![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
I've just had a very, very depressing losing session in a game online where I usually play.
I'm not sure exactly what happened, but I know after a while I stopped playing my best game. I've lost a bunch in $2-4, then went and played $5-10, where I lost a ton more. Lost, lost, lost... bye-bye entire bankroll and winnings of just about half a thousand. Not the amount I'm worried about, but it took me weeks of good ENJOYABLE play to make that money, and now it all goes down the drain. Why is that? I admit I was playing for money this time around, but that shouldn't stop me from winning. I went on a tilt a few times even, but recovered.
Ahh... how depressing. What makes it more depressing is the fact that I can't just stop playing.. I love the game too much.
Hope your games work out better than mine, slay.
You admit to less than good play, probably in playing too many hands.
When you have had a short history of small but consistent wins it may falsely appear that it is due soley to good discipline. In fact, its a combination of good play AND decent cards. So when you start losing, its possible to feel that it will turn around because you are playing good.
There ARE times when a game is good, but you are losing, and you stay and make a comeback. However, you should balance your personal analysis into two parts when falling behind.
How do you maintain good play in spite of losing, AND what are the circumstances when you should just quit.
The second aspect may be far more important than the first!
I have experienced the same. After I retired I played a few hours almost every day at a local club and was a 3 out of 4 times winner over 30 or so sessions. But I would have a bad loss once in awhile and give back a lot of my winnings. It had more to do with not quitting that poor play, althought poor play was a factor too.
My overall play has improved most in that I seldom have a big loss. I just take my licking and quit. In a 4-8 game I usually buy in for $60 and rebuy once for that same amount. If I lose that I usually just quit.
There has to be something special about the game, like 6 callers every hand, that may make me stay beyond $120 but even then if I get in two racks, I'm homeward bound.
One thing you need to do is decide in advance, what will make you quit?
ugh, I just typed a whole message and lost it cause I forgot to type in my name. anyway,
Zen, you say that you generally do two buy-ins. $60 and then $60 more if you lose it. I used to do something like this (but much worse) but I don't think it's the way to go. Instead, I argue, you should buy in the whole $120 and then leave if you lose that.
here's why:
1) A bigger stack in the beginning has positive psychological effects.
2) With a small stack you may not "allow" yourself to play agressive when certain hands require agressive play. When you have plenty of chips, this is not a problem.
3) Going all in is bad when you're the winner, and if you have enough chips this can't happen.
On the other hand, though:
a) some people are too loose when they have big stacks.
b) the player has to be able to quit after losing the $120.
Now I really don't play poker without doing at least 40 times the small bet.
--worm
when you're losing AND in a bad frame of mind, NEVER EVER jump up to a higher stakes game in a "bold" attempt to recoup. when you're losing and not on tilt but feel your bankroll is threatened, NEVER EVER step up to a higher stakes game to recoup. the anxiety will compromise your play. when you're losing and think you're handling it well, NEVER EVER step up to higher stakes game, because that's a telltale symptom that you are in actuality NOT handling it well.
climb the ladder only when you have been winning with regularity, have a secure (and enhanced) bankroll, and be prepared to seesaw up and down between games for a while as you gradually adapt to the wider swings you'll experience on the way up.
I have played quite a bit at Foxwoods for the past two years. If you want to play poker in the Northeast it's the only game in town. I have never been treated rudely. I agree that Vegas and a lot of other places do provide a more "friendly" atmosphere from both the employees and patrons alike. But because Roy Cooke is a pussy doesn't mean that it isn't worth playing at Foxwoods. Excuse me if I used the word "pussy" in such a pussified manner but my dandy, I mean dander is up.
vince
Hey Vince,
Could it be that Roy ran afoul of some out-of-town desperados in for the big tournament? Obviously, he didn't meet the nice guys--you and me. Well, you anyway, cause I'm not too sure about me.
John
Roy Cooke is not the first Vegas pro I've heard blast Foxwoods. I have a good buddy out there that plays nothing but stud. He hates Foxwoods with a psssion. He visited here last November and told me it was the worst experience of his life. He dissed the dealers, floor people and players alike. What amazed me about his comments was that even though he acknowledged that the stud games were much better at the Woods he would never play there again. I get the impression that Cooke feels somewhat similar about FW. Of course Cooke plays Hlldem and when he was there I would be surprised if they could keep a 20-40 game going. Holdem in CT would not be to Cooke's liking in my O.
I refeered to Cooke as a p---y in my last post but after thing about what my buddy told me I come to the conclusion that Vegas pros are spoiled. I was weaned on Casino poker at the Taj in Atlantic City. When they first opened it was a free for all amongst the patrons. Lot's of screaming and yelling with not much control from the inexperienced floor people and dealers. So playing at Foxwoods is old hat for many Northeasterners. I think Poker Vetran would love it ther. Sometimes all hell breaks loose and machoism reigns. The reason why this continues is obvious. It's the only game in Town. Vegas Casino's must contend with the competition both real and percieved to attract their customers. So they treet things differently. They also have been doing it for a lot longer and have learned how to control most aspects of the game. Bellagio's is with minor exceptions the best run Card room around. They do not allow the players to take control of the room. They have very good floor people. Quite a few experienced dealers and provide an upbeat atmosphere. They don't cater to the player as well as some California Casinos but for the most part control the atmospher better.
The difference between FW and the Taj and Vegas is like night and day. But if you want to play stud you can't beat the east and Holdem should be your game of choice out west. So what if there's a little discomfort. Winning makes up for a lot of little unpleasantries. So tell that P---y Cooke to get with the program or maybe we should just ask CP to replace him with the Macho Pker Man of all time. My hero and yours. Poker Vetran! Let's hear it for PV.
John, sorry, you are a nice guy!
Vince
Heh, anytime you say, "yeah, Vegas is nicer," there may be a problem with your local room. :)
JG
Finally! A San Diego player. Are you visiting or are you going to be here a while? Anyway, of where I've played, Oceans is the best. It has a nice atmosphere, and the games at lower limits always seem beatable. I've found Sycuan to be tough to extract a profit out of sometimes... some amazingly tight low limit play at times. But thier cardroom is recently renovated and by far the nicest looking. I would caution againt the other independant small cardrooms; I don't like the pay structure (usually $3 every half hour, doesn't reward tight play) and some can be downright scary at night. I played at the Palomar Club on El Cajon Blvd a couple times; wildest games I've ever been in. Live straddles, 7 way capped pre-flop. Not worth it in my opinion. Same for the Village Club in Chula Vista. Nothing special; save your time and effort to go some place where you don't feel a mugging is imminent on the way to your car :) Sorry for the long post; I'd love to hear from other San Diego players; I have yet to meet a local who posts here.
- Sherpa
Are there any idian casinos down in San Diego with poker rooms? Any good?
thanks
Yes... Viejas ans Sycuan. Both are worth checking out. They have websites; www.viejas.com and www.sycuan.com.
-Sherpa
Sherpa
I live in SD and play there every week. I primarily play at the lucky lady or viejas. Viejas games are quite beatable, but the drop there is high, so I am usually playing in a tournament as my top priority when I am there. The lucky lady has good games, but they are very loose aggressive, similar to what you stated. However, I am usually the only player at the table. The standard clientelle there is a bunch of loose aggressive low class morons.. It does not exactly attract the creme of the crop, to say the least. But you can in fact eek out a decent profit there. Often the games are nice and pleasant, but if they are not I simply leave.... Swings are high though because all games are kill games. They have a security guard who stands outside, I have never felt like I was about to be mugged. But I am also quite streetwise and careful. And the lucky lady is not exactly in the all-time nicest neighborhood. I like the staff however, they are real nice and the room is pretty well run, and the food is good, but the rules are somewhat lax, IMO. I also don't like employees of a cardroom ANYWHERE being allowed to play at the place where they work, but this seems pretty standard practice for vegas and california. Lax rules are also standard practice in cali and vegas, some places are better than others. I probably got too used to the very strict rules in atlantic city....
Anyway, email me and I will give you my # so we can get together. I plan to go to viejas for the tournament tomorrow night at 630.
dave in cali
I can instinctively guess it's an expectation percentage. But where did it originate? Was it Turbo Texas Hold'Em?
Just curious where I can find more info on this concept.
Thanks guys, slay.
EV = summation ( Pi * Vi)
where:
Pi = probability of event i occuring
Vi = value associated with event i
and the summation is taking over all possible outcomes (all different i's)
this formula can be compounded to solve difficult problems as well as the simple ones. I suggest you take a look at the example Louie showed you and you should see how you can calculate EV.
As most of you know, many of the smaller cardrooms in Vegas offer bad beat jackpots as a way of attracting players. Normally the criteria for winning the prize is to lose with a four of a kind or better in stud or to lose with aces full in HE (both hole cards must be used). On surface, it would appear that HE jackpots would occur more frequently since you only have to beat aces full. Is this true or is it the opposite? HE jackpots are typically much higher than the stud jackpots. It seems like it should be the other way around. Especially since HE games usually out-number the stud games.
It seems simple to me. Maybe I'm missing something.
In Hold'em with 9 players there would be a maximum of 23 cards in play (5 community + 18 hole cards) in each deal.
In stud with 7 players there can be 49 cards in play in a single deal.
Even though these are maximums, it still comes down to big hand occurrences within a set population.
In 5,000 deals of hold'em there would be a maximum of 23 times that in possible hands, but in 5,000 stud deals there will be many more cards and many more complete (different) hands in play. More possible combinations = more big hands.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Mr. Jones has the answer in his 1997 revised book "winning at low limit hold'em". After reading his answer (I perfer you read it from him) he goes on to say that good players will forget about the Jackpot and just concentrate on winning.
I am not sure if there is a name for this concept.
The idea is that there are some times when a bet or a call actually costs you MORE than the amount of money you put into the pot at that time. Is this like negative implied odds? I don't think it is.
Let me explain.
You are in the BB with AK. UTG raises with AA and the button reraises with KK. You call. It gets capped. A K flops. Tons of action. Turn is an ace. Lots of action. You pay off. Now, your original call cost you a lot more than the 1BB you put in the pot.
Obviously these mistakes are all de facto - you know that they were mistakes because you were drawing dead - but you DIDN'T know that before you played the hand.
Are there any cases where a hand will cost you more than the original investment, from a theoretical point of view, without knowing the other cards or cards to come?
For example, when you have AA on the button, you can estimate how much this hand will earn with a given lineup. In a looser game it is obviously more - in a tighter game, less. But it is always positive. In 10,000 hands you will make X*10,000 BB where X is the BB profit from each hand on average.
Are there any hands where X is actually more negative than the original investment? I believe the answer is yes. What is this concept called?
For example, I believe that unsuited connecting cards like 98o fall into this category. If you limp in with this hand I believe that it will always cost you more than that original 1/2 BB, no matter how well you play post flop, no matter how many limpers, etc.
Ok, scratch that. There are some games where it could be actually profitable to play this hand. In an extremely loose game where no one ever bet or raised but everyone always called.
In any realistic game, though, this hand costs more than its initial investment.
Do I have something here or is this crap?
-SmoothB-
SmoothB,
I don't have a name for the concept except perhaps “bad call before the flop”. However, I don't think 98o for half a bet in the small blind is a bad call against the right number of opponents and/or lineups. Most players do lose money, but it is mostly due to calling with insufficient number of opponents needed to get sufficient implied odds on their draws or a couple of the right type of weak opponents that they can beat without flopping much.
I think a worse mistake or bad call is when a player has a hand such as AT offsuit in the big blind and calls a solid UTG raiser with a few cold callers. This hand just bleeds money post flop yet most play it.
Rick
A hand cannot be worse than the original call if you play perfectly later, since at worst "perfect play" later means always folding. Its only when you are likely to make compounding mistakes later AND you don't take that into account that your expectated loss is more than the call now.
This is why inexperienced players should avoid lots of marginal situations by folding early since they are such a favorite to make mistakes in those situations. Thus, inexperienced players should play very tight.
This is the "Look-Before-You-Leap_Don't-Marry-a-Hand_The-Exit-Isn't-Locked_Fools-Go-Where-Wise-Fear-to-Tread_ There's-a-Difference-Between-Brave-and-Foolish" concept.
- Louie
You have some pretty cool concepts.
I think one REALLY big concept should cover it all.
Then we could digest it to a smaller form.
Then we could abstract it a little to make it better and nicer to say.
The "Look-Before-You-Leap_Don't-Marry-a-Hand_The-Exit-Isn't-Locked_Fools-Go-Where-Wise-Fear-to-Tread_ There's-a-Difference-Between-Brave-and-Foolish-+ even more stuff.
Digest it to "Play Well-Make Few Mistakes-Pick Good tables-Tight aggressive-Strive to be better" concept.
Abstractly "Deep Holes make a poor dinner companion". That's all you would have to know.
This is silly. Why did I write it? Oh no, I hit the POST button ....
No hand can ever be worth less than you paid to play it - for exactly the reason(s) you mentioned.
There are [obviously] hands that less experienced players should avoid, but a "perfect player" can never play a hand and have it cost him more than the cost of the original call.
Extremely well (yet simply) stated answer -
J-D
Hi everyone,
I'm am trying to set up Wilson Holdem 3.0 to play as a low limit (4-8 or 3-6) Bellagio or Mirage game. I would appreciet it if you could post the various opponent settings and lineup to most accurately simulate this game. Most appreciated!
Wayne
set up the players with the loosest lineup you can. make the game alternate players in and out of the game. ignore player names, just think of each hand as a "hypothetical situation" that might arise at a table. use the game to train yourself to quickly evaluate situations and make the correct mathematical decision. the advisor is not a good source of what the correct mathematical decisions is, so you must learn to correctly evaluate these things for yourself. if you like you could make the players check-raise less and raise less when you first start the game, that simulates a more passive game. keep in mind that no matter how realistic TTHE may seem, it does NOT match real life play, so just because you can beat TTHE does not mean that your real life results should be expected to be as good or better. the computer just can't simulate the thinking of real people, even though it is getting better. and I also recommend upgrading to the latest version. set the game up to have the same blinds and rake as these casinos, probably 1-3 blinds for 3-6 with a 10% to 3$ rake and 1$ tip per pot. most of the stats on TTHE are not worth bothering with. it's only a way to teach yourself to evaluate "hypothetical situations" and is overall a limited use tool. IMO, don't even bother with the simulation function, it will mislead you and confuse you.
dave in cali
nt
And now that I've read your post, I am gonna do it even more!!!!!
Actually, I was already gonna do it anyway, this thread just gave me a chance to advertise it! I am the type of person who likes to go out to nightclubs. Not just any nightclubs, gothic-industrial nightclubs. Where this type of garb is fairly commonplace (though I have NEVER seen anyone who's cape is as FIERCE as mine). But what I like to do even more is go to REGULAR old conservative type nightclubs dressed in this type of stuff! you wouldn't believe how much attention you get, or the insane things people say to you. My favorite thing to do is to catch someone staring at me and then say to them "what are YOU looking at, FREAK!".
So I already intended to do this at the mirage anyway. My date will probably have black vinyl and spikes on too. I think I will wait till I am UTG and then straddle-raise when I first enter the game.... (I have made a total of two straddle-raises since I started playing holdem, both were image plays, just like this one!). Then I'm going to reraise myself (it's a live straddle at the mirage) without even looking at my cards! I'll be giving up 1.5 BB, but I have a feeling I will get hella action all night long! Hell, screw the expected value, I would pay 9$ just to see the looks on their faces! It ain't all about money you know.... Then after I make my grand entrance and convince them all that I'm the live one, I will simply play my normal game! Oh' I'll immediately order a drink too, (but then I'll water it down and nurse it for two hours...).
I just love to cause a spectacle...
Dave goin' to vegas march 9th... see you at the mirage! Bring your spikes!
please and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD dont do it untill the 10th when I arrive in vegas
for two reasons
1 I would really like to see that
2 so I can take advantage of the action thats shure to come at your table
I don't want nine 2+2ers at my damn table!!!!! I told you, after the first hand, I am going back to my regular old relatively tight and very aggressive mode! ALL 2+2ERS MUST IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BEFORE ENTERING THE GAME WITH THE DUDE WITH THE CAPE! Obviously it will be easy for you to figure out which one is me.... It will most likely happen on saturday night before the clubs get hott. After dinner but before clubbing!
Remember, If there are nine 2+2ers at my table there won't be much action at my table.... you gotta leave room for the fish!
And if I go to jail I will have to get a laptop to post the action at the mirage next saturday night!
dave in cali (aka super-freak)
save me the seat to your left
I've recently gone broke but during the past few months I ran into this situation a LOT. I would be under the gun with AK and raise. Maybe one caller and then the SB reraises. I call and the flop comes A. I end up losing 3 - 5 big bets to AA.
First, is this likely to happen very often? It came up quite often for me in the last few months. AK vs. KK and catching a K or AK on the flop. AQ vs. KK and catching a flop of Q72. Even KK vs. AA and flop comes AKx. KK vs. AA with a raggedy board. On and on. AQ vs. AK and catching an A on the flop.
That last one is something you have to watch out for but can you really get out of it without SOME kind of loss? You raise from the cutoff and the BB reraises. You call, putting him on a big pair and not fearing AK TOO much. Now you catch that A. How much are you going to lose? You've got to raise the flop, you can't just check and call right? And you certainly aren't going to fold to one bet! What if you cap the flop and then he checks the turn? You will at least bet, and maybe fold to a raise and maybe pay off (depends on the player) but I just don't see how you're going to avoid losing SOMETHING. Once he's dealt AK and you're dealt AQ with an A coming on the flop, fate has decided to screw you. Am I right?
In a limit setting, is there really anything you can do to avoid this or do you just have to accept that you're going to lose money when you catch that K against AA or KK? The nature of limit poker seems to dictate that there's not much you can do except hope this doesn't happen much. Anybody have any insight on this? I seem to have become a magnet for this type of situation.
natedogg
I used to look at these situations as break-even. Out of my hands. Then I started doing one thing a bit differently and now I think I pick up bets here and there, as is save bets, when holding the worst hand.
Generally when a guy three bets before the flop, the hand becomes extra ace-sensative because he either has a good ace or a high pocket pair. Let's say I have A-Q and an ace flops. If behind him, I oftentimes never raise, all the way to the river. Just call. If he checks the river, it means he had the high pair after all, and he will almost always pay off because I didn't posture on the flop. I win 2.5 BB post-flop. If I had raised the flop, and he mucked, I win .5 BB.
If he does have the AK, I lose the absolute minimum short of a psychic laydown, 2.5 BB.
Out of position is of course tougher. I bet out on the flop. I think this is better than check-raising the flop unless you can fold after he smooth calls the flop and raises the turn. The trouble with that is if there is any kind of draw out there, and the player is tough, you just about half to pay off all the way.
Big pair against big pair, again, maybe I go too slowly, but it feels like it's working. If he puts in the 4th bet before the flop, I give him credit for AA or maybe KK and I don't budge from that read. If I have KK and a Queen flops, I'll likely be folding the hand on the turn.
Tough situations, no doubt. I think people run into trouble by getting emotionally charged and attached, a going-to-war mentality, and just start slinging chips. Perhaps it's because I play lots of hours and see many big pairs that I can stay calm. Digressing, this is an advantage that full-timers have, just by virtue of playing a lot.
Tommy
Good post Tommy, I read all youir posts, They are always very good and I always learn from them. Keep them coming. This AA AK question is similar to any other hand, What is the diference? there is always the chance of a higher hand out there. I don't see the problem here. AA AK you just have to play it the best way you know how. Am I correct, Tommy?
Very good post. Was the next to last paragraph a typo where you said " if I have KK and a Q flops I will probably fold on the turn" I don't get that line. I am going to use the rest of your points from now on ;unless I am disappointed with the results.
i took it to mean he was probably against AA or QQ (now QQQ) and would muck KK
Nate rattled off a bunch of situations and I only addressed the two where I thought some bets could be consistently saved. AK vs AQ, and big pair vs big pair. For instance, with AK vs AA and an ace on the flop, it's gonna be expensive, typically three and sometimes four bets between the turn and river combined.
There WAS a typo of sorts, more like an omission. I meant to say that if the other guy four bets preflop, I give him credit for AA, KK, OR MAYBE QQ. So if I have KK and the board comes jack-high or lower, I'll test him again on the flop and if he still likes his hand I'll just call the turn and river, expecting to lose to aces, delighted if he only has queens. If a queen flops, I'll still test the flop, and if he is still confident and reraising, I fold on the turn.
By the way, this adjustment I made at limit comes entirely from playing no-limit where botching these situations is brutal.
A subtle danger with all big pairs is if the other guy three bets with position, he could have ANY pocket pair, so all cards on boards represent a potention set. Another no-limit thing, because typically when aces or kings get busted, it's too a set, because if the big pair makes a move preflop and gets action, the most common hand he's up against is a pair. Same thing at limit, except the three-bet-from- behind-at-limit equals a call-from-behind at no limit.
Tommy
Playing like this: "seeing a sniper behind every tree", how many times do you guys drop the winning hand? This question is made with all do respect to you all.
Is there ever going to be a post from you, in witch you NOT mention your "no limit" experience, to us, poor LL players?
LOL! I'm sorry, really. I can't help it. I got the bug, bad!
But it's really true. No-limit can't help but make one sniper cautious. Probably not good at limit except maybe in the circumstances Nate layed out in this thread.
As to how often I lay down the best hand, that's easy, whenever a reasonable player four bets preflop with a hand that doesn't beat KK when there's a queen on board.
Tommy
This is something I learned from experience as well.
When re-raised preflop it means AA, KK, QQ most of the time. Now I have KK so it's unlikely the other guy has KK or AK (the AK especially since he re-raised. He might have AKs but still unlikely)
If a J high flop comes then my KK is ahead enough times to make calling down profitable.
If a Q comes then it is not profitable to call down since AA or QQQ is very very probable.
You may want to call down if a A hits the board but you are behind the AA and the occasional AK. I think the heads up case when the Ace hits is the tougher descision and of course position is everything at that point.
I'm no pro BUT the answer to how often they lay down the best in this spot is "not very often".
A problem can occur when it is you who has the AA and the flop is capped by the player with the button who is in for 2 bets already.
Now you might expect he has KK or QQ.
Action was: I raised and button calls 2 cold, its re-raised by loose player and I call. Button now re-raises and 4 players see the flop.
Flop is Jack high and it bet by me and button raises which I expected with him having QQ or KK but I now consider JJ. Both other players call and so do I.
On the turn there is a draw and I want it to be 2 BB to any callers. I bet and I am raised again, which I now expect with JJ,QQ,KK. All others fold and I now check call to see the set of J's
I probably could save a bet here or maybe more. Can I fold at any time here or should I have played more passively? More aggressive on the flop and fold the turn when bet into? Maybe just a tough spot to be in?
You are going to lose money with premium hand vrs premimum hand or when you get out-flopped.
But you can lose less money such as when the opponent is conservative but continues to raise. If the opponent 3-bets B4 flop and then 3-bets the flop when an Ace hits, well HEY! he can see that Ace and surely suspects you of having a big Ace yourself.
Louieism: When the opponent asserts himself there is a big difference in the likely quality of the opponents hand between the times he suspects you have little and the times he suspects you have a lot.
- Louie
Louei: you have proven my point. Play it the best way you no how. DS and MM tell you that everything they advise is a guide for playing, not a rule. Some people in this forum are always looking for answers to problems that do not have an answer. I would love to play poker with Jim Brier seating next to me at the table and telling me what to do every step of the way. Like himself, with all his now how, I am sure sometimes doesn't know what to do. This question is no big deal to me. I lose with AA this hand, or AKs, I'll win with 88 next time, I'll flop trip and clean up. Simple. Anybody doesn't agree, straighten me out.
Follow up: The players that ask these kind of questions, I am thinking. are all rocks, and they use this forum to be "harder" rocks. Rocks do not want to lose "ever". They wait for AA. AKs, for hours, and when they get it, they can't understand why they lose."Please , tell me what to do, so I don't lose with my big cards". Rocks are no good pocker players. They will never be. If you are a rock, you will die a rock. I played this hand just last night against two rocks, and I'm still enjoying it. I'm BB with 92d, UTG raises (one rock), middle position reraises (Second rock), two more callers, I call the raises, and then UTG caps it. Big pot. I am sure facing AA. KK, AK, or similar with my 92d. The flop comes A 6 K, all diamonds! I got a good flop, not as good as 999, but I was happy. To make the story short, the two rocks raise and reraise each other till they run out of chips, I called all the way and won with my flush. They had AA an AK, no diamond. Turn and river didn't matter. My point is, do not worry about the exact sience of poker, is like Louei says, depends like the other player feel about you. In this hand I am discribing, I felt that I really wanted to play this hand, may be the next 99 times I will fold, but who knows, then I may not. Now you try to figure it out, what is the best way to play A K agains AA, I am not going to be here to know the results, I will be in the Casino trying to improve my play. Please forgive my spelling, I Know is terrible. If anybody does not agree with my opinions, please straighten me out. I want to be a winner poker player.
If you really want to be a winner don't relish this hand too much.There will be several times you flop a 4 flush and pay all the way and don't hit, or hit and lose.You may flop a pair or 2 and lose. Poker is probability and hand reading skill.If you want to convince yourself, just imagine that 9d2d hand is yours and follow it through and see how much you would have lost on the next 100 hands dealt.
If you want to the winning player then do not call 2 bets cold with 92s.
It is very simple.
You want to be a winner? You might rethink your views towards rocks since they are the ones counting your money at home. You know what they say, if you can't join 'em, beat 'em.
Tommy
In the previous post I meant to write the expected, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Somehow it came out backwards, and it still makes a twisted sort of sense if "beat'em" means, "throw verbal rocks at the rocks."
Tommy
It makes sense from the "tough" player POV. You can't "join them" regarding the 92s players. You're only choice is to "beat them".
In "Zen and the Art of Poker" there is a method by which you can lose less with AK.
When up against a tough opponent and you are raised and you have such a holding you simply fold. Your expectation with this hand against a very good player like yourself is negligable. Let it go.
Does it make sense? Maybe. I'm sure there are lots of views on this.
Note: this does not advocate folding such hands to weaker players or folding hands such as QQ,KK and AA.
I have two questions regarding early postion play in Hold 'em. If you could shed some light on this it would be much appreciated.
Your advanced text suggests that I reraise with Group I & II hands against a loose raiser (in addition to a few other hands) in early position. In a typical game, what do you suggest I do if I have no reason to believe that the raiser has loose standards? I know I should limit my play to the first two hand groupings but which ones should I reraise with?
Secondly, if I am in the third seat to the left of the big blind and the pot has been raised and reraised (again in a typical game) which hands should I play? Which hands should I make it 4 bets with?
I would 3 bet with AA,KK,QQ, and AK suited against an unknown early position raiser.
If the pot is raised and re-raised to you and you are in early or middle position, you should make it 4 bets with AA or KK. You should call with QQ or AK suited. I would fold everything else.
The above applies to typical middle limit games against unknown opponents. You may well vary from this depending upon the type of game and specific knowledge of your opponents who are raising.
Are there any hands you just call with here? I mean with the exception of the small percentage of times you might call with AA or KK in a tight game to trip the utg player.
How do you feel about JJ or 1010 or AKo
It seems to me that maybe it would be better to 3 bet AKo while calling with AKs makes more sense than just calling with AKo as you don't mind a few callers.
I would call with JJ and TT since there are a fair number of raising hands I can beat with these two holdings but there are also a large number of holdings where I am a big dog. AK is on the cusp. I like to 3 bet if I am suspicious of the raiser and I think I can isolate him. The problem with 3 betting slick is that the raiser can have cards you need to improve and you normally have to improve to win. If undercards flop, you have trouble getting away from the hand when the pot has been re-raised.
One could argue that with AK suited you should just call and not re-raise since you want players in and not out. The reason I like to 3 bet with AK suited is to camouflage the times when I 3 bet with AA,KK, or QQ and so my opponent cannot always put me on an overpair in a re-raised pot.
"If the pot is raised and re-raised to you and you are in early or middle position, you should make it 4 bets with AA or KK. You should call with QQ or AK suited. I would fold everything else."
Which additional hands, if any, can be played in this scenario from late position?
Thanks so much for your advice.
"Which additional hands, if any, can be played in this scenario from late position?
If you have to ask this question you do not understand enough about playing holdem to put any answer that Sklansky may give you into practice. This may sound a little sarcastic but it's not. It is the best advice or most useful comment anyone on this forum will give you when you ask this type of question. My guess is that Sklansky will come up with an answer that is in line with what is in HPFAP. That would be fine if you were an advanced player or close but I doubt that you are given this question. Even the advice given above for early and midlle position is general advice and cannot be applied routinely in all situations. You may alwyas make it 4 bets with A,A but not K,K and you may even consider not making it 4 bets with A,A in some extreme cases.
The answer to your question is very difficult at best to answer. The general rule is that the later position that the raise comes from the more hands you can play. However, when it is 3 bets to you, regardless of position you must proceed very cautiously. You probably should not vary from the early to middle advice above unless you have a good feel for the players making the raises and understand why they make them.
vince
Think of my question as the equivalent of asking an experienced driver how to drive down the street. Jim's response would be the equivalent of telling me to stay to the right. Obviously that advice does not prepare me for driving but if I am going to drive anyway it may keep me from having a head-on collision. This is much more useful than someone giving a detailed explanation of how combustion engines work and sending me off down the left side of the road.
"This is much more useful than someone giving a detailed explanation of how combustion engines work and sending me off down the left side of the road. "
Is that how you view the advice I offered? If so I'm sorry. Feel free to disregard. Besides from your analogy above I believe that you understand that advice given here or anywhere for that matter must be scrutinized and adapted for your own use.
Vince
I hope I didn't offend you with my reply, I realize you were simply trying to help me. I wasn't referring to your advice with my analogy. In the past I have seen many simple questions from new players answered with sarcasm and condescension from the gallery of "experts" but I would not put your reply in that category and in fact found it very helpful.
I did, however, get the feeling that you underestimate my self-awareness. Just because I am reading HEFAP doesn't mean I fancy myself an expert. I'm sure the two authors would hate to pay back all the money they have made off of new players who bought their book having little chance of ever grasping the material. I know I am not an advanced player, I know my question is naive in it's simplicity, and I was grateful to Jim for looking past all that and giving me a short and simple answer that didn't start with "it depends..."
I was simply seeking some general guidelines that would help keep me from making costly mistakes so I might save some money and have a better chance of staying in the game long enough to gain the necessary experience that might help me understand the game well enough to grasp the advanced concepts that are the framework for all of the many exceptions to the general guidelines that I was seeking.....whew.
"a better chance of staying in the game long enough to gain the necessary experience that might help me understand the game well enough to grasp the advanced concepts"
I believe this is exactly what I was alluding to with my previous comments. I may not have put it in the right perspective or explained myself very well but I was trying to say that experience is key to understanding the advanced concepts in HPFAP. They were developed through experience and thought but proven through experience alone. If you have posted here as long as I have you will know that many posters have questioned whether one can truly win at poker. They have read all the books and know the concepts inside and out but still don't seem to be able to win. I believe that they have not given the concepts the time necessary to prove there worth. For instance, the answer to the question you asked about how many more hands can you add if you are in late position can have a negative effect on your game if you are not careful. Well the answer can't have a negative effect but the implimentation of the advice can especailly by a novice. That's one of the reason's I recommended not adding any hands to those listed until you really understand your opponents. I believe that throughout HPFAP the theme is "know your opponents". I believe this is the most improtant aspect of playing poker.
Well I'm not going there anymore. I believe I mispoke the first time I responded to you. I wasn't questioning your self awareness. Although after rethinking what I wrote it sure does appear that way. I'll tey and be more careful in the future although I'm sure I'll be just me. I'm that way you know.
Good Luck.
Vince
" I'll try and be more careful in the future although I'm sure I'll be just me. I'm that way you know."
Good old Vince!
Another one alienated.
In a typical, full-tabled, middle limit hold'em game against sane opponents when an early player raises and another early player re-raises, it really does not matter what your position is at that point. Being in middle position or late position does not alter the fact that you are most likely up against a big overpair and/or at least AK in most cases. Therefore, the calling and 4 betting requirements are unchanged at that point.
Now some players would argue that if you are in late position and others players are calling the 3 bets cold, then you can play a suited connector and even a small or medium pocket pair since you are getting the large, multi-handed action that these hands require. They would also argue that you do not have to worry about domination and you can get away from the hand easily if the flop does not hit you hard. But I don't agree with any of this. Your implied odds get ruined when you let yourself get taken for a 3,4, or 5 bet ride to take a flop with a suited connector or a small/medium pocket pair. Bottom line is that it really does not matter what the rest of the field is flying around with in re-raised pots. You need to have a quality holding to get involved.
Good point, Jim.
Mike.
Jim,
You wrote: "Now some players would argue that if you are in late position and others players are calling the 3 bets cold, then you can play a suited connector and even a small or medium pocket pair since you are getting the large, multi-handed action that these hands require."
It depends on the type of opponents you are up against. If you are at a tight table against solid opponents, you might want to dump JTs pre-flop in those rare instances when a raising war breaks out among seven of your opponents. If you are at a loose-aggressive table where seven of your opponents constantly stay in to see the flop after it has been capped pre-flop, you probably will treasure that same JTs.
You wrote: "They would also argue that you do not have to worry about domination and you can get away from the hand easily if the flop does not hit you hard."
First, they should argue that you ought to be *less* worried about domination when you are involved in multi-way pots at loose-aggressive tables.
Second, if you have a difficult time throwing away -EV hands after the flop, then you indeed might want to restrict which hands you get involved with pre-flop (or improve your ability to throw away losers after the flop).
You wrote: "But I don't agree with any of this."
I believe this is one of your blind spots. But if you don't play in loose-aggressive games very often, it should have less of an effect on your EV.
You wrote: "Your implied odds get ruined when you let yourself get taken for a 3,4, or 5 bet ride to take a flop with a suited connector or a small/medium pocket pair."
First, if you have the right hand and the right number of opponents, then you don't need implied odds to justify getting involved. As the number of opponents increases, you don't need to win as often. Against seven opponents, for example, I wouldn't mind being all-in for five bets before the flop with JTs.
Second, your implied odds normally do not get "ruined" when you have many opponents in the pot with you. If I flop a set with 55 against seven opponents, for instance, I usually will win a lot of extra bets on the flop, turn, and river. That is pretty healthy implied odds. If I aggressively contribute five pre-flop bets with 55 against a single opponent, then I usually have done some serious damage to my implied odds. Do you see the difference?
You wrote: "Bottom line is that it really does not matter what the rest of the field is flying around with in re-raised pots."
I beg to differ. It really does matter, at least if you are trying to improve your EV.
You wrote: "You need to have a quality holding to get involved."
You need to have a quality holding for the given situation. In certain situations, JTs and 55 are worth investing five bets pre-flop.
"In certain situations, JTs and 55 are worth investing five bets pre-flop."
How about giving an example where it is correct to call five bets cold with 5,5? In my experience the only place this would even be close to correct is in a no foldem holdem game. I don't believe discussion of no foldem holdem belongs on this forum. That should be done on the beginners forum. Just my opinion.
vince
Vince,
Earlier, I wrote: "Second, your implied odds normally do not get 'ruined' when you have many opponents in the pot with you. If I flop a set with 55 against seven opponents, for instance, I usually will win a lot of extra bets on the flop, turn, and river. That is pretty healthy implied odds. . . . In certain situations, JTs and 55 are worth investing five bets pre-flop."
You asked: "How about giving an example where it is correct to call five bets cold with 5,5?"
If you reread my post, I think you might find one such example.
You also wrote: "In my experience the only place this would even be close to correct is in a no foldem holdem game."
Perhaps you already had reread my post.
You wrote: "I don't believe discussion of no foldem holdem belongs on this forum. That should be done on the beginners forum."
I got the impression that Roger Songster is relatively new to casino poker. Apparently you did as well. If that is the case, then Roger is much more likely to run into loose-aggressive no-fold'em hold'em games than he is to run into a situation where a relatively tight table with solid opponents breaks into a multi-way raising war.
Jim Brier's advice about multi-way situtations seems geared more towards the rare situation rather than the more common no-fold'em situation. I felt it would be helpful to let Roger (and other forum readers) know that the two different situations require different types of play.
Roger posted this thread on this forum, so I answered it on this forum. If some deputy forum cop doesn't like me doing so, then that's too bad. I'll continue to try to help posters on this forum, even if, in your opinion, my replies belong on another forum.
So you were referring to no foldem Holdem. o.K. so each of can be happy knowing we were both correct. You in referring to me as "some deputy forum cop" and me ... well I'm always happy anyway so it doesn't matter why in this case. By the way, I have enough trouble reading trying to read your posts one time I try extra hard not to "reread" them.
vince
Just a thought, but would AKs prefer a multiway pot more than AKo. If that's the case I would prefer to three bet with AKo more than AKS. By the way, I three bet an unknown early position raiser with a few more hands than this.
"By the way, I three bet an unknown early position raiser with a few more hands than this."
Me too.
vince
Hey Tommy,
I just read your article about the asking to see hands rule. I mostly agree with it except for one thing.
"Much writing . . . a fair and pleasant place. IWTSTH allows, . . . bad for poker, present and future."
You are right, it is bad etiquette, sometimes rude, but what about the players who don't know any better? And what about the new comers who are curious about the game and how other people play?
A lot of people on the rail and even in the game like to see the show down in the end, especially when they are still learning the game. They play a hand, they are raised out by two battling players and they just want to know what raised them off their gut shot draw. It seems as if they don't care whether or not someone does NOT WANT to show it, by the rule, they have a right, and no one can really complain.
I play in Louisiana mostly and IWTSTH abounds, often, more than one player asking at the end. I can't stand it, I cringe whenever I have to show a hand I didn't want to, but when an inexperienced player asks, what can you do? You can't educate him on proper etiquette because it won't sit well with them as they currently have the right to do it and can't see the wrong.
There are numerous more experienced players who use this as a tactical weapon, and some who use it just to upset someone. This is obviously abuse of the rule.
As far as stopping collusion-I agree, IWTSTH does not help. There is a poker room in Louisiana that sometimes appears to have collusion when a few of the off-work dealers get at the same table, catching their victims between them with a good hand, but since only one makes it to the showdown, IWTSTH is capable of stopping it, just like you said.
But how do you educate the masses of the new players who see asking as part of the game? Most of the people who ask would respond exactly as you stated, "To see how the other person plays." But it seems, coming from the inexperienced player, that he/she doesn't know any better.
Tommy missed one variation of the rule. In the Top Section at Bellagio, a tourist can say IWTSTH but a regular cannot. Once after being whipsawed, I folded and the two other players checked it down. I said I wanted to see both hands, and the Floorman, a woman in this case, was called to decide if I was a tourist. She decided not, and I never got to see the hands.
One of the biggest problems with this rule is when you try to bluff me on the river, and I call. You then throw your cards in the muck and say IWTSTH. I either have to show it or pull a Badger, jump up and push them in the muck. (just kidding, I don't think he really did that. But I have seen several other players do it).
Thanks for telling me about the Bellagio, even though I already knew about it. That's exactly the type of feedback I'm on the lookout for. The reasons I left the Bellagio's rule out of the article are:
1) The section in the article on variations is there only to show that the community is already willing to modify the rule for the sole purpose of reducing abuse. Two non-specific-casino examples were enough because I'm hyper about wasted space and words.
2) I'm collecting specific cases where casinos have already elliminated or drastically modified the rule. I plan to list the casinos and their rules, including the Bellagio's, in a follow-up work.
Tommy
without knowing about this thread.
"But how do you educate the masses of new players who see asking as part of the game?"
First I tried talking. Now I'm trying writing. :-)
Tommy
"First I tried talking. Now I'm trying writing."
Talk about fuzzy thinking. :-}
One quick story: one guy plays every hand, often raising with crap. Fairly new player to the game, asking to see his hand, profers, "I want to see how you play" as an excuse for asking. Maniac responds, "I'm a f***ing maniac, completely on tilt. What the hell do you expect to learn?"
John
Here's something that happened to me recently. I limped on the button behind several limpers with QsJc. Flop came Ts-9s-2h. UTG, a complete novice, bet out. There was one call and I raised. Both players called. Turn was Ad. UTG bet out again and was called. The player on my right, not in the hand, laughed and jokingly said to me, now what are you going to do? Of course I was going to call, but I looked at my cards and in doing so I let him see them.
The river was a blank, UTG bet out again and was called and I folded my busted draw. Before my cards went into the muck another player not involved in the hand told the dealer not to muck my cards, he wanted to see them. The floorman was called over and the ruling was that since I had let my neighbor see my cards, all were entitled to see them, even though I did not call the river bet.
I later asked the player who had asked to see my cards what was his reason for doing so. He said he had no reason, he just felt like it. This was a smaller game than I normally play in and, to the best of my recollection, I had never played with either my neighbor, the man who asked to see my cards, or any of the participants in the hand.
although I despise being asked to show my cards (what can I say? I have issues.), in this case the player had every right to see your cards. It would be unfair to give another player information not available to all at the table.
...a fair rule IMO. And another reason not to show anyone your hand unless you must..
As a wanna be "creative, deceptive, imaginative" player I will show hands on a selective basis only to set up a hand later on.
One way to do this is to show your neighbor if there is a "show one show all" guy in the game.
Is that angle shooting??? I don't think so.
Funny story.
Years ago in an limit-Omaha hi-only home game,(a mutant game if there ever was one),a brand new player sat next to me and kept showing me his cards. On one hand he bet the river and everyone folded. He pinched his cards carefully so that only two were visible, and showed me the two cards. He had the nuts.
Someone said, "SHOW ONE SHOW ALL!"
And here comes the delightful part. The new player interpreted this to mean, "Show the OTHER two cards to Tommy." So he spread the other two cards and showed them to me without showing anyone else.
Tommy
I have a similar story: At a private game, we had a dealer who was young and cute, but not real bright or experienced. On one of her first nights, one of the players said, "Squared the table, Dealer". She looked around at the table, move her chair a few inches to the left, and resumed dealing.
never heard tell of that one myself 3 bet, what does it mean?
hillbilly- when asked by a waitress once how do I like my eggs, I replied, I like em' fine!
When the waitress asks me how I like me eggs, I tell her how do I know, I haven't got 'em yet.
"Square the table" means rearrange the player's seats so that every chair is where it should be: middle position player exactly 180 degree opposite the dealer.
Eventually I will post a poll in the General Theory section on IWTSTH. Looking forward to your replies.
Tommy
Is any situation when after the flop it is correct to fold the AA,AKs, KK or AKx?
Yes. You raise under the gun pre-flop and everyone calls. The flop is: 987 all of one suit. You bet and it gets raised, re-raised, and capped back to you with 6 players in the hand. You should fold. Obviously this is an extreme example but there are others where the board is highly coordinated, you have lots of opponents, and there is serious heat getting applied on the flop. You must fold since you are frequently dead to perfect-perfect.
I think you should give some indication on how often you dump AK (suited and offsuit) postflop. Your analysis is better than mine so I'll let you elaborate. I think your above post discusses AA and KK situations, but I believe it is FREQUENTLY correct to throw AK into the muck postflop when it misses. Just my two cents.
You are correct. There are a lot more situations where you will dump AK on the flop. If the flop has missed you completely and there are a large number of opponents (4 or more) it is frequently correct to check and fold slick when the flop gets bet. AK is a very different situation and flopping overcards is much weaker than flopping an overpair.
On Feb. 2, 2001, at 6:34 a.m. I posted: I quit poker today. 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 callers 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 astraight 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 doesn't 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.
Your answer to this post was, same date, at 3:06 p.m.:
Beginner, you are definetely playing psyched out pocker right now. A flop raise is mandatory with your big over pair and a large pot like this despite the sca ry 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 hours and see where you are at and how you feel.
Jim: please tell us, what difference you see in these two examples, and please don't tell us that my flop was was not all of the same suit, beacause then I really quit playing poker.
P/s.: This was the response from Mason Malmuth, same date, at 2:02 p.m.:
Hey, you played the hand great, so don't quit. But next time you could play the hand better by realizing that if the initial bettor had flop 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.
Vaseline: I sugest that you read my post and all the answers to it from Friday, 2 February 2001, at 6:34 a.m.
Oh no. Not the Mason's motives post again.
Ahhhhh.
Now I QUIT poker today!
8-)
The difference is:
Your case. Single bet to you. A raise may get the players behind to fold and the hand will be 3-way.
Jims case: The bet comes re-raised to you (3 bets).
AND the board has 3 of the same suit but that would not matter if you had to call 3 bets 6 handed.
Regards Mike N
BTD, I agree.
(n/t)
beginner,
Your fold was an ok fold. It wasn't a great play, but it didn't hurt your bottom line by much. Sometimes you read the situation wrong. It happens. You probably were against a bunch of draws, and had pot equity of less than 50% on the flop.
Just roll with these kind of punches. It happens. It's happened to all of us.
- Andrew
Of course there are.
First of all, if you have AK and the flop misses you and 7 people are in the hand then check and fold.
If there are not that many times when it would be appropriate to fold AA on the flop but there most definitely are a few.
Lets say you have AsAc and raise in mid position. You get 3 callers including the button and the BB.
Flop comes T98 all hearts. The BB is a very obvious player and bets. You raise. The button, a trickier player who will play draws very aggressively, reraises. But now the button - the obvious playing opponent - caps it. You should definitely fold.
-SmoothB-
What about a flop of:
QsJsJc
And you are holding: AhAd
Checked to you, raise, call, reraise, call before it gets back to you.
I'd probably have a hard time laying it down, but there's probably very few outs, and none you can rely on 100%. The few times you are still ahead, you opponents have quite a number of outs against you, put together.
lars
I'm probably stating the obvious, but I'd be pretty quick to dump K-K when an A comes on the flop, especially if there are a lot of players still in.
Of course, none of these questions can be answered in a vacuum, you have to consider what kind of players you're up against, what they did pre-flop, etc.
With ace-king I think the most important thing is not how many players are in, but where they are.
With two or more behind me, I tend to check and fold. But if I'm last and the next to last guy bets, I'm just as likely to raise as to fold, depending on the flop and the players. In the post-flop-cutoff-seat, I'll do the same thing, a bit less often, depending on the vibes from the last player.
Tommy
I don't normally fold AA, but here's a hand where I did exactly that. I opened with a raise from early middle position, and got two cold callers and the small blind. The flop and turn came QT93 rainbow. I lead both rounds, and were were down to three players going into the river. The river came an 8, giving any jack a straight. The small blind lead, and I folded with one player behind me to act.
I simply couldn't conceive that I was only an 8:1 underdog to have the best hand at that point. I was not only worried about a straight, but the many possible two pairs that were out there, as well as a possible rivered set. The player who lead was a solid player who also knows how to read the board, and probably wouldn't bluff in this situation. So I folded. The small blind held JTo, the other player held QJo.
- Andrew
After 680 hours of playing $3-6 HE, I have a standard deviation of 91.86, about 15.3 bb/hr.
This sounds awfully high.
However, nearly all of these hours were accumulated playing two tables at a time on the internet, being dealt hands at a conservatively estimated rate of 60 per hour per table, or 120 hands per hour total. My per hand std is therefore about $0.77. If converted this to one-table casino play at 40 hands per hour, my std is only $30, or 5 bb/hr.
This sounds awfully low, particularly since I might be a tad aggressive.
So what is it?
Chris
Wow, that does sound high. I only have about a third of your time recorded. My stdev for $3-6 is 57.53 and has seemed to level off after a high of ~62.00. Playing online has actually brought my stdev down. I believe this has happened because I can play quite a few more short sessions of about 1.5 to 3.5 hrs.
SD increases with the square root of hands played, while variance increases linearly.
So, for 15.3 bb/hr and 120 hands/hr, your variance per hand is (15.3)^2/120 = 1.95, and your SD is 1.95^.5 = 1.40 bb/hand.
So for 30 hands an hour: 1.4 * 30^.5 = 7.65 BB/hr.
This is still pretty low (are you sure that you are playing two tables _all the time_ ?) but its a little better.
If I made a mistake, I'd be glad to hear about it.
Zooey
x
Zooey:
Thanks for clarifying this. More than 95% of the hours are two table play.
Chris
You standard deviation is *not* too high. Mine online SD is 17 BB/(hr*table). I segregate my results on a per-table basis, so my total SD in BB/hr would be a bit bigger.
- Andrew
I have to admit: these figures differ substantially from what I was expecting.
FOR a total of 5 players seeing a flop containing any pair, the probability is 1 - (47/49 x 46/48 x ... x 39/41 x 38/40) or 37% that at least one player holds a card of the same rank as the open pair.
FOR a total of 6 players seeing a flop containing any pair, the probability is 1 - (47/49 x 46/48 x ... x 37/39 x 36/38) or 43.3% that at least one player holds a card of the same rank as the open pair.
FOR a total of 9 players seeing a flop containing any pair, the probability is 1 - (47/49 x 46/48 x ... x 31/33 x 30/32) or 60.5% that at least one player holds a card of the same rank as the open pair.
when the flop contains a high pair, it should be obvious that at least one player will hold a card of that rank far more frequently than these results for random combinations would indicate. also, in low-limit games, when the flop contains a low pair, at least one player will hold a card of that rank more frequently than one would generally find to be the case in high-limit games, even though the probability will be much less than average at both levels.
pre-flop, of course, certain hands tend to be selected for and certain hands tend to be selected against. the existence of the blinds, however, insures that certain combinations which would routinely be selected against sometimes get a chance "to prove themselves." so, while the above figures need to be skewed upwards when high pairs flop and downwards when low pairs flop, randomness will always play its part.
after setting aside a flop of 995rainbow, I dealt out nine hands, two of which I let be the blinds, and then I chose the best four from the remaining seven. I dealt out 100 hands and 47 times a 9 appeared in one of the six hands. this is slightly higher than the 43% theory predicts employing strictly random combinations.
I think I'm beginning to comprehend what might very well be happening in actual play, in low-limit, when a pair flops. when there is minimal action, and someone has bet a flop and wins outright or with little resistance, this person has usually either paired the third card in the flop or is bluffing but has seldom caught trips. when there is lots of action, with several calls of a flop bet, and a raise after the flop and/or after the turn, someone usually has the goods.
"this person has usually either paired the third card in the flop or is bluffing but has seldom caught trips"
This is the logical conclusion and probably true at Low limits. At mid limits it is not true. The reason that it is not true is because most players at mid limits are a bit more sophisticated when they play. They aware of this and have made adjustments. That's not to say that they are not "usually" betting the third card pair but they are also betting the set especially if it is small.
Vince
Vince:
what I'm getting at, and I hope to corroborate with some numbers later today, is that at low-limit when plenty of players see the flop, then perhaps one can legitimately hit the eject button if holding an overpair based upon the amount of action the flop generates. one wouldn't often be justified in doing this at the level you play at because, first of all, less players on average see the flop, and, secondly, when the flop contains a lowish pair, even with more pre-flop callers than average, most of these players have selected high-card combos, low pairs, medium-ranked pairs, or medium-ranked connectors. and a pre-flop raise would tend to further eliminate hands with low-low and many low-high combos, including, of course, the blinds. raises in low-limit don't have the same "housecleaning" effect.
notice that when a flop includes a pair, there are two less combinations available to provide someone with a straight draw (a + c as opposed to a + b, a + c, b + c) and one less combo available to provide someone with a flush draw (a + c, b + c as opposed to a + b, a + c, b + c). so, even in low-limit, there will be far fewer draws being pursued and even normally loose players with overcards tend to release them (correctly) fearing trips. in other words, there is far more "attrition" in these situations than when flops appear without a pair. and this means that, when several hands remain to see the turn, at least one of these has usually hit the flop hard.
Not only do your numbers imply that the eject button should be used more often, they also give us a better idea of what's happening mathematically when we bluff at paired boards.
How about sharing the same stat for all possibilies, two players through ten?
Tommy
Tommy,
I'll work on that. I'm also working on flops with a single ace (see above). it's beginning to look like Ax is stronger than I thought ONCE an ace flops. may just prove useful when forced to limp from the big blind or for Axsuited postflop gymnastics.
I wonder if someone can employ Turbo HE or some other "computer assistant" to simulate realgame pre-flop selections. my 100-trial experiment was inadequate if reassuring.
"I wonder if someone can employ Turbo HE or some other "computer assistant" to simulate realgame pre-flop selections."
Some will try but they will fail.
vince
A minor point: the percentages you post represent the _maximum_ chance of an opponent having trips. If preflop your opponents will throw away any hands containing that rank, the percentages drop.
The percentages drop right along with the percent chance your opponents, on average, would fold preflop a hand containing one of that rank. In some tight games the chances of an opponent having a full house exceeds the chances of an opponent having trips for any flop 22x, 33x, or 44x, for example.
Tommy, I'll post the numbers for you, but it'll cost you the usual 1 BB (1 big beer). :)
Matt,
these percentages were generated using random distributions. they will slide down and up. when AAx flops, and there are numerous pre-flop callers, then the chance of someone holding an ace will be much higher because hands with aces are heavily "selected for."
A) let's say you are in the big blind with T2 and the flop comes TT6. you have 4 opponents. how likely is it that someone else holds a T?
if the other cards were randomly distributed, then the answer would be 1 - (46/47 x 45/46 x ... x 40/41 x 39/40) or 18%.
all things being equal, but with 5 opponents:
1 - (46/47 x 45/46 x ... x 38/39 x 37/38) = 21.3%.
and with 6 opponents:
1 - (35/47) = 25.5 %.
B) if you were involved in a low-limit game with 8 other players and everyone of those other players ALWAYS saw the flop when they held at least one ace, regardless of pre-flop raises, and you held A2 in the big blind, and there were a total of 6 players who saw a flop of AJ5, how often would at least one other player be holding an ace?
1 - (39/41 x 38/40 x ... x 31/33 x 30/32) = 43.3%
B.1) same as in B, but you hold A7 and you know that no one else but you ever raises with AK, AQ, etc. before the flop, suited or not. how often will your 7 be a deficient kicker after the flop?
(I'm assuming anyone who held AA would have raised preflop.)
if you held A7, then, when exactly one other player held an ace, 57.8% of the time you will be outkicked.
however, it is possible that 2 other players will be holding an ace (18.2% x 43.3% = 7.9% ). if you are not outkicked by one player holding an ace, then 59.1% of the time you will be outkicked by the other player. 59.1% x 7.9% = 4.7%.
the total, then, becomes 62.5%, when at least one other player holds an ace.
but someone else won't be holding an ace 55.7% of the time. 62.5% x 44.3% = 27.7%.
make that 56.7% and it should be 62.5% x 43.3% = 27.1%. I'm trying to be meticulous but certain key numbers may resemble one another; also, I'm posting all this as soon as it's completed (while the nuances are still fresh in mind).
scratch the above and scroll upwards for more recent calculations.
Hi! guys,
Where can I read some material of how to compute the Standard Deviation in TH? I would be very appreciative if one knowledgeable guy on here will clear this for me. I would like to know step by step in details the way to calculate the StDv.
Love
Yasmine Bleeth
Mason is a very knowledgeable guy. He gives a lovely explanation of how to calculate standard deviation in his beautiful book Gambling Theory and Other Topics. I've never seen a more thorough discussion StDv anywhere.
Love and kisses,
Tori
. . . you can just buy the StatKing software from Conjelco (link on this website), it will compute std automatically using the formula in Mason's book, which will save you the trouble of setting up a spreadsheet.
Although the book is definitely worth reading.
Using Excel and Mason Malmuth example from his Essay "Calculating Your Standard deviation". =================================================================
Enter in A1 "Session" in B1 "Results" and in C1 "Time"
Enter in cels A2 to A11 the sessions numbers (i.e. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10)
Enter in cels B2 to B11 the results in $units (i.e. +48 +249 -71 +398 -173 -88 +301 +97 +229 -118)
Enter in cels C2 to C11 the time (i.e. 3.5 6.0 4.5 7.5 2.5 4.0 5.5 1.5 4.0 3.5)
Now, go to cel A15 and enter the following formula:
=SQRT((1/A11)*(SUM(B2^2)/C2+SUM(B3^2)/C3+SUM(B4^2)/C4+SUM(B5^2)/C5+SUM(B6^2)/C6+SUM(B7^2)/C7+SUM(B8^2)/C8+SUM(B9^2)/C9+SUM(B10^2)/C10+SUM(B11^2)/C11)-((SUM(B2:B11)/SUM(C2:C11))^2/A11)*SUM(C2:C11))
This will calculate the Standard deviation for 10 sessions with the data from Mason Malmuth essay "Computing Your Standard Deviation"
Love You!
Your Admirer
Yasmine,
Darling, Standard Deviation is not a Texas Holdem variaiton. It is the mean divided by the ... oh forget it! I'm jus bein silly. But I do love your name, Yasmine. Now if you could only...
Vince
Any Pair from AA to 22
If Suited then:
If A or K involved then go all the way down to 2.
If Q or J involved then any gap of 3 or less.
If T,9,8 or 7 involved any gap of 2 or less.
If 6,5 or 4 involved any gap of 1 or less.
If 3 involved then no gap allowed.
============================================
If Unsuited then:
If A,K or Q involved go down to 9
If J,T or 9 involved go down to 8
If 8,7,6 or 5 no gap allowed
============================================
Just a Friend
Follow this link to find the answer to your question.
I wonder if Mason has learned any HTML yet?
I am in a very loose relatively passive low limit kill game. I am in the BB with Ac6c (no kill). 6 limp and the SB raises, I call, all call, 7 way action.
Flop is Kd 6h 2c. SB bets and I call. I think this call is somewhat questionable because I basically have middle pair and one overcard, plus a backdoor flush draw (albeit to the nuts), but since the SB raised, my two pair outs are suspect as an ace may give him aces and kings and me aces and sixes. AND - It might get raised, there are still 5 players left to act. However, I called pretty quickly before I really thought it all out. Too late, now I am in the pot. 2 more call and the rest fold.
Turn is the 6h. Well, what the hey, I got lucky. Now I will play it like I got it. SB bets and I raise. both flop callers cold call again and the SB folds.
River is the Ad. I bet, one calls and the other folds. Full boat wins a big pot.
Despite the result, I probably made a bad play on the flop by calling. Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
With 15 small bets in the pot, I would call every time with middle pair, an Ace overcard, and a backdoor nut flush draw. Your 5 outer is an 8:1 shot and your current pot odds are almost twice that. This is a huge overlay. Furthermore, the board is rainbow and uncoordinated. Your backdoor nut draw is equivalent to an extra out (according to Roy Cooke) making calling even clearer. Your overlay more than covers the times when your outs are not clean. Have no regrets.
In the above scenario. Say the 6 nor A nor suit hits. Do you stay for a bet then?
Ok so the 6 misses, the ace misses, but the suit gets there....same ?....do pot odds justify it? I dunno. We're still speaking of on the turn only. Obviously once we make a hand we know what to do.
I guess the turn with no help is the one that gets people screwed up. I usually muck at this point.
Am I playing too tight when I muck bottom pair on the flop in above?
What about pocket pair 2 overcards on the board?
With price of calling having doubled, you would need several things to justify playing on with your 5 outer. There should be around 16 small bets in the pot since it is costing you a double bet to chase your 8:1 shot. You need to have some reasonable assurance that the pot will not get raised since paying 4 small bets to see the river destroys your pot odds. You also need to be quite certain that you will win the pot if you hit one of your 5 outs. In general, you should usually fold on the turn since not all of these conditions will be met.
If you catch the nut flush draw on the turn, the pot odds will usually be there to justify going for your flush.
You are not necessarily playing too tight mucking bottom pair on the flop but it depends upon what your side card is. If it is an overcard to the board, then it may be right to take off a card and see the turn since you still have 5 outs.
If you have a pocket pair and two overcards flop, it is almost never right to try and take off a card. You are playing two outs which is a 23:1 shot and the pot odds are normally not there.
I agree with Jim. heck, SB could easily have raised with KJsuited. good call.
I guess this was a Valentine's Day deck of cards with extra hearts.
I don't think you made a poor call: You flopped middle pair with a back door flush draw. I would assume any A or 6, so with the back door draw you have 6 outs. There is 14 SB in the pot before the flop. With the bet you are getting 15:1 to call and you have 41:6 to hit. You only need about 7:1 to make a good call. Even if it is raised you are getting 7:1.
just my opinion
Derrick
The pot is too big and your hand "too" likely to be the better hand to fold. Raising is better than calling except when the SB is a very selective raiser AND is likely to check the flop if he missed.
Notice that while it sure looks like one of the callers had a big King, the SB in fact did not.
- Louie
What I’m doing wrong here? ~ My 74 Starting Hands
Any Pair from AA to 22 (AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66, 55, 44, 33, 22) = 13 total
Any Pair bellow 9 we are looking to flop a SET else FOLD if any action.
If A or K involved then go down to 2 if SUITED else follow the COUPLERS
(AK, AQ, AJ, AT, A9, A8, A7, A6, A5, A4, A3, A2, KQ, KJ, KT, K9, K8, K7, K6, K5, K4, K3, K2) = 23 total
Suited or NOT makes no difference, treat the suits as a gift but don’t go crazy about.
If A or FaceCards then 2 gaps or less is OK if T then ONE gap or less.
(AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, KT, QJ, QT, Q9, JT, J9, J8, T9, T8) = 14x +14s = 28
If 9,8,7,6 or 5 involved NO gap. (98, 87, 76, 65, 54) = 5x + 5s = 10
TOTAL = 74
First it depends in what position you're, how many players are in the game, how many limped in, if it's raised etc etc. I'll assume you play in a 10-handed game. Be carefull with suited weak aces; only play them with enough limpers. I wont play weak suited kings (only maybe when the whole table limps in :)) It also depends a lot if you're playing suited or unsuited connectors, especially when they're small. Same applies with small pocket pair, only play them with enough limpers, so dont play 33 for instance UTG.
When the pot is raised, be very carefull with trap hands, like KT and AJ etc.
I think your starting hands are not really your problem (except the weak suited kings), i think your problem is when to play the marginal hands preflop and when not.
I don't think anyone could say you are doing too much wrong, assuming you take note of position and players, but I am more conservative than you - most of the time, in general, I would prefer one of these hands -
Any Pair from AA to 66 (AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66)
If A involved then go down to 2 if SUITED; if K involved go down to 5 if SUITED; else -
AK, AQ, AJ, AT, A9, A8
KQ, KJ, KT
QJs, QTs, Q9s, Q8s
QJ, QT
JTs, J9s, J8s
JT
T9s, T8s
98s
54s
Total = 52
For starters, you're not taking into account your position, and whether the pot has already been raised or not.
This is WAY too loose. You won't be able to win if you play all of these hands.
Also, which ones will you play if it's been raised? If it's raised and you still call with T8 offsuit your game is in need of a lot of work.
Do you consider position when you decide whether to play a hand? IE in most games, except the eaisiest, QT suited is not worth playing at all in early position. But on the button it's playable if there is no raise and many people have entered.
Being suited is a HUGE advantage in loose games. I will never play QTo in a full game in any position but I may play QTs.
-SmoothB-
Personly I only play Axs in late pos. , and i only play small connectors suited in late pos. never unsuited, i like the extra draw with a bad hand.
The first thing I would do is throw out Ax and Kx unsuited unless they contain color.
Smooth,
Are you saying that in a loose passive game you would muck QToff from late position (especially on the button) if there were only 1 or 2 callers ?
How about if all 7 limped in ?
I have found almost nothing to disagree with you about since I've been reading and posting here (I'm probably just a little bored at the moment since P/P just froze up and I have NO OTHER LIFE =) but I would JUMP into the pot in a game such as described, if there were either a very small or very large number of limpers.
I won't get rich doing it, but I have a hard time believing that I would fail to show a profit in the long run.
Did I misunderstand you, or am I handling this in a manner that is diferrent than you believe to be correct ?
It seems as though I have made a tidy sum being the 6th, 7th, or 8th player in with unsuited one-gappers much lower than this.
Please reply; even if I disagree I know you will have something to offer that I have up till now not been considering.
Thanx -
J-D
You are placing straight and unchanging value on a variety of hands that play differently depending on position, whether pot has been raised, the # of callers, the nature of your opponents, and the general nature of the hand itself.
For instance, K2 is NOT a very good hand at all. If it is UNSUITED, IT IS CLEARLY A FOLDING HAND IN ANY POSITION. If suited, it is just BARELY playable for a single bet in late position or partial bet in the SB (1/2 bet or 1/3, but NOT 2/3), but this assumes that there are SEVERAL callers and the pot is NOT raised!
You have KJ listed as a hand you will play. Well what if it's suited? Unsuited? What if you are under the gun? What if it's raised by an early position player, and everyone folds to you in middle position, but there is still a maniac left to act?
There is so much more to playing starting hands than just simply making a list. In fact, most good players have seen and practically memorized the lists in the books found on this website, but once they became skilled at the game, they basically throw the list away. The reason for this is that now they understand the types of factors to consider when deciding whether to play a hand pre-flop. Mind you they don't really deviate that much from the "classic" Sklansky and Malmuth starting hand chart, but they don't necessarily care whether KJs is a class 3 or class 4 hand either. They understand when and where it can be profitably played and don't need to look at the chart to make such decisions.
Large and small pairs, Suited and unsuited hands, connectors and gappers all play differently. And they should be played differently under differing circumstances.
An example...
You have KJo. You have listed this as a hand you would play. In which of these situations would you play it?
1. Under the gun raises and all fold to you in late position. UTG is a very tight and skilled player.
2. Three weak players limp and you are in the cutoff (one to the right of the button). Button is getting ready to throw his cards into the muck.
Another example...
You have As2h. In which of these situations would you play it?
1. you are in the BB and no one raises, you get a free play.
2. You are on the button and five players limp into the pot, no raise.
3. An early position player raises and another reraises, all fold to you on the button.
4. four players limp and the cutoff raises, you are on the button.
5. One tight player limps in early position and the rest fold to you.
One more...
You have 8c7c.
1. you are in the cutoff. UTG raises and one player calls, rest fold.
2. five players limp and you are on the button. No Raise.
3. You are in the BB, five players limp and the button raises, SB calls.
4. you are under the gun in a relatively tight and very aggressive game.
You should be able to answer these questions correctly if you are a decent player, and you should know the REASON for the answers you are giving.... If not, you should perhaps consider reading some books which can be found on this website....
Dave in Cali
Your post was a real help for me. I really mean it!
To put it bluntly; I've enjoyed reading your post. You are absolutely right on the money. Thank you!
I certainly need more studying to do in this game, no question about it!
Regards,
Total=74
Hey fellas,
This is kinda weird, but maybe someone can help me out with this. I've noticed a pattern in my "play".. and it is this - whenever I play LIVE games, either at Atlantic City or local "clubs", I seem to do poorly. The best I ever seem to do is break even, but the rest of the time I slowly lose the few hundred I bring with me to the table.
I don't believe I'm a bad player, though. Because, whenever I play for real money online, say in ParadisePoker and such, I win consistently. I've done my share of reading and studying so far, including both major Sklansky and S&M books (T.O.P, HEFAP), as well 3 other books, and even Schoonmaker's poker psychology book. I play poker online constantly, and succeed.
I know most of the odds one needs to know, I understand concepts such as effective, implied, reverse implied (etc) odds and how to estimate them. I actually consider myself a pretty decent player. But something goes wrong when I play live.. I win pots here and there, but I seem to VERY SLOWLY dwindle down my stack. I fold most hands, and follow starting guidelines that take into consideration intrinsic hand values, including factors such as table texture (looseness & aggressiveness). I play tight-aggressive in typical games, and open up a little more in loose games.
I study the game when I'm out of the pot, work on my card reading and try to catch tells, studying each player's style.
I was playing $2-4 and $5-10 hold'em in AC this weekend, and I lost what I brought to play with. In $2-4, my early raises with hands that ask for it, such as AK, were getting respect but outdrawn by a lone player. Hands such as QQ were also beat by players staying in with A3 offsuit, and so on. It had gotten to a point where an old lady told me I should go read a book before I play, because chips are not just clay but are money. I thought that was kinda funny, but sad at the same time. She took a little 20 page "poker handbook" by some unknown author and handed it to me open to the "hold em" section, where it said that hands like AA & KK are good starting hands. I smiled and said thank you.
Anyways, some suggestions on why my live games don't go well would be good. It may be that I occasionally play hands that I shouldn't start with, because the dealing takes so long and cards look better than they really are when you've gotten shit for the last 2 hours.
But for the most time, when I played 5-10, I would go up a good deal, and then just dwindle down when I would call hands that the pot odds made worth calling, but seem to not catch. Slowly down, fold fold fold, blinds, fold fold fold, blinds, fold fold, play a few hands, not catch, blinds, play a hand, win a small pot, fold fold. I would alter my image as necessary, sometimes raising with 9-10 suited off early position, and playing QQ the same way. So getting action wasn't the problem.
Anyways, slowly dwindled down to $0. I'll take whatever suggestions I may get.
Later, Slay.
1. Perhaps your live opponents are better than your online opponents. "Game selection" could mean that you are a +EV player online and a -EV player live.
2. Perhaps you haven't played enough live hours to accurately determine your live EV. If you really are +EV in live games, your live game results still could be in the red if you just happened to start off with relatively bad hands and/or unlucky flops, turns, and rivers.
Live play and Paradise play are worlds apart. Most folks don't do well at both.
played live poker after three months of pp only...ran over the live games and thought it was my increased abilities and studying players...but really just short term run(luck) ....need a lot more hours of play and analysis of toughness of players, but i do think i play live games better and do not really know why...gl
When this happens to me, it's usually because I'm holding on to too many hands for too long postflop.
I find that a "typical" 3-6 game on PP is relative to a typical 5-10, 6-12 game live, the reason I mention this is that I therefore doubt that game selection is a problem particualarly at 2-4. What you may be doing is just the opposite and giving too much credit to your opponents.
The other thing that I picked up is that you seem to be trying to do too many things live that you're not that familiar with, I mean everything that you said in your post is "a good thing" ie. studying oppponents etc., but I get the impression that you may be overwhemling yourself and not putting enough into what you do right on line which has made you a winner.
The chief advantage of casino play is your ability to spend more time observing your opponents and adjusting to and manipulating them. If you don't excel at this, you might do better online. Also, the far greater number of hands you receive per hour online means that your hourly rate will usually be higher there, so that it might take more time in a casino to accomplish the same result.
The most important factor for low limit players, however, is the higher rakes/tokes/jackpot drops that probably suck out an extra $2-3 out of every pot you win in most casino games. If you're a small winner in the low limit online games, you should expect to lose in a casino.
I am a semi-frequent potser here; the reason I deleted my name is so not to start some rambling debate as to the truthfulness of what I am about to tell you.
Until two months ago I did not own a computer that was up to the task of playing poker on-line; it was a dinosaur which I was always planning to replace but I kept putting it off. Money was not the issue - these days you can pick up a unit for well under $1,000 that will do almost anything you ask of it. My wife (tired of hearing me whine about the speed of the old unit) went out and bought me what amounts to a "state of the art" little devil; I'm pretty sure she paid a little more than she should have, but that is hardly the point.
Due to an injury (nothing horrible but it does keep me from getting around as well as I would like) I have spent the last three and a half months tied to the house. When I got the new machine the first thing I did was download an on-line poker program; I'll leave out the name but it is NOT "Paradise Poker".
At first I was a little leery regarding the dangers of on-line play - collusion being my greatest (but not my only) concern.
I started at 2-4, worked my way up a little at a time, and when I was convinced that cheating was not a MAJOR problem - I'm sure some does occur as I'm sure some occurs in any cardroom - I decided to go move to the bigger games.
I'll let one of the math wizards calculate the standard deviation, i.e. the level of confidence I ought to have in terms of "am I just running good".
I am 99.9% sure (without having done the math) that I have found my pot of gold. For one thing, I have had far fewer "big hands" than I should have had in the number of hours I've logged. Also, it "seems" as though I have been drawn out on a little more than one would expect to be the case.
- I used the parenthesis because we all tend to remember our bad beats both longer and better than the ones we inflict. It is true that I caught two case cards which allowed me to win a couple of rather large pots; in my defense, in one hand I was "absoutely sure" I had more than one out (lol), in the other the pot was large enough to draw to the one out that I knew was all I had - $300+ 5-10 pot with two players all in so I got to see the river for $6.50 - a gutshot straight-flush draw that hit.
Anyway, you guys can crunch the following numbers. I will offer a theory as to why I have been having such astounding sucess.
Total hours played: 468
Total hands played: 20,197 -
- These games usually yield between 40-45 hands per hour; this is an ENORMOUS benefit. It's almost like playing two games at once, which, BTW, I do NOT do.
2-4: 45 hours played, profit - $ 695.25 = $15.45/hr
3-6: 89 " " " - $1,756.00 = $19.73/hr
5-10: 268 " " " - $7,604.00 = $28.37/hr
10-20: 31 " " " - $ 974.00 = $31.42/hr
Ther remaining hours were spent at 4-8 stud (high-low and straight high), and 4-8 Omaha (high-low only). If we group them all together - they are all the same stakes, even though diferrent games) these reults are:
4-8: 35 hours played, profit - $ 508.55 = $14,53/hr
In 468 hours I have won $11,537.80.
I have played thousands of hours in cardrooms, never with results that came close to resmbling these; I've maintained a comfortable win rate, almost exclusively at 5-10 stud and holdem, of a little over $18/hr. I have a winning record at 10-20 and 15-30, but nothing to write home about - just over $20/hr for both games combined, and with a useless sample size (less than 200 hours in my lifetime). I don't play larger than this, other than an occasional "shot" at 20-40 (almost dead even, definitely not + or - more than $300 total).
So why this goldrush on-line ?
1. NO DISTRACTIONS - (I have never found my mind wandering or being diverted by some meaningless event that was occurring elsewhere in the cardroom/casino.)
2. Close to 50% more hands -(That should require no further comment.)
3. Virtually unlimited game selection - It's possible that this should be #1.
4. Lower rake, but in all honesty I don't consider this to be a huge factor.
There are undoubtedly other factors, but I believe these to be the most important.
By the way, the figures I have seen qouted regarding standard deviation do not to reflect what I have encountered. I BELIEVE most of the experts would consider a normal S/D for a 5-10 game to be about $100 - $125 per hour; this would mean that every once in a while (I seem to recall it being 2 or 3 times in a thousand hours) I should have an hour where I win or lose $500. I have inflated the figure due to the much larger number of hands per hour. Well, when I sit down in a 5-10 game I almost always do it with exactly $500 and I have never had to make a trip to the cashier. I don't even recall ever getting stuck $300, but it is entirely possible I did and don't remember it.
I am interested in any and all replies.
Please bear in mind that not only have I no reason to lie, I have a very good reason not to share this information - I certainly don't need any of the regular posters to this forum flocking to my little treasure chest and filling up seats that could remain occupied by my contributors.
Still, I have gotten alot out of this forum; if a few of you choose to wander over - so be it.
My guess is that the majority of you will either chalk my success up to a good run of cards, or you will find yourselves unable to believe it (choosing instead to believe that I had nothing better to do than to concoct this entire story.)
If any of you do take heed of this wake-up call, may I ask a favor ?
Please bring the polite and courteous demeandor you all claim is vital to the game with you when you arrive.
Yes, they do have a "chat" section - and yes, the less skilled opponents who will on occasion take off your pocket Aces with 74off WILL get angry and leave if you ruin their brief moment in the sun.
Best wishes to all who took the time to read this rather lengthy piece.
I will refer to myself in future posts as "PPFSC"
- the "Poker Player Formerly Seen in Cardrooms".
I have collected $8,000 so far.
They do pay you if you win - at least this site does.
I have a friend who has been a successful mid-limit professional player for many years. For several months, he has been playing online in low-limit games. He says the low-limit online games are much tougher (i.e., tighter and more selectively aggressive) than live games (in LA). In fact, he claimed that the style of the 2-4 online players is similar to his regular 15-30 live game opponents.
Playing Poker is a business and it must be operated as a business. Those that win are not along for action, fun or excitement. The goal is to make money.
Successful players keep detailed records. Keeping records breeds confidence and discipline. You know when, where, why and how much to bet on each round.
The idea is to reach a comfort zone for yourself and stick with it no matter what. If you are not disciplined in your money management, you are going to lose your entire bankroll.
To become even-tempered about money takes work. You need to create an abstract money world where profits and losses are viewed in terms of abstract dollars. You don't get excited about profits and you don't get down about losses.
Yes, it's hard, but it's the only way to win. You don't want your emotions to go up and down with your bankroll. If you can't control greed, fear and hope then professional poker might not be for you.
Ramon
if you were involved in a low-limit game with 8 other players and everyone of those other players ALWAYS saw the flop whenever they held at least one ace, regardless of pre-flop raises, and you held Axsuited in the big blind, and there were a total of 6 players who saw a flop of AJ5rainbow, how often would at least one other player be holding an ace?
1 - (39/41 x 38/40 x ... x 31/33 x 30/32) = 43.3%
same scenario as specified above, and you know that no one else but you ever raises with AK, AQ, etc. before the flop, suited or not, but everyone else always raises with AA. how often will your kicker-x be outkicked after the flop of AJ5rainbow appears (with no pre-flop raise)?
if you hold A9, then, when exactly one other player holds an ace, 38.3% of the time you will be outkicked.
however, it is possible that two other players will be holding an ace (18.2% x 43.3% = 7.9%). if you are not outkicked by one player holding an ace, then 39.1% of the time you will be outkicked by the other player. 39.1% x 7.9% = 3.1%.
the total, then, becomes 41.4%. in other words, you will be outkicked 41.4 % when at least one other player holds an ace.
but 56.7% of the time, no one else will have an ace. so you will be outkicked an average of 17.9% of the time whenever an ace flops when you hold A9. (41.4% x 43.3% = 17.9%)
here are the figures for A2 through AK. with A2, the best you can do of course is tie when someone else holds an ace. I altered the flop slightly with A5 and AJ to sidestep two-pair. note also that, for simplicity's sake, I treat an opponent's kicker that's been PAIRED the same as if it were HIGHER than your kicker.
A2
[.894 + (.913 x .079)] x 43.3% = .966 x .433 = 41.8%
A3
[.809 + (.826 x .079)] x 43.3% = .874 x .433 = 37.9%
A4
[.723 + (.739 x .079)] x 43.3% = .782 x .433 = 33.9%
A5 (AJ6 flop)
[.638 + (.652 x .079)] x 43.3% = .690 x .433 = 29.9%
A6
[.638 + (.652 x .079)] x 43.3% = .690 x .433 = 29.9%
A7
[.553 + (.565 x .079)] x 43.3% = .598 x .433 = 25.9%
A8
[.468 + (.478 x .079)] x 43.3% = .506 x .433 = 21.9%
A9
[.383 + (.391 x .079)] x 43.3% = .414 x .433 = 17.9%
AT
[.278 + (.304 x .079)] x 43.3% = .322 x .433 = 13.9%
AJ (AQ5 flop)
[.213 + (.217 x .079)] x 43.3% = .230 x .433 = 10.0%
AQ
[.213 + (.217 x .079)] x 43.3% = .230 x .433 = 10.0%
AK
[.128 + (.130 x .079)] x 43.3% = .138 x .433 = 6.0%
if this were as easy as circumnavigating the globe, someone else (with a higher SAT score than me) would have already done it. I'm posting these calculations as I go in the hope that others who are inspired to try similar forays into difficult terrain will avoid my missteps along the way. I do think I’ve macheted my way into the clearing.
IF you were involved in a low-limit game with 8 other players and everyone of those other players ALWAYS saw the flop whenever they held at least one ace, regardless of pre-flop raises, and you held Axsuited in the big blind, and there were a total of 6 players who saw a flop of AJ5rainbow, how often would at least one other player be holding an ace?
1 - (39/41 x 38/40 x ... x 31/33 x 30/32) = 43.29%
same scenario as specified above, and you know that no one else but you ever raises with AK, AQ, etc. before the flop, suited or not, but that everyone always raises with AA. how often will your kicker-x be outkicked after the flop of AJ5rainbow appears (with no pre-flop raise)?
it’s possible of course that two other players will be holding an ace:
1 - (38/39 x 37/38 x ... x 32/33 x 31/32) = .2051
.2051 x 43.29% = 8.79 %; which means there will be only one other player holding an ace (or two aces) 43.29 - 8.79 or 35.5% of the time.
here’s where things got tricky. when a represents the number of times the opposition’s kicker is lower or equal to your kicker, or an ace (since we’ve excluded that possibility), then .355(46-a/46) + .0879 - .0879(a/46 x a/44) gives us the percentage of times you will be outkicked. I’m pretty sure I got this right.
here are the figures for A2 through AK. with A2, the best you can do of course is tie when someone else holds an ace. I altered the flop slightly with A5 and AJ to sidestep two-pair. note also that, for simplicity's sake, I treat an opponent's kicker that's been PAIRED the same as if it were HIGHER than your kicker. this lumpingtogether accounts for the two pairs of identical percentages.
A2
.355(.9130) + .0879 - .0879(a/46 x a/44) = .3241 + .0872 = 41.13%
A3
.355(.8261) + .0879 - .0879(a/46 x a/44) = .2933 + .0851 = 37.84%
A4
.355(.7391) + .0879 - .0879(a/46 x a/44) = .2624 + .0816 = 34.4 %
A5 [AJ6 flop]
.355(.6522) + .0879 - .0879(a/46 x a/44) = .2315 + .0768 = 30.83%
A6
.355(.6522) + .0879 - .0879(a/46 x a/44) = .2315 + .0768 = 30.83%
A7
.355(.5652)+ .0879 - .0879(a/46 x a/44) = .2006 + .0705 = 27.11%
A8
.355(.4783) + .0879 - .0879(a/46 x a/44) = .1698 + .0629 = 23.27%
A9
.355(.3913) + .0879 - .0879(a/46 x a/44) = .1389 + .0539 = 19.28%
AT
.355(.3043) + .0879 - .0879(a/46 x a/44) = .1080 + .0434 = 15.14%
AJ [AQ5 flop]
.355(.2174) + .0879 - .0879(a/46 x a/44) = .0772 + .0316 = 10.88%
AQ
.355(.2174) + .0879 - .0879(a/46 x a/44) = .0772 + .0316 = 10.88%
AK
355(.1304) + .0879 - .0879(a/46 x a/44) = .0463 + .0184 = 6.47%
In HEFAP21, you suggest to sometimes(tho not frequently) RERAISE preflop with a hand like T9s to throw your opponents off.
My question is: would you recommend to make the same play with hands that are more likely to be dominated i.e. QJs, JTs ? Or would it be better to reraise with hands like 98s and 87s ?
Thanks to anyone who cares to respond...
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
"Or would it be better to reraise with hands like 98s and 87s "
Yes. Although JTs is viable the reason for the raise is to mix up your play in the hopes of putting doubt in the mind of your more astute opponents. I'm sorry, you asked Mason but I couldn't help putting in my 2 cents. I want to add one more thing. In most, almost all, mid limit games you will find around today this play is unnecessary and almost never should be made. There are times in the mid limt games played at Bellagio's in Vegas where this is a good play but the best advice for those games is to find another one. One other thing about the JTs. It is not really in the same category as the lower suited connectors but it has a greater confusion factor against top notch players. They begin to think you over value suited connectors when they see this play. Exactly what you are trying to portray in some games. This is not the same as mixing up your play to throw off your opponents. I hope this is clear.
Vince
Generally no, but it is close. When your hand is dominated it's a little harder for your opponent to hit his hand, so he a little more likely to fold. However, I believe that in these spots you need every possibility to draw out. In most games this play should only rarely be done.
Hey MAson you didn't like my respone?
Vince
I don't know. I didn't read it. Does it say the same thing?
Mason, please be careful. I'm already mad at David from my Badger experience. I don't want to be mad at both sides of the dynamic duo. I did not say the same thing, thank you, but close. I would have like you to comment on my point concerning JTs. But it's not necessary. Say hi to you know who.
vince
n/t
I was reading in Mason Malmuth book “Poker Essays 1” at page 19 where he’s talking about the “Computer Games”. At one time he’s referring to a situation and describing a scenario in a computer poker game where the computer player with pocket 5’s is going into a raising war against another computer player .. .etc … all the way to the river. At one point Malmuth is saying .. “It could not beat the board” Obviously he is referring to the 5,5 pocket cards.
Now, .., my question to you guys is this: It is correct to assume that the pocket cards have to be able to beat the board in order for the player to go beyond the flop into the turn? Of course the flop has to fit the pocket cards but the least they have to be able to beat the board I suspect. I’m referring here to live games of real poker.
I would appreciate a lot if somebody would be able to clarify this for me. Is this a valid assumption that the pocket cards should be able to beat the board in the first place?? …, If not, then how to interpret Mason’s text “It could not beat the board” ?? Maybe Malmuth could do it if he’s reading this post. By the way: I really enjoyed Mason’s books !!
However, Thanks in advance!
When you are playing holdem, you form your best hand out of the seven cards available to you (two pocket cards and five community cards).
I do not recall the exact board in question in the essay (and my copy is upstairs), but if there are, i.e., two larger pairs pairs on the board and a kicker greater than the value of your pocket pair, you are essentially "playing the board." In other words, you do not use your pocket cards to help form your best hand. This is what Mason means by "could not beat the board." Your pocket cards do not figure into your hand.
For instance, if you have those pocket 55s, and on the river the community cards are 7-7-9-9-A, your best hand is 7-7-9-9-A. The best you can do is split the pot with your opponent(s), as he has the option of playing those same cards. Of course, if he has an Ace, a seven, a nine, or a pocket pair larger than nines, he will beat you, as he can now use those cards to form a better hand.
This same situation comes up when there is a straight or flush (assuming one of your 5s is not that suite) on the board (i.e. Ac-Tc-9c-6c-2c or 7-6-5-4-3-2).
You do not actually "play the board" until the river, because on the turn there are only four community cards available and at that point you are using at least one from your pocket to form your five card hand.
Of course, when the board reads 7-7-9-9 on the turn, your best hand is 7-7-9-9-5, an almost sure loser.
Of course, if he has an Ace, a seven, a nine, or a pocket pair larger than nines...Or pocket eights.
you don't necessarily need to be able to beat the board to continue past the flop. what if the board is Th Js Kh and you have 6h7h? Obviously, you will be going to the river in most cases here.... you should be able to beat the board however, if you CALL someone else's bet on the RIVER!!! I believe that is what mason was referring to, but I will have to check in Poker Essays to be sure, so don't quote me. I believe the point of the essay was that computer players just don't play like real players do, no matter how good the program. While they are getting somewhat better, I believe this is true without a doubt. Any sane player in real life would not get into a raising war on the river if they couldn't even beat the board!
dave in cali
I've been looking for info on cardrooms which lists limits, rakes, and whether or not there is a kill. The directories and homepages I've found do not list this information. I'm interested primarily in southern California. I wish there was something akin to Blackjack Forum with detailed info on every casino in the world.
Here you have two links to Southern CA and also to Bay Area
Southern California Poker Clubs and Casinos
California Bay Area Poker Clubs
Ramon
.
California Bay Area Poker Clubs
Ramon
I use pokercentral.com and pokerpages.com, between them I usually get all the info I need. I don't think either one lists rakes, though. But pokercental usually has a paragraph describing the room and sometimes what kind of players you find there, which to me is more important than how big the rake is.
I see signs at poker rooms in vegas saying something like "Proposition and shillings players ok"...I can't exactly remember, but you all probably know what I mean.
What does this mean? Should I fear these kinds of players?
thanks, Worm
Props- at least the ones I know of are paid a modest wage by casinos to fill in games and are yanked out of one game to fil another - they are using their own money. A shill is using casino money and usually used in pit games.
Props usually aren't the type of players one should be worried about.
Bob Ciaffione used to work as a prop. They have to be fairly good to survive.
A standard quote is "Proposition and Shill players will be identified upon request".
Shills play with the house's money and are instructed to play very tight. Basically, Shills are supposed to let themselves be blinded away unless they get the real-goods. While the poker manager may shill once in a while, shills are rare in poker.
Props play with their own money and are usually fairly competant and reasonably selective. If they really played very well they would quit and play when they felt like it. It is customary (and reasonably correct) for props to have a "survive" mentality where they hope to break even playing and live off their salary.
- Louie
This hand happened to me last night.
A loose agressive player raises early and I three bet him with AQs. I had every reason to believe my hand was best at the moment, especially considering his loose raising standards. The blinds calls and the loose player calls.
Now I'm quite sure I have the best hand.
The flop comes rags and we all check. I'm pretty sure I have the best hand but I could be losing to 99 or TT or something like that. A typical move in this game is to check-raise the aggressor when the flop comes rags, so I figure I'll take the free card and see what happens.
I catch a Q on the turn and it checked to me again.
At this point is there anyone reading this who would not be 99% sure he has the best hand?
Let's just say it was three-bet on the turn and called down on the river and he showed KK. This happens to me quite often. How do I avoid this?
Is this just a strange convergence of rare occurences or am I doing something wrong that exposes me to these situations too often?
natedogg
When a loose player raises from an early position, I often would 3 bet with the above hand. I think your biggest mistake is not taking into account that the loose raiser also raises with premium cards. Don't discount this. In the above scenario I would have thought I had the best as well, but I wouldn't have been too surprised to see the result. I would have been disappointed but not surprised.
just my opinion
Derrick Ashworth
you played the hand well, the chump randomly had KK, when you turned a Q. Good for that loser, bad for you.
Perhaps the opponent is one of those guys who will be assertive with marginal hands such as betting AJ on the flop, but will slow-play when against someone who asserted himself. If so, you should be very conserned when this player checks twice.
Perhaps also this is the sort of player who is very assertive but never-the-less respects position; and you just haven't noticed that he rarely plays in bad position.
Perhaps you are the sort of player that jumps out of his seat when he gets a flop or turn he likes. Perhaps you are the sort of player that remembers the beats more than their relative frequency merits.
- Louie
i wonder if he would have check raised you on the flop if you had bet the flop, which i think you definitely should have. there's all sorts of reasons to bet the flop wtih AQ:
--you three bet it preflop so it makes NO sense that you would not bet when the flop comes rags. you gave up any strength you may have earned (particularly against the blinds, and if the EP had had AQ or AK) by 3 betting preflop.
--you might have been given valuable info on the flop if you were raised by the blinds or esp. the EP.
Sounds easy to me. Am I so naive to think that the other guy put you on AA or Ax. If an A falls, he folds. If he has the "best hand on board" (i.e. no ace showing) he will call the river. I see it a lot in low limit. It is as funny to hear the guy with AQ who get beat by KK complain as it is to hear the guy with KK to complain by getting beat on the river as an A falls by someone with A-baby. I think you were correct in your play. Life is full of surprises; KK is one of them when you do not pair Aces
Call me silly, but I do not think AQs was worth three bets in this hand from this position. You are facing a raise and two blinds you are not sure what they will do. The raiser isn't going to drop out. You started with a full table, but ended up with the loose raiser, the blinds who called two raises cold, and yourself. Obviously a few of you think you have the best hand. The other five or so players knew they didn't have a hand and folded.
Now, if you do not flop a Q, or a flush/flush draw, your hand isn't worth much. If you flop an A, you have to worry about being out kicked. If you pair your Q, you still need help I think. I would think most everone has big cards, so I wouldn't put any hope in a straight. With four of you seeing the flop, imho, things aren't looking good. I would absolutely let it go on the turn to a raise, no need to think about it.
Well with no claim to knowledge, but that's how I see this hand. I learned this little bit from experience...with quite a bit of aggravation.
”The flop comes rags and we all check. I'm pretty sure I have the best hand but I could be losing to 99 or TT or something like that. A typical move in this game is to check-raise the aggressor when the flop comes rags, so I figure I'll take the free card and see what happens.”
I think there was the key move that you should have made: You should have bet into him after the board have been painted with rugs on the flop. Why? …, That’s why:
“A loose aggressive player raises early and I three bet him with AQs. I had every reason to believe my hand was best at the moment, especially considering his loose raising standards….., ”
You should have continue pretending strength after the flop but in the same time you could have figure if the flop had helped him in any way. By not betting into him after the flop you lost the effect of the 3 bets against him before the flop. Why did you let that slip away?
However, That’s just my opinion.
Ramon
It sounds like most people are insinuating that there was nothing I could really do. All indications showed that my hand was the best. My suspicion is that I've just been getting unlucky by running into this situation so much lately. But maybe I'm doing something wrong that I can avoid...
Specifically, the hand went down like this:
Loose Aggro Player raises. I re-raise with AQs. One blind cold calls, LAG calls.
Flop comes rags, we all check. I don't want to bet here because it's pretty obvious I missed. I might try to represent a big pair but that never works in this game. I am very likely to be checkraised by the blind who could easily have a mid-size pocket pair.
Regardless, it turned out I was facing KK.
The turn comes Q. Both check to me. "Obviously" my hand is good. I bet, blind folds, LAG raises.
I am pretty sure he simply does not believe that I hit that Q. His raise is a great play if I hold AK and he is very loose aggressive. Is there anyone who would not reraise at this point? Remember, he checked the flop AND turn.
I reraised and he called. Now he bet the river! I have to evaluate and I think the pot is pretty damn big so I have to call even tho I'm thinking "Show me your aces to dumb slow-playing sob."
Does anybody fold here?
A lot of players focus on my flop check as a mistake but regardless, it doesn't have a lot to do with the fact that my AQ caught a Q against KK. In this case, the KK showed serious weakness and totally fooled me into thinking I had the best hand.
Does anyone read the hand progression and thought processes and spot anything that is particularly stupid?
natedogg
And simply played a good trap
When I have the BUTTON, I’m in the LATE position, the best one you want to be. I’m the last one to act and I can see what the other players are doing and what signals they give out according to their actions. When the BUTTON is next to my left arm I’m also in the LATE position. So I will be in LATE position for 2 rounds.
As the button is getting further away from my left arm, I’m entering into the MIDDLE positions for the next 3 rounds. I will be exactly into the MIDDLE when the button is across the table from me at 180 deg.
As the BUTTON is approaching from my right side I start to enter into the EARLY positions being on the left side of the BB. I remain in EARLY position for the next 4 rounds until I go thru 2 seats from the left of the BB then I become myself the BB, SB and finally the BUTTON is passed to me from my right side when I become LATE position again.
Am I correct?
Thanks for being patient with me
Raul
Fundamentally, yes.
Consider making only 2 middle positions and only 2 early positions, adding a "hopeless" category.
Also consider changing your paradigm where you consider how many players act after you as the criteria for your position: 0 or 1 and you are "late", 2 or 3 you are "middle", 4 or 5 and you are "early", 6 or more is "hopeless".
- Louie
what are UTG and cutoff positions???
There's been a thread on the Internet Poker forum recently about how to play JJ many ways (say 6 or 7 callers) in the blinds. Some people advocate raising and some think you should just check. Raising preflop is definitely a profitable play if you just look at it in terms of how often JJ wins. That is, if everyone were going all-in at that point, you would definitely raise. The argument for checking says that the value you give up preflop is returned after the flop, often with interest, because you can usually check-raise overcards out of the pot on an undercard flop.
I've always been an advocate of this point of view but recently I've decided that you probably ought to raise, because the check-raising play can be made anyway on an undercard flop, because people will generally put you on AK when you raise from a blind and check the flop.
On a related point, if the pot is raised before it gets to you in a blind and you have JJ, I would always just call. Your preflop raise value is reduced if the raiser has a bigger pair, and if you don't reraise you can always check-raise the raiser if the flop comes all undercards. If you are reraised here you can always throw away your hand on the turn. You will also get maximum value if you flop a set.
I'd be interested to hear opinions on how to handle the hand from people who don't read the Internet Poker forum. If you advocate raising JJ preflop in an unraised pot, how are you going to handle each of the following situations: (a) You flop top set (b) You flop all undercards (c) you flop one overcard.
Chris
a) here are 2 different hypothetical flops: A) Jd9d8c B) Jd7h2s (assume my hand is black jacks).
A) I would often bet out hoping to get raised. against a bunch of timid calling stations, opening would also often preferable, especially if there's a good possilbility of the flop being checked around. if I had flopped a set of 9's or 8'swith this flop, I'd be much more inclined to adopt the checkraise maneuver.
B) with only the case jack out and a raggedy flop, this is the kind of flop unlikely to encourage much activity. with many opponents, I would tend to bet here because it would seem like no one else would be likely to.
c) against a tableful of opponents, with a flop of Kd8c4h, I'd check and call for one small bet to see the turn, then probably fold if the third jack didn't arrive.
I think the borderline nature of JJ when in the big blind can be best illustrated by simply looking at the pair one rank below it. If you raise with TT from the big blind, you basically need a set to win. TT is simply NOT going to win a showdown unimproved against a field of 6 or 7 opponents. JJ is not a whole lot better.
Back to JJ. Obviously, I advocate just calling. However, either way, raising or not raising, will probably have very little effect on your overall poker profits when you look back from beyond the grave, but the way to win at limit hold'em is to find the slight edges, so here we go.
There are several points of contention.
"BAD POSITION WILL NOT HURT YOU WITH THIS HAND":
The first point of contention is over position. Position seems to be highly under-rated by a lot of players. What they don't seem to realize is that with JJ out of position, you are far less likely to win that pot even if it's rightfully yours. If you had position, you would not only be there to win the pot when you have the best hand, but you would win a bigger pot.
Let me clarify that I'm talking about a game where the six limpers may be weak players but they are not in there with total garbage and they do not play on with hopeless hands after the flop. In fact, they may play fairly decently after the flop. This is fairly common in low limit California games (and on Paradise Poker in fact) where players make atrocious decisions pre-flop but actually play fairly well post-flop. I am often shown down two garbage suited cards for a rivered flush and realize that my opponent played fine throughout the hand, except for his preflop decision. All his moves after the flop were good plays.
What this means is that your position is horrendous. You are in a world of hurt if you are facing six players who can play even half way decently after the flop. Even if you are facing four players who play lousy after the flop and two players who play great, you are setting yourself up by raising preflop. If you play a style where you raise with all kinds of hands from the blinds into a field of limpers, then go ahead. However, if you are selective about your raises from the blinds, you may want to consider JJ more closely because unless you will raise from the blinds with a wide range of hands preflop then you are giving up too much by raising with JJ.
I can't go into all the aspects of position here, but those who downplay the patent importance of position in a hand like this are just plain wrong. In my opinion, of course! :)
Your poor position may or may not rule out a raise, but it certainly diminishes your expected profit on a hand like this, and should be taken into account when deciding to raise. A LOT of people have simply written position off as irrelevant or of minor consequence. I could not disagree more. The bottom line is that you will win with this hand more often when you have position and you will win bigger pots as well. It's hard enough for JJ to hold up and take down the pot when you DO have position. Acting first cuts into your profit significantly.
"JJ WINS A LOT IN A SHOWDOWN SIMULATION":
JJ will win in a showdown against a field of six limpers X% of the time. One poster asserted 28%. I say big deal. Position has everything to do with it. In fact, if you have JJ on the button, I believe you will win the pot MORE than your fair share of the time because you will push out aces and kings that would have hit on the turn and river. You will push off middle pair that might have rivered you. You will do your share of rivering if you get a free card on the turn. Conversely, when you are out of position, you will win no where near the number of pots that you could win on showdown. That X% is reduced by a lot, probably close to half.
If you are the kind of player who will be there to see if your JJ is best every time, then you are probably a long term loser with JJ from any position; therefore you DEFINITELY should not raise.
So don't rely on showdown sims to guide you. You must take into account your position. Failure to do so is simply bad poker.
"IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN RAISING UTG".
When I see this argument I just don't know what to say. I hope it's a joke. The differences between playing UTG and in the blinds with ANY hand are monumental. There is not enough space here to discuss it fully. Suffice it to say if you fail to see the difference between under the gun and the big blind then you need to work on your game.
"VARIANCE IS NEVER A PROBLEM" aka "THE DESIRE TO AVOID VARIANCE IS FOR PANSIES":
If you raise from the blinds with marginal hands like JJ, the variance is high of course. Very high. Variance is often just a fancy word for luck. Some people say you should avoid high variance situations and others laugh it off. It's all a matter of preference but this discussion about raising with JJ from the blinds originated on the internet forum about online games where it's well known that the variance is huge. One of the ways to survive very loose games is to play in a way that will lower your variance. I think it's a valid tactic. If you have no reason to protect your bankroll or you have unlimited funds, then by all means, ignore the variance. Just realize that if you get stuck $2000 in a 6-12 game, you might have reduced that swing a bit by not raising with hands like JJ from the blinds.
"JJ IS A BIG PAIR":
JJ is simply not a big pair. It is a medium pair. It is far too easy to be up against another bigger pair or to face a board with overcards to your pair. It is not strong like KK or AA in that way.
Even if you end up with the perfect board for your overpair, you are still vulnerable to 18 possible overpair combinations. And you'd be surprised how often they are out there. There will be an overpair to your JJ about 12% of the time. That's just one of the many landmines you have to negotiate with JJ. Granted if you are facing limpers it's less likely someone has an overpair but it's still one thing of many to consider with your vulnerable hand. JJ is NOT supreme by any stretch of the imagination.
The other problem with considering JJ to be like AA is that even if it's the best pair preflop, any board that gives you JJ as an overpair will often be highly coordinated and help those who came in with small connectors or Axs. There just aren't that many five card combos below J that won't help someone who has been with you all the way. You have to be concerned. Even when your hand is good, without position you can't maximize the situation. Let's say the board is 22679 on the river and you are facing two opponents. Well what do you do? You will often check. Even if you bet, you may get called by a better hand or raised. If you have position, you can bet for value if everyone checks and even fold when you need to. If you see a bet and a raise or even just an overcall, you are probably in big trouble with JJ and can lay down.
With a hand like KK, your overpair is more likely to remain good because there's so much more room for an uncoordinated board. Again, with JJ, either you're facing an overcard or a coordinated board, both of which are dangerous to your hand and will likely cause you to make a mistake when you are out of position.
JJ and even QQ are not really the same as the big pairs. They are significantly weaker hands.
These intangibles are what make AA a far superior hand to TT, JJ, QQ and even KK to an extent, despite what a simulation would show. Some people will disagree with me but I really believe it's harder to maximize the profit of JJ when it's good than with AA. In both cases, you'll have the best hand but with JJ you'll miss a lot of bets and often fold incorrectly. That's what makes AA so good. If you are out of position as well, then JJ loses a lot of its value because these problems are compounded by your poor position.
"THE BIG POT SIZE IS NOT A DRAWBACK":
I disagree with this. When playing a marginal hand like JJ, you don't want everyone drawing against you and calling with middle pair ace kicker on the flop. At that point, you are drawing just like the rest of them. In fact, once the flop comes, there may be more cards in the deck that hurt you than help you. And remember, a scare card can take the pot from you even if your hand is still good.
In addition, this large pot size may cause you to lose more money. You will certainly be tempted to overplay your JJ and you will now be correct in calling bets on the turn and even river when you are very likely to be beat. This is because if your opponent is even only 10% likely to be bluffing you will often have the odds to call when the pot is so big. By raising early, you put yourself in a situation where you were almost forced to put more losing money into the pot. In the long run you may win but this kind of variance takes a LONG time to even out. You have essentially raised yourself into losing more money.
I recently read the newest edition of HPFAP and I was pleased to see that their loose games section confirmed a lot of conclusions I had reached on my own about loose games. On page 159 the book discusses the effect of raising preflop with a hand that is pretty good but not great, and JJ certainly qualifies as pretty good but not great.
From HPFAP page 159: "With a hand that is pretty good but not great, if you don't raise and thereby cost yourself a little bit of money at that point, you gain it back plus some because had you made the pot bigger there would be less opportunity for your opponents to make significant mistakes later on. ....The problem is that by putting extra money in early you may make your opponent's [post] flop play accidentally correct or close to it."
One thing the book doesn't mention is the double edged sword of creating a situation for yourself where you are putting money into the pot because it is so big you now have odds to stick around in case your opponent is bluffing even 10% or 5% of the time.
my final comments:
I think this whole issue boils down to position. I like getting money into the pot when I have an edge, but it's a seven card game and you may be best right now but your miserable position will severely cramp your style once you see the flop. Now you are almost always going to bet the flop if you raise. You practically have to. If you check because it looks dangerous you are giving up immediately. You will lose that pot even if your hand is best. By checking you basically tell the field "That is a scary flop for me so go ahead and bet me out of this pot." Because of your position, you are forced to stab at the pot before anyone can act and therefore you are often throwing away a small bet. Position will save you that one bet just about every time.
If you bet and get raised, you can only think about calling if there are no overcards and even then, you are still in a precarious situation. If one of 12 overcards comes, it almost doesn't matter what your opponent has, he has a very good chance of taking the pot from you at that point, unless you are overly tenacious with a hand like JJ, in which case you should probably fold it preflop rather than play it at all. You will lose money in the long run with JJ if you are too tenacious.
Do not underestimate the importance of position when you hold a marginal hand like JJ.
Remember, this discussion is solely concerned with raising from the blind against a field of six limpers. In my specific experience, I often play in games where players are very loose preflop but can play well post-flop. If you are playing with absolute morons, then that may tip the scales in favor of raising.
Overall, I think you're slightly better off by not raising, but it's a very borderline situation indeed. You aren't making much of a mistake either way.
natedogg
Would you rephrase your post? I'm not sure I understand. Just kidding, a little overkill, but I agree 100%. I think there is a lot of confusion between the proper play at low limit and higher limits.
I didn't have time to read it all - I will finish it tomorrow - but...
1. I agree that putting JJ (or even QQ) in the same category as Aces or Kings is a mistake, especially in a loose game.
However...
There is a WORLD of difference between JJ and TT.
There is a significant disparity among the value of ALL pairs until you get down to 6s or 5s; there is not a great deal of diferrence between 55 and 22.
It seems from having read your previous posts that you have (unfortunately) been on the wrong end of set over set more often than most; you may therefore be of a diferrent opinion regarding 55 vs. 22.
One of the biggest pots I ever won was with a set of threes against a set of deuces, but that one event does not change the fact that there is almost no diferrence in how, when, where and for how much I will play these two hands.
I cannot imagine mucking a pair of deuces in a situation where I would play a pair of threes.
There are very few differences in how I handle any pair from 55 to 22.
I did not say NO differences, but there are very few.
The only time I would make a case for 55 and 22 having a significant difference in value (I am referring to pre-flop play only) would be if I were making a play at the blinds; in such a case I would MUCH prefer the fives. In a multiway pot they are - IMO - of almost identicle value.
Maybe I need to look at a few higher sets; this would definitely lead me to take a closer look.
But if S-O-S has not been a major problem after the ten thousand or so hours I have played, I don't expect it to creep out from behind its bush now.
Then again, as one of our more frequent contributors likes to say, "your mileage may vary".
Best wishes,
- J D -
nt
I totally agree with J-D.
Just to illustrate, with QQ you have a 70% chance of flopping a set or overpair. With JJ this drops down to 50%. And with TT, it's even worse at 37%.
The cool thing about 55 vs. 22, is that with 55 you still have a 1.12% chance of flopping an overpair. But, in reality most of the extra value of 55 comes from the larger number of straights that you'll make.
- Andrew
I think everyone would be way ahead of the game if they looked at JJ more like 99 than QQ.
As for TT it makes one more straight - JJ is a sucker hand and should be played very carfully specially with more than 2 seeing the flop.
"JJ is a sucker hand and should be played very carfully specially with more than 2 seeing the flop"
That was my exact initial response. then I started to think that I was thinking to much like a no-limit player. JJ with 7 limpers is a profitable hand period. How much profit is a function of how well you play after the flop.
then I started to think that I was thinking to much like a no-limit player.
Heh,
And how many hours of no-limit play do you have, play money or otherwise?
- Andrew
Not much, between the Masque WSOP game and PokerPages, I would guess, 200-300 hours. I have also spent more time studying the concepts from "Super System" and "Championship and Pot Limit Holdem". These books are all you need to know to realize that JJ is a sucker hand in NL. Playing experience is probably more important to doing well in NL than any other game, since it is a "people game"; however the concepts and strategey this game requires are best learned in the books from the greats. I certainly don't have the knowledge or experience to give any advice on NL or lay claim to any ability in the game, but I certainly am qualified to recognize the fish appreciate JJ as a good hand.
In no limit, every hand is a sucker hand if it's in the hand of a sucker.
I can't tell you how much money a sucker will lose with AA in no limit.
natedogg
With 6 or 7 people limping in, JJ can be raised strictly for the set possibility. You add in the chances of hitting an overpair, or a straight and your throwing away a ton of EV by NOT raising.
And position is very, very important in a tight 10/20 game where you can easily be dominated and there aren't enough callers to soften the blow, but when 6 or 7 people are seeing the flop for 2 (maybe 3 bets) it is basically showdown poker. Your going to have to showdown the best hand to win. Your creating a tie on effect, which is good in this case because 2/3 of your wins are going to be when you hit this hand very, very hard.
The tie on effect is going to hurt you when you flop an overpair, but it doesnt even come close to giving back all the EV you made pre-flop by raising.
I just could not disagree with more when you say:
"And position is very, very important in a tight 10/20 game where you can easily be dominated and there aren't enough callers to soften the blow, but when 6 or 7 people are seeing the flop for 2 (maybe 3 bets) it is basically showdown poker. Your going to have to showdown the best hand to win."
I assuming that you mean to imply position just doesn't matter in this situation. It matters to ME. Just because it's showdown poker does not mean that position is now unimportant. Position is crucial, especially with a vulnerable hand like JJ.
Anyway, like I said, I think that this whole thing boils down to the issue of position. Either you believe that having worst position is bad for this hand or you don't. I mentioned in my previous post just a few of the reasons why your bad position makes this hand hard to play. Do you disagree with any of it?
natedogg
Position might cause you to miss a couple of bets.
Will position cause you to lose the hand? Of course not.
Because of these missed bets, will position cause your EV for the hand to be lower? Of course.
Can this lower EV make it unprofitable to raise certain hands out of the BB? Of course.
Is JJ one of these hands? Definitely not.
I pretty much agree with that Joe.
"Because of these missed bets, will position cause your EV for the hand to be lower? Of course."
So, are you advocating that checking and seeing the flop is the more porfitable play than raising preflop?
No, JJ is worth a raise out of the BB against 6 or 7 limpers. Take advantage of the one time in the hand that you do have position. It will make it harder to defend your hand on later rounds and will probably cost you a few bets on either the flop or the turn, but the pre-flop EV is well worth it.
The pre-flop raise will also mean that when JJ flops as overpair its going to take some significant heat, and this heat would be much better handled in later position as NateDogg indicated. But this again is not enough to cause JJ to not be a raise out of the BB.
"Take advantage of the one time in the hand that you do have position"
Please explain to me the "advantages" of your postion here.
n/t
I guess that means you don't really know what you ar talking about.
Geez Gator, use your brain a little bit. You have the best hand and you can trap 7 players for an extra bet. And you DO have position pre-flop. And it will be the last time in the hand unless it gets heads-up between you and the SB.
Now on every future round you have crappy position, and it is going to cost you some bets.
"Will position cause you to lose the hand? Of course not."
Position might not 'cause' you to lose the hand, but there's no question that you will muck more winners in early position than in late position.
natedogg,
Can you give some specific examples of how a hand might play out such that being out of position hurts you severely?
David PS hope this isn't too late to be noticed
In this case, folding your JJ in the BB when the flop is AK2 and there is a bet and a raise before it gets back to you. Then a Jack comes turn or river, making your (folded) hand the best.
You raise preflop from the button against three limpers, and there is a K on the flop. If you check, this pot goes to someone else, period. He's going to bet, and WHAT did he call your raise with? Maybe KQ, maybe KJs, maybe KT if he's a weak player. Maybe he's bluffing. But since you're out of position there's no way you can maneuver a free card or get him to lay down. You may fall into the ultimate calling-station trap: "maybe he's bluffing me." If you do this a lot, good luck.
Let's say you have some cojones and bet out on the flop no matter what comes, even that damn K. If you bet and get raised, then what do you do?
The ONLY good scenario for you is to bet the flop and take it down. If you bet the flop with overcards and get any action, your odds of winning the pot, whether or not you have the best hand go down considerably.
Hope you see this post. If you want to start a thread on this issue, post the question up top. I'm sure you'll get tons of interesting responses. One thing to keep in mind is that many limit players underrate position enormously. I used to do it myself! :)
natedogg
If it were me, and seven people are in the pot, it had better be with no prior raise(s) for me to see the flop. If I remember correctly the odds of making a set by the river are about 11%? How is there any profit in this situation, unless you feel you can bully your way to the pot?
Folding JJ in the blind 7-way because of a raise would be a huge mistake, for the reasons others have mentioned in this thread.
It's 19% for at least one more jack to hit the board by the river. It's just under 11% to flop a set or better. After the flop, you'll have an overpair or a set about half the time. You don't need to rely on bullying to make money with this hand.
Thanks for the note, now it makes sense why it's a good play. Too many numbers, too few usable brain cells...
MIke
Read the subject line slowly and you will realize how silly this common statement really is. Similarly, your wish: "I'd be interested to hear opinions on how to handle the hand from people who don't read the Internet Poker forum." How can people who don't read the forum comment on a post FROM THE FREAKING FORUM!!
Geeezzzz......
natedogg: a bit windy, but good points. Hope you become un-broke soon......
What is it that makes Hold'em THE poker game. Why does 2+2 have four different forums on Hold'em and only one for all other games put together? Why is the THE World Series of Poker the NL HE event? Just curious for your guys' opinions.
Holdem has a nice combination of luck/skill. Literally, a novice can walk into a card room, learn the basics of the game and walk away a big winner while playing almost every hand.
Loose players are rewarded often enough for their style of play.
I find an analogy in dog training (or child rearing). The worst thing you can do is "sometimes" reward bad behaviour. It make the dog try more often and to be more persistent in it's poor behaviour.
The poor player in holdem is "sometimes" rewarded with nice wins. When they don't win they simply need to play more often and looser in order to be rewarded again (or so they think).
Winning players like the games as well because there are the above players in the game.
Regards Mike N
Simpley stated IMHO it is the best card game ever invented.
Doyle Brunson said that NO-LIMIT Hold'em was the Cadillac of poker, not just regular HE. Huge distinction, as the recent threads on no-limit vs limit HE attest. And Doyle has always said that NL HE is primarily a people game, not just a card game.
The posts above referring to limit HE have captured the attraction of limit HE, IMHO.
And, please, learn to spell. Cadillac has an "i".
Enjoy.
While I would have no problem with your calling HE the best POKER game ever invented, IMHO, the best CARD game ever invented is bridge. In fact, bridge is the only card game I could possibly imagine playing purely for the enjoyment of the game and not for money. Not that I haven't played tons of rubber bridge over the years for a few sheckels, but I found the intellectual stimulation of the game reward enough in itself.
I remember reading somewhere that Binion chose Hold'em to be the feature event of WSOP because it lent itself well to a freezeout tournament structure, and also it made for a good spectator/TV event, since everyone can see and easily follow the community cards.
No poker game plays heads up as well as HE either.
preface: This is assuming a loose enough game so that AKo/AQo cant win unimproved.
We are also assuming that no dominating hands are out against us. Hands that dominate us are the worst for us, but when we raise we are obviously hoping they aren't around or we would be folding instead of raising.
Situation: We hold AK and we raise UTG in a very loose game. Who do we want to call us?
The worst hand (for us) that can call us is a suited connector. In fact, every other hand makes money for you by calling EXCEPT for suited connectors.
All pairs between 22-QQ calling makes you money (actually, pairs 77-QQ both of you make money by him calling). All dominated hands obviously make you money. ALL hands except AA/KK and suited connectors make money for AK when they call. When suited connectors call they take money away from AK.
2nd situation: You hold AQo and raise UTG. Who do you want to call?
This situation is very similar to AK. The only difference is now you dont want suited connectors OR suited Kings (excluding KQs) to call. Every other hand makes money for AQ by calling.
Very confusing post but AK AQ are dogs to pairs only slight but still dogs - To answer what I think is your question - with AK - AQ I want weaker A's and KX QX I don't mind suited connectors specially if I have the A or K of that suit.
What I don't want with the AK-AQ is a lot of callers as the collective outs hurts me a lot.
As long as you have enough callers that AK/AQ can't win unimproved, then you don't mind lots of callers because all of them make money for AK/AQ except for suited connectors. You dont mind QJ, QT, KT, 67o, T5s or any of those hands coming in because you are making off of each one that calls. The only hands you dont want in are suited connectors, because they take EV away from you.
If you have the A or K of that suit then the impact is less, but they still take away from you.
The collective outs dont bother you, because each hand has to hit twice to beat you. It reduces your win rate, but increases your EV.
As for pairs, your dogs to pairs heads up. But in multiway pots both of you are benefiting. If QQ limps in you gain EV from his limping. He takes all his EV from the guys that limped before him.
I'm not sure why I don't want to play against the suited connecters. I'll certainly take my AK against 67s anyday.
Certainly in a multiway (7 players) the pairs are all +EV and the suited connectors may be plus EV as well. So there's no room for you to be plus EV as well.
This seems to lead us to believe that you would want to play against unsuited and non pair hands.
What I am trying to say is that as each player calls, your EV increases for that hand EXCEPT for suited connectors. When they call, your EV for that hand goes down.
I find this a very interesting phenomenon.
I did not run the tests to see if it is true for big pocket pairs, but I suspect that it is not.
Do you think this is true up to a point or all the way to 10 players
Suppose we assume that no one will call with worse than a non-suited 1 gapper.
Do you suppose there is a point at which your expected EV starts to drop. I would think so.
Obviously card values change depending on the number of players but they change differently depending on the actual cards.
An analysis of each type of "good" hand would be interesting
Can you please explain your reasoning?
First, the idea struck me that if AKo and AQo can't win unimproved why do we care what hands come in? Because all hands are going to have to hit twice at least to beat us. So then I started doing Turbo Texas Hold'em simulations to determine if it really was +EV for "the more the merrier" syndrome that happens with AA and KK. Which basically means that AA and KK want as many people as possible to play.
What I found out was that once the number of callers exceeds the point where AK/AQ cant win unimproved, then every extra hand that calls creates more EV for AK/AQ EXCEPT for suited connectors, which lower the EV of AK/AQ for that particular hand. This +EV syndrome applies to all pairs 22-QQ, all suited cards except connectors, and all unsuited cards. Also, in the case of AQ, Kxs also take away from AQ's EV.
This is all based on TTH simulations and on showdown poker simulations.
Can you simulate it such that 1/2 callers fold on flop and then a few more on the turn.
ideally you want weak tight players who will fold on the flop if they dont flop quality draw or top pair.
in a very loose game im coming to the conclusion that raising isnt always 100% correct.
brad
If this is based on cold simulations it might be misleading.
A big part of the statistical "power" of a suited connector played to the river is the ability to hit a backdoor straight or flush. But most players won't play them after the flop if this is all they can do. If you take this tendency into account you might finnd that you welcome a suited connector calling multiway, just as you certainly would head-up. I suspect they can't drag down your ev by much anyway.
I entitled this post as I did just to BUG all those people who like to give me flack! Bring it on!
Actually, I made a play last night that I thought was really good, you be the judge.
I am in a very loose medium aggressive game. I get pocket 99 in the cutoff and limp 4th into the pot. I debated raising here, but I thought I was on the borderline of whether or not this would be profitable. I was unlikely to narrow the field to less than exactly 4, and medium pocket pairs don't play that well against exactly 3 or 4 players, yet I really couldn't fold either. So I limp, button limps, SB folds, BB raises. BB is fairly tight before the flop and doesn't raise without something decent. Everyone calls and we take the flop 6 handed.
Flop comes 8d 7h 4c. BB bets and all call to me, I raise with my overpair. BB reraises and everyone calls to the loose player on my right, who caps it. I call and everyone calls, still 6 players. I now put the BB on an overpair, probably AA-QQ. If I don't get help on the turn I will probably fold, depending on the action. Given the looseness of the capper's raising standards, I do not necessarily put him on ANYTHING.
The turn brings the 6h, giving me an open-ender and also putting a flush draw on board. BB checks and everyone checks to the guy on my right, who bets. Here is where I thought I made a good play. I raised him.
The idea was to drive out the BB, whom I put on a big overpair. I picked up an open-ender, so I have outs even if someone else calls and does in fact have me beat. But getting the bigger pocket pair OUT of the pot is critical if I am to continue with this hand. If he folds, the chance of my winning the pot increases dramatically. This is one of those cases where the pot is big, and increasing your chances of winning the pot is the most important consideration if you intend to continue with the hand. If I just call, I am basically giving up on any chance of my overpair winning and I am just drawing to a one card straight that's not the nuts with a flush draw on board. Nope, Raise to get out the hand that likely beats me. Increase my chance of winning the pot.
So the BB FOLDS, which is exactly what I want. One player, UTG, cold calls my raise. The bettor to my right also calls the raise and we go to the river 3 handed.
River is the 5d, giving me a straight. If I am beaten by a higher straight, I already was anyway, and the river makes no difference. If I WAS beaten by a higher straight, they would have had the NUTS on the turn and no doubt would have reraised me, therefore I am not beaten by a higher straight (by my logic). Checked to me, I bet. Both call. The turn cold caller has 76o and has made two pair, and the flop capper has Ah8h and has a pair of eights.. Go figure. I win a big pot. I love this game!
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
I think your play and analysis of the hand was perfect.
Seriuosly, good play.
.
Very nice agressive play and the best part is that it worked!
Good job
Charlie
Seriously, good play.
.
I really liked your explanation of this hand. I would have probably just called on the turn... which would have been a mistake.
Thanks,
Derrick Ashworth
You should have raised preflop. There are other reasons to raise besides getting more money in the pot or limiting the field. You quite possibly had the best hand and or you may have bought the button. Plus you may get everone to check to you on the flop and be able to get a free card if the flop is unfavorable. Raising might let you take control of how the hand is played.
vince
I know how stupendously brilliant I am, that's why I posted the hand with the title I chose. Thank you Vince for pointing out that I could have raised pre-flop for reasons that I had not considered in my post. I felt it was a borderline decision, and probably let the fact that I had previously been losing influence my decision - ie lower my variance. I was somewhat joking when I wrote the post, but I did in fact realize that I made a very good play, and wanted to write about it. I love to joke and my writing style is somewhat geared towards getting reactions out of people, but I do in fact realize that I am not a master player. Rather a well informed student of the game. We all have limitations, and I do realize what mine are.
The nice thing about hands like this one are that when you make a good play and win a big pot, you can get a sort of "image momentum" going. Prior to this hand I was losing about 130$. I was a fixin' to have to buy some more chips. But this pot put me pretty close to even, and after that my opponents seemed to view me somewhat differently. For example, I raised a short time later before the flop and only the BB called, and he had KJs. My opponents all seemed to play less aggressively against me after this. Could just be me, but I think my observations were genuine.
For those who are about to fire away because of my recent comments on variance, consider this: when faced with a borderline decision, where you feel that it doesn't really matter either way, then it really DOESN'T MATTER. If you have in fact been losing, there is nothing wrong with taking the lower variance approach to borderline decisions. However, if you CLEARLY have the best of it, then I am against using variance as an excuse to play passively. When you clearly have the best of it, play it like you got it.
Thanks for the comments on this and all my hands to everyone.
Dave in Cali
Vince,
Raising isn't bad but I think calling is a bit better for the reasons Dave stated. His further reasoning underneath your post makes calling even better than normal IMO. Save the raise when you have a dominant image from winning and momentum.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I haven't picked on you in a long time so I'm glad you responded to this so I can get back into practice.
"Raising isn't bad but I think calling is a bit better "
Sounds a little wishy washy to me.
"Save the raise when you have a dominant image from winning and momentum."
Now your saying that a raise in the situation described stinks! Well what is it "isn't bad" or just plain stinky. Go ahead don't pull any punches I can take it. The boys and girls over on rgp are "raking me over the coals" as we speak. I've got thick skin.
Do you really think Dave was thinking about his table image when he "failed" to raise. O.K. I'll give you the fact that he was losing and that alone has an effect on your opponents. But no where does he say that his image was so bad that no one was respecting his raises. This is much more important than the fact that he was behind a little.
9,9 is one of the most dificult hands to play. I hate raising with it. I fear getting three bet with this hand more than any other. But when you are in the cut off and hve four (4) limpers before you one must raise with this hand. Must do you hear me! Must! I'll let David elaborate. That is if he wants me to stop being mad at him.
vince
Vince,
You are picking on me when I have my hands tied behind my back. For the last couple weeks my brother from Boston had been visiting (bringing two weeks of rain) and he took over the spare bedroom where I keep my computer. Since I hardly had access, most of my posts have been quick "in and outs" just to keep my name in lights on the fabulous forum. They were analogous to having yourself paged at the Beverly Hills Hotel when out of work just to make you look important. Too bad cell phones ruined that trick.
Anyway, let's forget about Hollywood, image and momentum for a moment, I think you should usually call with 99 in the cutoff after four limpers. Once you get more than one or two limpers in front of you this hand wants many opponents and limping facilitates this by letting in the blinds and button. “Buying the button” and “driving out the blinds” is overrated for this type of hand, which either flops big (a set) or is an overpair to a baby board.
If you do raise, you want the button and blinds to fold and a good chance to win without a set. Showing down a series of recent winners with top hands helps you in that most opponents tend to remember your recent hands. If you have been quiet they will be less fearful of you. If your last five raises have been made with big pairs and big slick, winning decent pots, then you are likely to get hands like AJ to fold when the flop comes T-5-2 and you bet.
I'd write more but I'm two weeks behind on chores. Visit next time you come out. Also, will you be at Mason's lecture on April 20th?
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I'm in Boston. Does your brother play poker? Maybe at Foxwoods?
Think about the situation you are in here. You in the cutoff with 9,9. 4 limpers. This hand does indeed want a lot of players once you get past one opponent maybe 2. And that is the point. You are already gauranteed a lot of opponents with four limpers.
What does limping do for you? Just about assure you get the button to call and the blinds. But the blinds are gonna call anyway so they don't count. Limping only brings in the button.
What does raising do for you? The button now has to make a decision. By raising you are giving him a chance to make a mistake. He may call 2 bets with a weak holding like 6,6 or 7,8s. Or maybe you are getting him to fold something like J,T or Q,T. Also the blinds were getting a free shot if you call but now they have to put more money in and so do the limpers. Yeah you need to hit your hand to win in most cases but when you do it's well worth the extra raise here. Couple that with the possibility that you can get everyone to check to you and get a free card raising here is a must. This just may be the premiere situation for 9,9 to act strongly.
I realize that you are a California player and a rise here might start a Californai raising frenzy but if all these players are in you are not that bad off.
Yes a raise here is a must. And I'm still mad at Sklansky because he didn't explain this.
Vince
Vince,
My brother has never made a wager over $5 in his life and hates cards. However, Mom and Dad (they live in Rhode Island) are gambling away our inheritance on their twice monthly visits to both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, which is probably for the best anyway. Those Indians need money more than I do.
I don't disagree with the raise when you have a powerful image (do I sound like Caro here?), but in most cases four limpers and a probable caller or two in the blind(s) and/or button are too many to bully in terms of getting a free look at the turn and so on. If I had two more limpers I raise to manipulate the pot larger in case I hit a set. If I had two or three fewer limpers I might raise to help win the pot without making top pair or an overpair. But with this number of limpers I think calling is better MOST of the time. Don't count on Sklansky to elaborate ;-).
Regards,
Rick
“Buying the button” and “driving out the blinds” is overrated for this type of hand, which either flops big (a set) or is an overpair to a baby board.
I disagree with this with regards to buying the button. This is exactly the kind of hand where you want the button because if the flop misses you and you are concerned you may not have the best hand or be able to force everyone out, you can take a free card and hope to see a 9 on the turn. If the button was still in, he would very likely bet behind you when everyone checked to him and you would either have to fold or pay a bet to fish for one of your two outs.
Bobby,
I've been speed surfing and just caught your post. Threads just race down and as it is I only post on four or five and still can't keep up.
Buying the button is always desirable. But relatively speaking, I think it is more imporant with trouble hands such as AJo. By trouble hands I mean hands that are likely to be a favorite over the field but ones that rarely hit the flop hard. I'd elaborate further but I need to hit the sack ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Vince, Dave did not say what limit this game was. I think he plays low limit (is that right Dave?). He said the game was loose, medium-aggressive. I think in this game, the 99 should be called pre-flop. In a loose game, you need to flop a set. You want to see the flop as cheaply as possible. If you raise, everyone goes “whoopie” and all of a sudden the betting is capped just like it was on the flop. A pre-flop raise is not good for your implied odds. Now when an overcard hits, someone certainly has it.
On the other hand, in higher limit games 10-20 or above, it is easier to raise players out when they have marginal hands. There I think your pre-flop raise makes more sense. But in that game, I would be more afraid of the earlier callers and still probably would not raise pre-flop. What do you think?
Considerations for raising with this hand in this situation are only slightly affected by the limit that you are playing. In this situation you have the best of both worlds. You just may have the best hand before the flop. If the button folds or calls it is to your advantage either way. Making the blinds pay an extra bet is to your advantage also. If they call your raise along with everyone else you know have 7 opponents. Certainly you must improve to win but you are getting excellant implied odds. I agree with the idea of getting in as cheaply as possible but not in every situation. This is a very unique situation. 9,9 in the cutoff with four limpers in my opinnion is best played aggressively prefolp. It is a high variance play.
Dave made a good play in this hand by raising the turn. He assumed the blind had a big over pair. I am more inclined to believe he had 2 overcards but that doesn't mean the play wasn't the best play for the situation. The reason I mention the play is because it shows that the game was not a no foldem game. If it was the blind would have called all bets on the turn. Raising before the flop might give you control of how the hand plays.
Vince
.
you have an excellent point about the times you flop an overpair in a raised pot, they all check to the raiser (you) and you bet the flop, then they all call and an overcard hits. someone almost always has it. Keeping the pot smaller might convince more to fold after they miss the flop, plus you are more likely to be bet into if you have not raised pre-flop, thus allowing you to raise the flop and narrow the field.
As a counterpoint though, in the games I play, pot size is almost COMPLETELY irrelevant to most anyone in the game except for myself, so they will call with any draw, any overcards, undercards, pocket dueces, backdoor three high flush draws, etc.... These games are difficult to decide what to do with decent but not stupendous hands....
I think it was a good play.
Had you read the other players as having 2 pair then a call would be correct since you couldn't expect a fold and could even be re-raised.
In retrospect a raise would push out the overpair and you could be checked to on the river so a raise is good even if you suspect 2 pair. Even more so since an 8 or a four gives you a better 2 pair but only if the overpair is gone.
So the raise give you a T (you hope), 5, 9, 8, 4 as outs. Without the raise only the T, 5, 9 for 10 versus 16 outs. A 60% better chance at winning the large pot. RAISE AWAY
that no one had two pair until the river.
good comments though
If your original post was accurate the cold caller turned two pair.
so you put him on AA-QQ and called two cold for the two outer. Fish.
It was the cheap street. It was a big pot. He does have some implied odds. He does have cards to hit to give him a turn draw.
Not entirely a fish draw.
I am interested in how many players would lay this hand down in this spot.
Regards
My first reaction was to lay it down, but that is wrong for all the reasons you give. The pot is about the right size even for a 2-outer given the implied odds with others to act behind and the fact that he can lay down if no help on the turn. The added possibilities that a 6 on the turn brings (straight draw and ability to make the better hand fold) has to provide enough extra outs to make calling correct.
x
f
I am extremely tired from a very long session (profitable, for which I am greatful), but I feel I must speak oout about this play.
First of all (this is primarily for Vince) the call pre-flop was close, but in a low-limit game it was probably the correct play.
(Vince, you don't play in these games; there are a number of very good reasons not to raise here - if you wish to debate this point I will look for a response to this post, but I will concede that raising is not a terrible play by any means. Last night I spent 4 hours in a great 3-6 game, moved over to 10-20 then 20-40 and finally back to the 3-6 which had again become too good to pass by. I look for the best game in the room [although these are my lowest and highest limits]; I feel that this gives me the priveledge to compare the way low vs. mid limit games are played.)
As to the raise on the turn:
I like Dave. His posts are polite, often humorous, and he always admits to not having achieved expert status.
But Dave, your turn raise was not a "brilliant move"; it was a no-brainer. Any other play would have been an atroscity.
1. You had a chance to knock out the best hand and become the holder of the best hand. - In point of fact, you were trailing when you raised but the size of this pot made the raise absolutely mandatory. It wasn't even necessary for the SB to have an overpair; this raise would have been a necessity - perhaps moreso - had he held AK or any other two big overcards.
- On second thought, I will leave out the reasoning - you know what they are, you mentioned most all of them.
My point is that if you are going to take the huge leaps you seem to aspire to take, you must learn to spot situatins that are clear-cut in one direction or another.
This was one of them.
Please take no offense - you made the right play.
I just don't want you to think that spotting this play puts you into a new group. When you are making these plays by rote you will have achieved this status.
Sorry to piss on your moment, but I assume(d) that learning as much as you can about this game is more important than a pat on the back.
P.S. It was still a good play and you should take pride in having spotted this. And congrats on dragging the pot.
I hope I did more good than harm by posting this; I assure you there was no malice intended. Nor was I trying to toot my own horn; I still "realize" new things every time I play.
Still, plays like this must become second nature if you want to really "get up there with the big boys" (and I'm not reffering to playing for bigger stakes).
Also, you should have been thinking about what you would do IF this card DID land on the turn. You should not have needed to reason this after the "six" landed.
Again, I hope I was more helpful than hurtful.
My ONLY intention was to assist you.
Best wishes,
- J D -
"your turn raise was not a "brilliant move"; it was a no-brainer. Any other play would have been an atroscity"
Agreed. It was either raise or fold, with folding being a horrible move and calling being the worst move of all. I just like to toot my own horn! Big surprise, eh?
And JD, I totally appreciate your post. I post hands on the forum because I WANT to be scrutinized by good players, and by better players than myself. Everything you said was backed up by logical arguements.
I accidentally clicked on the post by JV, a player who totally has it out for me. (I forgot that I was done reading his posts). But once again, all he had was trash talk with no logic or reasons to back it up. He didn't even bother to analyze his own statements. I called two cold, this is true. But there were six players whom had put six small bets each into the pot. So I was effectively getting 17:1 odds. The implied odds were huge, I had five opponents from which to collect five big bets, just on the set value. Plus, I had a backdoor straight draw, plus there was still some chance, albeit small, that I could still have the best hand. JV, even if I DID call JUST for the two outer, it's only a 22:1 shot and the implied odds did in fact justify the call. Do me a favor and don't respond to my posts anymore until you have something intelligent to say. And respectable posters put their EMAIL address on their posts. Talk all the trash you want, I suspect that you are a LOSING holdem player from your posts.
JD, you on the other hand, have given honest criticism and backed it up with reasons for what you are saying. I don't care if you offended me, I really could care less about "tone". Rounder often uses blunt and harsh words in his posts, but he expresses valid ideas and supports them with reasons, so his tone is essentially irrelevant. I always read HIS posts!
And for the entire forum, I, Dave in Cali, Do NOT claim to be an "expert". JD certainly did NOT offend me by pointing this out. I am merely a student of the game, trying to build a reputation as a good player and writer. People love to talk trash, they can say what they want about me. I DO in FACT have a WINNING record, and if you are going to claim to be a "player", this is the bottom line. And I can talk a pretty good game too. But anyone and everyone should realize their limitations and recognize when the time is to be humble. Despite my non-expert status and limitations, I am very good at game selection, which often makes me an expert relative to the magoos I like to play against!
One other thing, part of the reason I called two more on the flop was because of the backdoor draws, I just posted my thoughts on the six because I happened to be on that paragraph. I am always considering possible plays that I might make if I pick up a good draw on the turn, such as a semi-bluff raise. Good point though, thanks for pointing that out.
I also think the flop call/raise was borderline, so I am not going to analyze it much further. I probably would have raised if I was winning at the time, let's leave it at that!
Dave in Cali
I just replied to the post by JV.
If you are a fish then there is no point in my playing poker anymore.
If you fold on the flop (for 2 bets) it's not the end of the world. Most times you're going to call 2 SB's and then fold on turn anyway.
The call is better, however, for the reasons you state and if you fold with proper odds then why play at all.
I use every opportunity to be in a pot and that is likely a leak since I probably over-estimate my chances
"It was either raise or fold, with folding being a horrible move and calling being the worst move of all."
You have 99 with a 2-flush board of 8746 and you're looking at 19-1 immediately after it's bet in front of to you on the turn. I think it's raise or call with folding being out of the question.
You can't consider folding because you can't put any opponent on T9. I suppose the only exception would be if the flop capper would only play as he did with the nut draw, and would have raised earlier on the flop with a made hand. That would be an awfully good read, although you'd have to be certain with a pot this large, especially since two of the cards he'd need are in your hand and you'd still have 3 outs for half the pot anyway.
If the BB needs a real hand, raising on the turn works only if he'll fold some of the time. I think most experienced LL players can fold an overpair in this spot. I can, although I've learned the hard way that folding to pair to a turn raiser is dangerous when the turn might have given him a draw. Still, when you'll have to call at least three and possibly more bets before the end of the hand, calling with AA here is usually wrong.
If the BB never folded an overpair in a large pot, like a lot of players I know, or if he needed a set or two pair to 3-bet the flop and therefore wasn't about to fold, then the only effect of your raise would be to cut down on your drawing odds, and calling would be the right play.
On the other hand, if he's capable of jamming on the flop with something like AK, then raising is even more correct because you have a better chance of having the best hand and raising will likely knock out him and other overcards and weaker draws as well.
I agree but may change my mind.
Raising is the best if you can expect that no-one has the big straight. A single 5 "should" check to you on the river but if you percieve the original better as a hyper-aggressive then it may be better to just call.
In general, I say raise unless you have information that makes it likely you are behind and will be re-raised.
Call if the case above is true UNLESS you are 95% sure the raiser has 9T.
Tough raising the flop against this field. You are probably better off calling hoping to narrow the field with a turn raise (such as when the BB with AK checks and your assertive buddy bets on your right bets). You are last, your hand is disguised, yaddy-yaddy. Tough calling the flop raise when you know you are beat and you have 2 outs plus a back-door one-card straight. Marginal-to-Bad flop play.
The reasons for your turn raise are very sound. In fact, this is a brain-dead automatic raise if there is some little chance you have the better beat (which you do). Yes, risk one more bet to save the whole pot.
- Louie
No, the river was a 4 pairing the board and the BB disgustedly snapped at you, as did your buddy for outdrawing him. ... It really IS OK to make up a more favorable ending.
At Bay101 there are 3 props who play regularly in the mid-limit games. Prop #1 is a goofball and gives pretty good action so I don't mind when he is in the game. Prop #2 seems to be a decent if unimaginitive player. Prop #3 is definitely the tightest of the three but he has a very curious playing style. Here are three hands that kind of surprised me. I was not involved in any of the hands. limit is 15-30.
Hand #1 - game is currently tight and passive. #3 limps in early position with A-Ks. this is the hand that really caught my attention. rate this play.
Hand #2 - game is currently ideal. #3 is on the button. certified nutcase is in the big blind and there is a loose-agressive (LA)player in mid-position (but not maniac, has some grasp of advanced hold'em skills). On the turn only these three players are in the pot. the board reads 9-10-J-x with two suited cards. nutcase leads, LA calls, #3 raises, Nutcase re-raises, LA calls, #3 caps it, Nutcase and LA call. another rag falls on the river; there is no possible flush. Nutcase leads out again, LA folds and #3 FOLDS!!
What the hell could #3 have that he would cap it on the turn and then fold to one bet on the river? The only hand that I could think of is possibly a busted baby flush where #3 put LA on a flush draw as well and was trying raise him out in case the flush came. Now its possible the nutcase had K-Q for the nutty nuts, but believe me, this guy would pound the pot with Q-8 or even 7-8 so if you had even the second nut you would HAVE to call. All in all a really strange play from #3.
Hand #3 - game has been tight with occaisional bursts of loose play. Our hero is in the big blind. There are 4 limpers plus the small blind. #3 raises. at end of hand he drags pot with A-Ko. Comments?
.
I ran across several books by Sklansky on Ebay. They were listed pretty cheap! Check out 1415141850,,,, 1415162556,,,,,1415153499,,,,,1415157983
This particular circumstance plagues me because my post-flop play has proven to be unprofitable. You raise first in with AK, get a cold caller and the BB along for the ride.
Flop comes something like 984 rainbow or J104 rainbow. With both types of flops I bet out. I'm unsure as to what the best play is if raised from the cold caller.
In the past, I've called hoping to spike an A or K or runner runner flush. But heads up I often also call on the river hoping the cold caller is on a busted draw. Lately, I've called the flop bet but folded to a turn bet unimproved.
What's the best play? Is it better to treat AK just like Aces? Reraise the flop and bet the turn hoping draws and medium pocket pairs will fold. I've only tried this a few times but I hope the forum's experience can substitute for my own experiments. In this case, I figure any pair will call a river bet that called a turn bet so I check the river if unimproved to try to induce a bluff river bet.
Also, if the BB calls two cold on the flop how should THAT affect my play.
I'm sure this has been discussed before so comments welcome or a reference to a similar previous post.
Thanks in advance,
Jamie Collins
Your 2 examples are a little different. In the first example you said 984, and in the second example you said JT4. The first scenario you calculate your outs to be 6 (any A or K). On the second your outs are any Q for the nut straight + any A or K given you 10 outs.
You raise preflop and are called by 2 players leaving 6.5 SB in the pot (including small blind). You bet and are raised after the flop puting another 3 SB in the pot... this gives you 9.5:1 to call 6 outs is about 8:1, so it is a profitable call. The second example it is a no brainer call. You can even check call the turn (if you feel a pair of A's or K's can take down the pot).
Derrick Ashworth
Problem with the JT4 flop is any of your AK outs becomes a probable straight or 2 pair for one or more of your opponents both are expensive.
AK is still the toughest hand to play specially in early position. I don't think there is just one way to play it it is palyer and table sensative.
I agree with you about what I call possible dirty outs. There are a lot of possibilities such as someone playing KJ or AJ against you... so when you spike your out you may still be second best. In the above scenario where I say you may have 10 outs... to adjust this it may be write to say you have 8 outs: 4 clean and 4 dirty.
Derrick Ashworth
if you can muscle the cold-caller out of the pot then you would have no problem folding for a raise (984) since if he flopped nothing he would fold. But you can't since you can't predict his reaction to your flop bet. This flop bet is, therefore, not very profitable.
Therefore, you may be better off checking ALL your pre-flop raising hands to him (including AA) and either trap him or manipulate him into playing more predictably.
- louie
"What's the best play? Is it better to treat AK just like Aces? Reraise the flop and bet the turn hoping draws and medium pocket pairs will fold. I've only tried this a few times but I hope the forum's experience can substitute for my own experiments. In this case, I figure any pair will call a river bet that called a turn bet so I check the river if unimproved to try to induce a bluff river bet. "
Betting then reraising the flop is most likely going to be a waste of $$, as you will only very rarely still have the best hand, or if you do, you will be up against a good draw some of the time anyway. Betting the turn when you have been called twice for three bets will probably not make them fold either. But the thing about your post here that I don't like is that you said that any pair that called your turn bet will call a river bet, so you check to try and induce a bluff. Well if you still have unimproved big slick, checking and calling to a pair is a poor way to make $$!
You cannot treat big slick like aces or you will lose $$ in the long run. Playing AK aggressively when you miss should only be done if doing so will give you a good shot at winning the pot without a fight.
If the BB calls two cold then he probably either has you beat or has a good draw. consider this when deciding what play to make on the turn.
There is no magic formula for this situation, but you should not always feel inclined to bet when you have big slick and miss the flop. it is situational dependent and also depends on your opponents.
dave in cali
Anybody know what this is? I'm trying to induce some non-poker players to go to Salt River Casino and this game is advertised there.
It's a form of black jack - players play againse each other - house takes a rake.
It sucks!
You're heads up on the turn last to act. When is raising the turn with the intention of checking behind on the river the correct play?
In general, when you don't fear a reraise or when a reraise absolutely means you are drawing dead, plus either (1) your raise will make him fold hands with outs that would not pay off on the river if they didn't improve, and/or (2) your hand can improve in which case you will bet and sometimes get called but if that card comes he will probably check the river even if you didn't raise on fourth st. I will leave it to others to come up with examples.
If you were thinking of calling both the turn and river, then your conditions make this play a no risk alternative. You risk nothing because your opponent will not force you to invest more in the pot, and you gain because you can win an extra bet or force your opponent out immediately. I think I get this part.
However, if you're planning on folding on the river if you don't improve, do your conditions still apply? I am kind of a beginner so I want to confirm my thinking. This may be totally obvious to a competent player.
This play risks 1 extra bet. The upside (Your condition 2) implies that you gain an extra bet when you win. You're getting even odds on the turn raise. Now, if you're an underdog, that makes this turn raise a semibluff, and you must get your opponent to fold enough to make up for the odds you're laying.
It seems to me that this is a crucial extra condition given these circumstances. It all may come down to if you were going to call on the river anyway, since then you're not risking anything extra. I guess that's the more specific question: do you make this play, in general, only when you were planning on calling the river anyway?
Dan
If you are going to fold the river when unimproved then unless you can win by raising I would suggest calling.
I think it depends on the type of hand you have. The turn raise is a solid defence against the semi-bluff. The opponent wants to win it there but may need to consider folding on the river if you bet after he checks. Note that you would bet on the river if you thought he would call with a weaker hand OR if you thought he would fold a stronger hand. Your turn raise has set this up.
I would say when you have a hand that "may" be best but can inprove to a very good hand that your opponent could not possibly have. Also should be against a predictable opponent.
Say a pair of Aces with a good kicker, one of the aces matching a 3 flush on board. Even if your opponent has a flush he must be wary of you having the nut flush already.
Now to read the real answer. 8-)
This is a reprint of an email I received from a very experienced and well read player, whom I will NOT name. However, this one was just TOO good not to grace the forum with...
Hi,
Last night I made a play that was so bad that I would hide it if it wasn't so funny.
I was in the only Maniac game I've found in Las Vegas, and I am deeply frustrated. I'm too the left of a five star Maniac; he is flashing his cards at me, then raising with trash, and I still can't beat the game!
He would raise with trash, I'd reraise, and somebody would suck out.
You need to know my mindset to understand my incredible blunder.
I'm in a pot with two weak players, not the Maniac. The board is A,K,J,T, and all but the ace are clubs. I have the Q of clubs, giving me a Broadway and an open ended draw to a Royal Flush.
For some reason I forget that the three clubs on board means that someone could have a flush. Honest, I completely overlooked that possibility. I thought that I couldn't lose if the river was a blank because the other players would also have Broadway's, and if it was a club, I'd have the near nut flush.
I bet. One player raised. The second player reraised. If I'm at all intelligent, I would have realized that the three-bettor had a flush. Actually, he had the nut flush, meaning that only the nine of clubs will win the pot for me. Because I'm a Magoo, I CAPPED IT WITH A ONE-OUTER!
The punch line is obvious. The poker gods decided: "This guy is so dumb that we have to help him." I caught the nine of clubs, won a huge pot, and got a $20 bonus for having a straight flush.
Ridiculous!
Why do I tell this embarrassing story? Because it's funny, and I had better remember it when I feel sorry for myself when other players make Magoo plays and draw out on me.
None of you have made such a dreadful play (I hope), but you've made bad ones that won huge pots. We need to remember them so we don't feel so damned sorry for ourselves when we get bad beats.
So folks, you don't have to call me "The King of Magoos." Save time by calling me "Your Majesty."
Had full house, aces over queens, heads up. Opponent kept reraising me on the turn (I already had made my hand). On the river he caught Kd, for a royal flush, the only card that could have beaten me. All I could say was, "Nice hand." This happened about a month ago.
Papio
About a year ago or so. I had pocket threes and flopped a set and the pot came down the heads up with me last. On the turn, the board was 3-J-K-J. I don't recall the betting exactly but I know the other guy showed some spunk. It was either bet-raise-call, or check-bet-checkraise-reraise-call.
The river was a king. 3-J-K-J-K. He checked. I checked. He turned over pocket aces . . .
And I MUCKED!! I didn't even realize what happened until ten minutes later. I was sitting there, doing basically nothing, and all of sudden it hit me. Right in the gut. Yeech, it still hurts!
Tommy
I was in a game about a year or so ago at the Orleans in Vegas. It's the turn in a family pot, and the pot is very, very, huge. I had flopped middle set with a rainbow flop, with the action being capped on every round.
The turn had been a rag and altough I liked my hand on the turn, I loved it on the river. My one outer to have the nuts came. My joy soon turned to horror as I looked down to see I had no cards. I'm not talking about no cards on the board, I'm talking no hole cards in front of me. I was in a state of shock. The only thing I can figure happened was the dealer must have scooped up my hand after all the betting on the turn.I must have forgot to put a chip (or hand) on my hole cards and even though I was in for all the bets, The dealer inadvertantly scoped them up without me even noticing until it was too late.
I wanted to crawl under a rock.
Good Luck
Howard
Well I once I started 7h6h, flopped the nut straight, turned it into a straight flush, ... capped all the way ... then caught the 6h on the river, then turned my hand face up declaring a mis-deal since their were two 6h in the deck.
I was shocked to discover I had started with the 7h6d and just MADE the straight flush. *DOH*
- Louie
Another time I capped it a couple times with what I thought was the nut straight, when I didn't have a straight and someone had a flush anyway. Gotta pay better attention.
im trying to decide whether i should even continue in my pursuit of a particularly juicy 6/12 kill game i found. (becomes 12/24 when someone wins two hands in a row, which happens fairly often). it's packed with players who regularly showdown Q3o, J4o, 37s, T5o, etc, etc. im not exagerating either. and every single one of the players at the table (save me) is playing like this. they bluff sometimes too so it can get a little tricky. anyways, ive played 3 sessions there. the first one i won $50 in about 4 hours. the second one i lost $250 in about 4 hours. and last night i lost another $220 in about 3 hours. am i just getting the shit knocked out of me and i should stop trying to beat this game? or should i stick with it? am i playing with far too low of a bankroll if im leaving the game down $250? what would appropriate buy-in and re-buy be for such a nonsense game? help!!!!! i bow down in gratefulness to all your forthcoming wisdom.
am i playing with far too low of a bankroll if im leaving the game down $250?
Are you leaving the game because you're out of, or low on, money? If so, then yes. And losing $250 in this game is nothing. I've had sessions where I've won $600 and lost $380 in sane, non kill, Vegas 6/12 games. And I usually buy in for between $300 and $400. It's a lot but I like to have more than I need. I would recommend at least that much in a wild kill-pot game.
This is what happen with me last night at Bay 101,
I went and played a $6-$12 Hold'em game. I could tell some of the players weren't very good but I had no idea how bad until the following hand: I was the $6 big blind and was dealt the eight of clubs and the three of clubs. There were 6 or 7 callers and I checked my option to raise. The flop was three clubs: queen, seven, and four. I bet $6, hoping that no one else had two clubs in the hole. I got 4 callers. Now you would think that my bet would tell everybody that I had at least one - if not two - clubs in my hand. The turn card was the ace of clubs. I decided to try to scare out the other players by betting $12. Two players folded and then the next player raised $12 and the last player called $24. My thinking was that they had to know I had at least one club and since there were 4 cards that beat me (nine, ten, jack, and king of clubs) I had to assume that at least one of these two players had me beat. I couldn't call another $12 this round and possibly another $12 after the river card. I folded. The river card was a blank. This made the nut high hand the king of clubs. The first player bet $12 and the other player called. I was shocked to see the bettor showing a deuce of clubs in his hand and the caller show that he had no clubs at all!
Plug this in your computer!
Ramon
PS: I was a winner for the night, but this tells you what’s going on out there.
You were a winner for the night precisely because your opponents play like this. Sometimes they're gonna catch thin to beat you and sometimes they're gonna get you to lay down the best hand. But you're gonna beat them because you play better.
Good comment, Andy Fox. Since I don't let these kind of hands worry me, I've been winning. And chase only when you have the odds. Correct? please reply...
Correct. If you play better than your opponents, you're going to win. You're going to be drawn out on more than you draw out on your opponents because they're going to be taking the worst of it more than you do. I had a guy beat my pocket Aces with 3-2 offsuit today, but I was a winner in the game and he was a loser. It hurts when the Aces bite the dust; grin and bear it, tell your opponent nice hand, take a walk if you must, and continue to play your solid, tight-aggressive game.
.
Just because YOU know what your bet "should" mean does NOT mean you should presume the opponents know it.
That was a pretty hopeless bet you made on the turn: [1] Loose opponents do not lay down ANY flush no matter how "scared" they are [2] Loose opponents don't get scared with a flush; any flush [3] Inexperienced opponents don't know they have a "deuce" flush (pretty low), they think their flush is "Ace-Queen" (very high). [4] Obviously, these two opponents weren't scared by your bet and you should have known they would not be scared. When you make a play you need to FIRST consider the target.
- Louie
I got news for you, you got outplayed on this hand. The guy with the 2 of clubs knew his only chance to win was to raise you to make it look like he had the nut flush. It was a perfect play on his part, if you re-pop he knows he's beat and throws it in. You dont, you fold the winner and he takes the chips. Like I saud, you got outplayed...
Is no point to argue this subject at this point, but You are wrong! Absolutely Wrong!
There is someone I play with quite a bit who has only one serious flaw in his game - he is THE single most predictable opponent I have ever encountered; it is my opinion that he also plays too tight, but in most of the games he plays in this is not a major problem. Given his kack of skill, this trait is probably the only thing that makes him a winner - a small winner but a winner nonetheless. (He plays 10-20 and 15-30 with an occasional drop down to 5-10.)
I am not posting the following hand to show my brilliance, rather to show what a truly unaware player is capable of.
I am in the BB with pocket threes. It is folded all the way around to this player who raises from the cutoff.
The only hands he can have are AK, AQ, or KQ; there is a small chance of JJ, but the first three are by far the most likely.
How do I know this ? It's actually simple. With AA, KK or QQ he would just call (a mistake but it is how he plays) since he does not want to win only the blinds with any of these hands. With LESS - a smaller pair, or something like AJ, KJ, or the like - he will also just call but in this case it's because he does not want to commit extra money to a pot in which he is not a HUGE overlay. (I did say tight.) With anything less he would likely fold.
The button and small blind fold; I call without hesitation. (I never even considered re-raising - why alert him to the fact that he has to catch up.)
The flop comes: J 9 5 with 2 clubs. (I have the three of clubs but this is of no importance.) I check, he bets, and I call.
The turn is the 6 of clubs. I check, he bets and I raise; he re-raises immediately, so I'm not winning this if the 4th club lands (he obviously has a high club) but I am now certain he does NOT have the nut flush - he would never 3-bet the nuts and run the risk of me throwing my hand away - so I call.
The river is an off-suit Queen - I fire right out for two reasons.
1. He is capable of laying down AQ or KQ; he PROBABLY won't but he will often enough to make this bet profitable.
2. He is capable of getting pi--ed off (about missing his draw) and calling with AK.
- I know this bet is discussed in "HPFAP" but it's not quite the same situation.
He looks at me and says, "I don't think you have your hand, I call".
I show my 3s and collect a nice little pot. (He does NOT show his AK but there is little else he can have.)
Later in the session an almost identical situation develops but I am without a pair; I defend my BB with 8-6 suited. I flop a 15 out draw but miss. Lucky for me no Ace, King, or Queen is a part of the final board. He remembers the hand with the 3s and when I bet the river he obligingly MUCKS his hand. (I had no pair.)
What more can you ask for ? I get to value bet a pair of threes, and later get to bluff with a hand that barely beat the board knowing there was close to a 95% chance of success.
He often complains about not doing better - specifically how bad his luck is.
Yep, he is unlucky and he doesn't figure to get any luckier in the near future.
- J D -
I am relatively new to Hold'em and to this forum.
Vince Lepore has been kind enough to answer my queries in the past.
Thanks to Vince, I have just bought the book, "Hold'em Poker for advanced players."
I enjoy working my way through it, and I understand a lot of it.
But, perhaps someone would be kind enough to expand upon, "This means that the best way to often play decent hands when one of these combinations appears is to just call on the flop, see what hits on fourth street, and then either fold , call, bet, or raise."
I have other queries, too, if anyone is willing to answer them under this thread.
Thank you,
Mike.
Here is an extreme example.... Let's say you had red A's and of course you bet them as you thought they were worth. Four players come with you to see the flop. The flop comes 89Tc (this covers both areas of the thought).
What are your A's worth now? Anyone holding JT has a straight, JTc has the absolute nuts. Anyone holding 67 has the ignorant end of the straight. Anyone holding Axc has the nut flush.
You need to slow down and see how much interest is in the pot by the betting going on. You could [and many people do] lose lots of chips ramming and jamming with your top pair or overpair. You see the river having the third or fourth best hand.
Hope this helps?
The section in question is discussing how to play when the flop is all one suit or otherwise dangerous. The advice given is to not play either tricky or too aggressive when a dangerous flop hits. Put in the minimum on the flop and then play according to what comes on the turn.
For example, if you have A-J and the flop comes J-7-2, you should play aggressively. But if the flop comes J-T-9, or contains an Ace but three of a suit (of which you have none), caution is in order and you would be well advised to call and wait to see what develops on the turn.
So I've never really played poker in a real casino before, but I have played a good ammount online. I am a consistantly winning player at 3/6 HE Paradise (probably about 1.5 BB/hour/table), and I'm pretty sure I can beat the 5/10 game there too, but it requires concentration. I've heard that Foxwoods is a good casino and I'd like to go there some weekend (or maybe a Friday) to play poker soon. I'm mostly interested in the Hold'em games there; I am learning to play 7-stud, but for now I only feel confident with Hold'em. I have a few questions, any help would be greatly appreciated:
1. When (day and time) can I find soft Hold'em games, and how should I decide which ones to play in (for table selection my sole goal is profit maximization)? What stakes there are comparable to 3/6 and 5/10 online?
2. What is the cheapest way to get there from Boston (and back)?
3. If I decide to stay a night what kind of rates can I expect? Should I stay somewhere besides the associated hotel (quality is not important, I just want low rates... otherwise, how am I supposed to make a profit)?
4. What are the tipping conventions there for the various stakes? Also, do they pool the tips there or do they go to the dealer I give them to?
5. Presummably I should just take cash with me and leave with (hopefully) some winnings in cash as well. Is mugging and/or pick pocketing a serious concern around there (I'll probably have on the order of magnitude of $500 to $1000 with me depending on what stakes I decide to play)?
6. Speaking of money, I generally like to have 50 to 100 BB with me at the table (I just don't want to have any chance of going all in... and I want to get in as many heads-up raises as possible against people who keep raising without the nuts). Would I look odd or something if I sat down with $1000 at a 5/10 game?
7. Are the tournaments worthwhile, or does the casino charge too much beyond the entrance fee?
8. Any other advice for a first time casino player would be greatly appreciated, especially advice specific to the Fox and Hold'me there. Thanks.
If all your questions are honest, don't go.
Why do you say that?
..., to honest.
However, this related to poker it may not work in the long run.
honest? what?
I don't get why no one's answering my questions... if you don't feely like answering a bunch then just answer the most important question please... when can I find soft LL HE games at Foxwoods?
I been there twice and played weekend and midweek.
The weekend is when you'll be more likely to find a soft game.
You will not be able to profit longterm if you try to stay overnight near there. I stayed at a nice inn for about $100/night. Why not just drive?
You may not get answers here as many will expect this question to belong in beginners question forum.
I will try to answer some of them. I occasionally play at Foxwoods when I travel to RI:
1) Foxwoods has 2-4 & 4-8 games. They also have 5-10 with kill games that seem more difficult. You get some of the 10-20 players in the 5-10 game. I havn't played the 2-4 game but the 4-8 seemed reasonably weak.
2) Only way I know of is on I-95.
3) I have never stayed near Foxwoods but there is an Inn that has pretty good rates that is associated with Foxwoods. Check their web page.
4) Most people tip $1 a pot. Foxwoods does pool tips so I never tip more then $1.
5) Anytime you have $1000 on you on cash you need to be more careful. Foxwoods seems pretty safe to me.
6) $1000 for a 5/10 games seems excessive but it really is your choice. You may have players go after you early.
7) I love the Foxwoods tournies. The Saturday morning Hold'em gets a lot of players and it is pretty cheap.
8) Have fun.
Ken Poklitar
You are naive and they are going to eat you alive. I don't care when you go there. If you don't know that for you the best thing to do to get there is to drive, you are only 1:30 hr. drive away, and drive back home the same day, then I say : don't go. I am only trying to help you, I am not a wise guy. Good luck.
I play at foxwoods, so I'll answer your questions. The hold 'em games they have are $2-4, $4-8, $5-10 and $10-20. The 5-10 is played with a full kill and the 10-20 with a half kill. Most of the time, the $5-10 and $10-20 are pretty tough games, mostly regulars. I'll play those limits sometimes, but only on the occasions that there are a lot of weak players in those games (which never happens on weekdays). I mainly play the $4-8 and I can honestly say that the game varies a lot. I've seen it be very loose, I've seen it be very tight, I've seen it be passive, I've seen it be aggressive. Sometimes it's a tough game, sometimes it's really, really not. Varies a lot. The $2-4 is going to be significantly softer than the games you are used to online.
People usually tip a dollar (at all stakes) and the tips are pooled (which makes me tip a lot less-- do they realize this?), but I've never seen them give anyone a nasty look or show any reaction to people not tipping enough. I've never stayed there in the hotel, so I can't comment on that. As for transportation, this is the real issue (I think). Do you really want to go there now? I haven't driven recently but with this snow, the traffic has to suck. Well, anyway, if you're willing to put up with it, go ahead. Realize that it might keep others away too though. Your other transportation option (the one I use) is to take a bus. Greyhound runs buses from south station to foxwoods (with a brief stop over in providence, which makes it slower than driving yourself, but I don't have a car). The bus costs $25 round trip. If you take the bus, be sure to check the schedule, because some of the buses to foxwoods make extra stops along the way and can take up to an hour longer.
I've never played a tournament there so I can't comment on that, but I would imagine that they are a good way to introduce yourself cheaply to live (as opposed to online) play. As for how much money to have infront of you, people will certainly think it's weird to buy in for $800 at $4/8, but I don't know if you care what they think. You can certainly buy in for much less than that, and have enough not to go all in. If you want to be protected, my advice to you is to remember that cash plays (i.e. counds as part of your stack), so just keep a couple hundred dollar bills under your chips and you'll never have to go all in. Hope this helps. Tell me if you have any other questions. Bobby
Your questions were good. Most or almost all first timers in a casino would not know the answers to your questions. Every player here had their first time in a casino. I think they forgot that. The only way you can learn is to get your feet wet.
It is hard to win right off the bat. The casino experience is needed. It is different than on-line. Play very good starting hands. Play position. Good luck.
I'll try to assist by expanding on the prior posts:
1. I don't think you'll regularly find soft games during the week. Weekends mean more players and tables and, thus, higher chances for a weak table, but there's still a lot of good players from 4-8 on up. Stakes are 2-4, 4-8, 5-10, and 10-20. Weekends may bring on a 15-30 or 20-40, but their staples are the 4 previously mentioned.
2. I always drive, but I play with a lot of fellows that take the bus down from the Boston area for the day. $25 I believe plus they give you $10 worth of food or match play coupons.
3. Poker Room Rates, when available and only during the week, are $79 in the main, attached hotels and $49 for the on-site, detached inn. Otherwise, they're up over $100. Surrounding inns and motels within 10 miles probable average $70.
4. Tips are pooled. Tipping is generally $1, but some tip $0.50 for small pots and $1 for big pots in the 2-4 to 5-10 limits.
5. I've not heard of mugging or pick-pocketing problems, but I'm sure it occurs like everywhere else in the world, so caution is always prudent.
6. Most players buy in for 20 to 25 BB.
7. Tournaments are fun and not expensive. Weekly they have Limit Hold 'Em Monday evenings and NL Hold 'Em Tuesday evenings. They also hold more significant tournament events a couple of times a year.
8. I think you should take a drive or bus and give it a whirl. If you like playing on-line, then I think you'd like the live games, especially during the weekends.
Good luck!
Keith
No surprise there are many players who will play any two cards that could give them a straight. Usually they are cards to a middle straight, say some combination of 7 - J, or 8 - Q.
If you have two such players at a ten player table who will almost always play for a straight, how badly do they hurt each other concerning their odds of making their individual straights if they both get possible middle straight hands? Don't have a clue how to fugure something like this, but do you have a ballpark guess?
I would think they lower their odds to a few notches higher on the X:1 scale of making a straight.
You can make a straight with 97 with 865, T86, or JT8. There are 4*4*4 ways to make 865 = 64, or 64*3= 192 total. If someone else, anybody else, started with an 86 (whether played or not) then there are 3*3*4 ways to make 865 or T86 and 3*4*4 ways to make JT8 for a total of 36+36+48 = 120 ways; or only 62.5% as often.
That's a rough calculation and the actual result isn't quite as bad.
- Louie
Thanks! There are some players I have seen who will play any straight combination. It dawned on me that if there are at least two of them at the table, they are hurting each other, but that was as far as I was able to go with it.
Mike
NO!!!!
They are not hurting each other's chances since the first one's chances are hurt only if SOMEONE started with his needed cards; not whether that player played them.
However, when they are both involved in a hand they often have each other's cards indicating a favorable situation for the 3rd player since the other two are drawing relatively slim: instead of 2 players with 8 outs each its often then case you have 2 players with 6 outs each. These two particular opponents are slightely more likely to have each other's cards than some other two opponents who happen to be in the pot.
But this is generally true for Holdem: the more callers the more likely they have each other's cards and the LESS outs, on average, each actually has. Rarely so at stud where more often than not each caller is drawing to his own unique hand.
- Louie
I haven't played much poker in the last 6-8 months. I have been quite busy. Things are finally slowing down so I will be able to play more poker. My question is what do you recommend to get my game back on track? I usually play between 6-12 to 15-30. I have been reading up on S&M books but is there anything else anyone can recommend. All advice is appreciated.
Thanks in advance
Dice
I would play tighter than I usual until I got my "feel" back. I also would try to "think" about the technical aspects of the game while playing. In a way, you have an opportunity to potentially change old bad habits by relearning the correct habits.
How are the LLHE games at Bay101? What kind of players are playing low-limit at the Bay? Is the min. age 21 or 18? If it's 21, what's the closest indian casino to the bay area?
Thanks for the info.
10-20 TH Hands Report,
Played at Paradise about 300 hands over the weekend. I took notes of the hands that I enter the pot with, they are about 10% of the total. Every one is a raise if nobody raised to me, or a RR or a Call.
I’m going to put here the actual hands that entered the pot. AJ,K9s,QT,AT,KQ,QJ,AJ,K6s,KQ,QQ,T9s,A7s,QQ,AJ,A4s,T9s,QT,AQ,AT,AJ,QT,AT,Q9,ATs,A3,AA,K8s,A4s,AJ,A7s,QQ,K9,A4s,Q9 and AJ
The final result has been a profit $600 over about 8 hours. I’m telling you it was a boring weekend. You will see some hands (in bold) like T9s,A7s,QT,AJ,QT,AT,AJ,Q9 they where loosing hands and I lost money on them.
The rest, they have been the winning ones and I guess from there the profit is coming. Everything else was a fold!
Comments?
Ramon
You were pretty lucky to win such a high percentage of your hands...
I don't like to reply (substantively) to posts that are written so incomprehensibly. It is a disfavor to your readers to make us struggle to figure out what you're saying. You're allowed to post like this, but it's impolite, IMO. Even if I'm wrong (or in the minority), it's sure to elicit fewer replies than if written out in full sentences with full details.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Tierd of everybody complaing about language and things.
And yeah, It was in the beginig of the no-limit in Pokerpages tournamnet i write it but maybe I should have writen some blinds ( Is it so importent to write down it. I meen and hope I not the only one how not remember all cards and blinds :)
Some stars in Poker is good ....and they how s not a star belive they are I meen ....If you have won WSOP 1 time dont meen you are a good poker player ( you only a rich one:).
One more thing some here thing they king ...they doing the Math and they yeah, doing....things smart people do.
Some people think they now
Like this post I read one guy had won 500 in 3/6 PP and then some one says in how many hour he says in 50 hour. And then some start complaing about it is impossible and saying things.....you see what i meen
think this should bee a more friendly page...and the younger beginners in Poker should have some to look up to...some star...and I am shore beginners is affraid of posting here.
comments please ??
sorry for the English
I think Two Plus Two needs to have an annual awards ceremony. Obviously, it wouldn't be as big the ESPYs. So booking the MGM would be a waste. Maybe they could have it at the Westward Ho, or the El Cortez. If this ever happens and Greg's post doesn't get nominated for funniest post of the year, there will be hell to pay. Kudos, FossilMan.
The word is tired, not tierd.
A hypothetical scenario:
You’ve got the BB in first position against an aggressive, gambling, not very sophisticated opponent. Your opponent raises just about every hand on the button from the small blind. You pick up J8o in the big blind in first position and as usual your opponent raises. You call and see the flop. Flop is Q 8 4 rainbow. Of course you should mix up your play in this spot. How much should you try “Rope a Dope” or more properly what are the pros and cons of “Rope a Dope” in this situation? “Rope a Dope” is checking and calling to try and induce your opponent to bluff off his money trying to run over you or maybe just to bet a worse hand.
BTW HFAP 21st Century Edition does address this situation and countering the aggressive, gambling opponent who always raises from the button. I have found this book to be quite valuable for heads up hold’em play seeing that I am relatively inexperienced at this type of game.
Not with a pair of eights and one overcard only on the board, you have to punish him for being overly aggressive in this spot and try to push him off his overcard(s), you very, very probably have the best hand. Ropedope is perfect when you have a nonvulnerable hand that you are not sure is best. A perfect example: You open on the button with A2s, small blind 3bets and an ace flops. Flat calling all the way is your best play even if the big blind is in.
Angelina Fekali
Studying People Inc.
Ljubljana, Slovenia
While what you say is true, it can often pay to rope-a-dope even in Tommy's example. Remember we are talking about a heads-up game and not a ring game involving a heads-up situation. Your opponent does not necessarily have to have 2 overcards. Often, he will only have one and sometimes none.
p.s. I feel funny discussing this with someone like you who I think has lots of experience in heads-up play and is an excellent heads-up player. I have no heads-up experience. So, if you tell me that I am out of my league, you would likely be right.
I agree with the points you made. I’m not advocating playing this type of hand the same way all the time. In my opinion this is a hand that you are going to the showdown with. Against a very aggressive player a check-raise gives your opponent a chance to get away from a hand for little cost if you have him beat. As you say two overcards may not be present in your opponents hand. If your opponent has one or more overcards they hopefully have a Jack. The question I ask myself is if overcards come can you really get away from your hand against a player who raises very, very liberally on the button pre-flop? I don’t think so very often. If your opponent is drawing to two overcards I don’t think that they are getting the right price to chase you down. I mean the pot is small so having them trying to run you down with overcards would seem like something you actually want. If you are playing a heads up match and the limits are $10-20, and you both get $20 in the pot pre-flop if your opponent pays $30 to win $70. If I’m not mistaken I believe that this is a +EV situation for you. In the short handed section of Hold’em For Advanced Players 21st Century Edition the authors discuss the importance of making plays not just for the present hand but for future hands since you should and will be playing a lot of hands when your in a heads up match. Perhaps a very aggressive opponent will start checking on 4th when they don’t have anything after being “roped” a few times. I believe that since you have to call a lot on the flop you will be involved on 4th when you have little often. I believe that if your opponent starts checking on 4th it will allow you to steal a fair amount on the river. Of course you may want to bet the river a lot anyway to steal when you don’t have much. In HFAP 21st Century Edition they discuss the play of calling the raise and swinging into the raiser on the flop stating that it will allow you to steal on the flop when you don’t have anything against a lot of opponents. BTW I believe that Kevin McBride used this very play to get himself 2nd place in the WSOP a couple of years back but I could be wrong about that. Against some very aggressive opponents who don’t ever fold and raise a lot on the flop, the “rope a dope” play seems preferable a lot to me. Anyway that is my thinking on this play.
I just read something about tells being worth 2% or thereabouts of the total win of a full-time professional. I strongly disagree.
The bread and butter hands where I make a living are me raising from the cutoff or button against one or no limpers, with one or both blinds calling.
Here's one from today, granted, a bit drastic. I'm posting it to show how much rides on tells.
I had K-6 on the button and open-raised. Both blinds called.
Flop: K-4-2, all of one suit. The SB bet out and the BB called, fairly smoothly, but not quite. I sensed he had a moment of indecision as to raising or not. I put him on a flush because with a king or a pair-and-a-flush-draw I think he would have raised.
I just called. The turn came a six, I made top two. They checked and I checked. The river came a blank, the SB checked, the BB bet, I folded, the SB called, and the BB turned over a small flopped flush.
Given that even the "bad" 20-40 players aren't all that bad, and that new players are constantly coming into the game preloaded with book knowledge, and that really bad players disappear or get better, my guess is that 20% of my income, at least, comes from reacting well to tells, and that another 20%, at least, comes from not having too many tells. That last area is always the main focus of attempted improvement in my game.
Tommy
I doubt that 20% of your income comes from not having many tells. but I guess we'll never know will we?
Tommy:
I asked this question awhile back and didn't get any real feedback, but your post prompts me to raise it again. You mention that your primary focus is eliminating your own tells? How do you do that? I assume you play with a lot of the same folks all the time and that some of them are your friends away from the table. Is there a protocol on whether I clue you in to a tell I've noticed about you? While I'm your friend I'm also trying to win money from you and everybody else there.
Otherwise, do you just try to be alert when somebody makes a particularly good laydown or bet against you?
Finally, do you even bother with creating false tells? That would seem to be overrated.
Thanks for the feedback, I enjoy your comments.
When I think of "elimating tells" and sending intentional tells it refers to the traditional types of tells and "non-combat tells" all rolled together.
As to tradition tells, I work on the traditional things, not looking at my hand til it's my turn, standardizing hand motions, etc.
But I don't think that's why my range of possible holdings remains high (I hope) in the opponent's minds. It comes from not showing hands and not talking about hands, at all. I think THE most important tell-giving goes at the instant the winner is determined. The players with the losing hand(s) give away huge chunks of info at this point. So that's what I've worked on, by never showing a losing hand, or reacting to any loss. They don't know if I had a bogus draw with low cards and paid off with a rivered pair, or if I had top set and lost to a runner-runner. Given how much of this info comes in, not letting any out seems like a significant, routine advantage.
The bonus is that this indifference helps with over-all image. That's a non-combat thingie, appearing unphasable. And sometimes it's an act, as in, I'm distinctly phased, and willfully sending a false tell indicating otherwise. I wear a hat is to hide pain.
Tommy
Why did you call on the flop but not call on the river? Would you have folded if BB bet the turn?
You say you think BB would have raied on the flop with a king or a flush draw. But he showed some indecision.
My point is that I have trouble assessing whether a tell is really reliable or if indecision is merely indecision. Perhaps BB did have a flush draw and was deciding whether to raise or not; perhaps he had K-weak kicker and was undecided about what to do.
The proof of the pudding is that, absent your tell, I would have bet the turn, called the raise and then called the river and I lose 3 more big bets than you. But if you were wrong, you've lost 5.5 big bets by not calling the river, more if you had the best hand and they would have called you on the turn. I think you'd have to really be sure about the tell.
(The blank on the river could have made someone a straight, if it was a 3 or a 5.)
I did not know for sure he had a flush when he called the flop, but I was obviously far more leery than the betting called for.
Posting about hands is so weird because we expand on split-second thoughts hours after the fact. On this hand I didn't "think," per say, the way we think while we type.
I think we all get reads from tells that are unexplainably accurate, and everything in our gut says, "he has exactly this." Then we start thinking and re-expand his range of possible holdings based on the betting, and pay off.
I'm not saying I follow these hunches anymore than anyone else. I just think it's an underrated aspect of the game.
Tommy
Tells can be very valuable although it's hard to find straightforward reliable tells. Here's a story of a tell that won me $280.
I was playing no limit with some friends at the Stratosphere in Las Vegas. At one point during the night, one guy, let's call him Stuey, bet all in against another guy, let's call him Doyle.
Doyle thinks for a LONG time. Stuey lights a cigarette, sits back in his chair, and blows a long stream of smoke into the air. He is relaxed and smiles at Doyle.
This tell is straight out of Caro's Book of Tells. Doyle shows his hand, a set of nines, and looks for a reaction. Stuey shrugs indifferently and Doyle calls. Stuey wins with a straight.
I stupidly point out to Doyle that it was obvious Stuey had the nuts the way he sat back to enjoy his "victory" cigarette before Doyle even called the bet. What kind of an idiot would let his opponents know he had a tell on them???? I need to have my head examined. But that's a different issue.... It actually turned out for the best.
Later in the night, I make a Jack high flush against Doyle and make a reasonable bet on the turn. He calls and then the river makes a four flush on the board.
I have to check now and Doyle bets $100 into the $180 pot.
Now I have to think for a while. As soon as he sees that I'm pondering, Doyle turns to another friend of ours and asks for a cigarette. It was so obvious he was trying to bluff me with a reverse-tell after I had revealed to him that I normally perceive the act of lighting up as a sign of confidence.
I called immediately and took down the pot.
Against an unknown opponent who had just sat down, I would have folded.
natedogg
I just want to point out that your reverse tell is only worth the $280 if you would have folded every time after the fourth suited card hit the board but now the tell makes you call every time and it is 100 percent accurate. If you would have called some of the time anyway, or folded some of the time even with the reverse tell, or if the reverse tell is not 100 percent accurate, then it was not worth the $280, even though it seemed that way at the time.
I suspect that you would have called some of the time anyway, and that the reverse tell is not 100 percent accurate. Thus my value on the tell given the situation you describe and the pot size is probably more like $30.
I bring this up because this is an error that many players make. Expectations should be thought of in terms of the long run, not the short run. You should concentrate on your total poker experience when making these type of decisions, not just what happened a few minutes ago.
Oh I definitely realize what you are saying. This was against a player I know very well and I would normally call him in this situation maybe 50% of the time, so I guess it was really a $140 tell.
And obviously, this was a one-time only use. It was just a combination of the particular set of circumstances at that time. But I do believe the tell was very close to 100% accurate.
I'm sure everyone has been in that situation where and hand goes down in a certain way and you just KNEW the guy was bluffing/slowplaying/whatever.
You said:
You should concentrate on your total poker experience when making these type of decisions, not just what happened a few minutes ago. But what about concentrating on both?
Actually, I'm not sure what you mean by "total poker experience". Does that phrase imply excluding intimate knowledge of player through months of playing together?
natedogg
You have it right. Total poker esperience means you take into account recent past actions as well as your overall ability to read hands well.
I gotta quit smoking. :-)
While I see that in the games you play, tells might be worth more than 2%, I doubt they are worth 20%,a nd I doubt that not having tells is worth another 20%. To say that 40% of the game is tells seems like you are overvaluing them just as much as someone else is undervaluing them. In the loose low limit games I play in, I doubt more than 1% of my profit comes from tells. My profit comes mostly from value betting and raising. Players who have no clue are pretty hard to use tells against, especially if they don't even know what they have. Admittedly, in a game like 20-40 tells are probably worth more, but I still doubt they are worth as much as your estimates. Despite the fact that I don't agree with you, your post was still interesting and brings up some good points.
dave in cali
Dave,
If you lump the traditional meaning of "tell" with "profiling" and "non-combat tells," do you think my estimates of importance are still too high?
Tommy
It is certainly difficult to come up with an estimate of the value of tells. I wrote an essay in which I tried this, using a hypothetical 10-20 player of average tell reading ability as my example. The figure I came up with attributed about 13% of his hourly rate to his tell reading. But I was thinking of a little narrower definition of tells when I wrote that. Had I broadened it to include eveything that *could be viewed as a tell, maybe the figure would have gone up to 20% or so.
Still, there's the problem that in many instances you arrive at the same play whether you base your decision on a tell or simply on standard, fundamental play. So it's hard sometimes to isolate your use of tells from other areas of play. One may compliment the other, just as they may conflict. Also, imagine how you would do if you just had no clue about the fundamentals of play. When I look at it that way, basic principles of play seem HUGE. Well, I guess they are huge relative to tells, if you consider the swing between a big loser (cluless re the fundamentals) and a solid winner. But using the broadest definition of tells, it does seem they should become fairly valuable.
John,
Forgive my hopeless memory and laziness, but I thought it was YOU who wrote that tells are worth 2%.
If this topic is already worn out, don't even bother replying. I'm not being accusatory here. All I know for sure is that I saw a 2% figure somewhere, written by an established writer, and I thought that figure was WAY off the mark.
Tommy
Tommy, no problem. There have been a lot of "two"s in the few essays on this. :) Mason wrote an essay in which he speculated that for a good 20-40 player tells may account for about $2 per hour in profit. I haven't gone back to look at his essay, but assuming this is a hypothetical 1BB/hr player, that would be 5%. But I see I mention in my essay that Mason did allow for a range of results, depending on how much the player *relied on tells versus other aspects of play. My figure was $2.63/hour for a 10-20 player. (Though I speculated that it might just be possible to boost that all the way up to $7.89/hour - though it might come at the expense of other areas of play.) I just think the figure can vary a lot, depending on how you look at it.
Oh my! You're right, the essay I saw was talking in terms of dollars, not percentage. Sounds like we're on the same page since you (and presumably Mason) had the narrower definition of "tells" in mind. Thanks.
Tommy
but like I said, they are probably worth much more in 20-40 than they ever will be in 3-6.
I should add to my testimony that after having played with a group of players for a while, I can sometimes know how strong they are or what they will do ahead of time by having watched their game for a while. In these situations I might make 2-3% form tells. Telegraphs are much more useful in low limit because if you know someone will bet or fold before they actually do so, you can change your strategy. Having people with reliable telegraphs on your left is a big advantage. To me a tell is more of an indication of how strong their hand is, such as the shaking hand tell in mike caro's book of tells.
What is a tell? Is there a universally accepted definition?
How about these?
I'm in a short 20-40 game and the 6-12 game breaks and three of them move to 20-40.
One guy puts his $2 chips on the table and add up to $194 so he pulls out a thin BR of tens and twenties and buys $10 more. He snaps at the chip-runner.
The second guy has three racks of $2 chips and tips the chip-runner $4 after color changing. He pulls a few $100 from his pocket and changes them too.
The third guy is surprised to learn that he can't come in for free from behind the button.
Would you say that I have tells on these guys? Consider that no cards have even been dealt yet, and already I know which guys I want in front of me, which behind me, whose blinds I'll attack hard, who I won't fear a check-raise-on-the-turn from . . .
My lordy. This list is limitless, as is this type of info in countless situations far different than this one.
If these are NOT tells, then what the heck are they? Surely a name is deserved because of importance. I have no problem calling ANY non-betting information a tell, and that's why I attribute such a high importance to "tells."
Tommy
I have no problem calling them tells, or anything else someone cares to name them. It has been floating around the periphery of my thoughts, but hadn't made it into the actual 'think about this' portion. Thanks for posting this!
Mike Caro called them "noncombat tells." There's no question a person's general behavior can give you a clue to their playing habits. If we define tells as body language that gives a clue to how a person plays or what cards they have, these are certainly tells.
To ask how you interpreted each of those actions into their playing personalities.
I'm not sure what a BR is.. but that's not important. What does tipping and not-tipping the chiprunner imply ? Does the tipper become a sort of "loose" image in your eyes due to his throwing money around? Does the non-tipper seem to be close to tilt cause he's pissed and buying in for another $10 ?
I'd love your reasoning, either on here or via email if you prefer.
Whose blinds will you attack? Third guy would be my guess.. he seems to value coming in for free. And maybe the first guy as well, he seems to value his chips a bit.
Who won't you fear a check-raise on the turn from? Help me out here.
And who do you want in front and behind you? This relates to what you deduce from the guys tipping and not tipping the runner. Again, does tipping mean looser?
Well anyways, I apologize for the amateur questioning, but I can't skip a post, especially of yours, and pretend that I understood it.
Thanks, Slay
My guesses are this: 1) The guy who is suprised that he can't play for free behind the blind seems like a newbie to these stakes (i've never played $20-$40, i stick to $5-$10, $3-$6 so i'm giving my limitied advice) He is probably not that knowledgeable of game play at $20-$40. 2) The guy who tips and buys in for a couple hundred more, has a reasonable understanding of this game, he realizes his current stacks aren't enough and he has the intent of staying there for an enjoyable night of poker. 3) The guy who is angry, he could be angry for a losing streak, for having to buy in for $10 more, for his dog chewing up his slippers earlier before he came to play poker, who knows. He is angry, he has bought in for the minimum. The fact he is not buying more chips right now gives the indication that he has no intent of going into his BR (bank roll) unless he absolutely has too. Odds are, he probably won't. Odds are, he may also be in tilt, he's had a bad night and is just looking to get rid of his last $200 at a bigger table. He'll pray for good cards, but his demeanour and attitude is going to lead to agressive non-thought out play, or timid play.
Thats what i get from this post. I get a ton more info on the first hand they play, the first hand they showdown, and the first beat they have.
I call the situation you describe "profiling". My definition of a tell is a physical signal from player during the play of a hand.
I am not too bad at profiling. I really need to improve my ability to use tells.
Caro: Non-combat tells
Boris: Profiling
I'm not surprised that Caro has a word for this significant area of information gathering (and giving).
I think both words are perfect. "Non-combat tells" feels broader and therefore more accurate, but I prefer "profiling" because it's one word.
Tommy
According to the dictionary, tells are "actions that unconsciously reveal secret information". To me this means EVERYTHING that I see the other guy does and says before, during, and after the session/hand.
The thing is, in all forms of social inter-action (poker included), we cannot NOT communicate. When we're talking very loud and disturbing everyone at the table, we are communicating. We are also communicating when we're just silently sitting there, an anonymous daydreamer. When we're watching the game on the television as the cards are being dealt, we are also communicating. And so on.
When I play I always start from the presupposition that everything I perceive in another player visually and auditorally, are tells. Body posture, eye movements (blink rates, where they are looking as they check before me, where they are looking as the dealer turns over the flop,etc.), gestures, breathing rates, language (predicates, tonality, speed of speech, pitch), speed at which someone bets or raises, how someone throws away his hand, rate at which the smoker inhales his cigarette, how someone plays with his chips,etc.
These are all para-messages that I take in as a whole simultaneously. I look for congruencies and incongruencies within this overall communication. And I also try to figure out what meaning each paramessage holds, if any. But usually, I perceive them as simultaneous communications from the persons that I am observing (usually with my peripheral vision which I have discovered is more capable of perceiving para-messages simultaneously than my direct vision). And I go from there.
I consider tells to be a specific mannerism or behaviour that gives something away about a player's hand. General knowledge of that player's poker style or temperament are what I call "reads". For instance, I know a player who will raise double your bet whenever he is semi-bluffing on a draw in no limit. If I bet $100 and he raises $200, I'll go all in with middle pair. That's a tell. Another player will slow play AA every time. I've never seen him raise with AA preflop. I always consider that when we're in a pot together after the flop. That's a read.
I believe reads and tells are THE most important part of an expert's game. For a beginner, learning the technical foundation of poker is paramount. But we all progress beyond the beginner stage fairly quickly. After that, your edge disappears pretty fast unless you can get a read on your opponent. After you graduate from kicker school, position school, semi-bluffing school, and get your advanced degree in starting hand selection, you are only at the beginning of your journey. A don't get me wrong, understanding the technical foundations of good poker is no easy task. It often takes thousands of hours to truly understand some of these things.
However, you can only go so far with it Basically, what a good technical understanding will let you do is identify the borderline situations. How do you play when it's a borderline decision? Use your reads. That's it. It's that easy. If you accurately use your reads on your opponents, you will have the edge.
Of course, it's not nearly as simple as it sounds. Let me take a simple example and see how complex it can really be.
You have top pair ace kicker and have bet all the way until your are heads up on the river when a third flush card comes and now your opponent bets into you. There is $120 in the pot and you will have to call $10 to see his hand.
What do you do? Any answer that doesn't take into account what you know about your opponent is a foolish one.
What if he is a consummate timid calling station? He won't even raise with top pair on the flop? Well you should fold against this player. That's obvious. It just doesn't matter if the pot is offering you 12-1 odds. Even if the pot somehow had twenty or even thirty big bets in it, you should fold. This kind of player will not be bluffing you even one time in fifty, much less twenty or even twelve.
Now what if your opponent is Phil Hellmuth? Well you should call 100% of the time. He's a hyper-aggressive world-class player who bluffs a lot.
What if your opponent is David Sklansky? You should fold if you just sat down because he is assuming you are a fish and that you will call him with almost anything. He always assumes his opponent is terrible until shown otherwise. Therefore, he is not bluffing if you are new to the game. But this goes even deeper. What if he has been playing with you for a few hours instead of a few minutes? If you know that he has realized you are no fish then you have to worry that he's bluffing.
What if your opponent is unknown to you? You sat down and played your first hand and got into this situation and you just have no information about your opponent at all. Well, that's the worst situation of all because you don't have a read! You just don't know if this guy is timid or a habitual bluffer.
The easiest decision is made when you have a read on your opponent. You aren't guessing anymore, you're calculating. Without a read you are simply guessing, and if your opponent can regularly put you in a position where you are just guessing or even worse, hoping, then he is going to take all your money in the long run. Most expert opponents will put you in this situation intentionally, but if you put yourself there just because you failed to get a read, then you're the cause of your own losses.
I play in a home game where I will call one player every time with as little as middle pair. He loves to bluff so much he just can't help himself. There is another player who can pretty much take the pot from me every time I don't have the nuts. Not only will he never bet without the nuts, but he will SHOW you his hand after you fold and it's always the nuts. I'd have to be getting over 100-1 in order to call this guy down.
All the other players will not fold when he bets the river. The pot is too big at that point. It only costs one more bet, so it's best to protect your hand and keep others from running over you later, they say.
That's straight out of the books.
I just nod and smile and fold on the river whenever I'm facing Mr. Nuts. They think that I play weak on the river and then they start to try running me over. Well, I'm calling them down every time and folding to Mr. Nuts every time and they don't get it! It's their own fault for not having a good read on me or Mr. Nuts. All they have to do is fold whenever he bets and stop bluffing me so much and they'll significantly increase their advantage in that game.
That's all it would take. They understand the technical aspects of poker very well. They know all that stuff you can read in HPFAP. They know about trap hands, raising for free cards, stealing blinds, pot odds and implied odds and they use all of it. They play very well. But their read on me and Mr. Nuts is very weak.
My read on Mr. Nuts is only a small part of my play in that game, yet it gives me a real advantage. How much more of an advantage must a player get if he has significant reads on all his opponents, in all aspects of their game? It's mind boggling really.
If you are observant and play enough sessions with the same players, you can make all kinds of reads. You will have so much information that if you were to wipe your memory clean and try to play in the same game with all the same poker skills you had before but without the reads, your win rate would drop significantly if not disappear.
Once you are facing opponents who know the game, even if they are merely decent but not great players, your biggest edge comes from your reads.
natedogg
Seriously, great post!
I guess if I were playing Sklanksy I'd fold 1/12th of the time according to the second hand of his watch :)
I'd like you to list some of the other aspects of a player's game you can get reads on. I have difficulty in this area since individual opponents show down so infrequently that it takes a long time to see how they played the same situation several times.
How does this sound: Get a group of posters from this forum together to play online using free software and as every hand is played out, get feedback on the play of the hand. Players could ask questions and get opinions immediately after the hands are played.
If we could get the right mix of people, I think this could be effective. Obviously, we would need at least one person who knew what the hell he was talking about. I've been playing seriously for four years and consider myself an intermediate player. I can kill live lower limit games, but it's slow going beyond that. I think this would help immeasurably. The group would act as if it was real money (vs. how others treat the play money--RAISE, RAISE, RAISE).
I think we have enough of a base of players here to make this perhaps a round-the-clock game.
What would be the best place to do this? On Paradise Poker we would get too many stragglers, ones who potentially would disrupt the process. Pokerpages.com? HighlandsClub.com?
Any further ideas would be much appreciated.
I've been thinking about this concept before, it would be nice to have a group of players get together and play regular games online. Then analyze each other's plays, make suggestions, and improve together. Pokerpages is actually planning this kinda thing to be opened up soon, I think they're going to call it Poker University, or something, where you can play with the pros and so forth.
I enjoy paradise's interface and gameplay, but you are correct in that, unless we fill up a table quickly with our own 10 people, there will be interruptions (Although maybe that can be a good thing too).
PlanetPoker isn't bad either, but they don't have private tables as far as I know.
People should look into it, maybe someone actually has the software that allows private tables to be made. Or maybe we can compromise and play on public servers.
Anyways, I'm down with the idea, so keep me updated.
Slay
I think it's a great idea too. You might want to talk to the guy who runs irc poker. It should be easy for him to provide a password protected table by invitation only. On most chat servers users can create there own rooms like this. We would just need his bot to run it.
Check out TruePoker — you can start a private table with only invited players there. Not to mention the cool 3D interface...
Read more at http://www.truepoker.com/demoPrivateRooms.html
-JDS
That appears a good option.
The chat window can be expanded and you can log your own play so you don't need to request hand histories.
The play is a little slow; the betting option buttons don't appear until it's your turn to act, but it shouldn't be too much of a hinderance. The pace would be fairly slow anyway, as we would be discussing hands along the way.
I like the idea since I have only started studying poker. This would help a great deal! If you need a beginner, I'm here. Gremlin
Just curious. Who is going to fund this? Who is going to give the advice?
Most organization will teach you how to play but is not interested in improving your playing skill.
There are someway you can get this kind of lesson.
1. Try wilson software. They are not perfect but is good enough for most low to mid limit games.
2. Play in LM on PP. It does not cause you much. You can get all the hand records and analyse it later. The 1/2 game is like 6/12 in a regular card room. The 3/6 is like 10/20 or 15/30 in most card rooms.
JDS suggested what appears to be a viable option.
truepoker.com allows private rooms. The play is somewhat slow due partly to the fact that the betting option buttons are not available until it's your turn to act. Any other rooms that may be quicker that allow private rooms? How do people feel about IRC poker vs. TruePoker? I will get in touch with someone about that.
Any suggestions on how to get this up-and-running? We could have a web page for further discussion of hands if needed. I haven't figured out if TruePoker numbers the hands so we can reference them easily...I don't believe they do. I think this board would get too cluttered with questions about hands if we posted them here.
Should this be at a pre-arranged time or might we have enough interest to keep a room going mostly around the clock? We could call the room(s) twoplustwo(1, 2, 3, ...596).
What would be the possibility that we could get a room set up within this website?
I know that would be a lot of hastle, so maybe an arrangement with an existing room such as IRC poker. A link in the directory along with an explanation of how best to utilize the service would be great.
Also, a separate forum for discussion of these hands, hopefully referenced by hand number, would be awesome. If the hands were posted to existing forums, it would probably clutter them up too much.
I'd be willing to pitch in however I could, though I don't have enough technical know-how to do any web-based programming beyond simple web pages.
Taking this a step further, we could have beginner and an intermediate rooms.
There would be many issues to sort through to make this a truly useful feature of your site, but I think it could be done with a comparitively minimal effort assuming we can find an existing room which could easily be linked with this site.
I would love to make this happen too. Just the discussion of hands and discovering reasons why other players play a hand a certain way etc etc is very interesting to me.
I vote for TruePoker.com over the others....and ive played most of them.
IRC is just a little too rough to allow play and chat that would be productive. I think the small amount of extra time at truepoker would allow for the discussion to flow. Plus players with a purpose will play the game and be more observant then the usual non-chalant crowd you usually find at their tables.
please email me with any info! win4win@aol.com
hopefully we can get this put together...i am available most anytime to play...let me know.
I think this is a great idea, and all credit to John M for suggesting it.
I have just set up a Community Website at
http://communities.msn.co.uk/HoldemPokerDiscussionClub
which is ideally suited for further discussion about specific hands and ideas, as, once a thread header is set up by you, it can be added to, ad infinitum.
To join, please click on the "join" invitation at the bottom of the Welcome Page. Then go to the Discussion page, by clicking top left.
Posting discussion threads is self-explanatory.
Great idea Mike! I've signed on; hope to see others there soon. We'll get something going...
So in this casino, dealers who play poker are reputed to be loose and wild. So here comes Mr. Paigow dealer and he starts living up to his press right away. He is across the table from me, no seat change coming. At least he is not directly on my left! The game is pretty darn loose and the only ones who are raising more than 2% frequency are myself and the loose cannon (LC). 3-6 with a kill. When I say a loose game, I mean one guy cold called my raise UTG in a kill pot with 92o!
hand #1: I have QTo and limp on the button with 3 limping in front of me. No raise. SB calls and BB checks, six players.
Flop comes 678 rainbow. SB bets, everyone calls, I call with my gutshot and two overcards.
Turn comes the 2h, no flush possible. SB bets again and everyone calls to me. I am getting 11:1 to call with my gutshot and two overcards (though a ten will likely not be good). I thought this call was pretty automatic, especially since it's only 10.5:1 to hit the gutshot. Big pot.
River is the 9h, giving me the straight, but not the nuts. SB bets again and LC raises. All fold to me. I have been watching him play, and a raise doesn't mean anything at all. I have seen him check-raise the turn with ace high against three players. I have seen him bluff raise the river twice. When he first sat down he immediately won about two racks in about 30 minutes, since then he has been playing wildly. I unhesitatingly call his raise. If he has JT then I will just have to lose two more bets. SB calls and immediately flips over a five for the butt end of the straight. LC also shows out of turn, he has made a pair of nines with his Q9o. I take the rather large pot with my straight.
Hand #2: I limp second into the pot, 3rd UTG with ATo. I think this is a marginal call, but I am confident of being the best player in the game. Maybe I should have raised instead, but I didn't feel this would really narrow the field at all, most of these players will simply call anyway, so why invest more with a marginal hand? The limper before me is loose. A tougher game would indicate a fold here, but these players are pretty weak. 6 see the flop for no raise, including LC, who is on the button.
Flop comes Ten high rainbow rags. I bet when it gets checked to me. A couple call and LC raises. Mostly folded back to me, except for the BB, who cold called. I just call, hoping to get in a check-raise on the turn. Five players.
Turn is the 2h, making a straight possible but unlikely. BB checks, I check, it gets checked to LC who bets, just as expected. BB folds and I check-raise LC. All fold to LC who calls.
River is the Jh and I bet out. If he somehow drew out on me by making a flush or two pair, I will call his raise and pay him off. He calls and says "another chop? We both have tens". Of course he has T7o and my ace kicker wins the pot (I said nothing). I check-raised him on the turn because I just KNEW that I had the better kicker! You have to play against these players aggressively or they will simply run you over and bluff you out of pots etc....
Comments on both hands welcome.
Dave in Cali
Don't see anything unusual about these hands. Your buddy would have to be particularly conservative before you can THINK about laying either of these hands down.
You should be playing this way against most of your opponents, with the (slight) exception that other typical opponents may NOT bet the turn with hand #2 encouraging you to simply 3-bet the flop.
- Louie
OK. Your pre-flop calls were pretty marginal especially the AT out of position with LC a favorite to raise from the button.
Can someone define the following??? Kill game Under the gun cut off semi-bluff thanx
1. A kill game is when a person scoops 2 pots in a row in Holdem or Omaha Hi, the limits of the betting are doubled. For instance a $6-$12 game becomes $12-$24. The person who killed the pot would have to post $12 blind in the above example, but the blinds only post the original amount of $3 and $6.
2. Under the gun (UTG), means the first player to act before the flop. This is the person on the big blind's (BB) left.
3. Semi-bluff is where you try to pick up the pot betting with little or no hand, but you do have outs when called. For example. You are the BB and have 9-7 and there is only one middle limper. The flop comes A-6-5... giving you a gut shot nut straight. You can Semi-bluff bet here representing the A hoping the middle limper will lay down.
Derrick Ashworth
What is the distinction between "bluff" and "semibluff?"
IMO, a semi-bluff is when you have outs, but currently may not be the best. A bluff is when you are probably not the best and there are 3 or less cards that can improve you. For instance you try a steal raise from the button with T-8. You are called by the BB, who is a solid player. Flop comes A Q 4. You are probably not the best, but you can bet when checked to hoping to steal. Even if you hit your T or 8, you still may not be the best on the turn.
I respect your posts Tommy, and I would be interested to hear if I am thinking correctly.
Derrick
I have no idea if you are thinking correctly because to me, bluff and semi-bluff are the same thing. Any definition that relies on phrases such as "may not be the best" and "probably not the best" is so watered down as to be meaningless.
If "bluff" is defined as, "a bet with a hand that is absolutely the worst hand," and "semibluff" is defined as "all other bets without the nuts," then I suppose a distinction becomes clear. But it's not a useful one, since it would mean that almost every bet ever made is a semi-bluff.
Tommy
I didn't even realize until a few days ago that I've never used the word "semi bluff" in speech or in writing. I feel left out. That's why I brought this up.
Tommy
I dont know if i get you right, but i think the difference between a pure bluff and a semi-bluff is, that with a semi-bluff you dont have the best hand, but have a good chance to improving to it (e.g. you have outs). With a pure bluff you dont have that chance. With both you DONT have the best hand (For instance betting flush-draw etc), otherwise you're just betting for value :)
Can you explain your point a bit more, because i know all above is clear to you, but because for me the distinction is of great importance....i often semi-bluff, i almost never pure bluff.
Your last line said it all. You almost never "pure bluff."
Is a pure bluff the same as a bluff? What is the difference? If there is no difference, then why did you feel compelled to specify with "pure?"
I think I know the answers. You, like me and most everyone else here, rarely bluffs, as in "pure bluffs."
Since virtually every bluff we make is a semi-bluff, then why don't we just go back to calling them "bluffs?" What do we gain by adding "semi" to an old word that worked just fine? Further, by adding semi, now we are forced to say things like "pure bluff." I don't get it.
Tommy
Wow, i like your response; you really learn me to see things from the "other" side.
Maybe I should read my last sentences more carefully, I actually could learn from myself :)
Regards, ME.
Hmmmmm....maybe this respons is a little exaggerated, but it was 6:30 in the morning, drunk coming back from a party, when i read your answer, and it gave me a good feeling to read it :)
Tommy as far as I understand it, a semi-bluff is a type of bluff in which if called you likely don't have the best hand, but you have a draw to the best hand. Therefore you can't semi-bluff on the river. I think the confusion here is that a semi-bluff is just a type of bluff, such as a "pure bluff" is a type of bluff. As you pointed out it is true that most bluffs are semi-bluffs, but nevertheless I think the term semi-bluff provides a useful distinction.
Oh and I understand your disdain for states such as, "likely don't have the best hand" but I still think that a definition can carry meaning if it includes them... I think I'll save that argument for another day though hehe :D
skeller
Let me see if I understand.
If I bet with no pair and the other guy has no pair, then it's a semi-bluff because I have outs. But if I bet with no pair and the other guy already has a pair higher than either of my cards, then it's a bluff.
Hmmm. Sounds to me like semi-bluff can only be defined after the fact, after the opponent's hand is known. Wierd.
Tommy
Right, its almost impossible to determine for sure if you are semi-bluffing unless you know your opponents hand, which is why the definintion needs the "you likely don't have the best hand part."
But this same logic applies to any type of bluff, you don't really know if you were bluffing unless you see what your opponent folded (or unless you held the nut low).
skeller
Thanx for the replies!! I've always been curious about this one..."limping" and "limper" are used frequently on these boards...how do you know if someone is "limping" in?
Someone is limping in when they do not open raise. If someone limps in 6-12 they call the $6 bet rather then raising it to $12.
Derrick
at my casino (if we can call it this way coz its an horrible place!!! named Akwesasne mohawk casino!!, a kill is taken when someone wins a pot higher than a big bet per person sittin at the table he must post a kill. For example, if we play 5-10 kill and we are 9 handed, if i win 90$ (9 big bets) or more in the pot, i have to post 10$ on the next hand while the blinds stay the same but the hand is a 10-20 hand...
i am curious since it wasnt answered
one before the button...
A _kill game_ is a game where the limits are increased and the winner of the last hand has to post a blind under certain conditions. I have heard that there are kill games where the limits are increased when the same player wins two hands in a row. At Foxwoods, the kill is triggered by the size of the pot. If the pot keeps being big enough, the game effectively becomes a higher-limit game (with an extra blind being posted). The only kill game in which I have played was a "half kill" 10-20 game. If the pot was over a certain amount, we played 15-30 (a full kill would have been 20-40) We played a great many hands at the higher limits. That was fine with me as I kept being dealt pocket pairs.
_Under the gun_ is the guy next to the BB. He is first to bet on the initial round. The term comes from draw where it refers to the player next to the dealer, first to act before the draw. Actually, in a less restrictive sense, it is the first player to act on any round of betting.
_the cuttoff seat_ is the seat just before the dealer or button. He (or she) is the last player to be able to bet or raise and prevent (cut off) the player on the button from messing with the blinds. I like that seat better than being on the button but only marginally and I may yet change my mind.
_a semi-bluff_ is a bet to thin the herd when your hand has chances but is not "made." In my opinion, raising with big slick is both mandatory and a "semi-bluff." You are a very slight dog against 22 and there is no reason to believe that SOMEONE at the table has not paired but your hand has great value and you are not that unhappy if you get some callers. The closer you get to the blinds, the less you need to semibluff. A four-flush bet can be a semi-bluff. At NL, it is pretty common to bet hard on just the Ace of a suit if the flop comes all that suit. If everyone leaves, you are happy. If they call, you can still hit another card of your suit and have the nuts. If the card doesn't hit on the turn, you can bet hard again, another semi-bluff. If the river brings no help, you can make a REAL bluff but you better put in lots of chips. Anyway, you have made two semibluffs and one real bluff on the same hand. If the board ever paired, you are probably NOT going to do any of this. This hand came up in tournament just the other day. A guy I don't know called on the flop, called on the turn, said "I don't beleive you" and re-raised on the river. I re-raised all-in and he folded. THAT was a real bluff. I suppose he had a flush. Raising me was idiotic. He had a huge pot just by calling and I was never going to CALL if I was bluffing. I think he wanted to induce the all-in raise and then just ran out of sand.
-- Will
As we all know Poker is a battle for antes (otherwise at hold'em we wait and play only with A-A since we are not committed for any buck) and the blinds reduce but not resolve at all this aspect.
Why in the hold'em games we don't introduce the antes? In my opinion, antes with the blinds grow up the action and crash the tight players (opponents who all us don't want to play with...). In fact the reports call good games those games which are full of loose (conversely to the rock gardens...)
We have to no forget that WSOP no-limit hold'em games works with antes-blinds.
COmments very appreciated
Marco
It is my believe the best structure for HE is to have the BB 3 chips, SB 2 chips and the button 1 chip. This structure will start the pot with 6 chips and a raise is exactly equal to the pot.
But the more skilled player probably likes a blind structure of 2 chips for the BB and 1 chip for the SB.
I like them both; I have often thought that the 1/2 blind structure (without an ante) did allow a "rock" to sit down and be almost guaranteed a [small] profit if he or she is playing against weak opposition.
(3-6 is the greatest culprit since the SB is almost always just one dollar.)
The main problem is - as usual - that the general public is resistant to change. Therefore, I would not look for an alteration in the structure anytime soon.
- The Taj Mahal in A.C. used to play 1-5 stud with a 50 cent ante. The game was fantastic; I lived off it for three months. (Naturally the "rocks" avoided this game like the plague.)
One day I walked in and found they had eliminated the ante COMPLETELY. The reason: THE REGULAR PLAYERS COMPLAINED THAT IT COST THEM TOO MUCH TOO PLAY - THE SAME REGULARS WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENDING THANK-YOU NOTES TO THE MANAGEMENT FOR INTRODUCING THIS STRUCTURE.
There is not much you can do when you go out of your way to protect the weaker players and they refuse your help.
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH...
- J D -
Foxwood has 1-5 stud with a 50 cents ante.
I'm happy noting you confirm what I supposed!!
Marco
"Foxwood has 1-5 stud with a 50 cents ante."
And that is where I resumed playing poker after a two-decade hiatus. Well, I had played a little in between but not seriously. That game is beatable. Don't let the "you can't beat the rake" crowd fool you. There are a few surprisingly good players there but the drunks make the game on weekends primo beatable. I have moved up in stakes since and play some lowstakes HE as well but I remember the 1-5 fondly for paying my rent in hard times.
-- Will
Blinds allow the casino to deal more hands per hour creating a bigger drop. It takes more time for the dealer to make sure that all the players have put in their antes.
It would be nice to have the bets increase on each round. ie. 10-20-30-40. But I guess the weaker players wouldn't win very often then we wouldn't have any players to play against. The phoney betting round (Ciaffone)on the flop really helps them, I think.
nt
Hi,
I recently became serious about playing Hold 'em and would appreciate any info about various rakes in low limit games.
the game i play most often is $3-6 (rake: 10% to max of $4)
1. What seems to be the standard rake for low-limit games?
2. Is the rake i mentioned above satisfactory (or at least satisfactory while i learn the game)?
3. Where is the line drawn between a poor rake and acceptable rake?
This is my first post and I appreciate any help.
Thanks, Joe
10%/$4 max. is a beatable game if your opponents are very bad players; if they are even competent I don't think the above statement holds true.
More precisely put, many if not most of the pots must contain at least $60 (better still if they are larger). In other words, "no fold'em holdem" must be the game the game that is being played.
It's not so much the "absolute" size of the rake ($4) that matters; it is the percentage of the pot that is disappearing down the chute at the end of the hand.
If most of the pots are in the $30-$40 range I don't think the game is beatable by the greatest player in the world.
- I play in a 20-40 game with a rake of $1 at every $100. It is very common to see $500 pots which of course means a $5 rake. There are plenty of pots that contain far more than this; I was "lucky" enough to be the "victim" of a $14 rake last week - plus of course a tip for the dealer. I regularly beat this game for a nice amount, and while I like to think of myself as skilled I am NOT of expert caliber.
Watch for the PERCENTAGE and the SIZE of the pots more than the cap on the rake - these are both much more important than how much they are ALLOWED to take. (It obviously goes without saying that having to give up $14 plus a $3 tip had very little effect on my bottom line.)
The wind-up is that until you move up in size (higher stakes), you will often be confronted by rakes that DO have a serious impact on your overall results. 10%/max.$4 is pretty much the going rate east of the Mississippi.
In a nutshell, you won't find many 3-6 games with a lower rake than this. While it will have a seriously negative effect your results, the game is beatable - but not for much. If after a reasonable amount of time you find you are winning anywhere near $10 per hour, you ARE ready to move up.
Hope I was of some help.
- J D -
nt
HOLD EM STARTING HANDS
EARLY POSITION
AA KK QQ JJ TT 99 88 77
AK AQ AJ AT
KQ KJ KT
QJ QT
JT
T9
MIDDLE POSITION
ADD
66 55
A9 A8 A7 A6
K9 K8
Q9 Q8
J9
T8
98
LATE POSITION
ADD
44 33 22
A5 A4 A3 A2
K7 K6 K5 K4 K3 K2
97
87 86
76 75
65
54
?????
I play in alot of very passive (also usually extremely loose)games; because of this I am able to play many more hands than the "books" advise.
Having said this, your list of starting - ESPECIALLY FROM EARLY POSITION - is way too loose.
No sarcasm intended, but if these hands have been making you a profit for an extended period of time PLEASE TELL ME WHERE THIS GAME IS.
I am going to be doing some traveling in the very near future; I would love to stop by for a visit.
.......................................................
P.S. I am sometimes a little slow in responding to e-mails, but if you care to contact me I will explain why playing some of these hands is completely out of line. I can't (and haven't the time to) outline a complete B-T-F strategy, but I can explain why some of these hands are trainwrecks waiting to happen.
Best wishes,
- J D -
Looks good to me - you ought to be playing about 70% of the hands with this starting lineup.
I take it that your comment is a poor attempt at sarcasm. However, the problem is that jake has ask a serious question and I doubt he would take the time to ask it if he didn't want serious answers not crap. Furthermore, some players may be beginners and ask questions and when you give sarcastic answers they may not know they are sarcasm and will take them as serious. So I think that if you do not have a serious answer to a question you should not answer it.
I couldn't agree more. You seem to have a serious attitude problem, Rounder. Please try to control it.
-JDS
Some times a point made with sarcasim or wit is 100 times better than a long drawn out post. This guy needs to cut down on the number of hands he is playing.
It was my way of being helpful.
I'm sorry if I offended you. And I'm glad you want to help us not-so-knowledgeable players. But your sarcasms are very easy to take the wrong way. Please keep that in mind. Thanks.
-JDS
As a beginning player, many do not realize that 70% is an extremely high number of hands to be playing. After all, many others at the table will play this many (or more), and some may be HUGE winners in a given session, so that looks like a great (and FUN) way to play.
I have appreciated many of your posts in the past and was looking forward to reading this one. Now, keep in mind I work until 5:00 am and go to bed at 9:00 am...
When I read your post I thought you were serious. OK, I'm tired. I did finally get it, but the point is that a beginning player is very likely NOT to get it. No harm done, though.
Like JD says your requirements are WAY too loose especially in early position. In early position hands like 77-99, KT, QT, etc. should generally be folded. Of course it depends on the game. If the game is very passive with very little raising then you can play more hands.
Your hands in mid and late position are also too loose. Most of these hands are only playeable if there are a couple of early callers and no raises. You don't mention anything about this in your post but I assume when there is a raise you fold almost all of the hands listed in mid and late position. If you don't you should. Of course there may be exceptions like when there is an early raise and three or four cold callers you may be getting odds to call with some suited connectors but that will be rare.
Generally you should tighten up quite a bit.
The Dominated Hand Concept,
This hand will virtually always lose to another similar but better hand because of the kicker effect on the overall value of that specific hand. They are: K8 all the way down to K2 and A8 all the way down to A2
For instance: You have a K3 and the flop have a K in it. You just have the top pair but some other player may have you out kicked. Somebody that have a K with a bigger kicker will beat you. If your K3 is not suited you are looking to flop something like this: 33X or K3X or maybe KKX. If your K3s is suited you are looking to flop a flush draw or maybe 2 pairs (K3s with K3X). If your K3 give you top pair @flop KXX and if you bet and some player is calling you have to be sure that he has you beaten already because the chance is that he has a bigger kicker then you.
Any Ax or Kx you are looking to flop a set with the small card on the board (i.e.x) A3 with flop A3x or 33x or AAx K3 with flop K3x or 33x or KKx Or if A3s or K3s you are looking to flop a flash draw or 2 pairs or some “set” Else you have to release the hand if is any action after seeing the flop. Anybody who call a bet after seeing a flop like this: Kxx must think that his hand will beat a KK.
Other Big Problem Hands, 2 gaps and 3 gaps are no so great hands to start in the first place with. For example: 95 can make a straight only like this – 5 678 9 and is not the nuts, you are vulnerable to over cards. If the flop comes 9 high you have no kicker. (i.e. 5 is your kicker) Small pairs are bad as well. For instance: 44 unless you flop trips you don’t know which can will beat you from the board with the same in other’s player hand. The opponent could have also a small pair but bigger then yours. Practically with a pair under 99 you have to flop trips to have a chance to win a lot of players in the pot. Play only max one gap and possibly to be suited, any 2 or more gaps throw them away and don’t bet any money on them. Is not worth the aggravation.
Ramon
Except for a couple of additional hands, these are identical to Krieger's starting hands for SUITED CARDS.
Papio
And Krieger's starting hands are a bit too loose for many games. He makes this point in his books, but never really defines how you should tighten up. I am an intermediate player currently attempting to get to expert level (whatever that is), and still reread Krieger's books and find good info.
But his books would be too general for me to progress quickly as a new player. I was very fortunate to choose Lee Jones' book "Winning Low-Limit Holdem" as my introduction to the game. (Actually, I read Skalansky and Malmuth's book HFAP first and soon recognized it was too deep for an initial study. I immediately bought Lee's book and started playing casino poker as a winning player.)
You must take into account the type of game you're in.
In some games, you should fold AQs from first position. In other games you should call with J9s.
However, there are few games where your list would not be considered extremely loose. Especially for the early position hands like T9, AT, QJ.
Also, I wouldn't loosen up as much as you do between early and middle position. Try to think of the game as either you have late position or you don't. The only benefit to middle position really is that you have a better chance of securing last position for after the flop.
Hands like K8 - K2, Q9, 75, etc., I wouldn't even play on the button to be honest. However, Tommy Angelo would disagree. But I'm pretty sure he's the only one :)
natedogg
* EARLY* AA,KK,QQ,JJ
AK,AQ,AJ
KQ,KJ
QJ
*MIDDLE* TT,99,88 AT,A9,A8 KT QT JT T9 98
*LATE* 77,66,55,44,33,22 A7,A6,A5,A4,A3,A2 K9,K8,K7,K6,K5,K4,K3,K2 Q9,Q8 J9 T8 97 87 76 65 54
??????????
First, your hand list is probably ok for a very loose and VERY passive game.
For a typical game that is fairly tight and fairly aggressive, you need to tighten it up a bit more.
EARLY: AA,KK,QQ,JJ,AK,AQ only - raise in early position but be wary of AQ. You can get burned if someone re-raises you and you flop a pair. Also, sometimes you can raise here with TT.
AJ KQ,KJ QJ - dump these in early position without a second thought! You can play them in LATE middle position but not always. If the game is leaning towards VERY tight and aggressive, you should probably dump these in early middle position and if you are the first one in, you can open-raise in late position. Open limping with these hands in middle position is not advised.
*MIDDLE* TT,99,88 Fine. You want to have people already limping in but if you have to open-raise, do it with only TT and MAYBE 99, but only in LATE middle position..
AT,A9,A8 KT QT JT T9 98 :
Do NOT play these in middle position. You can put ATs in with the hands above that can be open-raised in late middle position but the rest should go.
Late position:
Your choices of what to play in late position will be almost entirely dependant upon how many players have come into the pot. Of course, if it's already raised to you, you can only play hands that you would play in early position, and you should still fold the lower end of those like AQo.
With lots of limpers you can play hands like:
JT T9 98 77,66,55,
Most people advocate playing 44-22 as well but I've lost with these two many times.
A7,A6,A5,A4,A3,A2 - IF suited. If not suited, dump them against a lot of limpers.
K9,K8,K7,K6,K5,K4,K3,K2
Never. Weak kings are terrible hands against a full table.
Q9,Q8 J9 T8 97 87 76 65 54
These hands you can start to play, preferably suited. What you are trying to make is straights of course. With lots of limpers, you have great implied odds to see a flop and make a straight.
If it's a really tight aggressive game, you'll hardly ever get to limp in from late position and you should tighten up there as well, but RAISE with almost anything you plan to come in with.
natedogg
Very, VERY loose game. Players are sooooooooooo darn easy to read, it's like shooting big fish in a small barrel with a big gun. I have a great image and most players just KNOW that I have the stone cold nuts when I bet (even though I have only had the nuts once today, and everyone folded).
First hand: Only one player folds and I have 76o on the button. Trash, yes, but just barely playable in this situation. Both blinds call and we see the flop eight handed.
Flop comes 2 4 5 rainbow. SB bets and five call to me, I raise the straight draw for value. Couldn't have asked for a better flop. Seven see the turn.
Turn is the perfect card, a three of a fourth suit. SB obliges and bets, one calls, the next raises. I suspect that two players here have a six, but I am not sure. I just call. I maybe should have reraised but I figured why drive anyone out who has less than the nuts when I can just raise them on the river. If I wind up paying for it the hard way when someone makes a full boat then I will get what I deserve....
River comes another perfect card, the 8h. SB once again obliges and bets, two call, I raise and all call. I take down a monster as two players had a six and one had two pair, which they made on the RIVER. I told you it was a good game!
Next hand I have Ah9h in the cutoff and raise after five limpers. Seven see the flop for two bets each.
Flop comes 7h 8h Ks. SB bets (how convenient) and four call, I raise it for value, getting a nice overlay. Everyone calls and there are six players.
Turn comes Qd. SB bets again. I suspect that he has nothing at all. He is a very weak player and painfully obvious, he might as well just turn both cards face up he is so easy to read. Only the player on my right calls, another one that is incredibly easy to read. I call. I probably should have raised again....
River comes a brick, the Td. SB hesitates then checks with a defeated look on his face. Next player gives a disheartened check and I bet right out. There are a whole bunch of bets in this pot and my bluff attempt only has to work once in a while for it to be correct to try. These two players are so easy to read, I estimated my chance of them both folding to be at least 50%. I bet and they both folded, even though the SB hesitated. Had he called he probably had the winner for a monster pot. Other player folds and I toss in my cards, face down, letting my opponents believe that once again, as usual, I had the stone cold nuts.
There are three ways to win at the game of holdem...
Game selection, game selection, game selection....
Dave in Cali
I read ALL the books concerning Hold'em but I'm in difficult to know what kind of hands I can defend in the BIg Blind position (in small blind seat it's easier to determinate it). Here's some examples:
- 2 limpers, a late position player raises, SB folds. I have (in BB) K-6 off. Have I to call?
- no callers, only a player raises, SB folds, I have A-baby off. Have I to call?
- 3-4 limpers, 1 raiser I have 4-5 suited. Have I to call?
All situations suppose a bad knowledge of the opponents (such as in on-line games or in a new game)
Is the Abdul Jahlib defending blinds table worth?
Thanks for your comments
Marco
Marco -- Fold the K6. Call with the Ax if the raise is a late position, likely steal raise. Otherwise fold. Usually call with the 54s.
I haven't looked at Abdul's guidelines for this in a while. But as I recall they are fairly similar to those in HPFAP. He may get a little more specific, and may be a little looser in places. Make sure to differentiate between defending (head up) against a steal raise versus calling legitimate raises (such as a raise behind a couple of limpers) in the blinds. The latter requires considerably tighter standards overall.
In situations that the authorities agree are borderline based on the cards, I think it's best to make decisions based on the next level of parameters, mainly, who is in the pot, and how do you fare against them overall in the local heirarchy.
It's natural that there are some players we like to play against and some players we dread. A general plan of "fold against dreaded players" can go a long way.
Tommy
If an early position player opens with a raise and everyone folds to you in the big blind, do you call with AJ offsuit?
If everyone folds to the cutoff or the button and he opens with a raise, do you reraise, fold, or call with Axs in the little blind? I think that it is a pretty clear reraise with A8s or A9s, but what about the lower suited aces?
Thanks, Wallace Shawn
"If an early position player opens with a raise and everyone folds to you in the big blind, do you call with AJ offsuit? "
Yes, in most cases against most opponents and in most structures. If he has made a small raise at PL or NL, sure I call. If he is an aggressive player in a limit game, I call. If he is my friend Joe, I send it back. He likes to "pretend he is in a later seat and watch people fold." If I am in the BB, he is SO busted. If I sniff out that attitude in another player, I treat him as I treat Joe. Other players in other situations might induce me to lay down the AJ but it would be rare.
"If everyone folds to the cutoff or the button and he opens with a raise, do you reraise, fold, or call with Axs in the little blind? I think that it is a pretty clear reraise with A8s or A9s, but what about the lower suited aces? "
With the BB still to act, I would tend to call with lower suited AX. As you would, I would raise for value and to get headsup with AX suited if the X is eight or higher. I MIGHT wait for the Ten, depending on the personality of the Big Blind.
-- Will
The blind is not my
money any more. It is
In the pot. MY pot.
Fold the AJ. You are facing someone who has raised UTG and you will be out of position with a trap hand and you're only getting 3-1 preflop anyway. This of course does NOT include those times where you know this player is likely to raise with anything.
I can't give you good advice about the SB AXs hand because I pretty much fold in the SB every time no matter what I've got unless it's a very premium hand. It's not for everyone but it works for me.
natedogg
Game selection is the number one consideration as Dave in Cali suggests.
Here's one I pulled last night in a very good 10-20 HE game. I had good reads, but especialy good on one fair player. He limps in middle position and all fold, leaving me in the big blind with him.
I did not look at my cards, just pretended, and (this was the hard part) I did not look at the flop either, I just watched him. When he checked the flop, turn and river, I just kept betting. I could see in his face he was on some draw which he missed, and he folded the river. I never knew what I had or what hit the board. I just did this as an exercise in people reading.
..., for you to be an effective "reader" you have to see the board to proficiently analyzing the other player.
If you are not looking to your own hand and not even seeing the “flop” “turn” and “river” cards is the equivalent of you playing absolutely RANDOM. Doing that, is no way in the world according to probability theory that you ever will get and advantage, even over the most novice player.
To put it bluntly, …, what you just did is like playing all the time in the “Big Blind”, .. maybe worst then that!
Ramon
Oh! No! ~ You cannot reinvent poker!
This is not a valid technique, How in the world can you do this? If I would be at your table and you would be trying this on me, I will simply play only the best cards, which I usually do no matter what, and is no way that you’ll ever be able to beat me.
You have to see the flop and the subsequent cards to figure if the other player is going for a “flush draw” or for a “straight” …etc,
However, is not a valid and a smart thing to do. Nothing personal, but this is my opinion about things like that. You cannot reinvent poker!
Guhring
I did not mean to mis-lead. This of course is not a valid way to play. If anyone KNEW I did this they could play back at me.
I only did this one time, in this one situation, as an excercise in my reading ability of this one opponent.
He, of course, had no idea I did not look at the cards. I simply played at him based on his demeaner, tells, or whatever you want to call it.
If he made a bet, or if he raised my bet, I would have to look and then play correctly.
I just thought this was an interesting idea since I value knowing the player and how he plays over the mathematical, scientific, percentages, approach ( which are also very important, but quite easy to know in hold-em).
For one or two times only and for practice purposes I guess is fine. If the other player was very “readable” as you say then you did an experiment and in this case I tend to agree with you that was interesting to see how good you can “read” that guy.
Guhring
I value knowing the player and how he plays over the mathematical, scientific, percentages, approach ( which are also very important, but quite easy to know in hold-em).
I agree with you completely and in fact I recently posted about this very concept.
To take it further, in some no limit games you can play the cutoff and the button EVERY time without ever looking at your hand. I've had nights (in a home game I play), where I've taken down five to ten pots without looking at my cards. It's the difference between having a win or a loss for the night sometimes. Of course, this is a LOT easier when you know the players well. Which goes in line with your original point.
natedogg
Doyle Brunson has said if you gave him the button, he could win every session without ever looking at his hole cards, if the other players were unaware he was not looking.
Yeah sure maybe you can show a positive EV in this spot, but aren't you clearly going to show a greater EV if you look at your cards?, who knows maybe you'll flop a monster and want to slowplay when you suspect noone has anything, whereas you'd just bluff out assuming you don't have anything (because you never looked)
skeller
Excellent post from the archives on this subject:
natedogg
Along the same lines. about a year ago I was in a game with a button drop. I was on the button this particular hand. There were 6 players seeing the flop. I was in for free on the button. (sorta for free)On the flop no-one bet. On the turn no-one bet so I did and they all folded.
For the next six rounds, every time I was on the button I bet the turn when no-one bet and took the pot. Forget the matter that I didnt look at my cards. Finally one player saw this around the 5th round and called me oin the turn. Now I looked and had top pair, continued to bet and won.
I was playing in a great game thursday with one very passive calling station and some loose players. The calling station would win a few hands, and then donate it all back, and the cycle would repeat. Wasn't too much raising by the other players, but lot's of calling and about three to four players to see the river.
Then a seat opens and a new player sits down. He's loud, a poor player, and a bully of the weakest players on the table including the passive calling station. He starts critisizing her play, starts talking to her in chopped english, and generally pushing around most of the weaker players at the table and telling them how they should be playing their hands. Within about 40 minutes of his arrival, the foxholes were dug, and the morters were firing. The game had gone from really soft to really tight and ugly. Even the calling station adopted a new set of requirements that were much higher than her old ones.
I see no sense in what motivates these types of players. Is their sense of self worth so low that they can only feel adequate pushing little old ladies and passive men around the card table? And why can't they see what their actions do to the table?
Some folks feel bigger by making others smaller. And some of them happen to play poker.
Tommy
Mike, have you noticed that when YOU seat at the table, everyone already there change their way of playing?
Yes, at times they do. I try to adjust to the game rather than the game adjust to me, I think there is a difference. Plus I would rather everyone have a good time, the money flows easier.
nt
Picked up 3/16 issue of Card Player uyesterday and have two questions pertaining to Jim Brier's article.Hand 2 Jim doesn't take into consideration (at least in the article) the likely chance the early position player is holding J 10 of hearts or diamonds and may have made a straight on the turn. That seemed like the most holding for the turn raise??? Hand 4. I'm wondering what the button could be holding if indeed he does hold a 6? It seems to me 2 bets befojre the flop would have gotten him out wisth the exception of A6 suited..but that isn't likely with 2 aces in one hand and 2 sixes on the flop plus I can't see the button staying for the flop with that hand needing two bets. Being fairly new at Hold em (about 1 year) those questions perhaps have an easy answer...?
I just got back from Michigan last night so this is my first chance to respond to your post.
On the second hand, Jack-Ten suited is definitely a possibility since this is a common limping hand. I neglected to mention that in my article. It represents another way you can be beat. As I stated in my answer, you will usually be beat in these situations and the issue becomes one of pot odds, outs, and whether or not you might have the best hand. I believe there is too great a chance that you might have the best hand to fold here. There are 4 ways for your opponent to have Jack-Ten suited. There are 8 ways for your opponent to have King-Queen offsuit given that two Queens are accounted for between your hand and the board. There are 2 ways your opponent can have Queen-Jack suited given given the two Queens shown. Now King-Queen offsuit and Queen-Jack suited are also common limping hands from early position as well as Jack-Ten suited. Some players might check-raise on the expensive street with these hands as well.
With regard to Hand #4, many players call raises cold from the button when there is a lot of other players in the hand on a wide range of holdings. I have seen players on the button cold-call raises with Seven-Six suited, Six-Five suited, Eight-Six suited, King-Six suited, etc.
Thank you for your interest.
10-20 HE with 1/2 Kill. This is a crazy-wild home game where 3/4 of the time it is 3 bet or capped with 5,6,7 way action. Is it ever correct to call 3 or four bets on the button with six or seven way action (and you know one of the blinds will be coming) with small and medium pairs. Is the price of admission too high? My high cards are getting killed in this game. How exactly are my implied odds getting killed? If it is 7.5-1 to flop a set and it holds up 75% of the time when can I enter these pots with a crowd? I'm an aggressive 20-40 player in the casino. Most pots are 2,3 and sometimes 4 way action. In the casino game I never enter a pot with small-medium pairs unless I'm on the end and it only costs me one bet. I'm a winning player at the casino but I'm getting killed in this home game. Please help me with this problem. It is a tough grind at the casino and it really kills me to blow money in this crazy home game. I drive home from this game talking to myself wondering how I lost to these guys who very seldom win at the casino. Please help!
I occasionally post on this forum but I usually just read the posts and try to learn as much as I can. However, this last week was an interesting poker week for me and I thought you may find it mildly amusing.
I live in Santa Monica, CA so I can play poker whenever I want. However, my dad lives in Miami and he's the one that taught me how to play poker with pennies long before I could read. Anyway, Miami is a gambling wasteland. You basically have to go out on these cruise ships and wait until you reach international waters before they open the casino. We went on the Sea Escape and although the BJ games have horrible penetration and the poker room doesn't offer much ambience, there is a whole other show going on. Just watching the old people fight over a seat at Let It Ride is worth the price of admission. Also, you can have dinner while sailing out and the surf and turf isn't bad.
I found out they were offering 10-20 hold 'em and decided to sit with the table of regulars. The game was basically weak/tight. The dealers all know these regular players and they do a good job of keeping them in line. I managed to pick up a $150.00 win and snagged another $50.00 in profit playing BJ. Not a bad night.
My dad wanted to go on the ship one more time before I flew back to Cali and I'm not one to turn down another surf and turf dinner. This time however, they had a hold 'em tournament. It was a $65.00 buy in with $30.00 re-buys. After an hour it changed from structured betting to No Limit. They also had a 15 minute break where you were allowed to purchase a $50.00 add on. Well, I had never played a tournament before. I figured it would be fun so I gave it a shot. I had never played no limit before but I figured I would just do my best and try to remember what I've learned from reading on this forum. It went better than I thought it would. There were 48 entries and not only did I get to try my hand at no limit, I got to the final table. I even managed to last short stacked at the final table long enough to place 5th and win a $400.00 prize! You would have thought I won the big one at the WSOP I was so happy. I think I understand the appeal of tournaments now. Before entering, I didn't have much interest in them. I owe a thanks to this forum for all of the advice I've received. It really helped when I got to the no limit portion of the tourney.
So I left Miami a winner and flew back to Cali for a day. My girlfriend planned on taking me to Vegas for my birthday so after a night of sleep in my own bed, we got in the car and drove to Vegas. Now this is where things started to go bad. See, my girlfriend refuses to learn to play poker but she wants me to spend time with her (real demanding, eh?). As a result, I end up playing all kinds of stuff I would never play. After awhile I just gave in and decided I would drink and be a degenerate gambler for a weekend just like all the other losers proliferating the downtown/strip areas. One of my best friends was in town. So him, my girlfriend, and myself smoked a ton of pot, drank a ton of alcohol, and ate as much seafood as we could at the RIO buffet. I did get to play a little poker and since this is the poker forum I'll give you a couple of highlights.
We stayed at The Horseshoe and both times I sat in the 10-20 hold 'em game I ended up a small winner. The one thing I immediatley noticed about playing in Vegas is how much friendlier the games are when compared to LA. Even the locals I played with were much nicer than most of the locals I run into here in LA.
The three of us ended up at The Las Vegas Club and I was wandering around figuring out how to waste more money while my girlfriend and friend played craps. I found the small poker room there and lo and behold the only game going on was spread limit hold 'em 1-8. Against my better judgement I decided to sit down. Normally it would be easy for me to sit down, but at this point in the night I had already smoked 3 bowls of really good west coast cheeba and had lots to drink. It ended up being a good move for two reasons though. First off, I got to meet Razzo. I don't really have any poker buddies so it was great to meet someone from this forum. Razzo was really friendly. Actually, that game was really great. Everybody was friendly and was just there to have a good time. The other reason it ended up being good is that I ended up a small winner. I had trip kings cracked by a flush but ended up with trip kings again two hands later that turned into a full house. The pot got quite large and I took it down putting me up about $50.00. My girlfriend wanted to move on again and I hated leaving such a jovial group, but I'm glad for the little bit of playing I got to do there. Thanks again Razzo for treating a really stoned player from the 2+2 forum so great.
The rest of the trip basically involved me losing money with 90 year old women at the let it ride table. I did get to play some more poker at the Bellagio on St. Patties day. Wow, talk about fish. The poker room was basically an aquarium with the combination of the holiday and the college basketball games going on. A man named Robert sitting next to me pointed out all of the poker celebs that I never would have recognized, so that was cool. I ended up winning there and afterwards we drove back to Cali.
All in all it was a fun trip. I ended up ahead in every poker game I played and only lost money in the sucker games. I did learn one thing playing let it ride. What I learned is that although I take poker seriously and I want to continue learning, it's actually pretty healthy to go ahead and just screw around like a tourist once in awhile. My girlfriend was happier on the trip and it took away a lot of pressure. I wouldn't reccommend doing it often, but if you haven't been to Vegas as a "tourist" in awhile, you may want to give a try. Just drink faster than you lose. If anybody in SoCal ever wants to meet up, I usually play at Hollywood Park or The Bicycle Club. Just let me know, because it would be nice to meet more cool people from this forum like Razzo.
See ya!
"The one thing I immediatley noticed about playing in Vegas is how much friendlier the games are when compared to LA. Even the locals I played with were much nicer than most of the locals I run into here in LA."
I've always felt that this has something to do with the rake. Many LA players are just bitter they have to play so much and perhaps they take it out on the other players, etc.
I also think that Vegas, despite the "glitter", is still, at heart, a small town with many small town attitude people compared to L.A. By small town attitude, I mean nice. A couple of years ago a local radio station here in L.A. had a contest for a motto for L.A.; they didn't win, but my two favorite entries were "Cover me, I'm going to the mall"; and "The Other Silicon Valley."
I thought most people preferred a dead drop on the button or a time charge over the pot being raked. I remember reading an interview with Amarillo Slim where he said that he didn't mind paying to play, but he hated the idea of part of the money he won being used to pay for the table. Which way is better, paying on the button or having the pot raked?
that very well may be true. However, the lucky lady produces some real bitchy and unfriendly people and they have (had) the "lowest collection in the universe". (they have since raised the collection on 4-8 to 4$/half hour and 6-12 and up 5$/half hour. 3-6 is still 3$ half hour). Not everyone that plays there is unfriendly though. And the staff is nice.
>Thanks again Razzo for treating a really stoned >player from the 2+2 forum so great.
Thanks Merc. You guys were a riot!
razzo
I've been playing HE for about 1.75 years. I would say that i moved up in limits rather quickly. I like the faster more aggresive action in the medium stakes. However, I have a loosing record. As a matter of fact the more I have studied it seems the more I loose. I walk out of the casino often thinking about how I made the right moves but, just got unlucky (i'm sure most loosing players FEEL this way). I can think of a few flaws in my game 1) I am not always that great at reading my opps. cards-getting better and 2) I play without much creativity--avoiding draws and almost never bluffing. I do not believe that scared money is an issue as I make an excellent income I am however, competitve and would like to develop a winning record. Do i need to go down to the lower limits (even though the 4/8 and 6/12 games locally have a $5 rake and $1 bad beat rake). How likely is it that I am just not catching good cards? Do I need to gamble a little more--call more raises, play more draws, play more random cards in late position, raise more often with suited connectors and bluff more. ANY SUGGESTIONS
Without really knowing anything about your situation, I would guess if you are giving any action you aren't getting any in return. From what little you posted I would think you are too tight. You have to play loose enough to at least make your blinds so you do not play at a loss. I am not an expert though, so perhaps those with the knowledge will have better answers...
how can you not play any draws?
i mean seriously, ill respond.
brad
I'm definitely no expert (I have been playing for a much shorter time than you, and at lower limits... I am winning though), but maybe you give too much up if you don't play the draws with good pot odds?
More important, though, I believe, is if you (almost) never bluffs. That's weak tight, right? Easy opponents for an attentive player. They know when you've got the goods, fold, and save a lot of money. "Your" money... Maybe you should (semi-)bluff just a little bit more?
Reading hands/opponents may be important at the limit you're playing too. I'm no good at that either. I manage to win at the limits I play anyway. I'll move up when I'm getting better at these things...
Finally -- if I were you, I would definitely go down to a lower limit. Why play where you lose? But then, I don't have any money I can afford to lose... If you go down in limit to looser, less aggressive games, you're current style of play may very well be a winning one, I think. Win first, study the next level, and move up when you think you have a good chance to beat or at least not lose at that level, is my philosophy.
Anyway, I wish you good luck, and hope you can get some better help from more knowledgeable players than me...
-JDS
First off, you need to develop your card reading skills, as that is perhaps the most important single skill in poker. Game selection might be more important to your overall EV, how good are the games? It sounds like you are kinda playing over your head skill wise, though not money wise. Despite the presence of bad players at all limits, the higher the limit, the better the players as a rule. Also, if you are not playing draws, then you are losing money. Draws are often the most profitable hands to play in the long run. You must play draws selectively, only playing when you are getting an overlay on your $$. But by not playing draws, you probably have no chance to be a winner. Flushes, straights, and flopped sets make a LOT of money if you play them correctly. I usually play in very loose games. If I were to not play draws, I would not be able to win any money, it's as simple as that. I made a post a while back regarding an article from july 2000 poker digest by Dan Hanson, called "the mysteries of multiway pots". Find the article and read it, read my post and the responses too. Then you will have a better idea of WHY you SHOULD be playing draws in multiway pots. The nut flush draw with a pair might have more EV than a flopped two pair, kings and jacks, especially if there are several callers with weak draws (you are sucking out lots of equity from KJ). If you are playing suited connectors, I would not necessarily raise more with them, I would play my draws correctly, that's the only real reason to play them at all. If you haven't already, read Theory of poker to learn more about when and why to bluff. you must read your players well and only bluff against those capable of folding. Bluffing into a calling station or when it should be obvious that you will be called is a collosal waste of money. Unfortunately for you, practice and study over time is the only sure fix for your game. Post hands that you have played on the forum for peer review. Write down at least one hand every session, and don't always pick winners where you had it by a mile the whole way. Marginal situations make the difference in the long run so look for situations to analyze that aren't so obvious or clear cut.
dave in cali
I played with you on the internet, if you are the same person, for a short time. You seem to play well enough to win. Maybe you are just in a tough game. Also, playing draws is part of poker.
If this response was meant to be for me, Dave in Cali, it is not me. I have not played on the internet at all so far, and have no immediate plans to do so. There are far too many cardrooms near me (complete with security cameras) to bother with the internet.
There currently is a poker quiz at www.pokerpages.com. I did very poorly on it, and I want to post a few of the questions for comments.
Question 1: (Assume 20-40 HE), You are in middle position with the 6d-6c in a nine-handed game. No one has entered the pot yet. You should: fold, call, or raise.
Question 2: (Assume 20-40 HE), You hold the 9c-8c on the button. Five of you see the flop in an unraised pot. It comes Ad-7c-4c, giving you a flush-draw. The big blind checks, the next player bets, and the player on your right raises. You should: fold, call, or raise.
Question 3: (Assume 20-40 HE), You have the Ac-Jc in late position. The loose player on your right calls, you decide to raise, and the big blind calls, so three of you see the flop. It comes nice for you; Jd-8c-5c, giving you top pair with an ace kicker. The two opponents check, you bet, and the big blind raises. The other player in the pot folds. You should, against most people: fold, call, or raise.
Question 4: You are a floorperson who gets called over to make a ruling in a pot-limit hold'em game. On fourth street, a player bets from the ten-seat, and thinks the field has folded. (In reality, the person in the one-seat still has a hand.) The bettor discards his hand and the dealer quickly mucks it. At this point, the one-seat says, "What happened; I still have my cards." The discarded hand is irretrievably mixed with the discards. What do you do?
-Rule that the player with cards had an obligation to call attention to the fact that he had a hand, and should not let two people plus the bettor act after him. Declare his hand dead and give the bettor the pot.
-Rule that the player with the live hand is the only one with cards, and give him the pot.
-Look at the hand of the player with cards, and base the ruling a lot on what the hand is.
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Derrick Ashworth
I am a relative beginner at poker and have read Ciaffone's PL/NL book. His poker knowledge and experience far out weigh mine, and for that reason, I MUST respect is answers... but I will tell you what I thought compared to him.
Question 1: I said fold BC said raise. My reasoning is that even if you are the best, there are many hands that are basically even money against you and several that have a big advantage. There are also way too many flops that are very poor for pocket 6's. I guess I am worried about being outplayed if I miss the flop. I do agree that I call is by far the worst play, and if I were to play in this situation I would definitely raise.
Question 2: I said call BC said fold. I would not fold my flush draw in this situation. Assume there are 5 SB in the pot preflop, plus a call and a raise to you. That gives you 8:2 on the call if the original bettor folded (which is unlikely). I would guess you are going to get at least 9:2 and risk maybe 3 bets which would be 11:3 (or so). Am I way off on this?
Question 3: I said raise BC said call. My thinking is even if you are behind you have AT LEAST the 9 outs of the flush draw. I would definitely reraise here.
Question 4: I said the player with the cards gets the pot BC said the floor person should look at the hand and determine the ruling from there. I have not played in very big games, so I just want comments on this.
Thanks in advance.
Derrick
I took this after you posted and I scored badly on it as well. Some questions don't relate much to my experience (what's lowball? j/k, i know the game but i've never played or seen a hand of it, same with Stud 8 or better high low).
Don't know derrick, i guess we suck, but if it feels better it look like I had some problems on the same questions as you (plus some more).
I scored poorly on the lowball and other odd games as well, but I wasn't overly concerned with this. I was more concerned with the questions I posted.
Derrick
Q1, Q2, Q3, (FOLD, FOLD, RAISE)
I would:
fold;
call;
call, (if I raise, he may reraise, then if K or Q turns I have a greater problem);
say live cards win.
Question no. 1 - I woulkd generally raise with 66 when first in from middle position. In certain situations (i.e. a loose agrresive player behind me and tenacious blinds, I would fold).
Question no. 2 - I don't get it. Of course, you call or maybe even raise if you think that might get you a free card.
Question No. 3 - In addition to top pair/top kicker, you also have the nut flush draw. I would smoothcall the bb's raise on the flop and raise the turn no matter what card comes. I believe that calling is better than reraising on the flop precisely because you can then set up a raise on the turn. If a flush card comes on the turn, the bb will be hard presses to put you on the flush. Firstly, preflop raisers don't usually make a flush and secondly, preflop raisers with a flush draw will generally 3 bet the flop in order to get a free card. This is a fantastic flop for you and you should raise the turn no matter what card comes (you may however wish to check the river if you fail to improve and the board gets ugly).
1. Fold 2. Fold 3. Raise, you are getting pot odds for a raise on your flush draw. Even if he/she sends it back, you are getting pot odds. If you hit a flush on the turn, he will know it but who cares. If you don't, you can make one more crying call. Also, you still might win without the flush. Although I think he has trips. 4. No cards, no pot. Yuck. I hate it but that is the rule that I have seen.
-- Will
Why do you think he has trips. All he did was checkraise you on the flop. Some larcenous individuals will checkraise the preflop raiser here with doodoo and hope that he has AK. Certainly, the vast majority of players would (correctly) checkraise with a Jack and many would even (also often correctly) checkraise with any pair.
At no point can the guy with AcJc consider folding (no matter what the turn card is). In fact, as I said above, I would raise the turn no matter what card came down.
1. It is close between folding, calling, and raising. It depends on the character of the game. In about half of the $20-$40 games that I see you should fold -- you won't get enough action to flop a set. You should call in about one-fourth of the games -- the remaining players are loose and there is a good chance that you can get the multiway action that your hand requires to flop a set. In about one-fourth of the games you should raise -- the remaining players, especially the blinds are tight and your raise or flop bet will pick up the pot often enough to make it worth the investment.
2. You should call.
3. You also have a nut flush draw. You can either reraise right here or just call and raise the turn unless a card that goes well with a jack comes.
4. You should tell the bettor that he is not suppose to discard his hand until the dealer pushes him the pot or someone else calls and shows a better hand. Whether you give him his last bet back is a judgement call. He could be taking a shot. Perhaps he has nothing and tries to muck his hand and claim the pot knowing that someone still has a hand and might call.
Well, how did I do?
Re: the AJ situation
"You can either reraise right here or just call and raise the turn unless a card that goes well with a jack comes"
I am not sure that you even need that qualifier at the end. Let's say a Queen comes off on the turn. Now, if you raise him on the turn, many players will not make it 3 bets even with QJ. Now, if you happen to catch him on a flush draw and the flush gets there on the river, you will probably get 3 bets on the river. If you miss the river, you can always check then and still only have spent the same two bets.
Re: The 6-6 situation
In the on-line games that I play in, a call is out of the question. It's a raise or fold situation but your points are well taken.
My answers were fold, call, reraise, and reward the pot to the guy with the hand. I didn't actually consider the bet in the pot that was not called by the guy with the hand.
Ciaffone's answers were raise, fold????, and call (I believe with the intention of check calling it down unless a A-J or one of your suit comes). I can understand raising the 6's, but folding the flush draw seems out of the question in question #2. I also would raise the A-Js with J high flop and the flush draw.
Derrick
I managed to get 8/10 on the first 10 questions pertaining to Limit HE, and not so well on the other 10 pertaining to NL and PL problems where I have no experience at all.
One of the questions I got "wrong" was your #1 item concerning the pocket 6's. I dumped, on the presumption that there were at least 3 or 4 hands behind you yet to act plus the blinds. I would much prefer to limp in with what I consider a baby pair in late position for 1 bet and a lot of callers rather than play the whole hand out from up front and facing a possible re-raise to see the flop.
I agreed with the Coach's decision to dump the 9c-8c. I just smell a whipsaw coming here and I'm always going to be uncertain in this situation if I even WANT to make my flush. Low variance, to be sure, but I'm gone.
I smoothcalled the checkraise with AcJc, too. Not so much because I fear the BB's holding, but because I am in position to punish this guy with a double BB on the turn or river if the club comes and he's making the mistake of checkraising a flush draw, for some reason. Mind you the parameters are that you are up against sane players. If he bets the turn and river without me improving, I call down all the way. If he's doing this with something like KJ, I let him lead himself right where I want him to go. If the club comes, it's hammer time.
I have no experience as a floorman, but I got the Ruling question "right". In the best interests of the game, I would want to see the guy's hand who comes out of the woodwork after the fact. If he has anything remotely close to a call, give him the pot and this will teach the mucker to hold on to his hand in the future. If the river bettor was angling, he gets what he deserved, too. If, on the other hand, the magoo is bust, I see no reason to reward him with the pot just because he: a) fell asleep at the wheel, or b) was angling. Kind of gets the best of both worlds with some common sense.
Q1: I also said raise. True enough, you are in a situation where you will probably not be better than even money against anyone who calls, but your raise is not a value bet. It is a semi-steal, I think. Raising in early/mid-position implies a strong hand and you are likely to (most of the time) get several better hands than your own to fold. Anyone calls, you are going to need a set to win.
Q2: I also said fold; I feel like I am way behind to begin with, and my flush draw may be drawing dead. Even considering the fact that I may need to call 4 bets from 2 opponents on the flop (and turn, perhaps), I don't even think the pot odds are there to chase the flush, even if its good.
Q3: I got this wrong, I said raise, like everyone else. I simply didn't agree with his answer, and I cannot believe he is correct. I raise again here, no question.
Q4: I didn't think too much of this answer. Rules are rules, and they should be applied uniformly, not after looking at the guy's hand. I think I gave the pot to the guy who mucked his hand, since the guy with cards is responsible for keeping up with the action in my eyes. Oh yeah, and I fired the dealer too.
David,
I don't understand what you are saying in respect of the flush draw question.
In my view, you simply can't fold a flush draw on the flop for a single raise. If you knew that the flush will be good if you make it, you clearly have the odds (both current and implied) to call two bets cold. The only time you should fold is if you *knew* that a bigger flush draw was out and in my opinion, there just isn't enough evidnce yet for you to draw that conclusion. You have a bettor and a raiser on the cheap round. Big deal. In the games that I play in, that's par for the course on most flops.
If I folded a flush draw every time there was a raise on the flop, I will be showing down 1 or 2 flushes a month. Flush draws can be expensive but they form a good chunk of your monthly earn too assuming that you play them correctly.
I would sure like to know what the Coach's rationale for folding is but I am convinced that I could school him on that one. Note to Ciaffone fans: Don't get your feathers ruffled too much: I have a great deal of respect for the Coach and think that he is one of the finest poker writers around. His book "Improve your Poker" is a beauty.
I certainly hope that the answer for question # 3 is to reraise with your top pair, ace kicker, and nut flush draw!
After now reading the responses, I think just calling the flop and then raising the turn no matter what card comes has some merit. I still believe that in most of the games that I play in I would reraise on the flop, bet the turn if checked to, raise the turn if bet into, unless perhaps a Q or K or T came that wasn't a club (because they are often played with a J), then perhaps just call, and call the river if bet into and I haven't improved.
On that last question I think perhaps give the bettor his bet back but definitely would not give him the pot.
I would call with the flush draw in #2.
In the games I play in, if I was first in from middle position I would probably fold because by then it would be unlikely that I would be getting enough odds to flop a set. In a tournament situation I would raise as it probably plays more like a tight 20-40 game.
In this article he starts off telling how TJ talked to him and engaged him in conversation in a pot limit game in order to gain crucial information as to how he would play. TJ was very friendly, and as Nolan puts it, he has the "gift of gab". No matter what the opinions of TJ may be on this forum, he is definitely doing something right by being friendly, IMO. Curious how in this article, several other of the biggest names in poker are also reputed to be very friendly at the tables.... I have no doubt this contributes to their success.
On the other hand, there are those poker players, professional or not, that just don't get it that poker is a people game as well as a card game. I heard a story about a shill in a poker room who was playing in a seven handed game with these two ladies. These two ladies were dressed very well, had plenty of cash, were drinking and gabbing and having a good time, and were obviously intelligent, successful people in real life. They were also terrible card players, and were probably favored to lose a couple hundred each by the time they quit the game. So there they are, playing terrible poker and having a total blast, just loving it. Then this shill leans over and says something into one of the ladies ear. Her mood totally changes and within a few hands, she says to her friend "we're leaving". They both quit the game and left. Something the shill said had obviously totally changed the mood of the lady. Well another player, the one telling the story, asked what the shill had said. The shill had told her that she was a terrible card player and was totally embarrassing herself by the way she was playing. Now as I understand, shills are supposed to KEEP THE GAME GOING. Now instead of seven handed, it was five handed. Most games break up when they get five handed, except for the higher limit games where shorthanded play is more common. If I were managing that poker room, that shill would have immediately been FIRED. And what did he accomplish by this remark, he pissed off the two biggest fish in the game enough to make them QUIT, plus he brought the game down to five handed by driving away the two worst players in the game! FIRED.
I had a large win last weekend. I used the all-purpose generic poker phrase "good hand" lots of times, both when some totally oblivious moron hit a two outer on me, and when someone made a horrible call on the river as well. I used the phrase to praise the terrible play of my opponents even when I wasn't in the hand. Let's examine some possible meanings of the phrase "good hand":
- you are a total moron and I hate you and your whole family because you hit a three outer and beat me - what an idiotic call of two bets cold on the turn trying for a gutshot - if you keep playing like that, you will be broke by the end of the day - you should be shot for playing those cards - please make that stupendously dumb call on the river again, I need the money - I think I am going to choke you now - please continue to chase those small pocket pairs when three broadway cards flop - how can you call two bets cold in a kill pot before the flop with 92o? (that one actually happened to ME, and I LOST to two pair on the river!!!!!!! "Good hand" is what I told him, even though I just wanted to tear out his heart and show it to him!). - and finally, the most interesting use of the phrase is when you actually MEAN it when you say "good hand", like if a skilled opponent makes a good play against you and you recognise that he/she made a good play, novel idea...
It is very important to be nice to the fish, otherwise they may very well quit the game and go blow all their money in the casino pit, thus allowing for a tougher player to take their place. Those two well dressed ladies just wanted to socialize, gamble, drink, and have a good time. They didn't care if they were playing good or bad poker, that was not their motivation. They DIDN'T CARE if they LOST MONEY in the game!! Nolan discusses a similar situation with a high roller in his article in card player. Different people, SAME SITUATION. The high roller didn't care about the $$, he wanted excitement and social contact with other people who liked to play poker. But the high limit players, probably mostly or all "professionals", made the game miserable for the high roller, so he quit after losing only 20,000 in a 1,000-2,000 game. Let's see, that's about the same as losing 60$ at a 3-6 game, insignificant. I think that the "professionals" who were in this game might make their living from poker, but they are certainly not acting like true professionals. If they had a lick of sense they would have been friendly and given the high roller (their CUSTOMER) what he wanted out of the game. If they had been sociable, they would have probably gotten a LOT MORE OF THE HIGH ROLLER'S MONEY.
I am basically sociable and easy going by nature. I like to talk and socialize at the table. But sometimes I feel less sociable, and sometimes I am outright pissed off. What to do... Well, I have been experimenting with a novel idea. When I am unhappy with the game, players in it, or just plain pissed because the magoos keep drawing out on me, I just say NOTHING AT ALL. Or if I have to squeak out some sort of phrase, I try to make it "good hand".
I am firmly convinced that a friendly table atmosphere is condusive to a good game. People don't worry as much about losing, and they tend to loosen up. I know if the game is tense or unfriendly or hostile, I will often times quit, even if I believe I have a positive expectation in the game (which BTW, I will not be playing in the game if I don't believe I have a positive EV). I can play cards whenever I like. There are about ten cardrooms near my house. Since I play for other reasons besides JUST making $$, I simply won't put up with that crap, because I don't have to. We make our $$ mostly from the recreational players who just want to have a good time and gamble some cash. They are our customers, we should give them what they want.
Dave in Cali
n/t
First of all, everyone should be treated with respect at the table regardless of whether they are a good player, a bad player or even playing at all. criticizing a play and name calling are disrespectful; voicing your objection to obnoxious behaviour is OK.
Secondly, I only say nice hand when I actually mean it. For example, I make a bad read and it turns out I was woefully behind when I thought I had the best hand. I will say nice hand, and mean it. most people recognize superficial remarks and behavior. saying "nice hand" when someone sucks out on you is not being nice. It is condescending and no one likes a condescending tone. When someone makes long shot suckout on me I will either not say anything at all or will get a frustrated look on face and tell the other person they are lucky. They will usually laugh and agree with you. They are here to gamble right? if you want to make a comfortable atmosphere you can engage the player in some sort of conversation to let them know you don't have any hard feelings about the previous suck-out.
This leads to another topic which is showing emotion at the table. Many (good) players take the view that you should remain stoic no matter what. I also disagree with this. Good players will notice that you took a bad beat and will know what you are feeling inside regardless of what you say or do. I find it's better not to waste mental energy hiding your feelings. it's OK to show some emotion just don't get abusive. Concentrate on compartmentalizing your emotions and proper play. just my 2 cents. Boris
Along the lines of showing emotion, I have learned at the levels I play at I can do almost anything I wish to as far as emotion or expression. My opponents rarely have vision that extends beyond their own two cards. Sometimes I think I could show them I have the absolute nuts on the turn and still get four callers on the river.
I have given up on the "nice hand" comment unless I really mean it, because I was sounding fake to myself. One thing that is kind of funny is telling a good player what a good play they made (on me), usually they don't know how to react.
Somewhat agreed with the comments here on "nice hand" or "good hand", but I have found that most of my opponents are not even sophisticated enough to realize you are being sarcastic (even when you obviously are). Of course you must SOUND like you mean it.... I still will say it relatively often though for the purpose of reinforcing the bad play of the magoos.
I try to never show emotion when mucking a loser. Especially when I was way ahead. Some halfway observant fellow may put 2+2(pun intended) together and figure out I had the best hand and be able to read me later as opposed to they may think i missed my draw or such. I will in fact often times say "nice hand" also. I want to offer nothing to indicate to you that I was way ahead.
you have a good point here. I usually muck without showing when I have been drawn out on to avoid letting the loser know just how bad a play they made, or realize that I might be less than sincere if I say "good hand". (you have so say it so you sound sincere). But I don't always muck, sometimes I show them too....
On saturday I had a rare session in which I won more than 100 BB, just over 129 BB in fact ($775). It was 3-6 holdem with a kill. The game was incredibly loose, average of 6-7 seeing every flop, and virtually every hand going to the river. In eight hours I did not see one chop or one set of blinds being stolen. Almost every player would call one bet on the flop, regardless of what they had. Backdoor draws, no problem. The players were so incredibly bad it was almost comical. One guy had to have dropped 350 while I was in the game, a good deal of my win was probably his money. He was in virtually every hand, playing such cheese as 49o and J2s, calling raises, etc....
The nice thing about this game was that there were enough players who would actually BET that it made it much easier to get in a raise, either for value or to narrow the field. Narrowing the field didn't happen much though as these players didn't seem to have any concept that you should actually have SOMETHING in order to call a raise.
So the game was mostly a matter of value betting and raising. I raised on almost every good draw I had, sometimes even from middle position, because I knew that my raise would not knock out many, if any. I value bet almost every decent hand all the way to the river, because I knew it would be called by a considerably worse hand, on the average. I mean I raise BTF, an ace and a king flop, and this guy calls all the way to the river with pocket 44! I wanted to say "what did you think I raised with", but I did not say anything except "good hand" (translation, THANKS FOR DONATING).
I was also able to play more hands BTF because there wasn't much pre-flop raising, and even if it got raised, you could still count on a multiway pot almost without exception. So I would play suited connectors and small pairs in earlier positions than I normally would (basically I played all my pairs from any position, within reason).
Another factor in this big score was that these players were both unsophisticated and unaware. They weren't even thinking on level 2, what their opponents might have, they were barely able to comprehend level 1, what THEY had. They were also incredibly easy to read. I mean I could almost always tell you what was in their hand... It was usually CRAP! I successfully bluffed several decent pots on the river because I KNEW that my opponents had nothing and would fold.
Add in the fact that I did in fact get some good cards dealt to me and also got good flops, and game conditions were right to make a very large win possible, if not probable. I mean I get into this type of game every chance I get, but they are usually not quite as good as this one. Game Selection is probably the single most important thing a poker player can do if he/she wants to REALLY win at this game.... I would have NEVER left this game except that I was forced to leave because I had to go to work at the club!
Comments welcome
Dave in Cali
Awesome win, congrats! When I make a big win, and I never had made one that big, I know it's all in the cards. Never had the opportunity to have such poor players too!
,
Viejas casino in alpine cali
I recently set up a test. Seat 1 was the advisor - Bret Maverick. The remaining seats where ocuupied by 'typical' low-linit players..... profiles Manny, MOe, Joe Paul etc. After 20 million hands, as expected, Bret Maverick was the money leader. He was losing a mere $264,398! Does this mean you can't win?
Forgot to mention game set up as 5/10 with 2/5 blinds and it's Turbo...
No. These games are definitely beatable.
However, it might mean that the programmers of TTH don't understand poker well enough, or that you are not setting up the program as well as you think that you are.
What you have done is make a closed system which normal casino poker is not. If players do not come and go even the winner will lose. It then becomes a matter of who lost the least.
In a typical casino game, there are numbers of players waiting to play once a seat becomes vacant, some games may never end. One player loses $200.00, leaves, and a player with fresh money sits down in their place. This process repeats and repeats. Winners keep on winning over the long run.
TTH is limited in there are only so many players - but they are the wealthiest players in the world!
TTH assumes an unlimited amount of money per computer player so we should not have a closed system. I would appreciate if someone could duplicate this simple test to confirm that I have set it up correctly.
Play according to your position at all times. Use the starting cards per position to open or to call a single bet. If you are in late position and the pot has been raised to you then you have to apply the standards from where the raise was generated. If the raise was made from middle you get the middle-late starting cards as a guide to call that bet and the early-late position starting cards to raise back, Else fold!
If you are in late position and the pot has been raised to you from an early position player with a lot of player calling that raise then your have to get the early position standards to call or the top premium cards of the early position to raise back, Else fold!
The Flop has to improve your hand or at least cannot damage the value of your original 2 cards. 70% of your final poker hand is generated by the flop & your 2 cards.
If you have a pair and you’ve reached the flop, and if is a Over-Card on the flop with betting action you have to Fold!
Any pair under 99 has to flop trips or they will not survive. If you don’t flop trips and see action you have to Fold!
With two connectors you are looking for an open end straight draw after the flop where for a single card on either end of your straight. (8 outs).
With a Axs or AXs you are looking for a Flush draw (9 outs), a top pair with the Ace being the kicker or a open straight draw for the nuts. Else fold!
With an Kxs or KXs you are looking for a flush draw (9 outs), a top pair with the K being the kicker or an open straight draw after the flop. Else fold!
If your pair has not been damaged by the flop and you go to see the turn and if an Over-Card comes on the turn with a lot of action, get out and Fold!
Ramon
Players from an early position are using superior standards against you based on their handicapped positions as well as the players from middle position. So, you have to respond back to them with similar standards or better if you want to have a fighting chance for the pot. That’s why we play by position. The early position have so higher standards just in case it gets raised from middle or late and in that case he has to have the high standard cards to respond back and to survive. Basically, a proficient player has to bounce back and forth between his position and the position from where the raise has started or from where the open call has been made.
Your concept is sound
AJ
After the turn if your connectors did not make at the TURN the open straight or the flush (if they where suited) and you still have the correct pot odds which you’ll usually have with a lot of players in the pot then and only then you go to the RIVER for one more card trying to make your straight or your flush. This is also valid for Axs, Axs, Kxs and KXs.
If the pot odds before the RIVER are not correct you usually have to Fold in this situation. (i.e. pot = $320 and you have to put down a raise of $40) this makes the open straight draw just a break even proposition, don’t go for it! Is not worth the fluctuation in your bankroll.
The pot should be at least one big bet over the correct pot odds to make it practical to invest another big bet in it. Else Fold! (i.e. pot should be $360 or $400) in both situations (flush or straight draws) to make it worth the investment.
Ramon
Your advise seems to be sound except where "you need to flop trips with 99 or lower..... In this case I look at the implied odds on turn and may possibly try one more small bet. For example, I have 66 in 7th position with 4 callers pre-flop. After a flop of say, A,J,8 rainbow and there are 3 more players with me as the 4th, I believe I'm getting the correct odds for 1 more sb to see the turn. Am I correct in this analysis? Please advise.
Here it is
From my original post: Any pair under 99 basically has to flop into a set or they will not survive. If you don’t flop a set but see action you have to Fold!
From your post: “Your advise seems to be sound except where "you need to flop trips with 99 or lower..... In this case I look at the implied odds on turn and may possibly try one more small bet. For example, I have 66 in 7th position with 4 callers pre-flop. After a flop of say, A,J,8 rainbow and there are 3 more players with me as the 4th, I believe I'm getting the correct odds for 1 more sb to see the turn. Am I correct in this analysis? Please advise.”
If you have 66 as your original 2 cards with 4 players contesting the pot and the flop is as you say – A,J,8 and you are contemplating to stay one more small bet to see the turn them I’m asking you this: What are you looking for? – Obviously you are looking to get another 6 on the turn! Yes?
Well, you have 2 cards of 6 left in the remaining deck, so 52 – 5 – 47 cards left and in this bunch there are only 2 to help you. So, .., 47 – 2 = 45 bad cards and only 2 good ones. 45/2 = 22.5 :1 underdog to make a set on the turn !! Where are you going with this? It is no way for you to have the correct odds at this point! ( You have only 2 outs)
You miss the flop totally, so you have to get out as soon as possible. The flop is A,J,8 – any from the other players could have an A or a J or a 8 and in this situation you are dead already.
Remember if an over-card hit the flop and you see action you have to get out and Fold!
Ramon =========================== One More Time ======================
Poker is as much a community as it is a game. People from all walks of life and all over the world come together to play at the same tables. Some may be there for the recreation, others for the camaraderie, and yet others to make their living. Poker is on the cusp of new era. The sport is finally gaining the recognition for what it truly is…a skill game that pits mind against mind.
Playing according to your position in poker is imperative at all times. Use starting cards per position to open the pot but for calling a single bet you have to have same standards as the original opener. On the other hand, if the bet have been raised to you then your hand has to have at least the value of the position that raise is coming from Now, here depends, but for now I want you to remember only this.
For example and this is a classic one: If you are in late position and the pot has been raised to you then you have to apply the same standards on the quality of your hand as from where that raise was generated. If the raise was made by a player from middle position you have to get at least the middle position standards as a guide to call that bet but is obvious that you have to be in a better shape to raise back to the original raiser in this instance. If you are contemplating a raise in this situation you better have early position cards. Else just call or Fold!
If you are in late position and the pot has been raised to you from an early position player with a lot of other players calling that raise then your have to get the early position standards to call or the top premium cards of the early position to raise back, Else fold! Don’t forget that in this situation you not only have to be able to absorb the original raiser but in the same time you also got to have enough power against the other callers also. This is very important to remember.
Or, if you are in the early position and decide that your hand is strong enough to open the pot but by the time the action goes all around the table some other player from the late position is raising, Now! .., don’t you be afraid to call or even raise if your hand is good to enter the pot then must be good to even respond to a raise coming from late position, you know exactly what are the late position standards. Be assured that your early position standard cards are of higher quality that of someone from late or even middle position.
Another case would be if you are in late position or for that mater in any position and are multiple callers to a raise or are players that are re-raising or even cupping the bet, this will tell you that if you decide to enter the pot you have to be able to absorb all this callers and raisers that create that situation. Your hand has to be of a high quality or else you’ll not be able to survive in the fight for that pot. The more callers, raisers and cuppers are in the pot the stronger your hand has to be. In this situation you have to go back to the position from the action has started and if your hand match with a certain degree of approximation the standards of the originator only then you call the raise or re-raise it back.
Why is that so? Because, the players from an early position then yours are using superior standards to even enter the pot and much stronger hands with which to raise a bet based on their handicapped positions. So, you have to react back to them with similar standards or better if you want to have a fighting chance for the pot. If you don’t do that then you will be losing money because you will not be able to “Have the Best of it” That’s why we play by position. The early position have so high standards exactly for the reason to be able to defend themselves against raises coming from middle or late and in that case he has to have high quality cards be able to survive. Basically, a proficient player has to bounce back and forth between his position and the position from where the raise has started or from where the open call has been made.
To put it bluntly, playing poker proficiently is like being in a perpetual self adjusting process similar like would be piece of rubber. For example: If a early position player is raising you being in late position have to become immediately also an early position player as far as it concerns the 2 cards from your hand and you better call that raise only with premium cards similar that a early position player would have used to call or raise from his position.
The Flop has to improve your hand or at least cannot damage the value of your original 2 cards if there is one in the first place. 70% of your final poker hand is generated by the flop & your 2 cards. However, you have enter the pot only with qualifying positional cards. To understand this principle better think this: Whoever is raising is your enemy and you have to be aware what weapons he is using to attack you! – another words, because of his position you have a pretty good idea what he is going with and obviously you’ve got to adapt yourself accordingly.
If you have a pair and you’ve reached the flop, and if an Over-Card flops with betting action after that you have to Fold!
Any pair under 99 basically has to flop into a set or they will not survive. If you don’t flop a set but see action you have to Fold! ( set = 99 vs. 9 on the flop) – a set is a hidden pair in your hand with one of the same card on the flop.
With two connectors you are looking for an open end straight draw after the flop where you go for a single card on either end of your straight. (8 outs). In some circumstances you may make trips with one of your connectors. (one in your hand and two on the flop) 8 vs. 88 – the trips are not hidden and are much easy to be discovered, they may be used by some other player also. So! .., pay attention in this circumstance because the difference is COLOSAL!
For example, if you make trips on the flop but you have an Over-Card there and see action you have to suspect that that the action is coming because that over-card for a player having a 2 pairs. (i.e. the pair plus the over-card that you suspect has paired someone else) . Now, if the 4th Street card is pairing the over-card and because of the past action that you’ve witnessed before you have now to almost be certain that is a FH involved out there. But on the other hand if you would had a set instead the trips then, nobody else could have trips or a set. I this instance you can be sure almost for certain that even if the 4th Street pairs the over-card you still are favorite against a potential big trips vs. your FH which is a money making machine.
With Axs or AXs you are looking for a Flush draw (9 outs), a top pair with the Ace being the kicker or an straight draw with the nut in your hand. Else fold!
With an Kxs or KXs you are looking for a flush draw (9 outs), a top pair with the K being the kicker or an open end straight draw after the flop. Else fold!
If you go with Axo or Axo the same principle applies except now you are not looking for a flush. You may be looking for top pair with the Ace being the kicker or a straight draw if your cards are connected of maybe flopping 2 A’s giving you trips.
If your pair has not been damaged by the flop and you go to see the turn and if an Over-Card comes on the turn with a lot of action, get out and Fold! After the TURN if your connectors did not make the open straight or the flush (if they where suited) and you still have the correct pot odds which you’ll usually have with a lot of players in the pot only then you go to the RIVER for one more cards trying to make your straight or your flush. This is also valid for Axs, Axs, Kxs and KXs.
If the pot odds before the RIVER are not correct you usually have to Fold in this situation. (i.e. pot = $320 and you have to put down a raise of $40) this makes it a total of $60 for you ($20 + $40 the raise) this makes the open straight draw just a break even proposition ($60 * 5:1 = $300), don’t go for it! Is not worth the fluctuation in your bankroll.
The pot should be at least one big bet over the correct pot odds to make it practical to invest another big bet in it. Else Fold! (i.e. the pot should be $360 or $400) in both situations (flush or straight draws) to make the investment worth the risk. One last point have to make – If you are in late position and nobody has raised the pot but only have been calling the blinds then, you can raise with mediocre connectors or suited Aces or Kings (i. e. Axs, AXs, Kxs and KXs) to force some players out and in the same time to induce deception. But make sure that you will have to put up with a some more variance on your bankroll if you do that.
If you have a flush draw (9 outs giving you a 4:1) and the bet to you is $24 then the pot has to have $24 * 4 = $100 or more to make it worth. The rule of thumb is that to have one extra bet into the pot. (i.e. $124)
Ramon
Ramon, Thanks for the clarification. I'm not good in determining the correct odds. Maybe you're the right person to advise me as to what book I can buy that shows the odds on drawing in HE or how to calculate them. The Kriegers, S&Ms and Brunsons books have limited info. Again thanks for the advice
I may soon be moving to New Jersey, but still about 2 hours from A.C. However, I noticed in an online poker room directory that there is a card club called Rounders very close to where I will be living. Does anyone know anything about this place? I have never heard of it. What limits/games do they play? How is the action? Any comments would be much appreciated.
Thanks, Jason
I live in Oregon, but grew up in the Garden State (we grow people). I visted Rounders last fall. At that time, they only had one table going, out of, I think three. I believe it was a 20-40 game. When there are enough folks, they spread any where from 5-10 to 20-40, I think. They charge time, but I cannot recall how much.
Here is their contact info: "It's in Piscataway, NJ. I 287 exit 9. It was started by two great guys, > > Vinny and Carl, I play(ed) with regularly at the Diamond Club in NYC. > > Rounders can be reached at 732-271-0003" An old 2+2 poster sent me this information.
You certainly will not have game selection options there, and the trek to AC may prove to be more lucrative. I hope this helps, Tim
Thanks for the info...maybe it has improved by now.
Take care, Jason
Yeah I've been there several times over past few months. They have 5-10 games I believe Mon Wed & Fri, and 10-20 with a halfkill to 15-30 on Tues and Thurs. On sundays they hold no-limit tourneys usually at $60 buyin with $50 rebuys.
It's a small-to-medium-sized place with about 4 tables total.. and they have players pretty much every night. Action is usually loose/aggressive, and I've lost what I came with several times.
Oh and the house take is $5 every 30 min, or $10/hr.
-slay.
thanks for the info!
What would be a good line up of profiles to replicate a low limit no foldem game? No one folds before the flop and all stay to the river with any type of draw-no regards to pot odds! When you live in a non gambling state and all poker is from home games, this is what you get! Thanks
Latest version has a set of typical low-limit profiles. Did you see my post?
I believe the loosest regular profile is G.A. Joe, who plays something like 75% of hands. You can put him in every seat. Make sure to turn off the toughness feature pertaining to profiles adjusting their play according to the number of opponents.
You can also modify any profile to never fold before the flop. The program's readme file indicates which profiles are generally passive, moderate, or aggressive after the flop, as well as which ones are insensitive to pot odds (i.e., will chase draws to the river with inadequate odds).
I am in a very loose slightly above average on aggressiveness 1-4-8-8 game (8,6 on Alan Schoonmaker's rating system). All but one limp and I limp on the button with Jc9c. SB folds, BB raises 4$, everyone calls to me, I call and we take the flop 7 handed.
Flop Q T K with two spades, giving me the second nut straight. BB bets, two call, I raise, BB reraises and all call, I cap. 4 players.
Turn is a blank. BB bets, two call, I raise, he reraises, one folds, one cold calls, I call. I might have reraised but he could be playing AJ in which case I have three outs to a split.
River is the 2s. BB bets and the caller raises. I figure him for a flush and fold. BB calls. Raiser has made an unbelievable two pair, queens and dueces on the river. BB wins with a set of queens.
I folded a huge pot because I was virtually certain I was beat, but I was wrong and it cost me a bunch. I left the game two hands later because I was too pissed off to play well anymore. I lost about 230$ in this game, but I would have been close to even with this pot had I called. Would anyone else have made this call? Or did I play in a reasonable fashion.... I HATE flopped straights! I wish I had stats on every straight I have ever flopped so I could see if I have in fact made any $$ on them!
Comments welcome
Dave in Cali
As usual, you have to know your player etc. If you had no info on this player I would call in a low limit game. But I would certainly be expecting to lose, and I wouldn't really fault you for folding. It's hard to see people suddenly raising with two bad pair, but the pot is sooo big ($211 on river and it costs you $16 to call, right? or am I misremembering what 1-4-8-8 means?). The fact that your straight is non-nut does make the fold more tempting as I think of it again though. But I tend to err on the calling side until I know my players.
Your response is well thought out and probably makes me feel just a little better. While these players were pretty bad, I had not seen the raiser make any such incredibly dumb move prior to this, and the man with trip queens was a decent player and typically showed down good hands when he was aggressive.
and yes you are about right on the size of the pot, no one was betting less than the max on this hand.
Roy Cooke has an article in his book on just this type of hand.
It's called "Portrait Of A Horrible Play". Sorry, it's his title! :)
FWIW I'da played it like you. Whatta game....
BB is obvious KK or QQ,
the last raiser, i could see how you could put him on a flush, or possibly slow played AJ , but still big pot, you should call.
another thing to consider is how much you are agonizing over losing the whole pot versus calling and losing $16
It's a loosey goosey 4-8 game. Nothing's obvious.
Good point about the diff btwn $200+ & $16, tho.
well, he raised from the blind,
and he 3-bet the flop and then 3 bet the turn After dave capped the flop.
that yells set or straight to me, and most wouldnt raise outta the blind with TT or AJ. but i agree that nothing is certain.
i saw a similar occurence at a 1-4-8-8 game at the monte carlo...
guy flops a straight (9T)-he shouldnt have called a raise cold with this, he'd have saved himself a bit of money and agony.
678 two hearts
the betting is capped
guy bet,girl raise,re-raise (straight),guy reraise, girl raise.
the next card is a small heart
it is bet and raised before it gets to our hero with the straight, he agonizes and folds,
on the end the guy has AA and the girl wins an unpaired board w 89s.
the guy was really pissed.
You have to call based on the pot. We all do this some time, we get frustrated by the chance we flopped a great hand and were dead on the flop. You kind of talked yourself out of it right away, so when the reraise came you mucked without taking the pot odds into account.
Dave,
I would have had the same concerns that you had and have made the same mistake by not calling. I would have called for sure.
My reason for the definite call is that I have once to many times let the sight of three suited cards convince me to fold and have given up hughe pots as you did. Depending on various factors I don't run from a three suited board as often and it has paid off for me. A four suited board is a different story and I will most likely fold for a raise or even a bet in most cases.
Walker
You did okay, both folding and leaving. Obviously you belonged somewhere else....jmho
Very wild game in Arizona - I have AA and flop the set.
Lots of betting and capping on the flop a straight and flush both hit the board the two players left will play any 2 from any position I dump the set of A when the board doesn't pair and there is reraising going on.
Pot is really big and these 2 each show a pair of 6's in the hole.
What you gonna do? If you don't ever dump a winning hand you are playing to many to the end - it happens.
Don't let it bother you to much.
l
Dave, I think folding was the right play here. I'd have called one bet, but unless you've seen Q2 man pull crazy stunts previously, it's awful tough to call 2 big bets. Also, BB will 3 bet if he has something like A-face of spades (was pushing flush draw and pair), or, lord have mercy, A-J spades.
I played a somewhat similar J-9s button hand, family pot about a year ago that I remember very well. Flop was also K-Q-10. I raised the flop, bet the turn and when not raised I figured no one had A-J. River was a J, and a poor player bet into me. At least it was an easy fold because I was 100% sure he had an ace. After I folded he showed me A-K, which he didn't raise before the flop, and if he had I would have dumped J-9. Funny how things work out.
Caddy Caddy
In Super/System Doyle Brunson comments that he would sometimes turn his hand over and watch his opponent's reaction when deciding whether to call an all-in bet. There was a discussion regarding showing your hand on the forum recently along these same lines. Some seem to think that this tactic is unethical, and some cardrooms apparently will void your hand if you do this. I believe there was even an article regarding this in either card player or poker digest recently as well. Personally, I do not think that there is anything wrong with this tactic, as long as it is heads up and there aren't others left in the hand who may change their action because of it. I would also not be opposed to someone showing their hand when they BET, if they were so inclined to do so.... I think that as long as the rule "show one, show all" is followed, that it really doesn't matter either way. There could be other considerations that I haven't addressed here as well.
I wish I had a listing of the exact ruling that would be issued in all cardrooms across the country for comparison. Actually, I have seen several articles recently regarding the need for a standardized set of rules. I happen to fully agree that we need this. Before I started playing casino poker, I went to the taj mahal and got a set of rules from them. It was very thorough, about 10-15 pages as I recall. It was extremely helpful to be aware of these things in advance as I avoided doing some things that are not necessarily obvious to a beginner who has only played in home games, but are definitely faux-paus when you do them. One arguement I have heard against a written rulebook is that angle shooters will nit pick every rule in the book and use it to their advantage. While I am sure this will occasionally happen, I think the need for standardized rules outweighs the potential for their abuse. One rule that should probably be in there is that in all cases the floorperson's decision is final and that they reserve the right to make circumstantial decisions when the need arises. That should allow floorpeople to override an angle shooter's obvious attempt at taking advantage of the rules.
Perhaps 2+2 will tackle the idea of a standardized rulebook....
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
My understanding is that showing hands before the action is finished is forbidden in tournaments and allowed in ring games.
I think that in ring games, heads up on the river, there is no reason to disallow cards being willfully turned over by their possessor before the action is complete. Come to think of it, the more the merrier!
I saw one a month ago that was mind-boggling. It was in the big NL game at LC's. The board was something like x-x-x-Q-10. A top-notch player bet the river, and the other guy was thinking, and the bettor turned over an utterly blank non-matching seven. Obviously his other card was a queen. The other guy raised big, and now the top-notch player felt forced to call the raise, and did, and lost to a flopped small straight that had been double-check slow-played. Nasty.
Tommy
I assume the top-notch player showed the 7 to induce a call to his river bet. When the slow player took his time on the river top-notch must have thought he was thinking of folding (maybe he was already considering a raise anyway and the sight of that 7 made it an easy raise).
The reason for rules against showing in ring games during a hand is probably only to speed things up, don't you think?
Is there such a rule?
I don't think so, but the few times it has happen at the limit games I play, everyone sort of rolls their eyes, ready to get on with the next hand, while the guy is making some kind of play.
I once made a straight in 30-60 hold 'em on the river with a holding something like 8-6s which I played in the big blind. An aggressive player who had been betting all along bet the river and I raised. He took forever contemplating what to do and finally said to me "show me one card." The board was something like A-7-5-K-9 rainbow. He was sitting next to me so I told him "take your pick." He turned over the 6, thought another 40 seconds or so, and then called!
I hadn't come up with an opinion on this until reading your story, and then I was surprised to see that you think there should be a rule against showing cards.
First, no-limit. I think it should be allowed for sure, on any street. And it could never be standardized for no-limit for the same reason many rules cannot be standardized: local custom will prevail.
At no-limit, the jive that goes on when one person is facing a big bet is a big part of the game for many players. Showing a card is just part of that unigue aspect.
(Not that it matters, but just so you know where I'm coming from, I never show cards or talk during delays in any games. But I LOVE watching the bla bla that some of the no-limit players dish out.)
At limit, the potential for card showing is far less frequent than at no-limit because at limit it only applies on the river, and because limit is a faster pace game, without long stalls that allow card-showing to enter the plot.
I don't have a reason FOR allowing it at limit, but I don't think it's a breach of etiquette, certainly not as slimey as slowrolling.
Tommy
Hey Tommy, (btw new e-mail address-I went digital)
I did a slimey. First time I ever slow - rolled except that time against a friend when we were tied at the river and I had to chastise him for playing such cheese!.....Anyway...not way unlike yours last year when we were laughin about it at LC.
This guy has slow rolled me twice in about an hour and a half. He's even being real cocky about it. You know the kind, has the nut flush you call with 2nd nut, he slowly turns over 2 of suit first and pauses.....I show the KQ of suit then he finally shows the ace.
Anyways, I'm in BB with J4 and everyone is in for only 1 bet(doesnt matter how many).
Flop: 447(44 anyways...the rest don't matter)
He bets out gets 2 callers I raise he 3 bets I call.
Turn: Q
He fires, I call
River: 10
He fires I call.....
he confidently turns over 4-5o. I lean-up on my chair, shake my head in disgust, look at my cards, look back up, The table is waiting, ......"Get it fixed"
He didnt slowroll anyone the rest of the time I was there. Obviously he knew what he was doing.
Yes, I would think no-limit (which I do not play) is more of a psychological contest and there is more "jive" involved. When I have seen players turn over a card in limit, it is usually an experienced player using it as a semi-angle approach in trying to get an inexperienced player to call. The inexperienced player who then calls and loses usually feels badly about the experience.
Now I'm generalizing about what must be, at most, 5-6 incidents that I can remember, probably insufficient experience with which to make a judgment. But, my post below notwithstanding, where I exposed a card when requeste to do so by an opponent, it does strike me as almost a type of needle or angle. It only borders on the slimy, true, but I've seen more than one player leave the game after this was done to him. Granted the players who left were bad players who were losing and may well have left because they had lost their limit, but I don't think the turning over a card play helped endear the game to them.
I wasn't involved in this hand but I jotted in down a year ago for potential article material under the general topic of one-of-a-kind plays that extend beyond cards and bets.
At $20/40 limit hold'em, player A bet the turn. Player B stalled. Player A pushed his cards out with one ($5)chip on one card and two chips on the other card. Player A said, "You can pay me five bucks to see this card (pointing to the card with one chip) or $10 to see this card (pointing to the other card).
Player B tossed $15 to player A and turned over BOTH cards. Player A had ace-high.
Player B raised the turn, player A called. Player B bet the river and player A called, and WON, with ace-high.
Tommy
.
I think cards should only be shown at a showdown. Usually this play is made by an experienced player against a relatively less sophisticated player. It's bad for the game and makes the other player feel bad. I'd be in favor of a rule that says players must protect their cards at all times.
To me it's like players who take enough chips in their hand for a raise, drop only enough to call, and then hold the rest of the chips in their hand wathcing the other player before (apparently) deciding whether to raise or merely call. A raise should be made in one smooth motion or with a verbal declaratin or not allowed. It makes inexperienced players feel bad to do this and is thus bad for the game.
I second the motion for a standardized set of rules.
heh heh, sometimes i discreetly flick guys off when they try crap* like that...
if you've seen men in black... the part where will smith is in the crater and rubs his head with his middle finger...
my buddy died laughing cuz i flicked off this wrinkled old geezer who tried that...
*(the old witholding chips trick)
Test:
The flop came A-J-x, mono.
Is it clear what that means?
Pertaining to suits, there are only three types of flops. 1)Three different suits 2)All of one suit 3)Two of one suit.
I LOVED the word "rainbow" the first time I heard it. Brilliant, and SO useful. Right away I knew we needed two more words and I've struggled with this for four months. I've pondered many, and these are the best of the batches:
Rainbow Mono Twotone
I like the consistency with the established "rainbow," the O's and W's, and two-syllables each, and of course the color-scheme theme. The additional words are easy to type and easy to say. And just like "rainbow," the meanings are obvious via context.
I don't know about ya'll, but I'll never type "Two of a suit" or "All of one suit" at 2+2 again.
The flop came x-x-x, twotone.
Works for me!
Tommy
How about rainbow, mono, and bi-o?
3-suites, 2-suites, 1-suit. Or "Vested", "Trousered", or "Sports Jacketed". Or "Rainbow", "Suited", or "Possible flush draw". Or "1-flush", "2-flush", or "3-flush".
The flop came K97 2-flush. The flop came K97 Twotone. The flop came K97 2-suites. The flop came K97 possible flush draw. Mmmmmm.
- Louie
I like continuing the use of rainbow, but why not simply "Bi-x" and "Tri-x" as the use of twotone and mono still means you have to mention the suit.
So why not describe a flop as rainbow, bi-club (2 clubs), or tri-club (three clubs)?
Now I feel like I'm in sales. Okeedoke, here goes.
Think of words like "limp" and "flop" and "suckout," and of course, "rainbow."
They are descriptive, but then, they aren't. A limper doesn't physically limp, and a rainbow has no black and very little red.
I think it'd be best if the words completing the rainbow trilogy were of the same literal-but-not-quite-literal flavor as the many other poker words that aren't quite physically descriptive, such as "stuck."
As to being suit specific, I'm thinking that for the writing and telling of poker stories, the complimentary terms to "rainbow" would be better off if no suits are mentioned. Here's why.
Example: "I had 7-7 and the flop came x-x-x, twotone." The twotoneness of the flop IS, or MIGHT BE relevant to the betting decisions in that a flush draw is possible. But we needn't know which suit it is.
Example: "I had AK offsuit and the flop came x-x-x, mono. I bet out with no flush draw." Again, the suit is irrelevant. Is that "better" than this? "I had AK offsuit and the flop came x-x-x, all clubs. I had no club in my hand and bet out." No, it isn't better, or more accurate, or even that much shorter. It's niftier, in the same way that "rainbow" is niftier than "all different suits."
Here's the main thing. By being non-suit-specific, a trio of words allow the discussion of hands as SITUATIONS, not historical retellings. An instructor or friend could refer to situational thinking without having to constantly be bogged down with distracting, specific suits.
Example: "With a twotone flop and heavy action, do you check with top pair on the turn when the flush-card comes?"
As to "bi" words, such as "bisuited," I think it is TOO descriptive. There is no niftiness, no "improvement" over just saying "two of one suit."
("Bio" is way cool, with the BI and the O and all. Looks like a tough sell though.)
Plus, "twotone" is a word that rolls well from the tongue, like "railbird" and "suckout" and "floplag."
Only time and usage will tell. Words have a way of proving their own worth if they have any.
Tommy
Well, Tommy, at least it takes care of "RED," and it's kinda like a rainbow.
Free associate a bit like Louie: zebra; '57 Chevy; "Night and Day" (you are the one...)= a Cole, as in Porter; S&S = Stars and Stripes, hence red, white, and blue, ....ah, forget it.
I think the twotone idea is good, but I'm not sure if mono would fly. It's just a feeling. I think it has to do with the fact that mono is not readily identifiable as a noun, which in this case would be important. For example 'the flop was a rainbow' is MUCH better than 'the flop was rainbow' if only because the version sans article seems to catch on your tongue.
So, I think the one-suited word needs to be an obvious noun-- like rainbow, railbird, floprat, etc.
Another problem with 'mono' is it's latin roots. Something about that.
But like I said, I really like 'twotone'. I can see myself using it.
Just curious, did the word "monochrome" pop into your head? I remembered this association after reading Louie's and John's free ones(as opposed to sober ones). :-)
Funny thing about that; I don't believe the word monochrome came to me last night, but this afternoon while I was up on the roof I was thinking about 'twotone'and 'mono' and I couldn't ge the word 'monochrome' out of my head. I kept saying it over and over to myself, like somekind of mantra, untill finally it morphed into Kodachrome (at which point I began singing Paul Simon's so-titled classic).
Ah, the meditations of a roofer. How very tumultuous. Still, I think it's hard to come up with good slang words that have Latin origins :)
I agree that "the flop was a rainbow" is better than "the flop was rainbow." Thing is, no one says it that way that I've heard. Typically it's, "rainbow flop," or "The flop was x-x-x, rainbow."
In that syntax, "mono" and "twotone" (or most anything else for that matter)can be nouns or adjectives, or even verbs, since the use as an adjective is clear.
An example of how the parts of speech get parted is, "He hit running hearts."
Running, a verb, becomes an adjective.
Tommy <-- ate too many alphabits
Actually, to be more precise, it's a participle.
You don't want to get me started on grammar rules, cuz I'll kick ALL your asses.
I'll dangle your participle if you promise to neatly [sic] split my infinitive.
:-)
30 years from now (hope I'm still on this earth) someone will be writing an article in Card Player about the history of terms and slangs in the old fasioned card parlours where they all played at the same table in the same room instead of on computers only and TOMMY ANGELO a pro in northern California and an occasional writer on the subject willbe credited with coining these 2 new phrases.
Tommy. Reading them in context I like mono as much as two-tone. I think it is all good and useful. I too will use the terms where appropriate in the future.
here's a small peek at the personal hell I live in. My own version of Rainbow, mono, twotone are: segregated, diverse and menage a trois.
Hopefully Tommy's suggestion will cure me.
Whatever blows your skirt up, man
.
For me, mono is just too bland a term for a suited flop. The reason why rainbow is so appropriate is that it has a nice soft feel to it, it's non-threatening. Suited flops are extreme; they're either very dangerous, or very gladly received. I think the word needs to express this and be a little more radical-sounding. Mono is just kind of flat.
I do agree that it's nice to have words that describe without literally describing anything. And it is funny how this language becomes part of our vocabulary. I read your column about pokerspeak, Tommy, and thought it was great.
It still makes me laugh sometimes. The other day my girlfriend asked me what I was typing, and I said "Oh, I'm just trying to find out how to play my pocket sevens when I'm short-stacked from the small blind, against two limpers and a big raise from the maniac on the button."
She said, "What?"
Thanks Bob. I have another word-junkie humor article in the can called, "It's All Well and Good."
It's a debate with "Izzy Gonyet, the relentless debator," over the correctness of phrases like "You play good" and "I'm running bad."
Tommy
I'm going to be in Colorado Springs for a week in April. Are there any Poker Rooms there or near by?
Into the mountains (rt 24) about 20 miles then south 15 miles (rt 67) is Cripple Creek. The Midnight Rose as 10 or so tables with lots of action. Lots of good free food. CO has a $5 betting limit.
Depending on what you are looking for there are higher limit games in Denver. Email me if you want to know more.
Bellagio 4-8, typical game, slightly loose and moderately aggressive (6,7). I am on the button and limp with Ac8c after three limpers. SB calls and BB checks.
Flop comes Js 3c 9c. BB bets and two call, I raise, SB folds, rest call.
Turn comes Qs. BB checks and a new player bets. I call and the rest fold.
River comes a total brick small diamond. My opponent checks. I put him on a semi-bluff spade flush draw, which has missed. I think that not only would he make this play, but that he might very well fold if I bet into him. I bet. There are nine bets in the pot so I only need to successfully bluff 1 time out of ten in order to make it correct to try. To my dismay, he calls me. I tell him "good call" and turn over my cards. He turns over As7s and I win with my EIGHT KICKER.
What do you know.... Guess he thought ace high would win the pot. He was right! Of course he only needed to be right less than one in ten times to make it correct for him to call me....
Dave in Cali
Your opponent's flop play was poor. On the flop all he has is an ace overcard and a backdoor flush possibility. He should fold on the flop when bet into. Your flop raise is good with your nut flush draw and ace overcard.
If your opponent is going to semi-bluff the turn, then I think he should consider following this up with a bet on the river facing only one opponent when a blank comes since his weak ace may not be enough to showdown but who knows? It is interesting that he is loose enough to call flop bets with nothing, aggressive enough to semi-bluff on the expensive street into a flop raiser, but then plays it like a little girl at the river by just checking and calling having just an anemic ace.
Jim brings up a good point, I think you would have folded to a bet on the river, right? I would have.
Yes I would have folded to a river bet. I agree his play was poor as well. His play basically gave me the pot because when he checked the river I will be pretty inclined to bet in this situation.
dave in cali
I see no reason to bet the river. If he really has a spade draw as you suspect, then your Ace high should take it.
good point Joe but ... maybe the other player got on the flop the 2nd pair + a backdoor flush draw .
n/t
I also suspected that a spade draw with a pair might be a hand he could have.
Basically I bet the river hoping a better hand would fold, but expecting that if called I was probably beat.
good point though.
dave in cali
There is an interesting discussion going on at rgp regarding Daniel Negreanu's theory that limit hold'em should be played with "flow." It started with a hand Abdul Jalib posted in which he open raised with AJ in early position, then got reraised. Everyone else folded. The flop came A K Q (I think), Abdul checks and calls. The turn is a blank, and now Abdul bets.
Negreanu criticized the play, saying "It doesn't flow. I try to play the game with some flow, almost as though my bets all mean something."
Gary Carson's response: "Why?"
Negreanu then stated: "I guess it's part of a theory I have where I relate limit hold'em to a conversation...In higher limit games all the top players have "flow to their game. A certain style, of course no two are identical. The bet described is "jerky," it doesn't flow. There are I'm sure situations where jerky may work, but overall playing with "flow" is usually the best choice. There just isn't too much need to be fancy in limit hold'em, it's just not worth it."
Tom Weideman responded: "Absolutely nothing you have written here (or to rgp in the past on this same subject) supports your claim that the "smoother-flowing" style of play you advocate wins more money."
What do the experts here think?
I have always thought along the same lines of Negreanu. I think his point is clear. In the Abdul hand, he was either you were good on the flop or not. The situation hasn't change on the turn, so why has your betting pattern. If you thought you were good on the flop, you should have raised. If you thought you were worse, but had odds to draw, you should call. And fold if neither applies. There are times when your situation mathematically changes on a blank in hold em, and then this play has mathematical justification. I.E. two overcards and a flush draw is a slight favorite to top pair on the flop, but not on the turn. You should be able to figure out where you stand and make a decision based on that. The illogical betting patterns cannot be the most profitable way to play poker.
Just my take.
I've read some of the thread over there and I agree completely with Weiderman. Basically, what Negreanu seems to be advocating is a "self-weighting" strategy. Of course we know that "non-self weighting" is superior and this is just another way of stating (I believe) what Wiederman is saying.
Let me try to be a little more specific. Generally in limit poker you want to make the play that you are suppose to. However, if you always make the play that you are suppose to then you become too self weighting. This translates into play that is too predictable.
For instance, suppose you call a late position raise out of the big blind and just the two of you see the flop, and your hand is JT. Now suppose the flop comes ten high. Even though you know your opponent will always bet if you check should you always check raise. The answer is no you shouldn't. You need to break your "flow" up so that you can't be too predictable. I play against some poor players in this spot who will always bet a draw or something like middle or bottom pair. If they check raise they have at least top pair. Their predictable flow hurts them.
Of course the way to correct this is to go against what is conventional wisdom and lead with a fair number of your better hands as well as the other hands mentioned. Now your opponent can't get as good a read on you. (Of course the downside to this is that when you do check you may be an easy read to fold to a bet. But if your opponent would have bet automatically and you would have folded these same hands you are not hurting yourself.)
This brings us to Abdul's hand. After being three bet when you hold AJ and flopping top pair, conventional strategy is to check and call. So the question is, does disrupting this pattern ever do you any good. Well let's suppose your opponent has a pair of kings in this spot and an ace flops. If you go into a check and call mode he will usually either bet the turn and then check the river, or check the turn and then call your river bet. So in either case you get one bet.
But suppose you break up the flow and lead on the turn. Given that all he has is kings he will have difficulty playing his hand. If he folds he will be afraid that he got bluffed out, and if he calls you may get him to call twice.
Of course, there is a downside to this which is that you just might get raised. If you can now afely throw your hand away your bet and his raise has made you money in the sense that you don't have to call the river bet. But you need to be sure and then need to be able to make the fold.
Now let's look at Abdul's specific play. He raised with AJ and got three bet. The flop then came AKQ. Notice that two of the hands that he would like to disrupt his opponent's pattern have now turned into sets. Furthermore, also notice that if he checks the turn he will be getting approximately 6-to-1 from the pot and given that he has a gut shot plus some chance that his hand is good (he might be against a pair of tens for instance) he should call.
So from this perspective, Abdul's play looks very poor (to me) given the particular board. That's because if he bets and gets raised instead of 6-to-1 from the pot, he will now be getting 8-to-1 which is getting closer to the 11-to-1 he needs for the gut shot. (If a ten comes he can lead and will probably be paid off and thus collect 9 bets).
Hopefully Tom Wiederman and other good players will offer their comments.
I went over there to check out the thread and the flop was AKT.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with "jerky" play i.e. I don't necessarily agree that flow is a required trait in one's play.
That said, I don't think that this is a spot for Abdul to use that jerky play to fire a bet on the turn. While he avoids giving a free card to QQ by betting (actually maybe he doesn't have to bet - who knows - the guy could bet his QQ himself given that he 3 bet preflop), the fact is that Abdul has an interest in seeing the river card as well (primarily to snag a Queen) and should try to do so cheaply. It would be a shame if he got raised by AA,AK,KK etc. and he has to pay an extra bet to hit his gutshot.
I would like Abdul's play on the flop a lot more if he held Ac8c or something instead of AJ.
I agree. I dont like his bet on the turn because he has a gutshot. If the board was AK32 then I would like his bet on the turn.
Again, I think that this is an important point. When making your decisions, the exact texture of the board is one of the important pieces of information that you must consider. A change in one card, as this example shows, can greatly impact correct strategy.
Actually, if the board is AK32, then Abdul is better off checkcalling the turn because he doesn't have to worry too much about giving a free card as his opponet cannot have a gutshot draw. His opponent is either ahead in which case Abdul is better off checkcalling or his opponent has 2 outs (maybe 5 if he 3 bet preflop with something like KQ) in which case Abdul does not want him to fold to his turn bet (which he might do if he has QQ).
So, in summary, here's how I would rate the turn bet from most appealing to least appealing:
1. The board is AKT5 and Abdul has a hand like Ac8c.
2. The board is AKT5 and Abdul has AJ
3. The board is AK32 and Abdul has AJ
4. The board is AKQ5 and Abdul has AJ
As Mason says, seemingly subtle changes to the board or your hand can make all the difference in the world.
skp,
Good post, as usual.
I would tend to reverse your number 2 and 3 boards/hands, but this is a minor point.
Would you change your opinion of this play if you thought there was some reasonable chance the three bettor held a trashy hand like A rag, KJ, JTsuited or whatever?
I would tend to play the hand fairly straight forwardly. Lead at the flop and check call when raised or perhaps just check call.
But whenever someone as wise as Abdul does something, rightly or wrongly, I do go to greater lengths then I normally would to determine if there is a certain subtlety in the play that I am missing.
I try to be open to everything.
Regards.
"Would you change your opinion of this play if you thought there was some reasonable chance the three bettor held a trashy hand like A rag, KJ, JTsuited or whatever?"
Not likely. Given that the fellow 3 bet the flop, he is most likely going to bet on the turn anyway so I don't have to worry about giving out a free card but by checkcalling, I give myself the opportunity to hit my gutshot in case he is ahead. Notice also that with any of these hands, he would at least call my bet. So, my failure to bet (if he takes the freebie) just costs me the one bet. It is not a huge error such as when he would have folded to a turn bet but I allowed him a chance to get there.
I like Abdul's play on the flop and I would like his play on the turn if he himself did not have a gutshot.
The reason for betting the turn with a board of AK32 is not for fear of giving a free card, its to get a weak hand to call 2 big bets.
Valid point.
But I think that a preflop 3 bettor is highly likely to bet the turn when the flop has a AK combo and his opponent has played the hand passively. So, if the board is AK32, the other guy with QQ will likely bet the turn but may fold if you bet. The better play would be to let him bet the turn (you call) and then you come to life with a bet on the river.
But again your point is valid: some guys would take the free card if you check but call twice if you lead on the turn and river. Gotta know your customers!
check-calling the turn and firing on the river is a play I use, also. You are right, it depends on the opponent!
If I could play against myself, I would always check-call the turn, and fire on the river because I have a habit of betting when checked to heads-up, and checking down the river. I think this may be a slight leak in my game.
First, AKT is a little better flop to make this play than AKQ. But I agree with you that it still has it's problems. Second, I also agree that his play would be better with a hand like A8 than with AJ.
I think that this is an inherent flaw in much of the advice that Abdul gives. He tends to think in terms of "pound-pound-pound" which is clearly wrong in many spots because it
1. Doesn't account for exactly how the hand is being played, the board, and the size of the pot; and 2. Doesn't take into account the particular opponent.
Now in general, you want to play poker aggressively, and this can include trapping plays. For instance, if you had a pair of aces here and thus flopped a set you might want to check call the flop (regardless of how you played before the flop) and then check raise the turn.
But betting in spots where there is almost no chance your opponent will call with a weaker hand (or fold a better one) but a fairly good chance your opponent will raise just doesn't make much sense to me. However, with the flop being AKT as opposed to AKQ it is a little more likely your opponent will call with a weaker hand particularly QQ or JJ that this play (of leading on the turn) is becoming close (in my opinion).
There are several points here that need to be addressed.
Abdul played based on the idea the opponent need not have a premium hand to three bet before the flop. In fact, he held A3.
MM: "I think that this is an inherent flaw in much of the advice that Abdul gives. He tends to think in terms of "pound-pound-pound" which is clearly wrong in many spots because it...."
Not really. Abdul advocates check call to the river as the default in this situation with a legit three bettor. Generally speaking, Abdul's advice is of the highest order.
MM:,"(continued)......1. Doesn't account for exactly how the hand is being played, the board, and the size of the pot; and 2. Doesn't take into account the particular opponent. "
This particular move, right or wrong, entirely took into account both of the above. It considered that the opponent was a loose raiser and also that he was likely to try to take a free card on the turn.
MM:"But betting in spots where there is almost no chance your opponent will call with a weaker hand (or fold a better one) but a fairly good chance your opponent will raise just doesn't make much sense to me"
There are plenty of weaker hands this particular opponent would call with in Abdul's opinion. Again, he held A3.
The so-called non flowing play was designed to break up the opponent's overly aggressive nature and to not allow a "free" card on the turn.
I do not speak for Abdul Jalib. I am just well versed in his teachings and there seems to be a misinterpretation of what occurred here.
Regards.
Hey, I will be the first to admit that I learn a heck of a lot from Abdul's posts and wish he would post here more often but what say you about my slight criticism of the turn bet here given that Abdul also wouldn't mind seeing the river card cheaply with his gutshot draw.
"This particular move, right or wrong, entirely took into account both of the above. It considered that the opponent was a loose raiser and also that he was likely to try to take a free card on the turn."
If the opponent was a loose raiser I agree that it does change some things but not as much as you may think since this person made it three bets, not two. So what are the extra hands that the loose three bettor could have that the standard three bettor may not. These can include hands like AQ and AT. So the situation may not be as good as you make it out to be.
I didn't read the whole thread on RGP. (In fact, I rarely read anything on RGP. There is plenty on these forums to keep me busy.) But for someone to make it three bets with A3 they have to be an incredible maniac. Of course, if that's the case, then his play begins to make more sense. I was analyzing it from the point of view that the opponent might be on the loose aggressive side, but still not playing anywhere close to what you are describing.
.
However in that thread Abdul claimed to have put his opponenent on a weak hand. He also stated that he thought his opponent would raise him on the flop with his (opponents) weak hand. If this is the case I think he played the hand really bad. He gave his opponent every opportunity to get away from a dominated hand at a minimal cost by playing it like a live one. Why not bet the flop and re-raise? Vince claimed that he thought from the play of the hand that basically Abdul didn't know where he was at in the hand and I agreed. Nothing wrong with not knowing BTW, it happens to the best of us. I take issue with his comment that he had a really good read on his opponent.
If you knew for certain he held a weak hand no one could disagree with your strategy. If there is some doubt of that and he could hold a hand that leaves you with four outs, then what? At what percentage point does the switch occur? What happens in the middle ground? Do you lay down on the turn if you get raise there after putting in three on the flop?
Regards.
Ps. In the last few months I have read almost the entirety of the archives here. Kudos on the great effort and long and well reasoned posts you made, especially in the beginning.
"Do you lay down on the turn if you get raise there after putting in three on the flop?"
Ok. That was a dumb idea.
Regards.
Thanks. In the beginning I played a lot of poker, a lot more than I do now and I was a nice guy back then LOL.
You wrote: "If you knew for certain he held a weak hand no one could disagree with your strategy."
Exactly and this is what he implied in my mind in his post on RGP, that he (Abdul) was certain that his opponent had a weak hand on the flop.
I said I thought my hand was likely best. This is way different from knowing my hand is best. If I had to make a bet at the start of the flop, I would have put myself at a little better than 50-50 to win the hand by the river. That doesn't imply I wish to put in a ton of action with my hand, of course, since I'm likely either way ahead or way behind. In such cases, some finesse is called for.
-Abdul
I agree that some finesse is called for. If your ahead, by 3 betting the flop the guy can do 3 things:
1) he can release his hand (either here or on the turn), which you dont want if your ahead, or 2) he can 4 bet the flop and take the free card, then call on the river, or 3) he can 4 bet the flop and take the free card, then fold on the river.
If he releases his hand, you missed some bets. If he does #2 then you only gain 1 more SB bet than you would by playing it the way you did. If he does #3 you lose 1 SB more.
BUT you dont know if your ahead. If I was the other guy with a legit hand, and you 3 bet the flop I would smooth call the flop, then pop you on the turn and then make you pay off on the river. That is a lot of bets to lose when your behind.
But if your ahead, then by check-calling then firing on the turn and river you will most likely get him to call 2 BBs when he is behind and you lose a lot less money when you are ahead.
Assuming you would call a turn raise, then I dont disagree with your turn bet. If you would fold to a raise on the turn, then I dont like your turn bet because of your inside straight draw.
Here is part of a response Abdul gave to Negreanu's post criticising his (Abdul's) play:
"It's a play to keep in mind when against a 3-bettor whom you think is full of it and who might otherwise take a free card on the turn. AA would play well the same way here - check-call the flop, and then fire on the turn."
Is a player who 3 bets in this situation with QQ pre flop full of it? I don't think so. This statement implies to me that Abdul put him on a much weaker hand than AJ. Perhaps I'm interpretting this statement wrong or taking it out of context and if so my sincere apologies to Abdul.
Maybe I'm mishearing you Tom, you seem to want me to put my opponent on a single hand, and play accordingly. In actuality, after he 3-bet preflop, I put him on about the following hands, almost equally likely:
AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66, 55 AKs, AQs, AJs, ATs, A9s, A8s, A7s, A6s, A5s AK, AQ, AJ, AT, A9 KQs, KJs, KTs, K9s KQ, KJ QJs, QTs, Q9s JTs, J9s T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s T8s, 97s, 86s
And yes, I kind of blew it by assuming he wouldn't 3-bet with A3.
On this flop of AKT, my opponent could have a hand that crushes me, like AA or QJs, or he could have a hand that I don't want to give free cards to, like QQ or T9s, or he could have a nearly hopeless hand like 99 or 76s. I have to weight all those possibilities and choose the best course of action. Often, as in this hand, the best course of action is a compromise. That is, it's not the best way to play for every one of my opponent's possible holdings.
-Abdul
Dear Adbul, (anyone may respond)
If we agree that a check call strategy is generally correct for a legit three bettor...at what point does this change of plan begin? Excluding deceptive considerations, what is the hand range you would begin to employ the check call, bet turn approach? The percentage range you gave as your belief you were winning the hand was slightly greater than 50%. As this number increases, a more aggressive approach may be called for and as it lessens the check call becomes the default play. Where would you set the changeover? Do you agree?
Another way of playing the hand, which you have stated you do not like, is to bet the flop and go into check call mode when raised. I believe this option is viable when the three bettor is slightly less the optimal (hands like AT, AJ, as Mason suggests a loose raiser might hold), and this method has the advantage of allowing you to go gangbusters right off when you hit a strong hand that you feel you will get action on.
Lastly, I follow your logic entirely, I just haven't thought the situation through enough to warrant posting a strong opinion until I am more certain. Perhaps a more combative posting style will get my points across better. Vince has offered me lessons but he charges $300 an hour, just like Sklansky, so I passed.
Regards.
It's more complicated than that.
I already stated that AA on this AKT flop plays well with a check versus a 3-bettor (assuming you backed off preflop) and then a bet on the turn. If I hold AA, the deck is crippled. I'm not trying to give a free card with a check - I'm just trying to extract one bluff or semi-bluff bet from my opponent. Most opponents will bet the flop after 3-betting preflop, though they may check the turn.
By the same logic, I might reach the opposite conclusion with another hand similar in strength to AA here; I might bet QJs (or QJ, ick) there if I held it. My hand has not crippled the deck, and in fact I have strong reason to believe my opponent has at least part of the flop. If we're going to get into a raise war in this hand, I'd like it to happen before the board pairs.
This dichotomy nicely helps with "balance", which I discuss in the bottom of this thread in the "flow" area.
Then there is also the issue of what my opponent thinks I think he has. It wasn't clear from your post whether we were now to assume our opponent is now a tight player. If my opponent is a tight player, and he knows I know that, it really changes things, and not just because it shifts my perceived probability of having the best hand.
But, to try to answer your question, assuming this is still a loose opponent, it wouldn't take much more strength in the hand before I would be confident that it was best and would play it harder. On this AKT flop, I would play AT very hard against a loose-aggressive player: check-raise, back off if 3-bet, and then fire again on the turn regardless, and call him down if he raises again. Danny may be right that I could play even AJ like this against the particular opponent I faced, but Danny knows the opponent much better than I do even now. I would have to see that this opponent is not capable of making good laydowns before I pushed my marginal hands that hard.
Oh, and yes, backdoor, I didn't mean to put you in the corner. You have followed the logic as well. Okay, okay, everybody out of the corner, group hug.
-Abdul
Well, I am sure you would agree that:
1. There are many hands which he could have which you don't mind giving a free card to i.e 76s, 99 etc (assuming even that he takes it..see point No. 2 below)
2. While there are some hands that you don't want to give a free card to (i.e. QQ, JTs etc.), the fact is that there is a high likelihood that he will bet it for you on the turn if you check because he will figure that you may fold on the turn to a bet given the board and his preflop 3 bet. I mean a guy who you say is capable of 3 betting an early position raiser on the flop with 76s is no doubt highly unlikely to check QQ,JTs on the turn on this board given what he thinks you might think he holds in light of his 3 bet preflop.
3. There are some hands he could have which are better than yours and he will raise charging you more to draw.
When considering all of the above, I would have thought that the turn bet is slightly contra-indicated and even if I am wrong, I am not wrong enough to have to go stand in a corner unless you convince me in your next post that I should do so:-)
Yes, all good points. It's a fine line, and I don't know the opponent well enough to know if I played it the best way. I know I would have been sick, though, if I had checked the turn, and my opponent had turned out to have Q9s and took a free card and got there on the river.
-Abdul
Ding, ding, ding, ding.
Apparently, Joe Medwick is the only person who follows my logic in this hand, not just here, but over on r.g.p. too. Well, Mason probably follows my logic too, given his statement:
"But for someone to make it three bets with A3 they have to be an incredible maniac. Of course, if that's the case, then his play begins to make more sense."
The rest of you, go sit in the corner. It's great if you say I should have played the hand differently, but you should all see the basic logic of the way I played it, at least after I explained my perception of the opponent.
Joe is a smart guy, but even he some time to come around:
I dont like his bet on the turn because he has a gutshot. If the board was AK32 then I would like his bet on the turn.
Then:
Assuming you would call a turn raise, then I dont disagree with your turn bet. If you would fold to a raise on the turn, then I dont like your turn bet because of your inside straight draw.
Then:
I, personally, like the way Abdul played it. He tied the guy to the pot without giving any free cards.
And yes, I would not fold to a raise on the turn. Against a legit 3-bettor I would check-call the turn to avoid that painful possibility.
-Abdul
Joe's smart, I agree.
Joe said:
"I, personally, like the way Abdul played it. He tied the guy to the pot without giving any free cards."
You can't really believe that this is correct. Do you really want us to believe that you played the hand the way you did to "tie the guy to the pot". Now that is funny. You check/called the flop and bet the turn to tie a "MANIAC" to the pot! Help me dear someone I'm perplexed. The only one tied to the pot was you! The maniac made the right play on the flop and made a debateable call on the turn. You miss played the flop and turn. If you had put a hundred bets in the pot this guy was with you. Tied him to the pot indeed.
A1
"That doesn't imply I wish to put in a ton of action with my hand, "
So getting three bet on the flop is a "ton" of action. If you are 50-50 to have the best hand it is a moot point. If you are "more likely" to have the best hand then we have a +EV situation here. At worse you lose a fraction of a big bet. Big deal. So let's get a few dollars in there. The bottom line is that you seem to feel that in situations like this that the play of your hand is reasonable. That it is strategically and tactically correct. That it is a valid method of playying in these situations and produces a desired result. I guess that since that is the case, "It flows". Daniel was wrong.
A1, fan of the lamp holder.
Abdul made it clear in his rgp followup that he would check-call all the way against a sane opponent.
Angelina Fekali
Studying People Inc.
Ljubljana, Slovenia
"I do not speak for Abdul Jalib."
You certainly don't. Abdul said he played the hand the way he did so he wouldn't have to put a ton of money in on the flop and avoid giving a free card on the turn. He made up those other stories after he was challenged.
Negreanu was correct and Malmuth and Weideman were wrong with respect to this hand. Weideman used this hand to jump on Negreanu about his "flow" concept. Problem with that was in this case Negreeanu was right. Certainly you want to impliment confusing tactics in your game. But Abdul's play of the hand by his own admission was not to cnfuse his opponent but to avoid putting "a ton" of money in the pot by maybe "check raising" the flop. Which incidentally is not the correct play either given what Abdul said about this opponent.
Abdul said that his opponent was a high stakes player moving down, I believe a 400-800 player playing 80-160. I'm a little bewildered that Mason would not opt to play this guy straight up and aggressively given that information. The correct "flow" of this hand against an opponent that comes from a higher limit, given that is all the info you have about him, is to bet the flop. If he raises you call and check call him down. If he calls you bet the turn. If he raises you call and check call the river in any event.
Anyone that believes that one should not strive for "flow" in their poker game doesn't understand much about how to PLAY poker. Without flow one would be virtually unable to analyze thier own game. Any "jerky" play made should be part of a game plan and used to confuse opponents. Not the result of you being confused. You impliment that "jerky" play in the right situation. How in the world could anyone classify Abdul's play in this hand as planned confusion? It wasn't. It was "jerky".
Thanks for listening.
Welcome back,
"The correct "flow" of this hand against an opponent that comes from a higher limit, given that is all the info you have about him, is to bet the flop. If he raises you call and check call him down. If he calls you bet the turn. If he raises you call and check call the river in any event."
This is how I would normally play the hand myself. But I think this is ABC really, don't you agree? Certainly, to PLAY poker you have to have some tricks up your sleeve.
"Abdul said he played the hand the way he did so he wouldn't have to put a ton of money in on the flop and avoid giving a free card on the turn. He made up those other stories after he was challenged."
I have no evidence as to whether Abdul made up stories or not so I won't comment. As stated above, my default play is what you suggest. My post was intended to demonstrate that the opponent could three bet with a non traditional range of hands than I inferred was being assumed by the original posters to this thread. I believe this affects the post flop play significantly. I am not certain of the ideal strategy here, but I think it lies somewhere between the bet then check call mode and the aggressive pedal to the metal approach Mr. Haley suggests in his thread.
Post more.
Regards,
R
I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to made-up stories. I also am at a loss as to why you don't understand my logic.
If this maniacal opponent has QQ, he will 3-bet me if I check-raise the flop, and then I would start fearing AK or similar and likely check the turn, where he would take a free card. My hand isn't so strong that I would want to get into a raise war on the flop and then bet out on the turn.
Betting out on the flop is an interesting alternative, one which I never seriously considered. My opponent is nearly 100% guaranteed to bet the flop, in my opinion. However, if he holds 99 or similar, he may simply fold if I bet out. Also, with QQ or similar, he'll raise and try for a free card on the turn. So, although betting out seems the best play to you, it doesn't to me.
-Abdul
"If this maniacal opponent has QQ, he will 3-bet me if I check-raise the flop, and then I would start fearing AK or similar and likely check the turn, where he would take a free card. "
If you check raise the flop and get three bet, you lose a fraction of a big bet if you are behind. If you then check the turn and he checks behind you his free card cost him a big bet (by 3 betting the flop) so how does your logic hold up for playing the hand the way you did?
"So, although betting out seems the best play to you, it doesn't to me"
With the information that you gave, that is, that this opponent was a high stakes player moving down to 80-160 and I believe you qualified that with never seeing him play that low before then you almost have no choice but to play this hand aggressively. High stakes players have a tendency to be over aggressive before the flop. Without more information, like is he really a maniac, then playing him straigt forward is the best way to handle him until you gain more info on him. Betting out on the flop gains information plus costs you less in the long run if you are indeed behind, prevents free cards and makes you money (albeit not the most) if you are ahead.
"My hand isn't so strong that I would want to get into a raise war on the flop and then bet out on the turn. "
Your hand isn't strong at all especially against a legitimate 3 bet raiser. In fact you can't tell me you liked the flop even against a maniac. But the fact that you know how high stakes players act when they get into a lower stakes game makes the hand playable. The only question is how do you play him. My way may not be optimal but it is trackable. If you play as I recommend you are unlikely to make a mistake playing this hand. Your way could result in a free card on the flop and misplaying the turn and river.
Vince.
Again thanks for listening.
Why bet the flop if the guy is going to bet it for you? And it is almost guaranteed that he will, if for nothing else than to get a free card on the turn. In fact, when a guy 3 bets me, then checks the flop through heads-up bells and whistles go off. I am thinking they hit hard.
And the reason why you would rather put in 1 SB on the flop and 1 BB on the turn instead of 3 SBs on the flop and nothing on the turn is simple math. If he hits his hand on the turn after he 3 bets the flop, then he gains an extra BB out of you.
"And the reason why you would rather put in 1 SB on the flop and 1 BB on the turn instead of 3 SBs on the flop and nothing on the turn is simple math. If he hits his hand on the turn after he 3 bets the flop, then he gains an extra BB out of you. "
When you are playing against an overagressive player saving bets is not a prime concern. In fact I could argue that your optimal EV against a player that consistantly over plays (bets) his hand is to get into a raising war with him and not avoid them. Of course if I could do "simple math" like you I probably would feel differently.
"Why bet the flop if the guy is going to bet it for you? And it is almost guaranteed that he will, "
Have you ever heard the expression "You have to bet your own hand"? If your idea of playing a hand agressively is to check well we don't understand the term in the same way. If I bet the flop it is not ALMOST gauranteed a bet goes in the pot, it is GAURANTEED! Plus this maniac may raise! And my response is "Let's play poker!" So he raises, big deal. What do you do? Come on, what's your play? Fold? Right! No way. Raise? I don't think so. That would be "over playing" your holding. No you call. Gee now that wasn't so hard now was it!
Thanks for the reply. These are just opinions of the Anonymous1.
Now what are you going to do after you bet the flop, he raises and you call? Are you now going to bet the turn (god forbid this, as it doesn't "flow"), or are you going to play weak poker and give him his free card?
You gained nothing by betting the flop.
"Now what are you going to do after you bet the flop, he raises and you call? "
Play poker. Play your hand. You really can't like this hand at anytime. So you don't want to over play it. But you have some info on this guy so you want to take advantage of that info. Soi, you (correctly IMO) bet out on the flop. If he raises you can only call. Reraising would be over playing the hand unless you knew this guy was a flat out maniac. Then reraising may be correct. But with the info you have you can only call. Yes, unless you are very sure he is playing for a free card, you check the turn. If he is a true maniac he will bet a weak holding like A,3. Even if he bets you can only call. Raising would be over playing a weak holding. The key here is playing your hand against a specific opponent. You can never be sure what two cards your opponent has in Holdem so you have to play your hand given the information you have. Playing the way I suggest you are not only less likely to make a mistake but you are more likey to take advantage of a player that over plays their hand. A frequent mistake made by high limit players that move down.
You are so sweet to answer me this way. If I were someone other than an Anonymous1 I would give you a big hug!
A1
You dont want to get into a raising war on the flop because you have no position and not enough hand. Yet, you also dont want to be giving free cards to an inside straight draw.
You say bet the flop. Now what? He raises, and gets his free card on the turn. This you didnt want. Or you re-raise, and he 4 bets and gets his free card on the turn. This is also bad, because his odds of hitting are better on the flop than on the turn. You would rather get 1 BB on the turn than 2 SBs on the flop. If you dont understand why this is, then you need to buy a probability book.
Bet the flop, call a raise. Then fire again on the turn is okay with me, except you let him get away from his hand cheaply because your flop bet says I hit something. Also, according to you this doesn't "flow".
I, personally, like the way Abdul played it. He tied the guy to the pot without giving any free cards.
"I'm a little bewildered that Mason would not opt to play this guy straight up and aggressively given that information."
When I made my comments on the hand I did not have this information.
An interesting aside is that $400-$800 players do not play much limit hold 'em, but they do play a fair amount of limit stud. My experience against aggressive high limit stud players is that they do tend to over value any ace when they sit at a hold 'em table.
I always point out when Mason is correct. Yes, bingo, this was a full-time recreational high roller who played mostly stud and table games. However, when he sat down a few hands before the AJ hand, all I knew about him was what I said in my first post in the thread:
"I have seen this player in the top section all the time, but I have never seen him play as low as $80-$160 [hold'em] before."
-Abdul
"I have seen this player in the top section all the time, but I have never seen him play as low as $80-$160 [hold'em] before."
As I said, with this information and this information only you must let your experience and "poker sense" take over. You play him like an "overaggressive oponnent" until proven otherwise. Over aggressiveness is the trait almost all high limit players adopt when playing "beneath" their comfort level.
Hi Abdul, I love your pony tail.
"I always point out when Mason is correct"
It always warms an amatuer's heart to see the love affair that goes on between you heavy weights of poker. I may just cry.
Thanks, A1
Heh. So Mason says the play is "very poor" and "doesn't take into account the particular opponent." This hand was all about taking into account the particular opponent.
-Abdul
After I learned more about the particular hand I wrote this above.
"But for someone to make it three bets with A3 they have to be an incredible maniac. Of course, if that's the case, then his play begins to make more sense. I was analyzing it from the point of view that the opponent might be on the loose aggressive side, but still not playing anywhere close to what you are describing."
Now, Now Mason you are backing down here. Abdul had no Idea that this opponent was a maniac until after the hand. Even though opponents from higher limits tend to be overaggressive that does not immediately classify them as maniacs. So when you play them you give then overaggressive status but not maniacal.
Good to see you and ABdul are mending your hearts.
A1 fan.
Vince says I had no idea my opponent was a maniac until after the hand, but in the r.g.p. thread I said:
"His diamond-encrusted Rolex and loose play for the few hands I had seen him play made me think that my hand was best and that he would likely call with worse."
I deliberately hid the above clue until afterwards. Even without that clue, you can infer that I have seen this opponent play at least some hands, because he is not in the blind and was not posting for the described hand (and I would have mentioned it if we had just drawn for the button.) And of course I'm going to try hard to get a line on a new face within a few hands, so I have concluded that he is extremely loose-aggressive before this hand.
Basically, almost everybody flunked the test, Mason especially. Given almost no information about my opponent, you were supposed to take the premises 1) Abdul knows how to play hold'em and 2) Abdul played the hand very strangely. And from that you should have made the conclusion that 3) there was something strange about the opponent (and upon further analysis you should conclude that he was quite loose-aggressive.) I was daring you to fall into the trap of using the premises A) the opponent knows how to play hold'em since he's a high limit player and B) Abdul played the hand very strangely - and making the conclusion that C) Abdul is a bad player. That's why I was amused and not insulted when Mason called it a very bad play.
Those of you who are trying so hard to conclude "C" that you disregard the stuff I'm saying now are a pain in the ass, though. Note that Mason reassessed his opinion in the light of new information.
-Abdul
"Those of you who are trying so hard to conclude "C" that you disregard the stuff I'm saying now are a pain in the ass, though."
Again, another example of how you always get that insult in. If you would just stick to the analytical aspects of the problem many people would probably slowly conclude that at least in this case you do know what you're talking about, and they may begin to view the problem differently. Instead, most readers will probably concentrate on this last statement and just dismiss you and your ideas.
"...I'm saying now are a pain in the ass, though."
"Instead, most readers will probably concentrate on this last statement and just dismiss you and your ideas."
Not me! I like a little ass in my readings..
A1 fan Mister Malmuth.
Oh please. Some accused me of fibbing about the details of the hand, so that they could maintain their hypothesis that I played the hand badly. Calling them a "pain in the ass" is an apt descriptor, not an insult.
And physician, heal thyself.
-Abdul
"And physician, heal thyself. "
Hey Mr. Abdul, Mr. Mason doesn't use the "ass" word so please be nice.
A1 fan.
Can you look at me seriously and say that Vince is never a "pain in the ass"? Vince is deliberately being a pain in the ass here, i.e., he's being a troll. And I fell for it, since I didn't figure out that Anonymous1 is Vince until late in the thread.
-Abdul
"Those of you who are trying so hard to conclude "C" that you disregard the stuff I'm saying now are a pain in the ass, though. Note that Mason reassessed his opinion in the light of new information. "
Maybe Mason doesn't want to be a pain in your ass. Me, now that's a different story. this gu Vince you refer to seems like he knows you pretty well. Like a brother maybe. Has he ever played in any of your games. Screw him, what does he know any way. Isn't he the guy that you correctly said made a nonsensical comment about this hand on rgp. Hey Mason thinks you know how to play so the world is now on the end of your sting. Go sit on that rainbow and sing us a song.
You played this hand especially bad (or is that badly) if you knew this guy was a maniac. If you and Mason can't see that then maybe you need to confer with OZ. You got a maniac on the string and you let him bully you. Shame on you. you missed a flop reraise son.
But I love you anyway. Thanks for corresponding with your A1 fan. You know I bet Mr Malmuth is just bubbling all over because you haven't called him an ass.... not even one tiem. Now ain't that special. Do you think you could talk to Big Bad Badger and Gary "I hate you" Carson and get them to change thier ways too.
Bye sweety.
The last sentence in the above post has a typo. It should read:
"I would like Abdul's play on the *TURN* a lot more if he held Ac8c or something instead of AJ"
I want to apologize to Abdul Jalib and everyone else who has participated in this thread for getting the flop wrong. I said it was A K Q, it was really A K T.
You are darn lucky you didn't do that on RGP. They would roast you for months.
Regards. :0)
Although the hand that actually started this discussion is very interesting, I was hoping there would be more discussion of the "flow" concept. Negreanu's post seemed to imply that if you start out playing a hand one way, you should continue playing the hand that way. For instance, he seems to be saying that it is rarely correct to check and call on the flop and then bet the turn, or that you should not bet the flop then go for a check raise on the turn, or that you should not bet the flop, call a raise, then bet again on the turn, but rather, if you intend to bet the turn, you should re-raise on the flop. At least that is how I read his theory that limit hold'em should be played with "flow."
Sklansky makes a great point about the stop and go tactic in one of his books.
Lets say you bet the flop with a decent hand and get raised. You determine that there is a 70% chance the guy is on a flush draw, and a 30% chance the guy has a real hand, then you are beat 53% (.3 + .35*.7) of the time. But once the turn card brings a non-flush card, you are now beat only 43% (.3 + .19*.7) of the time, and you cant afford to give the flush a free card now.
But it doesnt have to be as blatant as the example above. For instance, lets say you bet from early position with top pair-weak kicker and everybody folds except for the button who then raises. You might be beat, but you cant lay your hand down if the pot is big. But you also dont want to get into a raising war on the flop with such a weak hand. So what do you do? I say call the raise, and fire again on the turn if it is a blank.
What else are you going to do? Go into check-call mode and give the guy a free card? Get into a raising war on the flop with a weak hand? I dont like any of these options.
The choice with the least amount of money at risk, but yet still not giving a free card is the stop and go.
This is a long response, sorry.
What Danny means by flow is that, for example, you should not check after capping it preflop.
Flow has the advantage of channeling your hands into one of a few paths. Imagine that your plays in the hand, coupled with your opponent's, are the branches that make a tree. At the root of the tree, you can have any two cards. Once you enter the pot, that branch has many fewer hands. If you can make every possible play at every possible branch, that makes for a lot of leaves, where your opponent might be able to put you on a hand. If you restrict your plays somewhat, this will reduce the number of branches in the tree and thus keep more hands at each leaf without any careful attention on your part.
Flow not only sounds predictable but actually is predictable. If you can predict what your "flowing" opponent is going to do with a high degree of accuracy, you can outplay him.
Whereas Danny stresses flow, I stress balance. In a nutshell, FLOW + UNPREDICTABILITY = BALANCE. I try to play as many hands alike as possible. To the extent that I bifurcate my hands by making different plays, I try to balance the types of hands I could have in each fork. Although in some sense I try to play each hand as is best for itself, I'm really thinking much more globally, making a lot of local sacrifices for the sake of my overall expected value. This concept seems to be alien to a lot of posters on the net, whereas it's at the core of my philosophy. I'm trying to avoid information leakage, which is deadly against good players heads up.
Here is a good example of my trying to play hands alike and making some local sacrifices... In moderately tight games, I advocate always raising when opening, i.e., I don't open-limp even in early position. Whether or not you agree with this approach, you should at least understand what I'm trying to do. From the very start, I'm playing my hands identically, so that I give away less information. That's one less fork in the road, once less branch in the tree, one less answer in the 20 questions game my opponents are playing to figure out my hand.
Here is another example, one in which I truly obey the "flow." When I 3-bet from the small blind, assuming nobody 4-bet me and the flop doesn't come very funky, I'm going to fire on the flop. (I can think of some exceptions, involving a steal raiser or many-way pots, but never mind.) I'll fire even if I flop quads, though I'll then likely check the turn. Having a bet/check option there would only serve to give away information. I really do want to bet 90% of my hands there, so I might as well lump in the other 10% and not give away any information.
Here is an example of what I mean by balancing the hands at each fork. Suppose I open-raise early-ish, and so I have something like 77-AA, AJ-AK, A8s-AKs, KJs, or KQs. I get cold called preflop. Now heads up, the flop comes AJT. I might balance my hands like so:
CHECK (strong): AA, JJ, AJ/AJs (28 hands)
CHECK (medium): KK, A8s, A9s (20 hands)
CHECK (weak): 88, 99 (12 hands)
BET (strong): TT, ATs, AK/AKs, KQs (30 hands)
BET (medium): AQ/AQs, QQ (20 hands)
BET (weak): 77, KJs (10 hands)
(There is no reason why some hands could not mix-it up and do each play a percentage of the time, but never mind.)
So, as you can see, whether I bet or check here gives away almost no information as to whether my hand is strong, medium, or weak. Some of the plays may be myopically suboptimal, but the end result is the greater good of being very tough to read. Obviously, this is not something you can do precisely in practice, but more a goal to which you can aspire.
Back to the flow. You don't want to mindlessly follow the flow, so that your opponent to always know what you're going to do before you do it. An example is where you raised two loose limpers with position preflop with KQ and your opponents check to you on the flop of 58J. Yes, the flow says bet, but if you would bet with every hand here, your opponents can check-raise you with impunity. In this particular spot, the medium cards, especially the jack, should have you worried that a limper may have made a pair, and you'd really like to see the turn card since a king or ten or maybe a queen would be nice, so taking a free card might be best.
So, you have to temper the flow with unpredictability. To be unpredictable, you can't avoid some forks in your plays, but you can minimize the information you give away by balancing the hands in each fork as best you can.
-Abdul
x
If flow means what I gather it does, it is a bad concept. For instance I recommend that if you call a raise in the big blind with ace rag and an ace flops, you should ceck call your lone opponent twice and then bet the river. As a second example I believe you should often call on fourth st. with a mediocre hand that can't improve but then often fold on the river if bet into again. Both plays I assume go against the flow concept. On the other hand I would be surprised if Daniel would disagree with either of them so I might be misinterpreting.
I have followed only parts of this and the related threads on RGP.
It seems to me that different interpretations of "flow" may be responsible for a good percentage of the differing opinions. Of course there are other real differences being discussed as well. Part of the problem is that "flow" in these matters is almost by nature a bit ambiguous or hard to define. It can correctly mean several different things from varying perspectives.
Can you explain why you would call a medium hand that can't improve on 4th street, and then not call the river? I can not think of a single place I would do this heads up. I might could come up with a few select cases where I would do this multiway, but not many.
If you read this post, I would really appreciate an explanation.
"The principles of war, not merely one principle, can be condensed into one single word - 'concentration'. But for truth this needs to be amplified as the 'concentration of strength against weakness'. And for any real value it needs to be explained that the concentration of strength against weakness depends on the dispersion of your opponent's strength, which in turn is produced by a distribution of your own that gives the appearance, and partial effect of dispersion. Your dispersion, his dispersion, your concentration - such is the sequence, and each is a sequel. True concentration is the fruit of calculated dispersion." Very well written post, Abdul.
First Mr Abdul let me say that this is one of the best posts I've read in many moons. Mr. skp got it right "Splendid".
I do have a couple of issues with you though.
First I do not agree in total with your explanation of "flow".
"What Danny means by flow is that, for example, you should not check after capping it preflop. "
Flow means playing your hand in a logical manner. A programmer's "logic tree" would serve fairly well in describing the "flow" one could use to determine the best way to play in a specific situation. It does not mean that if you take one action one an early street that you should follow that action with a specific action regardless of how the situation has changed. In your example above where you cap it preflop does not automatically mean bet post flop. Flow means that if the next action you take is consistent with your previous action given the change in the situation. For instance if you cap it preflop with what you believe is the best hand and the flop and play before you leads you to believe that the situation has changed then you take the appropriate action whether it's a bet or a check or a raise to obtain the result you desire. It does not mean that you must follow a specific line of action it means you follow a logical line of action that takes into consideration your previous action.
"Flow has the advantage of channeling your hands into one of a few paths. "
Yes.
Second.
"I might balance my hands like so:"
Your balance theory sounds fine in theory. But without specifically balancing your play in accordance with some list similar to the one above does not seem practicle to me. By that I mean if you follow the list exactly as you state you appear to become predictable. Exactly what you are trying to avoid. Plus If you try to generally follow it then IMO you enter quite a bit of guessing on your part into your play. When you guess what is the proper play then you are more prone to make mistakes. I do agree with mixing up your play. But I am more prone to believe that relying on your poker knowledge and skill is a much more effective way of evaluating each specific situation and then act accordingly rather that using a balancing scheme similar to what you propose.
Anyway that's just me. And I ain't no pain in the "ass". And don't call me Vince.
I am the A1 anonymous fan of the Mr Abdul.
Your definition of "flow" is, IMO, meaningless. You bet when you think you have the best hand, you don't bet when you think you don't. I haven't read Negreanu, but I can' believe this is what he meant. Especially head up, optimal play sometimes involves seemingly illogical actions, (or better, "non-flow" actions), such as what OZ described two posts above yours.
Abdul's splendid post (splendid because of the calrity of the writing and the rigor of the logic) does not at all make his play predictable. Quite the contrary. When he bets or checks in the example he gives, his opponents would have no way of knowing whether he has a strong, moderate or weak hand. Not knowing what your opponent has leads to mistakes and mistakes are where the money is made.
And I see no reason to doubt that Abdul has a preset balancing scheme in mind pre-flop rather than, or in addition to, using his general poker knowledge and skill. After all, one could throw one's opponents off track by simply always betting or always check-raising, or always check-calling (or alway check-folding). They'd never know what you had because you played every hand the same. Similarly, if you always played every hand the same, your more aware opponents could put you on a hand with regularity.
Now in fact, Abdul does recommend this for some types of games, but only pre-flop. But of course he then plays in a way that he thinks makes him the most money (or saves him the most money) post-flop. This may involve a pre-set balancing scheme, but I would think it always involves his general poker knowledge and skill. Think of the scheme as an aspect of that skill.
"Your definition of "flow" is, IMO, meaningless. "
Could it be possible that you just don't understand?
"You bet when you think you have the best hand, you don't bet when you think you don't. I haven't read Negreanu, but I can' believe this is what he meant. Especially head up,"
This statement certainly points to your fundamental misunderstanding of who is making what statement about flow and what I say about it. I suggest you reread my post before you spout off about this subject.
"When he bets or checks in the example he gives, his opponents would have no way of knowing whether he has a strong, moderate or weak hand. Not knowing what your opponent has leads to mistakes and mistakes are where the money is made."
You have fallen into a trap that you cannot get out of. Abdul has you mystified with his "Splendid post". The day one needs to worry about whether a maniac knows what type of hand you have is the day that all maniacs change to poker players. That ain't gonna happen. When you got a maniac by the tail he ain't gonna stop turnnin til his head falls off. Balance against a maniac is "meaningless".
But you have a nice day anyway and when you go to bed dream of Abdul's balancing act as you glisten through lala land.
A1 fan of yours.
Vince: I'm out of the country and I can't find the spell check and further, I don't know whether you'll scroll down this far--However: I can't tell wheher youre serious or not in your posts. I think I read both Abdul's splendid post and your response carefully and I must reiterate my spout: Abdul hardly needs defense by me, but I did not see the word maniac in his post. His play can indeed throw off all opponents, maniacal or not.
The "flow" concept, as crticized by Mason and your hero Oz above, deserves the criticism,if S and M (and I) understand it correctly. I wont be in a position to respond further until April 4, but here's hoping lalaland survives without me and you remain my number one fan, as I remain yours.
"Abdul hardly needs defense by me, but I did not see the word maniac in his post. "
Andy,
Abdul has waddled from the beginning on the specific hand in question. His original post had his opponent described as a 400-800 player moving down. That's it! I joined the discussion when Daniel Negreanu was criticised by Tom Weideman for promoting a "flow" concept for playing hands. I agree with the concept of flow. Daniel expressed concern for the non-flowing way Abdul played this hand. I agreed. Abdul did not use the term maniac in his original post. Later, after being criticised by me and others for his play he explained that he indeed knew the opponent was a maniac (which Daniel later refuted btw) and played the hand the way he did to basically confuse his opponent. Thus, my comments effectively saying, "bull". Since when do you need to confuse a "maniac"? In my opinion he just blew his credibility with this exlpanation and was trying to dance around the issue.
Abdul took it personally and went on a tantrum about "balancing" ones play. SKP, a 2 + 2 poster whose opinion I greatly respect, read his post on balancing and deemed it splendid. When I first read it I concurred that it was "splendid" but that I did not agree with a couple of points Abdul made. After rereading it I found that I had a lot of problems with his approach.
SKP wrote, IMO, the definitive response to Abdul's "splendid" post. He said (non quote) that although he felt the balancing concept was logically sound that he (skp) was not smart enough to impliment them. Skp has a post graduate degree. If I'm not mistaken he is a practicing attorney. He thinks that Abdul's concept is too dificult for him to use? If that's true then who is this strategy designed for? Steven Hawkings?
My opinion of the "balancing' equation Abdul promotes is that although it may appear and, in fact, may be logical, it is not a useful tool for a poker player and could cause anyone trying to impliment it to make needless and compounding mistakes. Abdul's attempt here, again IMO, is to try and "formulize" poker playing. It is a mathematicians approach. If poker were a math exercise and nothing more Sklansky would be playing against Doyle Brunson and the other big players and walking home with the cheese every night.
Now comes the most important part of this whole discussion. Poker is not a math exercise! That fact is the single most defining reason for participating in this forum rather than any other. The respected hosts of this forum are David Sklansky, mathematician-poker ANALYST/player, Ray Zee - consumate professional POKER PLAYER (from all reports), and Mason Malmuth - former industry engineer - mathematician-poker player- publisher. If you go to any other forum anywhere you will not find that kind of experience bundled up from such a triumvarite into a single voice willing to openly answer all poker related questions.
David if I'm not mistaken criticized Abdul's version of "flow". My explanation of flow is much much different than Abdul's. I'm not even sure that Daniel and I have the same thoughts about what constitues "flow". But I will say that I believe that a great poker player's game will "flow" regardless of what Abdul, Sklansky or anyone else may believe.
Vince
I usually ignore Vince's trolling, but just let me mention that I'm pretty sure the player I pointed out to Danny is not the one he thought I pointed out.
-Abdul
"I usually ignore Vince's trolling"
Again, you just can't put up a post, even a short one clarifying a point, without an insult. All this does is draw attention away from the subject matter and into personal conflict. When you quit doing this, you will begin to get more respect and your ideas will be taken more seriously by more people.
Mason, you are the only one I attack, and I only attack you because you attack everyone else.
I really like Vince. Vince is just yanking your chain, and doing so constantly. He is trying to be a pain in the ass. He deliberately asserts things he believes are false and upsetting, in order to get a rise out of people. You didn't realize this, Mason?! Since you are new to the Internet, Mason, you probably don't realize that this practice is known as "trolling." Vince is completely good-natured in his trolling, though those who don't realize what he's doing may take offense. Vince himself may be deeply offended by your repeated implications that Vince is not a pain in the ass, because in doing so, you're basically calling Vince an utter failure in his goal to troll this website. Mason, apologize to Vince.
Vince raised some excellent points in some of his posts somewhere, amidst deliberately false trolling statements. I'm not willing to spend the time to unravel the truth from the deliberate trolling, when Vince could easily save us all lots of time by not trolling. I suggest that Vince give us a sign when he is serious, like:
*** BEGIN SERIOUS MODE ***
This is a test of serious mode.
*** END SERIOUS MODE ***
Thanks.
-Abdul
Abdul wrote:
"I usually ignore Vince's trolling, "
First, I don't believe I'm trolling but I'm fallible. I ask, that, those of you that are regulars here please read my post previous to this one and comment. I am very interested in this concept of "flow". I believe that it is an important subject for advanced poker players. I believe Abdul's "balancing" concept is a mistake for a poker player to try and learn and put into practice. You will have to go back a few posts to find his concept of "balance". I ask this because I put quite a bit of effort into thinking about this subject. Abdul's response was ego driven and concequently he mentioned only the issue of whether or not he correctly pointed out his opponent to Daniel Negreanu. He calls that "trolling".
Vince
x
I do agree that against moderately tough opponents who are very observant the idea of balancing makes some sense. In our advanced books we mention observant opponents who like to "realize things." These are the ideal opponents to trap with these ideas.
However, against most players in public cardrooms, particularly if the limit you play is not that big, (in my opinion) these ideas will only be slightly beneficial at best. That's because most players aren't that observant, and the few that are don't always make the right decisions based on the information that they gather.
I remember a hand that I played several years ago. I raised UTG and the player on my left said to me "You only play aces therefore I shouldn't call." He then asked me what my hand was. Since I had aces I said "Aces." "I'll call anyway," was his reply and he proceeded to lose a big pot to me as my aces beat his AK when a king flopped.
"I do agree that against moderately tough opponents who are very observant the idea of balancing makes some sense. "
Sometimes I just don't make myself clear. Please define your idea of "balancing". If you are saying to occaisionally play differently than your normal mode to throw off a good reader or as you call him a moderately tough opponent then I agree. But if you simply apply a formula to your "balancing" as Abdul suggests (in heads up play) you will open yourself up to comitting many mistakes during play. "Balancing", IMO, should be no more nor less than "playing your opponent in each situation. Rigid or blind application of "balanced" play infers robotics when detailed in the way Abdul suggests. His idea probably works fine when progamming a "simulator" like TTH. Of course I don't have a very high opinion of the play of any simulator especially that one.
Poker is a difficult game. How to play a Texas Holdem hand is the most controversial subject in poker. Evidence of this can be seen everyday in the Holdem Forum's here on 2 + 2. A player that has a "flow" to his game based on solid poker skills, strategy and tactics will be impossible to beat. Mainly because he/she won't beat himself by making many mistakes and when he does make one he/she will know it.
vince
I put the he/she in there for LG and Rick's student.
Vince wrote:
"My opinion of the "balancing' equation Abdul promotes is that although it may appear and, in fact, may be logical, it is not a useful tool for a poker player and could cause anyone trying to impliment it to make needless and compounding mistakes. Abdul's attempt here, again IMO, is to try and "formulize" poker playing. It is a mathematicians approach. If poker were a math exercise and nothing more Sklansky would be playing against Doyle Brunson and the other big players and walking home with the cheese every night."
On page 168 of my Gambling Theory book I wrote the following"
"Dangerous Idea No. 6: Winning poker is just statistical analysis. I wish only that this were true, for if it was, I have no doubt that I would be one of the very best players around. However, winning at poker requires a knowledge of many things, such as basic probabilities, advanced mathematics, psychology, logic, reading hands and opponents, shifting gears, strategic concepts, and much more. The beginning poker player tends to think that it is necessary to learn only the basic probabilities. But someone who has a detailed knowledge of the basic probabilities will enjoy at best only a very small advantage against someone who has a good intuitive feel for the same statistics. (I am assuming that the two players are equal in the other areas of the game.)
This does not mean that a beginning poker player should neglect the basic mathematics of play. Just the opposite is true, as the basic probabilities of poker are the foundation upon which the expert player builds his game. But poker is a marvelous blend of many attributes that must be mastered to become an expert player, and unless this is done, you can expect to be a loser for life.
Incidentally, typical players, even those who visit public cardrooms regularly, never fully realize the gap in skill that exists between them and the real experts. This is probably why so much nonsense is published about luck. In fact, the very best players are aware of — and successfully use — strategies (such as game-theory techniques) and counterstrategies that the typical player doesn't even know exist. (See Sklansky on Poker by David Sklansky for more discussion on this subject.)
Vince wrote: "Mason Malmuth - former industry engineer - mathematician-poker player- publisher."
This isn't quite true. I never worked as an engineer even though I use to work with many engineers. My jobs were always as a statistician, even though when at Northrop they called me a mathematician.
I have studied Abdul's essay on his website on pre-flop play which really is geared towards avoiding information leakage as he puts it: I think it is brilliantly crafted but I find that I simply can't use his ideas. My play is too geared towards S&M style and I find it hard to implement Abdullian strategy at this stage. I think that those who master it may in fact benefit because it is so different than how most succesful players play. The problem is (and I am serious), I am not smart enough to put his ideas to work.
Now, I am not saying that the Abdullian philosophy is better than the S&M strategy (I am doing just fine using the S&M strategy thank you very much). I am just saying that it appears to be logically sound and could set you apart from the others simply because it's different yet seemingly equally effective; most of your opponents have been schooled by S&M and they will assume that you also are following S&M when in fact you are not.
"I am just saying that it appears to be logically sound "
Of course it's logically sound. But remember there is more than one way to "logically" play a Holdem hand. It depends...
"I think it is brilliantly crafted but I find that I simply can't use his ideas. "
Gee and you the guy that called his post splendid.
"The problem is (and I am serious), I am not smart enough to put his ideas to work. "
Well now if you ain't smart enough who do you suppose is? My guess.. NOBODY!
A1 fan of the not so smart skp.
Anonymous1 wrote in his 10:04 am post:
Your hand isn't strong at all especially against a legitimate 3 bet raiser. In fact you can't tell me you liked the flop even against a maniac. But the fact that you know how high stakes players act when they get into a lower stakes game makes the hand playable. The only question is how do you play him. My way may not be optimal but it is trackable. If you play as I recommend you are unlikely to make a mistake playing this hand. Your way could result in a free card on the flop and misplaying the turn and river.Vince.
It might help to disguise your identity if you didn't sign your posts "Vince."
"It might help to disguise your identity if you didn't sign your posts "Vince." "
I did that to throw you off. Kind of like checking the flop against a 3 betting maniac and then betting the turn. See it worked for you and me. You confused the maniac and I confused you. Or am I wrong on both counts?
A1 (Vince wanna be) fan of the Abdul man.
Abdul,
Like you, I never open-limp in "normal" mid-limit games, and I never check the flop after three-betting from the blind. And like you, I'll sometimes check two overcards behind two opponents with a middish, partially connected board. Unlike you, I was incapable of explaining why, until now. Thanks.
Tommy
This may be a carry over from stud my days, but there is something I am starting to observe playing HE. I have noticed that some players in HE are specialists. They individually prefer and play better under certain conditions or with certain types of hands. Some are middle straight players, others are flush pro's, some excel heads up, while others suck out whole tables with what looks like total garbage. There may be arguement about these players talents, but they appear to be pro's in their little niche market, per se.
This thought leads me to the relativity of preflop holdings. Is a hand won necessarily because the cards were the best, or was the hand won because the specialists that played to the flop or beyond were frustrated out of their niche and do not make good judgement calls away from their comfort zone? I am not talking about having Aces full on the flop, or another monster hand, but those grey area hands where the hand isn't the greatest hand, but worth playing - this time. Why do you win with these hands? Is it because you know the hand is good enough for the number of players in the hand, or do you know that the hand fits the situation with consideration to the players remaining?
I think unfortunately this is a low level HE thing, as higher level players should have a better skill set, but that may not be true either. Maybe it's like ice cream, and we always have a preference no matter how deceptive we think we are....
What are your thoughts?
..., that determine most of the time if not all the time if you will have a positive EV in the long run or not. After the flop you have to fine a solid reason to continue or to get out.
Ramon
I used Poker Probe software to run an experiment about AA.
What I’ve found amazed me, but in the same time has opened my horizon about the flop. AA lose tremendous vale if the flop is suited and sequenced. This tell you how important the flop is. If the flop doesn’t fit your original 2 cards you have to get rid of them. In this particular case the AA and the suited sequenced flop is an extreme case but the idea is the importance of the flop.
I totally agree with you when you stated that 70% of the final hand in poker is determined by your original 2 cards plus the flop.
If you will FOLD the AA every time the flop is suited & sequenced you will make money on this move by losing less then otherwise continue to hold on your AA.
AJ
Why Sklansky & Malmuth din not write about?
If that’s true then why S&M did not mention this fact in their books? (At least I’m not aware of reading this in any poker books) Regards, Jordan
I don't believe that your conclusion is correct.
..., and going all the way down to the RIVER. That was the set-up. The flop being all the time suited sequenced (i.e. 5c6c7c) and one player having pocket AA all the time and the rest of the players having random cards. That was the set-up!
AJ
The pocket AA maintain its value up to 4 players, at 5 players it is about even and 6 or more players the AA enter into negative EV over the long run.
AJ
I wouldn't call these players "...pro's in their little niche market" They just like different forms of garbage hands. Some players will play any 2 suited, thus appearing to be really good at hitting flushes. others will play any connectors, thus making many straights. As you move into the middle limits these players mature to playing any suited connectors from any position. one thing you never notice when a player hits one of these hands is how many bad calls that player has made with the same cards and how much money he/she may actually be losing. I don't mean to imply that garbage is never playable. just have to choose your spots.
You are certainly more correct in your thinking than I am. What I have noticed though as example, is say two players see the flop with me. The flop is okay for me but not great. I bet and one player drops.
I have observed the remaining player plays straights more than is normal, but the board doesn't help him. Now my mediocre hand is a lot better because I am fairly sure the flop missed him and he should have dropped the hand.
This is what I had hoped I was getting at. My hand strength changes when these players do not get help from the board with hands they prefer to play.
Is this rational or logical thought?
oh yea, I see what you are saying. there are a couple players that strike fear in my heart when there is a straight type board. another type of player is the "play any ace from any position" player. They tend to be older and are only a pain when you have KK or they hit their kicker.
Happened last nite. Well may not actually be funny but I laughed my ass off. To set this up, I had been playing very solid in a very loose semi-aggressive game. I never went beyond my original 1 rack buy-in in a 9 hour session. Twice tho I had flopped top set(q's & k's) and gotten beat by gutshot draws on both of them. Funny part was on the kings I got beat buy 3 people on the same gutshot card! Only cost me 1 bet on the river to figure out.
Anyways I'm sitting in the SB. 3 people limp to the button who raises. I see the cut off is showing the table 72o while mucking. I look down after the button raise and see 77!! Well now just to be a smart-ass I muck my pocket 7's face up. only 1 player on the table can believe I'm mucking this before the flop!
6 people go 2 bets to see the following flop:
7, 10, Q, two tone
I don't remember the action perfectly as I and most of the table is laughing but there was ALOT of action and it didnt come from the button raiser.
Turn; A, rainbow
Again a bunch of action a few players are looking at me thinking I HAD the best hand why didnt I play it....I'm still laughing and saying are you nuts! "my hand is dead, It is drawing dead" It's obvious to me that 1 player had KJo, and another had Q10o.
River Q,
That's what I'm talking about! Thank you for saving me many bets! They go 3 bets on the river and Q10 full beats the nut straight.
Now was I "lucky" or was it skill?
Please know that I dont mean above out of an ego statement. Just thinking about a little debate factor.
////////
Ni han again Larry. You looked pretty happy about it when you told me the story, and rightfully so.
Here's one for you. $20-40 at LC's. I limped UTG with 55, next guy raises, two callers, reraise, SB calls and I'm all ready for the eight chip flip, got my wallet out and my arm warmed up and everything.
Big blind laughs and arcs his 95o up in the air. My fives hit the muck _before_ his 9 of spades came to a full and complete stop, no joke, no lie, no cortex, just pure spinal reflex, finger on a hot stove, perfect. Best fold I ever made.
May I tell a laydown story that doesn't have any exposed cards in it? I jotted it down because it's really about the honest-play non-interference pact that can develop over time, without a spoken word, between grinders.
Seven-handed $40-80. A super-solid pro limped UTG. I raised right behind him with 8-8. One of the blinds called as did UTG. Three of us saw the flop.
8-3-2, twotone.
UTG bet out. I raised. The blind folded. UTG called. Now we're heads up. Because I know this player oh so well, his range of hands was extra narrow already. He either had 77, 66, 55 or 44, or a flush-draw with two overcards.
The turn card was a high card that completed the flush if that's what he had. He bet out. Yup, he had it. I called with my full-house draw. The river was a blank. He bet, I folded. He gave me a quick and subtle courtesy show, J-10 of spades, a flush.
I don't know if this is the best laydown I ever made at limit, but it's certainly tied.
Tommy
Hi Tommy, I'm going to quibble a little with your Super Solid Pro description.
If he is that super solid, how has he let you get such an accurate read on him?
John
He basically gave you a gift by showing his cards and allowing you to confirm your read on him. I agree with John Gaspar though, he can't be that solid of a pro if not only do you have that good of a read on him but he also allows you to confirm your read on him by showing you his cards when you haven't paid to see them.
Good points, but partly because I did not sufficiently explain. Don't come down too hard on this guy. (I'll call him Joe.) Recall the mentioned non-interference pact. That's how I could lay down. Joe and I have never talked about it, but it's real, and it works for us. Think of it as a way to mutually reduce variance.
Playing "normally," Joe and would break even against each other in the long run. Over the course of a year the honest-play thing evolved. If you're familiar with the prisoner's dilemma, this is a good example of it and that's why I think it's way cool. (Joe is absolutely the only player I'll give an occasional coutesy-show to. That's why he gives them to me too.)
Back to the P.D., in the short run it would benefit either of us to "defect." But in the long run, "cooperation" earns more for our combined sum. So, being reasonably reasonable dudes, we don't defect. All this, without a word. I have the same thing going with two others of the 15 or so full-time mid-limit pros around here. Note that this is NOT soft-playing. It's just no-jerking-around playing.
Whadya think? Are we smart? Dumb? Or just lazy?
Tommy
I guess there is some advantage in two pros mutually reducing their variance. Defecting would probably not be very good for either of you. But I wouldn't let the other players catch on to what your are doing, but it doesn't look like they will. I see nothing wrong with it even though I do not personally do this with other players.
dave in cali
Nothing else to do with that hand preflop (other than NOT show it to the rest of the table...).
I am a LL hold'em player with about 200 hours experience. I've played most of these hours in a card room run in a very efficient manner. However, recently I've playing in a card room locating on an Indian Reservation with many poor dealers. For one, I've had dealer's comment on my play. One dealer in particular, repeatedly made comments like, "Folding again?" or "Chicken?". I like a friendly game but the last thing I want is people being made aware of my tight play. I've also had 2 dealers in that room look at my cards after I folded. Am I making a big deal out of this, or should I talk to the floor? The limit is $6-12 if that matters.
You are stuck. If it's a small time Indian joint you can't often rat out the lousey dealers without facing the possibility of getting barred since many will be tribal members with lifetime employment. Be very careful.
I understand your complaint, but not where it is directed. I think your post would have been more accurate if titled, "Addressing poor management."
Tommy
You are right to question these practices as it is very poor form on the part of the dealers which incidentally can hurt your results. Even if it is a small-time casino I feel you should bring it to the attention of the shift manager in a very calm manner. If you put in a good word otherwise (somehow-I don't know--look for something that these dealers do well even if it is just being friendly)--and mention this along with your complaint you will appear to be a nice guy who doesn't want to get them in trouble but who is justifiably a bit concerned about something. I would have a hard time imagining a shift boss who would condone such practices, even in a small Indian casino.
Dealer quality is a nationwide problem, but things do seem to be getting slowly better. This is especially true here in Las Vegas. In our book THE PROFESSIONAL POKER DEALER'S HANDBOOK we emphasize that there should be no extraneous talking when the dealer is in the box. My guess is that this is the cause of at least half the problems that occur in a cardroom.
this statement does verify you play regularly...i agree..gl
At mid-limit and up I think dealers should refrain from small talk, period, universally. At low-limit games in small rooms, some chatter is dang near required in some casinos.
The problem there is not the talking, it's the content. All the dealer has to do is not comment on the hands, at all. ESPECIALLY no sypathetic sighing or commenting when a popular player gets sucked out on. That's one of the worst frequent breeches.
It's an easy line to draw as to what and when. Talk, but not about anything pertaining to poker. Talk, but not while any live hands exist.
Tommy
i would follow a dealer into the can and beat his ass if a polite request didnt stop instances of crap like that....
i was just kidding above, but i seriously would not tip them...
also do talk to managment
Or "WHAT DID YOU SAY?"
Seems to get their attention.
But maybe you have to be Italian to pull this one off.
:-)
"But maybe you have to be Italian to pull this one off."
Or Fearless Leader.
Good advice.
I would IMMEDIATELY and loudly tell them in no uncertain terms that they are NOT to comment on my or anyone else's play, and if it continues you will be discussing it with the management on the very next instance.
That type of crap should NOT be tolerated under any circumstances.
I would also never tip the guy again if he gives you any flack or ever does it again, and I would make a point to tell him why he is not getting tips from you.
dave in cali
Limits don't matter - I think it is appropiate to tell off a dealer who is getting out of line. I also make it clear thay won't see any tokes from me as long as they step over the line.
Good dealers just shut up and deal - I wish they would teach this in deler school.
Rounder is essentially correct here although I personally prefer to try a softer approach at first. If that fails to have the desired result then a more confrontational approach is the next step.
The above posts are all right on target. A dealer should always conduct his or her self in a professional manner. If the dealer does not know what this means, they wont be dealing long.
I think I recall reading on this site some months ago that there are several card rooms in Las Vegas where you are not required to show a losing hand if you call a winning hand, but can simply muck your cards. Is anyone aware if this is true.
It is true in every cardroom in which I have played (Lake Charles, LV, and AC). If a player asks, however, the dealer must show your hand.
I have been dealing poker for a little over two months. Although I attended a dealer "school" at the casino at which I am employed, the vast majority of what I know has been learned through my four years of playing casino poker, self-study (Professional Poker Dealer's Handbook), and self-practice.
We were not even shown the correct method of pitching in class. Does anyone know how difficult it is to learn pitching from a book?
Anyway, my goal is to move out to California as soon as possible and start dealing there. I'd like to move as soon as October 1st. Being new, I am of course a little slow at pitching, but I am very focused and can keep control of the games well.
I would especially like to move to the San Diego area, but I would spend time in LA or another part of the state if needed. What would be my chances of gaining full-time employment in a cardroom in Calfornia? Obviously, not being able to see my current ability level for yourself, this is a vague question at best. But which cardrooms are likely to consider auditioning and hiring me (assuming I am at least moderately proficient)? Are there any steps I can take to improve my chances of a successful audition? (For example, do I need to attend a REAL school?)
I am very excited about my job and look forward to being there each day. I try to learn as much as I can whenever I can, and would like to eventually be among the best. One of our dealers who recently moved here dealt at the Commerce Club, and said I could deal there (but she's a hell of a lot faster than anyone else in the room...).
What do I need to do to get to California? Comments and suggestions from poker dealers and supervisors would be especially welcomed. Any private emails would also be very appreciated.
ThanX!
As an example of when going with the "flow" is incorrect, David Sklansky stated that you should often call on fourth street with a mediocre hand that can't improve but then fold on the river if bet into again. Could someone give some examples of when this play is correct and explain the logic behind it?
i wanna explanation also.
I read this too, but didn't read into it. I took it to mean that you are attemting to bluff win with your hand if it can't improve. If it can improve say from a set to a full house, you keep on going. I thought it was a way to keep from getting pushed out by another bluff and maybe pick up the pot. Now I might be way off track, but that's how I took it. As it applies to the flow, you can only flow so far on air....
at the Bellagio,15/30,my poker buddies on my right and in the loud room(march madness)we are occassionally whispering to each other an ongoing stradegy session as we play,a big no no for me but the room is so loud and everyone at the table tourist,s watching the tv's and no one can hear us so I break my rule and get into it with him.At one point we take a short break and leave the table for a bite.Over a short lunch we talk check raising on the turn and how it seems that in 15/30 when you check raise someone on the turn and they lead into you on the river that your always beat and niether of us could remember a time personally when it was different.I also noted that it seemed as though when you check raise the river and get reraised the same holds true,that your always beat and that he nor I could remember a time when that wasnt the case.We werent saying it didnt happen but we just could not remember it and wondered if the 30/60 limit was way different.Back to the game ive got ,9,10 d....final board Qh,Jh,7d,10c,10h,I put bettor on a bluff as he was pounding everthing on the river and I check figuring he wont call if i bet but he will bet. He bets I raise, He reraises,as I reach instinctivly to call my friend says "Just what we talked about at lunch!" I fold.......... he shows 3/4 of clubs!I got just what I deserved!!!
one player to a hand so your friend is out of line here. you got what you deserved because with that board a check call or a bet is in order not a raise. and you are learning that when you build a big pot saving one bet can be very costly.
Regardless of how you may have let this dude get the best of you by letting him hear your strategy talk...
The pot is sooooo big at this point you absolutely cannot fold! What were you thinking? Well, I guess you already told us that. Whenever I raise someone on the river and they reraise me, I am always going to call them down. If I was that uncertain of my hand, I would have simply checked and called in the first place as a means of saving bets. What pot odds did you turn down by folding? Did the % chance that you were beat justify turning down those pot odds?
Also, I think the generalizations you mentioned may HAVE BEEN true in your past experience, but that does not mean they will always remain that way. I cannot say that my opponents always behave that way, they often make dumb moves that may leave me guessing, but I usually just call them anyway and make them show it to me.
Dave in Cali
Dave in Cali wrote:
The pot is sooooo big at this point you absolutely cannot fold.
In my personal experience, I didn't become a consistent winner at hold em until I understood this to be absolutely bogus. Although I question raising the river without being prepared to call a reraise, at that point in time,as crazy as it seems, I think Paul3 made the correct decision. If Paul3 is as good a player as I think he is, the decisions he makes not to call regardless of pot size, will be profitable in the long run. Who is to say that his friends weren't correct, and he was in reality a 30,40,50 to 1 dog to win the pot?
Merlin,
I find the doubt raised in my mind (when I don't get to see the hand) or the pain caused when I do, after folding is worth the 1 bet to me.
I agree that raising in the first place left Paul3 open to making a big mistake.
Of course, you must be able to lay down winners, but for me, this would not have been one of those times.
Regards Mike N
While I understand the point your are trying to make, it's not like Paul3 had a piece of cheese when he raised. With trips, I think if you are raised and you get reraised, you should simply call.
the times when it would be stupid to call because the pot is "soooooo big" should be obvious enough that you wouldn't have raised the river in the first place. Sure there are times when you should turn down very large pot odds because you are a 30, 40, or 500:1 dog to have the winner. It's just that if YOU are the one doing the raising, this concept should NOT be in play. Hence, just call the river if you are uncertain what you would do if you raised and got reraised.
I think Paul3 hung himself here by not calling the reraise. Of course he already hung himself by allowing this player to overhear his conversations about strategy and use it against him....
Dave in Cali
Are you sure your friend wasn' better friends with the other player?
;-)
Many times i have been checked raised by an idiot. At best it has deserve a crack back from the DUKE. At worst its a call and a puzzeled look. So for your rule of thumb, i don't buy it.
The check raise is sometimes miss used in game. Weaker players think that it is a show of strength, a "got ya" and the opportunity to use it sometimes cluds their judgement.
I prefer the check raise from midle position on the flop capturing more people's bets and then giving me some information on how well the flop helped them when they check to me and only call.
I confess I am the Anonymous1 or the anonymous1 is me. I guess I'm not anonymous anymore though since I'm telling everyone that I have posted under the anonymous1. So I just thought I'd let you know that Abdul was right. No not about his silly Balancing Concept about Anonymous1 being Vince Lepore, me.
I posted as the Anonymous1 because I was not going to post at all but then I read all those wonderful response to my disposting statement and I felt like a fool. Naturally.
I have a bone to pick with a few of the responders to that post on the other topics forum but I'll get to that in a moment.
My reason for not posting was that I felt like I was getting to hung up in this thing of ours. (Sound a little mafiaesque?) I took what Badger said personally and that was a mistake. I got upset at David for not responding the way I thought he should. (Wow I'm really a nut case.) I suddenly realized that this is not MY forum. I just read this thing and post when I feel like it. That's it. That's all.
Back to the warm responses and e-mails to my leaving post. So that I won't offend anyone like 3 Bet Brett. Btw he seems to forget that I gave him that 3 bet handle so How could I forget him. But in defense of the anonymous1 I referred to those that were posting regulars when I stared posting here many moons ago. But anyway, Rick's student was very kind and I thank here for her warm comments. And my long lost love, Lady Gambler, showed her wonderful posting face so the post was definitely worth while for me.
I'm just going to say thank you to all who responded to that post . All the repsonses except one were great.
Except one? Yes.
Ray Zee. I'm not going to quote what the Z man wrote but it's not fair! I know what he's trying to do. He's trying to make me like him and feel guilty at the same time for all those (true) sheep stories I've told about him. But it won't work. I can see right through you Zee. You can forget it I'm coming after you with a vengence now. Hey be careful with those sheep. Foot in mouth disease is going around. Wait a minute. That's Hoof and mouth disease. Yeah "foot in mouth" disease is something I suffer from. Ok Zee I'll let it go at that for now. But if you want to keep me from tellling all about your Montana life style you are going to have to do better than making me cry, I mean making me feel better than I have a right too, err.. never mind you know what I mean. Don't let it happen again.
Again thank you all for thos kind words. Now together let's discuss this "flow" thing some more. this could be a very important subject. Regardless of who is correct.
Vince
In that some people besides yourself on this forum occasionally suffer from "foot in mouth disease", including myself.
Of course some people have a chronic case of it too....
dave in cali
Yaaaaay!!! Vince is back, this kind of feels like flopping that first set in a week......You know it will eventually happen....someday, and when it does you just feel so good! Okay that was lame, anyway welcome back Vince.
You're a good man, Vince - and we all love you.
You're just misunderstood.
Mike.
Vince,
Welcome back! I put my foot in my mouth a year or so ago with a post complaining about the graphics of cards in some posts using up my printer ink under the name "Mr. Text". Later I made a regular post but forgot to erase the name. Stupid Me!
Regards,
Rick
oh vince you are back. hey where did you go?
"oh vince"
That's why I love Ray Zee. I get the same response the sheep get (oh ewe), only not so affectionately.
vince
This occured in a 10-20 game in a Washington state card room this weekend.
Flop with 2 limpers and both blinds come. (I fold) Positions unimportant for this post.
Flop comes A84 suits unimportant.
First blinds check, first limper bets, second limper raises, both blinds call and the original raiser 3 bets. Call, and the turn comes rag of some kind.
(I wasn't paying all that much attention at this point as I was getting a coffee from the waitress)
Bet call
River comes 4. Board is A844rag. First limper bets, other limper raises, limper 1 makes it 3 bets, limper 2 goes 4 bets, call.
Limper 1 has Ad4s Limper 2 has Ac4s.
THERE WERE 2 4S IN THE DECK.
The floor split the pot. Has anyone else seen anything like this before?
A9
Not since last week!
10-20 HE game last Wednesday at Yellowhead Casino in Edmonton, AB. I was in a neighboring LL game, and did not see the exact order of the board, but apparantly, the flop came down A-A-x. At the end of the day, the board was A-A-x-x(paired up the other x)-y. Some substantial action on the river, I guess, and Player A shows down quad Ace's. He at least had the other two Ace's that weren't on the board. Player B shows up with the Ace of spades, which WAS on the board. Why he didn't say something about the duplicated As until the showdown, I'll never know.
As an aside, how did the floor rule about awarding the pot? In this case, everyone who was in the hand to the river (both A &B, obviously) got their own money back, and then split what other monies were in the pot. I thought that the hand should have been ruled null and void, and everyone returned whatever they had put in, even if it was the blinds. Yes or no?
I was playing stud several weeks ago while waiting for a seat in the 15-30 hold'em game.
I have Ah-Ks in the hole and door card is an A. on fourth street I look across the table and see another Ah. I say to the dealer "I have the Ace of hearts" I don't usually play stud so the dealer responds "no, no, you're not supposed to tell them what you have."
hand was ruled dead and everyone got their money back.
My favorite part of that story was the dealer's reponse. "no no"...
or if you had a little larceny in you, you could raise and bet the hand out hoping to win without a showdown and if called on the end and beaten complain that you caught the ace of hearts on the river and it was in someone elses hand earlier. then when they looked they would have to split the pot. legal maybe but not ethical.
Many years ago I was playing 10-20 straight draw.
A player raised and there were a few callers. This player had quad 8's. He drew one card. He put his finger on the card face down to show that he was not looking at the card. It was checked to him. He says something like, "I know I made my hand, so I have to bet." He was called he turned up his 4 8's and then the face down card. It was an 8!!!
53 cards.
Hold-em at Horseshoe in Tunica, MS holding AT with As in my hand....flop comes with As on board. Called the floor.....had him peep my cards....everyone gets a refund.
That kinda stuff is gonna happen when you have dealers or brushes doing the setups...just human error. Plus some dealers dont check their spreads very closely when putting a new deck in play.
= )
Could the forum give me their opinions on TJ and Tom's book on pot and no limit poker?
I do not have the book, as I recall it getting poor reviews, but perhaps someone who has it would like to elaborate. I am going to see if it is reviewed in Gambling Theory when I get home tonight.... A friend of mine wants to read up on NLH, and the only book I could really offer him to read on the topic that had any merit was S/S.
Also, what is the print date of the latest edition of Gambling theory and other topics, and is there any new information (including book reviews) in it that may not have been in there when I bought the book new three years ago?
Thanks
Dave in Cali
The latest edition of GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS is 1999. It contains the following review.
34. Championship No-Limit & Pot-Limit Hold 'em by T. J. Cloutier with Tom McEvoy (6). This book covers some of the same material that the Reuben, Ciaffone book discussed below does, but not at the same level of detail. Even so, Cloutier does a reasonably good job of discussing many topics. These include starting hands, play on the flop, turn and river, and reading your opponents. He also gives pretty good advice on how to play in no-limit and pot-limit tournaments.
I do however have several complaints about the book, and because of this, I do not rate it higher. First, there are too many stories about T.J. Cloutier as well as other filler material. Second, the authors need to learn that six-five suited is really a better hand than six-five offsuit, and that the "bunching factor" has virtually no effect in hold 'em. And third, I strongly disagree with the constant reminders that no-limit or pot-limit is more difficult than limit play. I believe the opposite is true. In fact, the best part of the book are the sample no-limit hands at the back of the text. What is interesting is that virtually everyone of these hands would be more difficult to analyze and play correctly if it were limit play.
f
How many callers do you need to call with A6 suited in late position with an early raise?
If is no raise and alot of people in the pot then enter the pot for a single bet. See the flop if is FLUSH or a flush draw (9 outs).
If you don't flop a flash or a flush-draw at least, Get out! FOLD!
Ramon
If there is an early raise and you have A6s, then you should usually fold. However, if there are four cold callers of the raise, and you do not expect to be reraised, you might be able to play. Folding still might be better depending on the raising standards of the raiser. If a four star maniac raises and four people call to you, I would call with A6s every time. If a very tight player raises UTG, I would fold just about every time. Axs likes a lot of players, thus giving the needed implied odds to make it profitable to play it. If it has been raised, your odds are reduced, plus you stand an increased risk of flopping top pair and being dominated by a better kicker. Therefore you should be very selective as to when you might call a raise with it. If there were only a couple callers or less, I would fold to a raise every time.
Now if there is NO raise, I would probably play it just about every time. It is better if you are late and there are several players in the pot, as you will get better value if you flop a flush draw or flush. But if it hasn't been raised, your flopping an ace is more likely to result in a winning hand. You still must be careful though not to go to far when you are dominated. For example, say you limped 4th into the pot and the BB raised. The flop comes A 8 J rainbow and you have none of those suits. the SB bets and the BB raises. You should fold. If you are up against another ace, you are almost certainly dominated, most likely by the BB.
On the other hand, say you limp 4th in and there is no raise. Say you flop second pair and the flop is 6 4 J rainbow and you have a backdoor flush draw. Here you should probably call if it is one bet to you. There are some situations where you might even semi-bluff raise here, but I am not going to get into them.
One last example. Say six players limp and you are on the button with A7s. You might even raise this one before the flop, but I would only do it occasionally, and only in very loose passive games. The flop comes J 7 3 with two of your suit. The SB bets and everyone calls to you. You absolutely must raise here, not only to try for the free card play, but for value. you have five outs to two pair or trips, which will likely be a winner, plus you have two rounds to catch one of nine flush outs for the nut flush. If someone reraised me and everyone still called, I would cap the betting. Here you probably don't have the best hand, someone probably has a jack. But you almost certainly have the most equity in the pot and are the $$ favorite.
Dave in Cali
If a four star maniac raises and four people call to you, I would call with A6s every time. If a very tight player raises UTG, I would fold just about every time.
Why be so concerned with the standards of the raiser? You should be equally concerned with the standards of the cold callers if you're worried about domination.
-Sean
Good point.
The key here is that if you are going to call a raise with Axs, you NEED multi-way action. ANYTIME you enter the pot with an ace and a tiny kicker, domination is a concern. It is more of a concern if someone has raised, because it becomes more likely that either the raiser or one of the cold callers has you dominated.
Dave in Cali
If you flop a Gut Shot Straight and have a over card what are your odds? I think a Gut Shot is 11 to 1 but what is it when you add the over card?
If you believe the overcard is good if it hits, you could add another 3 outs for a total of 7. In this case you would have about a 28% chance of completing your hand if you used both cards to come. This is better then 3:1 odds.
Derrick
There are 47 unknown cards of which 4 make your gut shot on the next card and 43 miss, so your chances of making the straight on the turn is 43:4 or about 11:1 against; just as you say.
IF, and I say IF you want to add your 3 card over-card draw then 7 hit your hand and 40 miss, so your chances of making the straight or making the over-pair are 40:7 or a little less than 6:1 against. Realistically your pair isn't going to win that often, so if we presume it'll win half the time then you really have only 1.5 additional outs or 5.5 outs and 41.5 bad cards, so your odds are 41.5:5.5 or 7.5:1 against.
This is all making it on the turn.
- Louie
Hi all,
I'm wondering how others play in this situation.
You have TT. There is a raise and a cold call before it gets to you. Do you reraise or just call?
I used to favor reraising here, but I'm not quite sure anymore.
Paul Talbot
It really depends where and by whom the raise came from and who the cold caller is. If the raise was from an early position by a solid player, I often fold here. The reason is that the early position raiser would usually raise with AA down to TT, AK or AQ. What would the middle guy have to cold call. Maybe a monster in a tight game, maybe he has lower standards to call with. I would say AQ maybe JJ. He would probably reraise with AA, KK, or QQ though. You are likely dominated by at least one of the players in front of you.
If the raise is from a steal position, and then there was a cold caller, I would probably reraise if I had position, or call from the blinds.
Derrick
I would usually be inclined to see the flop on this one, especially if I am going to have position over both of these players. In an extremely aggressive game where it is likely to be capped, I might fold, but I usually am playing in games that are so easy that this would just about always be a clear case of either call or reraise. if a maniac did the raising I would clearly reraise. If a four star rock raised and another four star rock called, I would either fold or call and fold if I did not hit a set. In a loose game where a raise might not necessarily thin the field at all, I would call. If anyone less than a decent player did the raising, or someone whom has very loose raising standards raised, I would reraise.
All in all I would usually see the flop here. Whether to call or reraise depends on the players whom have entered the pot before you, and to a lesser extent those that might enter the pot behind you. Keep in mind that if the two players in front of you have decent hands, and you flop a set in a multiway pot, you are likely to get a lot of action. I would not fold too quickly unless you are sure that it will only be a three way pot, and that you are very likely dominated by a bigger hand. This hand is playing somewhat like a big pair and somewhat like a medium pair in this situation.
Dave in Cali
I don't see fold as one of your options. This is one of those situations that depends almost entirely upon your opponent, more so than the cards you hold.
You honestly shouldn't even think about what to do without considering your opponents here. Against certain opponents you should fold, others you should raise, and against some you should call but I think calling is the worst option here most of the time.
natedogg
i usually belt out a couple of verses of torna a surriento and do a quick field stripping of my guns.
brad
I work above the local card-room. I just go downstairs after work, watch a few hands and see if my brain-cells are functioning. That's it!
Midway through the tournament, I have plenty of chips for the limits we are at. I get AdJs in the BB. two limp and a slightly-loose player raises, two more call, sb calls, I call, everyone calls and it's a six way pot.
Flop comes 8d 3d 8s. Checked to the raiser who bets. When it gets back to me, everyone has folded, and the remaining players are just about folding out of turn. I cannot be so sure that the raiser has a better hand than me, and the pot is pretty big, so I call him. Everyone else folds.
Turn comes the 7d, giving me an ace high flush draw. I check, he bets, and I raise him. This is a semi-bluff raise with my flush draw, but it is also a ploy on my part to make it look like I have an eight or maybe a flush. I can be virtually certain that he does NOT have an eight, so he might just buy that I DO. After all, I WAS in the BB. He folds and my ploy works.
comments welcome
dave in cali
This seems to be an IDEAL opportunity to semi-bluff raise on the turn: two-over-cards flush-draw possible-set apparent-slow-play hand-is-worth-a-call hand-may-be-best and an opponent who easily fold a hand better than yours. You shouldn't need to wait for such perfect a situation before you raise.
Well played.
- Louie
Agreed that you don't need this perfect of a situation in order to raise, especially not in a tournament where people will often be playing way too tight and looking for excuses to fold. In a tournament I will often bet and/or raise with a flush draw because of the increased chance of winning the pot outright. In a ring game I would use this play less, mostly because I tend to play in very loose games where the chance of winning the pot outright is much lower.
dave in cali
good job, jawz
First, print the post from JAWZ and use it to bookmark the hand-ranking page.
Posting on 2+2 has confirmed my suspicion that my limit-game betting decisions are average among good players. Yet I've been a full-time pro for over a decade. How? Consistency. And that comes from a rigid pre-game warm up and the discipline to quit the game, even after only a couple rounds sometimes, when my head isn't right to play my best, leakless game.
My ideal warm-up: Rest until no hint of weariness remains. Walk in the woods. Catch up on some procrastinated tediums. In the short car ride, I often practice bad beats. I mentally practice mucking face-down without a grimace and then folding AJ UTG on the next hand.
Once the basics of how to play profitably are known, winning in the long run is primarily an internal struggle, IMO. Know thy selfs. :-)
Tommy
excellent post.
im truly amazed when i see pros(!) lose it at the table and go on obvious tilt. as far as im concerned the only real edge i have over most players at the table is being able to maintain mental discipline.
never playing tired (real world: or at least dont start out tired) and doing whatever it takes to get your head on right , and then having the discipline to quit (especially a bad game when youre stuck) are undoubtably characteristic of long term winners.
brad
p.s. im still a little in awe of your view of the blinds in holdem; probably the single best piece of advice for an aspiring player.
Total price: $84,500
Sounds reasonable, considering something like this will probably take 5 or 6 years of your time...
tough breaks.
why not switch to stud or omaha for a while?
holdem gets to be a grind sometimes, id say take opportunity to learn stud if you dont know it.
as for omaha, just remember rule about drawing only to the nuts and youll be fine while you learn.
brad
maybe the answer is in your post. you raise in early position and get 6 callers(12 bets). you bet with a king on board into the field, get 4 callers(16 bets) then fold saying its the correct play getting maybe (20 bets). you didnt consider reraising the possible flush draw raise nor calling to see what happens. there is more to think about in a hand than meets the eye. you are probaly close to being a winning player but need a little kick.
heres what i would do slay:
"you raise in early position and get 6 callers(12 bets). you bet with a king on board"
i would check and fold here almost every time; if i had a real good sense of the game i might check raise a late postion (the last, or if the last didnt call) bettor ( <5% time probably).
"then fold saying its the correct play getting maybe (20 bets)."
if i had a Q of the two tone suit, i'd take one off to spike a set.
brad
you stated the game was loose agressive, so if you know that people are giong to stay with you even if you raise, why not just call pre-flop, if raised to your right, re-raise, to then maybe narrow down the field or buy a free card(as players will fear you are giong for a check raise, when you check after the flop, if you showed earlier agression with your re-raise). THIS IS SIMPLY MY THOUGHTS.
I agree with Ray and brad, that betting into that flop was dangerous and probably wrong, and checking and calling, or check raising is a far superior play to betting and folding, with all that money in the pot...
I think this is actually an interesting question. For me, mental preparation is very important before I sit down at the table. I don't have any specific routines, except maybe the cigarette I smoke when I get out of my car. Most important, I always make sure that I'm mentally set to play my "A" game. Also, I make sure that I'm fresh and awake.
When I take my seat, I'm confident that I can beat whoever is at the table. Of course there are times when I'm clearly not the best player at the table, but I believe that self-confidence and belief in yourself are huge intangible factors that can make a difference. Since I pretty much know which hands I will play in which position (and situation), I remind myself to stay disciplined and patient. If I go through 3 rounds without playing a hand, that's no problem.
Sometimes, when things just don't feel right, I'll call it a day. I've done this a number of times. Sometimes I'm up a little and other times I'm down a little, but I always get up when I feel that I'm losing focus.
There are various factors that make up a winning player, and I believe that mental preparation and toughness are pretty big ones. Of course, a little luck never hurts either!
Acting = tells. I recently played against one of the players who has won an astronomical amount of money playing poker, and he used the "peek at cards when a pair flops" act to try to trick me into playing against his trips. He looked even before I acted on the flop, and I just wasn't buying that one of the biggest winning players of all time had forgotten his hole cards. That's just the same as the 15-30 pro who, a couple days ago, shook his head in disgust after a second ace hit the board on the river. In both cases, I had an extremely strong hand, hands so strong that my opponents might have acted disappointed with lesser hands, so I paid them off, but if I had had less, their acting would have cost them. (And I did save a least a big bet or two in one of the hands by not playing it hard.)
My philosophy is that this acting stuff is bad, but then there is the case of one of the world's most famous poker players pulling that act, so perhaps I'm wrong.
-Abdul
if you play in a game where offering a sandwich as a bonus to keep people in...you will probably have a tough time in a real game....gl
a
Hold'em
March 2001 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo