
Post deleted at author's request.
gee badger with 5 or 6 people seeing the flop, those are raising hands from early position? i learn something new everyday on this forum. i personally wont do it as i know id get slaughtered in the game playing like that.
You must mean A2KK, A2QQ, A23K etc.... I something wrong with your keyboard?
I get the impression he likes to use a lot of deception on later streets, so he can steal lots of pots with the right flop, and ambush the unwary with good highs on other flops.
Of course, he may simply be insane...
Post deleted at author's request.
I think one reason to raise with these hands is to knock out weak A2 hands along with weaker A3 and 23 hands. (Maybe the A2 won't ever fold. The weakest hands I can think of are A222 and A289)
You have a shot a high and have increased(maybe) your chances at low. You gained some deception for later hands.
I also may be way off base here. I am not able to play much Omaha which is why I play it over holdem when I am lucky enough to visit Vegas or New England. I enjoy the game and would like to become good at it.
You did not mention suited/unsuited?
Is it really necessary to have the low draw? I had said 5 or 6 see the flop but meant to imply that it can be thinned with an early position raise. Since low does not always come and the other opponents may not have lows either . .
Another thing I'm trying to get fix on: With few opponents, which is better between A45K and A45A ?
Thanks
I think Badger just might raise with AAKQ double suited aces. Maybe not. I'm sure it depends...
- Andrew
(In hold'em or omaha8) what is the expected value of a post behind the button in a full 10-handed game? Include the value of the hands up to (but not including) the big blind. For the sake of clarity, assume the opponents are equally skilled as you. I leave their tightness as a variable.
-AJ
To eliminate any misunderstandings, would I be correct to say that another way to put your question is: How much is your total expected profit (if any) for the for the seven hands you chose not to sit out on??
I don't want to know how much you give up if you leave when you're one off the button (and had already paid your blinds.) I want to know how much you gain, if anything, as a new player by posting after the button passes you instead of waiting for the big blind. The amount that you lose on the post hand itself is a critical component.
-Abdul
"For the sake of clarity, assume the opponents are equally skilled as you."
In this situation my personal EV would be zero since I won't play in a game against equally skilled opponents.
More to the point, I think this will be a difficult one to quantify. In nine handed games I'll always post late when I can. In a six handed game I'll always take the blind straight up. My guess is that the break even point is perhaps a seven handed game. My second guess is that your lifetime EV from this decision is small either way. Anything you can do to give the illusion of action (anti-tightwad image) would outweigh any modest gain from sitting at the table waiting for your first hand.
-Fred-
Interesting question. Let's pick some real numbers to make it easier. Say you're in a $30-60 game and your EV is 1.5BB/hr or $90/hr. 30 hands per hour means your EV is $3/hand on average. Now clearly your average EV is going to be lower than $3 for the early position hands and higher when you get to act later. I don't know what these are statistically for this type of tough game--maybe someone else knows it. It's probably pretty extreme. Let's say it is 0 for the early positions, $3for middle positions, and $6 for the late positions.
If you post, for the 7 additional hands you play it looks like they would be about average positionally, so say you make $21 EV on these 7 hands. So the question is what is your EV when you post $30 one seat to the right of the button, and specifically in my example, is it worse than ($21)? Another way to say this is the following: say you have to post your $21 profit as dead money. Would you post another $9 to make the whole $30 live and playable?
The answer lies in the average probability distribution for these situations. I haven't keep exact statistics on how I do in this precise situation over time. My best estimate is approximately the following:
40% lose $30 (fold to raiser or call then out later) 20% lose $60 (call raise, then out later) 10% win $45 (I raise to $60 and win the blinds) 10% win $120 (I raise, then win after flop) 5% win $240 (win bigger pot) 5% lose $180 (lose bigger pot)
The net EV of this range of outcomes is (33) + 30.5 = ($2.50). Obviously I may be off quite a bit and this is going to vary from game to game but my math is that you can probabaly do a lot better than ($21).
Another way to analyze this is to say you play a simpler strategy of automatically folding your worst 70% starting hands, and only play the best 30%. On the 70% you fold, your ev is 70% x ($30) = ($21). So the question is, can you make a net profit from a late position post restricting your play to the best 30% of hands? I think the answer is a clear yes.
When a new player posts behind the button, he/she gets to play 8 hands for the bargain price of 1 blind bet (compared to the usual price 1.5 blind bets for 10 hands). If blind bets were simply viewed as part of the cost of play, this works out to a savings of 0.2 small bets (assuming the poster must post one small bet, and the game has a small blind of 1/2 a small bet). However, the actual savings is significantly greater because a late position post is less "costly" than a big blind by virtue of superior position. Furthermore, the two hands that the poster "misses" are in the worst positions. The total magnitude of the posting EV depends on the poster's ability to capitalize on positional advantage and the degree to which game conditions allow him to do so (assuming a full game of equally matched players).
BTW, the greater a player's overall edge over his opponents, the smaller his EV from posting would tend to be.
The dead button collection in some low-limit games increases the EV of posting behind the button.
I just realized the poster gets to play 7 hands for the "price" of one blind bet, not 8 hands. Also, the three "missed" hands include two in early position and one on the button. So the EV of posting isn't quite as great as I implied.
Thanks for the responses.
I estimate that you're going to lose about 40% of your post in terms of expected value. Adding up estimated values of the hands up to the big blind, I come up with a net worth of 0.1 to 0.2 small bets - closer to the latter in a very tight/passive game. That is, for $10-$20, posting would be worth $1 or $2, even if you had no playing edge over your opponents.
However, my estimate could easily be pretty far off, so that's why I asked for your opinions.
Sometimes I'm in games where players are constantly getting dealt in for free behind the button (e.g., California $40-$80 main game), and it's pretty easy to see that that is quite costly. Sometimes I'm in games where there is a steady stream of new players posting behind the button, and I was just wondering if I should be concerned about EV leakage there. It looks like maybe it's not a big deal, but I'm still not sure.
-Abdul
I don't think it's a big deal either way. In terms of ev, it's usually more a question of "dead time" than "dead money". That is, I'll usually take the option which gets me into the game faster.
While I feel confident that this is so for full talbe blind games, I'm not sure that this is true for shorter and shorter games. I'll often post behind the button in a 9 player game, but never in an 8 player game.
Any idea much ev goes down changes as the game size shrinks?
- Andrew
Andrew,
If I read Abdul correctly, he wasn't so much concerned about whether it was worth his posting to enter a game. His main concern appeared to be how much it benefitted his opponents who entered his game. If they benefit, the other players (including Abdul, if we assume everyone is equally skilled) are harmed. If the benefits are great and the game turnover is frequent, it might be an issue to be concerned about (and perhaps bring to the attention of cardroom management).
Then I'm confused.
He says they are being dealt in for free. Then he says they are posting behind the button.
- Andrew
In California, they are being dealt in for free (or at least that used to be the case at Hollywood Park.) I brought that up, because that sure as hell costs a lot of money when there is a steady stream of new players. I won't generally play in such a game, except to get my one free round.
In Nevada, they are posting behind the button, except when they are players from a broken game. In contrast to the free hands, I doubt if this posting costs enough to get upset over it, but I was just wondering.
-Abdul
Where I play mid-limits in LA, the poster (behind the button) must post one small bet for the right to play the 6 hands up to his BB; if the game has a small blind which is 1/2 of a small bet, this is the same "cost" per hand as someone who enters on his BB. In this case, the only EV gained stems from the positional advantage of the hands (especially the first hand in which he must make a blind bet). This gained EV is probably greatest in tight games, where the poster may have an opportunity to steal the blinds.
In low-limit, dead button collection games in which new players are allowed to come in for free behind the button, the EV gain can exceed one big bet! (e.g., a new player in a typical $1-$2 game can avoid the $1 blind and the $2 collection by coming in behind the button)
Pg 23.InsideThe Poker Mind
Mr Ph.D.
Playing against mediocre players who will always defend their blinds. You suggest that limping in with some of your weaker hands. A foot note suggest that hands like Q 5s or T 8s (hands that will usually not flop anything, but ought to make decent money against poor players when they do)
If I don't play these weak hands, which you say "will not usually flop a hand", what am I'm giving up in expected profit against these types of opponents?
BTW, Your book is extraordinary!!!
Obviously, I cannot answer for John but I think hands like Q5s or T8s even from the button after everyone has folded should be simply mucked. The suited value adds very little in a shorthanded situation like this plus you run the risk of one of the blinds deciding to raise with any kind of half-decent holding like a small or medium pair or just two big cards. Now you have to pay 2 bets to take a flop with your piece of cheese. In general, I think you should either fold or raise from the button when everyone has folded to you. Just limping doesn't make sense to me.
Well, with the proviso that how much it will cost you in a given *instance* will vary a lot depending on your skill versus your opponents' and other factors, a crude (I mean VERY rough) estimate of the average cost per hand might look something like the following:
Taking one of these weakish hands, looking just at the case where the small blind has folded, assume you win the pot 60% of the time (largely as a result of your positional and skill advantages and a presumed passive opponent… though 60% may actually be a bit high… it's just a simple round number to try) and that you average winning 2.5 small bets when you win, and losing 2 when you lose.
EV = (0.6 * 2.5) - (0.4*2) = 0.7
So it's worth 0.7 small bet to you per instance.
Again, that's a very rough estimate, maybe a little high, but I'm not sure. (you might want to try 0.56 instead of 0.60…)
But how many of these instances come up? In lots of games, not many. So the *hourly* cost of not playing them is going to be very, very small.
But let me put it to you another way. These mediocre players are just the types of players you want to play hands against aren't they? Though the situation won't come up that often, why pass up a profitable opportunity to play against a nice, easy opponent?
BTW, these recommended limps are really for just a minority of the time, those times you have a barely playable hand, and mediocre, tenacious defenders in the blinds. And it doesn't mean you should never raise in these spots. It depends on such things as your image, how likely the small blind is to defend as well, and so on. When it's borderline, I'd say just raise.
To respond to Jim's comment about the hands, Q5s and T8s: While I might reserve the former for weaker opponents, I would virtually never fold the latter if everyone folded to me on the button. In the games I play in I'd raise with it the great majority of the time, but would sometimes limp under the very specific conditions outlined in that part of the essay. Hey, T8s is not that bad in this spot!
John,
I'm assuming you are looking at opponents who often defend against raises but play weakly after the flop. Do you think you should provide cover for your calls here by sometimes calling with your big pairs (AA and KK). Let's assume opponents who only sort of know you as opposed to players that know you well.
Regards,
Rick
I would never just call here. I would raise or fold as would many others. If I were to call sometimes then these hands AA, and KK would be the hands I would do it with.
I would have to then call with some other hands to mask this fact.
So my answer is Yes but with a reversal of the hands.
AA and KK are one of the times I show my hand. I raise and SB/BB fold. I show to indicate that I raise with good cards. I also verbally advertise when I do fold in this spot that I need at least AQ to raise. This let's me pick up a few blinds with a little more ease. (I don't overdo the verbal thing)
A passive opponent in my terminology is one who seldom bets or raises. These people are usually weak players who call frequently. Such a person wins a lot of pots (because they hardly ever get out)...and loses a lot of money.
I have a theory on these kinds of hands, and that is this: don't play them against players who make a habit out of raising the flop with two overcards. I can't be sure, but it's my suspicion that a good deal of the profit derived from these hands comes from stealing on the flop when neither opponent flops anything. If you can't steal (or at least have your opponent define his hand by your action on the flop) then they probably aren't worth much. So, if a player will raise with an AJ on a 9 high flop, or slowplay A's, then it might be better to muck and wait for something better. But, as I said, this is just a theory.
I have always played and taught that being on the button when nobody had opened is a raise-or-fold situation. I do not really know anyone who plays professionally that follows a different philosophy.
Bob,
This "raise or fold" first in on the button is so ingrained that it has become gospel to all top players. But is it possible that there is a class of opponent combined with a class of hand where calling is the better play?
For an opponent, what about someone who almost always defends their blinds but plays very poorly post flop in that he is easy to read, bets too little, calls too much, and so on. In addition, he may play with a little bit of suspicion and/or fear "because you only limped".
As for class of hand (assuming the opponent above), what about hands that do not even have average high card strength, but enough value so that throwing away the hand would be sacrificing expectation? I would think 22, J8 suited, and similar hands would fit.
The situation John Feeney describes doesn't come up often but it does come up. And maybe this is a new tactic that will make a top pro even better. But few dare to try it because they sense they will look "weak" in front of their peers.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. This is not entirely new. S&M discuss this concept in the new edition of HPFAP (page 197).
Rick, I would think players who call too often would be an undesirable group of players to steal against. Isn't the idea of stealing to win the blind money right away and are you not less likely to do this if your opponent calls a lot? Just a thought.
Jim,
For the first time, I'm a little confused by the wording of your post.
My point is this. If the big blind always defends but plays poorly post flop then you need some high card strength to attack with a raise. Against this player hands like 67 suited must win post flop - they must make the best hand or steal when he misses the flop. Yet they are too good to throw away against someone who you can outplay after the flop.
I think John is saying keep the pot small and let him make his mistakes post flop since he will be correct in calling (with almost any hand) before the flop against any steal raise that does not have high card strength.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, you were right to be confused about my post because I misunderstood what you stated. I now see that you are not talking about raising with these hands just limping in with them so you are not trying to steal the blinds. John's post below clarifies the situation.
I can picture a player in the blind where your limping on the button would be a reasonable play. He is a cinch to call a raise, will not raise a limper, and does not fold on the flop either. Raising if you play seems correct to me against any player who does not fully fit this profile.
The key isn't "does not fold on the flop." It is more "does not bet on the flop if he didn't flop anything."
For instance, if my memory is correct, in HPFAP-21 we suggest limping on the button against this type of player when they are in the blinds with a hand like A2 offsuit. Now if the players ahead of you check on the flop, you should go ahead and bet.
"I would think players who call too often would be an undesirable group of players to steal against."
Right, so since you can't steal by raising, you limp when you don't have a hand with which you can raise for value, but which is playable.
If you were playing two or three handed against weak opposition, wouldn't you want to play T8s and even some weaker hands? I would. But I wouldn't always come in for a raise.
There was an interesting thread maybe three months ago on heads-up play where David pointed out the logic in sometimes limping on the button in that situation. It's related to this and might be worth a look.
"If you were playing two or three handed against weak opposition, wouldn't you want to play T8s and even some weaker hands? I would. But I wouldn't always come in for a raise. "
We were talking about a steal opportunity correct?
If I could not steal the blinds then I don't know if I would like to play, even in position. If I am raised then I don't like my hand even against someone I can outplay. Often the kind of player who always defends will raise too often and I won't be able to put him on a hand.
I'm going to have to think about this a while.
What's the name of your book again?
This idea is really nothing new. You can find in in HPFAP-21 (pp. 39, 197), in Caro's writings, on Sklansky's video, etc. Rick has clarified it very well.
As I said, it's a relatively rare play, especially so as you move up the limits, because you find fewer and fewer of the kinds of opponents against whom it makes sense. I also think it just gets overlooked because everyone gets in the habit of raising rather refelxively. Rick's point about not wanting to "look" weak is a big reason too. (Also, Bruce's point about arousing supspicions of a big hand sometimes makes this limp more effective than it should be. You limp with, say, 33, the flop comes AK7, and they check and fold to your "suspicious" hand.) Anyway, I find very few opportunities to limp on the button when everyone has folded to me, but I suspecect that if I played in a small limit game for a few days I'd find some.
Abdul does suggest that sometimes you should just call on the button when your hand is worth more than the blinds, ie when you have AA or KK and everyone folds to you on the button.
there's always got to be at least ONE exception to every rule of poker!
in the case of overly weak loose passive calling stations I would raise with AK, AQ, or big pairs and make it look like a steal, but might consider limping with hands like JTs or 89s, or perhaps QT. I believe there is something to be said for that strategy, let's see what else the debates bring up. Admittedly the instances where this strategy could be applied are going to be few and far between, so it is mostly academic debate.
dave in cali
Limping on the button is a weak play. Against skillful players they will smell a trap plus your letting them see the flop cheaply Against weak players you might as well raise, they don't know any better. Perhaps you can justify for deception purposes limping in with AA or KK, but that situation comes up so rarely the play loses its value.
I know an idiot that folds pocket Queens when he gets raised....
I can't believe all this debate. The play in question is simply a special case of the general principle that when your opponents are loose and passive on all streets, you raise with less hands when no one else is in yet but call with more, (or at the very least call with some of the hands you would have previously raised with.) Why is this not obvious?
Because unless you are in a low limit game with novices or up against a pair of LOLs in the blinds, players like this hardly ever exist.
There have been descriptions of the ideal opponent to make this play against, and I may have made a mistake in applying the word "rare" to the play. Yes, it's something to do a minority of the time, and yes passive, predictable opps would be best for it, but I don't think the circumstances for it are really that rare in limits at least up to 20-40. I don't know for sure that others would agree with me, but I think the main requirements are just opps who will almost always call (defend) in the blinds, and a hand that's not very good, but good enough that you think you should play it. So, (a) you can't steal, and (b) you can't really raise for "value" either (depending on how you define raising for value, which I know from past threads could start a whole other debate that we don't need distracting us). It does turn out that players who almost always defend will quite often be mediocre players in other ways. You do of course factor in as well how likely the opp is to bet into you without a hand on the flop, how likely he is to fold on the flop if you take the initiative with a raise, etc. If you've played with the opps before, you'll have a sense of the most profitable way to play the situation.
Though I'm out of touch with Vegas games, I think there would be plenty of tourists who would defend their blinds tenaciously enough to make this play. In CA, there are certainly plenty of these tenacious defenders in limits through 20-40.
Just yesterday I was at Commerce, talking with an esteemed poster from this forum, and I pointed to the 80-160 game and said, "There you might never just limp, because they're (the lineup in the game) all capable of folding their blinds. But there are certainly lots of games where that's not the case."
In my view, if you just fold a hand like T8s on the button when everyone has folded to you, and you know you can't steal, well, you're just throwing away a perfectly decent hand.
But it's all fairly minor preflop stuff. Don't forget the reason I included it in the essay was because I was listing some "bad plays good players make". In my view, one of those is to *always* raise with a playable hand when everyone has folded to them on the button.
(n/t)
It's been generally agreed that Om/8 is one of the easier games to play at an expert level. There are just not as many things to think about. Although it is probably my best game, short and tight.
You can almost track the evolution of an Om8 player by how he plays A2.
The rank beginner: Raising and reraising without thought because he has nut low.
The low limit rock: Has learned to never raise with nut low.
The low limit winner: Generally, will never raise unless there are four or more players.
Good player: Promo raises on the river with nut low aiming for 3/4
Great player: Isolated promo raises on earlier streets with nothing but draws and 2nd best or worse type high hands. This includes promos of runner runner lows, mediocre flush draws, etc.
Unfortunately in low limit loose Om8 games, opportunities of promo raises rarely exist.
Om8 is still a slow game....
From a recovering omaholic....
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
albert,
om/8 certainly is one of the easier games to play at a winning level against loose players, it certainly is not one of the easiest games to play at an expert level against expert players. yes it still is a slow game unless shorthanded against aggressive players
On-line poker makes this game much faster. The computer splits the pot exactly perfect every time in less than a second.
CV
I feel these are the opinions of a particular OM8 player. I can relate to most of the evolutionary feelings stated therein; but I don't feel they are necessarily the cardinal features defining the game.... Myself I think OM8 is a fun game to play. I like to play the low limit games (2-4, 3-6, 4-8) mainly because (1) the competition is weaker, and (2)these games seem to last longer before the game breaks up.
As far as it being a relativly easy game, I can relate to that. In Gardena CA from 1959 to 1984, I played Draw, LoBall, Draw HiLo, Declare, and JacksBack(back to Loball if nobody opens for High.) Many very poor players who played these draw games in Gardena CA seemed to become better players when Omaha/8 introduced to California.
Some things that bother me in the low limit OM8 games are: (1) Excessive talk about the hands in play. For example, when there is a pair on board and also a possible straight flush -- usually some player will mention this fact while the action is still incomplete. (it would be nice if players could hold back all comments until after the action). I don't think this will ever happen in low limit OM8 games.
(2) During a hand, about 20% of the active OM8 players show their hands to inactive adjacent players; or inactive adjacent players expect to see the active players hands during the action. Sometimes this has an effect on the outcome. I have hurt players feelings because I will not show my hand to them during the action.
(3) Dealer abuse by players seems to be more widespread in OM8 than other flop games. But although I don't like dealer abuse -- the abusive players are usually weak players and I don't mind that....
Actually, observe the player with AK23 double-suited in hearts and diamonds, the board comes 7 8 10 with the nut flush draw, the turn and river are black Ace, black deuce, and a LOL from Peoria takes the whole pot with Q956.
How does our hero react?
Beginner: Has to be explained to twice why he won no part of the pot. Low-limit rock: Stunned disbelief. Low-limit good player: Soft sobbing, barely audible. Great player: Congratulates opponent on "nice hand". Habitual player: Checked every round, expected to be double-counterfeited. Showed no emotion when the verdict was read. Ex-player: This hand is replayed in his nightmares every few days. He now plays pinochle for matches with squirrels in the city park.
I have recently read HPFAP and it makes a few comments about players who almost only bet top pair or better, almost only stick around when they catch a piece of the flop, and almost never semi-bluff as being classified as weak/tight. And the authors also frequently talk about weak/tight players as players that are good to play against.
Well... I have read both Ken Warren's book and Lee Jones book on low limit holdem and this is the strategy that both of these authors recommend. They refer to it as a tight/agressive strategy (I failed to mention that they raise with top pair strong kicker, and yadda yadda...)
What I am wondering is: Are the strategies of Ken Warren and Lee Jones considered weak/tight? And if so, are these strategies correct for low limit games or should you semi-bluffing and using deception in your play at low limit?
How would David Sklansky, Mason Malmuth, Badger, Abdul Jalib, Jim Brier, or any of the many other expert players who post here play in these low limit games?
I have my own opinion on this topic but I wanted to see what some of you experts thought.
They are most definitely not advocating weak/tight play, although weak/tight play is often sufficient to give you an edge is no fold'em hold 'em.
I haven't read the book by Ken Warren but if it's at all like Lee Jones' book, there is no way you could mistake the starting hands selection as "tight". At one point in his book Lee Jones goes so far to say you can profit from playing 5-7s on the button. I can't say I agree with that but I don't think there's anyone who knows how to play hold'em who would call that "tight". Ever. In any context imaginable. From now until the end of time.
I am very surprised to see Lee Jones' strategy called weak/tight. I have always believed he advocates too loose of a play style. His starting hand requirements are pretty loose.
In addition, although other parts of the low-limit strategies sound like weak/tight play, it's actually low-limit play. In other words, the action or tactic may be the same as a weak/tight action or tactic but the reason is very different. For instance, in low-limit no fold'em holdem don't ever bluff. Let me repeat that. DON'T EVER BLUFF. Weak/tight players also never bluff but for a different reason. In low-limit, you will ALWAYS get called on the river no matter what by at least one person, even if they are only holding bottom pair. It will happen guaranteed. A weak/tight player simply doesn't bluff because it's their own personal strategy, not as an adjustment to the play style of the game they are in.
natedogg
In low-limit, you will ALWAYS get called on the river no matter what by at least one person, even if they are only holding bottom pair. It will happen guaranteed.
That's simply not true. The next time you are sitting in a low-limit game, count the number of times in a night that a bet on the river wins the pot uncontested. You'll be surprised.
Bluffs are much less likely to work at low limit, but on the other hand the pots are usually much bigger. And since the players start with weak hands, they often finish with weak hands.
There are some specific strategies to look for when thinking about a bluff in low limit. First, check to make sure that the player who is last to act is not one of the 'must call to keep him honest' types. Look for tells. Low limit players often make it eminently clear what they are about to do if you bet. A lot of them simply hold their cards out towards the muck long before the action gets to them. If the guys in the last positions to act look like they can't even call a bluff, you may be successful. The first couple of guys will fold their weak hands, because they expect someone else to 'keep you honest'. But then the rest of them can't even beat a bluff, and you take down the pot.
I made a significant percentage of my hourly wage a low-limit poker through bluffs.
Well said, Dan.
There ain't a poker game out there in which bluffing plays no part in winning play.
Where are these low-limit games that bluffing works? I've never seen one myself. I mostly play in the Bay Area.
natedogg
Mark, I believe Lee Jones and others outside 2+2 are addressing low limit games (below $10-$20) where the players are basically unaware and will not fold if they think they have any chance of winning. In these games, playing "weak-tight" (a 2+2 term) with regard to flop betting is effective because you will almost always get called so there is usually no point in betting anything worse than top pair when you have little chance of winning the pot outright.
However, when you graduate to mid-level games ($10-$20 to $20-$40) the players are more aware and they will frequently fold middle pair or bottom pair when bet into so your flop bet has a better chance of winning the pot outright. For example, betting draws into a small number of opponents can frequently win the pot right then on the flop as long as no one has top pair. Of course this depend on the opponents.
2+2 writes books that address mid-level players most of whom are either good enough to beat the rake or who are small winners but who are trying to become big winners (one top bet per hour goal). In my opinion, Lee Jones, Lou Krieger, and others write books for beginners so that they can play in a small game and at least hold their own and perhaps win a little. But I think you need a lot more than what they have to offer if you want to do well in bigger games. This is the niche that 2+2 fills.
In low limit games I can usually play more hands like suited connectors and small-medium pocket pairs because pots hardly ever get raised pre-flop. You will normally have more opponents going to the river and when you make a hand you will usually get paid off, sometimes in more than one spot. But in these games you almost always have to show the best hand. When you move to higher limit games, pots are getting raised more frequently and there are usually a small number taking the flop. You rarely get paid in more than one spot at the river and frequently players fold on the flop or the turn. In general the games are tighter and more aggressive so different strategies are required.
P.S.: I am flattered that you considered me to be an "expert" but unfortunately I have a long way to go. The other players you mentioned are indeed experts.
Jim
just a thought that i`m sure I alone do not share...I find your way of explaining any and all posts you respond to as very down to earth without the tech flair to them..
you need to know many players who are not numbers, theory, oriented really look to your posts in the thread for an explanation..
To me sometimes the guys get carried away and lose the average intelligent guy..Also its a fact many people people have a disposition to numbers etc (right brainers)..
So in closing us no brainers ( joking) really appreciate your wisdom and I personnally have gotten so much more knowledgable from your posts then from all others combined.
So I would agree with mark wholeheartedly
When we`re ever in the same town lets get together and shoot the shit...
Now if we could just get rounder to open up we`d be in business.
best of decisions
jg
I once wrote that one should play low limit poker as if one had been (uh, damn censor, I have to rephrase to sneak it past him) emasculated. There is no point in semibluffing on the flop/turn or cold bluffing on the river when you have zero percent chance of winning the pot without a showdown.
Also, the more players calling along, the better hand you are going to need to show down. I win plenty of showdowns with AK high in the games I play. This is an extreme rarity in no fold'em. I usually at least call with AK high on the turn in the games I play. This is often a mistake in no fold'em, because either somebody has one pair beaten already, or they will by the river, and in particular someone may already have a pair with an ace or king kicker.
A final reason to play more "weak-tight" in low limit games is that your opponents are not very good. They are not capable of putting a smart move on you to push you off a hand, and so you can lay down a lot of hands. However, there are a lot of maniacs and idiots in low limit, so you have to be careful about your laydowns.
You mention the word "deception"... this would only be useful against opponents with brains, as mentioned in many 2+2 books. Deception is also frequently inappropriate in bloated pots, as mentioned in Theory of Poker.
You still need to do a lot of seemingly aggressive things. For example, you should generally raise with top pair top kicker on the flop to drive players out, and you should be check-raising for value on the flop with a nut straight draw versus an early likely bettor with lots of players trapped in. Virtually no bluffing is allowed, however.
-Abdul
The lower the limit, the more players in the pot from flop to finish. A refusal to bluff against a crowd is not weak-tight, it is common sense.
The thing is, the low limit no foldem games Jones et al write about and the Sklansky/Malmuth 10000/20000 limit games are two different animals and the strategies each class of author offers are uniquely suited to that particularly genre of holdem about which they write. For example, in no foldem low limit dum-dum holdem, "weak-tight" play is more than adequate to get the money. There is no point in making fancy plays, or in bluffing (in most cases), or in trying to use psychology. Everybody just grunts and calls--you have to show down the best hand. Period. In the rarefied higher limit atmosphere the players all tend to be skilled (with the occasional glaring exceptions), and the interplay revolves around gaining and saving single bets; exploiting small edges. If you are "weak-tight", or exhibit ANY PREDICTABLE PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR, you will get slaughtered. In these games "weak-tight" is not that bad, especially compared to, say, "loose-insane", but it'll still lose. Take a play like a check-raise bluff on the river. In 40/80, such a play may be worth trying for the occasional time a good player will lay down a moderate hand, giving you the whole pot. In 3/6 the play is senseless as your opponent will simply shrug and call.
IMHO, Sklansky/Malmuth etc. should emphasize more to their reading public that a)Many of their strategems and ploys only are effective at the higher limits amd b) The mastery of such ploys isn't essential to beating the low-limit games. (But then, it's hard to charge $29.95 for a book that essentially says, "Play high cards. Only bet and raise with good hands. Don't bluff.")
Would someone tell me how to compare time charges with rakes? For example, if a card club charges $10 per hour to play, what is that equivalent to in terms of a per pot rake in a 10-20 HE game for a pretty tight player?
I am a pretty tight player and I win about 2.2 pots per hour on the average. The cardrooms that I play at rakes $3 per pot so it costs me about $6.60 per hour to play. Time charges are much more expensive than a rake game. What is worse is that in some places like the big card barns in Los Angeles, the time charges increase as you move up in limit. For example, a $20-$40 game at Commerce costs $8 per half hour or $16 per hour. If you were to play full time (like say 2000 hours per year) it would cost you $32,000 per year to be a full time $20-$40 player at Commerce. Now you can play $20-$40 in Vegas for a $3 rake. Over 2000 hours of annual play your yearly cost is $13,200 versus $32,000 at Commerce.
Time charges are not necessarily more expensive than rake. It just depends on the time charge. At the Lucky Lady in San Diego, they charge $3 per half hour at all limits - which sometimes go up to 30-60. Also, the time charge/rake starts diminish as a factor as you move up the limits. But I do agree that the time charges in L.A. are too high in general. Sometimes I think we should have a "Brainstorm About Ideas to Encourage Player Friendly Cardroom Management Decisions" forum.
Post deleted at author's request.
Steve,
There is no question that the more "equitable" time charges (or dead drop) serve as a deterrent to the tighter players compared to rake, and this is probably one reason why the Los Angeles games are generally much looser than the typical Las Vegas game.
But there are other factors at play. In my estimation, the vast majority of locals who populate the Las Vegas games are generally not that well to do, despite Las Vegas's reputation as a "big money town". Many are retirees who like the low cost of living. And the big money that comes from out of town tends to gravitate to the pit games and other gambling.
Los Angeles (and the Bay area) tend to have a lot of money in circulation. A tiny part of that goes into the poker economy. The poker rooms are essentially a closed market. As long as these conditions exist, expect high collections but good games in Los Angeles.
Regards,
Rick
As a sweeping generality, a loose player would rather play in a time game while a tight player would rather play in a rake gaem. The fewer pots you win in a rake game, the less $$$ you pay. Of course, this is subject to "all other things being equal". The real number to consider is how much is being snatched off the table per hour. Rake games tend to take more total $$$ off than time games, except in the LA area card megatoilets where the higher limit time charges are criminally high. ($200/hour for the collective rent of a table, ten chairs, two decks of cards, and the services of a dealer who is being paid minimum wage!) You can play in Washington with a state-mandated limit of $3/hour time charge (except, of course, Indian casinos) or in Las Vegas with a 5% rake, $3 cap, and I would guess that each kind of table (at 10/20) takes about the same amount of $$$ off each hour; of course, in this case a good player would rather be in Washington than LV, once again "all other things being equal".
It doesn't matter what they take because the house gets all of the money in the end anyway. Most poker players are broke or just recreational and the professionals are all struggling to get by. Unless of course you are one of the superstars, getting staked or a tournament champion like Badger. Then silly things like the rake don't matter.
John I believe there are a number of players who are not professionals but who make money each year playing poker. I have played $10-$20, $15-$30, and $20-$40 for just over 2 years and I have won almost $45,000 in these games playing part time. I would guess that most of the regular posters on this forum who are not professionals win money each year in these games (e.g.-Dan Hanson, skp,Sean Duffy,Rick Nebiolo, and Louie Landale to name a few). But unless you are a top player, having to pay a high collection as exists in the L.A card barns can make a huge dent in your annual winnings.
Post deleted at author's request.
...the 20-40 games in the midwest (Chicago, St. Louis, and other places) are much juicier than anything you'll find in LA.
Badger, you're comparing apples and oranges. There are more people making a living (or professing to) from poker in LA than LV because there are about ten times as many poker tables, and about ten times as many human beings, in LA vs. LV.
LA overcharges for the service they provide. If you can overcome this by careful game selection, then, fine, but this isn't something the house provides. I've never been offered all or a portion of my time fee back because the game lacked action (or broke up six minutes after time collection). The house provides tables, chairs, a couple decks of cards, and the services of a minimum-wage dealer and the availability of a minimum-wage chip runner. If you think that this is worth $200/hour (to ten players, collectively) then feel free to pay your share. I have no doubt that people still make money in LA poker. They would make more money if the house charged less, of course. The debate is whether the charge is fair or reasonable; I simply assess the intrinsic value of the services provided and the costs to the house to provide those services. In my estimation, they are providing those services at about a 300% markup. This figure is also borne out by other venues that take $60/hour off the table (rather than $200/hr) and somehow manage to stay open.
I know that you are a columnist for the casino house organ "Card Player" and therefore no doubt share their extreme reluctance to utter a word of criticism about ANY casino, as they no doubt feel that this would constitute biting the hand that feeds them. I don't look to them for objectivity; I wonder if you share their concerns and motives, since you seem awfully defensive about any stated or implied criticism of LA's poker wonderland. I play in Washington, Montana, Oregon, Arizona, Northern CA, Southern CA, and Arizona and the LA games are BY FAR the most expensive. I also don't find them more profitable to an extent necessary to offset those higher costs. For what it's worth, the best combination of action and cost/value I've found has been in Northern CA.
Regardless, enough people seem to be gambling-happy in LA that they will pay whatever the house charges, as I don't detect any shortage of players there. I guess a ripoff is in the eye of the beholder.
KevinL, while I am no fan of the high collections charged in Los Angeles card rooms there is a couple of things to keep in mind. First, much of what a house has to charge to run a poker game is driven by the taxes that are imposed by the city, county, and state. For example in Louisiana, the state takes 23% of the drop from all live poker games plus they charge an annual licensing fee on each poker table. That is one reason why their rakes are higher than in neighboring Mississippi where the state takes 13% of the poker drop and there is no annual license fee. In Nevada, the state only takes about 9% of the drop from poker tables. I was told this by floor personnel that I asked so I am not absolutely certain of my figures. I imagine in California the taxes are very high and in the Los Angeles area the city or county may impose additional taxes on poker revenues. This all gets passed on to the players in the form of higher rakes and collections.
Secondly, many poker rooms are in a casino where they get subsidized to certain extent by the rest of the casino operations. The L.A. cardrooms are not casinos so they have no major subsidy from other casino-like games.
Post deleted at author's request.
Mr. Brier,
We will be contacting you and the others mentioned concerning our cut.
"The IRS"
This is another reason why I like ring games instead of tournaments.
George,
As a player, I hate the collections, rakes and drops as much as anybody. But I also work for a card club. I'm late to this thread but I'll add a few random thoughts.
As a player, I like time in the bigger games. It helps reduce absences from the table, and it does loosen them up a bit compared to rake. We would all like to see the collections come down, but as long as the rooms are full, don't hold your breath.
A $12 per hour collection does not mean the house will make $108 per hour (in a nine handed game). The first half hour is often a pass, and new players entering short games generally don't pay. And short games obviously make less for the house.
Time collection means extra overhead. Keeping track is a problem that requires extra help and your staff has to adjust to the fact that most player movements come at the light. This is not that efficient.
Also note that time collection will probably always be limited to top section in the big clubs. There is no way the Commerce, Hollywood Park, or the Bike could keep track of time for the huge number of low limit games.
At low limit, I have noticed that the existing player base has little resistance to about $90 per hour coming off the table (for a 3/6 game). If a $6 per half hour charge was collected for time (which would be about revenue neutral after the extra expenses are factored in for a nine handed table), there is no way we could collect it without a whole lot of resistance from the customers.
Steve Badger and I will tangle again concerning debating the merits of the dead drop versus rake for the lower limit games. But I'll wait for a fresher thread ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
Steve,
We are probably both familiar with the legalities. I'm just wondering if the fact that the drop is dead inside Los Angeles county can't eventually be overturned (since it is largely a local interpretation of state court decisions).
For low limit, a live button drop you mention may work the best in terms of keeping the games loose and profitable. Yet even if Los Angeles went to rake games for low limits, I think the demographics would keep the games looser than rock gardens like Laughlin, Foxwoods, and Las Vegas.
One thing we should never promote is that horrible 1-5 spread limit stud game in Las Vegas. The specter of all those tight, unimaginative old farts hanging our waiting for a tourist to sit in the game always rubbed me the wrong way.
Regards,
I have long wondered why LA casinos are permitted to take collections out of the pot (i.e., the antes) in stud games but not hold'em games. Do those "state court decisions" distinguish between stud and hold'em games?
MJS,
You wrote: "I have long wondered why LA casinos are permitted to take collections out of the pot (i.e., the antes) in stud games but not hold'em games."
When the law was changed in Los Angeles County in January 1989, "antes" were in fact added to low limit holdem and the drop was taken from them. For example, in 3/6 holdem, each player put in a 50 cent "ante" in addition to the normal blinds. So when the hand started you saw nothing in front of the small blind (the $1 jackpot was already dropped into a separate box), the $3 big blind as usual, and four 50 cent "antes" left in the middle (assuming a full nine-handed game and a $2.50 drop). The cost per round overhead was enormous, and almost no one could beat the game (note that this collection was extremely favorable to loose players, with a $2 bonus in every pot they won).
When Hollywood Park opened in the summer of 1994, they attempted to institute a live button drop. Per my understanding, the sheriff was on vacation, and when he returned, he made the drop "dead" but Hollywood Park at least kept the drop on the button. Over time, the other card clubs adopted the dead button drop. The cost per round was reduced and at least a few players beat the game at this limit.
"Do those "state court decisions" distinguish between stud and hold'em games?"
In both cases, the drop must be taken before the hand begins so as not to be dependent on pot size (or else it would be considered a "banking game"). Of course, "time" can be taken in either game, but as I mentioned before, this is not feasible in the large card clubs.
Anyway, since 1989 the "antes" are in fact dropped before the hand begins. The structure is distorted, with almost no money in the pot before the hand begins (e.g., in seven handed 3/6 stud, $3 of the $3.50 in "antes" is taken off the table before the hand starts). This should dictate tight play, but the collection drives tight players away. So the game is perverse, with clueless players limping in chasing nothing and the real action starting on fourth street.
Note that in Las Vegas, the ante for a 3/6 stud game is a reasonable 25 cents, but this cannot be done in Los Angeles (with a $3 collection) due to the up front drop.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Rick
Thanks for your response, Rick. The requirement that "the drop must be taken before the hand begins so as not to be dependent on pot size" may explain why a rake is illegal. However, I still do not understand why LA clubs cannot have a live button (or blind) collection. Dropping blind bets in hold'em before the hand begins seems analogous to dropping antes in stud.
MJS,
This is just a guess. In holdem, the blinds are part of a bet. In stud, the antes are not part of any bet. But the exact rational of the local sheriff as to what is allowed and not allowed is quite beyond me at this time.
Regards,
Rick
Please help me as my poker playing career is a stake.I find that I stay in games much longer than I should even though I know that I'm not playing well. I drive 2-21/2 hrs.(one way) to get to the home game where I play and when I quit the game I just set in my motel room bored to death until the next game (they play five days a week). When I play I start out counting the pots,watching the play of hands etc. but the longer the game goes on ,the less likley I am to continue to concentrate even though I make a effort to concentrate more it just seems to leave me during the play of a hand.At the end of a game I feel like I am coming out of a fog of some kind. PLEASE SOMEONE OUT THERE TELL ME WHY I DO THIS EVEN THOUGH I KNOW BETTER. P.S. I have been playing poker 15-20yrs
1. In general it is hard to concentrate on anything, with the possible exception of nude photographs of supermodels, for hours on end. Budget your mental energy by only concentrating on what is relevant; when you're not in a hand, lean back, close your eyes for a few seconds, and transport yourself to a beach in Bermuda (you may bring the supermodels if you wish). Take an occasional break from the game; go for a walk; have a cup of coffee. 2. When you travel as far as you do to get to the game you do tend to overstay both because of the time you've invested to get there and a reluctance to embark on the long drive back. Do you HAVE to play this far away? Do you have any closer options? 3. Take gingko biloba once a day to increase mental alertness. This natural, inexpensive herb (in pill form, about $5/100) increases blood flow to the brain and is a mild stimulant. 4. Is the area you're traveling to so boring that the only place you want to go after the game is back to your hotel room? If the poker game is your sole source of mental stimulation during the entire trip then I can see why you'd have trouble maintaining your focus. In short, although there are certain specific things you can do to increase your alertness, it would seem like the game conditions and environment are the real culprits here. Of course, without knowing you, I'm really just guessing.
Part of your problem is likely a lack of physical activity. Top chessplayers know that to do your best in a mental game you must be physically fit. Poker players are no different.
My first gut reaction while I was reading your post was to say to myself, "This guy needs to see an eye doctor or an optometrist". I'm not really sure why I said this. I just did. Other than this, my advice is that you learn to count your blessings. Be glad you're alive, be glad you have the bankroll to play your favorite game with, take time to appreciate the sights and sounds of your 2 1/2 hour drive, and instead of being bored in your hotel room, pray to God instead and thank him for all your blessings.
Most likely, you do it because you want to do it. Why do you think you shouldn't do it?
Well, we finally got our Card Player's back East here at Foxwoods a few days ago, after the time warp.
I read my standard favorite columns, then eagerly turned to see what Badger might have turned up.
It seems he managed to unearth yet another example of Roy Cooke's Famous Edge Principle.
Maybe it will help next time I'm stuck if I tell myself we're flipping coins for racks and that I have the edge, instead of simply reminding myself that I have the edge against these nitwits. I guess it's really all in one's perspective after all. For instance, if I were actually flipping coins for racks against nitwits, how much edge would I have (or would they have it)?
I guess it just disturbs me a little because I know that Badger must be an intelligent person and a player who could really have a lot to say. He mentioned something about Strategy being deep and endless, or infinite, or something like that. I would truly enjoy reading a deep column about Strategy, or any deep column for that matter (even one about Tactics!)
Maybe Badger doesn't want to share his deepest thoughts on Strategy or poker. Maybe what everyone needs most anyway are reminders that basics are the foundation upon which all else is built, and that tilting is anti-percentage behavior. Maybe there's more than meets the eye to filling an entire column with an example of Cooke's Famous Principle.
We'll just have to see.
Mark S.
Post deleted at author's request.
"This player is taking more coin flips as a dog just trying to get even. Bad."
I've noticed that I'm guilty of doing this from time to time, but "only" when my bankroll is short. When I have money to burn, tilt rarely enters my game.
-Don
I don't think they should think about it and change their behavior on the East coast. If they did, I might have to move elsewhere.
BTW, I did get your point about tilt and playing antipercentage hands being counterproductive---as I'm certain 99.99 % of the readers did as well. I guess I just didn't see as much value as you did in submitting alternate scenarios to illustrate this point. There are doubtless a zillion scenarios one could come up with and a zillion ways people could remind themselves that tilt is not where they want to be, and that getting even for the day is not where it's at.
I know it's your column and you will write whatever you see fit. I am just really hoping for more material in the Card Player addressed to advanced players--I think by far the bulk of the material and columns are geared to beginners/intermediates--the magazine is already weighted far too heavily on that side anyway in my opinion.
Then again, maybe that's a good thing. Who really needs lots more players being exposed to advanced concepts anyway. Let the average/intermediate players read the magazines and enjoy themselves on the other forums.
Badger normally writes for those people because he doesn't care about you or me. Badger voted for Eugene Mcarthy (in 1992!)
Post deleted at author's request.
vs. Dukakis I'd lean toward Mcarthy as well...
We'll have to consult with Mason, but I doubt that the social darwinist crap you're aching to spew forth doesn't count as acceptable use.
This is all true. However, it's my suspicion that the reason most articles are geared towards beginners is because they're easier to write, AND because to write any genuine advanced theory you must assume that your readers are all working from a similar (and large) body of knowledge. And this, of course, is not the case. Even on this forum, when a truly 'advanced' concept is offered the debate usually become diluted, unfocused and peppered with ad hominem attacks after the second sub-thread or so.
M writes ..."It seems he managed to unearth yet another example of Roy Cooke's Famous Edge Principle."
Sorry M but you've missed two very important differences. Badger's idea also includes the concept of variance buried in the analogy along with expectation and for this reason it's much more descriptive than 'Roy Cooke's Famous Edge Principle tm'. Roy might be able to wrap his mind around variance but it will tax his system to the max.
Secondly, Badger failed to name these fundamental principles this after himself. Kudos for the relative modesty.
True, Ron, both literally and conceptually. "Entire" was not the best word of choice here. I guess my main point and feeling was that his column said little that couldn't have been said in a few sentences, and that it seemed geared to beginners/intermediates, as so many of the magazine columns are.
I am developing a little bit of a theory here, that just might have some practical application.
When you are confronted with a complex situation in poker, for instance, when you may be thinking ABOVE the third level (what he thinks I have, what he thinks I think he has, what he thinks I think he thinks I have), and weighing several alternate scenarios of future actions, it is quite a lot to attempt quickly, accurately, and in the heat of battle. As David and Mason points out in some of their writings, at times your judgment may begin to break down and you can instead rely on game theory.
In chess you are frequently confronted with complex positions requiring analysis of various possible lines, like branches of a tree. Some lines have sub-branches, etc. In chess you must budget your time and attempt to evaluate each reasonable possible line. Alexander Kotov, in Think Like A Grandmaster, refers to the Thought Tree. He points out that some trees are more like shrubs, visually speaking (lots of choices early), while others are tall, with only a few main branches. In analyzing the various lines at leisure and on paper one can break things down and label each line and variation, e.g., 1, 1a, 1b, 1a1, 1a2, 1b...etc. Likewise one can draw a graphic representation of the Thought Tree as a chart or branching tree.
Now in poker, when you are confronted with a complex scenario, or even when you take a situation that is not complex at first glance, but which may be become complex when you introduce higher level thinking into it, (such as weighing your chances of continuing to bet your Stud board into your opponent based on the chances that he will fold immediately combined with future chances that the boards may develop in various ways, combined with the chance that your opponent may suspect what you are doing, combined with what he may actually have to call you with, etc...), you can at times start to get a bit lost or to spend too much time.
In poker you have only so much time to think, therefore thinking in advance as much as possible is often critical to your success. Familiarity here helps, as do enough sleep, a naturally quick mind, etc. A poker player who is able to stay a step or two ahead of his opponent often has the advantage even if they are otherwise equally skilled and knowledgable. Thinking ahead a bit faster than your opponents can also help you read your opponents better.
My little theory is that it may help speed one up and improve one's accuracy if one gets used to mapping the Thought Tree in Poker. As an example, I recently took an IQ test. The logic problems were fairly simple in construction, yet I had to really slow down to tackle a few of them. Now, I have never had a formal course in Logic. If I were used to visualizing Truth Tables, etc. I am sure that I would have flown through these questions instead of slogging my way through some of them.
Likewise, getting used to mapping and visualizing the Thought Tree may help not only in Chess but also in Poker. I read that Bob Ciaffone is a Chess Expert, Dan Harrington is a Chess Master, and Ivo Donev, who has only been playing poker 2 years and won the WSOP Omaha event, is at least a Master (in magazine--though I heard he is actually a Grandmaster, but that is just third-hand info.)
I welcome any thoughts or comments, and would be curious to know if Bob Ciaffone or other accomplished chess players see much parallel and if they feel enhanced visualization practice of the Thought Tree In Poker would be significantly beneficial.
Mark Stults
*
I think the thought tree in poker looks and behaves much more like a blitz chess tree than one you'd use for tournament chess. An exception might be final table play at a major tourny like WSOP. Even then I think Kotov's model is geared toward handling far more information than you'd ever have to sift through at a poker table. When you break them down, poker decisions aren't really that complicated because you have a limited number of choices, and your opponant faces the same choices as you. That's why I think blitz and poker are closer than tournament chess and poker as you tend to rely far more on theory and tactics in blitz as you just don't have the time to create deeply strategic plans. That is not to say poker isn't strategic, we just don't spend a lot of time creating plans of action (as we must do in tournament chess) during the play of a hand. We tend to go into the hand aware of a number of different plans and we choose one to follow. spitball
ps. I teach chess and have read many books on chess but never found Kotov's tree very helpful for developing middle game play. I much prefered Silman's 'How to Reassess Your Chess'
Yes, excellent analogy. Poker is much more like blitz. The ability to weight things and make quick decisions is valuable. Still, I am wondering if a greater visual awareness of the thought tree might help.
I never really studied chess other than some light reading, etc., but I really enjoy blitz. I have played on ICC (www.chessclub.com) for almost a year now, mostly 3 0 blitz. My rating tends to hover mostly in the 1600's to 1700's although I hit a high of 1840 a couple times. My biggest problem in chess is careless errors. I wish I knew of a way to improve my chess significantly without much study, but I don't think there is one. My handle on ICC is markst. Perhaps we could play sometime. I tried Dzhindhi's site and the MSN zone, but didn't like them as much, and the players didn't seem nearly as strong for their ratings. I think the ICC is to the other chess sites something like 2+2 is to the other forums.
Do you see other parallels where blitz chess-type thinking may help in poker?
I've never played on the net but will check out that site. I do think that all those 'wasted' hours playing blitz has served me well as a I navigate two boards at Paradise. One of the more useful blitz skills which seems to translate well at the table is finding useful recovery moves after you blunder:) Tilting is often suicidal in chess. Try Silman's book, it was by far the most useful text on middle game play I read and I use it with my students. The first game I played after working the lessons in 'Reassess Your Chess' was vs. a 2304 rated player and I won. I was a B-class player at the time. good luck, spitball
Bob C is very skilled at many games, poker is only a part of his arsenal. He is highly rated at chess and plays both backgammon and bridge with the best of them. I've been taking poker lessons from Bob for a while now and would recommend any serious student of the game to give him a call. Yes, he's tight. It's a damn good spot to from which to begin. His phone is 517-792-0884 EDT. Give him a call, you won't regret it.
I also am a happy student. I have taken a few lessons from Bob over the past few months and it has really helped my game. The papers that he sends with the lessons (HE) are the best that I have seen, especially the starting hand requirements. Very concise and to the point. The only problem I have is that the lessons are way too cheap. I offered to send him more money but he flatly refused my offer. He is a real stand-up guy.
As long as we are plugging here I would like to comment on "Inside the Poker Mind" by John Feeney. Great book--a must read. Really loved the sections on "playing too many hands" and "how I learned poker". I just wish that the section on short handed play was longer. For instance--what are the starting hand requirements for playing 6 handed, 5 handed---and heads-up. Nobody ever gets into that.
Marymac why dont you email john feeney and put the question to him ..I`m almost certain he`ll respond.He to is very classy in character...
I have dealt with bob ciaffione on rare occasions and i know for a fact he always gets back with solid replies.
jg
I am a USCF master with a rating of 2300, and played tournament chess for about 20 years (I don't any more). So my take on the subject is: In both chess and poker the thought tree in most situations is far too complex to analyze "cold turkey", i.e., without the benefit of experience to "prune" the tree. In both cases when confronted with a decision with many branches we know from intuition and/or experience not to follow every branch. In poker we may be debating what to do with a pair of kings but discard any branch that starts with throwing them away; in chess we may not calculate to its conclusion any branch that starts with hanging our queen at move one. Early chess computers were stupid at the game because they wasted computing power on brute force searches of all branches of the tree. They became more capable, not because of more computing power (although this helped somewhat) so much as the writing of more sophisticated software that conserved machine resources by using "judgment".
Considering the poker thought tree, it is more tall and straight than shrub-like, to use your quoted analogy. The human mind is more than capable of a brute-force search of options in the time alloted AS LONG AS PRUNING IS USED. Example: I start with (K5)K in seven stud; I raise with an Ace yet to act ahead of me. My only concerns will be: what will I do if he reraises? What if the players who acted before me reraise? I don't need to extend the branch very far in certain scenarios; like, the Ace calls and then pairs his Ace on fourth street. I certainly don't need to examine THAT branch to its end. In poker, you don't need to examine the whole tree because subsequent events will obviate several parts of it; what will I do if the board pairs? Well, it doesn't---so any mental energy spent contemplating the possibility is largely wasted.
Most of what makes a good poker player is experience and the ability to react quickly to situations (with the proper choice of actions). I can't really see the value in trying to "map out" scenarios during a hand as the time just isn't there to do so. Rather, I try to build a database of experiences to help me drastically prune the decision tree on the fly.
i understand Bob Ciaffone has recently written a chess book. i suspect he put alot of effort into it.
I hope Ciaffone doesn't take ofense to your snide remark Z. What's the matter can't stand someone that knows how to use Capital letters? Don't mind him Bob, Z thinks chess is a game played with a female's upper body.
Vince.
First of all, Bob Ciaffone is a chess master (not an expert, which is one notch lower). I agree that quick analysis of the possibilities is important at poker. The game is supposed to be fast-paced, and to mull something over can convey info about your hand. I do not see the value of trying to duplicate the Analysis Tree used in chess (takes too long). But I think one of Kotov's points is worth following; you should only consider each alternative once, and not skip around like a butterfly. I encourage someone who is trying to analyze a poker situation to give some weight to each alternative hand that is plausible, not just "put someone on a hand."
I've been achess master for 11 years. I think you are correct in that training to analyze correctly is a skill, and that it can be applied to poker.
"I've been a chess master for 11 years."
And what happened then?
I don't know how much use this particular book is, but a while ago on some group(maybe here), I listed my ten favorite books on any games and Kotov's was one of them.
I play 15-30 and 20-40 at Turning Stone. The games are usually aggressive. About 20% of the time I can see the flop for a single bet. S&M have this in group 3. How should I play this up front. Is it really worth a raise? It seems that I do much better with this hand out back if I can get in for a single bet. It seems like I do better with K10s in all positions. Please advise.
Wrong forum. I'll post this on the HE page.
Hi everyone,
You too Badger. I knew you were hkidding when you said you weren't going to read my posts anymore. Addiction has that effect on people.
I just returned to Amesbury from a weekend at Foxwoods. I have been on a "tilt" proofing campaign to prepare myself for my upcoming "Tour De Americas" poker trip. I have been doing pretty good in my tilt proof efforts if I do say so myself. Plus I've managed to win a few dollars along the way.
I saw John Cole and Mary on Friday. Mary looked soooo good! Don't take my word for it. Ask the floor person that had to stop other players at her table from complaining about her distraticng the dealers. And all she did was sit there, too!
I met M on friday also. That's Mark to you Sklansky. Yes, he is more than a letter, thank you very much. Very nice and personable fellow. Must be, Said hello to me didn't he. John, M and I (since I used only one letter for M I thought I would use I instead of Me, ettiquette you know), well, we had a snack together and discussed poker. I enjoyed it very much. Of course I dominated the discussion. Would you expect less.
Oh yeah, the reason for this post. I picked up the June 9 Card Player while down there on the reservation. Why I read this thing is beyond me. I think I could do as good a job as the columnists for Card Player. And that scares me! One article I did find interesting was by Mike Sexton. He details how he went broke with 12 people left in the WSOP. Now, you may all wonder what right I have to question Mike sexton's play. After all he is a proven Tournament Champion and me I'm just a wanna be wish I were type. the biggest tournament I ever won was a #,000 prize Limit Holdem Tournament at Lake Elsinore a whaile back. And if you questionmy questioning Sexton you would probably be right. Maybe. Anyway I question Sexton's play of his final hand and I pose my quetioning of his final hand as a question. you see I am not sure I am right and am looking for some help from yuse guys.
Anyway the scenario is thus. 12 players left. Six at each table. Sexton: T$360K. (T$5120 chips total in play). Blinds 10,000 - 20,000. 2,000 ante. 2 limpers (T600K) (T800K). Sexton raises to T120K with A,9 in small blind. Limper 1 folds. Limper 2 moves all in. Sexton thinks for a minute. Puts hin on small pair and calls.
I don't like his 120K raise but that's another question. I question him calling all in after putting his opponent on a small pair. He was correct by the way. The opponent had two 4's. Sexton missed and that was that. He justified his call with I was "getting 2 to 1 pot odds on an even money race". I have heard this +EV arguement many times before. In a live game he is unquestionably correct. But in a tournament? Not just any tournament, mind you, but a tournament with a pay off of over 1.5 Million, that's 1.5 Million dollars. Is his play correct? I say unequivocally No! He must fold to the reraise. If Shulman somehow exposed his hand he must still fold. Even money bet! Big deal! He is behind! Period! 4,4 beats A,9. It beats A,K too! Yes I say fold A,K here also! Or at worse raise all in and let them make the decision. But since one must be extremely cautious when good players limp in NLH his best play may have been to limp also. I like that play the best. Sexton did ay that he thought others would disagree with him and he is correct. I disagree. How about you? This is a theory question even though the question is derived from tournament play.
Vince.
Good post. I don't like the play especially when your down to 12 players. He is certainly not in a desperation mode and has a slightly smaller than average stack. Each place Mike moves up is worth a whole lot of money and you can't win a tournament when you're not at the final table. Even though he is getting 2:1 odds when he makes his call when it is a 50-50 proposition Mike is basically risking 360K to win 400K. If you are a world class player those are lousy odds to go broke on. Mike should have either gone all in preflop or called preflop and folded on the flop. Going broke trying to make a play when you are so close doesn't appear to be warranted at this time.
Bruce
If you think you will get decent tournament results by folding when you are "only" a 2 to 1 favorite, God bless and bon voyage. This applies to the WSOP just like everywhere else. Be sure you muck A-K against J-9, and other such "traps."
Although he correctly guessed his opponent's hand this time, what about A9 versus 99, TT, JJ, QQ, KK, AA, AK, AQ, AJ, AT? In other words, there wasn't a 100% chance that Sexton would have a 50% chance of winning that hand. A9 versus 22 thru 88 was, in essence, a best case scenario, wasn't it?
Bob Ciaffone is totally right. It is extremely rare that tournament considerations could make you fold an even money shot getting 2-1. 6-5 sure but 2-1 almost never.
That being said, the call was still debatable. The other guy could have had two tens or AT or AJ suited. Those hands are more than 2-1 favorites. Still on balance Mike probably averaged out to about a 3-2 dog and must reluctantly call.
That being said, I don't like his original raise. There is a general principal in no limit holdem (which I might write about one day) which basically says that you shouldn't raise with hands that are apt to get reraised, unless that reraise is one you can either happily call OR happily fold against with the knowledge that you were a big dog. Mike violated that principle.
There is a big difference between AK vs J9 and A9 vs 44.
AA
C'est vrai. However, the key here is that while our man 'puts his oppenent on a small pocket pair', he has no assurances that his opponent doesn't have a hand that has his dominated. This doesn't answer the question as to whether or not Sexton should have played on, but it does skew the odds against him-- and probably skews them considerably.
I certainly understand your point. And the fact that you too are a respected tournament player tempers my opinion of the call considerbly. However I don't believe that "odds" are the prime consideration in a tournament. Especially when considering chip countand money position. The play of the two fours was much better in my opinion. He could not go broke. He had two ways to win. One if his opponent folded and 2 if he ended up with the best hand. I'm not sure but I think I read that in your book. Maybe not. The point is that Sexton states that he "played" the hand correctly. If odds are the prime consideration, and I don't feel they are in this situation, then he is correct. When you have the odds in your favor you can't get better than that. But I believe he had enough chips to find a better situation to move in. And I say this giving him the correct read on the opponent. I don't want to play "all in" with 2 over cards to a pair in this situation.
Vince.
Let's ignore the relative size of the piles of chips; those are irrelevant as absolute numbers. At that stage of the tournament each stack represents equity in the total prize fund to be awarded to the top twelve finishers. The equity ratio is size of stack/total number of chips in play. With twelve players left, an exactly "average" stack--1/12 of the remaining chips, in other words, has a 100% equity in twelfth place money, an 11/12, or about 92% equity, in 11th place, and so forth, up to a 1/12 equity in first place. These equities must be summed and averaged, of course.
Let's examine Sexton's position. He had a "slighly below average" stack, which means he had, let's say, a 1/15 equity in first place; he could expect to win a percentage of the time equivalent to his stack/all the chips in play. If he doubled up, he would have doubled his stack size and thus his equity. His "expected finish" would have risen from somewhere around seventh or eighth to fourth or fifth. The downside was to drop from his "expected finish" to twelfth, which is what actually happened. The simple question is:
A) What is the money difference between seventh and twelfth? B) What is the money difference between fourth and seventh? I don't know the answer offhand, but risking A) to win B) would only seem to make sense if the odds of winning (the hand) justifed the play. If the amounts are roughly equivalent, then the play was horrible, since even in the best-case scenario (he was correct in his read, that his opponent had a small pair) he was a significant underdog. If he misread his opponent, and that person really had a BIG pair, then the amount B) would have to be several times the amount A) to justify the play (i.e., taking by far the worst of it for all your chips).
I think it was a good read but a terrible play. In a case where your gain is small even if your read is correct, you are placing an awful lot of (probably undue) emphasis on your reading ability.
People who think it is correct to play survivalist tactics in poker tournaments should think about how a structure that gives a relatively large payoff for lasting only a little bit longer affects the behavior of other contestants. If you have a short stack, using the strategy of avoiding confrontations so you can go further because of a big pot played between two other people eliminating someone seldom works. The others are playing the same strategy as you of avoiding confrontations, so the shortest stack will be the first out unless he plays a pot with someone. So if you are short and get a chance to play such a pot with another player and have the best of it, grab the chance. Survivalist tactics because of a skewed prize fund structure mainly apply to people who have a decent chip supply. A short stack must double up before sitting back to wait.
I don't like the raise in the first place. You have the worst possible position and if you flop an Ace you won't know where you are at. 2 limpers in a tournament like this should set the alarm bells ringing anyway. I just call because there's so much money out there already but I don't like it much unless I flop at least 2 pair.
Andy.
It was my interpretation that Mike put both limpers on marginal hands, such as the 44 his opponent had (and presumably the guy who folded also had a mediocre hand). Mike then raised preflop as he thought that they would both fold, thus earning him 82K in T chips. However, the last opponent reraised. At this point, Mike considered the hands that this player might have, and considered hands like big pairs unlikely (as he probably would not have limped behind a prior limper with a big pair). Now, I think that Mike has to consider that this guy can have AK, and possibly AQ. Probably no lesser A. So, he's getting 2:1 where most often he's almost 50:50, and occasionally he's a bit worse off than 2:1 to win. His call is almost mandatory.
Mike's mistake was in determining that everyone would fold to his initial raise. He was wrong about the inclination of this player to fold a small pair to Mike's raise. Either this player read Mike perfectly and made a great reraise, or he's a weak player who can't fold a pocket pair preflop to a possible steal-raise. I'm not saying which is more likely, as I surely don't know this player well enough. However, in either case, Mike's judgment was incorrect.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I get your point. Big difference between Limper #1 reraising and Limper #2 reraising playing 6-handed. In top-calibre tournaments, do big pairs ever slowplay to the flop?
"His call is almost mandatory. "
Let's say that Sexton's goal is to win it all as he indicates in his column.
If he calls and wins total chips become 802K or %16 of the total. also it becomes his probability of winning if we just consider stack size to total chips.
If he folds he has 240K or %4.7 of the total chips and his P of winning given the same scenario as above.
The p of Ad,9h winning against 4,s,4c using Probe is .45.
The probability of Sexton winning both the hand and the tournament if he calls is .07. If he calls he gains a %2.3 advantage of winning the tournament strictly from a chip count point of view. Sexton, in his column, stated that he felt like he was at a level in his game where he could make the right "plays" and win it all. By calling and losing he doesn't get the chance to outplay anyone. His "death" index for calling is a whopping 55%. I do not believe a call is even close to mandatory given this information. Especially for a potential %2.3 advantage.
Vince.
"...4,4 beats A,9. It beats A,K too! Yes I say fold A,K here also"
minor point A,9 is better than A,K showdown against 44.
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
Its a complete NOBRAINER.Id like to know how those guys who would pass Mikes hand or not raise preflop would plan on getting into this position in the first place.I already know where theyd finish .
Before reading the other posts, I will post my response.
I think you may have raised a valid point in your statement that Sexton should have folded to the reraise BTF. But let's consider the variables in making that decision....
First, he WAS getting about 2:1 odds to call the raise. Assuming that he correctly put his opponent on the hand of a small pair, it would obviously be a call with +EV.
However, this is a tournament. His call has +EV as far as CHIPS are concerned, but then again, this is a tournament. The chips change value depending on how many you have. To be honest, I don't really think this particular effect makes a really big difference here, but it had to be considered.
I think the real decision would be in the difference of how much prize $$ could be gained by calling and winning vs. how much prize $$ will be lost by calling and losing. You will gain 2:1 on chips if you call and win, but does this really translate into the same proportions as far as prize $$ goes? Will calling and eliminating one opponent cause your prize $$ to increase enough to justify the risk?
I am not certain of the exact payoffs in the WSOP, therefore I cannot answer the question exactly. However, I really don't think that making this call comes anywhere near a double return on your investment, such as might be implicated with the 2:1 odds statement. In a ring game, OF COURSE you would call! There would be absolutely no debate (as long as you were confident about what your opponent had). But in this situation, in a tournament, I think I would be more inclined to agree with Vince. FOLD. Live to fight another hand.
I posted this as sort of an academic excercise, now I am going to read the other responses and see if I was right, wrong, or somewhere inbetween.
Good post Vince.
Dave in Cali
One of the biggest things I did not consider in my original post was that of the initial raise by Sexton. IMO, it STANK. I don't see the need for him to raise several limpers (presumably fairly tight) with a trash hand like A9o. LIMP, yes. Raise, NO.
I still think I would have folded for the reraise. I would expect to only have at best about a 45% chance of winning the pot. Since pot odds are not the only real consideration, (prize money is perhaps more important here), I would not want to risk going immediately broke with a hand like A9o. Sexton could have folded and still had enough chips to compete with and perhaps make the final table or even win it all. I think everyone who said he could have picked a better spot to go all-in has hit the nail on the head.
I also think that Sexton should have gone further in considering the possible hands of his opponent. There are other things he might have played this way besides a small pair. IF his opponent was NOT on a small pair, his chances of winning the pot probably went WAY DOWN. A9o - good for loose 2-4 calling stations, not for going all-in BTF in the final stages of the WSOP.
That being said, I like the debate on this post. The Kevin L / Bob Ciaffone debate is great. DS makes a great statement about raising in NLH that I am sending off to a couple poker buddies for their analysis and comments. Great job to everyone.
Dave in Cali
Mike Sexton recently won the European Championship playing a very aggressive game and reading his opponents perfectly.It was a joy to watch.I would like to see some of the guys whove arrogantly rubbished his play try to do likewse especially when it really matters.Incidentally why has nobody criticised the guy with the pair of fours.
Eric,
I speak for myself. I never "rubbished" Mike Sexton's play. I started this thread because I believed the play he made a mistake given the situation. The operative word here is "believed". I started the thread for discussion of the play not Mike Sexton's ability. I am satisfied with the discussion and debate it generated. If anyone thought that this thread was created to in any way diminish Mike Sexton's accomplishments in poker they are mistaken. I respect Mike Sexton for trying to improve the game in many ways. I congradulate him for his European Championship.
Vince.
Just to be perfectly clear, no one here is disparaging Mike Sexton as a poker player. The forum is a place to cuss and discuss. Sometimes we discuss plays that good players make that were incorrect. Sometimes we even put ourselves up for criticism. I have posted many hands where I was the one making the wrong play, and I have received criticism for the mistakes I made. That's the way the forum works.
No one here is saying that Sexton is a BAD PLAYER. Far from it, I would really not want him on my left at the final table of a tournament. His presence at a ring game might sway me towards not playing in that game, if all other factors were neutral.
Nevertheless, most of the people who responded to Vince's initial post seem to think that Mike made a mistake in the play of this particular hand. Welcome to the forum. Sometimes the BEST players make the wrong play. The people who post on this forum will NOT be shy about saying so if that is the case.
Of course, some may disagree. They will also have their say and get their chance to explain why they disagree. The discussions may even become heated at times. WHATEVER. That's what we want. If people do not post their HONEST opinions on the forum then they are wasting everyone else's time!!! Don't say "great job Mike" if that's not what your really think!
I personally do not think that Mike made the best play he could have on this hand. Whatever! Mike is a great player now and will continue to be a great player long after the forum readers are done discussing this hand. Mike might actually gain some insight into his own game by reading the responses to Vince's original post! Mike may still defend his position on this hand after reading the responses. That is his perogative.
Bring on the debates. Tear me up if you have to. I'm not going to go easy on you either. But be honest. Don't sugar coat anything.
The guy with the pair of fours is another story. I don't think anyone defended his play, but that is not what the original post was about so whatever....
Dave in Cali
p.s. Great original post Vince!!!!
Even if you can correctly (as mike did ) call the hand you are still a slight dog and this late in the tourment the hand should have been passed.
Even if you can correctly (as mike did ) call the hand you are still a slight dog and this late in the tourment the hand should have been pitched.
One factor that no one has mentioned so far is that 10th through 12th places all paid the same amount ($52,160). That's a pretty big factor here, even if you are only concerned about your money payout. There is no benefit in folding and outlasting one or two other players - if you fold here, you need to outlast at least three other world-class players to see any increase in payoff at all.
It seems to me that if you fold here, you increase your chances of finishing in 9th-11th place, while if you call, you increase your chances of finishing 12th but also 1st-3rd (where the big money is). So I suspect that even on a expected prize-money basis, you are better off to call here. If you are just going for the bracelet, the call seems obvious.
Have any of you played extensively on PP?
How do your hourly win rates compare with live? Do you see any evidence of cheating? Are the payouts speedy? Any other comments?
Thanks, Bill
I've played extensively at Paradise Poker for 6 months.
I have cashed out once a month without a problem. Paradise has been timely and professional in all respects.
Paradise games are generally tougher than the casino games I play in Atlantic City. Several of my friends who do ok in private and casino games have busted out playing online.
Collusion between players is a potential problem. It can be difficult to differentiate between bad play and collusion. I set a relatively small loss limit at each table to protect myself. I leave a table after reaching this limit even when I haven't seen any unusual play.
I've heard/read several players say that they try and track pairs/groups of players that they think are a problem. I don't think this is worth the effort. PP says that they use software to try and identify player collusion. Players would have to use multiple aliases to avoid detection/tracking.
I would also suggest the following to new online players: 1) Take advantage of the play money area to learn the software. 2) Don't play when you're having internet connection or performance problems. 3) Don't play when you have no all-ins left. Request for them to be reset from the menu and wait until they are reset before continuing to play. 4) Don't play in more than one game at a time.
I have played extensively at PP and have consistently lost money, while I have consistently won money at the casino. Each and every one of my friends are in the same situation as well. None of us play PP anymore. I am not saying there is cheating or collussion going on I am just saying that I don't personally know anyone who has won at PP.
I've won. I know several others who win also.
- Andrew
I've cashed several checks....but am only slightly ahead for the year.. Andrew admits he cheats...so its not worth listening to him. Paradise check numbers indicate only some 600 odd checks issued in 6 to 7 months.That indicates that not many people win.
Ray,
I never claimed to cheat. If you'd like to point to where I said that, I'd be happy to admit it. Of course, both you and I know you are joking :)
No harm, no foul,
- Andrew
The only time I use any of my fancy hacker software is when I'm in a pot with you..What are you going to do, file suit against me with the Costa Rican government?
Question?
I'm curious, what are/is the player expenses "rent, drop, or house-cut" when playing at PP online. How much does the house take? Is this visible to the players?
Thanl you.... Carl
I've played about 100 hours, mostly in low-limit Omaha8, and I am down a small amount. (Never had to re-buy.) It appears to be normal fluctuations to me. I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate collusion or other funny business.
The games are definitely tighter than similar games in the Arizona casinos - the hold'em games especially.
Dick
every HE game I've ever played in was tighter than Arizona casinos:)
I play on-line every day, I enjoy it, I play two tables at once and I am winning 1.7BB/ hr. spitball
Have you truly kept records and know you are winning at this rate?
If I may ask, how do you adjust your strategy to find success here?
While it would be satisfying to my ego and pride to assume that cheating occurs, I dont think its that big of an issue if any. I think my problem is that I dont know how to adjust to the texture of the games I typically run into there. I have played about 100 hours of 5/10 holdem and am a loser so far.
How do you adjust to a game that appears to be full of loose and loose aggresive opponents? Should I abandon raising with 2 high cards? Play more speculative holdings? Give up most bluffs? Respect virtually any action when there appears to be a hand that can beat mine?
I would descibe myself as a typical tight aggressive opponent, that can turn passive when I run into a succession of bad beats. By the way, I have always kept records and I am definately ahead overall, although not at the rate per hour you have achieved. I have won a substantial amount at Planet Poker but cant get anywhere at planet. Im pretty perplexed right now.
thanks for your advice.
clueless,
There are quite a few adjustments that you should probably make. First, realize that 3/6 online is not an easy game. Here are some basic tips:
1) Excercise game selection. Look for known fish.
2) Excercise hand selection, play tighter agaisnt known sharks, and just a smidge looser against the fish.
3) Play during prime time, the best games are found from around 4pm to midnight central time.
4) Play all the games to find out which ones are best suited to your style.
5) Don't play over your online bankroll, the variance will knock you out.
6) Take notes and track other players play.
7) Maintain strict concentration on the game, avoid surfing the internet while you play.
8) Remember that it *is* money that you are playing with.
9) Avoid e-tilt. (see Internet Forum)
Hope those suggestions help. More tips can be found in the Internet Poker forum.
- Andrew
I play two tables at once, the 1.7 is a sum rate for BOTH tables. I fairly faithfully follow Abdul's advice about pre-flop play in low-limit games. I do not play speculative holdings out of position unless there are many limpers and I am in the small blind. You MUST know your opponants in order to deduce which bluffs to push and which to muck. spitball
The online games may be tougher and have an inreased risk of collusion, but at least they are smoke-free. I like to gamble with my money, not with my health!
Hi, I play at planet poker and is not as tight than paradise poker. i am up 275% at planet and down 50% at paradise. but I like planet better so that might be why i am up there I play alot more. Yes tight is the rule and tigher is better but i see starting hand at planet that would lose anywhere. what i do when i am playing to to switch table every hour or so and it help me over come any friendship in the game but i ahve not really see anything like i have seen in home games. i play almost every day. Enjoy your self and follow the advice that other have given and i do think online is good. ron
Could someone please give me a quick cost "online house take" estimate for playing 3-6 poker games online. And what online poker game sites are apt to be in business down-the-line?
I experienced the Gardena CA Rainbow Card Club shutdown "failure" in the early 1980's when and where the outstanding Rainbow poker chips became worthless immediately "overnight." Also concerning cheating....
I am very wary of online poker. It has been my experience in the past that any poker game with substantial stakes is a potential haven for various forms of cheating. Especially in home games when playing with strangers -- even some long time acquaintances. I suspect that many of the the online sights will cause problems for the players in the future.
Sincerely, Bill
Bill, I've been watching for quite a few hours and haven't detected anything untoward. I think you're right to be cautious tho. I would only play small stakes and would not leave a large bankroll on deposit.
I think ParidisePoker and PlanetPoker are the top 2 right now. I could be wrong.
I have been playing a lot of heads up poker (5-10 Omaha high and some Hold'em. One blind of $5) the past few weeks and last night, an interesting conversation came up during the game.
I had just dealt a hand, and at the end of it, my opponent -a very unskilled player- began to roll himself a smoke, and so insisted that I deal again because he was 'busy'.
I, of course, smiled at this turn of events, and we play another hand with me dealing again. Now, my opponent thinks about things for a while, and asks me why I seemed happy about dealing a second time. He figures that I am mostly happy about him having to pay the blind again but he doesn't care because he stays for practically every flop anyways. I am not one to hold back info, so I give him a brief explanation of the importance of position. He seemed unconvinced and shook his head at me like I was crazy.
Now, I wasn't sure of the probabilities involved right at that moment, but impulse got the best of me and I made him a proposition. I offered to play him Texas hold'em but to deal him a third card every time. He would have to discard one before the flop. The trade off was that I got to deal every hand and always have position on him.
I was positive that with one $5 blind being paid by him, I'd eat him alive, but he didn't go for it. He offered to do it however, if we alternated blinds in the usual way, with me still dealing every hand and always having position. Now I thought about it for a while, but I didn't go for it and we just kept playing like we were before.
Should I have taken him up on the proposition with alternating blinds?
And, though I seriously doubt this!, should he have taken me up on the first proposition, with the blind always paid by him?
if he always has the blind you can just wait for AA (or KK if you're a loose player). he might, however, catch on to this.
brad
You know there is something fundamentally wrong with the structure you play with. I think heads up, there should be antes and NOT blinds. It the nonblind has little motivation to enter the pot. That being said, if you must play w/blinds it seems the button should post not first to act.
Seems you should make a more sporting propostion! THe one you give obviously gives you too much of an advantage.
Sporting? Surely you are joking. But your comments about the structure being flawed interest me. I have often suspected with the way we are playing, my best strategy while dealing was to simply fold anything but an absolutely premium hand. Still, out of a sense of 'sporting competition', I guess I stayed in a lot even with less than Double suited aces.
If the game were three handed, or four handed and only one blind was being posted by the first to act, is this strategy still correct? Should I be folding all but premium hands as long as I'm not paying the blind?
I have often though of correcting these guys that I sometimes play with and suggesting that we move to a 2-5 type casino blind structure, but I generally do very well at the game, so I never have. If I can make even more by not correcting them when they are always staying in anyways, there's absolutely no way I'm going to. Perhaps I'm not sporting enough.
after thinking about tilting and what badger wrote, i recognized two 'modes' of play for me.
the first is when im winning or just sat down. i feel i have chips and my opponents are going to have a hard time getting them. and while theyre at it, if they make any mistakes ill really punish them.
the second is when im losing. i usually play 10 20 and buy in for 3 or 400, ready to pull out 2 or 3 more. if im down to around 100 i feel i have now 'lost' the initial round; now i feel as if i need to 'get chips'; get my chips back or get their chips or whatever. what is interesting is that i start to think about playing borderline hands (im being generous) on the (at the time) theory that if i hit ill get paid off handsomely.
of course, the value of such a realization as this is its predictive power; i should be able during a game to examine my motivation and mental state and categorize which 'mode' im in, perhaps even going to the extreme of taking a short break, recording the (until that point) session as a loss, and then 'starting over' as a new session.
comments appreciated, brad
p.s. its not like i always go on tilt when i sit down and start losing , only sometimes, and also ill mention mode 3, when youre winning and shift into loose aggressive mode to really clean up( of course ive really only tried this a handful of times, and against weaker opponents.)
I've always felt that the best way to guard against tilt is to develop a very strong knowledge of the game. Then when an unusual situation occurs or a frustrating run of cards, you are ready for it and can handle it well.
yes, that is the goal, of course, but the reality is that (sometimes) judgement gets a little impaired, and you start thinking that 78s is playable UTG since you havent played a hand in 45 minutes and theyve got you pegged as an unimaginative rock.
brad , (thinking about what youre thinking im thinking about.)
Masons point is very good as expected.might I add some personnal thoughts that may help as well our poker community.
Get prepared before you sit down.it seems so many just show up sit down and think thier "A" game will just kick in, Well I`m sorry just isnt sensible.
You will tilt if you lack discipline, self confidence, game knowledge and positive expectation aggression.
My rule of thumb is this if you dont have a WELL READ poker library you need not bitch when you lose cause your the one and only sucker likely at the table..
Always,always stay in the present moment (current hand)To heck with the hand you won or lost the last round.
never ever sit down with a full stomach.it amazed me all the players at the WSOP who had a huge amount of food during thier breaks.Its fact that the oxygen your brain desperately craves to focus is now null and void
Many players I would say just dont observe the game they plan to enter.Its a fact you can get into the rythum of the game you plan to enter by closely observing and acting out being at the table.TRY IT
they say money flows clockwise .Well its safe to say that your winning will be much like a wave, small wins, large wins, mediocre wins, no wins. its the reality so be realistic.
One last point if you dont have a thorough gut and mental understanding of the game and positive diecipline attributes you will never excel.
they say if you dont suffer bad beats when you lose your playing is inferior.These are the only losses any great player excepts.
best of decisions
jg
If you are playing $10-20, the natural amount to buy in for is a rack of red ($500). You will not go into panic mode so quickly.
"that i start to think about playing borderline hands (im being generous) on the (at the time) theory that if i hit ill get paid off handsomely. "
This is not incorrect thinking even though you are associating it with being behind. I would be more inclined to believe that the game is loose enough that you believe drawing hands that you call "borderline" will win a big pot. My guess is that you make a fair amount of come backs playing this way. If so, that in itself should tell you something. Such as, don't wait until you are behind before finding lucrative situations in a loose game.
Mason is probably correct. The best way to non tilt is to learn as much as possible about the game. Become an expert with poker winning concepts.
Going on tilt is not "about playing borderline hands". Going on tilt is being in a mental state that is akin to being in a coma. Sometimes it lasts only a short time and unfotunately sometimes it lasts for a whole session or in extreme cases two sessions. But if you know enough about yourself and your game to recognize tilt you will soon stop. Either by losing all your money or gathering the strength to just quit the game for a while. Sometimes just winning a big hand will settle you down and knock you back into the real world and stop your tilting. Tilt is not very well understood and consequently has not been adequately addressed by the poker theorists.
I am working on tilt proofing myself as we speak. I have done this unsuccessully before. In line with Mason's comments I believe that the most effective method one can develop to combat tilt is that of "being prepared". I am focusing on that.
vince
This post is not my original idea, but I forget who wrote it - one of the poker authors, I believe in a recent PD or CP.
Your bankroll is what it is. From this moment forward, you are starting "even," and you should play like that.
You even said it yourself, Brad - if you are down a few hundred, "close the session," record a loss, re-buy to your standard starting point, perhaps take a break for one round, and then sit down, even again. This might solve your problem.
Dick
Dick,
Mike Caro wrote this and I like it a lot. It is especially effective when trying to determine if you are going to leave a game a little earlier than usual or press on a little longer and put in some overtime. It will help you make the decision based on the "goodness" of the game and personal considerations rather than whether you are "stuck" or not.
Regards,
Rick
Thanks, Rick ... This was Mike's idea that I simply repeated here.
Dick
Brad, I noticed during your post that you are concentrating on yourself. Your thoughts are on your own chip stack, your own results, your own feelings.
Get your nose out of your own chips and look around!
You should vary your play, but not because your chip stack is bigger or smaller, but because of how the table character has changed or how the other players' reactions to you have changed.
Wrong: "Crap. I just had my aces cracked when this bozo stayed in with 93 suited and pulled a flush on the river. If he is playing crap like this, I can play worse hands too. I'll loosen up so I can get even faster."
Right: "Fascinating. This guy stayed in with a 93 suited, even cold-calling my raise pre-flop. I need to remember that he does this, and always make sure that I bet into him with value, to make him pay for his poor draws. Furthermore, since he just succeeded, he will probably stay in with even poorer draws in the near future."
You get the idea. Externalize your decision-making process, carefully observing your opponents. It will sometimes matter whether you have been winning or losing, as to how your opponents are treating you ... but keep looking at them instead of yourself, and be objective about the current effect of your image.
Dick
Before going into a session, rehearse in your mind being involved in several losing scenarios like getting beat with a runner-runner on the river, not getting any playable hand for hours and hours, having Aces cracked, missing on several draws in a row where the pot was very large, etc. See yourself in your mind's eye calmly, maturely, intelligently, and confidently respond to each of these losing scenarios. Jack Nicklaus, Andre Agassi, Michael Jordan and other great competitors never go into competition without first doing a rehearsal in their mind's eye about how they will respond to the many competitive scenarios, positive or negative, that they are potentially going to face in actual play. I suggest you do the same. By doing so, you'll be prepared when the waves do come...and they will. P.S. Over at the Texas Holdem forum, in a thread entitled "mental stability during poker", I wrote a self hypnotic trick that when done thoroughly and completely, will help you neutralize any feelings of tilt in an instant. Even though it may seem bizarre, have an open mind, and please try it out.
I was just reading through the hands I've posted to these forums over the last 6 months or so, and I couldn't find one hand that I posted that I ended up a loser. And I don't seem to be the only one with this addiction. It seems that almost every poster on here either posts only hands that they won or only hands that they lost, but never both.
I know there's a point to this post, but I've yet to figure out what that point is.
I like to posts hands that I lose with because I always wonder if I made a mistake. Was it really necessary to lose as much money as I did? I find that many of these big hands I lose with involve making poor decisions on the flop. I find it instructive to get numerous opinions from the various posters on this forum along with their rationale. Of course some people think that if a decision is close that it is not worthwhile to post but I disagree. I think you can really improve your game by being exposed to all the factors that players consider in arriving at a decision.
Posting the close decisions is beneficial for the reason you state.
It's the non-relenting nature of some of the posts that can be irritating. When it really is a close decision then what actually happened it not really important. Why it is a close decision it what is.
I am just as concerned about mistakes I might have made in hands I've won.
One thought is that some players can handle thier losses so they just play on ...others hate to lose but can`t bring themselves to discuss it.Others get so pissed they want answers...
now when you speak of winning its more of a hidden thought perhaps that did i play well or did I just get by..
Jim is right its so valuable to expose yuor play of a hand on here cause you`ll get every variable known to mankind on the play and thought process.
jg
I think some posts have a theme and then the poster win post a few hands with that theme. Now if the theme is something like paying off too much on the river the poster will pbly post only hands they lost. And vice versa!
Sure a few of the posts are a bit ego centric but what do you expect?
I have been playing a lot lately, maybe 50 hours per week. But I find that in the last few weeks, I get bored very easily. How do you guys handle boredom?
i play poker. :)
seriously , 50 hours a week seems a little much.
why not take a break?
brad
Quite simply cut back..A bored mind is a very beatable mind..
If you must continue to play get the heck up every hour and move around.Its ok to skip a hand or two if it keeps you centred.Get outside breath deep occasionally and return
Newbie this is vital that you understand that "its not the quantity of time playing but the quality time of playing".
I know a player who spends an average amount of time in card rooms yet he`s better then those playing 50 hours a week cause he`s better able to focus and get the best of his decisions..
If your goal is hours per week of play to gain an egde your dead in the water.Everyone confuses quantity with quality.
My maximum time is no more then 3 or 4 hours per session unless I`m running well period .But once I`m starting to sway I`m gone period.
jg
Winning cures boredom....seriously. Fifty hrs a week can be a bit too much over a long haul. You should try to get better hours. If you have kept records, you might have a feel for your most productive hrs. If so, cut out some of the non-productive hrs.
I play in a casino in AC, so when I get bored I simply get up and walk on the boardwalk or go onto the casino floor and watch the people. On nice days, I walk to the next casino and play a little there.
Please don't resort to telling bad beat stories to alleviate your boredom like so many others. James
"So I'm in late position with AA. I raise two middle position limpers. Flop comes...." Uggggggggghhhhhh!!!
I'm assuming that you really are a "newbie". When one is just starting out, it is like one were in a city that one had never been to before. Everything is new and therefore very interesting. I notice this among Las Vegas tourists on their first visit or those who haven't been to Vegas since "New York New York and Monte Carlo were still a desert". But when one has been around, everything becomes ho-hum. I think this is what has happened to you Newbie. My advice is this: Learn to notice more things while you are playing. Not just external things like the pot, a certain players tells, but your own thinking processes as well.
Newbie,
Read poker books until you want to play to try out these great theories. Do as they say and if they don't work come back and tell the whole world why they didn't work according to Newbie. Your not thinking enuf if your bored or your focusing on something that is in your life that poker has removed due to your 50 hours of playing that you haven't addressed properly. Then there is always the statement that Poker isn't for you. You have to research the Why of it to get the answer!!
paul
You may be coming down from a poker high. When starting out, everything about poker is exciting.
You can often tell a new player by the types of stories they tell. You know "like the gutshot J to make a higher straight" etc. To the more experienced players this conversation is just not stimulating.
This progresses up to when most players just aren't interested in talking or hearing about "hands they've seen" while at the table.
I try to make conversation about non-poker related stuff. Your're neighbour may not be interested so take that in mind. Only discuss this stuff between hands.
During the hand, just watching the play should be enough. If poker continues to be very boring then you may not be cut out to play that many hours a week.
Good Luck
I use the small table below to chart out the hands at the table and
write down the action (k = Check, B = Bet F = Fold , c2 = called 2 cold ect...)
This will keep your head in the game and you can learn a great deal about how others play.
| Board | ______ | ___________ | ______ | ______ | Show Down | Action | Pre | On the Flop | River | Turn | . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SB | . | . | . | . | . |
| BB | . | . | . | . | . |
| UTG | . | . | . | . | . |
| 4 | . | . | . | . | . |
| 5 | . | . | . | . | . |
| 6 | . | . | . | . | . |
| 7 | . | . | . | . | . |
| 8 | . | . | . | . | . |
| CO | . | . | . | . | . |
| BTN | . | . | . | . | . |
| Odds: | ______ | ___________ | ______ | ______ | ______ |
| Board | ______ | Qh 5d 6c | Kc | 2s | Show Down | Action | Pre | On the Flop | River | Turn | . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SB | . | . | . | . | . |
| BB | . | . | . | . | . |
| UTG | f | . | . | . | . |
| 4 | f | . | . | . | . |
| 5 | L,c | k,f | . | . | . |
| 6 | L,c | k,f | . | . | . |
| 7 | R | B,RR | B | B | AA |
| 8 | c2 | R,c | c | f | 8c7c |
| CO | f | . | . | . | . |
| BTN | c2 | f | . | . | . |
| Odds: | _10:1__ | ___16:1 | 8:1____ | _10:1__ | ______ | ______ |
I have AA in #7 seat
Pre-Flop:
UTG Folds,next fold,Limp,Limp,Raise,calls 2 cold,Cut off Fold,Button cold calls
Pot odds: 10:1
On the Flop: Qh 5d 6c
Check,Check,Bet,Raise,Fold,Fold,Re-Raise,call
Pot Odds: 16:1 or 8 Big Bets
On the Turn: Kc
Bet,Call
Pot Odds: 10:1
On the River: 2s
Bet,Fold
He flashes his cards 8c7c and mucks
Pot Odds:
Best of it !!
MJ
how do you keep your opponents from seeing this chart? although I think its a good idea if you can hide it, frankly, if i used it, other people I play with daily will notice it and they will realize that I take the game much more seriously than they do. This would be a huge drawback, as I would not be counted on as "one of the guys" anymore.
I get up and take a "stroll" grab a seat at the bar or a bank of slots and just jot down the hand. Then head back. I would agree that if you do it at the table it look a bit strange. Also to take a break is good for me to get away from the table to rember the hand.
Best of it !!
MJ
"How do you guys handle boredom?"
I love the game, it's that simple. Being a youngster who has just finished university I find I can have 12+ hr sessions without missing a hand and without losing concentration. It's nice to get up once in a while and stretch though.
Also, although it is slightly distracting, I like chatting it up with my neighbors. Meeting new people and having a half-ass intelligent conversation aren't all that bad :)
I like scrutinizing the players too. I play guessing games to see what they have. I enjoy inside comments like "what a f***ing moron" or "better look out when that guy bets" and stuff like that. Although I agree that most play is quite menial, there is always a situation in a session that is a tough choice. I have a lot to learn about the game and everyone has a lot to learn about the other players. There's a lot to keep the mind occupied.
Jim Roy jproy@ee.ualberta.ca
I guess that's where the word "grinder" came from. I'm surprised it took as much as 50 hrs a week of limit-betting to get bored with it. Boredom and the feeling that there are better (and more profitable) things to do with your time are what make most pros give up the full-time grind. It's happened to many players I know who once loved the game and now have almost no interest in it. As one commented to me "the flavour is gone". When that feeling is gone it just becomes a job, and not a very interesting one at that.
Wait till you have been doin it for 25 years. You will have wished you spent your time elsewise.
I put the rent money on the table. ;-)
Just this past week, I played 4 days in a row. That's the first time I have done that in quite some time. And guess what...by the end of the 4th day, I was bored out of my mind. I have not played at all this week and doubt that I will play till sometime next week.
It's like anything else...you do too much of it and you will get bored of it. I doubt that I could play poker full time for that reason alone. In addition, I am prety sure that having to play for the rent money will put a serious dent in my win rate.
So, as to your question "how do you handle boredom?"...easy...get a real job and play part-time:)
"It's like anything else...you do too much of it and you will get bored of it."
So if you don't do enough of it then you don't get bored with it! I see. So my ex wife was actually doing me a favor and keeping me interested with all those headaches. Thanks, skp, I don't feel like such a loser anymore.
Vince.
x
Thanks skp, but I don't need a job.
My advice to a real newbie would be to get a real job. As for a "newbie" who plays the limits you do...well rock on, pal.
Real players don't get real jobs. Getting a real job is what an ass kisser does. A real player is an ass kicker not an ass kisser.
What a simplistic view of the world. It's all black-and-white for you, isn't it?
Testosterone has nothing to do with good poker. In fact, testosterone has little to do with anything.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Poker is an art. That makes me (a full-time poker player) an artist. Picasso and Van Gogh never held a job, even if it meant they were going to starve. They just painted from their heart. A real player plays from his heart. I would rather make $1 kicking ass than $10 kissing ass. And I'm sure all dedicated play from the heart players think the same way. It has nothing to do with testosterone. It has everything to do with passion towards the art of poker. A passion which guarantees zero boredom due to a very high interest in everything that is going on in the game and to an intense feeling of grattitude towards the Creator for giving one the opportunity to do what one was meant to do in life. This is my full color palleted and panoramic view of the world.
I don't think so.
I put a meal on the table every day for my family and fortunately my wife needs not work for us to do it. If kissing ass is how I do it then line them up.
It's not hard to see the choices many poker players have made. They have chosen poker over life.
All of what you say is rationalization for escaping responsibility, although I do like the way you say it.
Comparing poker to art ... Come on ... Everything is an art by that standard. Cutting my lawn is an art.
Maybe the best poker players are tortured souls but I would not have wanted to live my life as Van Gogh.
Anyway, excellent post, I just can't (or won't) agree with your point of view.
First....picture a small circle.....next....picture a a much bigger circle surrounding that little circle. That little circle is life and that bigger circle of which the little circle is a component of is poker. Poker encompasses life. You don't get it do you?
Of course I don't get it or I'd be playing poker for a living. This is obvious. 8-)
Little circle ... Big circle .. A wheel within a wheel.
Here's a nice link http://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/spinning_cyl for a wheel within a wheel.
I understand that one may see poker as paralleling life. I don't really see poker encompassing life. Possibly you could elaborate beyond the 2 circles?
Maybe some of your background. Previous occupations, wife, kids, divorced or not, poker credentials etc.
I doubt many artists refer to what they do as "kicking ass".
The main thing I take issue with is your romantic concept that artists, poker players, and the like are better, because they don't kiss ass. What makes you assume that the majority of people kiss ass? Is that what you had to do to keep your old job, maybe? I don't kiss ass, and I work in a big corporation. I'm sure many of the posters here, most of whom work a "regular" job, don't kiss ass. Of course, if you consider being polite to a co-worker as kissing ass, then maybe we all do.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Being polite to a superior is kissing ass. That's the point. A full-time poker pro is his own boss.
I read all the posts from Poker Veteran expecting each time that he would reveal that he was joking. I'm beginning to suspect he believes what he says, incredible as it seems. It always strikes me as a little tragic when someone who regularly plays against people who live far more rich and interesting lives and make a whole lot more money regards their opponents as suckers. It's good to see that no one is agreeing with him. Bart Simpson would probably be onside, but no one else.
Are you implying that a poker pro's life is not the most rich and interesting life possible? This is sheer blasphemy. More than anything else, the act of poker playing has made me closer to God. Poker goes waaaayy beyond money and making a living. Poker is a spiritual experience. Poker is religion!
I think he is just yanking chains.
I think you got it wrong. Kissing ass is just like bluffing in poker. As a matter of fact it's much easier than you think. I know a lot of people that kiss ass. Then guess what happens, they get promoted and make even more money. Just like you can profit from bluffing, you can kiss ass and make lotsa money too. Most people that kiss ass make alot more money than the average pro poker player. The more ass they kiss, the more money they make. Then you get some real good benefits, like health care, stocks, retirement accounts, holiday parties and picnics just to name a few. Poker is a pretty tough game and difficult to master, but kissing ass is very easy to learn. For some people kissing ass comes naturally, but for me it is difficult, sometimes, but with all the benefits you can not lose. So, what's the point. In life you have to do a lot of crap that you don't want to do to, so you'll be able to enjoy things that you like to do. It's call sacrifice.
Is life really this shallow for you mah?
Have I got this right?
A pro player with nothing but poker to live and breath for is asking another homo-sapien if "life is really that shallow!
poker veteran,
it's been fun, but really, I can no longer reply to this thread, once a comment like this has been made!
Bye, until you change your posting name.
No.
Consider yourself fortunate if you can make a living off of playing poker, because most people can't.
When you work for someone else you are getting paid to do what they tell you to do, if you don't like it you can quit and find another job, so actually you don't have to kiss ass if you don't want to, but you will find out that it makes the job easier if you want the job to be profitable.
If you really want to be on your own, you are best to start your own company.
I don't think playing poker for a living is very desirable if you have to play everyday. There are jobs much easier to learn that will make more money for the majority of people.
Good Point. I certainly didn't get to my lofty status (hey where is my name on the heirarchy chart) by kissing ass.
I have a job, I do it. I get paid well for it. Sometimes I like it sometimes I don't ....
Hey! Poker is life after all!
Well, I'm polite to pretty much everybody (at least until they show by their words or deeds that they don't deserve it), so I guess that makes me the #1 ass-kisser in your book.
However, it's become painfully clear that I'll never be kissing your ass.
It appears that you're really not deserving of much of anything, other than maybe some pity. I for one would prefer it if you began posting elsewhere, but it's a free world, so do as you wish.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Save your pity for those poor souls who hate their "real job" so much, they can't wait for 5 p.m. so that they can finally clock out, they can't wait for friday so that they can finally get a away from the rat race that they've found themselves trapped in, they can't wait for retirement so that they can finally go out and do what they really want to do. For these people, monday is blue, friday is thank God day, wednesday is humpday. For the committed and passionate poker pro, everyday is Christmas, win or lose or draw.
I'll bet you'd kiss the floor persons ass if they did you right :-)
I played for rent money (no, not with rent money) from last Aug. to this April, and it doesn't make any difference in your game. You think it will, but once you sit down and start playing it's all the same. That said, I'm not doing it now, for a couple reasons. First, as you said, it does get old real fast. It's not the game that gets to you, but the neanderthals at the table. I don't mind gambling, but God do I HATE gamblers. Secondly, I got sick of the drive back and forth to the casino-- which is exactly 132 miles (that's 200 kilometers, for those posters who are still stuck on that stupid metric system :)) from door to door. But I think I could have handled that if I'd had the chance to play with smart, engaging personalities every day.
Thanks for all the responses. First, let me point out that I am not really a "newbie" to poker...I've played on and off for 5 years, and in the last 6 months, I've played full time. I play 20/40, 40/80, 80/160, 100/200 (I play as high as I can, but the higher games aren't spread all the time).
Boredom doesn't get the best of me, from a financial perspective. I mean, I don't have a lower win rate because I am bored...so I'm not worried about that. And in the 20/40 and 40/80 games, seriously, its the same guys everyday, day in day out, and I have a good peg on all of them already (sure, every once in a while, someone plays slightly different, but I pick that up too)...so paying attention is not nearly as important as it used to be. I can say that in the 80/160 and 100/200 games, I am not bored (I guess because the limit is stimulating enough)
So, if anyone has a good idea as to how to "not get bored", please let me know. Please keep in mind that it doesn't hurt my game (trust me), I'm just trying to make things more interesting for myself.
geez newbie haven`t you been listening at all.
jg
make a game out of it. see how many hands you can muck in an hour and then try to break that record.
or you can memorize poems and passages from books, plays and movies and recite them in your mind. stuff like that works wonders during most conversations.
scott
Moving up in limits will cure your boredom as you say. You need to stay at the higher level limits to keep it interesting. When you get bored with $100-200 you should have enough to retire.
volunteer, teach kids, exercise, write, have a full and interesting life outside of poker. Without my many interests away from the table, the game would drive me nuts. I could see becoming a bitter, boring old hack with nothing but negative ideas to share. Yeah, the game can become dull and repetitive. But it's better than working:) spitball
.
"...have a full and interesting life outside poker". Good advice that has the added benefit of strengthening your game. That's because a lot of things in areas that on the surface have nothing to do with poker do have a lot to do with poker. That's because poker is life and life is poker. Volunteering will give you a sense of oneness with the world and the community that in turn would give you a sense of inner peace while you are playing. Exercise will strengthen your body which in turn will strengthen your mind, making it more efficient at handling the pressures that exist at the poker table. Writing will train you to organize your thoughts and ideas in a coherent manner, an invaluable asset at the poker table. Teaching kids will remind you of the child that exists within you. A child who has a mind open to dreams and fresh ideas. Etc. Good post.
"Poker is a spiritual experience". "I am an artist" etc etc. I guess if it's a religion then the sacrament has to be money, served with adrenalin and testosterone. PV, you have the best sense of humour: you had me believing you for a while.
David Z.
Use the time in between hands to improve your game. Try to put players on hands. After the first two callers, try and guess how many players will be in the pot by studying the body language of those yet to act. On the flop, try to figure out who's going to bet, raise, etc. Try to figure out what the best hand is.
Turn it into a game if you want. If you're thirsty, tell yourself you won't order a coke until you accurately peg the winning hand before the showdown, or something like that.
I went through a 'boredom' phase about a year and a half ago when I was playing full time, and started hauling my Palm Pilot to the game with me. Between hands I'd write mail, play solitaire, etc. And I took an instant hit to my win rate. That damned Palm Pilot probably cost me 10 times as much as I paid for it by the time I threw the thing in a drawer at home. I learned my lesson - pay attention to the game, at all times.
I think this also explains why so many otherwise good players are complaining about losing at Online Poker. It's just too easy to do other things in between hands, and you wind up losing all the context of the game.
I also like SKP's advice - get a real job. Even if it's a home business, or a small hobby like running a web page or something. Try to bring some small amount of outside income into your life. It'll give you other things to think about, make you more 'legit' in the eyes of spouses, friends, in-laws and bankers, and keep your resume' fresh.
Take a rest man. Doyle Brunson did recommend taking a vacation regularly in his super system remember? When you leave poker for a bit of time you will start enjoying it again. 50hrs a week! wow! Even sex will become boring. A newbie shouldn't be playing that much, you play a bit, think a bit, and learn a bit. Doing anything continuously you will hit a latent period where no improvement takes place or may even start to deteriorate like overtraining syndrome.
"From 1981 until 1992, I played no-limit hold'em in Dallas from noon until 5:00 p.m. every Monday through Friday, and from 7:00 p.m. to midnight or later five days a week. On Sundays, I drove to Shreveport to play pot-limit hold'em. I was putting in 60 hours a week, and sometimes 80, playing no-limit and pot-limit poker during those 11 years."
T.J. Cloutier, Championship No-Limit and Pot-Limit Hold'em.
Vince.
Vince,
T.J. played a lot of poker for awhile. What's the point?
"What's the point?"
I thought the "point" was self evident. T.J. is regarded by many as the best No-Limit Hold'em player ever. Does that help?
Vince
Vince,
I don't understand?
Not really. I can point to 20 players in my local cardroom who have at least as much poker experience. All of them are losing players.
On the other hand, there is a very good player in our local game who started playing poker no more than 2 years ago, built his bankroll playing 3-6, moved to the middle limits about a year ago, and is now beating the 20-40 game pretty good.
Experience matters much more in pot limit than in limit, but as in all games with a large component of randomness, experience without knowledge can actually be counterproductive. The brain just isn't very good at figuring out the long-term meaning of a lot of short term random behaviour.
There are a few players around who have attained a high level purely on the basis of personal talent and experience, but even they probably would have learned much faster and/or gotten much better if they had learned the theory as well.
There is a saying of which I am sure you are aware. That is, that experience is the best teacher. It is not true.
"The brain just isn't very good at figuring out the long-term meaning of a lot of short term random behaviour."
I don't know if this is true or the reason why experience in and of itself is not the best teacher but it sounds reasonable. It's also reasonable to imply that eleven years of playing no-limit poker (successfully) is an indication that on the job training works. This is in no way certitude, however in the case of T.J, given his verifiable results we or I have concluded that at least for T.J. experience was one hell of a teacher. And it's value should not be discounted by most of the rest of us. It is also very reasonable to conclude that experience alone can take you to a specific level of competence but to exceed that level requires "more" than what experience alone has to offer. I don't claim to know what that "more" is.
Vince.
The premier event at most poker tournaments is no-limit hold'em, yet there are not that many people in no-limit holdem tourneys that have a lot of experience playing in money games. I got my no-limit holdem education in the same games as T.J. ( I lived in Dallas from 1980 to 1983), and it was a highly valuable part of my poker education. You cannot play NLH every day nowadays.
you can play it 3 days of the week at Lucky Chances in Colma, CA (near San Francisco).
Blinds are 10-10-20
Where did all the great games go?
CV
In my experience, PL and NL poker games just don't last. The weak players can't survive. In the past, when a lot of the bigger limit games were PL and NL, you'd get a constant stream of new players into the games which would keep them alive. Nowadays, the high rollers have too many other options for their money - big money tournaments, lots of high stakes limit games, etc. Plus, the proliferation of low-limit and medium-limit games gives players lots of options other than moving up.
I'm not a fan of NL and PL poker in card rooms, at least in small ones with a limited poker population. My experience is that they are destructive to the limit games, and never last long anyway. A pattern I've seen happen over and over again is that a card room with a nice sustainable 10-20 or 15-30 will decide to spread a pot-limit game. The weak players who would play all year in a 10-20 start playing PL, get hammered badly, and leave poker altogether, or move back down to the lower limits. Then the pot limit game dies, and the 10-20 struggles.
It's impossible to be a world class player without the experience, but the converse is not true - experience alone will not do much for you. I can point to too many bad players who have been playing for 40 years.
Without the understanding of random behaviour, it's too easy for the randomness of the game to give a person false understanding. Witness the number of experienced players who believe in rushes, lucky seats, lucky dealers, talismans, etc.
I'm guessing that TJ learned the theory along with his experience. Some people like Sklansky may have deduced much of the theory on their own, but that comes from having a strong math background and a strong analytical ability. For the average person playing cards, experience without theory is not much help. Now, they may pick up the theory along the way informally through table chatter, reading the odd Card Player, or whatever. But it's definitely necessary.
This discussion really depends on how you define "experience." If experience just means having played a lot of poker, and not really paying attention to what goes on around you, then I can see your point (and mah's). But I think the experience Vince is talking about is the experience of analyzing what went wrong and what went right. For that it requires a good memory and good deductive powers.
I suspect that most of the regular posters here are fairly bright people, and that without the experience to which to apply the theory, they wouldn't be able to progress past a certain ability. For example, in theory, anyone can determine pot odds, but without actually counting the money in the pot, and determining where you stand, you haven't actually gotten anywhere. So we're not talking "ignorant experience" but we're talking about "conscious experience" here.
Bill
More important than experience is attention. As 7 time Mr. Olympia and 3 time Mr. Universe Arnold Schwarzeneger said, "One arm curl with awareness is worth ten without". As far as the subject of "theory" goes, here's what management expert Peter Drucker said, "Every action lies on theory, even if the practitioner is unaware of it". When a player becomes good exclusively thru hands on experience, it's because he has learned the theory thru hands on experience. He could have learned it from say, The Theory of Poker. Purely thru hands on experience, Johnny Moss knew how to semi-bluff and use implied odds in actual play. But because he didn't care about theory, just didn't know what to call them. But he knew HOW to use them.
My point, however, is that experience is much less valuable in a game in has a large component of randomness. The reason is because the brain wants to apply cause-and-effect to everything, which leads it astray when trying to interpret essentially random behaviour.
I've actually given this a lot of thought, as I wrote some material about it years ago in relation to blackjack. In many situations, players faced with decision-making under conditions of randomness get markedly worse as they gain experience. For example in Blackjack, players are often likely to start out playing close to basic strategy (especially if they start with one of those little casino cards with Basic Strategy written on it). Over time, the nature of the game starts to skew their perception. A common development is the refusal to hit a 16 against a ten, or a refusal to split 8's against a face card. I could go into great detail about why this happens, but that's really out of scope for this discussion.
Another example: It can be shown that a winning blackjack player will only be at his bankroll high about 5% of the time. So the winning player spends most of his time feeling like he's losing ground. For a player without a theoretical understanding of the game, that may lead him to believe that he's playing poorly when he's not. This in turn can leads to experienced-based bad modifications in strategy.
Before Thorp wrote 'Beat The Dealer', only perhaps a handful of people had figured out a strategy to beat blackjack, out of hundreds of thousands of players who relied on years of experience to improve their game. In that case, a winning strategy was simply not apparent through experience.
What you're describing is also common in futures trading as well. Many traders who know the basic time tested maxims like "the trend is your friend" and "ride your winners, cut your losses" end up not acting on this knowledge mainly because they (or someone they know) got hurt in the short run for following these advice and profited in the short run when they(or someone they know) didn't. In other words, short term outcomes have "trained" them to think the wrong way....and it ends up getting grooved into their thinking habits. Thus, the more they play the more ingrained these poor thinking habits become. Thus turning experience into an enemy rather than a friend. Is this closer to what you mean, Dan?
That's exactly what I mean. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the brain tends to seek confirmation for beliefs. Once you believe something, the brain will start filtering data selectively to verify your prejudice. Thus if you believe that K5o is a lucky hand for you and therefore you play it and win a pot, your brain will reinforce that belief. If you play it and lose, you brain will simply discount the data. Humans are terrible at at objective observation of these kinds of events, which is why proper experimental method requires not just blind, but double-blind trials.
Great point about double-blind experimentation Dan...
As a side note to the discussion but somewhat still on topic... I was in Vegas a few weeks ago and there was an Irishman sitting next to be in a low limit Shooter 3/6 game at the mirage... He told me that 99' WSOP Champ Noel Furlong only played the game maybe only a few times a year at home in Dublin... and anywhere else for that matter... I can not confirm nor deny the story's authenticity... but if it's true... it just makes for more analytical discussion...
I have found the writings of Chuck Norris more useful. No, really, I have.
Andy.
The talent required to excel in NL and PL games is "people skills" (empathy, rapport, influence, salesmanship). You can't learn these in a poker book. If a high people skills person with limited knowledge of poker theory were to play heads up NL holdem with a nerd limit grinder who knew everything printed on all the pages in all the books ever sold at the Gamblers Book Club, my money is on the former. Theory goes down the drain in no limit but SENSING whether or not the other guy is being honest or dishonest goes way up in value.
If you knew that you check raised with perfect game theory frequency in all situations, would you alleviate the need to ever make negative EV calls "just to look em up" and "just to keep everybody from running over you"?
I realize the question is a little vague. This is the best phrasing I have right now though.
I think I am defining perfect game theory check raising as doing it as much as possible, and stopping at zero expectation -- just on the check raise plays. Overall I would expect it to increase your EV.
Motivated by the discussions about AKo and AQo and whether to raise with them in late position with any number of limpers:
It's generally held that "implied odds" hands like 87s and small pairs can be played for 1 bet but not, generally, for 2 bets. Many people also hold that hands like AKo should raise or even call a raise, even though they often need to improve to win. Why are these types of hands so different in this regard? Surely it's good to "get in cheaply" with any hand, especially one that needs to improve.
Many feel that raising with hands like AKo will provide greater profit, even if not proportional to the greater risk. Why isn't this true for 87s? In some cases it may be, but often not.
Let's say that the value of a particular hand in the current game is B bets. By that we mean B is the average difference between your stack after you call 1 bet and your stack after the hand is done.
Let's say that a raise will increase the value of a hand by a factor of 1+C. That is the value if you raise is (1+C)B. Note that we are assuming that your raise will not knock anybody out or provide enough information for your opponents to use against you (or vice versa); it is simply to get more money into the pot. We further assume that C is independant of the hand actually held. While this is not strictly true, it seems a good approximation. It is about equivalent to assuming that your chance of winning is unchanged. This may be true for 87s, but AKo may suffer a slight reduction due to increased suck-outs. Essentially, C reflects the extra bets in the pot (due to the raise as well as the tying-on effect).
For a raise to be profitable in this situation, we require that (1+C)B-2 > B-1. I.e. B > 1/C.
Granted that it may be difficult or impossible to actually derive such numbers from simple observation, this approach may be useful to understanding the underlying effects.
If C > 1 and B > 1, then the raise makes sense, even proportionately, and probably should be done every time. Remember that C > 1 means that you are getting back more than double for your double investment. In fact, some hands that are slightly unprofitable for 1 bet, may be profitable for a raise.
Of course, C > 1 is probably almost impossible to get, except in very loose games where a big pot tends to bring everyone along for many bets, or in very tight games where it's heads up and the pot is big enough that one opponent with a weak hand might call you down instead of mucking on the flop.
If B < 1/C, then the raise will lose money and is not advised, unless there are other factors which will improve your situation.
If 0 < C < 1 and B > 1/C, then raising will make money at the cost of much greater variance. In this region, then, we might counsel raising if you have another objective, that is - not raising just for value, unless C is close to 1. Perhaps a raising fequency equal to C is the way to handle the situation. For players with a large bankroll, almost always raising is probably the way to go. Players who are risk averse could almost never raise and not regret the slightly smaller win rate.
For players with detailed records, B and maybe C could be estimated for various hands to determine whether raising is the proper play. Certainly, computer simulations could come up with estimates for various game conditions and we might see how big an error it is to raise (or not raise) in the situations discussed. Probably only in two situations is it a large error. The game is so loose that not raising gives up a lot of bets, or the hand in question is AA or KK so that B is so large that even a small C translates into big profit.
Anyway, just a few thoughts.
Eric
An interesting question was posed tonight and I'm ready to hear the math for it...
What are the Odds of a King High Flush being beaten by an Ace high flush?
In Hold'em with 3 of the flush cards on the board?
In Omaha with 3 flush cards on the board? How about with 4?
A guesstimate on the party that asked it was %30 as we were playing Omaha... I would easily guess that it is a 5th of that or less being the Ace has to be OUT... and Suited... Again... I'll let the math people do their thing here...
Thanks
It depends on the number of players dealt in, and their playing habits. In hold'em, it is not worth worrying about (with only 3 flush cards on the board)...at least, not until you bet your king-high flush and get raised!
I cannot answer your question but it is much higher than you think. Although this does not relate directly to your question, if you were to take all 13 cards of one suit and randomly select 5, the likelihood of you not selecting an Ace is 61%. The likelihood of not selecting an Ace or a King is about 36%. In other words, the majority of flushes you would select would be headed by an Ace or a King. Almost 40% would be Ace-high. Now in hold-em we are frequently dealing with conditional probability rather than random probability because players do not play random cards especially once they take a flop and start calling bets. Specifically, players frequently limp in on hands which contain an Ace. If a three flush flops and you have several players calling bets and raises to take off cards, there is a very real possibility of one flush losing to a higher flush if another suited card hits.
This is one of the reasons why Ace-Little suited is so much more valuable than King-Little suited in jammed pots with lots of players. Drawing to the nuts can make a big difference.
When you are counting the pot is it better to count the number of bets as the come in or is it better to count the money.It would seem to me if you counted the bets that would stay the same even if the limit changed.I would like your comments on this.
n/t
Count the bets.
Start with the Small bets then beore the turn (flop games) divide by 2 now your counting the Big Bets.
In spread games it is better to count the money because the dollar amount can change( 1-5 stud for example).
MJ
If it's structured limit, I count the bets, but in spread limit I count the money.
Unless you can count the pot effortlessly while paying attention to everything else, forget about it. Learn to eyeball the pot and get a rough idea of how much is in there. That's good enough. If you can avoid gross pot-odds errors like calling for gutshots when heads-up with 3 bets in the pot, the rest of the decisions are trivial.
If player 'A' bets into you and you have a gutshot, tell me what the most important factors are in the decision to call or raise:
The answer is that an error of a small bet or so in counting the pot is probably the least important of all these decisions. Expend your focus wisely.
Ah-ha! Since i'm relatively new to casino poker, i thought i'd branch out from hold 'em and try a little 7-stud. my opinion is that it is easier to play and since there isn't the dang flop it is a little easier to put people on hands.
does anybody agree? disagree?
i'm using the chip reese strategy outlined in supersystem-basically, BET premo-pairs to drive out competition and try to get a draw on anything else (baby with big kicker, 3-straight, 3-flush). it is sometimes very straightforward poker when i'm at a table full of guys that aren't caring what they bet, and it is allowing me (i think) to get a great "fundamental" game going.
can anyone comment on this in general? has anyone else been at a game like this and have any helpful comments? the game i play is 2-4 (ugh, i know) and 3-6 STRUCTURED ante of .50 (both). rake is 4.5 + 1 jackpot. a few conclusions i've made, please double check:
play tighter in the 3-6 game because of the low ante. play tight enough in both games that i am going for "fewer" pots that are bigger. the game IS beatable i think because EVERYONE and their brother in law play this game and i think it is mostly older guys (all the young guys are playing hold 'em)...
thanks alot people!
A .50 ante is actually *huge* for 2-4, while moderate for 3-6. Playing overly tight in either game would be a mistake due to the ante. 3-flushes become much stronger in a very loose game, while "trash pairs" like (4h9d)4s have little value. If a lot of players are in, it's not always correct to bet high pairs early in a game where people won't fold - see 7CSFAP for more info on that. 4.5+1 jackpot is a very high rake, and I suggest you try moving up to 5-10 since you won't be able to beat that high a rake in 2-4 or 3-6 unless your opponents are brain-dead. 5-10 players are typically far from expert, and the game plays more like a higher-limit stud game, with ante steals and some aggressive play. I prefer 7stud to holdem myself. One nice thing about 7stud is that the variance is much lower than in holdem.
I'm not quite sure why cheating discussions seem to occur mostly on the theory forum. Perhaps it is a bias of the 2+2 people, who act like cheating is not a confirmed fact.
Anyway, here is what Daniel Negreanu said about it over on r.g.p.:
"Try not to look at this as a bias post, but the Bellagio cardroom is the cleanest poker room I've played in when it comes to cheating. I've seen with my own eyes, blatent cheating at the Commerce, and many other places that I've played both live and tournaments."
I totally agree with what Daniel said (but I beg to differ with his grammar), and I've said almost the same thing here repeatedly over the years. The debate about it is utterly ridiculous. Case closed.
-Abdul
Hi Abdul. Are you talking crooked dealers, collusion, marked cards? Or all forms of cheating? And if it's obvious how do people get away with it? I mean, I've read a lot of information about it on a cheating info. website (forget the name) but I thought it was mainly hype to sell a book or something. Surely the majority of games are clean?
"Tell me it isn't so, Joe." David Z.
Ps. Is my gramer ok?
I can tell you about one of the most blatant cheats that occured to me at Commerce Casino. I was fairly new to poker and was stupid not to realize immediately what had happened to me but this was the case. I had a K high flush in Omaha8, called the river bet and when the first two hands were turned over I saw two nut lows, and the Ace of hearts was in a ladys hand but she didn't have another heart to go with it so I had the nut high. I turned my attention over to something on my left and when I looked back, all of a sudden I saw that the guy next to her had switched aces with her hand giving him the nut high. Like I said, I was young and stupid- So instead of thinking in my mind "I just got cheated by this a$$hole" I said to myself "Damn, how come I thought I saw her with the Ace of hearts and not him?" I was unfortunately caught totally off guard and didn't think quick enough but after about a minute of reflecting on what I had thought I saw, I realized that I indeed got cheated. Now I assumed it was too late to say anything since the pot had been chopped and pushed to those cheating SOB's. I was also under 21 and didn't want to draw attention to myself and risk getting barred from the place since I had over a year and a half till my 21st B-day. Later in the night the lady had admitted what had happened to me and actually gave me some money, but I still felt like crap realizing that I was stupid for letting something like that happen to me.
The person who did this is a guy named Frenchy. He used to always play O8 and some crazy pineapple at Commerce but I do occaisionally see him at Hawaiian Gardens Casino. Anyway, I never saw cheating until this,and I never have since, but realize that it can happen and always be aware of its possibility.
Kris
Wow, amazing really. What astonishes me is that people can be so obvious and they don't seem to care if they get caught. My wierdest experience was at a club in London playing PL 7cs: the players deal themselves at the lower stake tables, and I can't recall there being any cameras evident in that part of the casino: every player at the table shuffled crooked: the most blatant simply did three overhand shuffles, - the equivalent of cutting the deck three times, and then had the cards cut. In effect it was a game of "concentration" where if you could remember the order the cards went into the deck you knew what was coming next or could infer what a players hole cards were. They seemed disappointed when I shuffled thoroughly. Being a curious tourist and with only 100 quid at risk I didn't say anything and simply let it go for an hour or so, to see how the scam worked out for them.
One guy at the table was disliked by everyone because of his constant loud whinging and whining about bad beats etc etc. I made trip tens on 4th and raised, everyone dropped except him. He went all-in to call(which happens in just about every hand of PL 7cs BTw), apparently chasing a flush. When we got to the river the dealer slid the card my opponent should have got into the muck and dealt him the second top card. The whiner looked at the card he had been dealt, which didn't improve his hand, and then protested that he had been given the wrong card: the dealer denied it, and the other players backed him up. Aparently I was the only one at the table who didn't know what the next card was,(I didn't see it, but I presume it would have made his flush) and the dealer had deliberately cheated on my behalf, not out of liking for me but out of dislike for the whinger.
I know this sounds incredible, but I saw it with my own eyes and so did everyone at the table: he definitely gave him the wrong card. I won the pot, and a couple of hand later made aces full, and left, 400 up. Wierd shit, but as obvious as hell, and all you have to do is insist on an effective shuffle to kill that scam. I guess that cheaters are like sharks: it's the ones you don't see you that have to worry about.
David Z
Are you sure he didn't just burn (i.e., muck) the top card each round as part of standard dealing procedure?
-Abdul
Burning cards is not normal in 7cs, as you know: not enough cards in the deck to easily allow for it when there's eight at the table. It was done in a sneaky way, and never happened at any other time. Hard to believe - I could hardly believe it myself - but that's what I saw, and my opponent saw it too, which is why he protested. I was sober and straight and watching carefully. I suppose if I was real straight arrow I would have insisted that he be dealt the correct card and surrendered the pot if it was indeed the flush card everyone thought it was going to be. An interesting ethical question.
DZ.
David: Every casino in every state I've ever played in burns cards in 7-Stud, even with 8 players (a community card is used if necessary.) The burn card is an important game protection procedure. However, I've only played casino poker in America.
Cards are not burnt when playing 7 card in the UK. David, can you tell us which club this was at (although I could probably guess).
Andy.
I missed the replies to the post until today:
To M. I stand corrected on the "never burning cards in 7cs" question. I've never seen it done and I presumed it was for the reason I gave. Goes to show, you never know.....
Andy: Well the name started with Vic, but more than that I will not say, heh. Was that what you suspected?
I find the London story absolutely unbelievable.Ive played in and watched these games and can assure you that there was not one guy at the table whom everybody hated because of his whinging and whining.Everybody hates everybody in this game and they all start whinging on getting within two miles of the club and dont stop till they get home.Even allowing for this there is no way they would cheat to allow an outsider to win.Theyre not that stupid.
I find the London story absolutely unbelievable.Ive played in and watched these games and can assure you that there was not one guy at the table whom everybody hated because of his whinging and whining.Everybody hates everybody in this game and they all start whinging on getting within two miles of the club and dont stop till they get home.Even allowing for this there is no way they would cheat to allow an outsider to win.Theyre not that stupid.
There are no burn cards in the PL 7CS game at the Victoria Casino in London.
There are SOME players who do not shuffle the cards very well. The majority of the time this is innocent because they a) cannot be bothered to shuffle and b) they don't realise the implications of not shuffling. If you simply ask that the shuffle better, they will do. If they do not, then call the floor over and ask that they insist that the cards are shuffled properly. They will do this.
To say that all of the players are tracking the cards from the previous hand is absurd, The majority of them cannot even remember their hole cards. Even if you explained to them that it would be a good idea to remember a sequence of cards the majority of them would not be able to do so.
Please do not take this as a challenge. I do not understand what you are trying to say. My fault, I am sure but still, I do not understand.
After I posted the above, I put on my sweats and went out to sweat. And now I think I understand.
Because cheating certainly exists, it is ridiculous to debate whether it exists. It was the 'ridiculous to debate' part that threw me. If it exists, how could it ever be ridiculous to debate the subject.
New poker players do not have enough experience to see the question as ridiculous.
I know cheating exists but it doesn't worry me, because I have taken the time to arm myself with some knowledge. I would never engage in cheating myself because it is penny ante. Everyone has a price and mine starts at six figures.
In response to Daniel Patton and David Z, I am saying any form of cheating you can imagine exists, contrary to what some have said here. Intentional pot shorting, angles that violate the rules, communicating folded cards by flashing them, communicating information via signals or foreign/codified language, collusional plays, playing in the same game on the same bankroll, marking cards, holding out cards, cheating dealers, etc. Since I lost $4000 in a game that was shut down for collusion and I lost several hundred in a game in which a hold out cheat was caught red-handed with an ace up his sleeve, I am not amused by the people who try to pretend like this thing never happens. If it happens at all, it's too much, and it does happen.
People do not always get away with cheating. The hold-out cheat was backroomed and arrested. He had a crippled right hand, so I suspect this was not the first time he had been caught.
Cheats very often do get away with it, because it's very difficult to prove that they were cheating. For example, I saw a very experienced player dive into the middle of the table and try to scoop in a whole pot that had not been pushed and which was actually a split pot. He knew damn well that you must wait for the dealer to push the pot, and he knew damn well that only half the pot was actually his. However, he acted completely innocent when the floorman was called. This particular player attempts to cheat on almost every hand.
Then there is the problem of getting management to do more than a wrist slap when players are finally caught cheating. Once, a player was using extremely obvious (unrehearsed) signals to communicate to his friend with another player trapped in the middle. I asked the player next to me if he saw what I saw, and he said he did. This was one of the extremely rare times when the players were so obvious about it that they could not claim stupidity and where the evidence for the crime was on video tape. When I brought this to the attention of the shift manager and begged him to look at the video tape, he dismissed it, since he knew both players, they were valuable customers (worth tens of thousands each per year in collections), and the signaller was a dealer at another casino. The colluding players received not so much as a warning.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I was going to email you about this topic in a day or two, as I have an update on our last exchange about it. I'll still do that, but will just make a couple of general statements here.
I actually agree with a lot of what you say. I hope I have not appeared ever to say that cheating never happens. Of course it does. I agree as well that any amount is too much -- far too much.
My only suggestion (not so much an assertion as my first hand knowledge is limited) would be that in L.A., for instance, it does not happen with a frequency in middle and higher limit hold'em games that makes it a serious threat whenever you go to play. Very good players, one a working pro, who have played there a LOT have told me that it's essentially not a problem. I say "essentially" because of course it does occur here and there, and IS certainly a big problem for any player who should happen to fall prey to it on a given occasion.
Though my own experience in L.A. is limited, I've played there about ten times recently, mostly 80-160 hold'em, but also a little 40-80 and 30-60. I haven't seen anything yet. I will also reiterate what I said in a past post -- that some of the regulars and props (Jack Ryan, David Hayano, Randy Kim... I doubt anyone would seriously question these guys' basic integrity in the game.) must act as something of a "police force" in being there to spot and intervene with suspected cheaters.
There are so many very good players (most of whom obviously don't cheat) who populate the Commerce 80-160 game, it's just hard to see how any team could get away with anything for very long without detection and exposure.
Okay, all that said, I do agree that VERY strict enforcement of rules (or laws) against cheating should be applied. I don't doubt your observation that it has not always happened that way.
On a positive note, I heard recently of an incident, on which unfortunately I lack clear details. But it was at Commerce and involved a player who in some way tried to claim a pot that wasn't rightfully his. I think he actually dragged it in. Management brought in the sherriff's department and asked the player who should have won the pot if he wanted to press charges (theft I guess). The player declined, and just took the pot. But this certainly showed some good agressive enforcement action on the part of the Commerce. Such action is, IMO, great, and if made routine should go a long way toward reducing whatever cheating does go on.
I said: "My only suggestion (not so much an assertion as my first hand knowledge is limited) would be that in L.A., for instance, it does not happen with a frequency in middle and higher limit hold'em games that makes it a serious threat whenever you go to play."
I should add that I do have a ton of experience in San Diego, and can say that here cheating is minimal enough to be "not a factor" in the middle limits up through 40-80, the highest limit in the area. The same seemed to be true when I played smaller limits here. I believe, though, that it was probably more of a problem years ago, when the only poker in the area was lowball and draw in little storefront cardrooms.
Here's what Ray Zee said about cheating on our forum in March.
"There is very little orchestrated collusion going on in the main public casino poker rooms. i cannot speak for little rooms but what i have seen there is none to speak of. the collusion of soft playing with friends is not really collusion and doesnt cost a player money. it happens some but it almost always is between bad players and does not involve a loss to an experienced person or probably any other. what would count anyway was whether the combined group of so called colluders won or lost money to the game. but so little goes on one can play without fear. its been said it goes on more in the big games but that is just not true. it may appear to be happenning because most big games all the players know each other and their habits and make very extraordinary plays at times to capitalize on them and an onlooker or new player may get false impressions easily. put me in a game where many players soft play and i and most any decent player will kill the game by using any play they make that is not optimum to my advantage. all the games ive played where players soft play, split pots , run out the cards without betting when just friends are left, are the best and easiest games to win at. almost no pros will be cheating or attempting to cheat as your reputation follows you all your life in poker. those that have are well known when allowed to play, and are almost always broke."
I think Ray is soft playing the issue, and can't see how he imagines "soft playing with friends is not really collusion, and doesn't cost a player money." For example, at least twice at small buy-in tournaments around LA, at the final table I have seen someone refuse to put his buddy all-in, despite clearly having him by the throat. So on these occasions I was cheated out of equity. Now you can argue it is hard to police this activity, and that in marginal situations it can be hard to tell this from merely passive play, but I don't think you can seriously say it hardly ever happens or isn't costly.
Broncosaurus-
Ray Zee is referring to cash ring games. I am sure he would agree that soft playing in tournaments is a form of cheating.
Soft playing in ring games is a form of collusion. When you know that the guy betting won't bet against you heads-up on the river, your standards for calling his bet can be much lower, and the temptation to raise when you otherwise wouldn't is higher. This can put pressure on a third person in the hand, who would have called the bet but can't overcall.
I've been in that situation before, and I can tell you it's extremely hard to figure out the ethical play. A few players I know simply won't bet me heads-up. If that person bets and I have a small pair, one raise on the cheap street can get me all the way to a showdown. If I knew he might put more heat on me on the turn and river I'd have to fold. If I fold, the guy behind me with top pair/no kicker wins the pot. But my raise forces him out of the pot with the best hand. That's collusion. As a result, I've taken people aside and told them to bet me heads-up just like anyone else, regardless if they are my friend or not. They can buy me a steak after the game if they feel really bad about it, but poker should be played straight-up.
That's certainly true, though for me it usually works the other way round and I end up giving more free rides than I get. I have strictly avoided soft-playing anyone for that and other reasons, with two exceptions, my girlfriend, who I don't mind losing equity to, and an old friend, a very loose/weak player. He will call my early half-pot bets/raises (we don't play limit) with trash and then expect me to give him the opportunity to outdraw me for free. That's bad enough when I have a legitimate hand, but when I am bluffing it's ridiculous: my bluff on upcard strength or perceived weakness will force out the best hand and allow his unplayable trash to win. I avoid playing at the same table with him to avoid the conflict, but it's a pain because there is often only one game available, and he is almost always the biggest fish, and not betting him is cutting my own throat to save his. Even when I do bet him and tell him to bet me, he simply refuses. Many soft players exploit the advantage you have described, hiding it behind a "mates don't bet their mates" smokescreen.
He is trying to say this matter is a tempest in a teapot, whereas anybody playing, in at least certain major jurisdictions, knows that it clearly is a recurrent problem in small and medium tournaments.
And it seems odd to argue that cheating happens with some regularity in tournaments but for some magical reason is almost unheard of in ring games. As you seem to imply.
As others have said, I dont think the problem is big enough to drive people from the game, but it is only good sense to acknowledge and be on the lookout for it when it happens.
That was not posted in March; it was posted on April 1.
-Abdul
The real shame of all of this is that if the level of cheating was what you would like us to believe, then none of us should be playing poker. Furthermore, given that you are this paranoid, I don't believe that you should be playing poker since it doesn't seem possible to me that you could concentrate on the right things when seated in a game. I suspect that every time you sit down at the poker table it is a very unpleasant experience, especially not knowing who if anyone can be trusted.
As you know, the main forces in my life right now are my girl friend, Two Plus Two Publishing which includes these forums, and keeping up with my tennis. Poker is also important, and I do try to play several nights a week. But when I play, my time at the poker table is quality time and is an activity that I look forward to (as do most of our posters). I don't see how this can apply to you, and it is very sad to see this happen to anyone.
You sound very deluded about me and a lot of other things. I merely say cheating exists. I was at the tables where two different hold-out cheats were caught. I've had players attempt to cheat with me by telling me their folded cards quietly or flashing their cards to me, before I told them to never do that again. I saw a girlfriend vigorously shake her head to her boyfriend who is considering calling, when she can see the hand of the bettor. It happens. It is going to cost you hundreds of dollars on a single hand periodically. There is always a low level of intentionally shorted pots, intentionally double-moved buttons, etc.
I'm sure Ray feels much the same way I do.
I'm glad you have a girlfriend and are making her a priority in your life.
-Abdul
I'm with Abdul on this one. I suspect cheating is far more prevalent than some people want to admit.
A dealer at the Seminole casino here in Tampa told me they recently caught a hold-out artist in (are you sitting down for this?) the .25/.50 stud game. The same dealer said they're currently monitoring two other players. If people will risk getting caught cheating for these stakes, of course they would be willing to take that risk for even more money.
The idea that professional card players won't cheat because their reputation stays with them is dangerously naive. Anyone who has played bridge seriously knows that cheating is rife among the pro ranks - it's one reason I stopped playing bridge. Rampant, hard-to-detect cheating by pros is why the top bridge tournaments have to played with screens, bidding boxes, and kickboards, and why in team play they have to put the two tables in entirely different rooms at the big events. Admittedly, bridge lends itself more readily to cheating than poker does, but I have never seen much evidence that the psychological makeup or demographic background of top bridge players is much different from that of top poker players, and if anything there is far more money at stake in top-drawer poker than in most any sanctioned bridge game.
The best players also make the best and therefore more dangerous cheats, because they know how to do so in a way to avoid drawing attention to themselves. The few cheats who have been caught in bridge were almost certainly doing it for months if not years before someone finally got suspicious enough to investigate, and often months more before the codebreakers could figure out how it was being done. So I think it's very naieve to assume that just because you haven't noticed any cheating doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I understand why 'ambassadors' for the game of poker might not want to sully the game's reputation any more than it already is. We're trying to get more people to play, and more states to legalize poker, and this is already tough enough because of poker's overall dirty image. But denying that a problem exists won't make it go away.
x
Suppose you decide to pool bankrolls with a friend, perhaps to play at a higher limit than normal. On the river, an opponent bets and your friend calls. Your read is that the opponent either missed his flush draw or has a very strong hand like a set. You have something like top pair second kicker, and you put your friend on about the same. If your bankrolls were separate, you would estimate that it is the same zero expected value (EV) whether you call or fold. (More precisely, you would estimate there is zero certainty equivalent for both plays.) However, given that you are pooling bankrolls, calling has about the same EV as flushing one big bet down the toilet.
Now, what is your play??
-Abdul
The most blatant cheating I have ever seen was at $2 poker. The players were unsophisticated and the cheats could get away with murder.
I knew of a private game with a peep hole in the ceiling that they would use when they were playing head up gin matches before and after the poker games.
I saw a game break up at the Commerce club one time and everybody that was left at the table pushed their chips and gave their money to one player. Since they were all a team and everyone else had quit there was no point in them continuing playing.
A friend of mine thwarted some known cheats by sneaking to their house early and listening outside the basement window to their plans to "rob" him. Then, when he was dealt the "cooler" he would just casually muck his cards and then enjoy the perplexed looks on his hosts faces.
I was playing at the Bellagio in a 15-30 stud game during this years WSOP and a guy walked up to the player on my right, who was in the middle of a hand, and proceeded to tell him how to play the hand. Bet, now raise, bet the river. He just looked like he was sweating the guy but he was giving him instructions in a very soft voice. When I looked at him with a questioning expression. He just said, "It's MY money--what business is it of yours!"
In a 10-20 holdem game a very loose lady threw away three's full on the river because of a bet on her right. She showed the hand. There is no way she could ever muck this hand. When the hand was over the guy that bet into her showed the nut straight and she went ballistic! Out loud she said, "He gave me the knee under the table so what was I suppossed to do?!"
I knew a guy that was a pretty good gin player and he told me about a guy that cheated by taking ONE Jack out of the deck against a certain opponent. He knew the guy liked to hold big cards and this was enough of an edge to really hurt him.
There was a game in Vegas many years ago where certain groups of people would give unreasonable action with what seemed like unlikely holdings whenever strange people would sit down. For example two people would put in five and six raises with King Queen when a King flopped. They were of course trying to convince the "tourist" that they were "action" players and some of them would get the idea that this was the right play. Of course they would never dream of playing this way for real. One raise maybe--two if they were drinking--but never five or six. They all knew each other too well and they were going to give the "advertising" money back anyway.
I was talking with a guy in Las Vegas that told me he and a friend regularly talk on a cell phone while playing poker online. They don't put people in the middle but just tell each other what they have. They believe that if they have three people doing this in a game then they can't be beat. With two they just have an "advantage." They can use instant messages if they want to do this with people in other states.
Other than that I have never seen any cheating.
Mark Glover has some interesting thoughts on this issue and he has posted many of them on the hold'em forum. So they are discussed there by someone as being real. He thinks cheating happens a lot.
Some people NEVER read the holdem forum so all such topics should be posted here.
You are a very credible person, Abdul, but the only way to stop cheating(being as mgmnt won't 86 them) is to NAME F**** NAMES!
This was the same problem with dealer abuse in tournaments, although thankfully mgmnt has started to enforce a code, and some of the main offenders have been either publicly identified and chastened(Hellmuth, Bonetti, Men, Puggy) or are now dead(Stu, Moss)
I've experienced most forms of cheating, other than outright card manipulation. I've seen players flash hands to each other, collude in betting, signal each other, etc. One player in an old game we used to play in was notorious for shorting the pot, and I'd spot him doing it several times a night.
However, almost all instances of this were by inexperienced, very bad players. Often a couple of young hotshots flush with illegal money would get in the game and think they were going to crush us with these tricks. They all went broke.
Everyone knew about the guy shorting the pot, but his reason for playing was because he liked 'putting one over' on the good players, so everyone just looked the other way. He was worth more to the game than his pot shorting cost us.
In the end, I believe cheating exists, but it has minimal effect and it's something just not worth worrying about, unless you are playing private games for high stakes. Then you might want to keep your eyes open.
Card rooms should be more vigilant, however, if for no other reason that to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I've noticed the casinos around here have been getting more and more lax with their procedures. Dealers are cutting with both hands when the rules call for a one-handed cut, etc. That should be policed more vigilantly.
Dan,
It took me a long time to achieve your level of wisdom on this issue. I used to be a bit of a nit regarding splashing the pot, pushing bets, and so on, I took special umbrage at off duty dealers behaving with less than perfect poker etiquette. I was under the delusion that someone working in the industry should know better. But now I know better and just look for the highest EV even if the game is not quite according to Hoyle.
Regards,
Rick
I don't know if what Abdul is saying is true, although I'm inclined to believe him-- if only because I think it's very rare for big money to exchange hands without somebody skimming at least a little. But, if one wants to talk about cheating, the worst problem in most casinos involves dealers over-raking the pot. This happens all the time, particularly in private games, yet almost nobody talks about it.
>For example, I saw a very experienced player
Why aren't names being named. The one time I *knew* I was cheated, I told everybody who he was and what he did. I wasn't shy to say it when he sat down either.
Same procedure goes for people who write bad checks or don't repay loans. The glare of publicity works wonders (at least sometimes).
It seems that there is nothing that stirs up players more than discussions of cheating.
Do I wish there was no cheating? yes I do.
Are there better card rooms that could be doing a better job in enforcing rules and discouraging cheating? yes
Is there cheating that occurs in card rooms? yes but I think most of it is crap where the rules aren't enforced. However there is more than we would like to have.
Is cheating a bigger problem in the poker world or the business world? The business world.
That's the alternative you have if you are a pro poker player. Get a job and you'll never have to deal with cheating in a cardroom again or try to make the situation in the card rooms better. Mason has done a lot for players in his writings and dealings with card room management. Apparently you have done quite a bit to make the situation better at the Commerce Club but they won't listen to you. That's something that is unfortunate and is duly noted.
You've been writing about this hold out cheat ripping you off for hundreds of dollars and getting ripped off at some club in Cal for $4000 grand for the last 2 years now. This is more than it should be and it is unfortunate that it happened and I hope that it never happens to you or anyone else again. However, if this is it for the last 2 years then it is "small potatoes" when compared to the many ways that people get ripped off in the business world. Just the cost of doing business in the poker world. I hope that you aren't expecting perfection as I don't think you are. I think what you really want is for Mason to do something different than he has. If you do I think you need to be clear about it.
Tom Haley wrote here,
"I think what you really want is for Mason to do something different than he has. If you do I think you need to be clear about it."
Mason Malmuth wrote in Poker Digest,
"I believe I have never been cheated."
I would like Mason to retract that statement, apologize to the Monica Lewinsky, and issue the following statement,
"I have been cheated up the ying-yang!"
(That was Roy Cooke's take on the subject.)
-Abdul
I play in a Casino Cardroom in the Northeast. About a month ago I was one of the starting players in a 15-30 HE game. The dealer spread the cards to draw for the button. A guy to my right anounced that he would draw first and he would pick the Ace of spades. Sure enough the did! The dealer called the floorperson over. In the meantime he spread the other deck. The same guy demanded that he pick first and again the picked the Ace of Spades. I almost fell off my chair! He then anounced to the whole table that sometimes the picture cards are twisted usually K's and Q's and sometimes the Ace of s is twisted. He plays there two or three times a week. He said he complains to management all the time and they say that there is nothing they can do about it. He then anounced to the table that he is sick and tired of complaining because no one seems to care. The next few times I looked for this and sure enough the K's and Q's were twisted in two different sessions. I called for the floorperson and he changed the decks. The third time that it happened I didn't say anything. I concentrated on watching the cards being dealt. The guy at the other end of the table got a twisted card. The hand was chopped and I asked him if he had a K. Yes he did. I've done this at least 10 times and haven't been wrong once. Either a K or Q if there are many twisted cards and if only one card in the deck is twisted it is the Ace of s. (When you look at the flop the twisted cards don't lay flat, the upper left and botton right corners are off the felt.) I'm really getting tired of complaining about this. Nobody seems to care, not even the playes. What should I do? Should I just keep my mouth shut?
1
I play in a Casino Cardroom in the Northeast. About a month ago I was one of the starting players in a 15-30 HE game. The dealer spread the cards to draw for the button. A guy to my right anounced that he would draw first and he would pick the Ace of spades. Sure enough the did! The dealer called the floorperson over. In the meantime he spread the other deck. The same guy demanded that he pick first and again the picked the Ace of Spades. I almost fell off my chair! He then anounced to the whole table that sometimes the picture cards are twisted usually K's and Q's and sometimes the Ace of s is twisted. He plays there two or three times a week. He said he complains to management all the time and they say that there is nothing they can do about it. He then anounced to the table that he is sick and tired of complaining because no one seems to care. The next few times I looked for this and sure enough the K's and Q's were twisted in two different sessions. I called for the floorperson and he changed the decks. The third time that it happened I didn't say anything. I concentrated on watching the cards being dealt. The guy at the other end of the table got a twisted card. The hand was chopped and I asked him if he had a K. Yes he did. I've done this at least 10 times and haven't been wrong once. Either a K or Q if there are many twisted cards and if only one card in the deck is twisted it is the Ace of s. (When you look at the flop the twisted cards don't lay flat, the upper left and botton right corners are off the felt.) I'm really getting tired of complaining about this. Nobody seems to care, not even the playes. What should I do? Should I just keep my mouth shut?
1
I think I know where you mean. A couple of times before, over the years, the red cards had lighter shaded backs than the black cards. No cheating intended here, just that they got them this way from the manufacturer. Defective decks are commonplace. Cards must be expensive nowadays. You can complain all you want but that doesn't necessarily mean it will do any good. Sometimes you just have to adjust to game conditions, which are always changing anyway. I'm not recommending keeping your mouth shut or otherwise, just observing what has been over the years and what you might be up against.
M-I'm talking about twisted cards. Is it possible that the only cards that are twisted are paint because of a defect? It's not FW, MS or the Taj.
These twisted cards are almost certainly due to a manufacturing flaw, because a huge number of cards at Bellagio suffer from the same problem. It is kind of annoying having to quickly grab each of your cards, lest someone know what you have. Recently, I had to stop myself from quipping to one player, "The cards on the board are all bent. So are both his hole cards. Your cards are flat. So why are you still calling?" The bent cards turned out to "only" be KK, which was much weaker than bent cards would have been on average. KK was good in the showdown, though.
If one fails to notice things like this, then maybe one is not observant enough to notice the most obvious of cheating nor the most obvious of tells.
Right now is a pretty big opportunity time in poker... extra easy to outplay the tourists when you have that bit of information about their hands. And on 30-60 and up in Bellagio, they won't change the deck even if you ask, though they do switch to a different warped deck each half hour.
-Abdul
Wow, and I have always felt safer in LV. Guess I haven't played enough at the bigger limits. You'd think the Bellagio wouldn't buy cheap, defective or vunerable cards and keep them in play.
The Bellagio, like most card rooms, was using the brown and green Kem decks. A couple of months ago they went to the blue and red Kem decks. This refers to the color of their backs. (Since Abdul plays almost no poker, he probably wasn't aware of this.) The different color Kem decks don't seem to have the manufacturing flaws, and all the cards now seem straight. Other card rooms should look at this as well.
I think the reason the Ace of spades twists is because it is on top when the decks sit in the box. Over time it obsorbs humidity and bends. If the boxes are "stuffed" when the cards are not in use the cards remain flat.
Randy
No twisted aces in my decks, and I have about 40 KEM setups. The backs are sometimes flawed, though, little spots, bulges or scratches on some cards...
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Plastic cards are what I've mostly seen in card rooms and they won't absorb moisture.
They'd be plenty heat sensitive, though...
David
The plastic cards do absorb moisture. I am not sure how or why they obsorb moisture, but I know from working with KEM cards they do obsorb moisture. Last summer we had some humid days in Vegas and the AC was on the fritz at the Stratosphere; cards that had been spread across the table in a dead spread had to be replaced when the game was ready to start becasue they were curled. Well maybe they didn't obsorb moisture, but they react adversely to humid conditions. Also I have seen new setups be warped, but they were always ones that had sat in the cabinet for months (years?). I think the warping problem is simply a matter of improper storage.
Randy Refeld
No humidity in Vegas !
Virtually nothing you believe about me or poker is correct, Mason. You live in a fantasy world, Planet Mason. I have played a huge amount poker in the last two months, far more than you or most others here I'll bet, and of course I've played quite a bit over the years, so you are not telling the truth about that. I just try to avoid the cardrooms that allow smoking, as secondhand smoke tends to give me bronchitis. Even so, I saw the change in deck color at Bellagio, and I saw that the problem of twisted decks is worse than ever now. (Can someone please back me up on this?) I realize you're a good person and would never say anything nasty about anyone nor lie... it's just that virtually nothing you believe is true.
-Abdul
The twisted kem cards at Turning Stone Casino (upstate NY) are the Blue/Red cards.
And my twisted KK story was on a red or blue deck. QQQ on the board, all twisted. True story, and it happened about a week ago.
-Abdul
You are talking about a different cardroom, but at the casino I was talking about, over the years some of the cards have been warped as a defective issue too--identifiably so, specifically higher denominations. I don't know if you could easily warp plastic cards during play--I tend to think they would be rather warp resistant in that regard unless you almost damage them.
You and Abdul have made me feel much better. Thanks Abdul is so right that it is so very annoying trying to cover your cards when they are dealt. I'm dropping tons of checks on them just to flatten them out.
1. Cheating is far more likely to occur in non-casino environments
2. It exists in casino environments but is relatively rare there, and should not impact a pro's long-term bottom line nearly as much as other occasional or routine expenses such as tipping the cocktail waitress
3. The best defense against being cheated is to know procedure and to insist that it be followed. Casino procedures are there specifically for this reason, to help insure the integrity of the game. While casino dealer cheating must be very rare nowadays, sloppy procedures can lead to flashed cards, identifiable clumps of cards, etc.
Even most angle-shooting by players can be nullified by strict adherence to procedure (acting in turn, etc., and by the dealer and players staying on top of such things.)
Procedure is there for very good reason; know it and insist it be followed.
4. True collusion-type cheating exists but is much rarer than soft-playing. Collusion-type cheating is often tried by inferior players who couldn't win whether they were playing straight or crooked. Ray Zee is right when he implies that in most forms it is relatively harmless and that the soft-players or poor would-be cheats are actually targets and profit-opportunities to good players, and that most would-be teams would soon attract too much attention. It is unfortunate that in some rare cases good players may be cheated out of substantial sums of money, but gambling will probably never be entirely clean or risk-free. In fact neither will most (or all) other fields.
5. Your best defenses are to be alert and insist that proper procedure be followed. If you seem to be losing way too much in situations where you know you have the best of it, you might want to back off just in case, or to further think about the situation. There are literally countless ways a person could be cheated, but vigilance and strict adherence to procedure should cover almost all the bases almost all the time. Procedure is beneficial in other ways too; it helps the games run more efficiently and reduces arguments.
6. You can expend too much mental energy worrying about cheating also. Most of the time when people think they may have been cheated they really weren't. Know that with alertness, observation and procedure you will be largely protected, and then spend most of your mental energy on becoming a better player and on implementing effectively what you know.
7. Don't waste time in bad games or in games you aren't reasonably comfortable in. In many areas there are lots of games to choose from. Even online there are lots of tables to choose from. Don't play in games you don't feel you can beat, for whatever reason.
8. Just my personal observations and recommendations.
*
.
Greetings twoplustwo readers.
My credentials as a player and theorist are non-existent, yet I believe I have done something unique in poker history. I have no doubt that I am pretty much alone in believing this, but I'll lay it out and you can decide: express an opinion, cast your vote. I want to hear your opinion on these statements. A simple "you're crazy" will do, if that's what you think. Don't hold back now. Abstention would be a real cop out.
1. I have discovered the last major 7-card poker family, the main game of which, mississippi 7cs will be on the playlists of some significant tournaments within a year, and which will be recognised as the most important NL game discovered since omaha, or perhaps even holdem, and the most important development in NL stud since 1850. Mississippi will be the game with the greatest amount of growth in market share over the next few years.
2. I have discovered that open-poker no-limit games follow a simple formula, and using that formula have found a number of minor, but nonetheless perfectly valid no-limit forms based on five and six live cards. With the discovery of these games, no-limit poker evolution is largely complete, within the existing rules and principles of poker.
I've also invented a simple form of notation which unambiguously defines the layout for any mainstream open-poker game: Crazy pinapple is (2,1)+<3*+1+1> for instance. That's no big deal, but it's handy at times.
So step up gentlefolk: tell me I'm nuts. Make my day.
David Zanetti, FKA, "Hux". Checkout the NL stud website at http://www.geocities.com/mississippi_seven if you want to see some of the new games, or just to laugh.
Do not play there for money. There algorythm is trash. You will be drawn out like crazy. Fair warning:)
Please elaborate. What is your background? How do you know this? How would an algorithm cause more drawouts? How you played there and your comments are sour grapes?
You really dont have much credibilty without backing up your claims.
and you supporters have none w/o an independent analysis from a financially untouchable source: the FBI.
Your games will never get off the ground. Holdem will dominate the 21st Century. Dream on...
You may be right, but then I didn't say that mississippi would overtake holdem. Am i to understand that your claimed passion for poker is not a general interest but is restricted to love of playing holdem? And that you regard other games as not worth playing or taking any interest in? (No reply required, thanks for the input)
I'm just interested to know why you are pushing the cause of Mississippi so hard.
Regards,
Richard
Me too. I can't understand why you are so intent on turning stud into some kind of "Hold-Em Lite". The last card being down is the whole key to the game.
Andy.
Andy, You snuk in a post there while I was replying to Richard Gryko, so they are out of order: Holdem lite? There's nothing lite about mississippi, nor is it an inferior form of holdem, as I am sure you would agree if you played it for a while. As for the last card down being the key to 7cs, isn't that just what you are used to? And it prevents the game being played at NL and makes it pretty bad for PL too. Exactly what is good about it you don't explain. Anyway, if you really like the last card down, missisippi plays perfectly well with the last card down, but only for limit. Try 7cs with a two card flop: it's not that scary a proposition is it? (am I asking too many questions? I think they're rhetorical.)
thanks for the input. DZ.
I guess I'm just stubborn. Put yourself in my place: What would you do if you discovered holdem, omaha, tahoe and the pinapples in one fell swoop and knew them for what they were before anyone else did? Of course no one else sees it like that yet, but new ideas are like that, and poker players are extraordinarily conservative. That's why it took thirty or forty years for holdem to take off. I don't really want to wait that long.
I'm also curious: why is it that nearly all the people on this and other forums who profess great love of poker have absolutely no interest in the arrival of NL 7cs stud? It's an obvious gap in the nl championship ranks and no other game can fill it. Yet all I have encountered so far is indifference and hostility. Beats the hell out of me.
DZ
< I love poker I dont love Draw, Loball, Razz, War, Go-Fish etc.
Explain how "its an obvious gap in the No-Limit ranks" are people out there clamoring for NL Mississippi.
Now did you DISCOVER or INVENT Mississippi? I've heard you claim it both ways.
If people have been indifferent about it on these forums dont you think an alternative method of advertising might be the smart route to take.
Carp
Carp asks:>Explain how "its an obvious gap in the No-Limit ranks" are people out there clamoring for NL Mississippi."<
If the question is "why aren't they" I would say conservatism and poverty of imagination mostly. Ignorance, arrogance and the inability to give credit to others plays an obvious role in some cases. (what is your first language BTW?)
>Now did you DISCOVER or INVENT Mississippi? I've heard you claim it both ways.>
I'll be proud to take either. There always was only one way to play NL 7cs and always will be, and I discovered it. Mississippi is the poker planet everyone missed, which I noticed from the obvious perturbations in the orbit of 7cs. But I'm not talking Pluto or Mercury here: if holdem is Jupiter, mississippi is saturn, or maybe even the other way round. (Omaha, tahoe etc are the orbit of holdem, to extend the analogy) (I'm already laughing at the cracks which will be made about Uranus.)
>If people have been indifferent about it on these forums dont you think an alternative method of advertising might be the smart route to take. >
If you can tell me where to find a group of poker lovers with the ability to tell shit from clay when it comes to assessing the worth of a new game, let me know. I thought it would be like throwing some grizzlies a basket of fish, but so far it has been pearls before swine. This is a cost effective method which will work sooner than you think. Thanks for your input. David Z. The NL stud site is http://www.geocities.com/mississippi_seven
---If the question is "why aren't they" I would say conservatism and poverty of imagination mostly. Ignorance, arrogance and the inability to give credit to others plays an obvious role in some cases. (what is your first language BTW?) ---
Australian.
---I'll be proud to take either. There always was only one way to play NL 7cs and always will be, and I discovered it. Mississippi is the poker planet everyone missed, which I noticed from the obvious perturbations in the orbit of 7cs. But I'm not talking Pluto or Mercury here: if holdem is Jupiter, mississippi is saturn, or maybe even the other way round. (Omaha, tahoe etc are the orbit of holdem, to extend the analogy) (I'm already laughing at the cracks which will be made about Uranus.) ---
What is your first language?
---If you can tell me where to find a group of poker lovers with the ability to tell shit from clay when it comes to assessing the worth of a new game, let me know. I thought it would be like throwing some grizzlies a basket of fish, but so far it has been pearls before swine. This is a cost effective method which will work sooner than you think. Thanks for your input. David Z. The NL stud site is http://www.geocities.com/mississippi_seven ---
Good Luck but insulting the swine around here will not get your game spread any sooner than Old Maid.
CARP
ll
Posted by: David Z (davidz@one.net.au)
Posted on: Sunday, 18 June 2000, at 5:27 p.m.
Posted by: Carp (jweste2906@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 18 June 2000, at 11:24 p.m.
Posted by: David Z (davidz@one.net.au)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 10:37 a.m.
.
x
Finally can confirm that there is a real person named Vince Lepore. I bumpped into him (really did in fact) while watching a No Limit Holdem at the Tropicana Friday night in AC. The guy is a force and was last seen calculating data on his palm computer. The tournament was interesting. I will let Vince elaborate since I am sure he had some vested interest. I believe he did rather well.
vv
Thanks Ratso,
I don't hget the namne Ratso. After meeting Ratso you all will understand. the name does not fit the man. He is a very sociable intelligent fellow. Made my day. Well partially made my day. The other thing that made my day was that my buddy Dangerous Dan won the Tropicana $120 No limit tournament that day. and I had 10%. You think that is somethin. Well let me tall you this. Last night. That being Sunday the 25th Dangerous won the 50 rebuy no limit tournament at Crystal park Casino in Los Angeles. And I had %10. You will see him in CP I believe next month. Dangerous lives up to his name when it comes to NL Holdem. Me I won the Limit Holdem tournament on Saturday at CP. O.K. I chopped it. Ok so there were only 26 entrants. I got $375 for my 2 1/2 hour work. Not bad. BTW DaNGEROUS MADE DEALS IN BOTH TOURNAMNESTS BUT WAS THE OVERALL WINNER. Oops damn CAPS KEY! I should be like Z and break mine. I am on the road as you amy have discerned. I left AC on Sunday a week agao. got to Tunica on Tuesday. Was sick upon arriving. did not play poker. Left the next morning. Sick and not happy that I had even stopped there. Another story when I have tiem. I went immediately to Vegas. Still sick. I lost a tourney at Orleans and Headed for LA. I have won a little over $2000 since arriving last friday. Yes I have been hit with the deck and my hands have been holding up. I played mostly 15 - 30 Holdem while here. I am counting my tourney win and 10% of Dangerous.
I saw Rick Nebiolo today. God he is so Handsome that I just couldn't bring myself to say hello. And what a head of hair. My god you would think he was Irish or greek or somethin. Italins don't have hair like that. I may have to start calling him Hollywood rick from now on. It will take a while for me to build the courage to go and say hello but I am sure I will soon. I was at the hustler opening. I did not see Mason. He must have left early. I did see dick Van Patten playing 10-20 1/2 kill Omaha. And Ron or Rod Jeremy, the Porn star, playing the crowd and Johnny chan playing 300-600 low ball, holdem and somethin elase. Johnyy doesn't like spactators. Maybe he should have looked at the cCasino before he played. There is no way to avoid being watched. No hgih section to speak of. Great decor but in fact it is just a small horshoe shaped room. I wasn't crazy about it. Besides there were no hustler girls running around naked or otherwise. And a very noticebvla absense of Mr L. Flint. One lat thing. the action at the Commerce is AMAZING! I have never heard such chip clatter in my life. Rake is too high though. Hey gotta eat. See you later.
Vince
I was Cheated!!! Yeah, right. Posted By: Chris Villalobos I've been learning how to play 7CS better recently on-line. Well the last 30 hrs of play I dumped close to a grand in a 4/8 on-line game. I'm much better at Hold'em.
Was I cheated? I mean, I got all the books and have read through them. I know I'm a winner. I must have been cheated to lose that much, right?
Wrong. I just re-read 7CSFAP plus some other Stud books and really took some time to see where my problems were. I found that I was too loose with my starting hands when my cards were dead, and I was going too far (past 5th Str) with some hands that were long run losers because of my opponents boards and the cards that were out. I found out I didn't know as much as I thought I knew about Stud, and I'm still learning a lot.
So here are my thoughts on all this Cheating stuff. I think some of the people who are very loud about the cheating on-line (or maybe cheating in general) just can't take the fact that they don't play as good as they think they do. I know it's a tough pill to swallow, but we all need to face reality. I'm not saying that no cheating goes on, but the people who complain about it should look at how well they really play. Those on-line games aren't the easiest in the world to beat.
CV
Someone ought to reprint this post on a bunch of our other forums.
Almost all players think that they play better than they actually do. Why?
1. Ego and natural human subjective awareness
2. If they don't know something, they also usually don't know that they don't know it
3. A truly good player knows there are areas where his knowledge is less than complete, and also knows that there are others who know more than he does, and who can apply certain specific knowledge better than he can in certain situations.
4. To Everyone: What do you know about what you don't know much about in poker?
*
The most important lesson I got from almost all things I undertake is....the more I think I know about a subject and start getting involved in said subject the less I truly do not know and understand about said subject upon further investigation.
Poker basics(the tree trunk) becomes an endless array of strategies etc.(branches).Now its just a matter of how you wish to pursue the task, and your mindset...
excellent food for thought Chris & M...
jg
Arnold Snyder,BlackJack expert, has written that every card counter he has ever met will tell you that when he's winning its because he's a genius,when he's losing they're cheating him. This came to mind the other day when reading the latest cheating thread.
Anyone reading these posts, go to the Internet Poker site for a more balanced, detailed assessment of the pros and cons of internet poker. Remember, with all due respect to those who run this site, they do have a vested interest in Paradise Poker since PP advertises here.
once again...let the US owners, and their software be investigated for legitmacy by the FBI. If they can pass the HEAT test..then I'll admit that its straight up and that I was wrong. Let's quit the name calling, and get some facts.
Feeney's LA pro friend confirmed my story about the crooked $60-$120 game at Crystal Park. The game was comprised of a gang of colluders and ringed by spotters, reportedly from the Commerce. The players were booted from Crystal Park, and the game was shut down. These players never before and never again cheated in any way in any cardroom (yeah, right.)
One hold-out cheat in Vegas was caught with an ace up his sleeve, as well as a hold-out device strapped to his bicep. He was arrested.
And more.
It's not losses that cause me to make these claims. It is just the truth. Duh. I've done well at poker, and I've never claimed the cheating would make it impossible to win. I lost two racks or less on both those occasions - a normal swing that just wasn't so normal those times. Only someone with double digit IQ would think that I am trying to explain losses or poor results this way (and no, I'm not talking about you, Chris.)
-Abdul
No argument on these points, Abdul.
The average player, however, thinks he is much better than he really is, and may be somewhat overly inclined to blame losses he doesn't understand on possible cheating. In fact, some of the people you have outplayed over the years may not understand how you managed to beat them either, and therefore may even be somewhat suspicious of you.
The internet is the perfect incubator for founded or unfounded suspicions to flourish in, and poker is the ideal game for this as well.
I agree that, especially in the case of online poker, some people blame cheating when the fault lies in their own poor play, or in just plain bad luck.
But the fact that I'm losing doesn't necessarily mean that nobody at the table is cheating.
I would like some examples of how the thought tree is used in poker. Also would like to know the best way to train yourself to use it.
What's a thought tree?
I was reading the thread over on the hold'em page about three hands posted by Bruce and Jim Brier's post got me to thinking.
How do we effectively display deception in poker?
To refresh, the poster raised with 87s before the flop and played very aggressively after. He was chided by Jim for making the play and he offered HFAP as a defense.
In the book, they recommend occasionally raising with 76s in early position so observant players can't steal when rags flop. It makes sense and being the good little lemming that I am, I followed that strategy sometimes.
But Jim's post made me think. How often are we going to show that down? If we raise with 76s and don't hit the flop, which we won't do most times, we'll have to put in a lot of bets with garbage to get the advertising effect. We'll put in at least 3.5 BB (2 preflop, 1 flop, 1 turn, 1 river) to show this hand down. In many games, we might get raised along the way. Usually we'll have no chance of winning, even less when raised. We'll be putting in a lot of money with this junk.
If we should hit, great, but most times we won't. Do you guys play it to the max and show it down. If not, what was the point of doing it in the first place? It sounds good and rational, but I cannot believe that it is profitable. How many opponents, except in the highest (100-200+) of limits, are even paying that close of attention? I know opponents pay attention, but that much attention? I sure as hell can't. I just remember "X plays junk."
It seems to be too costly. For true deceptive purposes, I think that "shaky" raises should be made on the turn or river. At least you probably have a decent shot at winning, or at least a free showdown, and will still be marked as tricky. You won't be weak-tight and won't be putting in zillions of bets with no equity.
Thoughts, opinions, flames are welcome.
MDMAniac
If you're playing a game where no one is paying attention to what cards you're playing, then yes, raising preflop with 87s, or any other deceptive hand, is a waste of time and money.
However, let's say you're in a relatively tough 20-40 game, where many of your opponents do pay attention (we'll also assume that there are 1-3 really weak players who don't pay attention, and they are why you're not simply leaving the game alone). If you only raise in early position with group 1 hands, then all of the attentive players will know, within that narrow range of hands, what you're holding. If the flop comes all little, then you either have an overpair or 2 overcards, and cannot possibly beat the 2 pair or such that they flopped. Conversely, if you will ever fold here, then they can pretend to be holding 2 pair or better and raise you off the pot.
Now, let's say you decide it's getting to be time to throw a curve. Now, next time you're in early position, and it appears that raising with a hand like 78s, while being a losing play, isn't that much of a losing play, then you can make it. You might be putting in a $40 raise at a time when the EV of the play is only $38. This will cost you $2 in the long run. However, if might save you much, much more on those later occasions when you raise from early position with AK and aren't pressured by an aggressive player who called from the big blind with JTs. Instead, he might be more inclined to simply check-and-fold when you both miss, as he can no longer rule out your catching something on the 456 flop.
The key is to make these raises at times when you think that you won't really be giving up much EV, so you can afford to give it up if you do flop nothing and there is action. In this case, you've given up $40, but next time, you might win $200. The important thing is that you've lost very little EV, and will get to show the hand down occasionally, which will garner you the extra EV on later hands.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I understand the rationale behind the raise. But, let's say that the flop misses us completely. We must put in several (at least 3.5) big bets to show our deception. The first raise may only have -$2 EV, but the necessary call/bet on the flop, turn, and river may have horrendous EVs. We may be board locked at the end (having a -$40 EV) and forced to call in order to show our deception. I assume we have to show it because otherwise why did we do it in the first place. If we make these raises, aren't we comitted to showing them?
MDManiac wrote: >I assume we have to show it because otherwise why did >we do it in the first place. If we make these raises, >aren't we comitted to showing them?
Absolutely not!
If you make this raise preflop, let's assume that it is a slightly losing play, e.g., -$3 in EV. This number of -3 takes into account that you will play the hand as best you can after the flop, not for the purpose of advertising, but for the purpose of making money. That means if the flop is AKQ and the BB bets out, you fold, unless you think that bluffing from this point forward is a winning play.
What will happen is that some of the time you will win, or lose, the hand in a showdown. When you do, your observant opponents will think "Hey, he raised in early position with 76s!" There is your advertising.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
But Greg, how often with 78s make a hand for you when you play it? I don't believe you'll win a pot with it even one time out of ten but each time you raise with it that's 1BB you've paid to see a flop which almost always will give you nothing for your hand.
After doing this ten times you might make something but even then it'll be something that can easily lose on the river. Flopping two pair with 87s is not a comfortable position to be in. First of all, you've got two connectors on the board that fit pretty well with 9T or even TJ if he has odds to peel one off for the gut-shot. Anyone holding top pair against you, like say on a flop of K78 will probably have some good outs with his Q or A kicker. Any Q or K kills you.
Then there's the times when you do make a great hand to lose to a better hand played by a player who is playing more correctly than you. If the flop comes K78 and you fill up on the turn when an 8 shows up, you think you have a monster and you raise like hell against the button who is playing KK. In my experience, making a small full house is probably a break-even experience over the long run. Because when you lose to bigger ull house it costs you enormously.
I just don't see how the few times you play 87s and actually win the pot with it will counter the 10 or 20 times you have to pay to see the flop with it.
natedogg
Nate,
If I'm going to lose the hand 9 times out of 10, I won't make the play. However, see the post by brad. If this is a tough game, my raise is going to steal the blinds a noteworthy percentage of the time. There's 1.5 bets of profit every time that happens. Secondly, if the pot is down to me and 1 or 2 opponents preflop, then I don't need to make anything to win. Having raised from early position, my opponents know that I have something like AQ or better most of the time, and often I'll have a big pair. Thus, they will not be highly inclined to try and steal the pot from me, and will often fold if I keep betting. If I get some resistance, then I must judge my opponent well, and determine whether he'll fold if I keep pushing, or whether the hand is now a loser and should be folded.
If you cannot play the hand well postflop, then you're right, it won't be a slightly -EV hand, it will be a large -EV hand, and not worth it. However, if I can play a hand like this for an average loss of just a buck or 2 in a 20-40 game, then it's worth doing it just often enough for people to remember. Then, they won't be pushing their JTs against my AK on a 456 flop, trying to steal the pot from me. I would much prefer they check-and-fold in these spots, and if they are afraid that I MIGHT just have 78 here, then they'll be much less inclined to take a shot.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Hands like 76s, if you play them well, don't lose much if anything. They also don't win much. So you can afford to be a little tricky with them on occasion.
If the game is the type of game where it's important to be deceptive (say, a tough 20-40 game), then raising with 76s may actually win you the blinds. If not, you'll probably wind up with few opponents in which case hitting a 7 or 6 may also give you the best hand. This means you'll hit a fair number of flops.
No one's saying that you have to go to the showdown with the hand, just to 'advertise'. If you miss the flop, fine. Fold. Otherwise, play it to the best of your ability.
These types of deception raises are probably over-rated for average games for the reasons you mention - you don't get to show it often anyway, and when you do the players may not be paying attention. So if you're in a game like that, don't bother. But in tough games this kind of stuff is mandatory, both to keep people from stealing against you when you raise with big cards, and also to get action on your premium hands. If you never raise UTG with anything but AA, KK, QQ, or AK in a tough game, you'll soon find that all you're winning is the blinds. And that's disastrous when you have premium hands. So you have to mix it up.
Another consideration is when to continue the bluff. If you are making this play because everyone thinks you only do it with premium hands, then the best time to continue the bluff is when the flop appears to have hit what you have represented.
It all comes down to what you think they think you have.
I make this play occasionaly and continue betting without a beat if an A or K hits the flop. You can often steal at this time. If others show strength here then you have to think of abandoning the bluff.
If I get a great flop with these cards, then it's time to slow play and surprise everyone at the showdown.
I only do this very occasionaly, and if I show down the cards it does have a positive effect later in the session, and not just against other good players either. Poor players will remember because they do not like to be bluffed and will now call more than they already do.
I'll make this play in the right game. If My preflop raises have been getting to much respect. I'll only do it with A5s-A2s. A lot of the times I'll pick up the blind or pick it up on the flop. I'll only do it once in a session. A lot of players do it too much I think.
I think you're picking the wrong hand to be deceptive with. The whole point to this is to avoid people stealing against you with a flop like 776 or 567. Raising with a suited Ace isn't that deceptive because a lot of premium hands have suited Aces anyway. So if you hit an Ace on the flop you're going to have what people expect. That's not very deceptive. The only time you'll really surprise anyone is when you make a wheel or double-pair the bottom card, and that's not very often.
That's why I said, "If you can play the hand well afterwards." Basically, you should be prepared to try and win the pot if you either hit your hand OR a scary flop comes down for your opponents. It's very common that if you raise with 76s and get called, a bet on any Axx or Kxx flop will win you the pot. If there's no chance of that, perhaps you're picking the best game to be making deceptive raises.
MDMAniac, you are hitting the nail on the head with this post. Yes, deception is important in poker but most of your deceptive plays are most effective on the flop and beyond not pre-flop since no one will ever know in most cases that you varied your play especially in a full tabled limit hold-em game even when they are paying attention. It is highly illuminating that none of the posters really addressed this fact in their responses to your post.
No one should play so tight that they only raise in early position with AA,KK,QQ, or AK. I raise under the gun with AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AK,AQ, and sometimes AJ suited. If no one limps in from early position, I will open with a raise having these hands plus 99,AJ offsuit, KQ suited, AT offsuit, and sometimes even KQ offsuit. So there is a wide variety of hands I might have when I open with a raise from early or middle position. Occasionally I will decline to re-raise pre-flop with AA or KK if I think I will get in heads-up with me having a better position.
But opening with a raise having a small suited connector from early or middle position while deceptive is not cost effective in the long run. Keep in mind that your goal is to win the pot not advertise for the sake of advertising. When you have a suited connector with many opponents yet to act you need ask yourself what are you trying to accomplish by raising with this hand. When I drive out players and make the pot shorthanded, I want to have some reasonable chance of winning without improvement or at least making a pair and having a decent chance of it holding up. I don't need to make a straight or flush to win the pot shorthanded. Occasionally an Ace-high with a reasonable kicker will win. If I make a pair with Ace-Ten offsuit I have far more assurance that it will hold up as the best against a small number of opponents then when I have Eight-Seven.
You miss the point, I believe.
Yes, in many (most) games, advertising is a waste of money. And I agree, that you should never do something ONLY for purposes of advertising. However, raising from early position with suited connectors in a tough game is not much of a losing play.
Look at what you posted. If it's accurate, then if you raise in early or middle position then I know FOR A FACT that no card on the table lower than a 9 has helped your hand. Thus, I can either safely try to extract extra bets when I can beat a big pocket pair, OR I know that my chances of bluffing you out have gone up dramatically when all babies are on the board. Simply put, I have a lot more room to try and outplay you then you do to outplay me postflop.
Again, for some games, doing this is a waste of that hypothetical -$3 EV I've mentioned. Even when you reach a showdown, no one will notice (or even remember that you raised preflop). In these games, if the play is even -$0.01 EV, then don't make it. However, in tougher games, you cannot play so straightforward that an opponent will know, with 100% certainty, that you must have 1 of a narrow range of hands based solely upon your preflop action.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
But Fossilman, most everyone realizes that when the flop comes all small cards that it is unlikely to have helped a pre-flop early position raiser especially in tough games populated by decent players. No one is going to base their play of a hand on the theory that maybe their otherwise solid opponent decided to raise with 76 suited in early position this time. Suppose you know that 100% of the time player A will never have a card lower than a Nine for his early position pre-flop raise. Now suppose you know that 95% of the time player B will not have a card lower than a Nine but 5% of the time he will have a card between a Nine and a Six for his raise. How are you ever going to use this information advantageously in a full tabled limit hold-em game?
Make this a shorthanded game or a big bet game and that might change things.
Great. Since I know you can NEVER have a 7 in your hand if you open raise, expect to have a hell of time playing a flop like 776. If there are two guys in the pot who know this, you can expect your good hands to come under extreme pressure on low flops, often forcing you to abandon the best hand (i.e. if I had 89 on a 776 flop and you bet into me, I'd often smooth call, then raise you on the turn no matter what lands.)
Since I also know from your other posts that you regularly abandon hands that contain just overcards on the flop, you're going to get slaughtered.
Remember, we are talking about tough games here. If you never raise with anything but big aces or big pairs, and you routinely drop hands under a little pressure, then if people aren't already running all over you, then you're not playing in tough games.
If you are playing in really tough games, it's important for your opponents to know that there is never a flop that is impossible for you to hit.
Dan, are you saying you would ever cold-call a raise from early to mid position with 89?
I can't understand you're reasoning. If you know you are playing against Jim and he raises before the flop with premium cards only, once he raises, you know where he's at which is FAR AHEAD OF YOU. Even if you KNEW he couldn't have cards below a 9, it's still a losing play to call his raise cold in hopes that the flop comes rags. The reason he's raising is that his hand is better.
Now, let's say he's one of those tricky players who mix it up and 10% of the time when he raises before the flop it's with garbage. (I'm calling 78, 89, and 76 garbage). Then it's even MORE of a bad play to call with 89 in the hopes that the flop is rags because not only is it more likely that he's got bigger cards and will beat you, but there's a slight chance that you could catch a piece of the rags, and he catches a bigger piece, and then you lose a lot of money. If you catch a piece of the rags and he's only got overcards this time, you win the pot outright right there and you got lucky, but you won't win a whole lot of money in return for your play with an underdog hand. You were a dog before the flop. It just doesn't make any sense to me to cold call a rock OR a tricky player with 89.
natedogg
what if hes in the big blind with 89s and two other players cold call? this is an easy , easy call.
brad
Dan what you and the fossilman and Andrew Prock are postulating may seem reasonable but I can tell you after 3500 hours of $10-$20 through $30-$60 hold-em it has never been a problem. First of all, like I stated in my reply to fossilman, no one expects a flop of small cards to help a pre-flop early raiser anyway and no one is going to base a strategy on the remote chance that you happen to raise from early position with 76 suited this time to "vary your play". Secondly, in your example, I will open with a raise from early position with AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT so a flop of 776 looks good to me and I will be in the hand to end in a heads-up situation so you will have to show a better hand at showdown to win the pot. That is not easy to do. If we are in multi-handed and there is betting and raising going on the pot is protected and someone probably has a Seven which reduces me to playing a two outer so it won't matter what you have since you will have the same concerns with other players in the hand. Third, with regard to the play of overcards, I would bet that flop with big slick or big chick against a small number of opponents. In actual play I will frequently win the pot uncontested and when people stay with me occasionally I hit an Ace or a King on the turn to win anyway. When I don't and there is betting and raising going on with multiple opponents it is highly unlikely that I would want to stay around anyway. Heads-up situations are different and I will frequently check-call it down with slick and make my opponent show me a better hand which again is not always easy to do.
Players who get slaughtered in this game are those who insist on playing with just over cards in the face of heavy opposition with multiple opponents having no pair, no draw, and no hand. During the World series of poker I discussed the play of overcards when I had lunch with Bob Ciaffone, Tom McEvoy, Bob Walker, and others (except the AK out of position post where I admit I was wrong and this particular post came up after that). In addition, when Lou Krieger was at the Gambler's Bookstore here in Vegas I discussed the play of overcards with him as well. All of them fully support what T.J. Cloutier stated in his cardplayer article about "one of the most frequent errors that limit hold-em players make, INCLUDING THOSE THAT PLAY AT HIGHER LIMITS, is continuing with only over cards in raised pots". My own playing experience and observations confirm this in my mind.
I believe that many of you guys have a phobia about releasing a hand for fear of having someone with a worse hand take a pot away from you and you are overly concerned about being faked out. Your mental construct of this game seems to be that all the players at the table are colluding against you individually so you try to turn this into some kind of macho, money mind game instead of a card game. Bottom line is that you keep wanting to maximize your chances of winning a pot by constantly exercising your betting arm without enough hand to merit the action. But the nice thing about a full table limit game with 8-10 players is that this not really the case because of the number of players involved. Deception and aggression are important in full tabled limit hold-em but you have to learn to be selective.
Jim wrote: >I believe that many of you guys have a phobia about >releasing a hand for fear of having someone with a >worse hand take a pot away from you and you are overly >concerned about being faked out. Your mental construct >of this game seems to be that all the players at the >table are colluding against you individually so you >try to turn this into some kind of macho, money mind >game instead of a card game. Bottom line is that you >keep wanting to maximize your chances of winning a pot >by constantly exercising your betting arm without >enough hand to merit the action.
I disagree. The point to all of this is to make more money not by out-machoing anybody, but by keeping them on the defensive. Since we're talking ONLY about tough games here, most hands will be played with only 2 or maybe 3 players seeing the flop. In these circumstances, outplaying your opponent by either winning more when you flop better, losing less when he flops better, and winning more than your fair share of pots when neither of you flop much, are all very important. However, the latter of the 3 is critical, because most often no one will have their hand improve much on the flop.
All of this being the case, I want to train my opponents to be scared of me, and to prefer folding early rather than trying to outplay me postflop. If they are always in doubt about what I'm holding, then there task is harder, and they will often just fold when I bet the flop rather than take a shot.
In your post (one of them, I forget which) you mention how you like seeing a flop of 776 when you're holding a big pair, and how the opponents are not going to fake you out of the pot, even when they raise, and even though they might have a 7. That's fine. But, what about when you hold AK? If you concede the pot every time the flop doesn't improve your hand, I can't imagine that you're winning in tough games. So, either I'm wrong, or you don't really play like this, or you're not playing in tough games. And it's not tough just because it's 10-20 through 30-60. These games are much more likely to be tough, but they certainly aren't always tough.
Let me know what you think.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
FossilMan, the more hands you play and the more flops you bet increase the likelihood of your opponents staying with you because they will realize that you frequently do not have the hand you are representing. As Mason Malmuth has pointed out in his writings the best image in full tabled limit hold-em is a tight one. It is an expensive habit to always be trying to win a shorthanded pot in a full tabled game especially when you are out of position. You need to be able to release a hand especially in small pots when you are out of position and don't have anything. I really think there is a balance here. "Winning more than your fair share of pots when neither of you flop anything" has to be balanced against the increased cost incurred when your opponent has the better hand and better position.
In my response to Dan Hanson's post, which is in this thread, I stated that if I have a big over pair and the flop comes 776 I will usually be in there until the end facing one opponent. You have asked about AK. I agree that you cannot concede the pot every time in this situation and your point is well taken. Here, the number of opponents and my position are critical considerations. If I am heads-up and out of position I will usually bet the flop and see how my lone opponent handles it. Sometimes they fold. When they raise, I will occasionally take off a card. Keep in mind that my opponent called my pre-flop raise so he must have something other than two random cards. His something is liable to be better than my unimproved AK once the flop comes. If he just calls my flop bet then I will see what the turn brings and take it from there. Suppose a third seven shows up? Well, my opponent is unlikely to have the case Seven so I may bet again hoping my opponent will put me on a pocket pair which gives me a full house so he may release his hand even if it contains a Six. Suppose the turn is another Six? I might check and call when he bets since my Ace plays and he may not be able to beat the board. Suppose it is an Ace or King. I will bet the turn since I think I have the best hand. Suppose it is something else. I will check usually. Frequently, my opponent will check back. If he bets, I will usually fold but it depends on my read of my opponent. Who you are up against and how well you read your opponent are key considerations here. If an LOL (Little Old Lady) bets I am gone. If a maniac bets I will probably hang in there. But suppose we have several opponents? Well, I would still bet the flop with AK if I had fewer than 3 opponents. With more, I would usually check unless I sense that some of the players are planning to fold anyway. But how I play after that depends on the subsequent betting action and what comes off on the turn. There is no set strategy here and lot of it is just table feel.
The games I play in are not all that tough at least by my standards. In a typical $20-$40 or $15-$30 lineup there might be one tough player, one loose-aggressive player, an LOL, several local players who play in a tight-predictable manner, and a few calling stations. Virtually all of them play too loose pre-flop in my opinion which makes the games beatable. Players like Roy Cooke and Cissy Bottoms are few and far between thank god.
I think the kinds of games that you and Dan are envisioning are more like high limit games that are frequently shorthanded (e.g.-$60-$120 and above). Now these games, because they are shorthanded, force you to gamble more otherwise you will get run over. But I avoid these games for now.
I will address several of your points.
Jim wrote: >FossilMan, the more hands you play and the more flops >you bet increase the likelihood of your opponents >staying with you because they will realize that you >frequently do not have the hand you are representing.
You seem to be assuming that I'm playing a lot of hands. That is not the case. I'm still seeing the flop only about 20% of the time, including the blinds.
>As Mason Malmuth has pointed out in his writings the >best image in full tabled limit hold-em is a tight >one.
And I generally agree with that. And I generally have that image. However, I play with a lot of tricky, aggressive players. They're too loose, which is why I'm in there, but still tricky and aggressive. I need to throw in an occasional curve so that they cannot read me too accurately. I promise you that this play, done sparingly, increases my bottom-line.
>It is an expensive habit to always be trying to win a >shorthanded pot in a full tabled game especially when >you are out of position. You need to be able to >release a hand especially in small pots when you are >out of position and don't have anything. I really >think there is a balance here. "Winning more than your >fair share of pots when neither of you flop anything" >has to be balanced against the increased cost incurred >when your opponent has the better hand and better >position.
ALWAYS doing anything is probably wrong in poker. I am not always doing this. I am doing it when I think it's the best play. If I raise preflop with a hand like 67s from early position, it's because I think that it's at most a small loser, and I haven't done anything unexpected in a long time. Then, whether or not I continue playing aggressively postflop depends upon who called me, from what position, and exactly what is on the board. That is my balance. I often do have to give it up after the flop. Other times, I get lucky and win a big pot. Those things add up to the hand being a small loser, at worst.
>Who you are up against and how well you read your >opponent are key considerations here. ... There is no >set strategy here and lot of it is just table feel.
Very true. But your feel for them is colored by your knowledge of the hands that they are likely to be holding, given the action up to that point, while considering the other hands that they MIGHT be holding. If you're too predictable, then their feel for you will be much too accurate for you to win at a maximal rate.
>The games I play in are not all that tough at least by >my standards. In a typical $20-$40 or $15-$30 lineup >there might be one tough player, one loose-aggressive >player, an LOL, several local players who play in a >tight-predictable manner, and a few calling stations.
Even you seem to think that tight-predictable is not a good thing to be? If this is so, why be predictable from up front?
>Virtually all of them play too loose pre-flop in my >opinion which makes the games beatable.
And this is generally the only reason to play in any tough game. Plus, in my case, the only regular HE game higher than 10-20 is this 20-40 game that is full of tricky, aggressive players.
>I think the kinds of games that you and Dan are >envisioning are more like high limit games that are >frequently shorthanded (e.g.-$60-$120 and above). Now >these games, because they are shorthanded, force you >to gamble more otherwise you will get run over.
I've definitely played some short-handed HE games, but never higher than 50-100, and seldom higher than 20-40. Moreover, most of my time at this level has been in full, 10-handed games. Remember, just because I might raise with 76s from early position does NOT mean I do it every time I'm dealt this hand in this position. If I do it once and reach showdown, that is probably all for that session. If I win without a showdown, and I'm not getting enough action on my raises, I'll try it again.
The most important thing is to probably not bother with this play if you're getting plenty of action on your big pairs from early position, and you're not getting tricky, aggressive plays postflop when you do come in early. This hand can put a sense of unease into the opponent, as they will no longer be so confident in their reads. Most players become passive when they lack confidence, which is generally good for me, IMO.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
(n/t)
maybe im playing in bad games, but heres what happened to me friday in a 10 20 game i usually play in.(normally i recognize more than half the players.) unfortunately for me i get no cards at all for 2 dealers (dont play a hand, check fold big blind a couple times) and get pegged as super rock solid ( at least by the 2 players ive never seen before.) i win the first pot i enter, with premium cards for a raise, at showdown when top pair/top kicker holds up. later on two hands in a row i raise from 2 and 1 from utg and "steal" the blinds. AK and AQ. later i get a free ride in big blind and flop top two against two opponents. i check - bet - call - i raise and they both fold. this happens again in the next next big blind (one opponent , the loosest way too loose aggressive, is the same , other different from the last hand).
my point is that even the one way loose player gave me way too much respect, perhaps because of the cold card start i had. anyway i was a decent small winner then the game got short, i shifted gears, my super tight image paid off and i did ok.
brad
i think dan hanson hit the nail on the head here. most of the single play equity of raising early position with a hand like 67s is stealing the blinds. you raise with 67s only when youre getting a little too much respect, which means theres a very good chance to steal the blinds, like 1/3 to 1/2 the time. so roughly half the time +1SB and half the time (-2SB)(flop...). so your paying about 1SB to see a flop (ideally heads up, remember the preconditions, with 4.5-5.5SB in the pot). so i dont think it costs too much if the game conditions are right.(ive played in 10-20 games where i was the only one who ever 3 bet pre-flop, so you have to have a sense of if you might be 3 bet or not.)
actually a seperate issue is post flop play and being able to counter being put on a narrow range of hands. this is not something that can be EV quantified in the context of a single hand, but i think that the above can show that it is not that expensive to mix it up depending on game conditions.
brad
I used to do what the book said but found it too expensive. Now about once a session when I have a hand like 87s or sometimes even off suit and there is one limper and I am in the cut off seat or on the button I'll pop it. I found out that sometimes I win the pot right there and most of the time I'll be heads up with the BB or the limper. If I don't get a good flop and the limper or BB bet I will just muck the cards face-up. Then I hear comments like "you raised with that shit".
Here is my opinion on raising with small suited connectors in early position. (1) I have done this once in a great while at pot-limit and think at that poker form it is a reasonable play to vary your game. I am skeptical about its value at limit poker. (2) One of the players mentioned raising a limper on connectors and having him fold. like, what game does he play in ??? (3) If the game is extremely tight and you are looking like the rock of rocks, the play may have some value. My advice for playing in such a game is to quit it instead of trying to steal the antes on crap. (4) In a home game where you play with the same people over and over the play has definite value. (5) Anyone who thinks they are spending only two dollars in advertising when they forty it from early pos at 20-40 is seriously misguided. 96) If you want to do it once a month to show you are one of the boys, go ahead. If you do it once every couple hours you are Santa Claus.
Bob-What I meant to say is that I sometimes take the pot with a bet on the flop it the limper checks.
You are going to "miss" with AK most of the time as well.
There is no need to put in full action hopelessly. You raise 76s and get two callers. Flop is K high. You bet your 3-flush/3-straight ... This situation is relatively easy to play so long as you can interpet an opponent's call correctly.
I suggest you make this sort of image play only when you have (temporary) dominance over the table, such as when you just skillfully outplayed an opponent 2 hands ago.
- Louie
Can one assess his expertise, (or lack there of) by the percentage of his beats comming on the river by large underdogs.
If I play 6 hours and lose 500.00 in a 10-20 H.E. game, with 100% of the losses going out to 4.5 to 1, up to 22 to 1 shots on the river, does this mean that I indeed was the best player, or is that just too simple?
It's an academic question at this point since I have quit poker for good, but I would be interested in others opinions.
P.S. I am talking about casino play, no cheating suspected.
It sounds too simplistic. For example, if a player plays KK hard and beats AA by spiking a K on the river, it would not be fair to say that the player with KK misplayed. Over a large sample size I guess you could say something, but not likely on the basis of one evening.
-Abdul
You may not have been the best player, but if all of your loss came from longshot bad beats on the river, then you certainly had achieved much of what is your goal in poker; that is, getting your money in with the best of it.
Unless these hands were played heads-up, it doesn't mean much. People tend to see the hand that beat them and moan their bad luck at losing to a longshot. They miss the fact that there were three other people in the pot all drawing to various cards. The combination of all possible outs means that it's likely that you WILL be drawn out on, even though the guy who manages it is a big underdog to your hand.
I know it's easy after a night when you get rundown by three gutshots and two runner runner straights to think that the universe is conspiring against you, but it's just not so.
Now, if you were playing heads-up and the same guy kept hitting the same kind of longshots, then you can start complaining about your bad luck.
100% of your losses cant be on the river. what happens is that a few tough beats happen on the river and a person remembers them and not their drawouts to win as they dont get to see them. if you know enough to even say 22 to 1 you will never give up the game for good. what you need to do is learn to read hands better to get max from your winners and lose less when beat. also to make the right play which can knock someone out who may later get you with the 22 to 1 shot.
Ray makes perfect sense, and I think he's right--you won't quit (except maybe temporarily)
This is the 4th time I've quit for good.
Thanks for all opinions.
The idea of many trying to draw out is one I've encountered often, but more in the 5-10 game I used to play. These river beats did come down to heads up at the end quite often. I felt very good about the reads I had, the bets and raises I made, limiting the field, etc., yet the one who stayed got their card. I did not want to sound like I was exagerating so I limited my question to my last session. The truth is, it has occurred over my last three sessions in a row with no mercy. Other regulars cannot even believe it, (they're just glad it's not them).
Am I not realy a good player because I kept going back again instead of stepping away for a while? Can the fact I had the best of it justify getting creamed?
Should I have actualy stepped up to the 15-30 where I know the players will not sit and draw to these hands?
Mick, I totally understand what you're saying. After spending hundreds of hours on the unlucky side of the river, you start to wonder if it's your play. I've come close to quitting poker forever several times. I've spent hundreds of hours running bad and it's probably the most frustrating thing in the world. Really, I mean it. I don't know if there's anything more frustrating than having a good understanding of poker odds and watching those odds fail to work out time and time and time again.
For two weeks once I calculated each result of hands I was in for no good reason other than to verify. I failed to reach flush draws 90% of the time during that period, and I lost about 80% of the time when I flopped trips, the flush or straight CAME for my opponents 70% of the time... Just in case you aren't aware, the odds of making a flush are 2-1 and the odds of making an open-ended straight are about the same. Of course, when holding a pair, the odds of flopping trips are 7.5 to 1 and I made one set for every 12 pairs I chose to see the flop with. Of course, then you get into less quantifiable things like I haven't seen aces in a month.
In poker, results do not always speak. If you know you are playing correctly, then you have no reason to give up. Believe me, I've come very close to doing so myself. After playing correctly for so long, and playing at tables where you KNOW your opponents are making mistakes but still beating you, you start to wonder if you're playing wrong. I went back and re-read all the poker literature I had. I read Sklansky, I read Malmouth. I have read the latest books by Feeney and Schoonmaker. I read columns by supposed experts. I found a few flaws in my play of course but for the most part, I was playing the way they advocated. I was adjusting my play to loose/tight/maniac games depending on the feel of the table. I was playing tight aggressive poker and losing tons of money. Every time I lost a hand I knew exactly why: I had been sucked out on on the river or my draw had busted. Of course, I never drew without pot odds and in the games I play, the pot odds for draws are enormous. I'm usually getting 4 and 5-1 odds if not 10-1 odds to draw to the nuts. EVERY TIME I lost a hand I knew exactly what had happened. Seat X had made his flush draw, Seat Y had filled up, Seat whatever had made a lucky two pair on the river against my pocket AA. I figured that if I was able to understand so well what was happening, I must be playing better than my opponents and eventually the cards would go my way.
I took a month break from poker and started playing again with no real change. The last game I played was a home game where I lost to a draw 7 out of 8 hands. I made a draw once out of 10 hands. It was pathetic. But each time I lost the pot, I could identify the mistake made by the player who dragged it in. Eventually the cards will stop betraying you. It's a matter of time. God knows how long.
I firmly believe that if you are fully aware of what's going on at the table, and you're losing a lot of pots on the river where you are forced to make a crying call because of the pot odds and every time the guy shows you exactly what you expected, then you are playing well and it's the cards that are killing you. Trust me, your opponents usually don't even know what you have or why you're betting so aggressively, they have no idea what you're about to show. Even if they do have an idea, you are playing correctly. You're getting your money in there with the best of it.
natedogg
Natedogg,
You describe my situation to a T. I do know what they have, I feel I am betting correctly, and they do not have a clue they need a six, and only a six, out of 46 unseen cards, to beat me.
And there is the six. Three cards out of 46 that can win for them, 43 cards that will win for me.
And there is the six. If it were once in a while, I can take it in stride and even welmcome it, because it is what keeps them comming back.
But every time? Over and over?
Here's the last hand,(out of many, many) that drove me out of the room. I raise on the button with A-Q to 4 loose limpers. All four call. Flop is A-7-4 rainbow. Check, bet, raise,(by a total idiot), he would raise with an ace, period. I reraise, fold, fold, idiot calls. I now see in his face and body action he feels he is behind in the hand. (Stop the action and look at the hands, my A-Q to his A-9) Turn is a 2, check, I bet he calls. River is the 9. I now see in his body language that he hit his card. I know it! This idiot still checks! I check behind him and save a bet. He turns over As and 9s.
I can re-tell 30 beats over 3 sessions like this, or worse. How many wins on these kind of hands will it now take to even out the expected odds????
I may not be quitting for good, but I am going to take a long time off. I realy do enjoy reading the good poker books, especialy Slansky and I may buy the hold-em simulator.
Thanks for your comments. Best of it!
Excellent post. I am there now and feeling the same. Hard to have to hear how extended these experiences can become. Reading Cooke's book of essays and bankroll requirements may help a bit psychologically. Hope you turn around soon.
Regards, Dave
I have to believe that a guy tuned into the Forum and in fact posting questions is not a guy who has quit poker or a guy about to quit poker anytime soon.
What he's really saying is not "I quit", but I will seek out the poker god who has it in for me if it takes me six thousand lifetimes and, when I find the bloody wretch, I'll make like I'm one of those sharks in the Deep Blue Sea....
What does quit mean ?
Aloha, I'm back.
I'm sure you can lose $500 in draw outs (total pot size) but so what. What about the hands that held up?
You seem to have embraced the following hopeless notion: Good players rarely have the lesser hand. If you have the best hand 75% of the time going to the river you are folding way too often on the turn.
This "gotta have the best hand" approach can work well B4 the flop and on the flop, but you need to chase often after a pot is built.
- Louie
Of course you are right Louie, you have to play all hands well. I do also go for draws when the pot odds, future odds, etc. are correct. I don't make complaints about not getting my flush. I don't have a problem with someone playing correctly for the flush or straight draws, etc.
I guess it's that for so long I __have__ been in the position of having way the best of it, and having the river card come for someone else over and over, with me sweeping no pots my way. In other words, it does not seem possible considering the odds.
An apt defintion of a fish is someone who - through addiction or love of the game - doesn't mind regularly losing money by playing. Since just about all pros could do much better financially outside poker (long term) doesn't that make them fish in the ocean of life?
The first is a big fish in a small bowl. The second is a small fish in a large bowl.
yy
I went to LV last weekend. Stayed at the Venetian. Really nice place. Better than Bellagio, except for the poker room.
I had already played a session at Bellagio, and was roaming around the Venetian with my newly aquired player's card. I got tired of BJ, and felt I had played enough to establish myself.
Then I remembered a post on 2+2 about a 10-20 game being spread at the Venetian. Well, it doesn't happen, but the floorman talked me into playing in the 1-4-8-8.
This was a great game. Very loose, and lots of limp-reraising, which made for huge pots. I played for 3 hours, and made $358! That's almost 15 big bets per hour! Take that Rounder! You and your measley 5 BB per hour.
Now I'm asking myself why I bother playing higher limits. I'm obviously a whiz at this limit, maybe the best. If I can make $100+ per hour at 4-8, why risk playing 30-60? I think I need to reevaluate my poker priorities.
Brett
You are right Brett in that the $1-$4-$8-$8 games at the Venetian and other places around Vegas with the $3 rake are excellent. Especially with the low $1 and $2 blind structure. However, don't expect to average $100 per hour in these games in the long run but $10-$12 per hour is feasible.
improve your game even some more and maybe you can make 500 or 600 an hour at the game. my accountant and lawyer and gardener are tired of just 100 an hour so they are going down there also to play.
ray,
I'm good at gardening and I will do it for $50 an hour. Email if you are interested. I will bring my own lunch and use a bucket for when I have to go so I don't leave footprints in your cave.
Regards,
Rick
ill give you a trial period. first fill up the truck with horse manure and hand till it into the garden then pick out the stinging nettles from the pasture. its alot what like what you do now so you are qualified. but please stay away from the sheep.
A lawyer that works for $100 per hour? You should be on Leno.
Brett
That was my first thought as well. However, Ray does live in a place that the people in Bigfork, MT, refer to as the boonies. So, $100/hour for an attorney there might be considered expensive.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
My bankroll is at a all time low. I have about 10k. I was playing part time because as my wife says (I had a real job) I was playing $15/30-$20/40 at least 5 hours per day. I was averging $25 dollars per hour between the both. Made good money and spent it as well.( I had a back up.) Now my job has went out of business. (Thank GOD) I'm going to have to play full time untill I can get a job. I want to move down to $10-$20.I can't risk going broke. My game can use some improvements. What's the chance of me going broke? My monthly nut is about $1,800. This is real,so keep it real.
have you kept track of your sessions length,result,limit, ect. and calculated your standard deviation?
if so, and you have a few thousand hours of consistent data, then i think its not much of a problem to determine risk of ruin.
brad
the good news is that 10 grand should be plenty for a 20 an hour winner. you could win enough for your nut and still build bankroll.
the bad news is that you won when you had no pressure on you. you could make the right calls and bluffs and it was just part of the game. now its the rent money at stake. it will affect your play. whether you can still play well and win is your personal problem that i hope you can manage well. good luck.
I think you are at great risk. 1800/month is a very big nut to cover with just 10k. I think you would be far safer to a, play fulltime down a level while b, working a part-time job that covers a third or better of your monthly #. That should allow you to grow your roll and give you some insurance against a losing streak. Hope it works out for you, spitball
What's wrong with using "pressure" as a propulsion system to make oneself play well?
10K would be a fine bankroll, IF you didn't have that monthly nut to make. Having to come up with 1800 a month increases your risk of ruin dramatically. Also, remember to factor in times when there is no game but bills still have to be paid, holidays, etc.
A big problem with an $1800 monthly nut is that you can no longer move down in limits if you lose. If you could re-invest your winnings in the bankroll, then you could move down to 5-10 if you lose half the bankroll and build your way back up. But you can't do that, because if you moved to 5-10 you'd have a hard time just making your nut, let alone building your bankroll.
My serious advice to you would be to get a job that can cover your nut or at least a good part of it, and then build your bankroll to a serious level. I've played poker for a living with a 10K bankroll, and I can tell you that it's no fun at all. A couple of bad nights, and you'll start sweating every loss. Also, you probably shouldn't consider your bankroll to be 10K, because if you lose more than half of it you'll probably have to hang on to the rest to pay the bills with while you look for a job. So your effective bankroll before you're out of the game is probably more like $7,000, and that's just not enough.
One more thing: Playing full time with a short bankroll is going to put heavy stress on your marriage. Count on it.
Thanks for the advice. I'm going to pay 3 months of bills look for a job and play $6-$12(5K) in the mean time. Who needs all of that stress. Life's too short.
When Alexander the Great landed on the Persian Empire (in order to kick King Darius III's ass), he let all of his soldiers line up on the shore and let them see all of their ships burn!!! He did this in order to give them the message "THERE IS NO TURNING BACK!!!!"... Kill or be killed! Don't be a wimp, Dreamer. Live up to your name and give stress a kick in the ass. Commit yourself 100% to professional poker by burning your ships, burning your bridges, and burning your resume. Don't give yourself an out or an escape route. By doing so you will be forced to succeed (just like Alexander the Great) in that most glorious of professions, full time professional poker playing. The reason many players fail at full time poker play is because they leave themselves outs. As a result they develop a "dependent mindset", they don't forge a will of iron because they know that if all fails, they can always go back to a job and kiss their employers ass from 9 to 5. Don't make the same wimpy mistake. Take the stress, crumple it into a ball and bury it in your heart. Then as you feel the passion to succeed burn within you, use it to kick ass!!! Crisis is opportunity. This is the moment of your poker destiny, Dreamer. Take advantage of it. "Better one day as a lion than a hundred years as a lamb". Life's too short. No one on their deathbeds ever wished they had spent more time at the office...
I love your post. I'm going to give a copy to my WIFE. When the mortgage is due please be available for a small loan. I will never give up my Dream 15 months ago I started playing $15/$30 with no bankroll and build it up to over 17K in a year while still working. I bought a car remolded the house new computer a whole lot of extra's from playing. I learned an significance lesson. Don't spend the bankroll if you don't have too. Now I'm back to square one. The most important part of my live is being responsible to my family, and the only responsible thing to do is to go back to work, and start all over. Thanks for some humor I really needed it. (Dreamer)
The man's ultimate responsibility to his family is to set a good example. By doing the wimpy act of going back to work and kissing ass, you are being a bad role model to your family. But if you burn your resume and take the honorable road of full time poker playing, you making yourself a splendid role model whom your kids can look up to in the years to come.
Sell the car and add the proceeds to your bankroll. If your wife objects, tell her, "My bankroll is an investment, a business expense that will generate cash flow and go up in value. If we sell the car now and use the proceeds as poker capital, we will be able to buy ten cars in a few months". Better yet, sell the house. I mean how much does the price of the average home increase in a year, 8 to 12 percent? You can make much more on the proceeds (from your current home's sale) if you play poker with it. It's all about opportunity cost.
Sell the car. What's he going to live in. "If your wife objects, tell her, "My bankroll is an investment, a business expense that will generate cash flow and go up in value." He's been singing that song for three years (by the way our 3rd anniv just passed). Staying out all night talking about he's stuck. He's going to be stuck if he sell's MY CAR!!!!! Sell the house I don't think so!!!!! He better get a job or he's going to be looking for a house (or CAR) to live in (whichever comes first). Why are you filling his head up with all this garbage? What kind of DisneyWorld do you live in?????? It sure ain't REALITY!!! NOT MINE--or at least I don't see this as EVER being mine. I hope he doesn't want a divorce when he sees this reply??!!!@@#$$@#$
You'll make a hell of a lot more money without a wife anyway. They are just a bunch of extra baggage anyway.
You call yourself a 'Veteran Player', but my guess is that you're either a young kid who's never had a family, or you're one of those single guys who burned through his marriage and no longer gives a damn. Either way, your attitude sucks.
If you have a family, you have a responsibility. You DON'T put your children at risk. Your wife has a say in what you do for a living, because she has to live with the consequences too.
Your 'put in all on the line for the glory of POKER!' attitude is simply childish and irresponsible.
What's so irresponsible about giving yourself maximum motivation to be your best in the endeavor that you love best? What's so childish about going for the challenge rather than playing it safe?
If 'going for the challenge' means that your kids, through no fault of their own, may be hurt - then there is lots wrong with it. I'm surprised that you would even choose to debate this. There is a reasonable line beyond which you should not cross, and if you are advocating selling the car and house to come up with a poker bankroll, you're on the wrong side of it.
I'd also suggest that if you need to put your family at risk to be able to motivate yourself you have some issues to deal with.
And quite frankly, if your bankroll is so small that you can only play 10-20, then if you are smart enough to beat that game you are smart enough to make more money doing something else. So the REAL equation translates to, "I can make more money and give my family more stability by doing something else, or I can sell everything and do what -I- want, at the risk of putting my entire family in a shelter." If you think that's a reasonable tradeoff, then I guess we don't really have anything more to say. Especially since your third option is to do something else for enough time to build a poker bankroll so that you can actually go pro with proper capitalization, allowing you to make even more money with much, much less risk to your family.
Doing something else in order to gain a poker bankroll just doesn't seem pure. IMHO
Boo hoo.
The above is great advice. At minimum, part-time job is a must. You will need some income and some health benefits. Dropping to 10/20 sounds reasonable if the $10-20/hr is good enough. The pressure of a couple bad sessions at 20-40 could be costly. Many pro card players have 2nd jobs even if it is consulting/writing/etc.
I don't know you, however, I like you already! THANKS FOR BEING REAL!! My DREAMER needs a dose of reality.
It was just a word of advice from someone who's been there, done that. I make a pretty good chunk of change from poker, but it's still stressful on the marriage. I spend too much time away from my wife and daughter, the losing stretches are hard on her emotionally, and it's tough to explain why we can't spend $200 on something for the house when I just made $2000 in a game. And she's a poker player too, and understands, somewhat. It's still tough.
A professional poker player will be playing a lot of evenings and late nights. Day games are usually not as good as night games, and game selection is important. So poker can never be a 9-5 job. The hours are irregular and the pay is irregular.
It's a different matter for a high-limit pro. If you've got half a million in the bank, you can make a good living playing something like 100-200 a couple of times a week. The fluctuations won't bother you, and you can spend even more time with the family than you could if you had a 9-5 job. But for a guy with a 10K bankroll, playing poker for a living means long hours, and a significant chance of busting out of the game.
If you're a really, really good player like Ray Zee, you can live in a cabin in Montana while being a poker pro. How he gets those guys to come out and play with him is beyond me... But then, didn't the Unabomber live in a cabin in Montana?
Dan wrote: "it's tough to explain why we can't spend $200 on something for the house when I just made $2000 in a game."
This has happened to me repeatedly, and I don't even play for a living (never have, just as a profitable hobby).
My favorite was winning $2500 in a PL HE game (at the time, the biggest win of my poker life). She was thrilled. Next day, lose $500 in the same game. She's completely pissed off, telling me how we can't afford to lose $500. I ask her, if I had won $1000, then won another $1000, would you be upset. She says no. I then ask, what's the difference between these two situations? She can't really say why, but it's completely different to her.
The simply truth is many non-gamblers just can't stand to lose money. The reason these types don't gamble has nothing to do with whether or not they enjoy playing (my wife likes to play the games, just not for real money), but with their extreme adversion to risk. My wife hates to lose money. Spending it is fine because you get something specific in exchange, but losing it, where you then have nothing to show, is bad. So, once I win some money, that's our money. Once I lose it, it's money that's been wasted.
She's much better now than she used to be, probably because she has been able to see my winning record continue to stretch on thru the years. I'd hate to think what it would have been like if I were a break-even player, with long stretches of losses.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Find a way to get your wives to take probability, statistics, small business management, and investment psychology classes. These should help them to be more understanding of the realities of your poker play.
VP,
Now this was a very helpful post, and I just wanted you and everyone to know that I appreciated it.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
.
Once your wife is convinced that pro poker play is indeed a business, then it will be easier for you to convince her a few months down the road to sell the house or at least take out a loan on it to increase the business operating bankroll. Interest rates are at an all time low anyway, easily paid for by poker income. You don't have to thank me for this practical advice.
That goes with the Theory of Life...
"I then ask, what's the difference between these two situations? She can't really say why, but it's completely different to her."
Recently I was up a Bundle... and as of today I lost half of it in a limit I was stretching out to play... But in the mean time I paid a healthy portion back to Mr. and Mrs. Visa... and paid some outstanding debts...
Ok... Do I call it a bad loss... all in your point of view... at first you're dissipointed... But at the same time in stepping up a level of play you can also chalk it up to experience and of course, blame the cards like a shooting 3/6 player...
As for the rest of the Arguement...
To the Dreamer: You have it together... Ambition combined with Reality(the job which the panel hopes you choose for the time being)... You'll be ok in the Long Run...
To the Vet: The Long run may be your oyster... But may God help you if/when the Short Run kicks your ass...
To The Dreamers Wife: Give the man Credit for posting his thoughts to a bunch of (no pun intended) "Dreamers" and Wannabe's who have taken many a shot and have been over the thoughts many times over...
To Dan Hanson: It's nice to see guys like you, in a gambling world of kaos... Bring a sense of order to it all...
And finally to the Academy...
ClubRoyal
ps...
an interesting article by Michael Konik playing on the same concept...
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/Aficionado/Archives/199805/fg598.html
The short run has already kicked my ass many times and God was always there to help me. Hanson, Raymer, Dreamer, Dreamer's wife, mah, and David Z don't realize the power of faith when it comes to surviving as a poker pro. Believe me, if you're committed to poker to the point that you are willing to burn your ships, your bridges, and your resume in order to pursue poker with immense passion, God will be there for you when you're getting your ass kicked.
Funny you mention that... in many ways your argument is quite pure... somewhat in a logical sense, but also and especially in "faith"... In The article about Archie who won the $17 mil...
"You've got to understand something. Money means nothing to me. I don't value it," Karas explains. "I've had all the material things I could ever want. Everything. The things I want money can't buy: health, freedom, love, happiness. I don't care about money, so I have no fear. I don't care if I lose it."
I would say that he shares the same type of viewpoint as that is quite a character statement...
Although the decisions become much different when you have family life in front of you wouldn't you say...
Freedom, happiness, peace of mind, and love are subjective things that you can access directly even if you lived on the street with no penny to your name. You can access these mental constructs by just staring into a blank wall because they are experiences that are totally internal, the results of how you structure life's experiences,memories, and future expectations inside your head. It's sad how most people have to access these feelings indirectlly. By "indirectly", I mean that they have to do, or have, or get something in the external world in order to create these purely internal feelings and sensations. They do not realize that, with great visualization skills and mental discipline, they can access these internal states directly simply by controlling how they perceive their current experiences, their near and distant memories, and their coding in their mind's of how bright their futures will be like. They can even encourage and help their families to do the same. It's the greatest gift they can give their loved ones. Most of the problems in this world are so because people have illogical rules that tell them to get indirectly (thru doing, getting, having in the external world) things that have always been purely internal experiences like love, a feeling of centeredness, oneness with the Creator, happiness, inner joy, etc. I'm not saying that material things are totally useless. Afterall, it's always better to go to one's funeral in a Rolls Royce than in a Yugo...
Ah, finally! Zen and the Art of Poker. I do hope Two plus Two will be releasing this soon.
Paul
There already is a book of that title. Too late!
One last Facinating article related to the concept...
"Prior to 1992, Archie's story was similar to other gamblers'. He'd win; he'd lose. One day he'd be driving a Mercedes-Benz, the next he'd be sleeping in it. When he was broke, he'd borrow a grub stake and start over. The usual. His career, if you can call it that, had been a series of nadirs and zeniths--and not much in between. "I've been a millionair over 50 times and dead broke more than I can count. Probably 1,000 times in my life," Archie recalls. "But I sleep the same whether I have ten or ten million dollars in my pocket."
For the rest...
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/Aficionado/Archives/199406/fh694.html
Both of them are excellent articles but the second one is superior. It captures what pro poker play is all about, as I see it. It is more pure. But the first one's good too in that caution is implied. Thanks Club Royal. You don't happen to be the writer of those two articles are you?
I would love to take claim... unfortunately... No... Michael Konik is a very good writer who also happens to be a gambler... Read his book... "The Man with the Hundred Thousand Dollar Breasts: And Other gambling stories"...
Now available in paper back... some of those stpries I could read time and time again the way he tells it..
This was the subject of a recent sub-thread. I play at Turning Stone Casino in upstate NY. Half of my sessions are played with twisted Cards. The Ks and Qs or the Ace of spades. They use the Red/Blue Kem cards. Does anyone know for sure if this is a defect in the cards. It really bugs me. I spend half my time at the table complaining to the floor people and the other half of my time covering my cards and putting checks on them to flatten them out. The other regular players really don't seem to give a shit. Some say that someone is bending them and some think it is the humidity or the way that they are stored. I emailed Kem but haven't recieved a response yet. Apparently the twisted cards are showing up at the Bellagio. If it is happening where you play please respond here. If it is a defect in the cards I will feel a lot more at ease with this promblem. I'm having nightmares about twisted cards!
Since Bellagio switched to the red/blue cards the problem with the wraped face cards seems to be over.
I also play at Turning Stone, 15-30, 20-40. I see the same problem. I am also concerned. I gave up complaining about it but do talk about it with other players. Everyone is trying to figure out who is doing it or is it really a defect in the cards. MPN-what is your first name?
I play at the Venetian once a week, and last time I was there I noticed that the only cards that would lay flat on the table were the baby cards. The higher a cards rank, the more warped it was.
I brought it to the floor's attention as I left. I asked his opinion of how the cards could warp that way, and he didn't know (frankly, he doesn't have much more poker experience than I do, which isn't much).
I asked a poker room manager I know about this, and his first inclination was "old, worn-out cards" instead of anything more sinister, but of course he did not rule out evil-doing.
I'm glad to hear that it's a problem elsewhere, and that I probably wasn't at a table with a cheat.
Bobby Choquette
Las Vegas
As I've said, the problem is still there and seems worse than ever. I asked a Bellagio player the question, "Do you think that the problem of warped face cards is gone now that they have switched to red/blue decks?" He replied, "No, they're worse than ever now." I didn't need to ask, of course. It's obvious to anyone with eyes or a sense of touch.
-Abdul
This is one of the many differences between us. I don't have to ask anyone since I do go there and play myself. When the decks were changed, the problem ended.
For those interested, the problem with twisted cards should have nothing to do with the color of the backs. It is probably a manufacturing flaw that was present in many batches of Kem cards. Thus at another card room using the red/blue cards from a different batch could exhibit the problem. But since Bellagio made the switch, the problem ended. This doesn't mean it won't come back.
I said I saw the twisted cards on the red/blue decks while playing at Bellagio. So did the guy in Turning Stone. That should be enough for you, but it wasn't, so I got a friend of mine at Bellagio to confirm that it is visible to someone other than me. Now you still are not going to admit you are wrong, and you are being rude about it to boot.
I've shown you to be wrong every single time you've gone up against me on nondebatable points. I said you said you believed you had never been cheated; you said you did not, but it was right there in print in Poker Digest. I said you said women should make no adjustments whatsoever for their sex; you said you did not, but a witness verified. I said you argued vehemently that one should call with Q5 in the big blind in a raised multiway pot; you said you did not, and continued to claim that you never said that after I pointed to the 2+2 posts where you did. You said that "Abdul plays almost no poker," but I play tons of poker - almost 8 hours a day for the past two months and I do have a witness for much of that if need be, and I strongly suspect I've played more hands of hold'em in my career than you (but not stud, draw, etc.) Sklansky sometimes objects to my saying you lie, but that one sure is a lie.
Virtually nothing you believe about me or poker is correct.
Okay, here is the challenge. If Bellagio management will permit, I will examine 10 setups. If Bellagio management will not permit, then you will play while I watch from nearby (but not behind), and I will loudly proclaim when you have a king or queen, and a witness behind you will keep track. If I can pick out a statistically significant number of kings and queens in say 10 attempts, then you will admit that you are wrong about virtually everything, and that you are so blind you could not possibly see cheating if it were right under your nose.
-Abdul
n order to properly answer your question, the cards in question (at Turning Stone Casino) need to be examined. Age, wear and many other factors need to be known. We will investigate.
KEM Cards
I play at Turning Stone. 10-20 H.E.
I have had the cards replaced with new set ups twice. One time we showed that all four kings were bowed. I told a player out of a hand that he folded one king. He was amazed. I turned the cards in because it's not right.
The first time I thought I knew who did it, but she hasn't been back and the problem continues, so I think it's the cards.
The card company needs to talk with Turning Stone. If Bellagio got new cards we should too.
If anyone is having a problem with twisted or wraped Kem cards please email Kem at: k@cardsandchips.com
y
N/T
Thanks guys! I will watch for them. I haven't really noticed before. I play 5-10 mostly, an occasisional shot at the bigger games with richie, robbie, the pooper, dennis, and the rest.
zooey
Where is the Pooper? Did Poop-it-up leave town for good.
I have complained many times about the wraped cards. Everyone looks at me like I'm crazy. Someone said they saw the Pooper at Port Perry.
ive talked to four(small sample) of champion players and theyare all way ahead playing online. i find that its scary to play online where you cant even watch whats going on but it seems to be a fair game. imho. what may have happened to some players that are losing is what happened to players from las vegas when cal. first opened. the games were real good and all should have made a killing in them. but many lost in the beginning and some even went broke. they complained the games were too good or something had to be going on. what really was going on was that they didnt know how to adjust for changing conditions. they won money only because they had a style that worked in one place. when they attempted to move they of course lost. since that time many have finally adjusted and now win in cal. or have move there. this will happen with online poker as well. as the better players learn to play without the clues they used to use to win in the past they will find the skills that are needed in the new environment. also there is no doubt in my mind that as too many places to play develop on line some will go broke and take the players money with them. so play at the bigger sites(reputable) and dont leave too much cash sitting there.
ray, here are some thoughts:. Just as Planet was clearly hackable, and HACKED, and proven HACKED, Paradise has problems. The same defenders of the inferior software come out when their gravy train is threatened. I believe that anyone that claims that the distributions fall within normal variance is 1.benefitting in some way,or 2. have an interest in it. Prove me wrong. The authorities could. Thats the point.Paradise won't co-operate with them. They'll claim that they are outside of jurisdiction. Truthfully, they are. The area where jurisdiction falls is if the software can be proven intentionally abnormal, a case could be made against the US owners under exisiting rico acts. Thats a tall order. The owners could always blame the manufacturer of the software. They appear to have plausible deniability under any circumstances, even when proven to be problematic(such as Planet Poker's less than just refunds when proven hacked). I expect my contacts in US Governmnet will simply state don't play, that it isn't worth the effort. Another angle for investigation might be how funds in amounts less than 10,000 are brought into the US through this medium. It is an excellent method for laundering money. The owners of these type of companies could not begin to pass the tests that the NJ gaming commission uses to allow ownership.
With all due respect Ray, isnt there a bit of a conflict of interest for you here....you sell your books through this site, and advertisers on this site are the major on-line internet poker sites. Although I dont expect or hold you to the ethical standard of government employees-the standard for them is that they have to avoid even the appearance of any conflict of interest. Again, with all due respect, I think you should do the same.
You're getting free (through the courtesy of the advertisers) advice/information from a world class player and you want to to put a gag gag order on him? Shuddup.
Moron...I mean Muwati, I am only talking about the area of on-line internet poker. Don't be such a stupid jerk...
Since you didn't curse a lot and you failed to mention my mother, I didn't realize this was the "14 Year Old Boy" forum.
I am no champion player, but folks:
Look at the starting hands of the losers when they have to show them. And one great thing about online, is you can watch to get a feel for it. (Playing for play money is stupid, those games have as much relationship with poker as playing tiddlywinks.)
If you think you are being cheated when you stay with 52o -- even in the bb -- for two raises looking for the gutshot, without the odds; or your KK get busted 4 timesin a row (yes, me), by A on the river or runner runner flush, or other garbage (83o getting 3 on the turn and 8 on the river), then you've never played in real life. Look in the mirror.
Mark
thanks..i appreciate that you realize that this is a racket. I see people winning aginst Aces and Kings with 2-5o...stating at 5-10..and up to 20-40...
Not a racket, just normal poker....
...you've never seen 52o winning against AK? Come on, if you haven't seen that, then you've never played!
Look in the mirror, you might not find the poker player you think you are. I did, my usual game was losing, I complained to myself about the suckouts, I rambled (remember?) about the too loose, too tight, etc etc. Then I said: What to do to win? I realized (and posted) my weaknesses against that game and I now win. It is easy: Ray is SOOOOOOOO right, adjust your play and stop whining.
Mark
i'm not whining..its clearly criminal activity...byt the way ..You claim to pay 155k in taxes every year..I doubt it. Why don't you give us your real name, and social security number...the IRS may have an interest.
It is funny how someone can say something that just brings them into focus so clearly. A person who would threaten to turn another, that they don't even know, into the IRS. Just the thought makes me seethe with anger.
well here are quotes from Andrew Prock to me in interacting here: The only time I use any of my fancy hacker software is when I'm in a pot with you..What are you going to do, file suit against me with the Costa Rican government?
Thats what Andrew has to say. He's a computer programmer.I don't believe that he was joking.
you decide if I have justifiable anger.
I agree with both sides... More cheating but even more lack of adjustments.
Conditions change a lot more than locally where you see the same set of players. You are gathering from a much larger population and frequent changes in opponent composition.
Yes, I've heard from the "pros" that you can't overcome the rake in a 3-6 game....
Same concept.
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
This is my last post on either the general theory site..or theinternet site ..Contrary to popular belief..I haven't really lost at Paradise ...but my outrage at the cheating is overblown. Life is not fair....and certaily the poker business historically has been a rough one. I have no desire to risk my life for a simple foolish hacker. Its not a good adjustment.
Ray,
Do you really think I wasn't joking. That quote is almost certainly false. This is pretty obvious. Either I don't have "fancy hacker software", or I do. If I don't have it, my statement is false. If I did have it I would surely use it in every pot, making the statement false.
Add the fact that I don't know what your login is on Paradise Poker, and I think maybe it's time to re-evaluate how serious that statement was.
Of course, if you really feel like getting your undies in a bunch, go ahead.
- Andrew
The quote isn't false. Its from your postings on the internet forum. If its not true, then your idea of funny is sick, and near psychotic.
Mr.Springfield's complaints are real. Anyone with half a brain can see that the distributions are not random on Paradise. Many other postings now claim that the site can be hacked. Mr.Springfield shows courage to request that the issue be addressed by the authorities. He shows lack of judgement in telling anyone here that his intentions wee such. Do the police tell suspects they are under investigation before they make an arrest? I don't think so. Your irresponsibility reminds me of a motorist that cuts someone off on the highway which causes an accident, and then that motorist just keeps driving. When they are pulled over for hit and run driving, they then claim no responsibility. I believe that your statements were probably a confession.
The quote isn't false. Its from your postings on the internet forum.
Yes the quote was in fact something I wrote. However, it was a false statement.
If its not true, then your idea of funny is sick, and near psychotic.
Well, I won't deny having an off-beat sense of humor, but sick and psychotic... ?
To each his own.
- Andrew
Whats the difference between a false statemen and a lie.
Well,
It seems that Matt thought I was claiming I didn't make the statement. I was just trying to clear things up and point out that I made the statement, but it happened that it was false (or a lie, if you wish).
- Andrew
I'm telling you, if you ever post anything that is meant as a joke, or as satire, or anything other than the literal and most commonly understood meaning of your words, then you must either follow it up with a ;-), or expect it to be misinterpreted.
Oftentimes (though not I believe in your case), the misunderstanding is quite justified. When people are typing, they are hearing those words in their head, and those words are being heard with a certain set of intonations, intonations that indicate the satirical or other non-literal meaning of the words. Those of us reading the post don't necessarily add the same intonations when we "hear" the words in our heads.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
Thanks :)
- Andrew
Hehe,
I did not claim to pay that much in taxes, I *said* I pay more than that. I do. Much more. Why should IRS be interested? My accountant and my business partners and the IRS are all good friends, since I am such a good and happy tax-paying citizen. Proud to be a heavily taxed American! What a great country.
You think $150k per year is a lot of income: Ha. My 26 year old daughter, working as a programmer in Wall St, she makes more than that, and has a great life.
Sorry everyone, I know this is supposed to be about poker...but I could not stand the bragging.
Mark
I think you hit the nail on the head. In my admittedly short experience playing online, my take is that the games are generally more agressive on later streets. Some games are tight agressive, and some are loose agressive, but not too many seem to be passive.
Those players who move from the typical low-limit casino game are probably not used to that.
I've got maybe 100 hours of play online, my wife has about the same, and we've never seen anything out of the ordinary. I'm up just slightly over that period of time, and my wife is down slightly.
What would be the best book to buy that would cover both Omaha High and Omaha High-Lo. If there is not one good book, what are good books for each respective game. Thanks.
For Omaha hi-lo, I recommend Shane Smith, John Payne, and Ray Zee. For Omaha High, try the Bible. You'll need it.
Ciaffones book IS the Bible for Omaha high!
So that makes Ciaffone God of Omaha High. And who are you? Abraham?
Hey Dave:
Take a chill pill. :-)
I was doing this exact research a little while ago (about a month). My results were that only Bob Ciaffone's book, Omaha Holdem: The Action Game, and TJ Cloutier's book, Championship Omaha, cover both games.
Because I was already buying Ray Zee's book High-Low Split Poker For Advanced Players, I decided to just buy Ciaffone's book and not Cloutier's (there were other reasons too). Ray Zee's book is half on Omaha High Low 8 or better and half on 7cs high low 8 or better (I haven't read the 7cs section).
Ciaffone's book focus's mainly on Omaha High with a small section on Omaha High/Low. He talks a little about how to play your high/low hands, and discusses preflop strategy for high/low. I liked this section (as well as the rest of the book), but I think that high/low is a game that requires a little different strategies and I think that Ray Zee's book gives some pretty good High/Low strategy (Although I am very new to this form of poker).
Ciaffone's book also covers Pot Limit play and Tournament play. Ciaffone's book may seem small (I believe that it was only 104pg) but don't let that fool you. It has smaller than average text and it doesn't waste space.
Therefore, based on my experience, I believe that you should buy two books (like me). Ray Zee's book (I think that it gives a good treatment of high-low games) and another book. I won't recommend Ciaffone's Omaha book over Cloutier's Omaha book only because I have not read Cloutier's book. Having said that, I do believe that Ciaffone's book is a great read and will make you (or save you) enough money to make it more than worthwhile. I feel the same way about Ray Zee's book, but I believe that if you are a beginner than you shouldn't just rely upon Ray Zee's book (it may be a little too advanced). I know that I still don't fully understand a lot of it.
Another possible advantage of buying books from either of these two authors are that they both regulary post to this forum site, so you may be able to question the authors directly if there is something you don't understand.
These are just the opinions of a beginning Omaha High-Low player, but after reading these books I am a winning High-Low player (so far).
For Omaha High I thought Bob Ciaffone's book was the best.
Try ciaffone for high and One fell out of the cuckoos nest for hilow.
I have a somewhat unusual question regarding something that I have observed quite by accident. Most of the casinos where I play at are non-smoking, however, the one closest to where I live is smoking so I play at both types of casinos. I am a non-smoker and really dislike playing at the smoking casino.
Anyway when I do play at this casino I often will change seats to get away from someone who is smoking in my face or to sit beside someone who is a non-smoker. I have noticed that when I have been winning at a particular seat for a couple of hours and I move to another seat to sit beside a non-smoker I often get very good cards at the new seat and the seat I left cools off. When I play at the non-smoking casino I will usually sit for the whole session at one seat and invariably if I have been getting good cards for a couple of hours I will go through a couple of hours where I don't get good cards.
It seems natural that each seat will have ups and downs in terms of getting good cards. So my question is first of all, has anyone else noticed this? Secondly, do you think this is something that you could (should) work into your strategy? Obviously you still want aggressive players to your right and passive players to your left, however, keeping this in mind is changing seats something a player should consider.
What I have done recently is if I have being winning for a couple of hours I will change seats, thinking that my seat is due for a cold spell. I have only recently started doing this, however, it seems profitable. Any comments (serious ones only) would be appreciated.
Gosh I hate to say this because if there is one thing I love it is for people to be superstitious and stay that way.
It makes absolutely no difference what seat you sit in. Every hand is an individual poker 'universe'. The cards do not know what seat you are sitting in. People and seats are not good card or bad card 'magnets'.
You will get a random hand no matter where you sit. If a seat runs hot for awhile, you should not move because the law of averages says it must run cold for a while.
Sure, in the long run, and I *DO MEAN LONG*, each seat will get average cards. Each seat will get occasional runs of good and bad cards, but over the long run, these spikes will just fall into the baseline.
Note that it might take a hundred thousand hands to achieve this equality - certainly one seat could get more than it's fair share of good cards for 100 hands, and still get good ones for the next hundred after that.
If you recorded all of the hands dealt to each seat over 1,000,000 deals, you would find that they all got APPROXIMATELY the same number of AA, KK, AK suited, and the like. But short term observations are meaningless.
-SmoothB-
If I'm seated next to a cigarette smoker and move next to a non-smoker, I usually get bad cards. But if I'm seating next to a pipe smoker and move next to a non-smoker, I end up going on a rush. But this rush only lasts for 15 hands or half an hour depending on what comes first. If I'm next to a cigar smoker who does not have his cigar lit, I get average cards after I move. But everytime I move away from a cigar smoker who has his cigar lit, I hit the "bad beat" jackpot. I've done this a few times and I'm now ahead 170 thousand dollars playing 2-4 holdem.
Thanks James... glad to see you have nothing better to do with your time.
Thanks for the laugh,
Ken
Are you Canadian or African?
That would be Canadian. How would come up with African? I have been asked if I am from Germany based on the name but not Africa.
Ken
ohKanada sounds like a name from Mozambique or something...anyway, thanks for the clarification, ey.
That would be "eh". Haven't you seen Strange Brew
Do you want to buy some beach front property in Colorodo? I promise I'll give you a good deal.
Hmmm,
Well now you know the reason to change seats is not bc another seat is "due" for better cards.
However the reason(s) to change seats is bc you want certain players in certain positions to you. for example: You would like loose agressive players to you r right, tight passive ones on your left etc... Often you should change seats for these reasons.
However if smoke bothers you maybe sitting to a nonsmker will help your performance in that you will be less distracted...
The power that control the distribution of cards DOES favor one criteria over another. In your case its non-smokers. This favor is fickle, and the powers can decide to favor the opposite criteria or even switch criteria. They wait until someone notices and then switch the current criteria and which side is favored. Sometimes they fool you and do NOT switch. They are also not temporally bound and know if you are EVER going to notice a trend and can take corrective action in advance.
The authors are wrong; there IS a thinking power behind the distribution of cards but they are so good at disguising it that they make it SEEM like its mathematically random.
The other theory is that they just don't give a shit. (Oops, I probably can't say the "s" word, can I?)
Good luck with your poker career.
- Louie
PS. Apparent anomolies when looking at historical distributions are to be expected.
PPS. There is no such thing as "being on a lucky streak" (vis-a-vis getting good cards); there is only "have been on a lucky streak".
I suggest you take up smoking, hope that helps.
D.
The only reason I change seats is because of trying to move away or toward other players. For example, if someone sits to my left and is always raising then I might try to shift seats so that I am to his left.
Ken
seriously, clinteroo, this is exactly the type of thinking you want to remove from your mind because it will make you a worse poker player. People that think like this are suckers, and if you think that true randomness can fall into discernible patterns, then go make your money playing roulette.
You need to understand that the distribution of cards is completely random. While there are people out there that might deviate from optimal play because they think that there is a hot seat or a cold seat, the good players will eat you alive if you play worse because you think you're in a 'hot seat'.
If you don't believe it, write down the cards you get in each seat. Eventually, they will both get similar numbers of crappy and good hands. Don't be fooled by your short term results or your perception of short term results.
mth
As every poker player knows, it makes a tremendous difference which seat you're in. In hindsight there are many seats I wish I had never sat down in.
It is likely that out of 10 seats one may do poorer than the others. It's just not possible to tell which one, for how long or when.
I myself, like the 2,3,4 or 7,8,9 seat in general for the elbow room and for the view of the table. Of these I like 2,4,7,9.
I also am a mover. I first try to get to a seat that seems tactically correct. Then to tactically better seats.
I almost never leave a winning seat but I'll chalk that up to superstition.
My most "superstitious" move is to leave seats that are tactically correct but where my hands are getting killed. I keep moving until it "seems to work". Of course, you must be prepared for the ribbing that will come of such moving.
My theory, on this random moving (again only done when cards seem to be falling badly) is that there are forces at work which I cannot explain and I try to accomodate them in this superstitious manner.
I think the most positive thing about it that I am actually doing something to change my luck. Often a seat move, involves some time away from the table and that may also help.
HUMOURON
Since I always play 100% my best and never make a mistake, I must count on the mysterious forces of the universe to help me on my way. My Ouija board has come in handy many times.
HUMOUROFF
.
It is well known that Kem has had problems with their card quality for years. During the past several months the cards in use at both Bellagio and The Mirage contained many face cards that were warped. The Bellagio switched to red/blue backs and the problem in my opinion went away. (I use to be in games where virtually everyone complained, and those complaints stopped after the switch.) However, due to other committments I have played very little the past two weeks, and if the imperfectation is something that occurs with use it is possible that the cards are going bad again. If that's the case, perhaps Abdul should make an appointment with their cardroom management and point the problem out to them.
I missed the poker theory content of the above post but did notice the subtle personal nudge. Well done.
I play at Turning Stone in Upstate NY. We have the same problem, warped or twisted Kings and Queens and sometimes the Ace of Spades. Warped-meaning that there is a defect in the cards. Twisted-meaning a player or players are bending them. I emailed Kem and they said that they will investigate. Instead of acting like little kids why don't we all get in touch with Kem and try to solve this problem. I know that some players really don't want to get involved. They see the warped cards and just use this information for their own benefit. We are hurting ourselves! I have seen less skilled players discreetly leave the table after it was anounced that the Ks and Qs were bent. They think that other players are bending them. It is so obvious. On the flop the Ks and Qs look like little boats. Jim Brier--What do you think??
Between the Bellagio and the Mirage I play about 40 hours a week. From time to time a player will notice a mark on the back of one of the cards that is hardly noticeable and the deck is promptly replaced. The "bent and twisted" phenonmenon is more unusual and I have only encountered it about 3 or 4 times since I moved to Vegas in April. One of the other players usually notices it when it happens and again the deck is replaced. Because my vision even with glasses is far from perfect, I do not notice these things as well as some of the other players. However, in my opinion these kinds of problems crop up from time to time in all cardrooms and the Bellagio and the Mirage are no better or worse than most the other cardrooms in this regard. I think this subject is getting a lot more attention than it deserves.
Jim--I value your opinion--Thanks
I expect Jim will be changing his tune, after I transfer to his table. It's kind of foolish to doubt me, when you've got the Turning Stone guys saying the same thing. I've had a second pro confirm what I can see easily.
I'm sure Bellagio management is aware of it, because it must be obvious to most of the skilled players and most of the dealers who also sometimes play, and management should be looking for it after previously having problems.
As I pointed out in the previous warped card thread a few months ago, the problem does not occur with the brand new decks that we sometimes get on the top section games. The problem does sometimes occur on the top section games on used decks, however, and it's extremely common on the bottom section decks, which come used from the top section. I don't believe the problem is caused intentionally, but the people I've talked to believe otherwise.
Here were the warped cards from the decks used in my game last night:
Red: Ks Kc Kh Kd Qs Qh Qd Jh 6h
Blue: none(!)
Red: Ad Ah Ks Kd Kh Qs Qc Qh Js Jh 9d 6c
Blue: As Ks Kc Qs Qc Qd Jd Jh 7d 6s 6c
Red: Kc Kh Kd Qs Qc Qh Qd
Blue: As Ks Kc Kd Qs Qc Qh Js Jc Jd Jh
This was 15-30 Hold'em and the last deck was in play for many hours, until a card was identified as being marked on the back. I counted only cards visibly warped on the flop when I was not busy playing a hand, so that I could be as objective as possible. The absense of a card may just mean that it was not flopped, not that it was not warped. If you don't believe me, open your eyes and keep track for yourself.
A friend who knows about the warps was playing with me last night. At one point I mucked my hand preflop and one card went scooting across the table, while the other dug in with its four bent claws. I pushed it, and it still resisted every inch. My friend laughed, knowing the card was very likely one of two values. It was indeed a queen.
So here are a couple of plays from last night (hold'em.)
Player raises three off the button with two warped cards. Everyone else folds. The known warped cards in this deck are 3 kings and 4 queens. I muck in the small blind with A5s spades. He had KK. He had just raised the hand before with 74o, but he was not an idiot, and it was just some advertising for a gear shift, I think. I later decide my muck was a mistake, as I am sure my ace out is good, as I know he has KK, KQ, or QQ, but I am not accustomed to this situation and I have not worked out the math. Was this a huge mistake?
In another hand, I raise with 88 3 off the button. The big blind defends with one warped card. The known warped cards in this deck are one ace, 3 kings, 3 queens, and 4 jacks. He is loose-tricky, the same one with the KK/74 from before. The flop comes QJ3. He checks. I check. The turn is a blank. He bets. I fold. Did I play this correctly? He dug through his cards and pulled out a 3 to show. I said, "Yeah, more likely queen-three." He got a funny look on his face.
Do not play poker against a professional caliber blackjack player.
-Abdul
Abdul, I also respect and value your opinion. There is no doubt in my mind that everything you said is 100% true and accurate. The same thing has happened to me at Turning Stone!! I'm not saying that every single deck is warped. This is just a guess but maybe 30-40% of my sessions are played with warped cards. What do you think? Is it a defect in the cards?
Tonight, I asked two floormen/dealers at Bellagio if they had noticed warped cards on the red/blue decks, and they said, "Oh yeah, tons of 'em. Facecards mostly." One speculated that the heat during shipping in the summer causes the cards to warp, and said the new decks were often warped. The other speculated that it was the cards used most often by the players that get warped, but admitted his theory was weakened by the lower frequency of warped aces than kings and queens. So see, I know, the guys at Turning Stone know, the pros at Bellagio know, the dealers/floormen at Bellagio know, and even Jim now knows, so only Mason is now not in the know.
Note that if the phenomenon were confined to Turning Stone and persisted over time, it's hard to imagine how this would happen besides via cheating. So, you kind of have to wonder why Mason would emphatically/arrogantly/belligerently/insultingly disagree with me about the warped cards at Bellagio. Mason's logic that "since I [Mason] can't see a warp, no one can, and so Abdul must be lying" is just as sound as Doug Grant's logic that "since I [Doug] can't beat blackjack, no one can, and so Abdul must be lying." (These are not direct quotes, but are accurate summaries of the opinions of Mason Malmuth and Doug Grant.)
As I've said, I speculate the phenomenon is the result of a manufacturing/design problem. The paint on the facecards may contract as it ages, flexes, heats up, or, as someone suggested here, is subjected to light. The aces may pick up some warp by their proximity to the kings and queens in the deck when they get sorted each night, or maybe it's just that the ace of spades has enough paint to be affected directly. Well, it's just a theory.
A ton of the cards (mostly face cards) were warped in the 80-160 Hold'em game tonight, by the way. I didn't keep track on paper this time, though. One player demanded a heavily warped king be broken (i.e., destroyed), but the replacement setup was warped too, of course.
-Abdul
I just spoke to Donna Harris, Cardroom Manager at The Mirage, and she told me that they had received a bad suply of cards and that Kem acknowledged and replaced them all. Now this doesn't mean that they are now perfect, but at The Mirage they are well aware of the problem and are monitoring it closely.
I hope to talk to the Bellagio cardroom management later today or tomorrow. I will keep everyone informed.
Why do we need Mason to inform us about Bellagio? We've already been informed by Abdul. I don't usually play in Vegas, but when I do, I'm as sure as hell going to keep in mind what Abdul has posted.
I just spoke with Doug Dalton, Cardroom Manager at The Bellagio. He states that this has been a card industry problem for many months, and that approximately 2 months ago they switched to the red/blue back Kem cards in hopes of solving the problem. (It was understood that the D series of the green/brown Kem cards was defective due to wraping and manufacturing problems.) As this was the only series available at the time that is why The Bellagio went to the red and blues which were suppose to be defect free. Since the switch was made, Doug tells that the complaints about the poor quality cards has stopped until Abdul brought this issue up again.
Doug assures me that the owner of Kem cards, John Parente, is well aware of the problem and is frantically working on a solution since this affected cardrooms nationwide. The phone number for Kem cards is 800-233-4173 in case anyone want to verify that this is a manufacturing problem.
This evening at the Bellagio I was playing $15-$30 and sitting in Seat #3 (my favorite end seat). I must confess that before you came over and pointed it out to me, I had never noticed it. For the benefit of everyone else on this forum, I started looking at the cards that came on the board and I could see them from an angle. Here is what I observed. In one red deck the Ace of Spades was noticeably warped and did not lay flat on the table. The Queen of Diamonds also had a pronounced warp. The King of Clubs also had a noticeable warp. With other decks, I did notice that facecards do not always lie flat on the table compared to other cards. There were a few decks where all the cards layed flat and I did not notice any warps. But there were other decks where some of the facecards were only warped to a very small extent but noticeable to anyone looking for them. I don't know if this makes a big difference or not and when I go to other card rooms I will start looking for it just to see how wide spread this phenomnenon is.
The problem of warped face cards were so prevelent at the Horseshoe(Bossier City La.) that when a deck was found that wasn't warped they were seggrated for use in the higher limit games. Remember that this card room has been closed for almost six months.This problem is not a new one.
In the last six weeks warped cards are the rule rather than the exception at the Isle of Capri (Lake Charles La.)
I do not know what type of cards either of these casinos are using.
Turning Stone 30-60. Last night it was the Ace of Spades. It got so bad the Frenchman (you guys from the Taj know him) crumpled the card. The Ace of spades was changed four times in a period of five hours. For some reason the paint wasn't that bad. Zooey--I asked at the 10-20 table if anyone knew a guy named Zooey. Nobody did.
"I later decide my muck was a mistake, as I am sure my ace out is good, as I know he has KK, KQ, or QQ, but I am not accustomed to this situation and I have not worked out the math. Was this a huge mistake?"
Here's my oversimplified attempt at doing the math. I hope I will get some comments, as I am trying to get better at this and am not sure if I even have the right approach.
I calculated the probability of flopping an Ace to be 17.2%. I Assume you will earn, on average, 1bb after hitting an Ace on the flop. This, I think, is conservative as he will probably pay you off for more if he as KK's or QQ's or flops a pair of K's or Q's, and you may be able to get 1sb if he flops nothing. If he flops a set, you stand to lose more.
E = 0.172*2.75 + (1-.172)(-.5) = .06
It probably goes without saying, but this is the same sort of thing I get with the cheating stuff. I've seen blatant cheating, and I've heard people describe how they cheat, so I know it's out there. I am 100% sure. Every once in a while, it is going to rear its ugly head and rob of you of a few hundred dollars.
-Abdul
I'm not convinced its a manufacturing defect per se. These cards are photo-sensitive and most cardrooms are lit up like movie sets. The bigger the card, the longer it will, on average, remain lying on the table beneath the hot lights. Face cards have more paint and will therefore absorb more light and exhibit the worst effects. Certain colored backs would also be more sensitive than others because different colors absorb light at different rates.
About 10 years ago, in pursuit of a few adventures in the wide open gambling town of Phoenix, I had a couple of sets of Kem cards. They do indeed warp, or at least mine did after several washings. Perhaps there is a problem in the way some clubs wash and dry the cards.
Now if people are going to start claiming this problem occurs on Planet Poker or something, then I'll really begin to wonder...
.
I find it amusing that the players who seem most prepared to use this kind of information to their advantage are the first to ask for a deck change and complain to management (perhaps including me). The are in affect, leveling the playing field when they have an advantage, but are likely to be taken advantage of for longer periods of time when they fail to notice a marked card and another tough player has.
Also, cards are exposed in different ways all the time: players accidentally expose them, dealers expose them when the card hits the felt or a players hand in the wrong way, dealers expose them when they deal the cards too high and at the wrong angle, warped cards can sometimes be seen in the deck, cards marked on the edge can be seen in the deck, etc. I think it is worth discussing how this kind of information can be used most effectively.
allan
i have something to say about MM (as opposed to almost all other posters here, except maybe DS and RZ).
basically it is that due to this being his forum, what he says is not just his opinion, but rather it carries the weight of authority. so, for example, for anyone else to claim that the face cards are bent, is ok and no problem, and indeed a service to the rest of us.
but i think that mason cant just offer his (more or less off the cuff) opinion and agree and say yes, youre definitely right, because due to the nature of this forum and his standing in the poker community certain opinions of mason's are taken by many as fact.
and lets face it , the bigger the claim, the more evidence is needed to support it. i think MM did a good job in listening and then gathering and presenting the facts, that it is an acknowledged production and/or shipping defect.
brad
.
Fri. night H.E. at Turning Stone.
I am on the button with 10-10. I know that all of the face cards are warped, or at least most of the Jacks, Queens and Kings are warped. The Aces are not.
Tight player in 6th position raises. Both of the cards dealt to him were warped. Fold around to me. Usualy I call or re-raise.
In this case I know this player would not raise with J-Q, J-K, or even Q-K. Therefore, he has a pair higher than mine.
I fold, the blinds fold, and he flips over Q-Q.
No. 1. I got a good read on him anyway the way he raised, however, I probably don't fold with out the bent card knowledge.
No. 2. I have complained so many times and had decks replaced so often that I just got sick and tired of doing anything about it.
No. 3. I still feel bad about what occurred. This should never be an issue. I feel I cheated this man.
I cannot remember what color deck was in play.
From now on I will continue to bring this to the floor's attention and get new cards.
The post above about using this knowledge to your advantage is disturbing. This goes against everything that makes poker such a great game. If you will rely on this type of thinking I beleive you will be doomed to be a loser, if not in poker, surely in general.
If you do not make use of every bit of information available to you, you give your opponents the ability to "make book" on you and defeat you. Your opponents are reading the warps, trying to follow cards through the dealer's shuffle, spotting one of your hole cards when it flashes during the deal, etc. Do unto your opponents as they would do unto you. You can't pretend you didn't see it, and asking for a new set-up is unlikely to remedy the problem. You don't have a choice, except perhaps whether to play at all, and you didn't cheat.
(To "make [Dutch] book" is to come up with a set of wagering lines that cause the customer to lose money on his bets.)
-Abdul
Today I noticed, especially after reading this forum the concern at our local watering hole....
And for that matter it's like the previous post said... you don't want to be deemed a loser... BUT as Abdul says... how can you not use this advantage if you go up to the houseperson and they do nothing about it as in my case...
I was in an Omaha 8 game and I had an open ender on broadway but missed and ended up with top 2... I thought it still may have been good but when I saw a number of "warps" with my high draw raiser in... I let a it go figuring he had the same top 2... but with a better kicker... And I let it go... Low and behold... He had my Jack... with a King (Very warped)...
I likely don't call anyways... but nevertheless... it was still even easier...
so what should you do... Announce it to the table?
"You got me beat with better warped Faces?"
Abdul, I respect your opinion but isn't it wrong to see the warped cards and not say anything. At Turning Stone you are playing with a lot of the same players week after week. The 15-30 and 20-40 games are almost like giant home games with a pool of about 60-70 players. The games are very very friendly. Some are very strong players and some are not so strong. The strong players already know that the cards are warped. The weaker players don't. Some of these guys seem to lose almost every session. When I see the warped cards I announce it to the table. Maybe it just makes me feel better (or maybe subconsciously I'm saying "I'm not the one bending them"). Believe me I am not some "holier than thou" guy and I love to see a "live one" come in from the pit and I don't give lessons at the table but sometimes if I see a regular that I have become friends with start to go on tilt, I might pull him aside and have a word with him. Let me give you a "What If?". The player to your left is only using his left hand to see his cards. He looks at them 5 or 6 times during a hand. Every hand that he is in you know what he has. What would you do?
If my opponent could not (or would not) possibly do unto me if the situation were reversed, then I cut him some slack.
An example: my opponent tables his hand and I table mine, the dealer mucks his hand, and pushes the pot to me, but the pot belongs to my opponent, though my opponent seems think he has lost; in that case, I tell the dealer to push the pot to him. It's first of all just the right thing according to the rules, but even if the rules did not come into play, I could afford to be generous there because I'm not going to make his blunder in his shoes. I've done this several times - every time it has come up - and once my opponent subsequently accused me of cheating him in a later hand, so I guess no good deed goes unpunished.
If my opponent could possibly do unto me if the situation were reversed, then I do unto him as he would do unto me.
An example: I notice my opponent presses his lips tight when he is bluffing, and keeps them relaxed when not bluffing. I'm going to use this tell to the fullest extent I can and never tell him about it. I can't afford to educate all my opponents on their tells, because they are not going to educate me on my tells and then they would be able to make Dutch book on me.
You may have a different code of ethics. That is mine.
-Abdul
I would never alert a player to one of his tells. But if a player is flashing me his cards on every hand I have to at least tell him once, maybe even twice then he is on his own.
"If my opponent could possibly do unto me if the situation were reversed, then I do unto him as he would do unto me." I like it!!! I think it is a good poker "rule of conduct".---thanks
I don't feel warped cards are the same thing at all as a tell, terrible play by a fish, etc. I also love those things and use them. These are the advantages, along with solid play, that one can use.
Warped cards should not be tolerated or used to an advantage if it can be helped. Of course I could not ignore the information, but it was like it was thrust upon me without the asking. Once I know it I have to use it.
I think we all need to continue to point out the warped cards to the floor men as soon as we see several of them and they are obvious. With enough complaints they just may do something about it.
Joe has a good point concerning the home game atmosphere at Turning Stone. Why would anyone want to play week after week with marked cards that everyone can identify?
Once I called for a new deck, and it is the only time I have called for a new deck, the kings were warped. If warped kings were a consistant problem, I would begin warping cards at random. I might even obtain some of those cards and take them home and practice. I would 'watch for the warper'. If someone is warping the cards on purpose, they are not someone who looks at them and then places a chip on top. They would have most of the card surface under their palm. Poker cards where I play are plastic and not as affected by humidity, so the moisture from the hands would not be as important as the force applied.
I make it a habit to protect my cards with my hands rather than with a chip. I want as much of them exposed as necessary for them to be seen but no more. I pin them down. No warp would be visible after they are in my possession. Hold'em has several aspects that make this low grade cheating harder.
I get cheated all the time. Retail stores put up a sign saying, 'two cans for a dollar', but do not bother to change the price in the computer on purpose. I pay a dollar fifty, until I catch them and then I never trust them again.
A 15-30 Loose, Mildly aggressive HE game was starting to wind down at 3 am, with the working guys gradually filtering out, and a couple of late night stragglers coming in. Looks like a short game coming.
I am just learning the short game. I enjoy it tremendously, but find the variance and the uncertainty tough. One of my maxims is to almost always (>90%) come in for a raise. The only exception is an UTG limp with JTs or something similar.
My weakness is calculating the correct percentage of times to fold, call down, and bluff with no-pair. The game would be so much simpler if people didn't bluff! :-)
So I was thinking about this, as the stuck grumblers were making more and more noise about having to leave soon, and hit upon a plan: For the next 45 minutes, I was going to be the biggest calling station on the planet. If I saw the turn, I was in at the showdown, turning up my cards, no exceptions. Maybe the TAG image I developed the previous 6 hours would disintegrate.
The deck hit me in the head, and I snapped off some four flush bluffs with Q high, so I didn't even invest the 10 or so BB's I had anticipated. My play was berated loudly, and even though I knew why I was doing what I was doing, It was still embarassing. The same people who saw me play one hand an orbit for hours were now snickering. I should have enjoyed it, but one of the reasons I like poker is table comraderie.
And the payoff was good. For the 5 handed game which followed, I didn't feel bluffed once, and bought pot after pot. Players complained how it wasn't even worth it to bet on the come with me, because I obviously wasn't going anywhere, even with nothing.
Ok, story over. Requests for opinions:
1) How often do you guys open-raise short handed? 30,50,90,100% ?
2) You: AK. flop crap, crap all the way, check raise on turn by tricky player. Roughly how often do you
a) call, check fold river
b) call, check raise river
c) reraise, bet fold to reraise on riv.
2) Was the 10BB planned investment in bad play reasonable, or too high a price?
3) Would it even have worked if I hadn't PO'd the other players with bad calls and suckouts?
4) Does anyone else ever have trouble with the conflict between "getting the money" and having fun with other players?
Thanks,
zooey
OK, I'll take a shot at a couple of your questions.
zooey wrote: >1) How often do you guys open-raise short handed? >30,50,90,100% ?
I presume you mean raise vs. call, not raise vs. fold OR call. 90-95% sounds about right. If I've got any kind of playable hand (including a pure steal hand like 7s5s), then why give the big blind a free flop? 100% of the time is just fine, also.
>4) Does anyone else ever have trouble with the >conflict between "getting the money" and having fun >with other players?
Not me. I enjoy the chatter, I enjoy laughing (inside) at the really foolish things some people say or things they do, and I enjoy the challenge of the game. Anybody who's any kind of player will still be your friend, or at least a polite acquaintance, after you beat them out of some money. If you win fairly, then they have no right to get upset. If they get upset anyway, to hell with them. I don't goad or tease players, so no one has any right to ever get mad at me in a poker room. I just don't care about the opinions or attitudes of unreasonable people. So, winning doesn't hurt my relationship with anyone except for the unreasonable ones, and again, who cares what they think?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
zooey: How often do you guys open-raise short handed? 30,50,90,100% ?
FossilMan: I presume you mean raise vs. call, not raise vs. fold OR call. 90-95% sounds about right. If I've got any kind of playable hand (including a pure steal hand like 7s5s), then why give the big blind a free flop? 100% of the time is just fine, also.
Right Right. As to how many hands I play, I try to just play the top 1/(1+number_of_players_left_to_act) fraction of my hands, with occaisional (10%?) steals.
Thanks,
zooey
There is so much subjectivity in shorthanded play strategy formulation due to the fact that the skill of psychology and playing against people moves way up in value. If my opponents are rocks, I'll open raise/steal 100% of the time until someone musters up the strength to stand up to me. I wouldn't even look at my hand. And when I get on a rush, even the loose players clamp up against me and I exploit their cowardice to the max. I'm that childhood bully that grabbed their lunch money from them years ago in grade scholl. But when someone finally stands up to me, I'll step back, side step, and turn into an Aikido master, using my opponent's aggression against him. Hope this subjective post helps. Shorthanded play is an attitude and a state of mind.
So, you're playing an opponent heads-up. While the game that prompted this post was HE, it could be any form of poker where position is fixed, so any board game like HE or Omaha, and also games like lowball. The setup is a large blind of $5, and a $2 blind on the button. As is typical for HE, the $2 blind acts first preflop, but gets last action for every other betting round.
You know that your opponent will probably NEVER raise from the big blind, whether you raise or just call on the button.
What hands do you fold on the button? Do you fold the bottom half of starting hands? Bottom 1/3? Bottom 10%? None? Something else?
If you want to know more about how your opponent plays postflop, read the rest of this paragraph. The opponent will seldom bluff or even semi-bluff from bad position. They will check the flop the large majority of the time. Thus, when they do bet the flop, it means a pair or better almost always. When the check the flop, it means a weak hand, or a check-raise is coming, with an occasional call with a big draw or something like Ax where x is higher than the highest board card (a mixture of calling with what might be the best hand, and if not, often has up to 6 outs).
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Here's my two cents. Heads up play most of the time you and your opponent will miss the flop. If you have that good a read on your opponent then you should play virtually every hand before the flop. I would occasionally pass so my play is not 100% predicatable. Why pass on a hand or too many hands when you can read your opponent so well and outplay him after the flop. You know your opponent will not reraise preflop so you have very little to fear. It also appears like most of the hands you play when you have the small blind you should enter with a raise.
Bruce
Here's the cookbook response.
1) Raise every time from the button.
2) Bet the flop if checked to, fold if bet to (unless you have something).
3) Fold if checkraised on the flop (unless you have something).
4) Repeat as necessary. You should have all the money within an hour so too much repetition will not be necessary.
5) Enjoy!
Greg, These are exactly the types of questions that I would love to explore further.
Generally addressing this issue:
While much of heads-up play is influenced by your opponent's tendencies, there are value, e.v., etc. guidelines that can be researched and known. Armed with this knowledge, one can vary one's play according to one's opponent more effectively because one first knows the basic values, distributions, etc.
Combining this with strategic analysis and also practicing enough with game theory, one could be able to look at a heads-up poker situation and quickly know:
1) the e.v. and distribution of the situation
2) the correct straight mathematical play
3) the correct game theory play
4) approximately how much to deviate from these plays based on your opponent's tendencies
5) a rough idea of the advisability of departing from the above analysis based on your specific read of opponent and tells.
I would also like to research these things for short-handed situations, i.e., 3 and 4-handed, but it seems to me that heads-up would be simplest and the best place to start.
I don't have time right now to get into your specific scenario above, but will give it some thought later.
'Til later,
Mark
Is this limit, pot limit, or no limit?
In limit, you have such poor implied odds, especially against a passive player, that I don't think you want to add that many starting hands. Sure, you're getting a cheap look at the flop, but since the pots are likely to be small, your implied odds aren't very good.
At pot or no limit, however, I think you can play a lot more hands if you know that BB will never raise. This is because of the higher implied odds.
A lot also depends on how the opponent responds to aggression. If he/she folds too easily, then you can play more starting hands and try to run him/her off the pot on the flop. But if he/she is a calling station, you will need the best hand to win most of the time, and that militates against playing anti-percentage hands.
hey fos,
one other thing to think about is how often he will fold when you raise. if he calls most of the time raise with your good hands and call with your bad ones and he will be busted before you find out the best strategy. if he folds alot from your raise just play alot of flops with him and bust him that way. with the button you are getting 7 to 3 each flop with no raise coming and position so go ahead and play them all so he doesnt start trying to read your hands. get plenty of rest and eat right ol buddy as the clock is ticking down for vegas.
Bribe the dealer to deal faster lest anyone join in before this guy lets you bust him.
I'm on the 4+4 plan. At least 4 hours sleep per night, and at least 4 cheeseburgers per day. Someone told me that this was how George Foreman trained, so I figure it will work for me too.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
Don't eat a lot of fatty foods. Especially, before the tournament. These foods, like cheeseburgers and fries, will make you tired, and slow down the brain. Eat healthy and get plenty of sleep.
Eat healthy and get plenty of sheep.
Baaaaaaaahhhhhhhh Hamburg!!!!!!!!!
Paul,
You're suppose to count the sheep. Now, go get some sleep!
Mah, haven't you heard? The latest medical evidence proves conclusively (until the next study is publshed) that eating lots of fatty foods helps, by giving you more energy to burn. Really!
And, since I've vowed to stop reading the medical journals, they can never prove me wrong.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
You should be encouraging your competition to eat this junk during the dinner break at the tournament. Recommend the carved turkey. There's something about turkey that makes people sleepy. Got it!
I'm not interested in picking a fight here, which makes a change I guess. I would be very interested in anyone's opinion on what are the most important discoveries which have been made in poker. I mean, it's often said thatthe draw was the central invention of poker, though I rate the invention of the four-round form of five card stud above that myself, seeing as draw poker is nowhere near as popular as open poker.
In terms of playing principles, what stands out as the most useful discovery made by a known individual? For instance, The FTOP? (Not my choice BTW) Any suggestions? Like I say, I'm not looking for argument, just honest opinion. Whats the greatest poker invention/playing principle, whatever.
DZ
1)raising, betting, or checkraising on the flop in order to get a freecard on the turn, 2)semi-bluffing - this move can help win the pot when *the opponent folds during the current betting round, *when a scare card falls on the next betting round helping you to make your opponent fold then, *you actually hit your outs during the next betting round thus allowing to win the pot without a bluff, *the semibluff can also be used as a move to gain a freecard with during the next betting round. It's simply the most deceptive play there is. 3)implied odds - my favorite concept in no limit and pot limit play. 4) the Caro "glance at your chips" tell - even the good players exhibit this tell unconsciously when they're about to make a bet or a raise. Very imperceptible though. 5)the EV concept - for without it we wouldn't know the long term values of our individual plays.
So who invented Billabong Holdem? I believe I did, a year before 1999. I didn't have a name for it but it's in the archives of this site somewhere.
I also believe that Betting limits were the best thing to happen to Poker. The Two Tier system works very well. Pot limit and no limit burn out to fast.
Later, CV
C. Villalobos writes "So who invented Billabong holdem? I believe I did, before 1999."
Well done, and what is absolutely amazing is that you gave it the same name as I did! (joke) I had no way of knowing anyone had thought of it before, so I presumed priority in the absence of any reason not to. I mean, are the rules posted anywhere? (Billabong holdem is (2)1+<2+1+1> , ie, the same start as seven-card stud, followed by a two card communal flop, turn, river.) I'll put up an acknowledgement of your priority if you wish.
I have mainly played the four communal-card 3-<2-1-1> layout with an extra half-live hole-card, which works pretty well. That's shanghai, which is (2,1)1+<2+1+1> Even though it produces true NL games, I have reservations about the four communal-card layout's wider appeal for a couple of reasons:
1.)it's really hard to win with a hand like (A,2)2, because if you hit your kicker, anyone with an ace in hand also has your top pair, so you are not in a very good situation. So it's very hard for you to win a decent pot with two pair, and the two card flop makes it relatively difficult to make trips (compared to 3-card flop games) This problem doesn't arise in the non-communal 3-2-1-1 games, and I think that they are structurally more sound for that reason.
2. The physical separation of each player's door card from the communal cards could make it tiresome and rather slow to read all the hands, if there are a lot of active players after the flop.
Still, you never can tell: every game has some kind of flaw: in holdem you can't make two pair on the flop if you start with a pair, which no one seems to mind. (or rather, if you make two pair, it doesn't help you)
With regard to limit betting, you are absolutely right about it's influence on the game. It was however invented for draw poker,(Jackpots, Toledo, 1870) and it's adaptation to the longer forms has been far from ideal: any poker game which frequently provides odds of 20/1 or more for a call at the end is killing the bluffing aspct of the game. Bluffing must have a fear aspect to be effective, IMO. (not trying to be controversial here) maybe a third tier of betting would give it a bit more edge: it's a shame not being able to scare people (or get scared a little yourself) when you play poker.
PL and NL do kill the games/bankrolls too quickly I agree 100%. And having players go all in on so many hands also kills a certain aspect of the game. Like limit-betting, NL and PL were originally applied to the two-rounds of draw poker, and their translation to longer games is not without problems. I'll always prefer half-pot myself because you get the best of both worlds: reasonable odds for a call, (at least 3/1) plus the ability to put in a strong bet at any stage, plus the games last a decent length of time. Don't know why more people don't play it.
Let me know your wishes re billabong.
David Z
I think any "greatest concept" has to be so fundamental, that with out it, it's not poker. Also it has to be attributed almost exclusively to poker.
Cards, chips, betting are shared by other games, and certainly other gambling games of chance.
I think what we call "Poker" can almost be attributed to one concept that I haven't seen in print before:
The second (and later) rounds of betting.
With out it we are effectively cutting cards and gambling.
The second and later rounds opens the door to psychology, bluffing, pot odds, semibluffing, FTOP and all the other good stuff that we associate with poker.
I'd hate to play a game with one round of betting. Otherwise, I'd be playing roulette...
Hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
Caro had a good example where you and the opponent ante'd up, went out to the pasture and had 15 minutes to find the biggest turd you could. With your turd a bag at the farm house you would could bet with the opponent on who had the biggest turd. You could bet, raise, fold.
No chance for improvement is needed in this form of poker.
Hope I recognize when I'm drawing dead...
- Louie
The notion of the "ante" is the greatest poker innovation. The notion of "more cards to come" is the second. Structuring games to insure that "often bad players win" is the third. The notion of "raising with a weak hand to get a free card and make myself feel like a pro" is the fourth.
- Louie
As expected, albert and Louie are right on target!
Just kidding.
I think the most important poker concept for me has been the concept of pot odds. Before I read TOP, I may have intuitively known to call when the pot is big, and fold when the pot is small. However, once I read TOP (and other books where this is mentioned) I totally changed my entire way of going about playing poker. Amazing that the exact same decision, ie calling with a flush draw, could be totally correct one hand and totally wrong another hand. Comparing the size of the pot to your chances of winning the pot is the most important thing I have ever learned about poker. It may seem like a simple concept, but my entire poker outlook totally changed after reading one paragraph in a book.
I would not feel qualified to answer your first paragraph about what the most important poker invention is, but I might say that legalizing texas holdem did more for the game (at least recently) than any other single advent.
Dave in Cali
If you look at early poker literature, you will see that the notion of implied odds was unknown, and poker authorities only used the pot odds concept. If you are looking at all of poker history, rather than just the second half of the 20th century, you will see that adding straights and flushes to the game was a monster change, as was drawing new cards.
Bob Ciaffone writes: >If you look at early poker literature, you will see that the notion of implied odds was unknown, and poker authorities only used the pot odds concept. If you are looking at all of poker history, rather than just the second half of the 20th century, you will see that adding straights and flushes to the game was a monster change, as was drawing new cards. >
Any game without a draw of some kind can only be called poker in a very loose sense of the word, so it can rightly be counted as the foundation of the game I think, no controversy there: there are plenty of other games which use some sort of vying principle based on hand rankings. I have a notion that the drawing principle was borrowed from another game, can't remember which one.
The concept of EV might not have made it into the early books but it has I think always been a part of any succesful player's understanding of the game, in apractical sense. The idea that you can profit from subsequent rounds of betting once you make your hand must to come into any intuitive understanding of winning play: if only the current pot odds were considered, many hands would simply never be playable, though the precise statement of the principle may have taken a while to find and analyse. The greeks didn't invent grammar, they only gave it a name. I think it's almost the same thing with EV: I don't know a player doesn't incorporate some kind of understanding of EV into their play, though most of them have never heard of the term, just as an illiterate person can use excellent grammar.
There are some interesting thing about the hand rankings: certainly straights and flushes added a whole new dimension to poker, but they are not necessary to the game: 2-7 lowball actually penalises them. They play no necessary role in 5-cs, which would be exactly the same without them. In some stripped deck games, including some monster draw games played in moscow (I hear), straights are ranked below trips, which makes them virtually unplayable.
Another point is that 4-straights and 4-flushes are given no rank at all, which is technically incorrect: they should be ranked above a pair, as should three cards to a straight-flush. Four cards to a straight-flush is harder to make than two-pair, perhaps even trips, though I can't find the exact figures. Even in canadian five-card stud, where a 4-flush beats a 4-straight which beats a pair, the 3 and 4-card straight flushes are not given any extra rank.
It is ridiculous when you think about it that in effect you need to make a five card hand (ignoring the long-shot of making two pair)in order to beat a two-card hand, ie a pair of aces, when you start with a 3-str8 or 3-flush. It's one of the things which makes the 7cs structure so ... well, I won't go into that now, but the bet at the fourth card is incredibly "unfair" to straights and flushes, but it applies to everyone, so the assymetry is simply part of the character of the game I guess. Simplicity is an important part of the attraction of poker, and I suspect that introducing 4-str8s/4-flushes into the hand rankings would add an extra level of complexity which would not necessarily enhance the game, though they work well enough in canadian stud, which is something of a special case because 5 card hands are so rare in that game.
"Another point is that 4-straights and 4-flushes are given no rank at all, which is technically incorrect: they should be ranked above a pair, as should three cards to a straight-flush. Four cards to a straight-flush is harder to make than two-pair, perhaps even trips, though I can't find the exact figures. Even in canadian five-card stud, where a 4-flush beats a 4-straight which beats a pair, the 3 and 4-card straight flushes are not given any extra rank. "
You are technically correct about the probability of occurence... which actually reminds me...
I 've been trying to get some rankings into the game books. I believe the "alberto nutso 1" hand should get top billing. For all you ignorant folk who haven't been lucky enough to ever get the "alberto nutso" hand, it is: Ac 3h 5h 7h Jh. Better know as the club-Ace-high-club-miss-of-the-prime-number-hopscotch-heart-flush. It only happens 25% as often as Royals.
And people don't even realize when they get the alberto nutso hand. It should be the absolute nuts!
Then there is: 2c 6d 8s Jh Kc
Many people mistaken call this hand K high or "nothing" and don't even realize that this is "alberto nutso II", just as hard to get as alberto nutso I, and should automatically win all high hand competitions. they may even muck it without knowing what they have!
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
Of course every of the ~2.6 meg possible hands is unique; my point is that the decision to give ranking to five card straights/flushes but not to the 4-card hands is inconsistent, and creates an unnecessary assymmetry. YOur argument is apparently that if what I say is true, then it follows that any random or arbitrarily hand should therefore be given some rank, which is not true at all. So it's not QED, but rather, non sequiter: it does not follow.
ah, but it does follow.
if 4 card hands deserve it not just 5 card hands then 3 card hands do too, not just 4 card hands, generalized to not just n card hands, but n-1 card hands ...
p.s. turtles all the down.
Brad writes "if 4-card hands deserve it not just 5-card hands then 3-card hands do too .. generalised not just to n cards but to n-1 cards."
It's good to see someone genuinely excited by ideas, and I thank you for your excellent support of my point, though I think you went a card too far there. A 4-card hand is a sought-after and valuable combination (if there are still cards to come) but it has no value at the end, and a "one card straight" ie, an ace, beats it, if you don't happen to hold an ace yourself. Conversely, an ace by itself is worth a lot less than a four card straight, (if there are still cards to come) but at the end it beats a four straight. It's an internal inconsistency which your reductio ad absurdum highlights beautifully. It doesn't matter all that much because it's the same for every player, so it evens out but it's pretty unfair, and fairly unpretty.
It's only unfair if you think that hands should be able to improve continously, as opposed to the "quantum leaps" that they make when a draw is hit.
- Andrew
In reply to my points about the"unfairness" inherent involved in needing a five-card straight in order to beat a single ace (a "one card staight" if you will) Andrew Bock replies >It's only unfair if you think that hands should be able to improve continously, as opposed to the "quantum leaps" that they make when a draw is hit.<
No hand can improve continuously, they all improve by quantum leaps, as you pont out. My point is that you have to improve by two or three quanta if you are going for a straight, in order to overtake a single ace, unless you make a pair. I'm not an advocate of giving rankings to four-card hands,(except perhaps in five and six-card stud) but the assymmetry of the hand rankings is by no means imaginary, nor does it depend on some kind of false logic, as you imply. It's simply a practical matter: adding four-card straights to the rankings would complicate things without adding greatly to the enjoyment of the game. Ace to five lowball is the only "perfect" ranking system because there are none of the discontinuities inherent in the rankings for high, or even in 2-7 lowball, where the straights and flushes still count. Whether that makes it A-5 a better game or not is another question.
In terms of recent innovations I think the rise of bad beat jackpots has increased the number of games spread, although I'm not convinced that these are good for the game. But, the chance of hitting a large payoff in limit structure has probably helped keep a lot of mediocre players coming back, as opposed to going all in for the last time and spending the rest of their lives at the Carribean Stud table.
For Hold 'em, I'd say staring to play with two blinds also did a lot for the game. In fact, I doubt that HE would be as popular as it is now if, say, 10-20 was still played with only one 5$ blind.
In terms of game structure I would vote for the invention of the extra half-live hole-cards principle which exists in omaha, tahoe and pinapple, and the eight-or-better rule for hilo as the two innovations which have brought about the biggest changes in the poker market.
...that implied odds is just about as important a concept as pot odds. implied odds have allowed me to know when a draw is likely to be profitable in a game with multiple rounds of betting, ie holdem and stud, especially when the pot is currently too small for pot odds to be the primary consideration. Games like NLH thrive on implied odds more so than pot odds. Both concepts are incredibly important for the skilled player to become familiar with.
Dave in Cali
I understand that you want to average somewhere between 1 and 2 big bets per hour.
Do you add in high hand amounts to these totals? For example, at the place I normally play, they have a $25 high hand per hour. How about bad beat jackpots?
How about determining how well you are doing in tournaments? I have never kept hourly counts for tournaments. I just keep net amounts. Is keeping hourly statistics the norm?
Ken
I don't know about tournaments but when I played in low limit jackpot games I estimated how much money I contributed to the jackpot. I kept track of how many pots I won over a 200 hour period in the $6-$12 game in Lake Charles, Louisiana when they were spreading it a few years ago. I determined that I averaged 2.2 pots per hour. More when I was running good and fewer when I was running bad but it averaged out to 2.2 pots per hour of play. So when they rake $1 for a jackpot, the jackpot was costing me $2.20 per hour of play. If I played 1000 hours of jackpot poker that year then I would have contributed $2200 into the jackpot so anything I won from the jackpots I would count up to $2200.
Jim,
Just so you don't feel so bad, when they had jackpots in Los Angeles (dropped into a separate box, not the ones being put in again on a smaller scale under a different name), they dropped $2 for the jackpot in a 6/12 game in addition to the $3 or $4 dead drop.
Regards,
Rick
CV
Keep tournament records separate.
High hand per hour winnings shouldn't make much difference so I would just include them in the win/loss for the day. Jackpots DO make significant difference and so would keep them separate.
- Louie
Here we go again. We all know cheating exists, but some of us tend to downplay it. At the Commerce Casino's Summer Tournament I have 2 observations:
1) On June 22 at the 7 stud hi-lo there were 8 tables to start the event. There are now 2 tables left. Tony Mah is heads up with a fellow Vietmese. They are playing 50-100 and they each have 5 cards. Tony's opponent bets $15 (that's all he has left) and Tony who has a big stack of chips folds. Both players had very nonthreatening open cards showing. This caused quite an uproar at the table and Tony commented that he wasn't going to bust someone who he had a piece of. No floorman was called. I did not play in this event but I heard this from 2 people who were at the table. If thats not cheating I don't know what the hell cheating is. Tony certainly has achieved quite a bit of success but it certainly raises red flags with me when I see this. Five years ago Tony couldn't regularly beat a 20-40 holdem game and now he is one of the most successful tournament players around.
2) I played last night in a limit holdem event. There were 240 players with a $225,000 prize pool. Men "the master" Ngyuyen is sitting on my left from the start of the tournament. He must have at least 10 horses in the tournament. About every 5 minutes one of the lackeys reports in to Men. I have know idea what exactly they say because I don't speak Vietmese. Men busted out relatively early. I think it is unethical when players have a piece of one another when they are playing in the same event. I don't care what anyone says, I think subconcsiously it has to affect the way they play even if they don't intend to play differently.
Bruce
Caro suggests that ALL deals be registered.
Case 1 was clearly cheating. What idiots at the table for not calling the floor after the ass admitted it.
- Louie
Bruce your observations are excellent. I certainly do not what to start a firestorm here but I have been told by a lot of players throughout the country that many of them will not play in even ring games in the large LA card barns for the reasons you mention. They feel there is a lot of players playing from the same money, "soft" collusion going on, and a language problem where they feel they are being manipulated.
Please don't even get me started with ring games.
yes please do so. I am new to playing in public cardrooms and would be glad if someond told me what to look for (when it comes to collusion and cheating)...ok ok i know..EVERYTHING...but are there some basic things to look for? How many people can there be working together in a ring game? What kind of moves do they usually go for?(what is most profitable for them?)...and so on... / big nose
I've had more than my share of problems with the players in the California clubs -- both in tourneys and in live games. The larceny is so bad, it's worse than the backstretch at Churchill Downs ... but not quite as bad as Jai-Alai. I think the only reason no one puts a stop to any of it is because the action is so good in the live games -- and because the live players are the house's livelihood. This is probably why, in Vegas, it's less of an issue.
As far as poker tourneys, a few successful players have been rumored for years to be colluding. California remains on the bleeding edge of this behavior. This sort of thing will go on because there is still no national or international organization to set and ENFORCE standards (although in some of the bigger tourneys, a warning is now given to the effect that softplaying someone in order to keep them in will result in a penalty).
My advice, which I'm following this year, is to boycott the California tourneys until the situation improves. If it doesn't, too bad.
On the flip side, I've backed players for tourneys that I've played in. On only one occasion did they end up at my table, and that was at the beginning of the event. Particularly in a limit event, I think it's foolish not to take chips from wherever you can get them. In any poker game, the money circulates around the table, and the chips you don't take from someone (even a horse) are chips that end up in someone else's stack instead of yours. Most of the intelligent and ethical players understand this. Alas, some less-ethical players have taken that concept a step further and backed players into tourneys just so the horse COULD throw chips off to them and thus allow the backer to build a commanding lead. I suspect this is one reason that the bigger tourneys have a random drawing for seating.
I'm all in favor of the "horse-registration" concept, because the reality is that tourneys would be much smaller without backers and people buying or trading shares of each other. This registration would also help deal with the tax consequences of a win where players have pieces sold out.
"Alas, some less-ethical players have taken that concept a step further and backed players into tourneys just so the horse COULD throw chips off to them and thus allow the backer to build a commanding lead."
Fine by me if they do. If a number of players on the same "team" were trying to ensure that they equalised each other's stacks where possible then that would give them a small edge. What you describe is theoretically -EV, although in practice if the captain was a much better big-stack player than small-stack it might even this out to some extent. It might decrease his swings as well but shouldn't hurt your EV if you're in the tournament.
Andy.
When you add up the chips at the end of the tournament according to at least one tourney, director they don't add up to the correct amount at least %80 of the time. Do they have legs or long arms attached to them?
the ones that carry them to the next tournament
I watched my Buddy Dangerous Dan play in the CP NLH tourney last evening. I witnessed the following.
1) A young female took all her chips in hand and moved them forward as to bet and even placed them in fron tof her cards on the table. she did not take her hands of the chips. when her opponent put his chips in to call she retracted her chips and said check. she folded to her opponents bet. The dealer did not catch this. the opponent complained but not hard enough. The floor was not called and play continued.
2) Two table left. blinds 200-400. UTG raises. All fold including SB and BB. Dealer slides all chips to raiser except SB chips. SB grabs button and then slides 200 in chips into his stack. I was the only one that caught it.
Now that's cheating.
The woman busted out shortly thereafter but the SB (male) actually made the final table.
Vince
It's really been only in recent years that the episode you mentioned in #1 was even considered unethical, much less illegal. Someone checking with a stack of chips in their hand wasn't that uncommon, more like a grandstand play, but one which surely caught a lot of novices off-guard. I sat in a game one time where everyone had all these moves, and it was the funniest, most entertaining night I ever spent at a poker table.
After reading all the numerous "hold'em hand" posts, I got to thinking: when you reach a truly expert level of skill in poker (have a complete understanding of all the general concepts, play well, win consistently in virtually all games, etc.), what specifically are you trying to improve about your play, if anything? Do world-class or near-world-class players, for example the 2+2 authors and several others that post here and on RGP, have any flaws or weaknesses in their game that they identify and try to improve upon, and if so what kinds are they? Do you guys learn anything new about poker from these forum discussions? Or does it just basically reinforce your own understanding of what you already know?
I have a pretty solid understanding of poker concepts and I've been doing consistently well at the middle limit games for about seven months now (mainly hold'em, but also some stud and omaha 8) thanks to bookstudy and the Internet, but nowadays I find myself learning at a slower and slower rate. Have I reached my peak? I hope not. what questions should I be asking, and what should I be thinking about, to get me to where you guys are (or close to it)? Can you give examples?
You never stop learning hold'em. It's a complex game, and no one ever fully masters it. On the other hand, your learning will plateau out fairly quickly, but if you've only been playing middle limit games for seven months then there is a whole lot more you will learn in the next couple of years.
I am specifically trying to improve my play in loose-maniacal games. I mean moderately loose and not much preflop capping. I actually don't know that I'm doing anything wrong in these games, but my historical win rate is low in them, and I've generally tried to avoid them. I much prefer games where I can read my opponents' hands and outplay them 2 or 3-way, but sometimes the best game available is a loose-maniacal one.
I learn by helping others. Thinking through the questions they have helps improve my play. I could learn just about as well by hitting the delete key after I'm done, but I'm usually looking for feedback.
Of course experienced players learn from the Forum discussions. Some experienced players learned to see the warped cards that would have bit them on the face if they were snakes.
As for what questions you should be asking, well, anytime you don't know how to play in a certain spot, jot down some notes. Think about it logically, try to solve it mathematically, and if you're stumped, then post it. You won't be able to do much math during a hand, but by working it out away from the table you'll improve your intuition when you get into a similar situation.
By far the best way to learn is to find yourself a mentor, one who really is a good player. This accelerates your learning tremendously. What could take years to learn can take 5 seconds. Be open-minded and don't be offended by the criticism.
-Abdul
Thanks Abdul. I am like sucker in that I have done pretty well and gained my knowledge through books and the internet. I have a long way to go on the experience side. Loose aggressive games are the toughest for me even though Mark Glover seems to say the opposite. A couple of things that I have noticed about these games:
-- Deception seems to be more important particularly on the flop. Even though the pots are bigger which would mean playing less deceptively, it seems that I have a hard time reading my opponents but often they have a hard time reading me. When this happens I seem to be at a big disadvantage. In general its seems that playing faster on 4th street is more correct in these games. Playing big draws very, very aggressively on the flop seems to be right as well.
-- You want to tighten up before the flop. More so than you would in a "normal" game.
-- You want to value bet more than you normally would on the river.
-- Taking "control" of the hand, especially on the flop often seems to be a futile strategy. Sometimes on the flop you raise with a hand that is ok but not great. ONE of the benefits is that you do gain information but it isn't the only benefit. The information you get by raising on the flop in the loose aggressive games is not that valuable.
Just some ideas could be totally wrong. Hopefully others will have other ideas. One thing every player can improve on is reading hands.
Should have said that often my loose aggressive opponents DO NOT have a hard time reading me.
I too have noticed a personal lower win rate in maniacal games over the years. I don't get to play in them often now, but my thoughts have often been that I might be better off avoiding them for a run-of-the-mill table nearby.
While I do very well in loose-passive games, maniacal games are something very different. A few reasons results are poorer in maniacal games might be:
1) Low implied odds--you lose some profit potential here as you can't limp late position as often since it will usually be raised ahead of you
2) You can play fewer hands, therefore you have fewer chances to outplay your opponents
3) It can be harder to read hands in a maniacal game
4) You have to show down the best hand much more often, and you just might not get dealt the best hand much in the session in question. Of course, this drawback also applies to loose-passive games
5) You have to throw more many hands you might have won ended up winning with had you been able to see the flop, the turn, etc.
6) I recall a thread where I think Gary Carson was arguing that the more money that goes in, the better, and that hands such as AJ offsuit do not lose value against many opponents--I don't really have an opinion on this either way, but it is an interesting question
7) It is often probably harder to know where you stand in a hand in maniacal games. However, because of the large amount of money at stake in each hand, it may become increasingly important to be able to do so and to know, for instance, whether yopu have a hand that should try to thin the field on the flop or a hand that should maybe just be dumped.
Any other insights and thoughts about maniacal games would be appreciated. While the above is a list of reasons maniacal games may be harder, perhaps there are some players who actually do best or very well in these type of games. If this is so, insight into their approach to these games would be both interesting and helpful.
My belief is that maniacal games are tough for several reasons: Those last two points are why Mark Glover is completely wrong. Hands like AJo tend to flop marginal best hands, and put you in a situation where you either fold and make a giant error, or call all bets and raises, perhaps making a giant error in doing so when you're beat. Plus, hands like that tend to get the vast majority of their profit before the flop. If you flop one pair you generally want to win the pot right there, but in a maniacal game you have to pay a lot more money on later streets, when you may be losing EV with each call.
Finally, good players are generally more likely to lay down a real hand than is a fish. This skill is valuable in games where the pots are small and you can reliably read your opponents, but may actually be a detriment in these wild games. How often have you been in a situation where you have AK, the betting is capped pre-flop with 8 callers, the flop comes up A68, you bet, get raised and re-raised, the turn is an 7, two more raises go in, the river is a 5, putting A5678 on the board, you check, there's a bet, a raise, and a re-raise, and you throw your hand away only to see a wild man with AJo haul the pot?
Dan's reason #1 ("The pot is usually so big that people are getting the odds to draw to just about anything, if there are no raises") leads to a related reason why the game is tougher: the huge pots make the loose fishy calling of the poor players much more correct! And the game will be much tougher if your opponents are now playing correctly.
This is a major point in either TOP or HPFAP21 (I forget which) in a chapter titled "When the Pot Gets Big".
I will emphasize that this doesn't just make the game seem tougher, it really does make the game tougher. Your normal biggest edge over loose players is that you make correct pot-odds decisions and they make terrible ones. If pots are being capped 8-way before the flop, their "terrible" draws are now pretty darn good, and you have lost your biggest advantage.
Dick
The games that have a lot of preflop capping are easy to beat, in my opinion, though high variance.
-Abdul
If someone would please direct me to the arena where all of these loose action games are located I will quietly come to that locale and show you what needs to be done.
Dan,
You wrote: "Those last two points are why Mark Glover is completely wrong."
Could you please tell me what statement of mine you consider to be incorrect?
I'm sorry, but I was quoting the message ahead of me, where 'M' said that you claimed AJo and hands like it do not lose value in loose agressive games. It occurred to me that he may not be quoting you accurately. Anyway, that's what I was responding to.
Dan,
Actually, 'M' attributed that AJo claim to Gary Carson.
I'm probably not qualified to give advice on this, but I do regularly beat an easy maniacal home game (two maniacs, two loose passives, one or two weak tights, one fairly tough (somewhat too loose, but extra aggressive, plays well) and assorted others from time to time.
I do very well in this game and I am NOT the biggest winner (the guy who is a little too loose, but extra aggressive (TLEA) is). There are three consistent winners and the other players are really TERRIBLE, so these ideas might not apply to tougher maniacal games. I think the fact that TLEA consistently wins the most is a key to figuring out the optimum strategy, although I don't think I could ever play that way. What I do, though, is play super aggressive, because what I want is the non-maniacs to fold as often as possible whenever I'm in the pot.
Some things I do.
I tighten up a fair bit, but not alot. You can tighten up alot and still win, though because the third consistent winner in this game is weak/extremely tight. But if you do that, I think you win less.
If the game is in "maniacal mode" I nearly always raise. If the betting is getting capped, calling just gives away information about your hand. If it's worth a call, it's worth a raise, especially pre-flop and on the flop where capping is most likely. I want as many people to fold as possible and I want as much information as I can get about what the non-maniacs hold.
I'm alot more likely to play marginal hands with aces (like AJo, ATo) than marginal hands without them. You'd be amazed at how often a J or T kicker is more than enough in this game when an ace falls on the board. And I would raise pre-flop, of course.
I don't lay down much after the flop and don't play less than top pair beyond the flop (except big draws, of course) unless the maniac(s) are the ONLY ones in the pot besides me, and then I use my best judgement (they can get good cards, too).
I don't think of pot odds, per se. You have to realize that just because you are faced with only one bet at a time, that it's probably going to cost you more than that on the installment plan. So you have to factor that in as best you can (and then raise if you play).
When I do draw, I draw to the nuts, or close to it, or when I have multiple extra outs. Just having a flush draw with suited connectors is kind of dangerous, but I'd start to like it if I was also paired with the board on the flop or had a backdoor straight or inside straight draw.
On the river with a strong non-nut hand heads up against a maniac I add one more raise or re-raise than I normally would. When I am convinced that any sensible opponent must have me beat, I grit my teeth and raise one more time for value.
These tactics sound very dangerous, but my swings in this game are alot less than in average cardroom games and I win a whole lot more (in bets/hr - this is a very low stakes game). I might be afraid to try playing this way with a bunch of strangers, though. Alot of my edge may come from knowing the players well.
I'd be happy to hear feedback on these tactics.
David
Once you've mastered the theory, the concepts and strategems of advanced play, and thru a real provable winning track record, have developed genuine confidence in your ability to truly beat the game, you have now successfully conquered the OBJECTIVE aspects of the game. And if you feel that you're no longer improving as much as you used to, it is a clear sign that you have reached a saturation point in your knowledge and skill in applying these objective aspects. Thus, if you limit the focus of your improvements to these aspects, you will cease to make DRAMATIC IMPROVEMENTS in your game. Sure, you can improve remedially and incrementally but you will never be able to create any more major breakthroughs. This is so because the objective aspects (implied odds, freecards, semi bluffing, position,etc.) of poker are very finite and can in fact be easily catalogued and outlined in a term paper format. Your next breakthroughs are in the area of the SUBJECTIVE. This includes the ability to create rapport and break rapport with anybody at the table, the ability to truly get into your opponents head and play tricks on his mind, the ability to sense the uniqueness of a specific situation and/or opponent and to tailor a unique set of actions to exploit such situation/opponent, the ability to be creative, the ability to be sensitive about things that "just don't seem right", the ability to influence, and so on. The subjective aspects is ultimately the reason that "poker is a neverending learning lifetime experience". Today, thanks to the wide availability of high quality poker books, virtually anyone who is willing to study and read can reach the saturation point of learning about the OBJECTIVE aspects of the game. That is, there's a lot of people out there who are able to name the advantages and disadvantages of using such moves as raising to protect a good but not great hand, betting or raising to gain a freecard or to semi bluff or to bluff or for value, when implied odds is a better tool for measuring the value of a hand than effective odds or pot odds, and so on. But to truly standout from the pack, you must not think that theory and math and concepts is all there is to it. What they teach in books is so small compared to what there is out there. My suggestion is to you sucker is that, first, that you develop the faith that those OBJECTIVE LEARNINGS are in fact already in there inside your head (the fact that you have reached a saturation point in your growth and learning proves this). And second, shift your focus to the SUBJECTIVE. It's the next frontier.
Are you saying that the next level can only be reached through experience.
To all--If I buy a spell checker will it work on the forum. I can't spell, any suggestions.
Have your word processing software open in another window. Write your response on that software. Spell-check it there. Then, when it's perfect, cut-and-paste it into this window and hit the "post message" button.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
a
...If you think you have mastered the game, you are NOT an expert player. This goes for almost any game/sport (exceptions included tic-tac-toe). Pros in any area know there is plenty of room for improvement.
It's odd that in many of our games/sports that we play that the amateur will tell acquaintances that he is a good/great player. While the semipro will usually admit that he is mediocre, OK or does alright with better understanding of what being pro is all about. It's just part of our macho culture.
I derive a perverse pleasure out of beating somebody that says they are the tops, when I know that I am only mediocre and admit to it...
That's why I prefer objective numbers than subjective boasting. Usually the conversation goes:
Macho: I'm a great player! albert: really I play too! Macho: I beat everybody that I play. albert: Not me, sometimes I win sometimes I loose. What's your rating/ranking/winrate/etc. Macho: Ugh I don't know. I know that I always beat my friends...
and then of course they turn out that they are only advanced beginners or intermediate players.
hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
I had an *Omaha* player ask me what the chances of a board possibly completing a flush were. While this information is of little use without relating it to an individual hand, I ran a calculation with my dubious probability skills. Based on an outside observer with no information from hole cards, I came up with a 37% chance that the board will contain 3, 4, or 5 flush cards. Does this sound correct?
I had another player ask me how often a low comes. To date, this is beyond my ability to calculate. My gut tells me that it is around 60% of the time, but again, this is a silly question without knowledge of a specific hand.
I know that this information will do nothing to help anybody's game, but I feel badly if I can't supply accurate information to those who ask even if I have to use other peoples' brainpower!
According to Brian Alspach the Poker Digest math guru, both of your answers are correct. The specific articles are from vol. 2 numbers 4 and 12 1999.
Thank you for responding. In a way I'm thankful that nobody answered sooner because it forced me to do the math. In an epiphany that took over 3 days to realize, I found that I did have the knowledge. Like many probability problems, if you approach them wrong they can be bears, but with the right approach, they can be fairly simple.
I heard HBO commentators say, during a boxing match, that you have to break your opponent's rhythm(assuming he's in one).
I've never read an article or a chapter in a book that covers this topic in regards to poker. Are there ways you know of to interfere with a person who's in a, let's say, "dominating rhythm"(which I guess is just another way of saying a "winning Rhythm")? How? Strategically/Verbally/...what? Is there a particular book that has a section(paragraph/anything)which specifically covers this topic?
Thanks, Dan
Not sure if I have read anything specifically on this but I know certain players like Bonetti are very verbal and attempt to get into their opponents heads.
Ken
This is an advanced subject, which I am starting to work on. I can only tell of one instance where I achieved this successfuly.
15-30 Hold-Em. There is one player 2 seats ahead of me who I deem a mediocre, luck based, player.
He's winning, so now he is raising every round before the flop. Being behind him I am starting to fold a lot of hands. He's taking pots without showing his cards.
I decide to re-raise him every time I have a mediocre hand. I know I'll probably have the button, and I'll have position on him. I do this three times in a row and out play him after the flop, winning two hands and making him fold once.
He stopped raising before the flop for the rest of the night. And, he was pissed off, which was even better.
I don't know if this is one example of what you are looking for.
"He stopped raising before the flop for the rest of the night. And, he was pissed off, which was even better."
Why stop him from raising? What's wrong if he raises every time? I think your costing yourself money in the long run if you slow a player down that plays like this.
I agree. If a player is using a faulty strategy, do not dissuade him. Poker is not a game where the most aggressive players are the big winners. The top hundred most aggressive poker players in the country are compulsive gamblers who lose far more than they win. If aggression is good (it is), this does not mean that ultra-aggression is even better.
Full handed play: If an opponent is in a winning rythm, it's usually because he is getting the cards with which to play that rythm with. When that's the case, the only way that his rythm can be broken is if the cards stop giving him the right to do so. It's not within your control, it's not within the opponent's control either. But that doesn't mean you're totally helpless. What happens when a good player gets the cards is that he can in fact make more money during his streak than can a poor player. That's because he has the skill and flexibility to shift into high gear. He'll play more hands, he'll steal more, etc. What I do when I sense that a good player (who has just won a few hands in a row and who has now noticed that the table has clamped up) is going to be stealing more blinds when first to act, is to shift gears myself (if I am seated to his right) and use his psychological momentum to steal the blinds myself - thus depriving him the honor. If I am seated immediately to his left, I just pretend that his temporary shift of gears has turned him into a "temporary maniac" - and I exploit this by doing what I would do with a real maniac: I isolate reraise him the way I would a real maniac. I don't make these plays that much though as they probably don't add too much to my long term bottom line. Mostly, I just minimize confrontation and let the lucky player do his thing. It won't last forever, anyway.
Heads up play (is a very psychological game): First, you must know how to create rapport and break rapport. You create rapport by matching and mirroring your opponent's behaviors (breathing patterns, posture, tonality, key words, etc.) and by behaving based on the mental state of being his friend or buddy. You break rapport by mismatching him (if he's making his decisions quicky, slow down; if he's slowing down, bet, fold, check, and raise fast; if he's talking fast, talk slow; if he's breathing shallow, breath deep; if he's seating erect, make your body limp), be as unlike him as possible, be mean to him, search for his insecurities and pick on them. The key is to start the heads up match in rapport. Once the match is going, maintain and break rapport as the situation demands. Shift gears regularly and unpredictably in your rapport creating and breaking as you see fit from the tactical and strategic points of view. The best no limit heads up players are masters of both direct (verbal) and indirect (body language) rapport creating and breaking. Hellmuth, Pearson, Slim, and Brunson come to mind. To my knowledge, there are no poker books that teach rapport making and rapport breaking. That's because this subject is supposedly "subjective" while most poker authors pride themselves in being "objective". However, there are non-poker books that teach rapport.
Phew.
Ramsey's heads up essay posted to rec.gambling.blackjack a few years ago goes a long way towards this end. Basically, he said you want to break your opponent, so he doesn't know which way is up and will start flailing around trying random strategies.
I believe it was Mike Caro who suggested adding in an almost imperceptable pause to your plays, slightly out of sync with the rhythm of the game, if you want to subconsciously annoy your opponents and regain control of the game.
The late Andy Morton once asked once why it was that he seemed to attract a lot of hostility at the poker tables. I had an answer ready for him. Very often when he scooped in a big pot, he would clear his throat. He didn't realize he was doing it, and it didn't mean anything, but I think his opponents took it as a ribbing/scolding, like saying, "What were you thinking?!" I think it could have put some of his opponents on tilt, after he took a few big pots from them and cleared his throat at them each time.
I don't do much along these lines. Opponents will put themselves off their game if you just wait. The main thing is to make sure you "stay on target" yourself.
You can look at the boxing analogy either across multiple hands of hold'em or in a single hand. So far, all the responses have been about multiple hands. Within a single hand, then of course the check-raising, semi-bluffing, free-card play, and other deceptive plays you do are often intended to disrupt your opponent's plans.
-Abdul
I see the points made about not stopping someone who is raising too often and letting him continue his mistake. How about my reasoning that by re-raising, I was gaining the button and getting heads up with him?
Also, I don't like games that are raised up before every flop, just because someone has the money or wants to play like a maniac, unless I can do the above.
.
I am starting to take notes on my opponents, and am looking for advice on how to do this well. My approach is to make a note whenever someone makes an unusual play, like calling with a trash hand pre-flop, or limping with AA, or drawing to an inside straight in a small pot.
Based on comments from others, I think there must me much more that I could do. Any advice?
Steve
do some weight lifting.
with all that writing you will need strong arms to carry all the notes. just remember in your head what they do and apply that with how they play.
Buy a tape recorder. Do not take written notes at the table; remember what happened and speak it into the recorder that night. Play it back at you the next morning when shaving or something. Chastise yourself for any bad plays or breaks in discipline while you are at it.
I'm surprised to hear that from you, Ray. That's been my approach until recently, and it has worked out okay, so you are making me feel better about that. But I know that there are some very good players who take notes (I recall a Roy Cooke article where he said that he used to when he was a full-time player). I've heard that some of the better players in my local cardroom keep notes, although they don't make them at the table.
Do you think the extra edge from keeping notes on players is not worth the effort? Does it matter more in on-line games where you can't remember people by their faces?
Steve
First, learn to be good at remembering people's names and faces. There are actually many seminars, books, and tapes that teach precise techniques on how to do so. Then learn to hallucinate notes on those people's faces. On their right eyebrow, mark out whether they're "loose" or "tight". On their left eyebrow, mark out whether they're "passive" or "aggressive". If you wish you can use colors instead of words. For example, black equals aggressive, white equals passive, etc. On the bridge of their noses, hallucinate a thermometer. The more susceptible to steaming they are, the higher the reading on that thermometer. On their mouth, mark out whether they are novice, average, good, or expert. If you notice anything unusual in their play, make a note of it on their foreheads.
gingko yor referring to mnemonics... another good aid in retaining info is mindmapping
jg
Good point about Buzan'a "mind mapping" technique for stereotyping a player. But how do you go about purposely hallucinating a mind map on a person's face. It's easy to use mindmappping on paper (though it would make it too impractical during a game), but how do you go about visualizing it on someone's face for convenience?
"Stud is a waste of talent. It forces the bad players to play good."
A quote I heard from a top player at Casino Arizona over the weekend. The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with him, even though I make considerably more money at stud than any other game.
The only real talent I find in stud is game selection. I think his point was that the stud expert has very little advantage over an average but sensible player.
I just found it to be an interesting statement.
I think this quite possibly could be the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. I think it takes tremendous talent to be an expert at stud and I also think that the expert player has a huge advantage over an average player. An average player may know what hands to play and what hands not to play, but they rarely get maximum value from thier hands nor do they know when to throw away fairly strong hands when the situation warrents it. I'm not an expert player and I was at a table with below average players yesterday and it was not difficult to take money from them. I would assume that this would be the type of advantage that an expert player would have over me.
7 Card Stud for Advanted players is 300 pages long. Does this sound like an easy game to master?
Finally, if you make more money at 7 card stud, how is it possible for you to think that you don't have a clear advantage?
I don't understand how people think sometimes.
Most of the money I make playing stud has alot more to do with the bad play of my opponents than my own "expert" plays (or whatever someone would call them).
What maybe should have been said is that in my opinion, an expert playing against a table of average to above average players will make more at a game like hold'em than stud. But, average players playing against a table of bad players will make more at stud than hold'em.
Flame away.
This may be true, but I still would not discount the value of being an expert in Stud.
I think it is premature to compare stud with HE since HE is still in its infancy. On the surface, HE is a much less complicated game since there are only 2 unexposed cards and the number of ties possible. Having 2 more players makes things a bot more complicated as does the betting structure. The issue in HE is (as I see it), one can win fewer hands, but the pots will probably be larger. I find the luck factor in HE much greater than in stud. That's not a knock on HE, just an observation. I really think a comparison between HE and Stud is a bit unfair as to the complexity.
My opinion after about a year at each game is that the expert stud player enjoys a larger advantage over avg/good players than in hold-em.
You have all of the same principles of poker, however, they are much harder to compute in stud. Also, to the hold-em players expertise, a stud player must add perfect card memory. This difficult requirement is removed from hold-em.
An avg./good to good player has a larger advantage over poor players in hold-em than in stud, because the players are not as tight, chase poor hands more and the pots get bigger. I think this is why my win rate is much higher in hold-em and I mostly play it now.
George is one of the posters I admire and his stud insights are usually right on target.
I usually go to read his posts right after Ray Z's
Since I play stud 90% of my play...I just hope he is wrong this time.
he is wrong this time. in stud the bad players do in fact do better than in holdem per each hand. but since they may put more in action at stud they lose just as much but have the perception that they can win. the thing is that good players win from even very tight players in stud but in holdem its real hard to get any money out of a tight player except from the blinds. for me anyway stud is more interesting to play. of course im looking from a higher stakes view here and from small games they may be equal as the players tend to come along for the ride.
I agree somewhat and disagree somewhat with the original statement I posted. What I agree with is that even the worst players know not to play a hand like Q83 in stud, while in omaha or holdem they can find an excuse to play darn near any hand.
I like the way Ray put it as well, as far as winning players winning from both tight and loose players in stud, more so than in any other poker game.
It just makes you wonder why no one ever posts any stud hands on the forum though, and they post plenty of holdem hands, which each get more discussion than any stud hand I ever post. Maybe holdem is just simpler to discuss and figure out the "correct" answer than is stud. Maybe it's not. Maybe stud players just don't want to learn more about the game. Maybe they already think they know it all. (I sure hope most think this, because they'd be very wrong.) I don't know.
I also wonder why more stud hands are not posted. I know that I'm still learning and would like to analyze any hands that people are willing to post. I'm going to play 5-10 stud tonight, so maybe I'll play a few hands that I can post here tommorrow.
I think the reason that Hold em hands are posted more is just because hold em is much more popular overall, although stud seems to dominate the east coast.
This is an easy one, and has nothing to do with the popularity or difficulty of playing stud vs. hold'em.
People don't post stud hands because they are so difficult to write and read with all of the dead cards being important, and this guy catching this card and that guy catching this card and the extra betting round and all.
In hold'em, it more like this: Loose 10-20 game with 6 limpers, I raise pocket QQs on the button. Flop comes xxx rainbow, its checked to me, I bet and get raised by the tight BB, all others fold. What the f** now?
Reraise.
This belongs on the hold'em forum. Please read our acceptable use policy. Heheh.
It is very easy to write down a hold-em hand and how it played out. It is very hard to write down a stud hand because of all the upcards and the fact that the betting order changes each round. This is one reason why I switched from stud to hold-em.
First of all, it wasn't my quote, it was someone else's. Also, I think half the reason I posted it is just based on the fact that I've been frustrated with stud in general, since I seem to be winning at everything else except stud right now.
But thinking "logically" now, I would agree that it was a stupid statement and I'd take it back.
Also, it's nice to hear that someone enjoys reading my posts and gets something out of it.
I personally feel that Stud offers more chances for a better player to outplay an inferior one--even at advanced levels. I feel an excellent Stud player has more edge over a good Stud player than two players of the same skill level matched up in Hold'em. There is just more play to Stud. Once you are pretty good in Hold'em your skill gap is probably not that great compared to the expert Hold'em player, but in Stud I feel that even experts can really be outplayed by someone better.
Stud is not a waste of talent but hold-em is a much better game to play. The reason is because hold-em players play hold-em far worse than stud players play stud. For the doubting Thomas, I offer the "Jim Brier" test. Spend one hour watching a typical mid-level hold-em game ($15-$30 or $20-$40). When there is a showdown write down the two card holding of the winning hand. Now write down what the betting action was pre-flop and the position of the winning hand. You will find that about 20%-25% of the winning hands are won by players who should not have taken a flop. For example, you see a player drag a pot having made a flush holding Nine-Deuce suited. You observe that he was in early position. Well, unless he got a free play in his big blind he had no business in the pot to begin with. You will not see much of this stuff in a typical mid-level stud game.
My impressions are that in Vegas, Stud players tend to be tougher than on the East Coast. Out here in Connecticut, the average Hold'em player is, I think, better than the average Stud player, and the Stud games are usually more profitable to play.
Once people learn to play pretty tight in Hold'em, and learn a few tricks like check-raising, it is hard to get much edge against them in my opinion. Sure you can still beat them, but I don't feel you can beat them for as much as you can if they had the same relative level of skill in Stud.
Once again I’m at the clueless stage in my quest to learn PL.
Pot Limit Hold ‘em. $50 buy in. Blinds are 1 and 2 with frequent straddles. Can bring in for 5 times the blind. I’m 6 hours into the game. I’ve worked my buy-in up to 2000, which is the biggest stack. There is a Rock with a 1500 stack, he’s just made a 1000 rebuy. The Pro, loose and unpredictable, has worked his stack up to 1200, a Crafty player has worked 900 up to a 1200 stack. A Gambler is in 2000 and has 1500 in front of him. The other 3 players (one of whom is on tilt and is betting my big hands for me) have two or three hundred apiece.
I’ve played PL HE only a few months, and having a big stack in front of me is a recent occurance. I don’t know what strategy to adopt in this situation. I’ve gotten the chips by playing aggressively, but it seems that this might be an invitation to disaster. For example, with AK, flopping a big pair with A75 could cost my stack against two pair or a set. Should I be waiting for the nuts to go against big stacks? Should I be attacking the smaller stacks and leaving the big ones alone? Should I play fewer hands? Should I play passively against big stacks? Should I raise as a test and then fold if I meet resistance? What sorts of situation should I be looking for?
When I was always playing short-stacked I learned to be opportunistic, then when I started accumulating 500 to 1000 stacks I found I was playing a different game and could use my chips as an additional weapon. Now that I’m having some sessions at the top of the heap, it’s yet another situation, and I need some advice on what to be looking for. Any suggestions?
When you played with a small stack you found being opportunistic pays off.
Why then would you stray from this strategy when it does well for you?
Yes, you can use your chips as a weapon against a small stack. But doing so in questionable situations against a big stack will just get you into trouble. Remember, your chips are not nearly as big a threat to a player with a big stack.
I may be wrong, but that is what I'd do.
Remember, your chips are not nearly as big a threat to a player with a big stack.
I was thinking the other way. If a flyer with a short stack crashes, it's a rebuy. If a flyer with a big stack crashes, it could flush a thousand on what may be an even money bet...
AK is dog when you have 2k and the blinds are only 1&2. Tread very carefully with only 1 pair against other big stacks. On the oter hand, if you are isolated against a shorter stack, you can muscle them around preflop, and even reraise with big slick.
Against the other large stacks, and in multiway pots, you are really looking for situations and position. Speculate with connectors, even for a raise when you are on the button. Call a potsized bet (in position) with gut shot straight. The pots odds are there if a large sack will fire again on the turn, since he can't put you on THAT hand.
Call on the flop with nothing when the baord looks scary to see if you can steal it on 4th street when the "obvious" flush gets there and a weak-tight can't fire the 2nd barrel.
Call with a straight draw when a 2 flush is on board, or even raise. You have 2 or 3 ways to win.
Limp in early position with pocket 8s, call a raise from an "obvious" big pair or AK, flop a set, and double through a big stack.
PLay some poker after the flop. It is a lot of fun and pot limit, much more tha no limit, is played on 4th and 5th street.
Thanks for the excellent response.
Speculate with connectors, even for a raise when you are on the button. Call a potsized bet (in position) with gut shot straight. The pots odds are there if a large sack will fire again on the turn, since he can't put you on THAT hand.
I was thinking along these same lines, and have had some good results. Wanted to hear it from a player since I have spent my life avoiding gut shot draws!
The big-stack-small-stack stuff is mostly applicable to tournaments where losing your entire stack is much more than twice as bad as losing half your stack. In a ring game, its twice as bad.
You want to attack liberally those that are paranoid; such as those that don't like AK flop A75. You want to bet your good hands aggressively against those that play weak hands. Avoid confrontations with the rock who puts in any significant action after the flop. Avoid confrontations with those that make a big bet, but do so infrequently (duh!).
Your suggestion of testing with one big bet after the flop, and if called backing off is a reasonable start.
If your big stack makes you paranoid, then perhaps its time to go home with your nice win. This may be especially true towards the end of the game where it appears most everybody is winning, and therefore more confident than usual.
- Louie
(1)"You want to attack those (2)"You want to bet your good hands aggressively against those Louie, it's "those who", "THOSE WHO"!
Just remember, you're a "who", not a "that".
Actually, Louie is correct here. Some of these players are "who's", some are "that's", and others are neither...
"Just remember, you're a "who", not a "that". Aaaaaah, true ... but you get a better blood sucking attitude if you consider the opponents as non-human. Its easier to take "its" money than "the sad and unfortunate player in seat two".
How's that for pathetic rationalization?
- Louie
.
.
If your big stack makes you paranoid, then perhaps its time to go home with your nice win.
This is what I've done, but I've got the feeling I'm missing some opportunities.
This may be especially true towards the end of the game where it appears most everybody is winning, and therefore more confident than usual.
I've noticed this with the back of my mind. There are big stacks and then there are big stacks. Some are won and some are bought by players desperate to get even. The attitudes behind them are completely different. This may be something I can exploit.
Once again a great post Louie. Thanks.
Pot limit with a big stack is almost a different game than pot limit with a small stack. The most important difference is position is far more important when you have big bucks. play looser on or near the button, tighter up front. Also, be careful what hands you build. Three deuces seems like a great hand, but if you have two grand in a $1-2 blind game and all the money goes in, I am betting on the other guy.
Me and my brother were driving down to the casino last Wednesday to play a little 5-10 stud. We had never been during the day so we were wondering how many games they would have going. We don't like being at the same table, but we were pondering the possibility. We decided that if we were at the same table and we were heads up in a hand, we would just check it down and let's the cards do the talking.
Is this collusion?
I think it is fine. I have done that before with a friend at low limit stud or hold'em.
Ken
Mike,
It is not collusion in the classical sense but it is softplaying and wrong. It is bad for the game but unfortunately goes on all the time. Off duty dealers can be the worst offenders.
Why not try the following? Agree that if you are in a hand together that you will play hard against each other and also agree that playing hard will not effect your friendship (or brotherly love in this case).
Regards,
Rick
The real problems with such softplaying occurs when there is a third person in on the hand. For example, let's suppose you hold A3 and the flop is 38Q. Your buddy bets and a third player is behind you. Well, you can get to the river very economically by putting in a raise on the flop and driving out the third player. If you would have not raised if the bettor was someone other than your buddy, you are indeed guilty of collusion.
That said, this type of softplaying arrangements are in place all over the place. I am no exception although God knows I have tried to reason with my fellow softplayers.
would have a heart attack if she read the above post of mine. Sorry for the wretched grammar...but that's what happens when you rushedly put up posts in order to get back to work (ugh!)
I would never raise to knock the third person out. I realize that this is blantant collusion. I guess the best thing is for us to play the same way if we're in the hand together or not. I think we can do that.
Thanks for the responses.
I play with a buddy of mine a lot in the same home games that we play. What i usualy do if we are heads up we may bet each other but we do not raise each other which keeps it freindly but still protects your hand, we also have a unstated agreement that if we are heads up and one of us raises the other we have really big hands, and we do not try to make moves agaist each other, so it works faily well and saves a couple of bets.
1) This isn't saving you any bets at all. When your buddy has the big hand, it saves you a couple of bets. When you have the big hand, it costs you a couple of bets. Evens out.
2) If it's unstated, how do you know it's an agreement :-) ?
If I am in a home game or casino game with friends, I play them just like anyone else. If I make some move on them I just laugh at (with) them about it later. They do the same to me. And we're all still friends. Be enough of a man not to need or give favours at the table.
Andy.
yes it is.
but you will probably be okay in a low limit game.
Here is why this kind of thing can be evil: Suppose you are in a 3-way contest with your brother and another player. Your brother bets, and you are next to act with a flush draw, and there are at least 2 more cards to come. So you raise which knocks out the third player, and guarantee yourself free draws until the end.
How would you feel if you were the third guy in this situation?
In addition to Steve, there will be other times you can adversely (and subconsciencously) affect the outcome of a hand vis-a-vis the other players. This is not a big deal.
What is a bigger deal is that it will APPEAR as though you are playing partners and the other players will be suspicious of most everything you guys do, even when one bets and the other folds in a multi-way pot.
Don't draw attention to yourselves in this way. If you MUST, at least pretend as though you are considering betting.
- Louie
no, its not collusion but since it can be easily turned into unknowing collusion you should not do it. if you must you should let the table know so they will not think you are playing partners. also offer to let anyone see both hands if they feel you did something unethical. then they at least can use the information to their advantage. in the bigger games the regular players wont like it but will understand. in the small games no matter what happens those that dont understand will say its cheating. in any case it always comes out bad for you if you do this.
Yeah, I don't like betting against my friends either. We have a group of eight good friends and since we play regularly, we have become good friends. We all don't like betting against each other so we don't!
All nite we ante and nobody bets. On the river we turn over all our hands and the best hand always wins. I'm getting a little bored lately with the game....
You are treading into the grey area. Best to stay out and play hard.
hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
At low-limit tables with tourists, what image are they likely to get of you if they see you riffling your chips all the time? [I suppose it could be any dextrous chip-handling technique, for the sake of argument.]
Are they likely to think you're someone who's been around the table a lot, and shy away from you? Or, will they not tend to notice at all? Or, are they bound to think something else?
Bottom line -- can toying with your chips ruin your table image with tourists (not locals) at low limits?
I used to shuffle chips. I was damn good, but I have since stopped. I don't know what it does to your image, but I know what it does to your fingernails. I no longer have to worry about that disgusting greenish black poker table finger cheese which collects down there, and that makes me very happy.
Besides, if you're really all that worried about image, you should just get a zany hat. There are several informative posts by AlexB in the archive detailing exactly what one should consider during such a purchase.
I do not consider myself a tourist, I play at least every week. When I notice someone handing their chips or riffing them without a second thought, I think they spend a lot more time at the tables than me. Not to say they are good players, but they have played a lot of poker. And I would take that into consideration in my play, which may be good or bad. So I make an effort not to play with my chips at all, it is a tell in a way.
It takes a day or two to learn how to riffle. Don't be fooled.
MJ
I cant do it. I've tried. Is there a book or somethin on that?
nt
>> At low-limit tables with tourists, what image are they likely to get of you if they see you riffling your chips all the time? >>
They won't notice anything but the cards they hold and the cards on the board.
Riffiling chips indicates impatience and at times boredom, nothing more. I have seen some very good players do it and some very poor players. I do not think there is a correlation. I notice young Asian players do it very often. The best 2 pro players whom I know (consistant winners at 10/20 through 25/50) do not riffle their chips. So, as Ginger Baker, Steve Winwood and Eric Clapton said, "Do What You Like"
Just like ratso said, I notice the Asian players doing this alot whether they are good players or bad. I think it just means that they are ready for action.
my first cardroom experience was about three months ago, and i was a little apprehensive when i first saw people doing this-i feel i am at the very least a knowledgeable player with (at that time) a whole semester's worth of practice trouncing my school friends. but seeing somebody do this like they'd been there awhile (until i learned it in a day) made me think i was a little out of my league. that's my view that i had... j
Next time you go out to play and see this behavior try to analyze what this action means for the player. Is he riffling when he's out of a hand. Does he stop after he looks at his hand (maybe he just seen AA or 27)? Most people at the low limit games are not aware that they are giving off tells. You can use this information to your advantage. My guess here is that the real reason why these players riffle their chips, is because they are afraid or other players and the riffling action gives them confidence. Usually, you'll see these guys tossing their chips aggressively or pounding their fist on the table.
I think riffling only means the player has spent some time at the casino. Though it often means the player thinks he's quite and this often isn't the case.
Maybe it looks cool to some, but I think too many have given good reasons to not do it (not to give tells , the slime that might accumulate under your finger nails).
As for inexperienced players reactions, I can remember mine, "who are these players fondling my chips? The audacity! They are lucky they still have enough to riffle..."
IV,
Low limit players are unconscious. They don't notice such things as the way you played your hand screamed "I have pocket A's", so I doubt they notice chip riffling.
Caveat: This is a really bad habit to get into if you are also a skilled blackjack player. The pit does notice. :))
Regards/
A tourist will be as unaware of your chip handeling as they are the number of hands you play, position you raise in and cards you are playing.
Actually some of the best chip handelers are often some of the worst players. Some Dealers come to mind and some young women seem quite adapt at riffing but don't play very well.
I young woman comes to mind in England (where I just returned from) of all the players I saw there she was the only riffer - she called me down with her last chips in a tournament near final table and she had quite a few to see my AA with her QTo.
I was not playing loose or didn't give her any indication I might be bluffing. But she sure could riffle the chips. Go figure.
With so many people playing poker, isn't there bound to be a large number who play well (say 8.5 on the Sklansky scale) but invariably lose or break even, even over the long run?
Yes, so long as you change "over the long run" to "over a long period of time".
The majority of players are ..err.. believe they are in this group.
- Louie
Yes, there probably are some, but most players who lose are just that, losing players.
Plain and simple, when people are losing, they generally blame it on variance, luck, drawouts, etc. When they are winning, it's all skill, baby. All the better that people make excuses for their own bad play, keeps the games good.
The effect of the rake is strong enough that most better-than-average players struggle to break even or to win a little bit. Some better-than-average playes must inevitably lose due to this.
With regard to the variance aspect, "the long run" can mean different lengths of time or trials.
In addition, very few players can maintain their level of discipline,skill and execution when suffering under the weight of a truly long bad run. Probably everyone's game falls off a bit.
It's true that there will always be outlyers that have extreme results if you sample a big enough population.
For each 200 poker players, there are going to be on average 5 of them who's results are 2 standard deviations to the negative. If there are 10,000 break-even or winning players in North America, it's virtually certain that a handful of them have had extremely bad luck, out 4 or 5 standard deviations, such that they are net lifetime losers (assuming recreational players, who play maybe a couple hundred hours a year). On the flip side of that, it's virtually certain that there are a few losing players who are lifetime winners. Let's hope they don't decide to write books. (-:
You can't mean out of 10,000 there are a handful out 4 or 5 standard deviations! Did I misunderstand this?
I guess we don't know where on the bell curve we belong.I'm sure winners think they know and losers think they know. No one knows for sure.
Yes, now that there are thousands of poker players playing in card rooms all over the country, there will be many who will be losers over long periods of time (e.g.- 1000 hours or more) regardless of how well they play. Both John Feeney and I know a low limit player who has read the books, studied hard, taken lessons, only plays low limit hold-em ($3-$6, $4-$8, and $5-$10) making him usually the best player at his table, and never goes on tilt. He has lost almost $9000 after about 800 hours of play. He is constantly getting sucked out against a small number of opponents when he has the best hand both pre-flop and on the flop. How often your hands hold up, how often you get sucked out, how often you make a legitimate draw, and whether or not you are catching your far share of cards are critical factors in determining your long run results. The luck does not "even out" and some players are luckier than others not just over a session or two but in some cases over many hundreds of hours of play. In extreme cases, over a life time of play.
Jim, you never mention if this player actually plays well.
After 800 hours, down $9000, I would want an expert to watch me play. Against poor competition, playing well, these numbers usually indicate a leak.
I watched him play for a week here in Vegas while we went around and played low limit poker. He actually won that week. He definitely played well over all and was usually the best player at the table. Once in a great while I thought he failed to bet his good hands aggressively enough and there was one occasion where I thought he should have called a river bet rather than folding. But I observed nothing that would account for his horrible results.
Interesting question. I believe that if there were no rake/collection and toke costs associated with poker, more than 50% of regular players would be long-term winners. This is because the very worst players are likely to lose money at a faster rate than the very best players can win it, resulting in a skewed distribution. Once expenses are factored in, however, many above-average players will be long-term losers (with the percentage of losers depending largely on the expense of the games being played).
Just wanted to take a poll of how different players use this play.
I use it in just a few spots.
1. Early position 3/4 handed with Top Pair/fair kicker to "Clear out the back side"
Example: 3/4 handed I am in the early position and am very sure the loose "late position" player will bet at about any flop.(Knowing the player is key)
Thoughts: If the player to my left bets I can't drop him for just another bet. If he checks I would feel that his holding is not strong enough to call 2 cold. But I have to be very sure that the late position player will bet.
2. Early/Mid position with a strong hand.
Example: 2/3 handed on the turn. I am in the blind, first or second to act and have flopped a set AND the flop bet is from a very agressive player.
Thoughts: Here I want to wait for the turn (as long as the board is not to connected or suited) to raise. If I have flopped a set I will call any flop bets then check raise the turn. Short handed I find that this will exclude any flush or str8 draws. You need a very agressive player in the later positions.
What are some other places that you find your self thinking "Time to Check Raise....".
Best of it !!
MJ
You need to consider some other factors. Was there a pre-flop raiser? This might increase the likelihood of the flop getting bet. What is the texture of the board? The more highly coordinated the board the greater the likelihood that it hit someone who would have an interest in betting the flop. How many opponents are there? More opponents make it more likely that the flop will get bet especially if it is headed by an Ace or a King since there are many hands players will limp in with that contain an Ace or a King. Can I afford to have it checked around? Suppose you limped in with Ace-Seven suited and the flop is: 743 rainbow? While attempting to check-raise may frequently get you a good result, if it gets checked around this could be disastrous. Any card higher than a Seven but lower than an Ace could kill your hand especially against a lot of opponents.
Most of my check-raises start out as check-and-sees. If I flop bottom pair in the blind I'll often check figuring to raise if the aggressive late position player bets. Or even if he's not all that aggressive. If someone else bets its a different story.
Malmuth once articulated that with today's typical blind structure, players are routinely getting the right odds to chase if you have a single pair. Check-raising may be risky but puts them in a position to make a correct fold for two bets; and its worth taking that risk. In the older structure (small blinds) players are routinely NOT getting the right odds to call one bet so you should usually just bet right out. Short-handed unraised pots also fall into this category: unless the opponents are very likely to bet whether they have something or not, generally bet right out.
Check-raising/bet-right-out ratio should be such that the opponents are conserned or confused about it. Don't bet out so often that they have a free steal if you check.
- Louie
Are there any free poker software (like simulation software) anywhere on the net one can download for free? /Frog
Go to Wilson Software's website, there is a link for it on this site, I think.
The bad news (for me): the other evening I experienced my worst loss to date. The good news: I played a tough, disciplined brand of poker and realized that, in spite of the vicissitudes, I'd matured to a point whereby I'd become immune to Demon Tilt.
As other players blew a fuse left and right (one guy actually tried in vain to eviscerate his cards, K7offsuit when he flopped top pair and was edged out by someone holding 88), I was prompted to ponder what it is that gamblers seek, and what it is that accounts for the phenomenon of tilt.
It seems to me that infantile craving or some deep-seated primal hankering serves as the propellent. Since one's id (to borrow Freudian shorthand) is rarely acknowledged and hardly ever truly gratified in the real world, gamblers seek a substitute. Sometimes the substitute comes through, but the stopgap it provides is perforce temporary and must be repeatedly pursued and triggered. The ego can intercede to postpone gratification to a point, but when when the substitute again and again fails to provide the gratifying fix, the id cries foul and flails impotently or turns savagely on the ego in order to punish that which is deemed guilty of tantalizing but not satisfying its insatiable maw.
I think it's mainly that people don't like losing to lucky idiots. Maybe Jung has something on this, though.
Yet the guy with the K7offsuit who was fuming indignantly was a worse player than the guy who held the pair of 88. He wasn't outdrawn but outgunned from the start. And he blamed the dealer, not the victor.
"Yet the guy with the K7offsuit who was fuming indignantly was a worse pliayer than the guy who held the pair of 88. "
This is obvious since 88 is a hand and K7 is junk.
Poor players really hate getting drawn out on since they feel that it is their job to do the drawing out.
Sadly, I think that many poker players are frustrated over the failures, loss of dreams and lack of hope in their own lives, and losing in poker is yet another disappointment in a long string of things that didn't turn out the way they were planned. Imagine how screwed up you have to be to let some bozo who hits his gutshot straight to bust your flopped set of aces turn you into a ranting, out-of-control lunatic.
Poker is frustrating. If you are a skilled carpenter, you may set out to build a cabinet and at the end of the day you're looking at the tangible result of your knowledge and experience. A novice can never get lucky and turn out better work. In poker, we all know that the best often get smoked by the worst, especially in low limit. And while knowing that you played well can offer some relief, there's little comfort to be found when you have to climb into your 1979 Toyota Celica with the broken left turn signal and head back to your studio apartment.
And yes, I'm speaking from personal experience.
And while knowing that you played well can offer some relief, there's little comfort to be found when you have to climb into your 1979 Toyota Celica with the broken left turn signal and head back to your studio apartment.
At least you've got a car.
" In poker, we all know that the best often get smoked by the worst, especially in low limit."
This is why I posted the question about low-limit Pineapple (not to exclude either normal, hi-lo, or Crazy varieties) several weeks ago. I was wondering whether skilled players with a limited budget had a better shot at coming out ahead in these games as opposed to 7-Stud and Hold'em, but the only responses I got were dismissive.
Tilt, like most forms of anger is caused by simply being overly optimistic and being indignant to the fact when things go wrong. Which of course they often do!
don't curse the rain. watch it go by. a good book "Zen and the art of Poker" by L. Phillips. Say good hand to that sob
z
I would recommend the book to everyone as well, it was excellent.
How 'bout, "You can't control the wind. But you can control the sails."
How 'bout, "You can't control the wind. But you can control the sails."
How about, "always let the wind be at your back when you've just eaten a big bowl of goat curd."
Nick the Greek said, "Everybody gets what they want out of the casino". Mirroring the Greek, super commodities trader Ed Seykota said, "Everyone gets what they want out of the markets". And Puggy Pearson, in the book Fast Company, said, "The first thing that a gambler must learn to do is to become friends with himself". I believe that every behavior, good or bad, has at a deeper level a positive intention for the person who is generating that behavior. My advice for those who habitually generate the behavior called tilt is this: First, become friends with that part of you that creates this behavior called "tilt". Feel where in your body you feel this part and welcome this part into your life. Thank it for whatever positive intention it has for you. Next, go within and ask this part, "By having "tilt" fully and completely just the way you want it, what are you trying to accomplish that is positive for me?". Make sure to ask this question with a feeling of certainty that you will get an answer. Possible answers may include: "To help you communicate your frustration to others" or "To help you let off steam" or "To help you express anger" and so forth. Wait for an answer...it will come. Once you've gotten an answer, thank the part for the positive intention that it comes up with (it's different for everybody). Next, ask this part if it would be willing to experiment with OTHER WAYS to achieve this positive intention in addition to simply accomplishing it thru the behavior called tilt. Once you get an approval, go inside and then search and find that part of you who is creative -that part of you who in the past is very good at coming up with choices and alternatives in your life. Once you've gotten hold of this part, ask it to come up with at least three different behaviors that can accomplish the positive intention that previously you could achieve only thru the act of engaging in tilt. Visualize seeing yourself engaging in each one of these behaviors. Once you've come up with enough behavioral choices that satisfy the part of you who used to engage in tilt, ask it to remember these choices the next time it wants to go on tilt again. This self hypnotic exercise, which is based on a technique called "conscious/subconscious splitting" is a very effective technique for "making friends with yourself" and for giving yourself behavioral choices in accomplishing whatever it was an unwanted behavior, namely "tilt", could only accomplish it's own way.
serenity now, insanity later...
How about insanity now? Many people, after getting a bad beat, say to themselves, "It's o.k.. You can look back at this later, and laugh about it". I say, Why not laugh about it now? Why wait?
In reference to your 3rd paragraph and on behalf of 95% of the forum: HUH? There surely is an English version of it...
In reference to your 1st paragraph: Tilt is less like small pox and more like gingivitis: There is NO "innoculation" which will make you immune forever no matter how well its working now; there is only the good habits of brushing and flossing which must be performed forever.
- Louie
Whatever you're looking for you're not gonna find it in a poker room. Unless, of course, you're looking for interesting foreigners and/or crotchety old people. If you're devoting all of your energy to poker and you have any talent at all you'd be better off getting a job in an industry that you're interested in and working hard to get ahead. Poker is just a game. A game played for money but a game none the less. It's fun and it can be consistently beat but why on earth would you want to devote all of your energy, go half-crazy in the process to make even $100,000 a year (which is optimistic to say the least).
Chill out. Play the game. Go somewhere else to find god, zen, self-fulfillment, and so on.
chris
.
Of course you're correct. But only in the sense that poker is a game and most people will acknowlege other things being more important as self-evident. The nice thing about life is that you don't have to do important things if you don't want to. Jobs are a hassle at the very least. $100,000 is in fact a very generous estimate of potential annual poker winnings. However, if I could consistently win 30-40 k a year while playing a game, I would not only do it, but take it very seriously. Professional soldiers must reconcile concepts of sacrifice and country with those of self and family, stock brokers must find a way to deal with the people in that world as well as their own occasional losses, a school teacher must look past the daily grind of dealing with other people's kids and see the rewarding moments to come. Poker players (and gamblers in general) don't always have the luxury of social nobility, but they can stay home, go on vaction, watch tv, sleep, or do whatever else they want when ever they want. Any kind of life has disappointment. Finding techniques to deal with that is important. I have to do it now in college and soon will have to do it in law school. But, if I get good enough at poker I'll drop everything and do that. The importance of things in life (especially where you're money comes from) is relative. If you care about something and take pride in it you will feel pain when you fail. If one can deal with the pain of losing hands and thus continue to play successfully, then a full existence has been achieved, should be commended, and the methods of mental manuvering that facilitated it should be shared.
Very well said. I couldn't have expressed it more brilliantly myself. Burn your ships, burn your bridges, burn your resume. Play poker and carpe diem. Kick ass!!!!! Don't kiss ass like they do in the workplace. Poker IS religion!!!
Sorry about that indecipherable third paragraph; but when one pries open the lid to the unconscious to sneak a peek, there is no mental camera one can flash to provide a high-resolution snapshot. Poets resort to the use of metaphoric expression and other tricks of the trade to jiggle language out of its comfortable confines so that our mindscapes can be reconoittered and reclaimed. And psychologists, well, they have constructed and outfitted a toolbox, but the tools never quite seem to fit.
I like that gingivitis analogy, but still I think there may be thresholds one passes over, in the quest for Eldorado...
Once you've figured out a behavior's positive intention, you're at a subconscious level. And if you figure out the positive intention of the positive intention, you're deeper still.
The Gambling Forum Archive
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 3:34 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 3:37 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 3:40 a.m.
Posted by: jg (lionheart111@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 8:45 a.m.
Posted by: MS (Margol2@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 9:31 a.m.
Posted by: Al (AlTang67@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Springfield
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 5:10 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 6:07 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 6:31 p.m.
Posted by: Lin (linsherm@gte.net)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 11:48 p.m.
Posted by: Jay Kelley (jay1@cinci.rr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 9:36 a.m.
Posted by: Lin (linsherm@gte.net)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 11:42 p.m.
Posted by: MDMAniac
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 1:40 p.m.
Posted by: MDMAniac (mdmaniac@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 9:36 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 10:18 a.m.
Posted by: DanHanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 2:46 p.m.
Posted by: mick
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 3:02 p.m.
Posted by: Dreamer
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: DanHanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 6:49 p.m.
Posted by: DanHanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 6:46 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 4:00 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 6:39 p.m.
Posted by: DanHanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 6:56 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 9:47 p.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 11:14 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 1:30 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 10:27 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 2:00 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 2:45 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 3:03 a.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 11:57 p.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 11:43 p.m.
Posted by: JoeD
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 4:51 a.m.
Posted by: Bob Ciaffone (coach999@concentric.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 4:10 p.m.
Posted by: JoeD
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 9:15 p.m.
Posted by: Louie (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: mick
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 6:12 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 6:20 p.m.
Posted by: DanHanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 7:05 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 7:08 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 7:29 p.m.
Posted by: mick
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 8:04 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 9:26 p.m.
Posted by: mick
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 10:00 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Waters (davewaters@rocketmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 1:46 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 8:02 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 10:50 p.m.
Posted by: eric (gourdonveronique@wanadoo.fr)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 2:29 a.m.
Posted by: Louie (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 12:38 a.m.
Posted by: mick
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: David Z (davidz@one.net.au)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 8:43 p.m.
Posted by: mick
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 9:18 p.m.
Posted by: David Z (davidz@one.net.au)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 9:42 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 10:39 p.m.
:o)
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 12:45 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 10:23 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 8:09 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 9:53 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 11:07 a.m.
Posted by: Dreamer
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 3:07 a.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 3:25 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 10:19 a.m.
Posted by: spitball (spitball@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 5:51 p.m.
Posted by: Veteran Player
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 8:49 p.m.
Posted by: Dreamer
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 9:41 p.m.
Posted by: Veteran Player
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Dreamer
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 6:04 p.m.
Posted by: Veteran Player
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 9:48 p.m.
Posted by: Veteran Player
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 10:06 p.m.
Posted by: Dreamer's (WIFE)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 12:20 a.m.
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 1:16 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 12:50 a.m.
Posted by: Veteran Player
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 2:38 p.m.
Posted by: DanHanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 7:20 p.m.
Posted by: Veteran Player
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 9:23 p.m.
Posted by: ratso
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 9:29 a.m.
Posted by: Dreamer's (WIFE)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 12:30 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 11:07 a.m.
Posted by: Veteran Player
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: zooey
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 2:52 p.m.
Posted by: Veteran Player
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: ClubRoyal (euro9876@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 3:16 a.m.
Posted by: Veteran Player
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: ClubRoyal (euro9876@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 June 2000, at 5:25 a.m.
Posted by: Veteran Player
Posted on: Saturday, 24 June 2000, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: Paul T
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 1:05 a.m.
Posted by: Veteran Player
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 2:51 a.m.
Posted by: ClubRoyal (euro9876@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 3:24 a.m.
Posted by: Veteran Player
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: ClubRoyal (euro9876@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 June 2000, at 5:18 a.m.
Posted by: MPN
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 3:45 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 4:03 a.m.
Posted by: JoeD
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 4:22 a.m.
Posted by: bobby (youtalkfunny@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 8:47 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 9:58 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: JoeD
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 12:57 p.m.
Posted by: mc
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: JoeD
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: mc
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: JoeD
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: zooey
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 1:40 p.m.
Posted by: JoeD
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: Mike from Albany
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 10:40 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 11:11 a.m.
Posted by: Al (AlTang67@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: muwati (muwati@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 5:40 p.m.
Posted by: Al (AlTang67@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 10:14 a.m.
Posted by: muwati (muwati@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 4:55 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 2:10 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Springfield
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Springfield
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 11:01 p.m.
Posted by: I supported Carson in Post
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 12:18 a.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 1:12 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 4:02 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 4:26 a.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 10:20 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: eric (gourdonveronique@wanadoo.fr)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 8:44 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 6:35 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 11:24 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 3:09 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 11:39 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 June 2000, at 8:39 p.m.
Posted by: Tinman
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 6:47 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Wakeling
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 9:38 p.m.
Posted by: DJ
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 8:04 a.m.
Posted by: Dave Wakeling
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 7:13 p.m.
Posted by: Howard Burroughs (topset@webtv.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 8:20 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Dodd (mdodd@telusplanet.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 9:51 p.m.
Posted by: JoeD-Buffalo NY
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 3:04 a.m.
Posted by: eric (gourdonveronique@wanadoo.fr)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 7:46 a.m.
Posted by: clinteroo (csharcourt@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 7:24 p.m.
Posted by: SmoothB
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 8:04 p.m.
Posted by: James Howard
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 9:33 p.m.
Posted by: clinteroo
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 9:47 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Wakeling
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 7:37 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 7:42 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Wakeling
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 7:45 p.m.
Posted by: clinteroo (csharcourt@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 12:32 a.m.
Posted by: suspcious
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 1:20 a.m.
Posted by: Louie (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 1:27 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 10:38 a.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: mth
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 3:29 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 1:56 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 June 2000, at 9:37 p.m.
Posted by: Befuddled
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 1:48 a.m.
Posted by: JoeD-Buffalo NY
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 2:56 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 3:59 p.m.
Posted by: JoeD-Buffalo NY
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 4:22 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 11:25 p.m.
Posted by: JoeD-Buffalo NY
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 12:31 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 10:24 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 1:38 p.m.
Posted by: ex-newbie
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 7:49 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 1:54 a.m.
Posted by: semipro50 (semipro50@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 8:57 p.m.
Posted by: JoeD
Posted on: Saturday, 24 June 2000, at 5:31 a.m.
Posted by: The Analog Kid (allanb@san.rr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 4:26 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 1:33 a.m.
Posted by: Lin (linsherm@gte.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 5:30 p.m.
Posted by: Broncosauras
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 5:02 a.m.
Posted by: Planet Poker uses Kem Cards!
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 10:04 a.m.
Posted by: The Analog Kid (allanb@san.rr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 1:51 a.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 2:03 a.m.
Posted by: Anon.
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 8:45 p.m.
Posted by: Many Faces (reggielex@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 9:16 p.m.
Posted by: JoeD
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 12:18 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 1:22 a.m.
Posted by: JoeD
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 1:56 a.m.
Posted by: Anon.
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 12:31 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel Patton
Posted on: Saturday, 1 July 2000, at 12:48 a.m.
Posted by: zooey
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 2:35 p.m.
Posted by: zooey
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 2:48 p.m.
Posted by: Samurai Musashi
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 4:15 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 5:49 p.m.
Posted by: Lin (linsherm@gte.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 6:39 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 8:29 p.m.
Posted by: eric (gourdonveronique@wanadoo.fr)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 12:26 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 6:16 p.m.
Posted by: paul feeney (feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 7:19 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 7:44 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 10:32 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 7:41 p.m.
Posted by: David Z (davidz@one.net.au)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 9:38 p.m.
Posted by: P V
Posted on: Thursday, 22 June 2000, at 11:09 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: David Z (davidz@one.net.au)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 2:54 a.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 3:17 a.m.
Posted by: Louie (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 June 2000, at 12:18 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 2:39 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Ciaffone (coach999@concentric.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 June 2000, at 8:27 p.m.
Posted by: David Z (davidz@one.net.au)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 June 2000, at 9:36 p.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 3:50 a.m.
Posted by: David Z (davidz@one.net.au)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 4:37 a.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 6:05 a.m.
Posted by: David Z (davidz@one.net.au)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 11:22 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: David z (davdiz@one.net.au)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 July 2000, at 6:14 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 9:39 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 9:40 p.m.
Posted by: David Z (davidz@one.net.au)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 10:45 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 12:38 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 1:39 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 6:38 a.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 23 June 2000, at 12:55 p.m.
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 June 2000, at 5:39 p.m.
Posted by: Louie (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 June 2000, at 6:06 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 3:14 a.m.
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 1:13 p.m.
Posted by: big nose
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 5:09 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 4:57 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 9:17 a.m.
Posted by: bruce (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 11:03 a.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 10:04 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 9:05 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 2:55 a.m.
Posted by: sucker
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 8:44 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 9:31 a.m.
Posted by: Richard Clement (StudyHardAndOften@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 12:58 p.m.
Posted by: Richard Clement (StudyHardAndOften@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 1:00 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 1:04 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 1:51 p.m.
Posted by: Dick in Phoenix (Dick@annabelles-treasures.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 3:32 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: Old Pro
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 9:20 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 1:34 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 2:55 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 12:38 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk@cloud9.net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 11:13 a.m.
Posted by: B.F. Skinner
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: JoeD
Posted on: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 11:47 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 10:56 a.m.
Posted by: JoeD
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 11:18 a.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 3:35 a.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 12:59 a.m.
Posted by: moses (anon84c2@nyx.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 July 2000, at 11:26 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Monday, 3 July 2000, at 12:35 a.m.
Posted by: Dan D.
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 6:55 a.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 11:38 a.m.
Posted by: mick
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 12:43 p.m.
Posted by: Dreamer
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 9:23 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Ciaffone (coach999@concentric.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 10:31 a.m.
Posted by: B.F. Skinner
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 2:42 a.m.
Posted by: mick
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 9:12 p.m.
Posted by: Don from Orange County
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Fiete (fiete@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 11:32 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 8:45 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Ciaffone (coach999@concentric.net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 8:58 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Fiete (fiete@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: Gingko Biloba
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: jg (lionheart111@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 June 2000, at 8:41 a.m.
Posted by: Gingko Biloba
Posted on: Saturday, 1 July 2000, at 3:49 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: Mike (mgoodwin@skadden.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 6:18 p.m.
Posted by: Mike (mgoodwin@skadden.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 6:51 p.m.
Posted by: ratso
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 11:44 a.m.
Posted by: mick
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 9:28 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 7:58 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 1:36 p.m.
Posted by: Mike (mgoodwin@skadden.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@primenet.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 6:26 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 11:38 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 12:37 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 6:57 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 11:47 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 6:53 p.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 6:45 a.m.
Posted by: Jon Parker (jparker@jhu.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 9:16 a.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 1:19 p.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 7:35 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 5:48 p.m.
Posted by: Larson
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 6:08 p.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 7:49 p.m.
Posted by: Louie (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 9:52 p.m.
Posted by: Larson
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 10:29 p.m.
Posted by: Larson
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 10:31 p.m.
Posted by: Phat Mack (phat_mack@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 7:46 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Ciaffone (coach999@concentric.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: Mike (mgoodwin@skadden.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 1:46 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 4:00 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: Mike (mgoodwin@skadden.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: PokerPL
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 2:51 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 8:07 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Fiete (fiete@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 June 2000, at 10:01 p.m.
Posted by: albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 10:53 a.m.
Posted by: IdiotVig (mamps@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 10:08 a.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 10:58 a.m.
Posted by: Scott V (vraneshs@dmjm.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 1:11 p.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 1:51 p.m.
Posted by: chance
Posted on: Friday, 30 June 2000, at 3:06 p.m.
Posted by: Lin (linsherm@gte.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 July 2000, at 12:34 a.m.
Posted by: chris downs (cdowns@bridge.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: ratso
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 4:26 p.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 8:01 p.m.
Posted by: Protege (jaanderson@csbsju.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 12:45 a.m.
Posted by: mah (maheide@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 6:31 p.m.
Posted by: suspcious
Posted on: Friday, 30 June 2000, at 10:14 p.m.
Posted by: LoneStar (lonestar21@pangeatech.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 July 2000, at 9:09 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Saturday, 1 July 2000, at 10:04 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 12:13 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 12:33 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 12:49 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 1:11 p.m.
Posted by: DanHanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 2:16 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 2 July 2000, at 1:53 a.m.
Posted by: jay (jay1@cinci.rr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 3:35 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 11:24 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 2 July 2000, at 2:00 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 3 July 2000, at 4:45 p.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 2 July 2000, at 5:03 a.m.
Posted by: MJChicago (m7h1j5@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 11:09 p.m.
Posted by: Louie (LLandale@EarthLink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 12:54 a.m.
Posted by: Frog (holdem@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 June 2000, at 6:56 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 2 July 2000, at 1:47 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 3:21 a.m.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 10:58 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 6:47 p.m.
Posted by: findtheriver (findtheriver@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: Sucked Out On the Turn
Posted on: Friday, 30 June 2000, at 2:28 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 June 2000, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: Ben Greene
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 11:59 a.m.
Posted by: patrick (patnx2@cs.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 4:14 p.m.
Posted by: clinteroo (csharcourt@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 4:42 p.m.
Posted by: Masaharu Morimoto
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 9:33 p.m.
Posted by: Maharishi gushi tushi
Posted on: Friday, 30 June 2000, at 2:33 a.m.
Posted by: B.F. Skinner
Posted on: Thursday, 29 June 2000, at 8:30 p.m.
Posted by: Viking (malkin@cs.cmu.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 July 2000, at 11:09 a.m.
Posted by: B.F. Skinner
Posted on: Saturday, 1 July 2000, at 3:36 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 June 2000, at 9:10 a.m.
Posted by: chris (ccsalinas@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 June 2000, at 12:17 p.m.
Posted by: basebal been very good to me
Posted on: Friday, 30 June 2000, at 1:11 p.m.
Posted by: Mark (s1042228@admiral.umsl.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 30 June 2000, at 4:23 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Veteran
Posted on: Saturday, 1 July 2000, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 June 2000, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: B.F. Skinner
Posted on: Saturday, 1 July 2000, at 4:26 p.m.
General Poker Theory
June 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo