growing up in great brittain i have played far more pot/nl than mr. malmuth. i make no comments about limit poker as i don't play that watered down game. he should not comment about big bet poker unless it is his primary game. i made no comments as to the quality of this forum i beleive it is superb. that is why mason's uninformed comments seem out of place. if you want to play big bet poker with me i will begin touring australia next week. g'day mate.
Whoever it was that bad-mouthed limon I think you need to learn some manners. I just want to thank whoever that was for not respecting someone else's opinion whatsoever. Mason can be open to criticism just as much as you or me buddy. He questioned Mason's merits as a no limit player and if Mason wants to respond (if he hasn't already....) then he will do so and defend his play as a NL player. Why don't you, STAY THE FUCK OUT OF IT! Limon proceed with your questioning.
May I ask why it matters whether it is more difficult to play Limit poker or Pot/No Limit? It seems a bit like asking whether it is more difficult to learn Japanese or Chinese. If you want to live in Japan....
Superficially it seems to a Pot-Limit player (like me) that Limit is an easier game because there are so many opponents making so many mistakes, but after a while you start to wonder whether they are all mistakes after all. Later you start wondering whether you are making similar 'mistakes'. Eventually you want to make more of these 'mistakes' and suddenly you have called into question much of your belief in what is correct strategy!
I think it is far harder to maintain discipline while playing Limit. What surprises Pot-limit players is that there is so much literature about the Limit game, especially the correct pre-flop strategy. What is even more surprising is that so many people seem not to have consulted it!
The thing that many people like about the Pot-Limit game is that you can win back a loss in one big hand. When I have been abroad and played Limit, I have had occasions when I have gone 60 big bets behind and wondered why I should continue. How does one motivate oneself!
David Young, London, England
I would liken great limit players to professional baseball players in the minor leagues. They can execute every type of play for their style (or positon in baseball) without error on a great percentage. I would liken great no limit players (particularly the tournament players) to professional baseball players in the major leagues. They can can execute every play for their style (or position) with a great percentage of accuracy also. The catch, however, is that the no limit players have a greater understanding of the game and the psychology of the other players involved. Just like the big time baseball players they bring an element of thought to the game that is a cut above the rest.
Some of you limit players might find my views highly disturbing, but regardless of what you post to tell me how wrong I am, I believe I am right. There comes a time in poker when enough theory is enough, and it's time to just start playing the game (just keep practicing until you make a better grade of play.) You have to change your style of play around until you master them all.
The one thing that's wrong with the strategies laid out in literature today, is how inflexible it is. Your strategy, no matter how much you try to change it, will always have too many restrictions on aspects that are labeled erratic. It's too damn hard to say what an error is in poker. When bluffing is half the game I don't see how a lot of things could be considered an error. Today's theory doesn't take the situation (and the people) into account nearly enough.
You can't try to bluff correctly by bluffing once every seven hands as a general guideline to bluffing! That's absurd! If you catch a wave of hot cards it's a smarter play to ride even your bad cards on the high tide. You gotta start bluffing until you're called down on a run like that. Damn the odds, you've got people that are scared shitless of you and you have to take full advantage of it.
Doyle Brunson wasn't a good player (theoretically) but damn he sure was a great player. He was way ahead of his time and he had one of the most remarkable understandings of poker psychology i've ever seen. Just something to think about.
The attitude you describe is the philosopy of the Indian Casinos in California.
After playing limit for some time, I'd like to move onto no-limit. I had heard in the past about Super/System and was about to buy a copy last night, but then I read this post. While I will still buy SS very soon, who has written a good text of no-limit?
Mr E Tombs
The no-limit advice in Super/System has done alright by me over the years. 15 years of Florida home games, and 6 years of small blind Las Vegas no-limit (though I play limit too ), and the book has paid for itself many times over.
Do yourself a favor. If you get SS, make sure you spend the extra $20 and get the Guide to SS. It updates a lot of the text.
Also, get TJ's big bet book, make sure it's the no-limit/pot-limit book,for he also has other titles out.
Dont forget the Coach's big bet poker book too.
I know that some people don't care for one or two of the above books, but they are all written by top players. If nothing else it is nice to see how the thinking process works among the various authors. In my opinion,all three books have,at the very least, some worthwhile information in them (to put it mildly).
Thank you very much, Howard. I am waiting for a catalogue from a gambling book store that has SS.
I'm not exactly which TJ you are mentioning, but I'll try to post if I cannot determine which are good options.
CHAMPIONSHIP NO-LILIT & POT-LIMIT HOLD'EM, not to be confused with CHAMPIONSHIP HOLD'EM.
Don't forget to get GUIDE TO SS as well. If you can't find it, let me know.
Don't forget about the Coach.
This was my first trip into 2+2 and I was very surprised to see all these posts. I'll try to clarify some of these remarks. I never said S/S was outdated. The fundamentals are the same, and will always be the same. As many of the posters pointed out, the blind structure has changed and you DO have to adjust your play. But, if I remember correctly, [its been a 1/4 of a century] I said that the ante determines how you play. Also, how many players are in the game, and who they are determines how you play. So, even in "the old days" you had to adjust your play. Next, everybody wrote their own chapter, even though Alan Goldberg interpreted some of the collaborators thoughts into more understandable lanuage. Also, Mike Caro helped Joey Hawthorne immensely with the lowball section, because Joey wasn't very dependable. I wrote ALL of the no-limit and am still very proud of it. Also, is Alan Goldberg Dead? I haven't heard from him or heard anything about him in 20 years.==Doyle Brunson
Thank you verry much for taking the time out of your busy life to respond to my inquiry. The prospect that you could answer questions and clarify concepts will hopefully, make my forthcoming copy of SS even more valuable. I've also heard that Caro's guide to SS is very worthwhile because the concepts in SS are so advanced. Would you tell us what your opinion of the supplement is? Have you read any other books on no-limit? What do you think of them? Once again, thank you very much Doyle and I hope you continue to corespond with us in the future.
the nuts refers to the best hand possible, a sure lock to win the pot. In holdem suppose the board reads KsJc8d4sJs at the river. If you have the two remaining Jacks in the hole, or pocket, you have an unbeatable hand (four jacks). If you have two kings in the pocket, you would have 2nd nuts, or the second best possible hand (Kings full of jacks). If you had KJ, you would have the third best possible hand (jacks full of kings). Forth best nut's would be J8 (jacks full of eights), fifth would be J4 (jacks full of fours), sixth would be 88 (eights full of jacks), seventh would be 44 (fours full of jacks).
Next would be the spade flushes. If you have the ACE of spades with any other spade in your hand you would have the NUT flush, of course as you can see with the pair on the board, this flush may be no good. 2nd nut flush would be QsXs. Notice a straight flush is not possible. Also notice a simple straight is not possible either.
The nut's can change as the hand progresses. In this example, pocket kings are the nuts on the flop and turn (three kings), but when the jacks pair on the river then pocket jacks are the final and unbeatable nuts.
What part of the country hill? Never heard anyone in this area on the board.
Another solution is to set a starting amount that you can bring it in for anytime. For instance, you might make a rule that you can always bring the pot in for $10 straight. If several people limp, then you can bring it in for more of course, but a minimum bring in is helpful (and speeds the game up).
Another good rule is round up dollar chips. We don't have any pl games with less than five/10 blinds, but we have a rule that you can always bet $50 straight and after the flop we round up odd $5 chips to $25.
2-3-5 no limit game, stack sizes are around 300. This is a short 5 handed game.
I raise in the cutoff with ATo. My strategy in this shorthanded game is generally to put the decision to my opponents EVERY time I have position preflop.
Anyway, to make it quick, it turned out the board had 2 to a flush and I thought my A high was good on the turn. Now, in the instance where my opponent has a flush draw and a pair draw against me, his odds should be the same as if I flopped a flush draw with two overcards to pair, right?
Anyway, if I have a reasonable certainty that my A high is good on the turn against a flush draw, should I move in on him? that's what I did. He checked the turn (there was some betting on the flop) and I KNEW he had the draw, so I moved in figuring I could win right there but knowing he most likely needed help to win if called.
He called me and it turns out I was right. And my A high held up. Obviously, calling on his part was a terrible play but I'm wondering what you think of my play.
"My strategy in this shorthanded game is generally to put the decision to my opponents EVERY time I have position preflop."
I think you are on to a winning agressive strategy but remember you can't do anything EVERY time a certain situation comes up or your better opponents will chop you down. You can "walk back to Houston with AT as easily as AK". Didn't you put all your money in with no real overlay?
Don't get me wrong, I instictively think the type of heart you show is essential to successful big bet poker and of course my two cents is just that, two cent.
Glad your Ace held up- Nice pot huh? :o)
You were bluffing, essentially. You absolutely did not want a call. If you think he's going to fold, that's fine. If you think he's going to call because he's a fish and he'll always call with a flush draw, then don't make the bet, IMO. Because, what if he has the flush draw AND a small pair? E.g., what if he has Kh9h and the board is Qs9d7h3h? Now you're drawing, and you only have 4 outs. While this may not happen a lot, when it does, you're in a big losing spot. Take the free card, and win in a check-down on the river. It sounds like the pot is big enough since you raised preflop and there was flop action. However, if you can rely upon your read 100%, then your play is fine.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
why take an unnecessary risk for your whole stack. I like Greg's idea of checking it down. This guy was clearly a fish, you definately can wait for better spots.
Actually he was on tilt and I didn't realize it. But, normally an all-in bet like that would have pushed him off anything besides top pair.
If I'm reasonably sure my A high is good, is this a value bet?
I only use the phrase "bet for value" for river-betting. With cards to come, betting with an easily outdrawn best hand in NL is more like a "protection" bet. On the river it's offense, on the turn it's defense. Using one phrase for both situations is confusing to me.
In any case, it sound to me like you made a perfect read and a perfect bet. But maybe I'm just being results oriented.
Weekly home game, $5-10 Blinds, NL, mostly HE & Omaha/8. While the game starts off "friendly" enough, with $100 buy-in, usually about $10k on the table once the game gets going and a few re-buys are made.
My problem - while I consistently win, I feel like I'm usually "playing in the shadows". My big hands don't get paid off, most people won't make big "value bets" into me as they know I hold good cards, and I only steal a few hands a night.
My thoughts on how to change my image, and improve my win rate (and variance)- 1) look for opportunities to re-raise the most aggressive player in the game, hoping to re-steal his steals; 2) lose my fear of taking a big loss. When I get down $500 or more, I usually only rebuy $100-300 at a time. The "big" players will rebuy for as much as anyone else has. I should rebuy $1,000 or enough to "cover" the biggest stack.
Criticism of my ideas and suggestions wanted.
If they're not paying you off, then you should start stealing a bit more, especially semi-bluffing. Until they start to call you down more often, steal more and more. Eventually, you'll be stealing so much that you'll be the big winner, or you will achieve a better balance of getting called on your big hands.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thanks for the comments. Update-
Played again last night - again, grinded out decent win. But I did the two things that I mentioned- After I was in and lost $500, bought $1,000. Got some interesting looks. Helped out when I caught a hand.
Also, was waiting for the opportunity to play back at the aggressive guy. I was in BB, one caller, late position raise $50 by aggressive. All fold back to me. I reraise $100 w 6h-3h. The one caller (fortunately) folded. Aggressive called (we both had about $1,500 left). Flop actually helped me, 6c, 7h, 4h - but I planned on betting $300 no matter. Agg guy folds. It was a rush for me to do this.
It's not like I don't steal any pots (in the Blinds with no raise before flop-steal a nothing flop, or from late position when everybody checks), but I want to learn to do more than just take a pot nobody else wants.
Any other suggestions on what situations to be on the lookout for would be helpful.
Learn to "play rushes".
When you win a pot (especially a big one), temporarily take on an attitude of ferocious frivolity and make sure you're in there stealing the next one...and the next one....and the next one....and the next one....until someone starts to play back at you. Lean on the pot.
Show'em that you're very capable of being greedy. You'd be surprised how many pots they'd surrender to you.
your problem stems from the way you buy in and rebuy it is obvoius you are playing wirh scared money and are in way over your head. you are an easy read. minimum buy in for a 5-10nl is $1500, more realistically you should be able to cover the biggest stacks even if they are $3000 or more. if you cant do this you are playing at a massive disadvantage because yo have to play CARDS and the other players can play YOU.
he's playing with their money. The best way to win is to do as Greg says. There are two people who know....Abdul in limit poker, and Greg for everything else.
Your 6 3 suited hand may have been exhilarating, but this type of play is suicide. You were lucky enough to flop a killer hand, pair and flush draw. Were you willing to cold bluff the hand out if you missed the flop.
I think it's a mistake to play stupid starting hands as a way to create a better image. There are much better ways to change your image.
As far as the buy-in situation goes, I like to play small buyins early. I've come to do this for several reasons. One reason is that the small stacks have a technical advantage. In a big multiway pot where you are all in, you get to see all the cards. Someone who has a big stack may release a hand that would have won due to a side bet.
The main reason, though, is that I play a small stack much differently than I would play a big stack--so much so that I'm almost a completely different player. Since I play with a lot of the same people all the time, it's much more important to make it hard for them to adjust to your play.
What part of the country are you from gcgang? Sounds like your games are similar to ours.
I am new to L.A. and am used to PL,NL games in vegas, AZ. and home games. While playing NL at the hustler and the bike I attempted to straddle in my usual fashion; posting twice the big blind before the deal and reserving the right to act last before the flop. both times i was greated with a mix of disgust, dismay and bewilderment. nobody in either game had ever heard of this practice others told me it was illegal in CA. is this correct? Am I out of line? What is the ruling?
they let you do it right? i mean, i think it's allowed at those casinos, i dont see why not.
it upsets people cause theyre afraid youll be doing a lot of bluffing, it disguises your hand if you do see the flop, it keeps them from seeing the flop for cheap. you already know all this if youre live straddling.
it takes a really skilled player to understand how to use a live straddle to their advantage. it also encourages people to try to bluff you. tricky stuff, usually only fishy gamblers like this play, but i have seen lately where a good player could throw this play in for deception and other reasons.
anyone else have thoughts on live straddles??
When the pot limit HE game gets spread at Casino AZ (which is rare) there seem to be about 2-3 straddles per round, usually by the better, more aggressive players. I have yet to decide whether they are helping or hurting themselves by doing this. I see the upside and the downside of doing it, but I can't convince myself that it would be right for me to do in the game.
I've seen this done by good players in PL games also, and I'm not sure what the advantage is. It would allow the pot to get larger faster, and therefore let the straddler raise more to protect his hand, but if the other players can afford it, so what?
Another advantage might be that you are more likely to shut out the blinds, but if you have a blind hand yourself, so what?
If you can live straddle from any position, then it's called a kill. I'm not sure if that is what eighb was talking about. If so, then all the no limit games in NorCal are played with a kill. In fact, I was surprised when I played NL at the Strat and they had no idea there what a kill was. Maybe this rule is a NorCal phenomenon only.
The skilled player can make great use of a kill and I've seen tables where the professionals are jockeying with each other to get the kill out there first. There is definitely a TREMENDOUS advantage to a good player if he can kill from round back, giving him last action preflop. Letting the blinds act behind you even when you're the button is a way of mitigating the strength of position, even if it's only for one round. By posting a kill, you have best position EVERY round, even preflop, and in NL/PL this extra round of position can be crucial.
I'm sure Tommy Angelo could write about this for 10 pages or so. But believe me, a good player who knows what he's doing and has an aggressive style can dominate a game by killing it every time he has late position. I'm not one of those players.
Unfortunately I was off the night you were in the Stratosphere. I was actually in the room and overheard the conversation you had with Stan (poker room manager). I think a kill is probably more common northern Cal since it comes from draw poker (I have never played draw in a casino, so I don't knnow exactly how the kill works but I think you get to look at a portion of your hand and you can post a kill if you want). As far as adding a kill to our game I don't see doing that at anytime in the future. We have a succesful game that we don't plan to change it.
Randy Refeld Tower poker room
straddle is only right for me if it puts me in controll of the action and makes others react to me and not the other way around. when others are reacting to you and you get last action you are at a huge advantage. it is much different than posting a blind, no one is reacting to a blind. the object of NL is to break yur opponents. calling from seat 1 with 66 will not be as likely to break anyone in an unraised pot as straddling, finding 66 and flopping a set. when you bet out after the flop you are likely to get multiple loose calls and possibly a very aggressive move for the pot right into your set. plus if you straddle and everyone just calls i will often raise before the flop with any two cards and see who in the game has some heart or gamble in them. if someone raises my straddle i might fold or call with a hand like 45s now im in position to break someone and thats what i'm there for.in a word straddling causes "stress" to your opponents, i like stressed opponents.
A few years ago at Hollywood Park, a player wanted to straddle in the 40-80 game. They let him do it, but the straddle was not live, he couldn't raise off of it. It was just a blind raise. Didn't stop him from doing it every time, though.
I'll ask the floorman when I go there today.
Ali at Hollywood Park says that Live straddles are not allowed there, by casino rule, and are not allowed at any other clubs in the LA area that he is aware of.
I haven't played in So. CA, but I know that live straddles in No. CA clubs is legal. I've heard from some players that the live straddle is one of the stupidest bets that a player can make. I tend to agree with this for several reasons.
First of all, why invest in 2 SB when you are likely to end up with a trashy hand like 38o? If there is a raise behind you, then most players tend to protect this live bet by calling with a very bad hand that they can only win with a lucky flop.
And secondly, you are in bad position.
Of course, there are times when you end up with a well, disguised premium hand. Other times, everyone may just fold to you. Nevertheless, I think the cons in this situation outweigh the pros.
I don't play NL or PL, so the situation may be very different there as some of the responses have posted.
Anyone have some thoughts on this? In the long run, is it profitable to post a consisent live straddle?
In a limit game, I think it is a total waste. In a PL or NL game, it is much more valuable, as you can really manipulate the size of the pot this way.
If it is a straddle, placed by the person next after the big blind, I think it is not terribly useful. Some very good and very aggressive players might do well with it, but most winning players will win less if they do it. If it is a kill that can placed from any position, then it is probably the right play from very late position.
Here is my understanding of kills in PL/NL games, which may be wrong. If more than one person wants to do it, then the person in earliest position get to do it, and nobody else. Also, I've heard of rooms where it is not allowed from the button, but is allowed from the UTG seat up to the cutoff seat. Finally, I have heard of games where the earliest position player who elects to do so may kill the pot, but then anyone behind him can choose to rekill the pot (by posting double the kill). The rekill is subject to the same rules as the kill. Also, once the earliest position killer is determined, they cannot withdraw their kill just because someone behind them has rekilled. Of course, all that really matters is that you learn the rules of the room you're playing in.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
5-10 PLO, I've got about 1200 or so and the other player in the hand has like 400.
I'm in the cutoff and bring it in for a raise to 40 w/ AdJdThTd. The button calls as does the SB.
Flop comes AT4 suits unimportant. Check to me and I bet the pot of 130 w/ middle set (AA 95% gets a preflop raise in this game). Button calls and blind folds.
Turn is offsuit J. I can't think this is a good card for me, I check and Button pushes in. Button is a loose player who'd probably push in w/ anything from Aces up to nuts here. I figured since he was betting about 200 into a 360 pot, I had 10 outs for the whole pot and another 3 for a split if he had the straight and I was ahead if he didn't - no way he had A's.
I call and he shows me the straight - no K or pair and I lose.
Not a vastly experienced pot limit player (ok, never played), but I do see one minor flaw in your reasoning. You say you have 10 outs, twoof your outs are in your hand. On the river, you have 2 ace outs, one ten out, 3 four outs, 2 jack outs, for only 8 outs for the whole pot. I also don't follow how you have any straight draw, since you have A-J-10-10 and the board is A-J-10-4. With only 8 outs, you have only 5.5-1 chance to hit assuming all your outs are live. Given that the pot is 560 and you need to call 200, your pot odds are only 2.8-1 if he has the straight.
Of course, I think there is a typo in your post and you have a Q instead of a J. In that case, you have slightly better odds, but I still think you should be folding.
Have you misdescribed your hand or the board? You only had 8 outs for a house and none for a tying straight if the board was AT4J on 4th street and your hand was AJTT.
If you had 10 outs to win and 3 outs to tie then you about had pot odds to call, assuming the other player had a straight. If there was a decent chance he had some other hand, then you had an easy call.
Oh no!! Not again!
2 questions...3-6 no-foldem
1. I hold KdTd in BB. 6 limp, I check. Flop comes Ks8d6d. I bet it out as I know I'll get some callers behind me. Sure enough 4 call. Turn comes 5c. I bet again, 2 call. River comes Jc. I bet it out get one caller, utg, the worst player in the game. I show my hand, and he takes it down with runner runner two pr. J5o. My question is should I have attempted to check raise the flop to get him to fold? And should I have checked the river with my weak kicker? Before you guys answer, I repeatedly punished UTG with better kickers the whole night as he often plays trash like K7o...etc.
2. I hold KK on button. 7 limp, I limp to hide the strength of my hand. Flop comes 665 suits dont matter. BB bets, UTG raises, everyone folds and its up to me. BB and UTG are both very aggressive, and I doubt either one actually has the 6. Thus with my position, I smooth call and wait for the turn to raise as I know a reraise here will do no good. I wait for 4th street, and it comes a 8. BB checks, UTG bets, I ask for time and raise. BB folds, and UTG calls. river comes a J. He checks, I bet, he raises. Do i call 6 more for a large pot? Do u think he has a better hand? Results posted later.
blinds are 1,2,4. i open raise on the button for 25$ with AK hearts. is 25$ to big of a raise for 7$ worth of blinds??. the small blind re-raised 325$. i think for a bit and fold. im new to this game and dont know any of the players. once i folded he showed my queens. anyone have any thoughts of my raise and my fold? thx in advance.
eom=end of message
I don't like over-raising the pot. In my experience, a pot-sized raise will win the blinds almost as often as an oversized raise, but at a lower risk. If you expect a call and are just building a pot, then we're talking about a different situation.
The reraise by QQ is horrible. He's risking $325 to win $32, and he's only going to get played with if you have AA or KK, in which case he's hurting.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I see what you mean by the oversize button raise on the preflop action. Would you normally just call the four and then raise eleven for a total risk of 15 dollars? (no matter what raising hand you hold?)I guess I didn't mind gunners raise as it was only 10 dollars more and since he was in blind steal position maybe an agressive opponent might decide to defend with a lessor hand (KQ or Axs, etc.)
Given equal stack sizes and an unknown opponent, and say you did raise 15 on the button with your AK, what is the most re-raise you would stand pre-flop with said holding? TIA
There is no specific number. It depends upon how deep we are, and who the raiser is. If it was a proportional raise (pot-sized or less), I probably at least call, sometimes raise again, almost never fold. If it's an oversized raise, it really depends upon the person.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Pot limit game. 5-10 blinds. I'm UTG with AcKc. I raise to $40. A world class player (WCP) makes it $140 in the 7th position. Two callers, including the big blind. Flop is 9c 6c 2c. Perfect flop for me. Knowing the WCP will bet, I check. Sure enough he bets $500. Both other players fold.
He has about $700 left. I can cover it. Should I raise now or wait for the turn to get it all in? Will he bet the turn if I check? What is my best play?
I'll post what I did and the results later.
This is a huge "it depends". At this point you would think he has an overpair, and maybe 999 a small fraction of the time. He could also have AK nothing, and occasionally worse.
If he has nothing, he's always going to fold to a reraise now. If he has an overpair, he will sometimes fold, depending upon him and his thoughts about you. If he has 999, he'll probably always call (he should).
So, the real questions are how often will he call with an overpair if you raise now, and how often will he bet again with any of his hands if you just call now?
Estimate these answers, and then you'll know what to do. Against an unknown opponent (pretending it's my first hand at the table), I will probably raise now, as he might call with hands like QQ and JJ that include a club.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
the other day i am at foxwoods sittin at a 40-80 holdem table, i was pullin hands out of my ass all nightand was up like 600, i had the nuts flop every other hand, one hand i was dealt two blacks in the hole, 2 and 7, i raised and reraisde untill it was just me and some guy named willy small kock, this guy was a cup mean, the flop came white, black , black, i was one from the flusher and i knew he had a straight,teh 4th mean,..black.. i bet and he went "1...2..all in" and i called the nice, then came the river touch, black, i get the flush i flop my nuts on the table and took it down, this guy was real straight callin my nuts with a straight draw i couldnt beleive how mean he was. i came out up like 1..2..grand
So are you going to post the punch line in the follow up?
This play is covered in HPFAP21, in fact I think you have quoted directly from the book without permission.
This play is covered in HPFAP21, in fact I think you have quoted directly from the book without permission.
Not a chance; the book is in english.
This goes in my top ten responses to idiot posts!
(actually my list is only at two right now, and haven't ranked them)
i feel dumber now that i have read that post. someone please kill this person. it will benefit the world.
he will keep posting.
Every popular newsgroup on usenet has one of these. They feed on the responses you post to their messages. If you don't feed them, they get hungry and go to find another forum to bother.
Read here for more information on trolls
If you are using an internet translation program then get a new one or find someone who speaks your language to translate for you. These mean nut cup stories are getting old.
I was playing in a 2-3-5 NL home game last night. Several hands came up against the same player, and I'm just going to throw my thinking out there and see what y'all have to say about.
Across the table from me was a good (better than I), really agressive player. Call him Loo. Multiple times, I'd had a good but not great hand (top pair medium kicker, and such) and he'd driven me off of them with a big raise. I'd also seen him get caught making a similar move on another player, so I know that he raises big when he senses weakness, and doesn't need cards to do it.
With all that in mind, I get ATs two off the button. Folded to me, and I raise to 20, thinking I'll take the $10 in blinds. Loo calls on the button, BB calls.
Flop comes 7 high, with one of my suit. Checked to me, I bet around 30. Loo thinks for a while, and raises another 50. I have maybe 400, he covers me.
At this point, I don't put him on a hand at all. I think he (correctly, more or less) put me on a steal, and is restealing. So I think about it, and just call. This both looks strong, and doesn't put too much money at risk. Turn is a T. (Woo!) I check intending to check-raise-take-down-the-pot, and he checks behind me. River puts some ridiculous straight on the board, but there's no chance he has that. I bet the pot, he thinks and thinks and calls. My AT takes it.
So I didn't have much of a hand there. I didn't think he had much of one either. Given that he called, he had *something*, which means that I sucked out on him. On the other hand, more of the money went in after I was ahead than before.
A bit later, I'm now ahead of him, with my 600 or so to his 400. I raise from late position with QQ, $20 to go. Loo calls from a blind. Flop is A73 rainbow. He checks, I bet $40. He thinks (he thinks a lot, it turns out) and flat calls. This makes me suspicious. With an A, he bets out or check-raises. There's no draw that he could have that he'd chase there. And he certainly isn't stealing...
Turn is a 4, a blank in this situations, I think. He checks, I check behind him. River is a Q. (Rah!)
He bets out $75. I am now totally sure I am ahead, and think, count chips, generally look lost, and eventually raise all in. He thinks and thinks, stares at me while I try to look nervous, and eventually calls with A7 for $250 more.
As a side note, as I'm about to turn my hand over, another player at the table says, "QQ. Totally obvious." This impressed me.
Both times, I sucked out. In the case of QQ, I sucked out pretty badly. Both times, though, he called with pretty marginal hands, and both times, lots more money went in *after* I was ahead. If I don't hit the Q, I lose the $60 I put into the pot. But instead I won several hundred.
So is this the way that NL is supposed to work? My feeling is that a basic feature of good players is that they bluff lots at small pots, steal when they can, but manage to have the best hand when lots of money goes into the pot.
The trick seems to be to balance the agression needed to do well overall with the hand reading skills and card quality needed to take down the large pots. In some games, the large pots are so big that all you have to do is wait for cards, but that doesn't seem to be the case in many of the NL games I play.
Ok, so I've babbled on long enough. Is my thinking good on this stuff?
Oh yeah. Nate, where the heck were you last night? I wanted that bounty!
I couldn't make it. lucky for you! :)
2-3-5 home game? When and where and I want to play too! Man, sounds like fun. I got some Humboldt County, uh, well, you know.
As to NL poker, the phrase "suck out" has a different meaning there than in limit, at least to me. It means, "putting long money in with the worst of it and coming out with the best of it."
By that definition, the QQ hand was definitely not a suck out, and the first hand was a marginal one. Do you see what I'm getting at?
If I give a free card to a two-outter and he hits, I don't feel like I got sucked out on. ("Sucked out on" --- is that English?)
But if we put in a bunch of chips and THEN he hits, that's a bonafide suckout.
WhatEVER. I'll now go stare at my email box hoping to find an invite.
Tommy, do you think we hate money or something? Why would we want to ruin a perfectly good line-up (I'm up quite a bit on "Loo") by inviting a seasoned professional who spars with Ray Zee? Come on.
I already told you why. To use up the dusty beers in my fridge. :-)
Well, I don't drink, so you'll have to come up something more attractive than that!
How about this. I smoke anything that burns and I've got extra. :-)
But why am I sucking up to you? I just got an e-vite from the man hisself!
I'll make you a deal, I won't warn them about how you slap Ray Zee and Bobby Hoff around the NL table on a regular basis, if you'll agree to give me an honest evaluation of my play after the game is over.
Now hold on just a second here!!! Did I EVER say anything about "slapping them around?" No way! I run from those guys!
I posted one hand here between me and Bobby in which he put me down to the green. Since then we've sparred at a few pots, but no real money has been exchanged. As to Ray Zee, we have yet to play a pot, and it's possible we never will. Some guys I just don't play against, and he's one of them.
I'm flattered by your evaluation request. Please know that I talk a better game than I play, that's for sure. The only reason I manage to scrape by is because I'm very good at the non-playing aspects: game selection, being rested, not playing too long, quitting with chips when stuck, leaving town or dropping down in limit when everything goes to crap, etc.
Basically, I'm tiltless. That's my game. In that state, strings of wins just materialize. It's dodging the disasters that makes all the difference.
Lets kick the game up to 5-5-10 and I'll gamboolze it up with you guys :)
So I didn't have much of a hand there. I didn't think he had much of one either. Given that he called, he had *something*, which means that I sucked out on him. On the other hand, more of the money went in after I was ahead than before.
I think he has a pair here. He correctly puts you on overcards. It's not really a suck out, a lot of NL hold 'em boils down to two players: a pair against a draw.
He bets out $75. I am now totally sure I am ahead, and think, count chips, generally look lost, and eventually raise all in. He thinks and thinks, stares at me while I try to look nervous, and eventually calls with A7 for $250 more.
As a side note, as I'm about to turn my hand over, another player at the table says, "QQ. Totally obvious." This impressed me.
I my opinion, this type of acting will cost you a lot of money in the long run. If you take an extra 1 second to make the move, fine. But the dramatic stuff, or its absence, will have the good players reading you like a book.
Just a couple comments:
I LOVE your bet on the river with a four straight showing. I always think that's a great play. He's just as afraid of it as you are. However, if he raises, you HAVE to dump your hand, even if you only raises you 1/3 of the pot. There's very little chance he DOESN'T have the hand when he's raising you on the river in the face of a four straight (or four flush for that matter).
I may not have bet the full $200 (or so) pot for that very reason. I might have bet $100 which in fact would probably look more scary to him. You also don't want to expose yourself too deeply if he's got the straight. With a $100 bet, you make a nice pot if he pays you off with less and it's less painful to back off if he moves in on you.
He played this hand wrong on every step. Sure he got a lucky flop but he even played that wrong. You, on the other hand, played it right all the way. You raised preflop, you bet into the flop when it was checked to you. Most importantly, you backed off when he smooth-called you in the face of an A on the flop. He obviously HAS an A. His weak-ass attempt at a slowplay cost him money, pure and simple.
nice play. Sounds like you did well.
When I was learning HE, I found Caro's "12Days to HE Excellence" to be very helpful. Each "Day" you were to read a "lesson", and then go out with one specific mission.
I found this a very effective way to learn/get better. By focusing on one mission, you became more aware of the entire game. Also, once you learned one day's mission, it tended to become a permanent part of your arsenal.
I would be interested in knowing if the more experienced players would offer similar advice unique to PL/NL for those of us relatively new to PL/NL.
For example, in the chapter on PL in Ciaffone's "Omaha HoldEm Poker" on p.72, he talks about bet size in relation to the type of flop that falls, saying you should make a big bet when the board cannot have made a lock, and betting a smaller amount (whether you're stealing or not) into a 3 flush or pair flop, where you either have it or not. That could be a "mission", forcing you to pay specific attention to the texture of a flop, and learning the effects of a particular betting pattern.
Other "tactics" and how to identify the appropriate opportunity to use them that are unique to PL/NL are the type of "missions" that may improve one's game.
How 'bout it, Greg, or other NL experts? Can you think of any learning missions we could use?
I'm not an expert, but I can tell you that by far the most important thing you can do to improve your NL/PL game is to learn all you can about position.
Your first mission should be to watch the good players very closely in terms of how they play their position. Notice what they show down (which will be rare) from up front versus from behind.
Count how many times they win the pot when they have position versus when they don't.
Count how many times they win the pot without a showdown vs a showdown and the positions they were in.
There's more I'm sure. Basically, just observe everything the good players do in terms of position. That's what I do and I know for a fact I'm a much better no limit player now than I was six months ago. However, I have only just begun to understand position in NL play.
I really really really did not want to show my hand. Bobby Hoff said I had to. What do you think?
On a midnight ramble to the $5-5-10, $20-to-go NL game, I decided in the car to experiment with Ray Zee's underbetting style. The game was soon short-handed, and held together for hours.
Many times I bet $40 to $80 on the flop, from last seat, into pots ranging from $100-$300. Several times my right-hand-opponent (RHO)(not Bobby) check-raised me and I folded. Two times I played back and he folded.
The stage was set for some unusual betting, because of the persistent underbetting. Then this hand came up.
I had 88, both red. I opened for $60 (standard) and RHO called from the BB. The flop came Q-J-x, two spades. He checked and I bet $40. He fumbled some, and raised $400. I saw it coming and called instantly using $100 chips. (We both had about 4K on the table.)
Turn came a small spade. He checked and I checked.
River came another small spade, putting a four flush on board. RHO bet out $600. I thought for a while and called. He said, "I missed." I said, "How bad?" He said, "Real bad," and mucked his hand.
Bobby said he wanted to see the winning hand. Understand that Bobby and I get along great and there's mutual respect, but I thought he was WAY wrong this time, and said so. "Why should RHO get free info on me when I do not get to see what he was betting with? If HE wants to see my hand, all he had to do is turn his over. Then it's a fair exchange of information."
Bobby said the winning hand must be shown if requested by one of the players, but the losing player cannot ask to see it. I agreed with that last part. I suggested we call the floorman and Bobby got all huffy (Hoffy? :-))
I deferred immediately because Bobby is older and wiser, and turned over my pocket eights. The floorman came over to see what the fuss was and we said never mind.
We were at short-handed war here, in a situation that was bound to come up repeatedly given my constant underbetting, and I really really really did not want to show my hand. Besides that, I truly don't think I should have to, just on a feeling of what is right and wrong about information at the table.
Comments on the rule? Comments on the play? Comments on the underbetting?
The rule is that a called hand, which would include your winning hand, must be shown if requested. At Bellagio, this includes to the losing player after he has mucked, as I found out while playing there with a real jerk. All I can say about the play is good read, good call.
I thought it was a 10/10/20 $40 to go game. Has it decreased in blinds?
You're right. The blinds are still 10-10-20, 40 to go. I must have been typing while having flashbacks to the Friday game at AJ's.
No need to be modest amigo: Tommy's got a great article on this rule coming out next month.
Bobby Hoff is correct in that the RULE allows him to see the hand. What is grossly incorrect is that the rule exists. This rule is never invoked except to gain extra information or to annoy, even though it's real intention is to help protect against collusion (which it does not).
Tommy, I still think the best reason for eliminating this rule is that it only serves to get players mad. Nothing good comes of it and no purpose is served, so it should be eliminated. And, there's absolutely no reason why an individual casino couldn't take the first step, because THERE IS NO RISK TO THE CASINO in eliminating this rule.
Thanks for the support, but this situation was significantly different than the typical situation in which the "I want to see that hand rule" is abused. First, the game was no-limit, where everything is amplified, and I was (about to be) forced to reveal critical information.
Second and more important, in a limit setting, if the first player bets, and the second one calls, and then the first player mucks, there is no winning hand face up on the table and still the pot is being awarded. For someone to want to see the WINNING hand, well, I have no logical argument against it, only an emotional one.
In the usual abuse of I-want-to-see-that-hand, the winning hand is face up, and it is LOSING hands that are forced to be shown. Big difference.
True, it seems more reasonable to ask to see the winning hand than a losing one. Nevertheless, what value is added to the game by allowing it? You made a killer call, the guy burned his cards, so it's yours. Why should you be punished for it? Your opponent obviously doesn't want to show. Bobby Hoff in your position wouldn't want to show. So if nobody wants to show and showing has no bearing on the outcome of the hand, why not just get rid of the requirement?
In the $25-$25 pot limit HE game at the WSOP last year. It was a pretty strange hand that occured just after I sat down. It was th first pot I played.
A young, rich kid limped UTG and the tough regular to his left raised it to $150. A couple more unknown guys in middle position cold call the raise, so I also call from one off the button with AsKs. Bobby calls on the button directly to my left. The big blind also comes along, and we have the makings of a monster pot.
Now the young kid under the gun looks around, springs to life and reraises it to an even grand. The original raiser folds as do the other two middle positionguys. After the original raiser folded and as the other two guys were deciding, I was icing down the kid. I am certain he DOES NOT want a call, so he can't have Aces or Kings. The only guy he should fear if he has KK is the original raiser. He shouldn't fear anyone if he has AA, but fear he does.
I decide to put him to the test and take advantage of all that dead money. I move in for the rest of my chips, making it about $4000 total. I know Bobby and the BB (who have me covered easily) ain't calling.
They fold as planned and now the kid looks like he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I think he must have read about the old limp-reraise power move and can't believe someone now moved in on him. Amazingly, he folds!
As I am raking in nearly 2 grand profit uncontested, Bobby starts grumbling about "calling the floor for an inquiry."
I say "Bobby, if you had my cards, you would have done the same thing. As to what that guy had, I am as baffled as you are."
umm, i have a problem, i like to play a lot of NO LIMIT UGGGGHHHHHHH BOUT IT BOUT IT, and when I nutty, i am afraid to show offf my nuts especially to those female players who cant ever flop the nuts, cause they dont got em. I mean for example, I was holdin 2 whites in 4th position, and the flop came white, black, black. Full house nutty right off the nuts. I mean talk about an unimagineable flop mean! and then, there was afemal flopper at my right, so I couldnt expose the nuts when It was time to show us ya nuts.....what can I do??
whan did the morons start to post????
what you have to do ghetto mean here is show the nuts to everyone, but only if they are whites, you basically have to just pull em out and flop them for everyone to see. if you flop a full boat you have to be proud of your huge nuts and raise them and re raise them, even for the broads to see, show them the nutties.
i dissagree with leon, in this situation you first need to evaluate your color, if you are playin high low split nut, and you get the double nuts, and you are a non white you may need to change your color in order to flop the nuts for everyone to see
In the lengthy post about god knows what and all that incoherent babble i have come to the conclusion that you are a piece of shit and for what every purpose the post was for(humor, help, anecdotal etc) it obviously did not succeed to meet any expectation of a rational, or intelligent idea that people on this board expect and demand.
People like you not only should not be able to post, but youre existence is irrelevant also
Wow, I would hate to crack that guys' Aces with 2-7 off. He may come across the table and bite me or something.
Small PL game (1-2 blinds). Buy-ins are around $100. I currently have about $250 in front of me.
Game is 5 handed and everyone limps in before the flop. I have 8h5h and check in the BB.
Flop comes 6h7s10h. It gives me an open ended straight draw. I check, UTG raises the pot for $20. One folds, cutoff colds calls $20. Button and SB fold. I check-raise the pot for $50. Both UTG and button calls. Pot now stands are $160 or so.
Question: Good check-raise semi-bluff?
Turn comes a Jclubs. I bet out the pot for $160.
Basically, I put both UTG and Cutoff on a draw and if they had top pair they would be forced to fold given I was in BB and had anything.
Results to come later.
Bad play. Raising with the flush draw is a move that is WAY over-used in NL/PL games. It's usually pretty obvious to spot. You had a straight draw too but your flush draw gave it away.
In addition, you made the HORRENDOUS mistake of making this move from out of position. This move only has a chance to work if you have position. Without position, you are guessing big-time on the turn, which is what happened here with you.
I personally have come to despise the raise-with-a-flush-draw move. It's a terrible, losing play and all good players will read you for it easily and punish you mightily. I think it's one of the weakest beginner moves in NL that there is.
Just to be fair, I've used it a few times myself. I have drawn out with the flush once, and lost several times. I've NEVER had anyone fold so much as top pair-weak kicker with this move.
I am starting to play PLO this coming week. I have ordered a few books on the subject and have been reading in this forum. Furthermore, I have played Limit Omaha.
When I play Omaha I generally play very tight (possibly too tight). I am hoping this will be the right approach in the pot limit style. I like all four cards to be related to one another pre-flop. Post-Flop i either have the nuts and am trying to win it right there or, I have a draw to the nuts and, am trying to get there as cheap as possible. I have found that when I try to protect my hand it gets real expensive. Will the Pot Limit element help or hinder with this? Furthermore, if one flops the nuts with no redraws, is it worth trying to protect? Lastly, do I need more than 20 outs to continue with most draws in this game?
If I am off base or asking the wrong questions please let me know. Any input that you have would certainly be appreciated.
$45 buy in tourney; early stages. People are limping in a lot. Blinds are 25-50; everybody's stack is about 1000. I am on the button. Two people limp in front of me; I look down and see AQo. I can't think of a flop I will really like with this deep money, so I fold.
I think a raise of $200-300 is called for here. AQo is a decent starting hand and you would like to limit the field and/or get the limpers to fold and steal the pot. And if you do get a couple of callers, they will probably bail on the flop if you bet out. Of course this advice would be wrong if many people were seeing the flop regardless of pre-flop raises. Then I would just call.
I also understand you are out of position but that makes it easier to steal on the flop. Usually if it is short handed the first person to bet the flop takes it down. Also I can only think of six hands better than AQo (AA KK QQ AKs AKo and AQs). My opinion is, folding here is wrong. But, I'll let others elaborate.
I was not involved in this particular hand.
Small Blind and Big Blind are both new to the game (BB is in hand #1, and SB is in hand #2). They both moved from the 150/300 (or was it 300/600 - I don't know for sure) Omaha game which became short. Everyone folds to the button - who is an aggressive player (will only stop aggression when raised or bet into), maybe slightly loose (played A6o in cutoff with 4 limpers, not that bad for loose players, but still fairly loose). The button raises. The SB makes it 3 bets. The BB calls. The button caps it. SB & BB both call.
The flop comes 743 - all diamonds.
SB checks, BB checks, button bets, SB calls, BB raises, button 3 bets....SB now folds, BB 4 bets, button calls.
the turn is a Kc.
BB bets, button calls.
river is a 8s
BB bets, button calls.
BB turns over KdKs
I found the flat call preflop somewhat interesting. Is it best to four bet it here (Bellagio - where 5 bets is cap, I believe), or just to smooth call and then checkraise on the flop if an A does not hit?
I'm going to come down on the wishy-washy side here.
It's important to mix up your play, but it's also important to balance your play. I would tend to reraise here, since there are very few hands that I would play where I didn't think I was best. I like to reraise from the BB short handed, so I need to do it with my top hands to provide cover for the hands where I don't have something quite as good.
Having said that, if the player will call with other hands, or only would raise with AA, KK or QQ or some such set, then calling for deception is probably a good idea.
It's probably fine either way. This is one of those decisions that is not likely to make or lose much money either way.
The 4-bet on the flop is gutsy, btw. Must've had a good read on the player to have so little fear of the flush.
Actually i came from a 30-60 game . I know the other player from that limit. He would 3 or 4 bet almost every Ace on the button and i almost allways let him do the action preflop in this situations. I also held the Kd in that hand what helped me a little bit and my bet on the river was because he would call even with as little as a pair deuces. However it,s allways somewhat risky but i have good experience playing this way ..even i'm not fam. with that limit... but he isn't also! at the smaler limit he would sometimes even raise at the river as a pure bluff
I would just like to know how are the very big game in vegas ' casinoz . I mean 400-800 or 1000-2000 . Is there any fishes there who think they could make a bluff every hands because they are drinking a 8th beer and wear a cowboy hat on the head ?Is there ring game of that ? 10 players at the table ?
I am from zee province of Nova Scotia, eh?, and I Like to go to Laz Vagus and play high limit, no? I wear my 10 gallon stetson hat, and after having put ze bizkit in se basket on ze pond so many times, I like to play a leetle 40000-80000 wit' ze great Doyle et al. Mee zee feeshy, parley vous? No no. Maybe in ze holdum, but watch out for me in ze dealer's choice. I am as graceful as Guy Lafleur and I sting like Gordie Howe in ze chowaha round. Dee 8nd beer, seer? It takes a case of Molson Golden for ze blood to flow. By zee way, if you touch my Golden or my cowboy hat, I will beat you to dath with my Sherwood PMP 9950, it eez stiff flex, and zee Gretzky model, eh? Go Habs!!!
Don't mind him JP, he's playing with you...
I'm sure he's single and lonely...
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
what the hell does F-CC have to do with your snoring problem?
I dono , I just wanted to have a rational answer to initila question ...but , anyway...
I posted some questions on the "General" board about Archie Karras. If anyone knows some gossip about him, please post it there.
WELL I KNOW THAT HE PLAYD FOOTBALL AND THEN ADOPTED A MIDGIT NAMED GARY COLEMAN, I THINK MAYBE HE HAD SOME HOMOSEXES OR TAX FRAUD IN HIS PAST BUT OTHERWEISE I DONT KNOW ANY DIRT ON HIM
met tommy angelo and mat over the week-end. good guys all. They convinced me to try the 2-3-5 no limit game at artichoke's on Sunday night. I am a fish. anyways, here are two A-K hands that I'd like comments on.
1. I'm in the cut-off with A-K. agressive player opens for 25, fold to me, I raise 25, everyone else folds. there is is $110 in the pot. flop comes A-8-3 all clubs. I do not have a club. Agressive player checks to me. I think for a minute and bet $200. agressive player calls. Turn is an offsuit rag. we both check. river is an 8. we both check and agressive player turns over K-4 of clubs for the nut flush. comments?
2. I'm in the big blind with again with A-K. everyone folds to the small blind (SB), so far a passive player, who bets $20. I raise $20 and he calls. the flop comes J-rag-rag. SB checks and I check. the turn is a K. Now Sb bets $60. I call. the river is another rag. SB bets $100 and I call. SB turns over K-J. I hated calling both bets on the turn and river. especially the river since I'm pretty sure he would not bet into me if he couldn't beat AA or AK, but what do I know?
all comments appreciated.
Hey Boris. I almost went to the game last night, maybe next time!
Hand 1: Nothing you can do here except bet less on the flop. This is one of those hands where you are either facing a draw or a made hand, no two ways about it. So bet the pot. If you are facing a made hand, you're going to get raised (normally). So bet about 80-100 because if you overbet the pot like that with 200, you should either have a monster hand (hoping for a second-best monster to come with you) or be VERY confident that you can push off a made hand with a big bet. Obviously, you had no chance of scaring off the nuts.
If you bet $100, the same thing would probably have happened, but you would have saved $100. He wanted to trap you on the turn but you checked and the board paired on the river scaring him into checking. With a $100 bet you save $100. With $100 bet, you can get away from it if he goes all-in on you right away. What you DON'T want to do in NL is to put so much money into a small pot to protect your strong hand that you get trapped for the rest when you run into the nuts.
Hand 2: Call or raise the turn, fold on the river. This person is betting into you from out of position after you called a turn bet when the scare card arrived. They can beat your hand.
Overall, I think even the best of players would have lost only about $200 less than you did on these hands. I think an expert would have bet less on the first hand but likely would have raised a bit on the turn with the second hand. However, I'm no expert. Yet. :)
I think you did fine on the second hand. There are TONS of hands he could have bet that way that you could beat.
The first hand, well, I think your $200 bet was a scared bet. Let's ignore his actual hand for a moment.
It's okay to let a guy draw at the flush for a pot-sized bet, or even less, IF you can avoid paying off, because then his implied odds are ZERO. And with a three-flush already on board, it's easier to not pay off, so your overbet in this spot didn't even serve the typical fear-reducing purpose of "I hope he folds instead of hitting some hand on the turn that I'm afraid I won't be able to read."
Let's say you had bet $100. If he calls with a draw, he is getting 2-1 pot odds. Typically when we go for draws even though the current money is not right, we hope or expect to gain some chips later in the hand after we hit. But if he hits on the turn and we don't pay, his retroactive odds were insufficient. We win theoretical money.
Because he called such a big bet on the flop, you were able to play great from there and check it down. Super play. The "usual" scenario is a pot-sized (or smaller)bet on the flop, and then if it looks like you're still good on the turn, another pot-sized bet (or more) gives him woeful drawing odds with one card to go. Many of the fine players around here don't panic on the flop with position. Controlling the pot size early gives you more options later in the hand.
well maybe I'll see you there next week natedogg. I'm not sure though. its hard to forsake playing limit, where I feel confident in my play, to play no-limit where I'm not nearly as sure of myself.
couple things I need to work on is taking more time to decide how much to bet. I generally make a quick decision when playing limit about whether to fold, call or raise. a couple times I would pick up a stack and start my betting motion without a decision about how much to bet. I made two mistakes that were plainly obvious moments later and that I could have avoided had I taken a minute to think. In one case I did not bet enough so I failed to get full value for my hand and in another case (against tommy in fact) I raised when I should have just called.
I also had a somewhat frustrating night in that I was able to steal the blinds alot and also steal many small pots. but three times I came out on the losing end of a big pot and twice, when I had a very strong hand there was no one home to pay me off despite my attempts at a trap. such is poker. I also limped in one time with about six other people and flopped a monster draw. unfortunately this one kid goes all in (again) and I had to muck.
Good playing with you last night! You had much tougher hands to play than I did. I'm no no-limit player, but I definitely like the fact that your flop bet prevented a river bet from a guy with a great hand. Sure you coulda saved a few $$ up front, but you will the next time and you surely saved many on the back end of that hand. So good for you!
I also liked that you called but did not raise on the turn in the second hand. He only calls your raise if you're beat. He knows you would've bet AA, KK, QQ, KJ, or AJ on the flop. You may have slow-played JJ, but then he achieves the same amount from you if you raise then check the river. So where's the upside to raising? Nice decision.
I think I recall both the hands you cited. I was seated to your immediate left.
1. When the aggresive guy called the flop bet, you knew you were beat. With AK, consider raising maybe $75-80 BTF to isolate and see if he will lay down without a flop.
2. The passive guy was to your immediate right. I had played him before. In fact, I made a mental note to drop anytime he took the lead and I was holding a marginal hand. He got lucky on the flop hitting the jack. But like the first example, raise more and maybe you can win without a flop.
In both cases, you have position on your opponents with AK and a better starting hand.
The aggresive guy seemed to do pretty well. However, he also caught a lot of breaks. I remember once he had AK against KK and flopped an ace. He seemed to hit with AK an inordinate amount of times. If he plays next Sunday, I'm curious to see how he does.
I left at 1030PM with about a $100 profit. My head cold was starting to hurt. Else, I would have continued on. Maybe I'll see you next Sunday.
One other thing, if you play a lot of limit, it might be good to start with the tourney. The one thing I benefit from is it allows me to get in a no-limit frame of mind before the side game. The payout is awful, so you are likely to lose $49 or $89. But, the side game does seem easier after playing the tourney.
Hi TR, I remember who you are. hope to see you again.
couple comments, the game was so passive that my AK raises were generally for value in the hopes that someone would call. unfortunately I ran into a couple freight trains on the flop. maybe I should be happy with picking up the blinds and a bet.
Unless something interferes, I will be at AJ Sunday night.
Your right, the game was reletively tame. You did catch a couple of bad breaks on your two AK hands. cases. There is always a next time.
Coming to Vegas in early April. Is the only NL game in town at the Stratosphere? If so, what are the blinds and the typical chip counts of the players.
This is my first trip up there and Daddy Warbucks is fitting the bill. I'll have a couple grand to just blow to you guys. Where should I spread the wealth?
If the WSOP has started, try Binions. The will have pl for sure from 2-5 up to 25-50 and higher. Probably no limit, too. I also heard that the Las Vegas Club is looking to get a smaller big bet game going.
But that is it as far as I know. Las Vegas is not no limit or pot limit territory.
Hell, its barely poker territory outside of the Bellagio.
I also heard that the Las Vegas Club is looking to get a smaller big bet game going.
I didn't know the Las Vegas Club had any poker.
Razzo on rgp says they recently opened a small room and are in full promotion mode. Never been there myself.
The blinds are $1 and $2. I think you will have a good time there. Win or lose,no-limit is a lot of fun. The average chip count,whenever I have played there, is arond $200,some with more,some with less. Nothing like the small blind no-limit games of a couple of years ago at Texas Station (the money was very,very,deep in that game).
As far as small blind no-limit in Las Vegas.In my six years living in Las Vegas, Dispite what some might tell you, I have had no trouble finding a game. Even before the Strat started spreading it. As Mason likes to say,these games often burn themselves out after awhile. It has been my experience though,that there is alwys a new place that starts spreading it after it has died out somewhere else.
There are also places that sometimes will spread it unadvertised. The Santa Fe (before they closed their cardroom) used to spread it on graveyard a lot,and that was a really nice game. No one ever heard of it,because you had to be in the room really to even know about it. I also have played in a few rooms where some people have asked for a vote and everyone voted to play no-limit. When this happens,the game is almost always good,as you seem to have a lot of gamblers trying to get even for the night.
If you decide to play at the Strat,be sure to put a post up telling when you will be playing, for it's always nice to meet 2+2ers in person.
NL at the Stratosphere (Stupak's Shaft) is great. The stack sizes will be anywhere from $50-500. The buy in is $50. Blinds are 1-2. Great game and also a safe game if you are learning N/L. Often contains 2 or more tourists/very poor players. It also has some really good players. The N/L tourney there is good too. There is a older heavy set woman there that wears glasses. She pretends to know nothing about poker, yet she plays in the tourney every time they have it. She is very very funny to watch. She really isn't that good of a player. She loves to act weak when strong...and ask 'How much can I bet?' You will know her when you see her. You also get a neat little trophy to take home with you if you win it. $33.00 buy in. Have a great time!
If you are on a budget, you might want to check out the top ten eating and gambling values at:
My nuts, when I flop my white nuts on the table, are seriously kind of salty. I always have to get some fish to lick 'em a little and see how they are. I think my nuts are big and beautiful and when played right, will vibrate a chord deep inside even the most aggressive maniac's little nervecenter. I like my nuts. Maybe someday, you'll get to lick them too.
Well, this is my first post to 2+2. I feel initiated now, along with the other morons besides myself. Future posts will be directed to serious matters.
I think Doyle is a great player. You gotta have nerve to play for big money. You have to be able to go all in with any two cards. I play no limit hold 'em with a small ante (big and small blinds.) Bluffing is by far the most important aspect of no limit. You have to know when to bluff, and how big. You have to be able to bluff rags against a King-high flush. Just think of the psychological value of such a hand. Because that, my friends, is a hand you want him to see for free. You throw those down without a word and rake the pot.
No Limit you're playing people. Betting isn't as important (such as saving an additional bet) as in limit. No limit is such a psychological game. The better you can read and know your opponents the better you do. Whereas in limit you just have to make the right plays. Even if you get burnt on a hand, you call a raise on the river to see how your two pair hold up, you're only getting burnt on one bet (assuming the bet and every other play up to that point was correct.)
In no limit deception is key. Always keep them guessing. Look stressed when you have the absolute nuts. Don't just go all in. Sit and outwardly wrestle with the decision. Act just as strong on a bluff as a good hand. Start pulling reverse reactions (good hand = meek, bad hand = strong) then reverse it. Then start doing certain facial expressions in the top half of the hour and others in the lower.
And NEVER go on tilt EVER. You can be down $5k out of $7k and still don't give an inch, play like you've been winning all night. If the game gets to you, then no limit might not be your game. I read a lot of passages on how reading people and hands is an art and a science and how hard it is to put into words, and that's because it's just something that takes innate talent. You either wonder what he has, or you damn near know what he has, anything in between is guessing. And for people like Mason Malmuth to take shots at No Limit, when it is based on one of the most difficult skills in the game, is absurd. I say play no limit. Don't grind it out. No limit is exciting and very very satisfying when played well.
You misconstrue my comments. I have always said that no limit was a game of great skill. It's just that I thnk that limit has even more skill.
I've seen this debate over which game has more skill in a couple of places. It's amusing, no? Limit and No Limit both require great skill to master. You can't quantify the skills of either, really. It's like asking which takes more skill, trumpet or clarinet. You need enormous skill to be a virtuouso at either.
Which takes more skill, writing a great poem or a great short story? cooking a gourmet meal or knitting a scarf? balancing on one foot or dancing the polka......
.. for your perspective. I agree as well that this ongoing "debate" could use a nice long rest.
Ive spent some time trying to learn and to play both big bet and limit well. they are both very hard, best bet is to look for a soft game in either direction. i think they are about equal in skill, but the best skill is to find the game that has unskillfull players whether its big bet or limit. thats my skll.
This may be a dumb question, but how come you see many top players who win no-limit tournaments also place in limit tournaments, yet many limit regulars don't fare very well in NL play?
I tend to agree with Colonel. While the debate itself isn't really my objective here, it's to turn people on to no limit because it seems like no limit is damn near dead on this forum. No limit is one of the most exciting games you can ever play. Some people can't play it all the time because of the staggering variance it usually has, but it's definitely a rush.
But if we are to look at the best players in the country, would we be looking at the professors on this forum? Or some of the people that consistently place in the no limit tournaments? Well, it just depends on who you look up to. The Sklansky-Rosenbloom Match should be proof enough that they are two different games. That much is obvious (to respond to Mason Malmuth's statement.) But it seems like this forum doesn't give the no limit game or it's players their due credit.
No limit is exciting and very very satisfying when played well.
Isn't this the best argument for NOT playing NL?
In another of your posts you use the word 'rush' to describe the effect of the game.
If playing NL engenders such a physiological/emotional reaction, then it would seem that one's ability to play in this higher stress and higher variance game would be compromised.
Oops. I just realized that you are trying to entice these losers into your game. Sorry.
I have am trying to decide what the best play is when I flop Top set in PLO when it is the current nuts. I have been routinely check-raising the flop with a pot-sized bet even if the board looks dangerous (example to follow). The game I play in is quite loose, and thus if I am in early position a check raise is usually available. Lately I have been getting killed by drawing hands and have backed off coming over the top on the flop with top set when the board is co-ordinated. I have been waiting until a safe card hits on the turn before committing myself and thus the drawing hands are now not getting the right price to call. Am I am being too cautious here? I know this is definitely the safer route. Here is an example from the other night.
PLO 10,25,50 blind.
I have QdQcKc5c and 2800 in chips in the early position and limp in for 50. We take the flop 7 handed, which comes Qh10h7s, while I love flopping top set, the board is still very dangerous because of the possible draws. I check to Player A (VERY solid) who bets 350. All muck to button Player B (bit of a loose cannon but no idiot) who smooth calls the 350 quick. The action is back on me and I, as I routinely do, check raise making it 1600 to go. Player A ponders forever and mucks, and Player B immediately tells me to put the rest in. I positive I am up against a wrap and a flush draw. I call and the turn is the card of death for me, the 8h ... The river is a blank and Player B turns over Jh9h8c7d to take the pot with the straight flush. As it turns out the initial bettor, Player A, had the case Q with the nut flush draw.
This kind of hand routinely comes up where you flop top set and it is the current nuts, but the board is open to multiple draws and you have little in the way of other draws in your hand. Should this kind of hand just be smooth called on the flop when out of position against multiple players in hopes of putting the pressure on if a blank or pair comes on the turn?
Any comments would be appreciated.
How can your check raise be wrong? You are making it as expensive as possible for him to make his draw while you are in the lead. True, you got drawn out on, but isn't that the point of the check raise..to minimize the chances of this happening.
I admit to being relatively inexperienced at PL (though I'm reading and playing a lot lately). Oh experienced players, what am I missing?
Against a really big draw you may not even be a favorite with the current nuts. Putting the money in when you are a clear favorite is sometimes a better idea.
The way I see it, for the next card, 27 take the best hand away from you, and 18 keep you in the lead. Making you an underdog if all the draws are out.
However, you can expect there to be all the draws out there that are possible. So let's assume that your opponent has what you think, flush and open and down draw. This drastically improves your chances as only 15 to 16 cards kill you depending on which draw he has and 29 or 30 keep you in the lead.
Best case scenario puts you as a 2 to 1 favorite to win. However, there are 2 cards to come, drastically reducing your chances and giving the draw the edge.
If you add one card to your opponents hand giving him KJ9, or J98, you now have 23 that keep you in the lead and 22 that knock you out. With two cards to come, I don't like these odds.
I wouldn't fold, but I wouldn't be jammin' the pot either, especially with 2 opponents. I would call, take another card, and with the size of the pot, put in as much as you can on the turn if you still have the lead. If you lose the lead, do whatever you can to get that river card as cheaply as possible.
With two cards to come you are a dog on the flop. I suggest you read Bob Ciaffone's book. I would slow down on the flop and if a blank comes on the turn pound the pot with only one card to come when you become a big favorite.
I think I should have been a little clearer in my post and I think I used a bad example.
I fully understand the concept that I can flop top set with no flush or straight possible and be a sizable Dog to win the hand against a big draw. That is not the issue I was aiming at.
I have watched weak players who won't make a move with top set with a semi-dangerous board until they are SURE that no one else has made a bigger hand. They usually play very defensive poker until the river. These types of players are willing to CALL large bets when they flop top set with a board open to multiple draws, but rarely put any pressure on the drawing hands. These players never seem to capitalize on their big hands.
The example I used was a bad one as I was clearly a dog heads up against Player B's hand. I would have made the same move he did on the flop. A better example would have been my having top set and my opponent having a openended straight draw and a flush draw (eg: JhJc6d6c vs. KsQs4d5d flop Js10s2c) In this example I am a favorite to win the hand but my opponent still has a big draw, one with which he would probably commit all of his chips given the chance. A low variance approach to a hand like this is to play the flop defensively with hopes of a blank hitting on fourth street before applying any pressure.
I don't think you can play every flopped set as if you are upgainst "the mother of all draws" every hand.
It depends on the money depth.
If the money is short, go all-in with your top set and you will have the best of it generally.
If the money is very deep, bet full pot on the flop planning to only call to a raise, and then to bet full pot on the turn if a blank comes, or to check/fold check/call if a scared card comes depending on implied odds (draw to full house) and other considerations (opponent profile, is he bluffing, ...)
Now the most difficult to play is with medium stacks: play defensively if you want to minimize your variance(in a freeze out tournament, or when you are losing); play offensively if you want to maximize your EV (when you are winning, in the rebuy period of a tournament)
I agree with ohnonotagain's analysis. In this case especially, you could get all but $600 in with your raise. And the point I want to make is that you are in front. So you have to act first next card off, a big disadvantage. If you're last for instance, you can bet into a straightened board (in this example when an ace hits on the turn)because no one can afford to check the nut straight. So I would tend to wait to raise with in position hands. Another key point missed in all this discussion is that you need to release your hand to start with. This kind of hand doesn't play well from in front.
Another tendency of mine would be to wait to raise when there are few draws out and lots of cards that are neutral. In this situation, there are only 12 neutral cards (non heart dueces, threes, fours and fives).
You are right - you cannot always assume that your opponent has the biggest possible draw. Sometimes you will be a favourite, sometimes he will be, and sometimes it will be about even.
On occasion, however, your opponent may be betting or raising with second set, when your hand will be huge. How often this happens depends on the game, the player, and you image.
Another VERY important consideration in this kind of situation is that if you have obvious top set and the board pairs on 4th street - about 16% of the time - WITHOUT all the money being in, your opponent with a big draw will be able to realise he is drawing dead and to escape without losing it all. This is a big reason why the top set should be more inclined to put all the money in, and the big draw should not. In your original example, the player with the big draw may well have made a mistake putting the rest of the money in.
Additionally, the drawing player usually deprives himself of bluffing opportunities if he goes all in on the flop. In your example, as it so happens, an ace would NOT have made a straight for your opponent, but you did not know this, and I would have said that had there still been a reasonable amount of money to bet, you would have had to think that an ace DID make him a straight. So again, maybe he should not have gone all in on the flop.
Overall, I think you will rarely find that you have made a big mistake going all in on the flop in this situation, provided you can stand the big swings which it will involve, whereas not doing so can be a big mistake, or permit you to be bluffed out on a later street.
Finally, note that the drawing hand will occasionally fin himself in much worse shape than he thinks - what if you had had AKQQ with the nut flush draw in your example - you would have been a huge favourite. If you routinely get it all in on the flop, your drawing opponents will never know when this might happent to them.
Oh no!! Not again!
best situation would have been if both had called giving you odds to try to fill. id hate to burn up a bunch of money on the flop and dog it on the turn. i think the check raise is fine. if you hadnt been raised all in you would have odds to draw the river for the rest of your stack.
hi. sup. I recently was at the bellagio and they were trialing this new game called color poker. First off, they seat you at the table by color, me being indian, in last position......anyways, they deal the flop first, then you get your hole cards.....which are colored......I peak down at my 2 hole nice's and see martin luther king and malcolm x. i was kind of excited.....the flop was master p, samuel L. jackson and chris rock! flushy nut martin luther king high! i had the nutty! anyways, the last 2 cards were 2 shitty white guys.....eminem and abraham lincoln.....so, some other guy had the negro flush but only the second nut, Cuba gooding jr., so, anyways, has anyone played this color poker game?? let me know! peace nut!
Did the white guys pair the board, or was your king-high flush still the nutty?
o.k. when u flopped this mlk high flush of all flush nices...were u thinking about flopping the nuts..the twins. did u want to put them on the table. if so did the other white smart dumbs at the table compare your nuts to their nuts...and if so ...was your nuts more plentiful than there low hanging nuts...when i think about color nut poker...i remember back to when i flopped the nut white straight and some huge black nnnnnn punched me in the nuts..no literally...he hit my nuts...got eminem right in the face. If i had had abe lincoln in the whole my nuts would have been gigantic for a whites. but i had to settle with the rodney dangerfield high. weak riiiiiight?
It doesn't matter how much you raise with the Rodney Dangerfield high; no one respects your raise.
I'm in late position w/ AdKsKdTd. 5-10 PLO. We've only played a few hands and I'm at 1300. Everyone else (except the button) is at about 1000.
2 Limpers, then I raise to 50 on the cutoff. Button calls, 1st limper folds then 2nd Limper(L) re-raises another 100. I call as does the button. Flop comes Kh-4c-2c. L bets the pot. I raise all in. Button folds L calls and turns over Ac3c3s5c and catches a club on the turn w/ no board pair to save me.
How can the guy limp-reraise with such a cheese hand and catch such a perfect flop to double through you? Even so, he wasn't that big a favorite, and I can only think of one better flop for him (33K). Heck, I could give him credit for AA3, AA5, even AA35 with clubs, but to have it all without AA is surprising.
He got lucky, or you got cold-decked. Bummer.
However, you might have played it different, and this way might have been better. It is pretty easy to give the guy credit for AA with clubs on that flop. If so, he has 10 outs. If he has AA3x or AA5x, he has 13 outs. Either way, he wins pretty often if you go all-in now. What if you just call the flop? If so, and he catches a scare card on the turn, you can maybe make the good laydown (or catch a bluff if you know him well). In any event, this play gives you a chance to make another decision, and if you make good decisions, it is likely the better play. If you are too likely to make mistakes on the turn (folding or calling when you should do the opposite), then by all means put it all in now.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg - I do like your idea of waiting till the turn to put it all in if the right card comes, but I have a couple of problems with it in this situation. I didn't think I'd want the button calling for 3-1 odds w/ some low straight draw if L were on AA-clubs.
Also, Since the pot is 450 on the flop and he makes the pot 900, my call makes it 1350 at which point, when he bets the pot on the turn , I am looking at 2000 to 600 on my call which is good odds to call for my 10 outer full house draw. If I'm going to have call anyway given that I don't have a full size bet, I figured I might as well get it in on the flop. If I have enough money where I'm not going to call regardless of the turn card if he puts me all in on the turn, I do like your play.
Do they still have the no limit tourney at the Mirage on Tuesdays? I hear the Mirage has really gone down hill.
I can't answer you on this but maybe you'll get more responses in the tourney forum...
See you there,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
How much $ should I take to a 1-2 pot limit game?
I would like to have at least $200 on the table at all times as you would be surprised at how quickly a pot can build.
Bring $600 if you got it and I wouldn't even go if you didn't have $200 to put in play.
Buy in for $100. Rebuy or replenish up to $200 if you lose a few pots and leave the $300 in your pocket to rebuy if you catch some bad breaks and the game is good.
Is this game starting again at the Baccarat?
No, I am going to visit a friend in Calgary who says the game there is very soft.
Baccarat gets too greedy with their mid to high limit games and tries to have them going every night of the week, until 75% of the players bust out and the game dies.
None unless you know what you are doing.
the way i do pot limit is this. if its hold em i want to be able to call a raise and put in 5 percent of my stack. so if its 10 to go in a raised pot i need 200 in front of me at all times. ie. call the raise, muck the hand, ill put another 10 out of my pocket onto my stack. or burn up 60 on the hand, replentish out of my pocket. that is so when you do go all in youll be able to get some value and make up for the times you just call the raise and muck the hand.. at omaha i also like the 5 percent deal but ill go with 10 percent of my stack if i have to- ie in a game thats big enough that im not financed well enough to go with 5 percent. so if its a 200 by in with this criteria i would suggest at least 6 by ins. 1200. (1,2 blind- 10 to go game)
Isn't there only one way to find out if I know what I am doing? I'm not a pro, my rent money doesn't depend on poker winnings, so while I'm not looking to lose, if it happens, I can stand it (yeah yeah, everyone can throw in their comment "Where is your game and how do I get in it?" now). I like to imagine I can play ok if focussed enough.
I have just never watched a 1-2 pot limit game and don't know how big the pots get, so was looking for a bit of help in deciding how much to bring to the table. Thanks anyways.
Fair enough. Depending on your location though you might be able to find a cheap pot-limit tournament or two which would be a good practice ground.
I wouldn't generally advise people to jump into PL games unless they've done some thinking and studying first though.
I play in all the no limit tourneys they have in town, the pokerpages tournaments, and I have read Cloutier's book, but thats it. There are no pot limit tournaments around here..
I have just never watched a 1-2 pot limit game and don't know how big the pots get, so was looking for a bit of help in deciding how much to bring to the table.
I've see 1 2 PL games with 10,000 on the table and 3000 pots. That would be an exceptionally good game. Michael 7's post seems on the mark as to what to bring.
I play regularly in a couple of pot limit games with $1,2 blind structures.
A lot depends on the nature of the game. THe size of the pots depends a lot on the buy ins. Are buy ins limited? If you're limited to a $100 buy in, then $500 is probably enough of a stake for a decent night of action. On the other hand, if nearly everyone buys in for $1,000, you'd be well served to go with at least $2,000.
My game is pot limit, $1,2 blinds, $100 buy in and rebuys whenever you're under $100. I don't think anyone lost as much as $1,000 the five or six times I've called the game. Another game is a similar structure but with a $200 buy in. The players are more aggressive. Some lose $1200-1500.
im bout it bout it! ya, you bout it bout it? the No limit soldiers are bout it bout it? they bout the no limit sup
With just a little tweaking, the previous post can be sung to the tune of Battle Hymn of the Republic.
I'm about it bout it You about it bout too? The no-limit soldier bout it bout it they about the soup
No limit rappers suck, they can't rap and they are fake. Except C-Murder he's a real G. But Master P is a sell out. C-Bo is gonna kill his ass.
This was my first trip into this part of 2+2 and I was very surprised to see all these posts. I'll try to clarify some of those remarks.I never said S/S was outdated. The fundamentals are the same and will always be the same. As many of the posters pointed out, the blinds structure has changed and you DO have to adjust your play. But, if I remember correctly, [its been 1/4 of a century]I said that the ante determines how you play. Also, how many players are in the game, and who they are determines how you play. So, even in "the old days" you had to adjust your play. Next, everybody wrote their own chapter, even though Alan Goldberg interpreted some of the collaborators thoughts into more understandable language. Also, Mike Caro helped Joey Hawthorne immensely with the lowball section, because Joey wasn't very dependendable.I wrote ALL of the no-limit and am still very proud of it. Also, is Alan Goldberg dead? I haven't heard from him or heard anything about him in 20 years.===Doyle Brunson
Welcome to this side of the forum Mr. Brunson. Be looking forward hear some interesting stories and hand histories played in your poker career.
You'll get the deserved respect on these forums. About Alan Goldberg haven't heard that name mentioned in quite a while.
mr brunson sir: We wish you would contribute to this site...I especially agree that the first section of your book will never be outdated...gl
It is an honor and a privilege to have one of the greatest poker players of all time grace this forum. Last year when I was playing at the Bellagio, I often saw you play $1500-$3000 (mixed games-I guess??) in the high limit area. I hope you never run bad.
your reputation has crossed the oceans. Even in Europe you are a big legend.
Please keep posting at this forum.
A french fan.
Thank you so much for your contributions to poker. I'm 23, and I recently bought S/S on eBay. I think it's an outstanding book, and I study it in earnest. Hopefully I'll be half the player you and your collaboraters are. Super/System's still an outstanding book. Best of luck to you and your family.
"So Doyle and I were chatting on 2+2 the other day, and he said I played the hand great and he hoped he never had to go heads up with me..."
Whoa, just woke up.
This would be like getting free golf tips online from Nicklaus or bridge advice from Bobby Wolff.
Doyle, I'm coming down from Canada to Vegas this weekend. If I bring my clubs, can we go out to Shadow Creek? I haven't played since late September, so I'll be a real pigeon Pleeeeeese.
Seriously, it would be very interesting and informative to read your insights into hands on this forum. Please don't be a stranger.
Being a player that appreciates No Limit Hold 'Em more than ANY other card game in the world, it is my greatest wish that you contribute to the High Stakes Forum on this site. Your insights would be invaluable to me. My grandfather Herman Weisehan (who has since passed on) was a great admirer of yours and taught me damn near everything I know. He was just a card player from Missouri who got around to Vegas every once in a while, and if there is one thing he ever taught me, it was to play like you.
Welcome to this site, and I hope you stick around. By the way, Super/System is one damn hard book to find, but a good one.
They'll ship it to you in a week or so.
Just a tip if anyone wanted to get it but was having a hard time finding it.
Thanks natedogg. I'm going to pick up "Super/System" and "Championship No-Limit and Pot-Limit Hold 'Em : On the Road to the World Series of Poker"
all of this sucking up is getting to be too much. Tone it down boys. He doesn't need that much sugar to want to come back again.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
hugs and kisses
it is better to have sucked up and lost, than' to never have sucked up...
but bob s. spanks him on a reg. basis
I've been spanked many times but no one has ever done it on a regular basis. If the Bob S. you are referring to is Bob Stupek, all I can say is PLEASE!!!!!!! Doyle Brunson
Doyle is the greatest of all time. This is as good as playing HORSE with Michael Jordan.
We're just luring him in - playing on his ego.
Now when he comes to London and sits down in the £100 buy-in game with me - BAM I'll take him.
Welcome to the rest of our forums. If you do choose to participate in some of the debate, I think you'll discover many fine poker minds and many different points of view.
It's good to have you aboard.
This has got to be the best impersonation ever. Do you actually buy it?
I don't think that's really Doyle but who knows.
Its never hard to recognize him in the flesh though. He's the guy whose eyes are always glued to the TV monitors instead of on the action in the game he's playing. I guess you would two if you had a million dollars in sports bets going every day.
If I catch him limping to the john at the Bellagio I'll ask him if he's really posting here.
he does post on RGP using the same email address so there is no reason to think it is not him.
This isn't the first time that Mr Brunson has been nice enough to post here (2+2). Let's hope it's not the last. He posted on the internet forum, in the not too distant past.You can also find some of his past posts in the archives.
You can't blame us poker aficionados for being a little in awe. The man is a living legend.
The next time I see him in The Bellagio I'll try to find an appropriate moment to confirm that it is really him. I did however talk to him about his previous posts on our Internet Forum so I have no reason not to believe that these posts are authentic.
He confirmed on RGP that he had posted here.
what is "RGP"
"RGP" stands for "Recreational Gambling Poker (RGP)". It is a newsgroup that is not always accessible to everyone depending upon their browser software. It is an open site that is unmanaged and it contains a vast array of topics on poker along with a lot of other things. If you go through the deja reader it get organized by date and topic with message trees. You can click over to "Favorite Links" and you should be able to click on to it if your browser can handle newsgroups.
Alan told me himself that he wrote every word except for what Mike wrote. Chip Reese and Joey contributed virtually nothing he said. If this was Doyle, himself, surely he would know that Alan is indeed dead.
Alan never told me that Doyle didn't contribute the ideas; and he really appreciated and admired Doyle's skill as a gambler. But he also said that Doyle didn't actually write any of it.
I can't believe that none of you have heard the same thing.
gambelero===Don't tell Sklansky he didn't write his section. He actually thinks he did [smile]. Chip Reese wrote every word of the stud section. Do you think Alan wrote the no limit section [or any other section]? He was a fine writer but a very poor player. I did say he translated some of the thoughts into more understandable language. I personally reveiwed every section and if there was something I didn't agree with, I discussed it with my collaborator until we came to agreement. Also, I really didn't know Alan had died. When and how?== Doyle Brunson
I did not mean to slander Dave. I do not remember Alan saying that Sklansky didn't write his section. At the time he wrote it, Sklansky's holdem book was the greatest poker strategy book ever written. I was less impressed with the latest book he cowrote with Mason as the suggested strategies don't apply to the modern game.
Alan specifically said that Caro did his part. He also specifically said that Joey Hawthorne did virtually nothing, and because Reese's contribution was so poor, his section was written almost entirely by Alan.
You may also remember that his favorite thing in the book was your story about the drunk catching a diamond.
I also did not mean to suggest that there was any underhanded dealings in terms of the buyout or the name changes the book went through. Alan always said that you were fair in your dealings with him.
My only point, finally, is that you may have read through his writings and exercised creative control, but that doesn't mean that you wrote it. Alan should be given credit as the writer, no more, no less.
P.S. I don't know how he died or where, but have heard several times that he is indeed dead.
I do not know either of these two personally. Brunson of course is easily recognizable around Vegas. So who was Alan Goldberg? Other than collaborating on these books, his name never arises in the history of poker, either as a tournament winner or high-stakes player.
If I'm to believe that Alan Goldberg -- supposedly a professional writer -- wrote in the style and language used in Super/System, then I would have to believe that he was only posing as a writer. No offense to Brunson, because the book is very enjoyable as is, but no professional writer would be trained to write a manuscript in this fashion.
My point: Just because someone transcribes a tape or types out and/or edits a manuscript does not mean they "wrote" the book. Alan Goldberg was no poker player. Yes, there are plenty of ghost-writers around, but the actual CONTENT is the meat of the book and belongs to the contributor. It would be ludicrous to believe that Alan Goldberg supplied the content for that book.
Earl, the book has gone through name changes and different printings, but it used to say "Written by Alan Goldberg" right on the cover.
Also, gambelero, we wrote the book at B&G Publishing, located on Industrial. Alans girl friend was named Fran, and I bought Alans interest in B&G in 1976. Any questions?===Doyle
I read somewhere, maybe some magazine, you was conversing with the author of the article I'am referring to>>>>you were playing short handed high-stakes(not sure if no-limit). You had pocket 10's, other opponent had pocket 4's, other pocket 2's. The flop came 10,4,2 you lean over and told the author we all flopped sets, then a raising war broke out>>>>the turn>: 2> . you checked, the 2's bet, the 4's raised you folded. To me this displays the discpline and exceptional reading handing skills that made you WSOP champion===== I would of lost a big chunk in my stack monster flop and all,before I realized I was screwed 10's full is not a hand many opponents will lay down after the turn pairs the board' 10 being the highest......anymore stories from hold'em lore?
I see Mr. Brunson has been here. This is a shameless attempt to catch his interest on a topic I have been asking about lately: Mr. B, will you tell us about playing poker with Archie Karras?
I played poker with Archie right in the middle of his "run". He wanted to play as high as possible, with huge antes making it impossible to play selective hands. He played as aggresively as anyone can play, forcing the game to be almost showdown because there was never a chance to throw away marginal hands. I finally stopped playing him because this was another "crap shoot" for him. We didn't have much of a decision. He was not a bad player at these limits, playing head up. However, when playing in a ring game, he struggled. There will never be another streak like his in your lifetime.==Doyle Brunson
Thanks for telling us about this. What games were you playing? I understand if you don't want to name the amounts, but I am curious about the betting structure in these games: Were you playing no-limit? What was the ante/blinds relative to the buy-in? Same question for any limit games. Is there any one hand that stands out in your mind as being played especially well or poorly?
I have a question also for Doyle: What is Archie doing now. Has he lost all the money?
On RGP I read somewhere that he's broke and driving a cab for a living. I also read that if you ask him, he'll tell you he wouldn't change a thing.
Maybe so, but that makes him a moron by my standards.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
yeah, he could be receiving 75,000 dollars a month and never touch his principle for the rest of his life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can't question his money management for one simple reason. He has none. If he had any, he would never have run it up that high. Any one of us would have stopped at X thousand dollars, where Archie didn't. So, to say he should have quit at X million is missing the point. You cannot question his logic, because it was flawed right from the start.
Interestingly, I heard the story told by someone the other day, that doesn't even gamble.
treetop strauss is looking down and he understands...
2-3-5, 10 to go.
The game is 6 handed and I'm in the cutoff.
One player has limped. I raise to 35 in the cutoff with KJo. I'm mostly playing position here. I'm fairly confident I can buy the button with this raise because the button is an unimaginative, tight player who won't play anything without big cards but will put WAY to much in with trap hands. If he calls me, I know exactly where i'm at. He folds, the SB calls, the limper calls, and we see the flop 3 handed.
First, let describe my two opponents. I know them extremely well and have played hundreds of hours with them.
The SB is a terrible player who literally has no understanding of position whatsoever. Also, he will passively call with a draw but never raise. If he bets big, he has a big hand, period. I have absolutely no fear of him being in the pot with me.
The limper is a fairly decent player who can go on tilt. His version of tilt is to passively call til the end with any kind of hand that has even the slimmest hope of winning. He won't raise draws aggressively but he WILL bet aggressively with mediocre hands to push others out. He was currently on the verge of tilt.
The flop comes 79T, giving me a double gutter.
The SB checks, the limper goes all-in for 54.
Now, I definitely want to call him because I have odds to draw to the double gutter. I don't want to have to beat the small blind. I raise all-in for another four hundred or so.
The results come later because I don't think they're very important. I want to know two things.
Did I really have odds to draw to the double gutter? The pot is 120 + 54 = 174. I will call 54 to make 174 but I have to risk another 400 to ensure that I'm only risking the 54. It's a wierd situation. I was over 90% that the SB would fold. So, given that I'm 90% sure, let's say I'm giving up 40 of the 400 I bet. That in effect makes it so that I'm betting 94 to win 174. Is this a correct analysis?
Finally, the SB DID fold, and the limper had A9 for a pair of nines, giving me a much stronger draw than I even realized.
I caught the 7 for a straight and won.
I think that was an ok way to play, but if the SB really is that bad (and has a lot of chips), I don't know why you wouln't just call and hope he comes alomg. Maybe he will "hit" something on the turn like a pair of Queens and you can play for a big pot.
You don't likely have to call a bet from him unless you also improve since there is an all-in player and he doesn't bluff. About the only card that can help him without helping you is an Ace, which will look just as scary to him.
As it is, you made it easy for him NOT to make a mistake. Of course, if he has a QJ you might be in trouble by giving him a cheap draw, but he deosn't seem lik the type of guy you will have to pay off if you hit a K.
I'd play it just like you did. It's not just a double gutter, it's a double gutter with tow overlays against a guy who shoved in a short stack. Calling short-stack shove-ins after the flop doesn't require much of a hand, IMO, and you've got a big hand. It'd be nice if you had an ace though.
As to blasting the other guy out, that depends entirely on stack sizes (maximum implied odds) that you didn't give. I'd blast him out if either of you had less that about $1000 because there's already $150 or so out there for grabs, before you even act. Even then I'd likely raise, to protect MY stack. To just call in the hope of hitting a dream scenario in which you bust the SB would be just that, a dream.
I can't see why you would blow out the bad player. If he truly is very bad, he night call you with a small pair/straight draw type of hand that you would normally blow out with this raise. So, if he calls, your beat and you must improve. If you call and let him in, maybe be will make the dummy end when you make the nuts. The all-in player would essentially freeze the action for me, and I would flat call. You made no comments about how aggressive the small blind is, and if he would put you all-in with a wide variety of hands if you flat call the all-in bet, so I'm going to assume that probably wouldn't happen unless he had two pair or better. And, If he does, it doesn't cost you your whole stack.
Can't see the benefit of moving your chips in,
I have to agree w/ Tommy on this one. The reason you want the SB out of the hand is that you have a very strong draw which turned out to be a favorite vs a pair of nines. The hands you want the SB to fold are the KQ or a hand w/ an 8 which makes you have to win by catching the straight( most likely). If you were to just call, and the SB called and the jack fell, what do you do then?
I think there are definately more situations where you'll lose the pot by not moving the SB and having him negate some of your outs vs number of times he's got the right hand, he hits it and you still double through him.
The reason for blasting out the other guy has little to do with the cards. It's about position and information.
If you just call, and the weak player calls behind you, you face a triply bad situation:
1) He has position over you. That is death at no-limit.
2) You have no idea what he has, and he knows you don't have much.
3) All future bets go into a side pot, meaning there is one guy in the hand who is unbluffable. This adds to the stifling effect of being first to act.
But Tommy, he doesn't have position, he's the small blind.
While you may be a favorite over the all-in player (in that you'll make a hand that beats his over half the time), you still have to improve to win, as you don't expect that K high is currently in the lead. When you do improve, most of the time you'll also improve enough to beat the SB as well. Thus, by letting him in now you're getting better odds on your draw, and a player who might pay you off after you make your hand as well.
I think you make money here by calling or raising. I would guess you make more by calling and letting the SB in as well. However, I may be wrong, especially if he's killing a bunch of your non-straight outs.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
2-3-5, 10 to go.
Is the smallest blind in these 3 blind games usually on the button? I assume so, because otherwise one would speak of the middle blind.
Does the 10 to go mean that a raise has to be to at least 10, but one may call the 5 (and this is limping) or do I have some or all of that wrong?
You got it mostly right. the $2 blind is on the button, 3 small, 5 big. the first person to come in HAS to come in for at least 10. even the if everyone folds to the small blind, the small blind has to fold or come in for at least 10. No one can ever limp in for 5.
then there's the kill....
This structure and wording is left over from no-limit lowball.
There is no "raise" until someone has "opened." The first player to put money in the pot is the opener. If he opens for $10,000, that is NOT a raise, it is an open.
This sounds nitpicky, but the distinction is needed, and becomes clear once you play in this structure for a while.
so to limp is to only raise the 10?
It is not technically a raise, but to open, you must put in $10 or more. A limp is $10 in the 2-3-5 case. This assumes no one has "killed" the pot. In this case, a limp would be $20.
Your thinking is correct. By making a big raise to eliminate the SB, you get to see the river for free. Your risk is the SB makes a huge raise on the flop, now it costs a lot more than $54 to draw. Or, he smooth calls the $400 and bets the turn if you miss.
If you did get a str8, it had to be the 8 or queen vice the 7.
if i were to be, well lets say, a mean nice would my flop touch be white? i dont understand how one could bout it bout it but when my nut sandwich rides throughthe flop mean and i bring home a 1 or 2 pot life is alright. How do you fell when floppers coup rub your nut ok's? i would like to hear your opinions nices. COUP!
I think it's fair to say that there is quite a bit of difference between what Hold'em For Advanced Players advocates regarding check raising as compared to what Super System advocates for limit hold'em. Is this basically because of the different blind structure in todays game and perhaps a more aggressive style and tougher field of opponents that exists today?
The answer is yes. My guess is that on the flop the game that S/S is geared to had pots that were on average one-fourth to one-half the size of the pots when compared to today's game. This meant that in most situations a bet on the flop was large enough to protect your hand in the old S/S game.
An interesting aside is that if this was the form of limit hold 'em that is compared to no limit hold 'em then I would agree that no limit is the more complex form. But when the second blind got added, and the betting limit essentially doubled before the flop, the game became very different.
Another interesting point is that you should, as Doyle points out, still be using many of the same concepts to make your decisions no matter which game is played. It is just that these concepts will bring you to some very different conclusions.
So again the answer is that YES changes in structure can make huge differences in appropriate strategy and in the game itself.
Another issue here is the propensity of players to back up their initial raise. I've noticed that players in tough casino games defend their raises after the flop by betting almost all the time.
In our loose games (in paradise parlance, a 45% to 55% flop seer), players check missed flops much more often.
A final point: as Mason points out modern structure pots are bigger, but this makes me much more likely to want to lead rather than check raise. What you're doing when you check raise is taking a chance on giving people a free card in order to build a bigger pot (or drive people out). The moneyline lay on what you give up (in taking a chance that someone will draw out for free when they might have folded) to what you get (by successfully check raising) is too great when a lot of money goes into the pot pre-flop.
Of course all this goes out the window if you know for sure that someone will bet after the flop. And finally I don't know limit poker well enough to give out any strategy lessons.
>>Another issue here is the propensity of players to back up their initial raise. I've noticed that players in tough casino games defend their raises after the flop by betting almost all the time.<<
This is why I wrote in part:
and perhaps a more aggressive style and tougher field of opponents that exists today
In todays game when you check to the raiser, even though the flop might be raggedy, the raiser almost always bets and thus the check raise is a way to counter this. If you have a hand and bet you might let the raiser off cheaply where if you check raise you don't. Comments?
The problem with leading into big multiway pots is that they all call anyway and the "free card" which you are so concerned about will still beat you because that player will still be there. Thus you may have to risk the dreaded free card in an attempt to knock people out. You should read HPFAP-21 for more discussion.
A lead into a raiser puts a lot of pressure on the other players. Let's say three people limit, a fast player raises and you have two nines in the BB. Of course one strategy is to re-raise, but two nines is a tough hand to play from in front, so you just call.
And three rags flop which leads us to crux of the situation:
A very very weak player would check to call here. Any real player would lead or check to raise. Now in Vegas games where the raiser almost always bets post-flop, your preferred play might be to check raise, making it two bets to the limpers. In loose games, you might lead into the raiser putting pressure on the other players.
Note the mathematics of the situation. The pot isre are ten times the bet size in the pot
You have answered your question. You are describing a situation where the last player will almost always bet. So now you can check raise and probably get it heads up. If you lead, there is a good chance you get four callers.
I'm curious, are you the same Gambelero who was highly critical of HPFAP-21 elsewhere?
A lead into a raiser puts a lot of pressure on the other players. Let's say three people limit, a fast player raises and you have two nines in the BB. Of course one strategy is to re-raise, but two nines is a tough hand to play from in front, so you just call.
And three off-suit rags flop which leads us to crux of the situation:
A very very weak player would check to call here. Any real player would lead or check to raise. Now in Vegas games where the raiser almost always bets post-flop, your preferred play might be to check raise, making it two bets to the limpers. In loose games, you might lead into the raiser putting pressure on the other players.
Note the mathematics of the situation. The pot is ten times the bet size, and almost any card can beat you, so you want to drive people out. If you lead, even loose players with 10 J, Qx, Kx suited, and so forth will be forced to release. If you check the hand and the big blind checks (which seldom happens in the tough games that Mason plays in, but happens more frequently in loose games), someone might catch a 10 to 10x (a sure release for a bet) or a Q to a Qx and beat you.
Thus my point that the looser the game the less likely you are to check raise.
I'm heads up with a fairly tight player, but he's also the type of guy that can be bluffed even when he has a hand if you come on strong enough. After the river there were 4 cards to a King-high straight. He bet $500, I raised $2,000, and he folded. He flipped his cards over he had a 9 for a king high. I flipped mine over I had a J for a pair of jacks. I had to show him. He was so pissed after that. Now he bets into me no matter what. So now I play against this guy according to that hand (because that hand is now how he plays against me.) I don't play according to S&M or any other books that have the correct theory on what I should do. Because of the psychology between me and this guy I can play him like a fiddle. Now he pays me off, and I never have to pay him off. Another buying customer. Keep this in mind when you go to work tonight at the poker table boys. Have a nice grind.
The above post is a perfect example.
I very much doubt Halis cares as much about winning as he does about demonstrating his "superiority" to others.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I'm wondering where you can find guys like this. You implied that after showing him a huge bluff, he has forever been on tilt when playing you. That sure seems like an extreme case.
Personally, when someone shows me they bluffed me out, I just nod and smile. Of course, I NEVER would have made the mistake of showing you the hand that you bluffed me out of. Maybe I was bluffing you first, maybe I folded the second nut, and maybe I misread my hand, but YOU'D never know.
The player you describe made a mistake by folding the best hand, but in my opinion, he made a MUCH MUCH bigger mistake by showing it to you.
Also, I think you made a slight mistake by showing your bluff, but maybe not if it truly did put this guy on lifelong tilt when playing against you.
this kind of play looks great when it works. the key is knowing that the guy doesn't have an ace. halis would have looked kind of stupid if the guys says "well I guess will have to split it." and turns over the ace.
Also, anybody who bets a significant bet with a nine when there is 10 j q k on the board is crazy anyway. He can't get called by anyone he can beat and can't bluff the hand that's got him beat (assuming a pairless board). This player's technical weakness alone would make him a sure loser.
The question of showing versus not showing the hand depends on the situation. If you're in a game filled with loose players who pay off too much, and you seldom raise on a cold bluff (put me in this category), then showing the hand is certainly correct. If you've got these guys read to the point where you can move them off anything short of the nuts, don't show the hand.
Try what in limit poker? Raise a guy who has the second nuts to get him to fold? It happens all the time.
The S&M books on hold 'em are for limit games. Of course you play differently in a limit game than in a no limit or pot limit game. The "correct theory" for one type of game may not be correct for another type of game.
He bets into you no matter what and you never have to pay him off? Interesting.
By the way, I see nothing wrong with you showing your cards after he showed his. A guy who folds a good hand and turns the cards up wants to see your cards.
brilliant bluff. You should write a book.
I'm travelling to Las Vegas in a couple of weeks and would like to take a shot at higher limit games -- up to $200 or $300 limit. What limits are spread at Bellagio, and what days/times are best to be there?
High limit selection at Bellagio varies week to week. Will you be there on a holiday weekend such as President's Day? Will it conflict with a tournament outside Vegas?
You will likely find one or more of the following on the weekend (evenings):
75-150 Stud (always) 80-160 Holdem (always) 150-300 Stud 200-400 Holdem 200-400 Mix (often Holdem, Omaha/8) 300-600 Mix (often Omaha/8, Stud/8, 2-7 TD) 400-800 Mix (often Omaha/8, Stud/8, 2-7 TD) 500-1000 Stud
The size and game composition of the Mix is highly dependent on which individuals are in town at the time.
There is often a gigantic game between 1000-2000 and 4000-8000 even during the week.
I posted this on other games but no one responded. I figure since people ask a lot of PL omaha questions here, a pot limit 7cs hand would not be TOO out of place.
This hand was actually a hand of Mississippi 7cs. Mississippi is a 7cs game with a couple variations. You get two cards on 4th street instead of one, and the 7th card is dealt face up.
Pot limit, dealer ante $5, low card brings it in for $5. The bring-in has the option to raise when it gets back to him.
I have (Ks6s)9h. My K is live and one spade is out.
A deuce opens to my left. A 9 calls, a J calls, an A calls, I call.
Stud is not really my game. However, I assume that calling $5 for a pot of $25 to get 2 more cards is totally worth it. Please let me know if I'm wrong.
Anyway, I catch almost perfect, getting JsTs. The 9 pairs, the J catches two more of his suit, and the A catches two blanks.
The open pair of nines bets the pot ($30). The three clubs call, the ace folds, I call.
I'm calling 30 to win a pot of 90 with a K high flush draw and a gutshot straight. I have 3 live queens and 6 live spades out of 34 unseen cards. Given implied odds is this a good call?
I catch a Q on sixth street and the 99 catches the A of clubs. This makes me fear the club draw less which did not catch yet.
I bet $75 and they both call.
The river pairs my T. The 99 catches a blank and the flush draw shows QcJc7c8xQx. His cards are so totally dead I don't fear that he's full. The 99 may have filled with the A but I really put him on aces up.
The 99 has only 180 in front of him. I bet the pot of 315.
Good read on the river? I'm going to call the 180 if the 99 bets or not. So I probably should check and let him hang himself if we're heads up. But the flush draw was a very bad player who might conceivably overcall with two pair or something or even just the pair of queens.
The open pair of nines called me with his last 180 and the busted flush draw called me for the full 315. The nine had trip nines and the busted flush had made queens up.
The results were good, but I wonder if I played the hand right. Specifically, was I correct in NOT fearing the full house from the supposed flush draw when he paired the Q? All his other cards were fairly dead otherwise I would have been more cautious.
Lastly, was I correct in planning to call the 180 from 99 if he bet it? The pot was 315.
I think your knowledge of your opponents and your opponents weak passive play is what allows you to stay in and take down this nice pot.(I can't believe either opponent called your big bet on the end not being able to beat your obvious str8t but evidently you must bluff enough for them to think they had to :o)
Had the bring in duece been on your right or there been even a small raise to you, you would have had to fold in most cases on first street. Agreed?
Again it's correct to call on second st. with all your draws and implied odds but had the three flush put in a small raise to freeze you out you probably would have been force to fold in most cases.
I think I would have bet the pot (120) with my made str8t (while they were still drawing to beat it) to charge them the maximum.
On the end, like I said earlier, I can't believe they call your big bet.
Nice pot! Congrats!
I posted this on Holdem general, and I'm looking for more responses. I believe this to be very important info for NLHE. --------------------------------------------------
Where can I find how big of a favorite many of the common all-in pre-flop matchups are? I don't need to see every possible matchup, just a few representatives such as
AsAc v Ad8h
AsKc v Td9h
AsKc v KdJh
As8c v KdJh
AsJc v Kd8h
As8c v KdJd
As8s v JdJh
QsQc v 8s8h
I am just looking to know within a percent or two. I imagine that this must be online somewhere, but I don't know where. Also, I am running linux, so any publicly available windows programs that would do this for me don't help.
What part of my response on the other forum didn't you like?
I liked it plenty!
I was just looking for answers to within a percent or two, and I was hoping that someone might know a webpage or a cardplayer article that had a more complete list.
Those 8 are just a sample of about 40 matchups I'd like to know.
% chance of outright win 92.099242 6.589718
% chance of win or split 93.410224 7.900700
expected return, % of pot 92.754733 7.245209
fair pot odds:1 0.078112 12.802225
% chance of outright win 62.407143 37.244788
% chance of win or split 62.755153 37.592799
expected return, % of pot 62.581148 37.418794
fair pot odds:1 0.597925 1.672454
AsKc v KdJh
% chance of outright win 73.312741 25.619633
% chance of win or split 74.380309 26.687200
expected return, % of pot 73.846525 26.153417
fair pot odds:1 0.354160 2.823592
As8c v KdJh
% chance of outright win 57.221031 42.434287
% chance of win or split 57.565654 42.778911
expected return, % of pot 57.393343 42.606599
fair pot odds:1 0.742362 1.347054
AsJc v Kd8h
% chance of outright win 64.555535 35.099784
% chance of win or split 64.900158 35.444407
expected return, % of pot 64.727846 35.272095
fair pot odds:1 0.544930 1.835102
As8c v KdJd
% chance of outright win 53.443139 46.154421
% chance of win or split 53.845520 46.556803
expected return, % of pot 53.644330 46.355612
fair pot odds:1 0.864130 1.157236
As8s v JdJh
% chance of outright win 32.043609 67.618951
% chance of win or split 32.380991 67.956333
expected return, % of pot 32.212300 67.787642
fair pot odds:1 2.104404 0.475195
QsQc v 8s8h
% chance of outright win 80.678840 18.938576
% chance of win or split 81.061365 19.321102
expected return, % of pot 80.870103 19.129839
fair pot odds:1 0.236551 4.227436
hands like: AA vs. T9 4:1 - 7:1 AK vs. AJ 2:1 - 3:1 AJ vs. KJ 2:1 KK vs. AK 3:2 - 2:1
All are very approximate, and depend upon the matchups of the suits and the ranks of the cards. When I write AA vs. T9, I really mean 2 unpaired cards vs. and overpair. The exact matchup of AA vs. T9 will vary with suits, but not over the range provided. However, a hand like AA vs. 72o will be in the 7:1 range.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Any idea of the chance of winning with A-Jo against TWO holdings of K-Qo? All three are all in before flop.
AcJh vs KsQh vs KcQd
66.30% vs 17.35% vs 16.35%
This is a lower percentage win rate than I would have thought.
I'm in the SB with AQ. UTG raises, Cutoff reraises, I fold, BB calls. Flop is AJ8. Check, check, bet, call, call. Turn is a 2. Check, check, check. My stomach burbles. River is a 3. Check, check, check. 3-Bet orders an Alka-Seltzer, UTG takes it down with JTo.
In retrospect, I shouldn't have given the Cutoff much respect, since I had seen him raise preflop with some questionable hands. But I hadn't seen him 3-bet before. A call wouldn't have been that wrong, I just didn't want to pay 2 1/2 more bets to play AQ.
The real question is, how should this knowledge affect future hands played with these players?
You should be willing to three bet it yourself if you hold ace-queen. If it is already three bets, you should still throw it away.
In most situations you should fold your hand. You have the worst possible position also. I might play the hand and I would perhaps cap it preflop if the game were shorthanded, or I was up against weak and predictable opponents. But I still think in general this is an easy muck.
I am a starting Poker player, but I have studied a few books ,but I couldn't find anything about No Limit or Pot Limit strategy. Can Anybody help me.
What is the diference in tactics between 20-40 Limit Poker and the two above?
Are there different hands that I should or shouldn't play?
What is the minimum hand to go All in?
What is the diference in tactics between 20-40 Limit Poker and the two above?
A world of difference. I'd say the most drastic change is the importance of position. In limit poker, you have to make a hand. In NL/PL, it's nice to make hands but it's an absolute MUST to have position.
Are there different hands that I should or shouldn't play?
Yes. This is a very complex and controversial topic. You will get a hundred different answers from a hundred different players. Just remember one thing: the hands you DO choose to play that aren't absolutely premium hands should be in late position. As a quick summary, in NL, hands that are usually playable in limit poker can become death. Especially if you are prone to pay off with top pair when your kicker is less than an ace.
What is the minimum hand to go All in?
72o. Or 23o. Whichever is worse. I'm not kidding.
Some decent books on playing big bet poker:
Pot Limit and No limit Poker by Bob Caffione. Excellent.
Pot Limit and No Limit Hold'em by T.J. Cloutier and Tom McEvoy. Decent but not great. Some flawed advice and some good advice.
Super/System by Doyle Brunson. The bible. Be careful, because a lot of this book can get you into real big trouble if you don't already know what you're doing in no limit.
All of these books are available on conjelco's website.
The biggest gap is poker literature is the lack of a big-bet book by Ray Zee.
Abdul has posted a number of hands (here and rgp) that some might be surprised to see played at 80-160. Just for fun, I thought I'd add another to the list.
80 game, late night in LA. Game is about 7-handed. A kind of weak/average player (BG) with somewhat tighter than average raising standards for this game, who I believe may have a history of the occasional physical confrontation during his lifetime, and whom one does NOT want to provoke, raises three off the button. The small blind (NC) 3-bets. Big blind folds, and BG 4-bets. NC 5-bets. BG calls.
Flop: 5s5c7s --- NC bets, BG calls.
Turn: 8c --- same action.
River 5h --- same action.
NC wins the hand.
For a moment, since I was seated right between them, I thought I might need to get the hell out of the way (or serve myself up as a human shield). But BG just made a few comments.
Just for kicks, anyone want to guess NC's hand? Don't worry about being wrong. You're supposed to be. :-/
...that up to this point NC had appeared to be fairly tight, having only played maybe a couple of hands during the hour or so he'd been at the table.
Every time I play this game, I think about one of your posts where you called 80 players the best in ca, or something like that. I then try to assess my own abilities in relation to theirs. I can only say I'm better than I thought I was, or they're so far above me that I don't even understand their plays.
I'll guess A5s or 22.
Well, you probably ARE better than you thought you were. :) But the game has been decent recently too, partly because of the current tournament, but with some general improvement apart from that. It's better at night too. There are some great players that play it, but fortunately there are enough other types too.
Does BG mean "Big Guy"?
Does NC mean "No Chance" (in a fight against Big Guy)?
I guess NC had AK and BG had AQ. It's 2:30 a.m. and it is just a feeling.
BTW, what has me really mystified is why you expend so much energy debating with Mark Glover.
"BTW, what has me really mystified is why you expend so much energy debating with Mark Glover."
This has me mystified as well. It must be a pocket of pathology that therapy didn't touch. But I believe I may have almost cured myself with this recent go 'round.
69 for the straight, to beat AK?
Just a gander.
I would say either pocket 8's or 7's beating BG's JJ or QQ. But I'm a lowly 5-10 player so what do I know?
OK it's late at nite so the multiple bets preflop means their both relatively weak. If either player had pocket Aces or Kings they would have tryed to trap. I'll guess the small blind had pocket three's or four's and his opponent had AQ or AJ.
BG had KK, NC had a 5 with no kicker?
"80 game, late night in LA. "
Does this mean Los Angeles?
I would have to think these hands are actually posted for their atypical qualities, not because they are really typical. Is this the case?
Well, yes and no. I mean I don't really know about the LV games, but in L.A. such hands, while atypical, are certainly not as rare as many might guess. On the whole you see tighter, more aggressive play than at lower limits. In fact you do see some increadibly good play. But you still get regular visits from "action players" as well as a variety of other bad players.
Heh, while it occurs to me, I should mention that some of the wildest, worst, chip burningest play I've seen has come from a couple of famous WSOP champs. You just never know who will play a "Typical 80-160 Hand". ;)
One thing to keep in mind is that NC was likely using his tight image to represent a big hand and to force BG to fold when his AK missed the flop. His play might be better than you think.
The 80 game in LV is a lot tougher, and you won't get much action there on your good hands. In LA, there are a lot of rich gamblers who like to play in these games. Lots of them. Rich.
Just a few of the hands I lost to in the 40-80 game I played in last night: J5o, J5s, J6o, Q8o, K4s, K6o, A anthing, suited or not, and of course, lots of suited and unsuited connectors. After watching one of my beats, my friend Joe remarked, "That guy is wearing a $40,000 watch."
Oh, I agree that his play has SOME merit, based on the image consideration you mention. I still doubt it's enough to actually justify it... Anyway, having seen some other plays from this guy, I think any merit it had was purely coincidental.
I think NC had wired 7's or 8's
Naturally, NC had T8s... as advertised, right?. BG didn't show, but I would guess AK or thereabouts, or conceivably a small pair. The funny thing was how NC (a player I'd never seen before) had hardly played a hand for an hour or so, then pulled out this beauty. Maybe it was an image thing. Hmmm.
I've played with this player 5 times now. From early position 'only' he will check everything(nothing to the nuts) on the flop except vulnerable hands.
For example: flop is Q-8-5, he will bet out if he holds Queen-jack, where he would check Q-Ace or better. The thing is, if he senses a guy is thinking of raising, he'll hold a stack of chips in one hand like he's going to call(obviously to discourage a raise), then he'll call most the time, even if he has to go all-in to defend his initial bet.
Other than knowing it's safe to bet one pair with top kicker or better against him after he bets out from early position, is there anything else you can think of to take advantage of this situation?
I forgot to mention that it's No-Limit Hold'em we play together, and in the last paragraph, I meant to say it's safe to bet top pair with top kicker against him, sorry.
what else do you need? the guy might as well play his cards face up. i have faced many poor nl players who bet weak hands and check strong ones. 99% of the time you can raise every time they bet and steal that money. meeting one who will then defend those weak hands to the felt is a tasty proposition indeed.
It seems fairly simple.
If he bets, fold if he has you beat, or jam if you have two pair or better. Especially if he considers bottom two pair a vulnerable hand, which it clearly is in NL.
If he checks, now it's a bit trickier. Either he's checking with nothing, or with what he considers to be a big hand.
Does he do that chip-holding tell when he wants you to raise, as with the nuts?
At any rate, the trick is probably to bet a small amount into the pot after he checks and see if he calls. If he throws it away, yay pot. If he calls, he was checking down something reasonably big, so you can get away from the hand without spending too much on it unless you also have a big hand.
"Does he do that chip-holding tell when he "wants" you to raise, as with the nuts?"
No, thank god. When he checks the nuts he waits until after somebody bets to pounce.
Thanks for the advice, particularly the last paragraph, since my dilemma was what to do when he checks.
ciaffone writes, "we both start he hand with 3k the opponent re-raises my $100 raise $250 more so there is now $2650 left enough for 2 more raises. . . it is foolish to re-raise him on KK or QQ here the only hand that is a through ticket is AA...if you reraise with KK how could your opponent possibly make a mistake? he will go all in with AA and fold everything else. It is better to call with KK and make some money with them if they're good."
This looks like the classic brunson "win a small pot or lose a big one" scenario. Why would you want your opponent to make a mistake in this situation? His most likely holdings are AK,AA,QQ,JJ or a steal. In NL i really don't want to see a flop here. Anytime you limp re-raise w/ aa or kk you are putting your opponent in a situation where he can't really make a ANOTHER mistake you are capitalizing on his first mistake raising and falling into your trap. it's better to take down the pot right there like doyle says. Who is the flop more likely to break? if he has AA your still going to get smacked post flop. If he has JJ or QQ your setting yourself up to get broke when you could have took it down easy.
Um, what about when he has JJ or QQ or AK and the flop comes all little cards? If he has QQ or JJ he almost has to bet, since he doesn't want to give a gree card to your putative AK. With AK he might check and fold, but he probably shouldn't most of the time. Either way, you only lose here if he catches a 2- or 3-outer, yet you win with many more flops. Overall, Bob's right, as usual. I will add one catch, which is Bob's play assumes a talented opponent; if your opponent is otherwise, then other plays might be better.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
remember, this guy has position on you. if you bet out 500 after 3 babies and he sets you all in, what do you do now? you have no idea what his hand is because of your weak play pre-flop. Is this really the best place to get all your money in?
Ask yourself this; if your the other guy pre-flop with position and QQ would you rather have mr.ciaffone raise you out or let you see the flop. easy answer. if he lets me see the flop i cant lose (unless he hits a set). my hand is a mystery, his is not, and i have position. i have played with bob before i would push him off KK postflop. or if i had AA make the same amount of money that i would have made if he had played his hand correctly pre-flop. by calling he puts me in a win-win situation.
If Bob is the initial raiser, how can you say that the reraiser's hand is a "mystery", while Bob's is not? I think it is the other way around as the reraiser, unless he is loose, will put in the 2nd raise with a lot narrower range of hands than will the initial raiser. After it is heads up, and when the money is deep, I would sometimes simply call with many hands in Bob's spot. Against an overly aggressive opponent like you who thinks he can "push me off of AA", I might even just call occasionally with AA.
When the flop comes babies, Bob is just as likely (if not more likely) to have a set of babies as is the reraiser. And if he plays like me, he might have AA or KK a few times, too.
when bob raises and then calls my re-raise i "know" he doesn't have AA (unless he is an idiot, which he is not) with AA any sober person will just take the money on the table (even he says this in the quote). Lets not get too tricky here, try to imagine it's a REAL poker game, not a tourney or a wet dream. I also "know" he doesn't have a pair smaller than JJ. the implied odds are not their to flop a set on me (we would need at least 4-5k each). So again i state confidently i "know" his hand he doesn't know mine.
I didn't say i could push him off AA i said i could push him off jj-kk and that is exactly what he has and exactly what i would do.
Who said anything about this being a tournament or a wet dream. I play mostly live nl and pl hold'em and there are a few opponents against whom I don't automatically put in the 3rd raise with AA, even when I am sober. I'll bet you know them, too.
And anothher point about you post that is equally important. How can a good big bet player be so bad at simple math? You state that you know bc doesn't have a pair smaller than JJ because the implied odds are not "their" (sic) to flop a set on you. That is way wrong.
Both players started the hand with 3000. bc raised it 100, so lets assume that the blinds were 25-25. BC now has 2875. The other player now raises it 250 more, making it 250+125 = 375 to go. He now has 2625 left. Bob has to call 250 more to take a shot at a 2625 stack, giving him implied odds of 10.5 to 1. I would call every time with any pair, especially against a guy that I know has to have QQ-AA to put the 3rd bet in.
Why do you say that both players would need at least 4-5k to justify the call since it is less than 8 to 1 to flop a set or better?
By the way, I would be more inclined to be "tricky" in a REAL poker game as opposed to a tournament, because if I simply trap myself, I'll simply buy more chips.
10-1 is not enough to chase. Most recommend 15-20 to 1 (including ciaffone) because: 1. your set might not be good if you hit it 2) you cant be sure you'll get paid off. (remember these are IMPLIED odds)
Now let me quote the bible (supersystem)"
"I'd never stand a re-raise when I have a small pair before the flop. I wont take any pressure with them. If someone puts a play on me I throw them away"
Brunson says in other areas he might play them if the money was really deep (definately better than 10-1)
I thought Ciaffone advocated the 5 and 10 rule- don't play "speculative" hands for more than 10% of your stack, usually call for less than 5%, and use your judgement in between.
This would equate to implied odds of more than 19 to 1 being a clear call and less than 9 to 1 being a clear fold.
In the case of a small/medium pair, I would be inclined to call in this case since I would be getting 12 to 1, and the hand is pretty easy to play post flop, even acting first. (Bet out and his likely raise would commit him for his entire stack). But I would agree with your general point that it is not automatic and requires careful consideration.
As I said in my earlier post, I would like to play against an opponent that I can put on a likely big pair pre flop, and one that would tend to overplay it post flop. That way I have a high liklihood of getting paid off if I hit.
At 12-1, it certainly isn't an automatic fold.
. . .it's good to see you've softened out but you might as well come out and admit it. CIAFFONE IS WRONG. The play he advocates is a big loser out of position. I am suprised Stuart Reuben didn't point this out to him when they were writing the book. A fellow Brit should know better.
anecdotal evidence is the worst way to try to make a point. Of course there are plenty of strange moves we might do in strange situations against strange people but this isnt the case we've been given. And we're not talking about a play w/AA were talking about a play w/KK that is 99% wrong.
I was going to drop it, but I had to respond to this one. While it is never wrong to put in the last raise pre flop with AA, it is sometimes wrong to put it in with KK, and it is certainly wrong more than 1 time in 100.
For example, there is a pretty common type of tightish, but not all that strong of player. Their preflop strategy is as follows, when the money is as deep as the example above:
1. They will never reraise a solid raiser with AK.
2. They WILL reraise the same raiser with QQ-AA.
3. With QQ, they will (usually correctly) release the hand if the original raiser moves all-in.
4. They will sometimes reraise with 99-JJ if the raise comes from other than early position, but will certainly release if the original raiser moves all-in.
I think you would gree that this would be a reasonable set of assumption against a typical or unknown opponent. It is probably one that I would use if I were first sitting down and didn't know the raiser.
This is exactly the type of opponent against which reraising your KK is a mistake. You will only get called if the opponent has AA or the other KK. And he is equally likely to have AA as QQ. Additionally, you will probably get a lot more chips from this type of player on a ragged flop, since they won't "found at where they were at preflop and didn't put you on AA or KK since you didn't reraise".
You are effectively risking an additional 2650 to win the 550 in the pot. So, ignoring the probability of flopping set and the like, you will win 550 half the time (or slightly over half the time if the guy will reraise with smaller pairs) and lose another 2700 the other half the time.
And moving all your chips in just because you don't want to give the other guy a cheap shot at flopping a set and breaking you is simply scared, slider, tournament-style poker in my opinion. Trust your ability to play after the flop.
The fact that you are so certain that Ciaffone's play is wrong is a little stubborn given that either play has merit.
And if you are going to quote Brunson, then I will quote TJ. "In these tough games, the 4th raise is 99.9% ivory snow certain to be Aces."
In my post above, I neglected to include the blinds, Bob's original bet, and the 2nd players call when figuring the implied odds. If you include this additional 300 to the opponent's remaining stack of 2625, you would have implied odds of nearly 12 to 1 on the last call of the 250 raise.
limon wrote: > Ask yourself this; if your the other guy pre-flop > with position and QQ would you rather have > mr.ciaffone raise you out or let you see the flop. > easy answer. if he lets me see the flop i cant lose > (unless he hits a set). my hand is a mystery, his is > not, and i have position.
Sorry, you're not making sense to me. Why can't you lose? Why can you put Bob on nothing but KK if he calls your reraise? And, even if you can do this with Bob, you certainly can't do it with most opponents, so it must be pretty peculiar to Bob. I think a lot of players are going to call you here with hands like AK, QQ, JJ, TT, and maybe a whole lot more. They're going to see the flop, and proceed from there. So, when the flop comes rags, you're going to bet when they check? If so, you lose to the KK. If it comes T high rags, maybe you lose to TT. I think you're being much too rigid in your analysis, by giving your opponent too much credit (not allowing them to play a level or more below you, i.e., to play poorly), and not enough credit (not allowing them to go to the level beyond you).
I happen to agree with Bob on this specific hand given the specific stack size. If the stacks were significantly bigger or smaller, I would probably raise again. However, if they were significantly bigger, I still might just call. I've seen many opponents who put in way too much money with hands like QQ and JJ when rags flop if they're not reraised preflop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think everyone makes some good points but personally I really dont want to play this hand out of position after the flop. I will get while the gettin's good.
So I've recovered enough from last sunday to post about it now.
I sat down at 7:30 or so, just as the game was starting. I lost a pot or two, rebought, fought my way back up to even. I had about $1000 on the table, 2-3-5 NL at artichoke joe's.
For the next few hours, I went on a decent rush. I had hands hit well, got pocket aces twice and they held up, and busted several small (<$200) stacks. I did lose the occasional hand, but overall it went well.
The thing that I noticed that was working for me as well, though, was the ability to bet at a pot with a bad hand, confident in my read of my opponent that *they* had a bad hand as well.
But then the tables turned, so to speak.
Three seperate times, I bet at pots where I was *sure* that the other guy had a bad hand. Three different times, I was called by second or third pair, or a small pocket pair with lots of overcards.
This cost me a good chunk of money; combine that when my QQ got cracked, and I ended up down $900 -- a more than $2000 swing in two and a half hours.
Ah, but any loss is merely a chance for a learning experience, right? So what to learn from this?
So here's my take on all this:
I need to be aware of my shifting table image, much more in NL than in limit. When I get called on a bluff or semibluff, that makes people much more willing to call, especially if it's only a short time later.
Then, it's time to tighten up, wait either for the image to fade or for some actual cards. This of course can go too far -- one hates to leave a pot out there begging to be taken -- but play fewer speculative hands in late position.
I wonder if this makes the late position advantage a little lesser? A big part of NL is using position to take pots that otherwise aren't yours. But if you are looking weak or like a habitual bluffer, then you pretty much have to rely on position to take free cards or get out cheaply.
Btw, tommy totally kicked ass that night, or at least was way up and en fuego when I left, probably not long before the game broke.
Glad to see you finally got your voice back!
Yeah, I was reading well that night. Felt good. Been a while. I took part of the 4K win and splurged. This new coffee pot works great. :-)
I think what you're talking about is optimum frequency. Not just bluffs, everything. Hands played. Checking in last seat. Underbetting, overbetting. Whew, so many things.
I saw you rob a bunch of pots at the beginning and was rooting for you all the way but I feared you'd start getting played with more often eventually and that's exactly what happened. And lots of times you were not last to act. That's where you got in trouble, I think.
Even when last to act, I think it's good to check behind the field a bit more often, on the flop and/or turn. Don't think it goes unnoticed. Sure, some pots slip by that could have been bought. But it also increases the success rate of well-timed bluffs from last seat. And lowers the swings.
I think that in order to "get respect," you have to constantly reinforce this thought in their minds, "Wow, that guy hardly ever plays a hand." It doesn't matter how many hands we fold in the first three hours. Everyone, even the worst players, are instinctively sensative to who is playing how many hands NOW.
See you Sunday?
LOL, Tommy is right. When I won the NL HE super-satellite for the 5K event at Foxwoods, I was on a major rush that lasted forever. I was getting dealt the best hand preflop the large majority of the time, and it was holding up every time. To reinforce their folding to my preflop raises, I would show my good cards every time nobody called. The worst I showed was probably ATs first in from the button. I was getting called a lot, and winning with JJ, AK, etc. After doing this for over an hour, I raise again with KK. Guy in the SB goes all-in, and I call. He says "I'm sick of you pushing us around. You're raising so much, it has to be mostly garbage." All he had was Q9o. I laughed inside, as this guy obviously wasn't paying any attention.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Home Game, Pot Limit Omaha High, no blinds with a $1 ante. 4 players. I am in early position (second to act) with A-J-5-X, with the Ace and 5 being of diamonds. Checked around pre-flop (rare for this game), flop comes J-5-2, two diamonds. I love this flop. First player bets $4, I make it $10 (figuring I want company in this one with my nut draw as well as my top two). Next player folds, button calls, original bettor just calls. $34 in the pot. Turn comes an ace to give me aces up, but also putting two hearts on the board (as well as two diamonds). Original bettor bets $20; I think about raising the limit, but opt to call as this player has me covered in chips many times, and I am now fearing a set of deuces (as this player will often smooth call a raise and then bet out on the turn with a set). The late position player also calls ($94 in the pot). The river comes a dreaded 10 of hearts, putting the potential broadway straight and heart flush out there. Original bettor bets $60, I muck, last player calls and wins with a rivered flush (he had pocket 8's and called the flop to hit his runner runner). Original player had Aces and Jacks (he'd flopped Jacks and deuces). Did I play this too timidly or was I doomed? All comments appreciated.
The initial bettor had about $300 going into the hand, I had a little over $100 and the guy who rivered the flush (3rd player) has about $225.
being in early position in pot omaha is death so even with what looks like a great flop, any decent action you get you will need to make a flush to win.
the key bet is when he bets on 4th st. this means at least aj and best for you becomes a split. so a fold is more likely in order unless you have pot odds. which it looks like you only might. scary huh.
Ray, If I can't call here with an implied near 4-1 (assuming the button calls, which I was pretty sure was a lock) with top two pair and 4 to the nut flush, what can I call with? I know being super tight pays off in pot limit Omaha, but against the same players almost nightly, I think I would get killed and no action if I played so tightly.
bad calls for the big bets is not giving action its giving money. as i said your call was close and your hand was pretty much playing as a flush draw. i think you gave too much weighting to your two pair which almost certainly wasnt better than a split and would lose money to any call you would have to make. if you want to win at poker you cant buy the approval of your competition, all you can do is be congenial and friendly.
I see also that the pot was unraised before the flop. So anyone could have anything and you have to allow for the possibility that the ace on 4th street made someone a straight. E.g. flop was J52, 4th street was Ace,someone who got a free look at the flop could have had 345J, 2346, A345 or similar and realistically might have called the flop bet.
Oh no!! Not again.
Sunday game at AJ's, $2-3-5 blinds, Minimum $10 to open.
I had the "kill" on the button which means it's $20-to-open and I'm in for sure if no one pops it.
Checked to me, I bet. One player called. This "one player" is the toughest of the tough and also one of my best friends. My no-limit mentor. I'll call him Joe. We rarely play a pot.
He checked, I checked.
River: 10, I have three ten. Joe checked. I had to pick a number to bet, and I think I stumbled upon a good parameter.
There was about $120 in the pot and we both had enough that all-ins were out of the picture. There were no flush draws out, so on the turn Joe could narrow my range of hands to three: A-x or any pair on the flop(or pocket pair), a straight draw on the flop, an outright bluff on the flop.
Lots of hands Joe could have had, but not many that will pay off for a significant amount, UNLESS he put me on a bluff.
Joe knows I won't check the turn with A-x and then try to bluff him off a bigger kicker or get a small payoff with a decent kicker. I'd check behind on the river with any ace that I'd check the turn with. My best shot was to bet big and hope he put me on a busted straight draw, BECAUSE ...
No possible-straight-draw-on-the-flop-hand has a ten in it.
I bet $240 on the river. Joe thought for the longest time, far longer than usual. I know he had already figured out I did not have an ace, and that he was wondering how I could have a ten. Finally he folded, and told me later he decided I had moved on the flop with nothing, and checked the turn happy to have made a pair, and bet big on the river with three tens hoping he'd put me on a busted straight.
Gawd! What a player that Joe is! And what a game no limit is!
I had 10-9
cool story. You guys must have put in hundreds of hours for him to make such a precise read. Did he ever say how he came to the conclusion that you had three tens rather than a busted straight?
If this is the player I think it is, he's really really good at reading people. He quite successfully put me on a hand more than once, and I've seen him make some amazing reads.
I've seen him screw up, too, of course. But nobody's better at reading cards in that game as he is.
(Am I right about who this is, tommy?)
(Btw, not gonna make it this sunday. Out of town for the weekend. G'luck!)
or -- maybe,
you dont or he thinks you dont bluff much in this spot, or against him in particular. then he rationalizes how you could have made a hand big enough to bet on and acts his conclusion. which in this case is right.
A subtle point here is that you guys all recognize this guy as a tough player and a good poker psychologist and (the point) you adjust your play accordingly.
I had a period where I was really playing well a couple of summers ago. We were playing no limit holdem 6 days a week (in different places across three states), and I went a month without calling a bet on the end where I was beat. I had some players dead clocked and picked off some huge bluffs during that period.
The problem is that my reputation for card reading reached the point where people began to play me differently than they did anyone else. They would make specific adjustments to their play, even to the point of playing bass ackwards.
There were other problems. I work as a college professor and I can only really concentrate on poker during my May to August break. So when school starts and I'm restricted to two or three moderate length plays a week, my play isn't as strong. Also, there are times for every poker player when you really think you're playing good, and you're crushing the games, but the real truth is that you're in a cycle where the cards are breaking for you for a few months.
Nevertheless, Mason has frequently made a point about how good players must constantly adjust to the current competitive milieu. So the key ingredient to long term success may be the ability to adjust to the contextual circumstances rather than developing a fixed system of response. Programmatic play can be especially deadly.
Same home game as above, pot limit, no blinds, $1 antes, this time 3-handed. I have pocket aces and am first to act. This is a wild game, and I bet $3 (pot), first player calls, the button calls ($9 in pot). Flop comes Q-5-2 rainbow. I bet $6, first player folds, button raises $5, I think to feel me out. This player is wild, but he espescially likes to play against my pre-flop bets with wild hands as he always reads me for A-Q, A-K, etc and thinks I'm bluffing when a raggedy flops falls. I reraise $10, and he raises me the pot limit ($41). I really think he is trying to make a move on me with queens, thinking the flop missed me entirely, I have $58, so a call leaves me with 17, which I know will be gone on the turn. I move all in, and he shows me a set of deuces. Did I overplay this hand against a wild opponent? I think I may have been influenced by his pushing me off A-J with an A-Q-5 board earlier. Any opinions welcome.
I had a problem the last time I played pot limit w/ a similar hand - I allowed myself to get busted w/ a big pair on a Qxx board to a set b/c I had folded a couple of top pair good kicker hands. My problem was I called a big bet on the turn.
I think you have to respect his re-raise of 41 dollars. You said he's a wild player, but when you bet and he raises and you re-raise. Do you think he's tricky enough to risk 41 to win 41 w/ top pair? I think he'd have looked for you to call and fold on teh turn w/ over cards or a weak queen. If he's really wild, what can you do, but if he's just a little tricky, I think his $41 reraise screams "I can beat a pair".
Just my thoughts.
You played the hand badly.
The pre-flop raise is fine. The bet on the flop is fine, but after you have re-raised his raise showing strength...and he is still there...you are losing.
If they bet when they expect you to call, they are not bluffing. The only exception is that he could have held a pair of kings, but that is the only thing that you can realistically be up against and still beat.
Game is 9 handed is Los Angeles. Seat 2 is the BB. Seat 4 (tight old guy) open-raises and seat 6 (very loose, maniac player) 3 bets. It's heads up. The flop is QJ5, rainbow. TP bets, MP raises, TP raises, MP raises, TP calls. Turn is a 3, still rainbow. TP checks, MP bets, TP calls. River is an 8. They both check. MP turns over the winning hand. Can you guess what the players had? I would be very, very surprised if anyone could even come close to being right. That hand was one of the sickest things I've ever seen.
winning player turns over 82s
I think I may know who this maniac is. does he wear a sportsjacket and 3 bets preflop 10 out of 9 hands?
Ya, what seat were you in?
Heh, you mean Docriver got the hand exactly right? Good read. I'm not sure if I know the maniac here, but one interesting thing about the hand is that the "tight old man" made it 3 bets on the flop with no pair. I would assume he had AK, but he doesn't appear to be as conservative as you'd expect from the description. I've often seen guys who *look* like they're going to be the stereotypical "tight old man", but who I soon learn are stealing players blind, exploiting their tight image. Kind of funny somehow.
Actually this guy was pretty tight. I watched him play for hours. I guess he figured that with 2 overcards and a gutshot on the flop he had a pretty strong hand. Of course if he had known what the other guy held I'm sure he would have gone all in.
i wasn't there, just guessing who the guy might have been.
If you weren't there, that was an incredible guess because he had 8h2h.
now if I can only make those reads when I'm actually in the hand!
why is high limit omaha (200/400, 300/600 etc) so much more popular than the same limits in limit hold'em? it seems at most of the major tourneys and big rooms (bellagio, commerce, binions during wsop, reno during wpc, etc.) any high limit game (not including no limit or pot limit) are omaha games and not hold'em . this just seems odd to me as it is fairly tough to find a midlimit omaha game usually (20/40 through 40/80).
The high limit omaha games are generally much looser than are the hold'em games. This is the only reason I can think of.
from the sound of all the posts I've seen in the past few weeks about some 80/160 hands, one would think it is the easiest game out there...just play tight and rake in the money.
what about all the good plays, the good laydowns, the good three bet, the good semibluff, etc. let's hear some good plays for a change...please.
from all the hands about 80/160, I think people would call me crazy to fold QQ in this spot...but here it is anyway....
the button is in seat 9, UTG (seat 3) limps - the guy seems to me to be a somewhat passive loose player. I am in seat 5 with QQ...I raise...everyone folds to BB who calls...UTG limper now makes it 3 bets (oh oh, AA, I think)...I call, BB calls.
The flop comes three low cards, with 2 diamonds (I don't have one). 852 ... BB checks, UTG bets, I raise (right or wrong?)...BB folds, UTG calls. At this point, I feel a bit better, often AA would 3 bet here.
Turn is a 3...UTG checks, I bet, he raises. Now, it sure looks like AA, or maybe KK. Would JJ, TT or AK make this series of moves? I don't think so....even with all the posts by Abdul, John F. etc about Typical 80/160 hands.
I fold....and I start thinking if I should have lost fewer bets (maybe check the turn, maybe just call the flop and fold the turn), but I feel ok with the way I played it.
Oh, by the way, he flashed his hand...and it was 82s.
No, just kidding, it was AA.
as long as everyone is sharing typical 80/160 hands...here's one that I found somewhat ammusing.
manaic who raises 9 out of 10 hands (maybe the same guy that Xavier was talking about, maybe even in the same game, although I swear I wasn't there for the hand he mentioned with the 82)....three bets a tight player .... big blind (older guy who plays a bit too aggressive and a bit too loose, but probably not by too much) 4 bets. both call.
the flop comes 842 .... BB bets, tight player raises, maniac 3 bets, BB caps...both call.
the turn is a 3h - making two hearts on the board. BB bets, tight player calls...maniac raises, BB 3 bets, tight player throws away QQ face up in disgust. maniac calls.
river is a 4d....no flush.
BB bets, maniac raises, BB raises, maniac raises, BB raises, maniac calls.
BB turns over 88 for 8s full of 4s. Maniac turns over 8h4h - for 4s full of 8s, with a flush draw on the turn.
I think this may have been the same maniac that Xavier was talking about.
QQ gets to go up against 88 and 84 at the same time with no one else in; they have the equivalent of less than 2 outs between them, and QQ comes in third.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I was wondering who of the top pros is actually a pretty good poker player. I know alot of them have "Name recognition" and mystique, and the tournament wins obviously boost their persona of world class players. But has anyone every really played against them for long periods of time (not a few sessions)?
Not talking about Sklansky, Mason, Brunson, Caro. They instantly have my respect.
But What about the others? Daniel N, Huck Seed (puts in so much time in live games), Hellmuth, Ted Forrest (who is supposed to be excellent), Scotty N, etc.
They must be decent to be able to play at those stakes only. Otherwise they would go broke. What makes World Class? Experience and intrinsic knowledge of the game along with bankroll?
Well, by definition anyone who isn't so good is not a "top pro". But, anyway, I think you mean which of the well known players are as good as their name recognition would suggest. I've only played a bit with one in your (second) list, but from everything I hear I'd guess that two on that list are very good, one I have no idea about, and two I think are way overrated. There, how's that for a definitive answer?
Having played with some other "name" players, not on you list, I'd say that often when players talk about a famous player who is considered by many to be of "questionable" skill, they're referring to a tournament player who is known to do poorly in live games. On other occasions it's a player whose better days were in the past, but who is still well known. Still other times it's a player who is very good in one specialty, say one of the big bet games or whatever, but who often ventures into other games where he is terrible. At least those are some of the variations I've noticed. I think *true top players are distinguished simply by their long term success at the game - though identifying that is easier said than done. Oh, and many of the very best players I've seen are relative unknowns. FWIW.
(Plhe 2 and 5 blinds, 7 handed). I am in the BB w/ QQ (aprox 700) in front of me. UTG (solid player w aprox 400) makes it 20 to go. Loose maniac #1 calls (has 2000+ in front of him). Loose maniac #2 calls (hasno less than 3000 in front of him), all others fold. #2 has seen almost every flop and raised more than half the time preflop. I believe that I have the best hand would like to get some people out and raise 80. All call. Flop 468 rainbow. I bet 400 utg folds. #1 folds. #2 calls. BTW I have seen #2 go all the way to the river w/ bottom pair, and read him for nothing more than a smallish pair. Turn is a 2 and i go all in. #2 calls and turns over 67. He caught a 7 on the end to make two pair.
My question is did I over play this hand. He had the type of hand that I thought he did and I made it expensive for him. How could I have saved money? Is there anything I should've done different. All input would be appreciated. Thank you
Well you put all of your money in when you had the best of it and he sucked out on you. It happens. He has only 9 outs to beat you on the river and he hit one of them. Given the information that you had on the player you played it fine. If I knew exactly what he had, I would gladly put all my money in on the turn.
When you bet the pot on the flop (400, making the pot 800 dollars), the pot is now laying the maniac 2-1 for his call. If you have the big pocket pair you are representing, he has 9 outs to beat you which makes his odds of success about 1.9-1 (with 2 cards to come)so he basically has an even money call, which because of your short stack he can make with no fear, because...
...if he misses, which he did, he still has nine outs but with one card to come is now about 46-9 or just over 5-1 for his call. Well you only have 200 left to bet, which makes the pot 1400 and is laying him 7-1 for his call. He has an easy call here and unfortunately hits one of his outs to beat you.
Had you had enough chips to bet the pot on the turn ( 1200) The pot would only be laying him 2-1 again on a 5-1 shot and it would be a HUGE mistake for him to call.
So I think in this case your short stack worked against you.
In a tournament I would have gone all-in with QQ in the big blind.
But in a money game I would have just called. I don't believe in building a pot when out of position.
When you re-raised before the flop and then bet the flop the other players KNEW that you held an overpair. Had you just called before the flop you wouldn't have given your hand away.
Had I been in your shoes I would have strongly suspected that player who called on the flop held a set.
Why did you go all-in on the turn and not earlier?
He's playing the player as much as the cards. By the description he likely wouldnt have laid down the hand for anything less than a bet that puts HIM all in. Even at that he still may have not laid it down. Obviously this type of player isnt that concerned with what the pot is laying him to call. It wasnt a terrible play IMO ....the only thing you could have done was to wait for a situation where you have an even larger advantage over this opponent and then double up. If I were in the same situation as you I would have probably played the hand much the same way.
The player that called my bet would've called me with anything from bottom pair w/ a 2 kicker to the nut straight. As far as going all in on the turn not the flop, I Bet as much as I could (we were playing pot limit). Are you saying that I just call pre-flop and I get more protection because the pot is smaller and I therefore can make two or three more pot size bets?
The common axiom is that it's best to have everyone covered. I disagree. It's just as good to have no one covered.
Both situations offer the same critical benefit, you don't have to think about who has how many chips before the flop. And once involved, with a big stack you only need to consider the size of their stack when making decisions, and with a small stack you only have to consider your own stack.
This seems obvious and simple on paper, but in practice it conserves essential energy, hand after hand, and allows clearer focus on hand-reading.
those that like to play fast and bluff alot do much better with small stacks as many times you bet a draw heavily and get moved in and now you have odds to call. where as with the big stack you must fold. also some times you can bet into a big stack as a bluff when there is another behind him and he wont call for fear of the big money behind him. i think a smaller stack gives the good player much more room to move around in. for the nut player with alot of disipline a big stack pays off as sooner or later as he gets to trap a fool for all his chips. it does pay to have enough chips to at least continue on with your style of play. good post tommy.
I have learned to always bet the pot in pot limit. I do this so that a pattern can not be found. I think however, that this is not working for me. When I have a big hand my bet chases the weaker hands out. When I have a good hand (that can be beat),semibluff or bluff, I am only being called when I am beat. Does anyone else agree w/ my evaluation? Or is this style of play OK, and I need to look at other areas of my game to see why I am getting beat.
Wonder if this might get better response on general theory.
Just a thought.
What happens when you bet half the pot? How about underbetting the pot? What literature have you read on big bet, pot-limit, or no-limit poker?
I've read Cloutier's omaha and holdem books (nl and pl), am currently reading Ciaffone's (sp?) book on pot limit and no limit and of course Super System. If i underbet the pot do i need to think about giving the person just the wrong odds to call? Or has the pourpose of my betting changed?
Ray and I played no-limit a few times ove the last couple months. I posted about his frequent underbetting and he said to ask about it again when he was off the road and back at his computer.
Ray? I've been underbetting frequently after watching you do it, and it's working like magic! Unbelievable! Before I ramble about my experiences, care to share some of your thoughts?
Could you post an appropriate example of underbetting the pot?
Two sample hands from last night.
I "kill" it from the button and call the extra $10 after three players limp for $20. $80 in the pot.
I have 6-9.
Flop comes K-7-2. They check to me and I bet $20. This will often win the pot with flops like that, and I'm getting 4-1. (I don't always bet in these spots in order to add some weight when I do.) Two players call.
Turn card gives me a gut-shot draw. All check.
River makes me a straight. First player bets $60, second one calls, third one mucks, I raise $80, first player folds, second player barely calls.
I have K-Q on the button, almost identical preflop betting as above. Flop comes Q-10-x. All check to me. I bet $20. First player check raises all-in for $160. All fold, including me.
If I had bet the pot, $80, I'd have been pot-stuck for $80 more. Sure, I might have had the best hand, or maybe hit something I needed, but I REALLY like the idea of having the OPTION to fold, of not being routinely pot stuck with one pair in these situations.
i dont know the players but in the first hand when you made your straight you could many times bet a whole lot because you might get a call from someone who wouldnt give you credit for having a straight. especially if he made something decent. he is more likely to suspect a bluff and call.
since its one of my tactics i wont go into everything i could. sorry but thats the rub.
one reason is by betting small into larger pots many times you get to win with nothing at all with little to lose. simple formula. it works until they start raising you. so next step is to be betting small with hands that can stand raises as well. also soon they start calling you because they see you can call raises so they cant blow you off the pot with nothing. since they are now calling you alot you can bet an awful lot of weak hands into them that win alot when called and hands that you would have to fold if you checked and they bet. all this starts to require pretty good play so you can fold to the people that have good hands and call those that are running you off. also knowing which ones to bet at so you can get called where if you bet more they wouldnt call at all. the main money you make comes from winning lots of medium sized pots that you would certainly lose if you checked or if you bet alot and got called you would have the worst of it as well. also because they get afraid to raise you you bet your draws into them where if you check they may bet too much. so you get to draw cheaply as well. so there are lots of ways to make betting small into bigger pots at no limit pay. for most people though it still makes sense for them to bet nearer to the size of the pot because they will get into too much trouble when players take off cheap cards against them. thats one of the major downfalls of betting too little and it can come back to haunt you quickly. the player that controls the betting at the table always seems to make the betting work for him. thats a plus of course.
Is your new book on no-limit holdem coming out in 12 months or 18 months? How many no-limit articles are you going to be publishing while you're still writing the book?
You just confirmed everything I've discovered since employing frequent underbets. Thanks. It worked like a charm, again, last night.
The main thing for me was overcoming the fear that I'd give someone proper odds to draw to a gut-shot or two-outter-pocket-pair and then they'd bust me if I had a big hand. No problem there so far. First, I never seem to have a big hand, and I'm getting better and figuring out when the other guy catches a perfect card.
Does the post above imply that you are underbetting the pot, even when you have a hand that might have to pay off a big bet on the turn such as a pocket tens on a KT5 board with two of a suit?
In these situations, I would usually bet enough so that I know which scare cards are more likely to hit my opponent.
Yes. Like Ray said, for the underbetting to be effective is has to be done with big hands and pure bluffs and everything in between. There are exceptions of course depending on the feel of the players at the time, but in your example, the hope of underbetting is that someone makes a move right on the flop, or gets strung out for future bets with a top-pair-good-kicker type hand.
(Unlike Ray, I only routinely underbet from last seat)
So let's say someone just calls the bet and a scare card comes on the turn. I'm not committed to losing a bunch of chips, even with second set. If he suddenly comes to life with a big all-in check-raise, well, it's oftentimes an easy laydown. I mean, he didn't move on the flop, so it looks like a draw, then a draw-making card came, then he perked up. If he doesn't have the best hand, he surely has plenty of outs, so depending on the money situation, laying down the best hand on the turn might be only a small mathematical error.
Underbetting at no-limit certaintly is not a novelty for Jack Strauss(deceased) was a master at underbetting but he had a little twist to his underbetting. He would underbet with a bluff, a draw or with the nuts. Once contested,either with a call or raise the next bet or play would be the bomb or a hugh bet. Now you as his opponent would have to guess to his holdings for all your chips.
hey carl dont get a line on my play from this forum.
for those that dont know ive been playing with carl for 30 years no limit and he is one of the best in the world at the game.
Six months ago or so. The big NL game at LC's.
Three handed pot and I was in middle position and Carl was last. There was some action on the flop. On the turn or the river, can't recall which, the first player made an "I'm committed" size bet.
I was pretty sure I had him beat, so all I had to do was figure out what the heck Carl's plans were. So I sat there for a minute, glancing occasionally at Carl to get a read. He looked something like Michaelangelo's David, minus the hair, and with clothes, but just as still.
I folded, Carl folded, and I remarked, as a compliment, that Carl had given perfect protection to the bettor. Carl said something like, "I'm sure you would have done the same." But we'd never met!
Is any of this underbetting-of-the-pot applicable in no-limit hold'em tournament play? Or is winning the pot too important to take chances of letting someone draw out on you?
This thread reminded me of a hand that I played against Carl last year. 25-50 PLH, I was in BB with JJ. There were a couple of early limpers, someone made it 200 to go, Carl called from the button, so did I and the early limpers. So about 1k in the pot. Flop came 9-9-9 and everyone checked. Turn was a low rag of some kind. I was fairly sure at that point I had the best hand, but instead of betting the pot, I bet $300. Everyone but Carl folded. River was an A, and I checked and folded to his underbet of about the same $300. He flashed AQ.
Here I made too small a bet on the turn,giving Carl room to hit one of his two overcards - when we were talking about it after the hand he confirmed he would not have called much more than the $300. Maybe I should have emulated Jack Strauss and thrown the bomb on the river - problem is that Carl is a great player and I'm not at all sure he would have believed I had a nine. And he knew I probably did not have AA since I did not reraise preflop.
Not trying to draw too much of a parallel to Tommy's original thought, because pot limit and no limit are very different. Just a not so fond memory of a hand badly played.
Sometimes I wish I had a better memory and sometime I'm glad I don't. Jim, your memory is too good! lol
I just played a NL hand today where an underbet might have cost my stack.
JJ in the blind. (Sound familiar?) Three players come in for $100 and I just call. Yeah, I could have pulled the trigger, but didn't this time.
Flop comes 8-7-2, two of a suit. I bet $300. The opener calls and the other two fold. The $100 open before the flop already had me thinking pocket pair. Right now in my mind the only hands I can beat are 10-10 and 9-9. I'm not liking it.
Turn comes a blank. I check, he bets $1200 all-in and I fold. He shows top set on the flop, 8-8. If I had bet, say, $100 on the flop, I might have lost a lot more if he just smooth calls. If I had checked the flop, lordy, I don't even want to go there.
I don't have a great memory - I just remember the hands I played badly better than the ones I played more or less right. Sounds to me like you lost the minimum with your jacks, and from what I can tell from your posts you've become a pretty good big bet player - hope I'll be seeing you at WSOP this year?
Yeah, I might come down. Gotta see Blue Man Group again! As to big-bet games, I'm realizing it's really just a food-chain thing. I'm a pathetic chump to some and a champ to others. Bobby Hoff told me, "It's not how you play, it's how they play." He's right. At big bet poker especially, game selection is only everything.
This sounds like a really neat strategy for NL ring games, but I was wondering if the experts here think that it will reap similar results in NL tourneys? I see too many people (including myself) who make big-sized, committed bets in the NL tourneys that I play. My guess is that important tourney factors like stack size and increasing blinds may not allow me to imploy this underbetting strategy.
Thanks in advance for your comments.
in no limit you can make the sized bet that gives you the best results for the hand being played. sometimes it may be small bets. in most tournaments you dont have enough chips to do too much small betting and winning the pot is of utmost importance as well as winning all the chips. i talked about underbetting because tommy asked me. it is not a good strategy for most people as they will just give up cheap cards and then get broke. a person underbetting that doesnt have the experience is doomed.
So I'm playing in a no limit home game with Tommy Angelo, which was probably a case of not excercising good game selection, except that a guy shows up with 30 grand in his pocket and starts to open blind with $100 or $200 every fifth hand. The buy-in is $150 and the blinds are 2-3-5 and he's throwing $200 into the pot before he sees his cards. I've never seen anything like it.
I'm holding my own and playing well considering I'm to the immediate right of the maniac. Basically I have to screw down and play ultra tight. Anything I come in with will get raised. If I don't have something that can stand a lot of heat, it goes in the muck.
There are four players at this table who are just awful. They are so bad, I'd sit down at a table with Doyle Brunson, Johnny Chan, Ray Zee, Bobby Baldwin, and Chip Reese if these four other players were also there.
Of course, two of the bad players were taking all the money. They each turned a couple hundred into about $3k. But that's not the point of this story. The point of this story is how Tommy Angelo trapped me like a fish for $200 and then lost it anyway.
One of the rare limping pots occured when I was in the big blind and Tommy was - you guessed it - on the button. This turned out to be very bad for me. I was riding high off a near-triple-up with KK and had about 700 in front of me. I was a short stack at this point too.
Nine players limped. The flop came 889 with two hearts. I was holding the AhTh and felt ok about this flop, although the pair concerned me.
EVERYBODY checked, which was strange and I assumed nobody had an 8. I was correct but that still did not save me. The turn comes the 6h. Oh my. What a situation. I've made the nut flush with a pair on the board. And Tommy has the button.
I check, everyone checks to the cutoff who bets $60 with about 600 behind it. Tommy makes it $200 to go. Oh dammit. I've got the nut flush and Tommy Angelo is raising me $200 with a pair on the board. A little voice inside my head is telling me to just fold and be done with it. I've got $5 invested in this nothing pot. It's not worth the trouble.
So of course I call like an idiot because I know Tommy Angelo and I KNOW he knows the value of the button and I think there's a good chance I have the best hand. What stupid logic. Who is going to make a move with a board like that facing NINE opponents? I need to work on my game. But that's for another post.
Of course, lots of folders and then the player two from Tommy moves all in. Hmmmmm... this is NOT good. Then the original $60 bettor calls. Then Tommy calls. This is just horrible. A nightmare. I now know for sure that I've thrown my $200 into Tommy's coffers. I muck of course and inwardly I'm picturing the fine new appliance or home fixture that Tommy will buy with my money.
Now this is where it gets good.
The all-in raiser shows a K high flush. The original $60 bettor shows a 5s7h for the low end straight. He's one of the four really bad players. Believe it or not, the K high flush player is pretty good, just having an off night. Tommy of course shows a full house.
I'm sure you are now wondering for just a half second why I've mentioned that Tommy trapped me for $200 but lost it anyway. But you've probably just remembered that the board is 8x9h8h6h and the terrible player who just called for all his money with the baby end of the straight is holding a 7h.
The river is of course a 5h.
Tommy makes not a peep. No expression, not even a shake of the head. His cards go into the muck quietly. After all, it was merely a $3000 pot. The maniac immediately straddles for $100 and we deal again....
i enjoyed this post and as always appreciate your contributions and think you are really working on your game and feel if you worked on tournament strategies you could be placing very high in the big money tournies (i.e. WSOP) very shortly...jmho....i always value Mr. Angelo's posts: he is an original thinker and is not afraid to state his mind (and is an extremely creative individual)...not bad attributes for nl he..gl all...if you learn from tommy you are on the right track...gl
Two other nifty stories from that night.
I'd played many times with the ultra-lose 30K-in-pocket guy at the big NL game at LC's. 20 minutes into the home game he says, "Tommy, I'll lay $800 to your $600 on a coin toss."
I said OKAY!
He tossed a quarter, I called heads, and it landed heads! WEEOOO!!
The cool thing is that I showed up with $3200, and the coin toss put my bankroll for the evening at $4,000. After the one-out straight flush hand that you wrote about, I was stuck $3000, with my last $1000 on the table. And I ended up winning $2500 for the night, counting the coin toss. In other words, had I lost the coin toss, I would have busted out of the game, and if the coin toss had not taken place, I would have been down to $200, drastically reducing the likelihood of coming back from a deep hole to book a winner.
And there's more!
On one hand, the ultra-lose player had nothing but $100 bills in front of him. He ripped one in half, put one piece of the bill in the pot and said, "I bet $50.
Gawd, I love California.
This quote stolen from www.imdb.com, page on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The inmates are playing cards and betting with cigarettes.]
Martini: [rips a cigarette in half] I bet a nickel.
McMurphy: Dime's the limit, Martini.
Martini: I bet a dime.
[Puts the two halves onto the table.]
McMurphy: This is not a dime, Martini. This is a dime. [shows a whole cigarette] If you break it in half, you don't get two nickels, you get shit. Try and smoke it. You understand?
McMurphy: You don't understand.
I think you played great that night. You're right that you had a dreadful seat in front of you-know-who. You picked your spots patiently.
Alex and I often give up percentages of each other two each other, prearranged, even when, like now, he's on the east coast. But mainly in the big NL game. (That's why we never play in the same game.)
We almost never swap at 2-3-5. After the home game I talked to Alex on the phone the next day. As soon as I said that the 30K guy showed up, Alex said, "Don't tell me your results yet. I want 20% of whatever you did."
His reasoning was that having that person in the game meant it was effectively a $10-10-20 blinds game and that he was entitled to his standard share.
I had to admit that he was right. So I lost money out of nowhere on a friggin phone call! lol
I asked him if he wanted to be retroactively in on a $600 coin toss. He said no. Then I told him what happened, and he said that of course he would want in on those odds. That's where I drew the line! He gets nothing from the $800!
thats the difference when playing in a home type game. if the table was full of good players you would have seen two full houses or better on fourth street with at least 98 being there and probably losing. all three players probably should have folded for the first 200 raise.
Hey guys--I am in my regular NL game, blinds .50/1.00 and we are down to three handed. I am in BB with $250 in front of me, small blind has about $130 and button has $600. I look down at Q-10o. Button bets $3, which he has done 6 hands in a row, and I figure he is trying to steal my blind so I make it an even $25. He calls. (I am guessing the pre-flop raise was my first mistake. I probably shouldn't have played this hand at all.) Flop comes K-9-Q rainbow. I have second pair and a gutshot. I check. Button bets $75 and I figure him for maybe A-K and figure I will try and get him to lay it down. If he has J-10 I am screwed, but something makes me think it is now or never and I have outs. I raise all my chips and he calls. He flips over J-J. His only outs are the three 10s, and he gets one on the river. I got broke on this hand and he says my big flaw was not betting all of my chips on the flop. I say I had the best of it and stand by my check-raise. How bad was my play of this hand?
You should have at the most called the $3 BTF. Then, you can bet the pot on the flop and see what he does next. Re-raising with QT is not a good move because your opponent is a favorite with King high, let alone JJ.
This guy is going to give you his money, if he will call all in with third pair. I don't see the rush. Not that your play didn't work, I just don't see the need to take a risk with second pair against this fish. I would pick my spots, maybe see a few more flops, so I could bust this guy.
He was calling my all-in, but as I stated in the first post he had three times as many chips as me. I lost my entire br for the evening on this hand. Before this hand, I was only stuck $10. As is, I'm going to have to try to take it back next week. The next day, him and I must have spent half an hour going back and forth on this hand over coffee. Besides saying I should have bet out on the flop, he says the $75 bet he made on the flop took away my option to check raise. He said that after that $75 hit the pot, I should have changed my plans. Thanks for your thoughts, guys. Dan
These are the problems I have with what happened.
1. Raising 25 from out of position.
You said: I am guessing the pre-flop raise was my first mistake. I probably shouldn't have played this hand at all
Yes and no, respectively. You should have called the $3 and seen a flop. First of all, you have QTo, hardly anything to get excited about. Second of all, you have GREAT implied odds by calling his mere $3 raise. Now you can put in $3 and see if you can turn a great flop. WHY raise $25 more into a $5 pot? You are out of position. That was a terrible terrible move. In addition, after describing your opponent's play, you should have known it was unlikely that you could take it down right there. So you're very likely going to have a see a flop with QTo out of position. Not good.
2. Trying to push him off a better hand. You said:
Button bets $75 and I figure him for maybe A-K and figure I will try and get him to lay it down.
Don't ever do this. If you really think he has AK, try to push him off it postflop when he has MISSED. It's very hard, if not impossible to push a player off AK when there's a K on the flop! Also, considering that this guy was willing to put in ALL his money with two overcards to his pocket pair, you should have known without a doubt that you were not going to push him off AK! That doesn't even make any sense. You have to know your players.
3. The checkraise.
Bad move. If you were to have any chance at winning this hand, it had to come before your opponent committed $75 to the pot. You had to move in NOW and represent a K. Of course, I don't think there would be any benefit to doing this, but if you were going to try it, a checkraise was NOT the way to go about it.
4. You should be able to take all this guy's money fairly quickly and easily. He raised $3 into $1.50 worth of blinds with JJ for christ's sake! On the BUTTON! Unbelievable. And then he couldn't lay it down when two overcards came on the flop! This is the easiest type of player to beat in no-limit. Next time, just pay the $3 to see the flop with ANYTHING (hyperbole alert for the dim-witted)and bust his ass.
I strongly urge you to read and re-read Natedogg's last post.
what's wrong with raising $3 on the button here? i would do the same thing w/jj 3 handed. i know i'm going to get called so i'll build a nice little pot for myself. i would also know that there is a guy in the game who might raise me $25 into that $5 pot (a slider) and would hope for this so i could re-raise.
I going out to Vegas for my annual dead money drop into TARGET (4/21). How many small-buy in NL/PL games are there? I know about the ones at the Plaza and the Strat...are there any others?
I was in late position and I open-raise with QJo, the maniac on the button 3 bets me. He has been winning every hand against me so he will 3 bet me EVERY single time I raise. He has regularily shown down hands like 96o.
Flop: 8c7c7s. I check, he bets, I call.
Turn: 2d. I check, he bets, I call.
River: 5s. I check, he bets, I call.
I know that he is going to bet if checked to him no matter what. If I bet into him on the flop and turn he will most likely call me or raise me with nothing. If I check-raise him on the turn he will probably muck if he doesn't have a pair or good draw. What is my best play here. He turns over J5o for the winning hand. He caught a 5 on the river to beat me. I had never in my life called someone down with Queen-high until last night.
You could start by not open-raising with QJo if you know you are going to get 3-bet by the maniac, and will have no idea aht he holds. QJ is not much of a favorite over a random hand, and you are trapping yourself into playing it for 3 bets preflop, out of position.
That said, if you think he will release his hand if he doesn't improve on the turn, you should have gone for the check-raise there. He might not buy it after you played the flop passively and didn't reraise before the hand, but it is certainly a better investment of two big bets than check-calling twice and hoping to pick off a bluff with QJ.
Think about the board of 87752. What can you possibly beat? QT, Q9, JT, J9, or some total rags that don't contain an 8,7,5, or deuce. It ain't a long list.
I agree with M7. Your preflop raise was out of line. And since you know this guy basically plays any two, you need a better hand or a better flop to make a stand. Let this one go and get him later.
Given that I can extract the maximum from him when I actually do make a hand, doesn't it make sense for me to play many hands vs him? Anyway, I was able to get on his left today and really really punished him.
Yes, you should play more hands against him than against a player who's raises are based on good reasons. But you need to read him a little better, and don't call him down unless you are sure you have him beat. If this is the guy I'm thinking of, he will usually back off of his bluffs if you fight back. Try raising on the flop and then check it down with him if you don't make anything.
I think you need to more seriously consider the pre-flop stage of the hand. With a maniac to your left who promises to 3 bet, you have virtually no blind-stealing equity and you will probably see the flop heads up for 3 bets. Do you think it is profitable to play QJo heads up for 3 bets out of position even against a maniac? I would have preferred to wait for stronger hand. Even if it takes a while to get such a hand, you should still get the action you want, since he is not 3-betting you because he thinks you're loose but instead because he has had "good luck" against you.
If you're sure he will bet the river if you check, and if you're sure you are going to call him down all the way at the point that you called the turn, then I think you should bet out on the river if you think he will fold K-high.
And isn't it enough better that it is worth playing heads up , acting before that random hand? And if so, isn't it then worth a raise before the flop?
The problem is, it may be a lot worse heads up against a random hand with a K or A in it and isn't a very big favorite over any hand it doesn't dominate (as it actually did here). If you were playing straight heads up then yeah, play it, but we are talking about *knowing* it will be three bets pre-flop *out of position*. You don't have to risk anything so you should just wait for a better opportunity. It will surely come up so take his money when you have the best of it, not when you have to play his guessing game.
He probably wont fold K-high, he would probably fold a queen high, but I have the best queen. He doesn't bet the river 100% of the time, but it is really random when he does, just like when he raises it's pretty random too. He only raises about 50% of the time and he does occasionally throw away hands, however he has consistently shown down hands like 96o so it's not like he is only raising the top 50% of his hands. He must have game theory down perfect, he is completely unpredictable and unreadable.
Sounds like a tough player to me, not a maniac. With someone like that two seats to the left, I think you're best off only playing the button and cutoff with hands like QJ.
If this is the guy I think it is, well dressed, starting to gray, non-american, he is not a good player. He is a very nice guy, but he is a novice who is trying his best to play good. He just doesn't have a clue what the right play is, and he likes to play lots of hands. Waiting for something good is not his idea of a fun day.
He has found a way of winning a little more often by playing very aggressively. When he hits a hand, he gets paid off, so he keeps playing that way. I could whine about the time he capped it with me before the flop, and busted my set of aces with 92s, but I'll spare you the details.
Why don't you try coming back by four betting sometimes.
I do with pretty much any hand stronger than QJo.
While I wouldn't fold QJ against him, I wouldn't raise with it preflop, or call him down with it if I missed the flop. This is a good hand to beat him with, but you will have to make at least a pair, or blow him off his hand by raising (I know, that is not very likely).
...keep your money for at least a pair when your headzup with that guy . When he will realize that your calling him with shit , if is enought bright , he will stop to try bluff on you
It's not that he is stupid, but he is there to gamble. I don't think it correct for me to wait for a pair to play with him. I am trying to maximize my EV, not conserve money.
How come someone could Throw so much money in a big game like that , I have seen maniacs loosing 150 to 200 big bet in low limite holdÉm , but how someone could play 80-160 so badly . A maniac in a big game like that doesn't realise that every pro's around are making fun about him . He doesn't realize that he will have better odds if he plays roulette or slot machine or even Bingo ?
He is a very very rich guy and can afford to lose. Here's another hand in which the maniac pissed away money. He raises in early position, and I reraise with two red aces. He just calls.
Flop: 2c7c10s He bets, I raise, he re-raises, I call. Turn: 3d He bets, I raise, he re-raises, I call. River Qh He bets, I call.
He turns over Qc5c and I win the pot.
There's nothing terribly wrong with open-raising QJ on occasion. QJ is significantly better than an average random hand, and with such a loose player in the BB you really need to bet hands like this for value because he will frequently call or even raise with dominated hands. It's important to vary your play in this situation because it arises frequently and people tend to remember how you handle these situations. In close calls like this, I think you have to keep them guessing as to what you may be raising with.
Now lets assume his reraise means nothing (you did say his three bet is automatic). One play you have to make occasionally here is to checkraise the flop and bet the turn. It's always good to make this play when the board pairs on the flop because there is less chance he holds a pair. The time to do this of course is when you believe he is bluffing.
He will be convinced you have trips or a big overpair. Even maniacs hate to call without a pair in situations like this. These checkraise bluffs are often good maniac tamers, especially if you employ them right after the maniac has taken a couple of expensive beats.
I don't think calling bluffers down with a Q is the way to go. If you put them on a bluff, challenge them early and take control of the hand. If you don't read a bluff, just quietly muck your hand and wait for the next opportunity.
Please pardon me if this is an idiotic question: I have literally not read a single book on PL (but I have played a fair bit and read a lot of 2+2..)
Would it be fair to say that in a suitably soft game, where you will be able to get paid for a big hand, that any hand that could feasibly make the nuts would be worth a call for $2, assuming you are capable of laying down when need be.
I find myself calling with K3sQJo on the button, 98s96s in middle position and AQJ8o UTG, and wondering if this is a recipe for disaster..
Ks3sQoJo on button. Junky, junky hand. Great position, but doesn't make it playable.
9986. Decent hand. Average position.
AQJ8o UTG. Medium-decent hand, lousy position.
I would play the 9986, and muck the other two hands.
1> About Ks3sQoJo: Does this get better or worse as the game changes from regular to pot limit? 2> Are all those good 3-middle-cards-with-pair hands playable? I folded 9877o for a raise from $2 to $10 earlier in this game, and some intimated it was a bit of a mistake - there was a fair bit of action. 3> AQJ8o: You would play this in middle position, then? Or, if it had a suited ace, would you play it UTG?
1) by “regular”, I’m assuming you mean limit Omaha. In a way, in gets worse, since you will lose less when you make a flush in limit---in limit, you will pay a bet off and occasionally catch a bluff or a lower flush. In pot limit, if someone gives you heavy action when there is a flush on the board, unless you have a read on them you will generally have to lay down your flush, whether or not it is actually the winner. However, I would never play this hand unless I was in the blinds in limit, and probably not even then in pot limit.
2) If you have your opponent on a big wrapped hand or big pair, then hands such as 9-8-7-7 come into their own, and you can stand a raise with them. Especially if your opponent will not lay down his kings or aces when the flop comes something like 7-4-2 or T-7-6.
3) This is the most borderline one, for me. AsQcJs8c is a much better hand than AoQcJo8c. With the ace suited I would play it in middle position. Unsuited, I might play it if there were already a couple of callers and no likelihood of a preflop raise. UTG, it would depend. If I am deep, then I would pass. If a lot of pots were getting heavy preflop action, I would pass. If conditions were favourable, I would probably take a flop to it.
Hope this helps you.
I just got back from a little getaway trip to Vegas and I had the chance to play about 12 hours of 80-160 there. I want to preface this hand by saying that the player pool for the 80-160 game consists of many good players with a few fish mixed in to keep the game going.
We are playing 6 handed, a mediocre players raises utg, I have AA, I smooth call to let the loose, aggro tourist who started off playing merely fishy but has slowly gone on a massive manicial tilt, come in behind me, I'm not dissappointed he three-bets it the raiser calls, I put in the 4rth bet LAT caps it up, the original raiser folds ?!?! I think about putting in the 6th bet but I "slow play" hehe and just call.
Flop K92 two clubs, I check, LAT bets I just call turn is a 7, I check LAT bets and even though I think he might have KK I checkraise him, he calls river is the 8 of clubs, I bet he says I have to call and picks up about 8 chips, I put my hand on my cards to show to flip them over, and then he says "but I really should raise". At this point the dealer says he has to just call, but he is able to call the floor person over and convince them that he is allowed to raise (I think the decision could have gone either way). Anyways I'm all pissed thinking he must have me beat but of course I call and he shows 75o and I scoop the pot. :) Needless to say I think I extracted the maximum out of his 75o ;)
Good story. But c'mon not for 1 second did you think "LAT" had KK. I probably would have put him on J 10, 97, 87, or 42c.(All monster hands by the way!) Anyway chalk one up for the good guys!
Also, I have been following the recent "typical 80-160" threads. Are these hands, including yours, common in these games or just isolated events? I can't believe the garbage that is being played. I imagine that a lot of the pots in these games are either heads-up. Even so I can't believe these guys are putting hundreds of dollars in the pot with 82, 10 8, and 75.
P.S. were you playing at the Bellagio? If so, maybe you can give a trip report. Just asking.
Yeah I was playing at the bellagio, and no these hands really aren't typical at all, I don't think I've ever stolen the blinds so much in my life pre-flop then in that game :) . However there is often a weak player in the game who makes it very beatable.
I might write a trip report if I get some free time ;)
one more question I have for you all. Just about all my raises in this $1-$2 PL O-Hi game are for the pot, as are almost all my bets. Pre-flop, I will usually call unless I have an exceptional hand, then I'll make a less-than-pot-sized raise, so as not to drive people out. If the opportunity presents itself, I'll reraise pot to try and isolate an AA?? hand and play it heads up.
But from then on, I bet the pot, or I raise the pot. I will also call if necessary, of course. But if I bet or raise, it's the pot.
Apparently, Mr. Cloutier is an advocate of this strategy. Can anyone give me a rundown on the merits of this plan?
The merits of always betting the pot are that it gives no information about the strength of your hand if you always bet the same amount. The disadvantages are that it can drive out weaker hands which may otherwise have called. Often you will only be called if you are beaten, or a dog in the hand. Personally I disagree with Cloutier here, and will vary my betting according to the situation. e.g. you have K-hi flush on the end. Action is on you. If you bet the pot, you lose the maximum when you run into the nuts, and will rarely get called by a lower flush (unless you are playing with idiots). If you check, you hand the initiative and the opportunity to bluff, to the other player. Will you call a full-pot bet with a non-nut flush? Why not bet, say, half the pot. If you get raised you can generally throw your hand away safely. You might also attract calls from weaker flushes. You can't become too predictable, or people will start raising you with nothing, but it gives you a degree of manoevrability which betting the full pot does not.
Also, why would you want to "isolate an AA?? hand and play it heads up". It's the other way around (or should be)---the AA should be doing the reraising to try and get heads-up. Why would you want to get heads-up against a "better" preflop hand? Just call, and take a flop.
What is your strategy in tournaments. Is it to be patient and pick your spots, and be ultra agressive with them. Or is it to loosen up your starting standards a bit and come right at the table both barrel's blazing hoping to build your stack to a resonable level to allow you to back off for the middle part of the tournament?
Which do you prefer and why?
Well, a lot of this depends on rebuy structure. If the tournament allows rebuys, especially multiple rebuys, this causes two effects:
First, you can gamble a little, knowing you can dig if you want. Second, most players will take that *way* too far. So you really need to back off a little bit due to crazy swings in variance, but you can play drawing hands a little since you are so likely to get paid off.
If it's a big tournament with no rebuys, I look for quality hands or good position. Stealing pots is nice, but you tend to double up on big hands and steal small pots. Usually you have plenty of time to sit and wait for a good hand.
If it's a small tournament with no or one rebuy, find that balance. Play fast because you need to build chips fast, but don't get caught playing trash, especially out of position.
Recent NL game mid stages. 9 handed. I have above average size stack. I get red pp8s in seat 4. UTG folds. I limp (I like to limp with pp7s and higher in early/mid position always being prepared to release them if there's heavy action after me). Everyone else folds to button who calls. SB folds. BB checks.
Flop comes 225 rainbow. BB bets out, I raise, button reraises, BB reraises, I muck.
Turn is a 7 BB bets button calls. River is a 10 BB checks button checks.
BB shows A5o and button takes it down with pp6s.
Was I correct to fold? Should I have played it more aggressively?
All constructive comments welcome from experienced NL players.
Sorry I should say it was a NL tournament.
It depends very much on the stack size of the players in question, the blind size and how big the bets that were made were.
Nevertheless, I think based on this little information, I can already say that your fold was quite alright.
The guy with pocket 66s are overjoyed with this flop, the best he can possibly get without a set (overpair with sixes and no straight possibility out there!!). You could face 66 or 77 here, but also 22, 55 or overpairs. Don't know about the opponent but even A2s could be possible?
Just too many ways to lose, unless you can win a lot without risking a lot. Because of the incomplete information, I can't answer whether this is the situation here.
The size of blinds, stacks, bets, and raises here make a difference, but in general you have to expect you are beaten. It's a good fold.
Never raising first in from middle position with 88 is a mistake though. Notice how this hand plays out if you come in with a small raise.
For entertainment purposes, let's say the following lineup played $1000-2000 H.O.R.S.E for forty hours a week for one year: Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, Ray Zee, Mark Weitzman, Howard Lederer, Chau Xiang, Huck Seed, David Chiu, Ted Forrest, and Bobby Baldwin. Who would win the most? Who would lose? Why? Can anyone come up with a better list of players?
We had some posts on here from Doyle Brunson a couple of weeks ago. I wonder what his lineup would be?
Off the top of my head I would have to add two players who I believe would take more than their share of the money:
Lyle Berman and Berry Johnston
No Stu Ungar? What about this 'Jesus' guy? Jack Straus? T.J?
Stu and Jack were better no-limit players. TJ is a better no-limit/tournament player, IMO.
I was hoping to get more responses about who would win and who would lose. Four players that deserve to be mentioned are Johnny Chan, Lee Salem, David Oppenheimer, and David Grey. I was trying to come up with a list of the best living ring game players, not just the biggest names. Hence, Johnny Moss, Stu Ungar, and Nick the Greek are disqualified because they are dead. T.J. Cloutier is a tournament specialist. I have heard that Lyle Berman plays the highest limit games in the world. As for Berry Johnston, my understanding is that he is primarily a pot and no-limit hold'em player. All of the guys on my original list actually play in these super high mixed games. Oh, Magic Epstein, John Hennigan, and Jennifer Harmon should be mentioned as well.
I've been enjoying reading Tommy A's and others posts about the strategy of underbetting the pot when playing No-limit. I'd like to give you all "normal" players a reminder before you start betting $40 in $300pots though, re-read what Ray Zee said, if you're not a high-level experienced player you're doomed. Not that Doyle isn't a high-level experienced player :-), but I'm sure he would like to replay one certain hand with Stu Ungar where he chose to trap his opponent holding toptwo? and underbet the pot. Stu got the odds to call with his gutshot and Mr Brunson had to settle with second place in that WSOP.
Don't forget Dastmalchi versus Jacobs in 1992. Same thing.
Ray Zee's discussion of the benefits and dangers of the underbetting strategem have been very enlightening.
Are you saying that Ray said you have to play at a high-level in order to underbet or else your doomed? I missed that post. I'm a mid-level experienced player with no plans to go higher. The way I figure it is if underbetting works for Ray and Doyle, there must be something good about it, at any level.
Hey Tommy FYI that's a different Matt.
tommy by the way you are a high stakes player. that game we played in is a high stakes game period no discussion on that point.
i did mean that to be underbetting one needs to be a good player and very experienced or he will be doomed. its too easy to give a cheap draw and get broke to it or run off too many times when you back off whenever a scare card comes.
From what I get, given my reading here, and my brief stints in pot limit, underbetting the pot is not so much a function of how skilled you are as how skilled your opposition is.
When you move up to no limit/pot limit, the first thing you learn is that you generally don't have the pot odds to chase draws like you often do in limit poker. So, no limit/pot limit players learn not to chase draws. However, when you underbet the pot, you are often providing the pot odds required. BUT! The players are still laying down their draws "on autopilot" - "I don't chase draws in no limit!". So, if your opposition is doing this, you can underbet, and an underbet steal will be just as effective (without as much risk) as a pot sized steal bet. But, if your opposition is keen enough to realize that the pot odds are there (as Stu Ungar did in that famous hand vs Doyle), then underbetting the pot is, oddly enough, transgressing the game back into a low limit showdown shootout to some extent.
Of course, if you realize that your opponents are recognizing the correct pot odds, you can give them pot odds on the flop, and assuming they miss on the turn, "remove" the pot odds with your turn bet. Also given the fact that if you are providing pot odds on the flop and they are calling, it is much easier to put them on a drawing hand, and as such, much easier to determine whether or not they "made it" on the turn, and catch their dead money from the flop play (and in the famous Stu-Doyle hand, this was what Doyle failed to recognize).
The more I consider this strategy, the more sense it makes, whether against experienced players or inexperienced.
David "Rarely play high limit, so I can give away everything I think" Ottosen
Im Canadian and don't claim to be a great no limit player, geez. Just offering some thoughts on the concept.
"There is no doubt many who post on this forum are good limit players but limit is such a weak game it produces weak minds."
That you are motivated to make this statement betrays the kind of weak mind of which you speak. That I point this out puts me in the same category; I am no better than you. Those with truly strong minds, content with themselves, are among those not responding to you.
Well said Bollas!
(By responding I'm running the risk of appearing weak minded as well ;) )
I enjoy reading your posts. Especially the funny stories. Please post more. How about the biggest pot you have ever won.
The main game at LC's about six months ago. One of the loosest cannons in the history of artillery has a $40 "kill" out in the big blind meaning it's minimum $80 to open.
I have about $2800. He has me WAY covered. There are several other 10K-ish stacks on the table. A slew of players come in for $80. I peek and find K-7 suited in the cutoff and follow the gimpy pack. The action comes back to big blind and he raises $300 before the flop into the $500 pot. He's done this plenty of times before. He builds a $2000 multi-way pot and then grabs a stack of $100 chips and has them ready to pounce after the flop, and he often bets them and takes it down.
Most call the $300 raise, including me, and some fold. The pot is right around 2K and I have about 2400 left.
Flop comes K-Q-5. Big blind bets 2K instantly. All fold to me (there is one player between me and the big blind.)
In general, if someone can get 2-1 on his money with top pair against this player, it's a good bet. His range of possible hands is tremendously wide. But in this case, the big numbers forced me to reconsider. First, my entire BR for the day was on the table so if I busted out I was done for the day and I had just got comfy and ordered food. Second, would he really bet a spunky 2K into those big stacks without a real hand?
Fuggit. Carpe diem and all that and all-in I went.
The other guy mucked and the BB said "call" and I said, "top pair."
BB turned over 5-5, bottom set. Oops.
The nice thing about betting all-in is that it ends the thinking portion of the hand. Still, I recall liking his pot-building bet from the blind with the small pair. That's a dandy play I've since used in 2-3-5 games.
Turn came a king and even though my hand was face down everyone knew I had picked up some outs. River, a glorious seven. Two weeks later I was in Hawaii.
Walt Z's timeless advise for winning a big pot at no-limit: "Spot 'em the nuts and suck out."
How about this suckout? Wasn't real money, but it was exciting anyway. It was the final 15 players in one of the Poker Pages World Series Round Up R1 tourneys. I'm in the BB, look down and see pocket rockets. I have about 8000 in chips, most others had 3000-5000 with a few big stacks in there like mine. UTG has 4000, goes in for a grand, one caller, I bump it up and put UTG all in. He calls, other player folds, heads up.
I figure anybody left by this time is a decent player, so I figure him for KK or QQ. This player would not go all-in with JJ. Flop comes down QJ9... I'm gettin nervous now.. Hoping he doesn't have pocket queens. Turn is a 10, river a blank.. He turns over KK for the straight to rip my bankroll in half.. First time anyone ever caught runner runner runner runner on me in a NL tourney game. I built my bankroll back up in a hurry to 8000, but was hugely on tilt, so I busted out in 12th place..
That is not a super bad beat.
But you forget to mention, Pogue, i think right after that hand, you sucked out on me for all my chips with a terrible call....... You raised under the gun with A4, and reading your raise as one of your typically weak ones, I reraised all in with 8's , and you, for some reason, didn't give up your bluff, and called anyway. Hmmmmmm......
I don't care if you are reading a player or not... All-in raise near the final table with 88? And I think you may be leaving a few points out. All the stacks were around 8000, I now had 3000, my cards were suited, and I was facing the blinds next hand. Yes, I took a gamble and put in a steep raise, but all I really had to worry about calling me was TT or above. I think if I steal this pot, I have a whole round to get a hand to take a big pot. With the size of my bet, I would have been crippled if I had folded to your all-in.
So what would you have me do, fold to your all-in and have 2000 left in a room full of 8000 stacks, and 250/500 blinds coming up? I was chip leader for most of the tournament, and I admit, I was a little on tilt after the AA vs KK. But please don't use your limit game mentality to tell me I "sucked out" My main motivation for calling with A4s was to catch you if you were trying to come over the top with a K, hoping I had pure rags.. I'm sorry I "sucked out" on you, but you took a tremendous risk with your 88s, and paid for it.. I fully intend to win one of those tourneys in the next two weeks.. Too much scared money near the final table it was too easy... All I have to do is push early in the tourney and not go on tilt.
your A4 was unsuited, and you had to worry not just about pairs over ten. Your preflop raise was ONLY double the blinds. It would not have crippled you. My stack was 2700, and yours around 4000. You took a MUCH greater risk than me with my eights. Your A4o was dead meat to any A8 or higher and any pocket pair above 3's. A4 under the gun at a nearly full table is a bluffing hand. Period. You bluffed, got caught, and called anyway. I was in late position, and my only intelligent play with those eights was to raise all-in, especially knowing that your little under the gun double the blind raise meant you didn't want a call. I needed to double up quite a bit more than you. Your play that hand was a tilt play, and I think you know that. Of course, taking the bad breaks is all part of the game and all that good rubbish. I don't particularly care about losing at pokerpages, but I want to set the record straight about what happened.
By the way, you and a couple others were too busy spewing your weak tight psuedo wisdom around the table to notice you were all on tilt.
Damn, now I'm on tilt.....
Nice story, short and to the point, just the way I like 'em.
Fantastic hand! That sounds like it gets to be one heck of a game there sometimes. I may have to come out and see it. Unfourtunately I will probably just be rail birding :). I learn a lot from your posts and I want to thank you for them. Your thought processes in hands are great. Do you play tournaments as well as ring games? I would imagine that you would be a heavy contender for the WSOP N/L events. Have you played or are you going to play this year in any of the WSOP tournies?
I wanted to share a hand that happened to me back when I was first trying to learn no limit. It sort of follows the underbetting posts that you guys have been making. I had no clue I was underbetting at the time. :) The hand you just posted reminded me of it.
This was in the middle stages of a No-Limit tournament. I picked up pocket 5's in the BB. The blinds were 50/100. There were two callers and the guy on the button raised it to 500. This was a decent sized raise for the stack sizes at the time. I had about 3000, he had about 3500. I had been getting good cards and I had also been playing solid poker and he was pissed at me. He had shown down a wide variety of medium strong hands and as he made the raise, he said to the Dealer "All I need is a queen on the flop". I'm not really sure I know why but I instantly KNEW he had KQ..NOT AQ, NOT QQ, exactly KQ. I can't really say why I knew it, but I KNEW it. It was just one of those flashes of intuition you get at the poker table. I called his raise and the other people in the middle called as well.
I got the flop of my dreams. Q - 5 - 3 Rainbow. I underbet 100 into the largish pot. One of the middle folks called, and the other folded. He turns and frowns at me and I say to him, "I'm not scared of any Queen.". He says, "I'm gonna put you in Son" and pushes in. I huddle for a minute..thinking my flash of intuition was wrong and maybe he does have pocket queens after all. I then go back over the hands he has played. I remember a hand a few earlier when he had KK, he was pretty quiet about that hand and he had not raised before the flop. That memory cinched it for me, I went with my initial gut read of KQ and called all-in. Other guy in the pot folds.
Sure enough he flips over KQ off. I flip over my 55 and he bangs the table. The dealer puts a 8 on the turn and He says, "just give him the damn pot, I have no outs" and throws his cards into the muck
The reason I made the underbet what that I knew it would aggrivate him into raising me. It did! I went on to win the tournament. My first N/L tourney win ever. This was one also one of the first times in a N/L game where most of the time I just knew what the players had. I have heard other players call that being 'In the Zone' or 'On your stroke' and thats exactly how I felt. It was an amazing experience.
In supersystem, Doyle calls making a small bet into a Large pot a 'Post Oak Bluff'. Do you know where this term comes from or why he calls it that?
Got any other hands you could post?
Joe! Congrats on the pinpoint read and the win. It's spooky when you KNOW something that seems unknowable.
I don't know where "post oak bluff" came from. Always wondered.
As to tournies, I've only played four or five events on the road with buy-ins of $200 or more, and about a dozen locally. I've played many small (@$60 buy-in), local tournies but hardly any these days. My stock answer to why I don't play more tournaments is, "I can't quit when I want to." :-)
The real reasons are:
1) They aren't as much fun as ring games because I don't know the people as well, and the ones I do know keep moving around. 2) If I come in fourth, I don't know if I'm supposed to be happy or sad. 3) I'm either going to win or bust-out, right? And almost always not win, so basically I'm paying for pain. 4) And then, shaken, I go to a ring game. I'm better off spending the freshest waking hours in live action. 5) I suck.
What are the fundamental differences between pot limit and no limit? It's been stated here that there are great differences between the two but I can only imagine the preflop differences. Any input is appreciated.
/PokerSthlm (and yes, English isn't my first language :-) )
I've solicited opinions on this topic myself, and haven't gotten much feedback. My experience in live big-bet poker is almost exclusively pot-limit as opposed to no-limit--it's just what's more readily available to me.
One of the obvious differences is that in pot-limit, if you don't build the pot in the earlier rounds of betting, there will be nothing to win in the later rounds. For example, in Super/System, Doyle recommends checking on the flop if you have the nut full house, letting one slide off and hopefully trapping your opponents. I tried this once in pot-limit, and while I did get action on the turn and river, I missed out on one whole betting round; the opportunity to build the pot (which grows geometrically) was cut severely, so I'm not sure what the best approach is in these situations.
I know people have many negative things to say about the Cloutier/McEvoy books, but the basic idea they offered seems to make sense to me--pot-limit is designed so that people holding small pairs can take off a flop, hoping to hit their set. Conversely, it's also a game where people holding AA or KK often trap themselves, as they get stubborn and refuse to release their hands even when the action on the flop clearly shows that they are now the underdog if not already beaten. The limit on the amount of the raise that one can possibly make prevents the player with the made hand from protecting it as much as he can in no-limit.
I love reading these posts from Tommy Angelo and the other guys lucky enough to have these no-limit games readily available to them--but it would be nice if we could get some more discussions on how the play in some of these hands might go in pot-limit. There's just not enough literature available on any of these games. We've got the TJ/McEvoy book, Super/System, and Ciaffone. Besides that, what else is there?
You're right. Win or lose, I do feel extremely lucky to have frequent opportunities to play no-limit.
Like you in reverse, I have little experience at pot-limit. I can only offer conjecture as to what might be an overlooked difference between the two games.
At no-limit it's critical to be aware of stack-sizes and of when various thresholds are in play or approaching, and how to get to them or avoid them. I suspect that on average, hand after hand, stack against stack, the various thresholds come into play less frequently at pot limit than at no-limit.
If this is true, then at pot-limit stack sizes are less important. Perhaps that makes it slightly more of a "card" game and slightly less of a "people" game. I dunno. Just guessing.
I've played a lot of 1-2 pot limit in a home game.
I think the biggest difference is that drawing hands are still viable in pot limit.
You flop the nut flush draw, one guy bets the pot and another calls. Well, you've got odds because the pot is offering you near-even odds (3-1) already and if there's some chance you'll get paid, you've got nice implied odds too.
Big pairs aren't worth a whole lot unless you can get it heads up preflop. However, that's not too different than no limit. If you see a six handed flop with QQ in no limit, you have to tread very carefully. In no limit, it's less likely to happen but it does happen. In pot limit, the KEY to playing big pairs is to have an opportunity to make a big bet preflop. That means you want to limp if you're early and hope somebody raises, or you raise from late position if others have limped.
The ideal situation for AA is to raise up front, which nobody will respect. Everyone calls your $5 and the button pops it for $30 more. Now you can call $30 and make it $90 more to go and hopefully some dumb SOB will call you with QQ or even AQ (which I've seen ha ha!).
Same thing from around back. If somebody limps with QQ or something, then you raise the pot on the button with AA, you are golden. You'll get raised behind, giving you protection, and you'll even get to maybe go all-in preflop.
It's actually not too hard to protect big pairs if you're in a game where players will limp. All those limpers give you protection in a way, as long as you can get some raising to occur. By limping, they endanger themselves if somebody raises, because somebody can raise for a whole lot more.
As small as 1-2 blinds sound, this game can see two players all-in preflop easier than you think. I've seen $1300 pots in this game. The exponential nature of pot limit means that it really isn't a whole lot different from no limit.
Just some thoughts.
I would say in some ways that pot limit is bigger than no limit if the blinds are the same size.
This is due to a couple of things.
First, people can't move in with an oversized bet to take down the pot. Further, they can't even threaten it. In no limit, it's not uncommon for there to be some limps and maybe a small raise before the flop, then someone puts in a huge overraise with AK or JJ or something, and nobody can afford to call without a huge hand. That can't really happen in pot limit -- at least not without some help.
Second, in no limit, people won't put money in with draws that aren't amazing, so that causes there to be less money in the pot. It can be correct to call with an open ender in pot limit; it almost never is in no limit.
And because of that, people are more willing to play a variety of hands. Since that puts more money in the pot, the pot builds faster and the big raises are really big.
I think it may come down to this: in no limit, you don't spend much time building pots, though it can be important. In pot limit, people try to build big pots, so the big pots happen more often. No limit only really has big pots when someone bets or calls all in, generally with oversize bets. Not always, but that's the pattern in the games that I've played in.
I think you and Nate are right on on all counts, especially the bit about more multi-way and more big pots.
Based on the other posts, I don't think I am the only one shaking. I'll have to check myself into a clinic unless Tommy starts posting again.
Thanks for the great posts and keep them coming.
Although, I freely admit that I am not even close to the calibre of Tommy Angelo in any respect, the clamoring is there for entertaining big-bet poker stories. I hope this one will suffice. Of course, the main reason is to get a critique for my play as well. Mr. Ottosen was at the other 1/2 PL table when this happened, so he can verify that this "fish tale" is absolutely true.
1/2 PL. O-Hi. In the big blind with AsQs9sAh. All 9 others call, including SB. 100% action. I make it another 20 to go, and holy hoppin' Sklansky, I still get 100% action!
Flop comes Js 7s 2h. I come out with a pot-sized bet, hoping in vain that either my aces are good, or with a few of the weeds cleared, the board will pair low and help me out. 1 caller all-in for a token amount, everyone else folds except the button who takes some time and says "I'm thinking whether I should raise or not".
You know you're in a good poker game when people tell you what their hand is. In any case, he merely calls. I'm thinking to myself, "What card do I want to see?" An ace would be nice, a ten would be great..
.. When the turn brings the Ks, I hear myself say ".. or that" out loud. Out comes $600, more than enough to put him all in for his $560. Technically, I could bet more, since there was a dead small blind and the all-in guy, but the dealer refuses to re-count the pot when I really only need to bet no more than $600. I hear a joke about my weak underbet on the turn. He's thinking, thinking, openly mentioning that he is worried I have a bigger set than him. Nevertheless, this guy picks up the button and says that if it comes up "Omaha Hi", he's calling, otherwise if it comes up "Hold Em", he's going to fold.
Before he flips the button, another player, Mark, offers odds on how many "Hold'em"s he's gonna flip before getting what he wants.
Sure enough, he flips the puck, it comes up "Hold'em". He rolls his eyes, everyone laughs.
At this point, I know he's going to call. $560 to win no more than $1,200. Even if his set is good, he's facing 3.4:1 against winning 2.1:1 - a mere 29.5% advantage. Eat your heart out, Mr. Casino Owner, now THAT'S a house edge!
However, he flips and flips and gets 6 straight "Hold'em"s in a row! Mark says "Hey, you should change sides!". So, now it's a call if it's "Hold'em", and it comes up "Omaha Hi".
Finally, he tosses the button in the air, catches it, turns it so "Hold'em" is face up, slams it on the table and pushes his money in.
The dealer is openly nervous here, and for a moment, I remember being a dealer at this very casino, dealing a game this big, how nervous I was. Before he goes to turn the card over, I tell him to take a deep breath and not sweat it. He's a rookie, and all eyes are on him, but he needed reminding that all he has to do is get the "proper random card" out and let the rest take care of itself.
The burn card is burned, he tries to flip the river card over but it slips out of his thumb grip after being about 1/4 way over. I see enough to know that it's the 7 of hearts. At that point, I yanked my cap and chucked it to the ground in disgust, just like the Skipper would do after whacking Gilligan in the head for calling him with his ultra-long shot.
At least, I think it was me that did that, but I not sure, since I was stuck in limbo at that moment. That moment, when I know I've lost but he doesn't know he's won. Eventually, the dealer gets the card over as I'm reclaiming my hat, and standing a bit behind the scene. Deuces full. Take the money, deuces full.
Everyone who was crowded around was now cheering, patting him on the back. He was tossing out reds to everyone on the table, myself included. In my heart of hearts, I know that this guy, Mr. Original Gambler, is in his glory right now, and I don't want to get in the way. We shake hands after, and when he compliments me on how well I took that beat, even though *I* thought I was out of line, I felt better, knowing that at least I avoided the Cardinal Sin.
In time, I would get most of that money back, and book a nice win, when the 7h would be my best friend. But that's another story :)
A great story (n/t)
limon, I understand that you are a very aggressive big bet player and this seems to work for you. And you may even be a winning player, although super-boastful people in ANY field are often compensating by boasting, so I'm not sure.
It's amazing to me that you can say things like "limit poker is such a weak game it produces weak minds," or "I have an unfair advantage when I play big bet against americans".
Those are pretty ignorant statements.
Even if most limit players are terrible at big bet poker, this does not mean they have weak minds. That is a serious bit of sophistry. The "weak minds" conclusion does not logically result from "limit player doing poorly in no limit". And vice versa. It's as illogical as saying NFL head coaches have weak minds because they may have trouble analyzing the writings of Michel Foucault and writing a detailed exigesis on The History of Sexuality.
From your posts I gather you play in britain alot. You are always going on and on about how you can run over any game by betting some guy out of the pot when you know he has AA. Your hyperaggressive style may work in certain games but limon, trust me, I'm speaking from experience, you HAVE to adjust your game. The guys I've played with would eat you up and spit you out if you tried to play the Doyle-Brunson super-aggro-bet-everything style of no limit. I trust you realize that in NL/PL you have to vary your game and adjust to the players, even more so than in limit poker.
Anyway, I don't see what being american has to do with skill level at NL/PL. I think there's a few americans who might have a thing or two to teach you about playing NL/PL. Ask Ray Zee, Johnny Chan, TJ Cloutier, and oh yeah, this guy from Texas named Doyle something or other. Ask the myriad no limit players who don't like playing tourneys because they just destroy the live games for too much money. You've never heard of those guys. I've played with some of them and they would have to be asleep to fall for the "bet big when the flop comes babies" tactic.
I think you might get more out of this forum if you do a couple things.
1. Recognize that you can learn from other people's ideas. It's ok. We all can.
2. Get over your hangup about americans vs. europeans or whatever. This forum is not a competition between nations.
3. Stop bragging and start discussing. This is not a boasting board. It's a strategy forum. For instance, you had a couple sentences in your post that were interesting which I'd love to have you go into. You said Doyle was trying to trap Unger by tricking him into making a move on the flop. Please expain further. It sounds like so many levels deep in psychological warfare that it's above my head.
Also, I agree with you 100% that all average-or-better NL/PL players are acutely aware of pot odds and implied odds at all times. It's basic survival requirements for playing big bet. If you don't know stack sizes and pot sizes with every decision, you're making the wrong decision. So underbetting needs to be done carefully.
So you see, I think you have something to add to this forum. And I can tell from your posts that you have a lot of experience playing big bet poker. I think you would be a great contributor if you would focus your energy less on boasting about how you demolish americans because they are a bunch of limit poker sissies. Come on. That's childish. I really would love to hear some honest analysis about big bet strategy and hands from you.
Ray, in the underbetting thread below you said you have to be able to underbet without getting busted by draws that make it or getting run off when a scare card comes.
Basically, it sounds like what you're saying is that you have to be an excellent hand-reader in order to employ under-betting. You have to read the player and know when they make their hand and when they don't, even if the scare card comes.
I think this is the hardest thing to do in poker. If we could all do this expertly we'd all be winning tons of money (unless we played each other!).
In addition, I think the skill you describe is required for excelling at NL period, regardless of what your high-level betting strategy is. NL is a game where you HAVE to have balls of steel in the face of a scare card and you HAVE to be able to lay down when the guy has it. Of course, when he overbets the pot by 10x, it's a lot easier to determine that he has it! lol. Wait, maybe not.
The daunting implication is that you basically have to read a player like a book in order to win.
Do you actually have the ability to sit there at the table and read a player so easily? The general public's perception of a pro-poker player is NOT that they play tight and wait for good cards and understand implied odds. The general public's perception is that a top-flight pro poker player can read your soul like an open book and gut you right there on the table. He knows every time you're bluffing and he knows when you've got the hand. Basically, I'm asking you is this true, or are you guessing as much as I am?
If it's true, do you have some insights into how to know when they've made their draw and when the scare card has actually missed! I'm convinced there's no simple answer but maybe I've missed something along the way.
Natt, apart from reading players and hands which I believe is an inborn trait which is really difficult to teach someone. One must be deceptive in their play so as not to be "read" like a book - in an essay I am just finishing on reading hands and players I talk about the Semi/tight- semi/aggressive/tricky/deceptive/imaginative/creative player - if are playing one of these you may be in trouble - but by and large we are dealing with the 6 basic groups of tight/loose/aggressive/passive players and their extreems the rock and maniac.
Putting players in their correct category is the 1st step and most important when "putting" players on hands.
I know you asked Ray for an answer but it is a subject I am very interested in so I responded hope you don't mind.
That is the term I use as well!
Tight-aggressive players are good, but it's the ones who are also creative/imaginative/tricky players that can kick ass. I often describe a bad tight player as "unimaginative tight" as opposed to weak tight. The worst table to be at is a no limit game full of "tricky aggressive creative" players. Damn that's a tough game to beat.
If you're facing a lineup like that, I imagine it's often quite difficult to tell if your opponent has made his draw on the turn or if that scare card missed him!
I once read an article about Johnny Chan which more or less implied that he knew exactly where he stood at all times in relation to the other players at the table. This seems a little fantastic to me. Is is possible there are players who really truly read that well?
If you are reading this message and you are one of those guys, pipe up. You don't have to give away your tips. I just want to hear one player say truthfully, "Yes, I can read all my opponents easily. They might as well tell me their hand."
I have to say I feel comfortable saying I read about 1/2 the players at 80% and another 30% at around 50% of the time the rest are marginably readable for me.
When I say "read" I mean successfully putting them on a narrow range of hands.
Yes, I can read all my opponents easily. They might as well tell me their hand.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
It's inevitable that we match up well against some players and not against others. It's not necessarily because of "skill." You can have three players with identical bottom-line results over the long run, yet A can dominate B, B can dominate C, and C can dominate A!
How so? Hand reading. There's no explaining it, but I can read some players like an open book and others I have no clue, and every degree in between of course.
If someone I can read well is already in the pot and I have a borderline hand, I play. With players I can't read. I fold. Simple, yeah, but I think it works. And it takes a lot longer to gauge all the one-on-one matchups at no-limit because confrontations and shown hands are rarer.
the best card readers usually can narrow down what an opponent has to a few hands most of the time, some of the time know exactly,and some of the time be way off. with a few people you can tell when they are bluffing or have a monster. needless to say against them you always win. the longer a hand takes the more info you get, so by the river you should know what to do. one of the things i do is figure out whether someone likes hteir hand or not.if i can, from there its all downhill for him. no limit gives you more opportunity to guess right and make a score as its harder to hide your emotions or play tricky for too long in a hand. in limit a player has only one bet to lose so its easier for him not to sweat. but its a different kind of card reading in limit as you use more of how a person plays from what positions and what they do. but in no limit the betting and calling amounts tell alot. the better card reader guesses alot better than the less able. card reading as mason tells us is the most important skill to improve on to increase your earn or turn a losing player into a winner.
That's because I have his books.
...but this is a pretty funny big bet story.
I am winning a modest amount at our club's regular $5-$5 PLHE game. This game actually plays bigger than you would think as there are frequent straddles and most stacks are above a grand.
My good buddy and tough player, Peter Alson, brings it in for a raise to $20 in the middle position. He gets called by a loose player with a big stack in the cutoff seat. They both have more chips than I do.
I have about 1200 and decide to call with 8d7c on the button. I make money with this hand, in this game, in this spot. As I suspect, the two loose players in the blinds come along, so we have a nice $100 pot building.
The flop comes down JdTd9h, giving me the ignorant end of the straight.
Mike, a loose player in the big blind with about a $900 stack, leads for $50. The BB folds, and Peter raises the full pot to $250. The cutoff folds.
I reraise and make it an even $600 to go. I think Peter is more likely to raise a set or something like QdJx here than he is to have the nut straight. He could also have top two, as he frequently puts in pot-building raises with hands like JTs and the like. He also doesn't respect Mike's initial bet as Mike is quite loose and habitually slow plays monsters.
Mike calls and pegs himself for a flush draw, as I suspected. Now Peter comes over the top for all of his chips. He has me covered and I have some thinking to do.
Based on my knowledge of Peter and his perception of me, this bet strongly suggests to me that he holds either a set, a big nut flush/straight draw like AdKd or AdQd, or a made straight. I rule out two pair or QJ. Even though I fear I could be drawing dead to a higher straight, the pot is offering too nice a price with Mike's extra dough in there and my uncertainty about Peter's hand.
I call, reluctantly. Mike calls, readily. Peter looks puzzled, and says "do you guys want to see where we are at?" Mike and I say "why not?"
Peter show me the nuts with a KcQc. Embarrassed, I say "I'm drawing dead to running diamonds, don't make me show."
Mike says, "Don't worry, it gets worse", and turns over his Kd9d.
As a reminder, the board is JdTd9h, so I am drawing dead each way.
My equity is pretty grim (but not zero) since I can catch two of the remaining 8 diamonds to salvage the measly $600 side pot. But, as an optimist, I hold onto my cards for this unlikely (and undeserved) outcome.
Lucky I did.
Turn Queen (hearts).
Three way chop.
And lots of laughs.
Hopefully he won't stop speaking to me over this post. :)
2-3-5 NL, Tommy kills on the button as always. Limped around, he tosses in the extra 10.
I won't describe the whole betting, mostly because I wasn't in the hand and wasn't paying super close attention -- I don't need to, due to my masterful read on Tommy (don't play in the same pots as him).
But he calls a bet at the end, and flips over his 56o for two pair on the river, which as it happened would lose to trips. But he almost fell out of his seat when he noticed that he in fact had 54o for a pair of 5s with no kicker -- he'd misread his hand!
At that point, despite the fact that he loves the game, and the there's money there for the taking (mine, for instance), he showed why he's a good player. He shook his head, racked up his chips, and cashed out. He knew he wasn't paying enough attention to excel at the game, so he left.
Admirable discipline. Yet another trait to emulate.
First off, I bet the river and he called, not the other way around. Another thin-value-bet-gone-bad. We'll get to the dillusion in a moment. :-)
Let's pretend I actually did have 5-6. The other guy had, for real, 7-7, and the hand went like this. I'm last to act.
Flop: 5-2-2. He bet $25 and I made it $80 total. That was a horrendously bad play against this player at this time. He likely had an overpair or A-5. I could only beat 4-4 and 3-3. I should have mucked in a flash. Just stupid. We'll get to that in a moment.
The turn was an 8 and we both checked. The river was a six, giving me an imaginary extra pair. If he had A-5, I just sucked out on him, and given the check on the turn, he just might call if I didn't bet too much. So I bet small. When he called, it was MY turn to showdown. What a shock that was! Instead of anticipating a possible winner, the lack of a six in my hand meant I was about to save another dollar on tokes.
(If I had been calling him, meaning he had to showdown first, I'd have mucked face down for sure, without even knowing that I had misread my hand! (Because the the pair on board served as a retroactive counterfeit.) Wild, eh?)
This hand was a double whammy. Not only did I misread my hand, I badly misplayed the hand I didn't even have. But the REAL reason all this happened, and why I quit, was because of the car ride back from the airport with Alex. Say no more! It was time to go!
Heh, thanks for clarifying.
The raise on the button on the flop was amusing, that night, since he'd done *exactly* the same thing only a few hands before -- raised a largish amount on a faggy flop to drive everyone else out.
So he does this, some people chuckle, and he says, "I gotta stop doing that. You're going to get a line on my play."
And then the bizarre turn of events after that made the hand memorable.
I hope you don't develop a Propensity for doing this. mis-reading your hand I mean.
Here's a short one about the deadest AK I ever had.
2-3-5 no limit game. It's been killed for 10 making it 20 to go. I am on the button. A few limpers send it to me and I raise about 80 into about an 80 pot.
The small blind raises 200 more! He's an inexperienced, unimaginative player and almost definitely has KK or AA, maybe only QQ. The UTG player moves all-in! My god. The player who killed it for ten now calls all-in. Holy frickin' all-ins batman! My AK is in the muck before the dealer can even point to me for my action.
The small blind calls.
This is what I see: KK, JJ, AA.
I was STONE COLD dead to anything other than a fourflush or a straight, and if I make the straight, I'm susceptible to the JJ filling up.
Wow. I've never seen an AK so dead.
And of course, this hand had a ridiculous finish because the KK caught his one out on the flop.
Good one. Of course you made the right play. Here is something similar.
I was playing the $500 buy-in NLHE event a couple of years ago at the USPC. I had Roger van Driessen at my table for most of the event. He is an agressive, extremely lucky player that has had some modest tournament success, including a couple of final table finishes at the WSOP.
Through no great skill, he is among the chip leaders. He is calling all-in preflop bets with 66 and AQ. Everytime he has big cards, he puts the other guy on AK and everytime he has a small pocket pair he puts the other guy on big cards. Sometimes he is right, and when he is not he hits his 2-outer. One hand he even "put" TWO other all-in large stacks on AK and called for over half his chips with 33. He was partially right. One guy had AK and the other guy had KK. Roger wins it with a flush, holding the only heart on a 4 heart board.
Anyway, back to the hand similar to yours. I am fairly short-stacked in the SB with T1500 and the blinds are 200-400. Roger (with about 9k) raises to 800 on the button and I move all-in with JJ. A tight player in the BB, who has about 6k comes over the top and all-in. I think "uh-oh I'm dead", but figure there is a chance the BB has AK and wants to get Roger to fold his likely crap to get heads-up with my small stack.
No such luck. Roger calls with AcJc. The BB has AA. Before I can say "Roger has no outs", the dealer flops 3 clubs.
Roger goes on to make the final table, busting TJ along the way. Even gentleman TJ was heard muttering as he left the table that Roger was "the luckiest player he had ever seen."
I read a final table report later and had to laugh out loud when Roger, who was the big chip leader but finished 4th, complained to Mike Paulle "I just couldn't pick up a hand at the final table."
I ran a simulation, and here are the numbers (I had to assume certain suits, and I gave your AK the benefit of being suited in a live suit).
AA: 64% KK: 10.3% JJ: 16.4% AK: 9.2%
Aw, heck, let's make it offsuit with the K suit being dead.
AA: 69.7% KK: 10.1% JJ: 17.7% AK: 2.5%
Omigod, what a dog! 39:1 against the field!
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Money well spent.
The Chapter on No limit HE and the essay on plying satellites are worth the price of the book by themselves.
I didn't find the pot limit Omaha stuff very helpful.
Last night there was a set-over-set hand. (I was not in it.)
Usually when two reasonable players put all their chips in on the flop, it's an auto-pilot hand. No regretful decisions from either player. In other words, a coin toss, since over time the players will break even as the cards do.
Set over set is a 50-50 situation. It has drastic impact on the individuals for that night, but in the long run, those kind of hands have no bearing on outcome.
Just a thought.
For those of you who are interested, yesterday at Commerece there was a $1000-$2000 hold 'em game (as well as a $400-$800 razz). Phil Hellmuth has been playing there lately.
I won $187,000 in the hold 'em game, but then gave back $156,000 of it in razz (not!) :-)
Where does hellmuth get money to play with? His tournament wins in the past few years certainly can't make up for the buy-ins and re-buys he has lost on those tourneys. And he sucks at live games. Does he have a rich uncle somewhere?
The money must come from his Hand of the Week article royalties.
Teddy Forrest stakes Hellmuth
Do they play in the same game?
Teddy's no dummy..if he's staking Hellmuth then Phil must be on his game lately.
It means he lost $156,000 but never won the $187,000 at all.
High Stakes Hold'em
February 2001 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo