![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
How much more info does the 2000 edition have than the old one? Is it a worthy addition to the old one? What other topics does it cover? thnx
Buy it, it's worth it... as long as you don't play on East Coast.
Do what I did, and sell your old copy at reduced price. Someone will probably buy it, lowering the cost for the new one.
How do the fish survive?
I want to discuss two major mistakes I see players make and why it seems to work for them.
I lose so much money in this game while trying so hard to make only winning plays, I don't understand how these players can survive when they are constantly making losing plays. I literally see players making mistakes with EVERY aspect of every round of the game, and they do ok. I don't get it.
For the record, I lose much more than I win, so technically I am also one of the fish. However, even tho I'm usually sitting at the table losing, it's always crystal clear to me what's going on. I feel like I have a good grasp of the game's mechanics and a good understanding of how my opponents play. I feel that I'm thinking at a level beyond theirs when I play. Anyway, let's just say I know what I'm doing more or less, and can identify bad play and bad players fairly readily. But I wanted to clarify that I AM a losing player so my analysis may be suspect. And in fact that's why I'm posting this because I'm starting to wonder if I have it all wrong. So....
There are two things I notice other players do often and I'm baffled that they have any money left to play.
1. Calling down aggressive pre-flop raisers when you flop a crappy pair.
This happens ALL the time. Someone raises early. The button cold calls, the blind protects, the flop comes 3 handed. The board comes J62. Now, the big blind is not a good player, and may have protected his blind with a hand like T6s or 65o. The preflop raiser bets all the way and the BB calls him all the way down with his six. WHERE did the BB learn to play this way? HOW is it possible that this play has been positively reinforced? These guys often are long time players, old-timers and the like. The crazy thing is that it works ALL the time. The flop and turn go check-call, check-call, and the river gets checked down, with the pair of sixes taking it down. It's amazing. Now this is a goldmine for someone who finds a pair bigger than a TT, if you can get it. The same manifestation can be found when they call a preflop raiser and catch a weak ace and call down all the way. It's amazing how often this play will take down AK (in the first case) or QQ (in the 2nd case). Whenever I'm in a situation to play like that, I pay dearly. It's almost ALWAYS a losing play and I've long since learned to stay away from those situations. But I see others do well with it.
2. The next big error I see is a subset of the previous error. Cold calling with trap hands. Countless times I watch players cold call raises with hands like KTo, JTs, 44, etc. etc. Some players will fold for three bets but rarely for two. So they cold-call two bets with QT and flop a T and call down the preflop raiser all the way. What kind of strategy is this? It's crazy if you ask me but it seems to work for everyone else.
In my experience, I can barely get AK to stand up when I flop top pair much less make any money with KJ flopping top pair. Trap hands suck. I DON'T understand how these players can make money long run playing that way, but they DO. Some of them may be exaggerating to me how well they do, but I'm sure SOME of them are telling the truth, and the truth is they do ok. They aren't pros or full-time players but they play regularly, and they WIN. They win MY money in fact.
I don't know what else I'm supposed to do with AK when I flop the top pair and I KNOW my only opponent is calling me down with either a weak kicker or a different pair. I bet and bet and bet and when the river comes, they catch their kicker. It happens SO often that I'm starting to feel that AK is a trap hand because you'll just catch top pair on the flop and then lose on the river. --
I always believed that my opponents were making a mistake by calling down my "obvious" overpair or calling 2 bets cold with KT. Now in the McEvoy Quiz thread below I see Mason and Vince writing that I should call down two pair with an over pair even if I KNEW the guy had two pair on the flop. Is the inverse true as well? Should I be calling down an overpair if I catch a pair on the flop? This seems suicidal to me but I watch people do it constantly. I can probably count the number of times I've caught up to a flopped 2 pair with my overpair on one hand. It NEVER happens for me. When somebody flops two pair against my AA, they win my money, period, every time. Same for the inverse. If I catch a pair against an overpair, I'm screwed. Of course, I'm not a terrible player so this doesn't happen too often, the most common occurence is when I catch a Q with my AQ against AA or KK. That sucks. So what the hell is going on? What is the right thing to do and how should I do it?
If it's true that both players are doing the right thing by calling down two pair with an overpair and/or calling down an overpair with an underpair, then where the hell is my edge in this game?
I personally cannot bring myself to believe that either tactic is correct, because in my experience it's total suicide. I just have a hard enough time showing a winning hand when I play premium cards, and I can't imagine how these people stay alive playing such garbage. However, after observing it for so long and seeing others get such positive results, I'm starting to wonder if my understanding of the game needs some revision. Anybody out there think I'm crazy?
natedogg
You're too timid. When you've got AKo and you flop top pair you have to PROTECT your hand. You want to make draws pay a premium to see the cards unless you know someone has outdrawn you. Raise aggressively, it's the only way you're going to win any kind of pot with a flop like that to AKo. You're letting people outdraw you and walk all over you. Make it too expensive for them. How could you even consider AAo as a trap hand? If you have the notion in your head that AAo will win more pots than other cards then maybe it would be a trap hand but that's not necessarily true. It's only a trap hand if you overestimate the value of AAo. AAo is all about playing the flop and the people. Certain boards are good for AAo and others horrible, so play accordingly. If you want to know what a trap hand is, try playing 66.
Apparently you missed the special hyperbole alert I inserted into my post right after my sarcastic suggestion that AA was a trap hand. I'll repeat it here for you.
-hyperbole alert for the dim-witted-
I agree with you that certain boards are good for AAo but I think I'd rather have AAs no matter what the board.
This response is interesting in that it represents a curious phenomenon. It's amazing how often people respond to a post in a way that suggests they read an entirely different post. It's as if they read your post, but their brain translates the ideas incorrectly. Often, it's as if they completely skip over the ideas they don't already have in their head and replace the ideas with some old ones of their own, and then read on.
You're too timid. When you've got AKo and you flop top pair you have to PROTECT your hand.
This statement isn't even related to anything I discussed in the post. I NEVER said that I play AK passively when I flop a pair.
natedogg
Well, if you're getting outdrawn on AKo (people making two pair, whatever) then you aren't protecting your hand enough to knock people out. Or do you wish to retract your statement about never winning with AKo when you flop top pair? You spoke of this yes? Well, there you go buddy. There's no luck. People aren't getting lucky, you're letting them fuck you over. Besides with a statement like:
"I agree with you that certain boards are good for AAo but I think I'd rather have AAs no matter what the board."
Well what the hell is that supposed to mean? If there's a good straight board or a three flush board (after the river) then why the hell would you want AA? You would lose. You place too much value on AA and you will continue to lose money with them. Go ahead. Ask someone on this forum or Lee Jones what your chances are of winning with AA. They're not anything special.
Saying that I didn't understand your post leads me to believe I understand it better than you. You were complaining and whining about how people always stay in and they seem to catch the right cards to always beat you on these bad plays. WELL THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU THAT YOU'RE NOT MAKING THEM FUCKING PAY ENOUGH TO MAKE THOSE BAD PLAYS. Damn.
Boy you are slow. I was making a jest about your notation of AAo, as if the "offsuit" part of AA needed to be noted. When you respond to that with:
Well what the hell is that supposed to mean? If there's a good straight board or a three flush board (after the river) then why the hell would you want AA?
... that makes me suspect even more strongly that I was absolutely right when I said you don't understand what you read.
And secondly, I'm going to repeat my warning for you ONE more time, which you can find in the original post.
Do you know what "hyperbole" means Halis? More importantly, do you know what "dim-witted" means?
Also, what the hell do you know about how I play AK? Again, I would like to reiterate that you don't understand what you read because I NEVER discussed my style of playing AK. I was talking about a completely different issue. Jesus. Like I said, I think you (and some others) just skim over ideas that would require thinking and replace the contents of what you read with convenient little old and over-used and much-rehashed simple thoughts of your own. It's easier that way. I understand. Then you just start commenting away blathering on about something that wasn't even discussed in the first place!
Finally, I apologize in advance for letting my emotions get the best of me and flaming away. I'm in a bad mood and I'm really really sick and tired of ignorant people giving me crap like you did in your post. Especially when they don't even have basic reading comp skills.
natedogg
Sorry for flaming like that. That was lame of me. I am currently in a pissy state of mind over a long streak of bad beats and the comment about me playing my hands wrong by not forcing people to pay just set me off.
natedogg
Hey natedogg, a "hyperbolic dimwit" may just be a good thing. Don't you think? Maybe we better ask John Cole.
Vince
Vince,
That one's beyond me, but I'd love to hear your explanation.
John
John,
If I knew what in the hell I was talking about I wouldn't have asked you.
Vince
Vince,
Since when did you have to know something to write about it? ;-}
Okay, a "hyperbolic dimwit" might be a dimwit who is characterized by hyperbole. But this doesn't make any sense. Dimwits can engage in hyberbole, or you might say that the statements of a dimwit can be hyperbolic, but I don't think it makes sense to call a dimwit "hyperbolic."
Anyway, I once heard Rush Limbaugh use "hyperbole" as a verb--and he rhymed it with "Super Bowl." Any wonder why the chief sponsors of his radio show are sellers of vocabulary building kits.
John
Cruise ships are the only legal poker. Try Sun Cruz in Hollywood (954-929-3800), the Palm Beach Princess in the Port of Palm Beach and Sea Escape in Port Everglades (Fort Lauderdale). It's all 10% rake to $5.
Florida was voted "worst place in U.S. to play poker" by Poker Digest magazine.
The Seminoles won some sort of agreement with the government to allow high stakes poker only. They were seeking all table games, but were allowed only the non-house banked games of poker. I doubt the Seminoles will offer a good game with a reasonable rake, but improvement is around the corner at least in the Lauderdale area.
... but I've been hearing this sort of thing since the eighties. The Florida legislature is implacably hostile to the concept. The referendums held in Florida over the last two decades have passed only in Dade and Broward counties, and failed everywhere else. The Indians effort to get what other tribes in other states have has moved into the courts and has been unsuccessful.
Central and Northern Florida suck the majority of the states tax revenue from the bottom four counties, and spend it mostly on themselves. The disparity is enormous. The legislature is controlled by people locked into the past who dispise us because we aren't authentic Southerners. They don't need a special reason: if we want it, they oppose it. They don't care how unfair they are; they enjoy their power to inflict their primitive standards upon modern people.
When Castro dies and Cuba reopens its casinos, when the state of Georgia legalizes casinos and builds them on the Florida-Georgia border, then the Florida "forward: into the past" Baptist coalition may relent and let Florida leave the eighteenth century. However, by this time pigs will have taken flight.
I can just imagine what the Seminoles will rake if they are able to get higher stakes poker, the cruise ships are raking 10% up to $5.00 so the Indians will probably try to double it.
They are such pigs its beyond belief, right now they are taking 100% of the re-buy money in their "mini tournaments", it's outrageous, I won't give them a dime it is absolutley impossible to win with that much money coming out as well as the greed factor.
The cruise ships are bad but the Indians make them look like martyrs.
I am here in Florida and as long as I don't plan on turning pro the only option I see at this point is PP.
z
Boris,
Thank you for your points. I can see the merit in your alternative plays depending on the situation. A couple comments though:
1) if you wait until the turn, you might not get a chance to checkraise as the flop bettor may be on a draw himself and take the free card.
2) I don't expect you to very often get out hands like KJ or KQ, what I am really talking about is a) getting out hands that are only slightly better than yours (I don't know if I made it clear or not, but would expect them to drop to a bet on the turn, not immediately to the checkraise), and b) increasing your chances to win the hand, even if you know you are behind. Lets say you knew that the better i) had KQ, and ii) would not lay it down. Is the check raise still correct? It is if you get out the draws and increase your chances of winning the pot from say 10% to 20%.
Regards,
Paul Talbot
I agree that check-calling the flop in order to check-raise on the turn is bad. Some high percentage of the time you'll get no bets on the turn and give 3 opponents free cards. Disastrous.
But I wouldn't usually go for the check-raise on the flop. I would if the limpers were passive and tenacious, for the reason you mentioned. I'm usually more concerned with getting bets in when I have an overlay, even if my opponents have the correct odds to draw out.
Against typical (i.e. more aggressive) opponents I'd therefore bet it expecting the middle players to drop and getting it head-up with a preflop raiser who'e most likely hand is (effectively) one overcard. This often allows me to pick up the pot on the turn, whereas check-raising might tie him on to the river. The second most likely scenario is to be raised by a limper with an inferior jack, thus knocking out the preflop raiser (or smoking out his overpair), and allowing me to 3-bet the flop or check-raise or check-call the turn as circumstances warrant.
I much prefer check-raising from the blind with more vulnerable hands, but I might be wrong.
"Since I wouldn't want to draw to a crappy 2 pair in a big multi-way pot, (if I'm right) that means you should only do it when you're heads up. Getting 8:1 for a turn bet playing heads is HARD to do. There had to be a LOT of raising on preflop and flop."
what about a medium sized pot played 3 ways?
"Specifically, I am starting to wonder if calling down an overpair with a pair you made with the flop is worth it and in a related way, if calling down two pair with an overpair is worth it."
how do you know someone has 2 pair?
"Lastly, everyone has justified the cold-calling requirements IF the raiser is liberal. "
there are other, more important factors that go into cold calling a raise than if the raiser is loose or tight.
"So again, I'm wondering how is it possible for these players to survive long term when they are cold-calling raises with QTo?"
I don't think they survive long term. Although one time did 3 bet a live straddle with Q-10o. I won too, but I knew a ten was coming on the flop.
Finally, from your questions/comments, it sounds like you are not adjusting properly from no-limit to limit games.
Finally, from your questions/comments, it sounds like you are not adjusting properly from no-limit to limit games.
How do you mean? I'd really like to hear what it was I said that made you think that. I'm surprised because I started off playing limit and have only played no limit in the last 6 months or so. If anything, your impressions of what I said may give me some more insight into my own style of play.
natedogg
I got that impression (and that's all it is) because it sounds like you are not willing to put more money in the pot when you THINK your hand is second best. I estimate that on average if you are incorrect even 1/5th of the time - meaning you folded the best hand - you are making a negative EV play by folding. In limit poker it is a huge mistake to lose a pot because you failed to call a bet. I'm sure you are aware of this concept so that's why i thought maybe you were not adjusting. just sum thoughts
....... there is 2 concepts I don't get ?
[] You have a weak hand (such as 2nd pair) and check-and-see, but are relieved when early opponents check and a late opponent bets. This is a VERY common check-raise.
???? Please explain !
Notice that check-raising has much more to do with you and the opponents and much less to do with your exact holding.
???? Please explain !
[1] When I say "check-and-see" I mean that you check not knowing what you intend to do. In this case when early position players check (*phew*) and a late position player bets suspiciously (*yahoo*) then you can raise with 2nd pair, when you would be very reluctant to do so if an early player bets.
[2] Lets say you are in the blind with K8s and flop K94r. Do you check-raise? The answer has more to do with the other players (how many, how aggressive, if there was a raise, who bets the flop) or your over-all strategy (do you want to steal often? Get flop free-cards?) then whether you actualy have K9, A9, or QT. So a better question than "should I check-raise with this hand" is "should I check-raise against these opponents right now?"
- Louie
'By betting out with draws, second or third pair, top pair-bad kicker, top pair good kicker ...'
Im not trying to be inpolite here - I just don't get - I like to do some of those playes - when I'm in position - and it is checked to me (thereby gaining information).
Suppose I'm on BB with J4/off - 5 players - Flop is Q94 - I bet to gain information - Would that be a good play ?
I don't get it ?
The initial scenario in this thread was about raised pots, and my reply included thoughts that pertained primarily to unraised pots. My goof.
In unraised pots from the BB, at 20-40 and 40-80, with five or fewer players, I like betting out if I hit the flop in any way because my hand is a 100% wildcard hand. By consistently betting out with draws AND pairs, my hand remains a complete unknown. The fear factor is on my side. Plus, with no preflop raise, the players aren't mentally geared up for battle. I think this combo makes players fold (or just call) more than they should.
As to raised pots, I fold my BB to a raise more than any player I've ever seen. If I miss the flop, I tend to check and fold, and not play on with just two overcards. That part of my game I'm not interested in changing right now. What I should examine more closely are various ways to utilize this image/style. These days if I hit a pair or a legit draw, I bet out. (Keep in mind that hitting a pair means I made a big pair with a big kicker, and any "legit draw" has high card value as well.)
Yeah, I play scared from the blinds with a big hand. I WANT them to know I have a hand, so that 1) they'll fold 2) they won't play back 3) I can lay down later if beat.
I should check-raise more often if for no other reason than its a tool I don't use, as if a carpenter chose willy-nilly to keep one pocket empty on his tool-belt.
Suggestions?
Tommy
Had this hand the other day. 4/8 loose passive game. I'm on the button and limp with A9spades. SB calls, BB checks, family pot. Flop comes Kc 2s 6s. Checked al the way around and I bet. BB check raises all call except 2 players. Turn brings a 9c. Checked around again to me. Now I can't put anyone on a hand. I bet and BB check raises again. Now I'm getting worried and think he must be slow playing KK. Based on prior play beleive that would be unlikely. All fold and we are heads up. I reraise and he caps the betting. The river flops a beautiful 7s and I've got the nut flush! BB bets I raise he calls and shows two pair K9. The guy was hot and started screaming how "this" idiot was betting only a 37% chance. Correct me if I wrong but isn't it correct to bet hard when you are drawing to the nuts? I feel like I had tons of outs.
I hope you reraised on the flop. If not you are losing a LOT of bets.
Yeah on the turn you may have overplayed it a bit. Since you are heads up your strong draw doesn't have enough payoff to reraise at this point, but like Jim Brier said the mistake is small.
There is an exception though. If it was your intention to call him down on the river with a pair of nines (say you know the guy and he does quirky things so you don't know if he is bluffing or not) AND you strongly believe that he will check to you on the river then you lose nothing (assuming you check the river with your pair of nines). However this play can backfire, he might have trips and cap it, then you're paying 4 big bets when you only had to pay 2. I wouldn't make this play a habit, only in the right spot.
Jim Roy
Ten players see the flop. They check to you, you bet, SB raises and everyone calls except two players right? Well then you have 7 opponents. Even if the checkraiser walked over to you and showed you pocket kings to prove to you that he had top set than you could STILL raise for an IMMEDIATE PROFIT on the flop even though you don't have a hand yet. I did the math on this a while ago but I can't remember exactly how many opponents you need to raise the nut flush draw against an opponent you think has trips and I don't have the time to do it right now. It is less than 7 (3 or 4 I think, 4 sounds right), and if you think he has anything less than a set than you can raise the flop for profit with as little as two opponents (although this is a small profit/large expectation play). Conclusion: Reraise on the flop!!!!
BTW, I think you were too agressive on the turn. Jim Roy made some good comments about this.
One third of the time you make the flush. Of that time, the set will fill up one-third of the time. So you win 2/3*1/3=2/9 or 7:2 against or 3.5:1 against, indicating you need 3.5 opponents to break even. Its a brain-dead cap against 7 opponents (except when so many callers indicates others have a flush draw).
- Louie
x
This is a case where you have a nice draw for the money already in the pot AND you have enough players to essentially play an even money proposition on new bets.
It's a situation you can take avantage of to mix up your play.
He was mad because your play confused him and he didn't expect to be beaten by a flush. Strangely, he probably wouldn't have been mad if you had trips. With you drawing, he had the best of it and against trips you would have the best of it.
Oops,
Everyone folded on the turn. Like Jim said, Not a big mistake and it probably buys you a lot of respect for your agressive play.
You wouldn't want to do this every time since the small EV's add up.
It turned out that you had 12 clean outs = 26.1% chance on turn to hit your one of your outs on river. Next time don´t reraise.
I'm noticing that I have real problems when I'm in early position and flop a set or two pair when the board is very straight coordinated. For example, I have something like 77 or 67s and the flop is 678 (even worse if there are two of the same suit).
Let's assume that this is a low-limit game with 5-7 players to act behind you. I typically bet the flop and usually get raised. Most of the time, the raiser just has a draw. Most of the players call the raise, including myself of course. I'm pretty sure that I have the best hand, but I tend to get real passive after that because I know that there are just too many cards that can beat me on the turn and river. As a result, I check the turn (even if it is a blank) and might bet the river (if it's a blank). Am I playing this way too safe? I know that I need to make these players pay for these gutshots and open-enders, but I've been beat too many times by these draws. I guess my question is should I be reraising on the flop or betting out on the turn? How do you guys play these situations, especially from a tight/aggressive point-of-view?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Jace
Betting the flop, that's good. when you get raised, THAT'S GOOD! That way you can RERAISE! Checking the turn, that's BAD! NEVER give them a free card with that sort of board! Getting passive here is a CRITICAL mistake. betting when you are beat loses you a bet or two. checking when you have the best hand and giving someone who would have folded to a bet the cards that beats you LOSES YOU THE POT!!!! Don't get passive with your sets, coordinated board or not. Bet, raise, reraise, do whatever you have to in order to get the most $$ into the pot NOW while you have the best hand.
dave in cali
In a low limit game like this you will almost always get someone to bet. If you are in early position I think it is imperitive to go for the checkraise on the flop. Often the first few players will check and a checkraise will knock them out. Rarely but sometimes when you bet out the flop and someone in late position raises will a re-raise get those others that called the first bet out of the hand. They seem to think they are being scrutinized by the world so they must call because it's manly or they don't want to "look" weak.
in either case you must bet the turn. As has been mentioned you can't give them the free card. Sometimes but it is hard to tell, you can in fact checkraise the turn, but that's risky if you don't really know if someone will bet again. But this again can put pressure on them. It also makes players think twice about betting med-strength hands when you have checked in the future as well as sometimes not believing you have the nuts in the future when in fact you do.
How can I make $$$ on this hand either now or in the future is what I ask mydelf often times. Future profit can be much bigger and I will look for the chance to make that happen.
The old cliched advice, as I understand it, is paraphrased "if you flop trips and lose, and don't lose a lot of money, you probably didn't play it right"
Reraise that flop!
Bet it , and re-raise those situation whenit's time , a player who miss his draw won't pay you , but you will pay him if he hits it !
...like your orthography? ;)
But seriously, if the raiser typically has got a draw, then reraising (with two pair, but especially with a set) can´t be wrong.
The only alternative I can think of is that stop-and-go method if the raiser is close to your left: call the raise and bet the turn. If you get raised again, the others would have to cold-call two big-bets (good bye drawing hands), if not, then you know that the flop-raiser has got a draw.
If unsure, rather reraise the flop.
The first part is a partial reprint of his initial post and his response to his own post (from medium stakes forum), then my analysis follows.
The player UTG limped in. I [Mason] was next with AsQc and raised. All the players behind me through the button folded, both blinds called, and the original limper called. [8 sb in pot]
The flop was Ad Th 8h. The player in the small blind checked, the player in the big blind bet, the original limper folded, I called, the player in the small blind raised, the big blind called, and I called. [14 sb, 7 bb in pot]
The turn was the Td (putting two tens on board as well as two hearts and two diamonds). The player in the small blind bet (who had checked raised the flop), the big blind called, I raised, the player in the small blind turned his hand over and threw away an AJ [getting 11:1 pot odds], and the player in the big blind called. [12 bets]
The river was the 4h (putting three hearts on board). The player in the big blind checked and I checked. I won the pot as my aces beat a butsted straight draw of 9-7. ...
It should be noticed that given the way I played my hand that it appears to be much stronger than it really is, which is probably why the AJ folded. This leads to an interesting and important question. Given that I have AQ, do I want the AJ to fold. A second question is, given that this player folded an AJ without any hesitation, what would he do if he held AQ instead.
***************************
Now my analysis:
The second question is easier. If he would fold AJ in this situation, he MUST be giving you credit for at least AQ or better. My guess is that he has put you on AT, but maybe he just put you on AK or perhaps Pocket TT or AA. Whatever the case, I think if he would fold AJ here he would also fold AQ and maybe even AK. I don't put HIM on a ten, so I liked your turn raise.
The first question is harder, let's do that one next...
The player with 97 had eight outs to beat you. There were 11 BB in the pot when the SB had to call one more. The straight draw will make his draw here about 17% of the time, for drawing odds of 4.75:1. Since the jack would complete the straight, AJ was drawing almost dead here (he had four kings which would make it a split, as neither your queen or his jack kicker would play). But do you want him to call? Assume no betting on the end.
The straight draw will always win 17% of pots in this situation, so he is always taking 17% of AJ's $$ when AJ calls. Which means that you are always taking the remainder of AJ's $$, or 83%, except for when it's a split pot. Also, there will be one more big bet in the pot if AJ calls.
Now if AJ folds, Mason will always win 12 BB 38 times and lose 12 BB 8 times:
12 x 38/46 - 12 x 8/46 = 9.91 - 2.09 = 7.82 BB
But when AJ calls, Mason wins 13 bets 34 times, split 4 times (winning 6.5 BB), and lose 8 times:
EV = 13 x 34/46 - 13 x 8/46 + 6.5 x 4/46 = 9.61 - 2.26 + 0.57 = 8.19 BB
So Mason actually makes a bit of profit when AJ calls here.
Now if AJ was in fact A5, or some ace hand that had outs to outright beat AQ (as well as split), it would be different. Assume the SB had Ac5c. (JUST ASSUME, don't get into why it wouldn't be played like that! He was a FISH, OKaaaaaaay!)
NOW...
the straight draw will still win 8 times and lose 38 times, but Mason will win three less times than before....
If a non-5, 6, J or K comes, Mason wins 13 BB. that will happen 31 times out of 46 possibilities. he will lose 11 times, and split the pot 4 times.
13 x 31/46 - 13 x 11/46 + 6.5 x 4/46 = 8.76 - 3.10 + 0.57 = 6.34 BB
So Mason's overall expected value has decreased by 1.85 BB.
8.19 - 6.34 = 1.85 BB
The reason for this is that not only does he split the pot 4 times, he LOSES the pot three more times! So IF the SB has outs against Mason, he would still do better in the long run if SB folds.
But what if the pot was small?
Assume the same situation, but somehow there are only 7 BB in the pot. JUST ASSUME! (ok, Mason didn't raise BTF, there were only 4 players, Mason bet the flop and everyone called, then the BB bet the turn and Mason raised!!!! Sheesh!).
Now it costs Ac5c two big bets to call. (He is obviously making a huge mistake if he calls, but does that help Mason?). We will assume that the BB will call as well, making a total of 8 BB that Ac5c can win if he calls. There will be a total of 10 BB in the pot if Ac5c calls, or 8 if he folds.
if Ac5c folds, Mason's EV:
8 x 38/46 - 8 x 8/46 = 6.60 - 1.39 = 5.21 BB
if Ac5c calls (there would be two more BB in the pot):
10 x 31/46 - 10 x 11/46 + 5 x 4/46 = 6.74 - 2.39 + 0.43 = 4.79
So even when the pot is this small, Mason still loses a small amount of EV from the incorrect call. Notice that the pot really has to be VERY SMALL for Mason to profit from Ac5c making a VERY bad call! This is a case where players making a bad call are benefiting the best draw rather than the best hand.
What all this hoopla should show is that when you have the best hand, but not an invulnerable hand, and there is a big draw against you, you would rather have the two and three outers FOLD, even though they are making a mistake if they call! This is one of the exceptions to the fundamental theorem of poker DS mentions, where even if you knew what your opponent's hole cards were, and he was making a mistake to call, you would still rather have him fold.
This is also the type of situation discussed in Dan Hanson's article "The mysteries of multiway pots", from July 2000 Poker Digest. I also wrote a post concerning this article a few months back (on the small stakes forum, I think!).
Comments / criticism / corrections welcome.
Dave in Cali
... when you have the best hand, but not an invulnerable hand, and there is a big draw against you, you would rather have the two and three outers FOLD, even though they are making a mistake if they call! This is one of the exceptions to the fundamental theorem of poker DS mentions, where even if you knew what your opponent's hole cards were, and he was making a mistake to call, you would still rather have him fold.
Really?
n/t
the reason is that weak draws often benefit the best draw rather than the best hand, decreasing the overall expectation of the best hand. this happens because weak draws don't take away from the # of times that the best draw wins the pot, but they do take away from the # of times the best HAND wins the pot. this is why it is critical to raise with the best hand, even if you cannot really hurt the best draw. the more you make it cost, the more you offset this effect, even though you won't be able to eliminate it completely playing limit poker.
n/t.
f
I was wondering when someone was going to bring up this point. Excellent post Dave
I realize I made a mistake in my original calculations, but I did correct them later. The point here was really not the exact calculations but to show how an extra caller in the pot when someone is drawing against you hurts you. I have another version of this post which I will put on the forum soon that shows how having several callers with good draws hurts you even worse.
dave in cali
you are correct about the 97 having seven outs, I forgot that one of his jacks was out.
you are also correct that there were more ways to split than I counted.
good read. when you try to analyze something this complex, it's hard to get every single aspect of the hand correct without having someone else look at it to see what you missed. thanks. Overall, the point should still be made. maybe tomorrow I will do the corrected math....
dave in cali
Correction
Sorry guys I missed the full boat possibilities (I guess I missed the boat!). It didn't make that much difference in the numbers, but Mason doesn't profit from AJ calling when the pot is big, because the extra splits push the numbers back to a slight decrease in profit due to the extra player. Corrected calculations:
Now if AJ folds, Mason will always win 12 BB 39 times and lose 12 BB 7 times:
12 x 39/46 - 12 x 7/46 = 10.17 - 1.82 = 8.35 BB
But when AJ calls, Mason wins 13 bets 32 times, split 7 times (winning 6.5 BB), and loses 7 times:
EV = 13 x 32/46 - 13 x 7/46 + 6.5 x 7/46 = 9.04 - 1.98 + 0.99 = 8.05 BB
So Mason actually loses a bit of profit when AJ calls here instead of making a small amount.
Ac5c ...
... the straight draw will still win 7 times and lose 39 times, but Mason will win three less times than before....
If a non-5, 6, T, J, A or K comes, Mason wins 13 BB. that will happen 29 times out of 46 possibilities. he will lose 10 times, and split the pot 7 times.
13 x 29/46 - 13 x 10/46 + 6.5 x 7/46 = 8.19 - 2.83 + 0.99 = 6.35 BB
So Mason's overall expected value has decreased by 1.7 BB.
8.05 - 6.35 = 1.7 BB
When the pot is small...
if Ac5c folds, Mason's EV:
8 x 39/46 - 8 x 7/46 = 6.78 - 1.22 = 5.56 BB
if Ac5c calls (there would be two more BB in the pot):
10 x 29/46 - 10 x 10/46 + 5 x 7/46 = 6.30 - 2.17 + 0.76 = 4.89
So Mason still loses $$ even if A5 makes a bad call on a small pot.
Just for curiosity, Ac5c's EV cold calling Mason's raise:
8 x 3/46 - 2 x 35/46 + 4 x 7/46 = 0.52 - 1.52 + 0.61 = -0.39 BB
AC HE players chop the blinds if nobody bets. I have seen this done in all 2-4 3-6 and 5-10 games. Some people chop with AA or KK. Is this correct playing? Some times as soon as I seat at the table I am asked? Do you chop? Please comments. I know one "regular" that never chops, and he let you know it before hand. I don't chop he'll tell you. Witch is right?. Thanks.
beginner -
Either you're a chopper, or you're not. I found this out at Bellagio when I was in the big blind with AKs and no one called. The SB asked me "chop?" and I said "no." He folded, and I took his $2. I said "I'm not going to chop with Ace-King suited!" Then the dealer kindly informed me that it's not proper poker etiquette to decide whether to chop or not based on the quality of your hand. You should be a full-time chopper who will chop in all situations, or a no-time chopper who will not chop in any situation. Since I get many more bad hands than I do good hands (as is the case with all decent players,) I'm a chopper. One way I deal with this is not to look at my cards in the blinds until the action comes to me...this has the added benefit of being able to look at the other players to determine the strength of their hands. If I notice that no one else has called, I will ask to chop without looking. If the other blind player agrees, I muck'em. I find that it gets me a little more respect at the table, since almost every player I know is a chopper.
Scott
I'm a chopper as well, usually just not be the sole anti-social one at the table. (Also , with a 3$ collection in a 5-10 game, it just makes sense. For time charges, its just a go-along with the flow thing.)
However, when the game gets short, there's a time to start playing the blinds. I like to start playing at 6, but will settle for 5.
But as Scott says, the time to bring it up is not when your in the blind and its been folded to you! Tell your neighbors when the game gets enough for you.
Best,
Zooey
I think you just need to make a standard agreement with each of your neighbors that you will automatically chop when its just the two of you. If so, there is no asking you just toss in your cards and take back your bet.
If you have no such agreement, I have no ethical difficulty in making or accepting an offer, but wouldn't do it since someone offering to chop obviously doesn't have much.
- Louie
Try not chopping when you have for a few hands - bottom line is it is probably best to chop taking into account the rake.
Personally I don't like it but will go along to keep things friendly.
f
Both are right but whichever you do, do it all the time.
Don't "choose" not to chop just 'cause you have AA.
The way I look at it you are making a mutually benificial truce when agree to chop (even though I have the arrogance to usually consider myself a better player).
If you always chop, sometimes you will get AA, sometimes your neighbor will get AA, mostly you'll both get trash. Either way when you play you are making very little profit. It gets the hand over with quickly for the rest of the table. The biggest thing, especially in low limit games, is that you save on rake.
I appreciate it when a neighbor tells me before hand that he doesn't chop. That's also not so bad because you get into some heads up battles, which can be fun.
Yes it is bad manners to chop and then decide not to chop when you have a great hand. I remember those who do that. The exception is when the bad beat is very large, then I let my neigbors know that I will chop unless I have a bad beat hand in which case I call, roll the cards, and discreetly split the pot afterwards.
Jim,
Discreet is the key word. When you make a "deal" to pursue the Bad Bet sans betting, make sure the dealer or floor is unaware of this as it can negate the jackpot when two players have prearranged not to bet at each other. They look for excuses not to pay off.
Jake
I agree with everyone else's comments. I personally chop in that situation no matter what I have. Most of the players that I play with chop and those that don't usually tell me ahead of time (of course, they're on my immediate left and right).
I remember one time when I was in the BB and the SB asked if I wanted to chop. I looked at my cards and had AsKs. I smiled and said "sure, but I really shouldn't" when I showed him my hand. He showed me AhKh and we both had a good laugh.
.
Where I play, no rake is saved by chopping, otherwise I would surely chop.
And let's assume that when it comes to playing, I will net $0.00 by chopping OR not chopping.
I don't chop because chopping is a hassle. When I used to chop, I'd sit there day after day asking people if they chop because I hated getting caught offguard by a non-chopper. (The games here have tremendous turnover and lots of seat changes.) And if the game teetered around five or six players, I had to memorize everyone's personal threshold for chopping or not chopping. In short, chopping took up much energy that I preferred to use elsewhere.
Because we don't have a no-flop-no-drop policy here, the percentage of non-choppers is far higher than in Nevada. So there is no social pressure to chop, otherwise I would probably succumb to it. If it looks like a blinds-only scenario is unfolding, and the other blind doesn't already know that I don't chop, I do let them know as quickly as possible. I think that's a fair courtesy that more non-choppers should extend.
Tommy
Chopping is a social convention in most LL games. It is a friendly gesture. Friendly gestures make the game more fun for weaker players. Good players don't generally take a hardass approach toward new or weaker players. It's not at all good for business.
Yes you will occasionally run into someone who refuses to chop. This is rare enough that it will have an almost meaningless effect on your long term win rate.
PS In big BADBEAT situations I usually tell the player to my left in advance that if I call my small blind in a chop situation it means I have a possible bad beat hand and that I will make no further bets in the hand, and will chop after the cards are rolled. This even furthers my "nice guy" image.
In poker you have to play the metagame as well as the immediate game at hand. What I mean by this is when you do things in a game not as a direct means of winning the current hand, but for the purposes of keeping the game as an environment you can beat long term. This meta-game can include everything from showing a bluff, raising early with small suited connectors to throw your opponents off, needling your opponents, or pretending to be a fish. (The last one is one of my favorites. I usually do this effectively and efficiently by asking for a deck change after the first hand I lose).
Anyway, I was thinking about the problem of calling down aggressors for the purpose of "not letting the table run over you". If you fail to ever call a raise on the turn or river, then soon enough people will realize you can fold and will start to raise you more, pushing you off the best hand at times. In order to prevent this, you often have to grit your teeth and call them down, even when you are pretty damn sure you're beat.
This is what I mean by the meta-game. You call down on the river not because you necessarily think you can win this hand, but because if you DON'T, you'll get hammered like that even when they don't have a hand. Ironically, this means you are encouraging your opponents to only bet at you with a real hand. However, now that you've encouraged them to refrain from bluffing you on the turn and river, you have set yourself up as a person who will pay off. So now, you are in a situation where maybe you should fold to an opponent who bets into you when a scare card comes. It's a catch-22. Call down too much, and you will only be shown winning hands. Fold too much, and you'll get pushed off by aggressive bluffers who have no hand.
Obviously, you should probably try to achieve some sort of balance in this. The best way is to be really good at reading tells, I suppose. Then you'll know when to call and when to fold. But I don't know anyone who's good enough to rely on tells like that.
It would be nice if there was a simple answer to this. Does anyone have any effective methods for determining the OPTIMUM frequency of calling down when you are sure that you're beaten? I'm talking only about the meta-game purpose of preventing yourself from getting run over too much. So in other words, calling an aggressive bet on the river when you suspect you have the best hand, or when the pot odds dictate you MUST call (a 15BB pot and the like), do not factor into this.
Also, a quick thought about this aspect of poker when playing no limit. Does this idea apply to no limit? Can you call with your entire stack partially motivated by not wanting to get run over later? The problem with no limit is that it's easy to get run over when you don't have the nuts. If you have a medium to large stack, an aggressive player who is willing to push in on you whenever he senses weakness will put you to the decision with almost every hand, especially when he has position on you. I personally have called down aggressive bettors early in a session mostly for the purpose of showing I won't be run over. I have put all my money in the pot with middle pair. This has won me the pot about 50% of the time, but has given me more control at the table 100% of the time. It's best to do it early in a session when stack sizes are generally smaller than they will be later on.
natedogg
You're basically talking about "advertising" and "image projecting" - but using a different set of words to do so.
I suggest that you let the meta-game flow naturally from the immediate game.
First. Play each individual immediate games optimally.
Second. Notice how you are being perceived by the table as a result of how you played each of the immediate games, collectively.
Third. Exploit this image.
By following these three steps, advertising is free instead of expensive.
nt
Yes, the old story of not being known as a folder when the opponents are aggressive - well, I´d say the optimum frequency is when your opponents know that you´ll call down with (very likely) cracked hands often enough so that bluffing against you on river isn´t worth it, in turn allowing you to fold against their value bets when they really have got you beat.
.
Yes, the old story of not being known as a folder when the opponents are aggressive - well, I´d say the optimum frequency is when your opponents know that you´ll call down with (very likely) cracked hands often enough so that bluffing against you (on river) isn´t worth it, in turn allowing you to fold against their value bets when they really have got you beat.
Hello everyone - going to Rochester NY next week for business. Would be great to get some poker in - anyone know of some good games there - I checked the Lucky Eagle Casino. No hold em or stud, which is what I'm looking for. Thanks in advance for any info!
x
Glad to see you back in action. Stay away from the crap table---Please!!
Today I am Playing 5-10 HE. I am new to the table and get red aces in middle pos. Pre-flop two limp to me, I raise, and two caller to my left. SB and BB fold. 5 players total in the hand. The flop is: 7c 8c 9s. UTG comes out betting with "gusto" and the player next to my right calls. I fold and I hope is clear to everyone why. The two players to my left also called. I am looking at the flop and I feel good about my drop. The next card is the ace of spade, I don't like to see that card but I see another flush posibility, and I still think my drop was OK. Trips don't beat a straight or a flush. UTG bets, they all call. River card is the 7h. Now I am upset. UTG bets and the guy to my right calls, the other two fold. He shows 8c 4d, the caller folds, and does'nt show his cards, probably he had a pair of sixes or lower. UTG was a young player and I don't think he really knew how to play this game. I gave everyone too much credit and I am sick about it. I need somebody to tell me that I played this hand correctly, otherwise, I quit poker today. I mean it.
Beginner,
I don't know the texture of the table where you were playing and I am by no means an expert, but I might have raised on the flop just to see peoples reaction and if that gets the two to my left to fold giving me position even better. I don't go into a flop like that thinking that everyone has flopped a st8 or a 4 flush draw. I get real aggressive with my overs and see how people react. At a low limit like this I will be reraised by the st8 and just passivly called by the draws. The turn is an A so now I feel like i'm in till the end. But like I said I wasn't there so I don't know the table. I wouldn't quit poker if I were you over one laydown, if someone would have had the str8 or the flush would you have been this discouraged? I think you played the hand rather timidly on the flop, but I'm not a winning player so what do I know? Good luck. Just my very humble opinion.
Kevin
Do yourself a favor quit and take up golf.
If you are gonna 2nd guess your plays like that you might as well. Only thing that matters when you make a decision in poker are the cards and situation at the "time" the decision is made. Not what falls later.
You had to play this hand based on the knowledge you had of the players involved. Are they the type to play a draw strongly or the type to slow play a flopped straight - you could have easily been looking at TJ - fold was OK but 2nd guessing yourself isn't.
I probably would have raised the flop to be a little surer about what I was up against in time if you continue to play you will understand you have to poke and prod around some times before you muck.
BTW - the "gusto" was probably a tell you misunderstood.
By misunderstanding "gusto" do you mean the famous acting weak when strong and acting strong when weak?
Well - it would have a lot to do with his demeanor at the table. But yeah - if a guy is acting differently all of a sudden it could mean one of 2 things one is very good for you the other is very bad - it's just got to be figured out.
If folding what would have been a winner does an emotional number on you, then you are in deep trouble in the card room.
Quit. It will be better for you in the long run. If anyone else tells you that you played this hand correctly make sure you get them to quit along with you. There is safety in numbers.
Vince
nt
Vince, why on earth would you want beginner to take others with him/her when they quit.
Please limit your answers within the proper scope.
Tomorrow I'll show up at my cardroom and half the players (the ones I want to see) may not be there.
Really, sometimes you just don't seem to think before you type!
;-)
"sometimes you just don't seem to think before you type!"
Sometimes! Ha, if thinking were a requirement I would have to stop posting.
vince
hehe, couldnt resist
I can't tell you that you played it correctly.
I think you HAVE to raise on the flop here, you just can't read everyone immediately for a straight. If you get reraised, you can start to worry about 2-pair, sets and straights.
I don't think any of your opponents would have reraised you in this situation.
You played this one wrong. However, you laid down bullets on the flop. Being able to make lay-downs like this in the right situation is a strength. Here, you played incorrectly. Many other players will play this equally wrong, by cold-calling a bet and a raise in this situation with AA. Now, even laying down to a raise here may be wrong, but calling with that hand is certainly the worst possible play in this situation.
The key to winning poker is playing tight-aggressive or alternatively loose-aggressive (if the table "allows" you to). Tight-aggressive means playing good cards strong until someone else indicates by a raise that the demands for 'good hand' in a given situation have now increased, as a raise from someone else often indicates a better hand than you would've thought someone had when you bet out or raised.
AA is a good hand pre-flop. Raise. AA is a good hand if someone else is indicating strength by re-raising you. Raise.
On a 7-8-9 rainbow flop, AA is still a good hand in a five-way pot. Raise. If someone re-raises, it garanties almost 100% a better hand than AA. You've collected valuable information. Could a board-pair or a set save you? Consider that strongly, because you're getting good odds to call for one small bet if that is the issue, and very very poor odds if someone has a made hand. And the thing here is, if you catch your two pair or set on the turn, you'd like to be comfortable enough to raise again here. However, no-one re-raise your flop raise, it's most certainly pay-day for you, and you can safely bet out on the flop.
A sidenote here is that the caller between you and the flop bettor is actually very good news for you. Say flop bettor has flopped two bottom pair and is not likely to re-raise a raise from you, even though he's ahead. Now the caller in-between is almost certainly trailing badly, at least to your hand or on a draw. His money is free to play with and allows you some space to play more aggressively. Playing second best hand in a four or five-way pot is much much better than playing second best hand heads-up!
lars
It sounds to me like you wanted the pocket aces to lose. I've been in that mindset before and it bites. Every big pair gets cracked for days, then here they come again, KK. What disaster will befall me now? How can I be so unlucky? And the flop ain't even flopped yet.
In the meantime, there are decisions to be made, as usual. But how can I make the best decisions when my mind is clouded by thoughts of past and future doom?
Obviously, I can't. Neither can you or anyone else mired in self pity and pessimism. Get your head right first, however long that takes, then come back.
Tommy
You probably thought "Hey with this board I´m definitely going to get drawn out, so why not discard right now!"
Perhaps you forgot that you only had 4 opponents, hmm?
Was the player betting with "gusto" acting? If you think so then raise and try to limit the field to just you and him. It was certainly better for the UTG to bet in this case rather than check and call you
Raising will give you more info than calling.
Of the three options you had calling is the worst. Raising or Folding is a "depends" kind of question.
Once you fold, the hand is over for you. Right or wrong! Now is the time to watch the play and get a read on your opponents.
Poker is not about the cards; it's about the other players.
If you plan to improve your game then I suggest you stick around, learn, and enjoy playing.
If not, then I suggest quitting is the most pragmatic thing to do.
BetTheDraw hit the nail on the head for this hand - UTG had the choice of betting 1 unit, or calling your bet and any raise - maybe he thought you might fold, too, if he bet. Once he bet, as others have said, you should have raised. If he called, I doubt if he would have bet on the turn, almost whatever it had been. You would then have had the choice to take a free card or bet, depending what turned. You should go back to play him, now that you have learned a little more about his thinking.
Hey, you played the hand great, so don't quit. But next time you could play the hand even better by realizing that if the initial bettor had flopped a straight he may have been more inclined to check to the original raiser and would wait to fourth street to get his raise in.
I'm more inclined to believe that a fold is only "great" against opponents you "know" have at minimum a set in this position.
With the flush/str8 potential out there I think the laydown is OK if against known weak players who may have the TJ or 56.
Against an unknown field, I like the raise to gain info and position considerering you may be best. (especially with the acting by UTG).
Beginner may have played OK but certainly not "great"!
Read beginner's post. Now pretend Mason doesn't want beginner to quit. What would he say?
Seriously, if the guy wants to quit after this little escapade then maybe he should.
What'll he do when he gets drawn out on again and again and again (u get the idea).
I think Mason should have said "The fold was OK but ...". Let's not pretend we think beginner played this hand great. It's too condescending.
However, I know what you mean.
The laydown was fine...put your money in with a better hand. This is not the upper limit games. There are multiple draws and it's pretty easy to be up against 2 pair. The board is almost as ugly as can be. The fact that he would have made a full house is irrelevant.
nt
Interesting...
A dozen people take the time to respond to your post to tell you what you did wrong, and you thank the one person who validates your mistake by giving you bad advice.
A typical case of "tell me what I want to hear" syndrome that is so prevalent on these advice forums.
I'm sorry, but maybe quitting is your best option.
WGB: Are we permitted to disagree in this forum? Several players in this forum think my drop was correct, they include Poker Prodigy and MASON MALMUTH!, whom I respect greatly. I just like the way P P said it. Not playing this hand was not my idea. I read it in a book that gives you this exactly same example of a flop when NOT to play AA and fold. I can look it up for you. Like PP said, wait for another time when your Aces are strong. And another thing, I am going to wait three months, I am going to put the same flop in this forum, with the same aces, but this time the turn will be the Tc and the river the 8d, and I am sure that a lot of you will agree with me that it was a good drop, including you! I like Jim Bryer in this forum, he has been so helpful to me and never trying to secong guess me, just poker, The way it should be. If you think that I need your approval for anything you are mistaken. I believe that raising the flop is a very good play but folding is just as good. Of course when I saw the ace on the turn the first thing that came to my mine was: I shoul have raised the flop. I am not a moron. May be I was wrong to shout thank you, I did not mean anything by it. I did not mean to offend anybody. I am thankful to everyone for the advise I get in this forum, including you. But don't thing you are the greatest player on earth or the best person, because you are not!
nt
Beginner, you better read Mason's post again.
He was trying to be charitable and diplomatic (granted, not one of my finer qualities).
Restated, Mason essentially said: It was OK to fold, but doing the opposite (raising) is better.
That translates logically to "Folding is wrong". In poker, when you don't take the best course of action you have made a mistake.
I read Jim's response to you the other day. I believe he said essentially what I said, except I used the word "automatic" and he used the word "manditory" (or vice versa?).
Just one more point I left out of my original post: You seemed to be most afraid of the flopped straight rather than the flopped trips, which in my opinion are more likely if you are in fact beaten at this point. Not many players play J10 under the gun, let alone 56. Surely you don't believe it is correct to fold an overpair to a flush draw. Or do you?
If you fold overpairs every time the flop is anything but Q72 rainbow you will grow old and broke.
Scott response on Sunday, 4 Feb., 2001, 12:27 p.m., thank you. When you asked me if I fold to a flush draw with aces, my answer is: this flop is a lot stronger than that. I just got home, I am sleepy, I will get back to you later.
Terrible comment about Mason. He does not deserve that. I would like to read your books so I get to know better. Peace.
Should read: get to know you better. Peace.
It hurts to see some players on this forum don"t treat you with the respect you deserve. But, be sure that some of us do. Good luck.
Don't worry, I'm use to it.
As far as this respect thing goes, I would not worry too much about those who don't give "deserved" respect. I mean if Mason can't get no, why worry if someone who goes by the handle "beginner" can't get no! What gets respect here is intelligent debate supported by reasons for what you are saying. Those who produce intelligent posts get the respect of most of the people on this forum who are worth worrying about. And no matter how good your posts are, or how well thought out your arguements are, some people just won't give you any respect no matter what you do or how good your writings are. Screw them, it's not worth your time to worry about them. I'm sure Mason already knows this. beginner - learn it and take it to heart.
Dave in Cali
Dave in Cali: Please read Talbo's post of 2 Feb., 2001, at 3:03 pm and Bet the Draw's post of 2 Feb., 2001, at 6:21 pm. Those comments go beyond poker, to me they are insulting, They are second guessing Mason's intentions with his comments to me, in the worst way. It hurts to see it, I am only stating my feelings. That is all. Thank you for your post, Dave, I think it was great. Beginner.
beginner,
Please show me in my post (given below) where I show disrespect to MM. Mason had stated that you played "great". I suggested that you didn't play "great".
Coming from Mason, BECAUSE of the respect I have for his opinion, I wanted to comment on his post. Now please show me what might cause you to hurt so much for MM.
------PREVIOUS POST------
"I'm more inclined to believe that a fold is only "great" against opponents you "know" have at minimum a set in this position.
With the flush/str8 potential out there I think the laydown is OK if against known weak players who may have the TJ or 56.
Against an unknown field, I like the raise to gain info and position considerering you may be best. (especially with the acting by UTG).
Beginner may have played OK but certainly not "great"!"
x
Dear BTD: You know I like you, please don't be offended. In your post of Feb 2, at 6:21 pm you are agreeing with Talbo. you said: "It's too condescending. However, I know what you mean" I feel MM is only trying to help me. That is it. That is all. Comments about his intentions are not needed it. IMHO. Good luck.
Ah, it was the response to Talbot you didn't like.
This is interesting 'beginner'. You see you are the one assigning a particular motive to MM.
Talbot suggested for us to consider that MM doesn't want you to quit. This seems OBVIOUS since MM states "don't quit".
It seems you must be assuming that I think MM would want you to keep playing because you are a bad player. Even Talbot did not say this.
I certainly did not! I agreed that MM created a post intended to cause you NOT TO QUIT. That is what you asked for in your original post.
As for the rest. I care not whether you like me. I post if I have something to add. I certainly do not need others telling me what I should or shouldn't post or what my motives are.
Question my motives if you like but please don't state them for me.
Thanks
You are insane!!!!
"You are insane!!!! "
This is quite possible beginner. who am I to judge that?
Anyway, enough of this stuff. I have decided not to bother defending myself against other posters. Look where it leads to.
Email me if you wish to discuss this further for any reason.
PS i'm not that prompt at read my BetTheDraw email but I do read it.
Good Luck
beginner,
Please show me in my post (given below) where I show disrespect to MM. Mason had stated that you played "great". I suggested that you didn't play "great".
Coming from Mason, BECAUSE of the respect I have for his opinion, I wanted to comment on his post. Now please show me what might cause you to hurt so much for MM.
"Beyond Insulting"? Come On!
------PREVIOUS POST------
"I'm more inclined to believe that a fold is only "great" against opponents you "know" have at minimum a set in this position.
With the flush/str8 potential out there I think the laydown is OK if against known weak players who may have the TJ or 56.
Against an unknown field, I like the raise to gain info and position considerering you may be best. (especially with the acting by UTG).
Beginner may have played OK but certainly not "great"!"
Beginner:
those posts were not that bad, you will get MUCH worse if you post on the forum long enough. You have to keep in mind that when you post on a public forum like this, you are opening yourself up to a great deal of criticism and scrutiny, and not everyone will be super-nice or politically correct when they evaluate your writings. Many times they will be downright harsh, brutal, rude, or even just a plain a-hole.
Take Rounder for instance, he is generally pretty blunt and doesn't sugar coat anything. Many people take him for being super-rude. I don't think so, he is just strongly opinionated and does not like to beat around the bush. Sure, occasionally he probably IS rude, but the real measure of his presence on this forum is the content of the posts he writes, not his demeanor. I think he would be more popular if he were nicer, but that is not his goal. In the end I have no problem with him despite his rather harsh style because he is talking poker strategy and supporting his positions with reasons.
Now if someone is just plain talking trash, and is giving no meaningful support for what they are saying, then just blow them off. Trash talk gets no respect from me.
However, you will get harshly criticized if you post on the forum, get used to it. It's actually a good thing because it makes you re-evaluate your positions, and sometimes you will find that you were wrong and the person being harsh has a point. Personally, I really don't care how they put it, as long as they are talking poker strategy and providing reasonable arguements to back up what they are saying.
I have been posting on this forum for years and I still don't get no respect! Oh well, the sun will come up tomorrow just the same.
Dave in Cali
"bad, you will get MUCH worse if you post on the forum long enough"
Thanks, ... I think.
;-)
I think it takes a lot of balls to go online and state what you think with the intention of having someone try to tear apart you theories, concepts and arguments if they desire. I think it takes a lot of balls to put your money where you mouth is by depending on the above concepts to make rent and eat. I also think it takes a lot of balls to give that precious advice away in published books and these free discussions, which probably cost you money via the efforts to support this site. You could have kept all this information to yourself, which you earned with tremendous effort and no small risk. You could have spent more of your time playing poker rather than supporting this site. I also think it takes a rare sense of humility to stress the importance of reaching the best answer, rather than just winning the given argument. It is unfortunate that people do not give you the respect you deserve. I think this is due, oddly enough, to the high regard people hold you in. If you are the best theorist, people seeking a reputation will challenge you frequently. Some may know they can't win the argument and make irrelevant comments by resorting to cheap shots. These people are being rude guests. You have given me more than I could possible give back to you and I thank you for it. That is very selfless and tolerant of you. When you comment, I listen and I put MY money where your mouth is. I'm glad I do.
n/t
I agree. It's also possible that MM makes money from his books and from this site.
I'm responding only because it seems someone has suggested that I have no respect for MM (and I suppose DS). As far as Poker goes, nothing could be farther from the truth. As for general respect as people, I have read nothing that would cause me to question either their integrity.
Strange that I should have to bother to post such a defense as this. It is something that, after today, I am going to refrain from doing.
I suspect that my reputation is probably heavily tarnished over this only because I bothered to defend myself at all. You see, I do think I doth protest too much!
Regards
Mike N
beginner, you are definitely playing psyched out poker right now. A flop raise is mandatory with your big over pair and a large pot like this despite the scary board. You can certainly fold if a blank comes on the turn and you get serious heat.
Take a month off, and then drop down to a $2-$4 game or the cheapest game you can find. Play 100 hundred hours and see where you are at and how you feel.
Jim: What is playing "psyched out poker" and is a raise in this case to get a free card in the turn if I don't improve, even that I am not the last men to bet at this time? And would you raise in the same situation with AK, AQ, or any other high pair? Thank you, I respect your opinion. When I see this board with AA., what am I to think? Can I win AA alone or Do I need improvement? Bye.
By "psyched out poker" I mean that you are letting your bad run adversely impact your playing decisions. Pocket Aces are a much stronger holding even against this scary flop than having mere overcards. I would fold overcards in a New York minute given this board unless they were both Clubs. But when you have a big overpair in a situation like this you have a hand of immediate value and you want to raise to make anyone on a draw pay through the nose to take off a card here. Some guy on a one-card straight draw might decide to fold rather than call two bets cold with the possibility of further raising since he may figure even when he hits he will be splitting the pot.
Adversity has the effect of eliciting talents that in prosperous circumstances would have lain dormant.
Horace..Latin poet and satirist...
gl
..a liberal education.
Where did you get these? They're good.
...but think it through.
Every one who has responded plays at least a pretty good game. This isn't an accident. They very deliberately concentrated on playing well. You'll have to do the same thing if you want to play well.
"Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're probably right."
Henry Ford
I respect your opinion and everyone that plays well gets my respect, but I am not going to do anything if I don't understand why I am doing it. Some people are trying to see what kind of a player I am through this play. Do you think this is right? Please tell me if AA against this board will win most of the time. Or what percentage, after raising the flop, of course. Do you feel they need improvement? I think that to be a good poker player you have to use good judgement on every play, and not two plays are the same. Do you agree? If some day you or I, we are the best players in the world, still we won't play perfect poker all the time. Do you agree? thanks.
First of all slow down, relax and have faith in yourself. Nick Dandolos, the Nick the Greek of living legend, said that the difference between winners and losers is character. There is no one secret of winning poker. Yes, it's a game involving mathematics: just like a casino, you want to offer your opponents propositions that pay off at less than the true odds, and you have to learn how that is accomplished. But it's also a game of people and personalities. Your opponents are all driven by greed, and if they have any analytic sense at all, they gain predicability and act less like random morons. And you have to learn how to read them.
The number one rule for playing poker well is to pay attention. I recommend to you, if you want to play the game with anything like proficiency, that you learn it by combining modest play done involving your acute attention, with study of the same intensity you would employ for any other worthwhile endeaver.
And only you can decide if playing well is worth it to you.
Hate to tell you this, but you played it wrong.
You have to raise the flop here. It's automatic. Under the gun flopped straights don't come out betting in multiway pots. He's betting because he hopes you have big unpaired cards. Anyone with a flush draw or an open ended straight will at least call, and maybe raise. Don't be so afraid of flush draws. Your aces are better than a flush draw or a straight draw.
True, you will probably not end up winning this hand, but the times you do win will more than make up for the more frequent occasion when you lose.
Don't quit. Just play a little little smaller. 5-10 is too big for your skill level. Play for a few months on Paradise Poker's play money tables. It will soon be evident to you that raising is the only play here.
Good luck!
You can not get better, if you do not learn from your mistakes. This fold cost you the pot but if you take and use want you have learned form it, you will only get better. Good luck.
Thank you, best advise yet. You impress me very sure of yourself for your statement. If you are correct then I have been playing this hands wrong. New to me is to know that AA are favorites to straight and flushes draws. Is this true even when the whole flop is the same suit? Now let me ask you this: do you really think that I should drop to an other level just because I didn't raise this hand? Some other players agree with my play, they think that it was correct to fold. I am doing very well at this level, profit wise. I am winning, not much, but I am winning. The main reason I am winning is that now I'm playing conservative, some times, too conservative, I feel. Like in this case, you will agree. But then I am very agressive when I have a winning had. Thanks.
The reason I told you to move down for a while is because I made certain assumptions based on the context and content of your post:
1. I assumed with a posting name of "beginner" that you were in fact a beginner and should therefore learn the game at the cheapest level possible. It is possible to lose quite a bit of money playing 5-10.
2. I assumed from the language used in your post that you were a younger player (say, 18 to 22), and many younger players tend to play "over their head" financially.
3. I assumed you were a net losing player. Playing poker is fun. If you were breaking even or winning, I reasoned, why would you be contemplating quitting the game?
4. Folding AA in the situation you described is ludicrous, and I assumed that if you couldn't recognize that, then you were very likely making similarly obvious mistakes in other areas of your game.
If in fact you are making money or breaking even (based on meticulous records) after several hundred hours in this game, then there is of course no pressing reason to move to a more affordable limit. However if this is so, I reiterate that I am perplexed why you would be frustrated enough to consider giving up the game. Is it somehow interfering with your work, education, or personal life? I doubt very much that you've decided you no longer have interest in the game. If that were the case you wouldn't be posting here.
I'm afraid I must stick with my original assessment. If you want to take your game to the next level, you are going to have to be more receptive of advice from experienced players, rather than seeking validation from others at your level.
It is good to play tight. But "heroic laydowns" are not the way to go in holdem. This is especially true in multi-way pots that have been raised pre-flop. Your aces only have to win a fraction of the time to turn a profit.
I would be very interested in seeing the passage from the book you mentioned in which you were advised to fold pocket aces in this situation. If in fact such a book is actually in your possession, I would advise you to burn it at your earliest opportunity.
Good luck.
Bill
Thank you for taking the time Bill. Some times I win big pots with AA or KK, but some times I lose big with them too. What I was trying to do in this case, was to avoid falling in a trap, drawing dead, if you will. I am greedy in my playing, I mean I am trying to win as much as I can with each hand. At the same time I am also trying to save money whenever I can. It is just that simple. I will play AA, in the same situation, the way you advise, in the future. I like the part where you tell me, that they don't have to win all the time in this situation to turn a profit. As far as my goals in poker, they are really simple: I want to be a good 10-20 HE player. I started playing 2-4, then moved up to 3-6, I am now playing 5-10, but I go back to 3-6 sometimes. Some days 3-6 is better than 5-10, more action. I have never played 10-20 yet, even that people I know, that I consider inferior to me, poker wise, play 10-20 regularly. As far as my name "beginner", it is the correct name, but you would not consider me a biginner, since I been playing for a while. I am a biginner because like this play, I did not played it correctly, and as long as I am making this kind of errors I will be a biginner to myself. Like in life in general, there are just to many things I don't understand why they are the way they are. I am a beginner there too. I am a little older than 18-22, I did not mean to give the impression that I was young. As far as my quote from the book, I will look it up, it will take me sometime, because I have many books, If you are not in this forum, I will email it to you.---- I played this hand the other day: I'm in middle position with KJo, UTG limps before me, , I call, two more limpers, button raises, UTG reraises, I call, call, call, button cups it, everybody calls. 5-10 game, huge pot. The flop comes K x Tr, I flopped top pair, but of course with this hand, I'm not happy with my kicker. UTG checks, I bet, everyone calls. Turn is another x. UTG checks, I bet, call, call, now UTG raises. What am I to think, that some how I lost this hand, that most likely I'm out-kicked. I called, so does everyone else. The river is another K, UTG checks, I checked, (I din't bet thinking that he may be check raising me again. I don't know if this play was correct) everybody checks. I win with the 3 Kings. He shows AJo. He was going for an inside straight. These are the kind of playing that drive me crazy. WGB, I hope to hear from you in the future in this forum. I respect your opinion. Good luck.
In the hand you describe in this most recent post, I would normally fold KJ to a raise and a reraise, unless the players making the raises are both maniacs. When you call a reraise you sometimes end up paying 4 bets, which is what happened here. The problem with KJ in this situation is that it is very often dominated by raising hands, let alone reraising hands. If even one of the raisers has any one of the following hands, you are drawing too thin to justify continuing in the hand: AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ or KQ. Quite frequently you will be up against *two* of these hands, making your chances very slim indeed (God forbid, one of your opponents might even have suited aces!). Often in these cases, "hitting" the flop is the worst thing that can happen to you. It will just hook you and end up costing you money.
In general, play very strong when you likely have the best starters. Back away easily when you are very likely dominated.
KJ in middle position is a hand that looks good but isn't that strong of a hand. In a passive loose game (emphasis on passive) I would probably play it.
When it comes re-raised back to me, it's a clear fold in just about any game situation I can imagine.
Regards
Basically, all you did was not call or raise a single bet in a game of cards. The fact that you would have won the hand as it eventually panned out is totally irrelevant. If the turn card had been an 8 instead of an Ace, you would have been congratulating yourself on your foresight. What happens after you fold has no meaning. As another writer said, when you are not in a hand, sit back, watch, and learn something about your opponents. If this is the only hand in the game that you would have won if you hadn't folded, you are a better player than most.
Mike Haven.
I love you. Good luck.
beginner -
Can't tell you how many times I've folded a winning hand, especially against terrible opponents....and I haven't been playing that long! However, you have to realize what your goal in poker is. If it's to stay with those oh-so-lovable wired Aces until the river in the face of a possibly made straight or flush draw, then you won't be a winning poker player. You made the right decision...fold those guys without hesitation. When that situation comes up again, fold them AGAIN, knowing that you are 23:1 to hit an Ace on the turn, and even that's not good enough because you need the board to pair also...and EVEN then you don't have the nuts.
Good poker players, IMO, are like the House with an aggressive twist. Could you imagine sitting at a blackjack table, and the dealer raises you when she shows a ten and you have sixteen? Or twelve? She knows that she has the edge, and she presses it. Sure, you MAY stay with your obviously beaten hand and hit, but more often than not, you'll lose your money. The BJ dealer knows she is destined to lose a certain amount of hands. But the House knows that she will take home the money over the long run, just like a craps table or a roulette wheel. How do you think they build those huge casinos? Good poker players have more of an advantage than the house does in any of these games, if they play the game right. They can get out of losing or marginally winning situations, just by folding. They can press their advantages as hard as they want to when the cards are in their favor.
Your goal should be to make money over the long run. That's it. Meaning: play tight, but aggressive. Have the best hand, the best draw, or GET OUT OF THE HAND. Know that you will not win every hand, and you will not win every session. Know that bad beats mean that your opponents are chasing you, and they are playing against the house edge. Eventually, they will give you their chips. Sure, it gets tougher as the limits get higher...and pot limit/no limit is a different game. But limit hold'em is a mechanical grind. The less sophisticated your opponents, the more straightforward and "correct" you can be in your play.
Cheer up and thank the poker Gods that you have players like that at your table.
Scott
Scott: that is just the kind of player I want to be. I agree with you 100 %. Thank you.
Last comment from me.
Most of us have been where you are. I'm going to say something that may offend you, but it is not intended as such.
You have read up and have grasped the basics of good poker. Not only that but you can comment intelligently on what you've learned.
You are, however, not yet a strong poker player. This is exactly how many of the current "good" players once were.
At every level (except the very top) there will be others of superior skill and knowledge. You are at the stage of "You don't know what you don't know". Again, this is where almost every good player has to be at one point. (Guess what. I think it's kind of scary once you realize how much work it is to get better than just good).
Do not complain about about the play of others. It's nothing but bad beats and we've heard them before. Don't quit, but certainly take breaks when needed and even when not needed. After all, how do you really know if you need a break from the game.
Whining also marks you as a expert at how to lose. It may be possible that you need to go through this phase. Stong, experienced players seldom sit around and talk about their bad beats.
Good Luck beginner
Bet the draw: I read your comments in this forum all the time, and I find them very smart and useful. I respect your opinion about me and I hope you are right, that some they I will be a good player. You are right also about the changes we go through during our progress in this poker world. I remember in the very beginning I was a terrible player and I didn't know it. I am always thinking that calling a bet is sometime the worst play. In this case I desided to fold instead of raising. I didn't fold because I thought he flopped a straight, just that this board was to dangerous. I am always raising my big cards, I follow Jim Brier's advises. I was not offended it by your comments, I thank you for taking the time. I will continue reading your contributions to this forum, and I will take them like they are from a friend.
n/t
nt
I spent 2 hours jumping back and forth between these 2 posts.
BTD, sorry, it won't happen again. n/t.
Now, I just need to find a corner in this round room.
Scott: I will answer your response later today, I am too tired now. Thank you.
With play like this I would say never quit poker. In fact you're officially invited to my game!
Seriously though, you're like a guy in my game. He folds, then when the flop hits his 8 3 with 8 8 3 he picks up his cards furious about it. It's bullshit. If that happened to me I wouldn't look at the 8 8 3 twice. The only thing I could possibly wish for in that situation is that I was psychic so I could guess the cards to come.
Flopping 8 8 3 is damn near the ONLY flop you want with 8 3 unsuited. Those cards aren't worth playing before the flop, so everything after the flop is irrelevant. You're in a different situation here obviously, but you shouldn't be angry about the Ace flopping. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
You should be pissed because you couldn't read your opposition enough to tell what they had. Was the raiser the type of guy that would slowplay a monster hand? If so then you should've put his flop raise on a pair or possibly two pair, trying to drive everyone else out so they'll stand up.
If he's not a slowplayer and he bets his hand accordingly on any given round (and his bluffing isn't all that unpredictable) then maybe the fold would've been appropriate. Of course the player I just described wouldn't be much of a challenge anyway.
As far as quitting poker, go ahead and try buddy.
I see AA losing so many times and I also see AA overplayed most of the times. Of course, we don't know how many times AA are being forded either, right? I agree with you, that folding AA in this case was wrong, and I will play it different the next time. I hope to see better results. I don't agree with you comparing it with a 8 3o play. As far as knowing the players, I did not. I was just seated at this table. But I never do anyway, I play in AC, and that is just like playing in the Long Island Expressway. Thank you for your comments. They were most useful. Good luck.
beginner,
Do you know the concept "Results Oriented"? If not you should search the archives and read up.
This refers to your comments about "next time and expecting better results".
Regards
Hey Beginner,
First of all, I'm not going to say that you played the hand correctly, but I'm also not going to advise you to quit. Most of the responses to your post have provided some very insightful comments and advice. I'm in line with most of the others and would advise you to first reevaluate why you play poker in the first place. Is it for the challenge, money, fun, or a combination of them? After you answer that question, you should have a better idea of where you're at. Secondly, the tone of your post signals to me that you may be on a bad streak as of late. You may just want to take some time off from poker or maybe move to a lower limit (although the fish there can often suck out on you). I personally don't think you need to act in haste and quit poker immediately. You sound like you're trying to make the right plays, but come up a bit unlucky. Just keep fine tuning your skills and I think you'll be fine in the long run.
I'm no expert player. I have only been playing for the past 6 years (and was at best a very average player the first 3-4 years) and have only read excerpts from poker books and other sources of poker strategy. I consider myself to be pretty analytical and I've gained a lot of knowledge from this forum. From this, I can now hold my own at the stakes that I'm comfortable with. Take it slow and have some patience. I think you'll do fine.
In regards to your AA hand, I think most of us agree that you played it wrong. However, once you fold a hand, it doesn't matter what happens on the turn and river. Would you have decided to not quit if the A didn't show up and someone showed you a flopped straight?
I remember a very similar situation I was in where I had AA in middle position in a loose 3-6 CA game. I raised and had about 5 or 6 callers. The flop came something like 9 10 J. My first reaction was "shit"; a reaction that was similar to yours. Someone in front bet and it was raised when it got to me. I decided that I would just call the 2 bets because I wasn't convinced that I was beat yet and just wanted to see what type of action would take place afterwards. Some of you guys may consider a 3 bet with my aces and others may even consider folding. Calling may have been the worst decision, but that's what I ended up doing. A couple of players behind called the 2 bets and there were no more raises. On the turn was a beautiful ace. Checked to me, I bet, and I get a couple of callers. The river was the dreaded 7! It gets checked around and my aces win. FYI, on the river, I would have called a bet and folded if there was a raise.
This story may not make you feel any better, but I want to let you know that I understand most of your thought process in the hand that you were in. I'm sure most of us have been in the situation before. You just gotta regain your confidence and rebound.
Good luck in whatever you decide to do.
Jace
Jace: thank you for your post, you are a gentleman. I agree with you, I played it wrong, (and I know some players here think I did the right thing by folding), but I am convinced now that the correct play is to raise. Because I've learned that AA will show a profit in the long run in this situation, and I like the odds. At least, I should see the turn, and then make a more intelligent decision. I like your comments and I save them for future reference. Good luck, and I hope to hear from you again in this forum.
In my opinion you played correctly. You just weren't at the table long enough to know that the other player were morons.
Hi there. Mason adviced me to post this little piece I wrote at the 'Internet Poker' section as it's more of a strategy thread, and I agree...
So here goes:
someone said: "The stat that puts me off a Holdem game is a relatively high (30%-40% 10 handed) of players seeing the flop, but a relatively low (less than 10 small bets) average pot size. This game means no or very few post flop mistakes. There may be a way to beat this type of game, but I certainly haven't figured it out yet!"
Does everyone disagree with this? Taking ONLY low-limit online Hold'em games into consideration here, my experience in totally different. Many players seeing the flop and low average pots suggests (at least at these levels), loose-passive games. What often happens when I join these tables, is that regardless of me having a winning/losing session, the pots where I hit the flop with my quality pocket hand will often add up to two or sometimes three times the size of the usual average pots. Sometimes of course, someone's pair of Queens will hold up when I'm playing my nut flush draw strong, but you catch my drift. Good players do more betting for value. Simple as.
Now, can you really say that loose table with twice the average pot of the 'tightest' loose-preflop table is an easier table to beat? I'd say it only takes 2 table 'kings' to double average pots. By this I mean aggressive players in loose/passive games. Aggressive players, unless total maniacs, will often be winners in games like these.
I love loose/passive!
lars
Don't tell everybody -- they'll all want some. I look for the same thing but it doesn't seem to be a very popular opinion. If you take a look, I pretty much guarantee you that the game with the longest list at any limit up to $10/$20 will be the one with the biggest pots regardless of the flop percentage.
At limit holdem when half the money goes in before the flop, it means the opponents are NOT betting NEARLY enough after the flop. Just because the opponents are making few calling mistakes DOESN'T mean they are also making few betting mistakes.
Play along and take more free/cheap cards than you give.
- Louie
Recent visit to Las Vegas. I'm a 15-30, 20-40 holdem player normally but when in LV I always try a little Let It Ride or Caribbean Stud for the jackpot opportunities - just to hit some shortterm lucky streak and make a big hand with my $1 chip in the bonus slot.
Anyway, one night after having played holdem (successfully I should add :) ) all day I decided to play Caribbean stud for an hour or so before bed. I changed 2 black chips into red and silver dollar chips - betting $10 up front and $20 behind and my bonus $1 chip in the bonus slot. Nothing major happened for 30 minutes and I was about even when I looked down at my 5 cards and saw 8910JQ of diamonds - BEAUTIFUL! My $1 chip was in the slot and I doublechecked the red light hadnt malfucntioned. Call it paranoia!!
Anyway jackpot (for Royal Flush) was $106,000 (plus some small change) so I was getting $10,600 or 10% for the straight flush - by the way the dealer didnt qualify so no payout at the back. But I wasnt worried I was very happy with the 10.6k - who wouldnt?
Now I come from Europe but have visited the US over a hundred times and Vegas maybe 20 times so I know about and respect the tipping/toking culture in the US and the 'customary' 10% tip for the dealer in this situation.
All these jackpots take time to get paid on. They rerun their security cameras, check the cards etc etc to make sure there was no funny stuff involved. In this case it took about 45minutes.
The pit boss told the other 6 players at my table that the table was suspended until they verified my straight flush. One nice, elderly lady at my table says, in a nice way (knowing I was a foreigner and maybe thinking I didnt know that tipping the dealer was customary), "dont forget to tip the dealer!". I nodded my head and smiled back at her in agreement.
THEN however another lady at the table says "and don't forget the other players" - implying it was the done thing to share winnings like this with the other players at the table. Now THIS was new to me and I was a bit perplexed. Anyway, even though the game was broken up 3 of them waited at the table until all the paper work was sorted and I was paid $7420 after the mandatory 30% tax was deducted. I tipped the dealer $700 and I gave the 3 other remaining players $200 each which 2 of them seemed very happy with. But the woman who suggested I tip the other players in the first place seemed somewhat disappointed that I 'only' gave her $200 - she did thank me but it wasnt a warm or sincere thank you.
This led me to believe that I should have given her nothing such was her attitude. The game restarted but I took my chips and left - lightening doesnt strike twice in the same place plus I was ready for bed anyway. I should have been elated at my win but the attitude of that woman made me angry and I'm pretty sure that had she won it she wouldnt have shared a penny of it with the other players.
So this leads me to 2 questions:
Question (1) is: Should I have tipped the other players? Is this done? If so, how much is 'acceptable'?
Question (2) is: Do other people believe that a 10% tip (after tax is deducted) is too high for the dealer? I heard other players saying they only tip 5% of a jackpot or minijackpot.
I'd like to know for future reference. The same situation could arise in a bad beat jackpot during a holdem game in a cardroom. I know in that case the other players at the table all get a cut but how about the dealer?
I'd like to know the answers to these questions so to be politically correct should I be so fortunate again to find myself in a similar situation.
Thanks in advance for all responses and suggestions.
Tipping $ 700 is lot to much. You shouldn't tip the other players at all. I think 150 maybe 200 for the dealer is more then enough. If you are not an US citizen.. why you pay the tax ? I am from Germany and had a jackpot once and because i'm not US citizen i didn't had to pay tax !!!!!!
Certain European countries (including Germany) have taxation agreements with the United States whereby the individual does not have the tax deducted from his/her winnings but is responsible for and is expected to declare the winnings back in his/her native country for taxation purposes. Unfortunately I do not live in one of those countries. We have a double taxation agreement with the US whereby I am obligated to pay the tax immediately in the US but do not have to pay it back home so it works out the same. I am aware of the situation but thank you for pointing it out again.
It is interesting that being European yourself you deem $150-$200 out of a $7420 (after tax) jackpot as a sufficient tip for the dealer. I tend to think that is too low but maybe $700 is too high also. I'd like to hear the views of some US citizens. So c'mon folks what do you all think???
I haven't read the other posts, but here is what I think.
When they starting having bad beat jackpots at my local poker room I looked into this because I didn't want to be a cheapskate, but neither did I want to give too much.
I don't remember where I got the information now - I think it was one of the poker magazines - but it stated that a tip in the range 3% - 6% was reasonable. If you gave 6% of $7420, that would be about $445. I probably would have just given the $420.
As to tipping the other players, I would not feel compelled to do so at all. In the instance you mentioned, I would probably make an exception though, and give two players $200 each, and nothing to the lady who made such a big deal about it. Some people.
I've never been in that position, but I would have given the dealer a hundred and the other players zero!
I would tip the dealer 5-10%, maybe less if he/she was not a particularly nice person.
I would not even consider tipping the other players and would have laughed in that woman's face.
I would have given the dealer maybe a 200$, and if i liked the other players maybe 25$ or 50$ each.
Keeping in mind that in almost all casinos that dealer does not get to keep that money himself he is splitting with all the other dealers in that pit.
I'd give the dealer $100 and the finger to the other players. None of these people are your partner - you put the $1 in the slot.
But that's just my opinion.
First, it's your money and you are free to do with it whatever you like.
I would have tipped the dealer 3-5%.
I don't think you have any obligation to share with the other players at all. If you want to, that's fine, but you would not have been wrong to give them nothing.
If someone else at the table started suggesting or demanding I give them something, they will SURELY get nothing.
I might have given the other players a green chip apiece.
I know you're serious but what about the people watching? Don't they deserve some?
Personally I would tip the dealer a little less percentage as the prize goes up. However when playing these games (since I'm doomed to lose) I tip periodically regardless.
I have given the dealer 350 and a free 10/20 bet on their square (pus the 1 dollar).
I just made the word up, hope it makes sense for what I'm trying to describe...
As we all know, position is very important in hold 'em. It's so important that we can actually attach a dollar value to it. Hands have better EV in later position, thus allowing us to play them when we would have negative EV under the gun.
Also I recall reading an article about "checking to the raiser". Often, out of position against a raiser, it is the best play to check any hand, weak or strong. And usually the "raiser" obliges with a bet on the flop and turn.
So with this in mind, doesn't this sort of change the position? Now instead of the worshipped button having the most information during play, the player to the right of the raiser will sort of be "last to act". When the raiser bets (that is assuming he bets) his right neighbor will be able to make a better choice because he will know how many callers there are and might be able to drop the hand if it is raised "in front of him". He can also trap players if he has a powerful hand or draw.
Of course there are many things that can disrupt his position. If the raiser simply checks it destroys this whole silly theory of mine. So, you will only get this position a certain percentage of the time (however often the raiser bets). And, generally this pseudo-position or whatever will mostly apply on the flop and turn.
So is it far fetched to say that the value of your hand will go up as you are closer to the raiser's right?
Then of course that means that the EV for the player on the left should go down as well (gotta steal the EV from somebody). This would mean that hands you could make an easy call with on the right could not be made on the raiser's left. For example, when you cold call a raise from a loose goose with pocket eights your implied odds will be poor because if you spike your eight you lose all your customers (because they have better "position" on you for the current round).
Also, if you are the button and there are players between the raiser's right and your left would your EV go down?
So am I sounding insane yet? I was just curious about this, have there been many articles/posts with more details?
Comments?
Jim Roy
Psuedo position as you call it, is mixing together a few concepts I think. I'm am by far not an expert, but here goes...
If you have a raiser on your left, you can use that player for deception concerning your hand, driving out other players, and pot building.
If you check and the raiser bets, remaining players have to figure out if the habitual raiser is likely to get reraised. Hence the need for a better hand to call a raise than to bet with.
Now if you call and the raiser on your left raises, it is plausible some players will drop out leaving you with the decision of what to do. Your game has gone from X-2X to 2X-4X for that hand. Your pot odds are cut in half.
If you check and the raiser places a bet, and others call, you don't know why they stayed in the hand. Was it because they actually have a hand that can beat the raiser and everyone else, or do they feel they are getting a cheap ride for a card in this game.
As to the EV and value of the hand, a hand is only what it is. Even AA on the button can get beat by trip ducks.
I may be way off here, but that is how I see it. I will use a raiser for deception, pot building, or chasing players out, but my hand has to warrent what decision I make.
As Mike implies, wisely, "It all depends."
If you have a hand where you should be in the game, then bet. The raiser may build the pot for you, where you gain a bet or two, or he may just call. At least you don't lose a bet.
If you check, and he checks, you do lose a bet or two.
If you check, he bets, and you call, just "to see the next card," you will probably regret it!
If by betting you lose other players, that's good news for you, in most cases, because you won't lose on the river, as usual !!
Jim - you are up against common knowlege - and you are right - I guess.
I used to play in this no/limit-game with two small blinds ($1/$2). The game is loose/passive - except for Gambler who raise preflop 'everytime' and bet the flop 'everytime'.
I like to sit to Gambler's immediate right !
Example: I'm UTG with JJ - I limp - Gambler makes it '10 to go' - 5 players seing the flop - $50 in pot.
Flop: Jxx - I check - Gambler bets $50 - 2 callers - I move all in $400 - Gambler and one other player calls with what ever they got - nice pot !
An extreme case ? Yes ! But still .......
Pseudo-Position: I like it - a lot !!
n/t
Just a quick comment. If check raising was not allowed, late position would be even more valuable.
nt.
I refer often to "pseudo position" in my post and I also refer to in my reading hands essay on this site.
A good example of having favourable position even when in the big blind is found in one of the more recent threads on the medium stakes Forum. I am thinking about the one where the bb flops an open-ended straight draw when 3 hearts flop in a multiway field and the player UTG bets the flop and is called by several players.
.
Excellent observations.
Yes, you have position against a sure better when you check. But don't confuse this temporarly pseudo-positional advantage with the one HE'LL still have for the rest of the round.
Yes, be less willing to jump a raise when the raiser is just to your right.
An easy defense against this is to NOT routinely bet the flop when you raise pre-flop.
- Louie
One situation in which I frequently find myself is having top pair/top kicker, leading the betting all the way with no resistance, then failing to bet the river when a semi scare card falls. For example I raise a limper with AK and both he and the BB call. Flop comes K 8 9. , I bet , one or both call, Turn is a blank and one or both call. Now if any thing from a 5 to a Q falls, I usually check it down because the coordinated board gives them the possibility of completing the straight or making two pair/trips.
While I realize part of the answer is opponet dependent, in general am I being too conservative and if so just how much should I liberalize my river betting standards? How much difference does having two opponets rather one make? I should add that the games I play in are medium limit games ranging from 10/20 to 20/40.
Thanks, Calvin
In the situation you describe, I'd just fire ahead and bet again with top pair/top kicker type hands. The vast majority of the time I believe you'll find out you've been called down by an inferior hand. Of course, sometimes you will get beaten, but there are a lot of value bets out there.
I'm a neophyte HE player compared to the Jim Briers of the world, so it's just one opinion.
G
In the situatiion you describe, I think you are being too conservative. The two questions you have to ask yourself with regard to betting the river are: (1) Will a worse hand call?, and (2) Will a better hand fold? In your specific case, you will get crying calls from weaker Kings which are far more likely than someone making a straight.
The number of opponents is an important consideration. With only one or two opponents I don't worry as much about losing to straights or flushes when a scare card comes at the river. But when you have 3 or more opponents staying with you to the river when a two flush flops, for instance, then you have to slow down if a flush card arrives at the river. Similarily, if you flop an overpair or even a good second pair to the board and the top card gets paired at the river you have to be concerned if you have a number of opponents and there are no other apparent draws out there. Players will hang around with top pair hoping you are playing overcards so when the top card pairs that becomes a concern.
I'm a LL player, Calvin, but there are a couple of things to consider here.
First, of course, is that always checking at the end is leaving a lot of money on the table over time. As Jim Brier points out above, there are many 2nd best and even worse hands that will look you up, at any limit. If you get popped at the river, you have to judge accordingly as to whether or not it's worth it to call. It usually would be, IMO, for a variety of reasons.
Second, you have to bet a lot of top pair/top or good kicker hands at the river to give you any chance of having your bluffs ever succeed. If you often show down the good hand, then your opponents will see that you are not afraid of betting a one-pair hand. In this way, if you have raised pre-flop with something like AQs, and bet all the way into a board of K-8-4, then you have some chance of having the A8 hands lay it down. I don't think you want to become too predictable with your betting patterns.
I would probably more often than not bet top pair/top kicker into 2 opponents at the river. But there are bricks, and there are bricks. I'd also be watching the opponents pretty closely on the river, too, for their reactions. With several callers, I must be honest, I would probably check/call.
Consider this: the opponent either needs to improve to call on the river or not. If he needs to improve there are LOTs of possible hands he can have, most of which do NOT match the river card. Even if its 50:50 he doesn't need to improve AND 50:50 he hit the river card when he DOES need to improve, then its still 2:1 he will pay you off with an unimproved hand. Easy bet. Realistically your chances are routinely much better.
A dramatic exception is when the river card looks like a scare card to the opponent (such as an obvious over-card) decreasing the chances he pays you off.
My personal benchmark is to put the opponents on articular hands; counting one hand for each opponent. So in your case I may put an opponent on KQ and the other on a 9 (even if I don't know which-is-which); so would bet the river unless a Q or 9 came. If the opponents were assertive I may disregard KQ (since they didn't raise the flop) and suspect KT instead.
I suggest you distinguish between river cards you geniunely fear with those that look suspicious.
- Louie
You know you should bet when you have him beat about 55% of the time when he calls. This means that 45% of the time you are WRONG, but its still profitable. In emotional terms its OK to stand there with your pants down 45% of the time as long as you get to gloat 55%.
Players can only have a finite number of outs going into the river.
If you are up against a lone opponent in this situation, he typically will have 5 outs, 8 or 9 outs, 3 outs in order of lowering frequency. The resaon why 3 outs is the least common is that most players would have bet or checkraised the flop with a King rather than checkcalling.
In any event, chances are that the river card (whatever it is) will miss him. Bet it just about every time you have position and he checks to you i.e. his strong chances of missing and his low chances of going for a river checkraise call for a bet from you. I don't worry too much about being only called by a better hand because IME, guys make way too many loose calls at the end.
If the other guy has position, I would still bet a high frequency of the time but maybe slightly less (as now I have an opportunity to try and induce a bluff etc.).
Against two opponents, when in position, I will again make a value bet a high percentage of the time. When out of position, once again, I would have to be a little more careful and try and see how the river card matches up to their possible draws.
The above is probably pretty useless advice given all the generalizations but hopefully you get my drift.
Generally speaking, I want to have the aggressive and unpredictable players on my right and the passive/predictable players on my left, right?
But I wonder: Do you know of any exceptions to the rule?
Greg -
That's the way I understand the general rule of thumb. The basic reasoning is this: if you have a marginal hand, a raise to your right will make you throw the hand away. Aggressive players are more likely to raise you, and you can adjust accordingly. If you call, and you get a raise behind you, you're possibly in trouble with a marginal hand...but you don't know for sure since he's a wild player. When you have predictable players behind you, you can fear less raising behind you...raises that would put your marginal hands in jeopardy.
However, I also like to have the more experienced, solid players on my right, regardless of their playing style. This allows me to adjust my starting hand requirements based on their action before me. It's also nice for driving people out of pots if the solid player bets and I raise, making players call two bets cold against respectable players. They'll give more thought to folding against us than if I were teamed up with a loose player.
I also like to have a loose player on my left if he defends his blinds too much. That way I can go after his blinds and get him into an unprofitable situation. But I probably have to tighten up my starting requirements a bit for most rounds, especially if I read the loose player to be preparing a raise. I know one local player at my tables who gets his chips ready way before the action comes to him...the read is 99% accurate.
So the rule of thumb should be modified...and I'm pretty sure there's a lot of material written about this in Theory of Poker and other 2+2 books. I would suggest that you use the "loose to the right; passive to the left" rule as a guide. On the same side of the coin, I usually do not get to pick where I sit at a table. I'm forced to figure out who the passive and unpredictable players are, and I have to use that information against them, regardless of relative position.
Scott
My slant is a touch different in that I place MUCH more importance on who is in the two seats to my left. I really don't care where the live ones are, as long as they aren't there. Anytime I change seats because of who is sitting where, it's to put a rock or two to my left so that I rate to gain a positional spot or two every time I come in pounding from the cutoff of two off the button. And of course it's great to have those players in the blinds when I have the button.
I like to have the livest players half a table away from me, call it four to my left or four to my right. That's because I really only gear up for the last few positions anyway, and I'll always have position on them for those hands. When THEY have position on me, it means I'm in the first few seats for those hands, and having them behind me keeps me snug up front.
Tommy
In general. I agree with you, Greg. It also appears that Scott and Tommy also agree with this line of thinking. However, I noticed that there may be a situation where it's actually good to have the loose canon on my left. This situation obviously isn't advantageous from a position point of view, but it helps discipline me in my preflop play selection. I tend to only play premium hands and let go of those borderline ones that I don't want to call 2 bets with. I really believe that these situations make me play better. I don't make as many loose calls and don't go on tilt. In fact, I end up feeling much better about my chances preflop and my results have more or less reflected that. The only downside would be that it may not allow me to vary my play as much, but I'm not going to call preflop with most marginal hands anyways.
On an interesting note, I was playing today and there was a loose/aggressive who liked to raise a lot preflop seated to my left. I noticed that he began to take notice of whether or not I was calling. I noticed that in hands that I called, he was much less likely to raise. When I folded preflop, he often went on his raising frenzies. I don't think this was a coincidence. He saw that most hands that I had to show down were monsters. I guess my table image affected his play. Hey, I guess not all these fishes are as stupid as they may appear!
That is the general rule of thumb for me: aggressive on the right and predictable on left. However, it depends on the guy (or girl I suppose.) There is a player that is just a maniac in my game (hard to read) and he's always on my right (I made sure to make good buddies with him so I always sit with him to my right.)
There is another maniac but he is always to my left. This maniac is from India and he has some very useful habits. No matter what position he is in the round, he always picks up the amount of chips he will bet right from the start. So I can see his bet before he even places it more times than not. So at the same time, he has some tells that place him on my left no problem.
It really just depends on the guy. The categories are really too general. Is he a maniac? Or is he a maniac that can sit down in any game and take home the bacon? Never underestimate the power of psychology, after all, the players are all human (at least for now.)
Thanks for your responses, you´ve confounded what I´ve been thinking. Jace, your story of the maniac reminds me of something: once I played with someone on my immediate left who´d always RAISE when I entered the pot! But he didn´t completely stick to his promise...
Last night I was re-reading some of the stories in the book "The man with $100,000 breasts" by Konick. In it he describes one Archie Karras. I would like to know more about some of the things mentioned in the article:
1. "In 1992 A.K. lost 2 millions playing cards in LA" (note, Im putting quotes around things that may not be actuall quotes from the article). What games was Karras playing? Who was he playing with?
2. "Karras beat a certain executive of a hotel corporation for millions of $ playing pool". Who was the donor?
3. "A.K. beat Chip Reese, Stu Ungar and Doyl Brunson. A.K. wanted to play so high that eventually these guys would not play with him". Anyone know the details of any of the sessions/hands of these encounters? Didn't DB write in SuperSystem that he would bet millions on the flip of a coin if someone laid him 6-5 because he was confident that if he lost his stake he could build it up again? So why not keep playing with Karras?
4. Finally, in about the only mention of A.K. I can find on the web, in a web page of Patri Friedman's I see mention that A.K. is now broke. True? How did it happen?
Doug
Archie once told me that he lost $15 million at baccarat.
Mind boggling. 'ya ever play cards with him?
I don't think so but I have seen him sitting in a $30-$60 game for short periods of time.
was he bragging or complaining?
I hardly know him, but one of our authors Ray Michael B. knows him quite well. I was with Ray when Archie walked up and the three of us started talking. The conversation was initially about craps which Archie has done quite well at. But then he stated something like, "But I can't beat that baccarat, I lost $15 million at it." I took the statement to be factual and it was neither bragging nor complaining.
hey i believe you, now if i can just keep from losing $200.00 at 3-6 he on paradise tonight i'll be ok...
I saw a t.v. documentary of Archie in which the announcer said that whether he wins several millions or loses several millions, you'll never be able to tell it in his demeanor. This is the truth. Archie is one hell of a level headed person.
But, IMO, this level headedness is based on denial of feelings rather than the control of them. He could emotionally breakdown big time in the future.
I've also heard that Archie played heads up with Chan, Reese, Doyal (and other pros) at rediculously high limits and that he took many chips from all of them with the exception of one pro who I don't remember. I heard that he also lost all the money very quickly gambling in other neg EV games. From the reports I've heard he is quite a savage heads up player, completely fearlous and able to read his competiton very well. I simply can't understand why he would play negative EV games like craps and Baccarat for an extenseive period of time though, epecially if he is a great heads-up poker player.
Shawn Keller
Archie likes action and fast action at that. I saw him playing at Binions a few times and with the roll of the dice having 500k on the line. I played with him in L.A. a few times (many years ago) and he is always a gentleman and the truth is that money has no value to him he just likes to gamble. When he first came to Vegas he made money playing pool. He is a talented pool player and doesnt get much pool action because of it these days. I believe the biggest game ever played was between him and Chip Reese and it was 10,000-20,000 and it is rumoured casino bosses backed up high stake poker players to beat him who knows if that is true. Even to this day when I see Archie he seems calm and is a class act.
You have to have nerves of steel to go through all that money and lose it. I guess he does just like Nick the Greek.
It simply doesn't make sense to me why one would enjoy gambling so much if money had no meaning to them...
I'd guess that the reason most people don't play poker, craps, or other casino games, is precisely because money means something to them and they don't want to lose it. That's why poker players play with chips...because it's not supposed to be money. This cat doesn't give a flip about the money, so he can play craps and all those other games without fear.
Scott
"This cat doesn't give a flip about the money, so he can play craps and all those other games without fear."
This is the silliest common I've read in this thread. Puhlease.
Vince
Vince,
You think it's silly, but let me tell you the story of Stanley Lowenbow...not sure about the spelling, but I'm sure of the particulars.
One day, my dad was throwing dice in the pit at Bally's in Vegas. He looks across the pit, and he saw an entire craps table marked "reserved" during peak hours. Since my dad's a businessman, he was curious about why a casino would shut down a profitable dice table during busy time. So he asked the stickman about it. "Oh, that table's reserved for Stanley Lowenbow," came the reply. "Who the hell is Stanley Lowenbow?" my dad asked. The dealer explained, "Stanley Lowenbow is the guy who invented MRI technology. He's got patent rights on every MRI machine in the world. He likes to shoot dice by himself, so we reserve a table just for him." Needless to say, this piqued my dad's interest. "So how much does he drop in an average night?" he asked. "Oh, anywhere from a hundred thousand to just under a million."
Dad stuck around until this guy showed up. He's an older guy, say in his seventies. He stood at one end of the table, always with a scowl on his face, and he never changed his expression. Winning, losing, it was all the same. He stayed for about an hour and a half. Dad thinks he dropped about $100,000. My dad's comment after telling me the story was, "honestly, I don't think he even cares about the money."
We've got a guy who plays at our casino...name's Banker Sam. He wins all this money on the dice tables, then he comes into the card room and dumps it at the pot limit table. And he never looks like he's having fun...usually because he just got caught bluffing, but oh well. I don't think he cares about his money, either.
Now I'm not saying that this guy's of the same breed...but maybe he doesn't care about the money. Mr. Karras sounds like a great guy, but maybe he plays with the top players just to be able to play with them. Of course, actual poker talent helps too...better to be like Archie than Banker Sam. Just my thoughts, silly or not.
Scott
Interesting story, but I don't think you get the gist of what Karras was about. At the peak of his winnings, he gambled so high that poker skill was somewhat irrelevant. He simply set the stakes so high that even the world's best were gambling above their bankroll. My understanding is that only Chan was able to hold his own against a person to whom the money truly meant nothing. The last I heard Karras was broke.
"Silly" was a bit too strong. Sorry. I like your fathers story about "Stanley". Needless to say there are those that have other reasons for doing the things they do besides the money. Money may just be a tool they use to accomplish another goal. But if the money meant "nothing" to them it is hard to imagine them accomplishing their goal, whatever it may be.
Vince
Doug, do you have the URL of Patri's website?
I went to school with him (I'm fairly sure), though he won't remember me. I saw him post here about a year ago, and I'd like to try to get in touch with him. Thanks,
Worm
http://www.izzy.com/~patri/
see his writings/journal for his story of playing in WSOP wearing the purple mohawk
Is A. Karras the gambler who was broke, borrowed something like a 1-2K stake and ran it up to 16-20 million.
Literally the only person known to have done such a thing.
I understand not caring about money. I can even comprehend it. What I don't understand is why you wouldn't put 2 million in an untouchable account that allowed you to live at the bellagio living off the interest!
i worked in the dice pit at binions for many years, archie has balls of steal. i personally watched him loose 6 million, in a 2 day period.
This is about laying down a hand against a raise on the turn or river. If you find yourself in a situation where you believe it is profitable to fold then why not fold? Some say that you want to build an image as a player who won't fold to that nonsense. That way you don't get bluffed out of pots.
On the other hand though, when observant opponents notice that you can lay down a hand then they may begin to take cheapshot bluffs at you. If you call them at that point you may make an extra couple of big bets, not quite a pot, but still significant. Isn't this ok as well? I personally love it when I have the nuts and somebody raises me on the river.
So then isn't it optimal to just play your best at all times and not worry about your future image?
I agree with your observations. If you find yourself routinely calling raises or check-raises on the turn when playing against decent middle limit players having only a pair and hardly any outs when you are beat, you will find this to be an expensive way to play poker.
I believe the image stuff and the concern about having a player put a move on you is overstated in typical, full-tabled middle limit hold'em games up to and including $20-$40. In shorthanded games or high limit games where the players are better and capable of thinking at different levels then you may have to pay off more than normal just to make sure that you are not seen as a chronic folder when chips get thrown at you.
In general, optimal play has to rest on a solid, technical foundation and then you can make some real time "tweaks" depending upon the particular opponent or opponents you are up against. My concern is that, based on many of the problems that get posted on this forum, it appears that many posters don't take into consideration the basics like the number of opponents, the texture of the board, and the meaning of previous betting actions especially pre-flop. As an aside, image considerations diminsh almost geometrically as the number of opponents increases. Finally, your image tends to increase as opponents begin to notice that you are dragging a high percentage of the pots you are involved with. The way to have a strong image is to win pots and build up your stack not through fancy plays, the wearing of sunglasses, or through other means.
You are correct that its best to fold a -EV call especially if it will encourage future bets/bluffs that you intend to call.
When should you pay someone off when its obviously -EV? When this or the other opponents don't bet or bluff nearly enough but seeing you lay one down will encourage them to bet or bluff a little more often then they normally would, but still not often enough to be "correct".
So if the pot is size 8 you do NOT want a particular opponent who never bluffs to start bluffing you one time in 10, since you still have to fold but will lose a pot now and then.
In general, you make -EV "image" plays if it will encourage the opponents to play less optimally than they already do.
- Louie
Maybe his is pretty pedestrian stuff, but I contend that it's virtually never correct to lay down a hand on the end with which you've been confidently leading the betting when the pot becomes large, say 20-25 small bets or more. Highly predictable opponents and/or multiway jamming late in the hand create rare exceptions, but everyone else must be paid. These are my reasons:
(1) Calling is cheap, often ridiculously cheap. This is self-evident.
(2) Your opponents should know that you can lay down a hand. Like Jim says above, you have to lay down some decent hands in smaller pots because there's too much money to be saved by not chasing or drawing dead. Unless you're a calling station, you opponents will remember this when a bluffing opportunity arises and wonder if you can correctly adjust when the pot is larger.
(3) Your hand-reading ability goes to hell when the pot is large. By this I mean the degree of reliability with which you can put someone on a hand a certain fraction of the time. Not only does your opponent need to have a hand you can beat a small and sometimes tiny percentage of the time, the large pot will encourage him to raise with hands you can beat more often than what you consider to be "normal" for him. Also, a large pot might encourage your opponent to make a mistake or play unusually, further complicating matters. A mistake I've certainly made a lot is concentrating on what my opponent "probably" has instead of concentrating on the size of the pot.
(4) There are too many bluffing opportunities. This is sort of a corollary to no. 3. If you can fold your opponent obtains significant value anytime the board becomes a bit scary on the turn and you don't have close to the nuts. It can always get scarier on the river, and he's usually got some kind of draw anyway. Another opportunity arises when it looks like he's betting or raising into a "protected pot." Maybe it is, but sometimes he thinks he's got a decent shot against the third guy but needs you to fold in order to win.
I appreciate the argument that folding will encourage players to unsuccessfully bluff, it sounds reasonable. The problem is the dynamics of the thing. If you fold enough to encourage them to bluff too much, you'll soon return to paying them off every time. Also, the big pot situations don't arise so often that you'll be able to pick off enough "cheap shots" to make up for the bad laydowns. Instead, your opponents will wait for the kind of situation where it looks like you can lay down a hand.
I've noticed that I've been able to squeeze out an extra 2 or 3 big bets when I sometimes decide not to bet a fairly strong hand and just check and call. For example, I'm in early position with KQ and the flop is K high. I check and let someone else with a weak K or someone with a bluff attempt just bet all the way. I call all the way and take the pot. However, given my tight/aggressive table image, if I bet the flop, everybody who had a marginal hand will fold by the turn. Of course, by me checking, I run the risk of getting checked all around to where people catch weak two pairs, trips, gutshot straights, etc.
Also, there are times when I make the nut straight or flush on the turn and somebody bets into me. If there are 2 or 3 players behind me, I'm inclined to just call and not raise because I want the other guys behind to call when they are usually drawing dead.
What do you guys think of this strategy? My thinking is that I can maximize my profits by getting people with marginal hands to call. Is this strategy more profitable in the long run or is it always best to bet and raise when I have great hands?
I think the strategy is good against an opponent who is overly aggressive and goes too far with his hands. When you have a decent but not great hand than it is okay to play it like a little girl by just checking calling letting him bet your hand for you. You minimize your loss when you are beat but maximize your gain when you are ahead. However, when there are other players involved and you have a fair hand you should be aggressive in order to make the other players pay through the nose to chase you.
First of all, don't just check and call the nut straight on the turn if there is a 2 flush on board. There are almost certainly still hands out there that are drawing to beat you. 2 pair, sets, flush draws, etc.
I sometimes let aggressive players do all the betting unless my hand is vulnerable. IE if there is a maniac in the hand, and no one respects his bets and raises, I'll just check and call if I flop a good hand and there are no dangerous draws on the flop.
-SmoothB-
when you have the misfortune of playing in tight games I think you can steal alot of pots from early position. if you want to do this you have bet your good hands as well as your shaky hands, i.e. semibluffs, 2nd pair, etc. so in tight games I think its preferable to bet out. of course in loose games you won't be pulling any of these stunts so check call is maybe ok.
I'm surprised that once you call the flop from an early position, that the original bettor continues to bet on the turn with weak cards. This is based on your statement that you have a tight agressive image.
I suspect this strategy could work against weak agresive players that just won't learn.
I just posted a long post about this same topic on RGP this morning. I do the same for the reasons I stated in my post. My hand requirements are higher though. You can check it out if you wish.
Mike
With the top pair hands like your KQ I like to lead. If I check-call the flop and check the turn, they too often check behind me, especially with a scattered board. And check-raising the turn often costs a bet compared to leading because they will often fold to the check-raise with a pair, but would have called-down the turn and river.
I do what you do sometimes, but I have to be mighty certain that the opponent will try to bluff at it all the way.
Tommy
I agree that mixing up your play a bit is a good thing, but I disagree with check calling KQ with a K high flop in a multiway pot. Headsup or shorthanded is a very different story.
I find when you do this (check call with a strong hand) headsup against a tight player, it will give them fits and make it tougher to put you on a hand. I tend to use that tactic sparingly.
In general, I don't like check-calling with medium strong hands multiway because I often don't know where I am on the turn.
I agree with going for overcalls on the turn with the nuts. I tend not to do it with straights, though, as you will often get them counterfieted or beat if you let people draw cheaply against you.
In Louisianna, it seems like a good portion of the holdem games are structured like 1-1-2-4 instead of 1-1-2-2. (e.g. smallest game is 3-3-6-12).
In HFAP they say seimbluff the flop a lot, but usually give up on the turn, but go for check raise lots on turn, when you really have a hand to make up for this checking - so that opponents can't know you are weak just because you check the turn.
This seems like less of a good idea in 1-1-2-4 structure because: (a) semi bluffs work less on flop, because opponents are getting better implied odds and (b) if you want to pull some kung fu and get a check raise in, and you assume you'll only get one in per hand, its better (at least some of the some) to go for it on the river) when the bet is bigger.
Does anybody disagree with this analysis?
Anyone have any ideas on the "natural" changes to make to the paraphrased HFAP strategy with the 1-1-2-4 structure? Or is the paraphrased tactic really only applicable to 1-1-2-2?
I will be in KC one Friday night soon, and would like to play some poker if it's available. I am looking for low stakes holdem (or perhaps stud in a pinch).
Any information you can give me would be much appreciated!
The Station Casino is the only place in KC that spreads poker. As a result, the rake is high.
Hi Sue!
Ameristar Casino--formerly Station Casino--is the only place in KC to play as Chris has stated. On Friday night you are likely to find two 3-6 holdem games, one 4-8, and often a 6-12. Rake is 10% to $4.00 on holdem and a whopping $5.00 limit on stud.
Check out the Web page, www.ameristars.com, for info.
See you there--I'm a dealer and work every Friday night. Let me know if you need more info.
Thanks, guys! See you there.
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
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.
Thanks!
Dennis
Download John Cleland's Poker Hand Simulator from Rocketdownload.com
Its quite a useful little program.
.
Having a rough idea of these general match-ups is important for all no-limt players, especially in short stack tournaments where most of the money goes in pre flop. These are off the top of my head, not based on exact results from a simulation or mathematical analysis.
AA v A8 the worst shape of all, I think over 15 to 1
AK v T9o less than 2 to 1 fav
AK v KJ about 3 to 1
A8 v KJ the Ax is 7 to 5 fav
A8s v JJ one overcard is about 2.5 to 1 dog
QQ v 88 about 4.5 to 5.0 to 1 fav, depending on wheteher the overpair covers the suits of the underpair
AK v AQ you didn't ask for this one, but it's just under 3 to 1 favorite. guys should remember this before moaning about a "3-outer" like they got struck by lightning. ain't no big deal.
Hope that helps. Having an Ace in your hand means you are usually no worse than 3 to 1 dog, help, unless the other guy has AA.
1. Is lowball extinct yet? (I think the answer is no) Where and at what limits is it spread in LA? I have not seen a game at Viejas or Oceans-11 (my regular haunts) in a couple years.
2. What's a good book on learning lowball?
2a. Is it worth it to learn lowball given that it is on it's way to extinction (?) I'm thinking one may want to have knowlege of it in case it comes up in a home game.
3. somewhat parallel with 2, how do you recognize a good lowball game?
4. DS and/or MM : What is the last LB game you played in?
1) In L.A. there's a 30-60 lowball game every day at Commerce every day. I'm told there's a 15-30 at the Normandie, that becomes 20-40 on the weekends. Don't know about the other clubs, I'll leave it to others to comment. I don't know if there are any smaller stakes games still played.
2) Mason's Winning Concepts In Draw and Lowball is still (I believe) available. Mike Caro had a sheet many years ago that was quite good, don't know if he still have it available.
2a) We joke that if you listed, from most recent to oldest, the birth years of the players who sit in the lowball game at Commerce, you would go back to the Magna Carta. [Hope no one who posts here is one of them :-)] But there are still games around, and there's always dealer's choice in home games and sometimes in clubs. Might be worthwhile to learn for some concepts relevant to 8 or better high low split games (stud or Omaha), but I'm unsure if there would be transferable concepts as I don't play stud or Omaha.
3) One in which everyone is still breathing and constantly calilng raises to draw 2 cards.
4) I'm not DS or MM, but rumor has it DS was the best razz player in poker history.
One of the new poker sites online is advertising 5 card draw and 5 card stud. Don't count on any game dying out completely. lol
I've been playing for 2 years now, and have steadily improved every aspect of my game. One thing I need a lot of help with is reading hands though. When I'm not in a hand, and I'm watching a hand, I read hands accurate. When I play a hand, I tend to worry about my hand, and what I got, and what would help my hand, how much money is in the pot, etc. I don't put people on hands. Anyone have any advice to help my problem?
You are ahead of 90% (to pull a number out of my butt ala Sklansky) of the other players just thinking about it. Concentrate on the other players don't even look at the flop until it is your turn, just watch closley the other players and how they react to the flop - just get in the habbit of puting them on a "range of hands" and narrowing it down as the hand progresses.
You'll get it just keep working on it.
You're probably kidding yourself. You probably don't read hands as well as you think, even when you're not in. If you're honest with yourself you might find that I'm right.
The first thing you have to remember is to watch people during the flop. One thing that amazes me is how much some people place importance on watching the hole cards come out. That's worthless. You might get a reaction out of somebody with a pair or two high cards but somebody with 10-9s or a million other hands, you're not going to get shit.
The flop, however, will provide priceless reconaissance. Gauge how interested they look in it. The longer they look the greater chances of them being on a straight or flush draw because it takes a second longer to look at that. This won't apply to everyone.
Another thing you have to try and figure out, is if anybody is throwing out a bullshit check. If you can tell that somebody wants to raise or bet and they check that is very valuable information.
One thing that's great about no limit, is that people will provide you with information just by the amount they bet or raise. In limit information like that is harder to come by (they either bet or raise a certain amount or they don't) whereas in NL they might bet or raise ANY amount. Even in pot limit if they raise you the pot limit they either have a strong hand or they are bluffing (but the information is still limited because their bet is limited.) No limit is the ultimate game of information. Bluffing is key. You didn't particularly ask about NL but that's what I know best.
I had some other ideas but can't remember them now. Hope these have helped.
I have an essay on this - if you want it just email me at - guzaldo@yahoo.com - and I'd be happy to send it to you.
Heated -
You probably do this on some unconscious level...you have to in order to survive any game above 4-8. Sure, it's tough to put people on hands in a structured betting game, but it can be done. The most accurate way of reading hands is assessing a player's reasons for his actions, in the current round of betting and in previous rounds. The "less accurate" (Sklansky) way is through tells, the conscious and unconscious acts of players at the table. Caro's Book of Tells is STILL a great book, but the tells are less accurate than logical deduction of hands. Put together, they're very powerful.
As mentioned, putting players on a range of hands is MUCH better than putting them on one hand and sticking to that read throughout. You'll get a nasty surprise more often than not. Just because someone's betting doesn't mean they're paired up or they flopped a set. When the straight card hits, you won't give it much thought, even though your set of nines is beaten. I did this to a player at the 10-20 table with an open-ended straight draw. The turn made my straight, and he didn't even notice. Why? Because he put me on Aces or Aces up when I raised him on the flop. The straight never occurred to him.
I know that HPFAP-21 has a section on reading hands, and I'm pretty sure that some of the other 2+2 books do. Next time you're at the cardroom, try this. Drop down a limit and play with the primary goal of improving your hand reading during hands you're involved in. Drop down so that, even if you lose some money, it won't be as much as it could be at a higher limit. It eases the pressure off of you to play your best game. Or you can watch your usual game and try to put people on hands. Or you can ask your poker buddies about their favorite tells. One of my friends said that a player's pulse is key..."if you can see that vein thumping, they're probably bluffing." It just takes conscious effort to improve your poker skills (which I'm always trying to do!)
Scott
..."if you can see that vein thumping, they're probably bluffing."
Huh. I'm going to start to pay more attention to this, but IMHO, I thought it was opposite! I know when I flop real monsters, and my sole concern is to get as much as I can, my pulse and blood pressure go way up.
Interesting... I think I'll concentrate on this Friday, and report back.
Zooey
Doyle Brunson mentions this in "Super/System." He says that, in most people, the pulse is visible in the neck. It can also be visible in other places. The reasoning behind this tell is that when you've got a good hand, you're not too worried about being called because you can still win the pot. When you're bluffing, your pulse unconsciously goes up....kind of like lying. I guess you could say that it's a poker player's version of a polygraph test.
My friend verified this by telling me about a time when he was heads-up against "some old dude." This guy's veins were showing all throughout his neck, and one time during the hand, his vein started "thumping." My friend only had top pair, and the board was pretty scary....but he decided to call this guy on the river just to test the tell out. He was right...the guy had a busted draw.
Scott
And, interestingly enough, the vein in my penis starts throbbing every time I flop my nuts. That's something you might want to watch for.
"Drop down so that, even if you lose some money, it won't be as much as it could be at a higher limit. It eases the pressure off of you to play your best game."
It's been my experience that as you drop down in limit hand reading becomes more difficult.
Agreed. But it also becomes less important as the cards become more so.
I think the most important reads by far are from the cutoff and two-off-the-button before the flop, knowing what the player(s) behind you plans to do. A viable plan is to ignore the betting as it comes around and just look to the left. Then peek at our hand and decide what to do.
Tommy
to make a phone call, take a short walk or go to the restroom? I've been leaving for the restroom after mucking pre-flop three away from the big blind, coming back to take my blinds or maybe UTG. I figure that UTG and one off that are the best hands to miss and I don't want to miss the button. I see others leaving just before their blinds and posting their blinds one after the button with the only the big blind live. What are the pros and cons?
Question 2: I keep accurate records of my wins and losses (now using Stat King), but I'm not sure what to do if I win a jackpot. If I win a high hand jackpot or (halleluiah) a bad beat, do I record that as a win? Doesn't seem right to, but what would you do?
You should try to estimate how much money you have contributed to jackpots and only count that portion of your win that covers all the money you put into the jackpot. Several years ago when I played low limit hold'em, they took $1 out of each pot for the jackpot. Over a 200 hour period I estimated that I won on the average about 2.2 pots per hour. Therefore, playing jackpot poker costs me $2.20 per hour of play. If I played 1000 hours of low limit jackpot poker then I contributed $2200 to the jackpot. One time I was at the table when the jackpot was hit and my share was $700. I counted this towards my poker winnings. I would keep counting any jackpot money won until the total amount reached $2200.
I no longer play in games that offer jackpots and I believe that jackpots are bad for poker. They take more money off the table, it gets redistributed to a small group of players who then take that money and spend it on something else, not all the money goes back to the players because some cardrooms have an administrative charge, and it makes it harder for a serious player to beat a low limit game which is usually over raked anyway.
I think this (1) has been debated before but I believe you should leave right before your blinds or in early position and post in late positioin.
Some disaggree w/me here, but I think that is what is best to do.
I prefer this as in the blinds a)you have the worst position b) often have to deal w/a raise and will be on the defensive c) you will virtually never be able to steal.
Now for a usually only another 1/2 bet conditions a and c no longer hold when you post in late position (and yes you can often steal w/a late position post).
I wrote a humor essay on this that might contain some truths.
http://members.aol.com/tomium/index.html
Click on "Smoking for Profit."
Tommy
I usually do it the same way you do. If I happen to miss the blind, I take a walk or a short break for a while to clear my head and get out of the smoke.
I have avoided thinking about what I would do if I hit a jackpot. I like Jim's advice of recording the win up to what you estimate you have dropped into the blasted thing. I have retreated to online poker as way to avoid jackpot drops.
I agree with Jim on jackpots. They take money away from players who put in a lot of hours and that money rarely stays in poker games. However, I have noticed that when the jackpot gets high, the games get better.
There seems to be a lot more loose passive and 'cap it preflop' type games going on when the jackpot is high. Of course there are also the super tight-passive blind chopping games that can arise also.
Is there any hand that i should limp with on the button when there is no call yet ????
No.
NO ! IMO !
Is there any hand that i should limp with 2 off the button when there is no call yet ???? NO ! IMO !
Of course. It depends on the blinds and how they play. I am assuming limit holdem.
In the meantime just always raise and you will be alright.
Agreed. We could concoct a situation in which limping might be justified against certain players given a certain recent history in the game, but limping will never be significantly better than raising.
Tommy
As Backdoor and Angelo suggested it depends on the blind. I would limp with LOTS of crap against a blind that defends religiously AND I will outplay him seriously after the flop (such as if he's REAL predictably loose).
Against a blind who always defends and THEN plays real tight I would always raise pre-flop.
- Louie
I've found it almost impossible to put someone on a hand when they are on the button and open for a raise. Some players will always raise if first in no matter what they hold.
That being the case, what are good starting hand requirements in this situation assuming you are the BB and the SB folds?
If the SB calls should that significantly alter your requirements?
If a quick description of my play is needed, I don't lay down post flop very easily once I've called the raise. Obviously, sometimes that's good, sometimes that's bad.
Thanks
JK
This is very rough but against an aggressive player the small blind should play approximately 20 percent of the time (and almost always reraise), and assuming he folds you should play approximately 40 percent of the time (and raise about one-fourth of the time). If the small blind calls, you should probably fold some of the weaker hands that you would play heads-up against the aggressive button raiser.
For more discussion you may want to look at the short handed section of HPFAP-21.
I hope Malmuth's comments were in reference to a reasonable late-position raiser (who either raises or folds).
If the button ALWAYS raises without looking and when the sb folds, I would say take the 3:1 and always at least call. How bad can 32 be against a random hand? But to encourage him to always raise you may want to toss a few of your worst hands.
Things get stickier if the aggressive opponent is going to seriously outplay you after the flop considering his "skill" and position. If so, toss up to half your hands.
- Louie
PS. You are SUPPOSED to either raise or fold when no-one has yet entered.
Recently I have noticed a rash of raggedy flops when I have very respectable hole cards other than high pairs such as AQs, AJs, KQs, and Ako.
For example the other day I’m playing 10/20HE I had AQs in late position and the flop was 8 2 4, I think with two to the flush but not in my suit. One early player came out firing chips, it gets raised and I’m thinking what the heck are these guys betting on? Pocket eights? The flush draw? The flop missed me by a mile and I don’t see how anyone playing respectable poker could have improved tremendously with that flop. I don’t know maybe I’m wrong here and perhaps there is something I’m not seeing. After all I'm fairly new to the game.
Anyway as the chips were flying I was not sure if I should see the flop for two bets or even one bet for that matter with high over cards. Do you call and hope to pair or just fold as I did. What if the flop was a rainbow. Would it be wise to call 2 bets with high over cards.
Since this situation comes up often enough I need some direction here.
Thanks for any advise.
You were right in folding your overcards when it was bet and raised to you. For a discussion on the play of overcards please read my article in CardPlayer magazine. You can get to it by clicking over to "Favorite Links" on the left hand side of your screen. You will see the CardPlayer link displayed and you can click on to it and it will take you to the poker articles which include my article on "Hold'Em Essentials: The Play of Overcards".
By the way, I would like to discuss hand #3 when you get a chance...
Thanks Jim i will do that.
That you faced two-bets makes me think you did not play your hand strong before the flop. That's a reason to do so.
As to how "respectable players" could have hit that flop, it doesn't matter. They did, and you didn't. Fold.
Tommy
Tommy,
You are most likely correct on my play and I had not thought of how that effected the post flop play. I can't recall for sure but I probably did just limp or call a raise.
I have been a little gun shy with suited connectors lately because when I have raised with AKs, AQs or even AKo I have been getting ripped and have not had those cards hold up in a long time. So I probably did play my AQs weak. Next time I won't.
Walker
If you raise or reraise with AK before the flop, there's no law that says you have to put any more chips in after the flop. I think that falling in love with AK is one of the most expensive habits in hold'em.
Tommy
(n/t)
In the game I played in last night at the Commerce, the players did not pay their time as usual on the hour and half-hour. Instead, at those times, a Collection Pot was announced. The first player to win a pot containing 5 big bets paid the collection for the whole table. If a player was away from the table or was not dealt in for any reason, he would have to pay his own collection. A player could also elect to not participate and pay the collection at the scheduled times. One player did that.
I thought this was probably a good deal for me. I figured that the looser players would win more pots, and therefore, would be more likely to pay the collection. As it worked out, I never paid the collection during my session, about 4 hours.
Do any of you have any thoughts about the advantages or disadvantages of this practice? I really am not familiar with it, and haven't given it that much thought.
I played in the 80-160 and 150-300 stud there at the Commerce about 4 or 5 times last year for maybe 20 hours and I kept track of how many times I paid the time charge (which is a ridiculous charge at $12/half hour for 80-160 and $16/half hour for 150-300, but that's another topic). Anyway, one of the times I played they did not play timepots for whatever reason, but the other times in nearly 20 hours I only won the timepot twice, once when it was folded to me when I was the bring-in. So I guess it was a good deal for me. I just tighten up severely in those pots. The rule about needing 5 big bets in the pot wasn't there either, people who won just the antes had to pay time out of that pot. But this was stud.
Going further with this, I think the notion of timepots offers a much, much greater advantage to a tight hold'em player than a tight stud player. In stud you're still paying your ante and generally you're playing much tighter on the timepots, so most of the time you're just losing your ante on the hand. While in hold'em, unless you're in the blinds you can just sit there and fold hands over and over until you get a really strong hand or you get a chance to steal the blinds against a tight player (both tight players and chances to steal the blinds are few and far between based on my experiences of playing at the Commerce though).
On the other hand, there are players who say they would be glad to pay the time out of the time pot every time, since that means they won the pot. I don't think I would fold any hand that I thought was a favorite or had a good chance of winning. But speculative hands go way down in value.
Exactly. I just look at the timepot differently than the rest of the pots, lowering my range of hands to play, and definitely limping alot less (but probably raising on most of the same hands as normal). In the 80-160, it's like playing that hand with an $8 ante instead of $20, so it's a huge difference.
I think your thinking is right on it, Brett. If everyone played equally tightly, then in the long run it would come out the same as just paying your own collection each time, right? But since looser players win more pots, they're more likely to pay the collection in this scenario. It is right to tighten up some in those pots, but I'm not sure you have to take it as far as George indicates. I think just folding in marginal spots where you'd otherwise play is probably enough. But I could be wrong.
(btw, if it's a time pot, I wonder if it would be right for a player to fold a set of fours on the river in a HUGE pot for two bets cold when it looks like another player has a straight, but the action has been a bit strange and dubious up to that point?? ;-)
I'm not sure about the 4s, but there was one player who generally raised on his button except when it was a time pot.
Heh, funny how the cards run sometimes, isn't it?
I think it was somewhat coincidence more so than tight play that made me win only 2 timepots in 20 hours. But I definitely did tighten up on these hands. I don't think I ever limped in on a timepot unless I was the bringin, but I did raise just about as often as I would normally.
I have never seen a "collection" pot. Every now and then at the Taj, someone will try to do a time pot, in which one player pays time for the whole table and is then reimbursed from the next three pots over some amount (I think $120). I don't like time pots and refuse to participate in them for a couple reasons. First, although loose players win more pots, tight players win big pots. I'd hate to loose a large chunk of my EV on a time pot. Second, time pots confuse nonregular players and can alienate some. It just feels sleazy when someone screams out "time pot" and everyone is cowed into participating. I always refuse to participate. More often than not, when I speak up, 3-4 others say they don't want to do a time pot either, and the time pot doesn't happen.
I love time pots... they offer a huge advantage for tight players. I have played whole weekends without ever paying time (40 hours at 15-30 that would have cost $12 at the Taj).
The secret to time pots is having someone who is very tuned into the game run them. I always run them at the Taj and actively encourage them.
Just make sure that the rules are defined and that everone participating them knows.
At the Taj (using 10-20 as an example these are the rules when I run the pot)
The first two pots of $120 and over each pay half of the time.
If nobody calls a bet it does not count (i.e. if there is $110 in the pot and I bet and everyone folds this does not count).
Split pots each pay half of the time.
TImepots are paid out of the main pot if the total pot size is more then $120 (i.e. if a player is all in andthe main pot is only $100 but the total pot including all sidepots is over $120 then the winner of the main pot pays the time).
If a player does not receive cards he must his time (i.e. if someone gets up to catch a smoke and does not get dealt cards and this turns up to be a time pot he owes the winner of the pot his share of that hand). We always round this up not down so in $10-20 when the time is $5 per half hour he owes $3.
If a player leaves after one but not both time pots have been paid he owes the person who put up time $3 and the winner of the second timepot pays $3 less.
If more then 3 players don't want to be in I don't run them as it is to much hassle.
Also I won't run them in a must move game as players are changing to often and you are always tracking somebody down for $3.
I know this sounds like a lot of rules but it really only takes a couple of seconds to work it out while the new dealer is sitting down, and you can save an awful lot of money if you are solid.
Sean p.s. sorry if there are an spelling/grammar errors in this post I am rushing and don't have time to correct!
Lucky Chances collects time by the half-hour (rather than $3 on the button) at 40-80 and up.
About two years ago, Lucky Chances started having 80-160 games on Thursdays and Saturdays. The $20 chips made it a major hassle for dealers to collect time.
So the players started doing time pots. The house was sceptical, but said okay, let's see how it goes. Then we started using time pots in the regularly spread 40-80 games.
It was a disaster because time-pots of this kind are a PLAYER agreement. With a large player pool, if the players can't agree on the problem areas, you've got a problem.
For instance, some people thought that an absent player should NOT have to automatically pay his own time unless he has (or gets) a missed blind when time is paid. Others disagreed, saying it should be that any absent player must pay his own time.
Doesn't matter which way is "right." It was a mess. Add to that the many players who were passing through or testing a higher limit, and had no idea what the heck was going on after they nodded 'yes' to forceful questions they didn't understand, then won the time pot, and suddenly owed a chunk of change to the hole.
And then there's split pots. Wow, we had some problems there.
After the second major argument in three months broke out, the house decided one more stike and that's it. Someone threw a curveball, we wiffed, and time pots were elliminated.
I think the house did the right thing because in this setting time pots caused more ailments than they cured, and because the game is more pure without them.
Tommy
I agree with you the game is more pure without them, but all of the problems you mention could eacily be avoided by setting rules. If a club the size of the Commerce can make it work, then LC should be able to also.
Agreed. If the house sets the rules, it works fine. When they don't want to, as was the case at LC's, time pots are a player agreement. Good luck at that!
Tommy
Hi- I am trying to create an excell spreadsheet to keep track of my poker records. I have several questions. First off does anyone have a sample excell sheet that they use that can be posted for download or sent via email?
I mostly play various limits of HE as well as 7CS
What stats are important?
I was planning on using: date, hrs played, win/loss, total hours, total win/loss, hourly wage and either std dev. or variance.
my questions....
what is more important and which is in terms of dollars the variance or the stdev?
do I need to include anything else in the above stats such as which game or limit I play?
Since I play a several different limits should I keep track of win's and losses in terms of bigbets or dollars?
Lastly can my results from HE and stud be mixed together? What about when I play 3-6 HE and average 2 BB/hr then play 10-20 and only average 1BB/hr do I mix those together as well.
sorry for such a long post. Thanks
Yes, keep track of which limits and game you are playing; you need to know if you are doing better at the 5/10 holdem or the 10/20 stud at the end of the year. Time of day may be interesting. Realistically, keep track of anything you'll analyze in a few months.
BB/hour is certainly interesting and the author's imply that you can use it to determine when to consider advancing to the next limit (if you make more than 1bb/hour over a long period); but $/hour is best for determining which games to play: you are better off earning 1BB/hour at the 10/20 then 1.5BB/hour at 5/10.
- Louie
stud -
Good question. I would set up an Excel workbook like this:
One sheet for your overall bankroll - includes win/loss, hours played, hourly wage, etc. You can probably set up standard deviation or variance on your overall performance, but I don't know exactly what it would mean since you play different games and limits. You can keep track of your dollar wins here.
One sheet for every game (type and limit) you play - allows you to see which games you play best and which ones have the highest return or lowest variance/standard deviation. You can put in a field for small bet and big bet, divide your total win by the BB to produce your BB win, then divide that by hours played to get your BB/hr. rate for that game. You can also include a comment field for a brief description of the game; how you won or lost, who was there, was it passive or aggressive, etc.
Your variance and standard deviation are both important, but I believe your variance is measured in terms of dollars. Malmuth's bankroll requirements formula uses standard deviation (would love to see his comments on variance and st. dev.)
I don't know what other statistics the poker programs track...if anyone has one of these programs, I'd like to see a post about it.
You've posed an interesting challenge. I'm a finance grad student, and we use Excel all the time. Maybe I'll try to set up a better poker workbook...I keep track of my poker stats in Excel, but I don't run statistical functions on my results (I really should, though.) If I whip something up, I'll let you know.
Scott
You can also check out Malmuth's essay on computing your standard deviation at:
http://www.twoplustwo.com/mmessay8.html
The Excel stats package should compute standard deviation and variance nicely.
Scott
Well, I put my own poker stats into an Excel workbook, and I was successful in computing all sorts of stuff including standard deviation and variance. However, updating the statistics is problematic. The cell referencing used in the standard deviation and variance functions does not accommodate a new record (playing session.) When I add a new session, I have to update the formulas as well. That sucks.
Obviously, Excel can't analyze your poker results like StatKing can. Maybe spending the $30 is worth it...especially if you can pay for it with a single poker session (my favorite way of paying for poker books.)
Scott
If you use the data base functions instead of the standard functions you won't have to change your formulas every time you add a record. You will also be about to calculate by any criteria you choose (ex. location,stakes,type of game,day of week, ect)
stud,
I'm no whiz at Excel but I did keep some records last year on a sheet my friend prepared for me. Entering data was slow IMO.
StatKing, sold by Conjelco, has sone great advantages over Excel. Data entry is very fast - you can point and click for game type (e.g., 10/20 Holdem), Location (e.g. Bellagio), and Hours (in quarter hour increments). Your win or loss is the only thing you must type once it is set up.
It calculates stardard deviation, win rate, confidence levels and other stuff. You can display results based on year or all years, game type, location, and month. Best of all, you can ask "The Professor" and either David Sklansky or Mason Malmuth will give you advice (their lips move!) about various poker statistics related to record keeping (imagine David or Mason on Conan O'Brien and you get the picture).
The big advantage is the fast data entry. It will import from and export data to Excel.
Regards,
Rick
Get Stat King. For $30 bucks it is money well spent. I have it and like it. I messed with spread sheets a lot, pivot tables,etc. I like Stat King. Just wished I had packaged it for sale.
I am a new dealer in a midwest cardroom and have received limited training. Much (most?) of what I've learned is from the "Professional Poker Dealer's Handbook" by 2+2. (Imagine learning a correct pitch almost exclusively from a book! Don't try this at home.) I've played for four years at limits ranging from 3-6 to 20-40 and have the advantage of knowing (and getting along with) most of the regular clientel.
Anyway, the upper limit I regularly deal is 20-40. I would like to know how to call the action in these games in various situations. Should I announce every bet and raise (NOT calls, obviously), number of players before every card, etc.? (What else?) Should I call the game the same with two post-flop players as I do for five players? Heads-up vs. a full game?
I am afraid of overcalling the game. When I play, I don't really care so much how the dealer calls the game--I pay serious attention to the action--as long as it doesn't sound something like "BET, CALL, FOLD, CALL..."
Also should I simply announce "BET" or should I call the amount (ie "TWENTY") as "BET" sounds similar to "CHECK"?
I know the answer to this question depends partly upon the players involved, but any advice would be greatly appreciated!
If you deal in my game I only want to hear Vince Wins!
I like the dealer to announce the number of players that call the flop in holdem and third street in stud. I want the dealer to control the game but not influence any action in any way. Announce whose turn to act is and the bet to him and if he raises and the amount. Declare the winning hand and Remember: Vince Wins, hooray!
Vince
I think eye contact can communicate a lot in this game. If you are too vocal, you may irritate players concentration and thereby cost you tips. If you are silent, people maynot ask you questions. I would act friendly, try to remain mostly silent when some one is thinking but look toward their eyes. If they then look to you, they are probably looking for some kind of assistance. Asking how much they'll have to call or how much is in the pot currently I find is quite common. If a person is new to your table and seems to be taking too long to make a decision, I'd announce how much they'd have to call and that it was their action. Personally, I prefer the cards to be announced. This way I can keep an eye on people' reaction to the flop while I gain the same information. I also prefer the turn and the river cards to be placed slightly elevated above the flop so it is easier to reconstruct the play of the hand fromt the flop on. I always hope to sit at a table where the dealer makes every effort to make new players feel welcome, comfortable and secure.
You may want to flatter some of the more diehard regulars by mentioning this to them one on one if you can. I've used the same tactic bartending. "I just wanted to know what you think of this. I thought that since you spend some time here with your friends, you might be so kind as to let us know how we can accomidate you better?" It would take a pretty hardended person not to open up to you and eventually bring in more business and give you more you more tips, while complimenting you behind your back to your bosses and coworkers.
John -
I wish more dealers would seek player's advice on how to be better dealers. Mason has a bunch of essays in the Essays section...you've probably read them (if not, please do.) Most of the players I talk to like dealers who are:
- non-talkative during the game, except for announcing the action. I don't like yappers, but I can appreciate rules clarifications and some witty humor. I can't stand dealers who analyze plays and the board, like "possible straight flush out there," because that's wildly improper. IMO, the most important things to announce are a bet ("twenty" is fine,) a raise, the number of players after each round, and an all-in player as such and for what amount. Announcing what's in the subsequent side pot is also good.
- quick and accurate...but it's better to be accurate than too quick. Dealers hell-bent on dealing as quickly as possible are more prone to turning cards over and misdealing. Example: one time I was playing Texas Hold'em, and next thing I knew, I had three cards in my hand. I looked up, and the dealer was dealing Omaha. Re-deal. Too bad for my friend who was holding wired Aces. At the middle and higher limits, you can sacrifice speed for accuracy because the game should be a bit slower than low limit.
- focused. This is probably the most crucial quality of a good dealer. Personally, I can't stand dealers who are easily distracted by railbirds, other dealers, and the blonde playing on table twelve. The dealer MUST know exactly what's going on, whose action it is (VERY important,) what the current bet is, and how to accurately call a hand despite what the player claims.
I don't know how it is in the midwest, but players at my casino will tip more for quality. I know I do, so it pays off. Good luck with becoming a better dealer.
Scott
Thanks for the response Scott.
Yappers are definitely a minus and one of the few traits of dealers that i dislike. I like a smooth game with a dealer who focuses on the game, as you suggest. After all, players have other players to talk to and don't need the dealer involved, too.
Are there situations where the announcing of bets and raises becomes annoying? For example, in the cardroom I deal in, I know most of the guys from playing with them. Most of them are there at least twice a week, if not every day. When the action becomes two- or three-way, does it become appropriate not to call bets or raises? I mean, might calling this action be overcalling the game at this point? Should I be looking to see if players are resonding to the action before calling it in this instance?
Unfortunately for all involved, it is state law that tokes are pooled and split between the dealers, resulting in lack of special effort on some of dealers' parts.
I am interested in learning to deal as quickly and efficiently as possible, as I want to move to San Diego soon...
n/t
John -
Good point. I think that most regulars can play without the dealer calling every action, but the dealer should still know what's going on. Bets and raises are pretty obvious. The thing that usually gets players is when they don't see the "fingertap check" by someone else, fail to act, and the next guy winds up acting out of turn. Since you'll probably be dealing various limits, you can adjust your style to the game. For instance, at our local pot limit game, the only thing the dealer has to do is count the money involved in the betting and raising...everyone knows what they're doing. At the 4-8 game, it's a different story, and dealers need to be more active in preventing action out of turn and other player shenanigans....string bets come to mind. One error our dealers commonly make is they will read a player's mind when he has chips in his hand...if it looks as if he wants to raise, they'll announce "raise" even if the player doesn't have enough money in his hand to raise. String bet, right? They've gotten a lot of complaints lately about it, and it's getting better...oh well.
That's too bad about your state law. I disagree with Malmuth on the subject of dealer tips. He says that players shouldn't be expected to tip, and the house should increase the rake and split it among the dealers....almost what you're talking about. I think that disincentifies bad dealers from learning how to improve. We have great dealers, good dealers, and bad dealers...and our tips reflect it.
Here's an idea. When you go out to San Diego, ask the other dealers how you're expected to call the game. Watch a couple games and dealers to get a feel for the cardroom....each one's different. Good luck to ya.
Scott
If a card room increased the rake and eliminated tipping, it could still have a merit-based compensation system. My local card room already rakes enough that it could pay the dealers a respectable living wage....
I don't need to have "possibles" announced to me, but be consistent about it. At my local room, at least in the stud games I play in ($3/6 and $4/8), the dealer will sometimes announce a "possible" if a player is showing four to a straight or flush. They are not consistent about this, and while it doesn't bother me much, it could influence the action, and dealers shouldn't influence the action. Either always do it or never do it.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer not to be reminded that this is real money we play for. I remember a $4/8 stud hand I played a while back. I had two pair early and made a totally hidden full house on the river. I was pretty sure that my opponent was on a flush draw, and when he raised me on the end, I figured he had gotten there. I re-raised, and he re-raised again. When I raised one more time, the dealer said, "make it forty." Now, if you had asked me in the abstract whether a small full house was worth $40, I don't know what I would have said. In the heat of battle, I felt it was worth a second re-raise, because I was pretty sure of what I was up against. Now for your $20/40 game, saying "twenty" would be fine, and when someone bets an open pair on fourth street, you might clarify the amount, but I prefer "bets large" or "half price" or something like that. But saying "$200" for a capped betting round, well, that sounds too much like real money. :^)
I think I'd keep the commentary to a minimum, except to keep the game moving. If it looks as if someone isn't aware that it's his action, you might say, "twenty to you, sir." At $20/40, most of your customers are going to have a pretty good idea of what's going on.
Excuse me if this is a stupid question, as I am math impaired. I know the concept behind standard deviation. I have Statking, and have a cumulative loss for January, when I started keeping records on it. Does the computed SD mean anything with my average loss per hour? If so, what?
Papio
Sure it does...It tells you at what rate you can expect to lose per hour. It also tells you how much in any one hour you are likely to win or lose.
I had a negative expectation for awhile. It really made me take a look at where I was leaking, how I could limit my variance, where I could make more and where I could lose less.
SD... how does it relate to win rate? Well, the formula Mason has given us has the SD as inversely proportional to the square root of the number of hours. Remember this because I will use this fact in just a minute.
Ok, so you lost for the month of January and I bet you want to know if the standard deviation can help you determine if you are a winning player or not. Right? Ok... let's say you are losing at a rate of 1 sb per hour with a standard deviation of 12 bb's per hour (24 small bet's). Let's say you played 100 hours in january.
100 hrs x (-1 sb per hour) = -100 sb's (this is the moeny you could be expected to have lost based on your win rate)
24 x 3 (standard deviations) x sqrt(100) = 720 sb's (this is three standard deviations for your total net profit/loss, and for practical purposes all results are contained within 3 standard deviation on either side of the mean)
So what do these numbers tell us? Well, this means that your overall results for that 100 hours played could fall anywhere in the range of -820 sb's to +620 sb's. Pretty big range. Lead's me to think that statistically you can't say much about your winning's based on one month of play since in my example above it's possible for someone who is an overall loser to have won 620 sb's in the one hundred hour period discussed.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong anywhere above.
x
Where are the best/worst cardrooms in Vancouver BC? Limits,quality of players ect. Thanks for your help!
The game with the biggest action is the Holiday Inn on Broadway. They play just 10-20 Hold-Em. They have at least 4 games a night often 5. The calibre is not great, alot of loose calling stations but the games can be agressive at times. The hours are 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.
Another place to play is at the Grand Hotel on Marine Drive. They have a very loose 4-8 game. the hours are 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.
The wildest games I hear is in Richmond (near the airport) at the Great Canadian Casino. They play 4-8 I believe. I have never played there but I hear it is very wild. Do not know the hours.
In Surrey at the Great Canadian Casino there is a very good 5-10 game. It is a very passive game. Sometimes there is not a lot of action though but you are able to see a lot of hands because raising is very rare. The hours are 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Hope this helps.
im looking for hold em 8-16, 9-18, 10-20 games in l.a. area. how's the hustler casino? im looking for the game with the least rake/collection. any opinions? thanks in advance.
If you want a small rake or collection, don't play in LA. All the clubs should have something in the limits you are looking for. Hollywood park's 10-20 with a $5 collection might be the most reasonable.
"Hollywood park's 10-20 with a $5 collection might be the most reasonable."
it's $5 on the button right? or is it a time collection? and does that five get you halfway into the pot? and is there just one other $5 small blind besides that? no kill?
how hard/easy/good is that game? super loose or just sorta loose? any "pro" sorts?
thanks in advance. mike
It's $5 per half hour. Most games at lower limits are $3 on the button, which is dropped whether there is a flop or not. You get nothing for it, if you want to call, you have to put in the full bet.
I'm not the most qualified to answer this question for all clubs, as I don't play at low limits. Maybe if you posted this on rgp you would get more responses.
Brett's right.
The only 10-20 collection game is at Hollywood Park. It's $5/half-hour and goes 2-12 every day. There is a regular group of players and it's reasonable-loose (3-4 players for 1-2 bets preflop).
For smaller games, there are a 6-12 games 24/7 at HP the Bike, Commerce, Normandie and I'd guess at the Hustler and Hawaiian Gardens. The rake is $3 on the button at HP, $4 at the Bike and Commerce. Unlike Nocal, the button charge is dead. A 9-18 or two will go most of the day at the Bike and Commerce w/ a $4 drop. An 8-16 will rarely start at HP. The Socal definition of low limit loose is 6 players capped before the flop, so you can calibrate from there. There are alot of regular players in these games, and some play well after the flop. You can expect your variance to be huge.
For bigger games, 15-30 goes 24/7 at HP and Commerce ($6 and $7 collection per half hour respectively if I remember correctly), and usually at the other clubs. The "Top Section" games usually have some pro contingent, and you get some sort of food comp.
John
At my recent session of 4-8 Hold 'Em, I noticed 2 players at the table that I had never played with before. I got caught in a bunch of tough decisions. Like I'd raise before the flop with A-Q, than rags would come, and I'd bet and be raised by one the guys. I mucked a couple hands on the end, and I feared that they thought they could run over me or would bluff at me more. I left with the feeling that he got the best of me. He got me out of my game. I noticed one of the guys wasn't as good a player as the other. He would make a lot of calls he shouldn't from behind. One hand he raised with A-8s and bet the whole time with nothing. The better of the two players...raised with 10-7s under the gun...limped with pocket aces under the gun...the 10-7s was the only raise before the flop that wasn't a legite hand. Back to my orignal topic. I'm worried about the next time I play with this guy, that he's going to try to run over me or bluff at me more. What steps should I do to stop him from doing this? Thanks.
Sounds like the school yard bully got the best of you. What stops a bully like that at the table? Solid play turned aggressive - humiliate him enough and he backs down or goes on tilt, even better. Go back to the basics and don't raise pre-flop with such cards - stick to suited connectors, top pair, 8 or better...raise in late position with these cards if you only have a few limpers in front of you, but not before. Sounds like this guy has a lot of holes in his game and you need to take full advantage of that. Find his tells, *any* tell and maximize it, be cautious in multiway with other players this guy doesn't bother though. If you go back to find this same player at your table, spend a little time first throwing ragged hands and watch how he and the other players interact. It sounds like he got the best of the other players too but I don't know.
Curious, was the other 'new' player associated with the bully? If so there was probably some collusion going on - not done very well but enough to get you skittish. If they weren't associated then put the other player as a loose player you can make money from with strong and marginal hands, you could probably even bluff him out a few times but I don't recommend it until you feel confident in that kind of play.
Develop thick skin and a strategy for these types of players since you are going to come across them from time to time. School yard bullies are typically poor players so take advantage of that.
I hate your answer not because it isn't correct, but because it's a strategy that the guy will not be able to pull off successfully.
I would reccommend that you either sit at the far end of the table or right behind this guy next time. When right behind him, you won't be as suseptible to his "moves".
I like the "across from the nemesis" approach. I'll try and stay out of his way and watch and watch and watch. I'll be concentrating on this guy and watching every hand he shows and see if I can correlate his reactions as the cards come off with his hole cards. If he's that tricky and unreadable as well, then it's someone I would rather not mess with.
Chris, you aren't giving Heated much credit here and if thats your belief, your gonna get wiped more times than not with players like this.
LLHE games in casinos fill up pretty fast and it isn't easy for seat selection...you move the bully moves. You'll never get ahead on your skills by trying to avoid them. Now it could be Heated just wants to play a friendly game once in awhile and if thats the case, then I would say yeah, avoid that kind of player that scares you. If Heated is looking to play more often and move up in limit structure then its better to show no fear asap, develop the skills needed and get on with the game.
Playing poker outside the home requires the kind of resolve that if someone threw a rattle snake on the table, you would only show the slightest annoyance if the bastard was sitting on your hole cards.
I'll give you some background. I've been playing poker for 2 years now. 1 out of those 2 years in cardrooms and casino's. I'm only 20 years old and live in Washington State, so I only go to 3 different 4-8 games in the area. I turn 21 in September, so I'll have more low limit games avaible than. Despite my age, I don't play just for fun. Do I have? Yeah. I love poker. I play to win the money. That's why I'm on here asking questions from you guys. Everytime I come here and read this board, I learn something new. Anything I know that the next man doesn't, I feel will win me money. Even while asking you guys this question, I'm checking in "The Thoery of Poker" on how to stop bluffs, and intude bluffs, etc. I want all the imput I can get, to help me become a better player. I had won three straight sessions before my last time. I really don't try to judge my sessions on winning and losing, but on proper play. I felt like I made choices that cost me money last time against this guy. I got caught on the river a couple times by other players, but that happens. I don't blame the bad luck. I feel if I made the right choices that night, that I would have won again. That's why I'm asking, cause next time I go, I want to be prepared. My goal is to be a winning poker player this year. So far I'm up a little. I know if I'm making a mistake that cost me an $8 bet every night, and say I'm going 10 times a month to the cardroom, that's gonna cost me almost $1000 at the end of the year. That's why I'm here asking questions, trying to improve my game. I know that those 2 players I played against think in their mind, that they can bluff me, and that I'm capable of tough folds. That's why I'm asking for help. Thanaks for everything.
I was giving Heated the "credentials" he stated. I think that a newcomer to a public poker is going to get hurt taking your advice. The strategy you advised is plenty tricky and you'll be in a lot of tough spots where a premium is put on judgement and reading hands. I think what you advocate is a recipe for beginner's failure.
As for the difficulty in getting good position on the nemesis, I guess it's your choice. You can either be patient and pick your spots or you can jump right in so you don't miss any of the exciting gambling action.
Preamble... someone who raises fairly often usually does NOT have a pair when the flop is small since there are SO MANY more trouble-hands than big pairs. This is not a "secret". It doesn't take much "guts" to take advantage of it.
You seem to be betting your over-cards under the presumption that the opponents will be intimidated and fold lesser hands. If so, good bet. This isn't the case with this bully. If so, BAD bet.
If the bully will (correctly) give you a play with no-pair when its OBVIOUS you are unlikely to have flopped a pair, then you need to be willing to show-down your big aces unimproved against him. One way to do this is to check-and-call him down when you raise and miss. Another way is to raise less often with the trouble hands since this will improve your pair-to-no-pair ratio when the flop is small AND disguise your no-pair trouble hands AND your weaker calls which CAN flop a pair when the flop is small.
Notice that a flop bet is MORE believable when the flop is small when you did NOT raise assertively before the flop.
- Louie
Heated, if you are playing in the Puget Sound area, I wasn't the bully ;~)
Email me if you are close and wish to discuss the casinos and players in more detail.
Hi there...
I usually have a hard time knowing what to do against a player who will bet his draws without considering other factors (i.e. how many poeple are in the pot, will he get raised etc..) These players are not the educated HEFAP21 types. These are good old gamblers that have been playing for a long time and they learned some of the concepts throughout the years.
If the player has an equal chance of betting top pair, second pair or a flush/str8 draw, then how should you act when holding:
1) Top pair weak kicker
2) Second pair overcard kicker
3) Second pair no kicker or pocket pair (not overpair)
Suppose you are heads-up and act after him.
Now suppose you act first.
If you are heads-up with him then the pot is small so getting bluffed out of that pot isn't the end of the world. But add a couple of these and it can mean a loosing or a winning session.
Comments VERY needed and very appreciated.
thanks,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Lets say the pot is Kh9h8d and you have KT. There are 8 each AK, KQ, and KJ left in the deck (24), 3 each trips Ks, 9s and 8s (9), there are 6 each K9 and K8 (12), and 9 89s (9) for a total of 54 hands that can have you beat (say 7:1 dog). There are 12 JTs, 16 QTs, and 16 76s (44), 9 Axh and lets say 4 other suited heart hands he can have (13) for a total of 57 hands YOU can beat but that are drawing to beat you (2:1 favorite). This means you win about 8+38=46 hands out of about 110, so you are a slight underdog over-all vrs this loose player.
There is not that much difference between top-pair little kicker and 2nd pair big kicker since even though you are less likely to have the better hand AND the opponent may snag a middle card to beat you, you are more likely to outdraw him and he LESS likely to outdraw you when you have 2nd pair. A middle pair (TT) is noticably worse, but not by a lot.
You cannot lay this one down but you shouldn't raise since he'll surely call with the draws. Flat calling will encourage him to bet the draws later on, which is good since you intend to pay him off. Raise if you can drive other's out.
- Louie
PS. Notice that your reasonable responses are not that good. This means that perhaps the opponent SHOULD be betting his draws "without regard..."; and you often should do likewise.
9 Axh and lets say 4 other suited heart hands he can have (13) for a total of 57 hands YOU can beat but that are drawing to beat you (2:1 favorite).
A four flush on the flop is a 2:1 favorite to beat top pair? They will only hit a flush about half of the time, and rarely win when they don't. How do they become a 2:1 favorite?
sean
he meant that you are a 2:1 favorite over his hand if he has a 4 flush. BUt if your top pair is under an ace and he has an Axs then he has mor outs to beat u.
he meant that you are a 2:1 favorite over his hand if he has a 4 flush. BUt if your top pair is under an ace and he has an Axs then he has mor outs to beat u.
Is that acurate... won't he make his flush about half of the time, and win virtually every time that he does???
sean
no. He is accurate. If you assume that everytime he makes the flush it is good here is the calculation.
P(make flush) = 1 - P(not make flush)
with two cards to come:
P(not make flush) = (38/47)*(37/46) = 0.650324
therefore:
P(make flush) = 1 - 0.650324 = 0.349676
and now we convert this to odds by the relationship: (1/P - 1) : 1 {these are the odds AGAINST the event occuring, so if the number on the left is less than one you are a favorite, and if greater than one you are an underdog}
using the above fomula you will find that the flush is a 1.86:1 underdog to make it by the river (with a four flush on the flop), so Louie estimated and said approximately 2:1 against, which is close enough, for all intensive purposes.
Half the time is for 4-flushes in stud on 4th street, with 3 more cards to go. 1/3 is for holdem on the flop and stud on 5th street, with 2 more cards to go.
Louis:
thank you for the comments,
What do you mean by:
"Notice that your reasonable responses are not that good" ?
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
TOP p105 "it turns out there aren't many defenses against the semi-bluff, which is why it is such a powerful play" well stated DS
Nicolas -
As DS put it, defending against a semi-bluff is very tough. The reason a player semi-bluffs is so that he has the additional possibility of bluffing players out to win the pot. Of course, with more players in and larger pots, it's harder to bluff players out....but the semi-bluff can still outdraw opponents. It's too easy to pick up on players who bet made hands and check/call drawing hands...the better player knows this. So he semi-bluffs sometimes to make players think about what his bet means, both at the moment and in future rounds. I love the semi-bluff play because it gives me outs to make legitimate hands and sometimes more scare cards to pure bluff with....and occasionally, I'll win the pot right there.
When you're up against a player entirely capable of semi-bluffing, what do you do when he bets? Well, the first thing I would assume is that if you know the player is capable of semi-bluffing and advanced play, then your starting hand requirements should be tighter if you know he's in the hand. It all depends on the board, your hand, the player you're up against...everything. If you have any sort of hand yourself, you may be able to raise with a legit hand and semi-bluff raise (using the semi-bluff as a defense against a semi-bluff.) Some players will tip you off when you make this play...when you raise their semi-bluff, they will usually call. When you raise their made hands, they are more likely to reraise, in my experience. But you can only put your opponent on a range of made hands and drawing hands. A player capable of semi-bluffing is also capable of bluffing when scare cards hit that don't make his hand...e.g., he's on a busted flush draw, but a straight card hits and he bets. Just remember that any bluff made on the end is a pure bluff...there aren't any more cards to come. Calling and losing on the river will only cost you a single BB, but folding and being bluffed out will cost you the whole pot.
Scott
Just to be technical, he's not really semi-bluffing unless he has a good chance of winning right there.
If he bets his third pairs into multiway fields 1/3 of the time you should raise or fold when holding top pair weak kicker. It really depends on what the top pair is and whether you have any backdoor outs.
Heads up you can play more aggressive in these cases but you must be sure that he will semi-bluff in these situations.
You use the flop to get info. You have position and knowledge on the player AND possibly the best hand.
Beware of the check-raise on the turn. He's probably not kidding at this point.
I was just wondering if you guys could give me your opinions on which work by Mr. Mike Caro is better... "Book of Tells" or "Pro Poker Tells" videos.
Thanks for your advice,
-KC
While I recommend the book, I thought the video was very amateurish.
Check around on the Planet website. Caro has posted clips of his video, most of it is online now. It's like Mason said, but woth a look if you have high bandwith, I dl a clip in like 2 sec, but could take 7 min a clip for 56k users.
a
From Planet, click on the MCU tab, then click on the MCU library link on the left, then audio and video in the center.
That should get you there.
The book is worth getting, thanks Mason, I won't get the video!
Actually, I was quite surprised the first time I used something from the book to make a decision. I was playing 10-20 holdem in atlantic city. I had top pair, ace kicker and I bet, and this old man on my left raised me, I called. On the turn I bet and he called (there were some other players in the hand, it was a pretty large pot). On the river the board paired and I checked. He picked up his chips and placed them into the pot with a shaking hand, the "shaking hand tell" (at least that's what I call it). One player called and I folded. While I was sure I had the caller beat, I KNEW the old man had a full house (which he did), and the caller had top pair with a worse kicker than me. So I saved 20$, almost the cost of the book.
I don't think the statistics and numbers in the book are all that useful, but the tells themselves are certainly worth looking at.
Dave in Cali
"shaking hand tell"
This is the most obvious tell and the most easily misread tell. Especially when an older man does it. There are a lot of folk that just naturally shake.
vince
Vince,
You have no idea how right you are, I have what is known as an essential tremor, and all the "experts" fold when I bet. I'm 30... hard to here I'm already an old man...
Sean
Sean,
I apologize. I should have been more sensitive to the condition you have and not referred to it as something limited to older people. Please forgive me. I have a bad habit of speaking before thinking.
vince
is that the same thing as "familial tremor"? our family has it and i can get pretty shaky sometimes, especially if i have been drinking lots of coffee. i'm only 32 (but i look like 25). my two brothers are shaky too, my dad is even shakier and my grandfather was a small earthquake happening all the time. call me if you need anything, i have some extra depends in the closet. or maybe you can ask vince.
dave in cali
Vince
you are correct in that you must be careful of shaky people, especially elderly ones. however, this guy was not shaky until he made the boat. actually, when i first started playing i noticed that i actually got shaky when excited about having a powerhouse hand. good point though
dave in cali
I have copies of both the new book and the old one. The pictures in the new one are horrible. It looks like they just photocopied the ones from the old book.
Caro stated that the old photos were lost and so they had to do the wierd "photo-art" thing. I think they just wanted to reduce publishing costs by using cheap paper rather than photo-quality paper.
So... Get a copy of the old book if you can find one.
Paul Talbot
I don't think the video is amatuerish.
Though the video doesn't cover much more ground than the book, I think the tells are easier to see when the peoople are in motiion than just photos.
I haven't seen the new edition of the book.
For my book BLACKJACK ESSAYS the professional photographs for the 1991 edition were also lost. (Actually they were stolen by a printer that we sued, but that's another story.) Fortunately there are professional ways to rescan the pictures from the book and they look fine in our later printings.
Paul brings up a good point. Mike Caro really dropped the ball on the new edition. For those who do not know; a little info on the Book of Tells.
There was the first edition back in the early 80's. Gambling Times was the publisher.It was a hard cover,with great photos on thick glossy paper. Although I could be wrong, I believe this is the edition that Mr Malmuth rated his coveted 10.
Then there was the later paperback edition. Then it went out of print.
After years to prepare to put the classic book back in print; Mike Caro gives us this book with awful wtf photos. While I'm glad to see that the book is back in print, I think it is a little sad that these photos are terrible, to say the least.
Good Luck
Howard
Hi,
I have a rather simple question. When exactly should you consider playing your hand based on the pot-odds-VS-odds-of-draw comparison?
For instance, let's say you limp in with TQ. The flop gives you an inside straight draw with 8 - 9 - 3. No flushes are on the board.
Let's say this is a $10-$20 game. Am I correct in saying that, AT THIS POINT, you only need $50 in the pot to draw the hand? (Based on 5:1 odds of hitting it by the river). Should I even be considering the 11:1 odds of hitting it on the turn? Which of these odds should be used?
Or should I be re-computing the odds every betting round? For instance.. lets say there is $40 in the pot on the flop, and the game turns heads-up. The bettor makes it 5:1 ($50-$10) for me, and I decide to continue to the turn, which is a blank.
My sole opponent bets into me again, making the pot $70 and giving me 3.5:1 odds for my river draw. Do I fold? And if I fold here, what odds WOULD I need to continue to the river? The original 2-cards-coming 5:1 odds or the 1-card-coming 11:1 odds in the pot?
BTW, I normally would not draw heads-up or short-handed, but I'm using the example for simplicity reasons.
I appreciate all input, Sincerely, Slay.
In this case you need to use Sklansky's theory of "Expected Odds" (I may have the name wrong, TOP is at home). Here is the logic.
On the flop you are getting 5:1, so if you were all in at this point you are getting correct odds to call and are making a positive expectation play. BUT, if you have money left to bet you need to take that into account. So here is what you do. On the flop you need to call $10, and on the turn $20. So it costs you $30 to see the hand through to the end. So you are getting 80:30 on your money (2.66:1) and you should fold. But, if you are only planning on staying to see the turn card you need to evaluate it based on the odds against you hitting on the turn, which are approximately 11:1 against you.
So you need 11:1 to call on the flop unless you are going all in. I think each street should be evaluated independently from other streets. But, this isn't what it seems. If you have the nut flush draw on the flop it is about 2:1 against you hitting by the river. If you have 3 opponents or more you are making money on all the bets that are put in on the flop so you can actually raise for VALUE. OF course on the turn you need to reevaluate your pot odds but you will pretty much always have them.
I reccommend getting the Theory of Poker by Sklansky. It should help you with all of your odds questions.
Thanks alot, Mark. Your response is very much appreciated, and I'll definitely look into the book you've recommended. I just ordered HEFAP by Sklansky, how does that compare to the Theory of Poker, in your opinion?
Thanks again, Slay.
The name of those odds were "Effective Odds". HEFAP is a great book for learning holdem and it's intricacies but it is specific to holdem. It doesn't really talk about odds or implied odds or anything like that, it assumes you know these concepts. These are general poker concepts that you SHOULD know and they are covered in The Theory of Poker. There is a lot of other information contained in the Theory of Poker that is useful.
I recommend getting them both. They are both excellent and they complement each other well. It is reccommended that you read TOP first, but that's just what I've heard recommended. I read it after, but I tell you what, after reading it and going back to HPFAP, a lot of concepts in HPFAP made more sense. In short both books will make you more money then they cost you to buy.
OK, you have to consider a few things here that you are probably missing.
First off, you gave the example of limping with QT and the flop is rainbow 8 9 3. Not only do you have an inside straight draw, but you have two overcards which might win if they pair, for a total of ten possible outs.
Next, assume you have exactly an inside straight draw and you don't have any chance of winning by pairing. Say you have 98 and the flop is A J 7 rainbow. You know the bettor has an ace, so a pair won't help you. Should you draw? And if so, what odds do you need?
The odds of hitting ON THE NEXT CARD are 10.5:1. Therefore you need to make at least 10.5 bets for every bet you have to call to pursue this draw. This CAN include IMPLIED odds, or bets you expect to make on future rounds if you hit your draw.
Assuming that you have 5:1 odds of making it by the river and using that # as an excuse to draw with only 5:1 pot odds is a mistake. If you intend on calling to the river, you must consider not only future bets you might win, but future bets you might LOSE when you call another bet on the next round. When you compare the TOTAL bets you can win verses the TOTAL bets you stand to lose, this is your EFFECTIVE ODDS. This is VERY important when pursuing draws!
When pursuing the gutshot straight draw (as in the example I gave you), you usually will have a POSSIBLE call on the flop, (if it's only one bet and you don't expect to get raised), but will usually have a PROBABLE fold on the turn when the bets double.
Let's say the pot is offering you 7:1, the SB bet, and you are on the button. Now you need 10.5:1 to call trying to make the gutshot, but you are only getting 7:1. However, assume there are three other players left in the hand. If you hit your draw (on the NEXT card), you can easily expect to make up the difference (and then some) on the next two betting rounds. So here it would be OK to call trying to make your gutshot. Even though the current POT ODDS are too small, the IMPLIED ODDS are enough to warrant seeing another card. However, if you do not hit a ten on the turn, you will likely have to fold when the SB bets again. Now the bet size has doubled, and you will be getting much worse pot odds, with lower implied odds as well (because there is only one round of betting left).
Each betting round in poker comes with new decisions, which are usually completely independent of decisions you made on previous rounds. (there are exceptions to this generalized statement, so don't tear me up too bad guys!). Just because you were getting good enough odds to draw last round does not mean you should continue to draw this round. You have to evaluate each situation as it comes up. The concepts of pot odds, implied odds, effective odds, (and reverse implied odds, which I did not discuss) should guide your poker decision making processes. All these concepts are discussed in detail in "Theory of Poker", available on this website.
Dave in Cali
Thanks alot for the input, Dave, and Louie.
I've concluded I need to read both Sklansky books :)
Take care, Slay.
Dave is correct that THIS example offers more considerations than just calling: your two over-card gut shot should usually be BET. But back to your question...
Generally call one round at a time (e.g. 11:1) adjusting your implied odds for the times you make it (e.g. your nut straight is worth a lot of money on the turn if you make it). When you are sure you will call twice then you can use the 2-card odds (5:1) when considering betting/raising with your draw; where you comare your odds with the likely number of players calling your raise, or when betting or raising may increase your chances of winning.
Using the 2-card odds (5:1) when considering calling requires you to compute your risk for the two rounds, which is basically having to make 2 calls (3sb).
The reality of these long-shot draws is such that it is OFTEN then case its worth calling once on the flop figuring to fold the turn.
- Louie
is a player getting up from his seat mid-hand and playing the rest of his/her hand standing up a reliable tell?
i think it is, from what ive observed twice from two players in a short period of time. i think it's a tell that they are on a big draw against what they assume to be a strong made hand (big flush draw vs. AA).
what do you think?
Standing up usually means the decision for playing this hand have been make and no more decision is required.
I stand up because the idiot next to me has just lit a cigarette and is holding it so the smoke is in my face. Stinkin inconsiderate poison gas spewers!
I think all in players stand up a lot as do heads up players. I'm not sure about any tell, but now that I think about it I would not consider it a tell of a strong hand, more likelly a weak one.
WSOP , what year was that? Chan vs the new guy.. watch it.. ;o)
I used to do that too, but it was always because my sweet behind was sore or because I couldn´t stand the smoke *g*.
I regularly play with a guy who I'm having a lot of trouble with. I can't seem to beat him. Here's the story: He's loose, he's aggressive, he loves to bluff the river. He's very smart about it, making sure to do it when the board's scary (4 to a flush, 4 to a straight, etc.). Of course, sometimes he's got it. Sometimes he don't. He plays way too many hands. Problem is, every time I call him, he's got it. Every time I muck, he shows me a stone cold bluff. I'm trying to read him for tells, but he seems smart enough to randomize his body language from tells to reverse tells enough to confound me.
So, I'm trying to formulate a new approach. I want to come up with a system by which I'll call if the pot is laying me the correct number of bets and I hold a hand that can beat a straight bluff. What I'm trying to say is, I want to take all the emotion out of the process with this guy. I want my river play with him to be all math. I'm sure there must be a formula by which I can gain the advantage over him, based on the percentage of times he's bluffing and pot odds. Any suggestions?
"I want my river play with him to be all math. I'm sure there must be a formula by which I can gain the advantage over him, based on the percentage of times he's bluffing and pot odds. Any suggestions?"
read as many good books and posts here as you can. it's all math already youre just not doing the math. you have to weigh the pot odds vs the odds that he's on a bluff (and that you will snap his bluff with your hand). you know your opponent so youre halfway there. if youre not already familiar with the idea of pot odds, implied odds, reverse implied odds, odds to draw, etc, etc then just read the medium stakes page religiously and it will all make sense to you.
Think about the hands you have played against him. Think about how many hands he actually has the goods versus the times he doesn't. Don't let your image of him get in the way of the reality. You might remember the time he bluffs you, because it hurts, but I doubt its as often as you think. Also, a person that shows you one bluff will show you most of his bluffs. So all those times, he is quietly putting the cards in the much when you fold, he had the goods.
I have a friend who runs over the 10-20 and 20-40 games in this fashion. He has a wild image. However, he plays very solidly. Some of the good players realize this, but because he is constantly chirping and goofing around, many good players get the wrong impression. He shows every bluff to enhance his image. He does play a few too many hands but when he is playing against a tight player, who doesn't realize that he is not up against a wild man, he bends them over for an entire session. Its simple, the tight player has no chance to put my friend on a hand, since he has a misguided image of him. On the otherhand, it is not hard for my friend to know exactly where the tight player is at, because they won't bluff "the maniac" and he knows what a good player would limp with from where. So, he folds when he is beat, and waits for an opportunity to bend the tight player over when he has them. It's clockwork. All his check-raise turn raises are paid off to the max because of his image.
Anyway this may be what is happening to you, maybe not.
He plays "way too many" hands and "loves to bluff" on the river but every time you call he's got a better hand? He either has incredible timing or your description of the problem is wrong.
The forumla you're looking for is simple: if you're on the end and can only beat a bluff, call every time the odds against him bluffing are lower than the odds you're getting from the pot. Remember that you're considering how often he winds up bluffing in a particular situation, taking into account the way the hand has been played on prior streets. When you're head-up with him you should adapt to his style by check-calling some marginal hands you'd otherwise fold and check-raising some good hands you'd otherwise bet.
Given the pot sizes in limit hold 'em, you can rarely give a "frequent" bluffer enough credit for a hand to justify folding. But these guys are great. They stay too long with draws and pay you double even when they don't suck out.
. Problem is, every time I call him, he's got it. Every time I muck, he shows me a stone cold bluff.
This statement cannot be true.
If it is true then the solution is very simple. Just reverse all your reasoning for calling him then you will be right all the time.
On the other hand have you ever consider he is a very good player and he can read your hand??? So he make the right decision against you very often. If this is true and you do not know why he can read your hand you can use a pure random event to decide calling or folding. (e.g lets say base on the pot size you think you should call 1 out of every 4 times, then call if the last card is say a heart. etc. In the good old days of low ball we use to bet if we pair tops drawing to 1 and bet if we have two pairs or more drawing to 2 etc. This random act is a result of applying game theory to low ball draws.)
Sklansky's "The Theory of Poker" has an extensive discussion on bluffing and some on countering bluffing. It is the best you will find on your subject and the help you are looking for. The book is a must anyway for any poker player.
Assuming you play with him regularly, I would try this strategy for a couple weeks.
When heads up on the river, call him EVERY time. If you can't even beat a bluff, think about a bluff raise occasionally.
You may leak away some bets during this time, but if you win only a pot or two that you would have folded, you'll make it back.
If you show him that you will go into "calling station" mode on the river, he will probably find an easier target. Then you can watch his actions and look for tells when you are not in the hand, so emotions will not get in the way.
Always call the river with any hand that had any reasonable chance of winning if he had checked; certainly any pair. Tend not to raise the turn in order to encourage him to bluff the river.
I recently started keeping records of my sessions. The information I have included is Game/Location, Betting Limits, Total amount of Buy-In, Profit/Loss, and hours played, my asessment as to whether this was a tight-loose/passive-aggressive game. What other info should I be keeping?
I play 80% Holdem between 5/10 and 15/30, occassional no limit (w 2/5 blinds). I play in a 7 stud hi/lo about once every 8 weeks and one of the holdem games I attend regularly is dealers choice either holdem or Omaha8 (usually about 60/40 in favor of holdem). How should i account these into my records. Or should I even concern myself.
I have it configured to = my average gain per hour. Are these non-typical sessions/games muddying the water.
There are two types of records that matter.
The first set is more important (IMHO) Keep track of where you played, the game/limit and profit(loss) per session at a minimum. You need those minimum requirements in case the IRS comes asking questions.
After that, the only other stat I keep is hours played which is easy to add as well. Then you can calculate your standard deviation and even see how it changes over time.
You can include whatever other notes you might think are worth taking. Some people may get value from taking notes. The only time I have to use notes is when my wife sends me to the grocery store.
I have been playing poker for a few years now.. After what I considered to be an extremely successfull ending to the year last year - From January 1st on has been horrible.
This much, I will admit, alot of my losses from Jan 1st to this point this year were due to me playing poorly when a tilt would occur.. But I would say (especially lately) that has not been the part that has hurt my bankroll the most - negative bankroll now..
I play a steady, agressive game.. I read my opponents properly, play the hand the BEST it could have been played, but it's as if the other players know "Hey, he's tilted if we suck out on him we WILL hit even though we have 3 outs and we are calling a 40.00 bet with 120.00 in the pot"
1) What can really be done to play through a tilt?
2) What is the longest tilt u have PERSONALLY went through
3) How did you deal with it?
4) Besides being able to emotionally handle it, and just walk away when you know it's not worth playing that day.. What if the tilt goes on for 3 years?
5) Have there been any pro players that have went on SERIOUS tilts that held their compposure but still went on a many month spree where they lost a fortune (We aren't talking Archie style here)
6) What would your suggestion be to me, besides playing lower mistakes.. if that is a suggestion??
Sometimes I truly feel like no matter how well I master the concept of poker, since I have absolutely no luck I should just give it up now before I lose more than I can afford too.. Is this a possibility? Are there people out there that truly are just so UNLUCKY they will never make winning players?
I think this is an interesting topic, I hope some of you do also so I can see what you have to say...
I thought I would give you some example of the hands that are EXTREMELY typical for me, I play online by the way... mostly 20 40, occasionally 15 30 or 10 20 ...
I have AA 2 behind button, one ahead of BB raises.... 3 callers in between him and me, I re-raise making it 60.00 to go.. The SB calls 50 BB calls (guessing just due to the size of the pot) the 40.. so we are 7 handed.. (this is bad, I know - should be 4 at most to see these hold up the majority of the time) because of course the callers between the original raiser and myself all called my raise. Original raiser just calls.
Flop Comes A K 4 (rainbow)
original raiser bets, everyone calls... I raise.. BB + SB fold... better calls .. one ahead of original better re-raises, 2 others fold ahead of him... I cap. original better calls.. (I put him on AK, AQ, or a slowplaying KK)... re-raiser calls.. (I put him on a 23 or 44 or KK) ...
Turn comes K... checked to me, I bet out 40 original raiser (preflop) raises , guy in between calls 80 cold.. I re raise.. he calls along with guy in between.. At this point I have him on KQ or AK
Turn comes a 4 ... first to act checks ... second to act bets out right at me hard and quick.. I KNEW!!!!!
I called, DID NOT RAISE...
original preflop raiser calls...
orginal preflop raiser has KQ, guy in between us .. YUP
4 4 !!!!!!!!!!
These are very typical hands that happen to me (no joke) I would say an average of anywhere from 6 - 9 times per 5 hour session. I am not exaggerating here people... A hand like this is typically a 1000 pot or so.. somewhere in that area.. so I am aout of 200 - 300 from the hand.. I at times rebuild it only to lose it in another hand later.. that I consider a good session lately. Majority of the time I don't win at back and continue to get hammered with hands like this.. Many of the other hands are not quite this bad but I play them properly, agressive.. take into consideration position every single hand, player's styles.. etc..
I just am a very very very very very very unlucky person.. Just thought I would give you one of the examples so you didn't think I was misplaying the hands etc.. althought I thought my position was great for this hand turns out being in small blind probably would have been best as it would have been harder for the 44 to call in his position as he was a solid player)
I am not saying these players are misplaying there hands, as they know I probably have them beat but it is hard to toss a set in that particular situation (even though I would have to say on the turn I would have folded 44) .. but it just seems like being outdrawn this often... is plain bad luck, I see alot of newbies talking about tilts as bad 4 hour sessions and winning it back the next day but being so pissed that night because they lost 50.00 playing 2 4 on a horrendously bad run.. Try a non stop session for 45 + days at higher limits .... see how u feel then!! ouch
First, I'm one of those Newbies...
Second, how big of a bankroll did you start with? The newbies complain about losing $50 because thats what they bought in with (thier fish what do you expect). If your playing 10/20 to 20/40 with less than $10K bankroll you are gambling. I'd even say that you're playing 20/40 with less than $20K then you're gambling.
Third, I just had another WELL known player here send me some logs and he had some negative MONTHS also.
Fourth, If your bankroll was dwindling why didn't you set limits at which you would go down in stakes? (what I do)
Lets say you have a 20K poker Bankroll to play 20/40, if at any time you get down to 15K then don't play above 15/30, if you ever get down to 10K don't play above 10/20. Etc...til your playing 2/4.
I would be tempted to work my way down until I had won my way back up to the next level. Doing this it would have taken you a loooong time to go broke even if you are very very very very very unlucky like you say.
I have heard of people losing for MONTHS, yet they still play so obviously they had a proper bankroll. Or they sold a kidney.
Good Luck.
Actually a very good suggestion, I will start using this... Let's just say I am a little above 15K in losses so far this year... Wiping out a high % of my previous winnings I have already spent on other things.
Maybe I need to learn more about money management, and concentrate on that.. Thanks for the advice!
I do play live, and do so much better live... Wish I could play live more often though. 1% of my time is spent live ;-(
I think you maybe in denial and are playing to a lower standard than you once was. (repeat that sentence).
Gather yourself, circle the wagons and play good poker. You have a confidence crisis. Take a 2 week break, you do not become a bad player overnight.
Want it harsh.... stop whining, cards have no memory, sit up and get stuck in, concentrate and dont take the game for granted. When i play bad its because i play bad starting hands.. period, you do and can get lulled into it.
Just MHO.
Droopy
PS. there is no such thing as luck
Evidently you haven't read all the Luck vs Skill posts on this forum.
Lets say your getting 10:9 odds on a coin flip. You always choose heads. It cost $40 per flip. The first 50 times you flip the coin it comes up tails 3 out of every 4 flips. This is very possible and is called bad LUCK. Will it even out over 1000 coin flips? Probably, but you need a big enough bankroll to cover the variance (which in this case is very small), but nonetheless could bust you out if you had an inadequate bankroll.
LUCK can mean everything short term, but probably means nothing if plan on living longer than Moses.
I think you may mean "running bad" rather than "tilt"
If it's running bad then 5 weeks is nothing unusual. 5 months and it's getting serious. I have lost overall for a period of 9 months after winning consistently for 4 years.
Often a player plays worse as the losing streak continues.
Good Luck
Droopy - you must be joking man!
You can't tell me what you just said is the truth 100 % of the time in your case.. If you can, you are lying lol!
I think betthedraw is using the correct terminology for what I am experiencing.. "Running Bad" Believe me, if it hasn't happened to you in your poker career I am SURE it will eventually.
Did you read the description of the hand I wrote out for you? This is not me misplaying my hand(s), this is not me using poor starting hands, nor is it me not taking into consideration my position.. I do all of the se things every single hand. I would say in a 8 hour session I play maybe 10 at the most 20 hands I shouldn't play... and I only do it during occasions where the game is very loose with a high % seeing the flop... and you SHOULD adjust your style accordingly at that point.
When the hand I described and similar situations occur to you atleast 5 hands per session and sometimes many many many many (can't say many enough times here) more than that... That is NOT you misplaying your hand(s) or starting with poor hands.
You obviously misread my post as what I am talking about is not generally losing many hands during the session.. overall I said in the post I tend to do well.
What kills me is when the pot gets to be a larger pot (500 + in 20 40) everyone always sucks out on me when they shouldn't or they haev a valid draw and hit on me MUCH more often than is normal.
I know how to play well, no offense, droopy.. There is more to it than that. For instance last night I ended up winning 3,000.00 playing 20 40 finally had a real session, my hands were holding up etc... Let's see what happens tommorow now...
BetTheDraw, no I haven't I will have to look for them - thanks.
Tilter,
u asked 4 advice and i gave it.
then you win next time up so good for you!.
In the nature of your post that was my opinion.
you are so forceful it makes me believe you r still in denial, yet u may have pulled thru due to my comments.. maybe i am wrong as you seem to say but as poorboy says, "luck" is involved, maybe you needed the breaks, feast and famine.
poorboy IMO is wrong but if you are and were playing well it comes around, good cards hit good cards in the end.
I have no problem with your comments at all.
all the best to you, Droopy
oh yes, as for poorboy, 9:10 heads or 11:10 tails, heads keeps coming in time after time, do you switch to heads???, you do and win 2 in a row maybe 3, good play?, do you continue with this strategy, maybe you post on an internet board that luck is the key. No offense to u poorboy but smell the coffee.
1) Don't play through tilt unless you can successfully do so. Get up and walk around, watch the game evaluate your play etc, or go home.
2) When I first started playing I tilted all the way through the game. lol. Tilting is a measure of your maturity at the table, once you are comfortable with your play, bankroll, and variance you will improve on your tilt factor. Knowledge helps prevent tilt. And think of it as a long term job not short term.
3) See Number 1. I get up walk around so I don't have to look at the players at the table until I get my head on straight. I tell myself if i keep tilting I'm going to lose more money than the one hand that put me there.
4) Find something else to do with your time. There is more to life than poker and poker rooms. Go out and find it. If you are not emotionally ready for poker after three years you probably never will be.
5) No idea.
6)Play as high as your bankroll and emotions will allow. get your shit together before you move up and lose more money. I learned this the hard way. there's nothing worse than grinding out a good bankroll only to lose it in a week at a higher level.
Remember everyone gets the same luck and same cards eventually. just work on your play and the luck will be a welcome benefit.
It is my usual practice to tip the dealer whenever I win a hand as most others also do. However when I'm playing I prefer to have a full table of 10. There are some dealers who make little effort and in some cases no effort to alert the pit boss that there is a open seat. this is when there is a list and either myself or another player will have to make it a point to notify the pit boss that there is a seat available. I feel in these instances a tip is not warranted if the dealer can't alert the pit boss especially when someone at the table lets it be known that there is a list. Most dealers will notify the pit boss as soon as someone leaves the table and keep reminding him until the seat is filled. Am I being to picky on this point?? Comments....
Tipping is supposed to be for good service, not winning the pot although this is difficult because most players tip for winning. The only value from not tipping would be if you could let dealer know why, preferably in private.
the real other value from not tipping those that do little for you is the money that goes home with you instead of them.
In the small one table joints that I've done most of my playing, not tipping brings on too much heat. With small player bases its hard enough to be one of the guys.
thats a different ballgame, as you may be tipping certain people for political reasons rather than for good service. still if someone acts not in your best interest it rarely pays to help their situation.
I dont ever tip dealers that underperform,talking too much,hustling tips,and my own personal pet peeve the dealers that wont call the open seat for some strange reason.There is a group in every casino,they just have a hell of a time gettin that seat filled.What is the reasoning .Do they get more hands hence the chance for more tips?.
Question---What is the best book to read on Omaha High?
Hip Scooter
In my opinion: Ciaffone's Omaha Holdem: The Action Game.
Let me begin this post by saying that this is not meant to be a sob story. I was just wondering how bad you can run for one session. I just played 7 hours of 15-30 hold'em and lost $1500. I know that is not an astronomical loss for that limit, especially since the game was wild, but it is the way I lost it that is puzzling me. I won one $90 pot and split two others (basically just getting back what I put in after the rake) the entire night. The game stayed good, and I never went on tilt, so I continued playing. However, I recently read a post by Ray Zee in the Archives in which he stated that he has avoided getting buried in games by often leaving when he is losing. He stated that you are often losing because you are playing poorly, and once people see that you are losing they begin to play better against you. Should I have left after losing $1000 in 4 hours without winning a single hand? Is there any way to determine the probability that you will only win one whole pot in a 7 hour session?
Let's say your SD is 10 BB's. You play a 9 hour session and your winrate is 1 BB/hr.
Expected win = 1 * 9 = 9 BB's.
Standard Deviation Result = 9 + 3 * SD * sqrt(hours played) = 9 + 90 = 99 BB's.
That is the high side for a 9 hour session. The low side would be:
9 - 90 = -81 BB's.
So in a 9 hour 15/30 session, if you're a 1 BB/hr winner with a SD of 10BB's than your results for the session could be anywhere between -$2430 to +$2970.
That should give you an idea of the range of your results for a single nine hour session, I'll leave it to you to decide if that is winning one pot, zero pots or 100 pots (and losing 500) or whatever you want.
Only you can tell if it is better for you to leave or stay in the game. If you are getting depressed and agitated, and as a result you are slow-playing or in some other way not playing your best game, come back and try again later.
Personally, I know it's time to go when I start fantasizing about physically torturing the dealer.
I have had sessions this long without winning ONE hand.
The conventional wisdom is that, if the game is good, you should stay even if you are losing. This is often true but there are some qualifiers.
Obviously, if you tend to go on tilt or otherwise play poorly when you are stuck, you should probably leave. Most of the people who tell you you should NEVER leave if the game is good are people who make their living taking advantage of sticking it to people on tilt.
I can honestly say that I VERY VERY rarely go on tilt, so I tend to stay around, and I often do make good comebacks.
Here are a couple other things -
Note that when you are stuck you SHOULD modify your play a bit. Yes, you should. Why? Because OTHER players have modified their play against YOU. As they play changes, your play must change. I am not saying you should play tighter and 'wait for the cards to come', etc. This is all superstition. But you must adapt to THEIR changes.
For example. If people know you are stuck, many players will TEND to THINK that you might be on tilt. Or, they are superstitious and believe that since YOU are running bad, they have a better chance of winning.
So, your raises will tend to get less respect. Ever notice that when you are running hot people tend yo respect your raises more, and when you are stuck they tend to 'hunt you down' more? You must take advantage of this.
If stuck, only raise with primo hands. AA KK QQ AK. You will get action.
Don't bluff. People are more likely to call down a stuck player than a winning player. You might even want to cut down on semi bluffs because people will be playing more aggressively toward you.
On the other side of the coin, when on the heat, you can raise more hands preflop. If you play with the same players all the time, this is a very good idea. The times when you do get action when you raise preflop with QJs in early position - people will remember.
When on the heat, be more inclined to raise on the flop with any hand worth a call.
For example - the other day I was on a big heater. One hand I raised UTG with KK. Both blinds called.
Flop was ace high. SB bet, BB folded, I raised. SB mucked and said 'nope, I'm not gonna try to hit my kicker.'
Another hand - I raise in late position after 4 limpers with TT. 2 of 1 suit on board. Flop is K high. BB bets, 1 caller, I raise, BB calls and other folds. Turn is a blank, he checks I bet he mucks in disgust. I think he had QQ. Thing is when I raised I watched him carefully. He seemed rattled by my raise. I suspected that he would fold if I bet again and he did.
Now, if you try this when you are stuck you will be toast. So, like I said, adjust your play - but do it appropriately.
-SmoothB-
"So, your raises will tend to get less respect. Ever notice that when you are running hot people tend yo respect your raises more, and when you are stuck they tend to 'hunt you down' more? You must take advantage of this."
Good Point. The opposite can happen as well. You're stuck and when you raise the other players are quite content to let you have the small pot. Since you're raising only premium hands the other players have sensed this and caught on.
As you say, you must adjust to the other players.
This is all true. But I think it is very rare for a table to respect a stuck player's raises MORE.
In fact, there are some players that will go out of their way to snap off a big hand from a stuck player. Let's say I'm having a losing session and I raise, and everyone folds around to a very aggressive player. This guy is the angle shooter type - he knows that you probably have a good hand, but he also knows that if he beats you with a trash hand it might be enough to put you on tilt.
So he calls you with 63 offsuit.
If the flop comes with no cards higher than a J, he might raise your bet just to see if you have AK and will lay it down. If he actually flops 2 pair or better, he'll stick it to you on the turn.
This kind of stuff doesn't put me on tilt. So if I am losing, I have a BETTER chance of making a comeback because people like this will TRY to put me on tilt. But it will cost them to try to beat me with a trash hand.
Like I said, you must adjust your play.
-SmoothB-
Sonny,
I feel your pain. I just played two 8hr sessions and didn't drag one pot. In my case the game was so wild I couldn't justify most of the starting crap I was getting dealt, and when I did get in with good position and a good hand I either got beat or had to give it up on the flop. So I ran bad for 2 sessions and I'm not going to say I didn't tilt a couple of times cause I did, but I wasn't stuck much because I still managed to keep my starting standards in place. IMO you shouldn't leave a good game just because you're running bad, leave when your heads no longer in it.
You can easily get this unlucky. Zee is also right. The time to leave is when the loss is distracting you.
Hi again, fellas.
I thought maybe I'd ask this before my copies of TOP and HPFAP arrive and I read them thoroughly..
I play a friendly low-limit Hold'em game every weekend with one of my best friends. It's usually just the two of us heads up for the whole night, but sometimes we get a total of 3-4 people into it. We usually play $1/$2. He's a loose, aggressive player who bluffs and semi-bluffs very often, and will almost always bet on any kind of draw that he has. If he misses he'll show me his cards on the river, saying "I almost had it."
Now, when I play the game with a full table, online or at a casino, I keep in mind a rough textbook set of starting hands, based on position, that I go by and occasionaly deviate from.
But when I'm play someone 1 on 1.. position, while still important, becomes less of a factor, and it becomes difficult for me to have any kind of guidelines for playable hands/raising hands, and so on. I make the best decisions I can based on the information I have, but I feel as though heads-up relies much more on luck than skill. That's why my friend and I often have large swings in our "bankrolls"... sometimes I'd come out the complete winner, and sometimes the other way. It all seems to be based on who's "catching" the cards. I can't play really tight with him, because then he folds every bet I make. And when I start playing looser, luck seems to take over.
Oh and the other thing that bothers me is - odds seem to become useless. It is almost always against the odds to go on a 5:1 gutshot straight draw when I'm heads up against him, but often times he has nothing as well... so usually I play anyway, and feel like I'm playing too loose.
I feel like I'm not making good decisions when I play negative-expectation draws... which happen to be 80% of all 1-1 draws in our game, due to low pot size.
I would greatly appreciate any advice on how I should adapt to short-handed and especially heads-up hold'em, when I'm used to playing at full tables.
Thanks a bunch. Slay.
you will be pushing high cards and pushing true draws but not playing low cards too far along. its a game of hitting about 2nd pair or better then out playing him.
I disagree that position is less important when playing heads up hold'em.
In fact, I think position is SO important that I pretty much raise every time I have position when playing heads up.
natedogg
Oops, I hit POST before I was finished..
A free card in this game can be HUGE. This is the kind of game where it's usual to slow play top pair. If you have position. You can raise a bet on the flop and then check it down.
You can get that free card a lot more often in position because your opponent will be looking to check-raise you on the turn quite often.
When you make that hand on the turn, you can get in 3 bets because he'll check-raise you and you'll reraise. You might even go 5 or 6 bets if you guys play aggressive heads up poker.
Anyway, I think that position is so paramount in heads up that you should DEFINITELY re-evaluate your analysis of that part of the game. You'll probably start taking more of his money.... ;)
natedogg
TOP and HPFAP cover this topic extensively.Wait for the books.These guys will just confuse you.
With what hands would you open in Holdem on the button when all others have folded? This situation is almost identical to a 3-handed game when you are "under the gun" but still on the button.
The major difference between a full game and short handed is that in a full game someone usually has a reasonable hand and short handed usually nobody does. Another difference is that any pair or any A or K high hands often win unhelped. Your job is to win MOST of the pots where neither you nor the opponent has enough to pay the other one off; and your job is to insure you show-down almost all the hands that can win.
Notice that ALL your draws have an extra 6-outs since you can snag a pair and usually win. Don't be folding draws unless you are sure a pair cannot win it for you; but against this player by the time you figure out he's got a big pair the pot is big enough to draw.
Generally, you should be betting/raising with your draws as well since you can get HIM to drop HIS hand. If he has Ax and you flop a J-high draw, you do NOT want this hand to show down. It only costs one or two extra bets to win this pot most of the time.
- Louie
You might look at some of Mike Caro's writing on short handed play. He advocates usually calling or raising with as little as 95o heads up, and T6o when at a full table and everyone folded to you in the SB. The basic reasoning being, these are slightly above average cards and your opponent will sometimes muck better hands.
Why are the players in L.A. so mean, angry, and mean spirited? I've never seen anything like it in my life. They don't act like that in A.C., Vegas, or the Bay Area. Players yelling at other players, yelling at floorman, and especially yelling at dealers, throwing cards, leaving chips or cards at a spot where they know the dealers will have a tough time reaching them. Ugly. Why are these players so mean, bitter and angry at the whole world?
And most importantly, how can one take advantage of them?
They act that way because it is tolerated. The rest of us are partly to blame, since we don't demand that this behavior is stopped. That's because the offenders are usually big donators, and we don't want to lose them. So what's more important to you, their money, or their behavior?
I used to play in a little cardroom where I'd say, on average, a hand was torn in 2 at least every other round. The offender would sometimes apologize, other times he would just say I wanted a new deck anyways. (But of course these hands were only torn after a lost pot)
Finally the management stepped in and stated ripping cards is now taboo, no warnings, tear any card and your out.
And behavior improved conciderable, bad card players still bad card players, yet more behaved, and more hands perhour with less deck changes.
Some time later, some "very live" out of towners came in on a holiday weekend and the chips were flying. I mean these guys were throwing a party and I was in the middle of my best night ever when one of them suffered a beat and tore his cards in two. Well it caught the floormans attention and I know if he bars this fellow both his friends are gone as well.
I immediately throw the floor a red chip and say I'll buy the next deck, that they didn't know about the rule, etc. and the offender apologized as well. So the game continued and remained great.
But I know what you mean Doc, and "interpersonally challenged" opponents are much easier to take when you are winning, than vice-versa. (so I can't see them getting to you much :o)
They just come with the territory and I would much rather have a few or more at my table than cold, calculating, solid, players who would politely take my stack down to the felt if I was dumb enough to let them.
Natedog and Tommy Angelo. I know ya'll play lots of pot limit and I'm wondering what range of hands you will raise with pre-flop playing heads-up. Thanks. Dino. When on the button that is.
You hit the main point in the last part of your question. In heads up hold'em, having the button is literally more important than having the best hand. Consequently, I'll raise when I have the button about 50% of the time, which means I'll raise with pretty much anything.
natedogg
I keep seeing a lot of postings about 'hand raking' as presented in HPFAP and I have some comments and suggestions.
I won't go into the many problems I have with these rankings but I will make a couple of points.
Hands like 98o. I don't know where this hand is - maybe 6 or 7. This suggests that it can win it's fair share of pots. It is actally about the BIGGEST *MONEY* LOSING hand you can play. That is because your initial 1/2 BB investment will lead you to throw away more money than you can ever win with it on later streets.
The money you will invest drawing to those open enders and gutshots, even when you have odds, will cost you more than the money you make when you get there. Add in the times you flop 2 pair and end up getting beaten, trips beaten etc, this hand loses more MONEY than it wins.
I should coin a new term for this concept. IE a hand where your initial 1/2 bet investment traps you to throw away more money when the flop hits you and you miss, than you can make when it hits you and you lose.
Anyway, read the next message for the REAL point of this post.
-SmoothB-
I think a new series of hand rakings should be crafted.
There would really have to be at least a dozen of them or more.
In theory there should be a nearly infinite number - taking into account number of raisers, who the raiser is, your position relative to the raiser, number of people who called the raise, etc.
But let's keep it simple.
I posted a lot about this elsewhere so I won't repeat it all.
AKo is a group 2 hand. But let's say that UTG is VERY tight and raises. Another very tight player reraises, and another very tight player reraises. AKo is toast. Muck it. Now it's a group 500 hand.
Also, lets say a very tight player raises UTG and you are on the button. Everyone else cold calls, including 2 other very tight players and a few very passive calling stations. Which hand would you rather call with, JJ or 98s? I'll take the 98s and you can keep the JJ - a supposed 'group 1 hand'.
Actually, JJ would be good keep too as long as you are ready to throw it away if there is action on the flop unless you flop a set - even if the flop is all small cards.
-SmoothB-
from hpfap 21ce hand rankings p. 14
"the starting hands actually move up and down the hand rankings depending on the circumstances"
rereading this chapter always helps my game...gl
Hand rankings are useless. Every situation is a different mix of variables which require a flexiable way to determine which combination of cards is playable. I have played in games where I happily throw away powerful cards suck AQo, despite the inherent strength of the hand. While other games Ill limp re-raise with utter garbage like Kxs. Having a fixed ranking system is not the way to. When you look between you thumbs and see two cards you have to figure out do these cards offer a positive EV in this situation. Some situations are easier than others 9-2 versus big slick. Others are tougher, AJo or JTs.
Anyone who defends the posistion that THEIR is a fixed value to each hand is dilluiding themselves.
please excuse spelling errors, time concerns. -matt r.
Of course, there is no "fixed value" to any particular hand. A poker hand can only have a relative value before the flop. But, hand ranking are a way of making a general determination of value with the caveat that, until the end, everything is relative to a particular situation. Before the exception to a rule can be found to be true, there must be a rule. Hand rankings are a tool to begin an intellectual study of poker.
Thanks
I split the hands up into groups like pairs, suited zero gapers, suited one gapers, suited two gapers, suited aces, kings queens, jacks, others, and similar non suited groups.
Each group has a level at which I raise or call. I have also developed rules by which I adjust the call/raise/fold levels for each group, as the circumstances change.
For example for each loose caller I loosen up on suited zero gapers and tighten up on unsuited aces. If loose passive players replace tight players behind me; I might tighten up on my open raising requirements in all groups and calling requirements with off suited non-connectors, but loosen up on my calling requirements for pairs and suited connectors.
I never break my rules, but I might change them on the fly. This is an important distinction. I only want to do things that my conscious mind has OKed, I don’t think it’s profitable to relay on intuition to make pre flop play decisions. There are some things the subconscious mind is good for; making complex statistical evaluations is not one of them. However ones intuition is useful in determining the parameters used in setting up the rules to apply to a decision, e.g., just how tight is that guy whose just raised UTG? I suppose it’s the same sort of idea as setting stop loss points when trading on the stock market.
Piers,
I would be interested in seeing the details of your starting hands requirements if you are willing to divulge this information.
Cards are digital. People are analog.
Try playing vinyl in a CD player. That's what hand rankings do.
Tommy
"AKo is a group 2 hand. But let's say that UTG is VERY tight and raises. Another very tight player reraises, and another very tight player reraises. AKo is toast. Muck it. Now it's a group 500 hand."
AKo is already toasted after the second raise.
" I'll take the 98s and you can keep the JJ - a supposed group 1 hand"
huh? JJ is still far superier to 98s in this situation. You just have to know how to play it if you don't flop a set.
I/m suprised that some folks take the hand rankings as literal as I see some of the posts indicate. I think that the author is giving a "baseline" which can differ tremendously under a variety of circumstances and indicates that throughout the entire book.
I also beleive that the authors sometimes feel compelled to rank hands and would prefer not to but people want to see this stuff.
I find it pretty remarkable,(maybe I shouldn't) the different theories that some authors have re: hand rankings then others.
Example, I remember reading a book on hold'em that the author said that suited cards are only a 3% better play than non-suited and therefore in most cases shouldn't even be considered as any kind of edge in hand selection. Thus 9-8o and 9-8s are basically not to be played any differently since there's no real advantage to either hand but that slight 3%.
Just thought I'd through my 2 cents in here.
"I remember reading a book on hold'em that the author said that suited cards are only a 3% better play than non-suited and therefore in most cases shouldn't even be considered as any kind of edge in hand selection."
That's Ken Warren's book, Winner's Guide to Texas Hold'em. The first book I ever read on Hold'em...and thankfully not the last.
Heh,
The main difference between 98s and 98o is that you can sometimes play 98s outside the blinds.
- Andrew
I also call against weak players with 98o on the button (for one bet only), and I sometimes raise with it as a steal when I am first in from a late position, especially if the blinds are tight.
In circumstances such as those you mention, Mr Malmuth, you may as well call or raise with 87o, or, indeed, 72o, for all the "legitimate" hands you will flop.
That's not true. 98o does much better than 72o. If you don't see that I suggest that you think some more about what happens on the flop and beyond.
Obviously it does better in the scheme of things, but, as a bet in the circumstances you relate, I would assume you are betting more on the side of a bluff than on the expectation of winning a completed hand.
For all the times you have to compete, having started with 98o, in such a situation, I think you would do just as well with any lower starting hand.
Mike,
You are correct in terms of immediate desired result, but what if you are called? There are a lot of flops where 98 has some potential, not many where 72 does.
87 is closer than 72 but 98 has a better chance of flopping top or second pair or a good draw. Once called you will often have to bet the flop and having some backdoor outs makes this bet a lot better with a hand like 98. In fact there aren't too many flops that would miss 98 all together when you consider possible draws you can pick up on the turn if called on the flop.
Yes you want to steal and be done with it, but you also want a chance fo survival if you are called. I'm not sure what you meant to show with your post of percentage wins but I think it definitely shows that 98 does a hell of a lot better than 72o!
Paul Talbot
The 72o was actually intended as a "figure of speech" and not meant to be compared directly with the "power" of 98o; it was merely as an "either/or"-type comment. I was "lured" into "defending" it! Of course 72o is a rubbish hand. (... unless you flop 77any or 22any!!)
I regret that I will have to agree to differ in this matter - I just can't see a lot of times that I would end up being pleased that I raised pre-flop with 98o, as a named hand, UNLESS the pot was won immediately. Maybe if I fluked a 567u or a 99any, but not too many others.
However, good luck with it when you play it.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Mike.
"I also call against weak players with 98o on the button (for one bet only), and I sometimes raise with it as a steal when I am first in from a late position, especially if the blinds are tight."
... In fact, you state that you intend the bet to be a steal against tight blinds - in other words, you are inferring that really you don't wish to compete - and you are similarly inferring that weak players will fold or let you cruise.
Perhaps I have read too much into this, but, if my interpretation is correct - virtually any hand would suffice, in the set circumstances.
IMHO.
Against opponents -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
98o 48.4 32.9 25.1 20.1 16.6 14.2 12.3 10.9 9.9
72o 34.6 20.4 14.2 10.7 8.6 7.2 6.1 5.4 4.8
percentage wins.
SmoothB wrote:
’Also, lets say a very tight player raises UTG and you are on the button. Everyone else cold calls, including 2 other very tight players and a few very passive calling stations. Which hand would you rather call with, JJ or 98s? I'll take the 98s and you can keep the JJ - a supposed 'group 1 hand'. ’
Well – I’m not so shure about that – the mathematical (hot-and-cold) EV – in a 10-handed game is: EV(JJ)=93.0 and EV(98s)=34.0.
Now you may argue (and you are right) that we are not dealing hot-and-cold – we are playing poker – but still there is along way from 34.0 to 93.0 !
Generally speaking: Wouldn’t a EV-matrix (169*9) (169 different hands and 2 to 10 handed games) be a much better tool for pre-flop-analysis ?
Of course it has to be used with caution and some proper adjustments.
How do you determine the EV or certain hands? What does an EV value of 93 mean?
Thank you for asking – Sorry I wasn’t specific enough !
I define EV as a function of n (number of players) and p (probability of win for the given n) as follows (I multiply by 100 to get it %-like):
EV(n,p)=(n*p-1)*100
Let’s look at a few examples:
You have a 25 % chance in a 4-handed game => EV(4,0.25) = 0
You have a 20 % chance in a 5-handed game => EV(5,0.20) = 0
That make sense doesn’t it !? Both bet are even bets !
Where did I get the probability (p) from:
www.gocee.com/poker/HE_Val_Sort.htm
In a ten-handed game you see that JJ has 19.3 % chance : EV(10,0.193) = 93.0
First, you are not obliged to call, either with JJ or with 98s.
Second, JJ wins a lot more money than 98s.
First, you are not obliged to call, either with JJ or with 98s.
Second, JJ wins a lot more money than 98s.
Correct imo, 45, 67, 89 are big losers, you are hoping for a miracle flop, even if u hit 2, i.e. u hold 89 and the flop is TJ3, you then don't want to have a suited flop.... even if it is just two of them. They are worth a check in the BB , not much else unless there is a load of callers.
shitty thing is you will call all the way and when u hit your card and there maybe 3 of a suit on the board (or a PAIR and a boat maybe be out there) and it is hard to get aggressive. So you need a rainbow, a miracle flop and a good turn/river.
TJ/QK aint bad cos the high cards usually hit the better players and there is usually a big pot and you could also be hitting the top pair.
i am a very reluctant low connecters man, forget that, i just do not play them. i will even be reluctant to play 89 suited in middle position, these hands are money pits.
droopy
" The money you will invest drawing to those open enders and gutshots, even when you have odds, will cost you more than the money you make when you get there. "
Sounds like someone doesn't understand pot odds. IF you are getting odds, it will not cost you more money when you miss than when you hit.
I believe that this hand was probably ranked the way it was because it was assumed that you would play it well after the flop.
it is true that many dangers lie ahead for anyone who flops two pair with this hand, but that also holds true for just about any two cards nine or higher. I HATE flopping two pair with QJo or QJs, because you will almost always be against someone with some sort of draw! In the games I frequent, you will often be against several draws. But what are you going to do, not play it?
98o can be played for profit, but the situations are rare, and you must play well post flop. Over the weekend I played unsuited medium connectors a couple times, but it was always in late position with several callers ahead of me in an unraised pot.
your statement about flopping a straight draw:
"The money you will invest drawing to those open enders and gutshots, even when you have odds, will cost you more than the money you make when you get there. "
this pretty much contradicts itself, because if you have the correct odds to draw, then by definition you should be in a positive EV situation, and therefore making profit from playing. It is possible that you may have to adjust your odds somewhat, depending on the board. For instance, if there is a two-flush out there, then you only have six clean outs, and you should adjust your odds accordingly. If you are doing this already, then you will have already considered that when making your decision on what odds you need to make the play profitably....
if you call when you do not have the correct odds, then you will lose more than you will ever make, this much is true. And if you play these hands without considering position, # of opponents, etc, then this will also hold true.
Discretion is the key...
dave in cali
I've been practicing with dark bets for six months and now I use them routinely and (I think) profitably.
Most common is a raise or reraise from the blind and a dark bet before the flop against one or two opponents. If they call and don't look happy, I bet the turn in the dark because that suggests that if I didn't already have a hand, I must have hit the flop.
Another scenario is when I've shown some strength, the hand comes down to heads up, and I'm calling a raise. Sometimes I just CALL the raise and then bet the next street in the dark.
Have any of you ever tried these plays?
Tommy
Yup. Some will say that if you play in the same place that you have to occasionally value bet in the dark though. I'm inclined to disagree. In general, most players are intimidated by a tighter player who all of a sudden bets blind, so if you don't overuse the play, it's as profitable as any other bluff or semi-bluff.
Tommy, Only when I'm going crazy.
I have observed such play and for the most part it fails to work for the player. However, when they hit the hand they do bring in some chips.
I have done a variation of this where if I'm in the BB or button and I see an Ace or King on my first card I will not look at the second card until after the flop. I will call one raise this way but I have to admit I do this more for intertainment and a change of pace.
Walker
Sometimes I just sit there with my eyes closed and wait until the other players start shouting at me; then I raise, keeping my eyes closed as long as possible.
I even ask them what chips I need to put in the pot.
I find it really upsets the other players and they start making stupid moves that have absolutely no chance of working.
I don't think I have seen this particular play mentioned here before.
If you're going to try it, let me know when, and I'll come and join your game. For the fun of it all.
"Most common is a raise or reraise from the blind and a dark bet before the flop against one or two opponents. If they call and don't look happy, I bet the turn in the dark because that suggests that if I didn't already have a hand, I must have hit the flop."
the dark part of this must be the fact that you haven't seen the coming card. For example if you bet the turn in the dark you are betting without seeing the turn but (I assume) you do know what your hand is at that point. You do know what your hole cards are. So you are in fact bluffing or semi-bluffing depending on what valu you ascribe to your hand. Consequently I believe astute opponents will call you on the basis of their hand strength, pot size and the likly hood that you are bluffing. Once you get caugt you are now in the same situation as if any other bluff. I don't believe the dark bet has any value at all. Just an opinion.
Vince
Vince, why are posting as Mike Haven as well?
;-)
I'm Mike Haven.
Why do I feel like I'm watching Spartucus?
:-)
x
If the point is to win outright on the flop or turn then I respectfuly disagree.If anything I tend to call or raise(rightfully so or not) more liberally in these situations and tend to treat these blind bets as "out of line",especially if the texture of the board is not condusive to drawing hands,which would seem to be the kind of hands that would make more sense to bet blind for image,action,deception etc.
The caveat, as Tommy recently posted, is that he calls maybe 1 in 10 blind hands. A dark bet becomes much more intimidating if they know you never play without a top hand here.
First I was just wondering if anyone did this. Here's more on I why I think it's a money-maker for me.
They rightly expect me to have AA,KK,QQ,JJ,10-10. But occasionally I'll do it with AK or AQ against certain players. When the top card on the flop is an A,K,Q,J, or ten and the flop is not too clustered, lots of good things can happen, mainly, they don't play back at me when they should, and they don't draw to or call-down one pair when they should.
Plus I get out confidently and cheaply sometimes. Say I have Q-Q and a king flops and I bet dark and the other guy merely calls the flop with top pair or a draw, because of the spasm of slung chips, when he would normally raise.
Then I bet the turn in the dark and it's highly unlikely I will put any more money in with the worst hand. If he calls on a draw and misses, he's far less likely to bluff the river after I check. I got full value and a good read. If he hits (or had a king) and bets the river after I check, I can safely muck. Normally in this situaions, the other guy raises on the flop and I'm guessing all the way. That's why I fold my blinds so often. I hate that feeling.
Of course there are infinite variations, but all in all, I think this approach is worthy of exploration among those whose hand selection in the blinds is ultra-tight.
Tommy
tommy,
im on your side here. i dark bet a few times every session i play.(limit poker). against a suspicious player ill do it with aces or kings and dark bet out the whole hand and get called if he hits anything. against a scared player it might be with ace king or two big cards for just the flop and the play the hand the rest of the way normally. this player will give up small pairs or an ace which might beat my two big cards in a showdown. against some players who suspect ive got a big pair or ace king ill do it with two smaller cards. they will fold if big comes and it doesnt hit them or will pay off when i catch my hand. there are lots of tricks in poker but it takes a trickster to trick them.
What are "dark bets," anyway, Ray?
If you like them, and as you play against Tommy, and are encouraging him to use them against you, they must be very effective, I deduce, as no doubt you like your old pal winning a hand or two?
"ill do it with aces or kings and dark bet out"
I may be missing something, as usual, but Tommy's use of the "dark bet" as he explains it, is to win the pot not to get someone to call his best hand. Obviously what we have here is "failure to comunicate".
vince
The apparent failure-to-communicate stems from the narrow range of scenarios discussed so far. I tend to only talk about the hands where I have nothing because they are more frequent and harder.
Ray broadened the range significantly by mentioning, among other things, getting paid off all the way by suspicious players. That happens frequently. Granted, they might have paid off anyway, without the dark betting, but I suspect that some personality types are a touch more likely to pay off after being agitated by the dark bets. They start with a pair or make a pair and decide early on to not think and just call down.
This is doubly good because I get a "free" river card when they merely call the turn with the best hand, and I can often figure out after the turn that they plan to call the river, so I can check and fold on the river if I miss.
Tommy
This is the most weird conversation I have ever had. (OK - I don't get about too much.)
I am now unclear about why I play poker. I used to think I was trying to win the pot. Whatever type of bet I was making. I admit, I am missing a lot, here. My apologies to all for in-sticking my oar.
"I used to think I was trying to win the pot. Whatever type of bet I was making. "
You are not serious are you? Are you saying you have never bet in attempt to get more money into the pot? If that is the case you definitely are "unclear" about how to play poker.
Vince
"Are you saying you have never bet in attempt to get more money into the pot?"
Yes - I have bet to get more money into the pot - but only if I expect to win the bigger pot. Maybe I should be more altruistic and bet to increase the pot for someone else to win?
Or perhaps you are just being pedantic in separating one bet in a hand from another?
" Maybe I should be more altruistic and bet to increase the pot for someone else to win?"
Maybe you should stop being a wise ass and then maybe we can discuss this issue. Of course if you prefer discussing this with someone more knowledgeable feel free. Pedantically speaking of course.
Vince
"I don't believe the dark bet has any value at all. Just an opinion. Vince"
"I may be missing something, as usual, but Tommy's use of the "dark bet" as he explains it, is to win the pot not to get someone to call his best hand. Obviously what we have here is "failure to comunicate". vince."
"If that is the case you definitely are "unclear" about how to play poker. Vince."
"Maybe you should stop being a wise ass and then maybe we can discuss this issue. Of course if you prefer discussing this with someone more knowledgeable feel free. Pedantically speaking of course. Vince."
No problems at this end, Vince. You carry on discussing in your inimitable style. You make it a pleasure to join in.
Thanks for the welcome.
Mike.
I have no idea what you are talikng about except for my "inimitable style". Of that, we agree.
Vince
"Maybe you should stop being a wise ass ... Pedantically speaking of course. Vince."
"I have no idea what you are talking about except for my "inimitable style". Of that, we agree. Vince."
No problem, Vince. Forget it.
Regards,
Mike.
" Maybe I should be more altruistic and bet to increase the pot for someone else to win?"
"I have no idea what you are talking about except for my "inimitable style". Of that, we agree. "
Perhaps you do not notice a distinction between the above statements. But believe me there is one.
Vince
My dear Vince
You are right - you've got me beat, fair and square.
Obviously, I am totally wrong in everything I say, and you are totally right; although, I have to admit, what you say is absolutely incomprehensible to me and I file in my papers under "gobbledegook."
Don't waste any more of your valuable time on me - I am a lost cause and not up to your knowledge and quick wit.
Thanks for trying, though.
Goodbye and good luck.
Mike.
ps Just a wild guess on the differences in our two comments, above -
Mine, as you realise, was an ironical remark?
Yours, you believe, was a true remark?
As I say, you are just too good for me, man.
"As I say, you are just too good for me, man. "
You may be right. Oh, one other thing. Though your remark was at best ironical it is more correctly described as sarcastic. Might as well call a cow a cow.
Oh, two other thing.
"I am a lost cause and not up to your knowledge and quick wit."
Thanks for the plug. Now everyone will know the truth.
Oh, three other thing.
"Goodbye and good luck."
I guess you won't be reading this. Too bad. You may have enjoyed it. Naaaa.
vince
Oh Mike, 4 other thing. Of course if you truly meant goodbye you won't be reading this. Well maybe someone else is following are little frolicking.
" Maybe I should be more altruistic and bet to increase the pot for someone else to win?"
"I have no idea what you are talking about except for my "inimitable style". Of that, we agree. "
The differnce between the above statements is that the purpose of the first, yours, is designed to ridicule the recipient. The second, mine, on the other hand is meant to amuse the recipient. So you see you are much better at accomplishing your goals than I am. Obviously you are too much for me.
Vince
LOL!
Love it!
May you receive good cards.
Mike.
Tommy,
I haven't read through the whole thread so I apologize if this is repetative, but...
Do you verbally annouce "Bet in the dark!" to make sure you opponent realizes you are betting in the dark or do you just push it out there without saying anything hoping your it is obvious that you are betting before the flop comes? I think this makes difference in how you are perceived. I'd be more intimidated by someone I see putting a bet out ther before the cards came seemingly oblivious to what it brings.
Also, strong opponents must react differently than weak opponents, no?
Regards,
Paul Talbot
If I dark-bet meekly, I make sure the dealer knows I'm betting in the dark since usually the bet is out while the dealer is still scooping in pre-flop bets. When the flop comes, the dealer makes it clear the bet was in the dark, just in case it wasn't already.
Usually I do it with some bravado, as you pictured and suggested. My very favorite is when I'm capping it from the SB and betting dark. Four bets equals a cap here, so I put out five bets and say "dark bet," and we're off!
Definitely the strong react differently than the weak. In heads-up and three-way pots, I'm less likely to bet dark against the fearless.
Tommy
Tommy
TJ says on page 60 in Championship Omaha:
* In one table hold'em satellite I played, the board came 2d 2h 3c. I was in the big blind with Jd 6s. The player right in front of me bet his hand and I called him. The turn came nothing. He bet and I called again. On the end, he bet again and I called him. I took the pot with a jack high. Then a player says out loud, "I want to learn how to make that play!" And Jim Ward leans over to me and says, "The funny thing is, they think it's luck when you do that." * -----------
So lets presume all fold, SB called. Flop 2d 2h 3h, turn 8c, river Td.
For me it is very common holdem situation. I was involved in similar battle from first or second position many times and with full range of hands (total garbage, garbage, mediocre hand, good hand).
But I do not like TJ's last call. I would not criticize calling with A or K high (maybe Q high also) albeit I still prefer raising to give 3's over 2's a chance to drop. But with J high the river option is CLEARLY fold or raise.
Am I wrong?
Zbych,
No u aint wrong. It was an obvious fold on the flop thats it...
I would like to play against TJ....
As much as I like TJ's play, this one is crap.
The purpose is to make fold Q high , K high or Ace High
I'm visiting my sister this weekend at MSU and am going to be spending some time at Soaring Eagle (Friday for sure, hopefully a little on Saturday too).
How are the games there? Specifically 6-12HE. I would like to try the 10-20 too if it doesn't seem too tough but that may be extending my bankroll some.
Anything about the card room I should know going in?
Thanks.
Squirrel
Squirrel,
Except for the 20/40 games, all the game are good, IMHO. The 20/40 games are usually loose-aggressive, but sometimes they aren't. If a 20/40 game is being spread, then the 10/20 games are very very soft. I mean loose-passive city! My friend and I went there one time, I was playing 20/40, while he was playing 10/20, and told me how juicy the 10/20 game was. He said there was rarely a raise preflop, and 5 way action to the flop was the norm. If a 20/40 game is not being spread, the 10/20's are still very good, albeit not as juicy as when the 20/40 games are being runned. All in all, you will the the games there plenty profitable, albeit high in the rake. The chips there are dirty as all hell, it's quite smoky, but the cardroom was recently remodeled, so it looks brand spanky new. Any other info you want, just let me know, and I'll post again. Hope you have fun there, I know I sure do whenever I go.
Btw: My friends and I call the place, "Soaring Fish", because the players there are so damn bad! It's a freakin' gold mine!
IMO.
it was a nice place to play last summer also...gl
I would agree with that assessment. Soaring Eagle has one of the softest clientele in America. The only place better is Speaking Rock.
In an essay on loose games, Sklanksy makes what appears to me to be an amazing statement about hand preference:
" 3.Play more longshot draws if you are drawings to the nuts or close to it. For instance if the flop is Ks 6h 5d in a multi-way pot I would much rather hold 7d 6d than Kc 10c. "
What am I missing? Are these backdoor draws really that fruitful?
I believe what David is saying here is that in this case it is better to have mid pair and two runner-runner draws than a pair of kings with a weak kicker. This is because with multi-way action, it is very unlikely that you are the only one with a king, and with only a 10 kicker you could be drawing to few outs. With the other draws, you are usually getting the implied odds to continue and will be paid off big if you hit.
Jeff
The reality of volumn pots is that the typical winning hand is quite a bit stronger than when short handed. You are therefore often better off with a hand that only-sometimes makes a strong hand than with a hand that often makes only a good hand. The strong hand will win a lot more often WHEN IT HITS and the good hand will often make a 2nd best hand.
- Louie
I assume that's his logic but THOSE cards? The KT will sometimes win unimproved even multiway, but can the same be said for an unimproved pair of 6's? It seems to me the backdoors will get there so rarely (and not always the best) you're better off with the top pair and modest kicker.
I guess I'll have to start taking my double gutters more seriously.
You need to look at this from a different perspective. If you have KT you will some multiway pots, but the cards that can help you are limited.
If you have cards in the mid range 6 - 9 almost any board will help you out. If they are suited it's even better because then you can add flush possibilities to your holdings.
Then too consider the nature of multiway pots. You have a lot of people in the hand. Straights and flushes rule the day and two big pair or a set get cracked more often than in a tighter game.
jmho
It's not so much that 7d 6d is a great hand here, as that KTo is such junk in a pot like this.
If the pot was, say, six or seven ways and i was sure i wasn't going to get raised, i'd toss in a bet on the flop with 7d 6d there.
Chris
Over time, as a ratio, how much do you feel you earn on the button vs. UTG? (Or do you win UTG?)
Assuming the SB is 1/2 of the BB.
The BB is about -.75 BB the small blind is about -.35 BB.
All the other poistion total about +1.1 BB.
With 10 players , UTG is about +.05BB and the button is about +.25 BB
The Wilson Turbo program has that info. But my family just shut all my other computers to save energy and I do not have that info in front of me.
Peter,
Could you describe the simulation a bit more? It seems the total EV for all positions is break even so I asume there is no rake.
I'm guessing that the Turbo players are all the same profile and you keep the button fixed.
Why do you have so many computers?
Regards,
Rick
Nick,
My guess that for many very good winning but not expert players, the ratio is infinite, in that they lose money UTG.
OTOH, I have seen some otherwise decent players overplay the button to such an extent that they cut down on their win in that position significantly. The button has a lot of power, but it doesn't allow cold call of solid UTG raises with AJo or other such nonesense. It does allow you to play some decent speculative hands for one bet that you couldn't play in the middle or up front not knowing what you are up against behind you.
Here's my related tip of the month. If you have to miss a hand or two (but not a whole round), try to miss hands near the blinds rather than near the button. But please still wash your hands after :-).
Regards,
Rick
Agreed, infinite. I try to keep my UTG loss rate down by sitting out on one or both hands before the BB about half the time.
Tommy
Why not just fold them?
Sean
Because I have lots of socializing and smoking to do.
Rick,
Why not spend a few extra seconds and wash your hands before, too? :-]
Regards,
Nick
Nick,
That is a REALLY good point! I actually do most of the time, given the filth level of the chips and cards (or most other handled objects), and will do it all the time now that you remind me ;-).
Regards,
Rick
You don't want those good folks to wash their hands more often than they shower?
Seriously, I find it pretty disgusting, and wonder what combination of diseases are at the table every time I play....
and using 4 different players with 4 linups containing ONE player (ie. 10 Bretts in Lineup #1)
$4 table
+/- per hand
SB -0.73 BB -1.77 UTG +0.15 1 +0.135 2 +0.155 3 +0.215 4 +0.27 5 +0.222 6 +0.345 Button +0.40
Basically
The you will win about 60% more then UTG 1 AND 2 off the buttom.
The Big Blind sucks the money that is for sure. Little blind 58% better then the Big Blind.
when you say the big blind sucks the money is that counting the blind money or is that in addition to the blind money?
I mean you really shouldn't count blinds as a loss. you get to compete for them 7 other times for a cost of $3 (here in cali) and without the blinds there is really no reason to play.
I was only pointing out that there is a lot lost because of the blind. The Sim was not a scientific sim as there are problems with strategy changes because of seat position.
I suppose the real way would be to use the exact strategy for every seat.
In my sims UTG was actually slightly better then the next seat PROBEBLY because there was more folding.
Perhaps I'll create a player that plays exactly the same no matter what seat and see a better result.
A thread at RGP (which included a post from Barbara Yoon) refer matter of factly to Q7 as being the median hand heads up. Isn't Q7 way too high for a median hand?
Nick,
Haven't read RGP yet. I thought this was why it was called the computer hand but I just ran a simulation using Caro's Poker Probe (one million hands) and it won 51.79% of the time against a single random (and ever changing) opponent. Also, against a field of nine opponents it doesn't win a fair share. So now I'm not sure what it is execpt unplayable ;-).
I remember this hand from Mike Barry's book but it is buried in storage. Maybe I better go read RGP.
Regards,
Rick
51.79% is interesting. Can you please run an identical sim. using T6o ? (I assume your sim. w/Q7 was also offsuit.)
Queen is such a high card, intuitively it seems to be too high for a median hand. Unless the uncoordinated 7 makes up for the higher rank.
Thanks
Nick,
T6 off has to be a much worse than average hand in a dry simulation by looks alone. Anyway, it won 46.06% of the time for a million trials.
Regards,
Rick
I have no idea what she means when she refers to Q7o as the "median" hand, but it wins against 2 random cards almost exactly 50% of the time, and close to 50% than any two other cards.
If you look at the Poker Probe data again you'll find that it counts a tying hand as 1/2 of a winning hand. When you take out the ties, the actual winning percentage goes down to about 49.98% or something closer to even money.
Chris,
I ran one million hands again and got the following data.
Qh7s won 498,301 times with 37,003 ties = 51.68%.
The random hand won 464,696 times with 37,003 ties = 48.32%.
The ties are counted the same way for both hands and 498,301 + 464,696 + 37,003 = one million. This seems to indicate that Q7 is still not the 50/50 hand against a single random opponent.
In any event, I would be better off thinking of the hand the way Ray Zee thinks about it, which is not much at all :-).
Regards,
Rick
Q7 beats a random hand more often than a random hand beats Q7 -- 51.7% to 48.3% of hands either won or lost, but Q7 "wins" half the hands dealt, 49.8301% by your data. The "PCT" column in poker probe effective ignores ties, so that the percentage is not that of hands dealt but of hands either won or lost (I said Probe counts them as half, which has the same effect).
Go to http://ruby.he.net/~slandrum/holdemev.txt to see more exact numbers for every hand crunched a few years back by Steven Landrum. He has Q7o winning 49.90436458832121% of the time of I don't know how many million hands, just below K4o and just above T9o.
This must be what Barbara is talking about. With due repsect for Ray, I doubt that anyone with a computer ever thought that Q7o was a good hand, when anyone with an hours' experience playing can assure you that it isn't.
back in the 1970"s a fellow did some computer sims on holdem when there were few if any good programs to get a good result. he got a result of Q7 being the best hand. obviously he had a glich but i think his run of hands was too small and it just repeated. so everyone started the joke- computer hand as Q7 being the best hand in holdem. thats what its all about.
The median hand from a pot equity standpoint is J5s at 49.98685%, just below Q5o (50.12008%) and just above T8o (49.72127%).
In Pg. 192 of HPFAP, I just want to clarify that in a three- handed game the small blind should call about 16% of the time and the Big blind should call about 28% of the time. These two percentages add up to 44%, so I'd throw in a few extra calls to balance things off and to throw off the original raiser. Most of these extra calls I'd throw in as the Big Blind when the Small Blind doesn't call because the Small Blind may not be aware, as I am, to call with the intention of defending against a steal. Also, when you mentioned the hands to call with in a heads-up situation, were they roughly in order of strength?
Excalibur 2-6 spread limit with one 2$ blind, very loose game with relatively passive players. Pots are rarely raised on any round by anyone other than myself. Most players are very weak with a couple slightly on the tight-passive side. A 6$ bet will often buy the pot if no one has anything.
I am in the cutoff and four players limp in front of me. I have AcTc and raise to 5$. This is a situation where I don't mind the multiway pot, don't mind getting extra $$ into the pot, and don't really want to drive EVERYONE out of the pot, so I did not raise the max. I wind up buying the button, both blinds fold, 5 way action, 25$ in the pot.
Flop comes Js 9c 4d. All check to me, I bet 6$ hoping to buy the pot. I know it might seem foolish to bet into 4 people, but seriously, they all folded pretty darn easily most of the time.... Well that wasn't going to happen this time, all but one call. 4 players, 49$ in the pot.
Turn comes Qh. UTG bets 6$ and all fold to me. I am getting 55:6 pot odds, or about 9:1. I have a gutshot to the nut straight, plus an ace overcard. The ace is not guaranteed to be a winner if it hits, but might be an out for me. Any ten gives me the nut straight. With implied odds I can figure on probably another 6$, possibly 12$ if he bets into me on the river and calls my raise. I felt this was a borderline decision, but I had been winning quite a lot in this game, so I decide to give a little action and go for it, I call.
River of course is the Kc. My opponent checks, I bet, and he calls. I don't know what he had.
Was this a good call on the turn, or was I being a river rat?
On the turn, you have an open ended straight draw with any King or Eight since the board contains a Q-J-9 with you having a Ten. A call is automatic.
a
Sorry cause i have been abusive in the past. Moreover, quite frankly i don't remember anyone ever saying thank you: so i will say it.
Now i don't want to beat up on a particular author, so i won't mention names (but i don't have to be nice to him: he does truly suck, go buy some stamps. That was mean but it was just a joke;)
Anyway, i don't want to quote so i will parapharase "you have a small pocket pair against an aggressive bettor whom raises, your play is to reraise and get it heads up" Why is this so bad?
Wont say anymore. Can you just explain?
Three points
1-i am not him. 2-When you said it i didn't realize it was so bad (Just thought marginally so. And i was thinking he was thinking of dead money. (See that whats my opponent thinking. Never thought of it previously. Thank you again that has saved me so much money.) 3- Don't know if you explained this before. (i don't want to search and there are so many boards)
Good work.
Thank you.
nt
g
On page 140 of HPFAP 21st century edition it says:
"Now suppose that when the third suited card hits on fourth street, you make two pair. In this case you have outs. That is, you can make a full house, so this situation is much different. If you bet and are raised, you can be fairly sure you are up against a flush and you'll wish you hadn't bet. Consequently, the best play is usually to check and call.
Here's an example. Suppose you start with:
Kd 3d
and on fourth street the board is:
Kc Jh 7c 3c
If you are first to act, you generally should check and call."
This advice goes against all my instincts as a holdem player. The games I play are fairly passive and I would never check this holding first to act and risk having AcQh, Kh9c, 8c9d or half a million other hands check behind me. If you get raised that's bad, but you are going to have to think the opponent has the flush a lot of the time before it's worthwhile checking and calling. Even in an aggressive game where opponents will bet marginal holdings at you, you risk having them check behind you on the river with a hand like KhTh.
Anyone else think this is pretty weird advice? Maybe Sklansky or Malmuth could respond to this post and elaborate on the explanation in the book.
Thanks
Chris
yeah , me too ...I don't like to give free card when I have a good hand , a free card could give someone a better 2 pairs , a triple , a set , a straight . In your situation , I would call the raise and check raise the river if I full , otherwize , I fold . But if the game is very loose , a checkcall on the turn is better ... -JP
It makes sense. In the board you made, you are facing two possible straight draws and a club flush.
You also have passive players who are going to play almost everything and call you down at the river. My understanding of this play is you are saving some bets. K3o making two pair isn't much to get bullish with.
You bet on the turn and you are risking being raised. You have to call the raise because you have two pair with a full house possible. Now the river is a club, or fits in with one of the straight draws, or almost any card... What are you going to do when there is a bet? You call and lose with your two pair you have lost 3 BB. You raise and it might be 4 BB.
The risk of being agressive at this point isn't worth the reward. At least this is my take on it.
Depends right.
You can easily be up against the singleton Ac so it is wrong to be giving free cards - of course I'd probably not be in a hand with K3s unless it is in an unraised bb.
Now in a NL HE hand you really have to think about it as this is a classic trap situation. But in ll to middle limit HE I'd say it's 50/50 based on your opponent.
If there are more than 2 people left to act you should definitely check as you are the one who needs a free card. this is especially true in loose games or if there are loose, bad players in the pot with you. Now if I had a set I would seriously consider leading out and might even go for a checkraise as the probability of making a full house or better is greatly improved (10 outs vs. 4 outs)
The next paragraph also says this:
"However, you should not always check two pair on the turn when a third suited card hits. Suppose your opponent checks to you, and you think it is unlikely that he would check a flush because he is afraid that you would fail to bet. In this second case, you should put your chips in the pot. So, if you are against three or more opponents and are first to act, a check is probably the correct play. But if the pot is short-handed, and you are not fearful of the flush, you should strongly consider betting unless you have other reasons to check, especially if the action is checked to you."
Mason when I read this passage, I assumed you were checking because you had multiple opponents and I interpreted it in light of the following paragraph that you mention. But in re-reading this chapter, I believe that the poster's confusion is understandable. The chapter starts off by talking about play "Against a typical opponent". I believe the poster is assuming that you are heads-up based on what is stated on the previous page.
Is not the key consideration how many opponents you are facing when the third flush card hits? If you were heads-up on the turn, I believe most players would bet their two pair since the likelihood of your lone opponent having a flush is quite small as opposed to other hands where he is chasing.
If you are against many opponents you probably should have folded that K,3 somewhere because of action. If not then someone making a flush on the turn is not likely. Confused? Me too but I still think I'm correct. Go figure.
vince
I had missed the "if you are against three or more opponents" bit, and I was kind of assuming you were shorthanded because I would usually dump K3s from the blind against multiple callers. I think it's rare that the situation will come up where you have a ragged two pair against many players. If it was checked around on the flop I guess it could happen. Say you are up against three limpers and the SB folds and you are in the BB with the K3s, and the flop checks around. Do you advocate checking the two pair here? What about if you're UTG with KQhh versus two limpers and a blind, you bet the flop of KT3 two clubs and they all call, and the turn comes the Qc? Check or bet? I'm talking about a reasonably loose/passive game here, where people will call any king, any ten, any lone Ac, any gutshot, and sometimes low pockets to this flop, but will generally raise only two pair or better. (Anyone who's played Paradise 2/4 and below will know what I'm talking about). What about if you're in late (second last or last) position instead and you know players will often try to check-raise flushes?
I would bet in all the situations above and take my chances on getting raised, so I'm interested to hear if people think that's wrong.
Chris
I think you are basically correct except I have a policy of assuming that when I have 3 or more opponents who pay money to see the turn (this assumes the flop gets bet) when a two flush flops, that at least one of them has made a flush when the third suited card arrives on the turn. I will usually check two pair and look at the pot odds when the turn gets bet to decide whether or not I will try to see the river. I am playing 4 outs which is about 11:1 against. This means I need to win at least 22 small bets to justify playing on.
I think that this is dangerous advice. You must also consider the chance that your hand is best at that moment. If you always fold when the pot is offering less than 11-to-1 it should prove expensive.
Maybe less than 11 to 1. He could be yanking your chain.
When you check, that stimulates the "I have the best hand" gland in the other player with top pair.
Of course, with strong indication that a flush is there you play acoordingly
First, before the flop if I have K3s in the BB I will routinely call against three or more callers.
Second, if no one bets the flop the chance that there is a flush draw out has gone down. So now if you turn two pair even though a third suited card comes you should be more inclined to bet.
The advice in HPFAP isn't meant to answer the question: what's the chance my hand is best? In the examples you give -- loose players calling with any pipece of the flop, or less -- your chance of having the best hand obviously is very high, and you should bet or check-raise. The advice in HPFAP presumes a situations where there's a good chance that your hand isn't best. The point is that, in these situations, checking a hand with outs can be correct because betting will undermine it's value when you're behind but checking will more often preserve it's value when you're behind and won't hurt it much when you're ahead.
I've been reading through TOP lately, and am a bit confuzzled about effective & implied odds. Let me give an example.
Assume $10-$20 game. Let's say I'm holding A-T in early position. 5 other players, including blinds, limp in to see the flop. The flop is K-J-7, giving me an inside straight draw. Pot is $60.
Now first of all, how should one compute effective odds at this point? I mean, how do you know how many people will stay in/raise/fold next round? Would it be at all correct to assume that an average of 2-3 people will stay in the next round? Then what should you assume about the river?
Once someone explains this phenomenon to me, what about implied odds? The same problem seems to occur here, as I cannot predict how many people will stay in on the turn and on the river. And in addition, would implied odds include raises by you once you make your hand? If not, what exactly do they represent?
Finally, it is the implied odds that I should play my draw by, correct?
I appreciate all input as usual, Slay.
If memory serves your effective odds reflect your expected cost in the hand compared to your expected win in actual pot money. Your implied odds reflect the amount of money you expect to win (or lose) once you hit your hand.
In your example you are considering calling once to hit your gut shot. If the left-hand opponent bets and gets 2 calls your pot-odds and effective odds are the same: you are getting 8:1 to draw. If the right-hand opponent bets your pot-odds are 6:1 but your effective odds drop quite a bit since you don't know if anybody else will over-call but more importantly you don't know if one will raise. On average, calling the flop will cost more than one bet.
"Calculating" your implied odds is more like "calcu-guessing". As the game progresses you should get a reasonable feel for how many players stay to the river and how many pay it off. This will give you a good feel for whether implied odds for long draws are high or low, and you should generally know this BEFORE this hand starts.
Lets not forget to consider the amount you may lose when you hit your hand and get redrawn.
- Louie
Thanks for answering, I'd just like to clarify a few things. You wrote:
"In your example you are considering calling once to hit your gut shot. If the left-hand opponent bets and gets 2 calls your pot-odds and effective odds are the same: you are getting 8:1 to draw. If the right-hand opponent bets your pot-odds are 6:1 but your effective odds drop quite a bit since you don't know if anybody else will over-call but more importantly you don't know if one will raise. On average, calling the flop will cost more than one bet."
Firstly, I guess you assumed a $50 flop pot instead of $60, thus the 8:1 odds? So I would have 3 callers on the flop giving me $80:$10 pot odds on my draw. May I ask why you say this is the same as the effective odds? From what I've read, effective odds take into consideration your total win VS total loss on ALL betting rounds. So then my effective odds would have to take into consideration the turn & river bets... which could be calculated as a $30 loss VS maybe a $80 (pot) + $80 (2 callers on turn & river) win, for effective odds of $160:$30, or roughly 5:1.
It is possible I'm wrong, but from the way Mr. Sklansky described it in Theory of Poker, effective odds are only used when there's more than 1 card coming, and thus consider all future bets.
If I am indeed correct, then how do these odds differ from implied odds, other than the possibility of my raise when I do hit the draw?
The 2 concepts seem too similar to me.
Thanks in advance, Slay.
Ok, so it seems my memory does NOT serve.
It sounds like effective odds = pot odds + implied odds, where pot odds includes money in the pot compared to your cost NOW and implied odds includes the hard-to-calculate future risks and rewards.
The reality of these long-shot draws is that your pot odds AND implied odds are BOTH usually better on the flop than on the turn, since the pot is usually relatively a little smaller compared to a turn bet AND on the turn you have only one more betting round to make up your implied odds. It is common, therefore, to figure calling the flop and folding the turn.
If so, your "effective" odds for a one-time-call would NOT include the cost of calling a turn bet; it would include the cost of the flop bet plus a little more to compensate for possible flop raises by players behind you. Your implied odds for your gut-shot are sure to be at least 3BB (raise the turn and get paid off by one player) or 6SB, so your effecive odds for your draw are about 8+6=14:1.
That's a base figure that needs to be adjusted for possible raises behind, possibility of getting a free turn card, possibility of getting more action when you hit, and possibility of losing even when you DO hit.
- Louie
Louie I believe that is the best example (14-1) of a concept that I have seen on this board in 6 mons.
I will try and use that thought the nexted time i am drawing a little thin on a inside str/8 on the flop.
I will try and figuare out how much i can trap the better and any callers for if i hit , and see if that will make up for my thin flop call.
Thanks PokerPL
Hey Louie,
Just thought you should know that the 14:1 odds you described were ironically actually IMPLIED odds, rather than effective :)
The very definition of implied odds is the ratio of total winnings VS the cost of calling the CURRENT bet.
If you decided to call all the way to the river you'd have to use the effective odds, which also use the implied odds.
I understand this a LITTLE bit better myself now :)
Thanks, Slay.
Louie's right: implied odds are a subset of effective odds. The way I understand these chapters in TOP is not as different concepts to use at the table but as illustrations of different mistakes players make, or different and overlapping facets to the overall problem of how to price your hand, to calculate risk verus reward.
There are basically two types of hands worth playing for value: those that are already the best and those for which you have the right price. When there are future betting rounds, the "right price" has to take into account "the total amount you might lose versus the total amount you might win," which is the definition of effective odds that Sklansky uses on p. 48 of TOP. "Effective odds" are the actual, real risk/reward ratio of staying with a hand on multiple rounds. Thinking about effective odds will prevent you from limiting your thinking to what's in the pot and what you'll have to put in the pot at any particular time when in fact you and/or others will probably have to put more in the pot later.
The illustrations in the chaper on effective odds, however, concerned errors players make in calculating their total potential loss. Players read that chapter and think: "effective odds means calculating my actual risk."
The next chapter on "implied odds" discusses the potential reward you'll reap from future betting rounds if you hit your hand. He discusses it like it's a seperate concept, but in fact it's just the future reward side of effective odds. Players read both chapters and think: "to figure my actual risk, I have to calculate effective odds; to figure my actual reward, I have to calculate implied odds."
This slight error is harmless until you get to the paragraphs on "reverse implied odds," which concern cases where you stand to win some minimum when you win but will pay some maximum when you lose. Here is a form of "implied odds" that encompasses calculating your risk, which sounds a lot like "effective odds." This is where I think readers get confused.
I think another source of confusion was using the neutral term "implied odds" to mean only a "good" thing when it "should", I think, just refer to your expected cost and rewards in the future. If so, "implied" odds can be good or bad and we can get rid of "reverse implied odds".
I play mostly Internet poker, but since the forum for Internet poker here is only used for publishing conspiracy theories, I post my question here.
A problem I have in my game is when I am BB. Since I usually get to see a lot of flops for free (playing at Paradise), I am faced with rare post-flop situations that I do not know how to handle. The most difficult situation is when a bad starting hand hits the flop.
Suppose I hold 95o. Flop is 962 rainbow. How do I play now (let's say that three other players saw the flop)? I usually check-call. And when the turn is a J? Do I check-call again?`
I do not know, but I DO know that I have lost a lot of money in these kinds of situations.
My question is: how do you play bad starting hands post-flop?
(I have noticed that playing only good starting hands saves me more money post-flop than pre-flop!)
Best regards,
Jonas
1st - I'd post this on the internet area for the reason's you stated - we need more people with real questions over there.
BUT - I'll tell you what I do and then people can disagree with me.
In your situation I would fold.
How many times will a pair of 9's win with 3 other people!
If there are 3 other players one probebly has an Ace and one probebly has a K, that's 8 cards that can hurt you. If a A or K come up you HAVE to fold. If you 2nd card was higher, that might be a different story.
Forget about the small bet, it's gone. Play the hand like a normal hand and look for reasons to fold.
I feel people "gamble" with the blinds and stay to long .
I think like real poker youhave ti know your opponents pretty well to answer that question for your self.
Playing random hands out of an unraised bb is an are in itself. I think you have to lay it fairly strong.
So bet your to pair of 9's no kicker out of the shoot with that flop most decent players missing it will muck. Letting them have a free turn is a mistake.
"most decent players missing it will muck". Well - online out of those 3 players 1 will be decent, the other two will bet all the way to the river with their 87o waiting for that 5 to make a str8.
You can't bet and make them fold because they won't!
So you are stuck! betting or checking HOPING they won't get the card they need.
Once you start to HOPE online you are beat because some bozo 87o will catch his 5 on the river for a str8.
(does that sound like I'm bitter?) LOL!!
I think this is pretty good advice. I would bet out most of the time, even though I don't like my hand all that much. I think checking and calling is a mistake. Maybe check-raise, but not-check-call. you have flopped top pair, so don't play it like a girl.
It might be harder to play in a situation where the game is extremely loose, there are lots of players, and they are all very passive and may not bet if you check, but if you bet they will all (or most of them) likely call. what would you (Rounder, or anyone else) do in that situation?
dave in cali
In the online games I've played in, there is apparently a rule against the flop getting checked. If everyone checks up to the last person, he has to bet.
With the 9-4 top-pair I either bet out, or check planning to check-raise when the above rule kicks in. But then, considering my cashier history, any choice but those is likely better. :-)
Tommy
I probably bet it out anyway - there is no really good answer to this question. That's why we play good starting hands to begin with - many of us just don't know what to do with a piece of cheese like this even when we hit it.
Hey look at it the way the maniacs who play crap like this - you have 5 outs to make a better hand and you already have top pair. Just play the turn well and you ought to be OK.
Jonas,
Reading your post reminded me of the section about reverse implied odds in Sklansky's book. These are the odds that you get when a) You're not sure where you stand with your marginal hand. b) Your opponents control the betting. c) They can back off at any time.
In these situations, the pot odds you're getting are actually alot worse than they might seem. This is because, when you WIN the hand, you will win the LEAST amount because your opponents simply WILL NOT BET/CALL their bad hands if they don't hit their cards. And if you LOSE the hand, you will lose the MOST, because you will trap yourself into calling all the way to the river, and your opponents would probably not be betting past the turn if they did not have your 9 with a 5 kicker beat.
Because of this lose-lose situation, I would say the move is usually to fold.
Hope this helps, Slay.
fd
I ran a small sim with Turbo Texas Holdem and it looks like betting is the way to go with THAT software.
lately I've been trying to formulate a check list of things I should think about at the table. One of the items is whether or not I should try to steal very often. The major factor influencing the decision is the tightness/looseness of the table. at a tight table you will have more opportunity to steal and the situation you describe is a perfect opportunity (although three opponents is maybe a bit much.). At a loose table I think it is OK to play a little bit weak tight in the sense that you usually have the hand you are representing. the second factor is how loose/tight you have been playing. For whatever reason if you have been playing many hands or have been winning many hands w/o a showdown I would tend not go for the steal because players will get suspicious.
in the particular situation you describe I would bet the flop and bet the turn. I would fold to a raise on the turn.
I think the prefect oppertunity is when you steal a pot twice (for what ever reason)and then you actually get GOOD cards. Everybody is suspicious and will think you are going for another one!
OK, what follows is how I generally play my blind hands on Paradise, but I don't go above 3/6, so bear that in mind.
Say you're in the situation above, with 95o flop 962 rainbow. You want to avoid the situation where you bet, all the players call, and a random overcard falls on the turn. You're now in a very difficult situation.
You've probably noticed that on Paradise the button usually bets when you check to them. Use this knowledge to thin the field. Check, and if it checks to the button and they bet, check-raise them. You're usually miles ahead. If they have an overpair, or a hand like A9, they'll generally make it 3 here. If this happens, be prepared to call, see a card, and check-fold if you don't improve. If they just call, bet any turn card. If they call again, usually check the river. You can often fold if they bet behind you. Because of your check-raise on the flop, they won't bluff. These are weak players remember, all they usually want to do is get to the showdown. Plus most Paradise players are prepared to call any pair on the river there, so the bluff isn't a good deal for them.
What happens if you check and someone other than the button bets? Fold your hand unless you think the bettor is an aggressive player who's trying to steal the pot. If you think he has no pairs and is on a steal, play as above.
If it checks around, bet the turn unless a king or ace falls if you have 3 opponents or less, otherwise check-fold any overcard.
Always fold if it's two bets when it gets back to you.
Hope this was some help
Chris
Your advice has been very helpful. Thanks! This is really a good forum.
Jonas
I have been delving into the world of shorthanded poker more and more lately. I have been very fortunate that a particular Asian player with money to burn for some reason loves to 'gun' for me and play me heads up or short handed (5 or fewer.)
We usually play 20-40. This player is especially bad and I have never had a losing session against him. In fact, if I am stuck in a game, I can count him making me winner after just an hour or two of short handed play.
He plays every hand. Each hand starts on the turn - IE he will usually call all bets until the turn and then evaluate whether to continue. He will never fold any pair. He will play any draw (note that some of these are draws that he picks up on the TURN. He is famous for his runner runner straights and flushes.) He will often call all the way with ace high. He is impossible to bluff. Therefore, I just wait to get some kind of hand, bet it aggressively, and then get paid off. Forget about raising heads up with Q8 suited. Since there is a 0% chance you'll steal the blinds it's not worth it.
Back to the 'gunning' part. He is more likely to call if I have raised preflop. He loves to draw out on me (or try to.) Problem is that he's not that aggressive with his marginal hands, so if he gets aggressive he usually has a pretty big hand and I can safely fold.
Against a player who plays this badly, how much can one expect to earn per hour? I have won at the rate of roughly 10 BB per hour against him on several occasions. I have turned 3BB winning sessions into 40BB winning sessions after just a couple of hours of play on a few occasions. Is this common?
-SmoothB-
You should still raise with Q8s preflop, in the long run you will make money since this hand is better than 50/50 headsup.
I think 10 BB per hour is fairly reasonable shorthanded against someone this predictable. The key is that the hands tend to go much faster, and you can play more vs. the very bad player, so your win rate should be very high.
It's expected and understandable that some folks don't like shorthanded. What gets me is this often-cited reason: "I don't like shorthanded because the blinds come around too fast."
Too fast for what? As opposed to what? Having the blinds come around more than once per round?
This comment baffles me so much that I'm all findertied trying to write about it.
Not that it matters, but I don't like full games because the button comes around too slowly.
Tommy
"This comment baffles me "
Come on Tommy, 10 handed game, blinds $10-15. One round $2.50/hand. 5 handed game, 10-15 blinds, one round $5.00/hand. What's so baffling?
Vince
it is definitely a mistake to think of the blinds as part of the cost of playing poker because the money is still out there for grabs. The only crappy think about short handed play is that it may cost more from a house rake perspective. usually, if you are nice to the management, you can get them to give you a deal. maybe charge time or pay button drop every other round.
Vince,
Let's say four guys are seated and ready to start a game and two of them say they'll start when one more player sits down. A regular walks in and over to the table, and everyone is like, "C'mon! Let's start!"
The regular says, "I don't like short handed because the blinds come around too fast."
The implication is this, "I am a tight player and I don't play many hands so it costs me too much in blinds to play short-handed."
Translated, this means, "I am a wimpy player and I usually get run-over in short-handed games. I'm scared."
I mean, in a five-handed game, doesn't everyone pay the same amount in blinds? How could the blinds be to ANYONE's disadvantage on their own?
Plus, the people who say this are rarely that tight. They play the same number of hands that typical reasonable recreationals play, which is quite a few more hands than the pros play. Yet the pros usually jump on any short-handed game. Something there doesn't add up.
Then, if you come back at 2:00 AM and the same player is stuck, he'll be sitting there rocking and rolling in a four handed game with a crazed gaze.
There are plenty of legit reasons for not wanting to play short handed. And no reasons are required. Still, we hear the same one time and again, and it's lame, it makes no theoretical sense.
Tommy
"it makes no theoretical sense. "
I was going to stop with my response to "another thing" but you now have made a "conceptual error". Boy, I hope Mark Glover, M.... and Sklansky are listening. We got this thing about "conceptual errors". I'm usually way off base when talking about them so... so what?
In fact "theoretically" playing short handed may be a mistake. In fact (there goes that "in fact" again..I must admit that I like it "In Fact"), the more players the merrier. Why if you could sit 21 players around the table it has to be an advantage. Why you ask? Well, you see, the more potential opponents the more potential for all kinds of things. More money, more mistakes (both of these are good), more... well you get the picture. So if you have an advantage playing shorthanded then you should welcome more and more players to the table as long as those that are playing continue to play. Now that doesn't seem correct. But it is.
vince
From "Elements of Style" by Strunk and White:
THE FACT IS, THE TRUTH IS, IN FACT . . . If you feel you are possessed of the truth, or of the fact, state it. Do not give it advance billing.
An expression that is especially debilitating is THE FACT THAT. It should be revised out of every sentence in which it occurs.
owing to the fact that (since, because)
in spite of the fact that (though, although)
the fact that I had arrived (my arrival)
hey Tommy,
I don't know when this became a grammar / English style forum, but the one that gets me is "due to." I hate that one....it should usually be replaced with "because" or "because of." Of course, the one that really makes me squint (probably you too) is "due to the fact that..." Now THAT's horrible style.
Scott
.
hey Tommy, thanks for the tip! I use this "fact" crap all the time. will try to clean up my act.
21 players.
I'd rather play bingo. Not kidding, I really would even though I'm guaranteed to lose at bingo.
Short handed against 1 or 2 bad players (1 in SmoothB case) you have a big advantage. 1 good player against 1 bad player. HUGE advantage. Each mistake he makes benefits YOU not 1 of the other 8 players (going back to a 10 handed game).
For SmoothB, you should hope that this asian fellow wins against soon. He'll probably quit trying if he doesn't
know this already so I don't know why I bother.
"so I don't know why I bother."
Yeah, I don't know why you bother either. I think it is rather rude of you to bother communicating with me. It seems like something only a ... Hey I have an idea. YOu don't bother openning anything with the name Vince Lepore on it and I won't bother openning anything by BetTheDraw and we will both be happy. I can live with that. But of course you already knew that "so I don't know why I bother. "
Goodbye, Good luck, please don't bother to respond, your off my read list.
vince
Hey, Bet!
As Vince knows, I am very slow.
I've just realised you have been trying to insult me in certain other posts!
My mate, Vinnie, and I are not amused.
Mike.
;-)
Which of you two(?) was I insulting?
Hmmm, I must have insulted you. Apologies, it was unintentional since my post was just to show that you probably already knew what I had posted about shorthanded.
6 more people to cross me off their list and I'll need to change my handle
8-)
Regards Mike N
BetTheDraw wrote:
"Hmmm, I must have insulted you. Apologies, it was unintentional"
Please note that in the title of this response is "BetTheDraw". I intentionally put that in the title to get the attention of BetTheDraw with the hop that he reads this. If BetTheDraw is reading this then I accept your apologies. I would like to add that when you put someon's name in the title of a post that person could be justified in believing that the post is directed towards him with the hopes that he would read it.
Since that post contains a seemingly sarcastic statement, the author should understand why the recipient would get upset. Now maybe it wasn't meant as an insult and maybe I'm too sensitive but the fact that my name was in the title made it intentional what ever it was. And if it was done simply to show a small minor point then there was no need to put my name in the title. I always question motives when I see something that just doesn't sit right with me.
Vince
Actually meant as more of a compliment.
Note that recently I decided to stop defending myself after posting. Also I decided to stop pointing out obvious poor attitudes and rude behaviour. Just doesn't pay. Literally!
In this case, I saw how easily it could have been seen as something other so I figured I better apologize. I was still thinking Mike Haven posted that response as part of his joke.
Anyway, I don't think I've ever posted anything derogatory about you or to you. Usually just good natured ribbing (like the Mike H. comment) which is the "kind of guy" I am.
Regards Mike N
Dear Bet
Speaking for myself, (not for Vinnie), rib away. I enjoy good-natured banter. I am sure that there is enough heavy stuff on these pages to keep any humourless soul happy, too.
Just don't call me Vince Lepore, if you wouldn't mind?
Thank you.
Mike.
"Just don't call me Vince Lepore, if you wouldn't mind? "
My sentiments, exactly!
Vince
Let's say, (for the sake of easily understood maths, Vince), a player only plays when he receives AA.
In a 5-hander, 10-20, he pays $660 for the privilege.
In a 10-hander, he pays only $330 for each AA.
In terms of lost hands, starting with his AA -
in a 5-hander he loses $291 of his blinds;
in a 10-hander he loses £227.
Let's say he wins $200 with his aces in the 5-hander;
and $230 in the 10-hander.
Result -
in a 5-handed game, our hero loses $91 every time he plays his pair of aces;
in a 10-handed game, he wins $3.
Hence the saying, "Three dollars, happiness. Ninety dollars, tilt."
Have you ever heard a stud player say, "I don't like short-handed because the antes come around too fast?"
No but there is a comparison that upsets some players because they do not know how to adapt. People that complain are used to playing full game poker. that was my point. Even phsycopath Feeney missed it. Wait maybe that's psychologist Feeney. I can never keep that straight.
I was not claiming that it costs more to play shorthanded. In fact if it is a time game then you may actually get more hands in per time period making the cost go down. Relatively speaking of course.
I was trying to explain in my "inimitable style" that a lot of players percieve the shorthanded game to cost more because you don't get as many hands in Holdem for your blinds and even though it sounds strange in stud they believe it is the same there also or they beleive they have to win more hands to make up for the lower starting pot. My comments were directed more towards you being "Baffled" at thier remarks than explaining that they were in any way correct.
Sheesh!
Of course a bad player will lose his money faster in a short handed game. Now wait that can't be true. Why not? Well if you don't know the answer then tuff!
Vince
Okay, OKAY! I understand now. But why does Tommy get the big explanation, and all I rate is the "better not mess with me" intimidation post. "Intimidation post" -- you like that term? Think it will now come into common usage on the net?
For the does not equal just do a search for math symbols in HTML.
John,
I'm saving my barage towards you for later. I haven't read the "tilt" stuff yet or for that matter I haven't finished that darn excellant book of yours. But when I'm done you are in for it! "Intimidation Post"? eh..
Vince
Vince... I got just one thing to say:
John,
Perhaps you better not mess with me. I'm pretty smart.
vince
Hey, how'd you do that not equal to thing?
I can vouch for that, John.
Even "I'm pretty smart" may not be the words for Vince.
You try to listen to what he says, and to understand it. I recommend the experience to clear the cobwebs.
He's a good man.
Mike.
Admitting one has "cobwebs" is a good start.
vince
You once said that straight ace was mike haven in response to my joke about Vince poting as Mike Haven. (I've confused myself)
This has not cleared things up AT ALL.
In fact, the fact of the matter, is that this new fact has, in fact, due to the nature of the post, caused me to to now consider the fact that you might be in fact Vince after all!
LOL!
It's ok, Bet. It's over, now. I was just amusing myself by funning with Vince.
For some strange reason, I feel that Vince would be the sort of player that you could easily needle into going into tilt at the table, so I have been running a harmless experiment on him, for my own elucidation and pleasure.
I have now come to my own end conclusion, so I won't be kidding around with him any more.
Back to serious discussion.
Mike.
Tommy I think you make a good point about the blinds coming around too fast the only argument, perhaps the people saying this though are not properly bankrolled to play shorthanded at the same limit they normally play (since there is much more variance). That said I probably prefer full games for a couple of reasons:
1. patience is duly rewarded, and while I can easily avoid marginal hands my opponents get bored at loosen up.
2. (similar to 1) opponents generally looser play is much less of a mistake shorthanded, but many opponents don't loosen up significantly when the game becomes shorthanded (meaning they are making less of a mistake).
3. Opponents tend to play less predictably
4. Shorthanded games often break up quickly
That said I think shorthanded is somewhat growing on me, and you can make a significant profit in shorthanded if the game has just one fish.
Shawn Keller
To all, especially Vince,
Yes, there are plenty of good reasons for a self-aware player to prefer full games to short ones, such as the ones Shawn listed.
Despite Vince's many words of explanation, I still do not understand:
1) Why a player feels compelled to defend the decision to not play short-handed.
2) Why, when they do defend, they ROUTINELY use the weakest reason of all, that the blinds come around too fast, when the real reasons, (Shawn showed some common ones), have nothing at all to do with the blinds.
It's as if a skier decides to not take on the steepest slope, and instead of explaining with, "I don't like it, it's too steep, I fell the last few tries and it hurt," instead says, "It's too cold outside."
It's cold for everyone on all slopes. The blinds come around at an equal pace for all players in all games.
Tommy
Tommy,
I am not going to try and defend anyone. I just try an understand the other guys point of view. What is it about short handed games that people do not like? Let's forget about defining short handed. Suffice it to say that some don't like games with 5 or fewer players.
Most claim as you say that the blinds come around too often. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. They feel the blinds come around too often. They must have a reason for feeling that way. The reason could be that the tempo of the game becomes increasingly faster the fewer the players. We both know that is (in fact) true. The blinds coming around faster could be just their interpretation of what is happening. that is that the game has become fast. Just an idea of what they may be thinking.
If i am correct then your analogy doesn't quite point out what is going on.
"It's as if a skier decides to not take on the steepest slope, and instead of explaining with, "I don't like it, it's too steep, I fell the last few tries and it hurt," instead says, "It's too cold outside."
I think a more appropriate anaolgy would be: "It's as if a skier decides to not take on the steepest slope, and instead of explaining with, "I don't like it, it's too steep, I fell the last few tries and it hurt," insted he says, "I don't like it because the trees come up too fast".
vince vince
.
Sounds like the perfect short-handed opponent. 10BB/hour sounds high but not by a whole lot.
Straight limit HE, loose game, medium aggressive. I'm in the SB with KK and all fold to the button (in this game, THAT in itself was a MIRACLE). Button raises and I reraise, BB folds, button calls.
I bet the flop which is Q J 8 rainbow. He raises me and I raise him back, he calls.
Turn is a total ragola and I bet again, he raises me and I call.
river is an ace. I bet and he calls.
We both have KK in the hole.
I am thinking that in hindsight my river bet was probably bad. There are not many worse hands that would call at this point, but there are lots of better hands that would call (or raise, like AQ).
Opnions?
who would bet the turn like I did? Any different opinions on the best flop play?
Dave in Cali
If he's got KK beat on the turn (such as QJ) he isn't going to throw it away on the end. So since you apparently didn't like your hand very much when he raised the turn your hand got a lot worse when the A hit.
Check.
I suppose it's possible he could have had T-T or 9-9, but the man raised pre-flop, raised you again on the flop despite the fact that you had 3-bet pre-flop, and raised you again on the turn.
Check the river.
where can i order the rotation books for basketball and foot ball. ty
ps their name is scorecard rotation books
Just wanted to make a few more comments on short handed play.
I agree that most very good players should prefer a short handed game to a full one. But I also understand why some people (actually most) would prefer a full ring game.
When you play short handed you must play more hands. Therefore you must make more decisions. Consistently making the correct decisions makes you win at poker.
People that do not like short handed play are probably going to be people that consistently make the wrong decisions. Since they will be making the wrong decision more often they will lose more money.
Very tight players who are unable to adapt to short handed play will obviously avoid it. Ironically, they believe that short handed play PUNISHES good players by rewarding loose fish. What they don't understand is that, in a short handed game, the loose players play becomes closer to the correct play, and the tight players play deviates further from correct play as the game gets more and more short handed. So 'tight' does not equal 'good'.
Let's face it - in over 80% of all full ring games, you can make money by simply playing nothing but group 1 and 2 hands and playing them at least average after the flop. Sure, you won't get rich, but you WILL make some money playing this way. There are a lot of rocks out there who don't know how to play a hand with a card lower than queen in it. So they will get crushed playing short handed - they won't know what to do with a marginal hand.
There is obviously far more at issue than simply looseness or tightness.
Loose PASSIVE players who will still play poor draws short handed will get utterly crushed. Tight players should not loose as fast as the LP types do.
As for playing tighter short handed - while this is true I don't think it comes close to the importance of playing more AGGRESSIVELY short handed.
Enough for now it's not even 9AM!
-SmoothB-
I'm going to a conference in Del Mar next month, but will be without a car. What are the closest and best poker spots to there?
The best is Oceans 11 in Oceanside. They spread 4-8 and 8-16 with a kill, 20-40 and a pot limit game. Nice facility, professional staff and the food is good. Games can be tough but a good player can make it.
Players,
There is one man that plays at my casino...we'll call him Don (to protect the guilty.) You all know Don. Don is the "unluckiest" player I have ever seen. He's ALWAYS talking about who drew out on him, how bad it was, and how tired he is of getting drawn out on (I have no idea why he keeps coming back.) He'll sit in my 10-20 game, dump about $500, move on to 4-8 Omaha, dump some money there, move to 4-8 Hold'em, dump some more money there, then come back to the 10-20 game and buy in for a rack of red $5 chips....gotta love the guy for that.
Here's one of his anecdotes...he was playing 4-8 Hold'em, and he had the nut flush on fourth street. He was heads-up against a guy who drew out a gutshot straight against his top set earlier in the game. Don was so desperate to win a pot that he bet, showed the guy his cards, and said "I'm so tired of you guys drawing out on me, just fold right now." The other guy had a smaller flush but also had a one-card out to a straight flush. So he called, and guess what. Don's full of these stories. Admittedly, that one may put me on a bit of a tilt too.
When I win a pot against Don, it's usually because I have him outkicked or because I hit my drawing hand. His starting hand selection is slightly above average (but not as good as any decent player,) his tactics are predictable, and he is VERY susceptible to going on tilt if he isn't on tilt already. When he's really on tilt, he will stay with his hand all the way to the river, even when it's painfully obvious that he has no chance to win the pot. That's when everyone gets his money.
My question for you all is this...if I know that Don (or anyone like him) is going to be involved in a hand, should I loosen up a bit and make an effort to get in the hand with him? Or should I just play my game, and if he's in the hand, so be it? I'm not an expert by any stretch, but I know that I can outplay him on the flop and in all betting rounds. If he's not on tilt, it may be worth playing marginal stuff to deliberately put him on tilt if I hit. If he's already on tilt, then he'll pay off no matter how bad he's beaten. If I see the flop and don't catch, then I'm done with the hand.
Of course, I should also consider who else will be involved in the hand...and sometimes I should get out of their way and let them take Don's money. Those players usually know when they're beaten, and they'll drop against me unless they have something too. Don won't drop anything because he's convinced that his "luck" has to change sometime....he can't be beaten on EVERY hand, can he? =)
I have a specific example of this, but I'd like to hear your responses to my question first. Any comments are appreciated.
Scott
Being able to manipulate or take serious advantage of a particular player can be very profitable and will sway your decision on LOTS of "marginal" situations. Just be SURE the situation is marginal before you make these plays.
There is no sense in failing to raise 3 players when you have a set just in the hopes your buddy may call one bet but not two.
- Louie
If he's a loose-aggressive kind of tilter, you may want to sit to his immediate left in order to isolate him. Basic anti-maniac strategy.
Remember though that there are 7 to 9 other players at the table. Don't be overfocused on just him. Beware tunnel vision.
JAWZ -
No, he just gets a LOT looser when he's on tilt. He'll typically loosen up his usual starting hands, but he'll go to the river even if it's obvious he's busted. His play gets worse and worse the more money he loses...a vicious cycle. I don't get much choice of where to sit in my games, so it really doesn't matter (in the particular game I'm thinking of, he was two to my left.)
Yes, I do realize the dangers of having tunnel vision. Most of the time, his being involved in the hand is just a minor circumstance. But sometimes, he'll be the only caller pre-flop when it comes to me...would this be a good place to loosen up my starting hand requirements... maybe raise and try to get him heads-up?
I just think it's interesting that people dump a lot of money in the card room, and they come back for more...you'd think that they would change something about their game or try to improve. He seems like a smart guy otherwise, despite his poker game. It's not that he's a big fish, it's that he becomes a big fish when he gets a bad beat laid on him. Truly, it has to be seen to be believed, but I'm sure you get the idea.
Scott
If you're sure he's on loose-passive tilt mode, he just limps, you're on the button, there are no other players in the pot, and the blinds aren't the types that defend too much, you can raise isolate him with Axs, small pairs, or any good blackjack hands like A-10, A9, A8, KQ, KJ, K-10, or even K9. Then try to outplay him on later streets.
In response to your last paragraph. Most people just don't play to win. They play for other reasons. For the thrills, excitement, and the action. To prevent boredom. To escape from life. Etc.
I'm sure most will disagree but I think that these goals aren't nescessarily irreconcilable with "playing to win". That is, I believe that you can play for these reasons and play to maximize EV at the same time - and there wouldn't be any conflicts between the two goals.
How much do you pad your implied odds when looking at drawing for a longshot since you know he'll burn through a rack if you hit it?
There's a guy in my game who's very similar, but he becomes a maniac when he tilts. I'll chase a gut shot etc for a bet on the flop w/ slightly insufficient(5-1 or so)odds b/c he'll snap if I hit it. He has to have taken a reasonably bad beat before but if he has, it's usually one more and he's gone.
I was a winner. I was great. I bought the books. I knew the the probabilities and numbers. I kept detailed records. I was killing 'em for 1000's of hours of play. But then...
I've been busted. They took everything I'd won in my life playing poker and then some. It hurts so bad. I truly belive I play tight and good and that I was unlucky. It hurts so bad, I ache to the core. Why? Why did this happen to me? Why did I go hours without winning a hand? Why did I always lose rolled up in stud or with aces in holdem. Why would I never make my good low flush and straight draws in O/8 or Stud/8. Why do I have to sit there and watch every loser and gambler around me catch lucky when all I ask for is to get average cards. I don't want to be lucky. I don't want to hit gutshots and runner runner flush draws. I just want to win when I have the edge. But I didn't, and now I'm busted. Go on tell me what you really think. Tell me how I'm just like every other gambler loose player and that I'm just crying. Maybe one day this will happen to you and no matter where you go or what you do, no matter how tight you play you will just lose and lose and lose over and over again till its all gone. But don't worry when you tell your poker friends "I got really really unlucky", they'll nod solemly and pat you on the back while they quietly think you're just like all the other losers out there.
If this is the first time you've gone busted playing poker then consider yourself lucky. I've been in the negative since I started playing this game and have never ever ever made it back to even.
As far as I can tell, playing poker means putting all your money in the pot when you have the best hand and losing on the river. Big deal. It's a game. It's gambling. There's no guarantee you won't lose to a dozen two outers in a single session (which I've done of course). There's no guarantee you won't just go broke all due to bad luck. That's why its called gambling.
One thing you can know for sure. EVERY player who is a successful name player with lots of riches from their poker winnings has been quite a lucky poker player. Period. They gambled just like you did.
natedogg
I beg to differ on your last statement that every successful poker player has been a lucky poker player.
If anything, I'd say that they have mastered balancing their luck and their skill, and thus minimizing their losses and maximizing their gains.
Take care,
Slay.
I'll agree that the top pros have a lot of skill, and maybe thier success isn't the result of luck. But they managed not to get unlucky, and that's a big difference.
it's rare to know a top player who has not gone thru a gut wrenching, soul-searching, paranoia inducing(why me Lord?), losing streak, and some never recover; or say it's just not worth it. then again some say it made them a better person....gl
"then again some say it made them a better person..."
I just finished re-reading the "My Story in Brief" and "General Poker Strategy" chapters in Doyle Brunson's Super/System......and I believe that this is one of the most important lessons that we all can learn from these two chapters and from the book as a whole.
Michael Jordan failed to qualify for his high school's junior varsity team.
Mirage 3-6, nine of the worst holdem players I have ever seen. Two of them cannot even read the board. One lady drew to Ah8h (after I raised btf with AsKd UTG) and the flop was Ks Js 7s. She called when the 8s hit on the river. Typically there were anywhere from 5-9 players seeing the flop. So what do you do with hands like AKo BTF? Raising has NO EFFECT on how many players see the flop. NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. In fact, raising on ANY ROUND has no effect on whether they continue with the hand. You will ALWAYS have the same # of players regardless of any actions you take. And they pay NO ATTENTION to what you do. I mean I folded about 30 hands in a row, then came out raising UTG and got SIX CALLERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Any sane individual would have thrown away pocket kings!!!!! (slight exaggeration, but you get my point!).
So I have AQo in the SB and SIX PLAYERS limp BTF. Here I just went ahead and called, mostly because I was out of position and I would not drive anyone out of the pot by raising.
Next I have AKo on the button and five limp to me. This time I raise because I have position and the average hand that people come in with in this game is SO MUCH WORSE than mine that I feel raising is the best play.
In both cases I am giving up implied odds to people with good drawing hands like TJs, because there are so many players in the pot. But these players will cold call my UTG raises with hands as stupendous as 94o, 38s, and even the powerhouse hand 27o. Therefore, with position, I felt that raising was the best play for this situation in this game, otherwise I would just call. Now if I was first in I would raise of course, but the only consolation was that I could feel smug because I knew they were most likely making a mistake by calling, but I knew my raise would probably not thin the field at all....
Next, the suited hands.
First I have QdJd in the cutoff. EVERYONE limps to me and I see both blinds and the button getting ready to call. Any half decent holdem player would consider a raise here, IMHO. I raised and it was a family pot. I flopped top pair with a flush draw and backdoor straight draw. Don't ask about the result, let's just say that Ts4h is a much better hand than I thought it was....
Another time I have ThJh on the button. I raise four limpers. Flop comes Ts Js 7h. Sb bets, three call and I raise. SB reraises and I make it four, no one drops. Turn is 3h. All check to me and I bet, everyone calls. River is the As. Everyone checks to me and I check. SB has TJ and we split, everyone else MUCKS!
Next I have KhJh UTG and just go ahead and raise. In this game you could practically raise with any two suited connectors and you would always get enough callers to make it worth your while.
Finally, I raised on the button with Ts9s in a family pot. I liked all these raises, but does the forum?
And Pairs, ah yes, pairs. You could practically raise with any pair in any position and you would always get enough callers to make it worth your while.
I raised from the BB with pocket 77 after all but one limped.
I raised in the cutoff with pocket 55 after everyone limped.
I limped with any small pair in any of the first six positions because it was highly likely that I would get the necessary # of callers to make it worthwhile, and highly unlikely I would get raised. The value of small pairs went up in this game....
I just called from the SB with pocket TT after exactly four limped and the BB was a calling station. here I thought it was not worth it to raise because I would have EXACTLY five callers, plus if I flopped an overpair, most all of them would draw to any one or two overcards regardless of the board, so the overpair value of my tens was diminished.
And finally, pocket QQ from the BB. Sorry Mason, I raised!!!!! This was a case where there was no way to increase my chances of winning the pot by keeping it smaller, because these players would always call regardless of pot size anyway, so I felt raising with the probable best hand was the best play. Flopped a set and lost to a runner-runner 94s flush, gotta love it!!
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
So how much did you make in the game?
I had the loose game blues before the maniac sat down, down more than 150$... then I won several large pots and got it all back plus some, namely 120$.
Most frustrating feeling in the world. My most recent "project" (and one of the most difficult) is trying to learn to stay off tilt in these situations. Keep up the non-sarcastic "nice hands" and hang in there. My last casino session was 2:45 without a winning hand, surrounded by people dragging huge pots with Q6o, but I was pleased with my play because I didn't lose it.
It was very hard not to lose it, playing against total morons and not getting a hand, then getting one cracked when I finally got one. Had the maniac not came into the game I probably would have left a loser. however, see the post above for the result...
I don't see why you're surprised at all by this, especially a california low limit regular like you.
And you even left the game winners! How could you possibly have anything to be frustrated about?
You played exactly the way you're supposed to. I don't know if I'd raise with QQ from the blind. Why not take a flop and if no A or K comes, then start jamming?
Also, I disagree that any pair is worth it in early position. I just don't like flopping a set of 2s through 5s in a game like this where you will often run into a higher set or full house when you make it.
natedogg
I agree with almost everything you said, Nate. This sounds like a very typical session when you have lots of calling stations. You've got to be able to handle this type of situation since it will come up often and not just in the lowest limits. It sounds like frustration is one of the problems here. If you miss, you just have to muck and get ready for the next hand.
The only thing I don't like about these kinds of games is that your loose calling opponents aren't making such big mistakes postflop with their calls. But you are going to hit your hand the percentage you are supposed to and you'll take down the cash as long as you keep playing and keep playing well.
One thing I disagree with you is your dislike for the small pairs up front. If I think we'll be having a multiway unraised pot, I'll play any pair from any position. Yes, your chance of meeting set over set increases when playing the low pairs, but the odds of that happening are REALLY small. I think it's a monster that needs to stay under the bed.
Frustration is a big factor in these games. Basically, even though the game was good and the players were loose, it took the maniac firing things up to win me a couple pots and get my $$ back plus a profit. Prior to that I was experiencing more frustration than I was patting myself on the back for making good plays. Most of the reason I was down was that I missed several big draws and all my big hands got cracked by loose callers. Despite this, you still have to play your best game.
I forgot to add, there was a lesson at the table. There were two $10-20 players at the table who made normal Stud rocks look like madmen! One played 64s, 86s, sometimes 98s, and the other only played flush draws. They pounded the table for about $300.00+ each.
Sounds like a normal game to me. When I play and come in for a raise they usually hunker down and get ready for an expensive round, but they still play....So I quit raising btf for the most part, it isn't worth it financially.
I say that because I only win about 30% of great hands I play. Last night playing $4-8 w/ a half kill, I got two full house's, three high straights and a couple of sets cracked in seven hours of play. I won a pot with a pair of queens with a probable broadway on the board, I was reraised by a pair of 6's with a $24.00 river bet!!! I did manage to chase out a pair of A's.
I used to bet, I raise, I check raise, I re-raise. Kd2s early is a very good hand in these games! And let's not forget the power of Q3o, or 82o. Of course they won't play 72o, 'cause that a crappy hand, unless you hit the flop.
Unless I know I can get out a few good players btf I don't bother raising. After all ask any player dropping his fourth or fifth $100.00 bill into the game, and he will tell you "preflop doesn't matter, the hand doesn't start until after the flop and you know where your at."
Your experience sounds like just another normal game. Be happy you're not playing $1-2 online somewhere....
in the games you describe, I would raise less with hands like AKo, but would raise more with big drawing hands like KQs or JTs, or with medium and big pairs like 99 or JJ. The reason for this would be that since there will always be lots of players, you can raise with hands that like multi-way pots and are getting implied odds from hands like KJo.
And what the hell is wrong with you? Of course 82o is a raising hand, this is california. Hell, yesterday I was playing in a tournament, Raised UTG with AsJs, it got reraised and capped before it got back to me, I called, flopped top pair on a board of Js T 9c rainbow (not the greatest flop, I know), bet, got raised, called. Turn was Ad, I bet, got raised, called. River was a blank, I lose to 8h7c (the pre-flop capper). But now 27o is a lousy hand, don't you know anything about california?
dave in cali
Well last night at the lucky lady, there was a totally obnoxious jerk in the game (needling players, stiffing dealers (never tipped the dealers or waitress once), constantly asking for setups, always saying "come to daddy"...) who was losing three racks and more. Then he started winning, and once he got on a roll he became even more obnoxious and started raising every hand BTF (and most hands after the flop too).. It was time to make him pay...
When you deal with a maniac, despite the debate, I am sticking with the idea that you should have him on your right. Reraise him when you have a hand, otherwise fold and save the bets when you don't. Well the seat opened that put him two to my right and away we went.
First hand, I am in the BB with KsQs. Two limp and maniac raises. I reraise, limpers call, maniac caps, all call, 4 players.
Flop is Ad Ah As. I bet out, two limpers fold, maniac raises, I reraise, maniac makes it four, I call. Despite the maniac's making it four bets, I have little doubt that at this point I have the BEST HAND. If I am wrong then I will just lose a bunch of chips, period. I am prepared to deal with that possibility. But I ain't backing down against this guy, he plays every hand like he has the royale with cheese.
Turn is Kc. I bet and maniac raises, I call.
River is the Qc. I bet and the maniac raises, I call.
He turns over JcTc and says "ship it!". I say "I don't think so, FULL HOUSE, SHIP IT!". What the hell was he thinking I was playing?
Very next hand I have AdQd in the SB. Three limp and the maniac raises, I reraise, limpers call, maniac caps, all call.
Flop is Qh Jh 9c, an OK flop but not a great one [DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!]. Checked to the maniac, he bets, I raise, two fold, call, maniac reraises, I cap, call, call, three players.
Turn is 7c. I Check, check, maniac bets, I check-raise, cold-call, maniac calls. three players.
River 2d. I bet, they both call. I show and the next player shows pocket KINGS. Maniac mucks! Go figure.... I lost the hand,but I thought I played it well against the maniac. CHARGE THEM!!! The guy with kings did not raise with a pair higher than jacks all night, this was about his seventh big pocket pair. Totally unreadable....
Next hand I played against him was a kill pot. I have Black pocket AA. Maniac limps 3rd in (what went wrong, he didn't raise?). I raise and all call, 5 players see the flop.
Flop is Tc 8d 5c. SB bets out, maniac raises. I make it three bets and SB calls, maniac caps, call, call, three players.
Turn is 6s. SB checks, maniac bets, I raise. SB hesitates then calls, maniac calls.
River is the 7d, NOT the card I wanted to see. WHERE THE HELL IS THE DEUCE OF HEARTS WHEN YOU NEED IT!!!!!!!!! At least I charged them to get there. Both check to me and I check. I turn over my aces and they both muck!!!! Who knows what they had. So I told mr. obnoxious "come to daddy", raked the pot, then cashed out....
I know, I'm bad....
Dave in Cali
nice stuff. but on that first hand: why on earth didnt you reraise when you hit the king on the turn??
Be careful too, maniacs are dealt good hands too as often as you do!!!
Very true. The big difference, however, being that the maniacs are prepared to play EVERY hand like a true hero to the river. Which means that your good cards are in reality up against random cards. AA, AQs, KQs will beat random hands very often.
It's too bad I haven't played any of these guys yet. My local game here in Norway, my only alternative for live cards actually, is probably the toughest $3-6 in the world. Tight-aggressive, it's like very high stakes limit hold'em, only without the moves (I mean the genious moves that highly talented poker players make).
lars
Even a maniac could have an higher full house that your !
I played the hand the way I did because I thought I would charge the maniac the maximum amount those times I had him beat, but if he did happen to get lucky and have the case ace, I stood to lose a whole bunch on this hand. So I never let him have any free cards, and if he raised me, I was certainly not going to fold. I was NOT COMPLETELY convinced that he did not have the ace, but I thought it was very unlikely, so I simply played the way I felt was best..
dave in cali
No, really, I'm serious. I'm not trying to whine, I'm asking a genuine question about a person's poker education. As we all start to become better poker players, we learn that tight-passive is not the way to play, and we become more and more aggressive. The problem with poker, however, is that (barring the assistance of kind folks like yourselves) it is a very solitary game. Most of us don't have anyone around to tell us that *this* play was nice and aggressive, but *that* play was like burning money. (Well, I suppose we do...but they just take your money without telling you why.)
This leads you (read: me) into that deadly ground where you know just enough to be dangerous-- to your own bankroll. As you can guess, I'm sort of in that spot now. I have been a solid but not huge winner at low-limit, just by playing tight and not very aggressive. But I know that I've been giving up +EV in the past by not pressing my advantage hard enough, and have been trying to improve my game in this area. So I'm raising much more preflop, postflop to gain control and make the suckouts pay for it, etc. And now I'm having some very poor sessions indeed.
What's really bothering me is that I'm *positive* that I'm playing much better. I haven't played thousands of hours like this yet, so maybe it's just the variance that's killing me right now-- I know that a properly aggressive game will lead to much bigger swings. I haven't had much luck, either. Bad cards, bad flops, bad suckouts, etc. So I'm trying to weather it out and keep playing the best I think I can. I'm not worried about going broke, I'm worried about losing confidence in how aggressive I'm being.
Then again, maybe it's not variance that's killing me, but that I really do suck. So my questions to you are: what happened to you when you were in this intermediate period? How did you handle it? Most importantly, what kind of analysis did you do on your own play, and how did you judge your postplay analysis to be correct and not just reinforcing all your mistakes? And what resources (e.g. books, posts, etc.) did you rely on to help you judge your play?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Kevin
Aggressive play leads to higher fluctuations in your bankroll. That's just the truth of it. I would suggest having more than 2 gears (tight vs. aggressive). Try playing your old style, and work in more aggressive plays slowly. For example, play your usual game until you're on the button or one off. Then kick into high gear and see how you do (attack the blinds with marginally steal-worthy hands).
As to having someone to discuss hands with, read Roy Cooke's book. I like it for that reason. It's like having someone let you sweat his cards. And he discusses the hands as they play out. I try to read a hand or two every once in a while. It helps.
good point.
As it turns out, is it probably not that crucial to be aggressive in loose low limit games.
In mid limit or bigger games, people will notice who the raise comes from - and then it becomes important to show the table that it is YOU (the good tight player) who is raising and not the maniac. People will fold when you bet, but not when the maniac bets. So you bet to protect good but vulnerable hands, and you let the maniac bet your monsters.
In low limit games, people don't pay that much attention or don't care. Loose players will bet your hand for you, and people will call no matter who bets, so being aggressive is not that important. (Or not AS important.)
But if you ever want to move up you must learn to be aggressive. Loose players will not be around to bet your hand for you. You will have to do this yourself.
Ask yourself a question -
Do I find myself checking and calling with 'made hands'? By made hand I mean one pair or better that has little chance of improving, but not a draw. If you do find yourself calling with these hands and not leading in the betting or raising, you will have a lot of trouble in bigger games.
Let's say you have QT of spades on the button. Flop is
Q 9 2 rainbow.
A loose player bets. Do you just call? If so then you aren't playing right.
If you think you are beaten and the pot is small fold. If you think you have the best hand then raise. If you get checkraised on the turn you can fold. Or, you can bet the turn and check down the river if you think you might be in 2nd place. But don't just go into check and call mode all the time. You might be able to win this way at low limit but you will run into trouble at higher limits.
-SmoothB-
I now know that:
1. I don't suck
2. I am in no hurry to bump heads with "Smooth".
Nice job,
J-D
You're asking a very general question so here's a general response. The phase between being an ok but mediocre player and becoming a good one is marked, in part, by a willingness to play more aggressively. Everyone probably starts out too pasive, then too aggressive. You go back and forth for awhile, it's just part of the process.
When you take it up a notch understand that you're taking more risks and placing yourself in situations that you're not used to. Until you get more experience it's inevitable that you're going to make mistakes in judgment and that some losing sessions will be worse than before. It's therefore critical to concentrate, like you never have before, on why you're doing what you're doing. Specifically, constantly review key plays you've made and ask yourself (1) whether they're typical of or similar to other plays you make and (2) whether they're any good, or instead might be costing you money.
You might want to concentrate on the other side of the equation: tightening up. Loose plays that before cost you a little (like playing QJo too early and flopping second pair) are now going to be more expensive. Also focus on how you're opponents are reacting. They're probably adjusting to your play by going passive with some good hands that they know you'll bet for them. (Which you should also sometimes be doing against aggressives, BTW). Figure out who's inclined to do this (as opposed to fish that check and call with anything) and take some free cards and show down some hands instead of banging away on every round.
Keep in mind that the object is to play correctly, not aggressively. Aggression is just a byproduct of tending to do the right thing.
If you stay in control and work on your game in soon won't make any difference if, right now, you suck (which I tend to doubt).
Tight aggressive poker works best at higher limits. At lower limits, players are simply not going to fold because of your tight aggressive play, so you need to adapt your style to the mistakes your opponents are making.
For example, suppose you have Aks in early position and raised pre-flop. The flop comes something like 9 7 3 rainbow with one card of your suite.
If this is a higher limit game, then probably 2 or 3 players called your raise, and chances are this flop missed their cards too. There is a pretty good chance you actually have the best hand now, and if you bet at the flop, you may either win the pot right here, or get heads up with someone with a weaker Ace, where you are the favorite to win. This is tight aggressive poker.
On the other hand, if this is very loose low limit, you may have gotten 5 to 7 people calling your raise. Some of these players could have just about any two cards. The chances that this flop missed everybody are low. If these players are at all observant (many aren’t), they will immediately put you on over cards because of the pre-flop raise, and you are never going to get anyone who got a piece of this flop or any kind of straight or flush draw to lay down. Even if a A or K comes on the turn or river, you will still get beat a significant percentage of the time by two pair or better. Under these conditions, betting at this flop is a waste of money. It is best to check and fold if very many players take an interest in the flop.
You need to learn to read the game conditions and decide when aggressive play helps you and when it doesn’t. In low limit games, you need to make more value bets/raises, and you need to remember that the flop, turn and river cards can drastically change the value of your cards depending on the number and type of opponents you are up against.
x
How you know you suck:
When every time a seat comes open the player to your right changes seats.
How you know you don't suck:
When a game with pros breaks while you're in it.
Tommy
Here's my humble opinion...
When i first began to study poker and determine when to move from Tight/Passive (rock) to Tight/Aggressive i tried more to understand what each action i took meant, or what i was trying to achieve by calling/raising/ or folding.
By doing this i took the aggressive approach to maximize my profits when it was what i considered the "best" approach or passive to do achieve the same purpose, depending on my hand and what i considered "likely" to happen if i raised or didnt raise. Many times i have taken the risk of having to muck a strong hand in exchange for a larger pot.
I found many valuable lessons in Feeney's book on HOW and WHAT to think as you are playing. Also i believe the two most important decisions that have improved my game is preflop : How do i want to play this hand, and what do i want to flop in order to continue post-flop? And on the flop: How do i want to act, and what am i trying to achieve by doing so?
I have found that betting/ raising aggressively as well as calling checking passively in different situations will bring in more money, yet also be honest at what you are risking and wether you can release the hand if it is no longer good should you choose to play it passively..
Again just MHO and experience...
nt
Get feedback on actual hands you have played. Start posting hands here that you are doubtful about.
It's a good investment. Honestly.
I appreciate your comments; they were all very helpful. Okay, back to the tables...
Kevin
This is directly related to Kevin's post immediately below, but I thought that it was different enough to deserve a main thread.
I am having the same dilemma as Kevin...phrased differently, how do I move from being a weak-tight player to being a tight aggressive player?
I currently play mainly low-limit and as responses to Kevin's post suggest, there is no way to be an effective hyper-aggressive player at these limits.
I've ventured into stakes up to 20-40, and when I was fairly new, I played 15-30 every day for four months and did quite well during most of that time. Of course, much or all of this could have been due to natural fluctuation--I'm not certain. But over this period (and ever since...) I've studied my 20+ poker books to death...and seem to be LESS effective than I was before my extensive study. Nevermind my results, I just don't feel like I have the killer instinct I had early on.
I am actually not surprised, and here's why (...in my opinion...am I somewhat correct?):
Books give you a solid grounding in basic poker situations and skills. From there, you must decide when and how to deviate based upon your experience. Of course, every situation is slightly (or even drastically) different. Playing "by the book" alone, while enough to keep your bankroll above water in most games, will not provide enough aggressiveness/deception necessary to compete against better opponents.
But I think the type of study that I've been going through is VERY important. When I started this study, I even figured (knew that...) something like this would occur.
1. Learn to play strictly "by the book", with little creative thinking on my part. Sure, there are times when I make plays, especially when I get good reads on players I know well. But for the most part, I've been trying to develop discipline to play a "solid" game with little deviation from established guidelines. Not surprisingly, this is THE way to play low-limit poker, and I very rarely have a losing session (though, of course, I don't have many $300+ sessions like many losing players! One of the ironies of poker.). I felt this step was entirely necessary to patch the numerous holes and leaks in my game. It would have been a difficult task (for me) to recognize my faults by simply supplementing my current play with the books recommendations.
2. Reconstruct and revamp my aggressiveness and deceptive play. The downside to arduously following step 1 of my plan is that I need to "relearn" my instincts for the game.
***** This is where I need help! Is there a systematic way to revitalize my killer instinct? I have recently purchased Alan Shoonmaker's book "Psychology of Poker" and it looks like a decent first step. What other books/methods do you better players have to develop your instincts? I realize that many things you seem to just "know", but there must be some reason for "knowing" them.
***** In addition, everyone advocates a "tight but aggressive approach." It's very easy to be aggressive when you flop top two pair or a set. But how do I determine other situations for which aggression is called for?
I know you could give the standard reply to questions such as this and not be respected any less: "There is no way to teach such things...". But I would wager that there is much good advice to be given, if only it could be put into words.
As I was writing this, Livestraddle posted a very helpful reply to Kevin's post...(reproduced below without permission) This is exactly the type of info I am wanting!
************* Here's my humble opinion...
When i first began to study poker and determine when to move from Tight/Passive (rock) to Tight/Aggressive i tried more to understand what each action i took meant, or what i was trying to achieve by calling/raising/ or folding.
By doing this i took the aggressive approach to maximize my profits when it was what i considered the "best" approach or passive to do achieve the same purpose, depending on my hand and what i considered "likely" to happen if i raised or didnt raise. Many times i have taken the risk of having to muck a strong hand in exchange for a larger pot.
I found many valuable lessons in Feeney's book on HOW and WHAT to think as you are playing. Also i believe the two most important decisions that have improved my game is preflop : How do i want to play this hand, and what do i want to flop in order to continue post-flop? And on the flop: How do i want to act, and what am i trying to achieve by doing so?
I have found that betting/ raising aggressively as well as calling checking passively in different situations will bring in more money, yet also be honest at what you are risking and wether you can release the hand if it is no longer good should you choose to play it passively..
Again just MHO and experience...
*************
ThanX!
I have found that tight and aggressive usually do not go to well together at low limit where I play. I would rephrase it to tight and selectively aggressive. Dr. Schoonmaker's book will explain a lot for you. It's an excellent purchase.
Aggressiveness has its place, ie, if you can isolate a player you can bully, but if there are more players in the pot, honestly wins the chips because you are going to have to show the best hand.
On the downside, too much aggressiveness makes [almost] everyone play tighter, and that's not a good thing in most cases.
I think as far as the books go, we have to learn how to play the basics first which means sometimes just breaking even, losing a little at first. How many of your opponents make grade school mistakes because they never learned the basics?
jmho
This might sound kinda wacky. Try appropriating a dozen bets or so before you get to the club. Think of them as spent money or found money. Then, when you're on the button or in the cutoff, take one of those bets and raise with it.
And after the flop, now and then, do the same thing. Pop it in a situation when you would normally just call.
Like I said, wacky, but I clamp down too much too sometimes, and this mental trick helps me get some jump back in my game when needed. If you do it only before and after the flop, and only with position, your plays will never be that costly, or that "wrong." And perhaps it'll release the safety switch on your gun during the turn and river when it really matters.
Tommy
I have been trying to introduce a variable method into my play to add a bit more deception, i think this would help me tremendously if i approach the game this way from the outset.
Also a few other things, i dont know if they are right or wrong, but they worked for me, wonder what others' opinions may be of these: I try to assess MY image at the table based on my first 30 hands played or not played and use the other players perceptions to my advantage, ex. if i have mucked all 30 i will loosen my standards for raising in position preflop and adjust postflop, also if i have had a higher number of "Prime" hands to start than normal i will try to assess how best to take advantage of what the other players have seen.
Also a system that worked for me when making some marginal appearing raises, i rated players hands vs. position and noted the flaws i saw, also take note of WHAT players raise and reraise with preflop. This method allowed me to make "percentage" raises to narrow the field or gain information, example of this would be this thought process, "of all the hands i have seen Player A. play in this method, i can beat roughly 80% of those, therefore i appear to have the best hand, i raise" also i know before hand this raise serves two purposes to gain information and to narrow the field, if Player A. then rr's me and i know he wont 3 bet unless he indeed has me beat, then i MUST muck the hand (barring pot odds, etc) I find too many players make an information raise and yet cannot lay down when they get comfirmation via a rr that they are beaten, of course by THIS player and your knowledge of his play.
Again just a students experiences, and MHO..
Thanks John i think this thread will benefit a lot of players...
- Ray
Some interesting replies have been posted to my main thread...ThanX!
I think many players probably reach my mediocre level and are never able to progress any further because of lack of knowledge of how to proceed from here.
Specifically, how do I introduce selective aggression and deception into my play after learning the basics?
At this point, I am a very UNinspired player. Occaisionally, I have find good reasons for getting "out of line" relative to my hand strength and usually do well when I do so. However, I think I miss an enormous amount of opportunities to bet/raise and also make a fair amount of mistakes betting when I should not.
So how do I find inspiration, particularly during the post-flop phase? Actually, I would like to be a generally tight/aggressive player, yet at times shift gears and play like Stu Unger...I can't afford to do that too often, as it can quickly burn a lot of money, but sometimes.
Or am I looking in the wrong direction, missing a crucial transition step to becoming a top player?
Perhaps you need to examine why you are playing? If it is to win the most possible money, it is a boring existance and takes a tremendous amount of study and discipline. Are you willing to be bored for most of your sessions?
If you are playing to have a good time, you won't likely be the big winner at the table. It's okay, winning isn't your number one. Do you want to win a little, lose a little and have fun?
If you want to have the most fun and and take some wild chances there is nothing wrong with this either. Maniacs have a blast when they are playing! Is having the most fun number one for you?
I don't know of anyone who can make the most money and have the most fun over a long period. They don't go together for most people. I would really suggest you understand why you are playing and go from there.
You can't have it all. At least us mere mortals can't..
Plying well is fairly boring I agree.
The next time you play 3 hand volentarly, If you did not put in a raise or were the inaital better in at least 1 of these hand you probally play a little weak.
If you check then call hardly at all you are a little weak. I almost never check and call unless i have a big draw and do not want to get raised and have people chased out.
I pretty much only check with the intention of folding or raising.
I play for fun and profit.
Boring??? Are you kidding? I can sit for an hour and play nothing but my big blind and still have a blast! Of course, most would say I'm a pretty boring person, but I guess that suits me just fine for poker.
Wild chances aren't fun for me, just a waste of $$$.
A poker game is filled with different personalities but never have I seen more rude, arrogant and unprofessional players than in my recent trip to Las Vegas.
The pros in my games didn't seem to understand that their wages are paid by the recreational players that populate the games. Rather than making the games enjoyable for these players they sat behind their sunglasses, headphones on, ignoring all at the table. When they did have something to say it was usually a derisive comment about some tourist's poor play. The smaller limit players (10/20 and below) at the Mirage were by far the worst.
I usually make 3 or 4 trips a year to Vegas, but I'm seriously considering cancelling any future trips. I'm not spouting sour grapes either. I booked a small win for my time there. Did I just catch a bad few tables this trip, or have others experienced the same behavior?
You got a taste of what Vegas is all about. If you want an enjoyable poker experience, I recommend Casino Arizona, Bay 101, or just about any room in the LA area. Others like Ocean's 11 in Oceanside.
You will be treated better just about anywhere other than LV.
Winger,
I haven't been to Las Vegas in a few years, but your observations mirror mine.
It is no wonder that many casino executives have a hostile attitude towards the poker rooms in their casino. If the local players don't wake up and start treating the tourists and hotel guests in a civilized manner, I think we will see a continuation of the trend towards fewer and smaller rooms (especially in the prime hotels on the strip).
I believe a true pro has an obligation to be social and friendly at the table. I wish more of the pros were like Tommy Angelo, John Feeney and some of the other class acts who post here.
Regards,
Rick
I play poker in Las Vegas just about everyday. I do see bad manners and the like from time to time. However, what I see most of the time is a group of people enjoying playing a game of cards together. Of course at the higher limits (15-30 & up) I have no idea what the games are like. At the lower limits, the games are pretty civil for the most part.
Good Luck
Howard
I have played quite a few hours at the mirage, and for the most part I think this is true.
There are unlikely to be any real "pros" at the lower limits, but there are quite a few local regulars. I have found that these players are a mixed bunch. Some are jovial and friendly, some are bitter and unpleasant. A few of these players routinely criticize players who make bad plays. This is a collosal mistake. I know it sucks to lose your pocket aces to 8's + 2's on the river, but these are exactly the types of plays you WANT people to make against your big pair. The correct move for you, with the losing hand, is to say "good hand". I know we don't mean it, we really mean "way to chase after those miracle cards, moron! keep playing like that and your grandchildren will be broke too". But you have to just get over it and play the next hand. Driving live ones from a game is a FAR stupider move than the bad call your opponent made to beat your "good hand". I have to agree that the players with extremely dark glasses and headphones really bug me too. I have no particular fear of them, rather they are usually just tight and often fairly weak despite their anti-social attempt at appearing to be such a bigshot player.... I do wear glasses, but they are not very dark (the key is to just put the frame between your eyes and your opponent's line of sight if you wish to conceal your eyes). I do not listen to headphones, I feel that you are simply removing yourself from the social aspect of the game when you do this.
I don't really consider myself to be a professional poker player, I don't usually play high enough, plus I have a full time job. But I do play every session as if it were a business and I want to make the maximum amount of profit. In other words, I play the same as if I was doing this for a living. I try to make people at my table feel comfortable. They don't mind losing their $$ to me, mostly because I am such a "nice guy". Also, if you socialize at the table, you can learn valuable information that someone with dark glasses and headphones will miss. I love to "talk strategy" with the moron in the seventh seat, who is spouting out mindless dribble as if he had a PhD. I just politely agree with them, never say very much, let them do most of the talking, and never give them any accurate or concrete information. But then he tells me every hand he played in the last 30 minutes and exactly how he played them and why, giving me valuable information that I can use to win his cash later....
Or I could just be an a-hole and tell him "way to chase that two outer, moron" and drive him from the game... But which way will make me more $$?
In the end, anyone and everyone who can contribute to making poker a pleasant experience for recreational players is doing serious players, and the game in general, a huge favor. And anyone who is rude, distant, anti-social, critical, or generally unpleasant to play with, should go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200$..
Dave in Cali
p.s. Howard, please email me. I would like to meet you when I go to vegas, which should be about once a month on average now that my dad lives there and I have a free place to stay....
$$$
Rude behavior and meanness are what makes the poker room fun and exciting. I don't agree with the dimwitted idea of stopping it. It's a stupid idea. Poker players, from the River Boats of the 1840's to the Wild West, the Gold Rush, the Depression, the Oil Boom, to Gardena, to the present have always been rude and mean. And thats how it should be. That's what poker is all about. That's part of the romance of poker.In fact, new players should be made to expect to be treated like dogs by the pros. And once they have, they should be proud to have lived thru it. Why change what's working? Rudeness and meanness is part of the allure of poker and the cardrooms should not fail to mention that in their glitzy brochures.
Remember that John Henry "Doc" Holiday made his living as a dentist till he ran out of patients. I can see him now, like Laurence Olivier pulling out Dustin Hoffman's dental nerves in _Marathon Man_. Well, when no rational person would "open wide" in his presence, what choice remained but to go to the saloon for poker.
Poker Veteran, poker is no longer a dark, dingy, gambling game dominated by criminals and degenerates. Times have changed. Poker has become a respectable activity played by the public at large. It is played openly by men and women from all walks of life. What will make this game survive and prosper is if a pleasant atmosphere is created which results in the weaker players cheerfully returning and giving their money to the better players. The last thing you want to do is to have losers decide they would rather play craps or blackjack instead of being humilated or made unhappy by the other players at a poker table.
nt
...I hope.
The movie Rounders proves that we poker players are still perceived negatively by the public. The fact is it is in the interest of the media (think ratings) to portray poker as if it's populated by the mob types of yesteryear that smoke filthy cigars in the backroom of a bar that's nothing but a "front" for the mafia. For example, sometime last year a major TV/Cable station decided to pull out in the last minute a Barbara Enright profile because it was too non-sleazy. This is an opportunity. But it can be an opportunity only if it is exploited correctly. For starters, poker rooms should be decorated in such a way so that it looks just like the room in the final scenes of the Cincinatti Kid. And we players should behave accordingly. With a cigar in hand (unlit of course),tell the tourist, "You're lucky there's a professional dealer running this table. If there weren't I'd be cheating you by dealing from the bottom of the deck and hiding aces underneath my sleaves." The tourist will love this because it will give him the feeling that he is inside a movie.
Yes, indeed, much of the general public still regards poker in this manner. But I guarantee that image doesn't attract new fish. As Jim stated, if new players are treated this way, they will find other, more friendly games.
Much effort has been expended recently to shed poker of this type of image, but many inconsiderate players are working against this effort. How many times do you think a loose tourist has sat in your games, only to find himself being ridiculed by some of the players, then getting up and leaving early due to this.
I know I hate being at the table with ignorant players who think that NO ONE should draw out on them and then proceed to give lectures on bad play and correct play.
If you can't humbly take a few beatings in this game, maybe you should take up quilting with my Gramma. Don't chase away the players I want at my table.
"...But I guarantee that image doesn't attract new fish." This is exactly how new fish are attracted. First they watch Rounders, or Cincinnati Kid, or one of those degenerate 60 Minutes type shows, then they get attracted to the game just like children want to go to Disneyland after watching Cinderella. Don't you see, the pokerroom is an adult version of Disneyland, you dummy!!!
"Much effort has been expended recently to shed poker of this type of image..." And it is nothing but wasted effort. Instead of trying to shed it, the poker promoters should try to promote it. They should be taught the importance of exploiting momentum and following the path of least resistance.
"...but inconsiderate players are working against this effort." Bull!!! Double bull!!!! Triple bull!!!!!! The inconsiderate players are the real heroes. The ruder the better.
"How many times do you think a loose tourist sat in your games, only to find himself ridiculed by some of the players, then getting up and leaving early due to this." Nonsense!!! When I ridicule players, they stay even longer in order to get their revenge on me and to teach me a lesson in manners. Perhaps you're not ridiculing your tourists correctly. You don't know how to be insulting with finesse.
"Don't chase away the players I want at my table." I sure hope I never see you at my table. You're bad for tourism and poker as a whole. It's people like you that make the tourists conclude that poker is too boring. An this causes them to leave!!!!
Rudeness equals ignorance.
"Rudeness equals ignorance." Wrong!!! Rudeness equals mystique. Mystique equals curiousity. Curiousity equals new players trying out poker for the sake of satisfying this feeling of curiousity. And this equals cashflow both for the pros and the cardrooms alike. Therefore, rudeness equals cashflow and profits. Finally, ignorance is you!!!
Rudeness equals mystique? Give me a break!
.
"For starters, poker rooms should be decorated in such a way so that it looks just like the room in the final scenes of the Cincinatti Kid. And we players should behave accordingly. "
I always liked the saloon atmosphere portrayed in the old west movies. I agree with both sides of this arguement. Poker is as much a "macho man's" game as seen in the Cincinatti Kid and Rounder's as it is a friendly "peeny ante" mom and pop family game. Maybe it's Binion's vs Bellagio's as far as settings go.
Vince
The Bellagio kind of looks like that hotel room where the final hand took place in the Cincinnati Kid. And the Horseshoe kind of looks like one of those Wild West saloons. But does the Stratosphere poker room look like either? No way. How about the miserable vomitous one they had at Harrah's?
I am going to be in vegas again on the weekend of march 9th. I think I will test this theory and wear something shocking to the mirage and play some holdem. I will wear my full-length midevil design cape - black satin on the outside, red velvet on the inside. Then I will wear red sunglasses, black vinyl pants, studded leather wristbands, platform shoes, and a metallic red shirt.
You people think I am joking, but I have the Huevos to not only walk into the mirage dressed like this, but to walk right up to the counter and ask for a table, then play in the game!!
Then I am going to raise the first hand I play, no matter what. Talk about an image play!
Go ahead, see if I do it. I will post the results. Then the "cincinatti kid" debate should be clearly and forever settled.
Dave in Cali
Here it is, the world's best card room: Graceland.
Velvet portraits on every wall. Lush purple carpet thick enough to hide your shoes. Fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches as standard fare. And every dealer and floorperson is an Elvis impersonator. Toke the dealer and hear: "Thank ya, thank ya very much".
Don't do it!!! Please don't do it!!! You'll end up with too many live one tourists lining up to get listed to be in your table to give you all their money!!! There would be utter chaos. Please do not do it!!! You're going to leave the blackjack pit and slot machine areas empty.
I agreed. Try the card rooms in California. Most of them are very good. No smoking with clean air also.
Just an observation. I have only been to Foxwoods once. I will NEVER go back.
I have been in New England twice since that trip and even though I was less than an hour from Foxwoods both times I did not go.
At Foxwoods, the players behavior was beyond rude, but it wasn't much worse than the behavior of the floor people and dealers!
I was at a must move table. The floor guy game over and said 'Get up. I'm moving you.'
There are so many other episodes I could relate just from that one day visit that it would take me an hour to write them all. So just suffice to say that the place sucks.
-SmoothB-
Doesn't REALLY matter to me how I'm treated but of course it does matter and I understand why you would not go back. I would go back regardless of how I was treated any 1 time.
However, I enjoyed both of my visits to Foxwoods. Was treated fine. Only thing I disliked was the "trial by fire" introduction of a new dealer into the lowlimit holdem game.
A few months ago, Roy Cooke made a trip out to Foxwoods. When I told him I was thinking about taking a trip to play there he advised against it. He said it was one of the rudest places he has ever played. He doesn't plan to ever go back.
Jim,
It's a great place. 75 tables. Poker as far as the eye can see (I exaggerate). Like I said, played there twice and was treated fine. Maybe I'm too easy going.
I know the rgp'er Ash34 (I think) had a problem there and moved to Mohegan Sun. Foxwoods wouldn't let him wear his air filter. Also once, the management didn't adequately defend a dealer against a very rude Bostonian.
Don't forget to visit the town of Mystic (20 minutes).
If you're interested, I stayed at a very nice B&B about 1 minute drive from foxwoods.
I was at the Mirage in October, and I played mostly 10-20. I did not see anything resembling the behavior that you describe. Are you sure these folks were locals? They could have been wannabe pros from out of town. Also, I am a very quiet player. Just because someone isn't chatty doesn't mean that he is rude.
A true "pro" would never criticize another persons play. In fact, I never saw anyone at the Mirage do this during my stay.
good try though. i agree w/ poker vet. i love it when people fight and argue at the table. of course i play only no/pot limit a happy game might be better at limit. at times i even try to start an argument if i think it will put a player on tilt. A happy party gambling atmosphere would be nice but that's too much to ask for in a NL game. i've won monster pots peddling the nuts between two morons trying to out piss each other.
Look, I don't want to get in a flame war, but it should be obvious from my other posts on these boards that I am an AC player. I am writing about the Mirage based on three trips as a tourist.
Below i posted the fact that i will slow-play a few hands and risk mucking a monster in return for a larger pot, three of these hands i'd like feedback on to give an example, i will post results below in another post.
These hands took place in a 6-12 limit game and a NL game, so here may not be the best place though it is easiest and in line with the other threads.
#1. 6-12 HE i have pp9 UTG, i decide to limp here and see what transpires around the table. 6 players call, all Average.
Flop is 444, here i decide to check with knowledge that if a T or greater hits the turn i will check/fold if an 8 or lower (excluding the case 4) comes i will bet out and hope to trap.
#2 NL He blinds 3-5, i have just busted out of first 200 buy-in and have second buy in front of me, I am in the SB with AKd.. all fold to MP player who makes it 40 to go, i have seen him do this with hands such as 98s KJs ppJ and AJs... based on my knowledge of his play to this point all fold to me and i rr to 100..
#3 NL HE same game.. i have 400 in front of me 3 off the button EVERYONE limps for first $5 i limp with two red K's and gamble someone behind me has a big enough hand to move, also prepared to (honestly) dump if one of the limpers rr's Announcing KK or AA in which best i can do is split...
Button a decent player raises to 75 all fold to me and i move all-in (did i overbet here too much?)
I will post results below, but i felt these examples tie in pretty nicely with both the other threads as exaples of hands i have played and what i THOUGHT as i played them.
Thank you all in advance...
Hand #1 an 8 fell on the turn and i trapped a player for 4 BBs with a 2 falling on river.
Hand #2 MP player put me all-in and announced he had two Kings.. ooops.. luckily the miracle A fell on flop.
Hand#3 Button called my rr with ppT though i felt i had announced LOUDLY enough AA or KK K fell on flop and i doubled again...
Thank you all...
Hey Straddle,
In my opinion the first hand, with pocket 9s you played way too timid. Your decision to limp was indicative of attempting to flop a set and collect from a LARGE field (even though I probably would have raised UTG to narrow it down to a few players so that fewer overcards would beat me).
But anyways, with a flop like 444, the thing I would have most DEFINITELY done is either bet, or CHECK-RAISE. This is because someone holding mediocre hands like A-7 or K-9 will be much more likely to muck for 2 bets, and thus increasing your winning percentages significantly by the turn & river in the case of overcards. Due to your failure to do this, your decision to muck if a 10 or above fell on the turn now depends SOLELY on LUCK. You have not done anything to eliminate overpairs on a draw. And even if someone did have you beat AT THE FLOP, your winning percentage is significantly increased by eliminating other players.
I have no comment on scenario #2, but on #3 with a pair of pocket Kings and a very wide field.. it is very rare that you will win. I believe your opinion to muck if someone reraised was incorrect, as you automatically assume that someone would only raise with another KK or AA.. but someone could have easily done that with other holdings, including low pocket pairs, or QQ, to maximize profit in case they flop a set.
In any case, even if the entire family limped in for the flop.. if it was me I would probably go all-in with my kings. If I had any sizable bankroll at the time, this would eliminate at least 60-70% of the limpers, increasing my chances of winning UNIMPROVED significantly. But with the entire family seeing the pot, you can almost be sure someone holding an ace and say, a crappy suited card will have you beat if an ace flops. And if it doesn't, you'll get beat by very lame 2-pair, sets, straights, or flushes.
My 2 cents,
slay.
No you are absolutely correct in you opinion, these three hands i got flamed for by my friends, yet i was prepared to gamble with a large field in exchange for more money in return.
These were the only 3 hands i got flamed for, yet i felt the reason WHY was important as the outcome came in my favor was nice as well.
I honestly dont remember if i considered the check-raise on the pp9 up front, and i can never be sure if i made out ahead on the pot by waiting till the turn.
The ppK mucking crossed my mind if i BELIEVED the player had limp-reraised with AA there was one in my mind i had seen do it before so him i was watching, i prayed on this hand that someone BEHIND me would raise as i limped with it, though my all-in i was concerned was TOO large an overbet (my only worry about the play personally).
Just was curious, though these hands WERE played weakly i think i profited more at the gamble i would have to muck. I will take this opportunity on occasion if i feel there is MUCH more to be made by slowplaying or playing weaker than normally advised..
Thank you for the response...
3-6 kill game. I have just won two pots in a row and it's my SB and I have to kill it. I post the double blind. When I get my cards, I am looking at KsQs. A very loose and relatively aggressive player raises to 12. One half-decent player cold calls the raise. BB has already pretty much folded, so I decide to call. While I would sometimes reraise loose aggressive players with KQs, I do not think it would be the best play here. I think the deception value of having just called with a pretty darn good hand might make me an extra bet or two later....
So the flop comes J high rainbow rags with one spade. I check, loose player bets, decent player calls, I call.
Turn is the 9h, making four suits on board. I bet out, semi-bluffing with my two overcards and gutshot to the nut straight. loose player calls and decent player folds.
river is the 3d. I unhesitatingly bet out, basically a complete bluff. I certainly do not expect to be called by a worse hand, so the only good that can come from this is if a better hand folds. Well, after a long hesitation, he folded.
This is a situation where I think that being first to act helped me in my semi-bluff. It appeared that my hand was stronger that it was, perhaps they thought I had caught a set or two pair on the turn or something, who knows.
comments welcome
Dave in Cali
FWIW, I do this at times too.
Conditions have to be right though. Most of the players must realize I don't play crap, and I haven't been in a hand for a while, and of course I am in early position.
I don't know that a looser player would be able to get away with it. Hopefully I don't let people do it to me.
Nice pot.
"...perhaps they thought I had caught a set or two pair on the turn or something, who knows."
Well, YOU are supposed to know before you make this sort of play. If you really snagged two-pair or better you would probably have check-raised, hehehe. As it is you got away with this bet simply because the opponent had no pair. You probably would do as well by checking the turn and when they both check, stealing the river. Or check-raising the turn.
Your play has to look natural and this time it does not. Before your steal or bluff you need to know close to what you are representing.
- Louie
OK. So maybe it doesn't matter at 3/6 where the opponents rarely put 2+2 together, but at the higher limits your bet will look so suspicious you can expect to bet paid off by Ace high or raised by a complete bust.
Dave: I thoroughly enjoy your posts, and I appreciate your running commentaries on your own play of the hand. I agree with Louie that your bet looks suspect. My slant on this one is that at that moment, the table is probably terrified of you. I have noticed quite a bit in my 3-6 and 4-8 games - particularly kill games - that if you win a few pots in a row (you had won two), you have a greater ability to run over your opponents. In my mind what you were doing was exploiting your image as a good player. After all, heehee, if you won two pots in a row, then you MUST have a great hand. My 2 cents Thanks Tim
I just reread your post and noted something that I understand is a high level play. You kept a decent player in the hand along with the VLRAP player.
You kept the VLRAP honest, and he couldn't attempt to run over you because he had to be concerned that the decent player would see him to the end.
The decent player must have thought if you went against the VLRAP, you hand was better than his.
Missed this the first time, but it is a good play!
I think I may not have actually made quite as brilliant a play as you are giving me credit for.
By just calling pre-flop, I disguised the true value of my hand (pretty good, but needs to catch some sort of flop to really be worth anything). By just calling the raise, it may appear to my opponents that I am just "playing the rush", especially since many players play LOOSER when it is a kill, particularly THEIR kill. So they may think that I called with a marginal hand. It's a feesible scenario then that I might call the flop bet with perhaps a small pair.
When the turn comes, having the decent player in the hand, (especially after he called the flop bet), helps me. The aggressive player is not going to raise me here unless he really has something. However, I was thinking more on the lines of "I have a probable ten outs", plus I knew that by betting out on the turn it would look like my hand somehow improved with the nine coming on the turn. While he was loose and aggressive, this player certainly could fold a hand. In fact, he probably folded too often, especially in the later rounds. I also figured that if the good player had some typical raise calling hand like AK or AQ, he would likely fold to a 12$ bet if he didn't pair up on the turn. I think if he had an overpair we would have heard more from him by now. So I believed there was at least some chance to win the pot outright, albeit probably a small one. But I also knew that I might set up a river play which would win me the pot, or I might catch a card that helps me and win it anyway.
In the end, I am not convinced that I somehow made a brilliant play here, it was just worthy of discussion. Louie had an interesting angle on my play and how it might play out in a higher limit game....
Dave in Cali
I have been having trouble with the concept of what constitutes aggression versus overplaying your hand. This is a common situation which I often face in the Mid limit holdem (10/20 to 20/40) in which I play.
You limp into an unraised pot, with a hand like JT/QT and flop top pair. An aggressive player to your right bets and you raise to try to get heads up. All fold to the aggressive player who reraises. What is your play? Reraise or just call to the river. Same question when your positions are reversed and he raises your initial bet. Do you reraise to try to regain control? Remember this a good agressive player, not a maniac, but a three bet does not automaticly mean he has the better hand.
Thanks, Calvin
While his raise doesn't mean your middle kicker is beat it DOES mean its PROBABLY beat. ReRaising in this situation will cost you immediately. This loss can be made up if "regaining control" will do you some good like getting his better kicker to fold along the way (or you can get a "free" (yuuuuck) card).
But that's unlikely since HE is probably getting the right odds to pay you off. Once the opponent is committed to showing down his hand being "overly" aggressive looses a lot if its appeal.
Call him down. Next hand.
- Louie
OK. ReRaising may also intimidate him into playing more predicatably later.
Calvin, against this type of player who could be 3 betting with a worse hand but also would 3 bet with a better hand, the only thing you can do is to simply call him down all the way to the river in most cases. You must make sure you are not robbed here in a heads-up situation like this. He may decide to check the turn or the river anyway if you keep calling. Win or lose, he will know he cannot run over you and that he will have to end up with the best hand.
As an aside, big bet players who play in a limit game are notorious for playing this way. They think they can simply bet someone off a hand when they know they can easily be beat. What usually happens is that decent limit players learn to simply call them down and take their money happy to have the hand bet for them.
One point: a lot depends on the position of the opponent and the texture of the flop. When he's on your right and if he limped early and the flop was, say, J-6-2, your J-T doesn't look too good. If, say, he limped on the button, and the flop is J-T-3, he might be on a draw and might even have a smaller kicker than you, figuring since you're in the small blind you could have any kicker. (I know you said you limped and being in the small blind doesn't really qualify as a "limp" but I think the point is valid nonetheless.)
When he's on your left, it's hard to get control. Again, his position is important in ascertaining how strong his hand might be.
An aggresive player is using money as a weapon, possibly along with position, with potential or marginal hands.
An overplayer is making bets, raises, or calls that are simply not justified by holding or position.
With aggressive players, its seldom a one hand situation. You cannot let them run over you, so you will get stuck to the river and lose when they do hold. To me its more of a matter of playing my own hands and not being influenced so much by agressive play. But with someone who shows cards that do not merit their actions, I may be more cautious but also possibly aggresive myself, particularly if heads up.
In a sense, if I feel a player is agressive, I tend to play my own cards based on value somewhat discounting their raise.
If I raised an agressive raiser, with flop top pair and middle kicker, and was reraised, I will probably call and go from there, not so much based on this hand but more to not allow him to overrun me. I can't do that every time but I did chose to play this hand and I HAVE SOMETHING and he is agressive. He is a big question mark.
Whereas with an overplaye HE DOES have something.
For you players who are winning players (around at least one SB per hour, closer to 1 BB per hour) in the lower limit games either online or live (below 10-20), how many hands do you enter per round in a 10 handed HE game in the following situations? I think I play too many hands, so I would appreciate the input of winning players, thanks!
1. In any position other than the big blind (I think I play 2 hands per round here, which I think is my leak).
2. In the small blind (I think I play .4 hands per round, another of my leaks? I play 67o with 3+ limpers, JTo with 2+ limpers in front)
3. In the big blind not counting free plays (I play .3 hands per round when I have the pot odds but not the "number of player" odds, for example, raised pot, only 2 players, but 5:1 pot odds to call with my 33)
Thanks!
Unless the game is really loose I see 10% to 20% of the flops PER HOUR. If there is 6 or 7 way action on every hand i might see a few more flops in late pos.
I probally only bet or call 2 river bets a hour.
I have no statistics, but if you are playing 2 hands per round in all positions besides the blinds, plus the # of blind hands you are playing, you are probably playing too many hands. I estimate that I might play 20% of ALL hands (including calling in the blinds and free plays in the BB). I am admittedly slightly looser than the "book" value of 15%, but I generally play in very easy games with weak players. I rely on my post flop abilities when I am playing slightly less than stellar hands. I STILL require SOMETHING to enter the pot, calling with J8o in middle position will not cut it. I suspect you should tighten up and your results will probably improve over time. Also, if you are playing 3-6 with a 1$ SB, you should NOT be playing 76o and other such trash. If you're playing 2-4 or 4-8, it's still a borderline fold most of the time, if not a clear fold. Playing trash in the SB is a sure fired way to lose $$. Overdefending the BB is also a sure way to lose cash. In both situations, you are simply out of position, so you must consider that when deciding whether to play or not.
dave in cali
This is the way I see it, and how it works for me. I may make the 1 BB an hour, but it might happen in one game in one month, perhaps two or three hours. The rest of the month may be average to poor. I can't say this is the best approach, but it works for me....
If you are playing typical LL game, say $4-8, it will cost you ~$18.00 an hour to sit at the table if you throw away every hand. When the cards are not favorable, you need to create a situation where you can make the blinds for the next hour. You can do this because the cards stink and you are acting like a rock. People will give you credit for a hand now and then even though you don't have one. If nothing else steal the blinds when the occasion presents itself, as long as you can make the blinds for one round for free.
Then you sit patiently or leave when you can't take it any more. Eventually you will pull in some serious pots in [because you are a solid player] and there is your 1BB an hour spread over your last sessions.
Thanks Mike and Dave in Cali, two great posts!
I'm usually one of the tighter players at the table, but I see I'll have to tighten up even more!
Fairly average 4-8 game, I get red pocket TT UTG and raise. An OK player cold calls and both blinds call, 4 players.
Flop comes Kc 7c 3d. Both blinds check. I bet out.
This is a situation where even though an overcard came to my pair, I felt I should bet. Two of three opponents have checked to me and only one remains to act. If I bet into him and get raised, I can safely fold. There are 8 bets in the pot now, and if he raises, there will be a total of 11. If both players cold call, there will be 15 when it gets to me, thus giving me 15:1 odds. If this were to happen, it would be very likely that one of the blinds would be on a club flush draw, or else have a hand that beats pocket tens. In any case, it will be doubtful that the implied odds will be high enough to make up the deficit for the needed 22:1odds to try and hit a set. And the possible flush draw means that one of my outs may be no good. So if it gets raised, I am going to fold. If the board were rainbow the situation would be somewhat better, but I would still fold anyway because I could not be guaranteed to make up the 3.5 BB needed (just to break even).
So as it happened, only the SB called.
The turn came the Jh. She checks to me and I bet again. I am putting her on a club draw at this point. I do not think she has a king, though it is possible she might have just paired jacks, but it's hard to tell. She is basically a calling station and fairly difficult to read. She probably folds too much on the river though, making it more likely for me to try and bet her out of the pot on the end, depending on what comes.
The river is a complete brick, the 2h. She checks and I immediately bet out. She hesitates for a few seconds, then folds. I don't know what she had, but had I checked I think she would have won the pot with jacks. I suspect that my opponents put me on the generic raising hand AK, which is basically how I played it....
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
I can't tell why you put this calling station on a pair of jacks. And wouldn't most loose players call you with a pair of jacks on the river?
I think the better play would be to check the river, as I don't think a better hand will generally fold here, and very few worse hands will call (especially not a busted flush draw).
A King-high flop with three opponents is really bad because there are so many limping hands which contain a King. With two or fewer opponents betting is clear. I would check with four or more opponents. Three is right on the cusp. I think betting is right but the two flush hurts. You showed good follow through on the turn. But when you get called, I would check it down at the river. If she was on a draw it didn't get there so betting is pointless. If she has a King or a Jack she is already decided to play it to the end having called all the way so she won't be folding.
i think betting it out to the end is the right play!she might call you from a sb,bb w/ a bad king or jack.she must put you on a power hand w/ the pre-flop raise.i play& deal alot of $4-$8 hld-em,i see alot of pots lost on a check at the river.you check she puts you on the flush draw, and calls w/ the bad king or jack.bet till you have reason to think your beat!
I've ordered HPFAP printed 1999, ISBN 1880685221.
Is this the 21st century edition?
$$$$$$$$
.
.
coming to vegas for first wsop.if icome in on monday may 14 will i still have time to play a few satalites?where is the best place to play?please replythru 2+2 or e-mail thanks mike
Two plus two has a link to the WSOP website. All the answers are there.
where is the best place to play in san diego? I know there are many places. Which are the best and easier games in all limits?
viejas....8-16 kill game... is it hard?
lower limits 3-6kill
suycuan.... 8-16 kill 10-20 game... 3-6 oceans 11
what about these I've never been to...
Ace'e Duce'e Cardroom - 4744 El Cajon Blvd. - 619-284-9343 - Poker Criner's Card Room - 2974 Imperial Ave. - Poker Lucky Lady Cardroom - 5526 El Cajon Blvd - 619-287-6690 Tables: 7 - Poker My Place - 4226 University Ave - 619-281-4804 - Poker Palomar Cardroom - 2724 El Cajon Blvd - 619-280-5828 Tables: 4 - Poker Tracey's Cardroom - 1509 47th Ave - 619-264-9553 - Poker the villages-chula vista
Please let me know if you have been to any of these places, what games you played and how they compared to other san diego poker rooms
thanks stud
I didn't see Oceans 11 in Oceanside - it is the only card room in that area I have played in and I thought it was a positive experience. The 10-20 was a good game - I sat in at around 10am and the same faces were there from the night before - it's a well run room and the tournaments are 1st class too.
Did you say it was the only one in the area you ever played at or the only one at which you had a positive experience?
Thanks.
The only SanDiego area card room I have played in.
at times I truely hate the game because it is so much fun.
Look at the bright side. You had many many hours of enjoyment and only a few of nightmare!
(well - I had to think of something.)
99% of the poker books out there tell you how to play this hand and how to play that hand. Bottom line is: without discipline and game selection, the play of hands don't mean shit.
Discipline and Game Selection are EVERYTHING.
Thanks for the post. A good message to all who play online.
Those games go so fast - if you go on tilt for 3 hours, it's really like going on tilt for 12 hours. Two tables, twice as many hands played, etc.
-SmoothB-
100 % true.
AND so easy to get into a bigger game. In live arenas it can look intimidating to see the bigger stacks etc.
I do the exact same thing my friend, except it sound like you are much more disciplined then me. I will (for example) start out with $100, play $2-$4 for about 3-4 hours, get up to $130-$150 and then something stupid will happen and I can just feel the negativity flow through me. And then my bankroll disappears.
I tend to play a lot better in real life then on-line. I don't know why, well, I think its because I'm a social poker player, I'm there to make money, but I'm also there to talk to people, have a few laughs, and just have a nice night out.
I take poker seriously enough where I read news groups, i play whenever i can, i study it and read books, as well as analyze my play. And it always comes down to discipline...
I appreciate the positive feedback, especially on such a "whining" type of message.
I put in another $50 again that night and played a measly $.50/$1 game until I was (no surprise) down to $30. So I said screw it, took my remaining $29 and went into a heads-up $3-$6 game VS a guy with $200.
I figured, if I was going to lose everything, I might as well have some fun. Surprisingly enough the guy was awefully nice and we chatted during the game. We both went real easy on each other, but I somehow outplayed him (or just got lucky probably). Went to sleep that night with $130. It made me feel slightly better, but the irony of the whole thing is still a little upsetting. Because now I'm no longer playing just for kicks and "hopefully" to win, now I'm playing to get back up to where I was before. It's not as pleasant a situation, but I'll take it slowly in $1-2 games and try to be the wiser.
Thanks again to all who replied, It's like a big family up here :)
Best of luck,
slay.
4-8 HE. I’m on button in Seat 6 with 9 10 spades. Six callers to me so I throw in 4 chips to see the flop.
Flop is 2s7h8s. I like it, spade flush and open ended straight potential.
Its checked all the way around to me. I bet. Only seat 2 and seat 4 call.
Turn is 4c. No help to me and unlikely help for others. Checked to me. I bet. I am a clear winner at this table with a strong image and I think unless someone has anything, they won’t call. Seat 2 folds but seat 4 calls. At this point I am committed to bet on river. The river is 4d, pairing the board. Seat 4 checks, so I bet.
Since Seat 4 is parallel to me I can’t see him entirely. So I am waiting because I can slightly see his hands. It seems like a bit long in time (perhaps only a few seconds) and I look again and see two stacks ( 8 chips) in front of him. So I assumed he called. I’m dead. So I toss my cards face up along with the flop. My cards are not fouled and clear for anyone to see. Now the dealer brings his bet and my turn bet into the pot.
Here is what happened. The dealer had left my turn bet and Seat 4 call in front of both of us when she dealt the river, perhaps to speed up the game. Its only heads up.
My turn bet was extended out but my river bet was closer to me. I was not paying attention to this aspect. When I saw the 8 chips in front of him, I assumed it was his river call, but it actually was only his turn bet.
As soon as the dealer sees my cards and is probably wondering why I am throwing in my cards, she pulls my turn and his river bet into the pot!
Now seat 6, after seeing my hand makes a call with JQ to win. I argue with the dealer. I know I can’t be awarded the pot but her conduct clearly cost me the pot. One player even asked Seat 4 later if he would have called and he said no.
I suppose I can bear some fault in not paying closer attention.
One lesson learned. It is important to insist that the dealer perform all steps completely and in sequence. She should have dragged the turn bets into the pot before dealing the river. It cost me the pot!
im sure some of the other posters would tell you it was all your fault.
if you want to hear about a story about a dealer costing you the pot, heres one:
final board is something like 984 6 5 .
its heads up and i bet, crazy woman agonizingly calls.
i roll over my JT and she says something like " you $#%%#%# dealer, %$%$ %$$" as she throws her cards at the dealer. one goes face down in the dealers tray, and one goes face up.
the dealer calmly picks up the cards, announces the crazy woman has a pair, and pushes her the pot.
the crazy woman says "sorry i cursed you".
ha ha.
and im sure some of the posters would say that it was partly my fault that i didnt get that pot.
brad
here is a case of two players both costing themselves the pot and thinking it was the dealers fault. it was fartly of course but only half. zen didnt watch and lost on his own with the dealer making a small mistake. brad won the pot as when someone throws their hand into the dealer and it hits the tray it should be declared dead. the dealer is not at liberty to expose any cards face down at any time. you should have gotten a ruling and claimed the hand went into the muck and the tray. as ive said many times never let a dealer make a ruling type of decision that goes against you in a poker game. thats what floorpersons are for:) but you may have been taking a shot if you exposed your hand trying to get her to fold thinking you had something but thats her duty to see what beat her.
right. i was very inexperienced and didnt even know to muck my hand on the end when im bluffing with nothing. wont happen again. it was pretty funny though.
brad
bummer that you lost the pot. just one comment, it makes the game go way faster if the dealer burns and turns and THEN pushes the previous round bets into the pot. It can create some confusing situtations but it is your right to ask what the heck is going on if you are not sure.
I hate the #1 and #10 seats next to the dealer. You have to strain to see the action on the opposite seat next to the dealer. One dealer got impatient with me when I was in #1, because I was waiting for #10 to act. He had motioned a check and I hadn't seen it. I told him that he had to help me out and announce whether #10 check, bet or called, because I couldn't see him. He then said, "When I look at you, that means it's your turn." What a jerk! Of course, he never always looked at me - often busy talking, etc.
Papio
It's really hard to say what will make me quit.
During my losing session I've switched tables several times, which usually helps. This time it only gave me those "bad beats" and whatnot.
I'm recovering now, doing pretty good actually. What makes me quit? Well if I run out of my bankroll I'll obviously stop playing for the day.. but I don't have set boundaries other than that.
I guess like most books say, when you're no longer the "favorite" to win, you should stop.
I try and follow that advice.
Take care and thanks for the input, slay.
What generally is the best strategy when first in with 5's, 6's, 7's, or 8's in the seventh, eighth or ninth position.
Fold, call or raise?
Thanks
TR
Raise if you think you have a shot at stealing the binds, or you can out play the couple of callers you are likly to get.
Other wise fold, you will not be getting the odds to flop a set. 88 might be a close call but i would rather raise.
PokerPL,
I must ask why it is you say that he will not be getting the odds to flop a set. If the table is relatively loose, he will almost always be getting enough odds to call in hopes of a set. The implied odds in this case are, as suggested by Sklansky, with only a few callers 15:1. More than enough to see the flop, and to fold if you flop nothing.
Of course if the game is extremely tight, raising with the higher pairs might be an alternative.
Slay.
EV stands for Expected Value. The concept is discussed in several 2+2 books including Getting the Best of It and The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky. It is also discussed in many other books. The concept is that when you make a bet and the odds are in your favor there is an expected profit you expect to earn on each bet irregardless of the outcome. In you made enough of these bets to get into the "long run" your total profit divided by the number of bets will approach your Expected Value for each bet.
I just completed my annual trek to Las Vegas with four of my buddies. The time and effort that all of you spend on sharing your knowledge and ideas is truly appreciated. I formerly played blackjack and just rested at the poker table when counting the cards made me too tired. This trip I played only HE and had a great time. I'll post a couple of the hands.
Thanks to everybody posting on 2+2.
Bob
Even if you LOSE all your $$ playing holdem, the entertainment value is way better than blackjack ever could be. Besides, how long will 100$ last at a 5$ blackjack table? But you could play on 100$ for hours in a low limit holdem game (unless you are a maniac or get extremely unlucky early). The if you make a little effort to play well, you might even squeak out a small profit....
You say your bankroll is about half a thousand? The loss you took is nothing then considering you were playing 5-10.
Well, Jurgen, I started off with $2-4, and tried to recover some losses in 5-10, which isn't my "usual" game. I usually select the games I play by my current bankroll at that time, which expands regularly.
Take care, slay.
I have thought about this and I believe that the reason is that quads are somewhat easier to make, or made more often, than in holdem.
In holdem, if you have QQ you are going to play the hand. You have no idea where the other 50 cards are.
But in stud, if you start with (QT)Q but you see both queens and 2 of the other tens are out then you should pass, especially if the game is loose.
On the other hand, if you have the same hand but no other queens, jacks or tens were out you would be much more likely to play the hand.
In stud, you are more likely to play hands whose cards are live - meaning obviously that the deck is enriched with cards that will make the hand you are shooting for. Consequently you will MAKE the hand you're shooting for more often than in holdem.
That is why, for a good player, a 3 or 4 flush will develop into a flush more often than it will for a worse player, or in holdem. A good player makes sure that, when he starts out with A T 4 of spades, very few or none of the other spades are already out.
In holdem you get to see fewer cards so you might stay with a flush draw, not knowing that 2 other people have flush draws and you really only have 5 outs instead of 9.
I could be completely wrong and it might turn out that quads come up just as often in both games, but this is the reason I have invented to satisfy myself.
-SmoothB-
But in stud, if you start with (QT)Q but you see both queens and 2 of the other tens are out then you should pass, especially if the game is loose.
Of course it is rather difficult to make quads with your cards dead.
Heh.
Reason the Jackpot is higher is probably cuz there are more rat holes for hole'em than stud.
Seems to me they occure about equal although I don't recall any giant stud JPs but do recall many giant HE JPs.
maybe someone will provide some stats to clear this up, but I suspect that HE jackpots get higher because of the rule that both hole cards must play. It probably occurs much less often in He than stud because of this rule, but this is only speculation on my part.
... extending Tom's fine post ...
So if the casino offered you an even money bet when the odds against you are 20:18 (such as Roulette, where there are only 18 red numbers but 20 non-red numbers), then we can calculate your EV:
You win "1 bet" 18 times and lose "1" 20 times out of 38 chances; (18-20)/38 = -2/38 = -.0525. This means on average you lose 5.25% every time you bet Red in Roulette. If you bet $10 100 times you would expect to lose $52.50. Actual losses, of course, vary about this number.
- Louie
Yeah, I guess it's basically the Expectation of a hand that Sklansky talks about in Theory of Poker. He just doesn't use the acronym EV or anything.
I was just curious about it's origin. Thanks to Tom, and once again to Louie for your responses.
slay.
?
Generally I hear people call this "getting sucked in."
I think if you really look at it, however, you will find that what you are really talking about is playing dominated hands. While most of us know the easy definition of domination (having 3 or less outs), the real principle of domination is that you can make a hand that is not best but looks best (or even tempting). Usually this means you hit the flop fairly well, but are still second best (as in your AK example).
For instance, if you hit top pair you will usually think your hand is likely to be best, but if someone has you outkicked you are likely to lose much more than that loose cold call originally cost you.
As to offsuit connectors (like 98o), yes they will be often dominated but not as much as you might think in a tight game if noone has raised. This is because your opponents are unlikely to have a large or even upper-medium pocket pair, and are also unlikely to play low cards like your 9 and 8. Of course they still sometimes will, in hand like T9s or A9s, and I certainly don't recommend playing 98o, but it may not actually fall into the category you are suggesting.
David
PS There are 5 aces in your original example...
I'm not really talking about dominated hands perse.
IE 98o is not really a dominated hand because when you play it you aren't trying to flop top pair and win with it - you want to make a straight.
But I do think that when you call 1/2 BB with it in mid position you are really throwing away MORE than 1/2 BB. You will pay a lot of money to draw correctly, and will miss most of the time. When you do make a straight, you will not do it often enough to pay off the initial investment.
And sometimes you will make the straight and end up paying off a bigger straight, a flush, or a full house. (Or worse.)
-SmoothB-
I know you weren't talking about dominated hands. I just think that the class of dominated hands is mostly the same as the class of hands that have an EV of calling preflop of worse than -0.5 BB. Of course what constitutes a dominated hand varies depending on the other hands that are out, and even how they will be played.
Sorry. Take the ace out of the flop. There, that's better.
-SmoothB-
Four players left in the hand. After the turn card is shown, Player #1 bets, and is called by Players #2 and #3. Player #4 is seated in the #1 seat at the table, and the dealer missed the fact that the guy was still in the hand. He burns and turns the river card before Player #4 had acted.
I was not in the hand, but it appeared that Player #4 was going to call the turn bet. He had cracked his stack and put chips in his hand, but the casino's rule is that until the chips leave his hand and are in the pot, it is not officially a bet. The floorman is called, and his ruling was that the river card would be removed and reshuffled into the butt of the deck, regardless of whether or not Player #4 called the turn bet. He did actually fold, the dealer reshuffled the exposed river card into the butt, and a new river card was turned over.
I thought that the ruling was that if the player who had not yet acted before a new card was exposed folded, the new card remained in play, and the betting carried on. If he wanted to call, then of course the prematurely exposed card would be replaced.
Was this a bad ruling? What is the norm elsewhere?
This is, to my knowledge, the correct ruling.
If the rule were that the river card would remain in play if the player in question folded, that would create all sorts of problems.
-SmoothB-
right rule as then the last acting player determines what the river card would be. suppose a flush card came, he might fold letting a friend win it or a live one or maybe he wanted to see someone with a set get beat. get the drift.
I understand the feeling. I went through something similar recently. I had been winning steadily, and about 3 months ago, I went into a tailspin. I have managed to limit the amount of times I've been on tilt, but I've been losing steadily since. I severly limited my playing time to the times when I'm in the right frame of mind and rested. I have also gone back to the beginning and tried to honestly evaluate my play(that is the hard part by the way). I have found some leaks in my game, and I'm working to correct them.
One difference in our situations is that I don't play online. I spend all day in front of a computer screen(I'm a tech guy by trade), and I have very little desire to spend additional time with a PC when I'm not at work. I can't speak to how the online game might affect a downturn only to surmise it might make it easier to play too loose and lose more because it seems even less like money than casino chips.
As with many other things in life, it takes time, patience and work. I hope to get back on my "A" game soon, and I hope it works out for you as well.
Just my opinion,
Fitz
You'll get barred. I hope. Better yet, placed in prison. I look forward to reading your "Vegas Trip Report" - which you will be posting from a Las Vegas jail somewhere in the dessert where you will dehydrate.
...but Hold 'em has community cards.
Implied odds
Hands tend to be higher in stud than hold'em.
I may not have the answer but I do have an observation that I don't think was mentioned yet.
Whenever I play low limit stud after having played a lot of Hold'em, the one thing that always sticks out like a sore thumb to me......... the sloooooww pace of low limit stud. That slow pace is bound to contribute to the jackpots being smaller.
Good Luck
Howard
Does the term "implied odds" EVER apply before the flop? I don't know. If it doesn't, then what Smooth is talking about should not be seductively mashed with the implied-odds concept. If it does, then perhaps Smooth is introducing the idea that implied odds can be negative.
Tommy
Reverse implied odds is an okay description, perhaps.
I think that what you are decribing is (more or less) the definition of negative expectation.
Eric
I don't think there is much you can do except lose your ass...
Hold'em
February 2001 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo