![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
David,
I certainly see the logic in that view, but I would worry about how it would work in application.
When the jackpot gets big, it might encourage jackpot chasers to post their blinds from the cutoff seat, play one hand, then leave the table until the button passes them again. I think that's a stupid strategy, but I can see how quite a few goofballs might want to use it.
I have noticed that the rule that you must have received a hand to participate in a jackpot payout really encourages people to stay at the table.
I have mixed feelings on jackpots. On one hand, I hate them because by paying a $1 out of every pot over $15, I am being forced to participate in a stupid lottery. I am paying $6-$12 every session to the blasted thing. If one does hit on my table and I get a table share, I probably wouldn't break even. Furthermore, I have never been lucky, so jackpots hold zero allure for me.
On the other hand, jackpots bring gamblers into the cardroom, which is great.
No jackpot drop is one of the more attractive aspects of online poker.
I think it is only logical that a person must have participated in the hand in order to reap any benefit that ensues from said hand. I also think to have included him in the payoff when he was not at the table would, in fact, encourage chronic lurkers. There are people I play with that walk constantly and I think to change the rule and include a non-participant of that particular hand in the bad-beat payoff defies not only logic but would promote these professional "walkers".
I was wondering how many of the readers of this forum play chess? I am 20 years old and just achieved expert status. I find for the most part that chess ability does not coincide with card ability. However, good chess players are often smart people, and smart people play good poker. For those of you out there that play both chess and poker, which do you find more intellectually stimulating, which do you think is more complex? I believe chess is the better game.......it is more complex, less repititious (the can of worms has just been opened) and much more difficult to master. Chess is more of battle between you and the board while the goal in cards is to find a weak player and let the good players take turn taking his money. Having said this, I can't stop playing cards lately and hardly play any over the board chess. I recently found out Bob Ciaffone is a chess master and was wondering which game he found to be better and how the ability of the two coincide. I have played hold em' with Dmitry Gurevich, a grandmaster, and chessplayer of the year, and I could not believe how bad he was. I am not sure how long he has been playing, but I have been playing for one year now, (all be it, one month, 1/12 of my time last year, was logged in the cardroom). The man is a chess genius but for whatever reason can't play cards. I played a hand with him where he raised 3-4 off under the gun, I reraised in late position with A-A. I flopped a set and he capped the flop, check raised me on the turn, and rivered the one card flush with his 3c. So what do chessplayers out there think?
Hello,
Chess is so incredibly complicated compared to poker that the difference is vast.
But poker is far better game to play for money, since the luck factor enables really bad players to think they are good, or "break-even" or even simply "unlucky" for decades, maybe even lifetimes.
- roGER
You are so right. I suck at chess and I know it so I would never consider playing for money. I haven't learned that about poker yet.
vince
Post deleted at author's request.
I have a question regarding a statement thats been repeated many times. It goes something like this: "WHEN YOU GET TO 20/40 AND ABOVE THE PRO'S WILL PUT MOVES ON YOU LIKE YOUVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE". There are only 52 cards in the deck. The board tells you what potentialy is the best hand. So what makes up a pro move? I will admit I am a low limit player. Most of my hours have been spent at 3/6 and 5/10. I have about a 100 hours at 10/20 but don't play there as much for one reason. My hourly take is higher at the lower games. That may be due to my game not being ready for higher limits. I accept that!!! But this PRO MOVES question bugs me. Can someone give me some examples. Thanks to the forum!!!
freecard bets and raises...value bet the flop and turn then check raise on the river....there are some of the pro moves that you'll experience at the higher level...
Here is the answer to your question. You state you have been playing lower than 20/40. When you start playing 20/40 you will encounter persons, who know more about the game, than you know, despite what you "think", you know.
If you hold QQ here is the possible ways your oppenent can have a hand:
AA (6 ways)
KK (6 ways)
QQ (1 way)
JJ (6 ways)
TT (6 ways)
AK (16 ways)
AQs(2 ways)
So you have a 26 in 42 chance of having a better hand, but he is a rational, not tricky player. When will he bet for value. He can put you on any of the above hands as well plus 14 more ways to make AQ. If he has AA's he is not betting for value because 10's, J's Q's and AK's beat him. Same with K's. If he has Q's, J's or 10's he is betting for value because of the extra chances you may be holding AQ. AQ he is not betting for value. Obviously he could have AK.
So the only way he bets is if he holds AK, T's, J's or Q's. This narrows the possible hands to 16 + 6 + 6 + 1 to 29 and you are only beating him in 12 of the cases, chopping in 1 and losing in 16. 12.5/29 is your chance of winning. Assume there is 7.5 SB in the pot before the flop, on the flop add 4 more, and on the turn add 2 BB (4 SB), for a total of 15.5 SB. or about 8 BB. You have to have less than a 9:1 chance of winning to fold, so I would call.
Derrick Ashworth
Good post, except that you must take the cards SEEN into consideration when counting the opponent's hand: With a flop of QJT and hero has QQ, the opponent cannot hold QQ and there are only 3-JJs and 3-TTs left.
If you are correct that he will only bet a set or better on the river then I count its 16:6 against you winning.
My first impression was to raise with the 2nd nuts, but things are often not as they appear.
- Louie
I will try to keep this short if I can. Currently I only play about once or twice a month (except when I make a trip to Vegas). I have been playing Hold’em for just under a year.
Here is my dilemma. There are 3 card rooms that I can play at all within an hours drive. The problem is that because of my infrequency of playing wherever I go to play I’m always the new guy. A fish I’m sure in the eyes of the regulars. I seldom recognize any opponents and there is only one player that I have a feel for how he plays. I have read 3 books including S&M and I read this forum daily and therefore I think I have a good mental concept on how to play the game. The posters here always refer to knowing your opponent’s skill level and habits. Until I start playing at the same place consistently and often I never will.
Here is my question. What can I do to give myself an edge against a table full of strangers?
a. Do I play some hands in a way that would produce a loose passive image, and then play my normal tight game?
b. Should I project a loose aggressive image and then tighten up?
c. Should I play like a rock?
The reason this has come to mind is that the other day I was playing 4-8 HE and it was apparent that no one was respecting my raises or bets regardless of my position. Calls and raises were coming from both sides of me. I started to wonder what image they had of me as a player and what I could do to thin out the field when appropriate. I could seldom get heads up with someone. I had a good run of cards thank goodness (and I hope some good play to) and with the aggressiveness of the table I earned just over $300 in 2 ½ hours of play. (that's a lot for me) This was the first time I felt nervous playing even my good cards due to the aggressivness, but I stayed in the hands when I thought I should and folded when I thought I should and made THEM pay when I knew I had the best of it. I got the heck out of there before the tide turned.
Here is how I normally start off:
1. I always wait for the button to pass before I play a hand. This allows me to observe play and get a feel of the game. It also delays the SB and BB bets.
2. I play only premium hands early (AA, KK, QQ, AKs), middle position (JJ, AQs, KQs, KJs and QJs), late position (10,10 AKo-A10o, KQo, KJo). I play this way in the first 1-2 hours depending on the game and then I add more starting hands as the game progresses if I’m doing well. Is this too tight?
Thank you for all comments and advise. (I now am able to play once a week)
Rich
It shouldn't take very long for you to get a good feel for how a player generally plays. If you see the player jump an early raise, raise with a King flops and bet it for value all the way and win with KTo; you can pretty much bank that he has no comprehension of trouble hands nor position and is very assertive. You can expect this player to routinely raise with any top pair and can expect him to be oblivious to YOUR very selective game. If you find yourself thinking "He's got to be an idiot to have a hand worse than mine" then congratulate yourself on your keen insight.
Malmuth puts little value in counting hands played in the short run since odd hand distributions are common. But I think if you see a player play 6 out of 10 hands; calling raises cold 3 of them; then its OK to presume he's quite a lot on the loose side even if you never see a hand. So who will you believe? Someone with a Masters Math degree with clarity of thought, much success, and a well earned reputation; or me?
You need to put more energy into making judgements about the other players. Consider bringing a notebook and taking notes.
But back to your question: if you intend to play like a rock then strongly consider advertising a little first. Yes, take some pre-flop chances once you have a strong feel for the opponents AND are sure you are going to outplay them after the flop.
- Louie
If someone teases you about the notebook just introduce yourself, ask him his name, then ask for his Social Security Number.
Seriously, if you aren't Steve Badger, you should consider a different pseudonym for this forum. He's a well known guy hereabouts, although he has reportedly deserted us. :-(
Or perhaps you are making a statement and doing it on purpose?
David
I'm a chick....and I had no clue that there is another Badger running around this message board. So since HE has squatters rights I'll change my nick name. Badger is my nickname in real life but for the sake of everyone else. I certainly do not want to confuse anyone.
I had a terrible weekend. It began fine but ended horribly. I am posting this under general theory because it deals with knowing the correct play but blatantly disregarding anaylsis and making an egregious mistake. Some of you may not find this sort of thing pertinent to general theory so you may not want to read on.
I went to Foxwoods this weekend to play in the $220 stud tournament. Those of you that considered backing me but decided no to made the correct decision. I played a number of single table satelites. I splt one. the rest. Forgettabout it. I literally anted off ha;f my stack in the last two before I found a apir and was forced all in and lost. In the $220 tournament I did a little better but made a mistake and never recovered.
After the tournment I decided to play a little Holdem. This was a mistake. I was very close to being on tilt and tired. But why would I do the smart thing and leave, especially since I was still over $500 ahead for the weekend from playing 15-30 stud.
I will make the rest brief so don't worry. I played 10-20, 15-30 and 20-40 Holdem at Foxwoods. The action was great. In two separate 20-40 games the following similar hands aros. In the first game I raised UTG with poket Kings and was reraised byt the next player. The BB called and I called. The player was someone I had played with against before and I made him as solid but a little overaggressive. I had considered reraising the flop but decided to call instead. This was a mistake against this guy because I knew he was aggressive and he would make it three bets with weaker hands than my Kings.
There were blanks to the turn. I checked the flop and he bet, I called. On the turn I bet out and he raised. I called. On the River came a Queen. And I was beat! I knew it. Yet I called his river bet and he showed me pocket queens.
The last hand I played before heading home was in a different 20-40 game. I had moved down to 15-30 for a while because the first 20-40 game broke. This time I picked up KK in the BB. A mid position player raised. Aplyer that I made as average. I reraised and he capped it. I knew then that I was beat. No way this guy capps with Queens. Yet I called all the way to the river when on the River came a Queen! I called the River bet and looked at his Aces. I got up from the table, stuck a ton, and vowed never to play poker again.
Vince.
Vince,
Doesn't it seem that our need "to know" often overwhelms what we already "believe"? In poker, it's easy "to know." We simply call the final bet, and we don't have to live in doubt. In both hands, you believed you were beat, but you really didn't know you were beat. I think this explains why some of us make irrational calls, or at least why I do.
John
ps. We'll miss you now that you've given up poker.
John,
There is nothing irrational about making a call of a bet on the river with an OK hand when you think you are a huge dog to win the pot. The key is that sometimes the pot offers you even bigger odds.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Agreed; that, too.
John
You made it home without incident, the sun came up the following day, and, if you so desired, you could travel to the ocean, listen to some Chopin, or get a bowl of great pasta at your favorite restaurant. Man does not live by poker alone. Even if he did, the man who knows when he has played badly will inevitably learn from those bad plays and be a better player for it.
Thanks Andy (sincerely).
Vince
Vince:
I haven't read the other posts but I do have two comments. First, is when I run bad the hand that seems to cause me the most trouble is, you guessed it, a pair of kings. That ace will come on the river, or the cards get bunched up below mine and I look at a straight or two pair.
Second, is that I have found it very difficult to get out of the losing troughs. It seems like losing will affect your play (and judgement) and then you have more problems. What I believe works best is to play a little tighter than you are suppose to, grind out a little money, and then gradually open up again. Sometimes it can take several weeks to get back in groove, but this is my approach.
First, is when I run bad the hand that seems to cause me the most trouble is, you guessed it, a pair of kings.
Mason, you shock me. That sounds remarkably like superstition. :-)
What I believe works best is to play a little tighter than you are suppose to, grind out a little money, and then gradually open up again.
I've heard this advice before and I try to do it. But how do you avoid the trap of playing too meakly? That seems to be what happens to me when I start to get "gun shy". Or do you mostly mean to tighten up early?
David
Kings can seem to be a nemisis, recently in a 6-12 game I was on the button with KK. UTG had limped and a couple others called. I raised then UTG reraised, and one other called. Deciding UTG probably had AA I called. Flop came Kxx UTG bet other called and I raised. Turn was another rag. UTG bet and the other folded I raised UTG reraised I reraised and since we were head to head raising was unlimited. Defying all logic UTG kept reraising until I was all in, maybe his move makes some sense I don't understand! Needless to say the river came an ace.
I think this was just a bad beat and that I would like to make this bet all day long but unfortunately in this case is was disasterous.
Wow, you sound amazingly human in this post. And I thought all along you were a computer.
Congrats!
I agree with Mason's methods of getting out of losing troughs. It true that a lot of factors can combine to hurt your results. In poker winning and losing both seem to have a tendency to be self-perpetuating to some extent.
I have also found it helpful to play lower and/or employ very strong game selection when in these troughs. WEith all this said, over the last dozen years I have experienced some incredibly long runs of truly sub-par cards, often in key pots. I now think all of the above combined with a day or two off and some explosive physical exercise can be very helpful too.
While we're at it I will relate something very unusual I have done on several occasions when it what felt like I was in the grip of a very long bad run. This will be somewhat surprising but it really worked for me, both in how I felt afterwards and in terms of my results.
I went out into the woods alone. The sense of a gripping bad run which had lasted months and could not be shaken was palpable. I was aggravated beyond belief and financially hurting. It had been simply toounbelievable for too long now.
Once away well away from anyone who could see or hear, I picked up a large stick like a baseball bat. Vividly envisioning the latest monster beat in a huge pot, I smashed it against a tree and felt it explode. The explosion coincided with a mental image of the goddam beat. I did it again. Picturing various hands as well as the entire long debilitating run I repeated this about 20 times with various deadfallen sticks and small logs I found, sometimes picturing a couple other key things in my life that were upsetting as well. When finished, I felt really better. I did it even a few last times to feel perhaps more cleansed of the palpable sense of the bad run. Logically I knew there were no spirits or anything else at work--but the run had been so long, so tiring and so brutal that I felt like an evil and malicious clinging force was jinxing me. It had been just too uncanny and unrelenting for way too long.
After this thorough venting I felt somewhat cleansed, for lack of a better word, and invigorated and refreshed by the exercise as well. I cannot actually recommend this to others because there are safety issues such as getting hit by rebounding pieces of wood or getting splintering fragments in one's eyes. Yet I have done this I think on three occasions and it worked every time. The worst of the bad run was broken, and I started winning again.
Others wishing to try something like this might wish to do something perhaps a little tamer like beating up on a heavy bag. For it to really work I believe it must be done in such a way as to be thoroughly cathartic of the frustrating emotions, etc. The above description is, overall, pretty accurate. Now you all know what a nut I really am.
Getting outdoors is a wonderful elixer, although I prefere waving a stick while there.
Mark,
And you seem so mild mannered. Hint: purchase some goggles.
John
M, your method has a very similar structure to what the late martial arts legend Bruce Lee used to do. Everytime Lee would feel negative emotions like anger, frustration, disappointment, etc., he would first amplify the negative feelings, then write down those feelings on a piece of paper as if to symbolically transfer them there. Then he would crumple the piece of paper and burn it in the fireplace. As he watched the paper turn into ashes, he would feel the negative emotions also turn to ashes along with it. In Gestalt Therapy and NLP, this is called "shifting representational systems". I do this everytime I get a major bad beat and find myself beginning to go on tilt. Step 1. I amplify the emotion (as far as tilt goes, this means anger, frustration, or disappointment). Step 2. I ask myself, How would this emotion look like if I could see it in front of me. This step shifts my representation of the emotion from kinesthetic into visual. Step 3. I see my now disassociated visual representation of this emotion get smaller and smaller as it moves away from me. This works everytime and I don't have to step out of the poker room to do it. This technique and others like it work because we do not respond directly to the world (losing streaks, bad beats, etc.), we respond to our maps (or internal representations) of the world. Change your map, change your response.
Interesting.
I do not attempt to apply it on a case by case basis, but only after something has seemed to build up to the point of being almost unbearable. It takes a long time to get me to that point.
I will think about your explanation and technique and perhaps I will find more uses for it.
x
.
I don't know if you read about my "luck" in the Orleans Open - 7 AA cracked 2 KK cracked - it would have been funny if it haden't been so tragic. In every case I managed to get heads up against another plar every time a set spiked except one when a guy flopped quad 8's.
One case a $200 NL HE tournament I had black AA and lost to a set of T's got up and went directly to a satellite and on the 1st hand picked up black AA and this is where the quad 8's showed up.
I managed to do OK in the sats so the trip wasn't a complete zero. I didn't feel to bad or on tilt as I didn't make any mistakes the run of the cards just got me - kind of the way the got you.
You'll be ok Maybe Kenish can let you drive his truck for a while. :-)
There is no failure, Vince. Only feedback. What has happened to you was not failure. It is feedback. Life goes on. Good luck and continue to enjoy.
Vince:
Youve actually come a long way realizing you were lost. I played against you once and pounded you. You left the table broke, muttering to yourself about how lucky I had been. You also tried to talk to me about leaks in my game (even though you were the one who was broke and I had all the chips). You never realized how badly you had been outplayed. At least you are starting to get some clue...
I don't remeber which of the thousand times you are referring to but let me tell you something. I don't mutter!
Vince
Vince, When I lived over an hour away it was very hard to perform at my best at FW. It is just too inconvenient. Staying overnight a few nights is either too expensive or too uncomfortable. You cannot sleep in your car and then play your best poker.
If I lived as far away as you do I would consider two options. One would be to play more online in games I felt I could beat. The other would be to rent a relatively cheap place down this way on an ongoing basis. Say less than 550/month including utilities and if it is close you can come and go as you wish. I know it is substantial overhead but so are all the other options for FW and MS when you add them up. When you add in the convenience it can't be beat. You don't ever have to feel pressured to play because you can just drive a few miles and rest and play whenever you feel like. If you want more details ask me. Just an idea you may wish to consider. I never was able to manage it all very well when I had to really commute.
You cannot be serious. Unless the players you are referring to are not doing what you THINK they are. For instance, are you a thinking player? Are you easy to beat by another thinking player? Do you not see in these two questions the fallacy in believing it is easier to beat thinking players?
Of course, it might be me.
vince
Rethink it. A bad player has no reason (or an unsophisticated reason) for what he's doing or why he's doing it. If he doesn't know what he's doing, you surely aren't a favorite to figure it out. Much of what you do will be guesswork and "playing the odds" in order to beat this opponent.
On the other hand, a thinking player has a reason for everything. If you get inside those reasons, you have more ways to win a hand. This of course is much more relevant in heads-up and 3-way action than other situations, and even more relevant in NL and PL (note also that your thinking opponents are going to fold more hands, already falling in line....)
Surely, if I fall into a perceptible pattern of how I play a particular hand, then I become easier to beat. A player who adjusts to the next higher level of thinking on each hand against each opponent has truly become a "player". If I fail to make adjustments for what players have seen me do in the past, then I become more of a target.
Someone who refuses to see that we can be outplayed because of our way of thinking cannot become a great player. Failure to see or accept that someone may have outplayed us is self-deception at its worst.
None of this is really new territory. It has been discussed in a general sense in Sklansky's "Winning Poker" and is the genesis for Brunson's "shifting gears" concept. It's why Ferguson knew he was in trouble against Cloutier.
So, yeah, to my way of thinking, about 7 thinking opponents and 1 or 2 bad ones would be the optimum game. Maybe I view it that way because of my background in the chess world, but I'm serious.
"7 thinking opponents and 1 or 2 bad ones "
It seems to me, Earl, one or 2 bad (non thinkers, I presume) players would just screw up your optimum game. After all you like 'em to think.
vince
Hehe. You know what a "foil" is, Vince?
>Outside of a few stars, thinking opponents generally are easier to beat than others<
Until I read this, I thought you knew what you are talking about. But this statement is right up there with "I'd rather play with good players." Absolutely ridiculous.
These things are usually said by low limit players who think the reason they are losing is that the other players are playing bad and getting lucky. True, sometimes you do lose for that reason, but not in the long run.
Do you play in the 10-20 at The Mirage by any chance?
See the post below Vince's. As far as the Mirage, I haven't played in Vegas since the WSOP.
What the effect of the "Kill" on $5-$10 games at Foxwoods, and what is the best strategy to employ in playing these games?. I'm looking for general ideas, and also answers to specific questions (see the end of this post).
For those of you who don't know, the kill operates like this:
The game starts at $5-$10, with a typical structure of a $5 big blind, and a $2 small blind.
If any pot equals or exceeds $100, the winner of the pot must put up a compulsory $10 live blind for the next hand. This hand is played at the $10-$20 level.
If the pot again equals or exceeds $100, then the "kill" rules continue to be applied, with the winner posting a live $10 blind, and the next hand is played at $10-$20.
The kill only ends when a pot is less than $100. When this happens the next hand is played at the $5-$10 level.
Those are the facts, here's some subjective ideas:
The "mood" of the table determines how many hands are played at the $10-$20 level. In general, somewhere between 10% and 40% of the hands are "killed" in any particular hour. Some players tend to tighten up when the round is killed, a minority tend to loosen up and become more aggressive.
I believe that the kill structure increases the already high variance that is typical of poker, especially loose low limit poker.
Questions:
1) I'm on a short bankroll - would I be better off playing $4-$8, which has no kill?
2) What kind of bankroll is appropriate for a game played with the kill?
3) What kind of strategy adjustments do I need to make when playing the kill, especially in:
a) The $10 live blind - remember you're position can be anywhere. If you are "already" the big blind, your $10 becomes the big-blind, you don't have to post $15 in total.
b) The "big blind" that is no longer big - since you have posted $5 and you must put up another $5 to call.
4) Foxwoods attempted to spread $8-$16 (without a kill) and then $6-$12 (also without a kill) but these games died - one or two fish started a petition to bring back the $5-$10 kill game. Were the fish correct to do this?
Sorry for the length of this post! - Its also been cross posted to RGP.
Caretake,
- roGER
1) I'm on a short bankroll - would I be better off playing $4-$8, which has no kill?
Probably. Unfortunately the rakes are the same, which hurts.
2) What kind of bankroll is appropriate for a game played with the kill?
Well, it's more than a 5/10 game and probably a little less than a 7.50/15 game. So maybe (15*300)=$4500 to be safe?
3) What kind of strategy adjustments do I need to make when playing the kill, especially in:
a) The $10 live blind - remember you're position can be anywhere. If you are "already" the big blind, your $10 becomes the big-blind, you don't have to post $15 in total.
Be more inclined to raise, especially in late position if no one has limped. If everyone folds to you on the button, you should probably raise with any two cards, maybe from the cut-off also. When first to act, only check when your hand "wants" a multiway pot and you are in early position, or when you are in early or early middle positon with total garbage.
Don't forget to look to your left to see who's got chips in their hands. :-)
If you are posting a kill on your BB, just play it like a normal BB.
b) The "big blind" that is no longer big - since you have posted $5 and you must put up another $5 to call.
Yup. So fold more often here. Play the big blind like a small blind. Play the small blind almost like you've got nothing in the pot at all and you are in the worst possible position (i.e. almost always fold if you can't raise).
4) Foxwoods attempted to spread $8-$16 (without a kill) and then $6-$12 (also without a kill) but these games died - one or two fish started a petition to bring back the $5-$10 kill game. Were the fish correct to do this?
I think those games died more because of the mountains of yellow chips required to play them than from anything else. They need a $4 chip, or something.
David
Just a thought - if the yellow chips are $2 it will take the same amount of chips to play 8-16 as $1 to play 4-8. Funny how some games make it and some don't I guess it depends on the regional preferences.
It also has something, I think, to do with the yellow chips themselves (they are indeed $2). Alot of players have regarded them as bad luck. They were mostly used for the drop and only rarely made it into a pot before they changed the structures.
David
Asian players don't like them is that what you are trying to say.
Does the killer act in turn or last?
It does vary from room to room. Most rooms have a 2 consecutive pot kill situation where they pot is killed when the same person wins the 2nd pot some include a min pot size fot the 2nd pot.
If you can beat the game stay in if you feel like you are not up to the limit them move back down to the 4-8. As far as bankroll I'd like to have a lite 10-20 type BR in the $2000 to $4000 range for this game.
Far as strategy - treat the blind as just another random hand like the blinds - if they act in turn you have an advantage if they act last then you have to be a bit more careful since another is acting behind you.
I personally like the idea of kills - many players are comfortable with their "limit" and find it a little harder to play at the higher limit. Thus giving you a leverage on bluffing if you are so inclined. Play tight aggressive and don't check to much - check raises have a lot more impact in this game so keep that in mind.
Look at it an an opportunity and not a penality.
I just hate kills when I have the blind but those are the breaks.
Hope this helped.
You act in turn.
If your bankroll really is short then a move to 4-8 might be a good idea. I play in the 5-10 game at foxwoods alomst every weekend and I feel like it is a pretty soft game. My standard deviation is almost 14 BB's per hour though so you can see some swings (this is based on about 100 hours of play). The nice part about the kill is that you get those same players but at a 10-20 betting level on kill pots.
Sometimes you can get a table that just has kill after kill and it can play at the 10-20 level for hours. When this happens you just need to tighten up a little as most players are still playing weak hands, and when you win you take down huge pots.
Rob
p.s. Are you the English Roger? If you are, I'm the young guy from boston who kept raising your blinds from the button the first time we played together.
Hello Rob,
Thanks for your thoughts.
Yup, I'm "English Rog" currently playing like "English Tuna."
See you down there soon...
- roGER
Hi Roger,
I've spent some time thinking about the questions you asked. First, I don't recommend dropping down into most of the 4-8 games. The tighter, more easily readable players players have taken to playing 2-4, and the 4-8, especially for weekend play, is often populated by maniacs.
Pre-flop play becomes more important with the kill, I think. Consider your position carefully, and make sure you have a good read on the blinds. Often, you can steal the blinds and the kill, so you must raise with those hands you intend to play. Your observation about the general "mood" of the table is accurate here. Take what you can from the tight tables when you can get it. Loosen up a bit on looser tables, but not too much.
When you have a good hand, and you're up front with the kill, raise. The 5-10 players will have trouble calling for twenty, and if they do, you will usually have a good read on their hands. If you're reraised, you'll have a very good read. Make sure you have the odds for drawing hands; if not, fold.
Keep in mind, though, that you're not playing no limit. The bad players will call with marginal hands; you won't win many bluffs, even with the higher structure, so you'll still have to show down the best hand.
Overall, though, review carefully your choice of starting hands and from which position you play those hands.
John
You will need more money to play in a "kill". If you are on a short bankroll, or are used to playing the normal game, you may consider dropping down to a lower limit game. I think "kills" in a game, hurt the individual player, and help the house. But, my view is shot-down, by everyone who hears it. I played in kill games for a few months. I won't play in them again.
Greetings:
Alright, given the fact this is the twoplustwo website and also given the fact I am the proud owner and user of Malmuth and Sklansky's Advanced Hold'em and Advanced 7CS manuals, I shall dare to ask the following blasphemous(?) question because I am really in the stage of honing and understanding the wheres and whys of holdem?
Here's the question:
In your opinion, given the starting hands that are found in groups 1-8 of the hand rankings section we are all very familiar with, which hands do you personally think S&M have either overrated or underrated and what changes would you make? This very well could be splitting hairs, but I'm really starting to understand position, and, the dynamics and characteristics of each starting hand and each KIND of starting hand?
Alright, What do you think? Changes, if any?
JPN
I don't think we have under or overrated anything. But I do think that you haven't really read what we have written. For instance on page 17 of HPFAP-21 we say:
"However, we want to state that by the time you reach expert status you shouldn't be thinking in terms of hand groups. At this point in your playing career your starting hand decisions should be based on the intrinsic value of each hand in each particular situation. But if you are just getting started playing, we know of no better approach."
In fact if you read the starting hand chapters in our book you will see that we give many examples that show how the starting hands actually moves up and down the hand ranking. For instance, JTs is ranked higher than KTs but if everyone has passed and you are on the button you would probably prefer the KTs. Now you may win (with the KTs) without improving where the other hand would not.
To reach expert status at hold 'em, you will need to think in this matter.
Malmuth wrote "To reach expert status at hold 'em, you will need to think in this matter. "
Yes- to reach expert status at hold'em, one needs to think for oneself and adjust according to the game. Reading and learning is great, but if one cannot adjust and adapt, one can not attain expert status at anything, not just hold'em.
Let’s not again bring to life the ghost of this old dead horse.
If you check the archives, you’ll find it beaten to death.
Everything’s a situation and a two edge sword, and, while one side might be sharper than the other, the dealer does not ask you if you’d like to trade in JTs for KTs.
Oswald Jacoby once said that bridge tournaments were won by bad bidding and good play.
How you play on the Flop, Turn, and River are way more important.
I think the suited verson of the off suit hands is over valued by a full group - while a bit more valuable the suited hands are not 2 groups more valuable and I also think the JJ and TT belong down a group or two.
It is a good "guide" for hand values but since all of poker is situational you have to be flexible in your use of it.
I don't think you are going to get hurt much by forgetting about KT,JT,T9s in any position, especially in a loose game with lots of callersw. Soneone will come up with a better hand most of the time. Regards, Dave
109s plays best with many callers, so what are you talking about.
What about two aces, won't someone come up with a better hand (on the river) most of the time in a loose game. This logic has a hole in it.
I think his logic would apply to beginners who would have trouble getting away from the hands he mentioned whey they flop a pair with a rotten kicker.
Yes, Aces are very hard to get away from also, but I think they hold up better than the hands he mentioned.
As far as changes in the starting hand rankings, the only changes that are really relevant are changes related to the game you are playing in and whether each hand has value in a particular situation. In loose games, a suited connector ranked group 7 might actually have more value in a particular situation than offsuited high cards ranked group 5 or 4. I could think up more examples of this type, but it's all relative. The exact ranking of the hands is pretty much irrelevant once you start thinking about the game in terms of current lineup, game conditions, and the way each hand plays in relation to these two things.
Dave in Cali
The S&M tables assume a game that is quite tight by California standards. It'd be interesting, for example, for S&M to publish follow-up "starting point" tables for, e.g., 8-9 handed games with 4-5 expected callers and a 65% chance of a raise (that's 20-40 hold-em in parts of California) and the dreaded low-limit 7 callers with a 30% chance of a raise and way too much calling after the flop. The relative value of medium pairs suffers; suited aces become slightly better if you can fold them when an ace hits; suited connectors go way up, suited kings become playable, etc, etc.
How about that for the next Card Player?
You have to learn to look at starting hands with the big picture in mind. They are just one factor along with position, number(type) of players already in, number(type) of players behind you, implied odds, etc. Starting hands do not exist in isolation.
S & M starting hands are a work in progress despite all you hear. It is also the best place from which to begin.
My own reasearch in the loose holdem games of the left coast suggest that generally tightening up is best for me. I won't be found with 86s outside the blinds very often and I won't be found with 43s ever. I routinely toss JT and T9 even when S & M conditions suggest it's correct. My best guess is that many of these hands only churn your bankroll and in the games with clueless opponents there is no need to impress them with the wide range of hands you'll gamble with.
-Fred-
I'm going to be in San Diego from Sunday thru Thursday (5th-9th). Jim Brier commented in a previous post that San Diego had middle limit games. Where are they located and what are the best times to play?
Also, I've noticed RGP mentioned as another poker forum site. If this true, what is the URL? I can't find it. Thanks in advance.
Jamie
jamie,
Check out the Exchange (Other Topics) sub-forum. There is a recent thread regarding Ocean’s 11. They are about an hours north of downtown San Diego in Oceanside.
RGP is short for rec.gambling.poker. It is not a website but a newsgroup. You can access it (and thousands of other newsgroups) using most email programs such as MS Outlook Express. I recommend the specialized program Forte Free Agent (Email me and I’ll send you the URL for the download if you want).
That being said, you can access and write to the newsgroup from the web using www.deja.com. There may be another site that works in a similar manner. There is also a link from the 2+2 home page. I just checked it out and it defaults to my normal mail reader (Outlook Express) and downloaded the last 1000 messages. I had used Outlook Express before for newsgroup access so it was already set up on my machine. But I like Forte Free Agent a lot better.
Regards,
Rick
there looks to be an error here, tell me if you think it's an error too:
http://www.planetpoker.com/mcu/mc_statistictables.htm
it's a listing of poker odds, for the HOLD EM LONG SHOT lists,
for 98s the odds of a straight flush on the flop are 9799 to 1 for 97s, it's 19,599 to 1 for 96s it's 70.5 to 1 for 95s it's 270,724 to 1
do you see any reason why 96s would be better?
Might explain why so many people play Big Lick!:)
What type of kill game structure do folks out there prefer?
I've played in two types of kill games:
Type 1: The type described by Roger in the thread below. You become the killer when you win a pot of a certain amount or more. I believe in Roger's example the stakes are 5-10 and you must post a $10 kill after winning a pot of $100 or more.
Type 2: You become the killer after winning two pots in a row of any size. For example, in a 3- 6 game hand 1 you win a $90 pot, hand 2 you win a $30 pot, then for hand 3 you must post a $6 kill.
I GREATLY prefer type 2 kill games. In this type of game if I win a pot, I have the option, which I usually take, of tightening up so as to avoid having to kill after winning 2 in a row. Exceptions might be if I'll be the button or the BB for my kill. However, in general I think any advantage one might gain from posting a kill is miniscule compared to the cost.
I DISLIKE type 1 kill games. I feel that this structure offers much less control to thinking players. If you are playing a 5-10 game, and have to post a $10 kill every time you win a $100 pot or more, how much of this $10 kill can you expect to recoup over the long run? I haven't played in this type of game enough to offer any definitive evidence, but I'm guessing that you'd be doing well if you recovered an average of $5 every time you played a hand where you were the $10 killer over the long run. If you lose money as the killer over the long run, isn't the kill's effect similar to that of an additional rake? Or am I missing something here? My feeling is that this type of kill definitely makes the game less profitable.
I realize that there are some mitigating factors that make the type 1 kill game Roger described more attractive, e.g., soft lineups, weak players forced to deal w/the higher kill stakes, etc. However, I wonder if this is enought to offset what I view as the devastating effect of this type of kill.
Any opinions appreciated.
Thanks, Caddy
I like 2 also BUT don't risk losing the pot cuz you are trying to manipulate the pot under the kill amount.
Play your BEST and I think you will be better off.
What about these "revisions" to preflop hand ranks?
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/
Will you hold forth? Perhaps this research has already been lauded and vilified (if so point me in the right direction)
Bill
It's been villified by Mason Malmuth and others. You can painfully search the archives here, or go to www.deja.com/usenet and search rec.gambling.poker.
I give the paper cautious lauding in certain aspects, like its (re)discovery of what I call the roller coaster effect: something like AKs > KQs > QJs > JTs > 76s > 87s > T9s > 65s > 98s > 54s > 43s > 32s, in certain circumstances. You can observe this effect in the full-fledged simulations of Turbo Texas Hold'em.
What bugs me is that the simulations done by the paper are very ad hoc, definitely not simulations of real game play. The author adopts an unjustified authoritative tone, insisting that whenever there is a difference between his rankings and Sklansky's, that the former are correct and the latter are incorrect. If the author had been more humble and cautious, his work probably would have been better received.
The paper is good "food for thought" reading, just don't buy into the absoluteness in the author's tone.
-Abdul
By the way, whenever there is a difference between my rankings and that paper's or Sklansky's, mine are correct. :)
-Abdul
Hey Ababdaba. Speaking of your ideas being correct, have you read Roy Cooke's column in the latest Card Player?
This question comes up every now and then. Here were my detailed comments on the report.
Comments on the Taylor Starting Hand Report
As promised, here are my comments on "The New Guide to Starting Hands" by Dick Taylor. As you will see there are many errors in his assumptions that lead to many errors in his advice. The comments follow below. (This will also probably be posted permanently in our essay area in the hopes that this confusion will not happen again)
1. The only decisions that players make are to play or fold. Their decisions do not seem to be impacted by betting or pot size. This will have the effect of over-valuing medium high cards such as KJ and KT (and QJ, QT, etc.) and under-valuing connecting hands (especially) suited connectors and small pairs.
2. Hands are played based on favorable odds of finishing with the best hand. How large a pot or how many bets you can lose is not considered. This will have the effect of over-valuing hands like KJ and KJ, which can easily make second best hands.
3. If a player does not yet have any information, that is no one has yet acted, he assumes that a certain number of small bets are in the pot. That is, raising is discounted. Again this has the effect of over-valuing hands like KJ and KT.
4. Pot odds are considered only, not in conjunction with the number of players. That is, whether the previous players have raised or called is not considered. This means that hands like KJ which can easily make second best hands are over-valued because the amount of punishment they sometimes take is not represented.
5. After the flop, players only continue when they have either a made hand or a one card draw to a straight or flush. This reduces the value of hands like AK and AQ, especially if they are suited. (Two overcards with a three flush is frequently a hand you should play.) In other words, hands that have some additional semi-bluffing value, or that may still be best, especially short-handed, are ignored.
6. Position is ignored. "Although playing position is generally thought to be the most important factor in selection of starting hands in hold 'em, it is not particularly important to the conclusions we've drawn here." Thus hands like KT which are particularly vulnerable to pressure by players acting later are elevated.
7. The broad spectrum of hold 'em table condition is not covered, even though claims to the contrary are made. The reason for this is that the betting action is not considered. Only a vague notion of the number of players in the pot.
8. Aggression seems to only be thought of in terms of winning the pot. The idea of occasionally building a big pot and then enticing others to continue when you get a favorable flop is ignored. This will have the effect of lowering the value of suited hands, especially suited connectors and small pairs.
9. Taylor states that in a very tight game that AA and KK are the only starting hands that you should raise for value. This conclusion is probably a function of the idea that players only make play or fold decisions regardless of the previous action. This is obviously not the case.
10. The conclusions about hand sensitivity to the number of players in the pot does not take into account size of the pot and the number of additional bets a hand may win or lose on the later streets. For example, on the river a hand like KK becomes more of a payoff hand in a large multi-way pot, but it tends to collect additional bets when played short-handed.
11. Hands like AQs do better in multi-way pots than Taylor gives them credit for because of additional bets that they can collect before they complete their hand. For example, in most situations, if you flop a flush draw with one of these hands you want to raise many opponents. In the Taylor play/fold criterion, this is not represented.
12. Taylor points out that hands like AQs and KQs "are particularly vulnerable to heavy multi-way action, the kind that increases the likelihood of 6 or more foes playing to a showdown." Again he fails to recognize that they occasionally will win a giant pot.
13. In the recommendation to play KTs up front in tough games instead of JTs, Taylor does not account for the fact that KTs can more easily make a second best hand (by flopping top pair with a king) and fails to account for the type of pressure that tough players can put on this hand.
14. Size of blinds and betting structure is not accounted for. For example, in today's modern two blind structure, as compared to the old one blind structure where the "one" blind was half the size of today's big blind, the value of suited hands, particularly suited connectors has gone up.
15. When advice is given on which hands to play, position and other players betting action is ignored. For example, Taylor's Professional Play List has you playing the top 24% of all starting hands. While there are spots where it can be correct to play more hands than this (see HPFAP), routinely calling raises with most of these hands is suicide.
16. In The Savvy Gambler's Play List Taylor points out that 22 and 33 are never worth playing. He fails to realize that these are hands which if you do not flop a set, you usually immediately fold without having it cost you very much. But when you flop a set they are highly profitable. Thus they should be rated higher than their winning percentage indicates.
17. Taylor doesn't understand that when you hit the flop with a flush draw you may be charged many best for the privilege of trying to make your flush. (Compare this to flopping a small set where you will now do the charging.) Thus, hands like Kxs are over-valued.
Conclusion: In my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics, I have a lengthy discussion on what I call non-self weighting strategies. It is shown that in virtually all gambling situations where a positive expectation can be achieved, a non-self weighting approach is far superior to a self-weighting approach. This is exactly Taylor's problem. By using a self-weighting approach where size of pots, additional bets gained or lost, pressure by late position players, ability to semi-bluff, etc. is not considered he has come to conclusions that do not benefit those readers that he is trying to help.
1. How long does it take to become good enough to make a living playing poker? 2. Must you play the higher limits to make any real money? (say more than $3000 a month)
I've been playing poker for just over a year. I lost considerably over the first 8 months and have now begun to break-even and pull a little ahead. I've read every available book on the subject practically and play about 15-20 hours a week. Any comments suggestions. Any pros out there, how long before you transitioned to full time?
MM
When you're ready, you'll know. Keep your day job until then.
one, you need to play at least 40 hours a week and most pros play 50 or more as its the game they love. to make a decent living you need to play at least 10 20 in good games.then maybe you can make 25000 to 50000 a year assuming you are a really good player.(note that every person that plays thinks they are a really good player). if the games are not too good then you must play much higher to earn a living. i guess it also depends on what is a "living". the smart people keep their jobs and earn some on the side until they are sure that poker is the life they want. i say alot that poker is a stepping stone to bigger things. by that i mean you can use those skills to find additional ways to make money and use it to get rich. good luck.
OK, thanks Mr. Zee. Same question but tournaments instead. What is your feeling on roaming the casinos of a given state playing in tournaments and assuming you're a good-great tournament player? I have had good success with tournaments but don't know if any established gamblers work soley on these. Thanks for the response.
MM
you dont get enough hours in tournament play so i believe that unless you play in high stakes ones, side games provide better results. of course one should play where they believe they have the best expectation. ive played both and done well in both and like side games better.
Please provide us some examples of "bigger things". Other than publishing, or building casino's.
Thanks
on-line alternative to make ok $...about 20/hr. I play 3/6 online at three tables at once - two at Paradise and one at Planet. Advantage - soft games, disadvantage - soft head after a couple hours. Absolute limit is three hours I find. Scharf in Saskatoon is the only other player trying this as far as I know.
Also, I highly recommend you accumulate at least one year's income (two would be better) in addition to bankroll. You can get off to an auspicious start, cruise for half a year, then run cold for months. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
I also like Ray's mention of poker as a stepping stone to other areas. To be successful at poker you must have other elements in your life to keep sharp at the tables.
I've been to Card Player's web page and I see that they post a lot of the regular articles from their magazine on the web page. But I notice that they do not post Roy Cooke's article. Can anyone tell me if Roy Cooke's articles appear online anywhere (if so please provide the URL)? If they are on Card Player's site let me know where because I haven't been able to find them.
The situation:
Let´s assume that I´m on a flush draw (9 clean outs), that it´s the turn, and that I´ve got implied odds that would allow me to cold-call 2 bets but not 3. A player to my left (L) bets out, a player to my right (R) makes it two bets, the action gets to me and I´m very sure that the original bettor is going to make it 3 bets.
The question:
Can I call the raise from R and afterwards the reraise from R/the rereraise from L knowing that I get the proper odds each time, or should I make concessions (i.e. discard) knowing that it´s going to cost me 3 or 4 bets to see the river?
Thanks.
its really a simple decision. you need to know your chances of winning(chances of hitting minus chances of hitting and still losing). say in your case its about 15 to 20%. then the average amount you think you will put in the pot in this spot. in your case about 3.5 bets. then add up the amount in the pot plus what you will win after the betting on the end minus what you will lose those times you are beaten and payoff and you are all set. for most spots you can just approximate your chances and the final size of the pot and make a close guess.
Ray I don´t want to offend you, but - while this is most certainly good advice on how to proceed generally - I feel that this doesn´t answer my question.
I mentioned "clean outs", implying that when I hit my hand I will win the pot almost always.
I also mentioned "implied odds", meaning that I had my opponents´ bets on river already added to my potential winning.
All I want to know is call - yes or no and why yes or no for this specific example.
Again I´m sorry if I didn´t get something or if this may be sounding arrogant, but sometimes the advice given is not the advice sought on this forum, and while I´m glad that Ray answered and I´ll try too heed his advice (just as I´m glad for any other feedback), this is something I have been wanting to point out for some time with the hopes that answers in general will get more question-specific. Just my two cents anyway.
You say you are taking into account how much was in the pot and what you expected at end, but in order to calculate all, its necessary to know those amounts.
So,assume 10/20 HE and before flop, 4 players in,raised once and called = $80 total pot
After flop, assume 3 players raised once (3 x 20 = $60 more) $140 total pot.
If you call on the turn and it's capped, (3 x 80 = $240) $380 total pot.
Assume that you make your hand and there is one bet and call and you raise and get one call. (20 + 20 + 40 +20) $100 more, total pot $480.
You invested 20,20,80,40 = 160 for profit of $320.
At time of turn, 6 cards known, yours and flop + turn, so 46 cards out, your chances for flush are 9/46
9 time you win net 9x320 = 2,880
37 times you lose 160 = 5,920
I can leave it to others to state in odds, or consider other factor, but above does not look good. Howver, if there are more players, more betting early, or more bets on end, then may differ. You can see from above that pots would have to be over twice as big just to break even, if all of your costs stayed the same.
The way you asked the question is from a point in the action. You want a simple rule. But, it really depends on the size of the pot then, and what you expect it to be if you make your flush.
I am not a math person. It seems to me that one view would be to estimate percent of increase in the pot by the amount of isolated river action, over the amount in at the end of turn action. For example, if the turn action had $300 and the river action will add $100, someone can figure out if a certain cost to you has positive EV. It seem to me that the only way it can be positive has more to do with the total amount in the pot through the river being very large.
From a gut level reaction, a monster pot usually offers good return for making a winning flush on the end. However, most monster pots occur before the river, not after. So the less the size of the pot by the river, the less EV for staying.
I think a math person might come up with a rule of thumb, based on estimating the size of the pot at the end of the turn,then at the end, with a 9/46 win potential. ? ? ? I can't think of an easy way to make a rule.
Ok, I don't think you can consider the bets that you have put into the pot previous to the point that he is at in the hand.
You calculate the final pot size to be 480, and his investment to be 120 for a net profit of 360. But you can not count his previous bets because some of the time he would have hit his draw on the flop and sometimes on the turn. In poker each decision must be looked at individually to assess if it has a +ve expectaion or not. In this case Greg is trying to figure out if his turn call is correct or not. His previous input to the pot helps create a certain pot size but you don't include this when you calculate what it costs him. He has already lost that money, now he is trying to figure out if it is correct to gain it back (plus gaining the other people bets as well).
then take the bets you have to put in and divide them into the total bets you will win and if that result is higher than your chances of winning call. i cant make it any simpler. oh by the way i think thats what i said above. if you had read my post and proceeded to follow what i wrote you would get your answer with the addition of some grade school math. also i try to give answers that everyone can use as im not getting paid to teach individuals here. mason refuses to give me the millions im worth. thanks.
I see. This reminds me of the hand rankings - useful for beginners but no longer of interest to someone with experience.
If a beginner walks up to you and asks you which hands are "best", ít will probably be too much for him if you start explaining the intrinsic values of hands in general, he just wants to know the hand rankings for now.
It´s the same with me - I don´t have that much experience so if you give me an explanation of how it should be done in the end, it will not be of much use to me at the moment when my understanding is not as developed, when a simpler and less accurate explanation would have been more helpful, although it will certainly be better for the forum in general, something I didn´t think of before, so don´t take it personal if I didn´t feel that I got the "proper" answer, ok?
give a man a fish and you feed him for the day. teach him to fish and he can feed himself forever.
this is simple stuff if you work a few examples. try it Greg and you will get the hand of it and it will be second nature when you play from then on. good luck.
Greg weote: I mentioned "clean outs", implying that when I hit my hand I will win the pot almost always.
This seems like an almost silly question then since the times it will occur are almost nil. In a pot that is going to be four bet on the turn in almost all cases someone has a set or top two pair... so several of your outs are not clean. The only case I can think of is that both of your opponents have the same nut str8.
That said if the case did occur you need to take into account how much total money you are putting in the pot when determining your poy odds. So if there is $100 in the and you have to call $20 and expect to have to call another $20 then you do not have odds to call (unless you expect insane action on the river if you hit.
Sean
Ok. You wrote: "Can I call the raise from R and afterwards the reraise from R/the rereraise from L knowing that I get the proper odds each time, or should I make concessions (i.e. discard) knowing that it´s going to cost me 3 or 4 bets to see the river?"
You have 9 clean outs and you want to know if you can call each bet independently or if you have to consider the sum total of the cost on that round vs. the total reward. The answer, according to David Sklansky in the Theory of Poker, is that you must consider the total cost for you to get involved (by cold calling the first double bet you are getting involved) vs. the amount of reward you intend to gain. So you would have to weigh the total gain of the final pot vs. your total cost on the turn (3 or 4 bets in your case). Here is an example.
You have 9 outs. Odds against hitting on the river is 4.11:1 against. You stated that you have effective odds (pot odds plus implied odds) to cold call 2 bets but not 3. Thus, let P = Pot size and I = total of bets to gain in the future, then by your definition 2 <= P + I <= 3 (where all bets are in units of big bets).
If P = 4 then you can cold call two bets if you don't expect to get raised and you can expect to get called on the end. Here is why. L bets, R raises, you look at L and know that he will not reraise. I = 4 (plus any action on the river. We will assume that both opponents call if the flush hits, therefore I = 6 in total). Therefore, P+I = 4+6 = 10. Your effective odds are 10:2 which reduces to 5:1, which is greater than 4.11:1 so you can call with +ve expectation in this case.
If P = 4 then you can not call if you think it will cost you 3 or 4 bets. Here is why. L bets, R raises, you look at L and know he will reraise but that R will only call the reraise, he will not cap it. On the river both opponents will pay you off if the flush comes. Therefore I = 2*3+2 = 8. And P+I = 12. Your effective odds are 12:3 which reduces to 4:1 which is less than 4.11:1 which means that this call results in -ve expectation. You lose in this case. You will lose even more if R makes it 4 bets.
I hope this answers your question.
My problem with this stuff has always been this. Let's say you think it will be four bets on the turn, L bets, R raises, you do the math and believe that L will pop it one more time as will R, so you fold. As it actually turns out you didn't read the situation properly, L calls R's raise, you would have hit your flush and for a a fraction of a bet over the long run you lost a sizable pot.
I would think it would be safer to expect that you can be more worng about guessing betting actions than the difference between 4:1 and 4.11:1. You have the nut flush draw, call the bet and take your chances on that rather than on knowing what your opps will do 2 minutes from now.
You can certainly call twice if you want to.
Never-the-less, mathematically it costs you 3 bets to see the river. Your EV doesn't change if you put that 3 bets in one at a time or all at once.
Fold.
Now if the better is going to 3-bet only half the time, your expected cost is 2.5 bets. But if the 2-better is going to 4-bet half the time then your expected cost is 2.75 bets. Use these figures in your odds-formula for determing if you should call the first 2-bet.
- Louie
Thank you Louie (but of course to all to others), this is exactly the sort of answer I appreciate: short, precise, and to the point. (See also my thread between me and Ray to know what I mean)
Played in my first tourney ever last week. It was unlimited rebuy, $100 entry, $50 rebuy(if under 500)gets 1500 in chips both ways, wih a bonus rebuy for $50 of $4000 in chips at break after 60 minutes. Blinds and limits double after every 15 minutes starting at 25-50, 50-100, and thre was one . With about 15 minutes left to go at an 11 person table, and blinds about to hit me at 200-400, i had $625 in chips remaining. I was dealt crap for my BB, but got KK on my SB. I folded it, figuring i could skate until the rebuy with my single $25 chip, which I did, (barely). It's not that I wasn't in a financial position to rebuy, I just figured that if i waited 15 minutes more, i would get over double the chips for the same $$$, but now i wonder if maybe i should have rebought after first bb hit me to take proper advantage of any good cards that came along, like, i don't know, KK. Also, there were other people in that were below $500 at the break, who did a double rebuy, therefore bein able to get a 1500 chip and 4000 chip rebuy for $50 each. Now, i declined this, as it seems obvious the diminishing return, but am wondering if there is any real merit to this other than firing every bullet in the chamber. A simultaneous rebuy of this sort is not covered in Sylvester Suzuki's tourney book, but this seems to be similar to his advice on waiting for higher progressive rebuys to hit.
The rebuys have a face value greater than the original buy-in; which means its almost always correct to rebuy. A single rebuy will NOT reduce the value of that last $4000 add on.
I am reasonably confident the following is very good advice for THIS tournament: Always rebuy. Always add-on unless you have a commanding lead.
Figure this to be a $250-$300 tournament.
- Louie
Playing at the Commerce today, 20-40 hold 'em, I held 99 on the button. Two people limped in and I just called. Small blind called and big blind checked. Flop comes KJ9 rainbow, 1 spade. Everyone checks to me and before I can bet the dealer burns and turns the last 9. Both I and another player point out to the dealer his mistake and the floorman is called. He has us complete the action on the flop, so I bet and both limpers call. Then he has the dealer burn and turn another card, with the 9 held to the side. The turn card is the 4 of spades. I bet and both players call. Then he has the dealer put the 9 back in the deck, reshuffle, and then put out the river card without burning. It is the ten of spades. 1st player bets, 2nd player raises, I fold by crumpling up my cards and I don't see the hands they have.
I immediately talked to the floorman and he showed me that his ruling was indeed correct according to the rulebook used so I said I wanted to speak to the manager. The manager came over and I explained to her why the rule was so terrible. Incase you can't figure it out, it's because on the turn we are essentially playing with an incomplete deck which happens to be missing my nut card. I think that the card should be reshuffled into the deck on fourth street and played from there without burning a turn card (one is already burned). That way the integrity of the deck is upheld and I have another chance at getting the 9 on both 4th and 5th street like I should. Apparently the rule is created because it is of vital importance Of course, nothing got changed. I'd like to point out that I crumpled my cards not because the 9 was put up and then taken away but because the ruling was so bogus and it that pissed me off.
To top it all off I asked if they had a rule book available for my own use but they don't! A major casino doesn't have the rules available for the players to read. What's up with that?
You must be a very inexperienced player. This situation was handled correctly, and in the same way it would have been done at any other cardroom in the country.
Perhaps the point of my post is misunderstood. The rule is bad. I don't care if every cardroom in the world has that rule, it's still bad. To think that it's more important for the unknown river card to be the same as it would have been than for the integrity of the deck to be maintained is absurd. I don't care about having to take the turn card back, but it should be shuffled into the deck and another turn card should be put up that could possibly be a nine.
Inexperienced I'm not. I just think that this rule should be changed for the benefit of the players. If you can provide a reasonable explanation as to why it should be like it is, tell me.
It's pretty obvious from your posts that you were not expecting this ruling, and that you do not recognize this as the regular way of handling this situation. It is ulikely that you have been playing very long if you have not encountered this situation many times before.
Brett,
I don't see how Robin's surprise at the ruling and the presumed lack of experience detracts from his argument.
Tommy
So you think Robin is inexperienced also :oD?
Robin's post makes it sound like this was a bad ruling at the Commerce. It wasn't. It was the same ruling that would have been made anywhere else.
If this post had been made as an appeal to change the rule, that would be different. Instead, it came off as a big whine about losing a pot.
I agree that it came off as a big whine. That was my reaction too. The whining made it nearly impossible for me to glean whatever legitimate commentary existed.
But the subsequent discussion, particularly the post by ZEN, was potentially contructive and well thought out. So I still don't still the relevance of the initial post or it's tone to the rule itself.
Tommy
Rereading my post I realise that both of you are correct; it does come off as a big whine. What happened is that I was surprised at the ruling but as soon as he showed me the rule I wasn't mad about the ruling anymore, but about the rule. I've played over 1k hours of hold 'em but I've never seen this rule before. From my experience, the card is immediately reshuffled into the deck. I've never had this come up at the Commerce in 3-400 hours of play there so that's why I was surprised.
Sorry about the whining tone.
You are inexperienced at HE - but do us all a favor don't destroy cards OK - does nothhing for you or the game.
BTW - I have used this rule to my advantage.
In a wild contest at Soaring Eagle - some inexperienced guy put in to many chips on the river in a 2 bet pot. Dealer burned and turned I said pot was raised - player tried to take back his "mistake" I called the floor and the 3rd spade was taken up a J hit giving me J's full of T's then the spade fell on the river for a fun time to be had by all.
KNOW the rules and you will be a better player for it.
You may not know this, but not all card rooms have this stupid rule. In addition, the Crappy Commerce doesn't provide a rulebook for players. Finally, knowing or not knowing the rule made no difference in the play of the hand and doesn't change the fact that the rule is bad.
I only read the original post but if you saw the 9 card on the turn why would you say ,"oh i missed my chance to bet." I d quickly say, ,"oh no i said check." or maybe its "ok... and let the action continue," you are the only one who could "object" to the situation and the other guy should (or has no business) saying anytyhing.
The ohter guy pbly didn't like the 9 or is just a rule junkie....
Ill read the toher posts...
This seems to be the standard ruling. I've seen it enforsed many times in Las Vegas. I'm not condoning it's effectiveness, only confirming there was nothing unusual about the way things were handled. The last time I saw this was in a tournament to a set of 6's which lost as well to runner runner flush and everyone all in. Tough breaks !
...and I'll bet they considered giving you a 20 minute penalty too.
-Fred- ... only once in the penalty box.
It's a great rule, and it makes 100% sense. You are clearly clouded by what happened to you.
I have seen articles in Card Player over the years about this rule with conflicting thoughts. This may seem a lengthy explanation of my thoughts but here goes:
The dealer exposes the turn card before flop action is complete.
In most clubs the rule is that the exposed card is set aside face up, action on the three flop cards is allowed to be competed. The dealer burns and plays a new turn card. Since the deck has remained undisturbed, the new turn would have been the river card. Action is completed for the turn. Then the dealer places the exposed card into the remaining deck to be shuffled. With no burn, (there was a burn when the exposed card was turned) a new river card is dealt.
Some people feel that since the exposed card was placed back into the deck, it had its one chance to be played. This rule also seems to have an objective about preserving the sequence of the deck in order to allow the original river card to become played.
Before going further with my comments as to why I disagree, the rule I prefer is:
"Immediately place the exposed card back into the remaining deck and shuffle. Allow action for the flop to be completed. Deal the top card as the new turn without a burn (there was a burn). Compete remaining action and deal burn and river as normal. This rule does not retain the original river, but it clearly allows two chances (turn and river) for all live remaining cards."
The following points are made about the rule I disagree with:
1. Under the current rule, we allow a live card to be removed from play. It is entirely removed and the turn is allowed to occur without the exposed card having two chances for play. In all of poker, how can we ever justify removing a card that is still to be played from live play?
2. When the exposed card is removed from play, it provides information to all players that otherwise should not become knowledge until after the turn and river.
3. When the error occurs during flop action, betting is at the single unit level. Many players are affected by single unit action in their decision to fold, call, or raise. They know that there are only two more cards to possibly improve their hand and betting will double. Seeing an exposed card before the turn, and knowing that it will be kept out of play UNTIL the river, effects all players UNequally, because each player holds different cards. It also effects the uncompleted flop action. The knowledge gained can be plus or minus but one thing is clear, the exposed card will NOT become the new turn card. It has NO CHANCE to be dealt on the turn. It has been temporarily removed from play.
4. Consider several common situations about WHEN this dealer mistake is made: a) It has been checked and a player has not yet acted. b) It has been bet and a player has not folded, called, or raised. c) A player has raised but the dealer missed it. d) Action was being checked and a player bet but it was not recognized.
In some of the above, there can be even more than one player not yet checking, folding, calling, or raising. If the mistake involves an unobserved bet or raise, then all other players have not completed their action to call or reraise. That bet or raise or other preceding action REMAINS, but under the current rule all players with pending action now know that the exposed card is absolutely going to be removed for the turn and no other player holds that card. They know this while they are in the midst of flop action yet to be competed. It is simply wrong to know that a live card will be removed at this stage of pending action.
Some may feel that by preserving the river and making it it the turn card, it leaves the exposed card with a chance to be dealt when it is later reinserted and that preserves fairness. I disagree. What is key is that the exposed card has absolutely has no chance to appear on the turn. In many instances future action does not even proceed to the river, which makes it mostly a mute point about preserving the river card.
5. How can a live card be removed from the deck at the turn? This is absolutely not justifiable in poker. Consider that if for some reason, just before the flop, a card popped out of the deck, and the dealer announced that the flop would be completed without the exposed card, but after the flop it would be reinserted and shuffled, I am convinced that players would object. Not only is the card removed from a chance to be played, the knowledge effects players differently.
6. A classic situation in the current rule would be when an Ace is exposed that otherwise would pair the board. Knowing that the ace is removed, although it will have a chance on the river (it has a very limited chance of returning) is valuable information. It is absolutely certain the no other player holds that Ace. Perhaps the Ace is of a needed suit and at the single unit stage the turn was worth seeing until the exposed card was of the desired suit and it is removed from the turn. Or reverse, there are two or three of that suit but a third is now removed from play on the turn. Or, it’s the Ace of the suit you hold (4 flush)and you hold the King. If you make your flush it is the nut flush. Any other player cannot hold the exposed Ace and if it appears on the river, you still have the nuts.
7. Why is so much importance placed on preserving the original river card? If one wants to view fate and chance as if it is a necessary part of poker, then I suppose that the deck should remain undisturbed as much as possible because its order has been cast in fate. That is the only apparent reason to preserve the river card. Fine, but in doing so to preserve that effect, one has coupled with it the permitted removing of a live card from play for the turn, and doing so before action on the flop has been complete. Preserving fate does not outweigh violation of basic poker. Removing a known card from the next round of play at a point where action is still pending before the flop is inexcusable.
8. Bear in mind the point at which this occurs during the flop. There are actually three events pending. Action is still uncompleted for the flop, turn action, and river action. At the single bet unit stage, one or more players will be able to take action at this level; call when they otherwise would not, check, raise, etc. influenced by the knowledge gained by the exposed card when orignal bettors did not have that knowledge. That card is not held by any player, and it has no chance to appear on the turn.
9. Most everyone has seen a wheel of fortune with pegs. Suppose you could make one bet but it could remain for two spins. A peg is discovered to be missing and your number cannot be hit because of the missing peg. You are told that the house rule is that your bet must remain and the missing peg will be replaced on the second spin. This entirely violates the essence of the game. Everyone has two chances to get their number but you have only one. Other players know that their chances are slightly better because your number is out of action for one of their bets, a disadvantage to you and an advantage to all other players. This is similar to what occurs under the current rule. Players are denied one chance for the exposed card to be played when normally their are two chances. That may sound like all players are effected the same way. This is not so. The knowledge that the exposed card will not be dealt on the turn is coupled with the unique knowledge each player has about their own cards. The card exposed may have no effect on some players and advantage or disadvantage to others. But, since the exposed card occurs during the flop before action is complete, it is effecting action pending during the flop.
One cannot undo the fact that the exposed card is known but we can certainly insure that it has a chance to appear on the next card or the river, regardless of all else.
This is a wrong rule. Period. It should be changed.
Thank you. Most of what you said, certainly the main argument, is exactly what I was trying to say in my orignal post. You did a great job explaining your reasoning and I hope that others will either agree or provide a good counter-argument.
Yes, the cards are randomly shuffled, so there is no reason to prefer the top card be dealt over any other, except to prevent cheating by the dealer. On the other hand, I can't really see that the rule harms anything. It should screw everyone over equally over time if not on any one hand.
I can even make a weak argument in favor of this icky rule: When you see the card, you are given information that it will definitely be in the undealt deck for the river, which increases your estimate of the number of remaining cards of that rank/suit. If you were given this information for two rounds, it might allow you to make some weird "unfair" draws.
For example, suppose you are in a game with 7 opponents, there is one burn card out, and you have a gutshot straight draw. A jack would complete your straight, and you estimate an 8.5% chance of one coming on the turn. Before you can fold to a bet, the dealer burns and turns and exposes a jack, which would complete your gutshot. With the proposed new rule that the jack is shuffled in immediately, this would raise the probability of a jack on the turn from 8.5% to 9.6%, which might be enough to tilt your decision to a call. If instead the jack is removed from the deck until the river, then there is only a 6.4% chance of a jack on the turn, but at least you won't be making any weird suck-outs this way, and the dealer cannot intentionally turn early in order to give a drawing player free information.
-Abdul
Actually, Zen's argument is so long and convoluted, I had a hard time following it. But I think it centers on additional knowledge being gained due to the card being exposed.
So if a player exposes his hand when mucking, should those cards be shuffled back into the deck before putting up the turn card? Most of Zen's argument would favor this. But in poker, cards get exposed a lot. That's just the way it goes.
The current method attempts to make the best out of a bad situation. I agree it's not perfect, but as Abdul said, as long as it is applied uniformly, we all get screwed the same.
As it is, the original river card is put on the board, and the turn card has roughly the same chance of being turned up as it did originally. Zen implies that there is less of a chance that this card will be turned up again, but it has almost exactly the same chance of coming up as it did on the turn.
True, if it were shuffled back in immediately, it would have a better chance of coming up in the next two deals, but then the player who was hoping to catch the original river card would get screwed. That isn't fair either.
The only thing that I think would be more fair would be to return everyone's money and start over. But Robin wouldn't be satisfied with that either.
Preserving the river card makes no sense to me because part of the reason it is there is that the 9 (in this case) came up on the turn. Theoretically, any card that didn't appear on the board, isn't dead, or in a player's hand should have an equal chance of appearing on the turn or river. After all, a deck of cards is merely a fancy method of randomly generating objects. It would have no impact on the game if the deck were shuffled after each betting round. I think it ruins the integrity of the game if a live card can be taken out for one round and put back in for another. It's like you're not playing with a full deck.
Obviously you haven't played a lot of holdem either. because i've seen this situation handled quite differently in other cardrooms, namely in Washington state were both Robin and I have played.
I agree with Zen, with a couple added reasons.
What bothers me most about the current rule is the bit about preserving the integrity by using the 'natural' river card as the turn card. This always struck me as a concession from the casino to the superstitious players. It's as if the casino is saying, "Okay, we monkeyed with fate and things are no longer as they were meant to be. Sorry about that. So we'll do our best to preserve a piece of your destiny."
All well and good I suppose. But we're talking about a black and white situation; how best to rectify an unrectifiable situation. Whatever the rule, it should not be based on notions such as fate and destiny, and that's how the current rule feels to me.
We CAN get rules changed. I'm personally responsible for Lucky Chances changing the all-in rule in their red-chip-and-up games from "action only" to "half a bet or more." I also came up with their "three button" lobbying rule. They tested that for a while and chose to stick with it because it worked. The cool thing was that I had no idea if it would really work or not. Scott didn't either. But he thought it was worth a try, and that was that.
My point isn't what I did as a non-casino employee, but rather, what anyone can do. A good cardroom manager will gladly sit down and discuss proposed improvements. If your idea is good and reasonable, or even merely has promise, they just might use it if you make your suggestion away from the table, not during a heated argument at the table. There's nothing to lose by trying.
Tommy
Tommy,
I vowed I would stay away from this thread (now that I don't work the floor and working on my game) but you guys are make interesting points so I'll put in a thought or two.
You wrote: “What bothers me most about the current rule is the bit about preserving the integrity by using the 'natural' river card as the turn card. This always struck me as a concession from the casino to the superstitious players. It's as if the casino is saying, "Okay, we monkeyed with fate and things are no longer as they were meant to be. Sorry about that. So we'll do our best to preserve a piece of your destiny."
Zen makes some very good points but I don’t think the existing rule is that bad a la Abdul. When the rule isn’t terrible, WHY NOT make concessions to the superstitious players (concerning putting what they would have got on the river on the turn)? After all, why would you want to anger them if it can be avoided with only a slight cost? We do this all the time in low limit stud when we run out of cards. It is good for business and the fact that the rules are screwy have no effect on the higher limit games (where you almost never run out).
OK, here is the one thing I would change. It bothers me (and bothers Ciaffone) any time a card is put down without a burn. I would reburn on the turn. Burning is a safeguard that is paramount, as Ciaffone has elaborated on in the past. Of course I would also reburn on the river in the situation where it was the river card that was put down prematurely.
Regards,
Rick
Most experienced players have seen a floormen make a ruling in favor of a "regular." Is it a business decision or a personal favor? Should not be. Bad for the integrity of the game.
In strict rule making, given variable choices about what a rule should be, business aspects should rank well below basic game factors.
If in this problem, basic game factors could be neutral under various possible rules, then preserving the river card (as a possible rule) could occur. However, as it stands, preserving the river is placed higher than removing a card from play for the turn. Not a good trade off.
It is certainly apparent that many of you have interest and opinions about this rule. I clipped a few comments from some of you for further comment:
Prior post: “So if a player exposes his hand when mucking, should those cards be shuffled back into the deck before putting up the turn card? Most of Zen's argument would favor this. But in poker, cards get exposed a lot. That's just the way it goes.”
Comment:
I hope that everyone agrees that cards exposed by players in mucking are dead and out of play. I don’t think anyone would support reshuffling dead cards. However, when the DEALER exposes a card, even the existing (bad) rule intends to keep that card in play. That is paramount. It must be kept in play. But, if that so, then it is half a rule. It is taken out of play for the turn and turn action. Ridiculous!
Prior Post: “as long as it is applied uniformly, we all get screwed the same”
Comment:
The minute we walk into the club we know that we are bound by rules. If they are applied uniformly we all get screwed uniformly. So! If the rule in this case was that the exposed card was dead and out of play, which would even be worse, it would remain true that we all get screwed uniformly.
Uniformity only means that we all get screwed the same. The objective is to have a rule that is fairest and preserves the basics of the game. We can make a choice in setting a rule. Under the existing rule, preserving the river card is made more important that permitting the exposed card two chances to be dealt. Which is more fundamentally fair? My vote is to sacrifice this stupid idea of fate in favor of straight odds and chance.
Prior Post: “True, if it were shuffled back in immediately, it would have a better chance of coming up in the next two deals, but then the player who was hoping to catch the original river card would get screwed. That isn't fair either.”
Comment: More of concern about preserving the river.
Suppose the dealer before the burn and river, dropped the deck and several cards became exposed, but the top two cards were intact and unseen. Some would argue that the rest are dead and the two cards should become the turn and river (fate!). I think it would be fairest to reshuffle. But, there is more involved What if turn betting action was incomplete. If it was decided THEN (before further action) to keep the original burn and river, the knowledge of the exposed cards is plus or minus to players as to their pending action. Conversely, if it was then decided that the deck will be resuffled, there may be some knowledge gained (players know that exposed cards are not held by opponents) but at least there is the EQUAL level of uncertainty and chance as to the outcome. The reshuffle neutralizes the situation BEST, as opposed to allowing plus or minus effect. It is important that the reshuffle occurs right then and there and then allow action to be completed.
Therefore, I do not agree that all players are affected the same by application of a uniform rule. Knowing that no opponent can hold that card is unsolvable by any rule. That knowledge is uniform but nothing can be done. Knowing that the exposed card is out of play for the turn, is plus or minus to each player. Removing a live card from play is inexcusable.
Please also note that the dealer, by rule, most show a player’s exposed card to all? Player’s exposed cards cannot be undone as an event. So as best as possible, by rule, neutralize the effect.
IT IS POSSIBLE TO NEUTRALIZE this situation. A dealer exposed card before flop action is complete, is best neutralized by an immediate reshuffle and then completion of flop action.
Prior post: “This always struck me as a concession from the casino to the superstitious players. It's as if the casino is saying, "Okay, we monkeyed with fate and things are no longer as they were meant to be. Sorry about that. So we'll do our best to preserve a piece of your destiny."
Comment: More, more, more about preserving fate than being fair.
A reshuffle is possible. It is fundamentally MOST fair.
What about this...If you want to "preserve the integrity of the deck."
If a card is inadvertantely shown; then all bets from the current round of betting are returned. The exposed card is "LIVE" (in this case the 9 stays the turn card.) NO MORE BETS ARE TAKEN and the River card is dealt. Like if all the players had gone all-in.
Best hand wins. Integrity of the deck maintained. Poker Gods are not angered. etc.
When dealing the pocket cards one turns up - dealer makes it the burn and player gets a new card so some now A-Hole is gonna scream cuz he wouluda had AA - the integrity of the deck is maintained - why screw someone out of the "real" river card cuz the dealer is a mutt. I like the rule and as long as it is equally administered, it's OK by me.
Each situation deserves attention and thought.
If a card is exposed during the pocket deal, first, it can't be undone and everyone should be shown the card to neutralize effect. Since it is necessary to give that player two unexposed cards, dealing the burn and then replacing it with the exposed card seems sensible. Its a good rule.
This situation should be a good rule too!
In the situation at hand, the exposed card occurs before action on the flop is complete. Removing it from play and reintroducing it later, in contrast to other options, is simply inferior.
Yes, its a common rule. Yes it uniform. But, there are better solutions.
In the card rooms I have visited in the UK I found them mucking the exposed would be street card and taking the 3rd card off the bottom of the deck and then burning and turning as usual for the next street.
Frankley I don't give a rats ass what rule they use so long as it is known by all and uniformally carried out.
This rule is also better than the current rule because the "turn" card is mucked and not brought back again. This is different than the current situation where it is temporarily dead but live on the river.
This rule is in effect just about everywhere in America that I have played. I is intended to give you a chance to get the "9" on latter streets.
BTW - you should have had your butt tossed out of Commerce for destroying cards and slowing down the game cuz if a hissy fit - it is guys like you who give poker a bad name.
Shame on you.
Tossed out!? Not likely. Twenty minute penalty-that's what I got. Trust me, there are more people that give poker a bad name like those angle shooters who kept raising on the river when the board was a nut straight and drove that lady off crying. As I recall you advocated their play and said it was good for the lady. Hmmm... what's worse? Having to get a new setup when we get one every 45 min anyway or driving off new players to the game with angle shooting? You prefer the later but I guess you are more "experienced". At least I'm a good player.
Sorry. The last comment was uncalled for.
I guess you save you hissy fits and whining about bad beats for this forum, does that mean we can kick you off this forum for good too!?
I am going to Dallas, TX for a week and wondering where I can play some midium stakes holdem. Any suggestions?
Find a home game. No cardrooms in Texas except at the Indian casinos near the border.
Lately I don't know what is happening, it seems, the cards, my skills, and my confidence have turned against me. I am zigging when I should be zagging and vice versa. In the past 6 mos or so, I have become a serious student of the game, reading the books, playing as much as possible (online unfortunetly b/c of no live poker in Wisconsin) and thinking about the game. I was doing well until about 2 wks ago and now I am mired in a horrible losing streak. I know there must be a leak somewhere, and I am trying hard to find that, however my confidence has been shaken (I know I can't let it be, but some of you have to know how I feel~!!) and I find myself either hesitatant to pull the trigger or tilting somewhat, both of these were not terrible problems in my game before, at least not to what I could find. Any comments or suggestions on how to get back on course?!? Any help would be appreciated, I've worked too long/hard and love the game too much to give up, I just would like some pointers on how to get back on track! Thanx
JRounder
2-week losing streak? Pshaw.
Well, your problem isn't the losing streak its your loss of a winning attitude; which will return when you stop losing.
... play lower limits ... play less hours ... quit a winner a couple times (as much as I find that distastefull) ... invest that extra time rereading some of the more inspirational literature like Brunson's Super System or Sklansky's Theory of Poker (or whatever its called).
... or take the neiphew camping ... climb a tall tree and sit there a couple hours ... etc.
Or ... either "know" (if particularly superstisious) or "presume" (if particulaly interested in self-improvement) that the losing streak is Karma; then use this losing streak to give yourself energy to find a major negative influence you have created in your life, and then correct it.
- Louie
1. I stopped trying to make money playing online tournaments. I play tourneys for fun, not to collect chips.
2. I started logging when I was winning and losing and against what kind of players. I have made over 20-30BB/hr on the weekends. I lose 1-2BB/hr during the week. FISH vs Regulars.
3. I play to collect chips when my log says I should. I play limited learning sessions at tables with the regulars.
4. Have confidence that winning is possible. I have lately noticed regulars in my game range moving up. (IE. there bankrolls are growing.)
5. The most important peice of advice that was given to me was, Start with $50 and learn to beat the lowest game. When you have built your bankroll big enough to move up then you should be confident that you will be successful. Theory being if you lose 1 session at the new level you can remake that money by going back down for a while.
Know when to call it a day. I won $150 friday night playing .50-$1 and $2-$4 in less than 2hrs! I then gave half of that back because it was late, a couple bad beats, and E-TILT! Luckily I recognized this early and went to bed ;)
We have all been through these bad streaks and when you are in one, one wonders if they will ever have a winning hand again.
Keep playing you "best" tight aggressive game, DON'T tilt and get out when you don't have the best of it.
Perhaps you really weren't playing very well, but just running lucky. It happens quite often that you start off hot and think it's because how you played rather than getting more than your share of luck. Then the things that worked for you during the streak are the same things that will be costing you money in the long run.
If you don't have a good player who can evaluate your play and help out, you've got a big hill to climb.
Hi JR,
I play online too. I have a few thoughts:
1. The game is very tough from $5-10 and up. Especially during the week. Someone else said this last part...but weekends are much better. Check the post about game selection, it is very good.
2. Play super tight. Do not EVER play anything but quality pre-flop.
3. Do not slow-play EVER. Free turns cost value and allow miracles.
4. When they check raise you on the turn, believe em. I never see anyone in a game less than 15-30 (except a maniac) good enough to check raise without a monster on the turn.
5. Leave the tricky play to the pros. Do not play too tricky, it will cost you, unless you are playing at 15-30 or 20-40, in which case...
6. Do not play over your head. Except for a few people (very few) 20-40 is. So is 15-30. Even 10-20 is like a live 20-4 money and toughness-wise.
7. Look for the fish at lower games. They are there.
When you start to win, set a stop loss limit.this is good emotionally.
Mark
My friend Greg had a letter published on pages 76-78 of the November 11 issue of Card Player. Item 2 concerns an inexperienced player who wasn’t aware you had to show your two cards when playing the board (the board was a nut straight). When she didn’t show she was denied her share of the pot and left the casino crying never to be seen again. Adding to her pain is the fact that she had flopped a straight and she was hammered for four bets on the river when the only reason her experienced opponents could have been betting was to screw a novice.
If you can, read the Card Player letter. But the point is, why do we allow this if we want new customers in the games? He thinks the argument that a player might be holding one or three cards instead of two is ridiculous along with the possiblity of holding a fouled hand (since it is so unlikely in this spot).
Greg’s proposal: When the board is unbeatable (e.g., nut straight with no flush possible or four of a kind with an ace), why not have a rule that says that all betting ceases?
Regards,
Rick (with his technophobe friend Greg dictating)
I respectfully disagree.
Poker is not just about the cards it is also about wits and having them about you. If someone is not aware of the rules then they lose.
Maybe this was the best thing that could have happened to this woman - she might be better off if she never again set foot in a poker room.
Damn! They don't even have the rules available for the players at the Commerce. How are new players supposed to be aware of them? Obviously she thought that she would get to split the pot since she called all raises on the river but got caught by a technicality. If she had folded to one of the raises I would have no sympathy but once she calls I think she should be entitled to her share of the pot (with a rule change, or course). I think this would only apply if the board is unbeatable.
Seems like it's the well meaning liberals who want rule and law changes to protect the lame limp and lazy from them selves.
I believe in a Darwinestic (new word?) approach to life - the strong survive - feeding off the weak.
Why change perfectly good rules and laws to benefit the stupids of the world. I don't know.
I have won pots with the "nuts" on board by putting in the last bet and someone folding cuz they are to stupid or lazy to "LOOK" at the board and realize what's up.
Rounder, Since you, presumably, are evolving into a higher form of poker animal would it not be to your benefit to give the poor woman half the pot? After all, it is easy enough to learn the rules of the game but quite difficult to learn how to play the game. Since you know how to play you would gladly give her half the money and then let her return on a regular basis to donate to your cause.
"I believe in a Darwinestic (new word?) approach to life - the strong survive - feeding off the weak."
Rounder-What do you bench? And did you fail high school biology? I have a 13 year old cousin who has a better understanding of Charles Darwin and natural selection.
If she folds to a bet that's fine. She should lose the pot. However, she called all bets and lost because of a non-obvious technicality.
>>Maybe this was the best thing that could have happened to this woman - she might be better off if she never again set foot in a poker room.<<
Maybe, but it would be better for the rest of us if she came back.
"Why not have a rule that says that all betting ceases ?"
1) I see way too many dealer mistakes already. Most of these mistakes could have been easily avoided, if the dealer was just paying more attention to the game.
This would be one more task, just waiting for the dealer who goes on auto-pilot, to mess up.
2) I don't see betting or raising into an unbeatable board as "Screwing The Novice". I think there are a few things you should not do to a novice, but betting or raising on the river is not one of them.
Good Luck
Howard
Howard,
Read the whole story in Card Player if you can. They called the floorman over and insisted she not get her share even though she called all action.
Regards,
Rick
I think she may have treated at least uncharitably, and yes there should be room for good behavior in poker, but don't like the idea of suspending betting.
Actually, I think it would be a good rule that when a hand is called all hands must be shown
Here are some of things I have seen:
Nut straight on board, no flush possible. Bet and two callers. Bettor shows his cards. Two callers show theirs. Both have one pair (they are just showing their cards to share in the pot) bettor says "two pair", someone says straight and bettor mucks cards. Floorman ruled he shared in pot because he showed his cards.
Nut straight on board, no flush, bet, one caller. Caller lays down cards and says "straight" and bettor mucks. Floorman rules that caller wins all. I assume the bettor had something and did not realize there was a straight on board.
Last above could be same as lady as to facts. I say could be in this sense. If someone said "straight on board, or "board straight wins", and then she mucked, its a tough call. I assumed from the article that she called because she thought it automatic that she wins her share. What if someone held trips and when someone said straight or straight on board and they mucked? Do we try to read someone's mind?
There are lots of times that a straight or flush is on board, but its not the nuts and someone finally shows a card that makes a higher hand. Obviously, players must hold their cards until they see an opponent with a better hand.
I have seen a situation when a player sees a straight on board but did not realize it was the nuts and ended up splitting because they did hold their cards, when they thought they were beat. In that sense, because they followed the rule (without intending to do so) they benefited.
Also, when someone is called and shows their cards (now a complete hand is displayed for all to see) and a caller mucks, but then realizes they had the winner, they lose. That too is close to this.
Should we differ with a person who mucked because they thought they lost versus they did not know the rule.
You need to hold your cards!
Rick,
I was, frankly, startled by your post. I can imagine a situation where someone bluffs the turn and then instantly bets the river as a followthrough, momentarily blind to the nut straight on the board. he is called, then mucks his "bluff." should this guy be entitled to 1/2 the pot? not in my book.
I remember misreading the board once and folding the winning flush. that's called learning the hard way. if she were unsure of the rule, she should have played it safe and held on to her hand just in case. as much as I cherish the fairer sex (in general), changing the rule on her account would be misplaced gallantry.
Mark,
It was mostly my friend Greg’s post and I did the typing. But the woman called all bets on the river and clearly thought her hand was live and she was entitled to the pot. I’m not sure Greg’s solution is best but I do lean towards a “kinder gentler card room” in this and similar matters.
I agree she should have played it safe and held on to her hand. But the careless player is exactly what you want for an opponent. For the weaker or “marginally motivated” player, sometimes learning the hard way means learning never to come back to a card room again. And that is a shame.
Regards,
Rick
If I understand your suggested rule change, it would only apply with three specific boards:
A-K-Q-J-10 with no flush possible
A-K-Q-J-10 suited, a royal flush
A-A-A-A-K or any other quads with an ace as the fifth card.
Is that right?
If so, then it doesn't make sense to me to modify the simple rule that a called winning hand must be shown, just so that players are protected from making a mistake is these rare situations.
Tommy
This one's kinda tough. While on one hand I side with Tommy (make 'em show a hand) Angelo, I can appreciate Greg(treat the new players nice), too.
Rick, I can put about a dozen faces from last month's sessions at HG to the types who sent this woman crying from the room. I can also picture some players that would have quite quickly given her a share of the pot, too. It's pretty tough to legislate common sense sometimes.
Greg, get some typing lessons! I'd like to see some of your posts here. Or maybe Rick's entries ARE all yours and he's just been taking credit.
First blizzard of the season over the weekend, Rick. Those sunny SoCal days seem so far away. Sigh.
Dunc,
Greg finds moving the mouse a challenge. Actually, he types OK but is a bit of a ludite when it comes to technology. No answering machine, no cell phone, can't program his VCR - you get the picture.
I'm not sure what the best rule should be but this woman isn't the first who quickly soured on playing in a casino because of this kind of thing.
Regards,
Rick
Tommy,
Greg made this pretty clear last night that the hands you listed would be the only case. I'm not sure what would be the best solution but this specific situation would be very rare so maybe it doesn't merit much more discussion.
I believe his main point is that the clubs and veteran players should not allow an innocent mistake that can't effect the outcome or play of the hand cost someone the pot, especially if they are a newcomer.
Greg may be over tonight and he can elaborate further.
Regards,
Rick
Geeze Rick, your post made me sad :~(
I have as much dog eat dog mentality as the next guy, but I don't think this turn of events makes the poker world a better place.
AM i to understand she didn't get her share of the pot because she didn't show her hand?
Seems to me the times when ive seen the board was the nuts, no one ever showed their cards and the pot was duly divided. this isn't waht happened?? that doesn't seem right, i don't think the betting should cease, but i think anyone who has called all bets should get their share of the pot.
Makes you stronger. I've lost this way ! My first adventures into 10/20 when savvy dealers have "called" STR8, without pushing cards. I tossed my cards and watch it get taken or split by the board hands.
Nobody gave a damn then, nor did I storm out crying, never to return. Maybe I should have !
So many folks want to "go pro", "play for a living", and generally make money playing cards. Nothing wrong with that. However, can you realistically expect to do it, if you play in a room, which is almost exclusively "one" game? What if the room in which you play, spreads several games, but none of the limits you desire? That will hurt you. I'm saying that many players are hurting themselves, playing Holdem "everyday", in some midwest "half-service" rooms, where Holdem predominates. I reside in the midwest, but have experienced poker on the east coast, California, and Las Vegas. The poker experience is completely different. You can literally go broke, in a midwestern poker room, where Holdem is usually the only game, spread on Higher limits. You need be comfortable playing, at least, two poker games, on a 10/20 or higher limit, before you give any thoughts to "going pro". If you can't play in a room, which meets your requirements, you are wasting your time and money.
If you are seiously thinking of turning pro, there are only 2 places to play, IMO-Vegas and/or California.
Don't underestimate Phoenix.
SSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
And do not underestimate Gary, Indiana.
Gary, Indiana does not compare to L.A. The highest limit that they spread for HE is 20-40. The games are sometimes tough, but usually fishy. However, there is no game selection. There is usually one main game, and one or 2 must move games. You can only play at whatever table they assign you. If you play in L.A. you can play in fishy 40-80 and 80-160 games, which are much, much more profitable and also you can have your pick of 15-30, 20-40, and 30-60 games, whichever games are the best at the moment. I was in an 80-160 game last Thursday where a 42o took down a $4000+ pot that was capped before the flop with 5 way action. He had limped UTG. It was capped by the time it got back to him and since he had already limped, he decided to call 3 more bets to see the flop. Naturally he flopped a full house. No face cards came on the turn or river and he won with his full house. BTW, the BB was the one who capped pre-flop - he held Q9o in his hand. Rather than fold for 2 more bets, he decided to cap it. He dropped 12K in 3 hours.
Underestimate St. Louis, as I read your post I could of swore you were talking about my room. I can't get out of the this town and I can't find a room with any game selection in the state of Missouri. The little taste of 20-40 HE we get is always short handed, the game quickly breaks if you get two losers that get up. 1-4-8 spread limits are the only regular HE games going with any game selection and they are always must move. It hasn't got any better since they close poker rooms and stick slots in if the room begins to not show a profit. The mid-west has to be the poker hell!
Bill
tobar,
We could go on and on about how bad St. Louis poker is right now. Sounds like you play downtown. Gosh, I hate that place. Anyway, convey my personal greetings to Big John, the lovely Teresa, and (my personal hero) JJ.
Abe
I disagree with some items in Ted's post.
Seems to me that if you want to make money or "turn pro", then you just have to beat what games are available to you. If your only room has just hold'em, then you have to be one of the best players at that.
If you think that you could make big money at higher stakes O/8, 7cs, or 7cs/8 and you are in Aurora, "Dam-port" or St. Louis, then you are just out of luck.
GD is right in his post about the E. Chicago cardroom. Choices of up to 20-40 in hold'em, also mid stakes 7cs, and the 40-80 hose game. I have seen people winning lots of money in those games.
As far as tobar (and my) St. Louis complaints, well just drive the 4 hours to Tunica. What more could you want?
Abe
Abe wrote: "..beat what games are available to you..."
My point was, to play poker to make money, not play in games simply because they are "available to you". You are confusing ego-tripping with an overall approach, in which a player, plays in games, he plays best, and hopefully is the (proverbial) favorite. If those games are not spread, s/he should not play (if the intention is to earn a living).
Your reference to Harrah's, east chicago is off the mark, perhaps because of your limited experience. That one 40/80 HOSE game contains the same players, is short-handed most of the time, and IS NOT SPREAD DAILY (thus, unavailble). There are no Stud games, 10/20 or above, which are spread daily. There are no DAILY 30/60 games, and NO POT LIMIT games. That 20/40 Holdem game is good to the extent, you arrive early during the weekdays, or you will be left waiting, until a second game starts, sometimes as late as 7 p.m. What about the complete ABSENCE tourneys? You (Abe) have "seen people make lots of money", in there? Fine. However, to my knowledge, there are no "pros", for whom that room, is home base.
There are a few "pros" that make Harrah's their home base. They make a decent living, but they could be crushing the games in Cali for twice as much $$$.
Is KQs a good enough hand to call a typical early position pre-flop raise with?
Derrick
The problem with this hand as stated in "Super System" is you often never really know "where you are" in the hand heads-up or otherwise. Consider the typical raiser having AA, AK, AQ, KK ,QQ.
After many cold callers I may call late, hoping for a straight, flush or full house draws. Folding single pairs to aggression.
Its no-where-near good enough to call one of MY "typical" early-position pre-flop raises. Its plenty enough to 3-bet one of my "typical" late-position pre-flop raises.
In order for this call to be good the opponent has to be willing to raise with several hands WEAKER than KQs such as KJ and QJs; but not a whole bunch of weaker hands like T9s (in which case you should 3-bet). So the answer to the question comes from the question "what's the opponent's minimum raising standards in this situation". There is no "typical" answer.
- Louie
I would think how many people called the early raiser before me might tilt the decision to call for the flush draw. Is this correct?
Yes, I assumed few if any callers. With lots of callers you can start getting brave even with 76s.
Thanks,
I couldn't agree with you more.
Derrick
I'm a pretty decent Hold Em player who frequents the Taj $2-4 and $3-5 tables. I haven't ventured over to the Trop yet. Is it worth the trip? I usually double or triple my buy-in whenever I'm at the Taj due to the reckless and idiot tactics of my fellow LLHE table mates. Is the action better over there? Or should I think about staying put and moving up to $5-$10 land. Any advice who be much appreciated.
I would stay at the Taj. As you know there are plenty of fish and the whole room is nonsmoking (a big plus in my book). The fish are still thick at the $5/$10 tables and you will probably find less rocks. If you are a student of the game you shouldn’t have a problem at the higher level as long as you don’t run into me:)
Thanks for the reply I'm been playing for since July. Got my ass kicked out and Vegas and then started devoting the time and preparation to become a competient player. Bought all the basic books, Lous Kreiger, Lee Jones, David Skalnsky. Read at least an hour every night. Scan the message boards for player habits and then go fishing at the Taj. Most players are very predictable in low limits. And by a couple of rounds of betting I pretty much know what cards they're playing based on their habits. Lot's of tells too which makes thier hands even more obvious. The Taj is great mid morning til around 8 p.m. when most of the day-trippers/tourists are plentiful. I play tight but aggressive and sometimes even throw in the occasional semi-bluff. Since I'm a woman, this tends to throw the guys off anyways. I'm just getting disenchanted with the same idiot players who I see everytime I'm there, no joke...they're some real losers who play low limit... I just don't if it's just the Taj...meaning it's time to alternate poker rooms, or move up...
I might show up at the Taj this weekend, or perhaps Friday. I'll wear a purple hat. Well, maybe not.
Josie, You state that you have been playing poker since July. I don't know if this means HE at that limit or poker in general. If you are new to poker, I must tell you, your superior attitude and general derogatory remarks of other players blows me away. You are falling into an all too prevalent trap..thinking that you are better than most anyone that you come up against. Let me state this, at ANY level of poker, be it 2-4 or 100-200 you are going to consistently come up against better players than yourself. Then there will be the players that are having their streak of good luck at your expense. A good poker player realizes that while talented play will come out ahead, generally it is still a tough grind. Feeling good about yourself and your disciplined play is one thing, but to think that every table is just a paycheck waiting to happen for you because they are all "fish" and "idiot"s will cost you lots of money. You may want to check the ego at the poker table. It is a recipe for failure.
Desire -
Do I sense a little jealously or your part? Let me guess you haven't had a date in over 5 years and seek solace at the low limit poker tables waiting for your ship to come in. All the other replies to my posting have been helpful and enjoyable to read. I come across your scathing reply and can only come to the conclusion you seriously need to get a life. What I lack in knowledge in Poker, I make up with confidence and common sense. And according to you, this is a detriment to the sport? It's my understanding that you should believe in your talents and walk with confidence. If not, get out the game immediately because you are never going to come out ahead. I speak from experience and I speak the truth. Or maybe you haven't read a book on low limit HE or read any articles for that matter because I am only reiterating my experiences which mirror most of the text written on LLHE. If you polled 100 people on this message board on the play of LLHE players more than 80% would reply that most people have no clue how to play smart or have no real strategy or better yet be stigmatized as fish, maniac, calling station etc. Obviously you must be one of the above and a continuous loser and my only immediate recommendation for you my dearest one is to run to your nearest bookstore and purchase Poker for Dummies because that's what you are.
Your sure do have a lot of time on your hands also, if you can keep replying to everyone don't you think.
Josie,
My goodness, you are one bitter woman. you accuse me of being jealous of an arrogant 2-4 Hold 'em player that's been playing poker since, GASP, july and is already calling her opponents fish, maniacs and idiots? I think not. And with your despicable attitude, I tend to think you won't be at the 2-4 Hold Em tables long..you'll burn out...why? Because you are CLUELESS as to how to play the game. It is laughable that you play poker for three months and in that ridiculously short time have already arrived at the conclusion that everyone else is a fish or an idiot. The "fish" and the "idiots" that you are referring to probably will be angry that I am telling you how ignorant and flawed your thinking is. And as far as a date? I should have guessed that you'd be single and thinking desperately in terms of "dates". I have been married to a wonderful man for 21 years. Hence..no "dates", oh-sad-and-lonely-one. And anytime you feel you are good enough to play with me, you let me know. I can be found at the Taj playing stud...30-60 or 75-150. Gather all your pennies and put your money where your big mouth is. I'll spank you and send you back to your daddy...wait..do you even have a daddy?
Ooooo I'm sooooo scared. I'm not even going to go into your reply other than you obviously a very unhappy person who believes in her own lies. Medium Stakes Stud Player...yeah OK...whatever...The only thing you got right is that I'm young and single and I'd love to mingle...espeically with your husband...tell him he can give me a good spanking...better yet..he can play who's your daddy with me...Cheers!
oh yah..i'll tell him right away...there is some skanky arrogant head-up-her-stupid-ass broad that is begging for sexual contact with men of any marital status. Wait here while I see if he has lost all of his senses, k? This might be exactly the reason you are having difficulty finding a man, darlin' Develop some selectivity. Most men find women begging to be screwed by anything in trousers to be quite unattractive. Stick to the penny tables...it compliments your ten cent ass admirably.
...what can I say to such behaviour. *g*
Anyway, I don´t think it takes 3 months to figure out that most people at the lower limits really don´t have a clue, and when Josie refers to them as 'idiots'... well that´s what they basically are in more than just one aspect, so I wouldn´t go too mad about that, desire.
On the other hand you are right when you warn her about developing that 'superior attitude', one never stops learning, but Josie is reading and studying, so I don´t think that´s going to be the case with her.
Thank you Greg. I appreciate your feedback and you are right on the mark with your comments. I am new to this public forum and a student of the game. You and the other guys on this board have made some sound comments and I welcome your advice.
Poker is one continuous learning session and everyday I am learning something new. I totally enjoy all the postings the others and I hope to read on in the near future. Unfortunately what I learned this week is..drum roll..How to be a complete C U Next Tuesday on Two Plus Two care of Desire! Unfortunately when you throw in a woman (as in the case with Desire) the message board suddenly turns confrontational and argumentative. Sad but true, Desire has no clue who she is dealing with and is obviously the by-product of a low class, white trash, uneducated, unsophisticated, upbringing. I find humor that someone who supposedly claims to be a $75-$150" stud player be SO threatened by a female $2-$4 LOW LIMIT HOLD EM Poker Player?????Hey Desire if you are you still reading and comprehending... GO BACK TO THE TRAILER WHERE YOU BELONG! My original querey asked what the Trop was like compared to the Taj since the low limit action I've witnessed on several occasions at the Taj was pitifully loose with no strategy involved and then I get Dumbo to butt in on my posting and start her useless tirade. So any advice on that matter would be appreciated.
If that's the best you can manage in the form of a response, there's no point in lowering myself to your level. Keep counting them nickels.
Yes and you keep convincing yourself that you are a legitimate poker player with your delusions of grandeur. Count them nickles??? Nice grammar!
"Unfortunately ... the message board suddenly turns confrontational and argumentative"
I don´t know if that´s supposed to be a bad thing, because this setting usually provides for some very thought-provoking ideas.
And one last thing: desire most likely missed the point you were trying to make, but she was still talking poker in her first response. You, on the other hand, replied by personally insulting her, and that´s definitely not ok, so do try to get your emotions in check, because this is a poker site after all (and that also counts for desire).
Robin has twice recently mentioned the Commerce Casino policy of not handing out their rule book upon request. I have some recent experience and info on this.
My first trip to the Bellagio was coincidentally at the same time I was scribing the Lucky Chances rule book. My job was to sit in on the "rules committee" meetings, take notes, figure out what they had decided on after picking every rule to pieces, and write it up so that:
1) The rules could be found quickly. 2) Any floorman, existing or to be hired in the future, could understand each rule. 3) A complaining customer could also understand the rule after a floorman brought out the book and said, "See! It's right here in our rule book!"
The committee provided me with about five other rule books from around the country, so that I could see the various outline structures and wordings. It was interesting to see certain phrases show up identically in the various books. But I digress . . .
I did not have any Vegas rule books. So while in Vegas I asked for rule books at the Bellagio and the Mirage. Both said yes, they have a rule book, but they do not pass it out. I was VERY surprised, and dissapointed. I asked why. Both casinos gave the same answer, and I suspect it is the same reasoning behind the Commerce policy, and what also became the policy at Lucky Chances after their rule book was finished.
I was told, "We used to make our rule book readily available to customers, but everyone turned into a lawyer and it was a big mess, so we changed that policy."
I was satisfied with that answer. I think it makes sense, and is best for the room and the games.
However, I DO think casinos should have a one-page flyer available that covers only those rules that are not universal and those areas where a casino has rules that differ from a 'standard' rule; things that a passerby needs to know before playing. It would include only rules that have NO grey area, such as, lobbying policies, how many bets equals is a cap, etc. This would especially benefit those players who do not want to start their session in an unfamilar casino by asking questions of the regulars. I think that's fair and sensible.
Tommy
Tommy,
I think you make good points. Apparantly this was a problem at the Las Vegas Hilton in the eighties.
OTOH, there must be a middle ground. Let me sleep on this one and I'll try to post later.
Regards,
Rick
That makes some sense. However, seing as there are some rules that I don't think are good it would be nice to have a copy of the rules so I can look at all the rules. It's a little unsettling to have a rule that you object to come up for the first time at the table.
I agree that it's unfortunate that you found out about a rule after it came into play in a way that happened to turn out unfavorably for you. But isn't that a purely results-oriented outlook? I mean, if it's unfavorable for you ,then it's likely favorable for someone else, and it could have just as easily have been favorable for you, right?
If yes, then perhaps you agree that the evaluation of a rule should not be primarily influenced by the outcome of a recent ruling. A grander vantage is more likely to yield improvement.
Tommy
Of course I agree that I shouldn't view the rule by how it affected me. However, I think that I would have noticed that unusual (in my opinion) rule if it had occured to someone else. I wouldn't have gotten incited about the ruling but I would have talked to the floorman and then probably posted on here about it. However the rule affected me, I still think that it is a bad one and should be changed to something a little more consistent with the principles of poker. I would find it acceptable if the accidental turn card were declared dead and never reshuffled into the deck of the river, but this half-assed compromise rule is the worst possible solution to this scenario.
I've seen a rule book, at the Taj Mahal, almost every time, I've been there.
Casino Arizona is the only one I have noticed issuing rule books they had them at the sign up desk - many others simply post them on a wall.
Years ago The Las Vegas Hilton gave their rule book out. I believe that it was one of the factors in putting that room out of business for exactly the reason that you give. Of course, this room was run so terribly it probably would have gone out of business anyway.
So I recently played a session where I didn't see two cards over Ten for 3 hours. Very frustrating. While waiting for my next 73o, I started wondering what the statistical probablity is of getting two cards Ten or above on any given hand. I came up with the formula: (20/52)x(19/51), and found that any two cards Ten or above should come up 380/2652, or once every 6.98 hands or so. Am I right?
Correct, for "10 and above" not just over 10. So at 40 hands/hr you would expect 17 such hands with a standard deviation of about 4, so not getting ANY is a rare occurance indeed, less than 1 in 10,000.
Make that much less than 10,000. (6/7)^120 = .000000009 or about 1 in 100 million. For 30 hands/hr it would be 1 in a million.
No hands GREATER than 10 would be one in 88,000 at 40 hands/hr. 1 in 5000 at 30 hands/hr.
So how amazing this is becomes a sensitive function of a)the number of hands/hr and b)whether it is "greater than 10" or "10 or greater".
I wonder if Doo-Daah is exaggerating a bit?
CV
Could have gotten a KTo UTG and didn't count it because it was unplayable. I've gotten into these funks and I think selective memory plays a part since you aren't playing any hands.
Are you telling me that the odds are 1 in 100 million against going 40 hands without a hand containing two cards both Ten or above?? I must be the most snake-bitten player in the universe, since this happens to me, I'd guess, every other week or so. Anyone else care to check our numberwork??
Are you telling me that the odds are 1 in 100 million against going 40 hands without a hand containing two cards both Ten or above??
No, I'm saying those are the odds of going 120 hands (3 hours as you said). Odds are 6/7 each hand, and just raise this to the 120 power. If you want 40 hands, then the odds are (6/7)^40 = 1 in 476. BUT, now we have to ask ourselves 476 WHAT? 476 hours? NO! 476 tries. How long is a try? It varies because we start counting over every time we get a hand with tens or above. The average length of a try is 7 hands. So on average it will take 7*476 = 3332 hands or 83 hours.
So it's reasonable that you see it every couple weeks. On the other hand, 3 hours in a row you would not expect to see in your lifetime. If you think it's strange that 3 hours is so much less likely than 1 hour, I can assure you that this is not a mistake. It is a consequence of the fact that the probability gets exponentially smaller as the number of hands increases from 40 to 120.
"No, I'm saying those are the odds of going 120 hands (3 hours as you said). "
There in lies Doo-Daah's problem. When you said something to the effect that he should recieve 17 hands he corrected you with 5.71 hands. He was of course referring to one hour of play and you were referring to 3. Miscommunication.
vince
Whoa. . .now I think YOUR math is wrong. Let's round off the number to once every 7 hands. If that's the case, a game getting out 40 hands/hour would equal 5.71 such hands per hour. One such hand out of 7 = 14.286% (1/7) of all random hands. 14.286% of 40 hands/hour = (40 x .14286) 5.71.
Tell me if I'm wrong. . .
You cannot add the chances of an even happening since you must always be between 1 and 0. Think of it this way. If you flip a coin you have a 50% chance of heads coming. If you try to add your chances then you must get heads in two Filps 50%+50%= 100% right? Unfortunately probablity isn't that symple.
If you have a 1/7 chance of a favorable event happening and you want to know the chances of it not happening you subtract it from 1.
7/7 - 1/7 = 6/7
So we know each deal there is a 6 out of 7 chance that we will not have the favorable event happen. What happens if we try this experiment 40 times?
(6/7)^40 = .002 or 0.2% so there is a 1 in 500 chance that we will go 40 deals without two cards 10 or higher.
(6/7)^120 = 9.2 X 10^-9 or aproximately 1 in 100,000,000 that we will go 120 deals without seeing two cards 10 or Higher.
CV
Anyone know the scoop on a cardroom in New Jersey called Rounders I think in Piscataway, NJ. If so, is it still operating? I live 2 1/2 hours from A.C. and the CT cardooms. Need a closer game to home.
I was back east in September and I stopped by. They only had one game (10-20 I think) going. As far as I know, it still exists. I know they have tourneys as well, and sometimes spread 5-10 and perhaps 20-40.
The following is from a guy who used to post here. "> > 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. Enjoy."
Good luck and I hope this helps. Tim
Thanks Tim...I'll check it out and give you some feedback. The 2 hour drive is a pain..Especially when it's 3 am and you're prone to fall asleep behind the wheel.
Has anyone ever played in the poker room at the Pechanga Casino? It's on an Indian reservation outside Los Angeles. I'm just looking for information on what games they offer, what the games tend to be like, those sorts of things.
Thanks.
NotQuiteDead
Pechanga has a fairly nice room. It is non-smoking, unlike the other Indian Casino poker rooms I play.
They spread HE at 3-6, 4-8-12, 6-12 & 8-16 all played with a full kill.
I don't pay much attention to stud or Omaha, but I think the only stud is 1-5. Omaha is probably just 3-6 kill.
Good food & drink (alcohol is only available in the restaurant) service. There is always a couple of $2 cardroom specials.
4-8-12 HE is an interesting game, lots of trapping. $24 to bet the river in a kill pot.
http://www.pechanga.com for more info
Does anyone know what "Showhand poker" is? What are the rules? Any tips?
They just introduced it at the local casino.
David
Yo Davy,
It's played like 5-card stud and I believe it's no limit (perhaps pot). It's also dealt backwards.
Jim
Does backwards mean counterclockwise, or the last card is down?
David
nt
I have a few questions about the following hand.
1st. Did my opponent play good poker?
2nd. Did I do a poor read not putting him on pocket As?
3rd. How could I have played it different/better even if I were to still lose due to the cards.
4-8 HE. I’m in early position with JJ the player in question was in middle position and appears to be a very strong player (he is a card room employee). I bet and get two callers. The SP raises and two players cold call, I call and the other two callers both call. The flop brings AK8 rainbow. I’m now first to act and I check. I’m surprised when it gets checked all around!
Turn brings a 4.
I’m not sure what to do here so I just check. Once again it gets check around.
River brings another J. No flush possible
This looks good to me except for the possibility of a straight.
I decide to bet, the next two players fold, and the SP raises. The other players both fold now I’m thinking that he might have the straight or maybe AJ. I decide to raise thinking he probably has AJ and my trips will be winners. He calls and says “take it with your straight”. When I show JJ he has a very surprised look on his face and says “send it” and turns up AA.
I in no way expected to see AA. I thought AJ, AK, or Q10, but not AA. What did I miss here?
Any comments welcomed.
Rich
1. Your opponent played pretty lousy. That's why he works in the card room. There's no reason in the world he should check the flop and turn.
2. You should've had an idea that A-A was one of his likely hands after he reraised you before the flop (what hand would he 3-bet with after 2 double-bet callers?!). Another clue is that weak players will often check a set in hopes of getting in a check-raise. Of course, since you perceived him as a strong player, you outwitted yourself in that regard.
3. I'm not sure I would bet this on the river. You've given everyone a chance to catch a straight here. But I don't really fault the bet as much as I do the reraise, which was out of line after a check-check on the flop and turn.
your opponent lost a lot of money playing slowly. Is he a strong player....not in this instance.
Here are my answers to your questions:
1. Did your opponent play good poker?
His slow play on the flop with top set is understandable if the flop is rainbow but I would have bet anyway because of the King on the table. His check on the turn was ridiculous. He cost himself money on this hand.
2. Did you do a poor read by not putting him on AA?
No, not at all given the bizarre way he played the hand by not betting either the flop or the turn. He finally gets around to betting his hand at the river. when there are 3 parts to a straight on the table.
3. How could you have played it differently?
You lost the minimum in my opinion. Pre-flop you should have raised with your pocket Jacks instead of limping in like you did. If he 3 bets you have to call. When the flop comes with both an Ace and a King you can fold if it gets bet.
You lost less money on this hand than I would have. I would have raised pre-flop with pocket Jacks instead of just limping in like I did.
You did cost yourself an extra bet on the river. After he raised you, incorrectly on his part, given the straight on the board. By you reraising him cost you an extra bet, though you playa with pocket aces played poorly.
Agreed that the river play costs an extra bet-a double bet at that. Actually it could have cost two extra double bets if the guy with the top set decided to 4 bet.
I think you played the hand fine, except maybe the reraise on the river was a bit much. The AA hand played extremely poorly in my opinion. How can he not bet the flop, especially in 4-8?
The pre flop action should have told you there was at least one strong A out there. His slow play on the flop is understandable but was probably looking to check raise he probably missed bets on the turn being cute. You probably played the river as well as you could - you just got beat.
I am amused when ever I hear the words "casino employee" and "strong player" mentoned in the same sentence. There are some but not many.
:-)
There is nothing profound about this but I think it's something that is not mentioned often here. It's the idea that the way you play your hand is not in isolation. Meaning that it is not just that hand or that call or that raise that matters..but often it is in the overall context in which this is done.
Bravo.
Early 2+2 literature was far-too focused on maximizing EV for the given situation (and they were very good at it). I notice the last couple years they have added strategic stuff as you suggest.
I have tried to "ballance" this by routinely discussing a hand in context with a stratetgy: most often advising betting marginally for value in order to set up reasonable looking bluffs.
The problem is that it is much "easier" to calculate EV for a given situation than it is to calculate the effect this play has on the EV of other situations.
As you suggest, the key is to HAVE an over-all approach to which you can consider your individual choices.
- Louie
Your example of betting marginal hands for value in order to set up reasonable looking bluffs is a good one. Notice, also, this tendency may also have the effect of getting your opponents to call or even raise you when you have a robust hand so the so called EV in isolation in this case is not the complete story.
A finely tuned sense for these things combined with a superb sense of timing are hallmarks of a great player.
54off got u eh?
Perhaps we should name these things?
I was thinking of "short-term image" (the image you gain based on the recent plays (=about 30-120 minutes) you have made) and "long-time image" (the way someone would regard you who has been playing with you for weeks, months, years).
What do you say?
I plan on taking a trip to Montreal this weekend and I'm wondering if anyone knows if there are any poker games at the casino there preferably hold em???
There is no hold'em in this Casino . If your patient , you could drive 100miles from Montreal and go to the casino of Awkasasnee . There is a small Poker-Room 4 to 6 tables are open on friday and saturday night . More info on www.mohawkcasino.com
You raise from the cut-off seat, the reasonably good but assertive BB 3-bets, and you call.
The flop is Kh8h6s. The BB bets.
What do you do (1) AK (2) K9 (3) A6 (4) Qh9h (5) 33
- Louie
This depends heavily on what I know about the big blind. Against a good and assertive opponent, I would assume that his 3 bet could mean less than a premium hand because he would put you on a steal since you open raised from the cutoff seat. On the other hand, he may well have a premium hand. Here is how I would play each of the five hands assuming that you have no Hearts except in Hand #4:
With AK, I would raise his flop bet since I have a real hand and top pair/top kicker will beat any weaker King he might have 3 bet me with like KQ or KJ suited. Furthermore, he could be betting a Heart flush draw. An alternate strategy would be to just call on the flop with the intention of raising on the turn but there are too many cards that could come off on the turn that might inhibit him from betting or inhibit me from raising on the expensive street.
With King-Nine I would also raise his flop bet. I have top pair and I want to put him on the defensive if he has a good second pair like QQ,JJ, TT, or 99.
With Ace-Six I would fold. I have no Hearts and a King touches too many hands he would 3 bet with. Unless the turn is a Six or an Ace I will have to fold any way when he bets the turn.
With the Queen-Nine of Hearts I would raise with my Heart flush draw. This could win the pot outright or at least get me a free card on the expensive street if I want it.
With pocket Treys I would fold every time. My steal attempt did not work and I did not flop a set.
I pretty much agree except with Jim, except that I would often just call him on the flop with AK or K9. If I have him beat hand over hand then I have him down to 5 outs or less; I do not want him out and I want to milk him through the hand in many cases (of course if he has me beat this will be cheaper too). Some players will fold QQ or the like if you raise. Also if he has, say, AQ or a Heart draw I want him to keep betting. Whether I raise on the Turn or River with AK depends on what cards fall off and on my opponent's tendencies.
I would not want to test him on the flop if I held K9 because of the above reasons and because I don't want to pay any more than necessary for my draw to a 9 or a backdoor straight. Here I am mostly just hoping my K9 is good. I really don't want to get 3-bet here either.
I also might not raise the Heart draw. Part of the problem here is that I do not have an overcard for a potential pair to the top flop card, and since my opponent is assertive he just might 3-bet me again. However, the backdoor straight draw also weighs in favor of getting a free card. This may be more of a "being there" decision for me than a cut and dried decision.
With A6 I might peel one off. I don't like raising here because I might get 3-bet and then bet into on the Turn since he is assertive. However if I hit a 6 or an Ace which is probably good then I stand to make more money since he will still probably bet into me so I can raise him on the Turn or River.
Although I started my post saying I pretty much agreed with Jim, when you add up all the differences I guess I don't.
I am calling with either pair of Kings much of the time on the Flop, and often just calling with the Heart draw without overcards. Also I might peel one off with the A6.
I expect I'll fail this quiz, but here goes. Maybe I'll learn something from subjecting myself to public humiliation. :-)
(1) AK (2) K9 (3) A6 (4) Qh9h (5) 33 Now I'll go look at Jim's answer and see how I did.
David
1. raise. you almost certainly have the best hand. you will be called by any K and maybe wired pairs above the 8 or a split 8. plus any straight/flush draw. you may get 3 bet by worse K's or legitimte draws. if you wait until the turn to raise he will likely fold most of the hands he would have called you down with. would you ever wait until the turn to raise with a flush draw? he won't put you on a draw and will fold lots of stuff if you wait until the turn. but if you raise the flop and bet through the hand he will call to the end with lots of stuff.
2. call all the way. not enough worse hands call or 3 bet you to raise, but too many worse hands bet to fold. i don't want to face a three bet because it probably is a better K, so i would have to fold. but i would be sometimes folding to a draw or a big unpaired A. i don't want him to define his hand because i can't use the information to punish him. i'd just call him down and hope.
3. raise. but this is the trickiest one. agaisnt a wired pair that hs only 2 outs vs a K, we want to raise. against a K we want to call and hate being three bet. against an upaired A we want to call and let them continue their bluff. against a draw, we want to raise. the problem is that the bigger mistakes the opponent can make are less likely. i think i usually raise and give up on the turn if i am 3 bet on the flop or called and then bet into on the turn. i check through the turn to induce a river bluff, if i can. but just calling the whole way is not too bad either. folding to one bet on the flop is a mistake.
4. raise sometimes call sometimes. obvious pros to raising is winning the pot without making your hand and buying a free turn. although, i'd usually bet the turn if my flop raise was called. pros to calling is drawing cheaper and, if you remember my answer to question 1, a more likely successful bluff on the turn.
5. fold. this hand is way way worse than A6. first of all, a bare A, which is a likely hand for the opp has 3 more outs against you. also, if you are behind you have only 2 outs here. with A6 you only have 2 outs vs AK. safe your bluffs for when you have more outs. i'd much rather have 9T than 33 here. much.
scott
(n/t)
i just realized how ambiguous my title was. i meant it was lucky that i had answered a post that causes me to say so many thoughts. and after the unlucky post i picked on general theory.
i wrote my post before reading yours and didnt mean anything by my title.
that said, wherever you and i disagree, you are wrong. and where you and i agree and mason disagrees, he is wrong. that 33 is in fold city.
scott
1. Raise, 2. Raise (but be pretty worried) 3. Fold. 4. Call (I would raise only if I thought I had a very good chance of getting a free card on the turn). 5 Fold.
Gee Louie, is this anything like a poll? Since no one ever polls me and it is election season, I’ll answer your quiz. Since it wasn’t multiple-choice, I assume you want reasons. Anyway, you wrote: ”You raise from the cut-off seat, the reasonably good but assertive BB 3-bets, and you call. The flop is Kh8h6s. The BB bets. What do you do:”
(1) AK – Call OR raise on the flop. You are probably very far ahead (when he holds a decent underpair to the king, KQ suited or AQ suited) OR you way behind/almost dead (when he holds AA, KK, or even 88). Call if he would make the flop or turn laydown if he thinks you won’t raise here without the king. Raise if he tends not to believe your flop raises and will stick anyway. If he reraises there should be enough doubt to call to the river (they routinely reraise with a hand such as QQ here in California on the flop).
(2) K9 – This hand is interesting. It is dominated by any unpaired king that the BB could have, but it has more outs against aces (although the aces would have redraws). The nine gives you some back door straights, which is worth a little. I call and rope-a-dope this hand. Sometimes I’ll be the dope but I don’t think you can give up with top pair and position that easily.
(3) A6 – Raise on the flop if he has a decent chance of folding an underpair to the king. If he makes it three bets take one off hoping to make a six or an ace. Fold to a turn bet if you don’t make it. If he is the type not to fold a middle pair to a flop raise, then call one time for your five questionable outs.
(4) Qh9h – Once again, raise if he has a decent chance of folding an underpair to the king. If he is the sticky type maybe wait until the turn (assuming you have not made your draw) since he will have to have aces or kings or AK to call you there. If he calls this raise then give up unless you make your draw. If he won’t lay down any pair then just call until you make your draw or perhaps a queen.
(5) 33 – This is close between folding and raising once on cheap street but I would tend to go with the latter. If he three bets it call one more time. You are getting 11 to 1 on your call and he may check the turn given you two shots to spike a three, which is around a 22 to 1 shot (and the turn check could mean he holds AQ of hearts or something like that and got chicken). If he just calls then it gets complicated. I’ll go for partial credit here.
Regards,
Rick
PS What do we get if we do well?
1.)Call, raise turn 2.)raise, then call/check down 3.)raise, take free card or fold to turn bet 4.)raise, take free card 5.)fold
Tony G wrote :
"1.)Call, raise turn "
This is a viable alternative too, I think. But then if he calls, do you check down the river or still bet the river if he calls you on the turn and checks to you on the turn? I think that would be a close decision.
What if he reraises on the turn? Can you safely muck? or are you potstuck to call on turn as well as the river?
If he calls turn raise and checks the riverI still bet hoping he has KQ or is still putting me on a bluff.
If he reraises turn I still can't lay it down. He's getting paid.(There are a few passive players I know that I would lay it down for, but VERY few.)
if he reraises on the turn, I'd have to seriously seriously consider folding...because I will know that I have a solid image, and thus any raise from me to another solid player (not a tricky player, but a solid one), would mean STRENGTH - especially on the turn. Thus any reraise on the turn means "your hand may be strong, but mine's a monster".
Of course, if the guy is tricky, its a different story, but if its the typical solid 20/40 player, I'd muck to a turn re-raise
The flop is Kh8h6s. The BB bets.
What do you do (1) AK (2) K9 (3) A6 (4) Qh9h (5) 33
1. call 2. call 3. fold 4. raise 5. fold
The flop is Kh8h6s. The BB bets.
regarding (1) AK - which I said you should just call.
why?
what would BB 3 bet with?
if the guy is a solid player, this is what he definitely 3 bets with :
AA, KK, QQ, AKs, AKo, JJ, TT
and possibly, but a little less likely, he reraises with :
99, 88, 77, AQs
and if even more aggressive, he reraises with :
KQs, AJs, ATs, AQo
of all of these hands, only AA, KK and 88 beat you. and of these hands, assuming he's a solid player, and he thinks you are a solid player too, there is some chance that he will call the raise on the flop, but fold to a bet on the turn with the following : QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, AQs, AJs, ATs, AQo ... but if you just call on the flop, it is highly likely that he will lead out again on the turn with these cards, and possibly bet again on the river (or check/call) on the river with the pairs.
In this case, I believe being aggressive maybe detrimental to profit...it's ok to let him bet a hand that is the underdog, rather than possibly raising him out. of course, if you play with this guy often, you'd have to mix it up a bit, and call him down about 75% of the time, and raise him on the flop 25% of the time, since you would do this with two hearts, and he may know that you are capable of that.
of course, unless you think he's not that solid, that he'll flat call you down 100% of the time by putting you on a flush draw....if that's the case (but that's not what it seems you have put the BB on as a player), then raising on the flop is fine, because then you will get one extra small bet in, and if he check/raises you on the turn, then you can muck.
1) Raise
2) Raise
3) Fold
4) Raise
5) Fold
What I would do further on into the hand would depend of course on the nature of the turn and river cards, but these are the short and simple answers for now.
I haven't read the other responses, but here are a couple of general thoughts. Based on your description of the big blind, he does not have to have anything here. (That is all he might have is two big cards.) thus there is no hand that you should throw away. The problem is that there are a several of hands in your list which you don't want to go to the river with. These include the 33, A6, and Q9s. Therefore you need to follow a strategy which will encourage your opponent to fold early. With the first two hands I mentioned I would usually raise the flop and bet the river. Calling the flop and raising the turn is also an option.
The flush draw is actually a little more tricky. But it too can follow one of the above two strategies.
It also may be right to just call the flop and fold the turn if your opponent bets again. There are a few more timis players who won't bet again in this spot unless they have you beat. However, it is my experience that most players will bet twice automatically.
The problem with just calling down and betting the river if your opponent checks is that many players will now throw their chips in based on the size of the pot. For example, if the bind has a hand like JJ he probably won't let it go unless you put a little extra pressure on him somewhere else in the hand.
" Based on your description of the big blind, he does not have to have anything here. "
Wow, what a misread. You? Or me?
Vince
1) Raise
2) Pray
3) Call
4) Raise
5) Call
1) Raise
2) Raise
3) Raise
4) Raise
5) Raise
6) Raise (I'm in an agreessive mood so I raise even on no option hands.)
Vince
1) AK - reraise preflop. Raise the flop if bet. Bet if checked to. Call the turn and river if bet into. Bet the turn if checked and call a raise on the turn and call the river. 6 ways your opponenent can have A,K, 8 ways for K,Q. 3 ways AA and 1 way he can have K,K. With these numbers playing as I recommend is the best way to play this hand. If he has a weaker hand which is more likely you still may want him to fold given pot size, so raising on the flop, altough the turn is preferrable when his hand is weak, may still be correct if for no other reason than for infomation.
Vince.
Vince,
The reason I would usually just call on the flop with AK is based on not only the hands you listed, but also on all the combinations of QQ JJ TT 99 77 etc. and AQ, AJ, AT, A9, A8, A6 which you can beat. If he holds any of the pocket pairs you definitely do not want him out based on the pot size, and if he holds an Ace you surely hope he will keep charging ahead. If he holds a hand which beats yours such as the ones you listed or a small set you want to get out cheap.
Important: Also notice that the number of combinations which he can hold where you have him beat and drawing very slim and with which he is tied onto the pot such as KQ, is far outweighed by the sum of the combinations which he might fold when you don't want him to and the combinations with which he beats you. This is the crux of the matter. The exception might be if he is not only "assertive", but also a bit knuckleheaded, for instance he would 3-bet you on the flop with QQ or KQ. If he plays like that I would be more inclined to raise with AK on the flop. But if he is merely assertive, not semi-nutty, then I feel the combinatorial scenarios significantly favor just calling on the flop with AK. Another factor weighing in the direction of raising would be if he is a very tenacious player--that is, he will not lay down say TT or 77. However, even with these mitigating possible factors based on his unusual characteristics (if he has them), we must realize the value of letting him continue betting when he holds a hand like AQ or a Heart draw, although for him to continue in this fashion on the Turn might be a bit unusual too.
Malmuth's comment that the BB doesn't necissarily have a pair is correct; therefore you should not fold even 33.
Notice that the hands in question pretty much cover your variety of raising hands for which you would continue investing. Notice also that if you raise with some (AK, draw) and call with others then you have given the opponent a considerable amount of information about your hand: He should pay you off if you raise and should continue betting any reasonable pair if not.
I STRONGLY recomend playing ALL these hands the same way; depending on the opponent. If the opponent will routinely bet the turn (which is most assertive opponents) then CALL with all these hands. If the opponent will bet the turn intellegently then I would recommend RAISING with all these hands now in order to take away his turn advantage. If the opponent will bet the turn very straight forwardly you probably want to call with all the hands, figuring to fold the weaker ones if he bets.
Put yourself in the opponent's shoes where he bets and you call. Now what?
Notice that calling the flop will encourage him to pay you off with very weak hands even when you have the AK monster.
- Louie
Louie,
I agree with playing all these hands in the same manner. I also believe in the tight but aggressive strategy often mentioned by our hosts. I believe, as I responded in what seemed a silly manner in another post, that you can't be too incorrect by raising in each situation. I'm not sure that I agree with Mason that this player may not have much but maybe I do.
Vince.
Louie,
This part about the 33 and A6--I got to thinking more about this when I was shopping for clothes just now at the Crystal Mall. As I had read Mason's post, I gave it further consideration. It occurred to me that the scenario from the outset is very similar to what would occur in a short-handed game against an assertive opponent. After all there are 7 small bets in the pot(!) and you cannot afford to just give the pot to your opponent on the flop since he would then have far too profitable a play to just bet every time, and he could easily have nothing. So then I thought that sometimes raise, sometimes call might be best in this spot. I was wondering about the appropriate percentages when I got back and opened your post. As always, your insights are interesting and valuable. Here you seem to be incorporating a bit of Abdullian philosophy combined with adjustment based on your opponent's tendencies (although this adjustment is more sophisticated than "common" adjustments).
While you advocate always playing these hands the same way and adjusting based on your opponent, I am wondering if perhaps it could be fine-tuned a bit further; skewing it only slightly in favor one way or the other based on EV but still doing what you suggest most of the time. Of course this would only make a slight difference and may not be worth the effort.
As always I enjoy your posts and analyses, and you would very likely get my vote for the best non-author player on 2+2.
"perhaps it could be fine-tuned a bit further"
Fine tuning is what makes you, you! It separates one player from another.
Vince
How finely-tuned you are on a given day is also often the determining factor in whether you win or lose for the day. Now how to get fine-tuned and stay that way more often...
Can you make your next quiz multiple choice. I can't figure out if I did OK or not ;-).
Regards,
Rick
If you recommend playing the hands in the same way, but raising and calling are about equally valid, then the best may be to toss a coin and loudly announce that heads will mean raise. I wonder what the effect on the average opp will be?
*
1-Call him all the way and bet if he checks whatever are the turn and the river if there are nobody else in the hand 2,3,4,5 : I donot raise those cards. but with Qh9h I would raise with the hopeness to get a free river if the turn isn't a hearth.
I have just finished reading the November 10,2000 Nolan Dalla CardPlayer article. Over 1400 hours of play, Dalla kept track of every hand he entered a pot with. He did not track the entire play on every hand but he tracked what his starting hand was, what his position was, how long he stayed with the hand, and what his results were. He played $10-$20, $15-$30, and $20-$40 mostly. He made the following observations:
1. "On average, I found myself playing about 25% of the hands I was dealt including the blinds."
This figure seems way too high to me. I play 10%-15% of the hands I am dealt depending upon how much pre-flop raising is going on. The more pre-flop raising, the fewer hands I play. Obviously, this is an average and when you are in early position you play fewer hands and when you are in the blinds you play more hands. Nevertheless, I cannot image someone playing one hand in four and being anything but a loser.
2. "I had a tendency to play far more hands at the $10-$20 level than at the $20-$40 level. I suspect my starting hand requirements were heavily influenced by the limit at which I was playing."
Not necessarily. $20-$40 games are faster than $10-$20 games with more pre-flop raising. You should be playing fewer hands in games where there is more raising.
3. "I failed to acheive one big bet per hour in $10-$20 (averaged $12 per hour). However, at $15-$30 my earnings were slightly less than one big bet per hour ($28 per hour). At $20-$40 my win rate was slightly less ($24 per hour)."
One would have to know over how many hours these results were accumulated at each limit and what his standard deviation was. His results may not be statistically significant.
Dalla also made conclusions about playing suited connectors from early position (advising against it), calling too many raises out of the blinds, and playing a troublesome hand like King-Jack. Interesting conclusions that can be found in most any basic hold-em book.
His hand tracking technique is interesting but I think his efforts would have been better spent writing out the complete action on a much smaller number of hands where questionable plays might have been made especially on hands that he lost or felt he might have played badly. For example, it is pointless to note that you raised under the gun with pocket Aces and everyone folded allowing you to win the blind money.
What does everyone else think?
Jim,
Your analysis is on target. I would also emphasize that his sample size for any given hand is way too small to draw any non-obvious conclusions about the play of these individual hands. You would need to play about ten lifetimes to get a good one and even then there would be so many variables (e.g., type of table, post flop skill) that the information would probably be useless.
He should try tracking the roulette wheel instead ;-).
Regards,
Rick
You wouldn't need ten lifetimes if the error was large enough. To exagerate an example from the article, suppose you play suited connectors badly. You are a fairly novice player (like me :-)) who plays mostly in fairly loose games. After reading a couple of books, you decide that always limping with 45s and better in unraised pots is the thing to do.
I think that if you then play well after the flop, you will, as you say, need ten lifetimes to determine whether this is the right thing to do.
But if you play poorly after the flop - perhaps you almost always call to the end if you flop a pair - then it should rapidly become obvious that you lose money with suited connectors. Shouldn't it?
You wouldn't be able to conclude that always limping with suited connectors was wrong, but surely you'd be able to conclude that YOU lose money with them. Then you could re-examine your play and try to figure out why and in the meantime, stop playing them.
From that point of view, I think the tracking has merit. I didn't get much out of the article, though, because as Jim said his conclusions were all things that you can find in any decent poker book.
David
Jim - % of hands played maybe need defination.
If I am in the bb in an unraised pot I really don't consider that a hand played - If I call a raise or reraise in the bb then I count it as a hand played.
If you counted playing bb and sb 1/2 the time you are right at 15% so just playing one hand out of the blinds per round at a full table would get you at 25%.
Or am I missing something here..............
You're not missing anything. Playing 72o in the BB in an unraised pot counts as a hand played.
Therefore, if he were playing in passive games, reaching the 25% figure would be easy. This would be especially true in 15/30 games where the SB is 2/3 of a bet.
Nevertheless, I cannot image someone playing one hand in four and being anything but a loser.
Would it surprise you to learn David Sklansky plays 24% of his hands (including blinds, aggressive 10 handed game, sample size 25 hours)?
---
Would it surprise me?
Yes! Although I have no experience of really aggressive games with (at some) good oppponents.
I'd have thought a 15% play rate, or even a bit lower would be about right.
Is it because both Nolan and David are experts and are able to get away with it because of their excellent flop and post flop play?
- roGER
Jim and all:
I read the article and was thinking of starting the tracking to improve my game... detect leaks etc...
If you don't agree with Nolan's method, what would you suggest??
Only writing down the mistakes and good plays you made?
How did you track your hands to figure out the % of hands you play , is it a rough estimate or do you keep numbers?
Or ?
ThePrince
I know a guy who does this on a palm pilot - annoying to watch him with his little black pointer poking at the little black box. That's how one guy does it.
Or is he just trying to piss me off :-)
Hehe. See my comment below Jim's.
Here is what I suggest. Only track the hands where you have substantial involvement and where you feel you may have made a playing error. Most of the hands you will track this way will be hands you have lost with. Okay here is what I do.
Get a small pocket-sized spiral bound notebook that will fit in a front shirt pocket. At the top of a sheet write the word "dealer" and then write the numbers "1" through "10" (assuming the game is 10 handed) in a circle below the "dealer" with "1" being at One O'Clock, the "2" being at Two O'Clock, etc. Write "BB" next to the number where the big blind is. Write your two card holding next to your seat number (e.g.-AsTs). In the center of the circle write down the flop, then the turn in parenthesis, and the river in parenthesis. For example Ah7d4s(2d)(Kh) would mean that the flop contained the Ace of Hearts, the Seven of Diamonds, and the Four of Spades. The Deuce of Diamonds was the turn card and the King of Hearts was the river card.
Then in the middle of page make four columns labeled "Pre", "Flop", "Turn", "River". Now under the column labeled "Pre" write down the seat number of the small blind, then the big blind, etc. all the way to the button. Next to each number write the betting action. Under the "Flop" column write down the seat numbers of the remaining players starting with the seat number of the player closest to the small blind who has to act first. Against each seat number write down the betting action. Similarily on the turn and river. Write down the two card holding of the winning hand and any other hands you see at showdown.
Describing this process is more complicated than actually doing it. I record 100-150 hands each month using this system. I have been doing this for over 2 years and I have several thousand hands documented. It makes it very easy for someone to review these hands and see where my leaks are.
At Sandia casino in Albuquerque, I saw a player using a PalmPilot to do very similar things. While I've not tried that method, it appears to be quicker, with less effort, and would be easy to synch into any other database you may be keeping.
Jim,
You wrote: "Nevertheless, I cannot image someone playing one hand in four and being anything but a loser."
I can. It depends on factors like how loose the table is, how passive the table is, how poorly your opponents play after the flop, and how well you play after the flop. Game selection is important.
You wrote: "Interesting conclusions that can be found in most any basic hold-em book."
When expert advice is supported by empirical results, I generally have greater confidence in that advice. The same applies to computer simulations.
You wrote: "For example, it is pointless to note that you raised under the gun with pocket Aces and everyone folded allowing you to win the blind money."
I don't consider this pointless. Abdul notes that if you simply steal the blinds with AA, then you aren't making as much money as you should. If Nolan's analysis supports this conclusion, then I have even more confidence in that conclusion.
Unimaginative people probably won't gain much additional understanding from a database like Nolan's. Others probably can gain quite a bit.
You asked: "What does everyone else think?"
I assume you include me among "everyone else."
2. "I had a tendency to play far more hands at the $10-$20 level than at the $20-$40 level. I suspect my starting hand requirements were heavily influenced by the limit at which I was playing."
Not necessarily. $20-$40 games are faster than $10-$20 games with more pre-flop raising. You should be playing fewer hands in games where there is more raising.
Jim,
I didn't read Nolan's article but on the face of his statement here I would tend to agree with him if his normal level is 15 or 20 holdem. Players that move down in limit just to be in action and not for BR reasons tend to play more hands and play them more aggressively.
vince
Jim,
I actually had the exact opposite opinion of this article. I think that *this* is the kind of material that should be in a magazine about card playing.
The purpose of it wasn't to introduce amazing startling new conclusions about poker. It was to assess his leaks (and probably prevent boredom at the table!).
Another point, If the leaks were small... so small that they took "ten lifetimes" (quoting Rick N.) to realize statistically, then they probably are barely worth addressing. Anything major should pop up after about 100 hours... rough guess.
The point of him doing this was to address major leaks in his own game... and I think it did a good job of this...
Usefulness is in the eye of the beholder.
Chris
A problem was posted about what to do when you have a draw and it's raised to you and you anticipate raises behind you.
Example. 10-20 UTG raises, 3 cold callers and you call in the bb with Qc6c. $100.00 in the pot.
Flop Ac 9d 2c.
It's checked around which leads you to believe that UTG was going for a checkraise with a strong hand.
Turn is Ks.
Checked to cutoff who bets and button raises. $160.00 in the pot and you're getting 4:1 immediate to call. This would be fine as you expect at least the cutoff to call which would then give you 4.5:1 on your call. However, you strongly believe the tricky UTG was slowplaying a monster and might raise, cutoff would fold and the button would call but possibly could reraise.
If UTG raises and just button calls then your effective odds are 220:60 or 3.67:1, if button reraises you would be getting 240:80 or 3:1. In these cases you should fold.
However, what if you're wrong? You guess there will be a raise behind you, you fold and UTG calls, cutoff calls, your pot odds would have been 5:1 and you would have an easy call. Next card is of course a club and you lost a nice pot because you gave up your draw based on a guess.
Which is a bigger mathematical catastrophe? Calling with proper odds and being raised behind, or guessing you won't have proper odds because of anticipated raises, folding, and being wrong.
Just off the top of my head it looks like not calling is the bigger mistake. However, I don't think it's an either or situation rather you have to assign a probability to the UTG raising for instance. Jim Brier more or less employs this technique when he analyzes plays and estimates EV.
I think you are (or should be) comitted here and the implied odds of making your hand and getting great action on it overshadow the action behind on the turn.
I would tend to agree with you.
The other side of the question, which I am certain you abhor, is the guesstimate on the flop of future action. If you generously predict that not only will there be callers to give you odds but there will be callers and raisers when you make your hand then you always have the odds for every call.
Not my fav situation but in the unraised bb with 2nd nut flush draw I am there for the duration and maybe playing it strong, depending on the flop texture.
The best online poker site is by far, www.truepoker.com check it out the graphics are amazing...
this is what poker is about. there are tons of situations where you have to have a good feel for your opponents and the flow of the game. where if you make one set of assumptions, the math tells you one play is obviously correct. and if you make another set, another different play is just as obviously correct. just remeber that if it's close, it's a small mistake. decide which you think is more likely and trust your gut.
which is a bigger mistake certainly depends on the situation.
scott
This isn't a catastrophe either way. First, note that you are not drawing to the nuts (this is one reason I don't draw to Q-small flushes). Second, your implied odds are good enough that if you hit your draw, then your overall price is good enough. Finally, the difference in the amount of money won or lost on this decision isn't going to result in a "mathematical catastrophe". Calling the raise with this hand will affect your deviation much more than it will affect your profit/loss.
Bingo.
I emphasize Earl's first point: (1) If you need 4:1 and are getting 4:1 it matters not to your EV what you do.
(2) If you are getting 8:1 then 4 times you lose 1 and 1 time you win 8 for an average of (8-4)/5 = .8 bets per attempt; less than a bet. So FAILING to take "double" odds costs less than a bet.
(3) Needing 4:1 and getting only 2:1 means you lose 1 4 times and win 2 once for an average of (2-4)/5 = -.4bets. Making this call costs less than half a bet.
So needing 4:1 and getting between 3:1 and 5:1 is no catastrophy.
- Louie
PS. On the other hand few decisions ARE worth (or cost) more than a bet.
Well, it's unlikely that UTG checked a monster twice but that said, the point you make clearly has application in other situations.
To me, an often overlooked aspect is the psychological catastrophe of making an incorrect decision (i.e. looking back after the hand is over on a results oriented bassi). Paying through my nose and missing a draw hurts a lot less than folding and seeing my ship come in....and that can affect your play for the next little while in the session...the real pros don't have this problem...I am glad to report that this is not that big of a problem for me anymore but I still can't say that it is not a factor at all.
i take an average of what i think i may have to put in the pot based on my assessment of the players and their hands. just a guess. then i also factor in what ill win on the end if i make my hand and deduct some for the few times its still no good after i hit. if its positive i play if not im gone-- no regrets.
One thing I can't stand is when you are sitting in a fantastic loose/passive game and then one or two loose/aggressive players sits down and starts raising. I've seen great games tighten up simply because some idiot thinks it's great shakes to raise UTG with KQo. Thinking even more about this I wonder if it is correct to raise less often in these games preflop in order to encourage passive play as opposed to aggressive play. I mean just calling up front with hands like AKs, AQs, 99, TT and AQ (which might be correct for some of these hands anyway). Any thoughts?
I believe this is a bad idea. If you get a loose, aggressive player (LAP) in your game who is constantly raising on shaded values then what starts to happen is that players will stay with him on hands they would normally fold if anyone else raised. Some of the better players will try to isolate the LAP by 3 betting with their normal raising hands. You should do this as well. But I would not stop raising pre-flop on my premium hands regardless. It will cost you too much money.
The scenario that you pose is exactly what starts to happen. All of a sudden, instead of being able to play T9s in late position with several players in you are having to fold those hands because it's 2 or 3 bets to you on a regular basis. Isn't a game with 7 limpers preflop for one bet every time much better than a game where it's raise 50% of the time with 4 people seeing the flop? You can play many more hands and since you play those hands better you'll make more money.
The point of my post is to suggest ways to encourage people to play passively rather than aggressively before the flop. The hands I suggested not raising with up front either play well multiway or aren't that good to raise in a loose game anyway (as HPFAP says as well). That cuts down on your raising and encourages others not to raise as much as well. I would never limp with QQ, KK, AA or AKo up front because that costs too much.
(n/t)
in a loose passive game, calling early with 99 and TT and JJ is correct. i think i'd still raise the real big aces down to AQ. but sometimes limp (and maybe reraise) if it is suited.
scott
Please explain the logic in not raising in early position with JJ and TT. One would think you'd want to do everything possible to eliminate hands like Axs, Kxs, QJ, KT, Ax.
well, when i promised jim i'd post on every forum every day, i intended to answer additional questions directed to me personally. however i also intended to not respond to additional questions if they concenred preflop issues.
but you're sammyb not just some punk, so i'm gonna to cut ya some slack.
the reason you don't want to raise with these hands in loose games is that you will not narrow the field sufficiently to be able usually go to the river. and you make more by your correct fold postflop if you limp preflop.
you don't want to bet into several loose players with a likely second best hand and few outs if beaten. it's better to have no hand but more outs, because most hands worse than your hand will fold anyway. JJ on a Kxx flop against 5 players who called your preflop raies is a bad situation.
also, people with 6 outs (two overcards) will call your flop bet if you have an overpair. depending on the size of the pot you probably are not thrilled with these calls. remember to skew their effective odds because you will usually not check fold if an overcard hits. to tie people to the pot, you want them drawing at three or less outs. this almost never happens with these hands unless you flop a set. that means you want them to lean towards folding postflop. which means you should limp preflop.
if these players are loose but strongly respect your raises so that your raise will usally cut down the field to 2 or less opponents, then a raise may be more correct.
sott
Thanks for the slack and the, as always, insightful analysis.
i always think about preflop in the context of postflop. what hands i want to play against and what i want them to do on various flops. i think it has helped my game.
scott
Your post is a gaze over the forest type. The responses are confounded by the tree type.
Robin -- I think you have a valid point, though it's one people will debate for sure. Not long ago I was in a suprisingly passive short handed game. The players were also bad after the flop. So as not to encourage them to become more aggresive I cut back on preflop raises with some of the hands I played, and was of course also able to ADD additional hands to the ones I would normally play. I do think the gain of maintaining a passive game was, at least in this case, greater than the bit of EV lost to not raising with some hands that were close anyway. Also, I think backdoor's haiku is saying the same thing.
In Texas Hold’em your only opponent raises enough to put you all-in, at the same time he flashes his hand which is (Ac,As).
What combinations of cards can you call him with and still have a positive expectation when:
A) Your pot odds are 7 to 2?
B) Your pot odds are 3 to 1?
(hint: In question “A” there are more than two correct hands but less than ten.)
CV
I would think middle-valued suited connectors would have the chance chance of beating AA (e.g. 98s, 87s, 76s), right?
Yes. I figure there are only 7 hands that are correct to call in this situation.
CV
you may catch me with my pants down chris but i think there are 20 counting the suits.
Ray,
I've been using Poker Probe on this and there seems to be a cliff between 4to1 and 3to1 Pot Odds.
CV
Without running a quick hot-cold simulation, if memory serves both 54s and 65s, not suited with either A, are slightly less than 3.5:1 underdogs.
- Louie
Louie,
Red 54s and TJs don't make the cut.
CV
Since 5,4 and J,T need an ace to make one of their possible straights?
Okay, I'm new here and perhaps I'm overlooking something, but I wanted to add my two cents: Aren't the other two aces about your best hand, EV wise?
This forum has occasionally debated poker rules.
Here is one that I would like to see changed.
Current rule in most clubs.
“Starting a New Game: Dealer shuffles and spreads deck face down. Each player draws a card. Highest card gets “button” position.”
The rule I would prefer is the same except, “low card takes the blind.”
In Nevada and clubs that use a rake, either rule works OK.
However, in California, or in clubs that charge a collection, paying collection occurs when you take the button. So under the high card rule, you “win,” but you pay collection.
Under the low card takes the blind rule, that player clearly gets the worst of it.
Some will say that this change will force someone else to take collection. I can only respond that under the high card rule, someone else is forced to take the blind. Same thing. Nevertheless, with high card you WIN you end up paying collection.
If you draw the lowset card, you clearly end up worse.
If ALL clubs had this rule, it would simply be accepted by players that if you draw the lowest card, you take the worst position.
Comments welcome!
it makes absolutely no difference at all as you will get the same results after x picks no matter what unless you believe in luck and you think you get more of one pick than others. i think you need to reread some of Davids books unless im misunderstanding you. the draw that i liked was in a private game where we each put in 500 bucks and high card got all the money, then the game started. you had seven players stuck 500 and one 3500 ahead. then the game was on. all random and having no effect, but on those that play by short term results devastating.
Ray,
Why is cutting cards for 500 bucks a person a good idea?
It obviously nets out in the long run, but why would you expose yourself to the variance without any compensation?
I think I understand the point of your post, I just don't understand the analogy.
thanks HoJu
Your question seems to imply the notion that on any particular deal someone is "supposed" to take the worst of it and someone the best of it; and that it is the business of the card room to insure compliance.
If so, your poker career has a high superstitious hurdle it needs to overcome; and now is a great time to do so. Sklansky's "Theory of Poker" sounds like a good place to start.
- Louie
OK you guys! I know “statistically” that it makes no difference at all. Over time it will be a random result.
If a poker game had a COLLECTION but NO BLIND consider two views:
1) High card merely decides position. There is no winner or loser. Only a determination of the dealer position. 2) Collection introduces a money aspect. There is a short term winner or loser.
If the rule is high card gets the deal and it also decides who pays collection, on the one hand it is simply a rule of decision. If the rule is low card gets the deal and the collection, it still has the same effect as a rule of decision. However, it is also consistent with the money effect of winning and losing.
The low card rule works for both views.
Since the blind costs more than collection, then low card gets blind.
I know this is almost trivia, but if there is money involved, why not?
I suspect I don't quite understand. Never-the-less let me take another stab at it.
In Nevada, "High card Wins". In California, "High card loses".
How about if the dealer first turned a card over in the middle of the table and then dealt everybody a card. The player who's card was closest to the center card without being lower would be the dealer. The deck "wraps" such that the 2c is just higher than the As. This silly rule would pretty much negate the notion of high/low cards.
- Louie
NitPick: The collection is more costly than the blinds since when you post the blinds you retain some equity in them, which is more than 1/9th since you can see more cards cheaper than every body else.
Zen,
I second Ray and Louie’s comments but have a few thoughts in a different vein.
First, worrying about this rule, which is at best only arguably “wrong”, wastes precious energy that should be directed towards rules that are far worse for poker. In other words, let’s save our political capital and energies for working towards changing rules that are not only illogical or bad for poker but let’s work hardest on those that are most important.
For example, a few years back Bob Ciaffone participated in the formation of a new rulebook for the Los Angeles clubs. There are many areas where it I would guess the new book ended up not to his liking (it was a group effort), but he was able to get in Las Vegas style “half-bet or more counts as a full bet” and his very precise way of defining when the betting gets capped. Both are great rules and were probably the most important changes.
So let’s not worry about who “wins” the button. In the rest of the poker world, starting with the button is an advantage. Here in California we should be working to get rid of the horrible collection on the button, which is usually dead money and dropped no matter what the size of the pot (especially in Los Angeles County). Revising the rule regarding drawing for the button only will serve to further legitimatize this horrific practice.
Regards,
Rick
I seem to be losing a lot of money with this hand and perhaps my approach to it is a bit too agressive. Feedback would be appreciated.
Hand 1 Online 10-20. I'm 4 off the button and open raise with AsTs. Cutoff, button, both blinds call. Flop Ks Td 2c. Blinds check to me, I bet, 3 callers. Turn is the 5h. Check to me.
Maybe it's a coincidence but every time I bet here someone has KQ, KJ, QJ. If I don't bet here they're all sitting with 96o. So, most of the time I'm playing a 5 outer even though my opps will call me down with better hands and never give me the opportunity to fold by raising or being kind enough to flash their kings. Worse, of course is when the ace comes giving qj the straight.
Hand 2 Online 10-20 BB KhTh. MP limps, 3 off the button raises, Cutof calls, as do the button and small blind. I call. Flop is Qh Ts 7c.
I would probably call one bet with this hand even though I could be dead in the water already, so would you guys bet out and fold to a raise or check and hopefully see the turn for 1 bet?
Any general guidelines on playing middle pair with an overcard to the board would be appreciated.
both hands you mention you have backdoor straight and flush outs. i would usually play with the backdoor outs. i would usually bet and call a raise if i played the hand. you very well may have the best hand. wouldn't you be feel sick if the flop was checked through? i would.
obviously, i would be less inclined to play the more opponents i had. i would probably not bet into more than 2 opp without the backdoor draws. with them, i would sometimes bet into large fields but less often than i would into fewer opp.
if you check and someone bets, decide now how you are going to play the whole hand. this actually applies more to wired pairs that have only 2 outs if beaten, but it applies here a little too. especially if you are worried that your outs may make other better hands. if you are deciding to take exactly one card off against someone who will fire the second barrel, you cant count the chances he's bluffing as ways you will win the pot. that's because he will bluff you out on the turn if he is bluffing.
what i would typically do with the backdoor outs is bet and call down a single raiser. especially if there are strong draws he can be semibluffing.
nice post about abdul's book.
scott
scott,
I understand your overall logic about not wanting the flop to get checked through. However, in the 2nd hand, it's almost impossible that a bet is going to win it for you on the flop. Also, it seems that with the limper, raiser, and 2 cold callers left to act behind you and a Q T 7 flop, it almost has to get bet for you. Also, if you do bet, there's a pretty good chance you'll get popped.
In this case, why wouldn't you just check/call the flop assuming it's a single bet back to you?
Also, suppose you get and get a couple of cold-callers and the turn brings a rag which does nothing for your draws. Do you bet at it again?
Puggy
in the second case with 5 opp and a board that hits lots of playable hands i agree you will be unlikely to win the pot now. but there is about a 30% chance no one has a Q and you have the current best hand. plus you have 7 outs including your backdoor outs. i would not argue with check calling here, but i would sometimes still bet call.
as for the turn blank. if i still have 3 opp, including one flop raiser and two cold callers, i am pretty much done with the hand.
scott
On the first hand, you need to realize that the more opponents you have the more likely someone has a top pair when an Ace or a King flops. There are many hands that people will limp in with or call a raise with that are headed by an Ace or a King. You have four opponents and two of them have checked to you. I would bet as you did. Since you were the pre-flop raiser, you are less likely to get raised because your opponents will be worried that you have a big King if they have a King. Now after betting you get three callers on a rainbow board. It is quite likely someone has a King. Now when the turn is a blank, you are most likely playing 5 outs so I would usually check here and take a free card. If someone else bets then you have to decide whether the pot odds are there to pay a double bet and see the river with 5 outs.
On the second hand, leading out is wrong with your middle pair because it is a raised pot and you have too many opponents. Your bet will not allow you to win the pot outright and you will frequently get raised costing you two bets to take off a card. I would check and try to take off a card cheaply here.
In a 20-40 game today, I posted my missed blind behind the button. UTG limped, everyone else folded to me. I looked to see A2o. I raised. The button called, the blinds called, as did UTG.
I caught an Ace on the flop and won the pot, but UTG called me to the river and I had to show down the hand. Lots of laughing and cajoling.
Richie says, "It must be nice to play bad and still drag the chips." He then went on to explain, in his own inimitable way, that if I continued to play like that, then no one would respect my raises, and I would start losing with my big hands like AA, KK, etc.
My thinking at the time was, I just paid $30 for this turkey of a hand, and I don't want to throw it away. Since UTG limped, he probably doesn't have an Ace, and I might have the best hand. If my raise will cause everyone else to fold, I have a good chance of winning a heads-up match. I never thought about losing respect on subsequent hands.
Is there something wrong with my thinking? Is there something wrong with Richie's thinking? Any comments at all?
So did the guy that called you down have a hand himself? Did you bet on the end?
CV
He flopped 2nd pair. No, I didn't bet the river, but I should have. I just didn't know why he kept calling. But that's not the point of this post. See my reply to Mason below.
you're thinking is ok. since you cant fold, a raise is better than a call.
who knows what richie is thinking. i for one dont wince when my raise with aces gets called. but maybe that is just my niavete and richie is right after all. who knows?
scott
I'm not so keen on a raise here. First, you are probably a dog to the initial limper. He might have a pair larger than deuces or an ace with a better kicker. If he has a hand like JTs you are approximately a fifty-fifty shotagainst him. Second, on the flop you could easily be bluffing with only three outs. Third, if you do flop the best hand with a pair of deuces any overcard except the ace can beat you. And fourth, you do not have a good multiway hand, so if the blinds come you won't be happy.
i certainly think folding is the best option but we cant fold. i agree i am in bad shape either way, but i think i'm in worse shape if i let the button in cheap and the blinds in for free. not having a good multiway hand can hardly be a reason to call, because calling forces a multiway pot.
also, unless you've noticed this guy limp reraising, the pairs he limps with he'll release on most flops. if he calls my flop bet (often, i agree a bluff with only three outs) i can take a free turn.
further, top pair of A's can save money against better kickers much easier than other top pair weak kicker combinations because it doesn't have to worry as much about free cards.
i think calling will usually get this hand 5 way with you not acting last and raising will usually get it heads up with you acting last. i know it sucks to have a 2 in your hand, but you can't fold it. and i think raising does more good than harm.
scott
Makes sense to me.
We await MM's reply.
You're right, I wasn't happy that the button and the blinds came in. Are you saying the best play is to check the option, and then check and fold on the flop?
I knew the limper well enought to know he would have raised if he had an Ace, that's why I wanted him heads-up. As it was, he had JT and flopped a T.
Do you think the way I played this will affect the way others play hands with me in the future? Should I want them to respect me, or am I better off if they don't?
Hey 3 Bet,
I believe that Mason is correct in his analysis. But our other host, the wise and wonderous OZ, claims that preflop plays that are close are not all that important anyway and looks like young scott would raise if he had an A2o. Oh that's waht you had. Hmmm... You asked if your thinking was correct. Who's to say? If we go by the results of this hand the answer be "See, I told you so". But we being the smart poker playing types that we are, know that the results of one hand are insignificant in determining the correct play or strategy for a particular situation.
"Do you think the way I played this will affect the way others play hands with me in the future? "
Yes. The immediate future that is. Unless of course you play against the same fellows all the time then I think the question is moot. Once they play with you for a little while they will know you are a turkey anyway. So what's the dif.?
"Should I want them to respect me, or am I better off if they don't? "
Finally a question with worth a direct answer that has some value. Will they respect me in the morning and more impotantly do I care?
Image. Image. Image. goes hand and hand with Position. Position. Position. Image has a dramatic effect on winning poker. With a strong image you are able to make a lot of strageic adjustments during the play of a session. If you are hitting every flop you are able to manipulate your opponents into making calling and betting mistakes. More importantly, if you are missing flops you are able to manipulate your opponents into making folding mistakes. You are quite frankly able to control the action. If you are a proponent of the "Mad Genius" method of playing like a maniac my only comment is "Good Luck"
vince
Well, I have to admit I am not the greatest poker player when it comes to the math of it (almost every question I post it turns out I did the wrong thing!), but I am holding my own on (IMO) my knowledge of games and psychology.
My answer to your question is: what you need in a game is not respect; you need the other players to think you are playing in a way that is different to the way you are ACTUALLY playing. In your example, after I was raked over the coals for playing bad cards, I would play much tighter, because you know they don't respect you and think you are playing loose. So, play tight instead. Another option this opens for you is when you play good cards and totally miss the flop, you can bet as if you hit it, when the other players will be sitting there thinking to themselves "He's playing his junk again...he must have hit that terrible flop". One hand I played last night, I had played some dubious cards and done ok, and it was getting noticed, so I tightened up. A little later, I had AKo, and the flop came J-2-2. I checkraised the flop, and it was folded to me, with one guy commenting "You are the only player here who would probably still have a deuce".
The key is: when they criticize your play, they are giving you information about what they are thinking about you. Information is extremely valuable in poker, and they are giving it to you for free. Players like this, who cannot control their egos (and must criticize your play), are good to play with. Just remember: always play opposite to the way they THINK you are playing.
David
"you need the other players to think you are playing in a way that is different to the way you are"
I don't always agree. To take a simple example, suppose your aware opponents know you will bet your good hands on the flop plus some bad ones (as either bluffs or semi-bluffs). What they can do about it? If they are smart they will learn to stay away from you which will allow you to attack the weak unaware players "unmolested." This is a significant advantage.
Lately, I've been playing mostly in the $30-$60 hold 'em game at the Bellagio. If I was to name the four or five best players who also play when I do I would also have to point out that we rarely sit at the same table. They transfer out of my game (and I of course do the same). This is another advantage of having the aware players understand how you are playing.
I don't see where we disagree here. You seem to be saying that if other players know you are playing good cards only, they will stay away from you. Given this knowledge, would you not start to loosen somewhat, knowing that they will, as you state it, "stay away from you"?
Your post (as I read it) explains the value of knowing how others are playing. My post explained my thoughts on the value of knowing how the other players think YOU are playing. Both are clearly valuable, no? Maybe what you were taking issue with was my statement of "you need to..", when what I meant was "it is always preferable to.."?
David "Honored to be reading a response from someone who wrote a book" Ottosen
If Richie is a good player he would not come in UTG with JTo unless he was pretty sure this was a loose passive game, figuring a gaggle of players would come in plus the blinds. Looks like you confounded his plan.
First, it will only affect the play of others who happen to be observant, and this should eliminate a bunch of your opponents.
As for the observant ones, my guess is that they will begin to classify you as someone who is a little too loose and too aggressive. (There are many players like this.) If they do that they will tend to call you down a little more and your bluffs and semi-bluffs won't be as effective.
UTG could have has a range of hands with an A and you would have been beaten your thinking might be faulty.
Wouldn't it be possible for him to just call with Axs, AT heck EVEN AJ is a possibility.
Just a thought about your thinking he couldn't have an A.
Some players will also call with AQs and AKs.
Had there not been a UTG limper, then a raise with Ace-Little offsuit after posting would be fine. However, the presence of a limper, especially one who is UTG seriously cripples your hand. Many players will limp UTG with AQ,AJ,AT, or even Ace-Little suited. They will limp with medium pairs like 99,88,77, or 66. While your raise may well drive out the button and the blinds it may not, who knows? Anyone who calls your raise will have a better hand than you. The basic problem is that you simply do not have enough hand here under the circumstances to merit putting in any more money than necessary to take a flop.
I think you were thinking of Omaha where A2 is actually a good hand but this is holdem and there is no low. But on the other hand, after the flop you played it right I think, these goofballs will call you down with anything. Amazing.
I agree with you about the aces, I prefer if everyone calls my raise when I have pocket aces, to hell with variance.
True, those of us who excel at all games sometimes get a little confused on hand selection. Someday, maybe you'll understand.
maybe not getting respect for your raises is a good thing. If you are getting many callers then you just have to alter your choice of starting hands. Put more value on hands that like action, suited connectors, Axs.
Richie sounds jealous. You raised correctly on this hand. It cost you $10 more to isolate a limper. In my opinion you are getting 7 to 1 pot odds to see the flop. If the flop shows a higher card than either card in his hand when you bet out the limper should fold thinking you made at a minimum high pair.
As for them respecting your raises you should have encouraged him to call the next time you raised him ;)
I would even go so far as to look directly at him the next time you raise ;)
Make sure you have the goods.
It doesn't seem reasonable to me that you WANT the opponents to reasonably act in correct accordance with your hand. I don't think you WANT respect if you truely deserve it; and I think you DO want respect if you raise more often.
This is not a good looking raise although it is no disaster. However, those that see this cheesy raise are likely to misunderstand some of your other raises, such as when UTG raises and gets called, and then you 3-bet from middle position. That sounds like a great time for them to suspect you may have A2.
- Louie
I think that ol' 3 Bet Brett might have missed the point in his original post, and that ol' Louie might have figured this out in his post.
We could debate all day long as to whether the raise was a good idea or not. I think not, but it can't be TOO TERRIBLY HORRIBLE since there is a chance the blinds and button will fold and it will be heads up. HOWEVER, I think just call, since you may be dominated by a limping AJ or something like that etc etc....
The point that stands out to me is the lack of respect that this play will result in from Brett's opponents on future hands. Brett, I think this play falls under the category of intentionally misplaying a hand in order to induce your opponents to make mistakes against you in future hands. If they see that you raise with crapola, they will likely reraise you next time you raise with aces, thus allowing you to four bet them. Plus, you will be afforded more opportunities for fancy plays like limp-reraising, since they will likely raise when you limp, KNOWING that you play crappy hands.... Etc... Etc....
Take advantage of your image play here. Next time you play, don't raise these players without a good hand. Allow them to think you have crapola, when you really have the nuts, then cash it in. When they finally figure THIS out, switch gears again and leave them guessing all the time!
Dave in Cali
I am dealt AKo in the middle position of what appears to be a tight table. It is folded to me and I raise. Next to act re-raises and immediately following a player caps it. Should I fold? I have only watched about 3 hands, so I am not sure of how the game has been playing. I don't know the 2 players in the hand.
I folded. The end board ended up having trip queens, and the player beside me had J's and took it down. I would have lost but I never got that far was this right?
Derrick
Derrick-If I was the player who capped it, calling would be the wrong play. In a three handed pot, I would always cap with AA and KK. If I felt the reraiser was loose, I'd cap with QQ and AKs, too. Anything else is going in the muck. In many handed pots, I've capped with T9s and smaller pocket pairs, but those have been rare occurrances. More often than not, you'll have the worst hand with the worst position.
Derrick it is close and if the players are solid, folding cannot be too far wrong. You have the worst position which means that you are a dog to another AK.
I appreciate your answers. I was wondering if I was getting too tight.
Derrick
I think stress should be placed on the types of hands that the raisers have raised with previously. If they've capped with hands like AJo or 98s or 54o (which I saw at a 10-20 game at the Taj Mahal) frequently... then you should stay in or even cap.
If its a Jim Brier-type, run! If you call down to the river you're probably going to learn what domination is first-hand. Sorry if I'm costing you money Jim.
In between is the real question. I would personally tend to call this in all but the tightest tables. Maybe that makes me too loose. Maybe its the gambler in me.
Both Uston and JB are right in that you need to be really careful because of your terrible position.
In conclusion, a fold is right if you are of the school that calling with close hands increases your standard deviation (your swings) more than your expectation (your hourly rate).
As Jim notes, it IS close. It also depends very much on the table composition. Unfortunately you got this hand early. Here, early on, I take the flop for several reasons: I want to see how they play, I want to mix it up with them, and I don't want to be perceived as playing too tight. You also have an opportunity on the flop to make some more plays and some more decisions.
I'm having a problem trying to wrap my feeble little brain around a question. I hope you can help.
How do figure the outs and the odds to the following:
1) A backdoor flush with a pair
2) A backdoor flush with two overcards
3) A backdoor straight with a pair
4) A backdoor straight with two overcards
5) A hand like 97 with a KJ3 flop
6) A backdoor straight
7) A backdoor flush
Sorry to waste your time, but I can't figure it out.
I count backdoor draws as a single out. To count overcards as outs you have to believe they are good. If you hit your overcard what is the chance that you will win.
For your 1) A backdoor flush with a pair assume that 2 pair or trips are good outs. You have 5 outs to make 2 pair or trips plus 1 out for the back door draw to figure out 6 outs on the flop I use the following (this is with 2 cards to come):
x = ((47-6) / 47 ) * ((46-6) / 46)
47 is 52 cards - your hole cards and the flop
47 is 52 cards - your hole cards and the flop and the turn
x is the probability you won't make your draw.
1 - x is the probability you will.
This works out to 24%, or roughtly about 3:1. You need 3 at least 3 other people calling to make it worth while.
Derrick
Thank you for your answer. But do I consider a backdoor straight draw as one out also? And if I hit a card for that straight draw, I then have either four or eight outs on the turn, right?
I consider a back door straight or flush draw one out. If I hit part of that out on the turn I reassess (ie 9 outs to a flush or 8 outs to open ended straight). I tend to use back door outs to help me decide borderline calls.
Derrick
derrick mentioned that you can round backdoor draws to 1 out per draw. i actually use that approximation during play. but there are some other considerations for these backdoor draws.
when you have a pair and a backdoor draw, then you have a one card draw. the problem with one card draws that they are real easy to tie or beat.
what do you consider making your hand with 97 and a KJ3 flop? the runner runner where you have to hit perfectly twice to make the ignorant straight? i dont think i would play this one at any realistic odds.
scott
I know not to play that hand, I am just theoretically interested in the math used to figure the outs and the odds.
Thanks
When you have a three-flush or straight potential, you have outs for making a four-flush, an inside-straight draw or an open-end straight draw. These outs I will refer to as volatile outs for the reason that they either evaporate or evolve into real outs on turn.
In case of a three-flush you have volatile outs equaling 1.9 outs for the reason that 21.27% of your three-flushes become four-flushes on turn (9*0.2127= 1.9).
Let´s say our hand is 98o
if the flop contains a seven, we have 2.1 volatile outs that will improve to 4 or 8 outs with a 17% chance each; if the flop contains a six/a jack, we have 1.4 volatile outs that will improve to 4 outs with a 17% chance and to 8 outs with a 8.5% chance; if the flop contains a five/a queen, we have 0.7 volatile outs that will improve to 4 outs with a 17% probability.
How many outs is a back door flush draw worth? A backdoor straight draw? Abdul's page explains this. I use the same approximation as Derrick (1 out for each). Here is my attempt at explaining why we use one out for each draw.
Probability of hitting a backdoor flush draw: How many outs is this equivalent to? Well, I will set up an equation where x is the number of outs and solve for x. I am going to use Derrick's method of calculating 1 - probability of not making my draw, this is equal to the probability of making the draw.
P = Pf = 4.16% = 1 - ((47-x)/47) * ((46-x)/46)
solving this equation for x yields:
x = 0.978, thus, it is approximately one out.
Calculating a backdoor straight draw is a little more fishy, because you need to consider if the next card will make you a gutshot or an open-ender. You also need to consider if you need to catch a "gut shot" to pick up the open ended draw (eg. flop is T23, you hold 97, then you need to hit an 8 to give you an open ended straight draw. This is different then if you held 98 on the same flop, because then any Jack or 7 will make you open ended). The mathematical procedure is the same as above and will yield an answer which is less than the value calculated above.
...or to be more exact: the 1 out calculation is correct, but in failing to understand the importance of the turn, you pose the wrong question. Let me try to explain:
"Pf = (10/47)*(9/46) = 4.16" Your jeopardy-question: "I have got a three-flush. What´s the average probability that I end up with a flush on river?"
The reason why I don´t like this question:
Suppose you´ve got bottom pair (A4) on flop (48J). This gives you 5 outs. If the turn doesn´t bring you a 4 or an A, you still have got 5 outs (clean or not, but that´s beside the point).
On the other hand, if you´ve got a three-flush and the turn doesn´t bring the fourth suited card, your flush-outs are lost!!! Whereas you would be happy if another 4 slides off on river with the A4, it´s no longer of interest if the river gives you a four-flush.
That´s why the 1 out Abdul arrives at is not what we want to know, because the turn and not the river is the all-deciding round of play!!! He calculates flop-to-river, but what happens flop-to-turn is of real interest (if we make the four-flush on turn, we can use outs for the turn-to-river calculations). We don´t want to know how often we make a flush on river, but how often we make a four-flush on turn (or open-end straight or belly buster for that matter).
And that´s the reason I´ve come up with volatile outs.
The approximation I use is that each out is roughly worth a 2% chance per card to come. So a 4% extra chance of making your hand by the river is worth about 1 extra out on the flop, agreeing with the more exact calculations that Abdul goes through.
You argue that a backdoor flush is worth around 1.9 "volatile outs," because it's around a 21% chance of 9 outs on the turn. That's fine as long as you realize that you are measuring in terms of turn outs, which are only around half as valuable as outs on the flop (because you have only 1 card to hit them instead of 2). So your 1.9 volatile turn outs are worth about the same as 1 extra out on the flop, agreeing with everyone else.
The point I was trying to make is that´s irrelevant to know your % of making a backdoor-something on river, that it´s more accurate to calculate your runner-runners with volatile outs for flop-to-turn and with outs for turn-to-river. An example:
hand: As7s
flop: Qs7d2h outs: (My way) 5+1.9 or (Abdul) 5+1
turn: 3c outs: (My way) 5 or (Abdul) ALSO 5!
Abduls way would be perfect if instead of turn and river there was only one round of betting during which 2 cards would be revealed. But since it´s not 2 cards but 1 + 1, I think that my way is the better one.
Its easy to count outs with one card to go, so long as you KNOW which cards will win outright, which will win so long as they don't help the opponent, and which are losers. With two cards to go needing only one card its a little more than twice as hard; usually its count the times you miss everything and subtract from 1.0.
Counting back-door draws is much more difficult since you need to determine how "valuable" these draws are vis-a-vis your typical need-one-card chances of the above paragraph. Previous controversial unproven results follow: a solid 3-straight (678) is worth about 1.5 outs. A regular 3-flush is worth about 1 out. A weak 3-straight (679) is worth about .75 outs.
So if you have a small pair (5 outs) and a 3-flush and a weak 3-straight; your hand is worth about 6.75 outs.
- Louie
You need to clarify your question a little more so it is better defined. For example, in 1) do you have a pocket pair or not!? And really when you ask what are your odds, you should ask what the odds you make (say) two pair or better w./the board unpaired, or a flush.
WHile i think the method i give may be too complicated to do at the board i think some could do it at the table w/.some practice...
1) P(making a flush) +Pmaking two pair or better)= {( 10C2) +( 5C2) +( 5(42))}/47C2.
2)P(making flush) +(Pmaking a pair or better)= { (10 C 2) + 6C2 + 6(41)}/ 47 C2.
3) really depends. do you have AK w/ a flop of A T 3 or do you have 89 w/a flop of 87 2? (It makes a di8fference).
I should say the basic idea is to count all the winning pairs of turn and river cards, and divide by all combinations of turn and river cards....
Let me knwo if you want me to elaborate more, or if you wish to pose the other questions better.
These things are taught very well by David Sklansky in "Poker, Gaming and Life" in 'A Simple Technique'. There is also a good section on Probability in "Getting the Best of It".
An important concept is that an 'out' is related to a hand or hands that you are facing. For calculations sake, an out needs to give you a winner.
no amount of calculating is gonna help your 9-7!
The odds against 97 improving to win with a KJ3 flop are a zillion to one. This is a lie, but if you can convince yourself it's true you'll never regret it.
All to often I see someone limp with say QJ and then the pot is raised behind him. BB and he call. Flop comes J 7 4 rainbow. BB checks, he checks, original raiser bets. BB folds our limper calls. Turn comes low blank. limper checks better bets, limper raises.
I would rarely if ever play it the same way in a full ring game. Am I missing bets on expensive street.
Derrick
here is a number crunching analysis: assume raiser will raise with AA-TT and AK, AQ and AJ. there are 25 combos that beat you. there are 34 combos that lose to you. under these assumptions it appears you are missing bets. although with one card to come your lead is not as great as 34:25.
Jim crunched the numbers (35:24) and it would appear that our limper is missing bets (by the way do you have those numbers memorized for live play?). However, we are totally ignoring the fact that all these different hands would be played differently. Not all players raise preflop and instantly bet out the flop. And when he bets the turn it should usually be more than A-K, because he is not milking that hand for value. Thus, I believe you should rarely raise the turn into a preflop raiser unless he is very aggressive. Most of the time I would play it like a girl and check call it all the way down. Raising the turn just moves him off a bluff, and you lose a fortune to a real hand. Heads up it is unlikely he will fold a hand that you can't beat, so the raise is a bad proposition. Induce those bluffs!
I can't really argue with you here as I agree that in this case the check raise option is more player dependant than odds dependant. I didn't have those odds memorized, but I do now. I was simply offering what I think is a good starting point for answering the question. I wouldn't say that a check-raise is always a "real bad proposition". It might buy you a free card on a later hand. I remember a thread on this subject and it is also discussed briefly in HPFAP21.
In most cases the limper should bet the flop with his top pair. It is dangerous to just call the flop and check-raise the turn when you could be badly dominated by an over pair or AJ suited. It all depends upon your opponent but a typical scenario is that the limper bets his top pair. The pre-flop raiser calls and then folds when the limper bets the turn after a blank comes. The pre-flop raiser will usually fold his over cards here and raise if he has an over pair. Sometimes the pre-flop raiser will raise the flop bet with an over pair or a bigger Jack. When that happens the limper will call, take off a card, and then usually check-fold if the pre-flop raiser bets the turn. All of this is varied based on the players involved and you cannot have a fixed strategy here every time.
This is a particularly effective play if hero USUALLY plays straight-forward aggressively AND the raiser raises too much and is a favorite to bet the turn even with no pair. In fact, a whole lot of my "cute" betting patterns are just like this one.
- Louie
I don't like check raising on the flop - but will at times under the right circumstances. The hand you described I might just bet it out it isn't a strong eneough hand to be playing games with.
that way of playing it is sometimes correct. but it is more likely he put the raiser on AK. here is hand reading for dummies: "if he raised preflop, he has AK. unless an A or a K flops, then he has the highest wired pair below the top card on board." know that lots of bad plauers think that way about raisers.
scott
That is brilliant. Except I would amend your final statement to read, unless an A or K flops, in which case he has the higest wired pair bleow the card on board which paired ME.
you are correct for the purposes of calling bets. but for the purposes of slowplaying the flop to check raise the turn these players usually require monsters like top pair mediocre kicker (QJ and a J high flop).
scott
I stand corrected.
What you're describing is a good play when the top pair is a king or ace but lower top pairs need to be protected. In this situation you want a hand like A 10 to fold on the turn.
Comdex is in town and all the games are hot! Lots of money + vacation + ego + intelligence - knowledge - patience = Big Pots!
P.S. Why do I see so many "good" players try and bluff people that don't know what they are doing? It's comical how much money I have seen complete fools win since this weekend. They just stay and stay and draw 5x2o two pair etc.. vs pocket aces over and over and it's so funny until it's your turn! And suddenly your body temperature has raised 50 degrees and you fight with all your will the instinct to explain to your "opponent" exactly why he is so ignorant as he rakes in YOUR 500$ pot and orders another double sex on the beach. But of course you swallow your bile and fish out a couple more hundreds only to watch the guy lose YOUR money to someone else and the realization that he has no chance of winning in the long run is exactly the same as telling yourself you are better off without your slutty ex-girlfriend when you hear she is dating some a-hole.
The best thing about keeping books is they can comfort you on the nights you get raped by sheep.
I love listening to stories of AA getting cracked. AA are just two cards, a big pair and nothing more. Will you ever learn? I bet you slow played your AA thinking I'm going keep all these fish in this hand and slaughter them when I turn over this one pair monster. Then you loose to a sorry bastard who dosen't know how to play and flopped a set of 2's. HA HA HA!!! The rest of the night the table has to listen to your "BAD BEAT" story. Give me a break!!!
I don't know where you played but I played at the Bellagio 15-30 Mon, Tue, and Wed nights from 7pm-2am and the games still weren't as good as they are in LA. The games certainly didn't live up to the hype.
AA just any other cards? When will I learn? lol I bet you are the guy who says with a straight face "No hand is made until the flop" I always agree with that one. Snicker.
Robin, I have never played in CA but I have heard that the games there are great. Much more poker action and very loose games especially 9-18 hold'em.
I think you got some of my post mixed up with Joe's.
Oh Sorry, The first paragraph was to Joe. The second was to you Robin. Next time I will be clearer.
Yes, the Magoos have no chance of winning in the long run. But, the "long run" is a VERY long time, VERY! You never get anywhere near the long run during a session. Which means that for any given session, luck is the primary determiner of what your results are. Remember, the standard deviation is very high in holdem, while expectations are low!
For myself, in a 3-6 kill game, I might expect to make about 8-15$ an hour, depending on how good the game is, how aggressive, etc. But my SD will be about 100$ per hour, give or take. Sooooo, staying within the +/-3 standard deviations expected to occur 95% of the time, I can realistically expect that my results will be somewhere between +315$/hour or -285$/hour for any given session. This will remain true even if there are magoos drawing out on my aces with 52o.
One more thing, when they make two pair to beat your aces, the pot is no longer yours, it is theirs.
Dave in Cali
I have a few general ideas that I would like to throw out there regarding shorthanded play. I am defining shorthanded play as two to seven players with normal limit hold'em rules.
fundamental theoty of poker:antes determine action; you are probably deriving corollary to this by relating position to ante-proxy(blinds), which probably would yield a huge potential edge....
I don't usually shift into shorthanded mode until the table it 6 handed or less.
backdoor,
I agree with Rounder that short-handed starts with about six players or fewer and some would say four or five handed is even closer to the real thing. The big thing is in short-handed games you almost always enter with a raise so the number one factor to consider (outside your own hand values) is how often, how well, and in what manner do the blinds defend. Now in your bsb scenario you include the button but I would look at this as how often will you be three bet by the players behind you after you come in with your raise so all the other players yet to act behind you matter. But if you are in the cutoff seat, your bsb ideas sound interesting.
On second thought, the button does behave differently in that he knows he will always have position through the hand so he is much more likely to play with you then players to his right (let’s say you pop it UTG in a six-handed game). Anyway, I’m interested in your thoughts on this one as I’m just starting to think in something like these terms myself but my ideas are more than a little out of focus. If you start a thread, don’t be afraid to send me an email notice as I’m having trouble keeping up with all the forums lately.
Regards,
Rick
Provocative post.
There is no doubt in my mind that correct decisions regarding marginal hands in certain spots can be HUGE in terms of your bottom line, and of course this becomes greatly magnified short-handed...
I prefer keeping it light around the table. When I run into these guys and the situation is as you describe it, I stack the cards and turn them over making sure the one card showing is not the definitive card. When my shy opps look at my hand I say, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." This usually gets a chuckle from the onlookers and the opps are cajoled rather than shamed into disclosing their cards.
Personally, I concern myself with my image at the table more than what I know about my opponents. I rarely try to bluff, and practically never enter a showdown that I don't expect to win with. So, if I assume I'm going to win the pot, I just flip them over immediately; I already know my opponent is either bluffing or playing second (or worse) best cards. I don't need to know exactly what he had to know that he plays weakly if I beat him in a showdown (dependent on how my hand became made!).
I admit sometimes it is nice to know what your opponent had in order to help you figure out what his early street betting meant; if that is the case, I may request to see his cards or wait for him to flip over. For example, if the board hits with two suited cards and my opponent bets (or raises), I may want to see his cards to see if he was betting to get rid of draws or if he was betting on his draw.
However, I think in low limit games, much of this is unnecessary, and that a basic "Bet it if you got it" strategy is practically enough to be profitable.
David
Personally I would like it alot better if at the end all the hands were shown in the proper order and this was held to. I like to know what opponents are staying on so that I can recreate the hands during my "off time". Many times have players been irritated (esp if i win) when i ask to see their hands. "That's only for collusion!" I hear alot.
Usually I don't ask because I want the game to be light and fun. But inside it irritates me that I lose this information because of slack play.
I just got back from Vegas and played 3 days at the Bellagio 15-30. There were several rules that were lame and I thought I'd post about them.
1. When I want to make a table change I can't play to my blind. I asked for a T/C and each time there was one available it was just after my button. After I was rolled three times they didn't put me on the list anymore.
2. When I move 3 stacks to my left away from the blind I can't deal off, I have to post. This makes no sense to me at all.
3. When I move 2 or 1 stack to my left away from the blind I get to play without posting or waiting. Hmmm... seems like in a six handed game I'd never have to post if the people were spaced right.
4. If you are just before the big blind you can move to the c/o seat and only have to post the big blind. In other words you get to skip both blinds and post only the big one in late position.
5. If a new player is coming into the game and you want to move to the empty seat you have to do so immediately if the new player is willing to post a blind. For example, if you are in the c/o seat and a seat is open in early position you have to move if the new guy wants to post. This wouldn't be a problem if you could deal off but you can't so you get screwed out of hands.
I can't remember an more right now but as you can see all these rules apply only to hold 'em and not to stud. Don't bother responding if all you are going to say is that these rules are in lots of card rooms, have been around a long time, or any other irrelevant bs.
BTW doesn't the Bellagio ever review their rules? You'd think by now they'd have adopted the much better California system of player movement.
1. Pre-Bellagio at Mirage, I was once told that I had to move immediately to another table if I wanted to switch tables, losing a few hands before the blind. On my way to the other game, the player who was supposedly leaving for yet another game changed his mind. And someone had taken my old seat, of course. Now I was left out in the cold, and the floormen would do nothing to compensate me other than put me at the top of the list.
2. Vegas management has decided that unlike California dealers, Vegas dealers are so dumb that they cannot handle the deal-off rule (seriously.)
3. The moving-two-to-the-left-for-free rule is known as the "Sklansky rule," as he is blamed for the origination of this abomination (rightly or wrongly, I do not know.) The biggest gripe I have about the rule is that it causes more floorman decisions than any other factor. Intended to expedite, it mires instead.
4. Yes, you can post only the big blind behind the button even if you're an old player. You can also play your small blind out of position if you are moving. The locals constantly angle to take advantage of all these rules. For example, in $80-$160, one player took the big blind, then the next hand he moved two to his right to play his small blind just before the button, then the next hand he moved back to his original seat at no cost due to the Sklansky rule.
5. In Nevada, it's not uncommon for me to spend hundreds of dollars in a day on your points #1, #2, and #5 to get away from smokers. In California, a newbie gets his seat when the old players say so, making it much easier to stay away from the nonexistent smokers there.
6. You didn't mention the part about the button-moving-forward rule in California working better than the dead button rule in Nevada. One problem with the Nevada rule is that you can wind up with just one big blind. There is a damn good reason why we have small blinds: the one blind configuration is unstable.
The LA casinos adopted a uniform set of rules. Bellagio should seriously consider adopting those same rules, perhaps starting on a slow day in December to keep the chaos at a minimum. It would improve both the rules and customer relations with the LA tourists.
-Abdul
I have to take issue with you disliking the "dead" button rule (which comes into play when the BB or SB of the last hand leave the table).
With "dead" button everybody takes their fair blinds in proper BAD position. Yes, one pot has only one blind and someone effectively gets the button twice.
With the "moving" button rule some players get to take their small blind in GOOD position which is a bigger advantage than getting the button. One or more pots has too many blinds which is also unstable. This rule falls apart completly when both blinds from the previous hand leave.
- Louie
the person getting called shows or calls his hand first then the next in order do so in almost all cardrooms in the world. i always wait till its my turn and have rarely seen a winning player that doesnt. the only time i turn over before its my turn is when i have a huge hand that wont lose and dont want to irritate people by making them think im slowrolling when in fact im not. if i run into someone who clls his hand wrong or indicates they dont have a winner then shows a good hand, i never show ahead of them again. its very bad form to ask to see losing hands and will come back to haunt you. i consider it angle shooting even though it is legal to do. if someone does it to me i will get even with them many times over.
thanks for the info on proper poker manners and protocol. I think you should be nicer to beginner players on the "can I see your cards" issue. only after some guy kept asking to see my loser hands did I realize how freakin annoying it is. there is really now way for a beginner to get clued in to these sorts of things.
All casinos/cardrooms I know of have some rule which defines the order in which hands are to be shown.
What should happen is: the dealer starts at the appropriate place and advises each player in turn to expose his hand or muck. The pressure should not be on you to make the slow-rollers from kindergarten play properly.
Normally you won't see this because it isn't an issue. However, if the players seem reluctant to start exposing hands, then the dealer needs to step in. If this problem is a chronic one, the dealer will have to start doing this every time, without even waiting for someone to show.
Eric
In a thread on the Medium Stakes Forum entitled Hand To Talk About (How does Mason come up with these catchy Subjects?) Mason urges both Vince and Rick, and the rest of us, too, I suppose to play JTs UTG in all but the toughest of games.
JTs is a Group 3 hand. Does it then follow that one should play QTs and J9s UTG (Group 4) in ordinary games?
That's what we recommend in our books.
Yeah, I read them often and I must admit I posted this question before referring to the book.
Be that as it may, there seems to be a great deal of disparity between your recommendations and what Jim, skp, Rick, Louie, Vince and the others actually do at the table. (Read Jim's response below.)
Are we all playing too tight?
Sammy,
I don't believe that I have ever suggested that JTs is not a playable hand UTG. I almost always play them except when the table is..you guessed it...playing real tough:)..thankfully, I generally don't play in very many real tough games.
I generally play J9s as well.
Sorry, skp. This was an assumption on my part because I rarely, until the last few weeks, notice you and Jim disagreeing on much. Would it be safe to assume you would open it for a raise in middle position?
Not necessarily.
I would raise in tight games but would limp in more passive games when I can figure to catch 1 or 2 callers which will likely lead to a 5 way pot.
Plus, in some games, I generally try to minimize preflop raising i.e. keep the game passive and allow me a chance to play more multiway type hands in multiway pots and try and capitalize on my opponents' postflop mistakes.
Of course, from late position, I would openraise with JTs. If someone has already limped in, I would generally just call.
/
skp,
I was able to talk with Dunc Mills a month or so ago. He seemed to indicate the Edmonton 10/20 games (where Dan Hanson plays or was playing) are pretty tough and the Vancouver games play quite a bit softer. Have you had any experience in Edmonton, and if so, do you agree with Dunc?
Regards,
Rick
I have played 10-20 and 20-40 in Edmonton but not much ...perhaps 50 hours over the past couple of years. From my limited exposure, I can say that those games are definitely tougher than the Vancouver games.
That said, I would still play JTs in the Edmonton games and play it right now on Planet 20-40. I wouldn't play it on Paradise 10-20 or higher. Those games constantly involve shorthanded raised pots which is just the thing you want to avoid when you limp with JTs UTG.
I'm in the starting lineup tonight for the 10-20 game starting at 7:30. I'll let you know tomorrow if the hand comes up.
I was in that game and something that was mentioned before a very live player was to his immediate left,and he called way too much,and this made other players call so JTs was most definatly playable.
The problem with many of these hands like suited connectors and medium and small pocket pairs is that they play most profitably in unraised pots with numerous opponents. But when you limp in under the gun with a speculative hand like Jack-Ten suited you have no idea what it will cost you to take a flop or how many opponents you will have. If the game is loose and passive you probably pick up some EV by playing. But when pots start getting raised which is typical in most medium limit games ($10-$20 through $40-$80) you will find yourself frequently paying multiple bets to take a flop against a small number of opponents. In a tight, aggressive $30-$60 game at the Bellagio, over 70% of the pots get raised and you usually have no more than 2 or 3 players taking a flop. A speculative hand like Jack-Ten suited does not fare well in this scenario. When you limp in under the gun you will typically find yourself paying another bet to take a flop and you will be heads-up and out of position facing a better hand.
QTs is an eyelash worse than JTs because of how it plays. J9s is more than an eyelash worse. Any game where JTs should be folded under the gun is a game you should avoid.
David,
You wrote: "Any game where JTs should be folded under the gun is a game you should avoid."
There are a lot of very good games, which tend to be characterized by semi-loose and somewhat aggressive pre flop play. This is where JTs gets hammered UTG. At limits between 15/30 and 40/80, these type games prevail in Southern California.
I would choose a loose passive game when I can find one, but I don't often get the chance. I'm game selective but when I'm in the card room, I want to be playing 90% of the time. That means I have to play the aforementioned games. What good is it to average 1.5 BB per hour or so when you have to wait or drive around half the time when you could be playing almost all the time (when in the club) and averaging 1.25 BB per hour?
Regards,
Rick
This is why the notion of "game selection" makes great theory but is frequently impractical. When you play in the middle limits at most card rooms you have to go where the floor person assigns you and there is frequently only one game at that limit. It would be hard to log in 1500 to 2000 hours per year if you only played when game conditions were ideal. I would rather play 8 hours in a $10-$20 game where I can earn $15 per hour than to spend 5 hours in a $10-$20 game where I can earn $20 per hour but have to waste the other 3 hours doing nothing.
I agree there are trade-offs.
However, recall Ray Zee's post where he said something like you can easily earn more in a very soft game at half the limit than in a so-so game at your regular limit. Still, it is not easy to put this into practice. Methodically scouting games is tedious work and one must be able to put one's ego aside. However, I feel it is the best approach with the highest earn and lowest downside. Still, I could be better at implementing it.
$$$
M,
You wrote: ”However, recall Ray Zee's post where he said something like you can easily earn more in a very soft game at half the limit than in a so-so game at your regular limit. Still, it is not easy to put this into practice.”
If you play 15/30 and 20/40 in Los Angeles there is nothing to step down to due to the high dead button charge in the smaller games. And even a bad 15/30 or 20/40 game is worth ½ a big bet per hour or so. In the larger clubs you can usually get into better games fairly quickly (or your game gets better).
When or if I move up to 30/60 (played only at the Commerce which I hate due to the fact that the tables are way too close together – I hope this changes when they complete the expansion) or 40/80 (played at Hollywood Park and the Commerce) then I will definitely follow Ray’s advice. There is no reason to play in a bad 40/80 when there is a very good 20/40 going.
” Methodically scouting games is tedious work”
Not necessarily. In the big clubs you can check on the nearby games while you are playing (if you have to miss a hand make it one in early position). You might sacrifice a little EV at your current table but if that gets you into a much better game then it is worth it. I just don’t like to spend a lot of time making $0 per hour watching and waiting for the “perfect game”. I just want to be in at least a decent game and be on the lookout for a very good game. Just realize that the reason another game might be great is because of one or two extremely live player(s). Don’t move to that game if you replace a super live one ;-).
Regards,
Rick
Good points. Light scouting is easy work. When I spoke of methodically scouting games being tedious, here is what I rather meant: Keep looking in the club until you find a really soft game. If you don't find one, go to the next club, etc. Repeat and etc. until you do. In LV this can be done though it is tedious.
The line-ups in games is always changing. A game may start out bad initially but get good after a couple of hours. Similarily, you switch tables to another game because it looks attractive only to have the line-up change after a short time. I would be careful about wasting a lot of time looking for soft games and soft line-ups. Game selection is important but utilizing your time efficiently is also important.
These are the trade-offs.
Yet a truly soft game, loose/passive, is a gold mine, and may actually be worth hunting down.
Jim,
I'm in agreement with you for most game types at limits above 10/20. Sometimes the games can get very loose and passive but even here it is only for short stretches. It is a real challenge to identify these stretches and stop playing them when the game gets more aggressive. If you never played JTs UTG I think you would be giving up very little.
Regards,
Rick
I'm in the Caro camp when it comes to early position hand selection. I believe the 2+2 early hands should be reserved for "good" games but are too loose for "normal" games are FAR too loose for really tough games.
Only get brave when out-of-position if you are confident you will outplay the opponents who are in good position. Otherwise you must be confident you are a big favorite to have the better hand.
- Louie
Louie,
If memory serves me (some of my older poker books are in storage), Caro's early recommendations for early position was to limit your play to the top two or three pairs, AKo, and AKs and AQs (and maybe not the AQs. He also advocated limping, which he has backed away from.
I doubt you limp but just how tight would you get UTG in a nine handed game? Let’s assume the two game types Jim Brier describes above as follows:
First, a typical mid limit game similar to what Jim describes as “… when pots start getting raised which is typical in most medium limit games ($10-$20 through $40-$80) you will find yourself frequently paying multiple bets to take a flop against a small number of opponents.” I would guess by frequently he means about 40% of the time. If Jim sees this he can correct me
Second, “…a tight, aggressive $30-$60 game at the Bellagio, over 70% of the pots get raised and you usually have no more than 2 or 3 players taking a flop…” Of course I assume he is talking about the infamous mid-week day game, which makes it no surprise that long-term survivors such as Sissy Bottoms tend to play more 20/40 at the Mirage rather than this game at bad hours.
And if you have experience or time, perhaps you could comment on the loose aggressive 40/80 at Hollywood Park (I believe you stated that you have played in this game).
Regards,
Rick
PS: If you answer, I promise not to title any more posts “Louie is Wrong” :-).
"PS: If you answer, I promise not to title any more posts “Louie is Wrong” :-)." -- That's alright; nobody reads your posts anyway.
Certainly a game featuring few players with multiple bets favors a strategy where you must avoid weak hands in bad position.
The other major issue for me is whether I will outplay the opponents after the flop. There is no money to be made with KJ early against solid assertive types who probably have a better hand but I will probably need to see it in the showdown in order to make sure.
Well actually Skalanky is correct in that you should just find a better game.
- Louie
Somewhere in my homework I did some work on determining which hands are even money to be the "best" pre-flop given the number of opponent yet to act; and then another list weighting these players vis-a-vis their post-flop positions.
Even though we all agree it's bad manners, it happens all the time where I play. When this happens I put it in two catagories:
A player who didn't make their hand, possibly bluffing, or
A player who plays garbage.
Maybe it's obvious and most of us do it? It's the most detail I can get wihtou making the game more serious.
Here's a hand in which I experienced something I hadn't experienced before and got a bit confused.
I'm on the button. It folds to a player two from my right who limps. I raise on the button with AK. Blinds fold and now the limper makes it three bets!
I wasn't sure what to make of this and called. The flop was a blank and I called his bet and then he fired again on the turn when another blank hit (there were no straight or flush possibilities). I called here and then folded on the river when I didn't improve.
It was the pre-flop three bet that really threw me. I thought it was odd to get a limp reraise from that position and my first impression was that I was just up against an idiot but then I decided that he probably had a monster.
He had not been at the table very long and we had been going through a very tight phase with a lot of late raises winnng the blinds. The only thing that made sense to me at the time would be if he had a big pair that he thought was worth a lot more than the blinds and so he was hoping to get a few more bets out of it.
I would not be surprised to see the limp re-raise from early position, but two from the button? Is this just Abdulian AA play? If this is what he did is it a good play?
I think I should have raised the flop to see where I was at and then folded to a bet on the turn if he keeps coming at me. Or should I think that the sitaution is odd enough that I should call him down?
Wondering what he could have had made me think of another possibility. He could have had a small pair. Once it's heads up if he puts me on two big cards it makes some sense to take control of the hand and keep firing as long as big cards don't hit, but this seems like a pretty big risk to take.
Comments?
Paul Talbot
Paul,
I encountered a similar situation except that I had JJ in the cutoff (my opponent was on the immediate right). I played my hand aggressively and lost a couple more bets than you when I was shown AA at the end. I also saw the limp-reraise pre-flop. I put my opponent on a much weaker hand and got sucked right in.
-- Manzanita
It depends upon what you know about your opponent. Against a stranger I would probably fold when the flop misses me and it gets bet. The reason is that based on my playing experience when I have seen someone limp re-raise from any position they end up showing down AA or KK.
I know that Abdul suggested (recommended?) this as an alternative to raise-opening and winning only the blind money. Would the lesson here be that it can be a profitable ploy (assuming that someone behind you actually does raise) but can only be done twice per lifetime per opponent?
Sounds like just a good ol' fashion monster limp. And when you didn't reraise, he figured he could just run you over, especially with a weak board.
Limping with pocket Aces can come from any position given the right game with the right players.
CHiP
I just saw that Winning Low Limit Holdem is out in it's second edition. Does anyone know what new material is in it, how much it is expanded and what other things have chenged?
It is one of my favourite books and I am considering if it is worth buying the second edition.
thx
GD = Guy Downs
.
There is a snippet of sorts in Lee Jones's "Low-Limit Hold 'em" column in the November 24, 2000 issue of Card Player magazine. It's titled "Stop Calling Raises Cold." Jones says, "...what I discuss in this article is in the new edition, but doesn't appear in the first edition...." (Unfortunately, Jones's recent Card Player articles, including this one, are not available at Card Player's web site.)
It would be nice if there was a cheap(er) pamphlet-like addendum that owners of earlier editions of poker books could buy. It seems wasteful to shell out for the next edition, when there are not a lot of changes. I ask authors: would you rather have $3 of my money for a pamphet addendum or $0 of my money, because I won't shell out for a new copy? (I realize that there are those who will pony up the full price for a new edition; perhaps there are many of them.)
(And, of course, whenever there's a new edition of a popular book, there's always a flurry of "What are the differences? Should I buy it?" messages at places like Two Plus Two and RGP, which gets a little tiresome.)
Here's a situation that came up tonight in a local limit tournament. 60 players entered, no rebuys, 45 people left. I've played 0 hands in 4 rounds or so, as no playable cards have come my way and my BB has always been raised. There's a mix of players at the table, with one loose guy on a rush two seats to my right. He isn't a maniac, though.
I'm in middle position and get black aces. Loose guy (LG) limps under the button. Folded to me, I just call, thinking that a raise will scare people off, due to my ultra-tight image. Cutoff calls, button calls, big blind calls.
5 of us see the flop of Qd Td 4c. BB checks, LG bets, I raise for value and to get straight and diamond draws out. Cutoff re-raises, button and BB fold, LG caps. Back to me. This is the first time it's been capped. LG has been loose but not crazy. I guess that he could either have me beat or maybe have a straight flush draw. I'm even less sure about the cutoff. I fold, slowly.
Turn is a blank. LG checks, cutoff checks. I wince a little
River is Jc. No flush. LG bets, cutoff raises, LG calls.
Comments/reads? I'll post the results below.
ps - Remove the NOSPAM from my email address to mail me. It's there to fool the robots... thanks.
Pre-flop, you should have raised anyway. You already had one loose limper to milk and the others might come along anyway.
Your fold on the flop was weak, in my opinion. I suppose someone might have a set of tens, but AQ or QT are just as likely. KdJd or Jd9d might play this way too, even Kd9d is possible, as is a suited Ad. You already have many hands beat and QT you have re-draws against and the pot is laying you 7:1. I think it's an easy call.
I would have led on the turn, too, to avoid giving free cards, since so many big draws are possible. And probably check-called the river.
David
David -
Thanks for the advice, you're definitely right about raising on the flop. It turned out that loose guy had the red aces and lost to QJ offsuit -- two pair, with the second coming on the river. I didn't realize he was aggressive enough to 3-bet on the flop with top pair and OK kicker.
Would have lost more money by hanging tough on the flop, but a raise pre-flop might have driven that bs out... still would only have been a split pot, however.
I've actually never seen a hand where two people both limped with aces. Weird.
David
AA must raise pre-flop, it's just that simple.
-Fred-
I was complaining about some losing sessions the other day to my pal Rio. I whined something like, "Every time I raised, they called me with 67o and flopped two pair." He said, "Remember when you booked that big win a few days ago? Well, they were calling you with 67 then, too, they just didn't flop two pair. Do you want them to call or don't you?" I hate it when he puts me in my place.
He then went on to tell me what his strategy is in holdem. In the first six positions, he enters the pot only with a big Ace or a pair. No KQ or JT for him. I was so surprised by what he said, I didn't ask how large a pair, but I suspect 9s or higher.
Before you laugh this off, I should tell you that Rio has been around since the days of the Golden Nugget and before. He's a winning player and he lives good. And since he's gotten older, he gets to play a lot more, since he was always getting thrown out of the casinos in the old days for fighting. He's one of the few players I don't mess with when he's at my table.
Still, I think he's giving up too much by playing that tight, but I can't argue with his results. All comments are welcome.
I am going through the same thing you were complaining about.
I had a *great* Sept and Oct, winning about $3500 over that span playing mostly 3/6. November is not going as well, as people are sucking out on me left and right, especially people who I am headsup against on the turn. They are hitting those 6 outers like mad. I did have to admit to myself that I *want* them to play that bad and I shouldn't complain when they hit.
I have tried playing just like your friend. Here were my options.
1. I get big aces and big pairs and they hold up reasonably well. I post a moderate win.
2. I get them and they don't hold up. I lose a LOT.
3. I don't get any aces or pairs, big or small. I get blinded to death.
4. I get lots of big aces and big pairs and they hold up. This has never happened and I am not holding my breath.
Options 2 and 3 hit far more than option 1 and option 4 is for people far luckier than I.
Personally, my runs of bad cards, and big cards not holding up, make this a losing strategy for me if I employ it no matter the game.
I think a better strategy is adjust your hands to the game you are in. Sometimes KQ or JT is a great hand to play, sometimes you throw them away without thinking. Sometimes the only hands it makes sense to play are AA-JJ and AKs. Plus all the situations in between.
Plus, it was excruciating to play that way. Hours upon hours upon hours of no 'playable' hands, then you get your big hand, flop a set, get rivered and it's "Chips please."
I can't argue with your friend's results, but I certainly can see how it worked for me. Not very well.
Playing tight from early position is always a good idea. However, I have found that improving my ability to adjust my play to each game, each hand, and each opponent has helped me win a lot more than just waiting for big Aces and pocket pairs no matter the situation.
I would encourage you to give it a try, see how it works. It's not a dangerous strategy by any means and you will certainly do better than those goofballs who say "I always see maniacs making money, I am going to try to play just like that!"
x
The best protection from bad beats is to join the bad beat club offered at americangamingcorp.com
Here are two comments. First, if you do play extremely tight in full ring games on the first two cards, and then play okay after that you should be able to win as long as the competition is not too tough. (This is not true in stud as long as the ante is a reasonable size.) Second, over the years, I have run into many players who will dscribe their play in detail and just not do a very good job of describing how they really do play. Before you make any judgements, based on your experience of playing with this person, is his description of his play accurate?
3 Bet,
This Rio guy is probaby used to playing against players that raise and get called by 67o and lose to 2 pair. Real whiney types. You know the kind. They the kind that will believe anything. Even players that are old and say they are winners. Guess what, if Rio is used to playing in real loose games (if you are in his games they are definitely loose) then Rio can tighten up when early and win. Imagine that.
vince.
You and Mason are saying pretty much the same thing. As long as the game isn't tough, Tight play will get the money. And since Rio is an ex-LV player, he probably plays tighter than the average Phoenix player. It goes without saying that any game that I'm in is a pretty good game.
BTW Vince, have you heard that SM&Z are looking for a fourth for their weekly shuffleboard game? You'd fit right in with those old guys, and it would get you out of the rocking chair once in a while.
preflop play?
i heard you 3 bet the turn with a straight(gut) flush draw against a (very) certain 3 of a kind.
youre just lucky the live one didnt notice he hit a full house on the river and raised you when you made your (just) flush :)
brad
Opening in less than late positions with those hands is asking for problems - they are trap hands and ones one shouldn't call raises with.
Seems you might be playihng a bit to loose if you think those are starting hands.
If Rio is living comfortably from poker, he is not giving up anything by playing ultra tight.
Does anyone know what the rule is on turning over your hand before then action on all streets is over? Someone told me this weekend at foxwoods that a hand that is turned over before all action is over is dead. I think that it is probably legal to turn over your hand in a heads-up all-in situation. What if you have the nuts on the turn and want to induce a fold from opponants who may have redraws, can you show everyone your hand?
Thanks, Rob
In tournament play, the rules are as you describe. You are not suppose to expose your hand to others and you should only turn it over when the hand is over or when you are headsup.
In live play, I have not heard of this. It is proper etiquette to wait until there is no action left. I have seen players flash single cards to get other players to fold. I assume you could keep your cards face up if you want.
Ken
It is my understanding that this is a NEW tournament rule; and its a good one. The nature of tournaments dictates that whether or not an opponent calls matters to those players not involved.
I did run into this face-up-hand-is-dead rule ONCE out of 140 or so clubs I've played. You are correct that its improper etequite and should be avoided.
- Louie
Last night I was playing 2/4 while waiting for a seat on a 3/6 game. It was a typical 2/4 game, people calling with trash winning every other hand.
A player to my left kept getting big pairs cracked, was getting agitated, and asked. "Do you think if I had pocket aces and turned them face up preflop as I raised, do you think anyone would call?"
I said "Probably" He said "Really?? You think so? Would you call?" I said "I dunno..but THEY would."
So I am UTG and fold and sure enough, the guy on my right turns AA face up, leaves them there, and says "I raise."
The dealer chuckles and says "Umm..Pocket Aces exposed."
5 people call. He was incredulous.
Flop was Kd 8d 5c. I look at him and say "You are dead." He bets out and 4 call. Turn is a Ts. He bets, 2 callers.
River is a 4h. He checks, someone bets and he shakes his head and calls. Winner turns over K4o. The guy threw his hands up and said "Well, I guess I found out."
A couple floor people wandering by saw the guy playing his hand face up and simply shrugged and moved on.
I was just reviewing the Theory Of Poker last night and Slanksy talks about the fundamental theorem of poker. Of course the concept is that you want the other players to do opposite of what they should do if they could see your cards. Well this player proved that sometimes the theorem doesn't work,
Ken
Oh, the Theory would still hold over the long run.
Play AA against K4o 100 times and see who makes more money.
There are a lot of angle plays linked to exposing cards before showdown. However, there are also honest mistakes.
Each club usually has different rules. It is also general that a player is "warned" first.
If done with any intention other than a mistake, I think it is usually an angle play.
For example, P1 is heads up with P2 and first to act. P1 shows his hand. This is sometimes done because the P1 is hesistent to check and then face a bet by P2. If P1 exposes the winner, P2 will usually muck. If P1 is not the winner, there is usually a controversy, or P2 bets, or P2 just lay down the winner. P1 is attempting to avoid added cost.
Sometimes P1 is a friend of P2 and it is not intended as an angle. Nevertheless, it should not occcur.
Unless its a clear mistake, I perfer a warning, and then a dead hand rule. Its a good idea to understand in advance the house rule.
Going to Vegas for a traditional Thanksgiving vacation. A couple of questions. I usually play at Bellagio, but am interested in trying this no limit game that is spread. Where and When? Also, I have a friend who wants to play low limit holdem. Does any place still spread 2/4? Thanks. Happy Thanksgiving. -Dan
I played the NL when in was in Vegas in October.
It is at the Stratosphere. I believe they only have the game on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. It is a $1-$2 blind. Most players have 200-400 in front of them.
I played on a Friday night after the NL tourney. That night the live NL only lasted an hour after the tourney. The tourney started at 8:30 and the game may have lasted until 11 or 11:30.
As far as low limit. The lowest I saw was 2-6 at the Excalibur. There are some 3-6 games going ( Mirage is one I played at). I also like the Orleans 4-8 game. It only had 1-2 blinds which meant it was cheap to see the flop.
Ken
The last time I was in town, the Palace Station had 2-4 and 1-4-8-8 holdem games....
if you can avoid hitting your head on the ceiling, last time i looked (about six months) ago, they were dealing a crustacean-filled 1-2 at el cortez.
Fox Sports will carry this show Thursday at 7:30, Saturday around noon, and Sunday.
nt
Look it up at www.tvguide.com. Do a search for the word poker. That will give you the time on your cable system.
Ken
Playing 5-10 online with AJo on the button. 6 limpers and the cutoff raises. I had only seen 3 hands that cutoff raised after a limper and they were all solid. AKo, AQs, JJ.
Even though I would be getting close to 9:1 for my call, assuming no one raised behind me, I folded. My feeling was there was no flop other than KQT, AAJ, AJJ, JJJ, AAA, AJx that would give me an edge post flop. And even AJx could be a big loser if a K or Q hits.
Add to that any two cards times 7 and it just seemed hopeless.
Comments?
The value of trouble hands changes drastically depending on whether they are "beat" or "dominated". Since you are confident you are in fact beat you should not hesitate to fold.
I suppose you MIGHT call if the callers are playing every hand terribly.
- Louie
I agree with your fold. A player who raises after others have voluntarily entered the pot will usually have a premium hand like AA,KK,QQ,JJ,AK,AQ, or AJ suited so the threat of domination is very real. Now couple that with what you have observed about this particular player and your fold is quite correct.
Esay fold, Sammy. Don't let the fact that you have the button fool you. If you are in a game where people automatically check to the raiser, you have got the worst position on the flop. Essentially, you are UTG on the flop.
I hate to repeat.. so here are some numbers...
You can reduce this problem to odds pretty easily. If you define "hitting big" as making a split two pair or better there are (out of 19600 flops):
396 ways to flop a split two pair
264 ways to flop trips
64 ways to flop a straight
18 ways to flop a boat
2 ways to flop quads
=744 playable flops
744/19600 = 3.8% -> ~25 to 1 odds
This is not much of a drawing hand as you well know (most straight draws are some form of gutshot, you need to flop three of the suit of your Ace to chase a flush)
When you take away a little equity from AJJ (when your opponent has AA) and AJx and JJx (when somebody has xx) and , you have to make the number of playable flops even lower. I think the possibility of domination about cancels out the equity from "implied odds".
This seems like an easy fold.
/
For the same reason, you can and should fold AJ after tight limpers, at least if AQ/AK could be out there. The implied odds are a lot better here, so it's more tempting.
-Abdul
I've been naughty not nice but I still need to make up a Christmas List. Has anyone read this book and what did you think of it?
Once again, the book is "Texas Hold'em Flop Types" by Mort Badiza-degan.
Regards,
Rick
Your money will be put to better use if we rent a couple of sheep next time I visit you in L.A.
---
hey you slovs have the same dating habits we got in montana.
watch out for that one with the little black spot on her face, she belongs to black bart and he is mean.
ARE YOU NUTS??? I would never touch somebody else's sheep!!! We are civilized people here!!!
Duh, you Americans... you will eventually have to answer for your promiscuity and repulsive sexual practices (I've seen things in San Francisco!).
---
Your comment is very offensive. Our (U.S.) sheep have high standards, even if our humans do not. They have been offended and demand reparations and a re-count.
nt
.
Rick,
There doesn't seem to be any "bad" information in Texas Holdem Flop Types, there just isn't any useful, new, or thought provoking information. You or I, or any serious student of the game could easily write this book, but we wouldn't bother.
If you must have it, I have a barely used copy....
B$
I was trying to find the chances that two callers could have the same straight draw in Texas holdem.
You: AKs
Flop: {K,T,3};{T} rainbow
If this looks famialiar it's from David's "Simple Question" on the Medium Stakes Forum.
I figured the limpers must have these combos: {JQo} = 12 ; {K9} = 8 ; {9Q} = 16 ; {9J} = 16 ; {AJo} = 9 ; {ATo} = 4; {QTo} = 6 ; {JTo} = 6
So how would you calculate the chances of both limpers having QJo. Once I know I have this correct I can do the rest.
CV
First player 12/(12+8+16+16+9+4+6+6) (Didn't check your figures). Then multiply that second player has QJ if first player does. Second fraction is 9/(9+8+16+12 +etc.
CV
Do you know of any books devoted to reading hands?
-Thanks
2+2 appears to dominate in this area but the information is scattered througout their books.
Those that cannot read hands at all could perhaps do the following: (1) commit to reading hands. (2) When a hand is shown down review that players actions and correlate his actions with the situation he was in (3) WHILE a hand is in progress try to determine what hand YOU would have if you bet/checked etc like your target player did. Be advised that you must not presume that that's what THIS player has. This particular excercise will get you used to making real-time correlations and will also help you determine what the opponents may be deducing about YOUR hand. (4) Correlate shown hands with what you were surmising about the hand.
- Louie
Just wanted to share a quick story with you. Wednesday night I am at the Stratosphere playing in a (pretty tame) no limit holdem game. On this hand three players take the flop. (Preflop betting isn't really pertinent or remembered) The flop came something like A, 8, 2 rainbow. The first player checks. The second player bets $100. The third player goes all in for $107. The first player folds. The original bettor folds!! For $7 and two cards to come! He soon left the table in disgust. I thought it was unbelievable. (Before you start suggesting collusion, these players definetly did not know each other.)
It'd be interesting to know if that fold could ever be mathematically right, and if not, how far from it. Say the guy with $107 had a set or top-two pair, and the guy who folded had 6-3.
Tommy
He's getting better than 30-1 for that call, he'd have to be drawing dead for a call to be incorrect (AKo vs AA with that flop). Tough to construct a reasonable scenario that makes his fold correct though.
I assume the player who initially raised wasn't paying attention. Perhaps the player with $107 said "I raise all in" and both assumed that the raise involved more money than the amount actually raised!
If not that, then stupid!
I think that Stupid Fold would have been a better title for your post. Dumb! Please tell me who this player is so I can get into the no limit game with him next time I am in vegas.
I am looking for any kind of hold em game in maine or nh. Email me
Thanks
Saturday, I played a 14-hour limit HE session. During that session, I had A-Jo more than a dozen times. While it's a very difficult hand to play well, since I was dealt it so often (and out of boredom), I sought to learn something by playing it from different positions with different tactics. Thus, unless I felt that I was up against A-A, K-K, or A-K (which, coincidentally, never occurred), I played it every time from every position. My results were interesting (I'll post this after some responses).
But the point of this post is to survey player's experiences with A-Jo. I know what the "book" says about A-Jo, but I'm curious of others long-term positive and negative experiences playing A-Jo from different positions against different numbers of opponents.
In the games I play in AJ offsuit is a decent hand that makes money over time. I like limping in with it early, open-raising with it from middle or late position, and I will call a legitimate raise with it from my big blind but not my small blind. About a third of the time I will flop top pair/top kicker or top pair/good kicker and frequently go on to win the pot as long as there are not too many opponents. If the flop comes and it misses my hand I will usually fold if the flop gets bet but it is highly situational.
I find that AJo is a trouble hand if you play it against a raise, usually no matter who it is that raised and what position you are in. I have been folding this hand when a decent player raises and my results with this hand have greatly improved. I may play for one more bet if I am in the SB, but I will be cautious with it. Still though, I tend to raise with it if I get it, unless I am UTG or 2nd UTG. Often, I will still fold it in these two positions. I feel that if I am in fact losing anything by not playing it here, I am certainly not losing very much. If I happen to play it and raise with it, if someone reraises I am extremely cautious as I am likely dominated or barely ahead at best. Overall, it is a trouble hand most of the time.
Dave in Cali
Earl,
First, a dozen hands isn’t getting into the long run but it still may be interesting to here what happened to you. Here are a few thoughts about this hand, which played in the right spots and played well post flop makes money IMO.
1) It is about the weakest offsuit raising hand up front when first in. When first in from late position it is not a whole lot worse than AKo.
2) You cannot cold call a legitimate early raise from any position no matter how many or how few callers. Yet you might (perhaps should) three bet a steal raise from late position if you are on the button (or cutoff).
3) This hand doesn’t play well from middle position when surrounded by callers in front and callers (with a potential raise) behind. It just doesn’t ever flop a strong enough hand to withstand pressure from both sides.
4) Post flop, you will often be forced to make laydowns with top pair because you have to fear being out-kicked in addition to losing to straights, trips, two pair and flushes. AKo does not have this additional problem.
5) In a game with a lot of aggression and three or more opponents, it is essentially unplayable. This hand can’t handle pressure.
6) In a soft game with predictable players it makes good money most of the time and should be played and bet aggressively when you flop top pair with most boards.
Regards,
Rick
The undoubtedly tired Rick Nebiolo wrote, "3) This hand doesn’t play well from middle position when surrounded by callers in front and callers (with a potential raise) behind. It just doesn’t ever flop a strong enough hand to withstand pressure from both sides."
That might be the most significant aspect of playing A-Jo. It seems that even when it is out in front pre-flop, that if you have a lot of callers from mid-position the hand cannot stand up often enough to make it profitable.
Why do you think (Turbo Texas Hold'em) simulations would not pick up on the problem of being in a pickle with AJ in middle position? (In middle position after limpers, Turbo simulations suggest the best play is to raise after loose limpers, but fold after tight limpers. This is consistent with Rick's hypothesis, as part of the reason for the raise may be to buy the button and avoid the pickle.)
-Abdul
I am not disputing the value of simulators. I have TTH and use it. I just think you are overestimating it. If you read your above post you will notice it was your interpretation and thought processes that drew that conclusion not the simulator. It didn't know that the raise after loose limpers was to buy the button did it? If it knew this than I think you have that new star trek version of it...the one where you play against halograms of Stephen Hawking, Newton and Einstein.
My perceptions:
1. In a loose game, raising up front doesn't appear profitable. If you can trim the field, then yes.
2. I agree.
3. Ditto. Same problem as I mentioned in #1. There aren't enough flops to make this hand happy.
4. Depends on top-pair. If you flop J-x-x small, then you have fewer concerns. Flopping an Ace is often trouble.
5. I agree.
6. Be careful about playing this too strong even against the loose gooses. There are a lot of A-3o, A-5o callers in those games who will take you off when the board comes A-x-x small.
Those same loose goose will play their A5 and A3 against your AK and AQ as well. Do you still suggest not playing this strong?
3) This hand doesn’t play well from middle position when surrounded by callers in front and callers (with a potential raise) behind. It just doesn’t ever flop a strong enough hand to withstand pressure from both sides.
Rick,
Are you suggesting that you fold to multiple early limpers when you are in middle position with A,Jo? Or couple the early limpers with some very aggressive players yet to act, then fold?
Vince
Vince,
I’m convinced that even the better mid limit players (if they play it) lose money with this hand in middle position in a multi-way pot, even if is unraised. I can’t prove it but here is some of my thinking.
Assume you are in a full nine handed California 15/30 holdem game. Anyway, you are smack dab in the middle with three players acting before you and three behind you in addition to the blinds. Let’s say the game is fairly good, with only moderate pre and post flop aggression and opponents who can be a little bit tricky but not overly so. To keep Mike Caro happy, let’s say the looser players are to your right and the tighter ones to your left.
Let’s say two of the first three players limp. The problem with raising is that you are too far away from the button to “buy it” since at least one of the three players yet to act will usually cold call because the pot is looking to be pretty big so they usually open up a bit. So this hand is in trouble in that you will generally not have position and even your better flops (e.g., J x x) are very vulnerable against a field. Of course, not that many flops will be that good. So my gut feeling, based mostly on experience, is that AJo is a loser if you chose to raise. OTOH I think it can raise from the cutoff seat but the hand would really like only two or three limpers over a field.
If you call you will help trigger a “calling frenzy” (as skp put it) and will probably pick up two players behind you and the small blind. Some of the time it will be raised and you end up in a big pot with a hand that just doesn’t hit the flop very hard. Now I usually will call here with tight, soft opponents behind but once again I think I lose money in this spot. If I am right then perhaps the best play is to fold.
On a similar note, I believe middle position does strange things to certain hands. Let’s say you are still in the middle in the game described above. The first three players limp. Would you rather have a pair of fours or ace jack offsuit? I would want the fours and I don’t even think it is close.
Now let’s say you are in the same position but the first thee players fold. Now I like the AJ offsuit a lot better and I would come in for a raise. Sometimes I get heads up with a blind. If I get three-bet I am not dominated as often as I would be UTG. If I get one cold caller I can usually fair OK even if the blind calls. When a pair of fours raises he just hates being surrounded by two opponents since he will so rarely hit the flop hard (i.e., flop a set).
But what happens when the fours decide to limp? Well, often he will get only one opponent behind calling and the blinds. This is pretty marginal for a small pair. Unfortunately, he will also get raised quite a bit and find himself facing aggression and a single opponent on both sides. Do you think most make money here? I don’t.
Anyway, those are a few of my thoughts. I will try to get back online later tonight but tomorrow I am tied up until the evening so forgive me if I don’t get back in time if the thread keeps going.
Regards,
Rick
The key here is that "even your J-x-x flops are very vulnerable against a [big] field." Against a big field, long-term, I think you lose more with A-Jo than you will win -- regardless of whether you limp or you raise. There simply aren't that many flops that are profitable.
Earl,
On or near the button it probably makes money against a field if you play well post flop. That includes folding against heavy action when you have top pair but other factors are unfavorable.
Regards,
Rick
I've noticed in TTH simulations that the button has a nice positive expectation with this hand regardless of the field size. A-Jo is not only highly "field-dependent" but also highly position-dependent. I suspect the main reason for that is because you can play gutshot and overcard draws where you may not otherwise be able to do so.
Dear players, thursday I have to play in a home pot limit hold'em. I have not read Ciaffone, etc. I played only at $20-$40 limit hold'em. Opponence (except one players, maybe 2) is very very weak (and that's why I want to play in that table) Buy-in minimum about $250, about blinds I don't Know. Please, tell me: 1- The starting hands more profitable (same of limit?) 2- When bet the pot bet limit on flop 3- When call the pot bet limit on flop 4- When bet the pot bet limit on the turn 5- When call the pot bet limit on the turn 6- Playing drawing hands like, suppose 10-J with a flop of K-Q-3 (off) when there's a pot bet?
Thanks to all, obvious these are very complexed questions, I need some general rule to play correctly my hands. Thanks, I'll print all your answers! Marco
1 - Trouble hands are much more trouble than at limit. 2 - If you bet the flop almost always make it a pot sized bet: you don't want to give the opponents more than 2:1 to call a flop bet. 3 - You generally NEED to be betting the flop and NOT calling the flop. 4 - I think you CAN afford to give better than 2:1 on the turn so I think you can often bet less than the pot on the turn.
You can speculate if the opponents are very likely to play predictably on the turn, such as (1) are going to pay you off (2) will check unless they have a really strong hand (3) will either bet or check-fold.
You need to understand what "bad" plays THESE "bad" players make and then take advantage of it. It could very well be their bad plays are calling too much B4 and on the flop, and then routinely folding the turn. It also could be that they play very predictably once someone else has shown aggression. It also could be that they project weak-means-strong and strong-means-weak tells.
Review -3- in the first paragraph again.
- Louie
Thanks, I appreciated your comments! marco
If I feel the remaining players are capable of laying down their hands, and I think that I'm perceived as tight enough to probably not be bluffing in this situation (can successfully represent the Queen or an Ace), then I would definately bet the turn.
A bluff check-raise is another possibility, but the pot is too small for something like that unless I'm almost positive I can pick up the pot right there on the turn.
In general, against one player, if I bluff on the turn and a blank falls, I will bluff the river as well, since I wouldn't like the exposure of bluffing the turn and then checking the river and having to show down trash cards. Of course, your bet on the turn wasn't a pure bluff, so the situation is a bit different.
On the river, the pot is giving 4:1, so if you think there is at least a 20% chance that the button will fold to a final bet, then betting is theoretically correct.
Though, in practice, I'd like the chances to be somewhat higher than 20%, since getting caught in this type of bluff definately creates an image that won't allow you to bluff for a while against even semi-aware opponents.
Jason
I'd bet if the player will lay down a pair of 7s. Otherwise, I'd probably bet anyway hoping he has a bigger flush draw.
The turn is a brain-dead check-raise against aggressive types who are VERY unlikely to have either an A or Q considering no pre-flop raise and no flop bet.
One thing to keep in mind is: "What type of hand could I represent?" Would you play Ax this way? Qx? Another thing to keep in mind is if they are this passive after the flop then there is lots of money to be made stealing from them. To support this you should often or routinely check reasonable hands ON the flop in order to make your turn steals more believable.
- Louie
Very loose 3-6 at the mirage. I am in SB with 3d4d and limp after 6 people call the blind. I do not think the BB will raise.
Flop is 2d 3c 7d. I decide to see what happens here, so I check. BB bets and everyone calls! I decide to check-raise my flush draw for value here. BB and everyone else calls.
Turn is an offsuit ten. I check, BB checks, new bettor bets. Three fold and I call, BB calls.
River is a blank, I check and fold.
Questions:
What do you think of my pre-flop call?
On the flop, I have 9 outs to a flush, plus two trips outs and three outs to two pair, for a total of 14 outs. However, my flush is very small and my two pair might make someone else a straight. Did I make a good value raise here, or should I have been more conservative?
Even though I did not make my draw, I feel that I made a profit (at least mathematically), by raising the flop. Does anyone disagree?
I don't think the raise was a good play, unless you thought your opponents might fold on the turn and river if you bet out when your hand misses. That is usually not the case in a loose game.
I suspect your flush draw might have been good, as I would have put the BB on AK or a small pocket pair and the new bettor on a 10 with a decent kicker - possibly two pair.
All in all, I would rather draw as cheaply as I could in the situation you describe. I don't think raising is a good play the vast majority of the time.
Preflop, I like your call here - There are 7 SB in the pot (including the BB), it costs you 2/3 of a bet to see the flop.
I do not like your check-raise on the flop at all. There are 8 people in the pot (including you) and there is a good chance that bigger Diamonds are out there. The is something I'd consider with Ace-Little suited or King-little suited, but not with your baby flush draw.
That said, there are now 12 BBs in the pot. I think the rest of your play was correct, considering your outs (you are getting roughly 2.2:1 if my math is correct). You do bring up a good point that hitting one of your three outs to two pair could give someone a straight. Even with 11 outs (barring the two pair, you are getting better than 3:1 for your call.
What would you have done if your flush came on the turn or on the river, you bet and get raised?
Thanks, Tim
Chances are that if raised on the river I would pay off, and if raised on the turn I would fold. The exception would be if a very aggressive player or maniac raised me, I would call him down.
If a very conservative player who is easy to read raised me, and I knew they wouldn't do so without the nuts or very close to it, I would probably drop on the turn, but pay off on the river. The river is not the place to be making great laydowns of 5 card hands. They may occasionally raise you with a straight or something, so you cannot afford to be wrong very often.
dave in cali
I like your play as a variation but did you consider betting out on the turn and river.
On occassion I have been the blind with a flop four flush draw and with a few players have check raised. I like this play when the flop is low cards. Often this play would appear as the blind having a low set, or 2 pair, or straigh draw, or over pair, or top pair with a good kicker. If the flush hits, its true you might be second best unless you hold the nuts, but if you do hit it will probably pay off nice. Also, I have ended with no callers and won the pot because it looks too strong.
Again, its a variation and will depend on what is the flop and turn and what else is going on, but if you seem to be the only player epresenting power, it will sometimes pay to just keep lead betting.
With 5 or 6 opponents, I would jam that draw in a heartbeat. Flush over flush isn't as common in Hold'em as some think, and even if there are bigger diamonds out there, you have additional trips/two pair outs.
Actually I'm surprised that people think the preflop call is obvious but the flop check-raise is debateable. I think the preflop call with a 1/3 sized SB is a lot closer to break-even (especially if the game is raked) than the flop check-raise when you flop a pair, flush draw, and a backdoor open-ended straight.
-Sean
Who needs Viagra when you have a pair AND a flush draw; no matter how small.
You need less than 2 players to raise for value even when you KNOW you are beat. Cap the flop if you can.
With 7 opponents I would have bet for value on the turn. I would also have bet the river what-the-heck, especially if a card larger than the turn Ten came.
This is the sort of hand you WANT to go out-on-a-limb, or "advertise", or "vary your play", or whatever.
- Louie
Cap the flop if possible, if it is capped to you ask if you can make it five! If there are bigger diamonds you lose a little but you have outs galore.
In the end I would do it again in a heartbeat. I know I needed less than two callers to break even on the draw, so with 7 I would have capped it if given the chance, and I'd do it again too. I like louie's suggestion of betting the turn and river too. If I lose to the bigger flush then so be it. It doesn't happen very often. The value you are getting will more than cover the few times you lose to a bigger flush or full house.
Dave in Cali
3-6 somewhere in vegas. I have told the man to my right once that he is not protecting his hand and that he is exposing his cards. He obviously wasn’t listening, because he was doing the same thing just a couple hands later. Plus, he was smoking up a storm and seemed more interested in his cigarette than protecting his hand. After he lit up about his sixth cigarette in a row (directly in my face of course), the following hand occurred.
I have T4o in the BB. The man to my right exposed has hand to me again, showing A8o. He limps after three others and I check.
Flop is 8 T Q rainbow. He bets. Now I know I have him beat, and no one else looks terribly happy with the flop, so I very well may have the best hand. I raise him and everyone folds, he calls.
On the turn (2d) I bet after he checked. He folded.
Was I making an angle shot here?
Did I allow my impatience with his rude smoking override my ethics? Or did he get what he deserved?
I will tell people to stop showing me their cards two times, after that, I'll just keep my mouth shut and use the information to my advantage.
A few months ago, I was sitting to the left of a guy who never protected his hand. As I followed the action around the table, he would lift up his cards and hold them about a foot off the table in front of his face, right in my line of sight.
I asked him 3 times to protect his hand. The third time, he said "Shut the fuck up and stop looking at my hand!" He was just rotten.
I said nothing. 3 hands later, we were headsup on the flop and he had top pair with a weak kicker and I had nothing. He bet. I said "Your K of hearts 9 of diamonds is no good. You are so outkicked. Get out now." and I raised. He checked the turn and I bet saying "This game sure is easier when I know your cards." He disgustedly threw in his cards and steamed off the rest of his chips before leaving.
I didn't feel bad for him at all.
I have noticed that there are some people who just plain refuse to protect their hands. I warn them twice, after that whatever happens is their own damn fault.
I'm with you 100%. You give someone a fair warning, and it's up to them what to do with it.... Tim
I didn't feel bad for him at all.
I feel bad for you for pissing him off rather than getting him to stay, where you could use that information to your advantage.
As far as the ethics involved, I agree with Jim. If I were playing in a low-limit game where the stakes didn't matter and I was just there to have a good time, I might be more willing to repeatedly remind someone to protect their hand. But in any mid-limit game, your opponent should really know better, and I might warn someone once, at most, and frankly I would be more willing to warn them if I thought an opponent could easily see the cards than if I could.
I do think it's unethical to crane your neck or go out of your way to sneak a peek at someone's cards.
-Sean
Don't feel bad for me. He was down to $20 in chips at that point, and had taken all the cash out of his wallet.
He steamed that off and left the seat open for bad players with more money.
You are a nicer guy than I am. I take advantage of everything that offers an advantage as long as I am not doing anything unethical. If someone exposes their cards such that I see them if they enter my normal field of view than I will use that information to take their money. It is up to the player to protect his hand and it is up to the dealer to protect the interests of all the players and the game in general. As long as I am not doing anything out of the ordinary to get information I would not be entitled to, then I have no qualms about utilizing what is made available to me.
At the local card club last weekend, there was a dealer that dealt very awkwardly and I could see about 1 of every 3 cards. Not perfectly, but a few times I could make out an ace or a black paint card. I wanted to tell the dealer about it away from the table, but could not find him.
Some players expose their cards because they can't read them at less than arms lenght and under full light. Is it fair to use that information? I think its just another "tell". Its a fault in their game that needs fixing. Would you inform a player that he whistles dixie every time he gets AA?
Hold'em is a game for the blinds not a game for the blind... Use this to your advantage morning noon and night.
Heck a couple of weeks ago in AC I had to ask the dealer to move because he was blocking my view of the 1 seat (I was in the 10) and the guy was exposing his cards every hand.
Sean
Sounds like I am in the minority. I don't like seeing the other players cards. But I do understand that some players always seem to do it and it is annoying to keep saying something. Maybe I should just keep quiet and use it to my advantage like everyone else does.
Now how about this. A few weeks back I am playing 4-8. I am sitting in seat 10. A lady is sitting in seat 7. I know that seats 6 & 8 can see her cards. I try to tell her that players can see her cards. She keeps on exposing them. I don't like the fact that these 2 other players have an advantage because of this lady. Is there anything I can do? She eventually lost her money and moved to a Stud game.
Ken
Why do they call Q-7 the computer hand?
Because a long time ago in a land far, far away some computer whiz did a simulation of hold-em and determined either a) Q-7 is the average hand, or b) Q-7 was the average winning hand at showdown, or c) something else I can't remember.
I thought it was because it was Abdul's real name. Mr. Queen Seven Offsuit. No that can't be right.
vince
Because Q7o wins almost exactly 50% of the time in a cold simulation against two random cards.
My flush got beat this weekend at the Mirage (3-6) when some semi-chain smoking old fart made a boat with his Q-7o in late position when a 7 rivered a board of Q-7-T-3! Suxed.....
I had a great session yesterday 5-10 played for 5 hours and made $515 profit. I made a few mistakes though that I know I shouldn't have. I should have made about $700 profit had I played all hands correctly.
My question is: If a good player can typically make on average of 1 BB per hour, are these 'Good' players making no mistakes (as I did above).
You can certainly make more mistakes at 5-10 and earn 1 BB per hour than you can at, say, 30-60.
Your earn rate is really a function of the relative difference between you and your competition. If your opponents make a lot of mistakes, you could still have a decent earn with a few mistakes in your game. If you start to play against opponents who make few mistakes then you will have to make virtually none to have a good earn rate.
Paul Talbot
n/t
AJs is a strong hand against loose players. Do not fold. AJs is a weak hand against a tight raiser but certainly weak against a tight caller. Do not raise. Consider folding.
You just gotta know approximately the raisers and callers standards.
- Louie
True. I will add that against two loose players, a raise for value might be in order.
I have been playing hold'em for a few months, and I have a question which I haven't seen answered in any books. I currently play the starting hands based on Sklansky's chart. This tight-agressive style would seem better suited to a game where they rake the pot as I only play about 1 out of 5 or 6 hands. I am currently playing 3-6 and I'm charged $4 every half hour. Is this too high? Do I need to play more loosely? Most players play about 75% of their hands which is obviously too many. Any help would be appreciated.
I am very new to the game myself so take this advice with a grain of salt perhaps. I think paying $4 every half hour would be equivalent to your "input" to the rake every half hour. I have read elsewhere that if you are paying time you can afford to reduce your starting requirements so a certain level. IMHO, the 3/6 game is very loose, and to win you must have a very aggressive style, but play very solid cards, I keep very high expectations for starting hands depending on position and the type of game..... Of course.. I'm still playing 3/6!
You are probably not playing too tightly.
A time charge is unusual for 3-6. $4 per half hour is a little high in my opinion, but sounds a tad better than the usual $3 to $4 drop/rake taken from the pot in most rooms.
In theory you could probably loosen up a tiny bit in this time game, but, again, you are likely playing enough hands as it is.
BTW, there is another poster named "scott" (no caps) who posts here semi-regularly already. You might want to add a last initial or something if you don't want him to get mad as a hornet when he runs across your posts.
Its amazing how many people think they are playing too few hands preflop. I rarely meet one. When I do I buy them a beer and read them a haiku.
the time charge should have zero effect on the number of hands you play. you should just try to max your EV. for games that rake a percentage of the pot it is possible that you would want to adjust your marginal starting hands.
I guess 2-4 or 3-6 is good enough to learn the game, but I don't know anyone who ends the year in the plus column by playing low limits. Ther very lowest any decent player should play is 10-20 and 15-30 is better yet. Now I wonder how many of you solid players can tell me why?
Since I started playing hold-em in 1998, I have played over 400 hours of low limit hold-em ($3-$6, $4-$8, and $6-$12) and won over $5,000. Most of this was played in Lake Charles, Louisiana where there was a 10% rake up to a $5 maximum plus $1 for a jackpot. In stud the rake at Lake Charles was the same and from March 1995 through about late 1997, I played 1,356 hours of $1-$5 stud and won $7,906. I also played 829 hours of $2-$10 stud and won $5,114. This was done in spite of what has to be the highest rake in the country. I was not the only player who was doing this. Here in Vegas, low limit hold-em is definitely beatable and I know of several players who make a living playing $1-$4-$8-$8 all over town. The rake is 5% up to a $3.50 max plus $1 is taken out for a high hand or jackpot bonus. At some places the rake is 10% up to a $3.50 maximum. Low limit hold-em and stud are definitely beatable in most locales around the country. The only possible exception might be in the big card barns in L.A. which have the horrid dead button charges but even then I am not sure.
and did you report these winnings on your taxes Mr. Brier?
:)
How do you not know this?
In most of the world, gaming winnings are not taxed. Only American players live in peril of the tax man.
"Most of this was played in Lake Charles, Louisiana "
This shouldn't count. Poker players in Lousiana learned how to play from voters in Florida.
vince
I think the answer is very simple. Once you have developed skills that can begin to beat poker games at a decent rate, you move up. Suppose you are good enough to beat $3-$6 for $5 an hour. Wouldn't you want to play $6-$12 and make $10 per hour.
I do agree with you that there are virtually no long term winners at the very small limits. It's not that they are not beatable, it's simply that the players who are capable of beating these limits have in almost all cases found "greener pastures."
For the past 2000 hours of 4/8 I have won 1.2 ($10) BBs per hour. Over the past 1200 hours at 10/20 I am only winning .6 ($12) BBs per hour. I only have 400 hours of 15/30 play, all of it in the same game which is very loose and aggressive. But I am winning at almost 1 ($30) BB per hour at 15/30.
I make almost as much money at 4/8 than I do at 10/20. Both the 4/8 and 10/20 are weak-passive. The 10/20 is tight, the 4/8 is loose.
The 15/30 takes a hell of a bankroll, but it is easily the most profitable. Although 400 hours is not enough to really get an accurate win rate.
Normally you should play higher because of the rake, but I think game conditions are just as big a factor.
I wonder if we play in the same games. at AJ's the 10-10 game is pretty low stress but the 15-30 is more like a wild 3-6.
seems to me that this river bet is about as close as you can get to a text book game theory bluffing situtation.
Make your bluffs come with same frequency as pot odds he is getting. You are going to bet if a diamond comes. You can also bet when you are in the exact same situation and you hold JJ-22 (assuming you would have played these hands exactly the same way as you played the 52d all the way through).
JJ-22 = 54/1081 - since you are in big blind and got a free flop, I don't think its unreasonable to calculate this probability based on a just a random hand out of a uniform distribution.
diamond on end = 9/46
"legit bet" frequency ~= .245
pot odds he is getting on a call ~= 10.5:2 = 5.25:1 so bluff about at about a .046 rate here. If you use river card to randomize, pick two random non-diamonds and bet when they come. Maybe three since they are too tight.
Not that you want neccessarily to do any of this if you think the table is too tight, but I thought it was cool that a semi-precise mathematical case can be made here - usually it seems too complicated. OTOH, if table is too tight, you can keep em that way for longer when you check on the river here and show them "respect". You'll either check and fold, or check and show and opponent now thinks you are about as tight as he is.
This is a hand I've been limping with a little more at lower(5/10 10/20) limits. If the player to my left raises and I can stay for one more bet I will call. I awlays fold if I have to cold call two or more bets. When the action get too hot you have to beleive you are already beat and/or the cards you need to make a winning hand are out. This has been a winning game plan especially with so many players raising will small and middle pairs. When I catch part of a dangerous looking board I'll check and make crying one bet calls if the field has been reduced. Any thoughts?
"This has been a winning game plan especially with so many players raising will small and middle pairs. "
Do not fix something that ain't broke. If you've found a winning game plan stick with it. If you believe you can improve your winnings with the hand then try a little variation now and then but don't screw up a good thing.
vince
Steal raises and blind defense of a late position raiser. If there are other situations, I too play too conservatively.
On the steal raise situaion, you don't necessarily have to be the first one in. For example, if a weak/readable player limps in and you have tight players in the blinds, you can go ahead and raise with A8 in order to isolate. I would caution against doing that with something less than A8.
When did you throw away a playable hand? I don't think I was in that game with you.
Heheh.
depending on the game and the rake, good players seem to make 1/2 to one big bet per hour and some make more in good games that play fast or shorthanded. your mileage will vary.
late position and out of the blinds in tight games ax gets played alot but doesnt gain alot. but i suspect you are way too tight in late position and out of the blinds. no specifics as i dont know how you play but know you play well from your posts.
Jesus, I'm glad I read this. I thought Ray Zee was dead but I can see I was wrong. Must have been Jerimiah Johnson I saw that bear eat.
vince.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 4 November 2000, at 9:07 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 4 November 2000, at 10:26 p.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 4 November 2000, at 11:05 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 2:13 a.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 2:50 a.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 3:06 a.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 11:09 a.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 5:53 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 5:32 a.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Saturday, 4 November 2000, at 9:28 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Saturday, 4 November 2000, at 10:28 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 12:36 a.m.
Posted by: Zen
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 12:37 a.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 1:23 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 1:55 a.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 2:33 a.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 6:12 p.m.
Posted by: ATWOOD
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 3:27 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 2:49 a.m.
Posted by: Zen (bzentil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: Zen
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 2:57 p.m.
Posted by: PoorBoy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 11:09 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 5:43 a.m.
Posted by: Zen (bzentil@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 10:15 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 10:09 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 5:22 a.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 12:46 p.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 10:10 p.m.
Posted by: ATWOOD
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 3:53 p.m.
Posted by: Vitz (vaziri@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 9:07 a.m.
Posted by: BillW
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: JRounder2000 (theaterluvr@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 5:28 p.m.
Posted by: PoorBoy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 6:43 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 5:14 a.m.
Posted by: chris downs (cdowns@bridge.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 1:32 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 4:06 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 5:11 a.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 12:26 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 1:25 p.m.
Posted by: Uston (James_U81@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 6:10 p.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 10:04 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 1:14 p.m.
Posted by: Howard Burroughs (topset@webtv.net)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 5:30 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 9:19 a.m.
Posted by: Gil (merlin1010@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 9:59 a.m.
Posted by: Zen (bzentil@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 10:53 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Harris (MHBookster@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 3:02 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 9:39 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 3:09 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 6:30 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 9:44 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 9:51 p.m.
Posted by: BruceZ
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 11:49 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: ted
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 10:42 a.m.
Posted by: Aldo (al@bigbox.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 12:24 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 12:31 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 1:10 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 12:25 a.m.
Posted by: Xavier (Xavier0730@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 3:24 a.m.
Posted by: tobar (tobar832@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 8:46 a.m.
Posted by: Abe (abespringfield@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 6:11 p.m.
Posted by: Abe (abespringfield@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 6:26 p.m.
Posted by: ted
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 2:44 a.m.
Posted by: Xavier (Xavier0730@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 10:38 a.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (ashworth@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 2:32 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 11:42 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 1:54 a.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (ashworth@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: Josie
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: Eeyor
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Josie
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Steven (borgwal@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 5:01 p.m.
Posted by: desire (mmmmia@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: Josie
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 9:05 a.m.
Posted by: dutty (dutty320@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 11:41 a.m.
Posted by: desire (mmmmia@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: Josie
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 1:53 p.m.
Posted by: desire (mmmmia@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: greg (trashlord@gmx.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 3:48 p.m.
Posted by: Josie
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: desire (mmmmia@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 6:28 p.m.
Posted by: Josie
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 7:57 a.m.
Posted by: greg (trashlord@gmx.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 5:39 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 9:53 p.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 10:01 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 7:49 a.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 1:31 a.m.
Posted by: ted
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 3:38 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 8:19 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 12:37 p.m.
Posted by: Doo-Daah!!
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 11:47 p.m.
Posted by: BruceZ
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 12:10 a.m.
Posted by: BruceZ
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 12:27 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 1:09 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Dodd (mdodd@telusplanet.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 1:28 a.m.
Posted by: Doo-Daah!!
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 1:47 a.m.
Posted by: BruceZ
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 3:26 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 1:01 p.m.
Posted by: Doo-Daah!!
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 1:42 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 3:05 a.m.
Posted by: Imax
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 1:04 p.m.
Posted by: Tim
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 1:09 p.m.
Posted by: Imax
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: NotQuiteDead (scott.magie@tbwachiat.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 5:24 p.m.
Posted by: Cub (bcubb@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 8:20 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 6:43 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Roy (jimroy@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 8:21 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk42@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 11:21 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Roy (jimroy@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 4:03 a.m.
Posted by: Rich (rcorrea@succeed.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 8:07 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 9:52 p.m.
Posted by: ratso
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 9:56 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 10:31 p.m.
Posted by: dutty (dutty320@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 5:53 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor (frankensteinross@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 10:41 p.m.
Suppose you are, because of table conditions, slowing a lot of big hands. This probably means that your bluffs or semi bluffs won't work as well. Or if you bluff/semi-bluff alot you might find that you begin to get called down often and perhaps suffer some strange beats. Or whatever. I'm not really interested in the specifics, just the general case.
This is often why there is disagreement about playing tactics here on the forum. Recently there was a post by Mason Malmuth on the medium stakes holdem forum "hand to talk about" where many posters disagreed with the stragety used. But on closer examination it probably is a case of an OVERALL strategy that works because it is in tune with the general approach of the player. None of this means that the player isn't capable of adjusting to game conditions. It just means that if a particular strategy fitting game conditions is used, often it is the totality of all the decisions that lead to profit or loss. This is why there is often legitimate debate where both sides are correct.
In a practical sense, I suppose this just means to keep in mind your general approach and think of the consequences and implications of what choices you have made in context of the entirety of the situation. Not in isolation.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 2:01 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 3:06 a.m.
Perhaps the most obvious and most known example would be calling down someone when you know you don't quite have the odds for it so that you can avoid being run over in the future. A slight loss on one hand may lead to more straightforward play by your opponents in the future.
There are a whole load of implications from this idea and I suspect all of the regular posters know this to some degree or other. However, there have been endless discussions about whether 54offsuit is playable against a raise with several in already or whether A8suited is raisable UTG...and I think by far the most important thing is whether the implications and overall effect of your play is profitable, not in isolation necessarily. Simply put, even if 54off showed a small loss in the immediate it may well put doubts in the minds of your opponents or make you get more action when people misunderstand that it was actually a close play. Yada Yada...most of you know all this..just wanted to point it out again.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 5:25 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 7:46 p.m.
Posted by: greg (trashlord@gmx.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: FMonti (Fmontisant@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: JPP (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 6:39 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 2:15 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 2:34 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 3:55 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 1:32 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk42@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 7:45 a.m.
Raise.
Raise.
I have no idea. Call, I guess, due to the combined possibilities that low pair is best and an A will fall on later streets.
Call. On the other hand, you are getting 7:1 on a much better draw, so I guess raising wouldn't be bad either. If he doesn't re-raise you, a Q or 9 might be good (as well as a heart). Plus he might fold. I changed my mind - raise.
Fold. Does that make me weak tight? I figure this is either a tiny favorite or a huge dog and it probably isn't worth investing a whole lot more.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 10:47 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 11:19 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: TONY G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 11:37 a.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 11:51 a.m.
Posted by: TONY G (tonyg49@idt.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 12:01 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 12:35 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 11:39 a.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 11:49 a.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 12:23 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 1:06 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 2:22 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 2:20 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 5:10 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 7:06 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 8:02 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 12:38 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 9:11 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 6:42 a.m.
Posted by: Steven (borgwal@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 9:26 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 2:20 p.m.
Posted by: JPP (jean-philippe.piquette@sympatico.ca)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 November 2000, at 4:46 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 2:00 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 6:16 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk42@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 11:01 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 11:32 a.m.
Posted by: Uston (James_U81@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 12:39 p.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 6:46 a.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: roGER (Roger_kirkham@datawatch.com)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: ThePrince (nicfradet@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 8:59 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 November 2000, at 4:45 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 2:27 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 November 2000, at 4:44 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 10:29 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: chris_a (chrisalvino@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 November 2000, at 5:51 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 10:51 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 11:31 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 11:36 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 12:02 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: acepokerface (acepokerface@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 November 2000, at 2:33 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 1:24 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 7:03 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 4:27 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 12:36 a.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 3:01 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 3:27 a.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 November 2000, at 2:24 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 11:24 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 1:13 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 4:10 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 November 2000, at 2:49 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 2:52 p.m.
Every now and then the sum is greater than the parts.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 4:54 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 1:12 p.m.
Posted by: UMTerp (rhodesphil@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 November 2000, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 9:17 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 November 2000, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 November 2000, at 4:04 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 November 2000, at 12:13 p.m.
Posted by: Uston (James_U81@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 November 2000, at 1:35 p.m.
Posted by: goog (elgoogo@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 3:49 a.m.
Posted by: Zen (bzentil@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 5:35 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 9:07 p.m.
Posted by: Hoju
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 7:20 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 November 2000, at 4:01 a.m.
Posted by: Zen (bzentil@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 November 2000, at 1:19 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 1:14 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 3:44 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 November 2000, at 8:43 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 November 2000, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: Puggy
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 3:38 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 10:49 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 November 2000, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 1:59 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 3:00 a.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 12:58 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 10:18 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 11:10 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 5:47 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 6:08 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 3:25 a.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 4:17 a.m.
Posted by: TONY G (tonyg49@mail.idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 7:23 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 3:16 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 1:32 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 3:18 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 3:35 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 5:03 a.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: PoorBoy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 4:53 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 6:24 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (ashworth@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 4:29 p.m.
Posted by: Uston (James_U81@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 5:31 p.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (ashworth@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 5:59 p.m.
Posted by: chris_a (chrisalvino@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 10:46 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 November 2000, at 11:04 p.m.
Posted by: kurt (betacorp@netzero.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 8:39 a.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (ashworth@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 10:51 a.m.
Posted by: kurt (betacorp@netzero.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 11:17 a.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (ashworth@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 2:02 p.m.
Posted by: kurt (betacorp@netzero.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: greg (trashlord@gmx.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Dodd (mdodd@telusplanet.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 8:11 p.m.
Pf = (10/47)*(9/46) = 4.16%
Posted by: greg (trashlord@gmx.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 7:12 a.m.
Posted by: DaveW (NOSPAMdave@sebastian9.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: greg (trashlord@gmx.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 5:31 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 12:57 a.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 2:37 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 November 2000, at 12:08 a.m.
Posted by: guppy
Posted on: Friday, 17 November 2000, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 November 2000, at 4:18 a.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (ashworth@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 5:18 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 7:23 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 8:12 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 12:50 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 5:23 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 11:29 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 6:48 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 November 2000, at 12:55 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Thursday, 16 November 2000, at 3:09 p.m.
Posted by: Gus
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 8:11 p.m.
Posted by: TimC (Icon1970@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 11:25 p.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 November 2000, at 11:23 a.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 November 2000, at 6:35 p.m.
Posted by: TimC (Icon1970@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 November 2000, at 7:19 p.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 November 2000, at 10:58 p.m.
Posted by: TimC (Icon1970@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 November 2000, at 12:45 a.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 8:41 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor (frankensteinross@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 November 2000, at 5:51 a.m.
Shorthanded, the three most important players are the big blind, the small blind and the button. The reasons should be obvious. Now preflop decisions need to be engineered to ideally suit this button/blind relationship. This would take me several chapters to elaborate properly so I will give the gist of the concept. There is a certain relationship psychologically, ante wise, and position wise concerning the bsb(button, small blind, big blind) that is very important to your game plan shorthanded. Now I know you are asking "so what is it?". But the point here is that in order to understand this concept you have to sit and think it over. Think about what kinds of hands these players will hold, the interactions, where you will be in relation to them, during the hand. This interrelationship is far more important to your profit potential than the literature I have read generally acknowledges. This goes way beyond stuff like "put the maniac on your right" or whatever.
This bsb relationship is the key to marginal hands and how to play them. With the right bsb combo, properly manipulated, marginal hands can become nicely profitable. It is often the decider over whether or not to play and more importantly the way to play.
Strategically, hands are more profitably played when a correct overall manipulation of the bsb is used. Often short term marginal situations are decided by the longterm need to manipulate this threesome.
Now obviously I haven't said much here. And I'm not going to yet. If you are an fairly advanced player who likes to play shorthanded, sit for a while and consider the bsb as a single unit, then design strategies to exploit this. All of this assumes you know odds and fundamentals and all that very well. This is merely a strategic optimization technique that can turn marginal situations into some profit.
I will try to post specifics at a later date that will illustrate the points better but I really believe thinking, conducting poker thought experiments, will serve you best.
Posted by: scalf (ae11@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 November 2000, at 7:45 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Thursday, 16 November 2000, at 10:32 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 November 2000, at 11:42 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 November 2000, at 1:44 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 November 2000, at 4:00 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 November 2000, at 6:17 p.m.
Posted by: TimC (Icon1970@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 November 2000, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 November 2000, at 6:53 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 November 2000, at 1:00 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 3:45 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 18 November 2000, at 12:37 a.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 9:18 p.m.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Saturday, 18 November 2000, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 November 2000, at 11:11 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 2:26 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 7:10 a.m.
Posted by: skp (Supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 11:25 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 11:40 p.m.
Posted by: skp (Supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 12:23 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 12:46 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 4:17 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 5:09 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (dunc@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 7:49 p.m.
Posted by: Paul III (prev333@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 9:55 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 5:57 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 7:19 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 4:53 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 4:35 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 8:58 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 9:01 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 1:41 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 4:01 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 4:07 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 4:40 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 4:34 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 8:27 p.m.
Posted by: Mike (mikedahl@gate.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 9:58 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 11:41 p.m.
Posted by: manzanita (koleary@vegasnet.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 12:48 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 4:24 p.m.
Posted by: Jake
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 1:08 p.m.
Posted by: Chip N. Achair
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 5:37 p.m.
Posted by: Abbe
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 3:20 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 4:56 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 10:44 p.m.
Posted by: Zbigniew
Posted on: Saturday, 25 November 2000, at 6:56 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Greer (jgreerNOSPAM@alumni.princeton.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 3:49 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk42@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 9:00 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Greer (jgreerNOSPAM@alumni.princeton.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 11:39 a.m.
Posted by: David Klatte (dhk42@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 12:26 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 November 2000, at 12:10 a.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 5:56 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 7:01 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 8:49 p.m.
Posted by: titlemike (mmicelli@iwon.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 November 2000, at 8:06 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 8:35 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 11:50 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 1:25 a.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 6:34 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 10:56 a.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 November 2000, at 5:27 a.m.
Posted by: Rob Papp (papp99@alum.dartmouth.org)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 2:05 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 5:34 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 10:50 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 November 2000, at 4:26 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 November 2000, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 November 2000, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: Zen (bzentil@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 8:20 p.m.
Posted by: dan (intimidatingdan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 5:30 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 8:54 p.m.
Posted by: sabu
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 November 2000, at 11:57 a.m.
Posted by: Ward
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 7:04 p.m.
Posted by: Easy E
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 7:29 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 November 2000, at 7:41 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 November 2000, at 11:23 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 November 2000, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 November 2000, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 November 2000, at 5:55 p.m.
Posted by: chris_a (chrisalvino@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 November 2000, at 6:19 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 November 2000, at 8:15 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 November 2000, at 9:47 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 November 2000, at 5:16 a.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 November 2000, at 7:03 a.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 25 November 2000, at 12:37 a.m.
Posted by: Izmet Fekali (izmet@fekali.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 November 2000, at 6:44 a.m.
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: David Rodgers (ddaverodgers@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 November 2000, at 4:45 p.m.
Posted by: Joe
Posted on: Monday, 27 November 2000, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 November 2000, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: Big $lick
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 11:16 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 November 2000, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 November 2000, at 9:33 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 November 2000, at 5:15 a.m.
Posted by: mk (mk2097@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 November 2000, at 6:56 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 November 2000, at 11:04 p.m.
Posted by: dan (intimidatingdan@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 November 2000, at 11:35 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 November 2000, at 3:35 a.m.
Posted by: Al Bore (vpalbore@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 November 2000, at 10:30 a.m.
Posted by: Zen (bzentil@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 November 2000, at 11:28 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 November 2000, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: Frank Bombardier (Goldtab99@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 November 2000, at 4:26 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 November 2000, at 6:25 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 November 2000, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 November 2000, at 8:13 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 1:56 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 4:00 a.m.
This observation is one of those strategic considerations that are so important that don't lend themselves to math. This takes a special intuitive understanding of the game that players who strictly adhere to calculations and simulators just don't get. This applies to hands other the AJ too.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 8:24 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 1:22 a.m.
I think this is just a matter of semantics and there is no real disagreement here. Without your knowledge of poker theory and its inferences, the simulator could lead you astray.
And the most important point of all is: when Luke destroyed the Deathstar it was with the targeting computer off. Food for thought. (Beware of escape craft too).
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 2:39 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 11:09 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 10:22 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 4:05 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 4:11 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 6:12 a.m.
Posted by: marco trevix (trevixget@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 November 2000, at 8:26 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 11:27 a.m.
Posted by: marco trevix (trevixget@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 11:17 p.m.
Posted by: Jason (amyjason@erols.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 November 2000, at 10:50 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 3:42 p.m.
Posted by: Tim
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 6:20 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 8:51 p.m.
Posted by: Zen (bzentil@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 9:40 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 9:22 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 11:16 a.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 8:35 p.m.
Posted by: Dave in Cali (grimreaper777@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: Tim
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 6:03 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Duffy (sean_duffy@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 9:28 a.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 2:02 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 8:28 p.m.
Posted by: Holybull (Holybull2@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 11:15 a.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 1:29 p.m.
Posted by: sean (sean-twoplustwo@dobermanpages.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 5:10 p.m.
Posted by: ohKanada (ohKanada@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 5:48 p.m.
Posted by: Choppy
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 8:23 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 12:55 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (cralger@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: Paul T.
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (djashworth@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot (talbot@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 9:50 p.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (djashworth@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 11:20 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 3:55 a.m.
Posted by: scott (smarler01@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 11:41 p.m.
Posted by: steve (possy@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 12:34 a.m.
Posted by: John F.
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 3:27 a.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 3:45 a.m.
I still think I play too few hands preflop even though I know better. I don't get it.
Good luck "scott".
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Sherwood
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 12:50 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 1:40 a.m.
Posted by: IRSMan (irsman@irs.gov)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 9:11 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: Marty
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 6:43 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 4:36 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 5:50 p.m.
Posted by: chance
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 2:23 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 6:39 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 7:05 p.m.
Posted by: George Lind (georgel@netpro.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 7:49 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 7:54 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 10:21 p.m.
Hold'em
November 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo