Hey, i love the new format!
Thanks
I usually play at a cardroom that uses the bug (the joker, wild only for aces, straights and flushes) in the game.
There is only one joker in the deck.
The games they play are Hold' Em, 7 High, and 7 Low. No split games and no Omaha or Tahoe. The joker is completely wild in the low games -- it works as the lowest possible card you need.
Obviously, with the joker in the deck, it changes the starting hand situation with Hold 'Em. For example. If you hold Joker/10spades, then it is really like holding the following hands:
A/10 spades 9/10 spades
K/10 spades 8/10 spades
Q/10 spades 7/10 spades
J/10 spades 6/10 spades
Plus the ace of every other suit (for flush purposes)
Plus any other straight card if the board is a 4 card
straight.
Going against the joker can be tough. My theory about why it's in the deck is because it creates "more action that God" (as one other play said). Obviously if you have the joker, the flop has to be almost terrible for you not to have at least a great draw.
I play very tight in this game -- in nearly all positions I tend to start with only class one or two hands plus pocket pairs. I also will play the joker from nearly any position.
Any thoughts on strategy (particularly hold 'em strategy) for this game?
Yeah find another casino to play in, SERIOUSLY.
The wild card has to screw up everything all calculations and odds are out the window. That is no way to play poker.
Rounder,
I play in many other games, but to be honest, this casino has the best game in town. The card tables are in the back of a high traffic bar which means many, many people sit down somewhat randomly. Often they ask, "Is this blackjack?" Clueless -- and therefore huge fish.
At the same time the game is also populated by a number of regulars who are in the near maniac category. There are only about 4 players who I'm truly wary of in this game (and rarely are they ever there together). For example, over the past three months, my average weekly win is over $300. This is playing approximately 15-25/hours a week at what is usually a $3 game (though frequently we play overs at 10/20/50 or no limit).
I also play in other card games in town but no one spreads above a $5 limit consistently and the $5 games against the old-timers who are rocks are not nearly as good -- you won't get much action and my hourly rate is not as high -- as the $3 game with the potential for overs.
I agree, the joker screws up the odds. For example: If you hold Joker/10 and the flop comes 7/8/9 then any 5/6/J/Q makes a straight -- basically it doubles your odds for openended straight draws. But it also can be dead weight. For example, if the board pairs (without an ace) then the joker is often a useless card.
I have compiled a table of odds to draws once you have the joker in your hand and the flop hits. I am curious about people's thoughts for starting hands?
Rounder writes:
The wild card has to screw up everything all calculations and odds are out the window. That is no way to play poker.
That's like saying that allowing an Ace to play both hin and low screws up everything. It doesn't screw it up, it *changes* things. Those who cannot adapt are doomed to failure.
It's not too hard to figure out how the bug changes the game. I think the poster was just asking about what he should do. Second, all drawing hands go up a bit in value, because there is another card which completes your draws. Third, you are pretty much correct to be liberal in your play of the joker, but as a general rule, treat it like a suited Ace, and use the same guidelines for playing Joker-x, as you would Axs. Fourth, unsuited cards go down in value, so you are pretty much correct to play only group 1 and 2 hands up early, but you still need to play a bit more than that in middle and in back.
- Andrew
A couple pieces of advice. First, suited kings lose a lot of value for obvious reasons.
Prock wrote: Third, you are pretty much correct to be liberal in your play of the joker, but as a general rule, treat it like a suited Ace, and use the same guidelines for playing Joker-x, as you would Axs.
Joker-x is much more valuable than Axs by far. Think of it as Axs plus the suited connectors x/x-1 and x+1/x. Plus it completes any four flush or four straight.
I totally agree with DeadBart, but I don't think you want to come charging into the game with Joker-x, when you are UTG.
One thing to note, while you do get more value for the fact that you are more "connected", this value doesn't increase the value of the hand to make it a head to head hand. The main reason is that it is still a drawing hand. If an Ace comes on the flop, you really can't like your kicker, so you are going for the straight/flush potential most of the time when you hold a small kicker.
It *is* strong enough that you wan't to be raising very liberally after three or four people limp in.
One key with the bug is that you do not want to give away the fact that you have the joker, so your style of play should be pretty consistent when you do have the joker as when you don't.
- Andrew
My advice was to find a real poker game and stay away from the wild card game - it was given in all seriousness ans it is exactly what I would do.
Why go find another game? Why not learn the game that is available? A good player adapts to the game, a bad player doesn't play.
- Andrew
Silly boy why don't you go adapt to roulette or craps.
The quality of the game is determined entirely by the quality of your opponents. If they are clueless, and there is money being thrown on the felt, one would be stupid to turn down the opportunity to relieve them of it. Yes, this is a very high-variance game, and we all know that some people don't like that. Too bad; those people are missing some great opportunities. If I can take a man's money because I play Anaconda a little better than he does, I'm happy to do it.
I hope your cardroom has a large reservoir of players.This can only burn up chips(players) From a business point of view it doesnt seem very smart. What is the rake?, limit? buy-in? How do you put players on a hand? discipline? In a cardroom setting the joker is for lo-ball.The joker is great for home games with old high school buddies.
I beg to differ. I play regularly in a cardroom that spreads five card stud with a *Joker*. They took out 12 other cards and allow you to take third, fourth and fifth street cards up or down at your option. It is, in my humble opinion, the easiest game to beat in the room. Wild cards tend to increase action and favor the better players. A good deal of poker skill lies in being able to recognize favorable situations and exploit them. The more complex the game is, the more a players skill will make a difference.
Encourage your local cardroom to spread complex, volatile games. The pots, relative to the size of the rake, will be larger and the "gamblers" will have a much better time playing. Cardroom poker is too staid and stodgy, we need to put more fun into it so that the contributors at least get some good entertainment value for their money.
A bug sounds like funnnnnnn!! What country do you play in?? I haven't played with a bug since my California draw days. But seriously, what state and town do you play in?
Sincerely, Zack
Poker is Poker. Bug poker requires a modified strategy from non-bug poker. Understanding hand strength is crucial in any poker game. In general, tactically, they play the same. Someone like David or Mason or other analysts will have to give you the strategy modifications (relative to hand strength). I don't know them nor am I inclined to develop them. I will give you the following advice, because you asked, Do not play in any game that you do not UNDERSTAND. By that I mean that if a game demands a definitized strategy to gain an edge and you do not know that strategy do not play in the game. Something to do with "looking around the table and not spotting the live one".
Vince.
Thanks for the replies so far. As I mentioned, I do well in this game, but am more interested in people's opinions about strategy. A few points:
(1) The bug is incredibly more powerful that Axs. Just it's any ace-suited when a four flush is on the board makes this clear. Same with a four straight. I'll play the bug from any position. Not so with Axs. In this game I'll only play them late with many limpers.
(2) I respect Rounder's skills, but I don't agree about his thoughts about this game. As someone else said, "Poker is poker." The bug modifies things (the game becomes more of a drawing game) and makes some things really wacky (for example, if you hold A/2 of spades with three spades on the board and any one holds the Joker/10 of spades then you don't have the nuts). The winning hand simply tends to be higher...a little like hold 'em vs. omaha, but less extreme.
(3) The game is a set limit of $3. Frequently people play overs. Up to no limit with people having $500 in front of them. Unfortunately, in MT, all poker pots are capped (this sucks).
(4) The game is at Stockman's Bar in Missoula, MT. Come down and play -- it's definitely a beatable game, especially if the limits go up. I'm curious if anyone else has played there?
(5) The joker is definitely a drawing hand -- it is way more valuable in a multi-way pot.
B.D.
Sounds like you have a pretty solid grasp of what the implications of the bug are when you hold it in your hand. If you have the same level of understanding of how it affects your play when it's *not* in your hand, then my money is on you.
- Andrew
Last night was the last time Bob Sherwood is getting any of my money. He is too lucky. Fifth time I've been at a 10-20 or 20-40 HE table and had him walk away with a bunch of my money. On top of that, I believe few people really make any serious money on any regular basis. Poker is just as much a gamble as blackjack. I quit. If you had any sense, you'd quit too.
BM - good luck - sounds like you need some.
Your wrong poker is a zero sum game which means if you lose someone wins (less the rake) it is up to you to be the winner not anyone else.
If your losing analyze your game - are you playing to many marginal hands in poor position or are you seeing and calling to many bets with no hopers.
There is no reason you can't be a winning player.
Rounder writes:
Your wrong poker is a zero sum game ...
Not when there's a rake. Everyone can lose at the casino. That is unless you count the casino as a "player".
- Andrew
Andy if your gonna quote me please do so completely.
I said "Your wrong poker is a zero sum game which means if you lose someone wins (less the rake) it is up to you to be the winner not anyone else.
I mentioned the rake and my comment is correct.
Oh well sorry, it's just that what you say makes almost as much sense as:
You get the second for free (if you don't count buying the first one).
Either it's free or not.
Either it's a zero sum game or it's not. Casino poker is not a zero sum game.
- Andrew
Andy when you grow up and understand the game come on back and talk to me.
Beautiful response rounder.
Why bother admitting that you're wrong when it is so much more effective to insult me.
- Andrew
There is no reason you can't be a winning player.
I'm sorry to disagree with you but your statement assumes that everyone can win which is obviously false. Everyone CANNONT win. There must be losers for there to be winners. Otherwise the house gets it all.As my father was very fond of saying, "If there is money to be made--you're going to have to get in a very long line before you start making any of it."
- Re: Poker is a losing game
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Sunday, 14 November 1999, at 7:11 a.m.
Brenda I agree for there to be winners there has to be losers but I said "There is no reason you can't be a winning player." There is no reason he can't - it doesn't mean everyone can just there is no reason he can't.
Your father sounds like a wise man.
- Re: Poker is a losing game
Posted by: Pierre (Therock27@buffalo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 November 1999, at 10:14 p.m.
There could easily be many reasons why any one individual could not be a winning poker player. It is surprisingly easy to make $$$ at the game, but many people just don't get it, or don't have anywhere near the discipline. It's tempting to say "anybody could do it", but this is just not the case.
- Re: Poker is a losing game
Posted by: Brad S
Posted on: Monday, 15 November 1999, at 4:45 a.m.
Strictly speaking you are correct, but I think that you are missing the point of Rounder's original post.
Sure, if you had some extreme mental disability and functioned at the level of a three year old, you could probably never play the game with positive expectation, but surely anyone with even the most modest intellect COULD aquire the skills neccessary to beat the game. And don't get me wrong here - By modest, I mean anyone that I have ever seen playing poker in a casino.
You say that not everyone 'Gets it' or that not everyone has the discipline. You then state that not everyone could do it because it is 'just not the case'.
Just not being the case has been true of many things at certain points in history including nuclear fission, manned space missions, and computers playing chess. The fact that these things were just not the case did not imply that they never would be the case. Similarly, that fact that many people do not have the discipline does not imply that they could not aquire it.
Granted, not everyone could play positive winning poker ALL AT ONCE, because some will always play better than others and this is what determines who wins and who loses. ie- It is impossible for everyone to walk away from the table a winner. BUT, any one individual could attain the requisite attributes to make himself a winner.
Now I know that a lot of people will argue with this opinion, but I firmly believe it to be true. I don't want everyone to improve their game, because it would be bad for me, but I have no doubt that they COULD do it. The fact that they DON'T do it is inconsequential to whether or not they are CAPABLE.
Maybe I am making a big deal out of a very small issue, but it has always bugged me how positive EV players think that they have some kind of completely different central nervous system than negative EV players. I don't mean to suggest that you are of this crowd and, in fact, poker players aren't even the worst ones for it. (Blackjack players are the absolute worst in my opinion. They think that they possess a kind of mathematical genius that only the truly gifted could ever hope to acheive. It is difficult, I admit, but I have never seen anyone who could count cards effectively who did not invest at least a couple hundered hours of practice. I think that the truly gifted would realize how boring it is to do that after only a few hours of practice.)
At any rate, I just think that it is arrogant to suppose that any given negative EV player is incapable of becoming a positive EV player. I've known my share of 'undisciplined' and 'ignorant' poker players who lost every session, yet who also ran very successful businesses that got that way through extreme discipline and carefull calculation. You would be surprised how many dumb players are actually pretty smart outside of the casino.
regards, Brad S
- Re: Poker is a losing game
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 November 1999, at 4:58 p.m.
Brenda,
Your father was obviously an astute observer. I have to agree.
The only exception I would make is insider type things wherein most people don't know there's money to be made and thus don't form a line....but try finding one of those. It generally ends up being a "who you know" deal.
"If wishes were fishes and fishes were Fords, all the beggars could ride"
Or
"If dung became gold, tommorrow, all the poor folks kids would be born without butts."
- Re: Poker is a losing game
Posted by: Furious (RFloyd@Mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 November 1999, at 12:07 p.m.
Rounder,
Where were you in Vegas buddy? I'll post you a note on the exchange.
Russ
"If you had any sense, you'd quit too. "
Amen! Point noted! Point well taken. Oh! For a little sense.
Vince.
One wonders if Bob Sherwood feels this way.
I don't know Bob Sherwood, but I know a few guys who play mid and upper level HE and average from 25K to 40K a year. Maybe Sherwood is just a better player. Buy somebooks...Sklansky and Malmuth stuff. Calm down....Watch Sherwood's play, maybe you'll learn something.
Who is this Bob Sherwood ?? Maybe I can 'rub albows' with him. Notice he is not a regular poster - too busy making money. Anyway - I think you are alright and made a right choice I wonder if you can keep to it.... Seriously - I like poker now more than ever - now that I seldom play it !!!!!
Babaloo:
With all due respect: Poker is like screenwriting. A little art, a little science, a little craft. And the good, well, they'll get the goods. As I'm sure you know. I've long admired your work; now I can look forward to meeting you over a poker table as well.
Murray
Bye Bye Babaloo, hold the door for me because I'm right on your heels.
I've often felt the way you do and then I started folding. If I still had disappointing results I folded a little more. It got to the point where I would finally be looking for a reason to get out of a hand rather than looking for a reason to stay in. Then, I started winning. By the way if you are THE Babaloo Mandel I've got a great idea for a sitcom. A Taste: Sign in a deli
IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING YOU BUY
No Problem
JUST THROW IT OUT!!
Babaloo... I know you don't mean you're quitting th game. I'll bet youi're gonna write something involving poker, though. Who will you cast for Sherwood's part...Michael Douglas?
Hmmm, think about it.
You know, it's true. Almost everybody would be better off if they quit playing this game. It takes its toll on everybody. The losers go broke and get bitter. The winning players get a little nasty after all those years of getting run down. The luckiest of winning players generally develop a very annoying arrogance (eg. TJ Cloutier - "a few players limp, I decide to raise the 72suited. The flop comes 772. It's all a question of timing" [paraphrased from Championship NL holdem]). I still love to play the game, but I think that's mainly the addicted part of me more than anything. The world would be a better place if nobody gambled anymore. And yes folks, poker is gambling.
Get thee behind me, Satan.
But Pierre,
Didn't you say it was "suprisingly easy" to win.
So tell us your methods. :-)
Better yet, write a book and get rich.
seems you are focusing on short term results and not long term. You had a short term run of bad luck and Bob had a short term run of good luck. The long run is where it really matters who is the better player.
I had one stretch where I could not seem to win a hand, no matter what I did or how thin their draws. For 3 weeks, I proceeded to lose almost 700$ playing only the smallest games against the easiest opponents. All the while I couldn't seem to find the leak in my game! Extremely frustrating time since I thought I was playing well but was still losing. Then one night my short term luck changed and I won over 700$ in one night playing 3-6 and 5-10 HE! It seems that both cases were short term luck in action. Even though I went for a three week stretch without winning much of anything, I still am happy when I look at my results for the year!
The real skill factor is only evident over a long period of time. I know I am a better player than most of my opponents. They can only draw to gutshots and backdoors so many times before it will eventually catch up to them. My longterm results will ultimately reflect my skill level and how well I play. Keep in mind the long run can seem like a very long, long time!!!!
As for few poker players being long term winners, this is probably true. MOST players don't have the discipline or patience to do what it really takes to be a winning player. My guess is that only a small % actually put in any real time learning what it takes to REALLY be a winner.
As for poker being a gamble, I would say that If you can find any gambling activity that offers as big an edge as poker please post it on this forum so we can all quit and go play your new game. Otherwise it is pretty obvious that poker is THE game to be playing!
I'm 150 hrs into my rookie season,and this game teaches lessons daily.Im 10 minutes into todays session,flop top two pair,board is all same suit,6 players show weakness by cking to me in late pos.I bet 1 caller,who double cks his hole cards,I assume he needs 4th suited. I bet and he calls all the way out,he turns over 2,5 clubs for the flush.No problem,15 minutes later very similiar cards,diffent situation.I flop top two pair,board all 1 suit,early pos player bets,he is exper. player in for Sams tourney,waiting for higher limit game to open,2nd player calls,she plays every day always solid cards,I call.Turn blank #1 bets two of us call,river blank #1 bets,2 mucks,7 big bets in pot,I muck,giving myself the opportunity to 2nd quess myself all day.It doesn't help that he had smaal two pair.Should mention I rarely have thrown away best hand.Come home try to make sense of #s,he was 3.3 to 1 dog to have two suited.Comments?
MS last time I looked a flush beats 2 pair. If the board is all one suit and you ain't part of it 2 pair or not if there are callers and action you better get out or you'll be suckin' hind teat.
Hope you learned a lesson.
BTW if you never throw a winning hand away your staying to long in most games - it is no dishonor to muck a good hand if you think your beat. Takes a good player to muck a good hand.
As I have stated in several previous posts, whenever the board flops all of one suit and you do not have a card in that suit you are severely handicapped. Obviously with two pair you are not drawing dead but others have posted problems with top pair or an overpair as high as Aces and they insists on calling bets and raises even though they could be drawing dead. Furthermore, if another card of that suit hits the board on the river your hand is instantly dead.
All that being said, with two pair your play in the first hand was correct because no one showed any strength and you could have the best hand. Similarily, in the second hand I think you should call on the end even though you are probably beat. In these situations, two pair is much more playable than top pair or an over pair because you have some outs to beat a flush. In addition, no one showed any strength and you were not calling multiple bets and raises.
I like this post (and Rounder's) and would just like to add:
If you are going to call the turn (2nd hand) then why on earth would you fold the river when a blank hits? If you are calling the turn you have to call the river, otherwise fold after the flop and save the extra two big bets.
My thinking at the time was,I have 4 outs for the boat,if I catch it,I raise on the river.Do you happen to know the math of the liklyhood of one opponent having a flush with suited board,2 oponents etc.(I don't)The only #s I came up with are that he is 3.3 to dog to have 2 suitted cards.After flop,I've got approx. 16 % chance for boat(6to1 dog).Also he may have bet the flop representing the flush hoping to knock us out.
After re-reading Dave's message,realize to answer his question why bet turn,I had about 8% to catch on river after turn was blank. Was not getting pot odds to justify turn bet.Point well taken,only reason to bet turn would be if I thought opponent bluffing,which I did'nt know
I think the other comments were good but here are mine anyway.
Hand No. 1:
(I assume no preflop raise). I think you usually need to bet this flop. In a loose game against players that can't get away from their draws, and if your top two were aces up or kings up with little gutshot threat, you could have seen the turn for free and come out betting or raising when the coast was clearer. This both increases the value of your turn bets at your opponents' expense, but also (hopefully) increases the number of players that will draw to the flush. The idea is that if one of your opponents is going to draw to the nut (or near-nut) flush anyway, you'd prefer others to draw with lesser flush cards. Obviously it helps a lot if you can recognize a slow-played flush and jump ship when it attacks (your draw stinks).
Hand No. 2:
Remember that there are two things that can justify your calls on the flop and turn: you might have the best hand and you might draw out if you don't. On the river, you played it as if the first wasn't a factor when it should have been an even bigger factor. And of course you understand that you didn't have a big enough pot to play it for the second reason alone. So you probably should have either folded before the river or called on the river.
If your opponent will bet out with a draw or pair plus a draw as well as a made hand (as nearly all good players will), I would have raised somewhere, most likely on the turn. Against a rock or a timid player I'd usually fold on the flop. But even when you're making a mistake, a tendency to make things harder on your opponents has its own benefits.
I think this is an excellent learning exercise because so many difficult problems in hold 'em are similar. As your judgment in hold 'em gets better, you'll notice that you'll be doing a lot less calling.
(BTW, I'm just curious, where did you get that 3.3 number? It sounds familiar but I question its applicability).
You'd check the turn here? If this is a low limit game, I'd have to bet the turn and probably the river (assuming the fourth flush card didn't drop) unless the caller was a very, very timid player. True, you may be up against a made hand, but if your opponent is a live one you may just be up against top pair with something like a Q high flush draw. Or, as I've seen often enough, he could just have an underpair, a gutshot draw, or something else equally exotic. Anyway, my guess here would be that you've got the best hand, and will also probably have the best hand if you're called on the river (against a weak player).
Uh ... where did I suggest checking the turn? I suggested checking the flop as an alternative when you expect several players to call your bet (1) to avoid all losses due to the a flush card on the turn (2) to avoid some losses to the flopped flush by smoking it out and (3) to more severely punish or knock out a draw or two. You want to bet the turn, of course.
I suspect that you can make more this way whereas just betting/calling every round to the river is a bit better than break-even. You also might win a bit more than otherwise in the rare cases when your FH makes someone's flush. To be frank, I don't know which is the better play..
nt
For the benefit of this forum's readers, especially those new to poker, I offer a contest. Attempt to find one or more errors in the following HPFAP advice. I don't feel comfortable quoting the entire one-and-a-half pages of explanation without permission, but this should suffice to get you started:
"It's so important to increase your chance to win the pot that it can be right to bet a hand that you know is beat. For instance, if you have Ts9s, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and the pot is pretty big, it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position. You do this not only because you might make a straight, but because it is important to get hands like KdJh out." (HPFAP-1999, p. 168.)
What do you say, David and Mason? Can you post the remainder (or give me permission to do so)? Meanwhile, readers without HPFAP-1999 can borrow it from a friend, stop at their local library, or visit a bookstore.
The bad news is that I will not reward contest winners with cash or book prizes. Instead, they will have to be satisfied with the warm feeling they experience upon breaking free from the slavery of blindly following authority, the new vistas they will comprehend after exercising their independent minds, the inflated bankrolls they will accumulate when they understand the fundamentals of poker . . . well, you get the idea.
The good new is that this contest should have multiple winners. With so many bright participants on this forum, we should be able to enumerate at least a dozen problems with the advice. Even those readers who think about the advice but are unable (at this time) to articulate their concerns will benefit from the effort and will be winners in their own way.
Contest entrants might wish to review the discussions found in the "Another HPFAP 'Loose Games' error" thread (begun on 7 November 1999) and the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread (begun on 11 November 1999).
I'll start the ball rolling with a sub-thread entitled "Error #1: Checking still could win."
"Once you've read all the best books, IMO you should still buy most of the others because it's a great exercise to critique them, to see if you can find their mistakes and misinformation as well as their good information." (John Feeney, 7 November 1999.)
[Disclaimer: The above quotation does not imply that John Feeney supports this contest; he might even object to it. But he's still eligible to participate.]
Suppose you hold Ts9s, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and the pot is pretty big. HPFAP-1999 suggests it is "almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position" because, in part, you might get hands like KdJh to fold. "Getting back to the above example, what's the chance that a ten or a nine will come in that spot? You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won." Since your pair won't always win you the pot, the authors reduce the 25 percent figure down to probably over 5 percent. (See HPFAP-1999, pp. 168-169.)
There are several potential errors in this analysis. In this post, I'll object to the assertion, ". . . whereas before it wouldn't have won." Clearly this is wrong. If you check the flop and later catch a pair, there will be times when you still will win the pot.
Sometimes, none of your opponents will have hands like KdJh.
Furthermore, even when your opponents do hold hands like KdJh, you can catch your pair and find that none of your opponents' hands improve. The turn, for example, might put up the Td (giving you a pair), and the river might bring the 3c (not helping hands like KdJh).
Finally, by checking the flop, you do not forfeit your right to bet out on the turn. If you check the flop and catch a pair on the turn, you can bet the turn if you feel the benefits (such as probably folding hands like KdJh) outweigh the costs.
". . . whereas before it wouldn't have won."
Do you actually believe the authors think it is literally impossible to win here? Obviously they mean it is unlikely that you will win.
I object to your nitpicky confrontational tone. What exactly are you trying to prove? Why not just post technical objections or counterarguments to the particular idea presesented instead of acting like HPFAP is some kind of grand conspiracy.
First, the HPFAP authors are not idiots. If they meant to say "it is unlikely that you will win," then they simply could have phrased the assertion, ". . . whereas before is is unlikely to have won."
Secondly, it is not at all obvious that, if you catch a ten or a nine on the turn or river, you are much more unlikely to lose the hand if you check the flop as compared to betting out the flop. In either case, you still lose if an ace is against you at the showdown. And if the pot is pretty big because a few players paid multiple bets to see the flop, then the chances decrease that hands like KdJh are out against you. Even if they are, the turn or river often will not help them.
David protests, "Why not just post technical objections or counterarguments to the particular idea presesented . . ."
I thought that is what I did in the last three paragraphs of my post. Perhaps you didn't read that far.
Additionally, in reference to the general idea presented, I have offered several more detailed counterarguments and supporting theoretical concepts in previous posts. See the "Another HPFAP 'Loose Games' error" thread (begun on 7 November 1999) and the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread (begun on 11 November 1999).
The final paragraph in my "Error #1: Checking still could win" submission contains the germ of an idea that somebody might be able to develop into a winning entry.
Mark - I think this makes about the sixth bit of advice from HPFAP that you've taken issue with. I fully support your bringing these things up for discussion. (Why you wish to do it with the tone you convey is beyond me. I think you'd do better to engage instead in genuine, cooperative discussion rather than this "prove 'em wrong" approach, if for no other reason than the old "honey/vinegar" proverb.) But when I think back on the points you've made, most seem to involve taking something the authors have written, holding them to a totally literal meaning with no room for exceptions, and proclaiming them, therefore, wrong. This rigidity seems (to me anyway) to be at the root of several of your disagreements with them. David Steele commented above about an example of this.
To summarize how some of your past objections involved this same rigid literalism:
1. In one thread you stated that a hand example used by David in _Sklansky on Poker_ was a poor example. You stated - seriously it now seems, though at the time I thought you were actually joking - that the example did a poor job of illustrating David's point. Ultimately, after some discussion, you came out with the revelation that the example showed the same card in two different hands, and that therefore whether one called or raised shouldn't matter because the casino would declare the hand dead, etc.
2. In another post, you took issue with David's commenting that, "if you check and allow someone who would not have called your bet to outdraw you, then you have allowed a 'mathematical catastrophe' to happen", followed by, "It is also a catastrophe to give a free card to someone who would have called your bet, and he fails to outdraw you. However, this second mathematical catastrophe is not as bad as the first." You asked how the second case could be considered a "catastrophe", as it only cost one bet.
3. In an earlier thread, I pointed out that the authors used the word *usually* in that piece of advice about betting a pair when the pot is big. But you found a quirky (IMO) way of interpreting it, suggesting that they instead meant *without exception*. This despite David's having acknowledged that exceptions can occur (but warning against "finding" them if you don't really know what you're doing).
4. Now you "…object to the assertion, '. . . whereas before it wouldn't have won'", insisting that 'if they meant it to be qualified they'd have qualified it'. Yet I think that most rational readers can see in the text that they did not mean it in the absolute, literal, 100% of the time, way that you think they did. As in any book, meaning here is partly conveyed through the whole, the gestalt, and the context. It appears to me that you usually lean toward very literal ways of understanding what you have read (or at least use them to support your argument), causing you to see "errors" where someone reading with a more flexible, in fact more typical, take on meaning would not. We all have our styles of thinking and comprehending. In the matter of understanding the meaning of some of the 2+2 advice, I wonder if yours might not have led you to disagreements which other intelligent readers would not share. David has stated again that exceptions are possible, but that it is a sound rule of thumb most of the time.
Your support for your arguments has usually been a listing of all the little factors which can work against the particular 2+2 advice. (These are the factors upon which the occasional exception would be based.) The counter argument is simply a list of all the little factors which work in favor of it. Playing experience, logic, math, and maybe even simulation can be drawn upon to decide how to weight the factors. If you believe their advice is *generally* wrong, why don't you just say, "I weight the first set of factors more heavily than the authors?" Then, if you provide some evidence for why one should weight them as you do, we might at least have something to work with. But if you're just trying to show that there can in fact be exceptions, you're attacking a straw man.
The 2+2 advice in these instances is based on concepts which "well schooled" players have known for years (e.g., that it is often worth taking some extra risks to win very big pots), in large part thanks to books like David's _The Theory of Poker_. These concepts have logical bases, if not lots of published mathematical proof to support them. They are even "intuitive", if I may say so, to many (most?) better players. (The current example is based on one of these concepts, though as David mentions most players had not thought of this particular application.) You have not provided compelling logic to persuade players to flip to your weighting of the factors.
There are of course some obvious exceptions to the advice to bet in the current scenario. e.g., say you have some extremely strong evidence that another player has AA. Maybe you've played a lot with this player and *know*, because he is virtually 100% predictable, that his preflop play indicates pocket aces. (e.g., maybe he limp-reraised, and always does so with AA, but never with any other hand. Or maybe you saw his cards.) Well, now you don't care about knocking out a hand like KJ. So the need to bet is greatly diminished. But as David points out, most players are probably best advised not to look for much more subtle exceptions. The cost when they're wrong is too high.
The idea is that when the pot is very large, and you have some realistic shot at it, winning it more *often* is usually worth FAR more than saving a bet or two. You have not shown otherwise.
I think these threads have been repeating themselves for a while. I just wanted to try once more to summarize and clarify some key points -- FWIW.
John,
"FWIW."
For what it's Worth! For What it's Worth, Indeed!
Mark,
John wrote:
"If you believe their advice is *generally* wrong, why don't you just say, "I weight the first set of factors more heavily than the authors?" Then, if you provide some evidence for why one should weight them as you do, we might at least have something to work with."
This is what I have been trying to say all along. But being a "silly guy" was unable to get my point across. This is the reason I started a thread trying to quantify mid pair betting/checking into a large field. Erin made an attempt to answer that question and then must have just given up. Scott, the boy wonder, said it was too hard. Even Fossil, the king of tournament EV decided there may be too many variables. Sklansky and Malmuth, as old and set in their ways as they are to my knowledge, have never preached "absolute" poker. In fact Mason has always been at the forefront of "thinking" poker. Evalute the situation then acact. That is not to say that they have not promoted betting when the pot is large. The basis for this discussion. They have. Are they correct? Even though I follow the teachings of these two I do not follow them blindly. Unlike John I do not feel that because we repeat ourselves over and over again in these discussions that we are wasting our time. We waste our time when we repeat for the sake of repeating. We have an issue. We have two thoughts that are diametrically opposed. How do we resolve the issue?
I play poker in these situations almost exclusively the way that David and Mason propose. Consequently I am biased towards that strategy. Quite frankly Gary and you, by challenging that strategy have made me think about my play. That's a good thing. One may question my "thinking" as being a good thing but we all have opinnions.
John wrote:
"The 2+2 advice in these instances is based on concepts which "well schooled" players have known for years"
I'm not sure I would take "well schooled" literally, but I have always believed that the Advanced series books were a compilation of "experience" of top (winning) poker players. Although experience is not the end all way of determining good poker strategy it does carry a lot of weight.
To get to the Bottom line. I say to you and Gary and anyone else that promotes a strategy that differs from the one I use. Show me. I'm listening.
Vince.
i said it was too hard. then i gave a partial answer. what did you think of the answer?
scott
Scott I posted a response to you. I agrred with some of your assumptions. Your response seemed more appropriately a point counter point aguement. I am looking for some way to quantify they stragey.
Vince
it's way down there now, but i did some math. it is a response to your agreeing with some of my assumptions. i don't claim it is complete, but i think it takes into account the important factors. look it over. what do you think?
scott
Not a bad post, John. Of cours, we wouldn't expect any less from one of our superstars :).
Seriously, I think that what most of us find the most valuable in the 2+2 texts are the general insights that the authors provide. I can't really remember the specifics of most of the 'examples', because I've never paid much attention to them. Wait; that's not true. When I was first learning the game I paid a TON of attention to them. But now that I've become older, wiser and fatter-- no, I mean savvier- I find that the basic ideas presented in the texts are what I find the most compelling and enlightening.
John wrote:
>>Now you "...object to the assertion, '. . . whereas before it wouldn't have won'", insisting that 'if they meant it to be qualified they'd have qualified it'. Yet I think that most rational readers can see in the text that they did not mean it in the absolute, literal, 100% of the time, way that you think they did. As in any book, meaning here is partly conveyed through the whole, the gestalt, and the context.<<
This is the second time John has suggested that I have taken a phrase from HPFAP out of context. As in the previous instance, however, I provided the full context so readers could determine for themselves what the authors intended.
It's easy to accuse somebody of taking phrases out of context, because this is very subjective.
Once again, I will repeat the passage, this time quoting an additional paragraph instead of paraphrasing it so as to provide even richer context. On pages 168-169 of HPFAP-1999, the authors give an example where you hold Ts9s in early position, the flop is Ad7c6h, and the pot is "pretty big." The authors suggest betting out the flop, in part, to drive out hands like KdJh.
"Getting back to the above example, what's the chance that a ten or a nine will come in that spot? You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won.
"You also have about a 15 percent chance to make your gut shot. So you go from as little as 15 percent to probably over 20 percent because you bet that T9 and knocked out the over cards to your cards."
Notice that the two quoted paragraphs are an attempt to mathematically justify the advice of betting out on the flop. Most authors, when they perform mathematical analyses, deliberately use words and phrases in a fairly explicit sense rather than rely on readers to correctly infer their intended meanings. Of course, David and Mason are not presenting a formal "proof" of their advice, so they are not using exact numbers. But notice how they carefully qualify their approximations: "about 25 percent," "a decent proportion," "about a 15 percent chance," "as little as 15 percent," and "probably over 20 percent."
Yet John would have us believe that when the authors said "whereas before it wouldn't have won," they intended to imply "whereas before it only would have won about 15 to 20 percent of the time."
I'm using the 15-20 percent figure because that's my estimate of how often you typically will win with a pair if you check instead of bet the flop and none of your opponents has an an ace in their hand. Of course, the 15-20 percent probably would drop to 3-4 percent after you apply the author's estimates of losing to a better hand.
Infering 15-20 percent from a literal zero percent seems like a stretch. But the 3-4 percent figure certainly is closer to zero. So, perhaps John is suggesting that the authors really intended to convey something like: "You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent (assuming you are not against an ace), and if you bet out as we recommend, you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before you only win about 3 to 4 percent of the time (after taking into account that you might be against an ace)."
While this is a plausible rationalization, to suggest that the authors meant this borders on accusing them of intellectual dishonesty. It is extremely misleading to compare an adjusted 3 or 4 percent against an unadjusted 25 percent, and I don't believe David and Mason intended to do this. Nor do I think that John believes this either. So the question remains, John, how do you interpret the passage in question?
I think the authors simply were careless in their analysis and failed to realize that you also can win the pot with a pair when you simply check the flop. That's what I suggested in my post, and that's what I will believe until I have good grounds to believe otherwise.
I've answered John's relevant objections to this "Error #1: Checking still could win" sub-thread. To help keep the general thread organized, I will, in a separate post, later address his comments about the issue of whether you should bet or check the flop when you hold a mediocre hand and are involved in a pretty big pot. If I have time, I might even deal with his less topical concerns. However, I do have a life outside the Internet.
Mark writes: This is the second time John has suggested that I have taken a phrase from HPFAP out of context.
Not at all. I suggested that in attempting to understand the passage in question you missed its meaning, conveyed in context upon reading the whole of the text on that page. I elaborated on this, and others have mentioned it too. (I believe my other mention of "context" was in a similar vein.)
If some guy misinterpreted the advice on that page to mean you should literally do everything possible to win a big pot, no matter your chances, then that is hardly the fault of the authors.
Mark writes: I think the authors simply were careless in their analysis and failed to realize that you also can win the pot with a pair when you simply check the flop.
My guess is that they realized that.
John,
If you guess the authors realized that, then I ask you again: How do you interpret the passage in question?
Mark and John,
You two must have been watching cable tonite at the same time as me. Steven Hawkings was great. So was Ed Witten. But the part about String theory being the Theory of Everthing really through me. Funny you two would discuss it here on a poker forum. Gives meaning to everything now doesn't it.
Vince.
John noted: "David has stated again that exceptions are possible, but that it is a sound rule of thumb most of the time."
What David wrote was: "I for one don't have the time to check Mark's math and arguments to see how often the bet might be very slightly wrong given certain types of opponents. In fact it could be dangerous to your bankroll to even be aware that there may be exceptions if you don't know exactly when those exceptions occur."
As I noted in my response to Greg, I'm not looking for a good rule of thumb. And I'm certainly not looking for a "standard" play to apply whenever I have a mediocre hand in early position and the pot is big at the flop. In complex situations like these, I want to make my decision on a case-by-case basis. For each particular scenario, I want to evaluate the important factors and determine which betting action will be the most profitable.
John and I might disagree as to exactly how often you should bet out on the flop in certain situations, but I think we both realize the importance of making informed decisions.
John stated: "The 2+2 advice in these instances is based on concepts which 'well schooled' players have known for years (e.g., that it is often worth taking some extra risks to win very big pots), in large part thanks to David's _The Theory of Poker_."
I have never disagreed with the idea that, as pots become larger, it sometimes makes sense to bet (or raise or check-raise) with some hands that you normally would check, call, or fold. In fact, I pointed readers to an excellent Roy Cooke column in the 23 July 1999 issue of CARDPLAYER magazine. Roy explained why he check-raised with a drawing hand to knock out a player who easily could have AK, thus buying himself an extra three "integer" outs. He only used a single example, but he illuminated the underlying concepts very well and explained how he considered various important factors. Most of Roy's readers probably could figure out when this same concept could be applied in other situations.
My criticism of HPFAP-1999's "When the Pot Gets Big" chapter is that it does a poor job of describing the underlying concepts, uses bad examples, and does not discuss the important factors players should ponder when deciding whether betting or checking is more profitable.
John observed: "There are of course some obvious exceptions to the advice to bet in the current scenario. e.g., say you have some extremely strong evidence that another player has AA. Maybe you've played a lot with this player and *know*, because he is virtually 100% predictable, that his preflop play indicates pocket aces. (e.g., maybe he limp-reraised, and always does so with AA, but never with any other hand. Or maybe you saw his cards.) Well, now you don't care about knocking out a hand like KJ. So the need to bet is greatly diminished."
There are *plenty* of obvious exceptions to the advice to bet in the current scenario. Several of my stronger opponents will raise pre-flop from early position with AA, KK, QQ, AKs, AK, AQs, and a few "deceptive" hands, so I can be reasonably certain that my catching a single pair is unlikely to win me the pot at showdown. So my betting the flop to knock out hands like KdJh is pretty much a waste of money, especially since these opponents could well raise my flop bet. Other opponents might add hands like JJ, TT, AQo, AJs, and KQs to their early-position, pre-flop raising arsenal. I'll usually check the flop to them, too. If many of my opponents will call pre-flop with any hand that contains an ace, I will lean towards checking the flop. If the pot is big on the flop because there were multiple pre-flop raisers or if I have other good reasons to suspect that my flop bet likely will be raised, I usually will check the flop. If there are only a few players (who all paid multiple pre-flop bets) involved at the flop, I probably will check the flop. If many of the opponents still involved in the big pot usually will call a flop bet with hands like KJ, I will tend to check the flop. Enough already?
John explained: "But as David points out, most players are probably best advised not to look for much more subtle exceptions. The cost when they're wrong is too high."
Perhaps I was mistaken earlier. Maybe both of us do *not* realize the importance of making informed decisions.
Suppose you had 5s2s in the big blind and got a free look at the flop while facing seven opponents. The flop comes AhTd6d. Should you check-call or check-fold in this situation? (Presumably, betting the flop rarely would be correct.) If you check-fold, you might save a bet or two, but you could end up surrendering a big pot that would have been yours. Is the cost of being wrong too high in this situation? Or should players attempt to evaluate the most important factors and make an informed decision about which play would be more profitable? John and David seem to feel that most players are incapable of making these kinds of informed decisions. I beg to differ.
John continued: "The idea is that when the pot is very large, and you have some realistic shot at it, winning it more *often* is usually worth FAR more than saving a bet or two. You have not shown otherwise."
To a large extent, your correct play will depend on how realistic your shot at winning the pot is. If your chances of winning are so small that the pot odds are not offering you an overlay, you generally should check-and-fold. If you are getting an overlay, then you must decide whether it is more profitable to bet/raise or to check/call. Generally, you will want to bet/raise when the number of players you expect to call offers an overlay to your chances of winning. Sometimes, when you are close to getting that overlay, you can bet/raise if you think your action will buy you enough extra pot equity. And there are other factors to consider as well. But when the pot is very large and you have a playable hand, you usually will want to check/call rather than bet/raise. I showed this in the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread that began on 11 November 1999.
"Calling stations" rarely make expensive mistakes, but they generally bust out quickly making many cheap mistakes. Ironically, if you understand why this statement is true, then you should understand why checking usually is preferable to betting when pots are big and you have a playable hand.
There's really nothing more to say. You contend that you've "shown" that checking is usually better in the situations discussed. I contend that you've listed factors that point in that direction, but which are usually outweighed by those which point the other way. Specifics have been discussed by various posters in this and previous threads.
I agree with some of your points. I agree that these decisions can be evaluated on a case by case basis. (The same can be said, however, for almost any poker decision to which a valid rule of thumb might otherwise be applied. And the more expert the player, the more exceptions he will find.) I agree that the variables you've listed in your posts do go into these decisions. I don't think they invalidate the book's advice.
(BTW, in his article Roy Cooke states the same principle that David and Mason do. I doubt they would have any problem with his check-raise, though a case could also have been made for betting out in the hope of knocking out the possible AK right then and there.)
I wrote: "I have never disagreed with the idea that, as pots become larger, it sometimes makes sense to bet (or raise or check-raise) with some hands that you normally would check, call, or fold. In fact, I pointed readers to an excellent Roy Cooke column in the 23 July 1999 issue of CARDPLAYER magazine."
John wrote: "BTW, in his article Roy Cooke states the same principle that David and Mason do."
Duh. That's why I mentioned his column--twice. If members of this forum are interested in reading a well-written and informative explanation of the "buying extra effective outs" concept, they should read Roy's article rather than HPFAP-1999's "When the Pot Gets Big" chapter. Better yet, read both. Then compare and contrast.
On the other hand, I hope my opponents at the table only read the HPFAP-1999 chapter.
In a prior post, John explained: "But as David points out, most players are probably best advised not to look for much more subtle exceptions."
In his latest post, John stated: "I agree that these decisions can be evaluated on a case by case basis."
It's good to see that John has regained his faith in the intelligence of this forum's readers.
Suppose you check the flop and everyone else also checks. Suppose further that the turn is a King and the river is a 10. Would you then agree that betting the flop (which you would have called anyway had someone else bet) may allow you to win the pot.
I guess what I am trying to say is of course you are correct in stating that "checking still could win". However, there is no question that betting increases your chances of winning and that's the whole point of the example (i.e. when the pot is big, don't worry about losing a bet or two; rather, do what it takes within reason to win the pot)
I agree that one can find "errors" in the excerpts you have quoted if one were to scrutinize every word in its literal context-void sense. However, when taken as a whole, I believe that the point made by the example is correct.
The book is geared for advanced players. I don't think one has to worry about players blindly following the advice given in the book. Good players know when the rules apply and when the exceptions apply.
skp asked: "Suppose you check the flop and everyone else also checks. Suppose futher that the turn is a King and the river is a 10. Would you then agree that betting the flop (which you would have called anyway had someone else bet) may allow you to win the pot."
Yes, I would agree. If I held Ts2s instead of Ts9s, betting the flop also might allow me to win the pot. So what?
skp told us what: "However, there is no question that betting increases your chances of winning and that's the whole point of the example . . ."
Actually there is some question, but skp probably didn't mean this in the literal sense. Some opponents almost always will pay a small bet to see the turn card, especially when the pot is pretty big. Even more will do so when they have a backdoor straight draw. But suppose you check the flop, the flop checks around, and the turn is a 9. Now, what will likely happen if you bet out on the turn? (Remember, when you check the flop, you don't forfeit your right to bet the turn.) That KdJh doesn't have a chance to make a straight. In addition, your opponent only has one chance (instead of two) to catch a king or a jack. Furthermore, that player is facing a big bet instead of a small bet, making the pot odds smaller. By checking the flop, you might increase your chances of winning against certain opponents. David and Mason refer to this concept as "manipulating the pot size" (see pp. 157-160 in HPFAP-1999).
More importantly, maximizing your chances of winning the pot is *not* the whole point of the example. At least it shouldn't be. Again, skp probably didn't mean this literally. He apparently was just parroting the authors, who wrote, "If a nine or a ten comes on the river you want to maximize your chance of winning." (HPFAP-1999, p. 168.)
Even when the pot is big, your goal in poker is to maximize your expectation--not your chances of winning. This topic was discussed in the "Another HPFAP 'Loose Games' error" thread (begun on 7 November 1999). There, Mason acknowledged that, even in large pots, maximizing your chances of winning is not always the same thing as maximizing your expectation. The authors apparently intended for their statements in this chapter to mean that you "usually" want to maximize you chance of winning in these kinds of situations. I contend that even this modified advice is wrong, though. See the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread (begun on 11 November 1999).
skp adviced that "when the pot is big, don't worry about losing a bet or two; rather, do what it takes within reason to win the pot."
The first portion of this advice is merely another echo of a HPFAP statement: "The point is that when a lot of bets are in the center of the table you don't worry about saving bets." (HPFAP-1999, p. 169.) This, too, was a topic of discussion in that "Another HPFAP 'Loose Games' error" thread. Of course saving bets can matter, even when pots are big.
But skp didn't mean this literally, for he added the qualification that you should "do what it takes *within reason* to win the pot." (Emphasis added.) Which brings us back to the main purpose of the current thread. When the pot is pretty big, what are the important factors to consider as you attempt to determine if it is more reasonable to bet the flop or check it?
skp wrote: "I agree that one can find 'errors' in the excerpts you have quoted if one were to scrutinize every word in its literal context-void sense. However, when taken as a whole, I believe that the point made by the example is correct."
If the example's point is that, in big pots, it *sometimes* makes sense to bet out on the flop with mediocre hands that you normally would check, call, or fold, then I agree. And the authors should be commended for noting this. If the point is that you *usually* should bet out your mediocre hands in these situations, then I believe their advice is very debatable. I give my reasons for disagreeing in the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread. If the advice is that it is "almost mandatory" to bet (HPFAP-1999, p. 168) or that "it could be dangerous to your bankroll to even be aware that there may be exceptions if you don't know exactly when those exceptions occur" (David Sklansky, 14 November 1999, at 5:38 p.m., elsewhere in this thread), then I believe this advice is misleading at best.
In any case, would it not be useful to discuss the more important factors? If you hold Ts9s and the flop is Ad7c6h, should you bet out the flop if a strong player raised pre-flop? What if that player raised from middle position? From early position? What if there was no pre-flop raise, but you face seven opponents, several of whom would call pre-flop with any hand that contained any ace? What if you expected your flop bet to be raised about 50 percent of the time? What about 75 percent? What about 90 percent? What if several of your opponents are unlikely to fold hands like KdJh to a single small bet? What if the flop had been Ad7c6d? AdJh7c? AdJh7d? AdJd7d?
skp, I believe you might have some valuable insights to offer in such a discussion, and I would be very interested to read them. You are, of course, not obligated to share your knowledge.
skp concluded: "The book is geared for advanced players. I don't think one has to worry about players blindly following the advice given in the book. Good players know when the rules apply and when the exceptions apply."
While the book is aimed at advanced players, I'm surprised how many poor players have read (or claimed to have read) HPFAP. In fact, I decided to start the "Another HPFAP 'Loose Games' error" thread after one such player bet out a big-pot flop with a nearly hopeless hand (i.e., maybe one percent equity). He lost, but he explained to everyone that S&M said that, when the pot is big, you "had to do everything possible to maximize your chance of winning." Another player laughed and said that couldn't possibly be what they wrote. The next day, the bettor appeared with a copy of the book and proudly showed us the passage he had quoted. Of course, the authors never meant any such thing. But you can see how some HPFAP readers could be mislead by the poor writing, analysis, and examples in their "When the Pot Gets Big" chapter.
Good players like skp might know when to bet and when to check if the pot is big and they hold mediocre hands. Less skillful players such as myself have not yet figured out where to draw the line. We have to think about these kinds of situations and possibly discuss them with other poker players. The questions I raised four paragraphs earlier present some difficult scenarios that are not at all obvious to me. If skp would be so kind as to help illuminate these matters, I (for one) would be very grateful.
It's an error if you make this play in the wrong games or the wrong situations. It's not an error in the situation the book refers to. The key is that this play costs you very little in most cases. You have four outs twice to make your gutshot, so you generally have 16% equity in the pot (adjust downward because of backdoor flushes and other hands that will beat you when you make your hand, adjust upward for those times when you'll make a pair and win, adjust for extra callers later in the hand when you make your straight on the turn...). There will be times when there is no ace out there and this bet wins you a pot you would have lost to a hand like KJ or JT or a backdoor flush (those pots far more than make up for the fractions of a bet you lose when you get raised and you would have only had to call one bet had you checked). A player with ace-weak might bet if you don't, but might just call if you bet, so you don't lose anything in that case. And when you make your straight, the larger pot will induce calls by hands drawing dead to you.
Dan, I'm not terribly concerned about hands like KJ (see my "Error #1: Checking still could win" sub-thread, above).
Hands like JT are somewhat more worrisome, but see my "Buying extra equity" sub-thread in the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread that began on 11 November 1999. After reading it, you might want to revise you estimate that "those pots far more than make up for the fractions of a bet you lose . . ."
Break those shackles, Dan. Free your mind! ;-)
Mark,
I don't really understand your crusade, but the answer to every poker question is "it depends". Unless we know all the variables in a particular situation it is always relativly simple to construct counter examples to any piece of advice.
That said, you just have to take EVERYTHING you read with a grain of salt. When reading any poker book you have to understand where the author is coming from, what kinds of games the author is talking about, what implicit assumptions are being made.
Once you understand the author, you can better understand the advice, and then you can learn to apply it in the correct situations.
- Andrew
In his post, Dan suggests: "It's an error if you make this play in the wrong games or the wrong situations. It's not an error in the situation the book refers to."
In his post, Andrew notes, "the answer to every poker question is 'it depends'. Unless we know all the variables in a particular situation it is always relativly simple to construct counter examples to any piece of advice."
Andrew's above comments generally are right. The correct advice will depend on the specifics of the particular situation.
The HPFAP example on page 168 leaves out a couple important elements. (1) How did the pot get "pretty big?" Did lots of players stay in to see the flop? Was there pre-flop raising? Both? (2) What kind of players are involved in this pot? Are they loose players who will call (or raise) with any hand containing an ace? Are they solid players who will raise pre-flop with most of their starting hands that contain an ace? Other types of players? Some combination of the above?
Andrew, my objection is that the authors failed to mention which considerations might cause a player to prefer checking over betting the flop. When they pronounce "it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position," they mislead less thoughtful readers than you or me. Readers might conclude that other factors rarely matter in these kinds of situations. And if readers do wonder what factors might be important, the book isn't very illuminating. Which is why I've been discussing this topic on this forum.
If you aren't getting much benefit from these discussions, Andrew, I certainly can understand. Once you appreciate the basic concepts of poker, much of what I have explained should be reasonably obvious. Some forum participants, however, apparently do not understand these fundamental principles and apparently have no interest in learning them. That's okay. I hope others are getting something from these discussions.
Mark writes: "When they pronounce "it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position," they mislead less thoughtful readers than you or me. Readers might conclude that other factors rarely matter in these kinds of situations. And if readers do wonder what factors might be important, the book isn't very illuminating."
Much of the writing style I too find objectionable. It sometimes strikes me that the tone is a bit like pronouncements made from on high. When the accompaning ideas are controversial as well it makes for a disconcerting resonance.
I would really like DS or MM to elaborate on exactly what type of game conditons, limits, and mood they had in mind when they wrote this section on loose game play. Without that information, most of the advice is suspect and might be counterproductive.
Mark Glover wrote:
"they mislead less thoughtful readers than you or me."
Scott H Wrote:
"Much of the writing style I too find objectionable. It sometimes strikes me that the tone is a bit like pronouncements made from on high."
Both of these statements refer to Mason and David. So why do I feel they could apply to both Mark and Scott's very own statements themselves.
Am I the only one with true humility here?
Vince
that's VINCE!!!
scott
(the humble one who does not even capitalize his own name.)
Vince,
You ask:***"Am I the only one with true humility here?***
I answer: No!
My humility, which is not only authentic, but deserved, is far greater than yours. I am, for example, too humble to question whether Mark Glover should consider the possibility that David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth both play better than they write. I, and I say this humbly, write far better than I play. It is my reading comprehension which I fear is deficient. I have tried to keep up with what he is questioning, and so far have been unable to discern why it would amount to much more than nit-picking. I suppose that if I understood what Malmuth and Sklansky had written in the first place, I would be better able to understand the problems Mark is having with some of it. I do know that when he writes of the benefits to be derived by players less enlightened than he, Scott and Andrew, my ears prick right up and I fairly want to scream: "You mean Vince and I, don't you?" Unfortunately, my humility would never allow me to couple your name and mine together in the same sentence when it concerned poker enlightenment. I submit this last sentence as proof that I am the humbler of the two of us.
Vince,
I made a mistake. I am embarrassed and ashamed. And I apologize.
Let's see if you can get DS or MM to make such a mea culpa. ;-)
Please allow me to restate my point.
Many HPFAP-1999 readers are well versed in poker theory and carefully consider the advice in the book. Others, however, do not have a theoretical understanding that is as strong or do not take what they read in one portion of the book and carefully integrate it with what they read later in the book. It isn't that they are lazy or stupid; perhaps they just have better things to do with their time.
In my humble opinion, HPFAP does a disservice to these other readers. By stating that they always or almost always should bet out the flop in certain situations while not adaquately specifying those situations, I believe HPFAP misleads some of its readers. And costs them money.
Mark,
You wrote:
"I believe HPFAP misleads some of its readers. And costs them money"
Now I don't feel the same way that you do. Duh, pretty obvious huh. That is not the point. My problem with your statement is that you commit the same offense you accuse 2+2 authors of making. Specifically you claim that a check is a better play but never give any specific quantifiable evidence. I'm still waiting for that. You may ask Why do I not ask 2+2 the same question? I do now. When I read HPFAP and every other poker book by Mason and Skalnsky, I read them with a lot of skepticism at first. I learned their theories and then tried to apply them. I found that thier strategies worked for me. Including the one we are discussing now. I will admit that I am not in this situation very often so my experience is obviously not a conclusive measure of the correctness of the strategy but I will continue to apply this strategy until I have been shown another is superior. Why? Because Sklansky and Malmuth have proven to me, through their writing, that they are honest, expert and thoughful when it comes to poker theory. (Of course I wouldn't trust them, either of them, with my wife. If I had one. Well I had one once and I wouldn't trust them with her either or maybe I wouldn't trust her with them. uhh O.Kay....) If following thier advice that betting is superior in these situations is "blindly going along" then I plead guilty.
Of course that does not stop me from complimenting you on keeping this needed discussion going. This discussion should go a long way to showing all concerned that poker playing is complex and not easy to pin down.
Vince.
Vince wrote: "My problem with your statement is that you commit the same offense you accuse 2+2 authors of making. Specifically you claim that a check is a better play but never give any specific quantifiable evidence. I'm still waiting for that."
As I told Vince earlier, he's in for a long wait if he expects me to mathematically prove that checking in this example has a higher expectation than betting. Nor will such a proof be forthcoming from David or Mason.
There are just too many unknowns: how big is the pot, what was the pre-flop action, who are your opponents, what positions are they in, what are their pre-flop, flop, turn, and river playing strategies, what are their stack sizes, are any currently tilting or rushing, how long have they been playing this session, what tells are they exhibiting, what is your current table image, what tells might you be exhibiting, etc., etc., etc.
Most poker situations are complex enough that it is too difficult to compute the exact expectation of your various playing options, even when the situations are well defined.
If Vince is seeking specific quantifiable evidence, then his best hope probably is to perform some simulations. Of course, skeptics will assert that the simulated situation differs too greatly from the real-life situation for the "answer" to be meaningful. Even as simulations become better and better, you can expect to hear this objection.
What I offered was the theoretical concepts that support my belief. See the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread that began on 11 November 1999. If you understand the theory, you stand a better chance of estimating the expectation of various plays while you are at the table.
During the past two weeks, I also have explored some of the factors that I believe are important to consider when you are deciding what the most profitable play is likely to be. I have never claimed that a check always is preferable to a bet. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. What I have been discussing is: when is checking better and when is it not?
David and Mason seem to prefer making pronouncements rather than presenting arguments and theories to support their beliefs. Do you see the difference?
Vince noted: "If following their advice that betting is superior in these situations is 'blindly going along' then I plead guilty."
If you are committed to blindly following the advice of one book, and if you really understand the concepts in HPFAP, and if you are able to resolve the conflicts that arise when the recommended action in one part of that book differs from the recommended action in another part of that book, then blindly following HPFAP might serve you reasonably well in certain types of games against certain types of opponents.
Of course, most players who can integrate the teachings of HPFAP that well also are able to incorporate advice from other books and other authors. They usually develop their own understanding of the essential principles of poker and can apply their own independent analysis at the tables. They will be able to adjust to different situations and different opponents. And they will have little need or desire to "blindly go along."
By the way, I don't believe Vince blindly follows HPFAP. Nor do I recommend that he do so. ;-)
1) "It's so important to increase your chance to win the pot that it can be right to bet a hand that you know is beat. 2)For instance, if you have Ts9s, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and the pot is pretty big, it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position.
3) You do this not only because you might make a straight, but because it is important to get hands like KdJh out." (HPFAP-1999, p. 168.)
Those are the only mistakes I could find. Wait a minute let me try again.
1) "It's so important to increase your chance to win the pot that
2) it can be right to bet a hand that you know is beat.
3) For instance, if you have Ts9s, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and the pot is pretty big,
4) it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position.
5) You do this not only because you might make a straight,
6) but because it is important to get hands like KdJh out." 7) (HPFAP-1999, p. 168.)
8) Instead, they will have to be satisfied with the warm feeling they experience upon breaking free from the slavery of blindly following authority,
9) the new vistas they will comprehend after exercising their independent minds,
10) the inflated bankrolls they will accumulate when they understand the fundamentals of poker . . .
How's that? Did I win? Did I miss the elephant hidden in the last paragraph? Man, that was fun! Thanks Mark.
Vince.
you also missed the top hat hidden in the margin.
scott
Vince,
You are a winner . . . in your own special way.
Even those readers who agree with the HPFAP advice to bet the flop in the example on page 168 still might be able to find some flaws in the HPFAP analysis that supports that advice.
Advocates of betting out the flop, for example, should be able to acknowledge the error pointed out in the "Error #1: Checking still could win" sub-thread. (At least one forum participant, however, apparently has difficulty conceding even this much ground.)
Again the general point is that this bet will occasionally win you the pot when the smoke clears at a cost of at most a very small fraction of a bet when it doesn't.
From the standpoint of us as authors you should keep in mind that until we wrote about this play, almost everyone would have checked in these type of situations without giving it a second thought. Thus they would have missed a powerful and profitable general concept. To put it another way most players would check here not for Mark Glover's reasons but rather because it never even occurred to them to bet.
When we give examples of a particular concept, we often pick situations that push the envelope of what we are trying to convey, in order to emphasize the point we are making. Thus that specific example is often one that in certain circumstances could be quarelled with. I for one don't have the time to check Mark's math and arguments to see how often the bet might be very slightly wrong given certain types of opponents. In fact it could be dangerous to your bankroll to even be aware that there may be exceptions if you don't know exactly when those exceptions occur.
David wrote: Again the general point is that this bet will occasionally win you the pot when the smoke clears at a cost of at most a very small fraction of a bet when it doesn't.
Okay, so sometimes you win the whole pot. That is definately something to think about. If we are going to talk on theoretical terms, and say that the play only costs you a "very small fraction of a bet" when it doesn't work (theoretically speaking of course), then you should also say it only wins you a "small fraction of the whole pot" when it does work. Clearly in practical terms you may win the whole pot because you bet. But also, many times you will lose a full small bet or more. The above statement really makes the play sound better than it is. For what it's worth, and that ain't much, I think David and Mason are overestimating the chances that this bet will win the pot, and underestimating the $$ that you could save when you check. Still an interesting concept however, and David is very right in saying that almost everyone wouldn't have even thought of betting here.
I don't believe Pierre intended for his response to be an entry in this contest. Still, if it isn't a full-fledged contest winner, it at least deserves an honorable mention.
Pierre's post doesn't reveal any errors or problems with the actual HPFAP advice, but it does expose the logical flaw in an argument David used to defend that HPFAP advice.
In so doing, Pierre promoted a better understanding of when players should bet their mediocre hands if the pot is large. (Or at least he derailed a potential misunderstanding.) Thus, he fulfilled the spirit of this contest.
He also demonstrated a willingness to question the statements of experts and to use his own mind to develop his own understanding of basic poker principles. Therefore, he accomplished a secondary goal of this contest.
If any of this forum's readers disagrees with Pierre's assessment, I'd be curious to learn what those objections are. Personally, I think his post hit the bull's-eye.
David wrote: "Again the general point is that this bet will occasionally win you the pot when the smoke clears at a cost of at most a very small fraction of a bet when it doesn't."
Pierre responded: "Okay, so sometimes you win the whole pot. That is definately something to think about. If we are going to talk on theoretical terms, and say that the play only costs you a 'very small fraction of a bet' when it doesn't work (theoretically speaking of course), then you should also say it only wins you a 'small fraction of the whole pot' when it does work. Clearly in practical terms you may win the whole pot because you bet. But also, many times you will lose a full small bet or more. The above statement really makes the play sound better than it is."
David wrote: "From the standpoint of us as authors you should keep in mind that until we wrote about this play, almost everyone would have checked in these type of situations without giving it a second thought."
I commend you and Mason for pointing out that, as pots become larger, certain factors become more important to consider. You also are to be praised for noting that, in certain situations, players will want to bet or raise with some hands they ordinarily would check, call, or fold.
I just believe you did a poor job of explaining which factors are important to consider and how they influence a player's proper action on the flop and turn.
David wrote: "When we give examples of a particular concept, we often pick situations that push the envelope of what we are trying to convey, in order to emphasize the point we are making. Thus that specific example is often one that in certain circumstances could be quarelled with."
Some of the examples you give in the "When the Pot Gets Big" chapter are misleading because, in many circumstances, the advice they offer would be wrong.
David wrote: "I for one don't have the time to check Mark's math and arguments to see how often the bet might be very slightly wrong given certain types of opponents."
That's a shame. If you did the math and considered the arguments, you might discover that betting out on the flop can be wrong in many of the situations HPFAP describes.
David wrote: "In fact it could be dangerous to your bankroll to even be aware that there may be exceptions if you don't know exactly when those exceptions occur."
Readers who blindly follow the advice in your "When the Pot Gets Big" chapter often will make avoidable mistakes. Those players who understand the important factors they should consider when contesting large pots will more easily determine when they should bet out (or raise) and when they should check (or call).
That's why several of us are discussing this topic on this forum. It would be wonderful if you offered us your insights, but you certainly are not obligated to do so. If you try to discourage this debate, however, please bear in mind that you might be doing a disservice to this community.
Mark
I'm one of the newer players you referred to, and I have a question. Whose oppinion will serve as conformation that I've discovered a genuine error in Mr. Malmuth's and Mr.Sklansky's theory of play??
Since no cash or prizes are being awarded to winners, there does not have to be a clear determination of whether or not you have found a genuine error.
If you submit an entry, it (hopefully) will be discussed on this forum. A reasonable debate should shed some light on those submissions that are obviously well founded or clearly bogus. Entries that fall in the gray areas could prove to be the most beneficial to forum readers, perhaps illuminating the factors that players should consider when they find themselves in various "big pot" situations.
In the end, readers will decide for themselves whether an entrant has discovered a genuine error and whether to integrate the principles into their own understanding of poker. That's the real purpose of this contest: to facilitate everybody's understanding of the fundamentals of poker.
My pappy once told me, "Good teachers don't teach you what to think; they teach you how to think."
Mark,
I for one am not sure whether the advice you're debating is good general advice, or bad general advice. I am not sure whether or not my "standard" play in situations like this should be to bet out or check-and-call. I think that this is a very complex area, and that it is easy to make mistakes in judgment. [If I had to guess, I would suppose that either play will not differ from the other in long-term EV by all that much, i.e., less than half a small bet. Half a small bet is nothing to snear at, but it is not going to make the difference between success or failure as a poker player.]
So, this post has nothing to do with the underlying debate.
OK, here's the point I've been leading up to. The style in which you are making all of these posts about S&M errors is really making you look like a petulant little ass.
Often it is easy to misinterpret someone's intentions on the internet, because you cannot "hear" the tone of voice that they are using. That is why you should put the smiley face after your sarcastic comments. Maybe your "tone" is not as I'm interpreting it. If so, I believe that it is incumbent upon you (as the poster) to word your posts in a manner that avoids that possibility to the greatest extent possible.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
i don't know greg... i just can't, in good conscience, put those silly things in my writing. it is such an abuse of language. like the mass marketed cliches found in commercials and greeting cards. i can't do it. still, i think people can tell when i'm joking. and, if not, then 'get tough.'
scott
.
scott wrote: i think people can tell when i'm joking
But they can't. Unless you are a regular on a site, and all your readers are also regulars, and even then many of them won't be sure when you're being sarcastic or not. Same thing for other jokes, intonations, etc. It has nothing to do with intelligence or anything else. Sometimes, you can say the same words and have very different meanings, and no one on the internet can read those words and KNOW which meaning you intended every time. Thus, those faces serve a useful function.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
greg, i am never mean. and if people don't get my jokes, there is no real harm done. no one has responded seriously to one of my humorous posts. except that bizzare thread about the nl game in california. where i said 'exchange' and he replied 'thanks for saving me money'. but that is not even really a joke. relax. no harm, no foul. i still don't like those smiles, but do what you want.
scott
Does your disregard for the abuse of written english prohibit the use of proper sentence structure and Grammer? What's wrong with capital letters for proper pronouns and at the beginning of sentences?;-)
after whitman, 'proper structure' has become more nebulous. i choose this writing style because it fits the way i concieve of poker.
the real reason is i want to be ray zee.
scott
Scott,
There is no way you are ever going to be Ray Zee. However, if you act really fast, I may be able to buy his baby for you. I understand that Deborah is looking for a bankroll for next years WSOP. Hurry! The supply is limited!
Greg wrote: "I for one am not sure whether the advice you're debating is good general advice, or bad general advice."
Actually, David Sklansky and John Feeney are attempting to limit this debate to general advice and rules of thumb. I'm trying to discuss what specific factors determine when betting or checking is more profitable.
Since Greg is unsure (and I suspect many others are unsure as well), I'm glad we are debating this topic. I hope readers will leave with a better understanding of when players should bet their mediocre hands in big pots and when they should just check.
Greg also noted: "I am not sure whether or not my 'standard' play in situations like this should be to bet out or check-and-call. I think that this is a very complex area, and that it is easy to make mistakes in judgment."
I'm not sure players should have a 'standard' play in situations like this. When situations are not simple, it's usually better to make your decisions on a case-by-case basis. While you sometimes will make mistakes in judgment, you have a better chance of making the right choice than when you don't think at all.
Greg speculated: "If I had to guess, I would suppose that either play will not differ from the other in long-term EV by all that much, i.e., less than half a small bet."
He might be correct. If you always bet or always checked, your average profit might be within half a small bet. But those aren't your only choices. You also can sometimes bet and sometimes check. If you tailor your actions to the particulars of each situation, your long-term EV might be more than half a small bet greater than if you always did one or the other. To do this, however, you need to know how important factors effect the proper choice. That's one reason we are having this discussion.
Greg continued: "Half a small bet is nothing to snear at, but it is not going to make the difference between success or failure as a poker player."
That's correct, if the poker player made the correct decision in all the other situations. But if players are making poor choices in these situations, then they probably are making poor choices in other situations as well. Half a small bet here, half a small bet there, and their choices quickly add up to sizeable losses at the poker tables.
Greg stated: "The style in which you are making all of these posts about S&M errors is really making you look like a petulant little ass."
As my pappy would say, "That's like the toad calling the frog ugly."
You hold Ts9s, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and the pot is pretty big. HPFAP-1999 suggests it is "almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position" because, in part, you might get hands like KdJh to fold. "Getting back to the above example, what's the chance that a ten or a nine will come in that spot? You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won." Since your pair won't always win you the pot, the authors reduce the 25 percent figure down to probably over 5 percent. (See HPFAP-1999, pp. 168-169.)
There are several potential errors in this analysis. In this post, I'll object to the assertion, ". . . whereas before it wouldn't have won." Clearly this is wrong. If you check the flop and later catch a pair, there will be times when you still will win the pot.
Sometimes, none of your opponents will have hands like KdJh.
Furthermore, even when your opponents do hold hands like KdJh, you can catch your pair and find that none of your opponents' hands improve. The turn, for example, might put up the Td (giving you a pair), and the river might bring the 3c (not helping hands like KdJh).
Finally, by checking the flop, you do not forfeit your right to bet out on the turn. If you check the flop and catch a pair on the turn, you can bet the turn if you feel the benefits (such as probably folding hands like KdJh) outweigh the costs.
Sorry. I intended for this message to be a sub-thread to the "Contest: HPFAP 'Loose Games' errors" thread, immediately below. If you have any comments, it would be best if you made them part of that sub-thread.
Forum,
I recently played at the Sam's Town poker tournament in Vegas and I keep thinking about my last hand and I have to laugh. I want your opinions on the hand. Were in the 1st level and only 25 minutes or so into play. A couple of people at the table take their rebuy and I decided to do the same. I had entered 3 pots and stole one on the turn with a 9-10 when the flop was QQ88 and the flop was checked and the turn also checked. I have a good image at the table and most players at my table were pretty steady. I pick up 7-8d in the big blind and it gets called by 1 player and then seat 8 raises (I'm seat 5) to $100. Two more people call and I call $85 more... My chip count is $900 and the others entered is the same. The original caller folds and we take a 4 handed flop of 4c 10d jd giving me a gutshot straight flush draw. I check the raiser bets 200 and everyone folds to me. I call as I feel he has AK AJ AQ AA KK QQ. I don't think he has a straight draw or flush draw. The turn is the 9s. My perfect card. I know he likes his hand so I shove my stack in the middle... He thinks for about 30 seconds and I know I've got him now. I'm wishing he would call so I can double my stack and be off to the races and he turns over KQd with a weird look on his face as if he didn't at 1st know what he had. My jaw drops, no need for the river and I exit with a nice hand and good luck. What the hell went wrong I'm thinking as I go to the buffet to meet my wife. My question is what you would have done different. Maybe not call pre-flop. After the flop? Check the turn? I'm not sure I could have done anything different but I'll listen to anything. Thanks,
Furious Russ
Next time put this post on the "Tournaments" forum.
Even though some tournament advice is to play very tight in the early stages, I see a lot of value in accumulating chips. Therefore I also play the hand.
I might have bet the flop (and definitely would in limit) but this depends on what you think of your opponents. Other than that you were just unlucky.
Russ,
Sorry I missed you (got your message at 2:30am fri am and left at 6am that day I tried to contact you several times prior to that) read my Sam's tourney posts on OT and HE forums - I posted them before the bb split.
As for your straight flush - tough luck - I just wouldn't have called the pre flop raise with the 78 suited or not.
In a NL HE tourney you just can't get into longshot drawing situations like that it is to expensive.
At least that is my idea of a NL HE tourney.
Did you play in any of the satellites?
"I call as I feel he has AK AJ AQ AA KK QQ"
Probably should have added K,Q.
Vince.
Hey Furious,
You played it right. Nothing you can do.
In a play tourney online I got 78c, 96c plus 10s come outon the flop. Two of us go all in. Next card is a blank, river is a 9, yes he had a full house. Bad luck.
Mark
Oh well sorry, it's just that what you say makes almost as much sense as:
You get the second for free (if you don't count buying the first one).
Either it's free or not.
Either it's a zero sum game or it's not. Casino poker is not a zero sum game.
- Andrew
3-6 HE extremely weak field, little raising on any round. I am almost the only one who raises BTF. I leave for a quick 15 minute lunch and come back. I post my blinds just behind the button and get dealt K8o. No one raises and 7 players take the flop.
Flop comes K 7 4 (I also have a backdoor King high flush draw). There is a bet in early position. a couple people call, I decide to raise and try to get a free card. 4 people see the turn for 2 bets each.
Turn is a blank, everyone checks to me, I check. Since so many people called the raise, I figure I must be beaten, probably by the person who initially bet (who probably has a better king). Sometimes in these passive games your opponents could have a powerhouse but will check and call the whole way. you never really know as they can often be completely unreadable. I take the SECOND free card gladly and hope i hit my kicker or somehow my trash king holds up against the field.
river is another apparent blank. Everyone checks and I check it down. I am beaten by original bettor (UTG) who has AKs. I am silently thinking "how could he possibly play it that way?" but I keep it to myself. Obviously this opponent had no idea of the true value of his holding, or how to play it correctly. This is going to be a goood game....
By playing against such passive opponents, you do not get charged what you should when you lose a hand, therefore you are making $$ by saving $$. Also, most extremely passive opponents tend to be calling stations who pay you off fully on your winning hands. Just goes to show how important game selection really is....
dave in cali
By playing against such passive opponents, you do not get charged what you should when you lose a hand, therefore you are making $$ by saving $$. Also, most extremely passive opponents tend to be calling stations who pay you off fully on your winning hands.
Yes, opponents that are that loose-passive are great. Although I prefer loose-aggressive players because against them, I can make more money from fewer people (and my hand is more likely to hold up), the loose-passive games are so easy that it takes almost no effort to beat them.
Sometimes in these passive games your opponents could have a powerhouse but will check and call the whole way. you never really know as they can often be completely unreadable.
Yeah, against a small field of these types you can bet some pretty marginal hands for value (against a small field of "call with any pair or an ace high, and maybe a king high" opponents, I'll gladly bet 2nd pair with a good kicker to the river if the board isn't scary), and occassionally they'll flip over something huge. But don't let that deter you.
-Sean
The other good thing is that players with 2 low pair do the same thing check and call. I've seen many times on the river a player with 2 pair or low trips just check or call. If they just knew what pots odds were.
I am not comfortable with your raise on the flop holding top pair/no kicker and having 6 opponents. You are unlikely to win the pot outright and you probably don't have the best hand plus you could get re-raised. In this case it worked out well since it got you free cards to the river. I guess if you know the players very well and have a good read on the situation it is a good play, but I would not do it in the games I play in.
point taken. in this game I felt I had good control over the players. I also planned to fold if reraised since this lineup would not reraise without something spectacular! In higher limit games I think this tactic would be incorrect and I might even just fold the flop. In this case I think it worked out by making the weak player with the best hand afraid of what I "might" have and therefore let me go to the end cheaply.
good responses to all.
I can appreciate your comments, Dave, because most of the players in the low-limit games in which I am usually involved play just like that. Won't raise pre-flop with AA, won't bet out with top pair/good kicker or over pairs, etc., etc. Very hard to "read" sometimes, and sometimes I end up losing more money on a hand than I should if they had bet their hands, and sometimes I have to fight the urge to go on tilt when I lose to a weak, passive player who totally misplays his hand. Let me give you an example.
Saturday night 4-8 HE. Very loose, passive game with usually 6-8 people seeing every flop. I am in late position with A-Jo. In fact, I considered raising myself to try to buy the button, and for value, but I just called. In this case, only 5 of us took the flop of J-6-4 rainbow. All check to me, I of course bet. Button folds, one caller, and weak passive player (WPP) to my right just calls. Turn is a 9, I think. Again WPP checks, I bet, button folds, and WPP calls again. River is a 4. WPP checks again, I go ahead and bet and when he only calls, I figure there is a 100% chence that I have the best hand, right? I mean, what else can he have to never bet or check-raise with? Well, much to my surprise he turns over KK!!!
Yes, I know that I should be happy that this hand didn't cost me more, but honestly I really have to try hard to remain calm in the face of opponents like this. I suppose I wouldn't run into this at higher limits, but the casinos here don't spread anything beyond 4-8 very often, and it's either put up with this or don't play. Anyone else find this sort of action sometimes very frustrating?
I totally feel your pain! weak passive players can drive you crazy, especially when they keep beating you with terrific cards that they never even tried to play. check-call-check-call - go bang head on wall!!!!
But in the end I'd still rather have these players against me than you guys! good response!
river is another apparent blank. Everyone checks and I check it down. I am beaten by original bettor (UTG) who has AKs. I am silently thinking "how could he possibly play it that way?" but I keep it to myself. Obviously this opponent had no idea of the true value of his holding, or how to play it correctly. This is going to be a goood game....
I disagree with your analysis. You could be right about this player but you may also be wrong. You say 7 players took the flop which was K74. If I have holding AK in my hand, I am pretty sure that I won't win this pot and that I may be already dead. 7 players are just too many to beat with top pair only. Also, it is not necessarily a good idea to raise before the flop with AK from early position if you are playing in a game where you know 7 people will see the flop anyway. You didn't say he was in a blind, but it is almost NEVER good to raise with AK (i'm assuming off-suit, suited is a different story) from the blinds after 7 people are already in.
So let's assume he's in the blinds or UTG, there are seven players on the flop, and he bets his king out right away. You raise on the button when it gets to you. The odds of someone making a flush, straight, two pair, or even trips are so great that he's probably a dog on this hand at this point. So he just calls. You could have been raising two pair or trips already, or even raising on the come for an open ended straight or flush draw or both.
I don't know how many times you have flopped K with A kicker against 7 opponents and won, but I know that I lose the vast majority of those hands. If I get raised into on the flop with a board like that, I am resigned to losing two more big bets. You basically can't drop K with A kicker if the board isn't showing something scary and you only have to pay one bet, but raising is not often the best move because this hand will lose so often (when playing against lots of opponents). Shorthanded play is very different and if three people had seen the flop, you may have seen him play it differently.
Your experience throughout the session may have justified your original impression of this player, but I disagree that this hand alone showed you that he was easy to beat.
At the Normandie Casino in Southern Cal., they have no small blind in the 6-12 games (and lower limits), just one big blind next to the button. I was wondering if this would cause you to choose playing there, compared to lets say Hollywood Park, that has the same Three dollar drop plus the small blind for 6-12? (Assuming the games are equally good at both casinos.) Everyone I talked with really likes the no small-blind format. All comments are appreciated.
Thanks,JB
JB,
From a "cost per round" viewpoint I can see where many people would say they like the single blind when you polled them.
The main thing I don't like about the single blind is that I find most players in the small blind play way too loose when the small blind is 1/3 of the big blind. If you don't make this mistake you are way ahead. In addition, having only one blind should tighten up the game, but I admit it has been a long time since I've been to the Normandie.
Rick,
Oh my God no! The 6-12 at the Normandie is looser than what you might expect. Infact, they are a little too loose for my taste, since it is kinda discouraging being chased to the river by more opponents than I'm used to. But I keep reading that if you can learn to deal with a lot of bad beats, that looser games are the way to go for higher profit.
Playing with only one blind is the way hold-em used to played about 20 years ago. A second blind was added because the original game was too tight and you simply did not get the multi-way action that the current version of hold-em has. I don't like the single blind structure.
As an aside, having to pay $3 on the button in a nine handed game means your cost is about $9-$12 per hour. This is an expensive game to play at the $6-$12 level.
Jim,
The cost per hour is even worse than that since the games are nine-handed (or less with smokers taking a walk). In a perverse way, it is what keeps the games at this level in Los Angeles so damn loose (which ultimately costs the casino money). Tight players are driven away since no game can survive a run of small pots. I could write a book on this but I gotta run.
Regards,
Rick
Where do they have 6-12 with a cheaper than three dollar drop?? That would be incredible to only have to pay, lets say $2.00 per collection! I miss playing at The Bike since they increased their 6-12 drop to $4.00, which is the same as their drop for 9-18 Hold'em.
Where I have played $6-$12 was in Mississippi where they rake $3 out of every pot and it is a ten handed game. On the average I won 2 pots per hour, sometimes more when I was running good and sometimes less when I was running poorly. It costs me $6 per hour to play in the game. That is a lot cheaper than having to pay $9-$12 per hour and in these little games they can have a significant impact on your hourly earn over a long period of time. In other areas they rake $4 per pot which is still cheaper than a $3 button charge. The worst game is at Commerce where they were collecting $4 on the button in their nine handed game.
Jim,
Your statement "In other areas they rake $4 per pot which is still cheaper than a $3 button charge" is absolutely correct for someone who plays something like our style in these loose games. We figure to win only a little more than one pot every two trips around the table since our semi-bluffs and steals get removed from our bag of tricks.
The "drop no matter what" button charge is a nightmare; the only good thing about it is that it tends to limit the number of solid players that will sit it the game. In a sense, that is what keeps the infamous Los Angeles 6/12 and 9/18 holdem games so loose despite the fact that holdem has been legal since 1987. In other areas where holdem has been legal for a number of years, the ganes invariably tighten up over time.
As a historical note regarding holdem drops, the games used a drop on qualify from the Spring of 1987 thru January 1989. For example, in 5/10 holdem (6/12 wasn't around then), the $3 drop wasn't taken until the pot was $30 (the jackpot drop of $2 was always taken, usually from the small blind). From 1989 thru about the mid nineties, a 50 cent chip was used as an "ante" and the $3 drop was taken from these leaving an extra $1.50 in a full table (nine players). This was even worse than the button drop for the tight player. Hollywood Park tried to at least institute a live button drop (i.e., it was always dropped but at least it counted torwards your bet) when it opened but this was shot down when the L.A. Sheriff came back from vacation (or so I was told). Hollywood Park kept the button drop (even though it was no longer live) and eventually the other clubs followed.
A real disaster is the $3 drop from the 50 cent "antes" in a game like 3/6 seven stud. With one person on smoke break (the norm), one lonely 50 cent chip remains in the center. In theory this would dictate tight play, but tight players won't stand for the drop so the game becomes something quite different than a small split limit game in Las Vegas.
Regards,
Rick
JB,
I like the sb in the game - it doesn't effect me cuz I don't make 1/2 a bet unless I would have made a whole bet but I think it gets a lot of players in the game for 1/2 a bet and I like that - just like the wackos who are in the bb and call raises with junk cuz they have money in the pot.
I'm guessing you play 2-4 or 4-8, because the 6-12 small blind (and 3-6) are only 1/3 the big blind.
JB,
The casinos I play in always charge 1/2 bb up to 10-20 except for 3-6 and I don't play that unless I'm waiting for a bigger game to open up.
Rounder writes:
...just like the wackos who are in the bb and call raises with junk cuz they have money in the pot.
I'm curious Rounder, what are your BB calling requirements when it is one raise to you?
- Andrew
Depends,
If I think the raiser is trying to buy the blinds I'll reraise with 52, otherwise If a few callers and a raise I need a good hand to call a raise - since I'll be in bad position I want 88 or better AT up coupled 9 through A, Axs if several callers I may call a raise with as low as 56.
I would reraise with AK, AQ, AA, KK, QQ
Rounder, if it becomes a raised pot pre-flop with several callers (say 3 or 4) at the time you make a decision to call the raise there is already 7 or 8 bets in the pot. You are getting about 7:1 on your call with little possibility of a re-raise. If you played any pair as low as Deuces you are about 1 chance in 8 of flopping a set. Sets don't always win, but it seems to be that the implied odds are there to take the flop. If I don't flop a set, I almost always just muck my hand on the flop when it is bet. What is wrong with calling a raise out of your big blind with any pair when several people are in the pot?
Jim,
Nothing wrong with it. If eneough callers I'd consider it too. For sure no set no bet.
Well, last saturday night at my regular $1-5 spread limit home game the following hand came up. This is a bad beat/with a moral...
We antie $1.00 each, 7 handed at this point, the dealer is in the seat to my left.
I'm delt 87h, it's checked around to me and I check (knowing that a bet with this bunch, even for the max $5 is not going to get me the anties, someone will call). Flop comes 873 rainbow. There's an early $2 bet, I re-raise $5 with top two pair which causes everyone to drop excepting the original raiser who just calls and the cluless beginner to his left who also called both our bets...(this is a bad sign...). Obviously clueless beginner has a piece of the flop.. Turn is a Jd not a card I am happy to see and it's checked to me, I bet the max and the original raiser drops (what in the world was he playing???), cluless beginner calls! He's obviously drawing... River is a 9s, I check (I don't like the board now with all the str8 possibilities) and cluless beginner checks it down! I flip over the two pair and reach for the pot, CB then shows me 39o!!! I surrender the pot and tell him "good hand" with a big smile, "well played"....
Obviously CB is playing any two cards can win poker! I don't mind the beat (and I file the info on his hand selection for later rounds!), because the following hand comes up as it inevitably does with this type of player:
A little while later, I catch TT and raise $5 (of course CB calls), get a flop of T63o, turn is another 6, filling me, I bet and CB raises! Oh, I'm in heaven now, we cap it and cap the last round. I show down the Nut FH beating his sixes full of threes! Ahhh....smiles!
The moral is, encourage those bad plays from CB type players that result in bad beats. They will pay off like a broken slot machine later in the game when you have the nuts and they have second nuts or worse!
I was sitting in the $30-$60 game at the Bellagio waiting to get into the $15-$30 game when the following hand came up. It involved Dan Negreanu, tournament champion from Toronto, now living in Las Vegas. I was on the button and Dan was in the small blind holding the Five of Clubs and the Four of Clubs. Everyone folded to a middle position player who had been winning heavily and appeared to be a decent player. He opened with a raise. Everyone folded to Dan. Dan called the raise by putting in another $40 since the small blind was $20. The big blind called and everyone else folded. The flop came: Eight of Spades, Five of Hearts, Four of Diamonds. Dan checked. The big blind checked. The middle player bet $30. Dan made it $60. The big blind called. The middle player made it $90. Dan made it $120. The big blind called. The middle player capped it $150 and both blinds called. The turn is: Deuce of Spades. Dan bet $60 and the big blind called. The middle player raised to $120 and Dan called. The big blind folded. The river was: Ten of Hearts. Dan checked and the middle player bet $60. Dan called. The middle player won having a set of Eights.
I would have folded Five-Four suited out of my small blind when faced with a raise and no one else in the pot. On the flop, I would have led rather than checked. When raised, I would have re-raised. If it was made $120, I would just call. On the turn, I would check and call. Likewise at the river.
What does everyone else think?
Given your ability to debate Mason and I almost to a Draw it is not surprising that you would have little trouble in dispatching others. In other words, of course you are right.
David said,
Given your ability to debate Mason "and I almost to a Draw". "And I almost to a Draw"???
This man went to college?
Elvis go back to Tupolo. Your'e incoherent here.
From a high school push out!
Vince.
Huh??
Dan was faced with a lot of hands that could kill him and he found one - calling a raise with a 45 in the worst position is sheer folly. The rest of the hand is usually down hill once you make a bad pre flop decision even if you get a big piece of the flop.
Maybe he was trying to "out play" his opponent.
Jim,
Unfortunately I would have lost as much money as Dan. I play the hand almost identically. Your read on the middle player forces me to play the way Dan did. I look at this guy as being in a loose mode (winning heavily) and figure he will pay me off if I make a hand. The way he plays the flop really throws me. I don't put him on a set but now am befuddled to exactly what he has. Maybe he plays A,A hthis way. A lot of players will, unfortunately decent players won't. So now I am in a predicament with 2 small pairs. A in a big pot. I bet the turn call the raise and call the River like Dan did. What is wrong with that play is certainly beyond my ability. You may argue calling from the small blind with 5s,4s, with not other callers but I'm sure that Dan considered the situation to lean in the direction of a clall given the state of the opponent. He just got doubly unlucky. Suppose his hand was Qs,Js and the flop came Qd,Jh,8s and he lost to a set. Certainly not the same situation but somewhat comparable as far as the result is concerned. My point is that hand strength is not the only consideration when playing poker.
Vince.
Vince.
Vince makes a common mistake made by many advanced players. That mistake is sticking too long to a conclusion based on earlier play in the face of many raises. To give an extreme example: The flop is AKQ you have pocket aces and go four bets with me on the flop. The last two cards are 44. Normally any hand that is not the nuts is worth no more than two or three raises on the end. Perhaps you might go four raises because of the extreme unlikelyness that I would have played a pair of fours this way. But once I put in the fifth raise you better stop. That raise takes precedence over all other factors the vast majority of the time.
"Vince makes a common mistake made by many advanced players. That mistake is sticking too long to a conclusion based on earlier play in the face of many raises."
That's all well and good David. I admit the mistake. And However, the only thing extreme about your example is that that it is extremely poor.
"To give an extreme example: The flop is AKQ you have pocket aces and go four bets with me on the flop. " that is a novice's mistake not an advanced players mistake.
Just do an anlysis on the hand in question. Your original response was that Jim was right with his play of the hand. I disagree with Jim. I guess that means I disagree with you. Your point here is directed only to the play on the flop. Your example is 180% out of phase with the flop play of this hand. You do not address the turn or river play of this hand. I think David that you are implying that Negreanu played the hand wrong because he, like me misread the meaning the raisers hand. The result make that obvious. I did not put this guy on a set of 8's but there certainly were no excess raises here in my opinion. Negreanu opted to check raise the flop with two small pair, a reasonable play. The check raise worked. But wait the BB called and the middle raiser reraises. So Negreanu decides to cap it with what he believes at this moment to be the best hand. Why not get the most money in the pot that you can with what you beleive is the best hand, If he doesn't raise he saves a small bet versus gaining a big bet if he wins the hand. Not a bad play. Negreanu now bets the turn when a non threatening card comes and he still believes he has the best hand. He gets raised and calls. Is there something wrong with that play? I give it a thumbs up. He checks and calls the river. Bad play? Not in my book.
David wrote:
"Normally any hand that is not the nuts is worth no more than two or three raises on the end. Perhaps you might go four raises because of the extreme unlikelyness that I would have played a pair of fours this way. But once I put in the fifth raise you better stop. That raise takes precedence over all other factors the vast majority of the time."
David is correct. But this analysis belongs as an answer to another hand not this one!
Have a nice day David!
Vince.
If I decided to call with 45s I would be lying if I said I wouldn't loose as much as he did. The betting would be identical unless I would come out betting instead of checkraising (then it would be identical to your pattern). I'm not big on checkraising however would checkraise here.
P.S I think he likes those small suited connectors.
Geez, sounds like ballsy play on everyone's part. I am just glad I don't have to play with people like that. I, too would have been out before the flop for the raise from middle position. However, I don't know much about that middle-position person. Does he normally raise from middle position with medium pairs? Does he ever raise with pure trash? Is he pushing his rush too hard? Any of these might affect my decision on how likely I could later steal a pot. Plus after the flop, the above information might indicate the likelihood of trips. It sounds to me that Daniel is trying for exactly what happens here - a big flop for him that seems very much like a trapped hand for his opponent. Both got a great flop. I'm not good enough to understand what the hell was going on after the flop (at least I don't have the energy right now to try to think about it).
Sometimes I think it is unfortunate that truly extraordinary hands like this one can't be fully understood by reading a post. I can't see the people, have a history with them, etc. Sometimes the best answers are just big generalities.
Charlie
The first decision is the most important. Although the middle position raiser could've held any number of hands, 45 suited in this situation is a big loser. Dan's call was incorrect- period. His play from there on out is debatable, but it doesn't change the fact that Dan made a bad decision to enter the pot. Although it is an intensly complex game we play, some aspects should be kept simple. Let's save that mental energy for the tough decisions
In a vacuum, Dan's preflop call is obviously incorrect. However, I would give a great player such as Dan (I have played with him before) the benefit of the doubt and assume that he knows he's making a bad preflop call but expects to outplay his opponent on later streets.
As for his postflop play, I would have done nothing different.
If the flop was 945 I wouldn't argue too much. But throw a possible 76 into the mix and it makes it almost impossible that the original raiser would get that rambunctious with merely an overpair. Somewhere along the line Dan should have saved some money. I bet he would admit it himself. (As to whether he should have even played the hand, see the thread above this entitled holdem question about 98s)
Here is one of those "ordinary" hands that is often the difference between a winning and losing session.
Its early into a 10-20 session of a "typical" hold'em game. One solid and one semi-loose guy limp from middle position and an unknown (but seemingly aggressive) woman calls on the button. The sb calls and I check from the big blind with Qd8h. We take a five-handed flop of:
8d7s5d. I bet out. The middle guys fold and the button raises. The SB folds and its up to me.
I simply call with the intention of betting out on the turn in case she is making a free card play. I see little equity in making it three bets here, but I guess that's debatable.
The turn is the 5 of clubs. Good card for me (unless she has 65), so I bet out with the confidence that she can't raise me with a worse hand. She calls.
The river is the 9 of clubs. I check. She bets.
I have not seen her try for a steal before, but we have only played together for an hour and she seems tough enough to bet here f she can't win a showdown. I debate for a second and decide to make the call, mainly because of the presence of the flush draw on the flop and the way she played the turn. Not to mention the 7 to 1 odds on the call.
She shows me the 67 of clubs for a straight.
To experienced good players this story would be like telling someone that you doubled down with a ten against a nine showing, caught an eight, the dealer had a 4 in the hole and caught a six.
Good analysis David I think that will help Michael a lot.
Now Now Rounder,
In fact it was a good analysis that Sklansky gave. These things happen all the time. The analogous black jack situation Sklansky describes is a perfect example. Does anyone think that Machael would be better served by having DAVID SKLANSKY critcally review the hand he described and come to the same conclusion through detailed analysis. I believe in this case, Sklansky made and got the point accross in the best way possible.
Vince.
Vinny,
I agree with you somewhat, as it happens I am a bit on tilt with being called a liar and accused of polluting the minds of new posters - so they won't have well rounded games because of my "unorthadox" play and posts.
Let's see, I've been called weak/tight (when I am tight aggressive) how can I be a weak player when I play good cards in good positions & bad player and my grammer has also been questioned today.
I am getting tired of these nasty personal attacks.
Rounder,
Please remember they always pick on the front runner. But it isn't your grammer as much as your spelling.
Mr. S,
God as much as I hate to agree with you Mr S.
I can only say; Duh!
Vince.
I don't play blackjack, so I am not sure I get the analogy. I presume it means that the play of the hand is so basic for the expert that there is only one (obviously correct) way to proceed.
So I guess the question is: "Is doubling down with a ten with a nine showing advisable?"
Maybe if I post that question on the "Other Gambling Games" forum, I can illicit some helpful responses.
The Blackjack analogy revealed.
Doubling down with a ten against the dealer's nine is BASIC STRATEGY. When you catch an eight, you figure the dealer for a ten and a loss. When the dealer opens up a four and now has to draw to a 13 most people would give you odds, maybe 4-1, I haven't done the math, to buy your hand in that situation. When the dealer catches a six to beat you, it's just tough luck. You played it perfectly and lost. Nothing else to it.
Michael,
Couple of things. I think she made a mistake raising on the flop with 2nd pair and straight draw - If she hits the straight she wants callers. Having said that I think you made a real marginal call of the raise on the flop - your Q8 is top pair granted with a fair kicker(A8 & K8 are real possibilities here) but with 2 more cards to come I don't like a pair of 8's at all. Unless I know the button is a loose player (and you didn't) I think I muck there.
All I meant to say is that though the hand is a bit tricky, the right play is fairly clearcut, though it will certainly often cost more than the more conservative play when it doesn't work. In other words your play intuitively deduced, was more or less basic strategy for those studious solid players who may have less intuition.
David-
Are you really telling me not to waste the class' time when I haven't read my homework? I guess you caught me. But surely an admitted "lazy" guy like you can empathize with me here and at least give us a HPFAP page reference for defending against the possible free card play when your and is only marginal.
You are misunderstanding me. All I am saying that you correctly deduced a play that experts would almost call basic stategy while non experts might consider it quite creative.
The flip side of this:
When I was in first grade, I showed my teacher the formula for calculating the volume of a sphere and asked him if it was correct.
He replied "My God! A six-year old has figured out how to perform calculus using radial coordinates."
I said "No, I just copied it from the back cover of my sister's geometry book, but wasn't sure whether it was correct since the ink was faded."
Alas, the risk of speaking in artful analogy is that it is often wasted on lesser minds than your own.
In my view, both Michael and the button played the hand as good as one can.
The button should raise here with her one pair/openended draw. There is only person left to act behind her. That is not enough reason to just call in order to entice more players into the pot when you are on a draw. It's a much better play to raise, get it heads up and take contol of the betting, take the free card on the turn etc. Furthermore, the theory of keeping players around with a draw really only applies to situations where you use both cards in your hand to make your draw. Here, if the button just calls and keeps the sb in, she certainly ain't gonna get any extra action on the turn from the sb if she makes her straight.
Also, I am a little perplexed by your comment that Michael ought to have folded to the raise on the flop. In any kind of semi-tough game, the players will run roughshod over me if I continually fold top pair on the flop just because someone put in one raise.
Maybe this is a bit too maniacal and/or influenced by the retrospective analysis, but if I were the button, I might raise the turn here. The "just call the flop raise but bet out on the turn" play from a competent opponent is often a sign of someone holding a decent, but not great hand that just wants to avoid giving a free card. Most opponents holding two pair or a set would reraise on the flop, unless they were incredibly weak-tight and feared a flopped straight.
-Sean
Your bet on the flop was correct. You should bet top pair into four opponents none of whom raised pre-flop. Of course you call when raised. Three betting would be ridiculous since you could easily be outkicked or up against two pair or something even better. It could only be right if you knew for certain that the button was raising on a draw. You are also out of position.
On the turn, I think the Five of Clubs probably helps you if the button was betting a Diamond draw or a straight draw. I like your reasoning about betting with little likelihood of being raised.
On the river, I think I would fold when the Nine shows up unless you feel that the button is capable of bluffing here. There are just too many ways for you to be beat.
Wrong Jim. Most of the ways he is beat will elicit a check behind him. Against typical players he is against a straight or a busted flush.
David,
If you had to rank the following limits according to the probability that someone would steal when that 9 hits on the end, how would you do it? (least probable steal to most probable steal)
2-4 4-8 5-10 10-20 20-40 30-60 higher
Thanks,
Charlie Durham
I know your question was for David Sklansky but I cannot resist the temptation to answer it. The most likely game where a busted flush draw would try to steal in this situation would $30-$60 and beyond. A close second would be $20-$40 and $15-$30. A reasonable third would be $5-$10 with the lower limits not far behind.
In my opinion, the least likely is at $10-$20. The reason is because $10-$20 tends to be a transitional game for players trying to move up from low limit poker and therefore many of them are trying to play solid in this game which is sort of entry level to middle limit play which is where you start to make any kind of serious money. Players at this level tend to avoid bluffs on the end and feel that by minimizing their losses on busted hands they are playing well (which of course is not necessarily true at all).
All that being said, the real driver is the particular player in question more than the game. On this particular hand, like David says against typical players a call on the end is probably right.
No need to apologize for answering instead of David. He is a busy guy and I appreciate any responses. I liked your answer. It seems well thought out and reasonable. I never thought of it like that.
Thank you,
Charlie Durham
In an earlier thread entitled "Human Perception" Rounder wrote: All the hands I entered I won a total of 12
Who can tell me how significant this is? The only hard data I have is from Turbo HE, where I know that against the toughest line-up of players (among those who come with the game), I see the flop about 20% of the time, and I see the turn only a little more than 10% of the time. Of all hands where I see the flop (whether an unraised big blind or a voluntary play), I win less than 50% of the time.
Even if we assume a 50% win rate exactly, the odds of winning a given set of 12 consecutive hands is about 4,000 to 1 against. If we move the win rate up to 75%, the odds drop to a more reasonable 32:1 against. Still, I am continually amazed by Rounder's numbers.
I cannot recall EVER having won 12 consecutive pots that I entered (except for blind stealing in tournaments, where players are much tighter).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"I cannot recall EVER having won 12 consecutive pots"
Just a novice, Huh Fossil. I knew it all along. Did you ever consider the fact that Rounder may have misplaced a decimal point. Maybe he meant 1.2 hands. Or he could have meant 120 hands. No, then he would have been more of a fibber like Vi... some other posters. O.K so maybe he did mean 12 so what? I think that the significance of your question lies (is that a lawyer word) in the fact that Big John got on your case on that other side forum What's it called. Other poker something or t'other . Man we got so many of them here on two plus two that I can't remember which "side forum" I'm on. Is this one about Hold'em or stud. Badger help! O.K fossil back to you "significant" post here. I think that since you nit picked poor Mark Glover and he did not respond you decided to pick on "THE" "Rounder". And that is significant! See you in Court!
Vince.
Greg,
I once had a string of 5 straight Boats in 10-20 HE, 2 flopped, the remainder on the turn and river, all held up. I was just having a ball by #3 and played 32o from the BB, which made 3's full on the flop for a nice pot.
I think the other players were ready to shoot the dealer (or me)!
Now if I can just remember who I lent my lucky rabbit's foot to that night!... ;^}
Greg,
I didn't say I won 12 consecutive pots I said Over a 2 hour period I entered and won 12 pots - a big difference - don't you think.
I normally wouldn't know this (cuz I don't keep hand by hand records) but the silver bullet competition lasts 2 hours and I know I won 10 bullets and 2 other pots that didn't qualify. Besides the $500 I won I chopped the $250 silver bullet pot with a guy who played almost every hand and lost around $300 in that period.
I won the 12 pots I entered.
The most consecutive pots I can remember winning is 5 with 3 kills. I have done this 2 times.
Rounder wrote: I didn't say I won 12 consecutive pots I said Over a 2 hour period I entered and won 12 pots - a big difference - don't you think.
Yes, I know. I did say in my post 12 consecutive pots "that I entered". If that was poorly worded, it was meant to indicate of the hands you chose to play preflop, you won 12 of them in a row.
The numbers in my original post remain the same. Even if you have a long-term 75% win rate in those pots you choose to enter, it is still over 30:1 against winning 12 in a row. Now, 30:1 is something that we're all gonna see at a poker table all the time. However, notice that when it was only 50% chance to win a pot you enter, the odds against winning 12 in a row are over 4,000:1. That is not something that you will see that often. Based upon my experience, which may not be representative, I find 75% or better as a long-term average hard to credit, especially in a loose low limit game.
The thing is Rounder, between information like this, the 5 big bets/hour, and the fact that the playing style you ascribe to yourself is SOOO tight that you give up profitable plays to reduce variance, it is hard to give full credit to everything you say. I think selective memory or some other factor is at work here. Not intending to be offensive or anything like that, it's just hard to imagine what I would actually see if I saw you playing there at Casino Arizona. I think you either play quite a bit differently than you describe, or something else is not as I could imagine.
What I should have made more clear in my original post is, how often do people think they win when they enter a pot voluntarily? Does anyone else think that they win much more than 50% of the time they choose to pay to see the flop?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
AA twice in a row is 4000 to 1 I believe and we've all had that happen.
I really don't care much if you believe me or not. I don't consider my self a tight player or rock as I am not - I play based on position and lay off suited cards for the sake if them being suited. I surely don't draw to 3 flushes or 3 straights and don't play 2nd pair much - regardless of pot size. I do play the players more than anyone I know and I have really good instincts. As an aside I have just recently started to play 2 over cards again - because of this bb - in the right position and pot size and it seems to be working out.
The 12 hands I described were witnessed by several players and if you lived here you could verify it. I really have no reason to lie or exagerate in future I will refrain from discussing any personal stats as it only infuriates those who don't have the success I am experiencing.
Sorry your so bitter.
Rounder, I don't doubt the 12 hands so much, though I guess that is not what I posted, so I apologize.
What I seem to recall is a statement by you a while ago about winning most of the hands that you choose to play. The implication was a LOT more than 50%. I don't think you're lying. I think your memory is selective.
And the 5 big bets per hour. It's an amazing number when not limited to a pretty short period. For let's say 500 hours or more, it's amazing and well beyond anything I've ever heard from someone who keeps good records.
Yet, you've told us you write it all down, so it's not some overblown estimate. Therefore, I wonder, how is it that this guy can regularly win so much more than any other player I've EVER heard of? And this despite the fact that he appears, in my opinion, to be giving up some of his EV by folding marginally profitable draws?
I'm trying to say, I don't understand how it all fits together, and I'm curious.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
These things happen. I'm currently playing with a guy who's made over 60 grand in the past 800 or so hours of Hold 'em, and he's not a particularly good player. Yes, he's 'pretty good', but not world class; and yet he's beating up on the game. Or take that guy Archie who took Binion's for 18 mil at the craps table. In any large sample, you'll have guys who can pound on the game. In the long run they'll regress to the mean, but untill then.. hey, enjoy the ride. As far as Rounder's experience goes, my guess is that he's just enjoyed a particularly hot run of cards. When he suggestst that the rest of us are 'mad' or 'jealous' I just have to laugh, because I know what's coming for him. It may happen later than sooner, but it's going to come...
I'm curious what betting strategy Archie was using to acheive that big win. Furthermore, I'm wondering if you can manipulate that 10 times odds bet to cover the cost of the house percentage on the line bets. Any ideas?
Rounder writes:
AA twice in a row is 4000 to 1 I believe and we've all had that happen.
Actually it's 48840:1, but good guess.
- Andrew
Andy - I have you on Ignore - don't have time for your sarcasim
I once won every pot that I entered. Except the pots that I lost.
I too am amazed by Rounder's 12 wins in a row. I would guess that it's no more than 3 or at most 4 for me. Of course, I play in games where most pots are contested multiway. I have played in Vegas games where I am sure that I have won more than 4 pots in a row (i.e. pots that I have opted to enter) but this probably included hands where I just stole the blinds or perhaps had one opponent who called me and folded on the flop.
skp and FossilMan just don't play as good, tight-aggressive as Rounder. Or maybe your* just jealous. Remember, when in doubt, just ask yourself "WWRD?" 'nuff said!!
*Rounder contraction for you are
Wish English was my 1st language.
I feel I'm in sort of a grey area in terms of being pushed off of pots. I would really like to win those few extra pots but it seems I am zigging when I should be zagging. I'm not talking about what seem to be clear-cut situations, but those times when I just have no idea. This isn't happening all the time and only against a few familiar faces. I know I'm being out played in these particular situations. What should I do when I find myself in this predicament?
You need to be writing down these hands and posting some of them for comment. I have done the same thing myself and I get a lot of useful responses.
Derek,
Could you be a little more specific about being "pushed off pots". I suspect you mean you are not calling on the river if it's bet or raised or mucking on the turn for the same reasons.
I kinda have a personal rule - unless the turn and river are real bad for me I'm in the pot until the end, if I go past the flop. Now I don't go past the flop unless I have certain criteria but if I do I'm in and fighting for every possible chip.
If you think you're getting pushed off pots then start calling more on the river. Or, if this makes you uncomfortable, try tightening up your starting hand requirements.
Since the last time I have posted (about 3 months ago), I've had the good fortune of putting in many more hours at the table (mainly 2-4 and 3-6). I'm up to a whopping 100 hrs, and I am more confident in my ability as a HE player. While I am still down for the total 100 hours, the last 50 have been profitable (about $5/hr).
This hand happened yesterday, and I wanted to talk a bit about it. Sunday morning, 9:45 a.m. at a local 2-4 HE table. I'd played with a couple of the people before, most of whom were stereotypical nofoldem types. A woman who I'd never seen before was raising ferociously (1 to my left) happily capping the bets with Q6s. A man across the table seemed to enjoy these "grudge" matches, raising with virtually any two cards. The man to his right, who I knew was a weak-passive type was involved with me in this hand. On this particuar hand, the Maniac Woman was taking a break.
I am UTG and dealt AKo. Following Lee Jones' advice, I've been mixing up my play with this hand, sometimes raising, sometimes limping, sometimes limp-reraising. I raise. 4 cold callers.
Flop: A, K, rag - rainbow. I bet. fold. call. fold fold.
Heads up with Weak passive player. This is the fun part. Turn comes King. I want to check raise, but I am not 100% certain that he will bet. I think he has a king, but it's hard to tell with him (I've seen him play some very, uh, "creative" things). I take one second. Look at the board. Raise my eyebrows and sigh. "Check" I say, with a tone of defeat. He bets. I raise. He calls.
River is a rag. I bet. He calls. Shows me KTo. I show my boat and take town a reasonable pot.
Over the past, I'd say 30 hours at the table, I have learned many things, thanks to the books and lurking on this forum. The one main thing for me has been patience. Also, at these limits, I have realized how true it is to simply show down the best hand... To not try to muscle the table around. It seems to me that it is almost like Judo - using your opponents "strength" against them.
I imagine that some will have comments, which are of course welcome - I just wanted to write, mainly as a "Thank you." I truly believe that my play is improving, as well as my attitude at the table - i.e., I do not get "pushed around" as much. I feel my read on other players has improved greatly, and I also find that each excursion teaches me yet another lesson... So, thanks..... -Tim
I like your pre-flop raise under the gun and in a full table game with people routinely coming in on trash hands I think you should raise 90% of the time. You should bet the flop like you did because there is a large pot out there and these people will routinely call a flop bet sometimes with anything like bottom pair, middle pair, a draw, etc. I don't know about the play acting on the turn. It sounds like you got some extra money but in general I would avoid it and just bet my hand. Who knows but maybe if the guy has a King he will raise and you can re-raise making even more money. He will certainly make a crying call on the river.
Your observation about patience and not trying a lot of fancy moves in these low limit games is a good one. Glad to see that you are doing well and keep posting hands.
Your hourly sounds a bit high, so brace yourself and prepare to persevere if you run into an extended streak of disappointing results.
$5 an hour high for 2-4? What is expected hourly in 2-4? And in 3-6, 5-10 and other limit games? This would help some of gauge if we are on track or not.
Poker Essays I and Gambling for Living have good material on this.
For $2-4 and $3-6 with a big (10%)rake and jackpot drop, a bet an hour or less against typical opponents, more if you wait for terrible opponents that almost never play reasonably. Forget about 2 bets an hour sustained. (I'm assuming you will never win the jackpot).
The problem with these games is that they punish the suckers so badly that they either burn out or slow down while they catch their breath, making them harder to beat. Stay away from small pots that aren't a cinch to win.
At the higher limits (5-10, 6-12) you might be able to win up to 2 bets an hour if the rake or drop is reasonable (as in L. Vegas). I question whether anyone can beat a higher game for more than 1.5 bets an hour over time.
Also, if you consistently play better than your opponents, remember that a couple of dumb mistakes every few hours can wipe out your earn.
Five an hour sound a bit high, but I imagine that most low limit structured games can be beat for that amount. Mason once said that a world class player could probably beat a 2-5 spread limit game for around 7 an hour, so I think Tim's results are probably close to being in line with those of a good, solid player.
While it's true that a couple dumb mistakes can wipe out your earn, that's a bit misleading. Of course, it depends on the mistake, but most mistakes only 'cost' you (in the long run) maybe 5 or 10 percent of a bet. Hence, you can make a number of boner moves and still win. As far a pre-flop mistakes go, you really pay for those in spread limit; but in structured limit I don't think the situation is nearly as bad.
Note to Tim- Put your copy of Lee Jones' book on the shelf and leave it there. If you're looking for a book that gives you all you need, read Sklansky's 'Hold 'em Poker' (not HFAP). The Jones book offers up some truly wretched pre-flop advice, and everything else in it is covered better by HEP. This is the book that made the difference in my game.
GD, Specifically which pre-flop advice of Jone's did you not like? I'm curious as I've seen the book raved about by a few on this forum. I have read both that and HEP (and HPFAP). I have not much experience (<100 hours), so little chance so far to draw my own conclusions. Thanks in advance, Kate
Not to speak for GD, and it's been a long time since I've looked at the book, but the biggest flaws I recall are (1) the suggestion of occasionally raising with suited connectors in late position just because a lot of people have limped in, (2) the "fit or fold" dictum for playing post-flop, and (3) that it undervalues the strength of small pairs in a game with no preflop raising. IMO, the book as a whole overvalues the merits of calling and undervalues aggression.
I also don't recall anything about betting or raising after the flop with a hand that probably isn't the best, which can be a big play against a weak-tight field and a big pot. While it's true that this play doesn't work when a bunch of them will always just call, there are few games where this situation is always present.
In hands where a lot of people limp and will stick around, you need to start out with an advantage and show down the best hand on the river. You don't need a book to tell you that, and a book that does won't give you much insight about what to do the rest of the time. If every hand is played like this, the book is pretty good (except the suited connector raise recomendation is just wrong).
Chris, Thanks for your response. I agree WLLHE is geared exclusively to no-fold'em hold'em. However, it is not Jones who advocates occasionally raising with suited connectors in late position (at least I couldn't find it) but S&M in 21C HPFAP: from pg 33: "...if you have 8H7H, several players already in the pot, and no one has yet raised, then raising is probably a good play."
Kate
I believe Jones advocates this as well. But isn't it wrong in a no fold'em game where many players automatically call on the flop regardless of the pot size, their position. etc.
I think this is the first really negative review I have seen on the Lee Jones book. That book was intended to be an improvement over the S&M books for 2-4 and 3-6 games. The author states that the S&M strategies only begin to work at somewhat higher limits.
My own experience is that the Lee Jones book gave me a foundation for studying the S&M works, and I found the pre-flop strategy differences to be understandable in light of the lower limits being considered.
For a relatively new player with less than 100 hours of play, I have to agree that it is a bit high.
Lars
Tim attempting to get an extra bet and possibly an Oscar said: "I take one second. Look at the board. Raise my eyebrows and sigh. "Check" I say, with a tone of defeat. He bets. I raise."
I like the check-raise, however you gave away one of the classic tells at low-limit tables - weak when strong, stong when weak. Your weak passive opponent did not pick up on it at the time, however many knowledgable opponents would have.
I would suggest less emotion when checking, betting or raising either real or acted. Keep them allways guessing.
Yes, Jodder, a classic tell to those of us that have a clue, but this is 3/6, and most of them DON'T have a clue. I get real nervous when I hear/see that kind of stuff from weak players, but I've said obvious "weak when strong" tell-type comments like "I'm going to try and buy this one" and "Well, I guess I'll bet if nobody else will" type crap that would NEVER work against alert opponents, and get called by a couple of players holding garbage, so you're right, thats not something you want to do very often, but it works so often it suprises me.
Mike
I like your play of this hand. If you have players that will frequently call with hands that are second best you will have the best of it.
The raise is good. In these low-limit games all the trouble hands will call. When I say trouble hands, I am referring to unsuited high cards.
The bet on the flop is good because it hides the strength of your hand.
I especially like your check-raise on the turn. There are alot of players that think since you did not bet on the turn that you were bluffing and will go ahead and bet. You will also discover in other situations when your hand is probably the best it will knock out those long shots that others make when only having to call one bet to see the river.
You wrote,"I am UTG and dealt AKo. Following Lee Jones' advice, I've been mixing up my play with this hand, sometimes raising, sometimes limping, sometimes limp-reraising. I raise. 4 cold callers."
You did not say why you sometimes limp and why you don't. This is why I don't like the Lee Jones book. He does not tell you why you do something. In these type of low-limit games I would only limp-in if I was not getting any callers otherwise I think you should go for check-raising and raising with the premium cards pre-flop.
Me 2 off the Button with KK. I'm the first one in and open with a raise. Botton is a Tight Aggessive (TA) Player who knows I sometimes steal with any Big cards in this position. Re-Raises me and every one else has folded.
Now I know that TA will re-raise with any two big cards and any Pocket Pair bigger than 6's. I put in a Third raise, which I think is a mistake now because it gives away the strength of my hand too early and makes it harder for me to read my opponent.
The Flop comes Ad,6c,7s
I bet and just get called. Now what do I do? I got to think that TA has an Ace but is now afraid I have him out kicked because of my Preflop re-raise. I guss TA could have a Poket pair under KK, but should throw it away because of me giving away the strength of my hand Pre-Flop. At the time I thought that TA would call me down with an underpair and I kept betting, but TA called me down and showed me a Ac,Tc on the River. Duh!
Turn was a 5s River was a Jd
If I had only called his Re-raise pre-flop I could have thrown away my KK for a Raise on the Flop after I bet. Knowing I was beat. If an Ace didn't come on the flop I may have won more money from this player because he may have bet an underpair or called me down with an Ace,Big.
What do you think?
Thanks, CV
This is an interesting problem. Normally, I am an advocate of simply betting, raising, re-raising, etc. pre-flop with pocket Aces or pocket Kings. But a notable exception occurs when you are just heads-up with someone and you know you are a huge favorite on the hand. There is merit to just calling his raise with just the two of you and not "giving the away the strength of your hand". The only problem is that you are really out of position to engage in this maneuver. I think on balance I would have put in the third raise like you did. I would never classify either play as a clear cut mistake.
On the flop, you have to bet and see what he does. He must be worried that you have an Ace since many players 3 bet pre-flop with AK suited and sometimes even AK offsuit. When called, you must be beat and your only hope is to catch a King or to try and bet him out on the turn. Whether or not I bet the turn would depend on my opponent. I think in this case given that the button is a tight, aggressive player I would probably check and fold if he bets.
Just calling on the flop has merit. He may marry his hand and go with you to the river when he's a huge dog. I like the play.
I DON'T like the notion of betting and folding to a raise on the flop. When you don't play back before the flop, he's likely to put you on a moderate hand or worse. He might suspect you of making a move on the pot because he'll fear the ace. He might be making a counter-move on you!
If you start folding these hands, they run you over. I've been road kill many times to aggressive players. When the ace hits, you probably should check-call the turn and river. It costs you 2 BB, but some days you DO have the best hand, and on others they try to bluff you and lose. At least you don't become road kill.
Fat-Charlie (Road Killed too often)
How about a check-raise on the flop? If he comes back at you, fold. If not, show strength on the turn and see how he feels about his kicker. If he doesn't have an ace, he should be fairly convinced you do. Him not firing back at you pre-flop is a pretty good indication he doesn't have Aces in the hole. What else could he have - AK, you are beat: Q's or worse, he will fold on show of strength. If he calls, you check the river and know you are beat. I think this seems like an opportunity to steal the pot, but only starting with the check-raise on the flop.
I believe the check-raise on 3rd makes less money because I will most likely get re-raised after I put in two bets when I'm beat, but will not get paid off when I'm not. I'm thinking that the TA will only try to steal the pot 50% of the time he has KK or worse, and he can always take a free card that may hurt my hand, though it may also give him second best.
I think the best thing for me to learn is when to give up after I'm called on 3rd street in this situation.
What do the big boys think?
Later, CV
Probably a highly discussed topic, but I tried a couple of times to check raise the nuts (straight or flush drawn out on the river only) against aggressive better entire hand. I assume he/she would bet following my check after river (which I think a bad assumption). Twice this failed and cost me a big bet twice I am sure, and once worked including a reraise by the fool (which got me the two bets back). What should long term strategy be. I know it is always case specific>
When you make the nut straight or flush on the river, and someone has been betting the whole way behind you, they often have no more than top pair or 2 pair, and will often check behind you becuase the flush or straight just made possible by the river card is so obvious to them (especially flushes when there were 2 of your flush cards on the flop).
When you make any flush or straight, bet out more often than not. Check occasionally, and mostly when you have reason to believe that someone behind you will bet.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
It is generally not a good idea and sometimes they will even make a good fold on the end when you check-raise. It is very situational. Let me give you a different type of hand where I made a check-raise on the river and my rationale. It is a $10-$20 game and I am in the little blind having the Queen of Spades and the Jack of Diamonds. Four players limp in and I just call. The big blind does not raise. The flop comes: Queen of Clubs, Queen of Hearts, Five of Hearts. With five opponents and a two flush on the board, I bet out and get three callers. The turn is: Jack of Clubs giving me the nuts. I bet knowing I will get called from the draws. I get two callers. The river is: Deuce of Hearts. I would now go for a check-raise because I think that someone who was on a Heart flush draw will now bet and I have multiple opponents so I am confident that one of them has made a flush.
Depending on the amount of players and the quality of their play, I will usually bet out on the River with the nuts. For example if I'm heads up or their are two players left not including me, and if you know them to be fairly solid players, I will bet out to insure one or two calls as opposed to getting no calls at all. In a multiway pot I will almost always bet out with the nuts, unless I'm convinced for whatever situational reasons that someone to my near immediate left is itching to bet. Another reason to bet out with the nuts on the River, especially in a multiway pot and especially if the players are below competent is the chance that you will be raised. You have the nut flush and the 10-high flush raises you - happened to me many times - especially if you bet all the way representing top pair.
An example to illustrate the point: I was in the small blind. When the river card was exposed, I had the straight flush with the 6 of diamonds (there were four diamonds on the board). It was a multiway pot and I got four calls - the Kd, the Jd, the Ad and a straight. The Ace did not raise because of the obvious straight flush. But he could have and if he was a real weak player, he would have. That would have sucked him in and perhaps one more for an additional 2 bets after I re-raised. The guy to my right said, why not check raise. The answer seems obvious to me. A check might lose you guaranteed money - I was in the perfect position with the perfect card to bet out. As is usually the case with such questions the answer will depend on a) the number of players left after the river, 2) the quality of their play.
I would have to say it is on a case by case situation but I can give you an example of where it benefited me on a hand. I had A-K clubs and raised pre-flop, getting 5-6 callers. Flop comes up K-10c-Qc, giving me top pair with a nut straight flush draw. it is checked to me and I bet so that I am representing K-K, A-A or A-K...
Turn comes 5c so I have made my flush. I bet into flush on turn hoping to get raised where I can reraise. I get 4 callers. River is 9h which I am hoping will get all those with straights interested. I check with a smirk of frustration ( Send me the Oscar ) and get a bettor and a caller and then check-raise.
Granted it is a great situation to do it general when you can represent top pair but still have the nuts and the river makes a hand for someone else, that is the time I think you can check it.
you are in the big blind with A8 hearts. four players and the small blind limp in for a total of six players. whether correct or incorrect, you just check instead of raising.
flop comes 872, the 7 and 2 of hearts, giving you a four flush and top pair. the small blind bets, what do you do?
should you raise to try to drive out overcards and underpairs and gutshots or should you just call and let others trail in after you to make the pot bigger in case you hit your flush?
what's the correct way to play this situation?
all comments and thoughts appreciated.
You should raise and protect the pot that is out there. The odds are against you making the flush and there are already seven bets in the pot with more to follow when your raise gets called by the small blind. Don't let someone with just overcards come in cheaply. It would very bad for you if a Nine,Ten, Jack, Queen, or King shows up on the turn that is not a Heart and a bunch of players are still in the hand. Treat the nut flush draw as an added bonus and protection if you get called in multiple spots or even re-raised. Someone on a Heart flush draw may make a disastrous mistake and pursue their draw regardless which is great when you both hit.
I agree with Jim. When you raise you may be getting the best of both worlds if there is another flush draw out as well as an open ended straight since these hands will come anyway.
"Someone on a Heart flush draw may make a disastrous mistake and pursue their draw regardless which is great when you both hit."
Perhaps I'm missing something but how can someone with 2 hearts and two hearts on the flop be making a "disastrous mistake" when the pot is giving them 6:1 odds. It's true that in this case they won't win but from what I've read here this is still a pos ev situation.I don't mean to be snarky but is a diastrous mistake the same as a mathematical catastrophe?
...I don't mean to be snarky but is a diastrous mistake the same as a mathematical catastrophe? ...
Disastrous mistake = drawing dead and getting there.
That would mean anytime you have a non nut flush draw it might be a disastrous mistake. You can always be drawing dead so why the emphasis on suited cards?
SammyB let me clarify what I mean by a mistake. Given that the person does not know that he is up against the nut flush draw, obviously they are not making a mistake in the traditional sense. When I said a mistake, I meant the kind of mistake that is addressed in the Fundamental Theorem of Poker developed by David Sklansky which says something to the effect that "whenever your opponent plays in a manner inconsistent with the way he would play if he knew what you had you gain" (therefore he loses). Perhaps I should have reworded by original response and just stated that you profit enormously when people pay multiple bets and raises to draw at the same flush you are drawing at when you have the nut flush draw.
Jim,
Thank you so much for the clarification. I make enough mistakes so I'd like to eliminate as many disastrous ones as possible.
Sammy
I agree with Mason and Jim that you should generally raise to thin the field in a typical game. One exception might be in an very loose game where people will call 2 cold with those weak draws anyway, in which case I'd often just call, and if someone in later position raised, I'd reraise.
Regarding A8s preflop, I'd usually just call unless the limpers were exceptionally loose (especially exceptionally loose-aggressive, in which case you're pretty sure that yours is the best ace) or weak-tight (and could be blown off aces with better kickers.)
-Sean
In a situation like this, where I have a reasonable shot at having the best hand and almost a lock on the best draw, I like to play it as fast as I can. I am always willing to take the current pot (or even give myself the best shot at it) and am always willing to build the pot with a big draw. I am getting both for the same price here. If people come along with me, then I have a bunch of outs if I'm behind. If they drop, that's even better.
The beauty here is that you don't have to choose between protection and pot building. Whichever I get is determined by how the others react to the raise, and both are good for me.
Eric
Looking for the best strategy for 8 or better where the ante is 2$, bring in is 5$, 4th and 5th street is 10$, 6th and 7th street is $15.
you get the honor of being the first one to post in the wrong forum.
the best strategy is not in print so you have to interpolate on your own here. it wont be way off from what i advocate in my book. make a few adjustments and go from there.
First, I would like to thank writers like Malmuth, Sklansky, Ciaffone, etc. that give me something to think about when not playing cards. :)
I have a few questions about one of the essays on twoplustwo. Question 1 in Hold'em Quiz part 1 - Malmuth's reasoning that he would raise with 9d8d is, "I would raise with it almost every time. Part of my reasoning is that many players are too tight on the flop even though they defend loosely before the flop. I might be able to steal once we see three cards." I agree with the concept that lots of people are tight on the flop, but why 9d8d? Can't you steal the pot even better with Ax or Kx or anything. It's almost like the statement should read, "I would raise with (almost any two cards) every time. Part of..." There is no positive value for this raise if you actually want to make a hand, so why not wait for 2 big cards to steal with from the button.
Question 8, part 2 - I am just missing some math. I don't see how both Ciaffone and Malmuth agree that you need to steal only 1/3 of the time to make this a profitable bluff. I get 1 success = 1.5 big bets, 2 nonsuccesses = 3 big bets. I understand that might take into account all the times that someone puts you on a steal and calls with a bad hand. But this seems like a time when noone will call unless they have you beat (it won't take much). Am I missing some arithmetic?
Thanks,
Charlie Durham
p.s. - I thoroughly enjoy reading all the posts on this board, and I especially enjoy articles by great players like Malmuth and Ciaffone (who I met at a chess tournament and he was a really nice guy).
Charlie writes: "I agree with the concept that lots of people are tight on the flop, but why 9d8d? Can't you steal the pot even better with Ax or Kx or anything. It's almost like the statement should read, "I would raise with (almost any two cards) every time. Part of..." There is no positive value for this raise if you actually want to make a hand, so why not wait for 2 big cards to steal with from the button."
Charlie, you're right to focus strongly on high card value in blind stealing situations. But 98s is not a bad hand. Its suited, connectedness will help it find lots of semi-bluffing opportunities postflop, and it's certainly far better than Ax or Kx at making a big hand. No, it's not as good as A9 or QTs in this spot because can't win unimproved and has less high card value. But it does have some high card value, lot's of drawing value, and lots of semi-bluff potential. I personally would much rather have 98s in this spot than a hand like K5o. It plays much better. 98s is really not at all comparable to "almost any two cards".
Amen.
Also, catching lower flops may get you some bonus payoffs later.
If everyone folds to the button who raises, what should you do with 98suited in the small blind against typical opponents? This question springs from something I posted in the General Theory Forum which you may want to read to help you with your thinking. However unlike that question I do not think the answer is clear cut. Rather it is an essay question where the best answer is one that most cogently lays out your case. Anyone who tackles this question will I think be helped by the mere fact that that they do. I have a fairly strong opinion as to the answer but in this case I could be swayed. So let's hear your ideas.
Everything I say from this point on is predicated on the assumption that I am up against "typical opponents." Having said that, let me say that I am only ever so often typical myself and depending on my mood and amount of sleep and present mental state, I will do one of three things, at the end of which I will inform you what I believe is the proper course:
1. I am well rested, fully nourished and recently showered. If a typical player on the button is raising after everyone folds, than upwards of 75% of the time he is on the steal. 89s is not per se a bad hand. I would like more players in the pot, but I hate giving up my blinds. I would re-raise and probably kick out the big blind and bet the flop no matter what hits. I give it up only if he calls my flop bet, the turn brings me nothing, I check the turn and he bets. I must assume, with your typical player - if he can weather that and bet the turn, than I am beat - again, all the above is predicated on a typical opponent.
2. Medium amount of sleep. No shower in over 16 hours. Fast food in my stomach. I call. Minimum to call is medium pair with back door straight/flush potential only.
3. Little sleep. I smell. Eating chocolates. I call him to the river with only bottom pair, no straight or flush draws.
The proper course is #1, as I never play in any other state let alone those described in #2 or #3.
I fold. I spend all the intervening time watching the BB and the button fight this one out while anticipating the fact that I will be the button on the very next hand. In the games I play in most of the time, the SB is one third of a small bet. Why do I want to get involved with 9-8 suited in a raised pot when I am going to be in the least favorable position throughout the play of the hand? I wouldn't limp with this hand UTG, why play it against a single raiser when the most I can expect is a 3 way pot? If I'm wrong, please give me an idea of how much expectation I'm giving away here. If I have real good control over the button, I still shy away from playing this hand, but would call in the BB hoping for a flop that would let me play the hand strongly. I usually try to stay away from questions like this that tend to reveal the incredible depth of my "fuzzy thinking", but I'm feeling somewhat invincible today after having resolved a long standing IRS situation.
BTW David, I was forced to reveal the $17,000.00 in cash that I paid you for private lessons last year, so I really hope that you reported it as income.
I have to basically agree with Double K's evaluation. I would probably re-raise. Part of my reasoning would be that:
a: I put the button raiser on a medium/low pair, or medium connectors, in which case, a re-raise may knock out the BB, allowing me to get heads up with the raiser. Hopefully the flop hits me with a nice hand. Obviously, the pot odds aren't there for a drawing hand, but if I get lucky and hit a straight AND flush draw, I'll bet the flop, and hope I can just win the pot right there.
b. There is the possibilty of winning the hand pre-flop if he was on a pure steal, and does't want to call a re-raise from the blind. However, this scenario is much less likely in my 3/6 game because for one thing, I cant remember the last time it was folded around to the button, and the chances of the raiser folding to a re-raise is virtually nil. This fact might make me consider just calling in this situation, and waiting for the flop to see if I have a hand.
So, in my regular game, against a typical player, I have to say a re-raise is th best move.
mike
.... see DS, I am learning.
I would fold here too in the SB. But I don't think reraising the button is a better play than just calling.
regards,
jikun
I'd definitely play it because I think the hand is a money-maker against a blind steal even though it probably doesn't win a very large percentage of the time. In essence, he'll pay me when I hit a lot more than I'll pay him when he hits. He has a likely overcard advantage, but my straight/flush potential balances that out somewhat. I'm not going to be very worried about hands like A8, K9 or TT because those hands are tiny fraction of everything my opponent could be playing.
The basic problem I see with the hand is overcoming the disadvantage of being first to act, so I'd probably reraise before the flop. This also has the advantages of (usually) knocking out the big blind and somewhat disguising the ranks in my hand.
I like 98 in this situation because it can be an easy to play. My opponent's most likely hands consist of at least one card higher than a jack with A and K predominating or, much less frequently, a pocket pair lower than an 8. As a result, I can get away from the flops that help him a lot easier than he can get away from the flops that help me.
For example, if an A or K flops with another overcard, I've got a problem regardless of whether I flop a pair, although with a pair I've probably got a good draw to at least the turn. Without a pair or a good draw I usually can't continue against the two big cards.
If I flop top pair, I'll play it fast and my opponent will often not suspect how far behind he his. He might even pay me off on the river holding Ax or an underpair because it appears as though he might have the best hand.
If no ace or king flops and I've got a pair, I've got the best hand the vast majority of the time. I'll play it fast even if a couple of overcards are on board.
If I don't flop a hand and two overcards flop but neither are an ace or king, I'll often have a gutshot draw good for an attempted semi-bluff. If my opponent has me beat, he usually let me know it soon as he should play back at strongly. If he does and I believe him, I'll play my draw as the pot odds indicate. If he just calls, I'll bet out on the turn, especially if no A, K or Q lands.
If I don't have a pair or a draw and one or fewer overcards flop and it is not an ace or king (e.g. J54, 633), I won't waste money bluffing because my opponent will correctly estimate that he's ahead. I'll check and maybe call once but probably give it up on the turn.
Since all folded in an average game that means no Ax and few paints out there I don't have any eigther so button is probably sitting on at least one and probably 2 over cards. If not a big pair.
I'm a big dog suited or not (and you all know what I think about suited cards before the flop) - I wouldn't see the flop in the 1st 7 positions with this hand so why should I see it here.
David - I proudly muck these rags.
Rounder writes:
David - I proudly muck these rags.
THAT'S what I meant by weak tight.
- Andrew
Andrew writes: "Rounder writes: David - I proudly muck these rags.
THAT'S what I meant by weak tight. - Andrew "
I'll grant you it might be tight but exactly how do you figure it to be weak? I'm not convinced that it's too tight to muck here dependent upon game conditions.
The terms Weak and Tight are not joined at the hip.
Scott,
Andy thinks it is weak to muck marginal hands in bad positions. He considers it strong to reraise here when THAT is the classic example of WEAK play.
To bad Andy doesn't know, what hw doesn't know.
Rounder,
I thought you weren't reading my posts...
- Andrew
"Rounder, I thought you weren't reading my posts... - Andrew "
Now that's tight play. I'll be joining Rounder in this until you grow up.
horton writes:
Now that's tight play. I'll be joining Rounder in this until you grow up.
Heh, that's funny.
- Andrew
Scott,
Tight describes the general frequency of folding. I tend to think of it applying to situations when you have no pot equtiy and choose not to play.
Weak describes the reasons for folding. This could apply to any fold under any condition.
For example, it is tight to fold AJo under the gun. It is weak to fold AJo one off the button to any raise. On the other hand it is not weak to fold AJo to a tight-raise.
Maybe my understanding is different from others. I'd be interested in hearing other interpretations of the two words.
- Andrew
Weak Tight: Playing only the best hands in a predictable manner. ie; Always raising with AA or Always checking A,K, when the flop is rags etc. That's a weaka play. Nexta besta ting to Loose passive.
Vince.
I like your views regarding "tight" and "weak". I would add that "weak" also means failing to bet your good hands aggressively to get maximum value, failing to steal when you should, and failing to play back against potential steal raises with decent cards.
Well first of all let me point out that in the mid-limit games (15-30, 30-60) at bay 101 the small blind is 2-3rds of the big blind.
What course of action I would take here would depend on my table image. If I had a tight image at the table I would definitely re-raise from the small blind, and if big blind folds and the button just calls I would auto bet the flop, and if the button calls the flop bet I would even bet the turn if I though he was calling with overcards or maybe even a draw. I would possibly bet the river, assuming that my hand had not improved.
I don't think that I would bet the turn if it was Axx, because there is an excellent chance that the button has a weak ace if he called your bet on the flop.
If I had recently made a few very aggressive plays, like 3 betting it from the small blind with K10o, I might just call the raise. My table image would have to be really bad though for me to take this course of action, I would have to be afraid of being called down the whole way with ace-high.
I might also just call the raise if it was blatantly obvious that the big blind was going to call the raise and if the big blind was the type of player likely to call 2 raises with any hand that he would call 1 raise with.
Because of the bay 101 blind structure I would only fold the hand if, I was pretty confident BB was going to make it three bets. However if the small blind was only 1/2 or 1/3 of the big blind I would be much more likely to send the hand into the muck preflop. Still if I had a tight table image I would most likely make it three bets pre-flop.
One last note, I never mentally classify players as "typical" in a ring-game especially when it comes to their steal raising standards, because some players who behave "typically" in other instances might almost never go for a steal raise or they might always go for a steal raise. I just never encounter anyone who directly matches the "typical" steriotype.
Shawn--First time post
Shawn writes: "What course of action I would take here would depend on my table image. If I had a tight image at the table I would definitely re-raise from the small blind, and if big blind folds and the button just calls I would auto bet the flop, and if the button calls the flop bet I would even bet the turn if I though he was calling with overcards or maybe even a draw. I would possibly bet the river, assuming that my hand had not improved.
If this play is based upon your current table image then why would you need a real hand to execute it? Wouldn't any two cards do?
It sounds like you understood Shawn to say either that he would base his play purely on image, or that he would play the hand only for the likelihood of stealing. I don't think that's what he meant. I think he's simply saying image would be an important factor that could swing the decision for him (reraise versus call). Having a tight image could give him enough added stealing potential to make the reraise and aggressive follow through (with exceptions as he listed) more profitable than just calling. Without a real hand, the overall expecation for the play would be inadequate.
With the 98s, the assumption is that without that image just calling may have the better expectation of the two options. While it's quite situational, I agree with the basic line of thinking.
BTW, Shawn, I agree with bulk of your comments. But I would actually see it pretty similarly even in a 1/2 bet small blind situation. I think it's giving up too much to muck 98s in the sb against a likely steal raise.
Assuming that you had a tight table image I think that making it three bets could be correct (profitable) with any 2 cards if you think that the following things are true;
1. Big blind is not going to call your reraise, 2. The button probably has a marginal pre-flop calling hand (Ax, J10) 3. The button is going to fold if you bet unless they hit the flop.
Now I wouldn't normally make this play with a hand like 25o because my table image isn't that tight; observant opponents would know that I make it 3 bets in these situations with almost any hand that I decide to play from the small blind.
I think that it would be profitable for a rock to make this power play if he was against a likely steal-raise, even if he loses the hand he would gain a lot of advertising from the play (assuming a showdown).
Obviously making a play like this everytime won't be profitable in that you will have no credibility, but making it three bets with garbage can be profitable because you win the pot if they don't hit the flop.
Shawn--
Shawn writes: "Obviously making a play like this everytime won't be profitable in that you will have no credibility, but making it three bets with garbage can be profitable because you win the pot if they don't hit the flop."
However, in general I would argue that you're best off restricting yourself to legitimate hands of some sort (98s, 66...) in making such plays. One reason is that if you don't you will not have the tight image you seek. That will hurt your overall profits on other hands.
However, in general I would argue that Shawn has got a great deal of gamble in him. My original guess seems to be about right.
On seeing his subsequent post, I agree with you. To add a bit to my warning:
Shawn, you've got to be somewhat selective. I don't think that you can maintain your tight image if you start adding garbage hands to the many marginally playable, "legitimate" hands that will come your way anyway.
"start adding garbage hands "
98s is a "garbage" hand. Hmmm interesting?
Vince.
No, no, Vince. I was saying that 98s was pretty GOOD. But Shawn kind of gave the impression that he also thought it was fine to throw in the occasional garbage hand for this 3-bet (63o, J2o...) if your image was right. At least that's how his second post struck me.
Sorry John,
Should have known. Superstar and all.
Vince
Don't let this one argument deceive you into thinking that I am a maniac gamb00lzer (sp?). I can't remember the last time that this certain senario came up in which I felt my image was tight enough to perform a small blind powerplay with rags. I still do believe the play is profitable for a predicably tight player, although that is what makes them predicable they don't try these type of tricks.
I normally play very tight holdem, at least as tight as S&M indicates, and even tighter in early position with hands like J10s, 109s, ect. But that is because the 30-60 game tends to be rather aggressive.
Your advice (21st century edition, page 44) is that "if you are going to play (usually with a hand in Groups 1-6), you should almost always reraise. . .to drive the big blind out of the pot."
I agree with this advice which, to me, suggests that calling is the least attractive option. I know you prefer more players rather than fewer with suited connectors, but in this case the choice is between a two-handed and a three-handed pot, not between a two-handed and a multi-handed pot. I think a call is generally wrong.
Most times I would fold. If I know the oponent, and I know him to be either weak/tight or a less skilled player than I am, I would re-raise and, as you almost always do when making it 3 bets before the flop, bet out on the flop. Your opponent, having been first in from the button, will often be relatively weak (small pocket pair, medium suited connectors, A-xs, Q-J, etc.) and there will be more flops than usual that will frighten or disappoint him.
I would play more times when I already have 2/3 of the big blind posted than when I have 1/2. Still, were I on the button and the player immediately to my right was first in with a raise, I would need a very good reason to make it 3 bets with 9-8s. In the small blind I have to put in less money, but I'm in bad position, so a fold is more often correct than not.
I think the answer totally depends on the opponents, and the blind size.
I will almost never defend a 1/3 blind, often defend a 1/2 blind, and almost always defend a 2/3 blind.
Assuming a 1/2 blind, if I'm against a loose steal, and the BB is one who will defend liberally, I fold. My position is horrible, I don't want to be multi-way as that will reduce the value of aggression.
If the BB will only play overcards to my hand, I'll raise hoping that a call by the BB will define where I stand more clearly.
If the original raiser bluffs to much, I will probably check-fold if I miss, and check-call otherwise. I'll win more by picking off the bluffs than by semi-bluffing myself. We could consider missing here to be having fewer than 10 outs including my own pair cards.
I'll almost always fold to a broadway flop unless I'm open ended.
If the raiser is going to call to much, I'm going to pretty much only value bet. Very little semi-bluffing, unless I've got 15+ outs to a draw, or a made hand and a draw.
If the raiser plays well post-flop, using semi-bluff raises, bluff reraises, and other such strategies, I'll almost always fold preflop. I don't want to pay such a high price for poor position against a tricky, but good, player.
- Andrew
I am going to let this thread run for awhile. But I would like to say two things now.. Firstly I would hope that some of you mention the idea discussed in the Theoretical Question thread in the General Theory Forum. Secondly I want to point out that the comment made by some posters that if you would not limp in with 98s in first position you wouldn't call the button's raise with it is, well fuzzy thinking. First of all your contribution in the form of a blind changes things. More importantly is the fact that the button's hand is on average much weaker than the best hand yet to act when you are in first position in a ring game. Do not construe this to mean that I think you should play this hand. I just want to nip this fallacious reasoning in the bud.
Since I qualified my fallacious reasoning by saying that the sb in the games I normally play in is 1/3 of the BB, does this make a difference? I tend to believe that taking this hand against one or two opponents, having the worst possible position, puts you at too great a disadvantage. I don't belong to the school of thought that dictates I play marginal situations out of position due to my supposed ability to outplay another player. I want as many factors working in my favor as possible. Can you quantify how much I'm giving up in EV by my fold?
David,
I'd love to work this one out but it seems to me that it does matter if the small blind is 1/3 a bet (typical in 3/6, 6/12, and 9/18), 1/2 a bet (10/20, 20/40, 40/80), or 2/3 a bet (15/30, 30/60). Maybe great minds have difficulty with details, but in this case keeping the details clear would have kept us all on the same page (at least to start).
So anyway, I'll pass on this one to live to "blather on" another day.
Regards,
Rick
i just assumed 1/2. that's the way i've played. i think 1/3 and 2/3 play the same as 1/2. except that the call when you think that the bb will fold is more or less marginal.
scott
Rick,
I will stick my neck out here and say that the size of the blind in this situation is not the driving factor determining your play.
Vince.
Rick,
I suppose I should clarify my previous post. Although blind size is a factor in this exercise it is not the primary consideration. The primary consideration is the EV of the situation. That is estimated (Andrew will like that) by the skill level of the participants and the amount of money available to each. For instance if you were the sb and had to call all in, you would then need to consider hand strength vs pot odds with minor consideration given to the skill/position of the raiser. The other extreme, with all players having infinite money available complicates the decision. How well you play, how well the other two play, the likely hood of getting heads up if you apply specific tactics, etc must be considered to estimate your EV. In the first instance it's a math exercise. In the second it becomes Math/poker playing/math.
Vince.
Vince writes:
The primary consideration is the EV of the situation. That is estimated (Andrew will like that) by the skill level of the participants and the amount of money available to each.
I do like that Vince. And I also agree skill level is the one of the primary considerations here. But let's talk about blind sizes and odds for one second.
Does blind size matter? Yes and no. First here are the odds you are getting in each blind:
1/3 blind: 2.00:1 1/2 blind: 2.33:1 2/3 blind: 2.75:1
BUT, these aren't your odds, especially if you *raise*. As you play further along in the hand your odds approach 1:1. With bad position, having only 1:1 odds against an opponent who you can't read/manipulate/outplay is a very bad place to be.
Position is the most important consideration. Knowing your opponent is the next most important. Blind size... well who wants to defend 1/3 of a small bet anyways?
Defend in this situation if you are better than your opponent, otherwise fold. Note: this seems to get into details that Sklansky was trying to factor out. Remember, he said "typical" opponent. Now if only we knew whether or not we were better than the "typical" opponent :)
- Andrew
Actually blind size may be relevant on a question this close. I was assuming half the size of the large blind. If it was 2/3,(and there is no rake) folding cannot be right.
"Now if only we knew whether or not we were better than the "typical" opponent :) "
I am!
Vince.
"Now if only we knew whether or not we were better than the "typical" opponent :) "
I am!
I fold.
- Andrew
Vince,
I didn't mean to say that the blind size was the most important factor. It was just that many posters were already basing their response on the size of the blind. It could have been avoided if the structure was stipulated up front.
Anyway, I was grouchy last night after watching the Patriots lose with my buddy Greg (I'm from Rhode Island) then watching total nitwits on "You Want To Be A Millionaire" (I just had to check up on this given the buzz). Nitwit example:
Question: How many men have walked on the moon? Three answers were odd numbers, which by definition can't be right since every mission that reached the surface had one man in lunar orbit and two in the lunar lander. And this was at the $32 K level! I got to find a way to get on these shows.
Regards,
Rick
the choice to raise or call depends on the big blind. if he is loose throughout the hand or tight preflop, then call. if he is weak tight in general or, specificaly, if he is likely to call a raise preflop but would fold to action on the flop if he did not improve, then raise. if he will call 1 raise but not 2, then raise. i want to get heads up with the button.
this is right if my 'not all-in' is right. if that is not right, then you should call if the bb will likely fold to the button's raise. but this call would be marginal. if it takes your raise to get him out, then fold. 9-5 is not 3.5-1. the alleged negative impact of future action combined with the chances that the bb has a hand, eliminate the overlay you would have had if you could call and the bb would fold (the odds would be 7-3).
scott
My answer comes from my play at the table. I'm sure this is not the mathematical response David is looking for.First of all when the big blind raises I am getting immediate odds of 7-3. If I re-raise and he calls I am getting odds of 9-5. This certainly makes the hand playable in my opinon except for those times you have a read on your opponent telling you he has a big hand.
The problem is you have a player behind you. If he folds after you re-raise that is good. If he calls after you just call that is bad in my opinion. Keeping him in hurts your chances to my way of thinking. So, as far as I'm concerned you should re-raise or fold.
In actual practice at the table I re-raise about 30%-35% of the time and fold the rest. This will give my opponents a tougher decision about my holdings and improve my credibility when I do decide to get aggressive.
Ms. Wyatt,
I like your reasoning. It's not an automatic fold or raise or call. If I am going to play it - especially against "typical opponents" - I'm going to play it fast and try to pick off a likely steal attempt.
Sometimes if I don't feel like getting into it, I'll fold and wait for a more profitable play. I guess there's little wrong with that reasoning too.
When I read "typical opponent", I read an opponent familiar with the nuances but not likely to manipulate them up one or two levels. If you blast him with a raise off the some blind and a bet on the flop (or a check raise) - your "typical opponent" will give it up 100% of the time with very little or nothing - even, I believe, with more than very little.
I don't think he is looking for a mathematical proof. I would guess that David is looking for an answer that is logical and coherent perhaps supported by some math which you have done.
It's almost the same question. If the BB folds then there is little differece being the SB. Assume button is a typical but knowledgable player who may try to steal 85% in this situation. I would raise the maximum, all in if I had to and expect the BB to fold. If he does not, then we play it out and I think I have an equal shot at the win. The pressure has been put on the BB. My huge bet gives him a way out. I actually think that heads up my hand is a slightly better than the average hand. Of course the button may have a better hand, but he does not know what I have either.
I raise and expect to win!
You are BB and SB raises: fold You are BB and SB folds or calls: call and the flop.
You are SB: call and see the flop if BB doesn't re-raise, else fold.
My thinking is that button could be playing position. You need to make it appear to the button that it's risky to try to buy. 98s is worthy to make this point with (it's no farce). Be prepared to muck unless the flop hits you hard. If you get top pair, bet and see how other player(s) react. Be prepared to muck.
These are the thoughts of a beginner. And this beginner is losing money thus far! :(
I've had the advantage of reading all the other posts but they really didn't change my original thinking. I agree that if you're playing against a steal raise in the SB then a raise is much more often correct than a call. This hand, 98s, plays much better heads up than three way. Heads up it can win a lot of pots by making a pair and this falls off quickly as you add opponents. That issue forces the choices of pre-flop action down to raise or fold, calling is not a reasonable option.
I have not, nor will I in the future be tossing in three bets pre-flop with this hand against most opponents. That's just too much commitment to the pot with a hand without high cards. I'll leave this play to the experts.
I think that the first consideration should NOT necessarily be whether it 'is' or is 'not' a steal raise. But more importantly, the first question one should ask themselves’ is… How well can this player take advantage of his/her position? Since I tend to play a very aggressive game, I find the “typical” 10-20 player will not make full use of their position over me. That being the case, I am more inclined to play the hand regardless of whether they may or may not be attempting a steal.
Also, circumstance plays an important role. Many times I find a rock on my right, who wouldn’t dream of playing without a good hand, let alone raising with one. If this is the case, I can muck without hesitation. I wouldn’t play this hand for a raise outside the blinds against such an individual, why should I play it now? I just wouldn’t feel like I was giving up too much unless of course he/she was weak/tight, meaning that they would likely fold for for a bet on a flop that did not hit their hand. (perhaps with overcards). Now my hand is definitely worth a play.
But what about the “typical player” steal raise which I think the question was based on? There’s no question that some players believe that being first in, is an automatic license to torch the blinds. When this is the case, I will make a stand with the first playable cards I receive. An 89s will do just fine for this mission.
So to sum up my beliefs, I do not like 89s for a raise, whether it’s inside the blinds or not. The exception of course is in the big blind with more than 1 player. I think many hands can be played against “steal” raises and it should usually be re-raised to punish the thief. One successful stop can be very expensive for the stealer. He/she will now be in the position of having to successfully steal many times in a row to recover from one good defeat. Maybe even more important, is the fact that that you can now give up many of your marginal blind hands before you are at a loss. This, combined with the fact that he/she may run into a legitimate hand, should make the thief think twice before attempting to steal over you the next time.
Unfortunately, it will sometimes be that you have punished yourself. But that’s what makes Hold’em such a great game!
In terms of value, I would fold. I would think this hand is an underdog to a random two card holding(just a guess). So in situations where i need the best hand to win in a showdown, i would fold. If i thought i could successfully bluff later on, this might be a call or reraise. Assuming my opponent doesn't have a pair and won't call without making a pair, this might be a slight money maker. But this could be said about any two card holding, so i have to go with the fold 90% of the time.
reraise
"what should you do with 98suited in the small blind against typical opponents?"
Before the question can be answered one has to define (I think) one's personal view of "typical opponent." If, for instance, you have a typical opponent completely wrong then you will make bad choices in this (and many other) situations. I assume the following:
(1) A typical opponent in a 10-20 game in this position will raise with a wide array of hands. If I spike a pair on the flop there will be a very good chance that I am ahead.
(2) Typical opponents in the spot will not give up as easily as they should so when you do flop the best hand to your 98s you will get paid off a fair share of the time.
(3) Typical opponents are reasonably predicatable in that if I do flop a moderate hand in this spot (ie. middle pair) it will be possible to get away from the hand if I am beaten.
What do I do with my 98s? I think I call pre-flop. A raise may well shut out the big blind, but I don't think letting him in and taking the flop three-way is all that bad. A third player in the pot will tend to make the play more predictable post-flop since most players are less apt to get too fancy against two opponents. In other words, I will get a better read on both the BB and the button if I let the BB come in for a single bet. When the flop hits I will tend to bet any semi-bluff (gutshots/two overcards/four flush). I will tend to check-raise top pair and even second pair (depending upon what the BB does). IF I miss completely I will tend to check and fold unless I have a VERY good handle on the button.
It is, without a doubt, a very close call and I will come on or not almost completely dependent upon how well I read the button. If he/she is a totally predictable player then I figure to be able to play the hand well post-flop, but if he/she is a tough, aggressive, difficult player then I will have trouble playing out of position with a moderate holding and I am much more apt to simply fold... against typical opponents... call. THe decision it, however, based exclusively upon who the button is.
Regards, Dave Scharf
Reading Rounder's recent love notes to Big John in the "Table Note Taking" thread in the Other-Topics Forum, plus a few follow-up love thoughts in the "Losing Streaks" thread in this forum, it occurred to me that Rounder must be a woman who goes by an androgynous name--you know, like Pat or Terry. What do you think??
My wife would be amused. I'm a big ugly Italian guy 6'1 and 220 pounds - got a great wife and 2 kids in college.
Danny, you have a great imagination.
-
I was just breaking Rounders balls and I apologize for posting it. And now that we know he has a pair to break, would you please Delete this thread.
Sincerely, Danny R
If you would like Mason to delete a thread you must use the word penis. "Balls" is not good enough reason! If you don't believe me, ask Abdul! If he ever gets the "balls" to post here again.
Vince
With that comment Vince has officially achieved the number one status of all our posters. I am sure Mason and Ray would agree.
I think VL should change his name to Vince "The Jester" Lepore. He certainly cracks me up ... I feel sorry for the people who are offended by this humor - I'm sure it's quite offensive to those. Did you see the one two weeks ago? That was FUNNY!
It's a given that Vince's favorite play is "A funny thing happened on the way to the FORUM"
X
Their Brass???
What you are trying to say is "they are brass", shortened to "They're brass".
There(is a place), there was a time, lets go there,etc..
Their(has to do with personal possession for more than one person) Their vacation starts tomorrow. (which suggests that the vacation belongs to them, "their vacation"
They're(is just the connection of the two words "they" and "are". They're leaving on vacation tomorrow.
I hope you don't think I'm being condescending, it's just that you've helped me more than once with my poker stuff, and I want to return the favor.
Sincerely, Connie
Connie I miss my secretary the job is open!
Just a brief post to say that I like the website's new setup.
As far as I am cocerned, the jury is still out on the new format. Frankly, it seems to me like we got too many damn forums. At least combine the general theory and hold 'em forums into one. Oh well, I am sure that no matter what, Chuck, Mason etc can't keep everyone happy. I do like the fact that "other poker games" and "tournaments" have their own separate boards as these are two topics that don't interest me in the least.
Seee, ah ha! I knew it! ****Super Starrr*** Forum that's the one missing. Right SKP, buddie. Play along and John may let you in. You know you got my vote. Think superrrrr starrrrr. That's us buddy!
Vince
Post deleted at author's request.
"Poker theory is not Holdem-centric!"
What? there are other poker games out there?:)
You are of course correct but to me poker is Holdem-centric.
Question 1 Say you called the raise in David's example and the BB re-raises. Button calls and you call? (if you couldn't muck 1/2 bet you really can't muck 2 bets)
see the flop with 9 SB in the pot.
flop comes A 8 7 rainbow with one of your suit. You have 2nd pair, 3 flush and 3 straight -
What do you do now, your 1st to act?
Question 2. Everything the same but button caps pre flop - now 6bb in the pot.
In response to your first question, I would check my middle pair and backdoor possibilities. I am hoping to get a free card or at least take off a card for no more than one bet. I am basically playing a 5 outer here. If after I check, it gets bet and raised to me then I fold. Otherwise, I call a single bet. If the turn is a blank, I will probably fold if there is a bet. If I catch a Nine or an Eight on the turn I will bet. If I catch an open ended straight draw or a flush draw on the turn, I will check and call a bet to me.
With regard to your second question, if I called a raise out of my small blind with 98 suited and then the big blind re-raised followed by the button capping it, I would now fold since it is not worth cold-calling a double bet with this hand. I also know that the button has a real hand as well as the big blind so no one is stealing.
I agree with your answer Jim--- If you are playing 10-20,---- at the Mirage----at 2PM--- on Wednesday.
Maybe I am playing too tight here but on Rounder's first question I consider the following factors:
1. The button pre-flop raise is usually a steal but these guys raise with their good hands as well.
2. The big blind re-raising after I call the raise pre-flop tends to denote a real hand and not some kind of weak two card holding.
3. I have two opponents who were willing to put in multiple bets pre-flop so they are not playing random cards. At least one, if not both of them, have a better hand than mine given this shorthanded pot.
4. I would normally bet the flop with middle pair into two opponents if neither had raised or shown any strength. If the board was not Ace or King high I would be even more prone to bet out. But in this situation, given the pre-flop action, betting out will not win the pot. One, if not both of these guys, has me beat right now and they are not going to fold when I bet given all the money that is now in the pot. I will probably get raised.
This whole scenario of pouring a lot of dough into a pot with a weak suited connector against a small number of opponents when I am out of position strikes me as more like good, old-fashioned gambling rather than playing with any kind of real edge.
With regard to question 2, when the button now caps it back to me pre-flop, I am now facing a double bet against two opponents who are obviously excited about their hands. I don't see any advantage to getting married to this situation by calling now and facing marginal situations downstream where the pot is large and my chances of winning are small. I would rather save my money for a more favorable gambling opportunity.
Ahhh,
Know your opponents - or opposition, as the case may be.
- Andrew
Clearly you are correct Andrew. I guess my hang-up is that when people start playing at $10-$20 or above they are playing in a game where they can win or lose a $1000 in a single session which is serious money to most people. Guys that play at this level don't just throw around chips without having a hand. It is one thing to have only one opponent in late position to deal with and quite another when you get a second opponent who is also betting and raising. If this were a $2-$4 social game, maybe it is right to gamble here but I cannot see it in most $10-$20 games that I have played in unless you happen to be up against a pair of drunken maniacs. Even then I am not sure I want to get involved with 9-8 suited.
I guess my hang-up is that when people start playing at $10-$20 or above they are playing in a game where they can win or lose a $1000 in a single session which is serious money to most people. Guys that play at this level don't just throw around chips without having a hand.
You're not playing in the right $10-20 games. I encounter plenty of very loose-aggressive and even maniac players at these limits on a semi-regular basis. Not long ago I picked off 2 complete cold bluffs in a row with just a strong ace-high (both times the pot was pretty large because I had a strong draw and thought there was a good chance my ace was good) when the guy was holding an unimproved 95o or some such trash, which he went 4 bets on the turn with. While completely off the wall players like that are rare, I still see people raise and reraise preflop with hands like A7s and KJo (especially when they're open-raising in late position) fairly frequently.
-Sean
"I encounter plenty of very loose-aggressive and even maniac players at these limits on a semi-regular basis."
You don't play 10-20 in Las Vegas. At times they just may be the toughest mid limit Games anywhere. The one at the Grand Casino in Biloxi can also be like "picking teeth" (that's a silly expression when you think of it) also.
Vince.
Vince I believe the expression is "pulling teeth" not "picking teeth".
But A7 suited and KJ offsuit are still much better hands in a shorthanded pot than 98 suited plus I am out of position which means a lot more in shorthanded situations.
But A7 suited and KJ offsuit are still much better hands in a shorthanded pot than 98 suited plus I am out of position which means a lot more in shorthanded situations.
These are good points, but after you've called the first raise and it's reraised, you're getting good odds on the call (5.5:1). While these hands are better, they're not *that* much better, and you can't necessarily assume you're up against much of a hand at this point.
-Sean
Instead of just inferring that Jim's reasoning is flawed, why don't you just tell us in some detail what's wrong? I'm a fairly new player, and I could use the help.
Sincerely, Paul
"I could use the help. "
Not as much as Sklansky.
Vince.
Playing Jim's way will slightly decrease your EV, I am fairly sure, (except possibly against tight tough players), though it will certainly decrease your volatility a lot. However I don't often give in depth analysis of my opinions for many reasons, including the fact that I can't type, I have discussed similar concepts previously (here or in my writings) and that I want to see what others have to say. On the other hand, by using this Forum you are saving the $300 an hour I charge for private lessons and you do get to hear the in depth analysis of Vince Lepore.
David,
$300 per hour!! That's a little out of my range. Do you give half-hour sessions, or maybe even 15 minutes to someone with just one question??
Yeah, what about senior citizen rates?
Michael 7 returned to our saturday pot limit game this week from his honeymoon. All smiles. Congrats. After placing in our low limit stud tourney he gets his seat at the 2/5 blind pot limit game filled w/ the usual collection of poker semi wannabees.
The hand: all fold to Honeymoon mike,, he raises to 30. gets called by upstate dave. flop is 73x rainbow. mike bets the pot (60) is called. turn is a 3. mike bets the pot. he gets called . river is an x he bets the pot and gets called . dave had AA and mike had 73 off suit. MIke takes about a 600 dollar pot. So now and forever more 73 off suit is the :HONEY MOON HAND". Mike, who adds intelect and incite to many pot and no limit discussions in this forum said in defense of his first raise "I had to play my rush". Lets get ready to rumble>....
Hey! Norton! Get a load of this one! Hardy, Har, Har, Har! "The Honeymooners"
Vince.
Next time he plays 73 and loses the farm, we will rename the hand "Divorce Hand" hahahah
I played for 8 hours, and had two hands left until my BB, when I was leaving. I was up about $400 and did not really want to get tangled in a big hand I would lose. I get Q-10 clubs and decide to limp, following a limp by UTG. Guy to left raises. Folded around to SB and BB, both of whom call. UTG calls, I call. Flop comes Q-10-5, all diamonds. Checked around to me, I bet figuring I have top two and want to make the flush draws pay. Everyone calls except UTG. Turn is Kc. I bet out (mistake?), and get called by guy on left and raised by SB. Hmmmmm. BB calls (who is on a nut flush draw). I call. River is blank. Checked around to SB who bets, BB folds unfilled, I call thinking this guy is aggressive and may be betting top pair, and the pot is pretty big. Guy on left calls with a nut straight (AJ) - I put him on AK or AQ, maybe 99 - with maybe one diamond - I didn't know whether he would call the river or not. SB shows 47d for flush he flopped. Not a real exciting hand, but I would welcome comments. Should I have folded?.
You should not be limping in from early position with Q-10 suited. This is a weak, speculative drawing hand that requires a lot of opponents and an unraised pot. At this point, you simply don't know whether or not the pot will be raised and how many opponents you will have. You should fold pre-flop.
The rest of your play was fine since you had two pair giving you some outs to beat a flush. Once again this is another hand that illustrates the dangers of getting involved when the board flops all of one suit and you do not have a card in that suit. With two pair you have a play, but with top pair or an overpair you need to be willing to dump it when you start getting heat.
I think you situation on fourth street helps illustrate a point made in HPFAP about fourth street play. If on fourth street you think you might be beat but you have outs (which is your situation, two pair with a straight and a flush possible) you should check and call if someone bets. That way you dont end up having to call a raise.
You make a good point. In this situation, Rob has four opponents so he might be better off checking on the turn. On the other hand, three of his four opponents checked to him (both blinds and the UTG player) and they cannot be sure Rob will bet especially when the King turns. Rob has only one opponent behind him. The dilemma is that if Rob has the best hand he really doesn't want to give the field a free card (e.g.-some guy with a non-diamond King to catch a second pair, some guy with a non-diamond Jack to catch a straight, etc.). All things considered, I think betting the turn is the best play given the passive play on the part of his opponents on the flop and turn.
I see your point but in a passive game with this number of opponents its very likely that a flush or a straight is out their. If one was not likely (flush and straight) or if he had top two pair I can see betting out but with that board there are now too many ways he's beat. Checking is appropriate here because there are so many opponents, adding to the probability that he doesn't have the best hand.
This is an interesting discussion. I would like to continue it. Suppose the turn card was a real blank like the Deuce of Spades instead of the King of Clubs so that Rob still has the top two pair. Now would it be right for Rob to bet the turn when it is checked to him? Is the presence of the King on the turn make him a lot more vulnerable such that he should not bet when it is checked to him combined with the flush possibilities?
This is interesting! With a rag on the turn it becomes more complicated and I can see the benefits of both betting and checking. I'd really like to see what others have to say regarding this question. If you were first to act I would still check, however given your position its not as clear cut. This is one of those situations were it depends on your opponents. Would they check a flush two rounds in a row? Obviously in this game they would making a check the right play. However in other games I cant see this happening and with top two pair I'd feel good about my hand, I really dont want to give a free card, because at least one player is probably drawing to the nut, or close to the nut flush. I guess all I can say at this point is this is a tough spot and I think the two most crucial aspects are your postion and the other players and your decision should be based on them. I'll have to think about it some more and get back to you but I'd really like to see what you and others have to say about my comments.
After thinking about it, in the games that I normally play I would bet if the tunr was a rag. I don't think the players in my game are capable of checking a flush two rounds in a row. If I get raised on the turn, wiht four people still in the hand I have a pretty good idea of what I'm up against and can release my hand if it doesn't improve on the river. If I just checked and it was bet I would be less sure that a flush was out their and would probably have to call on the river regardless of what comes (unless it's another heart or diamond, I forget). By betting the turn, who knows I might pick up the pot right their or I might gain valuable information which will help me decide what to do on the river.
In my view, Q,10 cannot be folded preflop in early position. It's too good a hand to dump in virtually any kind of limit game.
Of course, I am referring to Q,10 suited.
QT is one of the biggest trap hands in poker.
I don't consider it playable in anything but the later positions.
SKP, if I knew that I would not get raised then I would be more prone to call with Q10 suited in early position. Occasionally you find low limit games where no one ever raises before the flop and you can do this. I believe Mason Malmuth talks about this in one of his answers to the Ciaffone quiz. In my games, $15-$30 and $20-$40, many pots get raised and I would not want to be coming in early with such a weak hand.
I would definetely limp with this hand in most games I play in. J9s as well for most loose, not particularly aggresive games.
I think the rest of the hand was played ok too.
D.
I think you should have bet out on the turn and called the raise like you did, but that the evidence that you were against a flopped flush was overwhelming. Knowing a bit more about your opponent, you might have heroically saved a bet on the end. But at 16-1 it's hard to make a mistake by calling.
But at 16-1 it's hard to make a mistake by calling.
How can it ever be right to continue to put money in a pot when you KNOW your beat.
Gotta know when to flod'em.
Rounder,
The point was that I didn't know I was beat. It is very possible that SB had top pair (AK, for instance), and guy to left has AK for instance. I think the call on the end was correct and my bet on the turn was a mistake. However, guy on left likely would have bet his nut straight on turn so as not to give a free card. Same result, but I get more info on this guy.
As long as it's possible for the SB to have a hand like KhJs, it can't be much of a mistake to call because it only costs him a fraction of a bet.
Before someone tells me, I noticed the error in my post. On the river, the SB bet out - it obviously wasn't checked around to him. Thanks to all the responders. I should have pointed out that this was a loose game, and frequently when the first two limped, we would have a 6-7 handed unraised pot pre-flop. Hence, I limped with my Q-10 of clubs, planning on folding post flop if appropriate.
I'm not familiar with the players in your game but in a typical low limit game I would fold. Most low limit players will not check raise without a powerful hand. You'd have to respect that play and figure your beat (if only by a bigger two pair). When you don't improve on the river and the SB follows through with a bet, against your typical lowlimit player a fold is correct. Again, just my opinion, and I'm certainly no expert.
X
For the most part, posters ask questions about what books to read to learn how to play HE or other games. My question is directed more to videos. Does anybody have opinions on the major videos as a supplement to learning (e.g. Slanky's "The Video", Caro's Major Poker Seminar, Power Poker Seminar, and Pro Poker Tells)? On another note, I am aware of Malmuth's criticism of Caro's printed HE materials because of the loose starting hand requirements. Otherwise, does anybody recommend these materials or would I be better sticking with Two plus Two and Ciaffone?
Heck get it all - if your going to be a serious poker player you need a library both videos and books. I read all I can find on the subject even related books like "reading people" By Jo-Ellan Dimitrius the jury consultant.
See and read it all and pick the best from all the experts.
The only video I have is Caro's poker tells video and I purchased it more out of curiuosity than anything else. However, I think it has helped me some. Most of the tells seem like common since but its a good way to be entertained while also sharpening you skills. I also believe that for learning this skill a video is more helpful than books (just my opinion).
I find Caro's Tells absolutely excellent. It is really works. It takes time. Do not expect to watch the video once or twice and then go out and see all the Tells in your next poker session. You will have to study the video, take notes and jot down reminders. Then sit in the session and play as you normally would. When you are out of a hand, watch the players closely and observe. You will see some tells. Watch the way they look at the flop; watch how they look at their hands etc.
This works well as long as the players do not know the same stuff you do. I have come across players whom I feel are looking at me for the same thing I am looking at them. Then I disappoint them and give them a reverse tell. Complicated? Yes, but fun and profitable.
PS never met Caro, probably never will; never spoke or wrote to him.
I too have bought Caro's Tells video and just laugh to myself at the stuff I used to do and the stuff that I see everytime I play poker. Even though they are mostly elementary tells for the regular poker player they are great for that situation. But beware of those who know their stuff. I agree videos are a little more stimulating as you get a visual and almost hands on. What a huge mark up though. You make your money back if you follow instructions though. At least I have.
Rounder,
The best thing about Caro's Poker Tells video is that I'm in it!. Just look for the guy in the kelly green shirt buying chips in two different manners on the second video. Caro also comments that the woman next to me must be thinking "I'm a dork". Thanks Mike. I'm in a few other scenes but I'm just an onlooker.
In all seriousness this video is pretty good. Most other stuff is better suited for book format but Mike's Book of Tells was made for video.
The odd thing is that I almost always buy my own chips from the cage and never go all in (in limit ring games) or need chips in a hurry. The main reason is that most chip runners don't bring enough chips to the table when starting games and if I buy my normal two racks or so there won't be enough left for everyone else to help make a good game. I want them to buy a lot of chips. If I do shorten my stacks I will rebuy but well before I come anywhere near going all in. So I don't need to scream for the poor chip runner.
This makes me think of a mistake I often see players make. Never buy chips from a weak player at the table! It is much easier for the weak player to pick up his $100 bills and leave then find a rack and leave.
Regards,
Rick the Video Star
Rick,
I usually sell one of my many racks to the weak players who are always buying more. You know the ones that make the "walk of shame" to the ATM on a regular basis.
Rounder,
That's completely OK. I do it myself then replenish the bills with chips in case there is a problem with a bill. Just don't buy chips from them reducing their stacks and making it convenient for them to put their chips in their pocket and leave.
Actually, I can be downright evil (I've told this before but it was before you were a regular poster). If a player who plays poorly but has been on a hot streak starts looking at his watch and appears to be about to leave, I might say something like "Dealer, if that seat opens I want it because that is the hot seat (or something like that). Often they will reconsider giving me a chance to put the chips back where they belong.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
You give "evil" a whole new meaning. :-)
You're a cagey dude. I'll try that this weekend. Nice sense of humor, CHIPS!
damn! you're vicious. if i'm ever playing in a casino i might give that a try.
scott
Found you on the video, Rick. Now we're even. Well, I'm a little ahead as I've seen you move and heard you speak.
The starting hands contained in the 21st century edition are the same as the hands contained in the 1994 edition. My understanding is that the most up to date list is contained in HEP 1997. Am I wrong? If I am correct why were the changes not incorporated in the 21st century edition? Thank you to those who care to answer.
The starting hand groupings and rankings are the same but the new edition provides a lot more explanations as to when you should use them. I actually started to make a word for word comparison between the 21st Century Edition of HPFAP and the previous version written ten years earlier. A substantial amount of new material in the form of added sentences,paragraphs and examples are now included in the 21st Century edition. It would be mistake to just focus on the starting hand groupings and not assimilate the explanations and rationale.
Could someone please explain what the authors mean at the bottom of page 29 of HPFAP where it says "If a person limps in who is LIKELY to hold a dangerous hand such as AA or AKS you should consider folding Group 4 hands."
It's hard enough putting a raiser on such a hand how do the authors expect us to put limpers on these powerhouses?
"It's hard enough putting a raiser on such a hand how do the authors expect us to put limpers on these powerhouses? "
They expect you to play at an advanced level. That includes observation, concentration and focus. By beinbg focused on the task at hand you will be alert to what may be an unusual occurance in the game you are currently playing. By observing your opponents you will be more likely to identify an opponent capable of making this play. Through concentration you will harness all the necessary mental skills necessary to play at this level.
God that's a pretty good answer, don'tchya think? Betchya Sklansky steals this idea for one of his "fuzzy thinking" articles. He's always using my stuff.
Vince.
Of course, anyone playing at these dizzying heights of acumen and, dare I say, omnipotence would naturally be able to disguise their tells.
Sammy,
Not true. Look, I am not a great poker player. I'm pretty good. Believe me if I were at your table after a while you would know that I play good. If the game we were in was tough. Lot's of preflop raising and not many multiway pots. The kind of game that requires total concentration if you want to win. If all of a sudden I limped in in early position after always raising you would smell the "proverbial rat" now wouldn't you? You may just elect to play "better safe than sorry" poker. This is not something someone needs to explain to you. It's common sense. Sure I might just have a weak hand and be loosening up but you still must consider the "rat". You don't need to be at any level at all to understand that. Sklansky and Malmuth just happen to write about something that most of us are subconciously aware of anyway. They somewhat quantify there advice by saying it may be a good idea to discard group 4 hands against a early limping "good player", especially if he looks a little rodent like. Do you not agree with this line of thinking?
Vince.
I'll tell you why I don't.
Group four hands, especially T9s, KQ, and 88 should not get folded to a limper, ever. If there's a chance to see the flop for one or two bets with these hands I will take it. My feeling is that if I let people who are strong players push me off hands like this by limping, what chance have I got when they raise. If it's deception on their part and they felt like slowplaying their cowboys and rockets, I'll take a cheap peek at the flop every time.
Sammy,
The name on my responses is Vince Lepore. I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself. I say that because in my first response I made a statement "They expect you to play at an advanced level". One could imply from that, that I was speaking or quoting from 2+2 authors. I was not. My statements are my own right or wrong. I normally qualify my remarks with "Opinion by Vince" I must be getting cockie or something because I haven't done that recently. I also try not to give advice (Ripley's " ") unless asked as was in this case. Take my advice for what it is worth. The only other thing I will add is that if you call hands that you believe are far superior to yours and you are not getting the proper odds you will always be taking the worst of it. That may be a bigger problem than being pushed around.
Opinion by Vince.
Vince, Make no mistake about this, I truly appreciate the dialogue. You and Rounder and Greg and Jim and John give me plenty to think about. By challenging your posts I can make sure that I'm at least thinking about the most salient point.
It seems to me that the issue here (and in many other cases) revolves around what the other player's characteristic is and how big the pot is. When Vince says he's been always raising, has he been raising with all group 4 hands? If so, then a limp may well imply a slowplay of a very strong hand, and you may not be seeing the flop cheaply for even one bet unless the pot is big enough. But if he has been raising only with stronger hands, then his limp may be more likely to be a weaker hand.
I think we agree on this point. How can you fold T9s in middle position with no raise in front of you, because a guy you suspect MIGHT have AA or AKs. How Slansky can use the word "Likely" is beyond my meager comprehension. He can just as easily be limping in with 76s just to mix things up a little. For one bet I'll still see the flop.
What a load of crap. Determining that a player is capable of this play is one thing, but you claim to know when he's actually making it and not just limping with one of the other far more likely limping hands? Wadya do for your day job, run a psychic network?
LOL, sorry Vince, couldn't resist. Did I catch your style? No seriously...now that I've insulted you... how do you go about doing this? I really want to learn.
BruceZ,
Hey, My son's name is Bruce. For a minute ther I thought he was telling me what he really though of me. I wrote a response to Sammy B that I believe will be of interest to you. Crap and all.
Vince.
The starting hands in HPFAP21C,HPFAP94,@ HEP97 are in fact all different.
I have been going by handle Bruce for some months now. The above post was not made by me but by someone using my name. In the future I will be BruceZ in order to avoid similar conflicts.
I was surprised to learn in a post below that S&M and Lee Jones apparently agree that one should (or at least can safely) raise with suited connectors (say 9s8s) preflop in late position when several people have entered the pot in a loose game. In the former case, this applies when your opponents tend to stick around too long after the flop.
The only situation where I believe this play is remotely profitable is when you are against a few opponents who are inclined to fold too often after the flop because they undervalue their hands generally and will play defensively because of your raise. Am I wrong? Also
1. Can anyone explain to me how raising the field with a hand like 9s8s increases your EV?
2. If you can profit from raising with 9s8s, shouldn't you also be raising in late position with pretty much any playable hand that can make a "big hand," such as 55 and K8s?
3. If raising is profitable and you are in late position against a field that is likely to call all raises and it's already 2 to go, shouldn't you routinely 3-bet it? What about 4-betting? In other words, where's the likely profit cutoff point in terms of number of raises, or is there one?
3betting is not the same as 2betting for two reasons. One is that the first raise should be enough to tie players on with hands that are just donating to you when you get a good flop. Secondly if you three bet it means someone has already raised, thus dramatically increasing the chances you are up against an overpair. Also the play isn't right with K8s since it is less likely to get a good flop.
David Sklansky writes:
3betting is not the same as 2betting for two reasons."
Shouldn't the postulate be: 3betting will cost you money in situations where 2betting will make you money? Is that true or are we running up against the limits of informed guesswork?
One is that the first raise should be enough to tie players on with hands that are just donating to you when you get a good flop.
The only flop I'm going to get with 9s8s where opponents will be "just donating" afterwards will have nothing but 9's and 8's. I'm not exactly going to smirk when they try to suck out against my nine-high flush.
But I take it your point is that a single raise will adhere certain opponents to hands they should get rid of while more bets are just surplusage, or perhaps dangerous. The problem with this is that many opponents that play badly with a 10-bet pot will play worse with a 15-bet pot, and other opponents that won't be "turned" in the former case will succumb in the latter. Certainly I want as many people as possible calling to the river when I can't be beaten. More preflop bets must increase their number.
If I'm right, three-betting has to have at least some additional marginal value. It would approach being a surprising coincidence if, other things being equal, 2betting increased your EV while 3betting put you in the minus column.
Secondly if you three bet it means someone has already raised, thus dramatically increasing the chances you are up against an overpair.
It's certainly hard to runn 98 into QQ and come out ahead, and that's why I often fold it when the pot is raised. But if I should deliberately try to pot-stick a bunch of opponents, I can't see how an overpair by one of them would red-flag the strategy. Whether I'm against an overpair and overcards or just a bunch of overcards, I'm still going to need the sort of hand against which an overpair is "just donating," or close to it. The overpair can also help me because the flops that make my hand will encourage the overpair to enlist as my unwitting partner and trap the field. Most overpairs also remove two cards from the deck that I really don't want on the board.
Also the play isn't right with K8s since it is less likely to get a good flop.
But except for the value of the straight draws that improve (minus the cost of the ones that don't) the flops it does "get" are a lot better. So we must be talking about a difference of, what, 3-5%? The theory of preflop raising with 98s is that it will make bad opponents play so much worse that good players can turn a higher profit despite a 200% entry fee, but that an entry fee one-half as much higher is folly.
I understand the theory, is there any evidence?
david is arguing that the tie in effect caused by the first raise does more good than paying an extra bet is bad. but the tie in effect for the 3-bet does less good than the extra bet does bad.
against overpairs. you lose all one pair and steal the pot equity, and some 2 pair equity. but once you tie in all the chasers you lose most of this anyway. maybe he means you'll get reraised and the 4th bet preflop will hurt wou even more than the 3rd. and you will not get a free card. and you will charged for your draw.
K8s often makes hands that want no callers.
scott
"I was surprised to learn in a post below that S&M and Lee Jones apparently agree that one should (or at least can safely) raise with suited connectors (say 9s8s) preflop in late position when several people have entered the pot in a loose game. In the former case, this applies when your opponents tend to stick around too long after the flop."
This is not what we said. Our advice is that this raise can be profitable if it encourages some of your opponents to stick around (because of the bigger pot) where otherwise they would not be inclined to do so. If your opponents are going to stick around anyway, then this raise loses its value.
I have always been critical of Lee Jones for giving this same advice since his book was supposedly targeted for games in which many players played too many hands and go too far with their hands. In this situation it is not appropriate.
Here's what we wrote in HPFAP-21 (page 33):
"But we should point out that you need to consider your opponents before raising with a hand like 8h7h. If you are against players who not only play too many hands, but go too far with their hands regardless of the size of the pot, there is less value to raising. Part of the reason for making this raise is to entice your opponents to continue on if you happen to get a flop to your liking. But if you are fairly sure that they will do precisely that anyway, then you should usually just call."
I stand corrected, somewhat. (This is what I get for leaving my copy of HPFAP on the bus).
Mason writes that one should raise with suited connectors "if it encourages some of your opponents to stick around (because of the bigger pot) where otherwise they would not be inclined to do so."
That's a really big if, especially since you'll profit from it only when you can both alter the playing patterns of several players and catch a big hand. It still sounds as if the alleged value to this play is more theoretical and anecdotal than grounded in math or sims or records or anything concrete.
When you write "there is less value to raising" if your opponents are already inclined to go too far with their hands, I would submit that there is negative value to raising.
"can both alter the playing patterns of several players and catch a big hand"
You are not altering the "playing patterns". You encourage or sway their decision towards one that is profitable for you. Very good poker players will heavily weigh the size of the pot when deciding to continue with a relatively weak holding. A holding that they would discard in a situation that did not offer them an apparent fair return. As far as "catching a big hand" is concerned, well you've played poker long enough to know how often that occurs. If you feel that in your experience it doesn't happen often enough to warrant applying this strategy, well, don't raise.
Vince.
One quick point. You touched on this in some other post, but the big pot helps not just when you flop a big hand like tips, but also when you flop a flush or straight draw. Yes, it may lead to some wacky drawouts that actually cost you the pot on occasion, but overall you welcome all those people hanging in there when *you're* the one drawing to the big hand.
I think you're missing the point. In a loose game, typical $3-$6 hold'em, the majority of players will call a bet to see the turn, so you do not need to raise preflop to get paid off correctly.
Once, you move up in limits. You'll get a lot of players limping in with trouble hands which quickly get dumped if someone bets on the flop if they don't have a piece of the flop, but they are willing to play preflop for another bet since they already had called the blind. So, the players are a lot tighter on the flop play.
I'm sure someone, maybe Fossilman, can explain the math.
As in a previous query by Vince, the math here is really untenable. Well, the math isn't untenable, but it will be based upon a series of assumptions, and each of those assumptions may have a significant impact on the final result. As such, disagreements over the assumptions will be the issue, rather than the math.
BTW everyone, I am not much of a mathematician. I am a biotech patent attorney. MOST of you are better at math than I. Apparently, I just use it more often. I'm sure someone, probably Vince, can figure out why.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Sure I know why. You have to count up all those little bio's. One bio, two bios three... It must be exhausting.
Vince
BTW - Love Ya man! Good sport that you be.
greg writes:
As such, disagreements over the assumptions will be the issue, rather than the math.
This fact often get's lost by more analytical people. Any analysis you perform is fundamentally based on whatever assumption you use in creating the model which you analyze.
This is why Turbo Texas Hold'em results are flawed. It's not that you don't have control over the assumptions, it's becase whatever assumption you make, you are going to be faced with the problem of rationalizing one particular assumption over another.
Throwing math at these kind of problems can be useful, but as Mason has said, often one uses these tools to try and flesh out "close" situations. When it's "close" the exactly when complicated assumption based analyses break down. Any perturbation could result in your conclusion "flipping" to the opposite answer.
That said, my philosophy is:
"If it's close... RAISE"
- Andrew
I guess I'll have to do it, even though I'm lazy.
This is correct 3-6 players rarely if ever get of a hand pre flop if they have one cent in the pot. A raise is meaningless at this level and one should try to see flops for as little as possible at this level.
In tournamenta play like 89s is a potentially costly hand and I don't like it unless I'm real late and can see it cheaply.
By and large I want to see flops with hands like this as cheaply as possible IF I hit the folp I'll make it up when the betting increases.
I think you need to consider your opponents when the play is really tight on the flop.
Let's say the last few hands you played you raised and showed a pair of Aces and Kings. Players will assume that when you raise, this is what you have (I'm assuming they are average to weak players). So there is some value with playing this hand as a bluff. But, now you have an escape hatch is you hit your hand.
Basically, I'm saying you have to project the tight image and set this play up so it works.
By the way, I called a tight players raise with 89s in a no-limit tourney and busted him.
It is common wisdom that suited connectors "depend" on implied odds to be playable. In other words, putting more money in pre-flop reduces your current pot equity. The argument is that implied odds make up for this deficit in ev.
So the question becomes: can suited connectors ever be played for pure profit? In other words, if unlimited raises were allowed - and you had an infinite bankroll - is there ever a point when you should "go to the felt" with these hands preflop? Stated another way, how many callers do you need to play suited connectors for +ev?
- Andrew
" Stated another way, how many callers do you need to play suited connectors for +ev?"
If you know how to PLAY poker the answer is ">= 0 callers"
Vince
Vince,
is that anything like PLAYING house ?
- Andrew
Andrew,
If you played house a little more often and "estimated" a little less you may just learn to "clean up" a little more at this game.
Vince.
Maybe not.
Vince,
By my "estimation", you're probably right. Maybe I should hire a maid instead?
- Andrew
(Below, you wrote:
"But isn't it wrong [raising with 98s] in a no fold'em game where many players automatically call on the flop regardless of the pot size, their position. etc."
Reading it, I transposed the "isn't it" to "it isn't," perhaps aided by the absence of a question mark, which stunned me and instigated this thread.)
The other night playing 3/6, I get JQo UTG. I call, middle position and Button call, SB folds, BB checks.
The flop comes 89T, w/ 2 hearts. BB checks, I bet, middle pos. calls. The button, normally fairly loose & passive, raises. BB folds, I reraise, mid. pos. folds. Button re-raises, I reraise, he calls. Turn is 5c. I check raise, he calls. River card is 5s
I will tell you what I did, and what he had later, but first I would like all of you in your infinite wisdom to tell me a couple of things:
1. Up to this point, have I played my hand correctly?
2. What hand do you put him on, and finally-
3. How should I have played on the River?
I look forward to hearing what you all have to say about this hand, as I greatly value the advice from this forum. I can't believe how much my game has improved just from reading the posts here everyday, So thanks everybody!
Mike
I guess he had a set and now has a full house. If he had flopped the nut straight he probably would have continued the raising on the flop after the two of you were heads up. If he had the ignorant end of the straight he might have backed off also.
1. So far you played it fine.
2. See above.
3. I would bet and call if raised. It would be too timid to just check and call and find out that he had a lesser hand like two pair or a worse straight. If he raises, I don't like your chances, but I would still call.
My only question is why check-raise on the turn? I guess it really didn't hurt you but you had taken control of the hand. On the turn I would have bet out, for fear that if I checked I'd lose a bet. You've got the best hand at this point why risk a free card. the guy cooperated by betting, allowing you to raise but in a normal low limit game, with the best hand a bet is correct. On the other hand if you knew your opponent well and knew he would bet the turn after you checked, I find nothing wrong with your play but if you had any doubt I would bet. I find Big John's read to be right, either the guy flopped two pair and you won or he more than likely flopped a set and you lost.
Poor thing. You played the hand pretty darn well and I'm worried you got a bad beat.
You're opponent had your hand QJ(maybe in hearts) or he had trips (tens) and made a boat on the river OR... he's an idiot. Don't say he had J7 of hearts and you're mad you might have missed a bet. He already gave you too much money if that is the case.
On the river, check and call fearing the boat. Unless you have some special human insight to this player.
"Unless you have some special human insight "
Speaking of that Dan. Do you think O.J really did it?
Vince.
Vince,
I'd go "all-in" to bet that OJ was there that night but there exists a scenerio where he was there but a friend assisted in the slayings.
Either way I find him guilty. But this isn't the forum for hack irrelevent debate.
RE: POKER AND THIS SITUATION - If it was late and the opponent was drinking and he had wads of ATM receipts sticking out of his pockets.... then I might think the opponent was on tilt and bet on the river and reraise till the cows came home.
But I could be wrong.
dan
1. Up to this point, have I played my hand correctly?
Hmm. Maybe.
2. What hand do you put him on,
A pair of threes
3. How should I have played on the River?
With a paddle boat.
"I look forward to hearing what you all have to say about this hand, as I greatly value the advice from this forum. I can't believe how much my game has improved just from reading the posts here everyday, So thanks everybody!"
I'm sure none of that thanks is for advice from me. That's beacause I want the facts of the whole hand before I respond. I no lika surprises!
Nothing perrsonal.
Vince.
Well, here's how I inturpreted this hand and how everything ended up:
I was reasonably sure I was up against either a set or a flush draw on the flop, so I figured that I better make him pay as much as possible to draw against my made hand. As far as check-raising the turn, I can't see how I lost control of the hand by doing that. I had every reason to believe that he would bet it. Also, I would tend to think that the check-raise would give me more control, as most low-limit players I play with are so put off by the check-raise(Its dirty and wrong and under-handed, all that stuff..whatever).
So anyway, when the 2nd 5 came on the river, I checked and called, obviously fearing the full house.
He turned over 67d for the ignorant end of the straight, and I took down a nice little pot. I guess my inexpierience in poker is the reason it didn't even occur to me that he might have flopped the low end of the straight. But now I have another question-
How poorly did he play his hand? I can't understand why he would bet into me again on the river, when he only called my check-raise on the turn? It would certainly make sense to do that had he made his boat, but he didn't, so go figure.
Goodnight- Mike
Mike he played the hand horribly - I think you may have misclassified him as loose passive he looks a bit more like loose aggressive. Your play on the turn was perfect - the check raise was correct since you knew he'd bet - if you weren't sure he'd bet then the bet by you is a correct move. I still think the check call is the right move on the river - he played the hand like a set so you have to give him credit for some brains.
I wonder what he thought you were on - maybe he had you classified as a maniac or something?
Rounder, I think you give some low limit players way too much credit. Mike's opponent probably didn't give a thought to what Mike had. He flopped a straight and that's all he saw.
Your right Sammy I tend to over estimate the compitition. I keep forgetting about all the Bozos playing poker.
I wasn't saying that you'd lost control of the hand, I was saying you were in control of the hand. However, you said you had every reason to believe that the guy would bet after your checked on the turn and if that is the case I see nothing wrong with your play. YOu must know the player well, if I was in that situation and knew the player would bet, I'd check-raise as well, but I would have to be sure he would bet or I wouldn't check and risk giving him a free card (especailly if you put him on a flush draw).
Mike writes: "The other night playing 3/6, I get JQo UTG. I call, middle position and Button call, SB folds, BB checks. "
This is a leak. QJ unsuited is garbage UTG. Dump it next time and you're on your way to higher lifetime poker profit.
I kept thinking as I read post after post when is someone going to tell this guy JQo UTG is a poor play.One of the great leaks to my game was K10o and QJo UTG and similar weak out of position holdings.There might be some weak fields around that are not very aggressive where you can play crap in almost any position if your extremely strong after the flop but for most HE players staying away from easily dominated hands out of position goes a long way to making you a winning HE player. Jay
Mike,
I'm a little late to the party on this one but I do think that QJ offsuit is too weak to play up front in all but the most passive games.
One more point. Assuming I was in (I'll pretend the QJ was suited to maintain my self esteem) I would tend to lead out on the turn since you where the one to cap it on the flop. I don't quite understand how you knew he would bet the turn if he was in fact a loose passive player (unless you had a tell).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I read Scott's Message Just Before Posting and I'm glad to see someone else picked this up.
P.P.S (TMSWTVVNL: I hope you are reading this!)
Rick - scary thought, but I'm starting to think like the rest of the crew. A year or so ago, I would never hesitate to play QJ up front; now I dump it like a hot potato, (or is that potatoe, Mr. Quayle?). I see guys RAISE with this stuff now out of position, and get shivers.
Mike, from what you have said I'd lean toward a set for the other guy. At 1st I put him on 2 big h's or the same hand as you had. But I am leaning toward the set.
You played the hand ok so far. You had the nuts to the river and played it like the nuts.
I'd check and call the river, a full house looks like a probability here and if he is on the same hand as you have it's a chop.
I'm interested to see what to other guys said and what happened.
It is Wednesday noon when I first looked at this, and from the thread I can see that you have already posted your actions, so it will be interesting for me to see if I am in line with what really happened.
1. I can't see where you could possibly be wrong up to this point. You've got the nut straight, and must do everything possible to drive out hands with two pairs, sets, and flush draws that might run you over. I would be interested in knowing if either your Q or J were a heart, just in case your opponent might have had a free-roll at you with a hand like QJh.
2. When he just calls your check-raise, IMO there is no way he has the same hand as yours. The rake is probably max'ed out by this point, so there is no point in him slowing down if he also has QJ, unless he is worried YOU might have the QJh and are free-rolling him for a flush. When he just calls you turn check-raise, I would put him on one of three hands: a) trips, b) J7suited or 76, for the idiot end, or c) two pair.
3. When the board pairs, you lose if he is on trips, but win if he's got the lower straight, or two pair. With this much money in the pot, he will in all liklihood call any bet you make, and raise only if he's got the boat. My gut instinct is that he's got the wrong end of the straight, and I bet out to extract one final bet. If he raises, I pay him off and make him show me the full.
By the way, I know this is 3-6, but I am sure that somewhere along the way in this analysis, whether you end up beaten by the full house or not, someone will point out the risks of calling UTG with cheese like QJo.
Thanks to everybody for all the advice/analysis. I guess this is one of the benefits of this new format- a post like this doesn't just get buried by new posts.
Also, I didn't realize JQo was so bad to play in bad position. This is a hand I play regularly in early position, which I thought was correct play in a loose-passive game. I am basing this on Lee Jones' book, whose advice I have been following since I read his book.
Since most of you seem to disagree with his advice, at least with this hand, who do you think I should be reading to improve my game? I am going to pick up Sklansky's Hold'em Poker this weekend. What do you think? Is that a good book for low-limit advice. I know HEPFAP is probably not going to do much for my game at this point, but I would think HEP should help me out. Thanks again everybody!
Mike Blair
Mike writes: "Also, I didn't realize JQo was so bad to play in bad position. This is a hand I play regularly in early position, which I thought was correct play in a loose-passive game. I am basing this on Lee Jones' book, whose advice I have been following since I read his book. "
My Lee Jones copy is in other hands so I can't refer to it but I'd be shocked if he advocates QJo UTG. Tell me you've misread that bit please.
He says In early position, in a loose-passive game to play connectors down to 98o. I just went and grabbed my book to double check, and that's what it says for a Loose Passive game. This advice is only general early position advice though, not UTG advice. I just scanned over the early position, pre-flop section again and couldn't find anything UTG specific. I guess maybe I should clarify my thinking on what constitutes a loose-passive game though. There typically isn't too much pre-flop raising, but thats not to say that it doesn't happen either. The game is definetely loose-usually 5 or 6 players seeing the flop and plenty of family pots also.
Maybe you could give me a clearer definition of loose-passive, because I consider the game I play in to be just that, but maybe I'm wrong?
Mike Blair
I generally play low-limit,(I play 4-8 upto 10-20) and while some of the concepts in HPFAP is to sophisticated to use in low-limit games alot of the advice applies, especially the new loose games section in the 21st cent ed.. I recommednd both books(HE Poker and HPFAP) even if your are only playing at the lower limits. Besides it can't hurt to start learning more involved material so when you want to move up you'll be ready.
1. You have not played the hand correctly. You should not be coming in under the gun with Q-J offsuit. On the turn, you should not check-raise but bet out and if raised then re-raise.
2. I would expect the button to have flopped two pair and perhaps a set. If he has a set you are beat at the river so don't plan on doing anything other than checking and calling.
3. I would check and I call when he bets. If you decide to bet and get raised then just call don't re-raise.
I am fairly new to Hold'em poker. I have played probably 1000+ hours. I am well versed on theory having read all of Sklansky's works on Hold'em and his theory of poker. I have had no success beating this game: $4-8 structured betting, blinds $2 and 4$. Generally the game is very loose. For example, an under the gun raise will be called by at least 5 players. The game is usually very passive, typically a lot of checking and calling the lead better. Sometimes the game is overly loose and agressive. Frequently I am the only raiser and check raiser in the game. The rake is 10% to a max of $4. I can often grind out several small wins in a row ($50 to $150 over 6-10 hours) and the ocassional big win. But I invariably suffer a series of losses that wipe out my wins and put me in the hole. It seems that somtimes I am drawn out on every time I get a big hand or I may not get a playable hand for hours and then loose the few I do get. I play tighter than Skalansky reccomends, especially in early position. What should a beginner like myself do to improve? Is this rake too high to overcome? Would I have a better chance at the $1-$5 stud game, same rake? Any help is greatly appreciated.
Find someone to audit your play. You're probably doing at least one or two simple things that are holding you back. 1000 hours is a long enough period to smooth out most of the luck factor.
A $4 rake is significant but the game sounds beatable.
Kathy,
In "Getting the Best of It" Sklansky writes a chapter called "Why You Lose In A Good Game" and another similar chapter. I think it is reprinted in this weeks Poker Digest. Check this out if you can.
I also agree with scott that 1000 hours is not quite enough hours to draw conclusions yet.
Regards,
Rick
Kathy:
The rake is not too high to beat the game, although whether you can make all that much is another question (I would think a bit more than $5/hour). And the rake should be more deleterious in a stud game with lower limits and smaller pots.
I think you realize that you are not struggling because inferior hands sometimes overtake your better hands. Suckouts are excellent, they keep the food chain thriving, like forests need fires to survive, although they must be a drag at the time. Similarly beneficial is the need for more patience than the average person -- at least the average gambler -- feels comfortable with. Nor is there any mental trick that will make you want to wish your unlearned opponent a hearty congradulations after his two-outer swiped your big pot. It's supposed to sting a bit, you're just not allowed to brood. If this makes less than perfect sense, back to the books. In any event, you should be reading the books again. Also, find more books and read them too.
You're not giving us much information, but it sounds as if your losses are somehow compounding themselves, and that being behind makes you "work harder" at winning than the game will allow, so that you're (perhaps unknowingly) pushing the envelop and taking bigger risks after several losing sessions or hands.
I would suggest:
1. Play shorter sessions, never more than 5 hours. Get a nap in before playing or do something (non-pharmacological) to keep you alert and refreshed. Break and have an iced-tea in the sun; write your Mom. You need to maximize the time that you play your best before you can even think about maximizing your time at the table. Get out when you're too tired, or irritated, or if instead of watching the game you're staring at the board and silently bemoaning what could have been. You need to play hard all the time, not just most of the time.
2. Spend as much time as possible playing against the worst non-threatening players, the passive slow leakers that pay you off but cut you slack when they've actually got a hand. The maniacs might lose more long-term but they have a way of exacting a little payback that might unsettle you. In short, stick with the passive games and avoid the ram-and-jam ones.
3. If you can't help that a losing session bothers you, lock up modest wins and rack up some 8-0 tallys.
4. Maximize the benefits of playing against passive players: make them pay and avoid calling their bets and raises. Sometimes it's like they all read a book that said you can't bet out without two-pair, and you can't check-raise with it either.
5. When you get check-raised by a non-aggressive player on the river, throw your hand away and suggest you were just having a bit of fun. Seriously, you can save a lot of bets by not automatically paying off players you know you can't beat. Don't let a big pot go when you've got an honest shot at winning, but don't rack up losses learning what you already know.
6. Well before it's over, you'll know when you're involved with a hand that might cost you a lot. So watch the action carefully, memorize it, get up from the table and write it down correctly in the ladies room. If you can't figure out what went wrong submit it for analysis. Most of the time you'll figure it out and you'll learn quickly how hard it is to make the same mistake more than a few times. On the other hand, if you know why you're making a losing play while it's acutally going down, your problem is psychological not technical and it probably stems from short-term frustration at some short-term loss. I.e., you're steaming. So if you lose a big one, screw up or get outplayed, consider yourself "on probation" until it passes. Be careful.
7. Hardly ever, if at all, play middle/low cards that aren't suited, keep track of how you play the trouble hands (AQ-JT), call fewer preflop raises (in fact, you don't want to be calling them much at all), and try to get an idea of which hands are costing you the most dough and when.
8. Watch the table to see what works. Just because you haven't found it in a book doesn't mean that it's wrong. There are a lot of variations on the basic themes. For example, it took me a long time to let certain players bet my hand for me because I thought it wasn't sufficiently "aggressive."
Sorry if this is a bit pedestrian. Good luck.
Kathy,
Chris gives some excellent advice. Let me add one or two things, and emphasize one point in particular.
Chris' second point, Spend as much time as possible playing against the worst non-threatening players is one of the most important that he offers. Game selection is everything in poker. If you're not doing it already, keep an hourly log of
1) who is in the game with you
2) how much you are winning/losing
3) who is losing the most
I know it looks funny to scribble these things at the table. I usually get up and "stretch my legs" for one hand. This break affords you the time, and privacy to make notes, but it also give you a chance to check out who is playing at the other tables.
Also I would recommend keeping a regular diary of your sessions for the sake of recording your opponents, as well as your mistakes.
One last thing, I would suggest that you try out IRC poker. It really is the best "simulation" out there, and can be very applicable to low-limit games.
- Andrew
Kathy,
You are a very brave young lady to post here with all these mugs. "Lady Gambler" posted once, excuse me twice, then ran for cover and we haven't heard from her since. Bunch of Chauvinists! Hey, but you are getting some great advice here. No? Chris, Rick, Scott Horton, I'm sure rounder will join in along with some pretty knowlegeable other folk. Big John, the king of sarcasm, will most certainly have a tid bit for you. I'm curious to see what John Feeney will say. SKP may be the guy you want to really listen to. I trust him. Louie, I think, is a Lady's Man so tale his response with a grain of vinegar. Sklansky doesn't have time. Mason, well Mason has time but sometimes lacks motivation for these things.
Then there's me. Hi, Kathy. Is this game beatable? All the responses I've seen so far would lead you to believe that it Tis. If you have followed this forum for a while you may recall some threads claiming that there is no way this game is beatable. They go as far as saying that the author is quitting and recommending we all do the same. Kathy, the bottom line is that nobody knows! That's right. Sklansky, Malmuth, Caro, Helmuth, Brunson, Scott, the Feeney Brothers, et al (me included), noone knows! Suppose you took all those that I named. Who would win? Take me and et al out and you may have the only winner being the Casino (even if Malmuth says Helmuth can't play a lick, he may have gotten better by now). The question you ask is this game beatable, I'm sure, is really; Is this game beatable by Kathy? The first factor that gets the balme when losing at poker is the rake. Can I beat the rake. That must be why I'm losing the rake is too high. Could be? But how in the heck would any of us know if that was the reason. Guess, I guess.
O.K To the point (I was going to say "to the climax" but thought that was inappropriate). You must ask yourself the following: Do I Like to play poker? Do I want to continue to play poker? Do I want to be a good/grat poker player? If the answer to any of these questions is no, find another game. If the answers are yes then continue to gain experience by playing a level you can afford. Your comfort level. Make sure you are not playing to high or too low. Play the game that you like the best. Preferably Holdem or 7 Stud. We talk about them mostly here on 2+2. Do not worry about winning or losing. Just log your results. Play reasonable length sessions. Think about your strategy. Think about your tactics. Experiment with differnt strategies. Learn to relax at the table. Try and play your best at all times. Keep asking questions. Reread your books. Gain experience. Of course you only do these things if you really want to continue to play poker. Try this and come back after a few sessions and let us know how it's going.
Hope that helps.
Vince.
vince's response was very good.
What should a beginner like myself do to improve?
you should think about the game away from the game. and use this forum.
Is this rake too high to overcome?
it can be done. if you enjoy poker enough to seriously pursue it, i am confident that you can beat this game.
Would I have a better chance at the $1-$5 stud game, same rake?
if you're mush better than your opp then spread limit games are more profitable. but the rake is proportionally larger here, too. also, after you get the hang of it and move up to 10-20, you're going to play structured. i advise staying in the 4-8 game.
i want to say some things about preflop strategy in these games. one, in loose passive games position becomes less of a factor. in loose aggressive games, position relative to the usual aggressors, not the button, is more of a factor. in a loose game, you should play more of your hands. play the big hands, but play the speculative hands too. post some hands.
scott
Kathy,
Rake is ok - is there a jack pot drop + tip you might be looking at $6 a hand.
Some good advice, some not so good you'll heve to pick and choose but the last thing I'd tell you is to play more hands.
Review the number of hands you are playing on average if it is more tham 20% you should review your starting hand requirements.
Pick your spots.
One of the most important things to me is the personality of the table. If you have a choice you can always scout out the other tables - for example I find it Impossible to win consistantly at a table with 3 or more very loose calling stations - makes for to many callers looking for longshots to beat you and more often than not they come in for one of the drawers. You can;t get them out with raises and as long as there is one card in the deck to beat you they are there looking for it.
Here is where table seleceion is very important.
I am going to have to agree with Scott and disagree with Rounder here. (Although Rounder generally gives excellent advice). You stated in your message that you play a bit tighter than Sklansky recommends. In a loose passive game this is a big problem. It is the equivalent of playing to many hands in a tight tough game.
In a loose passive game, a lot of hands become playable that normally are not. Unfortunately the people who write poker books play against tough opponents at high limits and offer strategies that have helped them win in these games. These strategies don't apply directly in most low limit games.
Spend a lot of time reviewing Sklansky's implied odds writings. In loose passive low limit games one gap suited cards, unsuited connectors and any small pair play well from any position if you can see the flop cheaply and have enough discipline to get out unless you hit.
Try to play hands that can become big hands. The proper odds will be there if you hit.
The key though, is not getting married to a hand. This strategy fails if you can't throw away 87suited when you flop middle pair.
Gee, Vince didn't mention me ... I guess I haven't poked at him in a while. Vince: I'm one of the math geeks.
Kathy, your game sounds a lot like my 4-8 game. In about 400 hours, my standard deviation is 90 per hour. If we assume that for your game, your thousand-hour result has a 3-sigma band (in other words, there is a 99% probability that your result falls within ...) plus or minus $8,500 of your actual result. Since this is a 1000-hour result, your 99% confidence band includes all win rates from one big bet per hour better down to one big bet per hour worse, than your actual results.
I have also generated some random-number sequences that I have not yet pulled together for posting. My preliminary opinion is that until you have 2000 hours, you just can't tell what your win rate is.
Take the other good advice here about monitoring your game, posting hands here, etc., and take heart. No one told me how hard this was going to be, either.
Dick
X
Gee, Vince didn't mention me ... I guess I haven't poked at him in a while. Vince: I'm one of the math geeks.
Yeah I know, Dick. But I like you anyway.
Vince
I'm a newbie and have been lurking here for a while. I have played a little 7CS in the past but am now looking to try HE. After watching this board a while I made a brief trip to Casino Arizona. I lost some money but played tight. I've since bought a couple books and read them. I'm looking forward to joining in on the discussion on this board after I have something to offer.
I APPRECIATE all the posters on this board that are willing to share their good(GREAT) ideas.
Bob
Hi, Bob from Tempe ...
Watch the "Other Topics" forum, formerly the Exchange forum, in the next week, for my new (modest) poker page. Then give me a call and we can get together sometime at Casino AZ or Gila River.
Dick
Thanks.
Sounds great and I'll be looking for it.
Bob
Bob,
If you are gonna play at Casino Arizona call me not Dick he'll just take all your money. :-)
Rounder-Tempe
PS: Dick where have you been haven't seen you for a while.
Mike
Since you're both familiar with the area code, I'd appreciate a call at 990-3316.
Thanks,
Bob
I'm a former serious,winning BJ player making the conversion to serious,winning poker.After reading virtually all the right books,consulting with long time players,and reading this forum daily,my game is coming together.However,the subject of what is a reliable estimate of long run,seems to vary from source to source.Maybe I was spoiled with BJ,but can anyone offer a realistic estimate of how many hrs of play would constitute long run in Holdem
One million hours. Yep 1,000,000! Of course playing at my table for 10 hours will seem like one million so come on down. I say give yourself between 1000-2000 at each level that you intend to play. If you are a quick learner then take the low end 1000 to evaluate your results.
Vince.
I'm a beginner too and think this is a GREAT question. DS, could you answer it from a statistical point of view?
It's actually quite amazing (counter-intuitive) how little of a sample is necessary to obtain a good estimate of mean and variance.
For instance, if a distribution is Binomial. A sample of 10 trials is sufficient to estimate the mean and S.D. with a high degree of certainly (narrow 90% confidence interval) and is also sufficent to employ the Central Limit Theorum.
I'm a beginner too and think this is a GREAT question. DS, could you answer it from a statistical point of view?
It's actually quite amazing (counter-intuitive) how little of a sample is necessary to obtain a good estimate of mean and variance.
For instance, if a distribution is Binomial. A sample of 10 trials is sufficient to estimate the mean and S.D. with a high degree of certainly (narrow 90% confidence interval) and is also sufficent to employ the Central Limit Theorum.
I'm a beginner too and think this is a GREAT question. DS, could you answer it from a statistical point of view?
It's actually quite amazing (counter-intuitive) how little of a sample is necessary to obtain a good estimate of mean and variance.
For instance, if a distribution is Binomial. A sample of 10 trials is sufficient to estimate the mean and S.D. with a high degree of certainly (narrow 90% confidence interval) and is also sufficent to employ the Central Limit Theorum.
You have a misunderstanding. You can form a 90 percent (or any other percent) confidence interval regardless of the sample size. What the sample size does is determine the width of the confidence interval. With a small sample such as 10, your confidence interval will be fairly wide, but as you increase the number of samples, the interval becomes smaller.
As for getting into the long run 1,500 hours should suffice providing that your playing ability stays fairly constant and the games you play in also stay fairly constant.
Thank you Mason. I should have asked either you or Sklansky. And I knew that, but obviously did not convey it as concisely or accurately as you. In fact, the point you make is obvious and also very important to point out!
Also, I apologize for posting 3 times. May be I was too anxious for a response? :) No, just a internet thing. I was trying to post just once.
Really - 1500 hours? So, considering MS and I are both beginners, we really can't even employ any statistical analysis to our play. This is becuase our game is improving so rapidly (hopefully). 1500 hours is just too long to expect our game to remain constant. It seems also too long to expect the game itself to remain contant. Afterall, the game type can change slowly over time such that one does not notice the change.
How would you suggest overcoming any or all of this?
As I have written before, a simple trick is to take what you would expect to be a moderately large fluctuation for one hour, and multiply that by the squre root of the number of hours you have played. This is how much your actual results may be off from what your expected results would be in that time. For example playing 10-20, a $500 swing will occasionally happen in an hour. That means that after 900 hours your results will be occasionally as far away (in either direction) as $15,000 from what they should be. From an hourly rate standpoint that is a not insignificant $16.67 per hour. On the other hand you shouln't be serious about 10-20 if you can't make close to $20 an hour. So if you are dead even after 900 hours that is pretty strong evidence that you can't do it at your present skill level.
I'm learning in a 4-8 game,rake avgs 2$ per pot,I'm winning 2 pots per hr,jackpot 1$ per pot,tip 50cents per pot.In analyzing my progress,do I look at the amount I'm winning from the other players or net after all the deductions.
You must be thinking about the Weak Weak Weak Central Limit Theorem, which states that for a sample size of 10, the binomial distribution can kinda, sorta, in a weird way, be approximated by a normal distribution, if you squint a little.
The larger the sample size, the better the approximation of any distribution with the Normal.
I'm not aware of the Weak Weak Weak Central Limit Theorum. I'm also not aware of "in a weird way". Might the definition of "kinda sorta" be "approximation"? No squinting necessary - just flip a coin 10 times and compare empirical with theoretical in all six ways and SHABAMM -- CLT is just that omnicient.
You must read Mason Malmuth's book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics". It is the definitive work on hourly fluctuation, standard deviation, number of hours which constitute the "long run", etc. Mason has tables in his book that show how many hours you can go and be a winning player but still be losing. He does this for various limits and he shows you how do your own calculations of this. Basically, it depends on your hourly expectation and your hourly standard deviation. The hourly standard deviation is a function of the betting limits of the game you are in and how the game is played (lots of pre-flop raising, very little, etc.).
I am UTG with 77. 4 way action. No one raises preflop.
Flop: 7sKcKd
Big blind bets.
What factors does one take into consideration in deciding whether to raise right away or to slowplay it a little?
Maybe Sklansky can give us an essay style answer:)
In loose games it would be insane to raise immediately. In tough tight games you can make an arguement for it, but even here a raise might drive out the last seven that would have otherwise called as well as an underpair. Waiting also might save you money if a king or a higher running pair shows.
This happened to me last night. I raised because I figured that the 2 players behind me would call 2 bets cold (or reraise) if either had a king but would fold even if I just called if they did not have a King. As well, I figured that I might mislead the initial bettor with my raise. Turns out he had AK and made it 5 bets on the flop. I then got in a raise on the turn and got paid off on the river (although the River was a slightly scary Queen).
Now, although this sounds counterintuitive, it seems to me that I am better off raising on a board like this where there are 3 different suits. This is because a call looks too *fishy*. My opponents must know that I am not on a draw of some sort and have to put me on either a King or a pocket pair. Plus, the lack of a flush draw would tell me that no one behind me is likely to be involved in the hand unless they had a King.
On the other hand, when the board does have a two flush, my call might indicate that I am on a flush draw which makes it more likely that the lead bettor will fire again on the turn if a non-flush card comes in. As well, a player behind me with a flush draw may decide to get frisky and raise on the flop allowing me to 3 bet it when it comes back to me.
Your point about saving money if a King or higher runnning pair shows is well taken.
With a rainbow board, I really don't think a call looks "fishy". I think it says "small wired pair" which is what you want a guy holding a K or 7 to think. As DS says, a raise here might cost you if a third K falls on a later street. Moreover, by playing it cool now you might also catch some big bets when someone makes a legit second best hand.
Where the board has a flush draw, I would call on the flop as well. Keep the flush draws (which are drawing dead) around a little longer before exacting larger bets from them.
Just a thought.
SKP writes: "Now, although this sounds counterintuitive, it seems to me that I am better off raising on a board like this where there are 3 different suits. "
Now I've seen it all. Raising with the best hand has become counterintuitive, too twisted for words.
I think your raise is correct in most game situations. You're praying that a king will be out there to give you action since there is little else for your opponents to have (only one seven remains, middle pairs are unlikely). When the king is out you can get beat in many ways so in effect you're up against a drawing hand that thinks he's a made hand. The action will be great when you find yourself in this position.
In loose games slowplaying is so rarely correct that if you never did it you'd be making only the smallest of error over the long haul. Check raising isn't too much different.
"Now, although this sounds counterintuitive..."
I was trying to distinguish between raising on a rainbow board vs. raising on a board with a 2 flush.
"Check raising isn't too much different."
If you are saying that checkraising should be a seldom used tactic in loose games, I have to respectfully disagree. I do agree with your point on slowplaying.
"Waiting also might save you money if a king or a higher running pair shows."
Small nit: I guess any running pair cooks my goose i.e. it doesn't have to be a Higher running pair.
If people are catching quads with runner runner that are SMALLER than your 7's... sign me up! They'll probably call all of those raises too...
I am not talking about quads. If a running pair of deuces appears, the guy with the sole King beats my hand.
Boy, do I disagree with DS here. Of course, I have a whole 98 hours now at 5-10 and currently don't have seminal poker works published. So, you pick who's ideas you like best. :)
I'd raise almost everytime here. I've got the best hand save KK and K7 and I want to punish anyone who's going to stay with a K or a pocket pair.
If there are no K's out there, the two behind you fold anyway and the bluffing BB folds to your bet or raise on the turn. Chances are you're not going to make much money on this hand anyways most of the time regardless.
If you're lucky the other two K's are active and help you cap the flop, and the turn and river will be bricks for them while everyone tries to bully everyone out of the pot.
If I don't raise for a small bet here, do I dare to really push it if an A through 8 falls and they 3bet me on the turn? If they 3bet the flop I "know" there's a king and can guess at the kicker based on position. In the BB, it could be anything!
Also, I would think that calling the bet would look equally dangerous to good players.
But what do I know...
Michael
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
I had a similar hand a few nights ago. Middle position (77) limped, the button raised, BB called, I called, late position called. Flop was JJ7. BB bet, I raised, middle re-raised, late re-raised, BB capped. YIKES!
Every round was capped to the river. BB had K/J, Middle had A/J, Button had AA. None of their outs hit and I won a monstrous pot. BTW, people slowed down with only the middle and I raising after the flop. People stayed because of the huge pot with the hopes of hitting their outs (though Middle and Button only had one out and BB only had three -- not counting a running pair).
I don't think flopping this full house requires a slowplay if there is any sign of aggression at the table -- if other players have overpairs or trips then they will pay you off -- and they have outs so make them pay.
You guys are trying to think too deep on this one. In general if you have people behind you drawing dead on the flop who might call if you just call but won't if you raise, you should slowplay your hand on the cheap betting round. Period.
David writes: "You guys are trying to think too deep on this one. In general if you have people behind you drawing dead on the flop who might call if you just call but won't if you raise, you should slowplay your hand on the cheap betting round. Period. "
The board is K K 7 rainbow and you hold two 7s. There are only a very few hands that might call AND be drawing dead. Any king is drawing live. Any middle pair is live as well.
Balance this minute chance against the chance that you'll get a king to go off for many bets both now and maybe on the turn and it's a no-brainer. Period.
Son, sometimes self-description just ain't gonna help your case.
There are several factors to consider in the play of your "underfull".
1. How many opponents? The more opponents, the more straight forward I would tend to play the hand. The fewer opponents, the more inclined I would be to slow play. Having three opponents is borderline.
2. Texture of the board. If the board is raggedly, then players will be less likely to hang around whereas if there is a two flush or cards in a straight zone they are more prone to call a raise.
3. Type of Game. Is this the $30-$60 game at the Bellagio or the $1-$2 game at Sam's Town? The tighter/more aggressive games would demand a raise. A loose/passive game would lean towards just a call unless the loose players will not be frightened away by a raise.
4. What do I know about the bettor? Is he the type that would go for a check-raise with trips or just bet out? Is he more prone to bet out trying to represent trip Kings but really protecting an under pair?
5. How big is the pot? Was this a raised pot pre-flop? If not, inducing additional bets might take priority over protecting what is out there.
I would not be overly concerned about another King showing up or someone with pocket Eights or Nines catching a bigger full house. With pocket Tens or higher I would think someone would have raised pre-flop.
Bottom line is that yours is a difficult question, but with 3 typical opponents in an unraised pot given the raggedly flop I think I would just call and not raise.
This question reminds me of one I ask my private students. You have A7 in the big blind, five players limp, and the flop is 772. Often a student gives a psychologically based reason for betting out. But no such reasoning can make up for the fact that if no one else bets, the next card will usually get someone who would have folded, into trouble.
While I understand your point, there are some significant differences between my hand and your example:
1. In my hand, two other players could conceivably have a very strong hand on the flop. In your example, only one other player can give you any real action if you bet.
2. In my hand, it is more likely that a King is out there. In your example, it is way less likely that a 7 is out there.
3. In your example, betting may get you no callers at all. In my example, as there is already a bet and I am raising, it is highly likely that I will have some company for at least the turn card i.e. even if the lead bettor was betting a hand as weak as 33, he probably (although incorrectly) will call the raise on the flop.
4. Even though I flopped a full and you have only flopped trips in your example, my hand is in fact more vulnerable than yours.
Thus, it makes more sense to check in your example.
Having said that, even with the 772 example, betting can be more profitable than checking. You are correct in stating that "if no one else bets, the next card will usually get someone who would have folded, into trouble." But this assumes that no one will bet the flop. In fact, that would be the best scenario for you. No one bets the flop and a Queen or something hits the turn and pairs 2 other players.
However, the more common occurrrence is that SOMEONE will bet the flop. Everyone else folds and you call. Do you now try for the checkraise on the turn? Will your opponent bet again? Will your opponent call your rasie if he bets? Seems to me that in most cases, you only win about 3 small bets by slowplaying the flop.
On the other hand, an outright bet may cause the overly suspicious fella with A2 to call you all the way figuring that there is NO way you would bet a 7 on the flop. This could net you 5 small bets (or more if someone decides to get frisky and raise somewhere along the line while misreading you as having a weak hand).
Betting my monster hands on the flop also allows me to steal more. The next time, I might bet on a flop of 664 with a hopeless 82 out of the big blind.
Perhaps, I am exhibiting the same flawed psychological reasoning as your students but I think that the right answer is far from being clear cut.
Skp, there’s a lot to agree with in what you just wrote.
Sklansky overriding point also makes a lot of sense.
What is fascinating is that if it’s this difficult
to come up with a clear cut answer on
so simple a hand as A 7 in the BB vs 7 7 2 and five limpers,
( and for now we’ve left out whether it’s Rainbow or not )
what hands will we ever be sure of how to play?
x
I think you left one out, and in my mind it could be the most important.
6. How am I perceived by my opponents? If I were in this situation and I flat called, most (aware) people would realize that they should get out without a really good hand. If I had a hand worth playing, such as middle pair, I would be raising. Consequently I should also be raising with my really good hands as well.
I suppose this is just my take on skp's fear of looking *fishy*. If he is as aggressive as he seems to be, then for him to just call in this situation would make me fold almost everything.
Eric
Except in games where players behind you get suspicious of your call, there is simply no way that any of your arguments make up for the chance to pick up dead money behind you, especially given that you only beat a king three out of four times. As is the case in most multiway pots, mathematical considerations overcome psychological considerations.
I'm not sure how much dead money will be coming into this pot. What hands are going to be putting in this money? If someone has a hand worth putting in a bet, then she is likely to call the raise as well.
Perhaps I don't live in fishy enough waters, but I can't see anyone calling even one bet without a King, pocket pair, or split pair. Maybe the raise would knock out the pairs, but maybe not. Bringing in the psychological issue again, many of the players I know would be more afraid of a normally aggressive player who just calls. They are more likely to keep playing (at greater cost) if the aggressive player raises.
YMMV
Eric
I'm a beginning player with under 100 hours of table time so if this question sounds a little basic, I apologize. I read so much advanced strategy on this forum and I know there is a lot of experience out there so bear with me because I really need to understand this fundamental concept which I'm not getting. It involves unimproved pairs.
I'm at a 3-6 table, pretty loose passive, and get pocket Queens in early position. The guy to my right under the gun calls, I raise, all fold except button and big blind. Flop comes K 8 2. Both check to me, I bet fearing a king out there but not wanting to give free card. Button and BB fold, guy to my right calls. From what I've observed, he's completely unreadable playing anything. Turn is a 9, he checks, I bet. I'm going with S&M 4th street advice of betting hands without outs(2 or less in this case). River is a 3(I think), I bet, he calls and turns over K 4, taking the pot.
In retrospect, I think I should have checked the river but were my flop and turn betting logic correct? I didn't put him on a K because he didn't show any aggression.
I think this situation is common enough that I need a basic understanding of logic behind playing unimproved pairs.
Thanks, Matt
I'm not Vince or Greg but I'll give you my take on it. The guy was playing King with a very poor kicker so chances are he wasn't going to bet it. A check on the flop probably wouldn't have garnered you any info. He was in check and call mode all the way. On the river a check was probably in order because if he didn't have a king he would fold if you bet and if he did he would call and beat you. From my perspective you're on the right track, just an unlucky flop. Get used to it.
What you do on the River is really a function of whether or not your opponent will call with a worse hand than yours. His actions to date certainly would suggest to me that he doesn't have a King but if he was the type of player who would never (or rarely) call on the river with a hand like 87, you gain nothing by betting and could lose a big bet if he does have a King.
The turn has some similar considerations. I think you are correct in stating that the fella probably does not have a King given his check-call on the flop and that therefore you should bet. But, some players are just *tricky* enough to let you hang yourself when they are holding a King here. When I am in your opponent's shoes, I often play a check-call game (until the river) in this situation when heads up. Being heads up is a key as then there are not too many free cards that can hurt me should you check behind me.
On the turn, I tend not to bet against tricky opponents who might checkraise me with a single pair of 8's. I don't mind checking here because I can usually count on my tricky opponent to bet the river even if he misses. Against a more straight forward opponent who is not a complete fish, I would bet the turn and hope to pick up the pot. If called, I would check the river. Against a calling station or fish in general, I would bet the turn and river.
I take it you would have bet the K4 here if you were his opponent? I thought I understood from HPFAP-21 chapter on free cards that we should check-call such hands since few free cards can hurt us, and only bet top pair less than kings w/weak kicker (into a small number of opponents).
Actually, what I said in my original post was that if I had the K4, I probably would check-call the turn but bet the river. That's assuming I check the flop which is unlikely. If it was heads up on the flop, I would check-call. However with 4 players seeing the flop, I would likely bet into the preflop raiser (who is to my immediate left) with my K4.
I was refering to your statement that the opponent doesn't appear to have a king. I would think that his check-call on the flop was consistent with a pair of kings w/weak kicker. Why would you bet such a hand into the preflop raiser? Is it in hopes of being raised and forcing the blinds to fold? Would you just check-call if the pot was not raised preflop? Thanks.
It is highly inlikely that I would call an early position raiser with K4 in the bb. Assuming that I do and flop a King, I would play it differently depending on whether I was heads up with the preflop raiser or had a 4 way pot as in this hand.
Heads-up:
I would likely check call the flop and turn and bet out on the river.
4 way pot:
I would bet into the raiser because here if I am ahead, giving free cards is a lot worse than in the previous situation. Also, if I am raised by the preflop raiser in this situation, I can be more certain that he too has a King (with a better kicker) or better.
If the pot was not raised preflop, I likely would bet into a 4 way pot with my King/ weak kicker but would probably try and checkraise a late position bettor if the pot was contested with 5 or more players.
Unimproved is one thing but against a K with callers and betters is a mistake. In games like this Kx is a pretty common call and this guy should never have called your raise with the Kx but he did and he won.
He didn't show any aggression cuz of his non kicker.
Keep up the strategy cuz it will pay off guys who call raises with Kx in a full game situation are doomed to lose in the long run.
The dude figured you for aces especially when the UTG guy folded after the raise. I think he should have been out of the game. If you check the river, you loose. I think you did the right thing. It's one of those things.
I like the way you played your pocket queens throughout the hand. Despite the fact that you inevitably had position on the individual calling under the gun with Kx, you MAINTAINED CONTROL of the entire hand from start to finish, which I know is extremely important. I believe that it is more important to assert the control and tempo of these no-foldem low limit games, which is what you did! You can't expect to win every hand on a showdown when you bet. Whenever I lose a pot under the same circumstance that you posted, I always say to myself the the pot went to the right person. We all love to play with people that play Kx under the gun with a raise. I hope this post helped!
You played correctly. Sometimes these loose, passive types will hang in there with middle pair or bottom pair not just top pair/bad kicker hoping to hit trips or a second pair. There is no point betting the river since at that point most of these guys won't call without top pair.
What do you think is the single most important factor to crossing the line in hold'em?
You are a winning hold'em player but yet you don't seem to play like a pro. You believe greatly you have the skills to play like a pro, but yet you don't.
I had this simular problem in stud about a year or two ago and then something happened. I started consistently walking away with the money. I think I crossed that solid line when I learned that I can't steal everytime, that sometimes you have to let other good players and bad players have a piece of the pie and that will make your pie bigger even if you know they are walking thin. Sometimes when you know they don't have much, but you have even less than they do. Sometimes it is a good idea to let them rob others and not get in the way.
What do you forum posters and readers think? I would especially like to hear some answers from the ones who have experienced this crossing of the line sort of speak. Thanks.
berya - I am not a professional although I have been living off my poker since February and living quite well. My wife gets my pay check in Illinois and I send the kids in College a few hundred a month. I have resources to draw on if I get in a bind so I am not out on a limb like a lot of guys.
I do know that if you want to do anything profesionally you have to be willing to devote every waking hour of every day to the endever. Success does not come be accident.
I look at it as a supplement to income but I know alot of guys who try to make a living at is - they are ususlly hitting my up for a couple of hundred until they get caught up.
there is not one line to cross. you will still be crossing lines even when you are sitting in high limit games with the best in the world. there isn't one thing, but knowing yourself, and being totally committed to learning and earning at this game are a couple. the top players have put in the time and work very hard to get the small edge, and occasionally they get a large edge. goodluck
Simple: A truly great player never goes on tilt; Wannabes like me do.
If you are talking pure poker know-how, I would reckon that there really isn't that big a difference between a world class Las Vegas 10-20 player and your local hometown 10-20 hero. Yes, the world class player probably understands the nuances of the game a little better than the hometown hero but the oppportunities to use that extra unique knowledge for profit probably will not come to play very often. What makes one guy world class (and the other not) is the first guy's ability to keep his cool and ride out the inevitable rough patches by losing as little as possible.
And that's a fact.
Rounder,
As Mason has stated many times, a complete and thorough knowledge of the game is your best defense against tilt. The better your knowledge of the game the less you should tilt. The reason is pretty obvious. When you lose and play well you will have the complete confidence to know that you played well and that in the long run you will win. John Feeney has what I consider to be an excellent essay on maintaining a proper mental attitude while playing and it applies to other forms of gambling too. You have probably read it in the Guest Essays section previously but I just thought I would mention it in case you didn't. When you gamble for significant money you simply can't afford to tilt. Losses are part of the deal when you gamble and how you handle them will of course have a huge impact on your bottom line. So I can't except your response that everybody tilts. Everybody probably has tilted one time or another but there are players who do get it together and don't do this. I know I am going to get a response from you that will disagree but I think that you will be much better off when you get the idea out of your head that everybody tilts. I suppose I am jumping to conclusions when I say that your attitude seems to be that since everybody tilts it is somehow not an important factor and that at least some tilting is inevitable. I believe that you have to have a standard for yourself that you will not tilt and when you do you have to correct it. Out.
Tom Haley
Tom,
I can only speak fo rmy self - I do tilt but not from bad beats or losing that is part of the game and if I lose with a set of A's to a runner runner flush well I do. I know what sets me off and when it happens I just get up to streech my legs and wash my face off.
The other day I was in a hand with KJ and there was a side pot. I won the side pot which was much larger whan the main pot and the player (wno is also a dealer) said nice hand sir I thought I won and he showed AJ to out kick me. Now my side pot was 3 times bigger than the main but he just angered me I said "that was real cute" and carried on but was seeing red for about 30 sec. I know one dealer who will never get another toke from me.
I guess what sets me off are smart asses at the table like the ones who slow roll or are rude.
I am controlling it and it hasen't cost me one bad bet for a long time but I'd be lying if I said I never go on tilt and if everyone were honest they'd probably admit it too.
Rounder,
I have been so mad in games that I could spit in the face of my antagonist. That isn't tilt. If you play correctly, not altering your play because of anger or other emotions, you aren't on tilt. I have played with the "legendary" ASQ many many times over the past 30 years and never once have I seen him play any hand on tilt. There are people who control their emotions exceptionally well. Of course, to the best of my knowledge, none of these people are Italians. ;-)
John,
Yeah being Sicillian, Italian can be a draw back when the temper thing comes into play but considering my father and brother are a bit like Joe Pesche in "Good Fellas" funny how, like a clown - am I here to amuse you. I am pretty a pretty cool tempered guy.
ASQ??? - e-mail me if you can't devulge it here.
Big John,
I don't think I have any significant tilt but I do lose focus when I'm not in a hand and tend to daydream a bit. But then again my people come from Northern Italy and Poland so we aren't hot headed like those Sicilians.
BTW, I haven't seen ASQ in a long time. Is he still around and in good health?
Regards,
Rick
PS to Rounder: The almost legendary ASQ was featured in John Fox's book "Play Poker, Quit Work,and Sleep til Noon". He is a great guy, a Gardena ledgend, but his holdem game was not quite as strong as his draw game where he excelled.
Rick,
I saw him about a month ago at the Commerce. As you probably know, he fazed out lowball and became a stud player. When I last saw him he was sitting in a 10-20 or 15-30 stud game and his little notebook was out. He and I have played a lot of lowball together. I once told him that I was going to call every bet he ever made after the draw when he and I were heads up until I finally caught him bluffing.(He had successfully bluffed me out of a large pot.) After about 15 bad calls, interspersed with some great raises and a couple times when my eight was slightly better than his, I finally caught him. I told him that he never should have bluffed again given my stated intent. He just laughed and proceeded to bluff me out of another large pot about 30 minutes later. I guess he figured he was better off not having me call his every bet. He is not only a fine player, he is a terrific human being.
Rounder,
As has been stated in other posts it's ok to get mad just don't tilt. Also, dealers have bad days too and do dumb things just like anyone else so you might want to keep that in mind as well.
Tom Haley
I like your answer. The real top notch player doesn't lose his cool ( or at least does very seldom) because he knows in the long run he's going to win. It is this confidence that allows him to stay in control of his emotions. If you know your the best, why would a few hands that you should have won cause you to tilt? Everyone loses and gets a bad beat put on them, that is part of the game. The real good player realizes this and only questions whether they played the hand right and how to capitilize on opponents mistakes. This is looking to the next hand rather than getting mad about the last hand. I also find these type of players are rather intimidating because they don't seem to care about money (although they do), which causes a lot of players to play less than their best against them.
I suspect that the catalyst, if there is one in most cases, is becoming aware of a justifiably high level of self-confidence. This expectedly would have a liberating effect on the player that increases his ability to concentrate on what's important while allowing him to play more, which in turn reduces his concern for short-term events while building his confidence further. This cycle can allow a lot of things to happen in a short period of time.
If the knowledge is there, and it's continually integrated with experience, then combine Chris's post with skp's, and I think you've got most of the package.
I don't know what the answer is--I haven't crossed the line myself. But, I think what I'm going through in hold'em now is very similar to what you went through in stud. A few weeks ago I felt I had made a huge breakthrough in my game. I won 13-14 sessions straight and won ove 5G in two weeks playing 6-12 and 8-16. I was playing much more aggressive and making plays I never used to make. I think I was able to read hands better and take down pots when nobody had anything. I was also running well and getting the cards. Unfortunely, I've now become over-aggressive. In the last month I've moved from a weak-tight player to a semi-maniac. I keep trying to get players to fold when I know they are weak and it's costing me lots of money. I lost $400 last week and am already down more than that this week. I think a big part of the game is knowing how to tune your aggression to a particular game/set of opponents, knowing when to make moves on people, and when to let go of a pot as you described. Apparantly, I haven't figured it out yet.
ab
I find that when the cards run well, I start to believe it's my superior skill that is winning. Suddenly, like you say, I'm getting called by the underpair and losing each time I bluff. I'm attempting to stop doing this and play my best game win or lose.
The line is EGO. Put your ego in your pocket and you'll do well. (that's what I hope anyway)
Regards Mike N
I'm BB with JTo. 4 call, cutoff raises. button, sb fold. I call, 2 others call. 4 to the flop. JT3 rainbow. I go for checkraise which works and folds player to my left. Turn is an 8. I bet out. Next calls, cutoff raises. I think. Cutoff is a pretty solid player. Not one who would raise preflop with Q9 suited or not. I'm putting him on a big ace or a big pair, probably kings or queens. I don't think he would raise on a straight draw with KQs since there was no flush draw. As Unlikely as it is I'm worried about a set of Jacks or tens because he wouldn't have raised preflop with 88. I call the raise. River is a blank. I check, he bets, I call. How many bets did I miss?
my friend was in the big blind($800) he has 4 big bets left .the button comes in for 2 bets and my friend has A3 suited. he raised and was re raised. he went all in. my friend floped A37 (2pair) and raiser had- AA-trips.He was out 25th and the T. payed 18 places. i argue he should have dumped it now. your responce ?
pat you have to understand at that stage of the tourney blind stealing is very common and your pal may have been right to call the raise and even reraise with Ax in the bb it depends on the guy on the button and his evaluation of him.
Being down to 4 big bets he has to make a stand and this is where he chose to do it.
my thinking was that he had chips to last a round or 2 and being close to the money it might be better to see if they woulden't play bad first. he didn' know this player as he was just moved to this table. SURVIVE?
I agree survive but every tournament I have placed in or won there was some point when I made a play like this - if it works and you double or triple up your in with a chance I can say it was a good or bad play it was marginal which means it could have gone eigther way.
He could have flopped the nut flush - like I said he was in a fork in the road and went the wrong way.
Survival is tough with 4 bb left he didn;t have eneough to beat out the other 18 players he needed to win a few hands to have a chance.
"I'm worried about a set of Jacks or tens because he wouldn't have raised preflop with 88"
Why can't he have an overpair? He's more than twice as likely to have one and his play is consistent with having one. If he did, you lost 1 or 2 big bets, depending on how many would have paid you from the turn onward.
Pre-flop four players limp in before the cutoff raises. Apparently, only two of the four original limpers called the raise. That seems very strange.
On the flop, with three opponents I think you should bet out with your two top pair and not try for a check-raise. You cannot be certain the cutoff will bet since if he raised pre-flop on just two big cards he may decide to check and take a free card. By betting you will probably get one or two callers and if the cutoff then raises you can re-raise making it 3 bets. If not, at least you have gotten some extra bets from some of the callers between you and the cutoff.
On the turn your betting out was correct. When the cutoff raises, you should re-raise. As far as the cutoff knows his big over pair of Queens, Kings, or Aces is good and he is just raising based on that, not realizing he is up against two pair.
You should bet the river and he will make a crying call. It is hard to say how many bets you missed, but I would guess several.
Heads up play--mainly defending the blind against a steal raise or attempting to steal the blinds myself-- is one of my biggest weaknessess. I have trouble sensing strength/weakness in tough opponents, and get over-aggressive against weak-loose opponents.
My typical heads up strategy without position is to bet the flop no matter what. If raised on the flop: I fold if I have nothing, call to the river if I feel there is a decent chance I have the best hand, or call the raise and check-raise the turn if I am confident I have the best hand. If I have position and it is checked to me on the flop, I always bet. If check-raised: I fold if I have nothing, call to the river if there is a decent chance I have the best hand, and call and raise the turn if I'm confident I have the best hand. If just called on the flop, I usually bet the turn if it seems somewhat likely I have the best hand or my opponent may fold.
Is this strategy too aggressive? I find that I am often able to sense weakness in weak-tight players and get them to lay down the best hand; Or, sense strength and lay down a strong hand, myself. However, I often lose a ton of money against weak-loose players who, correctly, call me to the river with Ace-high or Pocket 33's. I am not extremely adept at determining whether a particular opponent is capable of laying these hands down, so I usually just bet turn. Would it be better to check the turn and take a free card?
I have even more problems with tough opponents, as I usually can't read them well. It seems that tougher opponents are much more likely to check a strong hand and bet a weak hand, but mix up their play often. Perhaps, I should not even attempt to confront a strong player unless I have something, i.e. give up on the flop unless I have a pair or A-high? But this would seem to be giving up a lot, as there are so many times heads-up when neither player has anything.
ab
against a weak tight player, your strategy is fine. against a weak loose player, cut back on your bets with nothing but be more aggressive with your hands that have a 'decent chance' of being best. make their A high and their 33 calls wrong. unless you have a strong draw. then bet the flop in hopes to get a free turn. against tough players you are way too predictable. way, way way too predictable. mix it up and watch what they are willing to do with certain holdings.
scott
Reread your own strategy. How would you play against yourself? See? Now, what do you think you should do to fix those leaks?
Somehow, in writing this post, I feel like Vince.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I am a relatively new HE player with about 500 hours under my belt. I have a few questions about what the pros think about during their typical hands and sessions.
How do you count down the pot during the hand? Do you count the number of small and big bets, or do you count the actual dollar figure in the pot. Is this something that you get intuatively with experience?
Are you constantly comparing the pot odds to the chances of making your hand, or is this another thing that comes with experience?
For the session, what data do you record for your records. I have been recording game, date, structure, Win/loss amount, and hours played. Am I missing something?
Thank you for your help. You guys are a great help for newbies.
Jason
At any one time, I cannot immediately tell you exactly how much is in the pot. I know the betting action, how many players are in, whether or not the pot has been raised, and what it costs me to continue. The specific pot odds are only one of many variables. The implied odds, the number of opponents, my holding, the holding the bettor or raiser is representing, the texture of the board, the number of players yet to act, etc. all have to be considered in a general way.
For each playing session,I record the stakes of the game I played (e.g.-$15-$30, $20-$40, etc.), where I played (Bellagio, Shreveport, etc.), the number of hours I played, and my results. I put this in an excel spreadsheet that uses the techniques discussed in Mason Malmuth's book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics". It computes my hourly standard deviation, the cumulative standard deviation, my cumulative results, and compares my cumulative results with the number of standard deviations I am off from a mean of zero("breakeven"). This lets me know if my cumulative results are statistically significant.
Jim,
Would you mind e-mailing me the Excel template that you use? Mine is doesn't have the Mason's Standard Deviation functions built in.
My e-mail is above.
Thanks,
Robert
Thanks a bunch!
Jason writes:
How do you count down the pot during the hand? Do you count the number of small and big bets, or do you count the actual dollar figure in the pot. Is this something that you get intuatively with experience?
There are many ways to do this. I use several myself. Often if it's head to head, I wait till I need to know the odds and then I just straight count the pot. This can take time if you haven't developed the skill, but once you get the hang of counting a pot visually it helps a great deal.
In multi-way pots I start the count after all preflop betting is done. I then simply take the number of callers times the number of small bets I put in. So if four people saw the flop for 3 bets, that's 12 bets. I also keep track of whether the big blind folded. If he did, I add one small bet. If the small blind folded, I just forget that that money is in the pot, assuming that it will go to pay the rake.
Are you constantly comparing the pot odds to the chances of making your hand, or is this another thing that comes with experience?
Yes and no. When it is head to head, I almost never consult pot odds. Reading your opponent and reading the board is more important. When I think I'm in the lead, I almost never use pot odds, as I will be betting or raising, not calling. Pot odds are only good for calling. Multiway I like to start with my BEST outs, and see if I have odds for those. I add my worse and worse outs up to the point when I think they won't be any good.
For example, let's say I've got AsTs, and the board is ThKs3d. This is a pretty good board for me. My best outs are things like runner runner (rr) quads and rr full house. I don't count these at all. Next the rr flush and the rr str8 give me about 3 outs. If the pot were 16 sb, I would play no matter what. Continuing down the line, I have 2 more outs for middle set. This brings me to 5 outs. If I thought I'd need this hand to win, I'd need about 9 1/2 sb in the pot to call. If I assume *all* my possible outs are good, then I've got another 3 for pairing my Ace. Seeing a 3 come up is probably good as well. I might also have the best hand. I might also be drawing thin. All told, the number of effective outs which improve my hand might be as high as 12-20, or may be less than one (in the case when I'm up against a set of Kings and need rr quads to win). I generally try to determine where I stand and use the apropriate number of outs to determine whether to go on.
For example, if I think I'm against AK, then I've got the 3 flush/str8 outs, and the two T outs for a total of 5 outs.
If I think I'm againts AK/AA/KK, then I have to do mental gymnastics while the bad players call me stupid and slowpoke, and the good players pick up the tell that I'm calculating pot odds, so I must be on a draw.
BTW, the more QUALITY outs you have, the more aggressive you can play your hand. If you've got a flush draw on the flop and top pair, you've got over 20 effective outs, and you can get start betting, raising and reraising, even if you suspect you might be against a better hand.
For the session, what data do you record for your records. I have been recording game, date, structure, Win/loss amount, and hours played. Am I missing something?
I also record time started, where I played, and how many players were in the game. I also keep a diary of my opponents so that I can do better table selection in the future. I also break up an evening into three or four sessions, usually one for each table I play at.
- Andrew
G'day, I can't seem to find any info here past Nov 8 with a search; is there archives with ALL the stuff that has been posted here. if there is where can I find it. Thanks for any help.
See the greenish bar on the left. "Archives". You may have the forum set up without frames (or whatever), just showing the threads. If so, come back using the twoplustwo.com URL and enter in the standard way. Then the green bar will be there.
Just spent the weekend in Vegas playing Hold'em and had a great time. I brought a few friends from my regular ring game to give them a taste of casino Hold'em. Each session each of us were up a few hundred but took home just a small amount of cash. On the plane ride back to Chicago one guy asked this question " Where we there to make money or just to play cards?" he went on about we were all "UP" in each game and if he was trying to make money then you could just leave at a set profit line. So what do all you pro's do ? Do you set a line and when you hit it leave and take your day's pay or keep on playing for a certain amount of hours? Just a thought
Thanks
MJ
I am not a professional but I play 8-10 hour sessions as long as I feel I have the edge in the game. If the game is really good, I will play longer but normally I get tired after about 8 hours. I don't really care whether I am winning or losing. My concern is to get in as many hours over the course of the year as I can in games where I have the advantage at stakes high enough to make it worth my time ($15-$30 and $20-$40).
I think these people who sit in a game and hope to win something after a few hours and leave ("hit and run")are just fooling themselves. These guys will get away with this for awhile and then they will play in a session and get seriously stuck. They stay glued to the table trying to get their money back sometimes putting in 40 or 50 hour sessions where their play starts to degenerate.
I know I am in the minority on this, but I don't mind "hittin and running". When I used to play a lot of 15-30 lowball, I would often make $300 or $400 and quit the game to go play NL Hold-em or another game that I enjoy playing more than lowball. Sometimes, I would play four or five different times in that same game, moving around to other games and avoiding the collection charge.
If, as most theorists seem to agree, it is all one long session anyway, why not play it in the manner you find most entertaining? A big part of my enjoyment came from watching the faces on the old rock grouches when a "live one" quit the game with some of their money. An added benefit is that once they know you might be leaving after you won a pot or two, they would alter their play against you to prevent that from happening. If they were playing more or less correctly before changing, they would then be playing tighter than optimal.
I suppose to those who believe that only hourly expectation times hours played is the one true magical formula, my style doesn't make any sense. That is OK by me, because it makes perfect sense to me. If you play for enjoyment and the earn is secondary, doing what you want to do is far more important than sitting in a game where you aren't having fun just because it offers the highest hourly rate of return.
I once sat in a 15-30 lowball game for fours hours, grinding out a few hundred dollar win against a group of people who hadn't had any fun in their lives for years and who resented anyone else who seemed to be trying to. All the time I'm playing, Ray Zee is sitting at an empty table having animated conversations with several people who stopped by singly, chatted for awhile, then left. I had just introduced myself to him the night before, and I remember thinking that I would much rather have been sitting at his table, shooting the breeze with no chance to make any money than sitting in the game I was in and making a BB or two per hour. Ray certainly looked like he was having a better time than I was. This was a year or so ago, and I've probably played less than 10 hours of lowball since, not counting lowball tournaments. So, in a way, Ray Zee is responsible for me not doing something I didn't much care for approximately 1000 fewer hours per year. Hey Ray, thanks a lot; I think I'll go buy four or five copies of each of your books and give them away as Christmas presents this year.
My number is $700 for anything below 10-20 when I hit that $ amount I vamoose from the session. Cash out get a meal and maybe start over or go to my room or home.
In 10-20 I will stay as long as I am winning and if I go over $700 will play but not go below that number I feel it is mine and it ain't going anywhere with out me.
Hi everybody,
Your basic "play by feel" poker player here. Just trying to quantify, quantify. I need some help. No mental health comments please. Got another way of looking at the same old probleme.
Suppose we adopt the following strategy; If we are ahead we bet, if behind we check. With me so far. Now how do we determine if we are ahead.
Position SB.
6 opponents.
Hand 9,8o
Flop A,9,2 rainbow.
Reasonable scenario. 6 sb's in the pot. Is that a big pot? Compared to bet size 6 to 1, not bad. Let's not muddy the waters yet. Remember bet if ahead (BA), check if behind (CB)
To Bet or not or not to Bet.
Let a = the probability that there is at least 1 ace in the opponents hands (use 12 random cards).
let .5 n = the probability that a better nine is in the opponents hands, where n is the probability of at least one 9 is in an opponents hand.. Let's assume this includes the possibility of the BB having exactly 9,2
let t = the probability that a pair of tens are in an opponents hand
let j = the probability that a pair of jacks are in an opponents hand
let q =the probability that a pair of queens are in an opponents hand
let k = the probability that a pair of kings are in an opponents hand
let w = the probability that a pair of twos are in an opponents hand
let S = the sum of all probabilities.
Then if S<.5 BA
S= a+.5n+t+j+q+k+w
Does this make sense so far. Maybe we should just calculate the probability here and not make a determination of whether to bet or check. That sounds like a good idea. Should we add a non raise factor to the Kings and queens. Such that we reduce the probability of them being out in an unraised pot by .5. I am not a mathe guy but I could determine these probabilities myself. But I would first like to discuss the formula.
Vince.
it is too simplistic. random hands do not describe actual play. and ba/cb strategy is also too simplistic. and there are 7 sb in the pot. that said, in a game where people will call with any A and raise only AK, you can use random hands to find the possibility of there being a A out there but you have to know what how many hands they call with. you have to determine the chances there is an A out, given 6 people limped. with the 9, this only works if people limp with any 9. in my calculations way below, i ignore better hands folding. if you start considering higher 9's and wired underpairs (above 9's) then this becomes more likely.
scott
We have to make some adjustments here Vince. We are not dealing with random probablility when people voluntarily put money in a pot to take a flop. We are dealing with conditional probability. That is, given that someone limps in, we can rule out holdings like Eight-Deuce offsuit, etc. There are 169 possible two card holdings, ignoring suit distinctions (Spades vs Hearts vs Diamonds vs Clubs), but how many of these involve holdings that players would never come in with? Probably at least half. With no one raising we can rule out AA,KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AK, AQ suited. Bottom line is that I would expect one of my six opponents to have an Ace the vast majority of time when you go through all the combinations of cards that involve hands players come in with. It would be much higher than any number I could get just assuming one of three remaining Aces in 12 random cards out of 47 unseen cards.
This would also be true concerning one of the two remaining Nines. I would expect the real likelihood of one of six opponents having one of the two remaining Nines out of 47 unseen cards to be higher than what a random probability calculation would yield.
I have a different formula: Bet. X% of the time there is no ace and you are leading so betting is good to protect your equity. Y% of time someone has an A and will call only, leaving you behind at this point with outs. Z% of the time someone has a A, pocket 9's, pocket 2's, K's, Q's, J's or 10's and raises thinning the field. Q% of the time that bet by you is going to improve your chances of winning more than the cost of the bet, and S% of the time you'll lose money by doing so. P% of the time the difference between X,Y,Z and Q is totally unquantifiable, situationally dependant, and just isn't worthwhile agonizing over. P=100%. X=14%, Y=22% and Z=64%.
I don't know about all this math but you'r behind for sure and a check fold is my remedy for this miserable hand.
Just gotta love the way you cut through the crap, Rounder. Not that Vince's post is crap, but the only question about this hand I have is am I going to push my cards in or throw them in.
Ya know Sammy,
This guy had 6 callers you know there are atleast 1 probably 2 aces out there if an A8 or A9 your drawing dead. Still 2 cards to come one probably an over card. I just don't like the layout and trying to play this hand in a multi way pot is juat not a good decision.
I don't know you Vince but I've read plenty of your posts. My advice would be to not worry about all this math shit and if your a feel player and you feel the probability that there is definitely an ace out to muck your hand and start thinking about things that really matter.
Furious
Please tell this newbie where to find guest essays referrered to in some of these discussions . THANKS in advance.
Peter,
In the Green frame on the left, there is a section called "Essays" under the Directory heading. That link will take you to three sets of essays. The 3rd set at the bottom is the "Guest Essays"
They are very good!
Jason
My image is going just great I am winning the session with good cards (some not so good)I am making the right moves everything is clicking. My cards go cold!!!!. I mean really COLD 27o 39o 28o time and time again no suited cards no connectors NADA...(1 hour passes) This happened to me the other night at Binions and though I tried to make a move at some pots I did not have the cards to keep going. I did not want to go quiet so I just chatted up some of the hands played trying to keep active in the game. Now the local "mopes" at the table were not in the mood for my comments (most at the end of the hand as to not hurt the hand) nor do they have much to say at all so I decide my best course of action was to find another table.
1. Is this the best move? I had a good handle of the table.
2. Why do most poker players in card rooms feel that
conversation is out of the question?
Thanks
MJ
You should stay at the table and be silent. You are winning and you have a good image. You may have some opportunities to steal if you can get a free play in your big blind and have a small number of opponents.
With regard to conversation, players who are losing are usually in no mood to chat. If you want to keep winning, don't make their experience any more unpleasant than it is. Also, never discuss the play of the hands at the table or how you would play a hand. Avoid discussing other players and what you think of them. When you win a pot by sucking out on an opponent and he says something just agree with him that you were lucky. When an opponent misses a draw against you and your hand holds up don't say anything about whether or not he should have been drawing. If someone says that you are "a rock" or "a nuts player" don't take offense just remain silent and see if you can take a pot away from someone later on in this session if the opportunity presents itself given that you have this image. Avoid talking while a hand is in progress. If you must, talk between deals and keep it short and social.
Your experience is different than mine, but that may be because you're in Binions, which I've heard is full of older, retired guys who aren't the most cheerful.
Usually, there are many conversations going on at the table when I play. However, you should try to talk only about things other than poker. If you discuss strategy, you may wise up a fish who didn't know that there was so much to poker. Also, a good, observant player will hear what you're saying and get a better line on your play, to your disadvantage.
Use forums like this to discuss strategy. Talk football, your kids, politics, whatever else at the poker table.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thanks.. I guess I am used to the local ring games where there is to much talk. But at least it's fun. Not to many casino players seem to be having any fun. Maybe they are but god forbid they let anybody know.
'_'
MJ
Good advice Greg. I usually tell lawyer jokes at the table to keep the game loose. After one or two of those, the rest of the table takes over, venting their spleen over things that lawyers have done to them. When I'm at a table there is usually no talking, or, for the most part, thinking, about poker strategy. Everyone is too busy plotting ways to rid the world of the scourge of.................. Ahh! now that I've taken my medication I feel sooooooo much better.
P.S. to Mason: This concludes my non-poker related attempts at off topic humor.
I am a very new player. Making my first trip to Vegas next week. I am reading S&M and understanding some of it. I get more with every re-read.
I also own the software program Turbo Texas Hold'em. Is this a valuable tool? Any hints on how to use it properly.
Thanks
Turbo Texas Hold'em (TTH) is a valuable tool for some things, and not for other. In particular, it has been used to gague general strength and strategy under a certain set of specific conditions and assumptions. Some of the better results gotten with TTH can be found here>.
Unfortunatly these results are universally applicable. Even worse, they may very well be incorrect for the situation which they are trying to model.
So is TTH useful? The answer is *maybe*. If you understand and accept the assumptions it uses, and understand how to change the assumptions to suit your needs, then it could prove useful as a research tool.
As a playing tool the game is too predictable. You can learn a lot about the strategy of the opponents by playing with the cards "face up". Some have said this is useful.
I myself am a bigger fan of simulated poker which uses real people. The best example of this is IRC poker, which is a freely available program with many regular players and realistic games.
I would suggest practicing on IRC, and with TTH with the cards "face up".
- Andrew
It's not going to help you with the player personalities that you will encounter at the tables. But it's a good starting point for starting hand selection.
MJ
Thanks
It can be very good for fun and to develop your reflexes. However you must be careful not to "adjust" to the speed of the game because it can throw your real game off.
I almost always zip to the end and always view the hole cards after a hand. I have developed a few useful reflexes because of that, i.e., check-raise counter bluff and isolation position raises. Of course these are much more useful in mid to high limit games.
BTW, I recommend the Orleans as the best overall low to mid limit poker experience.
Although the "game" play in TTH is excellent, (far better than "Poker Night with Skalansky")the most valuable aspect of the software is the testing and simulation. Wilson software offers a booklet called "Mike Gilbert's Insider's Tips for Turbo Texas Hold 'Em." You should definately get this book if you want to take full advantage of the most powerful features. Also, this booklet explains some of the weaknesses of computer simulations and why the results can sometimes be misleading.
I was talking to a player the other night who said that he heard that the best hand against pocket aces was something like 56 or 67 (obviously being suited would also help). I found this very interesting. Has anyone heard about this theory? What do you guys think would be the best hand mathematically to beat pocket aces?
That can't be right as the odds of making a straight or flush by the river with suited connectors are worse than making a set with a pocket pair.
I think it must be a pocket pair that can make all of its straights without an Ace like 88, 77, and 66. It is also better to have something like red sixes against black aces since you will occasionally win with a cheap flush. Haven't run the numbers, but this should be easy to verify with a simulation.
I'll take AA anytime, but I believe 98s is top dog against AA
But 98 loses with a KQJT board. 76 and 87 don't have a similar problem.
Heads up I'm pretty sure the hand is 76s because of the maximum straight/flush potential.
What do you guys think would be the best hand mathematically to beat pocket aces?
Any suited coupled cards would have an equal chance against pocket AA except straights that would use an ace.
Actually 65 has the same chance against TT as it does against AA as 89 has againse KK.
I guess it could be 56s which is not the same suit of any of the two AA. The reason is this hand will cut some the AA outs when board comes A234 and 2345.
regards,
jikun
but its two pair loses to more on board pairs.
scott
Any board pair that does not match the ranks of the suited connectors in question will make AA have a better two pair. It doesn't matter if we make QQKK or 2233 if the there is 55 on board the aces will make AA55.
scott,
i played a 6/12 holdem (loose passive) where i beat high pairs/overcards with my 6,7 suited. only reason why i played with my hands was everyone was in the pot and it was cap-raised before the flop. sometimes it's a temptation to see that big pot. (btw, i never play this hand on normal circumstances.)
flop comes 8,9,10 rainbow and i hit the low end of my straight. i checked with the intention to raise if i sense that my opponents are just betting their high pairs and of course, the original raiser bet. i raised and everyone just called my raise so i knew then nobody got the higher end of the straight.
turn was a 5 rainbow. i bet and everyone just called.
river was a 3. i bet and everyone just called.
my question is: what are the chances of winning with a medium suited connector when all players are in the game and it is capped raised before the flop? can you do your calculations for me? i would appreciate it very much.
scott,
btw, i was the SB. first raiser preflop was Button, second raiser was BB and cap raiser was MP.
when the flop came, bettor was BB and everyone just called him and that's when i raised back and everyone still called.
preflop. you should have folded if it was capped back to you and you had to call all 3.5 bets at once. but the way it happened calling was correct. i would play 6,7 a lot more frequently than never.
flop: i would have slow played if two people would bet and raise for me. other than that i usually bet out. if you could get more people to call one bet twice based on the probable position of the raiser then a check raise would be correct. but in pots this big people will stick around. try to charge 3 bets. don't be so certain you're best. someone could be slowplaying the nuts. but you are likely leading.
turn. of course, you bet.
river. of course, you bet.
about your question. it depends on the raising and reraising requirements of your opp, the number of opp, and lots of things. if you want the numbers for making a straight or a flush by the river you could figure them out, or i could do them for you. but they really won't tell you anything. sorry.
scott
thanks, scott.
still, i would like an opinion from you. given the probability that all the high pairs/overcards are being held by the other players, don't you think medium/small cards suited/unsuited have now a better chance to flop? in other words, if all players are acting like they've got strong cards in their hands, don't you think it's now time for holders of medium/small cards to call preflop anytime regardless of position?
can you do a simulation of this type? if not, thanks anyway.
well, for starters, i do not own any simulators. in fact, i do not own a calculator. (well, i did not bring one to college.) when i do calculations i do them the old fashioned way, by hand.
you're talking about a kind of bunching factor. i think that it does help your two pair/trips chances and your straight chances. but big pairs have lots of redraws against small 2 pair. and big suited cards hurt your chances for a flush and make losing to the higher flush more likely. the actual numbers are very dependent on the exact range of cards the raisers could be holding. but i surmise that the effects are rather small. on the order of tenths or hundreths of a percent. while i may play 67s in situations like this sometimes, the bunching factor would not sway my decision.
scott
you swayed me, scott. no more 6,7s for me unless i am big blind.
no,no. it is ok to play sometimes. just the reason are lots of opp etc. all the typical reasons to play a speculative hand. not your increased chances of making your hand because of the high cards out. 67s should often be played. read hefap to discover when.
scott
oh, okay, i'd better read the book again. still, i like your advice.
i made a mistake. wait a minute! why are you reading this. i said no text. get lost.
scott
I would think it would be pocket Aces.
- Andrew
Funny you mention that.
Several months ago, a fellow in our game did one of the dumbest things I have ever seen at a poker table. He raised preflop. Everyone folded up to the blinds. For some baffling reason, the raiser then tabled his cards up (why he would want the blinds to fold when holding Aces, I will never know). Sb pitched. BB ponders for a second, puts on a goofy smile and calls!
I can't remember the flop or anything but in any event bb checkraises the guy with the open Aces on the turn. Aces calls the raise and also calls the bet on the river. Turns out that BB had the other 2 Aces.
a pair that isnt close and wont lose to straights is about 4 to 1 a hand like 67 suited is about 77 to 23. which is slightly better than a pair against aces. i think most people will lose more to you if you have the pair rather than the 2 suited cards if you beat them. so id rather have a pair unless allin.
The correct answer is 6-5 suited with no matching suits.
This issue was extensively discussed and rehashed on rgp well over a year ago. People ran a bunch of simulations, and it was determined that 76s and 65s were the best hands, when none of the aces were in the same suit. This assumed all-in preflop, no betting, hot-and-cold analysis.
IIRC, different people came up with 76 or 65 in their simulations. Finally, someone wrote a program to look at every possible board from the full deck of cards (minus the AA and 76s, of course), and it turned out that 76s was slightly better than 65s.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
David has suggested that a good estimate for determining long run fluctuations would be to take the sqare root of my hours played multiplied by a moderately large hourly fluctuation. In my case, upside swings over an hour could be much greater than downward. For example, in my 5-10 Hold'em game it would not be unusual to be plus 4-500 in one hour, but I generally would not lose more than 200 in a single hour. Would I use each respective hourly swing to determine long run potential upside and downside fluctuations? Thanks.
You can actually calculate this based on several sessions using the technique discussed in Mason Malmuth's book, "Gambling Theory and Other Topics". Otherwise, I would use a rule of thumb of about 10 big bets per hour being one standard deviation. In a $5-$10 game you could guess that your standard deviation would be $100 per hour. Over say a 9 hour session, your fluctuation would plus or minus $300 ($100*square root of 9) about 68% of the time and plus or minus $600 95% of the time. Suppose that you are a break even player with no winning or losing expectation. Obviously you are not worried about winning more than your expectation but you are concerned about how much you could lose. Well, the answer is that you have about 1 chance in 6 of losing more than $300 for a 9 hour session and about 1 chance in 40 of losing more than $600.
Let us say that you are a winning $5-$10 player capable of beating the game for one top bet per hour which would be $10 per hour. How big of bankroll do you need over how many hours? Well at the end of 100 hours you should be ahead $1000. However, the standard deviation over 100 hours is also $1000 so there is 1 chance in 6 that you could be a winning player and be losing after 100 hours. There is about 1 chance in 40 that you could losing over $1000 at the end of the 100 hours.
Bottom line is that if you can beat your game for one top bet per hour then at the $5-$10 level you probably need a bankroll of over $1000 and if you play long enough there will be 100 hour periods where you will lose $1000 or more.
--Over say a 9 hour session, your fluctuation would plus or minus $300 ($100*square root of 9) about 68% of the time and plus or minus $600 95% of the time. --
Jim, don't you mean plus or minus $600 32% of the time?
No, it is a two-tailed, symmetrical distribution about the mean. I am not worried about winning more than I should, I am concerned about losing more than I should. With an hourly standard deviation of $100, the standard deviation for a 9 hour session is $300. One standard deviation covers 68% of the outcomes. The other 32% of the outcomes fall outside one standard deviation. Half of these (16%) result in me winning more than I would expect while the other the other half (16%) result in me losing more than I would expect.
If I am willing to tolerate a $600 swing for a 9 hour session than this is 2 standard deviations from the mean which covers 95% of the outcomes. The other 5% of the time I will be outside 2 standard deviations. But half of this (2.5%) means I win a lot more than my expectation while the other half (2.5%) means a I lose a lot more.
I was in a 9-18 game that was nuts. It seemed every pot was capped. Personally I'm not crazy about these kinds of games, but this table was filled with loonies. If you played quality cards and your hand hit, you'd would be guaranteed a nice payoff. In fact, within the hour I was up two racks.
The hand: I was in the small blind with 3s,4s. UTG raises, gets 3 callers, and the guy two to my right makes it three bets, the guy to my immediate right caps it. I call. The SB & BB call as do the origninal raiser and the 3 calls to his left. In short, everyone was in before the flop with 4 bets.
The pot was at $324 before the flop.
Regardless of whether I lost or won (I lost), given the nature of the table, and the fact that I was rushing, was that a good, bad or horrendous call?
It was a horrendous call for you to make. It is very bad poker to be involved in a capped pot even out of your small blind with 43 suited. I strongly recommend you read the "Wild Games" chapter in Hold-em Poker for Advanced Players - 21st Century Edition for a discussion of what you should be playing in these situations. Your implied odds are terrible when you pay 4 bets to see a flop with a suited connector. You need a premium hand like AA, KK, QQ to be involved in a capped pot and it really does not matter what the rest of the field is flying around with. Keep in mind that a lot of players increases the likelihood that you will end up with the second best flush or the second best straight.
I might call one raise out of the SB with 4-3 suited. But I wouldn't call any more than that. With that many players in the pot, you must flop a set or a straight draw to even consider staying in ( a flush draw is no good here with the large # of players). And I'm not sure a set wins it if there are overcards (and how can there not be overcards to a 4-3) on the board.
Whether you won or not, I think you should not have called in this situation. You may win when you play poorly, but it is only temporary.
Good Luck! Black Jack
Horrendous. Absolutely horrendous.
If you were up two racks within the hour playing this way, you got VERY lucky
natedogg
Horrendous but I have been there dun that.
I think that explains why the game is so crazy
I re-read my question. I mistakenly said I was SB. I was on the button. Not that it makes much of a difference. The fact is, I know it is a horrendous call. I just wondered if ever such a play makes sense - in the gambling sense of the word.
It makes no sense in any sense of the word.
if these mainiacs very loose aggressive throughout whole hand and can expect 4 or 5 way capped action on the turn and river, then it was just very bad. if they are like most mainiacs who throw bets around preflop and on the flop, then slow down to atmost 1 raise, it was a horrible.
scott
Gee DK 34 suited or not is a really weak hand and I doubt if many would call a capped pot with it. I was in a similar game last night in bb with 45s no raise and hit the flush on the turn and lost to a bigger one. I just can't see calling this many bets with such a weak holding.
If you up $600 in a game like this I hope you had toe good sense to get out while the getting is good.
Depending on how I was doing I'd make the call. You sound like you are on a rush, winning and have some profit.
I made a similar call in 5-10 with 4s5s, capped kill preflop, so that's $40 to go, 6 handed. Flop was 3s6s7s, which of course was nice. Sure enough there was a KsXs and an AsXs out there so I hauled in a few hundred, thankyou very much.
In games like this, with you ahead already, suited connectors are worth a call, the potential to flop a monster and wreck everyone is there and I think worth the call.
On the other hand, if you're not doing well, dont go wasting money on something this iffy, you'll be down more, it'll bother you psycologically and hurt your game.
CrazyJim,
I think your approach to playing looser when ahead is why people don't stay ahead. You have to play Right, or as right as can be regardless of your current stae of win/loss. To use a blackjack analogy:
You don't start splitting tens just because you're ahead a few hundred.
Too bad the betting allows only 3 raises otherwise you could have capped it. Always better than calling.
What's the SB in 9-18? $3 I presume. I would want a lot better hand going in than 43s, big field or not, before I would invest another $33 to see the flop, rush or no rush. I tend to adopt the axiom "The dice have no memory" when making decisions, because while I do recognize the math about numbers and streaks, I find that the better decisions I make, the luckier I get. I dump this baby, but it will be interesting to see what happened. Sounds like a monster pot in the making.
Look up a few posts. I lost the hand, but that wasn't really the point of the question. I know its a very poor call, but that's not the point of the question either. I just wonder if it is an auto dump every single time. I guess here I speak of feel, not to be confused with, "I have a feeling", crap. If I win this pot, maybe three or four players get steamed when they see my cards. I win a monster, they're hearing voices and I'm that closer to muscling the table for the rest of the session. What do you think, call it one in 25? 50? 100? Never? I just don't think NEVER is the answer.
Thanks.
There are less expensive ways to show the opps that you'll play a long shot. Raise the button with 67s. Check raise with middle pair and an ace kicker. You don't have to put in 4 bets with 34s to convince people you're a gambler.
Posted by: Double K (karim@gatecom.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 November 1999, at 8:37 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier@ems.jsc.nasa.gov)
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 8:55 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 November 1999, at 9:27 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 10:37 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 10:43 a.m.
Posted by: CrazyJim (Gallen@mediaone.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 11:32 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 1:26 p.m.
Posted by: berya (aispi4@arrow.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: Dunc Mills (custserv@parcom.ab.ca)
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 2:48 p.m.
Posted by: Double K (karim@gatecom.net)
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 6:40 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 19 November 1999, at 6:46 p.m.
Drastic Strategy for “No Fold’em Holdem”
I have been racking my brain to try and come up with an effective strategy for the “no-fold’em Hold’em games which I find so prevalent at the lower ($3-6 to $6-12) limits here in So. Calif. First, I find two types of games: 1. Loose/Passive These games frequently have anywhere from 6 to 10 limpers. If there is a raise, it doesn’t make much difference, there still will be 5-8 callers, many calling raises cold. In this type of game, although players will call raises cold with garbage, they don’t go into a raising frenzy.
2. Loose/Aggressive. These games also have many players, but once someone raises, it is almost a ritual to re-raise and cap it… yet there still are often 5 to 8 players in these pots. The raising and reraising frenzy usually continues throughout the hand.
Both of these games are filled with two types of players, which I call “Clutchers” and “Bluffer/Gamblers.” Clutchers will “clutch to the death” with bottom pair, pocket deuces, gut shot draws, etc. never believing that anyone has them beat. Bluffer/Gamblers will bet and raise with the same type of hands either trying to steal the pot, or hoping for the miracle out. As a group they create what has been called “implicit collusion.”
O.K. What is the best way to play in these games? One hand six people will go to the river and the pocket deuces will hold up because the flush and straight draws and overcards miss. The next hand may be won by a full house, with nut flushes and straights coming in second and third. My question is “how can you ever determine if your hand is any good unless it is the nuts?”
One strategy I have been contemplating is to just check and fold when I only have top pair and am in early position and it is bet, call, call, call, or bet, raise, reraise, etc. Top pair just doesn’t hack it in these games. I think I should only play suited connectors and pairs, and dump unless I hit a good draw or a set on the flop… just give up and not waste chips with top pair, or even and overpair in these crazy games.
In late position if it is just one bet, I will limp to the river, because betting or raising won’t get anyone out anyway, and the “group” of them are getting odds from me, especially when I raise and build a pot.
So, do you guys think this is too drastic? To me, it seems as thought top pair isn’t much good when 4-6 players clutch and bluff to the river… someone always seems to get there. Although they only have 2 to 4 outs each, this makes an average of 15 or more outs against your measly to pair. Comments please.
Lately we have been getting more and more questions on this Forum from players who have not read any of our stuff. This is one of them. I guess we should be happy that this is occrring since it shows how popular this website is becoming. On the other hand Ray, Mason and myself envisioned this site as a place for our readers to go to discuss things that may not be completely covered in our books. Thus I suggest you get Holdem For Advanced Players and The Theory of Poker and then ask any questions that remain unanswered in your mind. We need to eat too.
David,
I agree that EVERYONE should read your books. In fact, The Theory of Poker was the second book I bought. On the other hand, I seriously think you guys should consider writing a NEW book which addresses low-limit play. The "California Phenomenon" is so large that having published material that deals explicitly with the California brand of "nofoldem" would be amazingly popular.
I know that there are books out there which address this topic, but I really think having a complete 2+2 perspective in print would help.
- Andrew
David and Mason have addressed wild games in the new section of Holdem poker for advanced players:21st century addition. I find that the advice there was strong. I didn't start beating low limit poker until I read it.
Mr. Sklansky,
Two days ago I placed an online order for Getting the Best Of IT and The Theory of Poker. Bon Appetit.
Joe
"We need to eat too."
Even Mason?
Just kidding. Anyway, while your books are excellent,, and anyone who wants to have any success at poker needs to read "The Theory of Poker" I would have to caution this guy about Hold Em For Advanced Players as maybe containing too many sophisticated strategies for these terrible games. Granted, you warn against the same things in the book, and the chapter(s) on loose games will help, but just buy the book and read it carefully, much of the stuff in the book will not work against unsophisticated opponents who only care about what is in their hand.
Also, those games are not beatable due to the oppressive house drop, although they ought to be more than beatable due to the terrible players. In some cases, you must play exceptionally tight in these games, particularly when you are up against a maniac or group of them who are capping every pot.
David's answer: "Thus I suggest you get Holdem For Advanced Players and The Theory of Poker and then ask any questions that remain unanswered in your mind."
I do have both books, David, and in summary you suggest two approaches:
1. playing the hands that can become big hands (I agree)
2. When you end up with top pair with hands like AQ (like the situation I was referring to) waiting till the turn to get in a raise to make it 2 bets to the draws... which is ok if the situation is possible.
But what about all those other situations where 4 "clutchers" hang on, or you are unable to get in the raise until several callers are already in? Is it better to "just give up" with top pair-scary board and wait till you get the monster hand or monster draw? That was my original question, and I think a valid one. Any opinions?
*sigh*
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://www.desetka.si/izmet
rick,
You question is a good one and your analysis is also good I like the clutcher tag it is so appropiate.
I run into these tables a lot in Arizona - I prefer the loose passive with one or 2 maniacs to to balance things off.
Don't look for players in this class to make any kind of pot analysis for their dawing decision the pot is really in 3nd place behind what their holding and what their potential hand is and how lucky they think they are today.
I find that in Arizona the personalities of these games change hour by hour players who play every hand the 1st hour settle down and play a more reasonable game after they get spanked a couple of times.
I think your playing your connected cards is a good plan and Ax suited will get you huge pots when the flush hits cuz you know your opponents are playing any suited cards and will clutch to them for ever.
Rounder,
That is so open minded of you to consider the suits of the pre-flop cards!! ô¿ô
I have played some in these type of games. They are high variance games, so expect lots of bankroll fluctuations. I like the loose/passive games better than the loose/aggressive, even though the pots are usually smaller. In the loose/aggressive games, your implied odds are not as good, because you are putting so much money in the pot pre-flop. Game selection is very important in poker, and I would try to find the loose/passive games and not be taken in by the huge pots you see in the loose/aggressive games.
Your starting cards seem very reasonable. I have done very well with high suited connectors, high pocket pairs and Axs. If the game is passive enough, Kxs will do well too, but how you play after the flop is just as important, if not more important. Read the sections on loose games in the 21st century edition of HPAP.
Rick, I play in similar 3-6 and 6-12 games up here in San Jose and I have had the same difficulties consistently winning. Looking back carefully at each session, I've noticed that I win when my top pair with good kicker holds up or improves, and lose when someone else hits their second pair or trips. Hitting straights and flushes seems to even out for everyone. I know this sounds and is greatly oversimplified, and I have read most of the books mentioned in this forum, but for these kinds of games the reasons why I win or lose doesn't seem that complicated. I play strong starting hands and aggressively bet top pair, and then wait for the gutshot straight or J-6o to raise me. If they don't, I come out ahead (about 70% of the time). I was stunned when I ventured over to the 15-30 games and found that things like raising and semi-bluffing actually have significance. Unfortunately, I'm still in school and don't have the bankroll for that limit. I look forward to reading the responses to your post as I know I have a lot to learn about this game.
I have some questions about one hand I played today in a 6-12 HE game. The game was generally tight also a little weak. I was on the BB with Kd10h. I checked after 1 early, 1 middle, 2 late limpers (sb was out).
Flop: JdJs9d
It was checked arround.
Turn: 2d
I bet and the early limper who is a solid player raised. Everyone fold to me.
My question is: should I bet on the turn in that positon with the given board (or check and call?), should I call the raise? Advices are wellcome.
regards,
jikun
You have a K high diamond flush draw and a gut shot. Too many people at the turn to bet out. Heads up or three handed, I would bet out, hope to win it right there. Most of your players who flop 3 Jacks will check the flop, even in late position hoping someone will do exactly what you did. Bottom line for me - too many callers to bet out. I'd check and call. Call the raise and would be tempted to check even if the flush or straight card hits. What happened?
I called the raise and the river was a off-suit 6. I folded after his bet on the river. So I have no way to know what he had. When he raised I thought he either had a J with a good kicker (hopelly was not Ad) or he had a flush which must be a good flush (Ad10d?)from his position.
regards,
jikun
"My question is: should I bet on the turn in that positon with the given board (or check and all?), should I call the raise?"
shoulda, woulda, coulda! Your question shoulda been; What factors determine the correct play in this situation? Well since you didn't bother telling us the play of the whole hand, I won't tell you what shoulda been your decision drivers. Of course since you bet the turn you must have had a reason. Please, pray tell, why such a bold move? Why would you check and call?
Vince
Just give the guy an answer. What more do you need? There was no pre-flop raise. No one bet the flop. He described the player who made the raise. Everyone folded to him. King-high flush draw and gut shot stright draw. Do you need a psycholgical profiles? Pray tell?
No need to be rude Vince. The guy just asked a question. I think he gave enough info for an answer.
Rude! Me! You saying I am/was/will be rude? Really. Is it rude to not answer an incomplete post or is it rude to make an incomplete post and expect someone to rad it and respond? Whew? Did you ever think that maybe the original poster was the one that was rude? Or maybe you just thinkt old big mouth vince in the rudest little bald italian since Il Duce? Is that it?
Rude I'll show you rude: "No need to be rude Vince."
Now that's rude!
Vince.
Vince
Nice to see you in such fine form. As a matter of fact i look forward to all your posts and can barely go two days without one. If you play poker as well as you post i believe we have found the next Huck Seed! Good Luck Ice
I'm more likely to be the next Huck Finn then Huck Seed. But...
Vince.
jikun,
There are a couple problems with a semi-bluff here against typical mediocre opponents.
First, the flop contains all middle cards. I would say that a jack is the number one "limping" card and the nine is not that far behind. Even though you would think the jack would often bet the flop, they don't always. This kind of bluff out of the blind works a lot better with small cards on board. Your opponents are less likely to have something and they can't be sure you don't have trips since you got a free play in the blind.
The other problem is that getting there on the river after you call the turn raise will fairly often result in your opponent filling up (if he wasn't already full with a J 9). This is especially true if you hit the queen for the straight.
I'm not saying the semi-bluff was wrong; it is just not as good as one when the board is more favorable. BTW, I would check and call most opponents on the river if I got there.
Regards,
Rick
I don't like leading on the turn when I have 4 opponents into a board that has three flop cards in the playing zone. These guys will frequently slow play trips in this situation on the flop. In addition, we are dealing with a small, unraised pot and I don't want to pay two big bets to see the river. Other factors are that I could be drawing dead or could catch a card at the river that gives me a straight or flush only to lose to a full house. If I check and it gets bet and raised back to me, I would fold.
I'd check and call; if raised call the raise unless you suspect the raiser has filled. I do not expect limper with an Ad. Pay him off if you loose, but I think if you fold here you will be pushed around all night. My guess is he has 2 pr. You have more outs than he does.
(maybe that is why I am loosing in 5-10 HE lately)
I was in this similar position a couple of times last night. Lost one to a bigger flush the other got me the pot with on the turn.
My thinking is if you catch the flush you want them to pay you off and you are stuck here so bet your 4 flush for value and you never know what might happen.
My guess is the solid player is on the J's or has the Ad.
Why do you think the guy has Ad?
So now what happens when a blank hits on the river? I presume you have called the raise to see the river, so do you now bet out because you can't win a showdown, hoping he will fold his Ad? If you get raised again, you will of course fold, but the semi-bluff on the turn into this type of board with several callers behind you puts you in the awkward position of maybe having to put in 3 big bets and you aren't sure where you are on the hand. Because of the nature of the board and number of players, I would have probably check-called the turn bet and mucked if I missed at the end. IMO just a little much to overcome by being overly aggressive in this situation. Better oppportunities will come along.
I like the semi-bluff though I agree with Rick that there are safer flops that would be even better for it. I believe that the scary looking flop will help make the bluff work if there are no J's out, and you still can draw out if there are. The chance that the trips fills is a concern but there are lots of safe cards and you play it cautiously on the river.
I would certainly call the raise and see the river.
D.
I'm gonna open myself up for some criticism here, but I'm surprised no one has mentioned betting out on the flop with the gutshot. Against a weak/tight lineup, there's a good enough chance of winning right there. It's 1 small bet and you gain LOTS of information if you are called. In addition, you may get the lone Ad and a 9 to fold. A tight player may decide that because the pot is relatively small, his 9 is not worth fighting for with that board. BTW- If I'm called, I check the turn. If the first early player bets I would call depending on the odds. In his example I don't think 5.5:1 is enough for a non-nut flush draw that may very well be a dead draw.
If the turn is checked to a late position player who bets, it's a lot harder of a call since the first player may still have been going for a check/raise.
I think the board is far too dangerous to be betting into 4 players with a big open pair plus a companion card. A tight game means that this flop helped some of the limpers and you will not win the pot outright by betting. You might even get raised and if not that does not deny a good hand for one of your many opponents. The "information" you are getting is not worth the cost.
My Nightmare Line-up together at one table, from The 2+2 Forum in Alphabetical Order:
(1)Badger (2)Jim Brier (3)Izmet Fekali (4)Double K(cold calling a capped pot w/3-4 suited qualifies Double K as the ever present calling station whose quite capable of ruining my day--Big Time! (5)Louie Landale (6)Mason Malmuth (7)Dunc Mills (8)Rick Nebiolo (9)skp (X)David Sklansky
I might as well tattoo a Bull's-Eye on my forehead against this bunch.
"My Nightmare Line-up"
I'll take your seat! Wow! Can you imagine being at that table. Mason can't because he has trouble being in the same room at the same time as Sklansky. Just imagine how may pairs of sun glasses you could sell.
Vince.
BTW - Why did you put X in front of Sklansky's name? Is he getting a divorce?
The reason for the roman numeral X is because I originally lined up the names from top to bottom on the left side of the screen. But when I pushed the "post message" button, it rearranged everything into the way you see it now. Anyway, when I put the number(10) in the brackets, it looked a little unsymmetrical with all the other brackets having only one figure in them, and I was too lazy to go back and put two figures in each bracket, like (01).
I guess I needed to double space each name, like I'm going to try now just to see if will work.
(1)........
(2)........
(3)........
I'm not a calling station. Just a momentary lapse of reason. Never happened to you? Poker is, after all, a form of gambling, a pastime wherein clear headed judgment is sometime burned at the stake. I usually play a solid game. Go ahead, ask me a question.
Ask you a question? OK, which end is up??
Carl, just come back from a losing session? Don't be bitter, you're too much of a professional for those kinds of emotions to creep in.
Which end is up? Yo momma!
Hey, at least you made the line-up!
.
Hey Rick,
Don't forget to call out in an obnoxious and "dorky" manner for CHIPS, CHIPS. That ought to get the table movin'
i play mostly for sport so i would love to play this table (if i had the bankroll). and, while i understand you not fearing someone who has never played in a casino, i would like to have been mentioned. actually, you left all 3 superstars out. what were you thinking? we are each a force to be reckoned with.
scott
This is one table I love to sit at and play my low varience NL HE game cuz I know if there is going to be callers shooting at me. Not a nightmare but an opportunity. Guaranteed to generate the biggest pots in the history of hold'em.
I agree with your table being very formatable except who is paying all the air fares.
Also beware ow the enema guy he may take all your chips the hard way.
:-)
not just the last one you read in the thread.
scott
X
why did you post it to me and not to martin's original post? it is not a response to my post. you even wrote 'your table' referring quite clearly to martin's table. you were in the right thread, but not in the right spot.
scott
X
scott,
I decided to narrow it down to just ten people. I did concider you, but because you don't have a last name(for the alphabetical listing), and because there is at least one other Scott with no last name who posts here too, I thought it would just be easier to dump you from the line-up, and go with Double K.(besides, it was Double K's post that inspired me to think of the list) Maybe you should consider using a single name that could never be confused with another, like Scooby Doo or Rounder.(just kidding, I know you always use a lower case "s" to thin yourself from the herd of other Scott's)
Martin D,
I just call him "small caps scott". Like ray zee, he can't find the shift key.
Regards,
Rick
yEaH.... juSt LikE rAy zeE.
scOTt
for future reference, my last name is safranek. i don't write it because i don't want to be referred to as mr safranek. ever. remember i am 18. how many 18 year olds are called by their last names.
at least i was considered. it's like being nominated. which is all that really counts, right? i suppose that i still have time to win. i have not yet passed my prime like some of those guys. there's always next year. the academy does not respect young talent. but i'll show them! i'll show them! uh, i mean, those guys deserved to win. they did a good job. i wish them the best.
exactly. i stand out as scott amongst the Scotts.
scott
I am thrilled and honored that it was my post that inspired the list. I'm sorry Scott had to be dumped from the line-up, but I am willing to sell my seat - I need to get in a game real bad - seems I busted out soon after I called my 3, 4 suited in a capped pot. Cash or money order, no checks (unless by checks you mean chips).
Now that you know your players, play accordingly. You should be smirking deep inside 'cuz now you can play the opposite of how they play. This table will be a goldmine for you, buddy.
Believe me, they will just FOLD, FOLD, FOLD to you when you start to RAISE, RAISE, RAISE.
Lurker,
Whoever you are, I think it is obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. While I can't speak for everyone on that list, I know some of them, and I am confident that they know exactly what to do to a player who tries to run them over. They've dealt with it successfully a thousand times before.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Can you guys not take a joke when you see one? Geewhiz, do you think I will donate my money to the superstars in Poker? C'mon, man, I was just having fun!!
Professionals never joke around. I'm serious.
Okay, I'll be serious then. My first time to post and this is my welcome from the professionals. Thanks, Karim.
i don't know about K. it may be that the gatekeeper is decieved. welcome to the Law.
we all like jokes here. but, wait, i just had an revalation. you call yourself lurker, when you are, in fact, a poster! i'll not tolerate such scandalous lies!!
scott
You mean I am now welcome? And jokes once in a while are accepted? Okay, scott, I'm coming in.
Was just trying to comfort myself from my losses yesterday after playing with some professionals, that's all. Oh, by the way, I like the Simpsons too!
We've all heard this before.
E-mail does not convey expression or tone. Don't forget the LOL (laugh out loud) or the smiley face 8-) or the wink p-)
As for this line-up, I can only quote from the Cowardly Lion - "let me at 'em; let me at 'em" (Does he ever say that?) 8-)
Regards Mike N
PS Lurker/Poster - I would have emailed you but you have no address.
this is silly. you most certainly can portray tone in writing. it comes from the words you choose to use and the order you put them in. the smiley faces et al are superfluous at best. i often find them annoying. use them if you want, but don't lure others down this path to hell.
scott
Once I get the feel I am really welcome, I will put my e-mail address. Right now, I still feel jittery...:):)
your welcome here and we are all glad to have a newby to blast. you also have the distinction of having the most reposts in one thread. you passed vince, Rick, and that weird Paul Feeney character.
hi ray,
sorry, i did not mean anything when i posted my response. i was just making a joke and i would not in my right mind love to play all of you supergiants at once. pleas accept my apology and this goes to all the other superstars including vince, john feeney and scott of course who made me feel welcome.
still, come to think of it, maybe when you superpowers might decide to have an open house for all the posters, you might find me lurking around and i might have the one chance in my lifetime to play with you guys. that would be a blast!!
Hold on, I'm no professional. Didn't mean to imply that. But I know they are very, very serious.
Karim,
You are not a professional then? Okay, I would love to play with you.
Just say when and where.
Hi Karim,
I'm persuading ray zee to hold an open house for all participants of this forum. If he agrees, I will p;ay you then. If not, it will be after the holidays either at LV or Cali but definitely, we will play.
not even when you watch the simpsons? i am aghast.
scott
Sorry, I couldn't tell it was humorous. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
What can I say, Fossil Man. I did not know then how to post the smiley :) :) :). Now, I know.
"Geewhiz, do you think I will donate my money to the superstars in Poker?"
while avoiding tables containing superstars is a good idea, this table did not contain any superstars. i just thought i'd clear that up.
scott
It bothers me too not to see you in the limelight. You are one of my idols. But there's always another top superstar list to go after the first one and we can always rearrange it to go on top if you want. :) :)
most on the list are indeed superstars. they are amoung the last people you want to play with on a regular basis. dont be fooled by big names in the magazines unless you really have played with everyone.
oh, i know. i was using superstar in the forum sense (i.e. john, vince and i). i did not have any actual point.
scott
ok, also if you continue to devote this much time to learning the game i suspect in a few years you will be one of the better players around in whatever limits you seek.
hi ray,
now that i've caught your attention, maybe you'd like to know there are a lot of lurkers including me who would love the chance to play with you supergiants, just maybe to see how it is. how about an open house for everyone, like a convention or something....maybe in an area like Cali. it will give a chance for everyone to know each other, whose face belongs to a poster..maybe bring a camaraderie of sort... a chance to see scott, the boy poker genius.... a chance to see all of you and if Lady Gambler or Brenda Wyatt are reading this post, a chance also to see and say hello to both of them....i think Mason and David would not mind if you don't..
dear god! idol? boy genius? what could i possibly have done? have i saved your life? who are you?
scott
scott,
i have read all your responses to the posts in this forum. believe me, for an inexperienced in real poker play 18 year old who is able to match his wits and knowledge to seasoned players and score is someone to admire. you will be the best once you start to play. well, maybe i was a little bit too extravagant in my comments, but what the heck, they forgot to mention you in the superstar list and i did not want you to be disappointed. okay, i will just call you the superboy poker genius.
I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!
I'm taking my first peek at the Forum this morning at coffee break, so I see that Vince and Rounder and scott have already posted responses. Those will be interesting reading at lunch! For a humble little 3-6 player lke me to be mentioned in the same breath as icons such as Mason, David Jim, Badger et al is a shock. That would indeed be a great game. I would no doubt be the #10 seed with that crew, but what an educational opportunity. I can see it all now: Live on the Deuce! From the pit at Bellagio, the Forum Freeze-Out. Comp limos and suites. Start the day with golf at Mr. Wynn's little $36 million course out in the desert. Bimbettes hanging on the rail. It all comes down to me and Mason and I put him all in with 87 suited, catch 8-8-7, crack his AA, and the hand is forevermore known as the "Mills".
Whoops, coffee's over, back to work!
In a single table NL HE satellite - but that ain't gonna happen - I am still trying to figure out the ODDS for an all in bet say $3000 with AK on the button no callers and the sb and bb yet to act with the blinds $400/$800.
No seriously, this is a great line up I wonder how one would classify these guys if they didn't know the SS he was up against.
If oponent flush me cards before folding. How can i adjust my strategy to use this information?
say wha???
I was not at the table when this scenario unfolded, but all who relayed the story to me were in agreement as to the facts.
At the showdown in 3-6HE game, two players were left in the hand. Player A tables his hand, and announces, " I have a straight" (which he did have). Player B also tabled his hand face up, but said nothing, and the dealer pushed the pot to Player A. Cards were mucked, and dealer shuffled up. He had completed the shuffle, and was ready to start dealing out the next hand, when another player at the table,we'll call him Player C, says, "Hey, Player B, you had a flush on that hand, didn't you?" Player B comes to life, and says, "You're right, I did!"
Although the cards were long gone by this time, the dealer accepted Player C's version, and made Player A give the pot, about $60 I was told although the amount is irrelevant, to Player B.
Now I have been at the table many times when a dealer mistakenly pushes the pot the wrong way, or inadvertently mucks the wrong hand, and several players at the table jump right in and point out the mistake immediately, and all is resolved satisfactorily. However, I find this ruling horrendous. How can the house accept one player's version that long after the fact? Are they not leaving themselves wide open for collusion? If I had been Player A, there would be no way I would give up the pot.
What IS the right ruling?
P.S. For future reference,as this situation involved a HE hand, I posted in the HE section. Should this type of discussion be in the General Theory section?
The floorman should have been called to render a decision. Once the pot is pushed to Player A it is improper for the dealer to instruct the player to give it to another player. When you say Player A "tables his hand" I assume this means he turned his cards face up for the dealer and everyone else to see and Player B turned his cards face up as well. I am surprised Player B did not speak up when the pot was being pushed to Player A. Did Player B not know that a flush beats a straight? Your observation is correct and if I were Player A, I would have called the floor.
I think problems dealing with rulings and procedures would be better placed under the General Theory Section.
Yes, Jim, both players put their cards face up and I have to assume that Player B did not realize he had made the flush. I'm sure you were merely being facetious about him not knowing the rankings. The dealer must have been in a rush, and didn't take the time to read the hands properly.
I was involved in a similar situation but a lot more money was at stake. The floorman was called and the money was given to the guy who'd originally not won the pot. I was not sure if this was the correct ruling and many other players at the table seemed to be unsure and were very vocal about it. I'd be interested to see if others have seen this happen and if the rulings were similar to ours or different
One danger in giving the pot to player B based upon player C's claim is if Players B +C were confederates, unknown (obviously) to the table. If I was player A I would demand that others at the table witnessed the flush (assuming I had not) before giving up the pot. Even then I would do it grudgingly, and only when instructed by the floor man to do so.
If no one else saw tha flush, and the floor comes and tells me to give up the pot, I would argue that the two could be cheating, since no one else saw the "flush" and resist fiercely :)>
Todd
The typical rule (I believe) is that once the dealer riffles the cards, the next hand has officially begun. Once the next hand begins, it is too late to bring up a dispute about the previous hand.
If the floorman instructed at this point to give up the money, I would stand up, put all my chips in my bag, and leave. I would make them call the cops before I would give up that money.
The reason for this is that *I* didn't see the flush. Therefore, I am not going to give someone else the money on their word, or even someone else's word. If I had seen his flush, I would have given him the pot then. Since it's too late, I wouldn't give up the money.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Yea it was a real bad situation, and the guy who had the chips taken from him was not sober and that made it even more interesting. About three players backed up the claim that the guy infact had a straight (in my case it was a straight beating a pair). So that's how the situation was handled. One guy suggested that they check the cameras but apparently you cant see the card closeley enough with a camera.
In most cardrooms that I have played in from the East Coast to West Coast, one of the top ten rules that is usually posted in the cardrooms states "It is the players resposibility to protect his/her hand and read their hand correctly". So technically, I believe that Player A could have kept the pot that was pushed to him due to the combination of his negligance and the dealers mistake of not correctly reading the hands at the showdown. I have been involved in a couple of these situations over the past twenty years. If the pot was incorrectly pushed to me due to the same reason you posted, I have given the pot to the other player only if I clearly saw his cards face up and I knew I was beat. I would not have given the pot to Player B as the dealer told him to do. Could it be Player A knew he had a loser by reading Player B's face up hole cards at the showdown? I think this is the most likely scenerio as you did not indicate any protest from Player A.
As I was not at the table, and do not know the identities of the players involved, I cannot comment or verify whether Player A had seen the flush, and tried to keep the pot knowing he had been 2nd best, or if in fact he too had missed noticing the flush. I would consider it very unethical of him to keep the pot knowing he was beat, but I would not have released the money based solely on the late claim by one person.
Similar thing happened to me. Board had 2 6's and a 5 I had pocket 5's - "Winner" called trip 6's I said I just have a set of 5's DUH.
Pot was pushed - must have been $70-$80 - dealer pushed pot and during the dealing of the next hand I said wait I had a full house. Everyone realized it and agreed even the winner who offered to give me back the money. Floor was called - I said - I missed it and told the guy to keep the money and told the floor I was just plain stupid to miss it.
Everyone at the table complemented me on being a good loser (winner) and the floor gave me some comps for not making a scene I just felt stupid and punished myself for it by winning a lot of money from that table.
I have said if I'm not fully focused on the game I just can't win this was a mental lapse that proves that point.
I saw a player do a similar thing with a different result. When he realized he had a full house, the floor was called. Several players backed him up. The floor asked the player who was pushed the pot if he was willing to pay the player. When he said no, the floor paid the player with the full house. The money (about $60) was deducted from the DEALER's pay for pushing the pot to the wrong player.
Yeah I could have made a stink but I just don;t do those things - I took responsibility for my actions and it didn't really mean much to me. I just wanted to get on the the next hand.
Some of you have indicated that they don't feel this 98 issue is worth the time. If you are one of them you should click off right here. I like discussing this issue. I really like the nit picking that John, Mark and mr estimate, Andrew get into. Not to mention "Schoolboy" Scott. I believe that understanding the thought process that these "nit pickers" (of course nit pickers are someone elses words) go through is fundamental to understanding poker theory. They merely and simply ask why? You got a problem with that?
Situation1. You know everyone's cards.
7 limpers.
UTG: 4s,4h
4 seat: Kh,Jd
5 seat: Qc,Th
6 Seat: 5c6c
Button: Ad,7d
SB(you): 9s,8c
BB: 2c,3h
Board: Ah,8s,2c
Question 1: Do you bet?
Situation2. You know everyone's cards.
7 limpers.
UTG: 4s,4h
4 seat: Kh,Jd
5 seat: Qc,Th
6 Seat: 5c6c
Button: 7d,6d
SB(you): 9s,8c
BB: 2c,3h
Board: Ah,8s,2c
Question 2: Do you bet?
Question 3: If the answer to question 1 is no and question 2 is yes, is it because you are 100% sure you are behind in 1 (3a) and 100% sure you are ahead in 2 (3b)?
Question 4: If 3a and 3b are both yes is there a point somewhere less than 100% sure that would change your answers to 1 and 2. For instance suppose the hands are face down and you are %80 sure you are beat? Ahead?
Vince.
Vince,
Certainly from your own words you can see this belongs on the theory forum. If you're going to post it here, could you at least make it funny?
ok. here you go, vince.
question #1.
some thoughts.
i assume that the button with the weak A will bet if you check and call if you bet. the first thing to look at is who else will call his bet and who else will call your bet. if seat 5 would call the buttons bet and would not call your bet, then you gain some significant chance of winning. that us what you gain by betting. seat 5 folding. you lose seat 5's contribution if you improve and his straight misses. seat 6 will call either way and will beat you if his backdoor flush comes. note you are 'immune' to his straight since a 7 sinks you without a 8 anyway (and 7 8 would not make the straight). i lose the same when the A's redraw me if i check/call and if i bet. so if i bet. i don't gain much. i don't lose much. if the A will raise me it's not worth it. my 2 pair gives seat 5 a gut shot.
my conclusion.
check call. seat 5 can only hurt you if he gutshots over your 2 pair. he will not have correct odds to make that call (because the pot's not, in fact, big). give him a chance to make the misktake on the turn. check. (actually i check raise and bet the turn, because the A will often fold. but that has no place in this discussion.)
question #2
i very much bet. get the overcards out. win the pot now.
question #3
that is part of it. the overcards hurt you much more in the second situation. the real reason is that i want the overcards in 2 to make a mistake by folding. in 1, they are not getting correct odds to call. more importantly they improving does not hurt me except for the gutshot i mentioned. i want them incorrectly trying to hit the gutshot.
question #4
since this pot is not actaully big i would want about a 20% chance of leading to bet. this is because seat #5's possible future action is not negligble relative to the pot. in big pots (say button raised) i would only need about a 5% chance of leading.
scott
When I see 89 I see "Dollar Signs" that represent all the money these rags are going to cost me if I play them. If I do play them for 1 sb and don't flop direct to them I am in the muck - waiting for a real hand. Even suited the thought of going to war with a 9 high flush is not making me happy.
Why this obsession with 2 middle cards anyway.
well, in the example hands you only paid .5 sb to see the flop. the reason you don't muck them on the flop is that the pot (with impied odds) is large enough to support a 5 out draw against the A. but there is not that much overlay, so i suppose that you would fold. ok.
scott
my answer for #4 is incomplete. there are straight draws that can pick up openenders when you catch 2 pair. you want them out onthe flop even when you are behind. that makes betting more correct. i would only need about a 15% chance of leading to bet.
scott
Answers to all the questions
Call the Floor.
Someone slipped an extra deuce of clubs into the deck.
In the 21st Century Edition of HPFAP the authors put forward the situation of betting into a hand where you know you are beat to give yourself the best chance of winning. (Mark Glover with much animosity referred to this theory in a thread last week.) The example given is T9s in early position. The authors state that at this time (betting the flop) the pot is pretty big. My questions are: 1) How big is big. 6 players for 2 bets? 5 players for 3 bets? 4 players capped?
2) How many bets should one call in early position with T9s?
3) The authors in the forward to this chapter mention low-limit no-foldem holdem. IME these players aren't folding their KJo even with a bet and an ace on the flop. It would seem wrong for them to do it especially if the pot is big and they're just a q and T away from a nut straight.
I would very much like some clarity from the authors on this question because I've been following Lee Jones advice and in early position he doesn't advise playing T9s when you think the pot will be raised preflop.
Thank you for your coments
"in early position he doesn't advise playing T9s when you think the pot will be raised preflop. "
If this is Lee Jones's advice then you are much better served by asking the question on this forum than by following his advice. If I'm not mistaken Lee Jones wrote a book on low limit holdem. In my experience Low Limit holdem is very loose holdem. I don't like the term no-foldem. Even if you know the pot will be raised preflop playing T9s from early position can be profitible in a loose game. Suppose you are UTG, you have Ts,9s, the players between you and the button are very passive calling stations. The button is a maniac, almost sure he will raise when on the button wiht anything. Would you throw T9s away knowing that there were going to be 7 callers after you just because in all likelihood a maniac will raise. That is not good poker playing. Jones's advice is better suited for a fairly tight game where starting hand strength now turns to big cards.
As for your questions. Sklansky and Malmuth may be the best to answer those.
Also you wrote:
"Mark Glover with much animosity referred to this theory in a thread last week."
Regardless of what Mark intended or how he presented his point he along with Gary Carson and others did you and all of us that read this forum a great service. He pointed to an area that other have challenged before. An area that others have just accepted the advice of experts without challenging that advice. Much discussion has been directed toward this seemingly simple but apparently complex question. I for one have not seen a definitive convincing answer by either side. I tend to lean towards the side that will bet in these situations. I believe I play better that way. Does that give me the best chance to win money? I believe it does? Could I win more by checking? I don't believe I could. Am I sure I am correct? No.
Vince.
"I for one have not seen a definitive convincing answer by either side."
dear god, man! what do you want? i thought i had given you three definitive convincing answers.
scott
Almost everyone would fold KJ facing a bet into A76. Glover correctly points out that its no big deal since there may be no KJ out there. However there WILL be some king and some queen and some jack in a very loose game. Even more importantly is that there may be a KT or QT or JT or K9 or Q9 or J9 which are hands you are deperate to mke fold.
I think it's important to know that when you refer to loose games are you referring to loose/aggressive low limit or loose/passive low limit, or the same for the higher limits?
Thank you for your response.
JoeG
it's the ones that pick up straight draws when you catch 2 pair that hurt you even if your chasing an A.
scott
Joe and Scott don't appear willing to question David's assertion, but I will.
David alleged: "Almost everyone would fold KJ facing a bet into A76."
Perhaps this is true in a typical higher-limit Bellagio game where several generally solid players happened to get involved in a hand.
If you drop down to the lower-limit games and expand your geographic horizons, I think you'll learn that in most loose games, you will have no trouble finding opponents who would call KJ facing a bet into A76. Not only do they have two face cards against a single overcard, but they have a backdoor straight draw. A good number of these live ones also would call a single flop bet with almost any two cards, especially when the pot is "pretty big."
"It is not uncommon, even at the higher limits, to find many players who not only play too many hands, but go too far with their hands. These games, *usually* at the lower limits, are referred to as 'no-fold 'em hold 'em.'" (HPFAP-1999, p. 152.)
David also wrote: "Even more importantly is that there may be a KT or QT or JT or K9 or Q9 or J9 which are hands you are deperate to mke fold."
Notice that all these hands only face a single overcard as well. The KT, QT, and JT also offer backdoor straight draws. And it has been my experience that opponents who are likely to play K9 and Q9 (and, to a lesser extent, J9, KT, and QT) are more likely to "go too far with their hands."
Sophisticated moves like "buying extra effective outs" might work well in the Bellagio $30-60 game, but in "no-fold'em hold'em" games you have to beware of "fancy play syndrome."
"Needless to say, for the skilled player these [no-fold'em hold'em] games are very profitable. But they do require significant adjustments and many otherwise winning players do not do a good job in this area." (HPFAP-1999, p. 152.)
Sorry, Joe. You did question David's assertion.
Thanks Mark for the credit but, no one seems to want to answer the simple question of how many bets should one put in in Early poosition with T9s?
Easy question, right?
If it's an easy answer like 1, how did the pot get big?
Please read above thread, Thank You.
With T9s, many of your wins will come from hitting your straights and flushes rather than having a pair hold up. Thus, you want to have good pot odds to make it worth going for these longer shots. T9s, therefore, is a hand that you usually prefer to play in pots that involve lots of opponents.
If you are in a generally tight game, you probably don't want to even call one bet with T9s in early position.
If you are in a game where lots of people will see the flop for a single bet but usually fold to a pre-flop raise, then you might not want to call even one bet and (though there are exceptions) fold to a raise on your right. If there is no raise on your right, then you need to consider how likely a raise will come from your left--especially from your near left. The more likely that raise is (and the closer to your left it is likely to be), the more you should be inclined to fold rather than call even a single bet. (Having one or two callers on your right, however, helps mitigate the effects of a possible raise.)
If you are in a game where lots of people will see the flop even when there are one or more pre-flop raises, then you generally should lean towards calling with T9s in early position, even if there was a raise on your right. Some of the factors to consider include how many people probably will see the flop with you, how well your opponents play after the flop (you want chasers), and who exactly is doing the raising.
Hope this helps, at least a little.
here are some thoughts on how i play it. if it is raised to you, and you do not have reason to expect 6 or more opp, fold. if a maniac is utg and the whole table always calls, then you can even cold call. if it is called to you, you should call as well. if it is raised once behind you, call the raise. if it is raised twice and there are several people in call both raises. if it is raised twice and you will see the flop 3-handed, it is marginal but i would still call. T9s is a good hand. you would rather it not be raised, but still play it.
scott
In the 'Loose Games' example you hold the 9Ts in the BB. Given this, it's easy to see how you get tied on for 4 sb's before the flop; a bunch of callers, a raise, you call the raise, the guy utg three bets it with his AKs, the button caps it, etc. etc.
Opinions may vary, but I usually like around 5 or 6 callers (or players calling a raise) before I'll play it. In the BB (or SB) it's a different story, but I'll almost always call a raise with it no matter how many players are in the pot. If you're in early position, and the game is fairly aggressive, you're probably not losing any EV by just mucking it.
I would only come in early with T9 suited if I was fairly certain that the pot was not going to get raised. This would be my primary concern. Once I get passed this, then I would want at least 4 opponents. In a typical low limit game, less than $10-$20, it is frequently the case that there is very little pre-flop raising and a lot of players just limp in so I think coming in early in these kinds of games is okay with a suited connector like this. But if the line-up changes and pots start getting raised because of a maniac or just the presence of aggressive players, I would start folding them in early position.
The example given is T9s in early position with a flop of A-7-6 rainbow. You should bet "to get out the Kings and Jacks even if you knew that someone had a 6 or 7".
We are talking about loose games... why aren't we worried about Ax? That isn't even mentioned. Ace little will probably just call, like the 6 or 7, and if your 9 or ten falls you still aren't sure where you are at. What am I missing?
This point I understand. The parameters are that the pot has become big, although I'm still not sure Greg, Jim or John would recommend calling three bets in early position with this holding. But let's say the tooth fairy put all the money in the pot, the authors are saying to give yourself the "best chance" of winning you have to eliminate as many hands as possible. If someone has caught an ace you just might be screwed. The authors are not saying it's a great hand just a playable one, if played right.
If the pot got big, there must have been some raising. If there was some raising, especially from early positions, then shouldn't you fear the ace? Do you think David is really saying, "go ahead and bet (for information AND to drive out the jacks and kings,THEN if raised, dump?" I especially fear an ace in raised pots... am I wrong?
because the pot is big you have correct odds to try to hit your 5 out draw on the A. so you would call a bet. david is saying (and i agree) that if there is a chance that you are best (even as low as 5%) it hurts more to have the flop checked through the rare time you are leasing than it does have to pay an extra sb if/when the A raises the rest of the time.
scott
David responded to your third question (incorrectly, IMHO--see my reply).
A partial answer to your second question would be that you easily could call with T9s in the big blind (or even the small blind) if you face plenty of opponents. This would put you in a position where you might be first to act on the flop.
Your first question is an interesting one. I asked it as well. I also did not get a response.
"We know that this ['Playing in Loose Games'] advice in the appropriate game can be highly profitable." (HPFAP-1999, p. 152.)
If the authors neglect to explain the kinds of games for which their advice is appropriate, then that advice is less useful.
I doubt that a better description of the advice parameters will not be forthcoming from the authors. If they were to clarify their explanations and examples, they might have to acknowledge that their advice is more narrowly applicable than many people imagine.
I'm going to take a moment and quickly explain something very important to everyone. I believe that David will discuss this in more detail at a later date.
There are games where people play so incredibly terribly that many of the ideas that we discuss don't apply very well. These are games where there could be a bet and a raise on a flop like A94 and some one with KJ will call cold. But where do these games exist? They appear at the very lowest limits where many novice players are sitting, usually at a cardroom that is either fairly new or one that is located in an area with a large population base.
When we write about how to win at poker/gambling, and this goes for all Two Plus Two books, we are attempting to show you the way to make decent money. This is true whether it is hold 'em, stud, Omaha eight-or-better, blackjack, or sports betting. And, if you are playing poker and want to make decent money, you will have to play in games where the limits are somewhat higher and the people play with some degree of sanity. Many of them will still play poorly a good number still play way too many hands, but they do have some poker skills.
This means many things. For example, we agree that if you are in one of these very loose games where they play so incredibly awful, you give up too much value by not raising in a late position with a hand like AQo. (See HPFAP-21.) But if you are interested in making a decent wage, then you have to be in a game where the limit is (at least) a little higher and a different set of concepts begins to take over. If you read the Introduction of HPFAP-21 you will see:
"Keep in mind that the following strategies are designed for medium limit games, that is $10-$20 hold 'em up to (and including) $40-$80 hold 'em. In smaller games, or games that feature people who play too many hands and go too far with their hands, many of the sophisticated plays used to manipulate standard opponents into making errors do not work. This is because many of these players are not aware enough to be tricked."
Now I'm aware that many of you who have come to this forum are new to poker and are playing in these very small games. There is nothing wrong with this. We all need to start somewhere, and we all need to "pay our dues." (I started by playing $1-$2 draw poker in Gardena, CA many years ago.) But as soon as you can, I recommend that you begin to play a little higher where you can begin to make some real money assuming you have mastered some of the concepts that we talk about.
For Mark Glover: I suspect that this is where part of your problem is. It might be time for you to move out of those $1-$2 and $2-$4 games. In Las Vegas there are $6-$12 games and $8-$16 games where it is possible, assuming you have done your homework, to make some real money. I suspect that wherever you live there are similar size games. You won't get rich, but you will begin to find poker more rewarding than you obviously currently do.
It's true as I read and read and read some more, I absorb things like positional raises,pot odds, implied odds and the like. Perhaps playing $5-$10 in Atlantic City with lots of tourists I would be better off playing premium hands in every position and capiatlize on those times I'm fortunate to get callers.
But when sitting at the table holding 67s on the button and the whold family is in for 2 bets, I know I should see the flop. However, the other people at the table don't know that they should muck their 48s of my suit when I reraisewith a straight flush draw and wreck their pot odds.
Yes, I know if I play long enough the odds will eventually even out, but to tell you the truth I'm not playing to "even out". If that was my goal I'd stay home.
All of the advice is, when you are consistently beating the $5-$10 game then move up to $8-$16 or $10-$20. But, as you said above, you can't beat the crazies with skill, and since they are not a test for your skill, $10-$20 can be a very expensive place to find the wholes in the game you couldn't play at $5-$10.
I know the syntax isn't great but I'm not a professional writereither and I too am not trying to get an "A" from my English professor. ô¿ô
Post deleted at author's request.
Mason wrote: "There are games where people play so incredibly terribly that many of the ideas that we discuss don't apply very well. These are games where there could be a bet and a raise on a flop like A94 and some one with KJ will call cold. But where do these games exist? They appear at the very lowest limits where many novice players are sitting, usually at a cardroom that is either fairly new or one that is located in an area with a large population base."
First, Mason either should travel more often or observe his opponents better. In 10-20, 15-30, and 20-40 games throughout the United States and Canada, I often see the kind of loose player that Mason describes above. I suspect they also show up (at least occasionally) in higher-limit games, but I rarely play those games. I have it on good authority, however, that these "live ones" also are frequently found in higher-limit home games.
Second, HPFAP-1999 (p. 168) describes a hand where the flop comes Ad7c6h and the pot is "pretty big." The authors suggest betting out on the flop with Ts9s partly because "it is important to get hands like KhJd out." The authors have declined to specify how the pot got "pretty big," but we now can speculate that it wasn't because an early position raiser got several cold callers.
Mason wrote: "But if you are interested in making a decent wage, then you have to be in a game where the limit is (at least) a little higher and a different set of concepts begins to take over."
Many of this forum's readers (and many HPFAP readers) play poker for reasons other than making a decent wage. Is it not worth discussing how the HPFAP advice does or does not apply to the kinds of games they typically play?
Mason quoted HPFAP-1999 (pp. 1-2): "Keep in mind that the following strategies are designed for medium limit games, that is $10-$20 hold 'em up to (and including) $40-$80 hold 'em. In smaller games, or games that feature people who play too many hands and go too far with their hands, many of the sophisticated plays used to manipulate standard opponents into making errors do not work. This is because many of these players are not aware enough to be tricked."
However, the introduction to the "Playing in Loose Games" section of HPFAP-1999 (p. 152) states:
"It is not uncommon, even at the higher limits, to find many players who not only play too many hands, but go too far with their hands. These games, *usually* at the lower limits, are referred to as 'no-fold 'em hold 'em.'
"Needless to say, for the skilled player these games are very profitable. But they do require significant adjustments and many otherwise winning players do not do a good job in this area. In addition, we have yet to see any advice that is totally accurate on how to play in loose games, even though much has been written.
"This being the case, we have added an expanded 'loose games' section to this twenty-first century edition of HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS."
I believe most reasonable people who read page 152 would conclude that the advice in the "Playing in Loose Games" section might apply to those loose games where many players "play too many hands and go too far with their hands." Unfortunately, if those people apply much of the advice found in this section to "no-fold'em hold'em" games, they will be much the poorer for it. On the other hand, if the book warned that the "Playing in Loose Games" advice should not be applied to these kinds of loose games, Two Plus Two Publishing could be much the poorer for it.
Mason wrote: "For Mark Glover: I suspect this is where part of your problem is. It might be time for you to move out of those $1-$2 and $2-$4 games. In Las Vegas there are $6-$12 games and $8-$16 games where it is possible, assuming you have done your homework, to make some real money. I suspect that wherever you live there are similar size games. You won't get rich, but you will begin to find poker more rewarding than you obviously currently do."
In logic, we call the device that Mason employed "poisoning the well." Rather than use reasonable arguments to support your position or refute your opponent's position, you resort to attacking your opponent's character. You hope your readers will conclude that if your opponent is a bad person (or plays poker at very low limits), then his arguments also must be bad.
While many of Gary Carson's arguments are thought-provoking, many also are wrong. But when Mason begins attacking Gary's character instead of Gary's arguments, it is my respect for Mason rather than my respect for Gary that diminishes.
Suppose, for the moment, that I have never played any poker above the $2-$4 limits. Does this fact weaken the arguments I have presented on this forum? Should all $1-$2 and $2-$4 players be prohibited from posting their views here? There are many reasons why people enjoy playing poker, and making "some real money" is just one of them. Believe it or not, even excellent poker players can be found playing in lower limit games. Personally, I welcome their participation on this forum.
To set the record straight (and to point out another of Mason's errors ;-), I have never played any $1-$2 poker, but I did play $2-$4 for two hours with a friend whom I was visiting in Tucson. While in school, though, I did enjoy playing in a bi-weekly $0.10-$0.20 dealer's choice home game.
Normally, I play $10-$20 and $20-$40 games, but I also play about eight hours a month at the $3-$6 and $5-$10 levels. I have a couple friends whom I am teaching how to play poker, and I occasionally play with them to pick up any errors that I can see in their games.
Because I am teaching people how to play in loose games, I think it is a good idea for me to remain familiar with the way loose opponents play. I could stay in an ivory tower and theorize about the advice I should offer concerning these loose games. But I believe my suggestions stand a better chance of being accurate if I actually see them in practice. I figure that's the least I owe my students. Besides, I actually enjoy these kinds of games.
Mark,
I, for one, appreciate your input. I DO NOT share your view that the authors are scam artists, trying to sell faulty material to an unsuspecting public. By saying this you are attacking their character and people lose respect for you and therefore for your arguments.
You have brought some very valuable arguments to this forum and I hope you continue to do so. I just think if you wouldn't let our esteemed host's well documented ego tick you off, then you could concentrate more on poker and less on one upmanship.
SammyB,
I'm not sure how you concluded that I believe the authors are scam artists; I do not share such a view. However, I do believe HPFAP has errors.
Mark,
You wrote,
"On the other hand, if the book warned that the "Playing in Loose Games" advice should not be applied to these kinds of loose games, Two Plus Two Publishing could be much the poorer for it."
If I mis interpreted your meaning here, I apologize. I thought you meant that if appropriate warnings were put on the book fewer people would purchase them.
My take is that the authors, perhaps, don't realize the enormous amount of people who play at reasonable stakes with no knowledge whatsoever. Since I know David Sklansky has written one or two books on blackjack I'm sure he has seen people playing black chips and splitting 3's against a 10 and splitting 5's. there's plenty of money out there and no shortage of true gamblers. My point is the authors couldn't warn people against the inappropriateness of their advice for some situations because they are not aware the situations exist.
Apology accepted.
I offered one reason why the HPFAP authors might not want to explicitly state that their advice does not apply to "no-fold'em hold-em" games: it could limit their market. That makes them businessmen--not scam artists.
But the free market system works best when both producers and consumers are well informed. I believe this forum's readers will benefit from learning that HPFAP has errors.
Personally, I found HPFAP to be worth its price, despite its flaws. Others might not. In any case, I feel potential purchasers are entitled to make informed choices.
And actual purchasers should be cautious about applying some of the book's advice in many situations.
Annie Duke wrote the Hand of the Month column in the new Cardplayer. As opposed to most of the gibberish Hellmuth puts there, ya'll might actually learn something from it, instead of just being entertained.
OOPS! I just realized the column deals with a Hold'em TOURNAMENT; guess I posted this in the wrong spot.....
5-10 holdem in the BB with AA. I raise and get 4 callers. Flop is 8c4h2s, SB bets I call, and so does everyone else. Turn is 4d SB bets I raise all fold but one other, and SB calls. River 9c SB bets I raise last player folds and the SB re-raises. I call and lose to 9's over 4's.
Did I play this wrong? I probably should have just called/folded on the river. Or did I just get a bad beat?
Well the first thing you should have done is raise on the flop, while it probably wouldn't have gotten rid of the SB it makes no sense to call a bet on the flop then raise on the turn. On the rest of the hand these things happen. I doubt you would have gotten rid of the SB with pocket 9's because they are an overpair . However, depending on the strength of the player in the SB you might have been able to fold on the river after a reraise as most weak players would not do this without atleast a set if the board is paired but even that is questionable. Your only mistake as I see it is that you should have raised on the flop besides that nothing really interesting here, the guy caught a card on the end and beat you, this type of thing happens all the time.
Why just call the flop?
Rest of the hand is standard - I'd say missing the bet on the flop is not "good" play and AA getting snapped is par for the course - they only win 60% of the time heads up and less than 50% in a multi way pot.
Your pre-flop raise from your big blind with pocket rockets is good. The flop is rainbow and somewhat disjointed with no card higher than an Eight. When the small blind bets you should raise and force the other players to call two bets cold or fold. The small blind could be betting top pair or an over pair and you have that beat. On the turn, your raise of the bet by the small blind was correct since you probably have the best hand. On the river, your play was correct. I am assuming that the small blind had pocket Nines so his hand was not "9s over 4s" but rather it was "9s full of 4s".
I would just call a river bet here. What hand do you put the SB on (after they lead bet the river) that's worse than yours? Particularly in a low limit game? IMExperience, when a low limit player shows aggression AFTER you've put in the last bet/raise on the previous betting round, they are never lying. I would have guessed that the sb was slowplaying a set of 4's and made a crying call.
The small blind could have 98 suited or unsuited. This would give him two pair at the river which you can beat with your Aces over Fours. He could also have an over pair like Tens or Jacks. He is far more likely to have one of these hands then pocket Nines given the presence of a Nine on the board.
You should have raised on the flop to try to drive other opponents out.Better to win a smaller pot than to let them draw. Raise and get them out of there. Aces don't hold up often if it goes to the river in low limit (about 40%). Get the pot done, drag it down and better luck next time.
David put two holdem questions up and the first one was answered on the theory forum but the second one was put here. I didn't see the answer yet, did I miss something? It was about 9-8 suited. Thank you
We have been talking about the 98 thing for days now you want to start it up again.
"We have been talking about the 98 thing for days now you want to start it up again."
No, I could care less but I didn't see God's response to the second question anywhere so I thought I'd ask. Forgetaboutit.
I don't read all the threads--something called a life gets in the way.
i did not think the stringent ethical considerations allowed the pope much of a life. at least, he would not be allowed my life. geez, no sex, no drugs, minimal rock and roll. how do you stand it?
scott
you mean 'couldn't care less.' because if you could care less then you do care. which i surmise you don't. this is nowhere near as annoying when people say 'literally' when they mean 'figuritively'. when the basketball announcer says that 'he is literally on fire.' i put it on mute.
scott
scott,
I respect the hell out of you, I really do. But haven't you acquired quite a few pet peeves for someone only 18? You're going to be a crotchety old man when you reach 25.
SammyB ô¿ô
it's fun to get all worked up about something once in a while. i believe the underground man said it best:
"it was boring to sit with one's hands folded, so i began cutting capers. ... to take offence simply on purpose, for nothing; and one knows oneself, of course, that one is offended at nothing, that one is putting it on, but yet one brings oneself, at last, to the point of really being offended."
i derive great pleasure from reading brilliant language and, for my part, i try (admittedly i often fail) to write well myself. of all my 'pet peeves', my most legitimate has its origins in my respect for words and ideas.
as for your respect for me, i am uncertain how i have earned it but i thank you.
scott
You have earned it by giving informative, entertaining responses without offending (Rounder excepted). Perhaps you could address yourself to this:
A solid player raises UTG. 2 other solid players call the raise. You are sitting on the button with AKs. Do you even think of folding this hand?
How about AKo?
huh. 2 solid cold callers of a solid UTG raise. that is strange.
UTG could raise with some hand groups 1-4, some more likely than others. first cold caller can't count on a multiway pot so can't play things that want 4 or more opp. most other playable hands want it heads up, so he would reraise. he would reraise 9's or better, fold 8's or worse. he is hard pressed to call with JTs expecting to be heads up against the UTG raiser. he will reraise AK or AQ or KQ (though he would likely fold AQ or KQ offsuit). i'd guess his call was with KQs or AJs. the second cold caller can count on 3 opp (the bb will probabally take the 5.5-1 odds to see the flop) so he might call with any pair 9's to Q's. he might also call with very strong multiway hands like JTs, or any big suited (KQs AKs AQs) but he would often raise AKs. he might call with AKo to see the flop 'cheaply' but i think that would be mistake and this guy's solid. so no AKo. to recap, UTG has a good hand. 1st cold caller has KQs or AJs. 2cnd cold caller has JTs or KQs or AQs. do you think you should fold? i don't. but i don't think you should call either. raise. everyone has each other's cards except for the bb. get him out. also, maybe the UTG was playing KJs or ATS or something and he'll fold too. on the flop be aggressive at rags or an A or a K unless these players are known to just call with AA or KK. even then start the flop aggressive, but let the turn check through. free cards won't hurt you and their check raise on the turn will be foiled. same for AKo, only raising would be better than calling by a larger margin because an extra chaser hurts you more. if it is capped preflop after you raise proceed with caution.
scott
if the UTG raiser was tighter than optimum (i.e. AA KK QQ JJ AK) and the 2 solid cold callers knew it, i would marginally call AKs and fold AKo.
scott
maybe not. i might marginally call AKo as well. say you hit an A. you got every hand beat except the case 2 A's. this will not usually happen. and the chances at the big underpair or small big A's paying you off is high. if you hit a K, you might be drawing dead to case KK (unlikely) or AA (more likely, but still not that likely). but you will be ok most of the time. you are getting 4-1 odds and you are not that much of a dog.
also, i did not repeat in the original recap that the 2cnd cold caller could have an underpair to your AK.
scott
My analysis at the time was that at least one of the aces were out. I figure the UTG raise for a big ace suited, at least. That would leave for the cold callers (they did not raise) a hand they wanted to see the flop with for as little money as possible. So, I figured them for A big pocket pair, or AQs, AKS, KQS, QQ, JJ, TT. The cold callers could only have AA or KK if this was the hand they chose to smooth call these hands instead of raising them, for deception. Still a possibility.
As it happened I Raised, the BB called (very loose player), UTG reraised, First cold caller capped it, second cold caller folded. I called.
Flop was T,9,2 hearts. My AK was spades. BB bet out. UTG raised, First cold caller folded, I folded. Turn was QD, river, Jc.
BB won with Ax heart flush.
Unfortunately, I never did find out what the other three guys had.
My problem with a hand like this against strong players, (I went to look for an easier game after this hand) is even if I get a flop I like. I can't bet it with any degree of confidence. I could flop 2 top pair and be drawing dead to trips with all my cards out.
Thanks for your analysis.
i think you played it correctly. the 1st cold caller was assuming you would have capped it. so his limp reraise does not have to mean AA or KK. if you were to flop an A or a K, assume you're ahead until proven otherwise. if these players slowplay their sets then do not be afraid of flop action. (still remember AA could be against you if you catch a K). you 3-bet it. they don't know that you don't have AA or KK. try to make the other players fear what you might have, rather than fearing what they might have. have confidence (and appear to have confidence) even when you might lose. it's ok to lose some hands.
scott
small caps scott,
I'm trying to catch up a bit with the forum after a busy last few days. I enjoy your posts and have gotten used to small caps but is there any chance you could break up your thoughts (as in the post above) into something called paragraphs? I like a little white space or else I get claustraphobic.
Regards,
Rick
ok. it's just that i often think about poker somewhat akin to stream of consciousness. so paragraphs don't always create themselves. but, if it's hard to understand, i'll try to remember to better structure my thoughts.
scott
Popemeister,
since you are the living god maybe you can take a shot at it - BTW - I have no life outside my family who live 1500 miles away, movies and the green felt. How much do you think a life would cost me.
Ah fo-ge-abou-it
Very loose 3-6 HE, mostly passive except the 10 seat maniac is raising about 45-55% BTF and equally on all other rounds. Basically one maniac and 8 calling stations and one open seat for me (3 seat).
I am sb with 10s8s. many limpers, maniac puts in raise. Looks to be almost a family pot when it gets to me, so I call. 8 players see the flop.
flop is 4s 5s Qd. not perfect but not bad either. I think my hand will probably be good if I hit. However I am concerned about the bad position I will have throughout the hand, plus the fact that my flush is not the nuts if i get there. I throw caution to the wind bet out with my draw. As I fully expected, almost everyone called and the maniac raised. 7 callers for two bets each.
Turn card is the Ks, giving me the flush.. I decide to go for the risky play of check-raising the turn. I am almost 100% certain that maniac will bet again, especially since no one took the lead away from him by reraising the flop. I check, everyone checks to maniac who bets. Button calls, I check-raise. I think this was the best play because I forced several callers to call 2 big bets cold. My hand is fairly vulnerable, it might not even be good at the showdown. The pot is plenty big enough right now and I want people out so I can win it now. The lone big spade could easily kill me on the river, so I'm going to make it as expensive to try and draw out as possible. I know the As and Ks aren't going anywhere, but maybe I could get the Qs or Js to fold. 5 players see the river, despite my check-raise! I KNOW I am out on a limb now! But.. If I pull it off.. I will win a giant pot!
River is 3d, great card for me. Now I do not think I am beaten since I was not reraised on the turn and a blank hit on the river. I bet again and get called by maniac and BB. BB has a 6s7s and maniac has red KK! If the board had paired on the end I was finished! Button had folded AsKc on the river when his draw missed. I WAS out on a limb! I heard two other players discussing folding the Qs and Js! (It's amazing any spades came at all considering how many were out)
This is a situation where I got terrific value for my bets when my draw got there (and didn't get beat on the river). Comments / discussion welcome.
Dave in Cali
I play it almost identically, except that I don't call the pre-flop raise.
Dave,
The call of the raise with T8 in the worst position is marginal. Your play beyond that is OK - a check raise on the turn is bold but I guess the maniac would have raised your bet with 3Ks but you didn't know that at the time. You were a bit fortunate as it turned out there were alot of cards that could have hurt you on the river - guess when you go balls out without the nuts that will always be the case with a multi way pot.
I got 4 made non nut flushes snapped Thurs night. Two on the river - 4th of the suit and 2 were unraised BB hands where I flopped a flush draw and just got sucked in to pots I didn't want to be in but couldn't fold.
Guess the poker Gods are pissed at me for some reasom.
To AKs and Rounder,
Dave was getting about fifteen to one of so on his call and looking to see seven opponents. Even if it gets capped, it would be an OK call. I wouldn't call that maginal unless there were only about four limpers and the raise by the maniac.
Regards,
Rick
I have to agree with Rick here. One small nit to pick though. Dave wasn't getting 15:1 odds on his call. It's hard to get a good read on it, but it looks like he had 6 players in ahead of him. If they all called the raise along with the big blind, which I think is likely, he is going to be getting 43:5 odds in the small blind in a 3-6 game. This is pretty close to 9:1 odds, a bit worse in fact.
However, I still agree that the call is easy. This pot is going to tie a lot of people to it, and if you hit you'll score big. On the other hand if you had *known* that the maniac had KK, folding would probably be best. Likewise if a *tight* raiser had raised, then folding would be best also.
- Andrew
"On the other hand if you had *known* that the maniac had KK, folding would probably be best."
I am not sure about this. I mean even if it was the Rock of Gibraltar putting in the raise (rather than the maniac), I probably would still call. In fact, having the rock raise (instead of the maniac) may allow me to see the river card for a cheaper price. This is because the other players on the flop and turn will likely not get very aggressive against the rock because they too will know he holds a monster. Against the maniac, they may come out swinging with anything which might mean that I may have to pay through the nose if (as is usually the case) I only flop a flush or straight *draw* rather than a made flush or straight.
I'm sure you are right Rick. I just don't like the hand for a raise. I feel the same way about AQo, AJo and KJ (suited or not) depending on the strength and position of the player. But I'm sure his implied odds were there. Which brings up a question...
Just how many callers in front of you would you need to call a pre-flop raise with that hand. I'm assuming if the odds were right, you'd also call on the button. Would it matter to you who did the raising? What if a strong player called the raise in front of you, regardless of how many were in? That would definitely make me think twice about coming in.
Amen!
How does one go balls out without the nuts?
Dave
You played about right. I think your call in the sb with that many callers was a good play. Also, with 16 small bets in the pot your going to see some pretty crazy cards on the river due to the size of the pot. I like the checkraise on the turn to make the people hoping for a fourth spade pay through the nose. The one thing you have to remember about suited connectors is when you make the flush you could be highcarded and need to adjust your odds. In otherwords you need more money in the pot to insure your getting the proper price. Also, with suited connectors your usually better off with the straight. Good luck. Ice
From the way the game was described,the chance of a reraise before the flop seems slim,so with that many callers in the pot I have no problem calling the preflop raise.
I don't think you had a choice but to play it this way exactly.
The decisions all seem mundane to me. What if, however, between your turn checkraise and the button, someone else had reraised, having lied in wait for a checkraise themselves (for example, what if the 6s7s raised? Or another player who might have had a better flush? Or the AsKc raising as a semi-bluff?)
What would you have done? I suspect that you were considering that even as you put the two bets in?
I think at that point, due to the size of the pot, you would have to call, but that is the danger in playing these cards out of position.
You are absolutely right: if someone had reraised I would have been forced to make crying calls to the end. I would consider that I was probably beat if anyone other than the maniac had reraised. If the maniac had reraised I would more likely expect he had a hand like AsKh, (as this would be pretty typical of his play) and would gladly call him to the end.
I know you guys have a hard time making 2 big bets per hour - playing to many lousy hands in bad position.
Rounder,
While some of us do play too many hands in lousy position, we always put in a bet or two on the flop to rid ourselves of the better players who don't really wish to proceed with draws or their overcards to the flop. Having this "dead money" in the center makes up for those times when our exploratory bets don't pay off. By the same token, when we are on a draw we will sometimes raise a solid bettor in order to freeze his trigger finger early on. Timidity, once learned, is hard for the average poker player to overcome. There are many styles of play. Playing cautiously, always keeping a tight rein on the hands we are willing to proceed with, isn't a playing style that fares well against an aggressive player, willing to invest in more preflop holdings, and having the ability to extract the maximum on those occasions that his draw gets there. When you play your draws correctly and strongly, you also get more action when you are the one with the monster flop all the way. If you played even remotely as you describe in some of the games I've played in, several players would be cataloguing your play and testing your game for weaknesses before you could yell "table change". At the lower limits you can get away with gaping holes in your play, but not in games with players who know what they are about, and who know how to suck maximum value from those weaknesses.
BTW, this is the reason *I* first dropped down to the 3-6, couldn't beat it for much, and am now looking into finding a soft 1-2 somewhere. I may have to move to Arizona or Montana in order to find a limit Hold-em game that I can beat. Thank God for the exotics like Mexican Stud, stud hi-lo and Indo Pak Flash. There are also so many really bad tournament players that someone with my mediocre skills can not only survive but thrive. Hope to see you soon at the Senior's.
great responses to all who replied.
there was no single consensus as to what the "best" play was in this situation, but most posters seemed to agree that this play was at least somewhat risky (I totally agree). I think I would still call preflop as long as I know it's going to be eight or nine way action with little chance of a reraise. I normally fold suited connectors in the SB unless the conditions are very favorable. In this case I thought the expected action justified the call.
If a more solid player had raised preflop I don't know if it really changes anything, though the point is well taken. Reason being is that any suited connector is going to be folded if it doesn't hit the flop, so being dominated by hands like KK is pretty much irrelevant. Multiway action is the requirement and I would like someone to chase my flush with a single overpair. Of course if I knew someone had a set I would have played differently....
Another point was made about rather making a straight than a flush with suited connectors. Good point, I totally agree. The flush is much more likely to be beaten and when you make a straight it will usually be the nuts (I assume we forum readers don't draw to the butt end of a straight!).
Dave in Cali
Dave as always your posts are very exciting and you frequently get a great result playing in an unorthodox manner. For what it is worth here is my assessment:
Pre-flop: I am assuming the small blind is $1 which means you are putting in almost two full bets to take a flop with Ten-Eight suited. I would fold because with this many opponents it might get raised again and I simply don't want to spend a lot of money to see a flop with a hand like this. I need to make a straight or a flush to win and I am not drawing to the nuts in most cases. I would not say your play was wrong however, because there are a lot of players and the raise game from a maniac who could have anything.
On the flop: I think it is bad poker to lead into crowd of 8 players with a very vulnerable flush draw like yours. Your bet will not allow you to win the pot outright and you will almost certainly get raised if not re-raised. You do not want to pay any more than necessary to pursue your draw.
On the turn: I think checking the fourth nut flush is madness. The last think you want to have happen is to give a table full of opponents a free card. Furthermore, suppose the bet comes from your left instead of from your right? Now your check-raise ploy won't work because everyone gets tied in for the first bet and your raise at that point simply gets called. But suppose you just bet your hand? Now if someone, especially the maniac, raises you can make it 3 bets if you choose and really force people to make some serious decisions about how much gambling they want to do. With 6 opponents you cannot assume they will all dutifully check to the maniac who will bet your hand for you.
Your river bet is the only play you made that I agree with. Great Post!
Jim
I don't agree that this call pre-flop was a bad call. Being in the small blind with 8 players in is a good situation for this hand. You certainly could get raised which is not good but most players with that many people won't raise since they can't get anybody out, thus the risk is small for a reraise. The implied odds your getting if you hit your hand are very good. Betting the flop with that many people in on a draw is probably not a good idea and your advice is good here. On the turn, checkraising is probably a good play with a maniac in the game since he is probably going to bet which is why he is a maniac, however if you bet into him he will probably get suspicious and only call your bet and you miss the chance to cut your opponents odds even further. In general, anytime you can play a suited connector for one bet even two into a large field you should probably go ahead and play. If you have to call three bets it's not worth it due to your implied odds being hurt to much. Good luck Ice
Ice, maybe I am playing too tight here pre-flop.
On the turn, I can understand check-raising if it were just you and the maniac or maybe just one other player. But how do you factor in the presence of 5 other players between you and the maniac? It seems to me the more players between you and the maniac, the more uncertainty is added. I get nervous with lots of players still in the hand and I question the ability to control the situation here. In addition, maniacs may be maniacal before the flop or even on the flop but on the turn when the betting limits now double they frequently start to behave themselves with a crowd of players still in the hand. It would be bad if it got checked around or, if by betting, someone with top pair and a big flush draw would raise and I could have 3 bet getting even more money from everyone.
For what it is worth, Roy Cooke wrote an article a few months ago in Cardplayer magazine where he advocated check-raising in this kind of situation with lots of players so I guess most experts would agree with you. It certainly worked out well here.
Jim
I guess that what makes this game so darn difficult, there is no one approach that works every time. We agree to disagree. By the way keep up the great posts. Good luck Ice
Recently played in a NL Holdem Tournament. Not sure if I made the correct decision on 2 hands. Tournament had approximately 80 players, prize pool of about 7K with a typical payout to 10 players. Tournament down to three tables, each with 7 or 8 player (7 at my table).
Hand 1: My stack at $3000 (medium size stack), blinds $200/400. I am in BB. A short stack goes all in for $800 from 1 off the button. I call with A7s. I have played with the short stack before and he will go all in hands as low at 89s in any positon when short stacked. His only requirement is to be first in. Should I have called?
Hand 2: My stack at $1600 (now 2nd smallest stack at table), still 7 players. I pick up KQo 2 off the button. I go all in. Should I have waited?
Short answer is yes to both questions. (See my 5 big mistakes post in the tournament section.)
Your call of an overly aggressive better won't kill you and since it only costs you another $400 the A7 call is a good one. Leaving you ok if you miss.
The next hand is a little more tricky as it will put you out if you lose. No limpers to you so no big A's probably and you know a Good A will probably call you here. You are in one of those seminal decisions we all face at some point(s) in any tournament we are trying to win. I usually think is this the best hand I'm gonna get before the blinds hit me again. I think you've got it in here - It won't look like a steal cuz of your position - the best place to steal from - hope you won it.
1. If you were medium stacked with 3 tables left, you could have waited for a better opportunity. It doesn't matter so much what your opponent has at this point or even how he plays. You want to survive at this point, and A7 suited is unplayable for what amounts to nearly one-third of your stack. Though you have seen him raise with 89s in similar spots, I'm sure he raises with the standard hands. If he has an A, you are likely out kicked. I would have folded.
2. How many callers before your all in bet? You're off the button, so good position - maybe you steal the blinds. If a raise before you, I would fold. What are the blinds? If they're high you might go all in as the blinds are a few hands away and all-in is soon inevitable. You need to give a lttle more info, but KQo is not bad per se as an all in bet given your stack and position. What happened?
I hate to say this, but I agree with Rounder. A-7s is an acceptable hand to call an all-in short stack PROVIDED YOU ARE HEADS UP with him. Were you? And I also think that your evaluation of how this person plays is very important to whether you call or not. If you win, you increase your stack by about one-third, and if you lose, you are still not out of it. Good Luck! Black Jack
Gee BJ why would yo hate to agree with me.
What the hell did I do to you? This BB is getting like the clinton white house - they gang up on those that don't agree with them too.
Hand one was a very easy call. Given your description of this player, you easily could have the best hand before the flop. Also, you were getting good odds (your $400 call gives you over 3 to 1 so even if he had something like pocket Kings you still are getting an overlay). In addition, you could knock a player out and move yourself up a notch. You also played your second hand well as well. Not only did you have a chance to steal, you also had a pretty good heads up type hand to do it with. I am of course assuming that there were no limpers ahead of you.
As a reminder to everyone, this post belongs on the new tournaments board.
Please repost it there for further responses.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Post deleted at author's request.
It doesn't matter too much to me either way. But it appears to me that the great majority of tournament posts deal specifically with questions of stack size management, rather than with the elements common to tournaments and live games. (Is this correct or a misperception?) Perhaps this alone is enough to warrant maintaining the tournament forum -- as a place to deal with tournament specific issues. Just a thought.
...breaking up the forum into several does seem to have speeded it up and decreased overcrowding. That makes me a little hesitant to support adding a content area back onto this, the busiest of the forums.
Wait till after the big East Coast tournaments. It might be revelant then
In response to requests to clarify:
Hand 1: There were no other callers and as the BB, it cost me only $400 to see all five cards. Short stacked raiser turned up KJo and won when a Jack appeared on the turn.
Hand 2: No Limpers, SB called with ATo. She flopped a Ten, but would of won anyway since I failed to match.
I really like breaking out the tournament posts. I did not post there because I seem to have lost the left hand portion of the 2+2 Forum and cannot move between screens. Is anyone else experiencing this problem?
(1)Rounder
(2)Double K
(3)Rounder
(4)Double K
(5)Rounder
(6)Double K
(7)Rounder
(8)Double K
(9)Rounder
Just Kidding,
Check, raise! Check, raise! Check, raise! Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!Check, raise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and you even left yourself a seat this time.
scott
How about Rounder?
Vince.
i just looked again. i laughed out loud again. thank you for the gift of laughter.
scott
scott,
You're too kind.
Ah, well then I have to offer a similar thanks about, "when the basketball announcer says that 'he is literally on fire.' i put it on mute."
When I read that I literally laughed myself to death.
john,
you're too kind.
scott
Marty,
Why don't you ask those 45 players I beat Saturday afternoon in a tournament ad Harras if I'm in their fantacy line up.
I don't quite get your point but if you are interested I'll be at Crystal Park for the Seniors tourney I'll be playing satellites and touranments - come one come all.
Lighten up Rounder, you sound like a nine year old with a chip on your shoulder. Besides, he said he was just kidding, read his second message.
You were not made the butt of a joke. So butt out.
I don't have a chip on my shoulder I just do't like being made fun of.
My God Rounder!! I didn't realize you were soooooooo sensitive! You always seem to be sticking it to others in a similar harmless way, especially if someone criticizes your conservative starting hand requirements, or was that some other Rounder I've mistaken you with?
Bob,
I have never come close to making anyone the butt of a joke or singled them out for a laugh.
If you really win as much as you say you shouldn't give a damn what anyone says. You think Doyle Brunson would care if someone dissed him on the 2+2 forum??
Doyle Brunson was the King of small suited connectors.
XX
Please interpret for layman.
Took me a while to firue out T-2. Now I got it. It's his hand. Won WSOP with it.
Never had much success w/ T-2 myself, but you won't find me telling DB one thing about starting hands.
Still working on "n/t".
KK I think Doyle won 2 WSOP with that hand T2o it is called by his name like AK is big slick T2 is Doyle Brunson. n/t means no thread so don't bother clicking the line.
So Rounder has a weak spot, he can't stand being teased. I'll have to cash in on that wekness if he ever decides to step up from those weenie $50 or $100 tourneys.
Here here!! I second that thought Connie! Lighten up!!!
I think Rounder's on tilt
Takes a lot more than some silly post to get my goat but I have the right to defend myself when attacked or made a joke of - don't I?
Ever heard of a fat guy nicknamed "Slim", or a bald guy nicknamed "Curly"? It's goodhearted humor because everyone knows the fat guy is not slim and the bald guy doesn't sport curly hair. Marty's post was a goodhearted joke because he (as well as most brousers of this site) considers you a solid player. Apparantly, you're so worried about what people think of you that you are blind to this brand of humor. Marty was trying to pay you and Double K a compliment and get a laugh at the same time. BTW, judging by the responses you posted, that little joke DEFINITELY got your goat! And you've provided valuable information to anyone who plays against you in the future. Kudos to Double K for taking Marty's post the way it was intended.
X
Rounder,
At least you wern't made to be the entire Butt of the joke, just one butt-cheek, the other one was Double K, and he seems to be a Good Sport about the whole thing. Learn from his example, you'll be glad you did.
Sincerely, Danny
I love this stuff; it's the only reason I come here.
Tom D
"Here's an example. Suppose you start with AsKc [and] the flop is AdTc3d . . .
"Suppose in the above hand you held two small diamonds instead of the AsKc. As previously discussed, if the pot is small and you are first to act you should usually bet right out in the hopes that you might win it right there. If the pot is big, it might be correct to check and hope that the bet comes on your left, then you can check-raise and build a big pot. (However, this play is not recommended in tough games. One reason is that you are now more likely to be up against a bigger flush draw. The other reason is that in tough games the original bettor is more likely to reraise.)" (HPFAP-1999, pp. 93-94.)
I have something like 6d5d, the flop is AdTc3d, and I'm more likely to be up against a bigger flush draw in a *tough* game? Against strong opponents, I might be up against hands like KdQd, KdJd, KdTd, QdJd, QdTd, and JdTd. In loose games, some of my opponents could be playing hands like Td7d, Td4d, 9d2d, 8d4d, and 7d4d. But they are not playing these hands *instead* of the previous hands; they are playing them *in addition* to the previous hands. I guess they exist, but (as far as I know) I haven't yet met an opponent who plays 7d4d while mucking KdQd pre-flop.
Hence, I am more likely to be up against a bigger flush draw in a loose game than in a tough game.
I agree with your logic - in a game where they are playing any 2 suited cards and these players are in all games (thank god) you are a dog with a 6 high draw.
If one plays a hand like 65s and hits the flush draw and back door straight your still in trouble - even if you hit your flush - that's why it is real foolish to play these cards on a regular basis. I let the constant losers play these rags.
The reason you are more likely to be against a flush draw in a tough game is because GIVEN there has been many calls with this flop, we can assume a flush draw is likely since good players will neither play nor call with hands like Q3 or T6.
I believe I understand what David is saying here. (Can you see how his original wording could be misinterpreted?)
Let's begin by clarifying some assumptions. First, we are not simply comparing a 12-small-bet flop pot in a typical tough game against the same sized flop pot in a typical weak game. In a tough game, the 12 bets are more likely to come from four players paying three bets each. In a weak game, the 12 bets are more likely to come from six players paying two bets each. I will assume David meant that, if you are facing five opponents on the flop (each of whom paid two small bets to see the flop), it is more likely in a tough game that at least one of your five opponents will have a bigger flush draw than you.
Second, let's assume that if diamond-suited hands (headed by at least a 7 and not containing an ace, a 6, a 5, or a 3) make up a greater proportion of your opponents' starting hands, then it's more likely that at least one of your opponents will have a bigger flush draw than you. This isn't 100 percent true, but it should be close enough and simplifies the math.
Third, let's assume we are talking only about opponents who hold four-flush draws against you. We'll ignore those hands that can make backdoor diamond flushes.
Fourth, let's assume your tough opponents are playing all the Group 1-5 hands.
Finally, let's assume your loose opponents are playing all the Group 1-7 hands, all pairs, all no-gap connectors, all hands with an ace, and all suited hands. This is how I programmed my "Typical Loose" opponent in Turbo Texas Hold'em. It isn't as loose as David imagined, since your opponents are folding Q3o and T6o. There certainly are opponents who play any two cards, but if your table is full of them, then there usually will be more than six of you seeing the flop.
So, here is the scenario. You hold 6d5d, six of you paid two small bets pre-flop, and the flop came AdTc3d. Are you more likely to be facing a bigger flush draw if your five opponents are tough players or loose players?
According to my calculations, each of your tough-game opponents could have called pre-flop with 210 hands, 13 of which give them bigger flush draws. That comes out to be 6.19 percent. Your loose-game opponents could have called with 567 hands, 35 of which give them bigger flush draws. That works out to be 6.17 percent and is about 0.02 percent less.
Therefore, David is correct. At least one of your opponents is more likely to have a bigger flush draw in a tough game as opposed to a weak game when you hold 6d5d.
If you hold 5d4d or 4d2d, however, then you are more likely to be up against at least one opponent with a bigger flush draw when the game is loose rather than tough. Or, if you hold 6d5d and your loose opponents would fold 32o, then it again is the loose games that will crush your flush draws more often. Or, if you hold 6d5d and your tough opponents also will call with a pair of sixes, then David is incorrect.
This example nicely demonstrates that the specifics of a scenario can be rather important. Advice that authors offer could work well in situations they normally encounter yet fail miserably in situations that many of their readers typically face.
Mark,
I must admit I don't read your posts in detail but it does seem like you make an effort to be understood. I'm not offended by what you write I just don't have the patience to read them with enough attention to the details of your points. The point that HFAP is making IMO is that your flush will win more money against loose players because tough players won't be taking long shot odds on drawing to second best hands as often as loose players will. So when several tough players are in there with 2 flush cards on board someone is most likely drawing (almost certainly) to a higher flush. IMO your analysis is not valid.
Tom Haley
Two quick points:
1. It looks like you used TTH simply to count combinations, looking at the percentage of total hands that would be higher flush draws out against you for each group. But I think Tom is right that this misses the question which, as I understand it, involves calls on the flop.
2. What you did address appears flawed too. If I understand, you simply had each profile call with all hands in the range specified for its group, regardless of position or prior action. (btw, who put in the raise?) This would not seem to give a very good indication of the hands one could realistically expect to be out under actual playing conditions. (It might even bias the results against your own argument. I'm not sure. But I think it's irrelevant anyway.) I may not understand how you set up your sim, so please clarify as appropriate.
1. I'm afraid I don't know how to make TTH count combinations. It might be simple for you, but it's too complex for me.
2. I didn't run any simulations.
Ah, okay, that clears it up. I guess I read over it too fast and misinterpreted your comment, "This is how I programmed my 'Typical Loose' opponent in Turbo Texas Hold'em.", to mean that you somehow did your calculations with the help of a TTH simulation. I now see what you were saying. (I wasn't quite sure how you would do it. Didn't know if the percentages you were looking at showed up in TTH's stats somehow. But it did seem like a weird thing to do.)
At any rate, why did you not address the basic points I made? They still hold, given your calculations.
To recap:
1. Taking the loose group and the tight group, then looking at the percentage of total hands that would be higher flush draws out against you in one group versus the other misses the point, which involves calls on the flop.
2. Simply accounting for all hands in groups 1-5 for one group, and all hands in groups 1-7 plus the other hands you listed for the other group does a poor job of indicating the hands that would be out for tough players and loose players (or whatever the terms were) under actual playing conditions. (e.g., there has been one raise…) But, again, #1 is the more relevant problem. You missed the point.
"However, this play is not recommended in tough games. One reason is that you are now more likely to be up against a bigger flush draw." (HPFAP-1999, p. 93.)
John wrote: "Taking the loose group and the tight group, then looking at the percentage of total hands that would be higher flush draws out against you in one group versus the other misses the point, which involves calls on the flop."
You are missing not only the point, but the fact that you are missing it. I can only suggest that you try to entertain the possibility that you have not have grasped what David has told you. Then read the sentence in the book immediately before the one you quote. Can you see that it implies multiple callers on the flop? (David agreed that they could have been clearer, but can you see it?) Now, carefully reread his explanation in this thread. Does that change the way you understand it? Can you see that what you looked at with your analysis was unrelated to the point made in the book, and which David clarified prior to your analysis? (It was also not what you thought you were looking at. See my point #2 in my previous post.)
John,
I think you need to reread this thread, perhaps a little slower than the you did the first time.
I understand the main point that HPFAP made: you might want to employ different betting strategies based on the pot size. I never disputed this point.
The issue being discussed in this thread deals only with the situation when the pot is large. Presumably, the pot is big because there are multiple callers before the flop, and this was never disputed either.
What the rest of us are discussing is: when you are facing, say, five callers with a baby flush draw, would you prefer that those five callers have relatively tight starting hand requirements or relatively loose starting hand requirements?
The HPFAP authors contend that you are more likely to be up against a bigger flush draw when you are facing the multiple callers with tight starting hand requirements.
I used some simplifying assumptions and performed some back-of-the-envelope math. What I learned was that sometimes you will be up against a bigger flush draw when facing multiple tight players, but sometimes you will be up against a bigger flush draw when facing the same number of loose players. The answer depends on just how low your baby flush is, just how tight the tight players are, just how loose the loose players are, etc.
You contend that my simplifying assumptions do not duplicate actual playing conditions. I don't disagree with you; that was not my intention. I simplified things so I could do the math reasonably easily. If you want to analyze a more realistic scenario, feel free to do so. I will be interested in seeing your assumptions and results.
In any case, I doubt your results will change one of the conclusions I reached: "Advice that authors offer could work well in situations they normally encounter yet fail miserably in situations that many of their readers typically face."
I hope this clarifies matters for you, again.
Mark -- in his first post in this thread David clarified the reasoning behind the comment in the book about being "up against a bigger flush draw" (p. 93). This was prior to your analysis. Yet your analysis did not address his point at all. To clarify:
You write: "The issue being discussed in this thread deals only with the situation when the pot is large. Presumably, the pot is big because there are multiple callers before the flop, and this was never disputed either."
Correct. But the issue is not the preflop callers. It's the callers on the flop.
You write: "What the rest of us are discussing is: when you are facing, say, five callers with a baby flush draw, would you prefer that those five callers have relatively tight starting hand requirements or relatively loose starting hand requirements?"
If you're talking about callers on the flop you're right. That's the issue. (However, it's more precisely about whether they are tough players, but I suppose that's close enough for this discussion.) But if you think it's about their having called preflop, beyond the fact that that's how the pot got big to begin with, you're mistaken.
HPFAP-21, regarding holding two small diamonds and a flop of AdTc3d: "If the pot is big, it might be correct to check and hope that the bet comes on your left, then you can check-raise and build a big pot."
This is talking about checking with the hope of getting a bettor close behind you, followed by several callers, so that you can then check-raise all of them, thereby getting a lot more bets into the pot. It is those several callers on the flop that are the key to the next line in the book:
"(However, this play is not recommended in tough games. One reason is that you are now more likely to be against a bigger flush draw...)"
"More likely", because if you get those several callers you have to worry about what these tough players are all calling with, given the two-flush on the flop. The information provided by their calling on the flop is a warning signal.
David acknowledged that they could have been clearer on this, but it's not that tough to see. That's why I was surprised that after David had clarified this reasoning you undertook some calculations that had nothing at all to do with it. It suggests that you missed David's point when he wrote:
"The reason you are more likely to be against a flush draw in a tough game is because GIVEN there has been many calls with this flop, we can assume a flush draw is likely since good players will neither play nor call with hands like Q3 or T6."
Both Tom Haley and Sean Duffy tried to clarify further, reiterating David's explanation in slightly different ways.
As you can see they are all talking about callers on the flop.
When I say that you did not address this it is because in summarizing your calculations you write: "According to my calculations, each of your tough-game opponents could have called pre-flop with 210 hands, 13 of which give them bigger flush draws. That comes out to be 6.19 percent. Your loose-game opponents could have called with 567 hands, 35 of which give them bigger flush draws. That works out to be 6.17 percent and is about 0.02 percent less." (emphasis added)
You see, you are talking about their preflop calls, while David has pointed out, and others have reiterated, that it is the postflop calls that signal a problem. Neither in the quote above, nor anywhere else in your description of your analysis do you address this issue, of the meaning of calls on the flop. It is the central issue here. That is what I and others have been trying to say.
The idea is that you are less likely to want to try a play that invites and capitalizes on multiple callers on the flop when the presence of those callers, their act of calling, indicates that you are considerably less likely to have the best draw.
Do you see now?
I do see now. Thanks for the clarification.
I don't know how all of you feel but I've actually missed the Mark Glover attacks the past few days. It seemed to me the guy was doing a lot of work, which probably takes up many hours of his time, just to prove us wrong. I have found his ability to misrepresent what we say and put the wrong "weight" on unimportant things somewhat entertaining. (Mark: You may want to look at my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS to get a better idea of "self-weighting" mistakes. Make sure you read the chapters "The World's Worst Gamblers" and "Self-Weighting Disasters" in the last section of the book.)
If he wants to make some sort of name for himself he should contact me directly and I can suggest some hold 'em material which he can have a field day with. Now when he goes on the attack he will not only be correct, and not have to be so misleading, but he could really embarras the author.
Mason (and David),
That passage from page 93 sort of struck me as a bit odd at first but David's elaboration above cleared it up for me (as well as Sean's below).
If I was in your position I would be tracking these areas where you aren't necessarily wrong but where the typical reader may have a hard time following. There is a lot of white space on page 94 where David's clarification would have fit in nicely.
You guys at 2+2 could think a little more along the lines of a Bill Gates and Windows 3.1, 95, 98, 2000 and so on. Most of your readers would be willing to shell out $30 for revised and improved editions every few years. Although a Mark Glover may have different motivations than, for example, a Jim Brier, both point to areas of the text that are not comletely clear or could use further elaboration or better examples. You guys easily write the best books but there is always room for improvement and upgrades seem to be where a lot of the money is at.
Regards,
Rick
Rick:
Over the past few years we have made a great deal of effort to improve our product. This includes all the books. The new 21st Century Editions are just two examples.
I also agree the the Jim Brier posts have been terrific. There is a difference between constructive critism and destructive criticism. It's clear to me that Jim was just trying to get things better clarified (in his mind) so that he understands better exactly what we are saying. In that process everyone benefits, including us at Two Plus Two.
Mason wrote: "It seemed to me the guy was doing a lot of work, which probably takes up many hours of his time, just to prove us wrong."
I suspect many people spend more time on this forum than I do and get even less benefit from it.
Mason wrote: "You may want to look at my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS to get a better idea of 'self-weighting' mistakes."
Thanks for the suggestion, Mason. As I recall, that book also has several errors that would be worth discussing. I reread many of my poker books--some more often than others. I find GAMBLING THEORY less useful than HPFAP, so I review it less often. When I get around to it again, however, I'll be sure to let you know. And I realize that wasn't the point of your suggestion. ;-)
By the way, if I simply wanted to embarrass authors, there are many things I could criticize in addition to their advice. But I believe debating ideas is more beneficial for me and for other forum participants.
I have something like 6d5d, the flop is AdTc3d, and I'm more likely to be up against a bigger flush draw in a *tough* game?
I haven't read the 21st century edition yet because I haven't seen it in a library yet and the Two Plus Two folks haven't offered me a complimentary copy, but I believe they're talking about a tough game which happens to have numerous callers in this specific hand. While the loose players are more likely to be playing suited trash like 92s, they're also more likely to be calling on the flop with very little. Against tight, tough opponents, what the heck are they calling on the flop with? Jamming non-nut flush draws (with the exception of ones that offer an additional draw, like a straight draw) is often not a good idea in a tight game that happens to have numerous callers this hand.
-Sean
I agree we could have been clearer on that point.
My CRAZY GAME post re. my 34 suited cold call raise of a capped pot never really happened. I'll throw that away for a COLD CALL every time. I just wanted to get a rise out out of the assorted posters.
And that's not to say I posted that hand only as a 'joke'. I like to hear people's responses - especially from such an educated and knowledgeable forum such as 2+2 - re. crazy calls.
And further, that's not to say I've never been in a pot with a 34 suited (or similar crap) that has been capped. I have-(as I'm sure 100% of the readers have as well)- and I don't think that is per se a bad thing all the time.
The situation is usually I'm in the BB, there is a raise, I call the raise, someone makes it 3 bets, someone caps it and then I'm facing a two bet call - (this happens in 3-6 more than other games). If its a family pot, and it usually is, I'm not going to muck my hand - I'll pay the two bets and see the flop. It can also be a late position call, that gets capped by the time it reaches the big blind - (now I'm crazy for making that late position call).
If you win one of these hands, and if it's early in the session, it can set you up for a nice night. I'll retreat to solid play, pick my spots to switch gears. Not to mention the benefit of enraging a certain type of player whose AA or similar premium hand I beat. I like playing games with a couple seats on tilt - this kind of hand usually sends them there.
If I miss the flop, I'll get out cheap and retreat to my cave.
Rounder: Don't get mad, get even. It's all in good fun. He said he was kidding. It was funny, but "laugh out loud" funny?????
Besides, I read your posts. They are intelligent. Most would agree.
Nah, you played it as in the post. This is just cover up I believe.
OK.
Everyone has, at one point or another, ended up in some monster pot with a hand like this, tossing the extra 40 bucks or so into the middle and praying for wheel cards. If anyone on this forum claims they HAVEN'T found themselves in this quandary, my advise to them is to lighten up.
The only thing that's going to lighten up is your bankroll (ha ha ha).
Whatever a-hole.
You will be a looser if you call capped pots with this type of hand. I'm not doubting that you'll hit once in awhile, but it will never make up for the losses.
Nobody's saying that this is a +EV play. All I'm getting at is that occasionally, for reasons you can never quite explain, these things HAPPPEN. You may not CALL a capped pot, but it may be one raise to you with seven limpers, you call on a lark, the blind re-raises and the original raiser caps it... Stuff like that. If you end up in a jam like this once a month or so it costs you virutally nothing.
No mater how yu spel it, it whas dam Funy, whith a capatal EFFFF!!!
Another gentleman of poker. Warm feeling everywhere and Happy Holidays.
"Warm feeling everywhere, and Happy Holidays."
Right back at ya, you're a good sport Double K.
I am always amazed at the way top players are capable of thinking the game through.
My friend and I were discussing the value of hands pre-flop, and he told about the following hand. I thought it was a brilliant line of thinking on the winners’ part.
He was playing a tough 20-40 game and mucked the Ad,9d in early middle position. 2 limped in after him and a strong player 1 off the button, raised with the Qd,7d. To make a long story short, diamonds got there, and she won the pot. Afterward, they discussed the hand. My friend commented on how lucky she was, pointing out the huge amount of money she would have lost had he played his hand. Her reply was simply; “I wouldn’t have lost ANY money! If you come in, my hand is unplayable. Why would I want to play a piece of cheese like that?”. She pointed out that my friend was the last strong player to muck. She decided she had very good control over the 2 limpers, and would have position on the blinds. So by merely being astute, she made an extra $600 by turning a marginal hand, which was a muck even for no raise, to a raising hand which took down a nice pot!
Does anyone else have examples or thoughts/essays on how a hand can change its’ value depending on not just position, but on the quality of players already in or yet to act after you?
Ahhhm - almost every hand I play.
This is often how players get a reputation for being brilliant players. A player wins a tournament, or is successful for a short period in ring games. Then every time they make a play that looks out of the ordinary, it is attributed to "next level thinking" or "a brilliant play that I wouldn't have thought of". When, in fact, it was the exact same thing a fish would have done. We can all raise with crap on the button. It's not that hard. It doesn't qualify as a brilliant play.
Yes. But that's my point. I think this goes beyond merely raising with the button. Anyone can make this raise as you point out. And many would have proceeded to have gotten crushed if the Ad,9d was in.
The player with Qd 7d doesn't know that the strong player folded the Ad xd. It's just as likely, if not more likely the Ad xd or Kd xd is in a bad players hand. Many fish will play any suited ace or King.
Moreover, if the other players aren't very strong it can be difficult to put them on a hand. They may play a flush draw/made hand in a lot of different ways making it harder to get away from the hand if your flush is dominated.
Give one of the fish Kd 2d and it was a bonehead play. Don't let results determine what is and is not solid thinking.
E.S.
ES
I think it was a slightly bad play. Maybe steal the blinds with Q9s but raising two limpers seems like going too far.
That said, I certainly agree with changing standards depending on the strength of the players in.
In your example she got there to win which is not really something to rely on. Also the weak player could just as easily had A9d and made her pay big too. A better example is would include getting something from the weak player like a laydown or a few free cards. Perhaps the weak player will fold if not hit by the flop for example.
D.
There is some brilliance in her play, I believe, but not necessarily for the reasons she states. The key phrase is when she says she "has control over the limpers." What that means is not necessarily that she has better cards but rather that she is able to more easily read their cards than a strong player. It also means that there is a greater chance of them playing junk than a strong tight player. If your player mucks A9d in early middle, he;s fairly tight. She knows this and perhaps figures the limpers for looser players meaning she has a better chance. Her reading ability is what she means by control. She can save bets in future rounds, thats all.
I don't have any examples to give you. However, I strongly disagree that because one good player decides to fold, the lady's play of raising in the cutoff with Queen little suited was a good play. The fact that two other weak players limped in ahead of her does not make her raise with such a weak hand correct. There are also three other players, the button and blinds, yet to be heard and who knows what they will do? Suppose one of them had your friend's hand? A tough $20-$40 game means that pots are frequently getting raised and re-raised and the last thing any good player wants to do is to pay multiple bets to see a flop with a suited Queen regardless of the caliber of the opposition. What makes a good player good is that they don't do these kinds of things pre-flop and they let their opponents play these kinds of holdings for multiple bets and raises. I would fold Q-7 suited and would only limp in with Q-9 suited or better from the cutoff after others have limped in.
There are also three other players, the button and blinds, yet to be heard and who knows what they will do? Suppose one of them had your friend's hand?
Some weak players are so readable and predictable that it's very easy to get off of a good, but second best, hand.
A tough $20-$40 game means that pots are frequently getting raised and re-raised and the last thing any good player wants to do is to pay multiple bets to see a flop with a suited Queen regardless of the caliber of the opposition.
But all of the tough opponents are out. If the three remaining players are weak-tight (or misread the tough player as tighter than she is), they're almost guaranteed to fold here.
I would fold Q-7 suited and would only limp in with Q-9 suited or better from the cutoff after others have limped in.
I'm not sure if I'm following here. Q9s is only a bit better than Q7s, because you won't make many more straights with Q9, and the issue of domination isn't a big one as the difference between a 9 and a 7 is small; you can't be *that* afraid of a limping Q8. :) You might be right that the line should be drawn at Q9s, but that would mean that Q7s is only a small mistake, and you can change the sample hand to Q9s without it affecting very much.
I suspect your major issue is with the raise preflop rather than a call. I think this could be a raise or fold situation (that is probably the case with most hands that the tough player would hold here.) Being able to drive out the blinds and buy the button here so you can play the hand against the 2 weak players is almost certainly worth an additional small bet. Let's say it's Q9s; that isn't strong enough to want an additional player on the button and both blinds to call. (I.e, the tight small blind is likely to call with hands you really, really want out K9s or QJo if there's no raise, but will probably muck to a raise.)
Personally, I'm not very likely to make this play against 2 weak opponents, but I would probably raise Q7s in this position against 1 weak limper if I have a decent chance of buying the button and getting both blinds to fold.
-Sean
Several points Sean:
1. If you happen to flop a Queen high flush draw and no open pair flops, it will be very difficult to get away from the hand. You will almost certainly be paying out to someone with A9 suited if the Diamond flush hits.
2. With two opponents voluntarily coming in and three yet to be heard, that is half the table still in the hand. It is one thing to try a move on one or two opponents and quite another to do it with 5. I don't know that I have ever sat in a game as big as $20-$40 and had 5 weak-tight players. Normally by the time players arrive at this level they are fairly decent. Occasionally, you may find 1 or 2 weak-tight players but not half the table. The other, more significant problem is that you really don't have much of a hand to fall back on when you get called.
3. I believe Q9, a double gapper, can make a King high straight or a Queen high straight. The Q and 7 cannot play together to make the same 5 card straight. What it really comes down to is that I believe Queen-little suited is simply too weak a hand to be coming in with. Certainly QJ suited, Q10 suited, and even Q9 suited I can rationalize but not Queen-little suited.
4. You are correct. I think the raise is a very bad play. I believe calling is also a bad play. Choosing between the two would be like picking your poison.
After reading some of the responses and thinking more about it, I've come to accept that maybe this was not such a great play. Because I am constantly struggling to try and understand more about the dynamics of pre-flop play and refine my own, I thought it might be an interesting example.
What if a solid player limps in UTG and everyone folds to you on the button with J9. Is this hand playable? What if it's suited? I would think this hand has negative expectations. If the flop comes J high, and you both hold a J, his will be a better J. Likewise, with the 9 (probably A9s). I undestand that you could make a straigh or flop a rare JJ9 etc. But if you both hit your hands chances are you will be the one paying off. Does his call with no other players decrease this hand's value? I have the same difficulty with hands like QTs, KTs, Q9s, ATo, etc. When can you safely play these hands and how does the #, aggressiveness/strength of the players already in and yet to act effect your decision?
I suggest you get ahold of the 21C HPFAP and study carefully "The First Two Cards: Late Position."
Would a solid player limp-in UTG with a hand worse than yours? I don't think so.
You still have 2 blinds to deal with. The J9 is a weak holding. If the strong UTG is holding less he is probably not as strong as you think.
You have to ask yourself what if the BB or SB raises can you call it. What if you flop a J X X and UTG comes out betting.
With a hand like J9 you have to flop right to it or your sunk. This is a real trap hand.
I think you'll find that Caro's most recent CardPlayer article addresses this kind of play, and why a player just might play such a hand in such a way.
- Andrew
AKs Inc,
I agree with most of the above posters that this player was way out on a limb with this raise. Only in this specific situation and with the benefit of hindsight did her play look brilliant. (BTW, when you said the hand was discussed afterwards I hope it was away from the table.)
I don't know if this is brilliant but here is a simple example of where I believe you must adjust to your opponents. Let's say a solid type like a Jim Brier raises UTG. Two fairly decent and somewhat tricky players cold call and you have AQo on the button. I think 99.9% of players would call but I believe this is a fold. You not only have to outplay Jim with what will often be a worse hand (since he raised UTG) but the callers between you and Jim will also put you in a tough spot.
Regards,
Rick
You've misconstrued top player with top player on tilt.
She got lucky, that's all.
I play each of my hands in the context of who is or isn't in. That is unless I'm daydreaming.
When the players who like high cards are in and I have K J then I'm out. If there are 5 players, who like high cards only, in then I'm in unraised with my 78s.
A good player takes this into account each hand.
A few days ago a player three bet me in my big blind after a easily readable player had raised. I had 67s and folded. His reasoning was he didn't want me to rush since I had beat him the previous hand and check-raised a couple of big bets out of him. This hand he had 56 unsuited and won with a pair of 5s against AK. The flop also had a 7. Do you think he's a top player making an excellent decision or a player who got lucky.
I would have called the preflop raise and called down to the river.
Regards mike N
It’s funny that Mark should ask that question today. I just re-read that page this morning and had a different question about this example. I am sure that I am not grasping the complexities of this situation correctly.
The authors state that in a small pot the bettor may have you beat. Is this really something to be concerned about? There are 3 sets, two of which are unlikely (AA and 33), and 3 two-pairs, one of which is unlikely (T3). How can you not like top pair/best kicker in this spot?
Also, what is meant by a small pot? Say 2 limpers, one of which is the sb, and I check my option in the bb. If sb bets this flop and I raise, last player is not getting pot odds (3:1- I dismiss ½ bet for the rake) to call with a flush draw. He’s barely getting implied odds, since I probably bet the turn if a diamond falls (which gives him 4:1 implied on the flop) but he cannot be sure I’ll pay him off if he raises.
I’d actually be more inclined to just call if there were many players to act behind me. Now, a draw may very likely be correct to call a raise on the flop. I’d be hoping the sb leads into me again so that if it’s a blank I can raise the turn making all draws put in a double bet. Is this a terrible play?
Also, in the first example (small pot) I understand that you want 2nd pairs and gutshots in. But are they suggesting you also call the turn? How important is it to get a hand like Kd,Ts out?
I realized this post makes no sense without mentioning that the HPFAP same page/different question refers to the same "heads versus multi-way" in Mark Glover's post. Sorry.....
I misplayed the following 3-6 hand at Foxwoods last week. The game was passive and somewhat loose (4-5 callers preflop typically). I opened in seat 5 with KQo (1st mistake?), got 3 callers. Flop Kxx rainbow. I bet, was raised by 1st caller, 2 others folded. I figured him for AK not AA because he hadn't raised pre-flop. If I fold here doesn't that set me up to be run over later? What should I do? Thanks for any comments. Kate
Coming in early or middle position pre-flop with King-Queen offsuit is okay as long as no one raised ahead of you. You got 3 callers and no one raised so I would temporarily rule out AA, KK, QQ, or AK. On the flop you have top pair and an excellent kicker. Your bet was correct. You get raised and everyone folds to you. It depends on what you know about your opponent, but in general his raise just means he has top pair. You have an excellent kicker with your top pair so you should re-raise. As a minimum, you should call. Folding would be very bad poker.
If he raises again, then just call. If he calls, then plan on betting the turn since you probably have the best hand.
i agree with jim. did xx make 2 pair or a straight draw reasonable?
scott
You can't fold the top pair and 2nd best kicker. AK would probably have raised pre flop. You could be looking at any combination of things 2 pair, a set etc - you should call the raise or reraise depending on the strength of the raiser. I'd bet the turn and call a raise.
Your call with KQ is OK UTG and if you fold to a raise in a situation it doesn't mean they will run all over you they'll only do that if you let them.
If you know this player very well, and they are either a total rock or very passive (and would not raise the flop with less than top pair w/ top kicker), then folding is correct. But against a typical opponent, a fold would be incorrect, as most aggressive players will raise with any top pair, and even a tight player would play KQ/KJ and maybe KTs here. In the low limits, there are plenty of players who'd play Kxs here and raise with any top pair. (I played with one such opponent in 10-20 last night--I hold KJs, flop K63 2 suited but none of my suit, aggressive small blind bets out, loose-overaggressive player raises, I 3-bet! Both called, and the blind had A6s w/ a backdoor flush draw, and the loose player had K5s. Even better, when the 5 hit on the turn, the loose player just check-called. I don't know if she was saving a check-raise for the river or if my bold 3-bet made her fear a set.)
Regarding your preflop question, I'm not sure what position you were in, and whether or not you open-limped or open-raised. In middle/late position, I'd usually raise here unless most of the people ahead of me have no regard for a preflop raise (and will call regardless of whether or not it's 1 or 2 bets to them; this often happens at 3-6.) In early position, KQo and AJo aren't that great in either a loose game or a tight-aggressive one, but they're still playable, although you can fold both without giving up too much. I don't know your level of experience, but I'd recommend that novices fold both hands in early position, although intermediate players can probably play them in a game that isn't too tricky.
-Sean
If he had AK, or A's, why wouldn't he raise pre-flop? My guess here is that he's got a weaker King. I'd three bet it, then bet the turn and maybe, maybe value bet the river .
Much of this depends on what kind of player the other guy is. If he's a maniac you're in good shape. If he (or she) is over 80 years old, you may have a problem. This is one of those classic situations where good judgment comes into play.
Oh-- and yeah, you probably should have raised coming in. Not only do you have a chance to thin the field, but your opponents' reaction to your flop play will give you more information on their hand, given that you raised pre-flop.
When you said 'opened' I thought you meant that you were the first limper after four people in front of you had called; not that you were UTG.
I usually limp in with a KQo here, but you can certainly construct an argument for mucking it. Either way I wouldn't worry to much about it, since most pre-flop errors are not that costly.
When you opened in seat 5, I am assuming you meant you were the fifth player from the blind, and thus were in middle position.
As the first one in in middle position a raise is in order here in all but the loosest games (which it wouldn't be probably if four early position people had thrown their hands away) because KQo as you correctly sense is not that great a hand and plays badly against multiple opponents.
On the flop, there is little chance you were beat, and I would reraise, bet the turn, and quite possibly bet the river. Most players raise or even reraise w/AK, and in lower limit holdem, will wait to raise a serious hand that could have you beat (particularly three of a kind) until the turn, when the bets are larger. In late position, however, I will raise if I have made top pair with KQo,KJo, KTo, or even kxs if I have played that hand. Frequently, I will raise with second pair/good kicker or some type of backdoor draw, or straight and flush draws. Most of the above raises (except for KQ or KJ) serve to get me a free card on the turn. You should not allow bad aggressive players such as myself to get free cards. Make us suckers pay through the nose to draw to our cheese.
Sometimes, by the way, you actually will three bet it, and get four bet, and be beat here. Sometimes, you will three bet it, get smooth called, and then raised on the turn. Sometimes, this happens also when your opponent senses that you can throw away a good hand, and is stealing.
Knowing the other player is key when your kicker is "Good".
1. Would this player go on Kx ?
2. Would he/she allways(auto) raise AK KK QQ pre-flop ?
How did the hand turn out?
I bet you had him with your better kicker but folded and wished that you had stayed.
MJ
Since when does KQ play poorly against multi way pot.
Rgarding your post - you make one good point.
You said:
"You should not allow bad aggressive players such as myself to get free cards. Make us suckers pay through the nose to draw to our cheese."
you ask "Since when does KQ not play well in a multi-way pot?"
I would answer: since the beginning of time, but that would be incorrect, as hold em is not so old.
AKo also does not play well in a multi-way pot. You (maybe I should say "most people") raise with it for this reason, not to build a pot. This is one of the best reasons to raise with large unsuited cards. I think this is also the most common reason to raise before the flop in holdem.
If you could limit the field before the flop, you are more likely to knock out hands that can beat an unimproved pair of kings or queens, and if you can get this hand heads up, occasionally, KQo might even beat a bad player unimproved.
You would not raise as the first one in in middle position with KQo?
Answer to your question is NO hell NO I want the field as big as possible here - I'll worry about playing the hand and building the pot if I flop to my KQ.
Big difference between KK and KQ - KK plays better against less opponents that is why one should try to limit the field when one has a big pair.
Hands like AK and KQ suited or not have more potential so one would want a bigger field.
My gosh of KQ doesn't play well in multi way pots!!! What does 45?
IMO...
KQ is not a multiway hand. I'll play it in an unraised multiway pot but I would prefer to play it against 1 or 2 opponents and if takes a raise from me to make that happen, raise I will.
54s is a multiway hand because you are going to win with it so infrequently that you need a lot of players in the pot to make it worthwhile for you to make a hand.
I am with Chris on the suggestion to raise preflop when first in from middle position (or first in from any position for that matter). KQs is a hand I might limp in with from early psoition in order to lure a larger field. From middle position, I likely would raise with KQs either when first in or if one or two players had already limped (unless they were the solid type who might limp with AK in which case I probably would just call and try and lure the field in).
The raise with a hand like KK is to do 2 things:
a. Limit the field b. But more importantly, build the pot.
The first reason is just a byproduct of the second reason. Put another way, the second reason is more important than the first. That's why I will raise with KK on the button even if the whole field ahead of me has limped and I know that my raise has zero chance of limiting the field.
I disagree with the premise that AK and KQ want bigger fields. KQ in particular, being a substantially weaker hand, wants to be heads up or to win it before the flop. If you limp in 5th position from the big blind with KQ, with no callers in front of you, then the next guy limps with his KTs (correctly), then I in the 7th, 8th, or 9th position in CA or the 8th, 9th, or 10th position in Nevada am willing to limp with 98s (after all, the pot is protected, and I know that most raises will be legitimate, and even if they are not, I will be getting good odds to play such a hand). Let's say it's a relatively tight game, and the sb quits and the big blind just checks, so there are four and one half small bets in the pot. The flop comes Q T 7 rainbow with one of my suit and one of the KTs suits, the bb checks, you bet, the KTs folds (assuming he plays well--he might call here if he thinks you're weak), and I just call, getting 5.5 to 1 on my call to a 4.88 to one shot, and I would be absolutely correct in trying to make my draw. If you had raised before the flop, even with one caller of your raise, I would be hard pressed to call the raise, and would probably be making a mistake in doing so.
There's all kinds of other bad things that can happen to your KQo if you don't raise the blinds first one in from middle position--the above is just one example of a bad thing that could happen by not raising, but i can imagine much worse situations: What if the big blind had Q7 offsuit and wouldn't have called a raise, but instead makes two pair on the flop and gets a chance to trap you for many bets?
I wouldn't raise with KQo in the first two positions--in fact in many games I wouldn't even play the hand out of position like that--, and I wouldn't call a raise with it most of the time either, but I will raise with it most of the time in middle to late position if I am the first one in. The strategy has worked well for me.
I was in seat 5 counting the small blind as seat 1 -- I thought that was the usage, sorry I wasn't clear. BTW, no flushes or straights possible.
What happened: I did call his flop raise, the turn was a K, I bet and was raised again. I called, the river was an A. I checked, called his bet, and lost to AA -- Aces full of kings over trip kings. My only consolation was he was technically wrong to call/raise my bet on the turn, since he was drawing to only 2 outs at that point. I suppose he was hoping I'd fold to his raise.
This same player later played KK without raising pre-flop.
Thanks for all your comments; they give me a lot to think about, particularly the importance of knowing your opponent. This was the first time I'd played against him, but I know I could do a better job of observing in general, and this hand will be a good reminder.
You know, Kate, this is sort of funny. It must have been quite a frusterating hand for you. I, too, play low limits (2-4, 3-6), and some of the creative plays I see blow my mind.
Last week, I was sitting next to a regular donator, who was dealt AA in middle position, and did not raise, and with the 6 callers or so, wondered why his aces got cracked by, I think it was a crummy straight held by a man who began the hand with something life 74o.
He looked at me square in the eye and began the long stream of "I shoulda's," and informed me that he NEVER raises pre-flop because "It just gives away too much information." My sympathetic nod disguised my internal chuckling, as he openly wondered when he'd be dealt a good hand...
As for your play: -I probably would have just limped in if I didn't fear a raise behind me. In these LL games, I'd virtually never raise with this hand preflop, as there are so many "creative" players. -On the flop when your opponent raised, I would have re-raised - As I'd NEVER put him on Aces or Ace-King. Also, I have found that in my game, many of the players have a very difficult time dealing with tight aggressive play. - Turn: I probably would have re-raised again. If re-raised, I'd probably just call. - River: If reraised on the turn, I'd check and call. If not, I'd probably bet into the opponent. If raised, I'd in all liklihood make a crying call.
Even in my short time playing, I have seen stuff like this more than once, and on several occassions, it happend to me. Fortunately, I typically have a good grip on my emotions and when those times come, I smile, nod, and know that the chips will evenutally come back to me.
Disclaimer - my comments on the play of the hand, are solely dependent on the type of player I am up against. I have played now often enough with the same people that I generally have a good read on their play. Generally.
Just my two cents... Tim
PS - Where's Louie Landale been?
I was on the button in a 4 person game with a LB, a BB and a caller, I had Axs, and knew the LB would call. I called. The flop came three spades and I made my flush. Lb checked, and BB bet and was then raised. I called, Lb folded. BB reraised and was called, both players having made top pair.
Question 1: Call or raise?
I called, and BB called. On the turn, BB bet and was subsequently raised. I reraised, BB folded, and I was reraised to my right. I called, so that I would be bet into on the river. This happened, I reraised and was called.
Question 2: If I hadn't reraised on the turn, the BB would have stayed in, If he had caught two pair on the river, I could have gotten more action out of him. Otherwise, I get the same amount from my reraise as from his call.
Question 3: After BB folds, should I have reraised?
oh, and scott, you're my idol too.
From your narrative, I gather you were in a shorthanded game with only four of you playing. If that was the case, I would raise pre-flop having a suited Ace. You have an excellent hand under the circumstances plus you have the best position.
On the flop, your hand is virtually invulnerable at this point so you can easily afford to slow play given that you flopped the nut flush. I would just call like you did.
On the turn, you have to take off the gloves and start raising. Your re-raise was good and your smooth call with only one opponent left was also excellent.
On the river, you played correctly by setting up the river bet so you could raise and get called.
Bottom line is that except for failing to raise pre-flop, the rest of your play was good.
hey jimbo! i am glad to see you took my advice. welcome to the forum. everyone, meet jimbo or james h, as he is calling himself here. we were good friends in high school and he is now studying physics at cal tech. he couldn't handle our high school game. he was weak tight and the game tore him up. there was this one shorthanded (5) session where i was the only serious student there (this was before jimbo got his act together). over 4 hours i won $130 at $.5-$1 limits. i got some cards but i stole so many pots. it was beautiful. he's lucky i'm all the way in ny, or i'd be giving him shorthanded lessons in person.
trash talk aside, well done on this hand. good job with the hand reading. you slowplayed the flop correctly and picked up the action for good reasons. i like the way you thought through the river action. jim is right that you should usually raise with this before the flop. it helps you win without a showdown.
as you said yourself to me in email, there are reasons to cold call on the turn. the 1st bettor might reraise and you'd get lots of extra bets. when 2 people are betting for me i like to let them. but i think that the most likely course of action here was that the bb would call your raise and then check fold to the bet raise. so you would have lost a bet. so i think you played the turn correctly unless you thought the bb would raise again or bet the river.
i'll see you on friday. i could use the money.
scott
I'll add one thing about raising preflop with Axs--I'm not sure if you limped because you knew the small blind would call a raise and didn't want to raise with no chance of winning the blinds. Against a loose small blind, there are hands that I might just limp with on the button, for example, a hand like T9s. But with Axs, the high card value is increased in a shorthanded game, so it's good for you when the little blind pays more to play with a weaker hand.
Shorthanded (and any time in late position), you should generally be open-raising with all playable hands. One exception might be with a medium suited connector against a loose small blind, and another might be with a big pair against oblivious players likely to fold their blinds. (A hand like AA-JJ is worth more than the blinds, so you don't want the blinds to fold, but limping will generally look very suspicious to an observant opponent.)
-Sean
there was a caller to him. but he still should have raised.
scott
Before the Flop, I knew I was facing callers. After playing with these guys for an hour or two, I knew that they were moderately tight as to the hands they would play, and also that they would call a raise having once called the blinds. This discouraged me from a possible raise, but I agree with everyone who's posted here, I should have raised.
First, there was already a caller so James wasn't first one in.
Second, you wrote: "But with Axs, the high card value is increased in a shorthanded game, so it's good for you when the little blind pays more to play with a weaker hand."
I suspect that you are over rating the ace. Since you refuse to buy the book, you are just going to have to find a library that has HPFAP-21. In the short handed section you can read why hands that contain a deuce or a trey are not as good as you think they are short handed.
I'm having trouble following the action, so I won't comment on the play of the hand. However, your decision on whether or not to slowplay ('smoogie', as we call it here in Denver) should be based largely on the caliber of your opponents. If the other players are tough be more inclined to play the hand straighforward, since only a few good players ever fall for that call/re-raise bit.
Either way, you should raise with this hand on the button in a 4 handed game, assuming the rest of your game is fairly strong.
I think you played it almost perfectly. I would have raised pre-flop on the button. I would not have raised in the SB and maybe not in the BB just to set the trap. On the button, it is almost automatic to raise. To not raise then bet strongly would be a give away.
Caltech, eh? Nice place....Chem E or Physics?
good idea not trusting scott on his word.
I am physics/math major, but leaning more towards physics.
From the BB, a raise preflop would be a show of strength, but I don't think it would give away anything. At that point, I was glad to have a lot of callers, and didn't really want to narrow the feild, however, these guys would have called a raise from any of the button, BB, and lb. As long as they are calling, I should be raising.
Hard to play to play this hand wrong in a small field.
In a large field slow playing can cost you a pot. It wouldn't be impossible for someone to pick up 2 pair or a set on the turn and full house on the river if given a free card after the flop.
I have done it both ways and in a full game and I perfer to bet it out and reraise - to the river. I am amazed at the number of callers there are to the river when the pot is any size at all. I just love those pot odds players. They always make the "correct" play.
"I just love those pot odds players. They always make the "correct" play."
I think you mean to say that you love those players who continually screw up in assessing pot odds. If a player is always correctly assessing pot odds, you generally don't want him in your games.
Actually, I believe Rounder doesn't care if a pot is giving his adversary the correct odds to call. He just wants them to call. If a person picks up a nut flush draw on the river and Rounder is sitting with a hand that can only be beat by someone hitting the flush, Rounder would gladly be in a pot worth $900 and a $60.00 bet to call for his opponent. Sure his opponent is getting 15:1 on his bet, but whose hand would you rather have?
My point is I want these guys shooting at me for the longshot. I'm probably not gonna be there when the odds catch up cuz of the few hands I'm in so I want the "correct call" God knows I pray for pot odds players in my games - I love when they tell me (when I beat their BS missed draw) they had the right sized pot for a call or how many outs thay had - if they hade 8 outs I have the rest of the deck.
Sorry guys I an a true believer.
Rounder,
Are we to assume that you only play flopped straights and flushes and trips/full houses and never draw to the river? Hats off to ya if that is so, I wish I had so much discipline! :)
No Joe - I do draw once and a while but I am usually the one leading the betting and showing my cards 1st on the show down.
If you haven't been here long you'd know I don't draw to 3 card flushes and/or straights, 2 over cards (except on certin situations) or mid to small pairs in the pocket.
In other words I am rarely on the right end of a bad beat and play a low varience game.
How do you recognize being on the right end? Do you think that someone put a bad beat on you when they called your turn bet of $8.00 when they had a 5 outer? I say it is a bad beat if they called you with less than a correct combination of pot and implied odds for their draw. Getting there with a 5 outer isn't putting a bad beat on someone. Chasing with less than correct pot odds and then getting there, to me, that is the bad beat.
Low variance is a mixed blessing in your case. You are paying a big price for it with all the pot equity you are forfeiting to others on those occasions that your holdings justify a call but you insist on folding. If you are one of the better players in a game, you should welcome continuing on when your cards give you good reason to.
Exactamundo John!
So you play a low variance game. It's kind of funny that you want players who have the proper pot odds to call against you, since they probably won't win. And since you play so few hands, you probably won't be in there when the odds "catch up". When players call (rather than fold )with proper pot odds, that lowers your expectaion and increases your variance. If you still want them to call, you must be running ridiculously hot (which has become very apparent from some statements in numerous other posts).
Wow Rounder!
I fully respect your opinion and look forward to reading your responses. I'm amazed at your position on this one. I can understand what you're saying, but a simple calculation of "expectation" dictates that you're wrong. At this point, after reading many of your posts, it's quite obvious you're playing too low a variance and it's costing you a great deal of money (may be it's keeping you sane though). Pot odds vs. hand odds are EXTREMELY significant.
I still look forward to your posts as I believe you have tremendous insight. And your posts are both interesting, entertaining and chuck-full of great info. But I'm amazed in California.
"but whose hand would you rather have?"
That's a different question. Of course, I would rather have the made hand instead of the draw. But if I was Rounder and making the $60 bet, I would hope that my opponent does not have a flush draw and would therefore fold in this situation, wouldn't you?
Actually, all things considered I'd rather them go for the draw and put the $60.00 in the pot. The pot odds might be in their favor but the real odds are still against them.
It really seems like it's a win-win situation: you both have pot odds, so you should both be in. However, the money that you make doesn't come from your correct decisions, it comes from your opponents wrong ones. To make money, he has to give up a winning play. The flush draw is a winning play. I want him out.
Jim
You make money for *your* correct decisions. No where else.
If everyone makes correct plays via pot/implied odds, then the luck of the game will cause money lost/gained to tend towards zero for every player. So someone has to make a mistake. By making the correct call, you're making sure it's not you.
I will admit that I am fundamentally unsure about what I'm talking about, because the calculation of all the odds is more time consuming than my attention span will allow me to calculate.
If you would do the same thing as your opponent in his position, knowing what your cards were, then any money you make is entirely due to luck. I happen to beleive that poker is not a game of luck (mostly because I get my butt kicked by scott every time we play). If you're going to win money in the long run, he's got to fold.
I'm sorry James, but although i don't put myself in the same league as Rounder we are certainly of the same philosophy. In this situation let the guy put in his $60.00 46 times. 9 times he'll win, 37 times he'll lose. It's quite possible even probable that the 9 times he wins will not be against me. I'll take those odds all the time.
i strongly recomemend that anyone seriously pursuing poker study combinatorics and probability theory. at least at the 'a first course in..' level. but watch out, my text for my graduate stochastic processes course a couple years ago was called 'a first course in stochastic processes'.
anyway, the 'not against me' argument and others i have seen made by some posters are very wrong. it is ok to prefer low variance, but you should understand what theoretically entails. if you want me to explain it to you, you can post a new thread or email me. but i will only be able answer your direct questions and i think you will have a more complete understanding if you read a book.
scott
scott,
i read a lot of pat conroy. will that do? :)
scottyouhavenoideawhatyourtalkingabout
Then let's state the problem a different way: if my odds of winning are 37:9 against, would you be willing to lay me 6:1?
In poker, you always hope that your opponent folds when his chances of winning are greater than that fraction of the total pot he has to wager in order to try to win. If he calls, he is getting a bargain; if he folds, it is you that gets a bargain since you "purchased" the pot for less than it was worth. Remember that the opponent isn't calling your bet of "X" to win "X", he's calling your bet of "X" to win "X" + "P" when "P" equals the total pot before the bet and call of "X".
Sammy,
I'm blown away by the thinking of you guys who want someone to call who is drawing against you with correct odds in this situation (to set the record straight for my lurking student, I'm with scott, skp and Big John in this thread).
You wrote: "Actually, I believe Rounder doesn't care if a pot is giving his adversary the correct odds to call. He just wants them to call."
If he does the math, he clearly doesn't. It isn't even close. He has one opponent getting a huge overlay.
" If a person picks up a nut flush draw on the river and Rounder is sitting with a hand that can only be beat by someone hitting the flush, Rounder would gladly be in a pot worth $900 and a $60.00 bet to call for his opponent. Sure his opponent is getting 15:1 on his bet, but whose hand would you rather have?"
As skp has already said, I would rather have Rounder's hand. But to get to this point (a huge pot with only one opponent drawing), an awful lot of money went into this pot by third parties that no longer have a chance to win it!
So Rounder should be happiest of all to be in this very rare situation, his lone remaining opponent should be almost as happy to be drawing to a huge pot getting a large overlay, Rounder should wish his lone opponent would fold by mistake, and Rick wonders how a pot that is now head up got so big.
Regards,
Rick
There are calls from seat 6 (who bets any pair on the flop), seat 8, and button. I toss in $5, BB raps, and 5 of us take the flop. I have 4 6 spades.
Flop is 3 5 7 rainbow.
I decide it is worth the small risk of a free card and check, hoping to check raise. It gets checked around.
Turn is Jh, making two hearts on the board. I bet, seat 4 and seat 6 call, others fold to SB who raises. I reraise, seat 4 folds, seat 6 cold calls, and SB calls.
At this point I believe I am up against a set (or possibly even a full) and a flush draw.
River comes 3 hearts. I check, seat 6 checks, SB bets, I call. Seat 6 folds
SB shows nut flush.
Questions:
Should I have bet, even though the flop was so harmless? Unless I am up against a flopped set, it will take runner-runner to beat the straight, a risk I felt was prudent with this flop.
Once my check-raise plan doesn't work on the flop, should I have gone for a check raise on the turn?
Is the call on the river a suckers call?
Thanks Larry
I just addressed the slow play aspect in the nut flush below - slow playing is very dangerous in a bigger field specially in lower limit HE. You have to bet it out and hope to win at some point. Before some ahole gets lucky on the river and snaps your great hand.
I would not have even played. I know the button is tough to toss, but the cards are too low for me. The straight/flush possibilities would not entice me. I want at least 1 big card for value. If you get the straight, it might be even a chop. You need the flush, and you'll probably have company....bigger company.
I thought you were the button. If you were SB, you should have tossed it with no thinking. Next hand you'll have the best position. Wait one.
ratso,
From your posts above you appear to think the button call would have been relatively better. Like skp in a post a bit below, I don't see how you can not play these hands for half a bet.
You have about twice the pot odds out of the small blind (in a 10/20 game) as you would on the button. This easily makes up for bad position (in the SB) with a hand whose primary value comes from flopping and making draws with this many opponents. I would say calling out of the blind is a no brainer.
On the other hand, a 6 4 suited on the button with three typical limpers would be a marginal fold (even if you knew the SB would call and the BB would not raise giving you five to one pot odds).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Note to 6/12 and 9/18 players: With this structure, you are only getting 6.5 to one on your SB call. This is perhaps a marginal fold pre flop although I would call if I was up against weak opponents which are typical at these limits.
Interesting point. I do realize that this play shows a weakness in my game. Funny how this forum has gotten me to see things just a bit differently. I suppose I consider the SB a bad position in spite of the pot odds. I know the hand 46s is a flop hand, but I fear a higher straight/flush draw or worse a flop that contains a near card + 1 suited + a small pair. Now I feel compelled to play. Any advice?
ratso,
I have time for a tidbit or two.
You wrote: "I know the hand 46s is a flop hand, but I fear a higher straight/flush draw or worse a flop that contains a near card + 1 suited + a small pair. Now I feel compelled to play."
I generally wouldn't worry about higher straights with a single gap hand. The straight you give up (compared to a connector) is the only one that is really vulnerable. A flush when made should hold up about 80% of the time (I think small caps scott or Izmet did the math).
If you get a pair/three flush/ three straight type hand then you simply must play well post flop. You don't have to call or bet if your chances are slim and the pot is small. On the other hand, you will sometimes be able to outplay a better hand.
One advantage to the blinds is that it is hard for your opponents to put you on a hand. This sometimes allows you to make a play or steal. For example, with the preflop action originally posted in this thread, the flop comes a K 8 2 rainbow and no one bets the flop. Now the turn pairs the deuce. You can come out betting as a pure bluff and in most games you will win about 35% of the time. On the button this play won't work as much since your opponents will often get the chance to bet first and if they don't they will call more often since they figure you would have bet your pair on the flop.
In a nutshell, there are some advantages to being a bit blind :-).
Regards,
Rick
In Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em Lee Jones addresses this specific point. Slow playing at the low limits is just not recommended. Maybe with quads but that's about it. The truth of the matter is, no one is going to believe you anyway, you might as well take their money while hopes springs eternal in their puny hands. Check raising is also a mistake unless there was a late pre- flop raiser who you know will bet out of habit. Still, I would have mucked and mucked it fast preflop. There's another hand coming in two minutes.
PS you're always better off catching the straight, as you did, rather than the flush because of the low cards you played.
But Sammy this is not low limit hold-em. He had to put in $5 from his small blind to see the flop so he was in a $10-$20 game not in a low limit game that Lee Jones addresses.
Jim,
Perhaps, and perhaps not. Yes, The Jones book is directed to games $6-$12 and under, but I see an awful lot of Ax and Q8s in my $10-$20 game played in early position. I think the point is, with no pre flop raiser it is just too dangerous to give free cards just because you flopped a very beatable hand. Bet it out, I say and hope the guy on your left flopped two pair and raises and knocks out the runner runner possibilities.
Preflop
I would definitely call out of the sb with 64 suited in a feild of 5 players.
Flop
A check can be all right but generally, I would bet here because I am probably going to have a couple of opponents who will call because they have overcards. A better checkraise situation on the flop would be if the flop is K,10,9 and you have Q,J. There, a bet is unlikely to garner a call (but it might entice a raise from someone holding a King).
Turn
Having checked the flop, you are certainly correct in betting the turn. I wouldn't recommend trying for a checkraise again.
River
The 3h is about the worst card in the deck for you. I would likely make the crying call. A better player would probably have the good sense to fold.
Whether or not to call the river is largely dependant on what kind of player the SB is. If he's the kind of player who would check raise with a J here, or maybe a big 5 (it sounds funny,but it can happen), then you clearly have to call. However, it's important to remember that the 3h looks as scary to him as it does to you IF that card doesn't somehow help his hand.
skp,
This is one of those threads where I have a little I would like to say just about everywhere.
I agree with you, scott, and Andrew Prock that the pre-flop call is almost automatic. I'm also amazed at how many posters would toss it.
On the flop I believe it is rarely incorrect to come out betting when you flop a small card straight unless you think that a raise on your left will cut off your action. An example is when an UTG player raises pre flop and he almost always auto bets or raises the flop. Here a check raise would be the play to go for.
I agree with your turn and river comments once the flop was checked.
Regards,
Rick
Position really killed you in this one.
By betting the flop, you aren't giving much away. The slowplay doesn't seem like it's too profitable, as you have a large feild of opponents; you will almost certainly get your callers. The three flush will be facing losing odds, and he'll be out. The bet becomes very profitable because you have both increased the pot size, and you have kept out pesky draws that have no right to be in the hand.
All that said, you should have mucked the hand, because your position made it impossible to play this one correctly.
"Position really killed you in this one."
well spoken, sir.
"your position made it impossible to play this one correctly"
not true. see any number of sources. for example, your second paragraph.
"you should have mucked the hand"
but it is fun to play hands. you are not losing much here, if at all. i love this game. i call.
and why shouldn't people trust me? have i ever, in all the time that you've known me, lied? thought not. also, if you are not looking at the other forums, i suggest that you do so. especially general theory and other poker games. and other topics has some funny stuff.
scott
scott,
my sole point in the comment about not trusting you was the fact that you had already stated that I was a phys major at the same time that you said I went to caltech. Ratso asked what I was majoring in, so I commended him for not beleiving you out of complete sarcasm. :)
(and yes, I only did that cause I know you love 'em)
There was that time you claimed you used to be a model...
i told you i was kidding 30 seconds later. that's not a lie.
scott
Pre-flop, I would probably fold 6-4 suited in my small blind with only four opponents but I would never consider calling for $5 given $40 already in the pot a bad play. In addition, it does not figure to get raised with only the big blind yet to act. I think your call was okay.
The flop is rainbow with only low cards. The pot is small since it was unraised pre-flop. Most authorities would argue that inducing additional bets in a small pot like this has priority over protecting what is out there. Going for a check-raise is not a bad play. However, I prefer to bet out because I have four opponents and someone with top pair or an over pair might raise my bet allowing me to re-raise if others remain or just smooth call and bet the turn if it becomes heads-up. I might even get a call from someone with a Four or Six. As with your pre-flop play, going for a check-raise is a close decision.
It was absolutely correct for you to bet the turn and re-raise when raised. At this point you have to take the gloves off and start betting your hand. It is highly unlikely you are up against a set. If someone had a pocket pair of Jacks they would have raised pre-flop. Someone with a small set might have bet the flop. It is far more likely that you are up against top pair, two pair, and/or a flush draw.
Your call on the river was mandatory. Let them show you their runner-runner flush or full house. Folding would be very bad poker since these guys will aggressively bet two pair.
I think you made some marginally close decisions pre-flop and on the flop that just happened to work out badly in this particular case. But this is a sample size of one.
I have to agree with Jim's reasoning considering $5 for $40 and 5 people in, but I would still like to wait for the button. I most games I have played, BB woud have raised with anything remotely resembling a 35% hand meaning I could expect to plop down another $5 to see the flop and possibly loose a player. I guess I am too conservative.
If you look up bad play in the dictionary this hand is illustrated. It is the classic BAD PLAY - worst position and horrible cards.
He flops a miracle and still is loser - that 1/2 bet cost him dearly - you can't lost sight of the suck in factor with a hand like 6-4 - not in my opening hand book for sure.
Rounder points out "If you look up bad play in the dictionary this hand is illustrated. It is the classic BAD PLAY - worst position and horrible cards."
After this post, I now see that some of the opinions I have respected are now worthless. A half bet on this garbage. Rounder says you're morons and I, who also would have made this call PREVIOUSLY, simply cannot disagree.
(scott - no smiley faces - is he or isn't he?)
Regards Mike N
is whom what?
anyway, i call. my reasons are below. skp also defends it well. i just have confidence in my post flop play to overcome some of the disadvantages of position and marginal cards. i don't see how you can fold this hand, unless the bb is a frequent raiser.
scott
scott is totally right. The sb is getting 9:1 odds for a call here. The calling odds for a hand like this are around 6:1 so we are talking about a pretty good overlay here.
The position thing that Rounder talks about is an issue, but with this hand it's flop or drop. You just aren't going to play it hard without the nutz, or near nutz, and you aren't going to continue without a good draw or 2 pair or better. The hand just about plays itself.
- Andrew
One on of the BIG problems with a hand like this is that you don't know if it's the nuts until the river. You can't flop the nut straight, you can't flop a nut flush, you can't flop a decent two pair, so what's left, flopping a straight flush? Where is this hand going and how aggressive can you ever be with it?
Sammy,
Difference is between gamblers and grinders.
Low varience and high variance.
Winning and losing.
Sammy,
Yes you can flop the nut straight. Any straight you *do* flop with this hand is almost always good on the flop. Over 80% of the flushes you flop with this hand are going to be good on the flop as well.
I said you can't get super aggressive with these kind of hand normally. That doesn't mean you can never get aggressive. It also doesn't mean the hand isn't playable.
For 9:1 odds, the hand is most assuredly playable.
- Andrew
It's not only the immediate 9-1, but the implied odds which, in the sb for half a bet, are huge. Easy call.
"is whom what"
Am I joking or not joking. SEE! I told you!
I needed a SARCASM ON .... SARCASM OFF or a wink face.
None of the following posts realized I was kidding! I made the post as obvious as I could.
I was right and you were wrong. Nyah Nyah. (How can you tell I have 2 young children?)
Of course I would play this hand. Rounder wouldn't, but that's his preference. I believe anyone who wouldn't play this from the small blind is giving up too much for the sake of low variance. I don't say their idiots or anything; just a little too tight.
Regards Mike N
i knew you were joking by your tone, but i was not sure what was the antecedent of 'he'. so i did not get the joke. maybe he were making fun of me and maybe you were making fun of rounder. a sarcastic face would not have clarified the sentence.
scott
Sounds like a bet on the flop wouldn't get him out. The way he saw it, hey, I've got the Ace and a flush draw - I'm calling.
That call would be super incorrect, right? The back door flush has 6% odds at best. The bet from bb is a made pair of some kind, and his odds of making 2 pair are better than your chance of aces. The bet should get this guy out.
It should, maybe I misread your discription of seat 6. Do you think he would call? Check-raise would get him out for sure, but unfortunately for you, no one bet. That's the risk of a check. But I would have played it like you did. No way whatsoever is the call on a River a sucker call, though his cold call had to be a flush draw - or what was his kicker, did he have a straight draw too? The River card also paired the board - maybe a cold call with a set - full house! You were dead in many ways. You knew you were beat - but I have to call to see his cards - the size of the pot alone dictates so. I think over the long run its best to call - even when you know you are dead.
call preflop. so it is a little wrong. who cares? put someone on tilt. what's $5? it's barely incorrect and it is fun to play. i call.
flop. got to bet. would you often bet without the straight knowing noone has hit the flop? i would. so bet this too. you'll get some callers. and if not, you can steal next time and the preflop call was clearly correct. also, there is no reason to belive someone will bet for you. or that the person who would bet would not raise thinking that you are trying to steal the pot.
turn. got to bet.
river. it's a shame. a damn shame. but i call anyway. he may have caught some crazy to pair or something. so he thinks you might fold. unless your read here is nigh infalliable, call.
scott
It isn't the $5 it's what rags like costs IF you get a piece of the flop.
if your strategy is fold unless you flop a straight flush, your ev here is about -$4.99. any decent postflop player can play it better than that. so their ev is higher than -$4.99. which is already higher than $5.
scott
"call preflop. so it is a little wrong. who cares? put someone on tilt. what's $5? it's barely incorrect and it is fun to play. i call."
Yeah!
I am always shocked at the number of people who say "muck" in this situation. The posters on this Forum are some of the best players around. The money in hold 'em comes from post-flop play. Well, you can't get to post-flop play often enough if you are continually folding hands like 64 suited from the small blind. Over hundreds of hands, I am pretty sure that I am going to win my $5 back just by correctly identifying bluff opportunities from the small blind. Thus, I don't even think that the call can be said to be wrong from a pure EV point of view as there will be times that I will flop a monster and drag in a big pot.
But even if the call is wrong, it can't be wrong by much. As you say, put some fun into the game!
Calls like these will also help remove the rock tag that others put on you.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
I guess I should have said "anyway, that's my moronic opinion":)
yeah, we're both morons. but isn't it fun?
scott
Agreed! The largest pot I've won comes from a 56s. I'll never forget it! I'm positive I'm ahead on these hands in the blinds and late position many callers. I'm also positive I'm down when playing these hands from middle position.
On second thought, maybe I'll chuck them pre-flop even from the BB. I mean, what if I flop the nut's, make a huge pot and then lose on the river. I'll never get those 6 big bets back!
Regards Mike N
xx
This may be the best post I've seen on the forum so far this year.
Whether or not some of the best players in the country (or, in your case, continent) post here is unclear. Most of the geniunely great players I've met don't even own a computer, and I've only played with a handful of posters. Either way, there seem to be a fair number of 'posters' who equate strong play with simply being tight pre-flop. I don't know why this idea has gained such popularity, but it's value is certainly limited.
But as you said, profit in HE comes from smart (and sometimes imaginative) play on the later betting rounds. I'm not convinced that all, or even the posters here understand this. After all, you don't win any money by convincing Sklansky and Malmuth that your pre-flop game is dynamite. If your goal is to WIN, particularly to win in games that can sometimes get tough, it won't hurt you to learn how to play a 46s. Even if this hand doesn't make you a fortune, it's probably worth playing just for the practice.
This applies to other hands as well (I know you know that). In one of Malmuth's essays he talks about players playing more starting hands than might be "correct". Not many more, just more. By being involved in these hands you learn (and maybe lose money while learning) when they are good and when they are not to a better degree than someone who does not play them. Basically you are training to become an expert player.
As an example, if you play low pairs more often than is correct, then you'll become more adept at knowing when you are beat by an overset. This will be an asset when your set of Q's is beat by K's. You will learn because it will happen to you more often.
Regards Mike N
Mason, have I got this correct? I'm on lunch and do not have your essay books here.
Let's get metaphysical:
I think if you are running good you can make the call. It is not technically incorrect.
However,if you are running bad, you can bet your sweet ass that you will get the Jimmy Dean calling $5 from the small blind with this hand.
Hey, what do I know, I'm a moron!
I haven't read all the other responses, so I may be redundant here.
I think the way to play this hand is to bet the flop, planning to check-raise on the turn. If there are only one or two callers on the flop, then you should probably just bet out on the turn.
As you said, there aren't many cards for you to be scared of, so if enough players take off a card you should be able to check-raise and be very confident that you still have the best hand.
I like this play in situations like this, since most people won't give you credit for the straight since the natural tendency is to slow-play it. Consequently it looks like you have a pair or two and are trying to avoid giving anyone a free card. The check on the turn looks natural since an over card came to beat your pair and you are naturally more cautious about being raised by the possible straight (who slow-played it on the flop :).
Eric
ddddddddd
Well. I didn't expect to start such a firestorm, but the rather strong differences of opinion at least vindicate my own feelings of indecision here.
I should have given more info on the game. Its only 10-20, but is the big game in our area and all the players seated were A or B level. Everyone involved in this pot plays decent hold-em.
My thoughts are:
1. Preflop I have no doubt that the call was correct. Why? Because in my style I either pick up a good hand or I'm gone. It is one easy decision. I need 2 pair, oper-ender, or better here. I am no real fan of flopping a flush draw, if I make a flush with this sort of cheese I want it to be back doored, and on a flopped flush draw it can get there on the turn and get redrawn, if not already beat. I either agree or disagree with you guys (gals) here.
2. No preflop raise. This indicates to me someone should have picked up a gutshot, or a small overpair, or even something like TJ, and this crew will bet any of these hands, especially if there are a couple of checks ahead of them. 68 or 89 are definitely going to get bet.
3. Small pot. If it was raised pre-flop I come out gunning to take it down right away. (Of course if its raised I'm not in this hand but this is my thinking)
4. Rainbow. If there is a 2-flush I bet it out.
5. I have only 4 opponents. I would have bet into a field, but I felt with 4 opponents the checkraise attempt was worth it.
In retrospect I agree with Eric's post that I should have bet the flop and check raised the turn. This is how I would often bet a set and in this situation a set and straight are about on par.
Larry
At Bay 101 in San Jose I sometimes set at tables in the lower limits with idiots who insist on folding preflop or postflop by throwing their cards away face up (either to point out the fact that they can't get cards or to show that they almost had a monster). I don't complain because I assume that I make better use of the information than a lot of others at the table.
I was wondering though if the house shouldn't take more of a stand on this sort of thing.
Thoughts?
Of course. It ruins the game and is not only rude it is stupid.
A moron's view:
Exposing hole cards is just one of the problems that I observed at the Bay 101 and the Lucky Chances Casino when I was there recently.
The biggest was the use of foreign language at the table.
Both of these violations should be dealt with by the floor people and are given only lip service - pardon the pun - and the dealers are hesitant to police/criticize the players who provide them their tokes.
Consequently, I won't play there any more because I felt players were trying to cheat and I had to be the bad guy to ask that English only be spoken at the table.
I feel much more comfortable at the Commerce Club or the Bellagio where this is not tolerated by the dealers/management.
It is not that big of a problem and people will stop if the issue is challenged.
It is a huge overeaction to accept the big drop at the Commmerce or the smoke of the Belagio and refuse to play in possibly the best games on the planet because of these minor annoyences.
But hey, the games are probably even better if all the forum readers follow this idea!
D.
Thank you for confirming my point. Why should a player have to challenge the issue? It should not be an issue. I did challenge the language - in every game I played for a week straight. I was just visiting and thought the rooms were less professionally run than in Vegas and southern California. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
As far as the drop at the Commerce, I would rather pay an hourly rate than having the player on the button post a collection.
I will agree that the no smoking in California is great.
I’m looking to improve my pre-flop play. I have a good understanding of what cards to play, in what position, against which players. What continues to separate me from the truly polished player, is the understanding of when, why, and where to raise.
I used to play very conservatively pre-flop. I would never raise big unsuited cards in loose games or against many limpers. I’d always limp in with drawing hands even though I could expect many callers, etc. etc. I did beat the game this way, but nowhere near for what I’ve been beating it lately.
Now I am very aggressive pre-flop. About the only time I DON’T raise, is when I want multi-way action and think a raise might prevent it, or if there are callers in early position and it’s very likely I will flop a dominated hand. Other than that, if I’m playing, I’m raising. Am I headed for disaster?
It has been VERY successful over the past 200 hours. I am not a maniac. I am a tight player and do not CALL a raise without VERY good cards. I think there are many sometimes overlooked advantages to raising pre-flop, (even without the best hand). I am expecting opposing points of view, and would like to hear and learn from them. But let me intercept the more obvious admonishments.
#1 I do play well after the flop. I can usually get off top pair when I’m beat. Not always of course, but more than other players in the game.
#2 The game I play in is not overly tough. I realize that the best strategy to use against someone like me is to constantly re-raise, and punish him for his aggression. But so far, no one seems willing to do this. Isolating is hard in my game because it is usually too loose to do so.
Is this the way to becoming a tough player or a broke player?
just a few thoughts.
"do not CALL a raise without VERY good cards"
the correct play with very good cards is almost always to reraise. an exception is when the first raise will not eliminate multiway action but your reraise will. (cutoff raises 5 limpers, you're on the button, any good multiway hand is a cold call.) but if some one raises and it's folded to you, reraise or fold with few exceptions.
"Now I am very aggressive pre-flop"
i like general aggression. unless i have a good reason to just call, i raise. even then, i sometimes raise because i have a better reason to raise. this applies to post flop, too.
"I do play well after the flop. I can usually get off top pair when I’m beat."
playing well after the flop is far more than saving bets. winning extra bets and pots are also very important. also, as long as your preflop is reasonable, postflop what really matters.
scott
don'tforgetthedoublereraisethatisagoodonetoo
Steven H wrote: I realize that the best strategy to use against someone like me is to constantly re-raise, and punish him for his aggression.
Not true. If you're being tight, and then being aggressive when you do come in, there is no good way to punish you preflop (except to fold hands that aren't likely enough to win, and therby deny you any profit from me).
The only way a better player is going to make money from you is by outplaying you postflop. A tight but aggressive preflop strategy is essentially bulletproof. Of course, the best players will be doing the same thing, so you can't really take advantage of them preflop either. And, if they are better than you postflop, you will need other contributing players to make money.
However, in most games, if you're perfect preflop, you will still make some profit, as long as you're at least average postflop. Once you become great postflop, you're ready for any game anywhere (almost).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think you've made a good change in your game. Actually, I made about the same changes in my game about a year ago and had the exact same results, so it probably isn't just coincidence or a lucky streak.
SammyB writes:
Actually, all things considered I'd rather them go for the draw and put the $60.00 in the pot. The pot odds might be in their favor but the real odds are still against them.
You seem to be saying that you'd rather have a flush call than fold. This makes absolutly no sense. If they fold, you win ALL of the money ALL of the time. If they call, then you win ALL of the money MOST of the time.
Ok, maybe that's a bit simplistic. But you really have to be careful with what you are saying here. If calling for them is a breakeven proposition for them, then you really don't mind them calling. If it's a losing proposition for them, then you'll make more money when they call incorrectly than when they fold correctly.
On the other hand, when they call with correct pot odds, you make less money in the long run over when they fold.
Let's make it concrete using some examples:
Example A) You are a 4:1 favorite at the turn over a known flush draw. You will fold if the 3rd flush card hits on the river. He will also fold the river if he doesn't improve. You bet $10 into a $30 pot. You win $40 every time your opponent folds. If your opponent calls, he makes $40 two times and loses $10 eight times, making it a break even proposition for him. On the other hand you win $50 eight times, and win nothing the other two times. In the long run this is equivalent to the player folding.
Example B) Same situation, except now the pot has only $20 in it before your bet. If your opponent calls, he makes $30 two times and loses $10 eight times. EV per hand is -$2. You win $40 eight times for an EV of $32 per hand. This is $2 more than if the player folds.
Example C) Same situation again, except now that pot has $40 in it before your bet. Opponent calls: he makes $50 two times and loses $10 eight times. His EV per hand is $2 now. The made hand now wins $60 eight times for an EV of $48 per hand. This is $2 LESS than what you would make if the opponent folded to your bet.
To sumarize: in a head to head situation, if your opponent has pot odds, you make more money when he fold. If your opponent doesn't have pot odds you make more money when he calls.
Remember, if your opponent profits from his calls, that money is coming from somewhere.
- Andrew
you are, of course, correct. if anyone has trouble understanding andrew's discussion, they should read "a first course in probability theory" by sheldon ross. it is a good book that most undergrad probability theory courses use.
scott
I know I'm even more simplistic, Andrew, and I really do appreciate the forum and all I have learned from it, BUT, if he calls and he doesn't hit I don't care where the money is coming from I just care it is going to me. Most of the things I've read here say to make straight draws and flush draws pay to draw. So, the pot gets bigger. So they stay in longer because now they have the coorect odds, so they put in more money. I'm sitting with top set, I'm looking for callers and I'm getting them. I want to bet the turn, I want them to call with any odds they want, and I know in the long run I might get beat plenty on the river. But me wanting them to call or not wanting them to call will in no way influence whether or not they will actually call. All I can do is hope that if their flush card hits, it fills me up. Either way with top set I want callers, as many as I can get.
Sam Writes: "Either way with top set I want callers, as many as I can get."
This is simply false. You would prefer they fold if they have odds to draw.
AND also: "Most of the things I've read here say to make straight draws and flush draws pay to draw."
Yes you should make them pay, so don't check your top set, and give them infinite odds to draw. This is not inconsistant with wanting them to fold.
I'm too groggy to figure out an appropriate scenario for this but,let's see if this is too simplistic.
Is it possible for a hand to call a bet post flop when it doean't have sufficient pot odds to call, but to then call a bet on the turn when, because of the betting it now does have pot odds to call?
And, can the situation be reversed where it starts off righht and becomes wrong?
If so,which mistake is the determining one?
Bottom line is these guys (most of them) like to gamble and that's ok. I just can't see the logic that says if your caller is 15-1 and the pot is 14-1 it is a good call for you but if the pot is 18-1 it is a good call for him. DUH - I am not going to argue with them cuz I am not the one gambling - I'm there and looking for one of the "rest of the deck" I have on my side to fall so I can scoop up the pot.
Besides what could the books be about if they didn't make rocket science out of this great game.
Rounder wrote: I just can't see the logic that says if your caller is 15-1 and the pot is 14-1 it is a good call for you but if the pot is 18-1 it is a good call for him.
That's unfortunate, because many posters have tried to explain this to you many times. It's not that you can't see Rounder, it's that you REFUSE to see.
DUH - I am not going to argue with them
Then why do you keep bringing it up? Face it Rounder, as you said in another post, you're a true believer. To me, that means that you will defend your position even when it's clear to all that you're wrong, because you will never admit you're wrong. Being a true believer is never a good thing, because it implies that you're so sure you're right that you refuse to even consider other possibilities.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
I have tried it both ways and the 10,000 hands it takes for the odds to even out is just not in my play book any more.
I will use pot odds in my calculations but it is hardly the main factor in my decision making process.
Sometimes, pot odds is the only factor.
Suppose the pot has $900 and a fellow bets $60 into you heads up when the board reads Ah9h8s2d and you have KhJh. Suppose further that this man accidently exposes his hand and you see that it is AA.
Do you or do you not call?
Suppose you have Qs,Js instead of KhJh...do you or do you not call?
16 to 1 pot odds - I call the flush draw 5-1 and pass the gut shot 12-1. Like I have been saying I need odds on my side to make the call.
And how is getting 16 to 1 on a 10.5 to 1 draw not giving you the odds you need?
Post deleted at author's request.
Greg,
I comprehend what you guys are saying. What I am lacking is the confidence, and that lack of confidence probably derives from a lack of knowledge, a situation which I am endeavoring to remedy, not only through these posts, but through the books I'm reading.
Please look at the situation I outlined in this thread and analyze it.
What appeals to me about Rounder's methods is easy to see. I've only been playing seriously for 5 months and although I've taken my lumps I'm still ahead a little over $800. While learning to read opponents, while learning to analyze situations, while observing different styles and being able to adjust to maniacs, rocks, and skilled players Rounder's method yields a much smaller variance. It's a cheaper education his way, and although all of the logic of the pos ev school makes sense on paper, you can't argue with Rounder because he does what works for him. I don't doubt him for a second when he says he's a winner, even though I don't know of any losers that post to this forum. All in all, playing when you have the best of it, and not drawing to the best of it is hedging your bets, I'll grant you, but for a lot of us, we're not doing it for an income. We want to enjoy the game and win more often than we lose. Maximizing every opportunity is for the pros, a level to which I do not aspire.
Thanks for all your comments. SammyB
SammyB-
You'll do much better trying to understand Greg's logic than adhering to Rounder's dogma. Not to mention that you will win more money and have more fun in the long run. Poker is not about just minimizing variance. It is about putting your money in against opponents when you are getting the best of it. Period. Sometimes this means drawing, sometimes it means betting a made hand, sometimes it is semi-bluffing or raising on the come, sometimes it is stone-cold bluffing, sometimes it means seeking a seat or game change.
If you forego profitable betting or calling opportunites because of a lack of knowledge, so be it. It is part of the learning process and I assme you are corresponding on this forum to improve your game. If you forego profitable opportunities CONSCIOUSLY because it's "easier", or you want to reduce variance, or stoke your ego as a tight player, or get some other psychic charge out of it, then that's fine, too.
Just don't expect most 2+2 posters to empathize with that type of attitude. Most of them enjoy the game because it offers a never-ending challenge, which is to continually seek that extra edge- to outplay both your best and worst opponent. To get the money. Now and over the long run.
"It is about putting your money in against opponents when you are getting the best of it. Period."
Positive Expecation
+EV
"The Best Of It"
This is were one should focus. If you can get this down good things "WILL" happen with your over all game.
MJ
If you have a bankroll too small for your game or no bankroll then play the game where you do not look for small +EV advantages. You must play the larger +EV draws. Even Rounder alludes to that.
I like plays such as the following
I' relatively sure I'm not up against a set. I have the nut flush (or can determine that any flush is good) and I am against 4 other players. No pair on board. 1/10 times I would raise this when in late position.
I'm not giving up anything much in odds. The pot will become large enough to guarantee a couple extra calls on the river. I of course fold if I miss. I gain power over the players when I hit. I gain more calls for my non-draw hands because "he might not have it".
As for your other question: 2 card backdoor flushes are like this. Horrible call on the flop. Pot Odds to call on the turn. The +EV on the turn does not overcome the -EV on the flop.
Regards Mike N
Post deleted at author's request.
I was playing at a table the other day that evaporated to only 4 players near the end of the night. I was sitting in big blind with K10o. Everyone called and I let the flop come without a raise. -Although it probably wouldn't have affected the outcome of the hand, should I have raised there? Anyway, the flop came Kxxs. LB checked. Holding top pair, I decided to represent the flush so I bet out. The loose player to my left raised and the tight player on the button just called. LB folded. Pretty sure that the loose player was holding mid-pair, I re-raised. He called and so did the button. I was a bit concerned about nobody folding, but I put the tight player on some sort of draw and the loose player on kings with a lower kicker. The turn was an offsuit low card - no help for anybody, so I bet out again. This time however, I faced a raise and a re-raise, so I folded. It turns out the tight player was slowplaying the nut flush and the loose player did in fact have kings and had made two pair on the turn. -In hindsight, I should have known there were some hands out there and betting on the turn was a mistake. However, without a bet there I thought I would just be giving the hand away to the loose player. Should I have folded top pair to his raise on the flop? - should I have placed the button on a slowplay after the calls? Thanks. This is my first post on the forum - Don't be too hard on me.
Your re-raise was bad. I wouldn't have been that aggressive with the flop. The tight player called the loose player's raise cold - that should tell you right there that you are in trouble - he's got to have something - and with your holding I would just feel queasy - he's got the flush, two pair, has you out kicked or flopped a set (though you might tend to think he's looking for one more of the suit holding the A or high card - that's the optimist thinking - the pessimist is usually right). 10 is always a weak kicker anyhow - rather flop the 10 w/ king kicker, but that's another hand. Checking the turn likely saves you a bet, as flush will raise two pair - you'll just fold. But I do that sometimes just to see where I'm at - you found out soon enough and made the right play by folding. The bet on the flop was fine - the raise and call was a big signal, especially the cold call, that you were in trouble. Just check the rest of the way, fold when they start to duke it out.
hi ted. another from our hs game. i am glad you're posting.
i will raise from the bb here only if i have a good chance at a no showdown win.
one thing is that when the flop is all one suit and you have none of that suit, you should be very careful.
facing the raise on the flop here is what you know for sure. the tight player has the As. you can't know flush or draw, but other than those two hands he was in a reraise or fold spot. i put in about 50/50, maybe 40/60 in favor of the draw. the next question is what are the chances you have the raiser beat. i think pretty good. this guy strikes me as someone who would raise a better king than yours. here's what i do. call the raise on the flop. bet the turn unless a spade falls (then check and fold). fold to a raise by the tight player. call a raise by the loose player. if you're there on the river (and no spade falls) then check and call.
see you on friday.
scott
DjTj: You seem to be making a mistake that I see every now and then on the forum. Once someone has put one or two bets in the pot on the flop, they don't fold for one more bet no matter what they hold with very few exceptions.
Other than that, I think you played the hand o-kay except that I would not have made it three bets on the flop. I probably would have just called, led on the turn, and then folded to the raises.
I don't think that your bet on the turn was a mistake providing that you can be fairly sure that if you are raised you are drawing dead. Remember that board will look as scary to your opponents as it does to you. By playing this way you have only cost yourself one bet if the flush is already there and you don't give a free card if your hand is best. By checking and calling you may cost yourself two bets when your hand is no good instead of one or may fail to collect a (double size) bet on the turn if you hold the best hand.
DjTj,
So, generation Y is invading the forum. That's OK, at least you can find the caps key unlike your buddy scott. BTW, we will be hard on you. The world is tough so get used to it. Good thing for you Vince isn't online tonight.
Anyway, pre flop I can't see raising. KT offsuit is too weak a hand against three opponents when you are out of position.
On the flop I would be really worried about the cold call by the tight player. You are in a postion where you are either beat already or about to get beat and may have no outs. A fold could have been considered. I don't like the reraise at all.
Mason's reasoning on the turn is very strong (like he needs my approval :-) ). You can be pretty darn sure that you are dead if raised and it saves you money. His comment "Remember that board will look as scary to your opponents as it does to you." applies to many similar situations. In a sense, the pot is "protected" by the three flush and a hand weaker than yours cannot raise with another opponent to worry about.
Regards,
Rick
The hand you layed out is one I hate the most - in a hand with a weak holding and 1st to act.
Unless you have K of the co-ordinated flush suit flop I check and fold here with 3 callers. Chances are good about 1/3 that another of this suit will fall and your top pair is toast for sure. That said and your weak kicker T - I just don't like the odds here for my hand.
Note: I'd play this differently with less callers and better position.
This is wrong. For one thing, if someone has your K outkicked in a shorthanded game they will likely raise pre-flop. Further, there's no reason to believe that someone flopped a flush, since in a shorthanded game MOST decent players will raise with co-ordinated suited cards or muck them. If the players are bad (which is what I think you're used to) this of course isn't the case. You may have someone in there with a 92s. But, if our hero's players are competent, this is certainly another consideration.
And third, by betting you can probably get rid of anyone who only has the T or lower of the appropriate suit. Considering that these players may 'throw their hat in the ring' once they get there, but would fold for a bet on the flop, you do well by betting.
If you're planning on playing in mid-limit games, or even thinking about playing with players who have a clue, you can't expect much of a profit if you just check and fold in these kinds of hands.
Pre-flop, I would not raise with King-Ten offsuit out of my big blind even though there are only 4 of you in the game. Make it Ace-Ten offsuit or King-Queen offsuit or maybe even King-Jack offsuit I would raise with only 4 players in the game.
On the flop you should bet top pair despite the 3 flush on board. You probably have the best hand and you want to make anyone with a singleton in the flopped suit pay to continue. When raised and called by a tight player, I would re-raise. Since no one raised pre-flop, you have an excellent kicker with your top pair and the raiser could be raising with a worse kicker or even middle pair or just a pair and a big draw. The caller could also be on a draw.
I like your bet on the turn when a blank hits. Now if you get raised, you can safely fold. Bottom line is that I believe you played the hand correctly.
I think it is important to be aggressive in these shorthanded games when you have top pair despite the scary board. Players in a shorthanded game will frequently bet or raise having any piece of the board especially with a scary flop in an attempt to win the pot outright plus they have outs if they are called. In a full game, I probably would not re-raise on the flop in this situation, but in a four player game it is highly unlikely someone has flopped a flush. I think it is good poker to make another jab on the cheap street with a re-raise to see where everyone is at and then back off later when you get heat.
I'm not so sure. If you just check the flop, then lead bet the turn, you're in essence representing a monster. Hence, anyone who calls you had probably either a) got you beat now, or b) is on a big draw. This makes things a lot easier if a fourth flush card comes on the river.
Further, someone bets the flop, you can consider going for a check raise; that way, if someone cold calls you have gained a TON of information about their hand, where they haven't learned much at all about yours.
All around, I'm not convinced that getting in a betting war on the flop here is a good idea, considering you have no position, a mediocre hand, and no redraw to a better hand.
I played poker again and, sonofagun, I actually won some decent gelt. Sherwood was not at the table, but I don't think that is the reason. As someone said in a previous thread, you have to play through the bad times.
How much, in general, do you mentally adjust your favorable odds based on Opp’s betting action?
Let’s say you’re the Button and all fold to you and you Raise with Ts 9s.
SB, an average slightly aggressive Opp, ReRaises.
BB Folds. You Call.
Flop: 7s 3s 2s
And you have a small Flush.
Let’s say two bets go in on the Flop.
For this heads up example, I don’t think it much matters how.
Turn: 8h
At this point, against any opp’s reasonable starting hand selection criteria,
you’re at least a mathematical 7 to 1 Fav.
Now, if you get into a Raising war on the Turn, how much do you mentally cut down your theoretical odds each time he ReRaises?
Do you think to yourself, well, I’m no longer 7 to 1 maybe 3 to 1. Or maybe even money. Or I’m no longer a Favorite.
Maybe a Flush is a bad example.
How about top two pair when you can only lose to a Set?
How about a small Set that can only lose to a larger Set?
Hands like that.
Too player dependant a question IMO. There are some people that you would tend to play much more aggressively and others where you'd pull your horns in rather quickly.
In your flopped flush example, if only two bets each go in on the flop, it means he bet and I raised and he declined a reraise opportunity. On the turn, if he bets, I raise, if three bet, I call. If a non threatening card comes on the river and he bets, I call and watch what he shows down. If he checks, I bet and would reluctantly call his check raise.
Your opponent is probably on a big pair - if only sightly aggressive and reraised pre folp. So let's assume he has AA or KK with a s - There is a possibility there is a AsKs - so your in a bind flush with no where near the nuts. When reraised on the flop I'd shut down on the turn and if the river was not a s which would put you out of business.
The odds are no longer relevent as the hand is out there and what is there is there your info from the betting is more meaningful than the pre flop odds.
I'd say based on my assessment above your fav. unless a s falls on the turn.
Your other examples are tough hard to fold a set and top pair unless the board and betting tell you you are beat.
It is important to keep in mind that in these situations,especially once board cards appear, we are no longer dealing with random probability but rather with conditional probability. Given that you and your opponent are looking at 3 Spades on the flop, both of you know what the nut flush is and whether or not you have it. In a heads up situation it is okay to bet, raise, re-raise, etc. but at some point you have to realize that you might be beat. It is not really a function of pot odds per se. On the turn, I might put in one or two raises and then just play it like a little girl by checking and calling. I see this all the time at the hold-em tables. A guy puts his opponent on a certain hand based on pre-flop action and random probability and gets into a raising war with his opponent on the turn or even at the river when he doesn't have the nut flush or the nut straight. He ends up losing a stack or two unnecessarily when his opponent shows him the nuts.
Two pair versus a set is more difficult. But again if you are heads up, you should not raise and re-raise excessively on just two pair. Maybe one or two raises but no more. Pot odds are not totally relevant here.
With regard to set over set, there is a saying among hold-em players than if your set loses to a larger set you should lose a lot of money otherwise you did not play it right. Obviously, this is an exaggeration but there is no question that set over set is expensive. Fortunately, it is also rare. But even in this case, two or three raises and then you should just check and call.
Ideas from posters appreciated on the following hand. The game was 12 handed PLHE with a $5 ante/player and NO BLINDS! (Crazy structure-if all check preflop 12 players get to see the flop). I'm in seat #2 with A.A. and seat #1 comes out full pot...$60. I call and re-raise $180, seat #3 folds and #4 calls the $240 and re-raises another $240, leaving himself with about $800. Everyone folds (incl.#1) and I reraise going all-in with my last $750 and seat #4 calls all in with J.J. The flop/board is dealt...6. 7. 6. 10. ....Jack!(river). It was like being hit on the back of the head with a shovel! My question is, would it have been better to just call his preflop raise and try to 'outplay him' on the flop? Getting all my chips in preflop.. my fate rests only with the cards that are dealt (zero skill,100% luck).
No old Cobber, You couldn't out play him on the flop he was pot commited and was gonna see the river no matter what you did on the flop.
You got a bad beat. To bad it cost you so much money.
Rounder is right. It seems very likely that if this guy will put it all in preflop with JJ, then why would he fold after a favorable flop of all low cards?
In future hands, you can't do much better than getting all-in preflop with AA. You are a big (3:1?) favorite here. Even if you win more frequently, the money you don't win (when you get them to correctly fold after the flop) is so much that I think you're better off getting it all in preflop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You are about a 4.5 to 1 favorite.
Dazzler,
one of the main reasons to get it all in here is so he cant get away from it. if a big card comes he may or may not fold. you dont want him to fold unless you had a small amount of money left. you did right but just werent lucky. perhaps hanging a rabbits foot(a lucky charm) around your neck would help your luck.
Darryl,
What in the hell are you asking here? Whether you should not have taken advantage of the opportunity to get all your money in when you had the #1 pre-flop hand in all of Hold-em? BTW, you did outplay him by getting him to call your all in raise with his JJ. In big bet poker the whole point of the contest is to get a weaker opponent to take even money on a long shot. If I can outplay someone pre-flop to the point where all my money is in the center and called, I would gladly give up the questionable benefits of being able to use my superior skills post flop. When the J comes on the river, you smile, say nice hand and pull out some more money and purchase replacement cheques. Longshots do come in. Be a good bookie and let him savor his brilliant victory. Over time, you will get it all back plus interest if he continues to make bad decisions against you.
I play pot limit with 5-10 blinds and had a pretty similar hand you speak of.Two players limped in and I then raised the pot making it $60 to call with aces and a player to my left reraised me the pot making it $220 total,$160 more for me to call. I had about $600 left but chose not to go all in for if my opponent had pocket jacks or queens would possibly fold to my 400 something all-in bet on the flop if an overcard hit .By using this play I could decrease the chances of him making trips on me on the turn or river.We see the flop heads up. The flop came rags under 10 and I thought for a few seconds knowing he had atleast jacks or better so decided to expose my aces and bet allin(pot was 480 and not worth risking for another 400 something profit even though i was the favorite).He mucked queens and I gladly took it down.
Where should I begin?
First: Your failure to make another pot-sized raise before the flop is inexcusable.
Second: Showing your Rockets and then making the pot size bet on the flop is so clearly wrong that it borders on the masochistically insane.
Third: Having now displayed your inordinate fear of losing to the entire table, I can only presume that you continued playing on until you lost your entire bankroll to players that observed these poor choices and, later, exploited your many weaknesses fully?
Other than that, I'm pretty certain that you played that hand about as well as anyone could possibly hope to.
No need to get personal.I'm stating a play I made in a loose potlimit game where every made hand i had was being rundown .Knowing i was down to my last chips and didnt want to drive 2hours to get more money i didnt want to risk it.my play gives me the pot 100% or a split if he has aces also.Your play risks the pot and your last $400something almost equal to the pot for an additional $400(very bright).The play i made was unorthodox and spontaneous due to the way things were playing themselves out on the table and a sure winner.
I see why many people are reluctant to post here because of posters like you that like to abuse posters if a post somehow differs with the books you read . If i had more chips i would have let the opponent see the river that way granting the risks of him hitting a set. Pot limit isnt like the structured poker i assume you play where alot of pots are already made preflop and you should be happy to have it on the flop rather than give free rides to the river.BTW I'd walk 20 miles in the rain to play with a predictable player like yourself especially with a name as ridiculous as "BIG" john.
In the first place, I reread my post and it was inexcusibly harsh and boorish; I apoligize. While I dislike your play in that instance, I should have worded my objections less passionately. I have made many plays that were less intelligent than the one you made.
In the second place, the reason you should have gone all in preflop is that you knew absolutely that your hand couldn't be beaten at that point. If it was your last money, this is the time to put it in.
In the third place, if your opponent had flopped a set and was slowplaying it, he would have been more than happy to take your last money and have you travel the two hours to get more anyway. You put money in a pot when you could only get called if the opponent knew he had you beat.
Lastly, I live in Southern California and would be willing to make myself available to you to play a head's up freezeout game of NL or Pot limit Hold-em for any reasonable amount of money that you might be willing to name. While I claim no particular expertise in any form of poker, my preferred stakes are NL. There is no need to walk in the rain for 20 miles in order to play me. I have an automobile and would be happy to come pick you up if the money is right and the drive not too far. People call me "BIG" John because I'm 6'8 and 1/2" tall and weigh 300 lbs. Once again, I'm sorry for the snotty tone of my reply to your post.
Big John
no harm done big john(6'8 is a good reason)and i appreciate your reply.The bit about walking 20 miles in the rain was also a stretch.i don't really like rain and i'm more of a 5 mile hike guy. ps.I'm 6ft and 175lbs so as far as the invitation to go heads up its a good challenge but i will need atleast 1 year to train so i feel more comfortable mentally and physically.goodday mr.big john
C.M.,
The head's up invitation was only for big bet poker. I don't know where you play, but if you are ever in Southern California, send me an email and we'll meet at one of the clubs and get a big bet game going. Luckily for you, I'm so "juicy" that it is easy to build a game around me. Don't try exposing your rockets to me though in an attempt to get me to fold. I love an uphill challenge. ;-)
Two people left after a nicely contested pot. Your're sitting in middle position and you have a made straight. Your opponent is on the button and you've put him on a flush draw. Do you bet the turn if your opponents call would be correct?
No matter what he is not going to fold
If the answer is yes, then what difference does it make if the odds for him are correct?
Some have made an issue of "wanting" the opp to fold and "hoping" the opp would fold, but like the cards don't have a memory, they couldn't care less what you're wishing for.
In this case, I think it is correct for you to bet and correct for him to call. On the turn bet, you are getting 1-1 payoff on a 4-1 that he wont hit his flush. His call is correct because the pot odds are better than his 4-1 dog.
>Two people left after a nicely contested pot. Your're sitting
>in middle position and you have a made straight. Your opponent
>is on the button and you've put him on a flush draw. Do you
>bet the turn if your opponents call would be correct?
>
>No matter what he is not going to fold
>
>If the answer is yes, then what difference does it make if
>the odds for him are correct?
Think of it this way:
Let's say you have a made hand on the turn and your opponent is on a draw with 20% chance of success.
There is $200 in the pot. Your equity in this pot is 80% and your opponent's equity is %20. Basically, you have $160 in the pot while your opponent has $40 (and this is precisely what would happen in the long run of similar situations).
You bet $20. Your opponent has correct odds to call, and he has to do so if he wants to protect his equity (those $40) in the pot. He does not like it, mind you, as this "protection" costs him money. If you could bet $50, it would be stupid for him to pay $50 to protect his $40 (this is what happens when you call with insufficient odds).
When he calls, there's now $240 in the pot. Your equity is now $192 (80%), your opponent's is $48 (but note that he spent $20 calling your bet to increase his equity from $40 to $48 - he lost money, namely $12, on his call). By betting those twenty bucks, you increased your equity from $160 to $192. It was a pretty good investment, don't you think?
If he folds by any chance, this is a coup for you. Now you get the whole pie and not just the $160 that were rightfully yours (your equity).
You have to bet your hands against draws as long as you are the favorite (there are some draws with more than 50% chance and are therefore favorite against you headsup). Calling costs them money. There *is* a difference even if their calls are correct.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://www.desetka.si/izmet
The hidden question here is what difference does it make that you "want" him to fold. In this case there is none, since he won't. The FTOP principle involving what you want him to do (based on the pot odds he is getting) is only useful in occasional hands, more often in stud than holdem, where you are trying to create "errors" in your opponents play.
Izmet,
I think this is a great explanation. If SammyB and Rounder don't get it I think we should give it up.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Please understand that I am not trying in any way to be belligerent or even stubborn. I am trying to make sense of some very confusing and sometimes coflicting advice. Rounder makes sense, although he might not make as much cents as Badger and Greg. But, with all due respect to the math wizards Rounder has found a game plan that works for him, consistently. He loves to play poker. My impression is that he plays a lot and wins more than his fair share. He doesn't maximize his potential but at the same time his bad days are probably less bad than the pos ev crowd who would play 46s in the sb. Some people are comfortable day trading. Some need the buzz of commodities. For others, they need the smooth ride of a mutual fund.
Me, I'm still learning, but I'm going to read and read and the read some more. I'll read these posts, ask a lot of questions and sooner rather than later I'll have a solid game I can take to the 15-30 level. But the game I have will be mine. And since it will be mine, I'll use it with confidence. I don't think you can argue the point that a tight agressive Confident player is a hell of a lot more formidable than a tight agressive player who is making his plays because he read that he was supposed to in some book.
Looking forward to our next discussion
Sammy
Post deleted at author's request.
SammyB,
There is a very viable part of Rounder's thinking that Steve Badger touched on above. If you want to mininize fluctuations, it is wise to avoid making calls with marginal drawing hands.
For example, let's say that a panel of poker experts agrees that calling an UTG raise out of the big blind against typical opponents with middle suited connectors (e.g., 87 suited) has a slightly positive EV getting 11 to 1 on your call. This would occur with five opponents plus your blind money. (BTW, I think the break even point is about 9 to 1 but that is another matter.)
Now if I was playing in a game that is very good but a little too big for my bankroll, I might wait til I get 13 to 1 or even 15 to 1 (in the above situation) in order to minimize my fluctuations at only a slight cost to my expectation.
But Rounder takes it way too far, bless his heart. I'm too tired to sort through old posts but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't call getting 17 to 1 or 19 to 1. There is nothing wrong with minimizing swings; just don't let it cost you too much in expectation.
Regards,
Rick
This should be straightforward Sammy. Treat it like 2 pots.
What is already there and a side pot of what will be bet next. Assume he's in for the main pot (which he is since he won't fold).
Now you definitely want the drawing hand to call your bet to make a side pot of 2 bets for which he has 5-1 odds against winning.
Regards Mike N
Mike,
There have ben plenty of people who have told me that you DO NOT want him to call. You want him to fold then and there because instead of winning a bigger part most of the time you will win a smaller pot all of the time. Does this make any sense to you?
Post deleted at author's request.
Yes, see Badgers post. As you become more familiar with the game this will become second nature to you. I say this because after reading some of your most recent posts it is obvious that you are getting the point. You are now comparing these two philosphies and seeing how they relate to you and considering how to incorporate them.
Some players see these kind of things after playing 1 session. Some see it after a bit of hard work. Some never see it.
I've seen players improve over the course of three hours to the point of being able to play better than certain long time players. I've seen players who now play much better now but seemed to take over 2 years to reach that level.
Good Luck
Mike N
It's simple really: You have the best hand. Your opponent has a draw and is currently losing to you. Regardless of whether or not he is going to fold, you must still bet. If he is getting the correct pot odds to call, so be it, you STILL MUST bet.
Say he is a 4:1 dog to out draw you and the pot contains 60$. You can only bet 10$ because it's LIMIT poker and that is the bet size on this round. He is getting 7:1 odds to call your bet, BETTER than the minimum odds needed. So you are offering him 7:1 odds on a 4:1 chance to beat you.
Compare this to giving him a FREE card (and infinite odds) and the answer should be obvious as to what to do! You must still charge your opponents to try and draw out on you even if you KNOW they won't fold.
Think about it, does anyone EVER fold a flush draw in holdem? NOT LIKELY! Not only do they almost never fold, but they are almost always getting better odds than the minimum they need to call! You still have to charge them to try!
Dave in Cali
Dave is absolutly correct.
But I want to play devils advocate for a little bit of fun. Actually my goal is to confuse and befuddle. Let me know if I succeed.
There are times when the made hand is a dog to the draw. Consider the following example:
Board: 4s4d9dTd
Made hand: 2h2s
Drawing hand: JdQh
Cards that help the drawing hand: 4 eights, 3 nines, 3 tens, 3 jacks, 3 queens, 4 kings, 5 other diamonds {3d, 5d, 6d, 7d, Ad}.
So a toal of 25 cards help the "drawing" hand, which makes the made hand a 1.75 : 1 dog.
Kinda freaky...
- Andrew
Actually, the example doesn't even have to be that extreme.
You have 4d5d and I have 9c8c
The flop is 7c6c3s.
As you probably know, I am favoured to win the hand.
Andrew,
I don't know if you play Omaha H/L. Anyway the good draws are usually the favorite over the made hands! I posted a hand about six months ago where my student started it as a bad beat story (she had flopped the vulnerable nuts in a multiway pot). I did the math and it turned out she only had about a ten percent chance of surviving the turn and river with any piece of the pot.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Thanks for another illustration. Omaha/8 is a *great* game because of what you mention. People tend to overvalue weak draws and big pairs in that game.
Multiway situations are often very different from head to head situations. But of course the point is still the same, when you win more than your fair share you should be betting/raising, when you have odds call, when you don't have odds fold.
- Andrew
You ask in your post if you should bet the turn if you know he will call no matter what, and he will be correct in calling. The answer is, unfortunately yes. A check has a lower positive expectation. You have a made straight. He has 9 outs to make his flush. You have thirty seven unseen cards that leave your straight the best hand. If you don't bet, you are not charging your opponent anything to draw, and despite the fact that in the long-run this is a money winning situation for you, your opponent's having a flush draw, and calling correctly has somewhat reduced your expectation. It is even more of a money winner if your bet will make an overly tight player fold a flush draw when getting 4.5 to one odds or better.
The worst play would be to check, however, as that play has zero positive expectation. Even the weak-tight players will make their flush, and the four plus times the players who play well don't suck out, you have failed to charge them for looking at the next card, and have failed to get your money in with the best of it.
You should read "The Theory of Poker."
Again, and again, and again...one could even say "Ad nauseum."
Dr. Sklanksy explains this all much better in that book than any of us ever could.
It is correct to bet because you now make more money 75% of the time. In other words, you make more in those instances when he DOESN'T make the hand.
*
I have been traveling back home to Illinois and just tuned into my fav BB - I see the pot odds question is being examined again.
Rick I GET IT, I just don't like it and am not willing to wait 10,000 hands or what ever it takes to even out the odds.
I totally understand the concept BUT as Izmet said "in the LONG RUN of similar situations" I and looks like Sammy are not willing to "wait" for these similar situations to even out. I am doing something about getting the odds on my side.
Now you say I need more than 17 or 19 to 1 to see a raise in the BB with 89s (make that 79s and I don't play) - I'd probably see it with 12 to 1 or 5 callers - 2 or 3 callers and I'm just not interested. The major difference is if the flop is say A Q 7 - with one of my suit giving me 3 to a flush and straight - and say 2 bets to me giving me say 30 to 1 I am out of there.
This is just a small part of the game but seems to be the main focus of a lot of theory and that's OK I need to know the theory so I understand where everyone is coming from.
As opposed to other casino table games I have a chance to put the odds on my side for a change and I'm gonna do that every chance I get.
Rounder, you need to reread some of your earlier posts!
Have we all got it wrong or are we looking at a convert here.
I would not have believed you would call 89 suited raised to you!
The 7 9 suited make the same flush (and I discount the extra straight flushes).
They both make 4 2 card straights. the 89 has the advantage of 3 of those straights being the nuts as compared to 2 for the 79.
Is that enough of a difference to make one call that much better than the other.
Fold both or play both!
Regards Mike N
Post deleted at author's request.
Well, glad to see someone still has the energy left to try and convince Rounder. I have been tempted on several occasions to do my own convincing but then decided "why bother, he ain't gonna listen anyway".
As Greg stated in another post, Rounder refuses to SEE...I don't know how he can think that ALL of us are out to lunch and that he has somehow stumbled onto some kind of brilliant strategy heretofore undiscovered by anyone else. What's more, he has got some newbies buying his theory.
Geez, I am somehow getting the funny feeling that I am talking about Rounder behind his back...maybe I should have posted this under his post:)
In any event, your explanation was very convincing. Here's hoping that Rounder comes around.
"Here's hoping that Rounder comes around." you write.
I hope that he doesn't, and folds his flush draw when I bet top pair.
SammyB,
Maybe Rounder doesn't get what you're saying, but from what I read you don't get what he's saying either. Chris he would not fold a flush draw to your top pair, but that flush draw would not be 34s, 35s, 46s, 57s, unless he was in last position and playing for 1 bet. I'm pretty sure Rounder's play post flop is pretty solid. He probably won't go for a runner runner even if he's getting 28:1. I understand that. But, really, how profitable a play is that?
A while ago I asked Greg Fossilman about taking certain hands out of my repertoire. Things like suited connectors below 98s, one gappers below J9s, pocket pairs below 55, connectors below T9 and the like. He said I wouldn't be giving up very much, do you guys agree?
Sammy, you should realize that an opponent who doesn't take chances is an ideal one to play against. The strategy is simple: bet anything remotely reasonable. Bet your draws and overcards. Bluff at every opportunity.
If he doesn't change his strategy *immediatelly* (starting playing back with weak hands), anybody not playing his draws is toast. And I do mean *anybody*.
Keep in mind that *any* strategy deviating from the optimal one is exploitable. This is the essence of game theory. It goes for any game, chess, backgammon, cards, tic-tac-toe, you name it.
The optimal strategy in any game would include playing 10000 to 1 shots with 10001 to 1 pot odds (and adequate bankroll). Giving up 10 to 1 shots when having the best of it is simply stupid.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Izmet,
I don't claim to have enough basic knowledge to engage you in debate, but you made some errors in your statement, not errors in fact, but errors in comprehension. First of all implied collusion will stop someone from taking advantage of any one player preflop, which is where Rounder disagrees with most of the math guys. The argument you made would seem better for a heads-up game where one has to keep the opps "honest". In a ring game Rounder is simply saying he'll wait for better cards to open than 4-6s in the small blind. What is so abhorrent about that you are driven to name calling?
And about your 10001 analogy. Lets say someone offered you 5,000.05 to 4,900.95 on the flip of a coin. Is it worth putting up 5000 to win 10 cents in the real world.
I was referring mainly to his refusal to play draws. As you seem to know blackjack, this is similar to refusing to hit you 16 against dealer's 10 (I could even find a better example, but you should catch my drift).
Implied collusion? Hey, I'll be damned if even the fish don't soon realize this guy folds way too much. I'll repeat: suboptimal strategies are exploitable in any game. Granted, when multiway, the effect is less pronounced. Nevertheless, suboptimal play must lose money by definition even if not exploited fully. I just don't get it why would anybody conciously opt for suboptimal play (other than bankroll reasons).
I understand aversion to risk, it's only natural for most of us. But constantly living in fear? I'd rather split my nostrils open.
About my 10001 analogy: But of course it is worth it! If you have an adequate bankroll (pretty close to infinite in your example), that is. No bankroll, no high variance plays, there's no doubt about it.
High variance (but otherwise odds-wise profitable) plays are often abandoned in poker in order to protect the bankroll. It's a smart thing to do (see Kelly's concepts). A case could be made to avoid profitable gutshots (for example) when having bankroll troubles. But, for a 5-big-bets-per-hour winning player, the bankroll should not be an issue, no way. Or are we missing some facts here?
Name calling? What name calling? You are kidding, right?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Post deleted at author's request.
Rounder's aversion to draws is not restricted to hands such as baby connectors. For example, he once said that it was correct to fold QQ in the bb after UTG raised and 5 other players coldcalled simply because he knew that UTG would never raise unless she had AA.
First of all, you can never be that positive that someone must have AA. Secondly, even if she showed AA, Rounder should still call.
Despite several people saying that he ought to have called, Rounder simply stuck to his guns and said "I'll leave the sucker calls to you pot odds guys" (or words to that effect.
It is his refusal to even entertain the possibility that he might be wrong which irks a lot of us here. Anyway, gotta go to my hockey game. I'll add to this tomorrow.
Now my QQ muck is coming back to haunt me. It was a brillant lay down - the only time I have ever mucked a big pair out side of a "special situation" near the end or a tournament. You guys insist on hammering me for not fully agreeing with you. I am just not going into hand KNOWING I am the underdog. If you want to I have no problem with that but it just isn't the way I want to play poker.
I layed down the QQ cuz I knew the player. I have made big bets on alot less than QQ for the same reasons. I don't refuse to draw bast the flop but if I do draw it is with a hand that will win or have a great chance of winning if I hit. My rules are simple - unless there is a big variance in the pot size - I don't play under pairs, over cards, 3 straights or flushes & gut shot straights past the flop. I avoid alot of these decisions buy not playing suited cards unless I'd play those ranks anyway or coupled cards in later positions.
Hey this is working for me so I don't see how you can knock it. Our games are not that much different and if we played at the same table you wouldn't know what I was doing unless you saw my hands.
So give my low varaince game a break and don't get so worked up over it. I've tryed it both ways and like my modifications so far.
Why don't you guys get yourself a table at Planet poker, I'm sure Mike Caro could reserve one for you, and put your money where your mouths are? Play about 250 hours over a month and let's see how everyone's doing?
I said it before in jest, but am dead serious dis time:
I'd swim a river of shit to play against a player folding his draws.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I have to be there in Person seeing the other players in action. A large part of my game is based on my ability to read - I don't think Badger will give away much in this depatrment - but I just can't imagine cyber poker being like the real thing.
Thanks anyway,
Post deleted at author's request.
Finally a topic on which skp, scott Badger and Rounder agree. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it guys?
No thanks Sammy, I may be a little dim but I am not dumb enough to challenge this crew. I value my bankroll too much.
it is not likely and would prove nothing. but if you want any chance of it happening, have caro find 6 donators to flush out the table. it still won't prove anybody right, but there is no way that just the 4 of us will play.
scott
My question is: how much of a mistake is it to never initiate a raise pre-flop.
Now I'm not talking about three betting, when you hold something like QQ, KK, AA,or JJ, because I have no problem with that. It's just that in the past month or two, I've been raising less and less when I "enter" a pot when holding non-paired hands like AK,AQ suited or not, AJ suited. And there are a few others like QT's,KJ's KQ's, that I used to raise pretty routinely with from the later positions.
One thing I notice, is that I think I'm becoming almost invisible at the table, or at least that's the way it seems. And I think it's because of the combination of not raising pre-flop, plus I have a conservative starting-hand requirement(so I'm not involved in many pots), I also have a pretty quiet personality to boot, (I really envy people who can talk up a table)
Thanks for any feedback, Berry
Berry,
"Go Big or Go Home ..... RAISE"
Make some noise. Work on your social skills. Talk trash, have some fun, tell a joke. JUST DON'T GO QUIET. The quieter you are the more easily you are as a read. It just takes a bit of conversation at the table to feel apart of the game. Poker is a social game. The more social the table I find the more the money flows.
MJ
I agree with MJ--the more social the more money. Also it is more fun. If you are playing a good game, take your bad beats in stride, smile if you can, and congratulate the player on his good play. Especially do this if they are not playing well. The more you tell a someone who stays to the river with weak cards they are a good player, the more they feel inclinded to continue this type of play which will make you money in the long run. You don't have to be skilled at chatting up a table. Just be able to toss of a few comments now and then. Also, people who talk like people who listen. Listening is different than sitting quitely. It will increase your presense at the table without much effort. Read "How to Win Friends and Influence People" for some basic pointers. After you've read poker books, of course. Specs
"Read, "How to Win Friends and Influence People"."
Have you ever seen the movie Diner?
Double K
"Have I seen Diner?" I can't really recall. Why, was there a scene on Pre-flop raising?
Seriously, what's in the movie that would make it worth renting?
Regards,Berry
Specs,
Your observation about gabbers loving people who listen, really made me laugh. That is so true! Being a polite, quiet guy is almost a curse sometimes, when some talkative guy whose had a WAY too much liquor, zero's in on me to listen to every single thought that crosses his mind.
Thanks,Berry
MJ,
Thank you for your post, I printed it up so I have it to read every now and then, when I need a pep-talk.
What is it about quieter people that makes us so much easier to read? You really got me curious.
Regards, Berry
Berry I think it is costing you a lot of money over the course of the year not to raise pre-flop on your good hands. One of the advantages that a good player has over his less skilled opposition is that he plays tight but aggressive poker. In many hold-em games you will find many players limping in with all kinds of weak holdings (suited trash and connecting garbage) in virtually any position. They are making a mistake doing this and when you raise with your good hands, you magnify that mistake. You never have a better chance to get more money in the pot when you have the best of it than pre-flop. Despite what you may hear about bad beats and getting sucked out, in hold-em having good starting cards is a large advantage and accounts for a large part of the hourly earn generated by the good players. It is true that by not raising you occasionally win a bigger pot through deception but in general raising pre-flop is critical to becoming a successful hold-em player.
Berry
I agree with Jims advice. When you think you have the best cards pre-flop you have to raise and reraise. Obviously, you want to mix up your play and come in sometimes without raising but in general push your hand. I think your probably falling into the play big pairs to far trap. Suppose you have pocket Aces raise and reraise pre-flop and get 4 callers. The flop comes 6 7 8 all the same suit and your Aces are not of the suit. The pot gets raised to you your probably dead and should release your hand. Those 4 callers probably have all kinds of cards that have you beaten or with draws that are going to beat you. Playing big pairs to far without regards to the board and whose betting into you is probably one of the biggest mistakes i see at the hold'em table. Then players wine how they can't win with pocket pairs. In hpfap there is a chapter in regards to this very subject. Make sure you read it over over over over again so you don't make this same mistake. I speaking from personal experience, since i changed my bad habit my game went up 3 notches. Good Luck Ice
Thank you Ice, I'm going to find that chapter you're talking about, and read it a few times.
Thanks again, Berry
"I magnify their mistakes when I raise." That makes sense, and that's what I'm looking for, having clear-cut reasons to raise pre-flop. Raising just to raise, just isn't enough of a reason for motivating myself to do so. After the flop, it's easy for me to justify raising or re-raising.
Thank you Jim, Berry
Berry,
Switch the roles.. you are at the table talking it up and I am sitting there waiting to see AA KK QQ AKs. I finally get my chance to make a statement so I yell out "RAISE IT UP !!!! " Now think to yourself this guy has not said a word in 3 hours and now he yells out "RAISE" hhhmmmmmmm must have the Pocket Rockets or a King Kong.. I think i'll stretch my legs and watch him win the blinds... The best table conversation starter is *any* quote from "HEFAP" most players have read it and have an opinion about the book. Once you are in the game socially you cards are not as obvious.
MJ
I used to be a hi-lo player, playing stud 8 or better and Omaha. I gave up those games when I wanted to get better at Hold-em. Now I am farily proficient at HE and get my a$% handed to me if I play hi-lo. Have any of you experienced the same thing and come to the decision that HE changes your view of playing poker in general?
Of course I know that poker is poker and certain general theories predominate the game, but I feel that HE is a very strange animal indeed, and the strategies in the game are very advanced (even though the some of the same strategies are employed in other games, it feels different in HE).
I am fast coming to the conclusion that if I focus on HE, I am going to have to give up other forms of poker because I will be "out of shape" for those games. HE is a demanding game, and from what I've seen only a few plays a night can make a significant win, whereas playing too many hands will give you a significant loss. I used to (and have recently) been able to play many more hands when playing hi-lo, since there is much more to draw to in the game. When I first started playing HE, I used this concept, and played many hands, and started going home without my shirt.
Anyway, I think HE is definitely the way to go in poker and I want to get better.
So far I am able to play omaha 8 pretty well. This is based on about 60-80 hours of omaha play only so take it for what it's worth.
I actually find OH 8 to be a rather simplistic game with less margin of error than HE. But there is also a lot of bad beats in OH8. IE when the river card pairs the board and your nut flush is no longer worth a *&$@ and you have no back up low because you were counterfeited on the turn. Mostly though, its a locksmiths game and less imaginative than HE IMO.
In general you are far better off learning to play hold-em well as opposed to the other games. Here is why:
1. Hold-em is a faster game so you get more hands per hour which increases your edge.
2. You can find hold-em games at various limits everywhere whereas games like Omaha and Hi-Lo split are basically novelty games that are rarely spread in most cardrooms and casinos.
3. Hold-em players play hold-em far worse than stud players play stud at the middle limits. This may be controversial but I have played both stud and hold-em all the way up to limits of $20-$40. Even at limits this high, I see a lot of stupid stuff at the hold-em tables especially pre-flop where players are coming on weak cards. You don't see as much of this at a $15-$30 or $20-$40 stud table where most of the players are quite good. In addition, decent sized stud games are pretty much localized to the West and East Coast with the rest of the nation playing hold-em.
4. In hold-em you get to see the last card. This dramatically cuts down on the swings in hold-em compared to stud.
5. Having a good starting hand in hold-em means a lot more than having a good starting hand in Omaha. In Omaha you are usually trying to build the nut straight, the nut flush, or a big full house. Top pair/top kicker, two pair, and even sets are practically worthless in Omaha. In addition, Omaha is very slow compared to hold-em.
6. Hold-em has a far brighter future than any other poker game because it is a dream game for a cardroom or a casino. It gets more hands per hour than any other poker game which means the cardrooms make more money per table plus the dealers make more in tips each hour. Even those cardrooms that have a collection system rather than a rake system can collect from 9 or 10 players every half hour instead of 7 or 8 at stud.
7. Hold-em is more amenable to analysis than other poker forms. In hold-em it is easy to write down the hands you are involved in and discuss them with other players because there are fewer cards to keep track of. Being able to do this allows you to dramatically improve your game over a short period of time.
My advice is to pursue hold-em and within a year you should be winning at $10-$20.
Jim,
Excellent points! I'll add a couple more.
In Los Angeles and most other places, you rarely meet a regular stud player who used to play holdem but the reverse is often true. When a mid limit holdem player plays stud, it is because the game is great. He'd rather play holdem.
Another problem with stud is that it is very tiring. A five hour session will drain most players. Keeping track of discards and upcards is hard work. I'd rather think strategy and be able to socialize a bit when I'm playing.
BTW, In Los Angeles and most of California, holdem is far more prevalent then stud at the lower to middle limits. But if I was in Atlantic City or Foxwoods (my parents are gambling away my inheritance at the Mohegan Sun as I write :-) ), I would play stud most of the time. What I didn't realize is that holdem is the most popular game in the middle of the country (I'm thinking Gulf Coast, Riverboats, etc.)
Regards,
Rick
Funny thing when I read this letter is that this like a carbon copy of how I started playing poker. I didnt even think of playing hold'em until my poker buddies kept pressing me to quit stud and hi-lo games. Now about 90% of my poker playing is in hold'em. It is truly a strange and infinetely complex game but for some reason I am catching on and learning the fine points of hold'em much faster then with stud. I always hated keeping track of cards in my head and constantly having to adjust drawing odds and hoping my position would remain good. So much of this tedious work is eliminated in holdem and we are allowed more room to cocentrate on the sheer complexity of the game.
5-10 HE loose game semi-aggressive. 3 aggressive types are more or less to my right. Rest of table is basically passive calling stations.
I am in middle position with 10sJs and limp after 1 limper, everyone folds to the button who calls, SB raises, everyone calls, 5 players see the flop.
Flop is 7c 8c 9d. I flopped the nut straight but it's a loose game and there's a flush draw out there. Some might be tempted to slow play it but I'm not going to fall into that trap. (Perhaps I would entertain the idea of waiting for the turn to raise if it were a rainbow flop, but then again, maybe not). SB bets, BB calls, folded to me, I raise. SB reraises, BB calls, I cap it. I have got to charge everyone FULL price RIGHT NOW to continue with their attempt to beat me. I am a bit worried SB might have flopped a set of nines (he would raise in this situation), but more likely has a big overpair.
Turn is 7h pairing the board. I no longer have the nuts! D'OH! Nevertheless, there will be NO free cards! Checked to me, I bet. If I get raised or check-raised I very well my be dead, but what am I going to do, give everyone a FREE chance to beat me? NOT! I'm NOT folding either if I get raised! Show me the boat and you will win my $$! Both players just call my bet. I am relieved but I know I may be getting slow-rolled for the river.
River is a King. If SB has pocket kings I am totally screwed! to make things worse SB comes out betting! BB folds, I make a (potentially) crying call. To my relief SB has AA and my hand holds up.
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
Sounds like fun. How can I get involved?
I am proud of you Dave. You played perfectly. See what good things happen when you simply bet your hand!
Dave in Cali,
I've noticed that most of your posts are winning hands. I like that since I charge $2.99 per minute to listen to bad beat stories (BTW - My 900 number is now operating - call 1-900 BAD BEAT).
All kidding aside, one point I would like to emphasize again is that IMHO it is almost never correct to slow play made straights on the flop (unless most of the potential callers are on your left). A straight differs from a set or high flush in that you rarely lose the players who are drawing slim since a connected flop will often hit many of them anyway.
Regards,
Rick
i agree with every one of your plays. but relax. it's not omaha. just because the board pairs does not mean there's a full house out there. a crying call on the river? i don't think you are beat even 40% of the time. don't get me wrong, i wouldn't raise. but i would not have any reluctance to calling.
scott
In a HE game, with multiple opponents calling your bets on the flop, you should be much more concerned if the turn puts 3 suited cards on board than when it pairs the board. Being up against the flush draw is more likely than being against a set or 2 pair that fills up.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Same game as previous post... loose medium aggressive 5-10 HE. I am UTG with AA and raise. 6 people see the flop with the button calling and both blinds folding making me 1st to act.
Flop is A Q 2 rainbow. The nuts for now. I bet it out. I'm sure the entire field will probably call anyway, and they ain't gettin' no free cards from me... Everyone calls to the button who raises, I reraise. Incredibly, NO ONE FOLDS!!! 6 players... I am sure that there are several gutshots both high and low and there are lots of cards that can hurt me, but am happy to get the $$ in now while I have the nuts!
Turn is a 6 bringing a two flush. I bet again, one caller, button raises! I (of course) reraise! The pot is plenty big enough now and you will really have to pay to get a backdoor flush on me now! Only the button calls the reraise. two players.
River is an 8, no flush possible. Flopped the nuts and kept it till the end. I bet it out and button calls. He has A2s (but did not get the flush draw).
Once again I flopped the nuts and did not slow play it. I think in this game, with soooo many callers on every pot, that it would be wrong to slowplay any but the most impervious hands. In this case I expected almost any face card to give some chaser a straight, so it would have been wrong to slowplay here. When the backdoor flush draw hit on the turn it is even more reason to raise and not slowplay. In really loose HE games the Magoos will play ANY two suited cards and will ALWAYS chase backdoor flushes and straights!
In this hand another player flopping two pair allowed me a chance to reraise, which really improved the results of this hand. Often you will raise BTF then flop trip aces, but you bet and everyone just calls. You never gain the opportunity to do any reraising since no one will likely raise you.
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
Wow. Sigh of relief when that river hit. But when everyone but button folded the turn you must have felt button was drawing dead - no way he raises with flush draw or gut shot - unless he had both. How fortunate to have the A2 on the button - perfect spot to build the pot, not to mention driving out those flush/gut shots.
I've lost trip A to runner runner - in fact, one night I had AA back to back, flopped an A back to back, and lost to back door flush back to back. I would have shot myself right there, but it was near the end of a very good evening, so I just figured it was a sign to go home - and I did.
You're also lucky that button raised the turn - I think that was a real bad play on his part - especially after your pre-flop raise and three bet of the flop. If I'm A2 on the button I put you on trip A, trip Q or AQ - hell, he had the worst Aces up on the board - I suppose he figured you for AK - bad play, I think.
Hope you went home a winner.
Sounds like fun. How can I get involved?
Dave writes: "Once again I flopped the nuts and did not slow play it. I think in this game, with soooo many callers on every pot, that it would be wrong to slowplay any but the most impervious hands. "
In loose games the slowplay is very rarely correct. I just finished 40 hours of play in the ultra-fishy ocean that is the Commerce Casino, playing from 9-18 to 20-40. In that period there were only two hands that I slowplayed.
I raised 3 limpers from late position with KK. The five way flop brings rainbow K K 3. Early player bets and I'm the only caller. Turn is a ten and I'm hoping it gives him something. He bets and I just call. River is a blank and he folds to my raise, probably with a total bust but maybe a little something. I think here raising any earlier would be a mistake.
The other opportunity I don't remember as well but I held pocket sevens for one bet pre-flop against several opponents. The flop came 9d 9c 7d. I was willing to risk a cheap or free card on the flop in order to allow someone to hit any of the possible draws and pay me later. This is not without risk but it's the multi-draw type of flop that I think merits the risk.
If you've done a decent job of selecting the best loose game then you'll almost never be correct slowplaying. In this same environment check raising is much less likely to be correct as well, conventional wisdom be damned.
You're right, in a game like you describe slowplaying is probably almost never correct.
If they're calling a reraise cold on the flop with nothing or almost nothing, then get them to pay. Even if the slowplay works in that they are fooled about the true strength of your hand, they still won't call or raise you on the river when their various gutshot and backdoor draws have not come in. Maybe one or 2 of them will back into a high pair or 2 pair and pay you off, but that won't be as much money as getting all of them to call 1 or 2 bets earlier in the hand. When the table is full of optimists who will pay to draw to anything, you need to charge them while they still have a draw, not after it has failed.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Dear Reader,
I've been playing Hold'em for about three years,and before that, I played Draw Poker(jacks or better) in casinos for about five years. And in all that time I've NEVER experienced a rush!! I've seen a million other people experience a rush, where they build up an incredible pile of chips in short period of time(particularly since I've been playing hold'em, where you see so many people playing every hand they're dealt).
Anyway, my question is: do you see this as a definite sign that I'm playing WAY too tight?(my never experiencing a rush that is) And if your answer is yes; do you think it's imperative, for any hopes of long term success, that I start playing more hands(or whatever you think I should do, so I will experience a rush at least once in a while)? I've read that Doyle Brunson always plays the next hand he is dealt after a winning a pot. But I just can't bring myself to calling with 10-2(and a whole herd of other hands for that matter) regardless of position, just because I won the previous hand. Do you think I'm making a mistake, by not loosening-up at least somewhat in this situation?
I should also point out that I've never experienced huge downward swings either in one sitting. I do OK, nothing spectacular, but I just kinda plod along.
Thanks for any advice, Larry
Just as there are those nights you can't seem to win a pot, there are those nights you can't seem to lose. I find it hard to believe you have played HE for three years and have not experienced one of these sessions, or "rushes".
I don't know what your starting hand requirements are, but for me, though fairly consistent, they often change with each table - not by much, but they change. Loose play is not necessarily bad play under the proper set of circumstances - to list those circumstances would take a book, and there are enough of those - buy "Hold Em for Advanced Players" if you don't have it already - becuase a good majority of the people you come up against have read the books - and not just that one.
You admit you just "plod along" - that can't be to fun, though if you're playing hands, you got to be having some degree of fun. I say loosen up and gamble a bit, but intelligently, pick your spots, and educate yourself - if you don't you'll find yourself behind the field - "plodding along".
Larry,
As DK says pick your spots - if you losen up do it IN position. Don't be playing the 65 in the sb if you want to keep your swings down. BUT you can play 65 in a big field with out a raise on the button - then if you flop a monster or potential monster your in with a big pot. I guess the trick is to see big potential hidden hands in good position for cheap. Then go to town building YOUR pot - if you don't flop to it get away from it quick.
I wish you success and there is nothing wrong with plodding so long as you know when to sprint.
"nothing wrong with plodding so long as you know when to sprint."
Well put.
Double K
When are you going to make your way back down to Berry's thread, and answer his question about the movie 'Diner'??? You got me curious too!!
Sincere as can be, Art
He sent me an e-mail at home. I'll copy it, and my reply, for you here:
Double KK, > It's been a while since I saw Diner. What is the "How to Win > Friends..." reference? > I'm sending this direct, rather than on the forum, because some > posters get hacked off when the string starts to get too far off the > topic. > By the way, the reason I recommended the book was because it might > give him a little more confidence in social situations. I worked for me. > > May you always hit your flop, > Specs > >
Specs,
It's a real obscure reference. Kevin bacon's brother was some big asshole and he suggested he read "HTWFIP" to Kevin's character. Kevin's character was this drunk who hated his family. Why the post? Certainly I'm not suggesting you are an asshole like the character - I just never heard this reference re. Hold 'em or poker in general. Anyway, the line is humorous in the movie. When I read your post, it popped into my head - I was killing time at work - so I sent it off. What does my post have to do with poker or you're post? I HAVE NO IDEA. It just struck me as funny. See the movie again and I'll read the book. Good luck and a happy thanksgiving.
KK
For nice post check mine a few threads up re. Long Sessions
I try not to get caught up in this "Rush" thing. I am well aware that in dealing with the math, patterns of winning hands will run in streaks for players as opposed to winning one out of every ten hands, but for my style of play, I try to look at each hand as an independent event. The fact I won the last hand, or two out of the past three, is not going to influence me to put money into a pot on something like 9-5o, rush or no rush. When I run into hot streaks, it is because I manage to pick up a series of quality hands in a short period of time, and some of them hold up and turn into winners. I think trying to "force" a winning streak out of garbage cards might work once in a while, but I'm in this for the long haul, and I believe this strategy is a recipe for disaster.
This is a concept I apply quite often at the green felt, so I thought I might share it with my fellow posters.
One of the questions we players are constantly faced with is whether or not we should bet out or check raise when we are out of position and have a decent hand. When the pot is being contested heads up, or maybe three ways, the problem is even more difficult to contend with, since in large, multiway pots the question has bee.In short, what is one to do? I'm sure we all have our own solutions, but I thought I might share mine with you. As a rule, I generally go for a check raise if:
a) I have flopped a good but not great hand
b) I don't need to show it down. My reasoning for this is simple. My hand is such that I'm more than happy to take what's already in there, and if I'm behind I'll have no problem dropping my hand. I chose to check raise in these situations because while I'm giving information away about my hand, I feel that I am gaining more information about my opponents hand than he is gaining about mine by how he choses to react to the check raise.
This situation comes up often when I'm in the blind against what appears to be a steal raise (either a raise from the button, or one or two seats in front of it) and have flopped top pair (usually J's, Q's or K's) with a mediocre kicker, or mid pair when the top card on the board is a T or lower. IMExperience these are precisely the kinds of flops where you usually are ahead, but if you do have the best hand you'd rather just take it right there. Further, if you're behind you're behind you're way behind (i.e., you usually aren't getting proper odds to draw). Now many players chose to bet out here, but I like to go for the check raise, simply because I can determine fairly cheaply (against typical opposition) whether or not I should continue on with the hand. If I'm reraised, I'll generally drop. If I'm just called, but then raised on the turn, I'll drop as well. You're hand has become a fairly simple one to play, because MOST players will react to a check raise differently than they will a lead bet. That is, they will react in a more straighforward manner.
This often isn't the case when you lead bet on the flop; here you may run across a semi bluff raise, and pure bluff raise, or some other funny little play, which puts you in a true guessing game. And the LAST THING I want to deal with in a shorthanded pot is trying to figure out if I'm ahead or not. I want to know, and know now, so as to avoid paying people off to the river.
I know that much of this theory is based on having a thorough knowledge of your oppoenents, and that many of you who routinely play in casinos don't have this kind of advantage. But once you do 'know' a player it makes a lot of things very easy. In short, your reason for check raising is not to 'narrow the field', or 'deceive your opponents', but rather to find out just where you are in the hand, and find out relatively cheaply.
While most of this applies to shorthanded play, there are situations in multiway pots where this concept becomes applicable. Here's an example.
The following hand occured in a 20-40 game i was playing in about a month ago. I had an offsuit slick, and chose to raise in early postion. Three players called, as well as the small blind, and we saw the flop five handed.
Flop: Ad 7s 4h.Overall, a decent flop. I check, two more players check, the button bets, and to my surprise the passive player in the SB raises. Now I know that the SB has a good hand; one that could very possibly beat mine. So, I take it to sixty. Why? Two reasons. First, i will learn alot about the button's hand if I three bet it, since he'll have to give me credit for AT LEAST a big Ace. Second, if the SB caps it I can safely dump my hand (or at least dump it if I don't improve on the turn). And third--- and this is most important-- if the SB leads into me on the turn, or if I'm raised by anyone behind me, I can muck with a clear conscious. Ordinarily, if the SB wasn't a passive player, I'd just call here and plan on raising on the turn. But, given the playing style of the SB, I deemed it wise to learn as much about the quality of my hand as possible on the flop.
So, here's an example of a situation where one would decide to check raise in order to see how the other players 'react' to your play (rather than check raising to acheive more traditional objectives). As it turned out, the SB checked the turn (which was some kind of blank, I think a deuce) and the button raised me. The SB cold called the two bets, and I mucked. In the end the button showed a set of fours, and the SB had the same hand as I.
Of course, these plays always look a lot better when they work. But I think the idea of check raising to guage an opponents 'reaction' to your play is often the most compelling reason for choosing this course of action.
I like your play on the flop. If I'm reading this post correctly, you bet out on the turn? I believe you could have saved the bet on the turn and confidently mucked your hand.
First, on the flop, the button called the SB and your raise. Notice that he didn't raise. From the texture of the flop I would put him on a set of sevens or fours. If his hand was not that strong he would have reraised on the flop.
If you would have checked on the turn, and he bet. He would be telling you he does not fear your check-raise from the flop.
GD,
First, I'm glad to see you posting again. I hope you still have that jackpot money (and maybe more).
I'm running on fumes now so I haven't digested your entire post. However, your example that started with "This situation comes up often when I'm in the blind against what appears to be a steal raise (either a raise from the button, or one or two seats in front of it) and have flopped top pair (usually J's, Q's or K's) with a mediocre kicker, or mid pair when the top card on the board is a T or lower."
I totally agree that check raising is the right play in that not only do you make more money when your opponent bets a flop he misses but as you explain, the hand becomes much easier to play.
Anyway, good luck (like you need it!).
Regards,
Rick
I used to talk to a friend of mine quite frequently about this very thing. Of course there is the check raise to get more $ in and/or narrow the field - those are relatively straightforward.
The way I would describe your concept to my friend is that this play, in a sense, makes you the button for that portion of the hand - you receive most most of the benefits of the button, specifically you can guage your opponents reaction to the bet/raise.
The downside obviously is that on the turn you're back to your lousy position - but you're there with that much more information. Once you were raised on the turn and a SB cold call, it was clear you were beat.
Question: What if the SB did not call the raise and mucked his hand? Would you call the raise, then check and call the river? You spoke about all the information you gained from the SB - but you learned a great deal about the button as well - with that board what could he possibly have? I think you are lucky that SB made a poor call - it saved you money - or would you have mucked too? I think most players would call the raise and check/call river. I hate it when that happens.
GD writes: "The following hand occured in a 20-40 game i was playing in about a month ago. I had an offsuit slick, and chose to raise in early postion. Three players called, as well as the small blind, and we saw the flop five handed. Flop: Ad 7s 4h."
Five way action follows your early position raise. Sounds pretty loose to me. What happens on this flop if you bet out? We can only guess but there are many players that would raise with the button set. I would. If the SB then three-bets you can fold and total post flop cost is only one small bet. Won't happen that way every time but it's possible.
Try this possibility. You check the flop and it checks around. Free cards for everyone! Won't happen too often and the free cards won't beat you very often but it is 180 degrees from what you wanted to occur.
I'll be betting this flop every time. I'll often get as much information as you do by check raising and often I'll get more. My bet, when raised, defines the strength of the raiser as well as the button's cold call of two SBs.
I agree the overall point of your post but I ask:
Can you safely fold on the flop if you bet, button raises and sb 3 bets? If both opponents are rock solid, a fold on your part is probably the right thing to do but make just one of the raisers a loose player and I suggest you just can't fold AK this early.
skp writes: "Can you safely fold on the flop if you bet, button raises and sb 3 bets? If both opponents are rock solid, a fold on your part is probably the right thing to do but make just one of the raisers a loose player and I suggest you just can't fold AK this early."
You may be right. In my own range of holdem behavior I can't really think of a hand that I would 3-bet with in the SB's position here that doesn't beat top pair. You might be able to make a case for him (SB) attempting to push out your top pair while he assumes the button to be raising with a draw or garbage. This, for me, is a major stretch. I'll get pushed out by this type of play maybe twice a year, so be it. The question boils down to this: When does a check then 3-bet not mean business? Rarely, in my experience, tilted players or maniacs excepted.
You're suggestion is certainly valid; in fact, I would generally play my hand in the same way that you would. However, the play of the hand was not at all the point of the post; rather, I was trying to demonstrate a style of thinking that I bring to the table with this one example. We can haggle and dicker all day about the hand, but that doesn't really shed much light on the major points of the post.
Interesting hand with the AK. I had a similar situation recently and I played it somewhat differently. I wonder what you think of it.
UTG and player next to him limp. I am next to act and raise with AcKc. 4 players behind me cold call. Blinds and limpers call and we take the flop 9 handed.
Flop is a beauty:
Ks8c3c
I bet. 2 players behind me call. Blinds and UTG fold. Player to my right raises.
I just called (this is where my play on the flop was different from yours).
As it turned out, I hit a club on the turn and smooth-called the flop raiser's bet. A player behind me raised and I got a chance to 3 bet it. River was a blank and I won a nice pot. The flop raiser had a set and I guess the player behind me had a flush as well although he mucked without showing.
Now, on the flop, my thinking was that the raiser had to have a set or a flush draw for him to checkraise here. Either way, I didn't particularly want to raise him then. Also, I figured that the players behind me (both of whom play pretty straight-forward) likely would fold if I reraised (unless one of them had a flush draw). Given the size of the pot, I guess it would be to my advantage to get out hands like 98 or 87 behind me IF and only if the raiser on the flop had a flush draw and not a set. That might well have been the case. So even here, perhaps it was an error on my part to not reraise. Anyway, I called the raise on the flop with the intention of raising on the turn if a blank hits and the man to my right bet again (my play then would therefore signal trip Kings to him).
Had I not had the flush draw along with top pair/ top kicker, I am pretty sure that I would have just reraised on the flop based on the same thinking that you showed on your hand.
Interesting hand. The problem I have with these kinds of plays in my game is that I can't be sure that the player to your right has a set or a flush draw, since I'm just as likely to be shown a K8s or something like that.
What makes your hand unique is that you've got a draw to the nuts; not a bad thing to have in a multiway pot. My guess is that I would have played it the same way, UNLESS the player to your right would have capped it on the flop with a flush draw. My reasoning here is that, by three betting the flop, I can safely muck my hand on the river if the player to your right caps it on the flop or checkraises the turn. However, if he (she) is the kind of player who would gladly cap it here with at best a third nut flush draw, you don't really gain any info by three betting it on the flop.
One of the secrets of HE, I think, is to figure out whether or not your ahead on the flop, when the bets are still relatively small. True, you need to worry about 'thinning the field' and all that, but I think that most players don't place a high enough premium in determining whether or not you need to pay off the river. However, your case was different (and much more difficult to play) because of the savory little draw.
Thanks for the response. Always appreciate your answers to my posts.
Guy
Sitting in sb with. 4 players in total. UTG calls Button raises. I have A7o and I call. The little info I have on the button player is that he would raise with any two cards over 9. BB folds, UTG calls. Flop Ad7h3d. Check to the button who bets, I raise UTG folds. Button calls. Turn is a blank, I bet, button calls. River is a diamond. Bet or check?
Bet and call if raised. Hope UTG has AK - and not 2d4d
I agree with Rounder.
Why should he (the button) make a flush. I never do.
Ch 13, HEFAP: Why Morons Never Make Flushes on the River.
Weren't you guest author?
P.S. I'm just kidding of course. But I love your name.
Thank you. I think this forum can use a little levity at times.
Yes, I was the guest author for that chapter.
My next book, which will be a best seller, will be titled "What The Flop Will Be Based On Your Hole Cards" a treatise in negative expectation.
I'm first on line to but that one.
You see, I too am a moron.
Button likely does not have an Ace or Diamonds as he would have played it stronger somewhere along the line (probably a 3 bet on the flop). He is probably got a pocket pair with which he will not bet if you check but will likely call with if you bet. So, in most cases, I would say bet. Of course, if the button is the type of player who will not pay off at the end with a pocket pair, you may as well check and avoid facing a raise (which you will likely have to call) on those rare occasions when he does show Diamonds.
JoeG,
I'll answer this one without looking at Rounder, KK, or skp's replies. Then you get unbiased opinion.
I'm not sure I would call preflop since the UTG player already called. If he also knows the button is raising (per your post) very liberally, he could be setting a trap.
But you called and got a great flop. I might have slowplayed the flop against such a short field but it is close. Once you checkraised the flop and got called your turn bet is automatic.
I wish you would state the turn and river cards (Louie Lawndale and John Feeney share this peeve), but if it was a "blank" I would bet again for value unless the button is a frequent bluffer when scare cards come. Then I might try to snap his bluff off. Otherwise I bet since I'm pretty sure a diamond draw would have put on more pressure on me short handed.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I'm not sure we're on the same page.
Rick wrote, "I'm not sure I would call preflop since the UTG player already called. If he also knows the button is raising (per your post) very liberally, he could be setting a trap."
UTG called the blind, button raised I called the raise BB folded, UTG then called AFTER ME.
"I might have slowplayed the flop against such a short field"
This is interesting to me. My feeling at the time was to get UTG out and be heads up with the player I knew better, thinking with 2 diamonds on the board if UTG had diamonds I wanted to make it expensive fast.
I was pretty sure that the button didn't have diamonds when I checked the river, I just wanted to know what the popular wisdom was for the next time. I'm getting to the point where I am reading the opps better but not following through on my analysis as strongly as I probably should.
I think what Rick is saying is that if UTG knows that the button is likely to raise preflop, UTG must have a very good hand and in fact may be setting a trap with a monster hand. i.e., UTG limps in with KK, waits for the button to raise, you and BB to call the inconsequential button raise before smoking all of you with a 3 bet. In other words, when it is your decision to respond to the button raise, you probably ought to be more concerned with UTG's limp than with the button's raise.
I too would probably slowplay top 2 pair against a short-handed field particularly when you are almost guranteed a bet from the button on the turn if you check twice. In fact, if UTG has Diamonds, a checkraise on the turn is a better play from your perspective than a checkraise on the flop.
BTW, this is just a minor criticism if it's a criticism at all. One really can't argue much with either a bet on the flop or a checkraise on the flop with your hand.
skp,
I guess if I get this I'll be going to the next level.
Do I understand you to say, that since the button player in my scenario would try to maximize his position by raising with any two cards over a 9 the UTG is "likely" to have a monster.
I do not mean to nit pick but likely means more often than not. Of course, UTG might have AKs, AQs, a big pair, or the like, but isn't it possible he could have any pair, any suited connectors, any Axs, Kxs, KQ, KJ, JT? After all this was shorthanded play, so to put him on a monster because he called and did not raise to me is either a bit of a stretch or the next level. I'll consider the source of the info and agree it's the next level.
JoeG,
skp had my thinking nailed pre-flopbut but it really is a matter of knowing your players. So that part of my post was more of a passing thought then the main point which was the river bet.
Playing the river well heads up when first to act is important since you are talking about a double size bet on this round. Too many players require almost a lock to value bet the river when first, and this is just giving away too much equity. In this example, your opponent was not likely to have diamonds. If he did, well I would think he would have put on more pressure on earlier betting rounds short handed. Yet he very well could have had a hand that he would have been happy to check down but would pay off a bet on the river.
Regards,
Rick
I don't think that I said that UTG was likely to have a monster but his limp would cause me concern if he has been coming in with a raise on other hands (as he generally should in a 4 handed game) and decides to just limp in when the loose player has the button because he KNOWS that the loose player will raise the pot for him. That is, he might figure that you may take his relatively select raises seriously and fold but not take the button's raise seriously. Therefore, he limps with his monster to get you involved in the pot.
Like Rick, I am not saying that this possibility should be the predominant factor in guiding your play but it is a factor to be cognizant off.
BTW, all of this is somewhat speculative on my part. In my neck of the woods, there is zero chance of getting any shorthanded experience.
I haven't read any responses yet. Why did you call the flop?
Regards Mike N
I see the answer! Short handed, the raiser likely doesn't have an ace and comes down to 3 players.
This would be on my marginal call list for 1.5 bets.
Regards Mike N
I have been invited to a 5-6 handed $2,000 buy in, winner take all poker game, starting just after midnight on New Year's Eve (hence the 2,000 buy in). We will only be playing limit hold'em, likely 25-50. I am the only one who knows how to play. The other guys have never studied or played, and will likely be playing alot of middle pair, drawing hands, etc. There is no question that I am the heavy favorite, although they don't realize this. My question is related to stragegy, as losing the $2,000 would be a disaster. How should I play with these fish to maximize my chance of winning and minimizing my chance of having one of the other guy get really really lucky. Thanks
Over a long run you'd be fav. but on one given night with novice players you will have a hard time winning.
These beginning players don't know what they don't know so it would be hard to out play them as they won't know when they are being out played.
I suggest saving the 2 large for something else.
It reminds me of the story of A J Foyt(sp) - he said he is scared to death driving on the freeway but feels save on the race track with other pros. Not exactly the same but you get my drift.
Sounds like some risky stuff considering your expectations (i.e. winning against the fish). I played in 7CS tournament (one of those fly-by-night, word-of-mouth, $200 buyin. I felt I was one of the best ones playing in it and should have won or come very close. My brother-in-law (a terrible pokerplayer--he likes to play baseball and night baseball) won it all. It can happen. If you need the 2 grand, I'd skip the big game. Make it a $200 buy-in and no one gets hurt.
I gotta agree with Rounder and ratso here. If losing $2,000 would be a disaster then skip it. You are talking about WSOP level buyins here. I like the $200 idea a lot better.
On the other hand, if they do this every week and you have a bankroll of $20,000 then by all means go for it.
- Andrew
"We will only be playing limit hold'em, likely 25-50. I am the only one who knows how to play."
I think that if you have the cash to *blow*. and {"I am the only one who knows how to play."} this statement is true then start slow and clean the fish out(Tight/aggressive). They will be more nervous if they are playing over their heads than you should be. Yeah they may draw out on a few hands and hit some 23:1 shots but If you stick to good starting cards and get on a roll then the cash could be yours.
Also,
1. If the cash is a problem DO N0T go.
2. Make sure the rules are....Crystal Clear....
3. Is there a time limit?
4. Can a deal be made at the end if players choose?
5. Don't drink to much (or none at all)
6. Can I play.....LOL '_'
MJ
I agree with your strategy. Tight Aggressive (maybe even a little tighter than normal, but maybe a little less aggressive, as these fish wont fold marginal hands). "Suck them in when I have the nuts"
The alcohol thing concerns me, as this will be at 12:30 a.m. following the millenium bash (tough not to throw a few back).
And, although this will be in chicago, I can't invite you as my EV would go way down :)
Rob,
"The alcohol thing concerns me"
If your gonna throw a few back make sure you have some food to go with it.
A tired mind ,deck of cards and a pile of chips is a dangerous combo.
Enjoy,
MJ
where's it at.............i'm in!!!!!!!!!!!1
I agree with rounder that you should not play.
HOWEVER if the game is on the up and up then I would still consider playing. 12000 dollars is a significant amount of money to leave on the table.
If you are significantly better then you could be a 2.5/3 -1 favorite (maybe better).
Are these friends? Are they very well off and wouldn't mind losing 2000 to you (and vice versa)? Not worth losing friendships over.
The upside is that the 12000 dollar bankroll would put you in great shape for Low- Middle limit poker.
The downside is you can lose 2000 dollars
Good Luck Mike N
All friends who can lose it. I could lose it too, but I would rather not (obviously). Game will be on the up and up, and with drunk friends. I think if I totally refrain from drinking while these guys get drunk, I increase my odds and EV dramatically.
Bring on the Drunk Fish Fry.
Ya got to let us know how this one turns out.
Best of it.
MJ
You said losing $2K would hurt, and that it will be hard to refrain from drinking. If those are true, you have to pass. If you don't have the discipline to avoid drinking so as to increase your chances at winning $12K (and avoid losing $2K) when the stakes really matter, then you don't have the discipline to enter this game. That is, if you can't readily, and without pushing yourself, avoid all drinking, then I'm afraid that if you suffer some early bad beats your fear and anxiety about the $2K will overwhelm you, and you will be on total tilt (maybe not the crazy bet-and-raise variety, but still playing well below average for emotional reasons).
If the desire to win doesn't make it easy to pass on the alcohol, then don't play.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Its only 4 racks of 15-30 or 20-40 chips.
If you are going to play, make sure you prepare for the shorthanded section near the end. You should be able to win with the bet almost everytime strategy if they really aren't familiar with this. See HFAP21 if you havent already.
Ah - The lessons in my forays to the Green Felt continue. Monday night, my $2-4 game at the local cardroom. This game is rather soft, usually loose-passive, sometimes maniacal. Monday night 6 LP folks, 3 TA (including myself). I was tired. J9 spades late position. 6 pre-flop limpers. Flop: Xs, Tc, Qd checked to me. I bet. 2 TA dropped. 4 callers. Turn: 8c Bet. Call. Call. I did not see that the man two to my right was in the hand. I usually do not space out like this, but I was tired. I thought the bet was to me. I say raise. He puts his chips back into his stack and folds. I sigh. Heads up on the river, no flush possibility. Checked to me. I bet. Call. I take it down with the straight.
Still kicking myself for that. However, it also suggested to me that I get up and go before I start making even dumber mistakes. Just needed to confess.. Tim
Tell me about it. I once flopped a set of aces and slowplayed it to the river. The river card paired the board and I of course had aces full, but I lost track of where the button was and thought I was first to act and just called a bet by accident because of being tired. I heard the dealer say "that's a call" and my heart sank since I knew I messed up and should have raised.
Also, you can steam really easy when you are tired and lose lots of cash chasing cards.
Try to evaluate yourself and your play and if you notice yourself getting tired, and not playing well, quit the game for the night. Or take a break and get some coffee if the game is really good, and you feel ok, and you can expect to make a decent amount of money.
I have lost a lot of money trying to play well when tired, and really not playing well, don't fall into that trap.
I've had a similar problem. I took the summer off and have been playing back only a month. I've had six straight losing sessions. Not much each time, but the losses have come off leads. I noticed that when the bell strokes midnight, I begin to lose chips. This is coincidental with the beginning of the early morning wild game syndrome where people are trying to get their early losses back. I don't play well into these games and have taken a lot of tough beats. All on the river card. So I'm going to try not playing past midnight and see what happens.
Here's what happened to me a few weeks ago. I'm very tired around the 9th hour of the session (I slept only 3 hours the previous night and did some heavy squats and bench presses that morning). I play 87suited to the right of the button after 4 players limp, SB calls, BB knuckles. Flop comes and I think I've flopped the nut straight. Small blind bets, three callers, I call with the intention to raise it on the turn. Turn comes nothing. SB bets, one caller, I raise. SB calls. Caller folds. River comes nothing. SB checks, I bet, SB folds. As the dealer shoves the pot to me, I look at the board and realize that I never had a straight. I mistook the other 6 for a 5! Just thought I'd make a confession.
Poker is a vital component in teaching me patience, which I know is an ongoing struggle for me. I have come to notice that I am unable to play in sessions lasting longer than 4 hours. In fact, I think my longest session is 4.5-5 hours. My usual session lasts 2-3 hours. Ususally at that point, I am getting tired (regardless of time of day, etc. - perhaps it's the cardroom environment - low light, etc). This time of year, as well, here in Oregon, it gets dark really early, and I have a tendancy to be a bit more sloth like in the fall and winter....
What I wonder about is: 1. Am I simply "manufacturing" winning sessions by only playing these short sessions? 2. I find that the times I do not listen to that little voice that says "go home. You're tired. You have other things to do, etc." a winning session turns into a losing one. 3. Does anyone else have this "problem?"
I always read the posts here and it seems as if most of you play much much longer sessions. I wonder how you do it.
Thanks for your thoughts. Tim
"Time Flies when your having fun.."
I play 8-12 hrs and it seems like 10 minutes.
I think you need to ask your self a question.
Am I enjoying the game of poker??????
MJ
Yes. - I completely enjoy the game of poker. Perhaps because I am still so new at the game, the things that seem automatic to you require a great deal of thought for me. I found, for example, when I was first learning archaeology that many of the concepts were incredibly difficult, and studying what are now automatic concepts to me, was exhausting. Maybe this is the same thing.
Perhaps, also, I simply approach the game differently than many others on this forum. I find it to be a wonderful hobby - a hobby in which I can make a few bucks, and that appeals to my sense of logic and enjoyment of psychology.
You have given me something to think about, and I appreciate that. Maybe it is a matter of different goals. I cannot quantify mine at the moment, except that I know I never want to be a "pro." I do not want to make my living playing cards. I enjoy it certainly as a hobby, and I do want to get much better. But to always just keep it as the hobby I enjoy so much.
Thanks again for giving me something to think about. Tim
When I play mid-week in the evening after work, I usually limit my sessions to 4-5 hours and get home by midnight at the latest. I figure if I can keep my concentration on the golf course for 4-5 hours, I should have no trouble doing so in a poker game. On weekends, though, I often end up playing 10-12 hours if the game is good, and I'm doing OK in the game. I try to make sure I get a good rest the night before, eat a big breakfast, and take several little breaks during the day to stay fresh.
It's hard to stay completely focused for a full session, but the more experience I have obtained, the easier I find it to limit my time at the table to an appropriate level given my current state of mental and physical well being. Some days that might be only an hour or two; other times I'm still functioning well after 8 hours. It all depends.
Take a break every two hours. Do it right after you've played your UTG hand and come back two rounds later for your big blind. Walk around, stretch and take your mind off poker during this break.
I play between 3 and 10 hrs; usually about 5 hrs. When I get tired which especially happens when the cards are running bad, I get up and take a 10 minute on the boardwalk in Atl. City. That works for a while. Nothing gets you awake better than a couple big wins.
I have stayed too long at a table at times and lost all the money I had won. I set a goal for an amount to win, say $150 in a 3-6 game. Once I hit that goal, I usually cash out, put my name on the "dinner list" which gives me a no wait top of the list as long as I am not away longer than 1 hr. I come back after a short walk, or even go to my home or a room in the hotel which some of share using pooled comps.
Kojee's advice is good.
Oh, you may be trying too hard at the game. Relax and let to come to you. NEVER play tired unless the cards are absolutely running over and dropping huge pots in your lap. (yeah, like that happens often)
I use an assortment of stimulants, both legal and illegal. I'll start my session with a quadruple iced espresso from Starbucks and 1/2 dozen no-doze. I tell the porter to keep it coming - black - as I slip him a $5 chip.
At the first sign of the fatigue - I walk out to the valet and give him $20 to slap me about the neck, head and chest area while screaming positive thoughts into my ears (some valets do it for free) - "You are a very handsome and accomplished poker player", "Your raise on the turn was brilliant", "Your insight and discipline are without equal" - stuff like that.
After the eleventh hour (11 is a lucky number) - I retreat to the bathroom and do one or all of three things: 1) speedball (90% coke, 10% heroin), 2) 7 (also a lucky number) blue amphetamines, 3) A small line of Crytal Meth - (Crstal Meth at Crystal Park is the best). If I'm rushing, and by now I usually am, I walk out to my car and smoke crack.
I will not play beyond 18 hours! That is a hard and fast rule for me.
I go home, take 3 valium, 4 Exedrin PM and a warm cup of Sleepytime Herbal Tea, little Lemon and a touch of honey - (refined sugar gets me speedy).
Before dozing off I either: 1) have sex with my wife, or 2) beat my kids, though rarely both.
Anyway, I hope this has been useful for you. It seems to work for me - I'm only down $200,000 the last six months. Good Luck at the tables!
These are all great ideas!
I don't really want to beat your kids but could I have sex with your wife?
If only I could keep my losses down to 400 K a year! Sigh!
Regards Mike N
Well, after you have sex with my wife, you'll want to beat my kids.
Re. keeping your losses down - 1-2 HE is a great game - you can play every single hand and only lose $400-$500 a session.
Best of luck and regards right back at ya'.
Double K
I have a quicker and more direct approach. Go outside and walk thru the neighborhood surrounding the Crystal Park, Bicycle Club or Hollywood Park Casinos after dark.
If you make it back, you will have no trouble staying awake for at least another 4 or 5 hours - whether you want to or not.
One thought: Running Shoes.
My experience is similiar to yours,I'm relatively new to the game,am taking it seriously,so our minds are working harder(but not as efficiently)as long time winners.My goal each day is to play as long as my focus is good.Have been experimenting with various nutritional aids that help mental focus.Roy Cook wrote about this a while back.
I agree, I'm good for about 3 to 5 hours, but that's for hold'em only. When I used to play five-card draw, I could play for 8 to 12 hours regularly and never really notice the time. I think that's because jacks- or-better poker is such a slow-paced and relaxing game compared to hold'em, and just a more enjoyable game for that matter--but I'm definitely in the minority on that one.
Regards, Zack
Tim,
I used to get head aches then began wearing sun glasses to cut to glair down. I can play a 15 hour session and have with out getting head aches now - a good diet and exercise is a good way to get your stamana up.
I "walk" 36+ holes of golf a week and work out with dumbells a couple of times a week - I have to do this just to maintain my over weight status but when I am in shape I play better.
BTW - you owe no one an excuse for leaving when your ahead I do it all the time. Hit 200 or 300 and vamanoose muchacho.
"Am I simply "manufacturing" winning sessions by only playing these short sessions?"
When you run into that inevitable losing session and can't leave the table you will know.
Vince.
Extremely loose 5-10 HE many, many callers every hand. Most players are EXTREMELY passive. I am BB with K8o. No raise. 7 callers.
Flop is K 8 2 rainbow, a seemingly perfect flop.... I bet out and get some callers, then loose lucy raises. I'm not sure why, but perhaps she has a king with a big kicker (preliminary assessment). I reraise and 5 see the turn.
Turn is As, two flush on board. I bet again (so as not to give free cards), 1 caller, lucy raises again. Now lucy NEVER raises BTF and never raises the turn without a premium holding. so let's see.. She raises the flop, then calls when I reraise, then raises me again on the turn, what could she have? Hint: she improved on the turn! I am almost certain she has AK now so I decide to just call it down. 3 see the river.
River is a K, giving me a boat. Seems great, but I am fairly certain lucy also has a boat, only better than mine. I check and call. she has AK just as I thought.
My read on this player was so uncanny that I even considered folding the turn, but decided to call it down since the pot was big. I did have a good hand (and some small doubt about my read) so I decided the pot was big enough to call it down.
I think many players would have lost much more $$ with this hand than I did. Most players only consider what THEY have and not what their opponents have. The table was really surprised that I checked and called with a full boat! (I offered no explanation as to the real reasons why I played it that way).
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
At which casino do you play, Dave?
I play at Crystal Park Hotel.
I'd like to meet in person and talk shop.
-Michael
Hay Michael,
What limit do you play at Crystal Park? I sometimes play there myself.
I play 2-4. I'm just learning and trying to learn as much as possible. How about you? It'd be great to meet some of the people who's posts I read.
-Michael
Michael,
I play 6-12 hold'em mostly at Hollywood Park, if no good game is going on there I go to Normandie, if no game there I go to Crystal Park working my way back down towards orange county where I live. I'm looking forward to playing at The Hawaiian Gardens casino when they open up their new facility, next month I hope.
I've been playing poker in casinos since about 1990, when I initially played 5 card draw(2-4 limit),and I think Commerce still has one table that caters to that game, but it's horribly tight from the same 20 retired guys who keep it going. Anyway, I then started playing 1-2 holdem about three years ago, a year later 2-4, then I pretty much skipped 3-6 to play 4-8 which lasted for about 6 sessions at most, and now 6-12 until I can afford 15-30 since 10-20 is all but dead during the hours I play(1am to 5 or 8am).
Regards, Reed
Reed,
You shouldn't suggest that 10-20 is "all but dead during the hours you play", because the last remaining die-hard fanatical players, who are barley able to keep that game going during prime time hours, will scold you unmercifully.
I don't think the "silent props" play much after one A.M. anyway. I'm not sure that they still do it, but Crystal Park had quite a few people that they were paying $25.00 per hour to play in their yellow chip games.
I therefore gather the "loose" in "loose lucy" refers to something non-poker related:)
Seriously, if she was capable of playing the same way with 88 or 22, I would suggest you bet the river rather than check-call. A bet has the added advantage of getting a call from her if she had a hand like A8 with which she may not bet if checked to. Also, there is one player in between you and loose lucy whose call you want to get in case Lucy has an underfull or a counterfeited Aces up hand.
SKP, instead of "underfull", let's start using "canoe", instead. AND, let's delienate BTWN AKs & AKo with Big or Little Slick. Ditto AQ; Big or Little Chick, and AJ; Big or Little Hook. Happy Thanksgiving. :)
Dave,
Congrats on the read and play here. A lot of people tend to "over play" a great hand into a better hand with out regard to the other players tendencys and abilities.
It takes a good player to muck a good hand and a great player to muck a great hand.
Any one can calc the odds and play to that and say "I had pot odds" to justify a bad play.
Cheeers,
Canoe - I like that one...BTW, In the great white North, we have our turkey in October but here's hoping you have a happy thanksgiving.
After looking at Abdul's sight regarding preflop play, I noticed some significant differences between his recommendations and the S&M ones for early position opening hands.
Abdul assumes the opponents are "a tad on the loose side."
Specifically, let's look at the hands JTs and T9s. I don't have HFAP in front of me, but I believe JTs is a group 3 hand and T9s is group 4. S&M say that you should open in early position with any group 3 hand and group 4 hands as well if the game is somewhat loose.
Abdul suggests a minimum opening position of 4 off the button (which I believe actually corresponds to the S&M definition of MIDDLE position) for the JTs. He suggests a minimum opening position of 3 off the button for the T9s. Obviously, it depends on the specific game, i.e. loose passive - play more suited connectors up front, loose agressive - play much tighter but since the recommendations seem to be speaking about the same type of game, I was wondering whose advice to follow??
All comments are appreciated.
Puggy
These kind of questions usually result in hot pro et contra debates with either side refusing to yield by an inch. You should make up your own mind.
Plus, when you pose this kind of questions on *this* forum, you are bound to get biased replies. Most of the posters will heavily recommend S&M.
My advice is to find your own answers. Learn both strategies well, see how they work for you. Adapt them to your specific game conditions. Then report.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I cannot discuss Abdul here. He refuses to post here and consequently I would have to be nice. But if I were to respond I would say that the differnces you noted are because Abdul is a chicken. Do you really think anyone tha plays poker will toss JTs in early positin in a loose game. I don't think so! What, are we here to play poker or be a spectator (someone else said that). Gimme a break. Deal the cards. Hey, the guys in the five, six and seven seat are just thwowing there money away. The just call. I'll play that JTs up front. Let's go. Now T,9s that's different. Yeah right!
Vince.
i like to play poker. i call.
scott
Abdul also states that you can open 2 levels looser on pairs and suited hands when your opponents are too loose. In other words, in a loose-passive game, you can open with JTs 6 off the button and T9s 5 off the button. This advice is pretty similar to the advice found in HPFAP.
-Sean
The recommendations -- pretty close on their face already -- are not necessarily different, as both contain a degree of flexibility that must be resovled when the reader is at the table. It also isn't clear that the writers are assuming identical game conditions, as neither side spells these out in any detail.
But I suspect that the real answer to your question is that it doesn't make any difference. If you play well, you'll already have a good sense for how the pluses of these hands relate to their minuses in various situations and will play according to the situation, and not according to where you sit, even though where you sit is probably the beginning of the inquiry.
With these hands, for example, downstream aggression threatens these hands the most; downstream calling by weak players (weak in the sense that they call or fold too much) gives them their best value. As a good, observant player, you'll know how much raising and calling there is generally, and specifically by whom and where those players are sitting. You'll know whether the most aggressive player is on the button or in the blind or on your immediate left. You'll make a quick judgment call based on these various factors instead of just how many seats are between you and the button. You'll also understand that the very slight profit you'll make with these hands will depend more on game selection and post-flop play than from seat position.
If you don't play as well and/or remain fairly oblivious to the foregoing factors, you can flip a coin and pick Abdul or S&M. Either way, you'll lose with these hands and others unless you can keep enough truly terrible players in your game.
To put it another way, the answers to questions like these aren't the ones that will help you make money.
In the section on trash hands, pg.45 Lee Jones states, "Small pairs played in the wrong circumstances are bad as well. For instance, with a pair of fours, you're a tiny statistical favourite over AKs...." All starting hand recommendations I have seen rate AK much higher than 44, Jazbo's table gives win percentage of AKs against any random hand , heads up, 67% vs 57% for 44. The closest value of his to 44 is QT at 57%. Abdul's table of starting hands also shows a wide difference in the ratings of these two hands.
Can anyone tell me what statistics Lee Jones is referring to here. Thanks.
Peter James
I believe he is talking about playing AKs heads up vs. 44. Against random hands, AKs does much better because it is unlikely that the random hand has a pair whereas the 44 hand is only small favorite over 2 overcards.
Puggy
"Small pairs played in the wrong circumstances are bad as well."
Read the above carefully. Then read HPFAP. There is a section that addresses small pairs, deuces I belive against two big over cards. Or is that in Essays. May be. If you run 4,4 against A,K on Caro's probe you will find 4,4 wins more, over 50%. I am on the road and don't have probe with me, someone please. Remember, 4,4 is not a random hand. Even if it won more than lost it is still not the issue. The key to the advice given is how 4,4 PLAYS against A,K not whether it wins more in a simulation.
Vince
44 beats AK heads up. But in a ring game AK will win more money because 44 will often have to be folded on the flop. There are a lot more favourable flops to Ak than there are to 44. Or maybe it's better to say that 44 has a lot more unfavourable flops than does AK.
Also, the AK can bluff in situations where the 44's can't. This makes it a much better hand heads-up. In my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II there is an essay called "A Few Simulations" that addresses this.
If both players are all-in before the flop, 4-4 wins 54% of the time; A-K wins 46% of the time. While I've not read the book, when he speaks of statistics, I presume this is all he is referring to.
(1)How much of a mistake is it to NEVER raise when you're in the Big Blind??
I assume it would be a mistake after reading Jim Brier's post in the "Pre-Flop Raising" thread(which is about 10 threads under this one), where he pointed out how important it is to raise to magnify your opponent's mistakes, when they are playing trashy hands.
But in addition to magnifying your opponents mistakes, (2)is it important to let people in late position and in the small blind** know that they aren't necessarily going to get a cheap ride whenever you're in the big blind?
Which brings me to my third question:(3) Do you really want to discourage people in late position and in the small blind from coming in with "Botttom of the Barrel Hands" by raising from the big blind whenever you have a decent hand? (I know I sure think twice about entering a pot from those positions with hands I'd rather only pay one small bet, when the big blind is some guy who you can count on to raise it up now and then from the B.B.)
Thanks for any help, Don
**(I use late position, and the s.b. as examples because that's where people often start cosidering playing the trashiest hands on their list of hands,particularly the s.b., as long as they think they can play them cheap.)
Don it is dangerous doing anything "always" or "never" in poker. By and large I don't like to raise from the BB for alot of reasons. For example - If I raise and the flop comes 457 and I come out betting I lose all elements of suprise but If I'm holding something like JQ and this rag comes out I am guaranteed of several folds when I flat bet it, as it is a BB flop and often win it right there. I can then deal with the remaining players on my terms as I'm leading the betting and have an edge.
Your right most of the confusing or questionable hands come on sb or button - amazing what that cheap flop costs in the sb.
Don from Orange County,
You wrote: "(1)How much of a mistake is it to NEVER raise when you're in the Big Blind??"
I assume you are speaking of raising when others have limped rather than a reraise of a late position steal raise. If this is so, then it may not be that great a mistake since there are very few hands and/or situations where raising has a significant positive expectation. So in this sense, NEVER raising would not be a huge mistake. But it is still a mistake.
The hands where it is easily best to raise no matter how many limpers are AA, KK, AKs, AQs. The other hands are very dependent on pot size (e,g., raising with 88 with many limpers (which is debatable anyway), or a hand like AK offsuit against a few weak limpers). Still other hands may be used to "balance" your strategy against very observant and tough opponents (e.g., raising with 99 and TT but not JJ or QQ).
"I assume it would be a mistake after reading Jim Brier's post in the "Pre-Flop Raising" thread
Jim was mostly talking about raising in all positions. I'm pretty sure he raises out of the blinds but with fewer hands than he would raise with almost anywhere else.
"(2)is it important to let people in late position and in the small blind** know that they aren't necessarily going to get a cheap ride whenever you're in the big blind?
Not really (except short handed). If I am on or near the button and the BB has normal raising standards, then he is raising so infrequently that my decision to see the flop is hardly affected.
(3) Do you really want to discourage people in late position and in the small blind from coming in with "Botttom of the Barrel Hands" by raising from the big blind whenever you have a decent hand?
Unless you are raising like a maniac out of the big blind, typical opponents are not the least bit discouraged. I wouldn't be either.
Regards,
Rick (also from Orange County)
Rick,
You assume correctly that I meant raising from the B.B. when others have only limped in, rather than a reraise of a late position steal raise.
Also, I really like the advice to raise with 99 & TT but not JJ or QQ, I'm just not so sure the neanderthals I play with would notice those types of subtle differences one way or the other. I'm sure it will come in handy though, when I save up enough cash to start playing 15-30, and I'm getten pretty close.
Thanks for your time. From Don, who lives pretty damn close to Knott's Berry Farm
the reason to raise with 99 and TT but not QQ and JJ is not balance. it is pot manipulation. (99 and TT are almost entirely playing for the set in a multiway pot, but the JJ and QQ want overcards to drop when they are overpairs.) a better example for balance would be JTs after several limpers.
scott
mr. safranek,
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I keep having to remind myself that you're only 18! You seem like a poker veteran, with 20 years experience under his belt.
Sincerely, Don
... mr safranek ...
arrrgg!!
scott
Just kidding
When he's 21 they'll let him use CAPS.
Baseball caps you mean. Like all retards, his parent's make wear a helmet wherever he goes.
is it a batting helmet? i like baseball. baseball. i like baseball.
scott
scott,
Actually my example regarded raising a small field with 99 or TT and was perhaps improperly derived from Abdul's web page essay at the following address:
http://www.posev.com/poker/holdem/strategy/balance-abdul.txt
In it he is speaking of balancing strategies for limp reraising UTG hands in a tough game against observant opponents (like the 30/60 Bellagio game with Sissy Bottoms and that crowd).
I agree that raising with middle pairs out of the blind is usually done for pot manipulation when you have six or more opponents. However, it seemed that Adbul's reasoning regarding balancing strategies would also apply in smallish pots where pot size manipulation is not a factor. In other words, against tough players who pay attention it seems that you would need some middle cards to raise with to keep your opponents off base. Of course most games are not tough and most opponents don't pay attention much so I suppose you could faagetaboutit.
Regards,
Rick
i misunderstood.
the way i read raising with middle pairs against small tough fields is that he gets more respect on a rags flop (because proportionally more of his hands are pairs than if he only raised with big pairs and very big cards). rather than he gets more respect when middle cards flop. do you agree?
scott
scott,
That could very well have been his point and it certainly may apply in this situation (I'm too stuffed to reread it now).
Anyway, it seems to me to be a good idea to broaden the possible hands you could have when you make a "noticable" play like raising out of the big blind. If you do this with only a few hands your opponents can play more correctly against you. Raising with the upper middle pairs against a medium size field may have a slight negative expectation in isolation; however, the raise should make the total body of raises out of the big blind more profitable.
An example of the other extreme is a button raise post flop. So many hands can be raised on the button (e.g., set, draw, pair-kicker, combo hand) that it is really not necessary to mix up your play. Just go for the maximum expectation.
Anyway, time for a post dinner nap. I'll check in later tonight.
Regards,
Rick
"good idea to broaden the possible hands you could have when you make a "noticable" play"
i certainly agree with that. if it helps to keep your opps in line, then you can take a little of the worst of it once in a while.
scott
I am curious. Your spewing out advice based on what quarter half kitchen table poker with college pals or is it the DS clone image your looking for.
This latest bit of lanyap (Polish for BS) is very suspect. Why would QQ JJ want over cards? HUH!
Why would't we want to manipulate the pot with 22 or 77 a set is a set - one should win when a set falls NO.
I can think of a lot of reasons to raise from the BB but your's aren't any of them.
first of all, i play half one, not quarter half. second of all, QQ and JJ want overcards to fold. i used 'drop' to mean 'fold' not 'drop from the deck on to the board'. and 99 and TT can be overpairs, so they need a less good odds than 22-77. i would not raise in the bb with 22 with less than 6 opp, but i would raise 4 with TT.
scott
No pun intended. At first I thought small caps scott meant flopping on the table. After reading it again I realized he meant "fold".
Hey Rounder, scott is in the BIG city. i'm sure he hits the clubs in ny and foxwood and ac (don't you scott?). If scott is ever in ac, i'll buy him a pizza at Tony's Baltimore Grill. Same goes for Rounder. In fact we'll sit at the same table.
hey, I won $18 in a .10/25 cent home game over the holiday
The anatomy of a response from a jerk!
1) THE SNIDE INSULT. The use of the word 'spewing' rudely implies the worthlessness of the advice. The author knows that scott has previously stated that he has not played in a casino. He also implies that scott simply mimics what he reads.
"I am curious. Your spewing out advice based on what quarter half kitchen table poker with college pals or is it the DS clone image your looking for."
2) THE MISCONSTRUED INFO The poster doesn't comprehend very well. It's obvious to ANYONE that 'drop' meant fold. Note that Rounder mut also add to the rudeness here by using the word lanyap.
"This latest bit of lanyap (Polish for BS) is very suspect. Why would QQ JJ want over cards? HUH!"
3) IGNORANCE OF POKER A set is not a set. A set of 3's is different than a set of J's. One should not always win when a set flops. A set of 3's with a board of 378Q does not want to make a full house. Yet a set of 7's 8's or Q's do. Also note that Rounder uses "falls" here. He means flops but doesn't care to be clear.
"Why would't we want to manipulate the pot with 22 or 77 a set is a set - one should win when a set falls NO. "
4) THE PARTING SHOT One last bit of rudeness to close out the post!
"I can think of a lot of reasons to raise from the BB but your's aren't any of them."
5) THE INSULT EVERYBODY WHO OEN"T THINK LIKE ME Hey, he didn't do that! Rounder, you disappointed me.
Regards
Here's a hand I played several months ago. Low limit loose passive game.
I have AcTc in late position. 7 players see the flop which is KQ7 rainbow, one card a club. It's checked to me, I check, button bets, two callers. It's to me and there's no one left to act between me and the button. Should I call? Should I call if only 6 players had seen the flop?
It's an easy call on the turn. You are getting 10:1 on a 12:1 shot with great implied odds. I would also call if only 6 players called the flop.
In addition, an Ace may alo be an out although there may be some reverse implied odds you need to worry about if you hit an Ace.
In all likelihood, you will stick around for the river only if you hit a Jack, Ace or club on the turn.
Not only is this an easy call, it might be a good spot to bet the flop. Will you fold most or all of the field? Will you get a free turn card if you bet? Will you be able to steal on later streets? If you can answer yes to any of these questions then a bet is usually a smart move.
It has now gotten to the point where our forum family of posters do such a good job that I no longer really need to answer these kinds of questions myself anymore. Skp and Scott combined said exactly what needed to be said. Thus I can put myself out to pasture. (Notice however that it took two people to replace me.)
Well, we still need someone to convince Rounder, I think. Clearly this is a call, but I bet he mucks if he were in my position.
Some of the other pot odds examples were no-brainer calls, so I thought I'd throw this one in the mix for SammyB and others. Still an easy call but a little closer.
BTW, I took down the pot when I hit my runner, runner nut flush. I also succeeded in p*ssing off the button, I guess he thought I was krazy for hanging around.
Post deleted at author's request.
Let's throw another log on the fire. Badger I don't like the smell of fish.
It's called "The Theory of Poker". By definition a theory is neither proven or disproven. Perhaps when it becomes the Law of Poker . . . .
In a thread a few weeks ago David Sklansky said something, "No matter how well you play there is no guarantee you will win even one hand in your entire lifetime." Well, that's the gyst of it.
The thing about pot equity gets to me a little. I'm sitting with AA Board is Ah9s5h. Four poeple see the turn. $60.00 in pot, 5-10.
Turn card is 2c. Check to me. I bet, all fold but one. For fun let's put him on a flush draw. I believe a previous example informed me that my pot equity at this point is 80% or 64.00. My question is what does that do for me when a heart falls on the river that doesn't fill me up? Is it deposited in some IRA somewhere or is it lost forever. If it is lost forever, who the hell cares about the equity in a hand that isn't finished yet.
By the way my copy of the Theory of Poker has yet to arrive.
It doesnt do anything for you then but the other times ( more then 4 out of 5 ) you get the entire pot making you win your equity average.
Are you asking this questions seriously BTW?
D.
David,
I appreciate your input, and I admit I am playing devil's advocate in a lot of these posts. But to those of us newbies who are still struggling to see the order through the chaos some of these questions, which are poker 101 to you and most of the other posters, need "answer me like I'm a 2 year old" answers. The authors have provided a forum to do that and at the risk of being called a Rounder protege, a label I would wear proudly, not because of his ideas so much as his ability to stand up to the onslaught of criticism, I will continue to post questions and situations that I feel need clarifying. FYI I will not post a question in jest, I just might be that stupid.
Now, In a ring game out of the 52 cards in a deck only 25 cards are used. Using all probability theory that I know that means if someone has a pair of aces the other two aces will likely not be out. So, if most of the situations require a deck to be dispropotionately randomized why should any predictions about the remaining unseen cards be consistent enough to bet on.
To ask it like a 2 year old, If you are sitting with a flush draw on the turn, 6 or 7 diamonds should be in the bottom half of the deck leaving 6 or 7 in play. 2 in your hand 2 on the board and let's say three out in the remaining 21 cards to be used in this hand (the river and 10 hands) So instead of the odds being 37:9 or 4.1:1 it really should be 18:3 or 6:1.
Comments?
Ok, you were the one with jokes in the post so I was just wondering if the whole questions was in jest. No problem with asking any questions as far as I am concerned.
The correct way to do the unseen card thing is just 4 suited seen ( two in hand, two on board ) 9 unseen out of 46 unseen cards. It doesn't matter where the unseen ones are. Therefor 9 cards make the flush 37 dont. or 4.1 to 1
If you were to acurately calculate the number of suited cards in the deck and in the other players hands I am sure you would get the same answer but this is just extra work.
D.
No, you are assuming the cards are evenly distributed throughout the deck. There is no reason to believe half of the cards in one suit are in the bottom part of the deck and out of play. We have to assume the whole deck has been randomly shuffled, so the only thing you know is the cards you have actually seen.
To make the type of assumptions you are making, you would have to track the cards through the shuffle.
Jaeger
Try this. Rather than ask a question immediately, think it about it over the course of 24 hours. Maybe look thru some of your books.
You have gained a lot by doing this. You have studied the game rather than being preached to or lectured to.
When the answer is given you will better understand it.
You may find the answer.
Rjk
Here's how i would analyze this hand. There were 10 small bets in the pot. The gutshot is 10.75-1. If you pick up a club on the turn you will have big odds to draw to the river. Even though it appears your a little short with your odds on the flop your not due to the implied odds if you hit your hand. You have a gutshot to the nuts with the chance to pick up a flush draw on the turn which adds another 4%to your wins if you stay to the river. I would say on the flop you are probably about an 8-1 dog yet your getting 10-1 from the pot, hence your call. Good luck Ice
None of you, not one of you can "guarantee" I or anyone else will ever hit a gut shot draw - not ever I don't care what the odds of one hitting are on a calculator.
You act like the money is in the bank and all you have to do is pull out your ATM card and draw it out cuz the cards "OWE" you the 10.5 to 1 money.
The cards don't owe you anything just like a roulette wheel doesn't owe you anything - That's why they call it gambling.
I have reduced my game to one that relys not on the odds catching up to me but putting the odds on my side if that is possible. The only problem with that is will the competition find me out - well there are so many unobservent easy marks out there I doube it.
Hell I can tell them what I'm doing and they would still play the same "I could get lucky game" thank god.
I know it doesn't sell any books but if you guys subscribe to the prevailing theories and don't add common sense to your game your doomed to failure. As I have said there is alot more to this game than pot odds.
BTW - My tournament game is a lot different than my ring game but I use the same thinking "drawing is death" unless you have the best of it.
You are kidding right?
To take Rounder's logic to its logical conclustion ("cognito ad absurdium"):
No one, not one of us can guarantee that the casino will be solvent and able to change your checks into currency by the time you cash out. Hell, not one of us can guarantee that when they change do them into cash, that the $US currency will be worth anything due to some (unlikey), but not impossible or foreseeable confluence of world events. Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.
Only us "pot odds" guys should foolish enough to gamble on such an uncertain outcome, dependant on the odds being marginally in our favor. The wiser Rounders of the world should use their bankroll and invest in gold.
Rounder writes:
"None of you, not one of you can "guarantee" I or anyone else will ever hit a gut shot draw - not ever I don't care what the odds of one hitting are on a calculator."
Well, there is no guarantee that you will ever win a hand again after flopping top set either.
In fact, about the only guarantee you have in hold' em is when you flop a Royal flush (and even then I have seen guys misread their hand and throw it away - it's true - but I digress).
Rounder further writes:
"I have reduced my game to one that relies not on the odds catching up to me but putting the odds on my side if that is possible."
I confess that I don't know what you are saying here (even though you have said it umpteen times). What do you mean by odds catching up to you? In the example given, you will catch a Jack on the turn about 1 in 12 times. While it is possible that you may not catch a Jack in the first 25 or 50 or 100 attempts or ever, it is also possible that you will catch a Jack in your first 5 attempts in a row or indeed every time that you try. None of these occurrences are likely. That's why we deal with averages. On average, you will catch a Jack once in 12 attempts. This is more than enough to make calling a profitable play.
You talk about guys "sucking out" with a gutshot and that you don't want to be a "loser" like them. Well, they are not sucking out. They are playing properly. With respect, I suggest you are the sucker if you fold in the example given.
In other posts, you talk about "well, I don't want to wait for the odds to even out because that might take 10,000 hands".
First of all, if you are playing full time, it doesn't take too long to play 10,000 hands. In any event, who is to say that you will be catching up to the odds. You may well start ahead of the odds and let it catch up to you. No one can ever know which is going to happen first. Once again, that's why we deal with averages.
I am trying to understand your thinking here and running into a dead end. I suggest that you read the earlier posts by Fekali and Badger. I then suggest that you read them again. Then, perhaps you could be good enough to either agree with them or tell us in a logical fashion why you disagree with them.
Regardless of whether you respond to my request and regardless of the nature of your response if you indeed choose to respond, this is my final post on this ridiculous dialogue we have been having.
Geez...Rounder has got me on tilt.
Ronder
Looks like you have eveyone on tilt congratulations. Your last sentence you say drawing is death unless you have the best of it. What is your definition of the best of it. Anytime you have an edge shouldn't you take it since this will add positive expectation to your results? Aren't you leaving money on the table by choosing not to take a bet with a positive expectation? If i offer to pay you 2-1 on the flip of a coin would you take that bet? To coin a phrase from Roy Cooke the recurring sum of volume times net edge equals expectation. It appears to me that your willing to reduce your win factor by playing only the best gambling situations. Thats fine however, you must be aware that this will lower the amount of money you win i.e. your costing yourself money. Good luck Ice
I would suggest you consult with Double K for a prescription of Valium.
I agree with most of your posts in my limited time reading this forum but I can't but this one.
Sorry for the spelling error:
I would suggest you consult with Double K for a prescription of Valium.
I agree with most of your posts in my limited time reading this forum but I can't buy this one.
"None of you, not one of you can "guarantee" I or anyone else will ever hit a gut shot draw - not ever I don't care what the odds of one hitting are on a calculator."
I, Mike Nelson, do hereby GUARANTEE that you will hit your gutshot at least 1 time if you draw to it 10,000 times. I will PAY 100-1 one to anyone who can provide me proof of 10000 failed gutshot draws. Please send your bet to.
GUARANTEED GUT SHOT, PO 569, UPNORTH SOMEWHERE
Please hurry, I need cash and will only accept the first million bets.
Thanks for the action but not even I, "Moron", can take that bet.
Rounder needs to take a few days off and chill.
Super loose 3-6 HE. I get Js9s and limp in middle position. Button raises and 7 people see the flop.
Flop is 10s Qs 2d. Checked to me, I bet. Several callers, button raises, more callers, I reraise. with 6 people calling for three bets I felt the reraise was more than justified, as I have a whole bunch of outs! Any of my outs will most likely give me the best hand, though it is possible that I could lose to a bigger flush. Oh well, I'll take my chances. Seemed like a good time to value raise. If I catch a blank I still intend to bet if there is no other action on the turn.
Turn is 4s giving me the flush. Checked to me, I bet again and get called in three places.
River is the absolute perfect card, the 8s, giving me a straight flush. I just hope someone has the Ace! BB bets out, UTG raises. I get a tell that BB will be folding and so will the other player. I feel that reraising will make more $$ than overcalling, so I reraise. I'm pretty sure UTG has the ace. I reraise and BB folds, UTG makes it four bets, I make it five. He looks at the board real hard and says "if you have Js9s I'm going to scream" and calls. I tell him "you can scream now" and show him my hand. (He took it well!) He had As10d.
Wish these situations came up more often!
Dave in Cali
Nice pot. UTG obviously doen't have much repsect for your game when he makes it four bets. I mean, he's sitting there looking at the As and you are the one doing the re-raising. Does he think you are so stupid that you would make that play with a K-high flush? Where are these guys when you need'em?
Hard to put someone on a straight flush until they re-raise you on the river when you know the A is in your hand.
Your right these hands don't come up very often.
I've played 2-4 for 75 hours and am down $600. I'm reading a lot and I think I'm taking a step backwards. But I suppose I may need to take one step back to take two forward. I'm really trying to pay attention to the other players and how they're betting and how they play. But there's a heck of a lot to pay attention to and it's difficult to know what's relevant and what's not.
Thanks for all the advice.
-Michael
According to some experts here you'd be wise to step up to 10-20, maybe higher, 'cause those games are much easier for a good student player to beat.
This is, of course, a load of garbage. Only a very few books on poker will give you the tools to beat a 2-4 hold'em game. Check with Chuck Weinstock at Conjelco and see what he recommends.
According to some experts here you'd be wise to step up to 10-20, maybe higher, 'cause those games are much easier for a good student player to beat.
Scott -- What posts are you referring to? Could you point me to them? I don't recall seeing any that suggested this.
Check out the "Skipping LL" posts in the General Poker Theory forum.
Okay, yeah, but though I haven't had time to review every post in that thread, it really looked to me like the main point made by David, for instance, was that low limit games don't prepare you very well for the kind of play you'll encounter in the middle limits and up. Also, the small limit puts a low cap on what you can make. I didn't see any real argument to the effect that middle limit games are actually easier to beat. I think it's just a matter of what you can make and how you need to learn to play to do so, no?
Of course a player should start out in low limit games. But it may not be the most profitable choice to stay there for a long time, slowly building a bankroll to play something like 10-20 before moving up -- if you have a choice.
Mike
Your down 2 bb an hour - can you give some idea how many hands your playing - you may have to change something to stop the bleeding - can you give some idea of starting hand criteria. What type of games are available 3-6 6-12 etc. and the personality of the tables your playing at maniac, looose passive etc.
Your down 2 bb an hour - can you give some idea how many hands your playing - you may have to change something to stop the bleeding - can you give some idea of starting hand criteria. What type of games are available 3-6 6-12 etc. and the personality of the tables your playing at maniac, looose passive etc.
Rounder,
I'm playing many hands. Looser in late position and tighter in early position. Since the low limit tables are so loose -- I think I need to only play a small bit tighter than my competition to get the money (not an original thought - Lee Jones).
My starting criteria always depends on the climate of the table - if it's loose/passive I'll start with all but the worst hands. And I'll fold if the flop does not hit me hard. If it's loose/aggressive I'll tighten up considerably and play nothing but the best of hands in early position (assuming a cap BTF is quite possible).
I'm playing 2-4 (Single BB and $2 collection) 3-6 (Single BB and $3 collection) and 6-12 (don't know blind structure and $3 collection) are available. 10-20, 15-30, and 20-40 are also available.
At the tables I play at, it seems only maniacs on rushes take the money. It sucks. Or maybe I suck? Maybe I need to learn to be selective of the game and be willing to switch tables or get up and stretch and try to relax and re-charge. Maybe I have obvious tells that I'm not aware of. Maybe it's just a string of bad luck with the cards. Maybe I should try 6-12. It's not that I can't afford it, it's that I want to pay as little as possible to learn.
Thanks for all the GREAT advice!
Mike,
Try this - scout out the tables and find one with no more than 2 maniacs. It is a crap shoot in LL HE to have a table full of maniacs and loose aggressive players. It is just to hard to beat these games. BUT you need some action in the game.
NOW - if you find the right game what ever the limits.
Play fewer hands - most losing players are just playing to many hands. Try this - Big pairs AA to QQ and AK AQ in 1st 4 positions - don't play sb just cuz it is 1/2 a bet don't call raises with junk cuz YOUR 1/2 in already in the BB. It is a mark is a losing player.
In mid position med pairs, paints and Axs on up. Last 2 positions suited coupled 78 on up - This is tight play and will keep you from playing to many hands. You'll find with good starting hands the quality of your play will improve too.
GOSH, I should charge for this - it is worth alot of money. I wish you success.
You're not doing well. I suggest that you tighten up your starting hand standards. You may want to get Bob Ciaffone's "Improve Your Poker". He has excellent starting hand requirements for a much bigger game, but I think they would be good for the game that you play. Futhermore, you should study David Sklansky's "Flops You Want" in his "Hold'em Poker" book.
Low limit holdem is a tough proposition - no matter how good you are. Your biggest opponent is the rake.
To win you must play tighter than the cobbs of hell - for two reasons. The first is to minimize your exposure to the rake. The second is the fact that playing anything other than premium hands will result in your chips bleeding away on the myriad draws that result from playing these hands.
I recommend you try playing only Skalansky's Group I, II or III hands for a while and see what happens.
I would agree and disagree. The rake is a pretty big opponent, but your main opponent is yourself. But only because the rake is so big. Of course, I am 85% confident that he is down so much because he is too loose pre-flop. Marginal hands are hard to play in this game because so many people will see the flop. So even if you see the flop with a drawing hand, it has to be (almost) the nuts to bet it confidently even when it hits. Therefore, I suggest to someone just starting to play even tighter pre-flop than odds would warrant, only because they need the experience to see what happens after the flop before they can make some of these hands profitable.
Well stated my friend.
2-4 in california. I'm one off the button with QKo. There are 6 callers when it gets to me. I call thinking I should see the flop for as little as possible. Button calls. Blind checks. Flop is QJQ (one H). Blind checks. Next guy (basically a maniac) bets and there are 6 callers when it gets to me. I raise, Button and blind fold. Bettor re-raises. All drop except for (one) before it gets to me. I re-raise, bettor caps, (one) calls a double bet for the second time. Turn is 2 (no flush possible). Checked to me. I bet. Bettor calls, (one) calls. River is 10. Checked all around. (One) had 9K(H) and took it down. He called two double bets after the turn with a gutshot. Bettor had JK (being the maniac he likes to be). Was this a bad beat? My thought is that (one) had no business being in the pot with a gutshot (calling $4 with FAR less than $48 in the pot with only two other players still in(not enough implied odds)). Should I have waited until the turn to raise a big bet thereby giving (one) even worse odds to call with. Or was he in for the duration?
Thanks,
Michael
There are no bad beats in a CA 2-4 game. They'll play any hand for any amount of bets, bless them all. Charge them the maximum for the privilege.
They don't think about this stuff playing 2-4. They just want the pot. He's in for the duration.
Your playing in some dumb company.
Find a bigger game. Your wasting your time in this one.
With this flop a good player would have been in the muck on the flop - full house possibilities all aver the place with broadway cards up.
Move on to 4-8 6-12 you'll see the same sort of thing there but just not as often -
Michael,
You have received very different advice from Scott H. and Rounder. Scott says punish 'em, Rounder says to move up.
If I recall from your earlier posts, you are a newer player, like myself. I don't know about you, but I would be uncomfortable jumping up to next level so soon, despite a lot of what has been written on this forum lately. I think you need to get comfortable at the low limits first.
I agree with Scott's advice here. The odds are with you, so capitalize as much as you can on Mr. Gutshot's mistakes when he does stupid stuff like play a gutshot on a paired board. When I am against guys who don't know when to give it up, you have to tighten up and then extract the highest price from them when they shouldn't be in the hand. The hard part is figuring when that is.
Jon,
I was suggestion a move up to 3-6 or 4-8 - with a rake of $3 I just don't see how 2-4 is a beatable game + the no fold aspect of the game.
Look at the difference on a 1-4-8 game as opposed to a 4-8 game - a whole lot more players see the 1-4-8 flop and that can't be an easy game to beat - actually it is a crap shoot. And no way to play poker.
I agree one should feel comfortable about a game change but some games are just to hard to beat.
Thanks all - I don't know what I'm going to do in the near future. In the far I expect to be playing 10-20 and up.
I was in Vegas for the weekend. Played 1-4-8-8 for a total of 20 hours (4 of those hours short-handed (3 players). Lost a total of 200. Was down 325 and then came back to down 75. Then yesterday towards the end (catch flight) I gambled and lost an extra 40 in a 1 hour session just before we left.
On an aside. I went to the Belaggio(sp) to check it out. Saw Sklansky playing 200-400 omaha. Man that was pretty amazing! In high stakes games $100 bills play. There were guys with stacks of hundreds. One guys stack must have had $20K (4 inches high). Those pots were never less than $2K!
Thanks again gents.
Welcome to the world of low limit holdem. You played the hand well and got beat.
All you can do is make the underdog pay the max to outdraw you. If he gets there, the money he wins is just a temporary loan.
Unfortunately, Murphy's Law states that he will fire off your chips to some other moron.
Post deleted at author's request.
If someone doesn't understand such a basic principle of poker why waste words tring to convince them?
Remember, Rounder makes upward of 6 big bets (or was it 60?) per hour. That should be enough of a credential.
Scott says,
If someone doesn't understand such a basic principle of poker why waste words trying to convince them?
Scott, if they DO understand it then trying to convince them is a waste of words.
If you don't understand such a basic principle of education why should we listen to you?
I'm sorry I'm getting a bit snippy about this but Rounder IS the underdog, just count his detractors.
Ok, I read all the junk in the thread below to get me fully up to speed. I'll sumarize my findings here.
1. I didn't read Rounder's posts previously and now I remember why. I won't be reading them in the future. His thinking on drawing odds as I understand it is fatally flawed....but that 6 bets per hour really makes me jealous.
2. Izmet is the most entertaining poster here by far. Big John is 2nd and closing.
3. Never, never argue with Badger, a negative EV game if there ever was one. He's a WSOP champeen and don't you forget it.
4. I'm going to read maybe one or two more of SammyB's posts but that might be all.
Hope that helps.
ouch!
"Scott, if they DO understand it then trying to convince them is a waste of words."
In an example skp gave earlier, Rounder said he would fold a gut shot draw to the nut straight with $960 in the pot and a call costs him $60. I'd sure like to see a reasonable explanation as to why a fold here is even close to correct. What confuses me, and I imagine many others, is how someone can say they understand pot odds yet would fold this draw.
The draw is 10.5 to 1 which means 10.5 times he loses $60 for a total cost of $630. When he catches his card he wins $960. A $330 profit every 11.5 times this situation occurs or $28.70 each occurrence. Thus, as Badger consistently points out, every time you fail to make this call you are leaving $28.70 on the table.
"Remember, Rounder makes upward of 6 big bets (or was it 60?) per hour. That should be enough of a credential. "
I for one think it is time to give rounder some slack about his hourly rate. If the game is weak enough, or there is a rich enough fish who keeps going to his wallet for 100s then winning can a lot can be done. we all know this. My home game is sooo bad some weekends I average in excess of 10BB/hr. In my best session, I won 28BB/hr for 8 hrs.
This can not be done in AC, foxwoods, Vegas, etc. But in a local casino (I know nothing about Phoenix casinos where i think rounder plays) I am sure you can find this type of game.
Todd
I never said 6 bb per hour.
Scott Horton is right about you, Badger. Very well written and thought out posts. (like you need confirmation from me)
I'm curious about the terminology some of the math guys use. In a thread last week the word "mistake" was used inappropriately by, I believe it was either Jim Brier or John Feeney, when he actually meant to say unfortunate situation, when you're drawing to a flush and there's a higher flush draw against you.
In the illustration above you said a raise was in order when you are clearly and admittedly not "getting the best of it", could you elaborate? And should the opponent then reraise because he is getting the best of it?
Thanks
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger,
I've never seen this concept explained before. It makes perfect sense, and doesn't lead to any changes in strategy that I can immediately see. However, I can only imagine how some of our fellow posters are going to disagree with you, as I can't see any logical basis for such a disagreement.
Good Work, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Given: A flush draw on the turn will succeed 4.1:1 times. 46 unsees, 37 bad, 9 good, approx 1 out of 5.
Given a gutshot draw (hand7,8 board 4,5,9,A) will succeed 11.5:1, 42 bad, 4 good, approx 1 out of 13.
Now, of course, it is possible they will succeed for some people many times less than this in their lifetimes, and many more for others. And even if they didn't succeed one in a thousand times the odds on the next one are exactly the same.
We are counting on things evening out. Am I right so far?
In a post under the thread of Beating pot odds to death, I suggest that we should assume the unseen cards are always in proper proportion, just like the odds of these events, therefore the odds of a flush being made are actually 21 unseen cards(ten opps hands and the river card) and 3 of those are the suit (suit in a 1/2 deck =7, 2 board, 2 hand, 3 left) so 3 out of 21 or 18:3 or 6:1.
Where am I wrong?
Every unseen card has the same probability of being the correct suit. It doesn't matter that that some of them came from the same half of the deck as the seen cards.
Here is a scenario that may help you:
Lets say you have 100 boxes, all of them empty except for an unkown 2 that have prizes. Suppose you divide the boxes in half, take your half open 5 of them and find a prize in one of the boxes. Now do you think the rest of your half of the boxes must be empty? One of your remainging boxes is just as likely to have the one remaining prize as the other 50 in the half you didnt pick. Dividing in half did not change the chances that any of the unopened boxes are equally likely to have the remaining prize.
Hope that helps.
D.
I understand your point about the prize in the boxes. Let's use cards. 13 cards one of each rank. 12:1 odds of any particular rank coming up. Someone offers you better than 12:1 odds on an ace coming out after a shuffle, you take it. You are betting that order (an ace coming up one in 13 times) will come out of chaos (the shuffle) in the long run. Therefore, in the long run, in a full deck, out of every 13 cards dealt off the top you will find one of each rank. Each suit will be distributed evenly as well, in the long run. Therefore when a full table of hold em is dealt , 2 to each player, 5 board cards and three burn cards, 24 cards which in the long run will contain an even proportion or close to it of suits and ranks are dead. In the long run there must be 6 of each suit in that dead 24. How, in the long run could it be otherwise.
When playing a gutshot you are betting that in the long run the rank you need will come up 1 time in 13 or 12:1. You are betting on an even distribution of results from shuffled decks. How can that be right when you say I'm wrong about the half of the deck?
Sammy,
Good point. If you go through the threads you'll find one where the poster tries to rationalize that the odds proportion of the pot is "YOURS" - I am with you - the turn of a card is like the turn of a roulette wheel - one hand has nothing to do with another.
One can literally go a lifetime without ever making a draw.
I still think it is a good way for some players to rationalize a gamble and I don't think that is wrong actually I welcome the thinking - life whoud be truly boring if we all played the exact same way.
Post deleted at author's request.
Rounder,
You know I love you but if the roulette wheel was paying you 60:1 on a number would you place a bet?
Sammy at those odds I'd bet every number and the 0-00 too. And win every time. But here I am only betting one hand at a time.
What I was saying (and not very well) is some here are looking at the averages as money in the bank and I'm looking at this hand here and now. Not some abstract math formulia telling me if I do this play everytime exactly the same way I'll win in the long run. Guess i am to much for the here and now.
Add a new rule and change the odds.
You can bet only 1 number and it pays 39-1.
Out of a million hands, all 9 cards that will give you a flush will be in your opponents hands about the same number of times that the cards remaining to be dealt will contain all 9 flush cards and none of your opponents will hold any of that suit.
The fact that some of your opponents may sometimes be holding a disproportionate number of your flush cards is thus counterbalanced by the fact that sometimes there will be fewer flush cards in your opponents hands and more in the portion of the deck remaining to be dealt.
You should forget about the cards held by your opponents--as they have no (ong-term) effect on your chances of making a draw. The box example is a good one.
Occasionally, however, you might be able to get a read on an opponent that may make you think he is on the same draw as you, in which case you can adjust the odds appropriately, particularly if your draw figures to be not as good as your opponents.
But other than that, there is a basic flaw in your logic, which I think is nicely illustrated by the example of the one hundred boxes divided into two equal stacks.
Finally, I don't think that any poster is denying that they would rather have a made hand. I also don't think anyone plays too many hands that are likely to put them on a draw. I'm not playing 45s anywhere but the button with three or four limpers in front of me and nonagressive blinds or maybe the small blind in a similar situation. Well, sometimes I've raised with it as the first one in if I thought I could steal the blinds...but other than those type situations, we all agree its better not be on the draw.
My favorite hands are Aces and 7-2 offsuit. I like to avoid tough choices.
All these posts should be on general theory too, shouldn't they, as they have little to do specifically with holdem, and more with a basic premise of the game of poker in general.
no. take it to the tournament forum. i don't read that one. or the other gambling games. especially now that roulette has come up.
scott
If you understand the box point then this should also be clear. The unseen suited cards are equally distributed in the unseen total cards. Just like the one remaining prize could be equally in any of the boxes, not just the arbitrary other half boxes.
Rounder is really going off the deep end, I am starting to think he is just trying to mess people up, specifically people like you that are trying to learn the basic math here.
D.
Guys,
With all due respect can we leave Rounder out of this.
I'm just trying to get an answer, open minded one, to this.
By betting on a gutshot giving you better than 12:1 you are counting on the fact that in the long run your card will be on top the same proportionate number of times it appears in a full deck. If you were playing with a joker and that was the only card that can help you your odds would then be 52:1. Like in card counting in blackjack the deck is always going towards a flat count, so if the deck is highly plus, a lot of aces and pictures must remain in the deck which will wind up at zero.
My basic point here is that the odds on draws are all based on assuming cards will appear in a predictable way in relation to their proportion in the deck. So, the 24 cards not dealt or burnt in a hold em hand in the long run must contain 6 of each suit. Making it a 6:1 draw for a flush not a 4.1:1 draw.
If you're betting on the odds evening out it must be right to bet on the deck evening out as well.
Sammy,
I understand what you are saying, and have a proposition for you.
First we shuffle a deck that has everything but 4clubs, one heart and one diamond in it. I take two of the clubs and we put the other cards face up as the flop and turn. Now, you take the next 26 cards off the top of the deck and set them aside. I put up $10 that the next card off the deck is a club, and you put up $50 that says it isn't. In a matter of a few hours we should be able to either prove or disprove your assertion. Good luck.
P.S. To make this bet even more favorable for you, once every five trials you may remove 29 cards instead of the normal 26.
That would be a wondeful experiment if I thought my theory that the non distributed cards would be evenly distributed so that out of the 26 cards I drew off, 6 of them would be clubs. However, I have no such confidence. I simply wondered if the suits would be evenly distributed in each half of the deck after a gazillion shuffles most of the time. And if they would be, why not adjust the odds of certain events accordingly? However, if after bludgeoning this subject to death and getting responses from the best of the best to the contrary I respectfully resign from my position and admit the errors of my ways. But, I'm still not playing 46s in the small blind.
I will try to explain the basic mistake of probability that you are making here, Sammy.
You are ignoring information you've received about the distribution of the cards in favor of the information that you had at the beginning of the hand (predeal).
Before anything was dealt, if you cut off the bottom half of a deck, counted how many of each suit were present, and kept records, after a sufficient number of trials you would end up with about 1/4 of each suit, as expected.
Now, what if we play some HE, and everytime you hold 2 clubs, and flop a flush draw (exactly 2 clubs on the board), you then take the bottom half of the deck and count how many of each suit are present. After a sufficient number of trials, you will find that the bottom half of the deck contains much less than 1/4 clubs.
In fact, what you will find, if you could look at every one of the 52 cards, is that the remaining clubs are evenly spread among the cards dealt to the players, the cards in the burn, the cards that will arrive on the turn and river, and the cards that will never be dealt. Of those 47 cards, each one of them will end up with a 9/47 chance of being a club. So, if you were to grab the bottom 10 cards off the deck 4.7 milllion times, you will have looked at 47 million samples, and you will probably have counted something close to 9 million clubs in set.
Back to our previous example. If you grab 10 cards off the bottom of a freshly shuffled deck and count 47 million samples, you will end up counting something close to 11.75 million clubs (1/4 of 47 million).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thank you Greg,
It takes people like Greg and Big John to get through to me because they don't fall back and preach theory they explain that they understand the question and then answer it.
I believe to paraphrase you, Greg, if the top half of the deck has already proven to be unevenly distributed you can't count on the rest of the deck being evenly distributed except among THE REMAINIG UNSEEN CARDS.
By, george, I think I've got it.
No more pot odds questions from me, ever.
Thanks to all for their patience.
I am glad that Greg Made you understand but I certainly wasn't preaching something I didn't understand. Anyway I won't bother trying to help anymore
D.
David,
I have obviously offended you and I sincerely apologize. The efforts you made to educate me were quite above and beyond. The fact that I'm a bit dense about some of this abstract stuff reflects not on your ability to communicate but on mine to comprehend.
Thank you so much for making the effort.
Sincerely,
SammyB
ok thanks for that response.
D.
I would like to comment.
The next card that the dealer is going to turn over is both a club and not a club. In fact, it is all of the cards you have not seen. It really is. Only once the dealers truns it over does it stop being all things.
That is unless he misdeals and it goes back into the deck. Then it NEVER existed at all.
Ooooh Scaaarrry
how can the cat be half dead?
scott
Exactly!
We are all familar with expectations regarding how many Big Bets per hour the pros make or we ourselves make over many hours. However I have seen little in print or on this forum about typical standard deviations or variance that we can expect.
I would guess that our variences should be representative not only of our own particular skills but also our style and also the type of game we play in.
I.E. A person playing no-foldem in CA while might have the same BB per hour as one who plays in tighter L.V. games, however his varience will be much greater and the standard deviation represented from his stats should show this.
For me in particular I don't have a bank roll devoted to poker, but rather once or twice a month (maybe less maybe more) drive to the casino and play a session. I usually cash in for $200 and if I bust and feel the game is good might grab another $100.
I'm wondering what are some typical standard deviations , and using some typical standard deviations how often can I expect to go bust and how often can I expect to break even, win a $100, $200, etc.
Anyone care to comment on the above and/or post some typical standard deviations.
Jodder
The length of your session in hours is required to answer this question as well as limit and game description. How much do you win/lose per hour historically?
Typical standard deviations run from 10-15 big bets per hour at hold'em.
When I was playing at limits below $10-$20, my standard deviation was about 10 big bets per hour. At $10-$20 and $15-$30 it is about $230 per hour. At $20-$40, it is about $338 per hour. At $30-$60 it is $676 per hour. My $20-$40 game is loose passive. The $30-$60 game is tight, aggressive.
The best information available on hourly earn rates for $10-$20 and higher can be found in a book by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth entitled "Gambling for a Living". It is not a poker book, but there is a section that deals with poker win rates based on skill levels, playing levels, and game selection. I believe it contains the finest information available on realistic win rates. Frankly, most of the win rates that I hear being quoted are overstated.
My career cariance is 247 BB^2/hr (STD: 15.7 BB/hr)
However, its too early to tell, but my last 100 hours (post Lee Jones LLH) have been much lower, (and higher profit): Var: 133, STD: 11.5
My game (5-10) is loose passive 80% of the time, loose aggressive 10% and tough (Tight-Agg) about 10%.
I would guess the variance to be much lower (60-70) for the loose passive game.
Zooey
I posted this question earlier and it got an extensive descussion, but no one addressed my specific question: "why aren't you worried about the ace being out there?"
The example given on page 168 is: "In a large pot you have T9s in early position with a flop of A-7-6 rainbow. S&M suggest you should bet "to get out the Kings and Jacks even if you knew that someone had a 6 or 7."
Why aren't we worried about Ax? I the loose games I am in, many people call with Ax suited (or unsuited) in raised pots. So, if you bet and get out KJ, what good is it if you get a 9 on the turn and the are beat by A2.
You have missed the whole point of the discussion. It is simply that the ace doesn't have to be out there every time. In a very large pot, if you can do something that will increase your chances of winning it even a little, it is frequently worth it.
Slightly increasing your chances of winning a big pot might be the whole point of the discussion in HPFAP. It is not the whole point of the discussion that is occuring on this forum.
Sometimes, it will be worth betting out on the flop. Sometimes, checking the flop will be preferable. Thinking players want to understand the important factors that determine the correct choice.
There are many reasons to bet this hand. Those reasons will almost always make up for the reasons not to. The main reason not to, is that you will SOMETIMES save a bet by checking. Another reason not to is that your bet will possibly cost you a bigger pot if you later hit your hand.
Now for the reasons to bet (and I will probably miss some.)
1. You may win it right there. Admittedly this is a slim possibility. But if it happens as little as once in 200 times it is not an insignificant addition to your EV.
2. Your bet does not cost you anything extra because hands that would bet behind you if you check, merely call when you bet.
3. Your bet can actually save you money because had you checked, aggressive players behind you would have both bet and raised whearas your early position bet "freezes" them up itno just calling (this scenario is common in the bigger games.)
4. Your bet can actually save your money because it sometimes buys you a free card on fourth st. since it confuses timid players into sometimes checking behind you with a better hand.
5. The bet not only wins you the pot because it gets out KJ and it comes both one of your cards and one of his. That is an unlikely parlay. But if someone has something K9 or QT etc your bet can much more easily save you the pot. There are also many combinations of cards that both pair you and make someone a backdoor straight or flush which mean you lose if no one bets on the flop.
6. Your bet on the flop is more likely to get out some of the above hands to your left (since they fear a raise behind them) then if you merely checked and called. And of course if there is no bet at all you would certainly retrospectively wish that you had bet.
7. Getting raised on the flop is no tragedy. With the nut gut shot and a backdoor flush draw you are more than 20% to draw out. You will probably get two or three to one odds on that raise so you really don't lose much when it happens. In fact the raise behind you will even occasionally win you the pot such as when the next two cards come T9.
8.The bet adds deception for that hand which often means you will win more when you hit your straight.
9. The bet adds deception for FUTURE HANDS, meaning that even if the play had a slightly negative EV it would still be worth doing because of the increased action it might bring to you in the future in similar multiway pots.
10. As to the original question of how often there will be no ace out against you, I would say that chance is bigger than it appears, especially in semi rational games. And it doesn't have to be very big to make the play of betting correct. A 20% chance is plenty. In fact even if you were sure an ace were out, a bet might be right.
"Another reason not to is that your bet will possibly cost you a bigger pot if you later hit your hand." You mean if you later hit your hand "and still lose", don't you?
(1)But when you bet out and win "as little as once in 200 times it is not an insignificant addition to your EV." How many times out of 200 do you think you will get popped after betting out in this situation, where you have enough opponents involved in a capped pre-flop pot to make it supposedly worth your while, or popped and repopped for that matter, not to mention all the times when it gets raised and your call doesn't close the betting?
(3)"Your bet can actually save you money since aggresive player's' behind you will be frozen up into just calling." What a load of $_it!!! Since when does one early position bet turn a bunch of aggressive players into callers, especaially when involved in a large pot?? You did write "aggressive player's'" didn't you?
"Since when does one early position bet turn a bunch of aggressive players into callers"
This topic is from the section on loose games. Frequently the loose players play quite weak and an early bet will indeed scare them from betting, especially if you are likely to check raise often.
D.
"Frequently the loose players play quite weak and an early bet will indeed scare them from betting"
Who said anything about loose players? The were BOTH talking about aggressive opponents.
Please don't publish your post anywhere because it is too good and might inspire somebody to play well. In all seriousness, your post was the best I have read in quite some time.
--Charlie
Some of David's reasons already have been discussed. Here are some additional considerations.
"2. Your bet does not cost you anything extra because hands that would bet behind you if you check, merely call when you bet."
It is possible that your bet might not cost you anything extra, but your bet GUARANTEES it will cost you at least one small bet to see the turn card (except in the unlikely event that everybody else folds). It is possible (and often likely) that at least one raise will follow your bet. It also is possible (but less likely) that nobody would bet if you check, thus allowing you to get a free card for your straight draw. Checking the flop often saves you money.
"5. The bet not only wins you the pot because it gets out KJ and it comes both one of your cards and one of his. That is an unlikely parlay."
If it is an unlikely parlay, why does HPFAP say "it is important to get hands like KdJh out."
"6. . . . And of course if there is no bet at all you would certainly retrospectively wish that you had bet."
Personally, I'm often thrilled to get a free card when I'm drawing to an inside straight.
"7. Getting raised on the flop is no tragedy. With the nut gut shot and a backdoor flush draw you are more than 20% to draw out. You will probably get two or three to one odds on that raise so you really don't lose much when it happens. In fact the raise behind you will even occasionally win you the pot such as when the next two cards come T9."
First, in the example on page 168 of HPFAP, you do not have a backdoor flush draw. You have two spades, and the flop came Ad7c6h.
Second, the T9 parlay is about as unlikely as the earlier parlay when you pair up and lose when KJ also pairs up.
Rick, I probably play at the same levels you play so consider this. A person sitting with A2s might be worried about their kicker .If none of his suit hits on the flop and someone is bettig before him and there is a raise behind him it might be hard for him to call a turn bet. And it's very important to realize the field doesn't know you don't have AJ, AT.
Ignoring my other mistakes on this hand, how easy was this fold?
Playing 10-20 HE in so. Cal in a v. loose game with lots of poor players. I felt that I was the strength of the table, which for me is a rare feeling.
I was five spots from the big blind with QJos, there were no callers in front of me, and I limped in (I think this was a mistake--should have raised or folded, but as you will see it would not have had much effect on the play of the hand).
The player to my immediate left limped after me (he was a weak player, who had previously limped under the gun with A2os and snapped my AQos off when he caught a two on the river), another player (who I felt was better than most of the players at the table) limped, and both blinds called.
Flop came jt4 rainbow. I bet, was raised by the player to my immediate left, the other limper called, and both the blinds folded.
I debated about raising him back, having put him on a draw, but several things worried me: the other limper, the fact that there was no flush draw on board, the fact also that this player did not seem well informed enough to raise to get a free card. After some thought, I called, deciding to bet the turn provided it was not an Ace, a King, a six, or an eight. If the guy to my left was on a draw, it would be for a straight.
The turn was a six. I checked, he checked, and the other player checked.
At that point, I put the weak player on a KQ. The river was a king. I checked again. He bet, the other player folded, and I was put to a decision: fold or call.
There was $130 in the pot, and it was $20 to me. I could be beat in so many ways, and the way the hand was played suggested to me that I was beat. If he held q-9 he had a straight. If he held KQ he had a higher pair than mine. The only hands I could beat were J-9, J-8 (both of which I felt he would play) j-7 which I wasn't sure he would play, and maybe a 10 with another card (not a King ten). I felt he would have bet the turn with his jacks, and also that he wouldn't have raised the flop with them.
I called and he showed me KdQd, which he would have called a preflop raise with if I had raised on a steal with my Qjos.
I think the river was an easy fold, despite the favorable odds. what do you guys think?
why not bet when six hits? how does that make a straight? i would bet turn to not give a free card.
brad
whoops! You're right--it must have been a seven...unless i was really spaced out. A six was a good card.
This was some time ago, and although it was a simple hand it's troubled me for awhile.
One quick comment:
the fact also that this player did not seem well informed enough to raise to get a free card.
In my experience, even some rather poor players will make the free card raise with a flush or straight draw. It's one of the few tricks they know.
Regarding your other questions: preflop, I'm not entirely sure of your position but I think it would be either 2 or 3 off the button. (I find it easier to simply refer to position relative to the button.) Raise or fold is generally correct when opening in late-ish position, although with a bunch of loose players on your left it can be ok to limp with the weaker hands that play well multi-way. QJo doesn't play that well multi-way, though, but regardless, if it's a mistake to play QJo in this position, it's only a small one.
Regarding the fold on the river, it really depends on your opponent. There are many weak players who are chronic bluffers, and will bet the river with almost anything when the turn gets checked around. BTW, there's nothing wrong with betting into the straight card on the turn and folding to a raise. It's usually better than checking and having no idea where you're at.
-Sean
I would have opened with a raise pre-flop having QJ offsuit in middle position when everyone folds to me. You want to eliminate the remaining players and get position over the blinds if they choose to play. However, I would not say that limping in was a mistake.
On the flop, you should re-raise because you have a decent kicker with your top pair and someone with a better kicker might have raised pre-flop. You want to make the drawing hands pay.
On the turn, I view the Six as a blank so you should bet the turn.
At the river, I think you should call and make him show you the King although there are other ways you could have been beat.
$5-$10 holdem 5 left after preflop I'm on button with Ad9d. Flop 3d9sTs. bet, call, raise, raise? $60. in pot now. I'm getting four to one. I folded my middle pair, top kicker, backdoor flush draw. Should I have? What if only 1 raise?
it is a pretty rare spot where I see bet, raise, reraise, and find out that middle pair was the best hand. Of course, not having the best hand is OK if you've got a good enough draw to a better hand. However, you have only 5 outs for improvement, and there must be a pretty good chance that even if you catch one of them, your hand will be no good. The odds of catching a runner-runner flush are MUCH worse than 4:1, and you'll have to call a bet (or 2 or 3) on the turn to try and catch one (assuming the turn card is favorable).
Overall, your hand really sucks in this spot. This should be a routine, easy fold.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Your playing a guessing game here with a hard hand to win with and that is no way to play poker.
Even if an A falls your chances are not so good. You are looking at an up hill battle and the fold is a good play.
This is a good hand to illustrate good players from bad. I suggest a player who will pay the $60 to go fishing for what would be a hard hand to win with even if he hits is a losing player most of the time.
I hate this hand. Middle pair with overcard kicker is no good at all here. FOLD IMMEDIATELY. I would have to put the other people on a set of tens and or T9, or even QJ semi-bluff. Still not a winning solution for you. Save your money in this one and wait for a better hand. Better luck next time.
You have to fold when facing a raise in this spot. It is not worth paying two bets to play at best is a 5 outer (two Nines plus three Aces) and an Ace might not be an out. The runner-runner flush possibility is too remote and it will cost too much money to see this hand through. You have a clear fold.
A9 suited is not a good play at this position under the current conditions. Get used to it.
Greetings,
Here are some hands i wasn't sure if i played correctly. There are in various settings which I note:
a) This is a home 5/10 game where i know some of the players quite well. the game is tight and aggressive:
I open UTG w/ AA with a raise (i understand often in these games one can just limp to reraise but ...) a solid and good player reraises (one off the button) all fold to BB (a predictable player) who calls 2 more bets cold , i decide not to reraise in order to give the solid player the impression he is ahead.
The flop is Q J small card rainbow. CHeck check bet raise and decide to reraise (is this wrong?) (is this reraise to get info worth it ? is it fair to assume i have the best hand?) all call.
The turn is a small blank bet call call.
THe river is another Q .
bet call call...
The BB turns over QJo and solid player turns over KK and i am annoyed but note (think?) the BB made a horrible call preflop and although he was much further ahead than i thought i still had 8 outs on the river (although i basically didn't know what they were)...
comments....
Here's another in a typical 2 4 88 holdem game 7 call and i call in the small blind for another dollar w/ QJo. The flop comes Q J t rainbow Icheck, 3rd player bets all fold to button who calls and i raise, next player makes some comment about having the best hand and makes it 3 bets call and i just call (mistake?).
The turn is a small blank I check bet call an d i thought about raising but just call. (i should say i really think i shoudl bet out or check raise i think i should assume they are drawing but 3rd player might have flopped a straight or trips (or am i being too paranoid)).
The river is another small blank and it gets checked all around again.
Third player has KQ and other player mucks...
I think i needed to be m,ore aggressive agressive on teh turn to figure out where the 3rd player stood though i really didnt' worry that much about the button as i assumed he was on a draw that didnt' get there.
all comments very much appreciated,
THANKS!
I'll hazard some comments on the first hand.
Overall, I'd suggest greater awareness and appreciation for the perspectives of your opponents.
Before the flop, the BB sees a raise from what I assume is a fairly solid guy in early position followed by a late position reraise. His hand is good enough, at least he thinks, to call two cold but not good enough to reraise. On the flop, he check raises, calls another check raiser's reraise and then bets into the other check raiser on the turn. Based on what this guy has been looking at, is there any possibility that he has KK or worse?
After his bet on the turn, you must assume that one pair cannot be the best hand. Whether to call depends on your assessment of the likelihood that your opponent could be playing two pair, against which you have a call, or a set, against which you must fold.
We can make assumptions and do some math here (actually a good topic for a better post than this), but at the table your question is: is there a big possibility that my opponent could have called two cold before the flop in bad position with QJo? If he would virtually never make this play with any QJ, or would only make it with QJs, then the possibilities are too dominated by sets, and you must fold.
You also make an interesting point that should affect your decision: you thought you had 8 outs but didn't know what they were. Being a bit lost in a hand, especially when it can cost you a lot, can also be a factor that rationally makes you lean toward folding. The same applies when your opponent apparently plays better than you do. (I don't mean to imply that that was the case here). We might not like to admit it, but most of us would be well advised to consider these things more often when facing a tough decision. May be it falls under the category of leaving your ego at home.
Even if the queen hadn't landed on the river, I would have said that a call without improvement was a clear mistake. When the queen hits, well, let's just say that I concur with what everyone else is going to say ....
But everyone makes "keep 'em honest" mistakes. Sometimes because difficult-to-assess factors that have nothing to do with the probability of winning the hand can sometimes make them non-mistakes, as when you need to suggest that you can't be bluffed. Other times because the pot is big and we're human ;-).
On the first hand, I think you should make it 4 bets pre-flop with pocket Aces because there are other players in the pot besides the re-raiser and you. If it were just the two of you, then I think your play has some merit. I would bet the flop and not go for a check-raise. You probably have the best hand and you will get raised by someone with top pair which allows you to make it 3 bets. Betting the turn was fine. On the river, you should check when the top card gets paired. Plan on calling if bet into.
On the second hand, you should bet the top two pair on the flop and not try for a check-raise. You have 7 opponents and you want to play it fast. Someone with a Queen,a lower two pair, or even a straight draw might raise your bet allowing you to make it three bets. You should continue to bet the top two on the turn since you probably have the best hand. I think you are being too paranoid about losing here. You should bet the river as well with the top two pair.
On page 307 of HPFAP-1999, the authors wrote:
"In the introduction to HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS, we mentioned that hold 'em literature seems to be flooding the market. Unfortunately, most of this material is either not accurate or extremely lacking in many aspects of the game. This is why we expanded the sections explaining how to play in loose games and how to play short-handed. Virtually all of the material that we had seen in these areas was incomplete at best and/or misguided at worst. It seemed as if many of the concepts which drive proper strategy in these situations were either being reversed or not addressed. All of this is now corrected."
That paragraph is poorly written, misleading, and wrong.
When it comes to certain aspects of the game, the authors note that most of their competitors' books are "incomplete at best," "extremely lacking," or do not address many concepts. While the authors are correct, they are not saying anything that is very useful. Any poker book always will be incomplete. A 10,000 page book on short-handed play will not completely cover the subject, nor will a 10,000 page book on loose-game play.
The authors' comments seem to imply that HPFAP-1999 completely explains the areas of loose-game and short-handed play, which is misleading. And when the authors explicitly state, "All of this is now corrected," they are wrong. A more accurate and modest claim might be: "HPFAP-1999 describes these areas more fully than do most other hold 'em books."
Technically, the authors never actually claimed that most of their competition was incomplete. They suggested it was either incomplete or misguided.
From a formal logic point-of-view, they used the "exclusive" form of "or" twice and the "inclusive" form of "and/or" once. But, from a conversational logic point-of-view, they clearly meant to imply "and/or" in all three instances. If they didn't, I could "disprove" their statements simply by showing that most hold 'em books are incomplete AND misguided.
But the authors' comments still are not very useful, even if we assume the inclusive "and/or" in all three statements. At least from a formal logic point-of-view. If statement Z consists of two sub-claims (say, X and Y) that are connected with an inclusive "and/or", then statement Z will be true if X is true, if Y is true, or if X and Y are true. Statement Z will be false only if both X and Y are false.
The authors assert that most of the competition is: (1) incomplete, and/or (2) misguided. Since it is a given that all poker books are incomplete, the authors' assertion always will be true--regardless of the accuracy of the competition. The authors' claims provide no meaningful information about the competition's accuracy.
HPFAP-1999 is incomplete and/or was written by a pair of hamsters. Notice how that statement is true, even though I'm virtually certain hamsters did not write the book. ;-)
Shifting to a conversational logic point-of-view, the authors appear to suggest that not only are most poker books incomplete, but many are misguided as well. This should not come as a great surprise to the more informed reader. Most poker books (exceeding 15 pages in length) that I have read contain at least one error or misleading statement.
Again, the author's comments seem to imply that HPFAP-1999 is not misguided, at least in the areas of loose-game and short-handed play. Again, this is misleading. And when the authors explicitly state, "All of this is now corrected," they are wrong. A more accurate and modest claim might be: "HPFAP-1999 is less misguided than most other hold 'em books."
I encourage readers to review prior posts that more fully describe (and put into fuller context) some of the comments in HPFAP-1999 that are poorly written, misleading, or wrong. To jog your memory:
"Better yet, every time you would stop to think, just call instead. It's better than thinking." (P. 154.)
"For instance, if you have Ts9s, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and the pot is pretty big, it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position." (P. 168.)
"You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won." (P. 169.)
"If the pot is big enough and you know that you are going to call anyway, you have to bet it." (P. 169.)
"The point is that when a lot of bets are in the center of the table you don't worry about saving bets. You do everything possible to maximize your chance of winning." (P. 169.)
"It turns out that there is only one hand that makes sense to be played this way. It is JTs." (P. 228.)
"All of this is now corrected." (P. 307.)
To end this post on a more positive note, I do like the authors' well-written comment that "hold 'em literature seems to be flooding the market." It's obvious that they mean "flooding" in the figurative rather than literal sense, and the phrase does a good job of conjuring an image in the reader's mind. Way to go, David and Mason!
Of course they are incomplete as is your post. Haven't your heard about Goedel's incompletness theorem as appied to poker literature?
Seriously I think your post is absurd. Use whatever book you like to study poker, BTW what is that book?
D.
Now how about applying that magnifying glass to some of our competitor's writing and reporting back here. (I had expected Vince Lepore to do the same in at least one case but I guess he chickened out)
David writes: "Now how about applying that magnifying glass to some of our competitor's writing and reporting back here."
The major work for compairison is Lee Jones' "Winning Low Limit Hold-em". This book in not for advanced players, it is for entry level or slightly above. Most of the advice is reasonable when viewed it the environment of Bay101, Lee's home court. There is no doubt in my mind that almost any player with discipline and desire and little more can apply this book and beat 3-6 and 6-12 in California. In this regard it's a superb book.
If I make the acquaintence of a friendly losing player this is the first book I'll loan them. I've loaned it out so many times it's now gone for good. The major failing of the book is not it's advice but that it does nothing to generate the desire to become a winner. So many poor players just don't want to win. They get their poker rush from other facets of the game.
I'm really suprised that 2+2 failed to address the need for this type of book. I know Mason and Lee are like snake and mongoose but that's no reason to ignore what might be the largest chunk of the hold'em market.
"I'm really suprised that 2+2 failed to address the need for this type of book. I know Mason and Lee are like snake and mongoose but that's no reason to ignore what might be the largest chunk of the hold'em market."
It was offered to us first and we turned it down.
Malmuth wrote :
"It was offered to us first and we turned it down. "
I am not trying to be confrontational or in anyway putting down your business practices, i am just curious.... I just have one question : in retrospect, do you regret this decision?
No.
We only have limited resources, and this includes our time. When we take on another author's book they almost always require a great deal of rewriting, and since we already had three hold 'em books (this includes the FUNDAMENTALS OF POKER) we saw no need for another one. By the way, we also turned down Lou Krieger's book for the same reasons.
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary:
We haven't turned down your book. As you know we only look at completed manuscripts, we don't pay advances, and we take over all copyrights. But most important, we don't publish anything unless it is extremely good. I suspect that it would be very difficult for you to meet all of the above. Too bad. I believe that we are the most successful publisher of high quality gambling books. Not bad for a self publisher.
Malmouth wrote :
But most important, we don't publish anything unless it is extremely good.
I would agree with this statement in every book but only given that they go to the correct audience. For example, some of the books are for beginners, some for advanced. One exception though - is the Tourney book. A disappointment.
Post deleted at author's request.
I am always suprised about the statement that 1to2 big bets per hour is the winning expection.I've always played in Ca. and the swings are so crazy and $200 swings up or down are not rare in a 4-6 (4-8 or 6-12 limit) hour sitting. I guess my Q. is , are you 15-30 players happy earning $30-45 per hour not counting the study and expence of books and travel? And is there a level where expectation goes up?
I'm playing 10-20 and 15-30 and can comfortably earn 15-18 per hr net. I cover expenses which are meager and earn $2.11/hr comp. I think there are a lot of better players than I am, so I'll have to get better, if I expect to earn more.
Mind me asking where you play,do you travel or play one location.I live in Vegas,goal is to move to level you are presently playing at.I assume will have to go back and forth to CA.Do you have any experience in AC?
I play almost exclusively in Atlantic City (Trop, Taj and occasionally at the Sands for 7CS-5,10,15,20). I have never been to LV or Calif. I am certainly not a pro, and get intimidated at the 15-30 level when I see some "super stars" in the game. Some friends who play higher limits convinced me to try the higher limits. I consider myself rather conservative as a player. I am very comfortable at 5-10 and 10-20 7CS and 3-6 and 5-10 HE. In general, the 5-10 game is excellent and has good players along with some big loosers (money that is-who am I to judge their character). 15-30 HE has some very good players along with some fish. AC is easy to get to and a nice place to stay.
You are confusing varience with expectation. $200/hour varience has almost nothing to do with whether one is making or losing money. $200 varience in a wild $4/8 should be common, at least IMnsHO.
Yes.
When "expectation" is measured in BB/Hour, it almost always goes up as you DROP levels. A $3/$6 player may make $12/hour (2BB/Hour) but a $100/$200 will do very good making $66/hour (.33BB/hour).
- Louie
Keep up the good work!
This is absurd.
I believe S&M books are not perfect, but you have not hit a single weak point in their books. IMO, you are attacking them at their strongest points (apart from occassional poor writing).
Their contribution to the poker community has been undoubtely enormous. You on the other hand have contributed nothing yet (apart from advocating checking in some situations and being wrong).
When in disagreement, I prefer debating, not attacking with abandon. It's childish.
Izmet Fekali, offline on the road
how long did it take you to write this post? i admit that i just skimmed it, but, from what i saw, your time could have been better spent. in your earlier exposes you discussed strategy. this post appears to be utterly ridiculous. if i missed the part about something someone might care about, i apologize.
scott
sCott,
Your ded rong, this is Marks bestest wurk by by by far! (exuze my studer)
since searlie, ZZTop-Hat
..it's known as a life. You need to get one, or more precisely, get your's back. I've been exactly where you are, only except it was in the weight-training field. I spent countless hours raging online about all the idiocy some authority was propagating. It didn't do a damn bit of good. The best you can hope for (in your case) is that someone will improve their game slightly because your posts made them think harder and read more carefully. Then, perhaps, they may spare a thought for you, and maybe, post (right here, how ironic) a "Thanks for making me think, Mark" message. Is that sort of second-hand emotional parasitism the only reward you want for all your work?
You're tilting at windmills, Mark. David, Mason, and 2+2 books aren't going anywhere. If you want to be considered a poker authority, do what David did: Win three WSOP titles, be a winning pro for twenty years, and get recognized by Doyle Brunson as someone who should be listened to. Are 2+2 authors and books perfect? Hardly. Whether or not one should bet 10s9s from early posistion into a >=4 player field with a Ad7c6h board and a >=10 sb pot, is a point worth debating, but a constant rambling restatement of various and sundry 'errors' doesn't help, nor does the hair-splitting of grammar and semantics, nor does stoned-freshman-in-the-dorm "The world is a speck in a giant's eye" philosophizing. You're obviously a thoughtful person, so let's see you contribute to fundamentals and concepts other than "2+2 is wrong and I must warn the world".
"Don't try to fight a war you can't win." - Black Flag
Seeketh not, the recognition thou cravest, in THESE still waters, Mark. It ain't here.
on behalf of stoned freshmen in dorms, ... whatever. nevermind.
scott
Mark,
Looks like a well thought out post, but please don't do this anymore.
On the other note:
If David or Mason gave you a bad beat or two or you simply don't like them may I suggest the following actions:
1. Give them a warning.
2. If the warning does not work and they give you another bad beat make it look like you lost it (follow Mike Caro's advice here) and warn them again this time flashing a fist or two.
3. Meet them outside Belagio. Oh, I meant to say try to meet them individually outside Belagio unless you feel like giving them odds.
Good luck outside Belagio (oh just kidding)
Hi,
I want to try and get into casino poker as a part time hobbie.
I plan to start out on the lowest limit games I can find (probably a 2-4 hold'em) and practice up on them until I feel confident to progress up to the better games.
Whats a good way to tell if I really have an edge over the games that I play. ?
Would losing a $2000 bank roll prove I am playing at a disadvantage. ? What is a good size bankroll to prove this ?
Also If I do have a decent advantage over the game then roughly how many hours of play would it take for me to double a $2000 bankroll. ?
Any advice would be great.
Thanks.
I've been playing 4-8 to learn.I'd suggest 1)keep detailed records of hrs,pots won,tips,est rake,jackpot,and amt you w/l at table before deductions,I also log known estimated cost of errors.An estimate of hrs to long run is 1500 so its a long haul.Bankroll I used was 300 big bets,given the poor level of play at low limit don't think you will dent this amount.If you do the read,study computer practice routine you'll find that when you first start the experienced players will have an edge but as you gain exper.and get better they stay the same.I'm at the 180 hr mark,I'm consistantly beating the other players,but after all deductions breaking even.Bottom line is low limit will get you feet wet and test to see if you like the game enough,but to make money you'll have to move up once competent.
A Hobbie. Sounds like your taking it up for the wrong reasons to start. Hobbies cost money and you should be looking to MAKE money at poker.
As a rule of thumb if you have 2 losing months you need to change something to improve your game - you B a losing player - you'll have to ax yourself - is this the hobbie I want??? or maybe collecting poker chips is a better way to "pass" the time.
I recommend getting Mason Malmuth's book, "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" which contains detailed information on win rates, bankrolls, and hours of play that constitute the long run. Starting out at $2-$4 is good for now. You can win if the rake is not too high. I would guess that your standard deviation would be about $40 per hour. If you can win $4 per hour after the rake and tip are taken into account, then I would think 200 hours should give you a pretty clear picture of where you stand. At the end of 200 hours you should be ahead by $800 (200 x $4/hr). Your cumulative standard deviation for 200 hours is about $566 (square root of 200 x $40/hr). Since your expectation far exceeds the standard deviation, I think 200 hours is good for this limit and I think you need a bankroll of no more than $500. As you move up in limit, the earn rate goes up but so does the standard deviation. The net result is that it takes a longer period of time and a bigger bankroll to play as the limits increase. Again, the Malmuth book shows you how to calculate your own standard deviation which allows you to compute bankroll and what the long run is.
3 players limp, there is a raise, button calls. I'm in a small blind with 3c5c. I call. Big blind calls. 7 people for 2 bets.
Flop: 7 5 5 with two flush.
Everybody checks to the raiser who bets. Button calls. I check raise. Big blind calls. Everybody else folds to the raiser who calls.
Turn: another 7. I bet. Big blind calls. The other two fold.
River blank: I check. Big blind bets. I muck
My opinion of big blind's play is decent to pretty good.
Comments?
I don't like the way this hand was played at all.
Pre-flop, I would not call a raise out of my small blind with 53 suited despite the large field. Ask yourself if you would be willing to cold-call two bets from the button with this hand. If not, then you shouldn't be calling out of the small blind either since having the button ought to be worth half a bet.
With this large a field in a raised pot, you should bet out and not go for a check-raise. Some guy on a flush draw might even raise your bet allowing you to make it three bets. It would be very bad if by some chance this hand got checked around. A pre-flop raiser may be on just overcards and decide not to bet them into a large field.
Your bet on the turn was okay.
On the river, a call is mandatory. There is $560 in the pot and it only costs you $40 to call. In addition, you were not raised on the turn. Suppose the big blind has the case Five and decided you didn't have a Seven so his hand was good and he simply bet.
i'd have bet the flop and called the river. and maybe folded preflop.
scott
naah, i call preflop.
scott
You gambler.....
i like to play.
scott
yeah - this guy is playing for REAL money - the 35s call was a bad one. He hit the flop and was still in trouble. That is what hand selection is all about.
Without looking at other's replies; you were getting 13-1 on the call. Was there a less than 7-9/13% chance he could've figured you for a busted nut flush draw? It's easy to criticize after the fact, but I make this call every time. As somebody posted on another topic, "The better the player, the more likely I'll make the call". You played it fine before the fold; if you're going to make the call pre-flop, what more of a board could you want?
how on earth do ya muck. What did you think he had quads or he raised with 78....easy call
He never raised.
sorry misread ur post. i believe it makes some difference but i would still call.
I think this could be classified as a mathematical catastrophe. You probably should have folded pre flop, but you stuck with it. You got a nice flop, and then it got even better on the turn. You check raised to narrow the field, and then you got it heads up. After all that you fold for one bet? As far as the Big Blind's play, he won the pot and you still don't know if he was bluffing. Seems to be at least "pretty good".
I think Jim has essentially stated what I wanted to say but I would add this:
You say that the bb is a "decent to pretty good" player. Would such a player call 2 bets cold on the flop with just a 7? I highly doubt it.
Firstly, the bb has to worry about the preflop raiser making it 3 bets behind him. Secondly, he has to consider that you have got him beat.
Notice that if he has a 7, the fact that the board is already paired reduces his outs to just 2 (rather than 5 on an unpaired board) vis a vis a higher pocket pair. I certainly would not call your raise from the bb even if I had A7.
In all likelihood, if the bb is a decent player, I would take his cold call on the flop and put him on:
a. A medium overpair like 88
b. the case 5
c. a straight draw like 86
d. flush draw
Once he calls the bet on the turn, I would put him on the case 5. Of course, you also need to be a little concerned that he may have the 7.
River: easy call if my analysis above is correct.
"You say that the bb is a "decent to pretty good" player. Would such a player call 2 bets cold on the flop with just a 7? "
This occured to me only after the hand. But he was playing 20hrs straight and stuck a couple of thousand so anything is possible. Also because I checkraised does not mean I have him beat and he knew that. As far as the other players in the hand go they just were bad period and could have a big variety of hands.
Comments?
You have got to be kidding me?
You call a raise from the small blind with a suited 3-5, flop trips, check raise the field and then dump on the end for 1 bet!
Please!
I see by this time there are several responses to your post already on the Forum so what I say may already be a repeat of others' comments, but here goes anyway.
1. I don't like your call out of the small blind with trash like 5-3, suited or not. You hit a magic flop, but that's not the point. Calling in this situation is in my opinion a big loser longterm.
2. Once in, the check-raise is good, IMO. You want to start charging the overpairs and flush draws the max. to draw out on you. Almost any overcard is scary, though.
3. Bet on the turn is automatic.
4. You WHAT?? All this action, and for one more BB, you mucked? Unless you could see through the cards and knew for a 100% certainty that the BB held a 7, this is a terrible fold. You got yourself into this mess calling with 5-3, and now you lay it down? Flame.
Fold preflop. Making this call makes you the action.
Since you did call. If you believe the big blind is a good player then there is a good chance he would have mucked many hands with a seven in them. He would play some as well.
On the river the pot was laying you good odds. You had to make a crying call here. He very well may have had an overpair. If he knew you might fold a 5 and he was a tough player he can bet the river knowing that he might win with a bet but lose with a call.
I think you needed to see the river bet.
You played this hand all wrong. On the turn IF BB had a 7 wouldn't he have re-raised you with the nut full house? The river play was bet and call or check and call but check and muck seems like a real mistake.
I can put him on a over pair, another 5 but a 7 seems out of the question.
I was the player and had pocket sevens...I thought you were going to call or raise and I certainly didn't want to miss a bet on the river.
Good lay-down; you a-number-one player.
I still can't believe you folded. Damn! Send me $10 and I'll forgive you.
No Chris,
You were not the player. And if you were you sure did not have pocket 7's.
Oh Chris one more thing. I will gladly send you $10 in return for half the pot. Damn!
P.S you probably don't have morons like me playing in your game. Good luck buddy.
This hand is from a medium to loose 10-20 game. I'm first to act with TT and raise with the idea of playing against few rather than several. The rock to my left makes it 3 bets. This is bad news. His 3-bet range is AA-QQ, AK and maybe JJ, AQs. A fish in the 7 seat cold calls, a sound player in the 8 seat cold calls and a mega-fish on the button could call. Blinds both muck. I'm stunned that so many have called the rocks 3-bet but I guess they came to play. Myself, I'm in 'flop-a-set' mode with my little pair.
Five way flop hits with 9 8 3 with no flush draw. I'm first to act and I've gotten the second best flop for my hand and I hate it. I do know the rock will likely check if he's on overcards so I check first. Rock checks, that's AK for sure. It checks around! Now I'm kinda happy about my TT and pissed that I didn't bet. Turn brings a 5 and I bet, getting only one caller. River is also a 5 and TT beats 66? for one more bet on the river.
My question: Does anyone bet the flop here? Does it matter?
I would definitely bet the flop here and it matters a great deal. If the three bettor was playing over cards, these guys will occasionally fold when bet into. If not, when a blank hits on the turn, they will definitely fold when you bet which means they cannot suck out on you. The reason it is important to bet the flop with an over pair is because you want to find out where you are at as cheaply as possible. You don't want to be in a check-call mode. When you don't get raised on the flop with your over pair in many cases you learn a lot about where you stand.
I agree whole-heartedly, except that probing for information here against a rock may be dangerous. Lots of rocks I know (especially old grumpy ones) are not very aggressive. Even with JJ, QQ, KK, or even AA, they may not raise. If this is the type of player, I would just check. I would bet against an aggressive but predictable player, though, because I am almost guaranteed information.
--Charlie
in a loose game, i think it is usually better to limp in in preflop here. on the flop, i would check/call if this was the kind of guy who bet with his overcards. when it's your turn to act on the flop, he will only have you beat a little over half the time. (16 AK, 18 QQ-AA) since he is not, i like betting and calling a raise from the tight 3-better for the 2 outer. be conscious that the T makes a straight for the JQ and 78, but your set is probably good. he wouldn't raise you unless you're beat. he may fold, which would be great. if he will call with his overcards, but he will not bet them, then all betting gains is getting a J or Q (or JQ) to fold behind the 3-better. JQ will chase you down as you chase down the overpair, and if you're ahead you don't want a J or Q to beat you on the turn. it still might be worth it, especially since you can trust his raise.
scott
Interesting situation.
If the rock is the type of player who will bet an unimproved AK on the flop, you are probably better off betting yourself as his response to your bet (rather than his automatic bet when checked to) will give you a better indication of where you stand.
If the rock is the type of player who will check an unimproved AK on the flop, I like your check as it's probable that someone in late position will bet. You can then raise that bettor and get the rock (and hopefully others) out.
If the rock is the type of player who will check an unimproved AK on the flop BUT will raise a bettor to his right with an unimproved AK to get it heads up, you want to bet and then call his raise. Generally, many of these players then will check the turn with their AK. If he bets again, you can probably muck. Of course, if you pick up a helpful card such as a Jack or a 7 on the turn, I would bet into the fella again because I don't want to give him a freebie in case he has only AK. Also, when I bet again, most players will not raise even with AA. Even if they do, I still have a lot of outs (10 to be exact).
Tough but interesting situation.
With all this money in the pot it really DOESN'T matter too much whether you bet or not. Had there been only a double bet before the flop, you can use your skill. Now you just need luck.
I would bet the flop here - an over pair is an over pair and the AK is always a possibility - why give him a free card. You have analyzed the hand well - that is what position is all about.
You have to bet the flop here. Otherwise anyone with the flush draw or even a single overcard gets a free shot at you.
If it comes back raised or even 3 bet you can reassess and still get away with minor damage if you decide you are already beaten here.
The only downside is that if the 3 bettor raises this bet, and if he is capable of making this raise with AK, you are out of position.
Larry
The pot is big enough for you to call one bet on the flop even if you KNOW its a big pair who will never fold even if you bluff when an Ace hits.
To increase your chances of winning this pot you MUST force the over cards to face a 2-bet. The fool who called 3 bets from the solid and the rock with KQ or AJ needs to sit this one out, as far as you are conserned. Betting into the hopeful AK and forcing the field to call 1 bet isn't going to protect this pot.
Charlie's suggestion of check-raising one of the cold callers has a lot of merit. Check-and-call the 3-better; check and raise everbody else.
- Louie
Here's a play I've been experimenting with. It seems to have paid off in the short run, but I might be kidding myself. I seek learned opinions...
Here's the situation: I'm in late position, or in one of the blinds. I hold a small pair, or Ax suited. If everyone bets around without raising, I raise, drawing one more small bet from each player.
My thinking is this: most of the players stay in to see the flop no matter what, then it often gets checked around so everyone gets to see the turn for free. If someone bets on the flop, several players will fold. So knowing that if the flop hits me with these cards, it will hit big (a possible nut flush draw or trips), so I might as well get the 7-8 small bets while I can, and fold the hand if the flop misses me. It seems I'm risking a small bet for a big payoff, rather than saving a small bet if I miss.
By the way, I only play this if I can be reasonably sure I will not be reraised. Playing these cards for more than 2 small bets seems a bad play. Or am I wrong on this as well?
I await wisdom, or at least rambling opinions.
I think to make your play routinely, as opposed to varying your play once and awhile, is costing you money. Little pairs and suited Aces are basically speculative drawing hands. I want to get in cheaply and I hope to get lucky and win a big pot. When I double my pre-flop investment I am not doubling the ultimate pot that I win so my implied odds go down. Over the course of a year, these extra raises cost you money and I don't believe you win enough extra to make them worthwhile.
"When I double my pre-flop investment I am not doubling the ultimate pot that I win so my implied odds go down"
i don't really want to rehash several long past threads, but this is not the correct way to think about it. if you could bet $20 on a coinflip paid 2-1, you would have a higher ev, but lower odds, than $1 paid 3-1.
scott
I don't agree with your analogy. The extra bet you put in for your raise adds another 6 or 7 bets to the pot (assuming as many opponets and no re-raise) but you do not have one chance in 6 or 7 to win the hand. Putting it another way, if you are willing to pay 2 bets to see a flop with these hands why not pay 3,4, or 5 bets as long as you had a the same number of opponents? I don't believe that putting in more bets pre-flop on these hands increases your expected value. I think that putting in more than a single bet puts you in a loss expectation situation. Some pros, e.g.-Ciaffone, won't even put in one bet for pocket pairs lower than Sixes unless they are in their blinds. In fact, the great debate between Malmuth and Ciaffone has centered around whether or not it is profitable to play small pairs for even a single bet. Mason says yes in certain situations and Ciaffone says no. But I doubt that Mason would want to raise routinely with small pairs and suited Aces against a large field limping in pre-flop. If he did do it, it would be to vary his play not because he believes these become solid raising hands due to a large field.
the larger pot increases the future action. not proportionally, but it doesn't have to. the third bet does not increase future action by the same amount. i would always raise 8 or more opp with a wired pair. i would reraise, or even cap, if i thought noone would fold. but i would throw in the first raise against only 6 or 7 opp to build a monster pot that will entice people to draw dead to my set.
scott
Scott, a couple of points:
1. "Drawing Dead to Your Set"- Any set lower than Queens can never be the nuts in hold-em. A table full of opponents will virtually never be drawing dead to your set of Deuces.
2. "I would always raise 8 or more opponents with a wired pair. I would re-raise and even cap if I thought none would fold." According to HPFAP-New Edition, the only hands Sklansky and Malmuth recommend playing in capped pots pre-flop with lots of opponents are AA,KK,QQ, and AK suited. Basically, your advice is to play in a capped pot pre-flop with any pair as long as you had a table full of opponents (8 or more). I think this would cost you a ton of money over the course of a year because every time the flop missed you would lose 4 or 5 bets instantly when you have to fold on the flop. The few times you won a large pot would not make up for all the times you were paying this exorbitant price to see a flop. In addition, more opponents makes it less likely your set will even hold up.
your first point is correct, i meant almost dead. or even dead (people drawing to overcards are usually drawing dead.) the table won't be drawing dead, but those that aren't will likely chase even if you had not raised preflop, so the added callers are drawing dead, or almost.
i can't agree with your second point. if there were no postflop action, i would not lose too much betting a wired pair against 8 opp. i belive wired pairs profit from future action. every 8.5 hands, you fold 7.5 on the flop. assuming 4 bets, this costs you 30 sb. but the one you stay with will already have 32 sb of opp money in it. and there will be more action after the flop. your set will usually hold up. how is this a losing play?
scott
Small sets do not hold up as often as I would like. It also amazing how many poor players fold early when the pot is large and they have little. They realize that when the betting comes they have no hope.
Contrast that to a heads up smaller pot when they have a 9/15-1 shot but call anyway. They know if they hit their card that they will probably win.
This is what I have seen.
if there is little or no tie in effect in a particular game, then much of what i said is incorrect.
scott
Because you still have to win the 32 small bets when you flop your set against 8 other players. If the game ended when you flopped your set and everybody agreed to just push you the pot, then you would be right. The problem is that there is a significant percentage of the time you will lose after you flop your set. The more opponents you have the more likely you are to lose. One poker pro claims sets get cracked about 25% of the time. I think this comes from someone flopping a flush or straight draw when you flop your set and then they end up making their hand on the turn or river. This is probably too simplistic because some of their outs are also your outs to an even bigger hand plus you have redraws if they turn a straight or a flush. However, with 8 opponents the number of collective "outs" rises enormously. One guy has a flush draw, a couple of guys have straight draws, one or two guys also have pocket pairs which they may have already flopped a set along with you or they decide to play their two outers especially if it is an over pair, and then someone else has a runner-runner flush or some kind of runner-runner hand he decides to play because the pot is large. Bottom line is that against 8 opponents you might lose with your set close to half the time. I agree when you win you win huge but you also lose a lot when your set gets cracked. I think that if a stochastic equation could be set up you would discover that the amount of money you were losing pre-flop would exceed what you would win in these situations.
half the time? if that is the case then you are certainly correct (and playing for 1 bet is likely unprofitable). but if you lose even 30% of the time you only need to average about 15 sb from the flop on to make the play profitable. i think that this is likely.
scott
Okay, I will use your number of 30%. Now let us set up a reasonable scenario when you flop your set. Suppose someone bets and you raise and half the field fold. So you collect 8 additional small bets from 4 opponents. On the turn, you bet and get two callers so you collect 4 additional small bets and have two opponents going to the river. At the river, you bet and get one caller. You win and collect another two bets. So when you win you have won a total of 14 additional bets. This happens 70% of the time. When you lose, let us assume the same scenario but your lone opponent makes a hand and you then lose 2 small bets on the flop, 2 more small bets on the turn, and another 2 at the river for a total of 6 small bets. This happens 30% of the time. Please review my math here:
1. You don't flop a set. This happens about 89% of the time. You lose your 5 bet pre-flop investment (one bet and four raises). Net loss is 0.89 x 5 or 4.45 small bets.
2. You flop a set and still lose. You lose 6 additional small bets. This happens the 30% of the time you flop a set 11% of the time. Net loss is 0.30 x 0.11 x (5 small bets pre-flop + 6 small bets post-flop) or 0.36 small bets.
3. You flop a set and win. You get a pot that has 32 small bets pre-flop plus 10 small bets on the flop plus 6 small bets on the turn plus 4 small bets on the river for a total pot size of 52 small bets. But from this amount you invested 11 small bets (5 pre-flop and 6 post-flop) so your profit is 41 small bets. Your net gain is 0.7 x 0.11 x 41 or 3.16 small bets.
Your net result is a negative 1.65 small bets.
i think that 70% is way too low, i even think that 75% is low. but anyway, you used 5 bets preflop, when i used 4. this changes it to .89*4 = 3.56. and you lose .33 sb with your beaten sets. and you subtacted your preflop investment. it was not included. that changes the final figure to .7*.11*46 = 3.52. if this is the average postflop action then it would be unprofitable (.4 sb). but i think the other preflop raiser may still like his overpair. and someone might hit 2 pair or more people will call. but i could be wrong here. people may usually play how you describe.
and if it is 80% is used then it is profitable. at 75% it is almost dead even using your postflop action.
scott
But Scott explain to me why I should not subtract out my pre-flop investment? Under the scenario described we are determing how much you make when you come in on any pair in a capped pot with 8 way action pre-flop. When I win, I win 52 small bets but 11 of them are mine including my pre-flop investment. My profit is only 41 small bets not 46 small bets. I am not making the decision on the flop after I have invested 5 bets pre-flop but rather I am making the decision pre-flop before I put in the 5 bets.
I used the one bet and four raises because that is how they play in Las Vegas. A capped pot means five bets from each player. But even if you change it to only one bet and three raises, it is still a losing money proposition.
With regard to how often a set holds up, I don't know if it is 80%, 75%, or less. I do know from Lawrence Hill's columns in Cardplayer magazine that if ten people take random cards and go all the way to the river, the average winning hand is a straight or better. Now in this situation we have 9 players (you plus 8 opponents)who are not playing random cards like 9-3 offsuit, etc. I don't see how a set can hold up 80% of the time against 8 players taking a flop.
If this were checkers it would be your move.
"But Scott explain to me why I should not subtract out my pre-flop investment?"
because i did not count in the 32. 8*4=32.
"A capped pot means five bets from each player."
you can use 5 bets in you want, but then 8*5=40.
"the average winning hand is a straight or better."
there is so much interdependence in holdem i can't see how a statement like this is meaningful.
"I don't see how a set can hold up 80% of the time against 8 players taking a flop."
my estimates may be wrong and i am admittedly inexperienced, but have not had a fourth of my flopped sets cracked.
"If this were checkers it would be your move."
if this were tic tac toe it would be a tie.
scott
scott,
I've mentioned this before, but I'll just pipe up once to make the point again, and then duck out quickly.
Any ad hoc analysis you do is going to be subject to debate. This is because the assumptions you make are not clearly stated, don't hold universally, and may be incorrect.
You really only have three options:
1) Pretend that the assumptions in TTH are okay, and use it.
2) Make your arguments more abstract so that the assumptions are clearer and less dependent on the particular situation.
3) Log LOTS of play using a set strategy. Once you have over 200 recorded trials of a particular hand (say 44o) using a particular strategy, report back to us.
- Andrew
scott might want to try 44s for comparison, wouldn't you think?
i like these plays for the wired pairs. if you have enough callers it doesn't hurt you at all ev wise, even without all the various perks. add in the tie in effect and this play is profitable in most many handed pots. plus it can earn you a free turn and some deception. the third bet preflop is also not all bad. though its tie in effects are less pronounced, so it is only profitable for you when absolutely everyone is in. but while you'd rather have 2 bets preflop than 3, you may prefer 3 to 1.
these plays work less well for Axs and suited connectors. one reason, is that you are often drawing after the flop. another is you often have combination hand/draw, and you would love for people to fold. these hands play very differently than wired pairs.
scott
Don't froget that you have made it very close to be able to call 1 small bet with your 22-1 shot of hitting. You become the player "almost drawing dead"
With Spec's question in mind, what cards would one need to be holding pre-flop and in Spec's late position to make his play (i.e a raise) profitable?
In general, I want a real hand when I raise a large field from the button. AA, KK, QQ,JJ,TT, AK, AQ, AJ suited, and KQ suited. Occasionally, I see a good player raise with a suited connector or a hand like A10 suited as an "action play" in the situation described by Specs. These are high variance plays that in the long run probably don't add much to your expectation. But I don't think good players routinely make these raises with small pairs and suited Aces, rather they just limp in like everyone else.
From the blinds, I like raising with AA,KK,QQ, and AK regardless of how many players limp in. With JJ,TT, and AQ I like to raise from the blinds if no more than three players limp in.
ratso,
The general rule is simple:
If you are going to win more than your fair share - RAISE.
Of course, you should sort of deviate from this rule for several reasons. These include: rake, image, opposition, position ...
I say sort of because these factors actually affect whether you will win more than your fair share. Some people are also averse to variance, so they have a stronger threshold over which they tend to raise.
For example, if your fair share is 11% of the pots (in a 9 way game), if you are going to win 15% of the pots, you should raise.
The real black magic in poker is determining when you are going to win more than your fair share.
- Andrew
I haven't read the reponses yet. I would raise here only to make a bigger pot so players will chase if I hit big OR to make it correct for me to chase the nut flush draw.
Normally I would take my infinite odds (or good odds from small blind) and just call.
My position is too weak for the raise to buy me a free turn card.
Spec,
I like your thinking here BUT try to limit your raise to every other or 3rd time on the button or one off the button. SB & BB are terrible position and should be played very carefully.
AXs is a very tough hand to play out of position unless you hit a great flop trip X or nut flush or nut flush draw. Anything else is real hard to play out of position. Be careful!
Let's look at this: You are on the BB and a Ac Jd Ts hits the board. You have A7s can you call a raise here? Can you bet here? Wow - tough to play this hand out of postion hope you see what I am talking about.
Unlike many others, I think this can be a very profitable play. The one factor that noone mentioned is the general attitude at the table and your image. Forget about changing the odds, this play should be done when you have a fairly good chance to steal the blinds. If you are pretty certain that at least one person will call, then I would just limp in (or even muck).
I have played in many games where a raise from the button gets absolutely no respect. Avoid this type of play in those games. On the other hand, people in this same game would be scared to death of a raise from one of the blinds. So a raise from one of the blinds here might be worth a try.
The important thing to remember is that you would much rather win the blinds right now than to see the flop with this hand if you are going to raise with it. Thus, the value of the play is in its ability to steal.
Specs,
I sort of skimmed the responses fo far using the "digestify" enhancement Chuck added. I'll throw in my two cents. I believe I split the middle of the advice you have seen so far.
With a small pair (22, 33, 44, 55):
- Late against three to five limpers: Call since you want to preserve your implied odds.
- Late against six or more limpers. Often raise since you are getting good odds (both pot and implied) on your set and the tie in effect is valid IMHO.
- Late in a pot that has already been raised but you are getting at least four but less than six opponents. Usually call.
- Late in a pot that has already been raised and reraised but you are getting at least five or more opponents. Usually call rather than cap. Realize that this play has a high variance and the tie in effect has already been established. Folding would not be wrong on a short bankroll.
I was going to do the Ax suited but I'm a little sleepy. In general, you would prefer to preserve implied odds with this hand and keep the pot small.
Regards,
Rick
Hi,
I have been reading the posts here and am heartily impressed with the level of knowledge and logic. Somehow I became very interested in Hold'em. Over this long weekend, I played the first card games in my life where the stakes couldn't be covered with coins. I read the "books" - Winning Low Limit Hold'em and Hold'em Poker. Very little of which I remembered during play. On the flight back, I read a little and it made more sense. Anyway….
I played 2-4-88 at the Orleans. I was expecting 3-6 but what the heck. I have a few questions:
1. I found it impossible to keep track of the pot amount. Can I ask the dealer before I make a money decision? Either way, is there any trick to doing this or is it (spare me) going to be trial and error?
2. I noticed that with the $2 call, you could have 5-7 limpers in a passive/loose game (correct definition?). How does the $2 call change the game as to pre-flop betting, pre-flop playable cards and implied odds?
3. During the game, everything moved very fast. I understand that this is relative to my experience level. Can someone give me the five most important things in descending order of importance that I should consider during a session?
4. Can some one give me the 10 most important things in descending order of importance that I should consider in a post-session analysis?
Okay, so how did I do? Not so good. $266 down over 13 hours. I recognized that I would have to pay to learn. How unreasonable is that for a first time.
I have posted twice before and the responses have always been pertinent and helpful. Thanks.
1)what are your starting hands? 2)pay atention to position 3)watch who raises and what they turn over 4)on the flop dump hands that show no promise 5)read and read more.Luck
You got killed.
Keep track of pot size by the number of players in the pot. 7 see the flop with no raise there are 7 sb in the pot assuming the small blind called too.
If 7 see it with a raise then there are 14 sb in.
The biggest mistake new players make is playing to many hands. As an entry level player I'd think you should be playing very few hands - practice reading the hands from the betting and flop - put people on hands and see if you'r right. If is fun and something to do when you are not in a hand which should be most of the time.
I suggest this: when you sit down muck your 1st 20 hands no matter what they are. It will teach you dicipline and patience. Also give you a good table image.
Muck your first 20 hands no matter what? Losing a pot that should have been yours doesn't teach discipline, it just sucks. Play tight, but if you get AA, for God's sake, play it.
Niels, you just don't get this exercise.
It is good training for good reasons.
It wouldn't kill him to dump a bunsh of hands. It puts him in the game with a new attitude for success.
Try it sometime - it feels good.
I think this exercise may have use beyond what Rounder has expoused. Would it be useful to evaluate the table and it's players? I would think it would be easier to come up with a good roadmap when you don't have to worry about playing the hand. What would be a good number of hands to sit out in order to make this evaluation? I understand it's better to observe and evaluate before you sit down, but in many cardrooms I play in you get on the list, and sit when you're called- no time to case the joint.
Another Mike
AM - like I said 20 and one of the reasons for this is to figure out the table.
Rounder says:
"I suggest this: when you sit down muck your 1st 20 hands no matter what they are. It will teach you dicipline and patience. Also give you a good table image. "
Come on Rounder you got to be kidding..........
AA,KK,QQ on the button or 1 off and you tell this guy to muck it if it's one of the first 20 hands.
No Way! that's crap. Bad advice how can anyone learn.
MJ
Rounder- What the hell are you talking about? I have quietly taken some of you idiotic posts in the past and even agree with you on many topics but this is just ridiculous. Play very very tight at first when you are new to poker but folding his first 20 no matter what... Come on, let's get real, nobody would or should do this.
I think you guys are taking him a little too literaly. The advice is good, for one thing, I fold 20 hands in a row all the time, and you aren't very likely to get a premium hand like AA,KK,QQ in 20 hands anyway.
I think we all know that the original poster isn't going to fold a hand like that anyway, regardless of rounder's advice, however if he were to follow it with the only exception of AA KK & QQ, then he will do himeself and his bankroll a favor.
You all seem to be forgetting one thing. This is an exercise in DISCIPLINE(sp). If a player mucks an AA KK QQ he may loose the opportunity to gain some money. But instead he gains experience and maybe will be more willing to fold on bad opening hands where he can just imagine filling out that 3-7 with a 4-5-6 etc.
I understand the point of the exercise, but to suggest actually folding all hands no matter what, is ridiculous.
I am very new to Hold'em but you are correct I wouldn't fold those hands. I really appreciate everyone's help. Please keep it coming.
Thanks
I often give people the same advice, it is especially helpful for people who are sitting down at a table for the first time. Most people i know get confused because of the speed of the action.
It is for a new player. New players play way to many hands and if someone had helped me like this I would be money ahead.
Mucking 20 hands is not a big deal and the AA KK QQ get cracked too. It will make him feel good knowing it is possible to muck good hands.
Hey it takes a good player a diciplined player to muck a good hand try it some time - if you can't do it maybe you are playing to many hands too.
A new player needs to learn to play less hands and this exercise will help him slow down and read the table.
Just me 2 cents worth.
If this is the case then why not just sit on the rail for 1 or 2 hours and watch the table your looking to sing up on and save the blinds? It's free. Then once you feel comfortable jump in and play tight aggressive and take it from there.
MJ
In an earlier post, I said I agreed with Rounder's advice generally to newbies to play very tight. I don't agree that this includes folding monsters just to gain discipline. There are other ways of gaining discipline...folding AA or KK for this purpose is not at the top of my list.
I guess you just don't get it then.
Wow! Finally something on which I agree with Rounder!:)
If there is but one piece of advice to give to newbies, it would be to play very few hands to begin with. For example, in reference to a recent thread, I would suggest that a newbie fold 64 suited from the sb. One can add hands to play as one gains experience. And as I stated earlier, there is no way an experienced player should fold 64 suited from the sb in a 5 way unraised pot.
In fact, I like the suggestion to play very tight to begin a session with no matter how experienced you are if your opponents are unknown to you. I do that in unfamiliar environs such as Bellagio, Mirage etc. It gives me an opportunity to feel the pulse of the game and to start forming impressions of my opponents. An added bonus is that my ultra tight image (which I generally shed after about an hour at the table) can help me steal a pot or two when I decide to start playing for real.
"On the flight back, I read a little and it made more sense. Anyway…."
Yes, information makes a LOT more sense when you have some real experience to attach it to .. err .. to which to attach it.
1. "I found it impossible to keep track of the pot amount."
Try to count bets. Most will be $4/8$ anyway. 6 players take one raise before the flop? that's 9 half bets. 4 call one bet on the flop? That's 13 half bets or 6 full bets. So you'll get 7:1 when faced with a bet on the turn.
2. "How does the $2 call change the game as to pre-flop betting, pre-flop playable cards and implied odds?"
The smaller pot compared to the flop bet should encourage betting out since few opponents are getting the right odds to outdraw you for one bet. Check-raise to narrow the field if there was a raise pre flop. The larger number of opponents increases the chances of top pair being out, so if there is no raise before the flop tend to rarely chase with small pairs.
IF you can expect more than a couple callers on the flop; suited connectors go up in value. 87s still isn't worth much against 7 opponents if you can expect action on the flop only from one player with top pair; since you will often draw putting in money (justifiably) with the worst of it (getting 1:1 for your draw).
RAISE before the flop in late position to punish the limpers.
3. "Can someone give me the five most important things in descending order of importance that I should consider during a session?"
1) Am I optimistic or pessimistic about this game.
2) Is my pre-flop selection sound.
4) Am I calling more often then betting or raising.
6) Do I know who is sure to have at least top pair when they bet?
4. "Can some one give me the 10 most important things in descending order of importance that I should consider in a post-session analysis?"
1) Am I honest with myself with what I and the opponents actually had and actually did?
2) Can I recall from memory at least 2 noteworthy hands; knowing what I had, the action, the board, and the shown hands? If I can't remember the hands, its because I'm not focusing on the right things such as "I wonder if my 8s-Full will lose" rather than "If I check will he bet?" or "Do I want callers with this hand?".
4) Can I recall from notes at least 3 more noteworthy hands.
6) Who were the fish? Was I one of them?
8) Can I apply a principle from "the book" to this situation.
11) Will my analysis tomarrow be the same as right after the session?
- Louie
Play Turbo TH for a while.
Preflop hand selection keeps u about even, play on the flop makes u a winning player, and knowing when to make tough lay downs and when and where u can or should check raise makes u top notch.
Save the tricky moves for the 5% of the people who can play, all others u will have to show the best hand.
Remember just because u got AK and raised before the flop doesn't give u ownership of the pot.
Every couple of weeks I post a hand of behalf of a buddy who doesn't have Internet access. (He's buying a computer for Christmas, so this should stop soon!)
Anyway, he's in his 3-6HE game last Friday, and picks up pocket 8's in middle position and limps in after two prior callers. He gets raise by the player on his left, and two guys call cold. SB folds, BB and other two limpers call. Seven of them see the flop of 8-3-3 (I'm not sure of the suits). Now when my pal was giving me the set-up, he says,"How do you like my hand so far?"
I told him, "Well, it's vulnerable, but so far, so good." He seemed a bit puzzled about the "vulnerablility" aspect of my comment. I guess he figured he's got the nut hand of all time or something. When he asked how I would play it, I said I would probably bet right at the raiser on my left, hoped he raised, and get in a 3-bet if anyone downstream limped in. Any card hitting the board over an 8 is potentially a disaster, and I want to thin the herd. He decided he would get cute, and he and the other limpers checked to the raiser, who bet out. One of the cold callers called, everyone else folded back to my buddy, who smooth-called, going for the check-raise on the turn.
Turn card comes another 3. Our hero checks, raiser checks, and other player now bets. In the post-mortem, I said, "Now you check-raised, right?" Nope, he just calls, and the original raiser overcalls. River is an Ace. Hero checks again, raiser checks, other player bets, and my buddy FOLDS! Other player also folds, so we never did see what the winning hand was. Questions for the group:
1. Who bets out on the flop, and who is in favor of going for the turn check-raise? As I said, I prefer betting out, and trying for a 3-bet if raised. Take control of the hand.
2. When the third 3 comes down, do you turn into a calling station for turn and river, or still go for the check-raise? Does your plan change when the different player bets the turn? I would have still check-raised the new bettor, figuring him much more likely to be holding an overpair than any hand containing a 3 for his cold call of the original raise. If I get re-raised, now I have a decision to make, but I can't see anyone making that aggressive a move in 3-6 without holding the case 3.
3. When the Ace hits the river, and given the betting pattern that has actually taken place, I cannot see folding for one more bet being correct, especially when the raiser checked. I know you're beat if he's got pocket A's, or the other player has quad's, but with the size of the pot, I just can't justify laying it down.
I think part of the problem in how my friend played this hand is that he's been going through a tough month when he's had about 75% losing sessions over the past 2-3 weeks and he's getting gun-shy. He has normally been fairly aggressive in his betting, but he's had a number of quality hands cracked, and has lost some confidence. I told him he'd be better off taking several days off, and coming back to the game refreshed mentally and physically, but he's retired and loves to play every day.
Comments from the group about this hand in particular, and advice on how my friend can get his game turned around?
It seems to me the reason he has been running poorly is that he is trying to get too fancy and read a little too deeply into the thinking of this 3/6 game. I can't see slow-playing his flopped full house. There are just too many players willing to pay off (most of the time). When the third 3 came on the turn, you want to extract a bunch of bets from the guys who made threes full of K's and Q's, etc. Of course, when the Ace came on the river, you will be beaten by pocket A's, but for one thing, the bettor on the river was NOT the pre-flop raiser, so he doesn't have the A's, and the original raiser is now just calling, so he doesn't have the A's. Of course, it is possible that the bettor on the turn might have a hand like A3 or 34, but but folding this hand for one bet just doesn't make any sense to me.
Okay, now that you've heard what i have to say, the people who know what they are talking about can give their opinons :)
Good Day- Mike Blair
1. i bet, 3-bet one raise and smooth call 2 or more bets cold.
2. yeah, i go through with the check raise.
3. i call.
scott
[7 players play for two bets, hero with 88 flops 833, raiser is on left...]
3-betting the flop figuring LHO will 4-bet is probably a +EV proposition; and anyway does some good to your image.
You're too conserned about losing this pot. The only people drawing to beat you have over pairs or already trips and are NOT going to fold. There is more money to be made encouraging these 2 card outs so long as you can get players drawing dead to also call; than there is in winning this pot now.
1. Betting into the raiser hoping for a raise will encourage thining the field, but that's not so good. Check raise on the flop. Even Qs may check the turn if they get 5 calls.
2. [turn is 3rd 3]. With only 2 opponents and one has big cards the fear of quads is a little unrealistic. Raise if the raiser will call the double bet with any over pair, otherwise just call to get his money in. But it doesn't look like he HAS an overpair, so just call.
3. [River Ace]. Fold your 3rd nuts if Mother Theresa bets; otherwise at least call.
[Hero appears to be on a losing steak]. While top players have control of themselves, few others do. Hero's losing steak lost a lot of EV on THIS hand. Thus, whats-his-name's "Play happy or don't play" and Caro's "Winning attitude" stuff is a reality of today's games, whether it "should" be or not.
Besides of course taking a break and then doing some studying, as much as I HATE to advise it perhaps your friend needs to quit a winner; any winner; the next couple sessions out. He also needs to understand that these losing steaks are just the mid-term tests in the course of Poker. Those who maintain their composure pass (until the next midterm), those that don't flunk out. Its at these times that one really needs to nit down and play the best one can.
- Louie
Louie,
Where have you been? You were missed!
Sincerely, Zack
Since the pre-flop raiser is dirrectly to my left I'd check the flop if I was 95% sure he's going to bet. I'm raising on the flop after any action. I'm betting or raising on the turn even after the ugly 3. If I'm 3-bet by some limper I'll slow down. I won't fold the river unless someone exposes their hand and it beats me.
1. Nobody "takes control" of a typical 3-6HE game. At this level, it doesn't pay to get cute 'cause no one is watching you anyway. If you got 'em, bet 'em.
2. I would check-raise here to see if the new "other" better re-raises me. Also, a check raise here may also cause the third player to drop. I would then call all the way to the end.
Your friend needs at least a week off. You say he continues to play because he enjoys it--well, if he continues to play the way he played this hand, he won't enjoy it for long.
Good Luck! Black Jack
If he's throwing away hands like this, 75% losing sessions sounds a bit on the lucky side.
Seriously, the fold on the end was apalling; my guess is that your friend was at least 75% likely to have the best hand and I'd bet my house that neither opponent had quads. Mathematically, he could only justify folding if he was more than 90% sure he was beaten, and nothing about the way this hand was played suggested anything of the sort. Your friend's biggest thinking error: not realizing that the preflop raiser, if he had Ax or a pocket pair, had no reason at all to think they weren't good on the turn and river.
On the flop, your friend's hand was huge and held the promise of taking multiple bets from many potential second-best holdings. He should be trying to build the pot and doing whatever best serves that goal. If the raiser tends to bet a ragged flop even when he missed and the hand is multiway, I'd go for the check-raise. If he might check, I'd tend bet out.
I'd lean more toward betting because my hand is somewhat concealed (although if they erroneously put me on mere trips they might fold anyway), the action is multiway, there are several second best hands out there and, generally, when I'm this close to the nuts I need a good reason not to bet. Even if the preflop raiser raises, the players after him aren't going to put him on an 8 or a 3, and something like AK or 99 will probably call or even 3-bet. Better yet, a 3 might be out there and ready to play hard, especially an A3s that thinks his kicker will win. (And ho-ho! An ace one the end!)
While I don't necessarily disagree with you friend's decision to wait until the turn -- it's one of those situation judgments -- remember that this hand will make the greatest amount of money when another 3 is out. When that happens, the 3 will occasionally be inclined to slowplay and a similarly-thinking full house will experience disaster.
When the board shows three 3's: if you know your opponents and have been betting your hand you'll have a good idea as to where you stand. With some the third 3 strengthens your suspicion that you're way ahead; with others it's a crying call or even, rarely, a fold. You're never going to lose much if you just stop worrying and call.
Usually in this position i would check the flop and go for a check raise on the turn. You have great position to build a good size pot if the pre-flop bettor bets the turn. I would not fold this hand. even it's three bet on the turn after my raise. i will check and call the river.
Dunc,
This one I'll answer without reading other responses. Besides, that cross dresser Lucy/Louie Landale gives me the creeps.
1. Who bets out on the flop, and who is in favor of going for the turn check-raise?
This hand is pretty damn strong. I would not want to narrow the field by betting out. I may go for the check raise on the flop and hope it gets three bet in which case I would cap. Once I check and I only have two opponents when it comes back I would probably call and go for the check raise on the turn if my left hand opponent is reaching for his chips. Otherwise I might bet. A lot depends on what comes and how much follow through your opponents have.
2. When the third 3 comes down, do you turn into a calling station for turn and river, or still go for the check-raise?
Realize this is a scary card for them! I would bet and hope for calls. I would call down almost any raise.
3. When the Ace hits the river, and given the betting pattern that has actually taken place, I cannot see folding for one more bet being correct, especially when the raiser checked
The only thing that would make me lay down is an opponent flashing the three or the pre flop raiser putting in heavy action. I don't see paying more than two bets to call the river and if it is more you may in fact be beat.
I told him he'd be better off taking several days off, and coming back to the game refreshed mentally and physically, but he's retired and loves to play every day.
He may want to take in that "Pokeman" movie. I hear it is pefect for people his age and watching others play can be quite refreshing.
Regards,
Rick
".. that cross dresser Lucy/Louie Landale.." Only on week-ends.
"Realize [3rd 3] is a scary card for them". No. Its ONLY a scary card for HERO. Everybody else with a pair is happy since it reduces the chances of someone ELSE having a 3 by a half and eliminates the chances of losing to a flush or straight. Its a bad card for those still trying to make a pair since it missed them.
- Louie
I agree with you and believe that betting out on the flop is the best play. Hope to get raised so you can re-raise and take control of the hand.
On the turn, I would bet out and see what happens. If I get raised, then I turn into a calling station.
You cannot fold on the river. Just call and pay out to quads.
I endorse your advice to your friend about taking some time off for awhile to regain his perspective.
I do not see this as a vulnerable hand at all. Your friend flopped a monster. Someone with a Three will give you a lot of action and is practically drawing dead. Someone with an overpair is playing a two outer. Someone with a middle pair higher than Threes but lower than Eights is drawing dead and will contribute a lot if he hits something on the turn.
Good points, Jim. What I meant about the hand being "vulnerable" is that while he flopped a monster and should expect to win this hand over 90% of the time, there are probably outs for at least one or two of the callers and the last thing he wants to do here is butcher the betting to let these guys in cheaply, while he goes about maximizing the profit on this hand. I talked to my friend this morning,told him I had posted this hand on the forum,and that the regulars had scorched him pretty good. He knows he screwed up bigtime on this one, and after he reads the printouts of the posts, hopefully he will learn and move forward.
Your pal needs a testosterone implant. He folded a full house - probably to a A high hand.
Does anyone know which vegas hotel gives the best perks to poker players? Is there a comparison of perks/hotels anywhere on the Internet?
Thanks
Michael
I think the ones in Reno give discounts for encounters with prostitutes. Nice comp, eh? You can get Poke her comps or BJ comps...your choice.
Too much wine for dinner....sorry
In "Poker Essays II" MM writes that correct HE strategy is often counter intuitive. example - you constantly seem to be checking your good hands and betting (or raising) your other hands. And the best HE players seem to be able to make these plays in situations that do not appear to logically warrant them -counter intuitive.
I would appreciate some examples of these types of plays, particularly on the flop and after the flop.
A simple example is to frequently check top pair in a multiway pot when you are worried that an overcard can come and beat you.
That sure sounds counterintuitive to me. Can you be more specific? Is the idea that if a blank hits on the turn, your (bigger) bet at that point has a better chance of thinning or eliminating the field?
Seems to me that even 5 or 6 way, you want to bet top pair in an unraised pot every time, unless you think a checkraise will work.
"...unless you think a checkraise will work."
Ah, there ya go.
Okay. But that's not counterintuitive, to me.
That may just be because you understand it. I think it's more counter intuitive to someone who hasn't yet thought about the game very much. Also, it may be a little more counterintuitive when you think about the fact that while a free card is of great concern to you here, you are going ahead and risking giving one *because* that next card is of such concern.
I think another example Mason gives of a counterintuitive element in hold'em is that you're sometimes better off in early rather than late position. He points out that this occcurs when there is a stealing opportunity and being early will give you first chance at it.
I've been playing in a couple of 10-20's lately and have a problem knowing the correct strategy to protect from giving a possible free card. I have KdQs in the blind and no one raises pre-flop. The flop is Qd9d4h. I bet, one caller and a raiser on the button. This player has made several raises on the blind to get a free card and sometimes raise with a legitmely strong hand. I have no information on what his raise means this time, so my question is, what's my best play here? what if my kicker was the A instead?
Lars
as it stands I would call the raise and unless an ace hit on the turn I would bet out. With an ace kicker I might reraise to see how serious he is about his hand, but even then a bet on the turn takes away the free card problem.
Why not re-raise and lead out if a blank hits? It is unlikely that you are trailing. What does the raiser have? If he has a set, oh well (and most people would wait for the turn to strike). He probably has top pair, mediocre kicker (QJ is a very strong candidate), 10-J, or a flush draw. If he had AQ, why didn't he raise preflop? If he has Q-9 or Q-4, you are just loaning him the money.
With the flop you have here there are many possible draws. Couple that with a known free card artist and no-pre flop raise and I'll assume KQ is the best hand. I'm 3-betting here most every time. What if he 4-bets? Not unheard of. I'll still bet into some players on the turn after the 4-bet and I'll bet into most of them when they just call my 3-bet. You've got to have some decent player info to play it fast but I know who to push on and who's got the goods most of the time.
I'd have to vote for the reraise, too, if just to get the pot heads up.
You should re-raise because your kicker is excellent plus it is the King of Diamonds. It is especially strong given that no one raised pre-flop. If your kicker was an Ace you of course should re-raise as well. If your kicker was weak, then you should just call and hope he was on a draw.
The question is a good one although the example you use is not really appropriate.
With 2nd best kicker, you have an easy reraise on the flop. The fella on the button would probably have raised preflop if he had AQ. If he has a set or something, well...them's the breaks.
The more interesting question is what you should do when you have something like Q8 in this situation.
On the flop, if there are a lot of players in the hand, I probably would check. I would fold (although I may peel one off if the bet comes from my immediate left) if there was an early position bet or if there was a lot of action. I would likely checkraise a late position bet.
I would bet the flop if there were only 3 or 4 players in the pot. If raised by the button (as you were here), I would likely call and come out betting on the turn if a blank hits particularly against a known "free card' raiser. If there were other players in the pot between me and the button, I may 3 bet the flop to try and get it heads up with the button.
Lars:
First, consider how often he could raise preflop with a hand that gives him a draw now. If that looks okay, check the draw vs. 2-pair/set possibilities on board and think about his flop raising requirements generally when in this position against this opposition and this board.
In most cases, I'd probably reraise. If he's got AQ he'll have to think a bit and if he's got a draw he'll automatically call. If he reraises, I need to consider whether he'll jam with a draw. If he won't ever do that, I'll see the turn and probably drop on the river. If he might reraise with a draw, I'll call and check the turn. If he bets, I've got a straightforward pot odds problem and if he checks, I'll have the upper hand.
Alternatively, I might call his raise on the flop but bet out on the turn (assuming a brick in both cases). This earns a fraction of a bet less but is more confusing, which can frustrate him and cause him to make bigger mistakes now or later.
Having an ace in my hand (except maybe Ad -- fewer draws then) shouldn't change my play much except to make me more comfortable with my holding.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that he has raised to get free cards several times but you have "no information" on him. How long have you been playing with him? Several times with this ploy is usually a lot. Sounds to me like he just likes to raise to get free cards and the fact that he'll also raise with real hands wouldn't affect my take on him. (Watch for players who too frequently make this play because you can often isolate and take the pot with nothing).
This game is more difficult than the lower limits i usually play, so it could be that i'm more paranoid about being outplayed. In this game and case, i have seen this player raise in this position with a hand he's hit hard and raise with draws. This is different from my typical games and makes me wonder what his play is.
From his position, i didn't think it unlikely that he held J10, and it's also good limping position for small pocket pairs. I did not have enough information to discern what hands he raises/limps with pre-flop. In this particular case i called, and decided i would have raised if i had the ace kicker.
Although i should probably stay away from tougher games, i sometimes enjoy the thrill of a good challenge.
Call the raise and bet the turn. If he is on a flush or straight draw you'll find out about it when you bet the turn depanding on the turn card.
I'd play the A kicker the same way.
My friend, a long time mid limit pro, played this hand today in a 15/30 game at Hollywood Park. He didn’t play his normal style so he asked my opinion and we thought the forum would be a good place for additional input.
He is one off the cutoff seat (seat 7) and raises with a Ks Jh. The big blind is the only caller. He was a new player who my friend had never seen before. He was well dressed and mannered and did not appear to be the overly loose, aggressive, or tricky type based on the one round he had played. So let’s say he was sort of average.
The flop comes Ah Kc 4d. The big blind checks and my friend checks behind. Now this is unusual for him, as he would normally bet. I probably would bet too but he knows that I am more into inducing bluffs and checking in this sort of situation. In other words, with this hand free cards should not be too big a problem and you are either already beat (most likely by the ace) or leading by a lot against a single opponent. His plan was to call down any future action or bet if checked to on the turn. Of course he would get aggressive with a favorable turn (such as a king or a jack).
The turn throws him a monkey wrench. It was the 4c. Now this mild-mannered opponent comes out betting. My friend looked at the pot and decided it just wasn’t worth it. He folded.
I thought it was a good fold for the most part. He is beat badly by any ace, any four, splits on a king, and I agreed that this type opponent probably wouldn’t put the moves on too often. The pot was $70 dollars before the turn and it would cost him $60 dollars to call down a pot where he could win only $130 (assuming the opponent would bet the river). Of course he could raise on a river king but this was a long shot.
We agreed that the board pairing small was key since the decision seemed close. It meant that if he was beat by the ace, he loses three outs to the jack. And the blind holding a four was not so far fetched.
I did have one more comment. Why did he decide to vary his normal play (which would have been to bet the flop) against an opponent who he has never played before? He thought about that and conceded that varying ones play against a new, weak looking, opponent was dumb but was still happy since he won all his bets on Monday Night Football.
All comments are appreciated.
Regards,
Rick
Looks like a good fold.
BB had a bad Ace and expected to check and Call the rest of the hand and then changed his mind.
I like your friend's play of opening with a raise in middle position with KJ offsuit. This play puts pressure on the cutoff and button and allows him to get position over the blinds if they choose to play.
In general, I feel strongly about betting the flop against one opponent who checks to me in this situation when I have middle pair. It is especially important since I was the pre-flop raiser so my opponent expects me to bet and will probably figure me for an Ace. He may even fear that I have big slick. Trying to induce bets from strangers who have not appeared real aggressive is risky business. But your friend had decided to vary his play and like you said if the big blind does not have an Ace, he is probably not giving up much.
The turn card does throw a monkey wrench into the plan. I don't know what I would have done. Your friend's play of folding is probably right but since he showed weakness by checking the the flop he may be getting played with here. The blind could be betting a King or a pocket pair bigger than Fours. Your friend's check on the flop tends to deny an Ace. But at this point, I agree with your friend that the pot is small and there are too many ways to lose so a fold is right.
Interesting post.
I agree with the fold and with the opinions shared by the other 2. Here's a twist. The "gentlemanly" opponent decided to check his Ace to not be too aggressive 1 on 1. Maybe he is just a "nice guy" or maybe he is setting the image. In any event the risk is low. He gets 2 pair with the 4 and decided he does not want to showdown 2 pair with the leading ace so he bets. If your friend bets, the op get more money. If your friend folds, the op wins and does not have to show.
I don't see how the paired 4 changes much. Except vrs a 4, if you had the best hand you still do. If checking to induce a bluff is correct, then folding after inducing it has got to be wrong.
Bet the flop, check the turn, call the river.
Changing one's normal play against an unknown is one form of "advertising". Hero has now convinced this guy that hero is a wimp, and it may take several future aggressive bets to make him reconsider. First impressions and all.
- Louie
Louie/Lucy/Whatever,
"I don't see how the paired 4 changes much. Except vrs a 4, if you had the best hand you still do. If checking to induce a bluff is correct, then folding after inducing it has got to be wrong."
Once the flop mistake was made and if the decision on the turn would otherwise be close, it may tilt things towards folding. But I could be wrong about it being close. I also don't think he was inducing a bluff as much as he suddenly figured he was more than a two to one favorite to be beat.
"Bet the flop, check the turn, call the river."
That's my normal play and usually his although he may come back with a bet on the turn more than I would.
"Changing one's normal play against an unknown is one form of "advertising". Hero has now convinced this guy that hero is a wimp, and it may take several future aggressive bets to make him reconsider. First impressions and all."
You make a very good point here. Too bad my friend played this hand about thirty minutes before he was scheduled to go home :-).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. to Lucy: Is it really true that they have couches in public restrooms for women? I've always thought my leg was being pulled on this one
Hay Rick,
Why don't you cut Lucy some slack? They say this is a critical period during the recovery process, psychologically speaking--or so I've heard.
Couches in bathrooms,I'm afraid that's Top Secret, sorry.
Debbie
Couches Yes. Besides girl-talk they come in useful when your companion is still busy taking care of girl things. And they are particularly useful when Tarzan is waiting outside since he will often (correctly) interpret a long delay as a HINT.
Now lets talk about chairs and vanity mirrors and those French style low-set water fountains.
Now how can I desperately turn this into a "strategy" post... Oh yes ... Couches are good for reviewing hands without an audience that cares.
- Louie
Unfortunately, because of your friend's check on the flop, there is absolutely no way one can put the bb on a hand. He could have AA or 44, but then again he could have 87. Your friend just can't be sure what he has got.
I would have bet the flop for sure. However, if your friend's rationale for checking was to induce a bluff, well he can't fold now because the bb may indeed be bluffing! Your friend has to play on (at least against a stranger) and may even decide to play on with a raise i.e. representing a slowplay of slick, KK or AA.
True, there is not too much money in the pot for your friend to get very creative here. But it was his "creative" play on the flop which got him into this mess in the first place. As well, the blind could easily be betting a nothing or marginal hand which he would release for a raise. One can also say that the pot is too small for the blind to get too fussy about after your friend raises.
skp,
It is funny because my friend normally would bet the flop 99.9999% of the time. And so would I (OK, maybe 98 % of the time). But in many other situations he doesn't use the "induce a bluff" type plays that I (and I think you) often use in more applicable situations. He did realize that not betting the flop was a mistake and then wondered if he compounded it with his turn laydown.
On the other hand, he did make a great play that day that he forbade me to post on the net.
Regards,
Rick
Rick it just looks like your friend out player himself.
I may be wierd but if I don't know a player I assume he is solid until he proves differently.
Just curious - If BB bets the flop does your pal call, fold or raise? OR if pal bets and is check raised does he fold?
I think new guy is a good player looking to trap your pal.
I can’t sleep, so I thought I’d write something for this board.
I play most of my poker on the Internet. In the games I play, $5-$10 and below, I would estimate that about 90% of Net poker players -- loose, tight, or in between -- are too passive. (Perhaps other Internet players can back me up on this.) To exploit this error, I try to limp in with as many drawing hands as I can from positions in which it would be incorrect to so do in more aggressive games.
I had perhaps played one round in the game in question. In this time, the player in question, who I knew nothing about, had raised twice. In the hand in question, I was under the gun with QJo. As I gain experience, I find that I like this hand less and less. If the possibly-frequent raiser, who was on the button, was truly aggressive, and just hadn’t happened to have two very good hands close to each other, I didn’t want to be limping in. I flipped a coin in my head and called the big blind.
Everyone else folded to the button. He raised. Both blinds folded. I was disgusted. I decided that three raising hands in one round was too much of a coincidence and concluded that he was trying to muscle the table. I re-raised. He called.
The flop was three uncoordinated low cards. With no hesitation, I bet right out. He called.
The turn was an ace. I bet right out again. This time there was a long pause. One of the problems with the Internet is that a pause can be a player thinking or it can be an artifact of the Net itself. He called again.
The river was a non-threatening card. I had nothing. I bet right out one more time. After another long pause, he folded.
My question has to do with counter card reading – not reading what your opponent has, but reading what he thinks _you_ have. If I were playing myself, I would have put me on AKs or maybe AQs when I limped in UTG then re-raised a raiser once the pot became heads up. Some questions for the experienced members of this forum: What are some of the hands he should have put me on? How strongly should he have suspected I was running a bluff?
Did you have the Qs Jd?
Pinochle does well in this situation.
Normally, in a live game when someone limps in under the gun and then re-raises a pre-flop raiser, it denotes a very strong hand like AA,KK,QQ, or AK suited. Since it was a button raise in this case, then you could have had AK offsuit or AQ suited as well. That is what I would have put you on until I got to know you better. I would never read you for QJ offsuit.
The chances that QJo is the best hand UTG is way too low for you to consider playing it UTG in a full game. Playing dominated trouble hands in bad position is bad implied odds. Big time. It makes no difference the aggressiveness of any of the players.
*Trouble hands are for late position when nobody has raised*
Would you bet QQ for value on the end? Most people would believe you would not. So your bluff is believable if its realistic you can have AK or AQ in this spot AND the player can think about what you are thinking. Also, since only temporarly disciplineless players would play UTG without a big pair or a big Ace (except in the better of the loose passive games), any level 1 thinking opponent should be VERY paraniod with a medium pair TT; the hand you are trying to get him to fold.
Good bluff.
- Louie
15-30 fairly loose but several good agresive players also.
2 weakish limpers, Agressive player (AP) who usually plays higher raises. One cold caller. I look down and have KK in the SB. I call, thinking about Mason's card player article. Everyone else calls.
Flop: J83 two diamonds.
We check to AP, raise, cold caller drops, I check-raise. BB and 1 limper fold, other limper cold calls, AP makes it 3 bets. I call and other calls.
Turn: Blank
I bet out. Caller calls. AP Raises, we both call.
River offsuit 10.
Check, Check AP bets, I call and last player overcalls.
Comments?
( I will post result later below )
I know in Mason's article from Poker Digest, he did not re-raise with pocket Kings from his big blind. But his situation may have been a little different in that I don't believe he had as many opponents. In addition, I got the sense that he was perhaps varying his play. In your situation, with four opponents I think you should re-raise and take control of the hand. This might drive out the "two weakish limpers" who would call a single raise but not a double raise back to them.
On the flop, I think you should bet out and not go for a check-raise. The aggressive player will raise you with top pair or a pair of Queens and you can re-raise. You want to make the Diamond draws pay.
I like your play on the turn and river.
There's another reason to play it Jim's way. When you fail to reveal the strength of your hand it is much more difficult to determine the real strength of your opponent. He'll keep the heat on with hands that you beat and you'll think maybe you're behind. In this hand you worry about AA. If you'd 3-bet pre flop and your opponent caps it you might not need to worry and instead be sure AA was strong possibility.
I agree with Jim here except I would absolutely not check raise, but if it came back to me i would re-raise.
Jim,
I agree that you should reraise before the flop. Is your flop advice based on what you would have done pre flop or on what David Steele actually did?
Regards,
Rick
PS to David Steele: I just love these minimalist titles for threads. It will make it so easy to remember and look up a year from now ;-)
Rick, I think I would bet the flop regardless of whether I re-raised pre-flop or not.
The flop call thing works pretty well I think, not sure you have to restrict it to less players for it to have value. So often when I raise on the blinds, I feel the whole table knows my hand. Of course there is nothing wrong with the raise but I like playing this way quite frequently now.
D.
3 bet B4 flop if you can drop a weak Ace in the limpers hands. But since there is a reasonable raise and a reasonable cold call, the chances that one of them has a big Ace is pretty high, so dropping the limpers doesn't gain much. Just calling in the SB gives nothing away about your hand.
As Jim said, bet out on the flop. Your hand is still disguised.
I really dislike the call-the-flop-raise then bet-out-the-turn play; but perhaps that's a personal thing.
Lets hope and pray this guy has QQ or is running a psuedo bluff with QJ figuring he has the limper beat and may get YOU to fold your apparent AJ.
Prediction: Raiser has QQ; limper has AJ; you blench a little in releaf.
- Louie
I don't know how aggressive the raiser is, but to after raising a check-raise I'd consider the possibility that he flopped a set. The limper may have stuck around with JT diamonds hoping he didn't.
I am about to agree with betting out on the flop, however the thing I am worried about is no one will raise where I am pretty sure the check to the raiser will work. Also I think some of the early players might call the 3 bets if they have already put one in where they are more likely to fold to a cold 2 ( pretty crazy on their part ).
"I really dislike the call-the-flop-raise then bet-out-the-turn play; but perhaps that's a personal thing."
I like seing that no suited card comes and then making the next big bet when the odds are much worse. It may not quite work out but also may help me in getting raised on the turn by worse hands then my KK. Not to mentions a bet on the river. I think if I Cap on the flop, the action might dry up a little ( unless I am beat ).
D.
AP, unless he's stupid has JJ thru AA since u have did everything but hit him with a 2x4 and say i have an over pair or at least AJ. The over caller probably has AJ or KJ etc. (maybe even 9-10 and figures there is too much money to lay down now) and was in check and call mode after u check raised the flop.
Result:
Louie got it right, Raiser had QQ, caller didn't actually show but AJ I guess too.
What about my "blench" prediction?
Notice the excessive action you got just because you did NOT 3-bet from the blinds with KK, hehehe. If you HAD 3-bet it, QQ would be hard pressed to ever raise you again.
- Louie
I have been playing poker for about 5 years (off and on)...and I feel that in a typical Cal 20/40 hold'em game, I can probably average out 30 per hour (based off of 2000 hours worth of data). However, I feel that's only if I play on a continuous basis, at least 2/3 times a week (I do have a full-time job). But in reality, I find myself getting in cycles, where I would play 4 times a week for a month or two...and then not play again for a month or two, and pick it back up again.
So, my question is ... Given that I can actually average out 30 per hour if I did play continuously, how much do you think that goes down in the way I play? How much less am I expected to earn in my first session back? (my sessions usually last 4 hours).
thanks.
I just came back from 2 weeks in the Carribean; gota tan to prove it. We played a couple hours twice in Aruba (Palm Beach Holiday Inn) 15/30 holdem.
Player A had "just" called with AQo in early position 3 hands ago; and last round missed a couple easy value bets. Player B is playing too many hands in a paranoid fashion; which means he has some notion of what he is supposed to have. He has also missed a couple easy value bets.
Player A raises in middle position, player B calls cold late, hero (actually my wife) calls in the SB with AQ, BB (actually me) folds. 3 players take the flop.
Flop is KQ4 rainbow. Hero checks, A bets, B calls, and hero calls. Turn is 6. Everybody checks. River is 5.
Hero bets 2nd-pair-top-kicker for value, A very reluctantly calls, and B very reluctantly folds. A turns over KTo winner and is very relieved; B discustedly admits he folded KJ and claims he believed his options were to raise or fold; and I believe him. There is some table murmerings and nodding heads amoung the locals generally admitting they thought hero "obviously" had AK and confirming B's rationale. Hero and handsome BB are visibly stunned.
How about that? What is there to learn about Arubian Holdem from this hand?
- Louie
5-8% $10 max rake PLUS a $2 jackpot, which appears to actually increase the jackpot by only 70c.
Pre-flop, opening with a raise from middle position by Player A with K-T offsuit is weak poker. I can understand shaving raising requirements a little bit by opening with a raise having A-T, K-J, 9-9, etc. but I think K-T should either be folded (if you are playing tight) or just limp with it and hope no one behind you raises. Your wife's call of the raise out of her small blind is good having AQ offsuit.
On the flop, given a pre-flop raiser I think your wife has to check. I believe your wife should fold on the flop when the pre-flop raiser bets and gets called by Player B. How can her hand be any good? At best she is playing 5 outs and an Ace may not be a clean out.
The check around on the turn is interesting and would seem to deny that any one has a King. Her bet on the end given the lack of betting on the turn is probably right.
Do any of these sites support/provide either a Java client or a Linux client? I don't run Windows.
Thanx - Fat-Charlie
In the future please post this on our Other Topics Forum.
FC
www.funcom.com is all JAVA
MJ
the poker gurus tell us that we need 200 to 300 big bets in our bankroll to withstatnd the swings for a certain limit... but these sugestions assume a fixed betting structure. what about spread limit? Does 1-4-8-8 hold'em with 1-2 blind require the same bankroll as 4-8 hold'em with a 2-4 blind? how can i take into account the fact that spred limit 1-4-8-8 allows me to bet as little as 2 bucks on all betting rounds. how much does that affect the bankroll requirements?
For the good player I don't believe you need as large a bankroll in a spread limit game as in a structured game. However, the best way to find out is to play about 30 sessions of several hours each and compute your own hourly standard deviation using the techniques discussed in Mason Malmuth's book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics". Once you know what your hourly standard deviation is, Malmuth has tables that you can use to compute bankroll requirements.
Once one has determined his/her average $win/$loss and then calculates the std. dev. and variance, how does one then determine how much of a bankroll is needed?
Would I need, say, 3 times my standard deviation or is it necessary to have an amount equal to 1 or 2 times the variance.
I do not have Malmut's book yet
It would depend upon how much of a risk taker you are. If you want to have about 1 chance in 6 of losing your bankroll, then you can get by with one standard deviation's worth of protection. If you want more security than you can go to 2 standard deviations and have about 1 chance in 40 of losing your bankroll. If you are the type that has to wear both a belt and suspenders, then you can go to 3 standard deviations and have about 1 chance in 200 of losing your bankroll. Of course all of this assumes you are a winning player at the game you play in.
Std dev means just that, and not variance (probably a retorical question). From an intuitive point, I am surprised, but from a mathmematical point it seems perfectly reasonably.
Do you think or is there any evidence that poker winning or losses aproximates a normal distribution?
Yes, I believe that they do over a long period of time. According to the Central Limit Theorem in statisitics, when you sample from different parent populations the mean you get is normally distributed regardless of the underlying probability distributions of the parent populations. This was actually proven by a German mathematician named Gauss and subsequently appropriated by statisticians as the Central Limit Theorem.
Thanks. That was fast. Shouldn't we actually be working instead of drinking coffee and browsing the 2+2 forum? I once has a tee-shirt with the Central Limit Theorem on the back and Maxwell's equation on the front. What a geek!
If you have to ask the price you probably can't afford it.
Late yesterday afternoon, I posted a hand wherein a buddy of mine screwed up the betting after flopping a full house. I had the chance to read a few of the early responses before I went to the casino last night, and such comments as "don't overthink at 3-6", "when you got'em,bet'em", etc. were fresh in my mind when I sat down at 3-6HE.
I pick up the black 6's in the BB. Game is the usual loose/passive crowd and 8 of us take the flop unraised. ( I even considered throwing in an offbeat raise out of the BB as per a recent thread, but decided against it.) Flop comes down Jd-Jh-6d. Feeling the force of the forum posters flowing through me, I bet out. UTG and the guy on his immediate left both call, everyone else folds. Turn card is 2h. I thought briefly about getting fancy and going for a check-raise, but I decided that one or both of these callers must have a Jack and fully expecting to get raised, I bet out again.
UTG just calls, and sure enough the other guy raises. I now 3-bet, UTG calls cold!, and the third player calls. River is 8s, I bet and they both pay me off. UTG had J-7s (nice play UTG,eh?) and the other guy had J-K.
Now there is nothing really remarkable about this hand. I got a very fortunate flop, just went about my business, bet the hand in a completely straightforward manner, and got paid off nicely. Just reinforces the comments I was reading here yesterday.
I like your play of this hand, but do realize that it is totally different from your friends in that he had the nut full house flop, whereas you can't be totally sure where you stand on flop, the turn and river, there are lots of weak players who will play J2s or J6s even though they should be thrown away pre-flop.
That's true; I mean the guy UTG did play J-7, didn't he? However, if that's what I'm up against, it's just a short term loan, isn't it? The point I was trying to make was that it isn't always, or even often, that cute plays bring home the cheese. Go to work, punch the clock, and cash out. Life is often complicated enough.
don't knock J7s. it can make a straight flush, after all. unlike J6s, which is a clear muck.
scott
I was not trying to cricize your play, I actually liked it. Also, after you three bet the turn you knew where you stood since the pot was not capped going into the river. All I was saying was that you are more likely to be paying off with your hand than your friend would be with his.
Dunc you played the hand in text book fashon.
Play your cards straight forward most of the time and you will do ok - hell they won't believe you anyway.
You could have showed the Jrag players what you had and they still were not capable of folding the trip J's.
"You could have showed the Jrag players what you had and they still were not capable of folding the trip J's."
If Dunc was heads-up with UTG and UTG had J7 and Dunc showed his pocket 6's before the dealer dealt the river card, UTG should call the bet on the turn if the pot has more than $36.
I thank god for that thinking every day of my life.
xx
Don't get frustrated skp. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make Rounder play a hand from behind...
...even if he has pot odds to do so.
"You can lead a horse to water..."
I think a 'mule' would be more appropriate:)
Don't forget if your looking for the 3 outter I have the rest of the deck. Please OH please be there on the end - I need the money.
1 J and 3 7s to beat you, and 3 8s to tie.
conform
I assumed all realized the two left in the hand had j's so they were looking for a K or a 7 to beat the 6's full of j's. I still like my odds to win.
i like your odds, too. i like the other guys odds, but not as much. if i could, i would like to have both of your hands. if i had to choose one, it would be yours. but if all i was offered to play the J7 from this point on, i would take it. (i am assuming te pot is large enough. which it was.)
scott
J7 has 7 outs (1 Jack, 3 deuces and 3 sevens). So, he will get there approximately 1 in 6 times (7 out of 44 to be exact). Thus, J7 should call if the pot has more than $36.
...don't worry...I'll be there on the end (although I wouldn't be there at the start with J7 UTG).
well, three people like their hands. so i would not count the case J as entirely still in the deck. and 2's likely split the pot.
scott
I got to get some sleep been traveling since 5am from Illinois - Got to rethink this in the morning.
Scott, I am not talking about this hand. In the example I was talking about, It was UTG vs. 66 HEADS UP. I said that J7 should call a known 66 if the pot had more than $36 as he would have 7 outs.
". I got a very fortunate flop, just went about my business, bet the hand in a completely straightforward manner, and got paid off nicely. "
Nice to see that str8forward play gets the money. Heck, it pays my rent.
Post deleted at author's request.
And a big thankyou to all you straight forward players. It's nice to know where you are all the time. 8-)
i am straight forward, too. if i have it i bet. and if we are ever playing together, know that i always have it.
scott
Post deleted at author's request.
Happy Holidays to everyone!
I have been playing 4-8 HE for about 6-8 months and have come to some conclusions about the game that I would like to know if others agree with.
First, in a low limit game a raise before the flop does not mean much because it is less likely to reduce the field of players. An example is to raise with KK from an early position. There are a lot of weak players who play any ace and call down to the river if their kicker pairs the board (happend to me this weekend and lots of other times). Even a raise on the flop will not narrow the field as there are lots of people with gut shot or backdoor draws that will chase irregardless of pot odds (I am obviously not talking about strong players here). So I feel inclined to limp in with just about anything including AA, KK, QQ, or JJ against weak opposition.
Second, the winning hand in low limit games is quite often whatever river (and sometimes turn) card makes the best hand. As stated earlier, there are a lot of players drawing to the end with almost anything and straights and flushes are much more likely to hit when that happens. I've heard (and seen)people calling a raise with 35o against AA and calling to the river with a board of A, 2, x and getting a 4 on the river (and board did not pair). This has lead me to believe that low limit poker is like a bastard version of bingo.
Third, reading hands is nearly impossible in low limit games since so many people are going to play too many hands and go to far with them. In some cases it is just best to play the board and if you have the nuts (and sometimes when drawing to), or second best, then you can bet or raise or re-raise. Otherwise it might be best to check and call with mediocre (and sometimes even strong) holdings.
Fourth, when a weak player bets into you on the river you have to have a hand that will beat what is pretty obvious to beat whats on board. For example you may have raised TT in good position, and have top pair compared to what ever is flopped. You may be hammering those tens until the river and then a J, Q, K, or A drops and now someone weak bets into you, you almost always have to fold, they are almost always not (semi)bluffing. (This point is pretty much a continuation of point 2)
Sorry for the rambling of this post, but it is because I am quite frustrated recently by this game and people drawing 2 to 4 outs on me and getting them on the river ;( . Please let me know some points I have missed.
I think it is time for you to move up a notch or two.
You'll find the same thing there too but not as much.
Feel better?
Jim Brier had a post earlier this week about pre flop raising. It is not only to thin the field but often it is to magnify the mistakes of those playing inferior cards. Even in low limit, premium hands with good flops will generally get the money and those people will catch every once in a while and burn you but you have to keep at it. KK in the big blind is a great opportunity against a weak field. First of all, they don't believe you. 2nd of all when they flop a pair they will be in to the river paying all the way to your dominating hand, third of all they are making mistakes on their draws left and right which you are benefitting from, maybe not in the here and now, but soon and for the rest of your life. (Casablanca) The game can be beat. The more people playing lousy cards the better it is for you if you're playing correctly. So keep raising and reraising those premium hands. Pretty soon you'll notice these guys folding preflop to your raise after getting stung 2 or 3 times. And then you're in control of the pace, which is a beautiful place to be.
Joe writes: "Please let me know some points I have missed."
First point: Raise! Raise early, raise often when you have the best hand. Always, always raise with AA and KK, really, always. No need to vary your game.
Second point: Best hand wins. TT unimproved ain't much in multi way 4-8. The river card will hit you and you alone fairly often so don't bitch about the suck-outs.
Third point: Think long term, months instead of hours.
Fourth point: Determine if you're really a winner or not. Keep honest records and let us know how you're doing in 3 months.
I'm out of time, not ideas.
Joe, I do not agree with your assessment of low limit hold-em. Here are my counter arguments for each of the four points made in your post.
1. I raise pre-flop on my good hands because I think I have the best hand and I have the most to gain by raising. Whether or not other players choose to stay or fold is up to them and is not my primary reason for raising. This is the real essence of poker which forces players to decide whether or not they want to chase. Of course, AA plays better against fewer opponents than many opponents but it is still the best hand regardless. Furthermore, when I win because my hand holds up or because I improve, I win a larger pot as a result. It would be terrible poker not to raise pre-flop with your good hands.
2. Low limit poker is not a "bastard version of bingo". The fact that there is a table full of weak players pursuing runner-runner, gutshots, etc. makes the game much more profitable. Agreed that you might actually win fewer pots on your good hands because of suckouts but I discovered that pots that I won were much bigger than otherwise. I also got paid off more on the end by several players which does not happen as often in $15-$30 or $20-$40 which is the level I now play at currently.
3. Checking and calling is sometimes correct but it is frequently losing poker whether at low limit or middle limit hold-em. Reading hands at low limit was sometimes more difficult until I got to know the players and then it was easy because they tended to play in a very predictable and simplistic manner. What I am discovering is that at the higher levels like $30-$60, reading hands is more difficult because the players are capable of a vast array of moves.
4. With regard to being bet into on the river, this is highly dependent on how well you know your opponent. In general you should call if you have any reasonable chance of winning.
I played about 500 hours of low limit hold-em($3-$6, $4-$8, and $6-$12) and I won about 5 grand. I averaged better than one top bet per hour in $3-$6 and $4-$8 and almost one top bet per hour in $6-$12). At the higher limits I have never been able to average one top bet per hour. I average about $16 per hour in $10-$20, about $22 per hour in $15-$30, and about $30 per hour in $20-$40 based on about 2000 hours of play. I found low limit games to be much easier to beat than higher limit games but they are just not as profitable.
I would agree with the other respondents and add one thing. The rake can be a bigger factor in low limit. To beat these games you must play very tight and very aggressive.
You play tight to eliminate exposure to the rake and you play aggressive with your premium hands to punish the players trying to gun you down. You will lose more pots with your premium hands in low limit. However, the pots you do win will more than make up for the pots you lose.
Good luck and play tight.
I've played low-limit holdem fairly steady over the past two years. Year one was an exersize in futility. At the start of year two I sought out expert advise. Raising with premium holdings pre-flop is one of the most important and profitable pearls. Playing aggressively when the flop hits you is another. Learning to recognize when you've been hit hard is a product of experience. Playing premium holdings aggressively is the ticket to winning at low-limits. It is that simple.
Amen brother!
I too have been playing LL 4-8 for the last month and a half. I have and any strong players making an income in this type of game has been a victim of these plays. I feel in LL games, pocket pairs (unless you hit it on the flop) are a weaker starting hand then top pair with a big kicker, on the flop. There are advantages to playing LL, your semi-bluff hands do pay off, you learn to read your opponents better. I would not raise high pocket pair in late position, I would raise them in early position, because you are going to get paid off in the long term.
GRR
Playing in a 100 pound hold em tournament with rebuys. I am the big blind. I was dealt 2 6 off. 5 callers. But no raises so I am still in. The flop comes 345 all different suites. Quite happy. I raise the pot. One caller. Jack of hearts comes down. Now two hearts. I raise the pot. He calls. The final card is 9 of hearts. I check. He raises. I call. He turns over A 6 of hearts. Flush. So he did have a straigt draw as well. But still, should he have been in? Should I have called his raise? Thanks. -Dan
Rule #1 of big bet tourney play: Don't go broke in an unraised pot.
Rule #2: If there are rebuys, ignore Rule #1.
If this was pot limit and you bet the max on the turn, I think you played it right. I probably call on the river too, as its tough to put him on running hearts. Although I don't like it as he could have been slow-playing 67 all along.
As usual, your read on this player and his position (button or late vs. early) are the keys to your call on the river.
Tough call I have mucked here and called here. Depends on the players involved.
Your hand was very vulnerable but what could you do.
There is one casino in town, openned a short while ago, and spreads usually 1 or 2 5-10 Hold'Em games and also a 10-20 usually every night.
The 10-20 game thus far has been very lucrative.
Here are the details:
6-7 players see the flop on average (sometimes 5, sometimes 8) Pre-flop raise every 4-5 hands (though when the "action" starts, this can be every 2 hands). Occaisionally a re-raise pre-flop, but not often. More passive after the flop, and a raise on the turn most often means a very good hand. Most hands (over 75%) are seen down to the river, often with 3 or more players.
I have been struggling with trying to read players at first. I have since given that up, and focused on tight/aggressive play and being careful not to get caught into raises with bad hands, being friendly and quiet at the table, and taking home a nice chunk of change on most nights. I assume, with no prior knowledge, that all the players are equally loose, and could therefore have almost anything.
Is this all I need in this type of game? Other than trying to determine who the better players are and avoiding them (haven't seen any yet), what other game considerations should I have? The times I seem to get into trouble are when I over-think and try to "put-a-move", I'm discovering this isn't required in this game.
Any tips or suggestions appreciated.
It is still worthwhile to study the players when you are not in the hand and try to get a line on their play, especially the regulars. People tend to play in predictable patterns and you can benefit by understanding your opponents better. I agree that you should not "over think" at the table (but definitely think a lot about the game away from the table or when you are not in the hand)and forget about fancy moves for right now.
Dear Withheld,
Don't let anybody know where you live.
Regards,
Rick
I find myself in this situation as well especially in the winter when a lot of regulars play. When I am out of a hand (and that is often). I make a point of seeing how players play in certain positions. I noticed a particular player is excellent in early position but consistantly errs when on the button. It not only makes the game interesting when out of a hand, but it makes it profitable too.
After a game, I will sit down in the casino restaurant or even at an open table and discuss play and tactics with a friend or 2 (1 of whom is clearly a better player and makes a living from the games all over the US). We will bring up specific examples from the most recent game. Sometomes we are even in the same game (never collusion) We comment on specific players and situations. It is not unlike a baseball manager going over players with a pitcher.
Occasionally we get together and have a sort of journal club (you scientists know what I am talking about) where we discuss examples and tactics outlined by Sklansky et. al. and Roy West and others in their respective books.
Next meeting I will propose we open it with a video clip of Rick Nebiolo ordering "CHIPS, CHIPS"
I believe I know exactly which game you are talking about. It's played at 10-20 but being a new poker room in the area the players are not experienced. When I was there the 10-20 game actually looked looser and more passive than the 3-6 and 5-10 games.
The strategies in Lee Jones' book on low-limit hold'em should be effective here. Play uncomplicated tight-aggressive poker and it should be effective, at least until the players adjust.
And I'd agree with Rick. Definitely don't tell anyone where you live.
Jaeger
Due to its length, I have broken this into two posts, one is Part A and the other is Part B. From the July 23, 1999 edition of Cardplayer Roy Cooke wrote an article entitled "Small Things Can Make Big Differences". I have paraphrased and edited the text in the interest of brevity:
"I was in the big blind in a $30-$60 game. Ben, a former professional blackjack player, opened the pot under the gun and was raised by a daily grinder two to his left. Three players called the raise as did the little blind. I had the King of Clubs and the Seven of Clubs. I called the raise. Ben re-raised. Ben has great card sense and I strongly suspected that he had a very strong holding like AA,KK, or AK. Everyone called. The flop was: Eight of Clubs, Five of Clubs, Four of Hearts. I have a Club flush draw and an inside straight draw with any Six. I did not want to lead and have Ben raise the pot immediately shutting out the field behind us. Rather than play the hand heads-up out of position with Ben, I just checked. Ben bet $30. The daily grinder raised to $60 and only one other played called the raise. If I just call and Ben had an over pair, he probably would re-raise and I could get four bets on the flop by trapping. Since I was getting 3:1 that bet would be favorable considering the strength of my draw I was better than 2:1 to make a flush or a straight. If Ben had AK and just called, I still would be getting 3:1 on my flop bet but would be doing so with less volume. If I raised he probably would fold AK and reduce my flop price to 2.3:1. He still would call if he had an over pair making that situation neutral no matter what I did. I did not think he would four bet with an over pair. The fact that he would fold AK swayed my decision. The pot was large with $780 in it and it was only going to get bigger. If Ben held AK and would fold it, that could give me two more wins to beat the likely medium over pair that I thought the daily grinder had. Two wins is approximately 6% with two to come, a significant value difference in pot size. Of course it is possible that a pair of Kings would not be good on the river, but if I removed AK I would add considerable value to my hand. I re-raised making it $90. Ben folded and the other two players called. The turn was: Three of Clubs. I bet the hand down and won 3 more big bets. The situation speaks to the concept of playing your hand in a manner that gives you the greatest chance to finish with a winner. When the pot gets large, the price that you are getting for each increased percentage point chance of winning also increases greatly. Assuming that no other Six or set was out, I had 12 wins and about a 45% chance of making a straight or a flush. By folding Ben's AK and adding two more wins (assuming that the King was good)to the equation my chance of winning went from 45% to 51.2%. The value of the increased winning percentage more than made up for the additional small bets that I could have gained had I just called."
This is a very interesting article and I have a lot of questions which are discussed in Part B of this post.
Based on his article, I am assuming that Ben and the daily grinder are solid players. Assuming Ben had AA,KK, or AK under the gun I would think he should raise with these hands rather than just call unless he was trying to vary his play for some reason. What does everyone else think?
If he has AK and calls, re-raising the daily grinder is not a good idea because the daily grinder could easily have cards that Ben needs to improve his hand plus his re-raise will not drive out any other players since those that call the first raise are already tied in and another raise at that point is not effective. What does everyone else think?
Once the flop, I like Roy's hand but not as much as he does. There are six opponents with all kinds of draws and re-draws possible plus the Club flush he is trying to make is not to the nuts and with six opponents someone could easily have the Ace of Clubs. Someone else may also have a Seven so his equity gets cut in half if a Six shows up. Like Roy Cooke, I would just check the flop and not bet but for entirely different reasons. I don't want to spend 2,3, or 4 bets to see the turn but rather I want to minimize my cost to take a card off. As an aside, my King over card is not worth much in the face of six opponents, two of whom raised and re-raised before the flop.
With regard to Ben's play, if he has AK then betting the flop is bad poker with no pair, no draw, no hand, and six opponents especially when faced with a flop that has both three parts to straight and a two flush. It is especially bad when the daily grinder, who raised pre-flop, is yet to act. What do you guys think?
With regard to Roy driving out AK, let us do a little math. Assume that Ben has either AA,KK, or AK. Given that Roy has a King, there 6 ways he can have AA, 3 ways he can have KK, and 12 ways he can have AK. Therefore, we will assume that Ben will have AK 57% of the time. What is the probability of a King showing up on the turn or the river? There are 45 unknown cards between Ben's hand, Roy's hand, and the flop. Only two of them are Kings. This works out to about 9%. However, this figure has to be decremented by the likelihood that a Club flush is made along with a King since than having a pair of Kings is irrelevant. The probability of both a King and Club showing up on the turn and/or the river is about 2%. Therefore, the 9% gets reduced to 7%. Overall then the probability of driving out specifically AK and subsequently getting a pair of Kings without making a Clubs flush is about 4% (7% x 57%). There will then be a significant percentage of the time where a pair of Kings will not hold up as the best hand. An Ace could show up, the daily grinder could turn or river two pair or a set as well as the other guy who is calling. I think the 4% number needs to be reduced by at least 1% to account for this. So really a better figure is 3% not 6% as the added value of driving out AK if AK is what Ben has. The ultimate pot size was around $1100 subtracting out what it costs Roy from that point on so 3% of $1100 is about $30. Roy's play is worth about $30 which is what it costs him to raise. The problem is that Ben is not the only player Roy has to worry about and the daily grinder may then re-raise costing Roy another $30. My conclusion is that the value of Roy's raise in terms of added equity by making a pair of Kings and having it hold up is probably not worth the cost of his raise and the risk of a re-raise. What does everyone else think?
While Roy Cooke makes a decent point now and then, the bulk of his columns leave me shaking my head. This is a good example of a 'results oriented' Cooke column. Roy makes a odd (sometimes ridiculous) play AND wins the pot resulting in not just the huge pile of chips in the center but his next article as well.
This play, along with many others, is founded on shaky assumptions and an overly optomistic analysis of the situation. I predict more of the same in the future.
Lastly, if you catch me 3-betting from early position pre-flop after limping in I won't have AK, not a chance in the world.
Well sometimes I think Cooke offers decent, practical advice and I like the fact that he usually gives you a real-life example. But there's no doubt he is result-oriented; the fact that it worked doesn't make it correct or smart. You can't put a decent player on AK there. I don't like anything about that 3-bet. You aren't going to knock out a king -- the first guy doesn't have AK and the raiser, if he has a king, has two. And he ain't folding. It does make it hard for anyone to put you on the flush draw, but I think it looks like a bad trade to me.
Mr. Brier, the depth of your poker knowledge scares me.
Anyway, another great "problem" post.
Several comments:
1. I agree that limp reraising with AK in a multiway pot is not usually a good idea. If that is what Ben had, I don't think it was a good move. He can make a much better case for his reraise if his AK was suited. Perhaps it was.
2. I agree that his bet on the flop with AK on this board is somewhat suicidal particularly if his intention was to fold if it came back to him 3 or more bets. Why not check? Maybe there will be no raise and he can peel one off cheap.
3. I like Roy's hand on the flop more than you seem to. Roy is first to act. At this point, nothing has happened to indicate to him that another flush draw is out there let alone the nut flush draw. Flush over flush is pretty rare in my experience (although of late I have been seeing a lot of them...kinda freakish). Roy's gutshot draw *does* add value to his hand precisely because it is a gutshot. If there is any substantial action on the flop or turn, other hands holding a 7 probably will not be able to stand the heat and will drop. Roy's 7 would be of less value to him if the flop was 654 for example rather than the 854 that it was. That is to say, it is more likely that Roy will be splitting the flop if he makes a straight on a 654 flop rather than a 854 flop.
4. I like Roy's check essentially for the reason he gives. With his hand, I would *want* to spend 2 or 3 bets on the flop *Provided* that I have lots of company. Of course, the concern for a nut flush draw being out there increases as the number of players surviving the flop increases. So, there is a little bad thrown in with the good there. In any event, the key reason why Roy should not bet the flop is that both preflop raisers are to his immediate left. Chances are good that one of them is going to smoke him and this will reduce the field. Roy does not want to do that. I would check with the intention of raising so long as the original bettor got several calls. Of course, even here, a raise may be counterproductive if the original bettor 3 bets it and all the passive callers then fold. If one has a good feel for the pulse of the game, one should be able to make an educated guess as to the likelihood of this happening. If it is high, a raise would not be recommended.
5. I disagree with Roy's rationale for reraising because I would not put Ben ( who supposedly has great card sense) on AK based on the way Ben played his hand so far. However, if Roy somehow knew that Ben indeed had AK, then his reraise is correct (I believe).
Gotta go. I might add to this later. Again, thanks for the great post.
Roy may have improperly phrased his analysis (or, perhaps, his analysis was flawed). Either way, I think his discussion about the K is designed to show the reader all the other good things that can happen if he reraises here. First, he could get an AK to muck; that's good. But also, he could catch a 7, which would be second pair and might be enough to take it down. If the grinder is playing something like an AQd, he could lead bet the turn if a blank falls and take it there.
Or a number of other things could happen. I wasn't there (obviously), so I can't comment on all of the possibilities, but if the cold caller was weak and the grinder was a fairly predictable player, Roy has very little to lose by beating on his opponents here and trying to outplay them on later betting rounds. Further, he probably has the best draw right now with 12 outs, so raising can't be all that bad of an idea from a pure EV standpoint.
Another thing. If the 'grinder' is the kind of player that I think he is, then he probably doesn't do as much value betting on the river as he should. Hence, if he fires quickly on the river, that's often an indication that he's bluffing. Roy could then bluff check/raise and take down the pot, particularly if an 8 or something drops on the river.
The reason that draws (and redraws) are so valuable in Hold 'em is that they give you a chance to play a hand in such a way that convinces your opponents that your hand is stronger than it really is. For example, a player can only expect an AKs to make about 5% more hands than its unsuited counterpart. However, since you'll often flop AT LEAST a nut flush redraw with a suited slick, the AKs can be played much stronger on the flop (and often the turn, if you do pick up the draw) tha the offsuit variety. As a result, it's a much stronger holding. Not because it makes that many more hands, but because it can be played differently.
While I didn't read Roy's article, I imagine that this was probably the 'sup point' of the piece- that a draw isn't always valuable for what it can catch, but for the hand it can represent.
For the umpteenth time. If an extra bet on the flop may in fact increase your chances of winning a big pot, you are wasting a lot of poker talent trying to decide when the play is not quite worth it. This is especially true because even when it isn't quite worth it, the play might make you money in the future. We are not grading thesis here. We are trying to make you guys money. Don't you guys like money? To make money in bigger games you need to be able to read hands, read thoughts, get people to play badly against you, know when to bluff and call possible bluffs, and know when to raise on fourth st. in holdem or fifth st. in stud. Mathematical fundamentals are of course at least as important but only make you money in smaller games where others don't follow them. I will have more to say on this shortly. For now please stop worrying about saving tiny fractions of small bets except as an intellectual exercise. ( I do agree that Roy's reasoning seems flawed)
But David, I think there is more than just hair-splitting going on here. People like Mark Glover read these columns, and he cited this particular column in one of his posts in his criticism of HPAFP, and state that this is a good example of throwing in an extra bet to increase your chances of winning a large pot. So what happens is that aspiring players read this stuff and then go out and start making a lot of unsound bets and raises in these situations. It may be that in any particular case we are dealing with fractions of a bet but then we create an opportunity for someone else to raise thereby adding to our cost. I believe that over the course of a year these unsound bets and raises add up to a significant amount of money because they occur frequently.
They only occur frequently if you play too many hands. Last night I was trying to remember the last time I flopped a big flush draw in the blind w/ heavy pre-flop action, and I think it must have been around September.
Each situation needs to be weighed against itself. If a bunch of players go out there and start swinging because 'Sklansky told 'em to' then this can be neither S&M's nor Roy Cooke's fault. All a writer is obligated to do is present accurate information; if a player misinterprets that information it can't be the writer's fault.
You make a good point GD. But I have seen a lot of posts by players on this forum who put in raises against a large field because they are trying to target a specific individual and a specific hand he may or may not have. I see this with flush draws, straight draws, bottom pairs, and middle pairs on the theory that maybe some guy will fold who could have beaten you. I think Roy Cooke is a great player and I am a big fan of his columns but I don't agree that his raise increases his winning chances from "45% to 51.2%" as he claims in his article.
Excellent point. You do have to pick your spots. And I agree that Roy probably hasn't bumped his chances of winning up 7%.
GD wrote: "If a bunch of players go out there and start swinging because 'Sklansky told 'em to' then this can be neither S&M's nor Roy Cooke's fault. All a writer is obligated to do is present accurate information; if a player misinterprets that information it can't be the writer's fault."
If writers present accurate information in ways that are easily misinterpreted, then the writers are partly to blame.
"Don't not fold to a preflop raise with 72o" is good advice poorly expressed.
"The point is that when a lot of bets are in the center of the table you don't worry about saving bets. You do everything possible to maximize your chance of winning." (HPFAP-1999, p. 169.) This, too, is poorly written at best.
Jim writes:
So what happens is that aspiring players read this stuff and then go out and start making a lot of unsound bets and raises in these situations.
Jim,
Three betting a field of three players - all of whom have put money in the pot - with a 13 out draw to second nuts is not an unsound raise (note: if the suited Ace falls he does get the nuts). He is making about 40% of every dollar that goes into the pot.
- Andrew
I believe the raise is unsound. First of all, Roy does not have 13 clean outs on the hand. A Six does not mean that he wins the whole pot. A Club, unless it is the Ace, does not mean he wins the pot and someone with the Ace of Clubs but not a second Club has redraws against him. A King is not necessarily an out. Roy has six other opponents who took the flop and three of them still like their hands and are willing to put money in the pot. Second, by raising Roy opens himself up to a re-raise. How much money should he put in on a draw and no hand($60,$90,$120, or $150??). Finally, Roy stated that what swayed his decision to re-raise was the possibility of driving Ben's AK and that this improved his chances by 6%. A better estimate is more like 3% which hardly makes the play worthwhile plus based on Ben's flop bet, he should not have big slick with no pair, no draw, no hand and six opponents. We also have to consider the sobering fact that someone may have a set or two pair which means there could be a lot of redraws against Roy even if a Club shows up on the turn. I don't believe he makes 40% of every dollar he puts in the pot.
the 6% (or 3%) was what prevented him for going for ben's over call. if ben would call his raise, he had a value raise.
scott
Great thread and sorry to drop in here so late, but I wanted to return to a point David made earlier and point out what I think is a mistake in your approach.
When Roy is contemplating his check re-raise on the flop, he can end up against either 2 or 3 opponents. Accordingly, as long as he has a more than 1/3 chance of winning the pot, any amount of money he puts into the pot will generate a positive return. Accordingly, he shouldn't be so much worried about whether he's a 50% or 40% winner, but whether he's at least a 25-33% winner.
Second, even if the raise "fails" if Ben calls, it will still be correct as long as Roy has more than a 25% chance of winning. In fact, this could be one of those poker situations where the failure of a ploy undermines the premises on which it was based, leading to new premises which make the same play even more correct. My point here is that number of players and the strength os his hand gives Roy a substantial amount of insurance. This is what I think Roy meant when he characterized the effect of the raise as "neutral" even if Ben had AA. No downside, potential upside.
But let's revisit the potential high end of probability. If Roy is right about Ben probably having AK (I presume Roy means AKs in this case), Roy has 14 reasonably identifiable outs. If they're all good, this makes him a 53% overdog (Roy's 51.2% number was probably taken from a table based on 47 remaining cards, but an AK being out reduces the number to 45). We should also take into account the fact that a check-raise in this position inherently increases the value of Roy's hand in ways that can't be identified, which is the point I believe David made above.
Although an extra bet incrementally makes the pot more attractive to a weak hand, that effect is significantly outweighed by the inherent devaluation of other hands in the eyes of their holders and the likelihood that they will fold as a result. This, in turn, both decreases the number of hands Roy must beat and, because it gives him more outs, increases his chance of beating them. Such generic benefits of raising are magnified here when Roy is check-reraising out of the big blind, where he is obviously looking for volume, can hold most anything and is certain to be called in several places.
Perhaps, for example, the ace of clubs folds, or everyone checks to Roy on the turn and his bet drives out everything except a straight draw, or a pocket pair that won't call on the river when an overcard lands, or perhaps pairing his small card will now let him win. Perhaps only his bluffing equity has slightly increased. The only thing we know is that there is an inherent and intangible benefit to raising beyond that which can be identified by hand reading and analysis. The amount isn't huge, but I think we can safely say that Roy's likely maximum probability of winning, after he raises, has gone up at least a bit and is somewhere around 55-60%. Looking at it another way, we must conclude that raising has to give Roy more outs because, in the particular instance, it might increase them but can't decrease them.
Now let's consider the long-run downside. He could be up against the nut flush draw, or a lone Ac that stays and gets lucky, or Roy could hit his flush and lose when the board pairs, or his king could be outkicked, or his straight might land him only half or none of the pot. The question is: do these possibilities (as adjusted in the half-pot case) present themselves more than half the time? I can't see how and therefore concur with the raise.
A note on Roy's AK supposition. I also can't see a solid player making it 3-bets with AKo (out of position into a field of seven), but I can certainly see it with AKs, as skp suggested. Players often limp raise with AKs to make a multiway pot bigger or to help camouflage their limp-raises with big pairs.
Excellent reply Chris! In re-reading Cooke's article he actually considered a lot of factors in deciding whether or not to raise and I just singled out of them for attack. As you point out there are other intangibles. It is still not a play I would make.
Jim wrote: "People like Mark Glover read these columns, and he cited this particular column in one of his posts in his criticism of HPAFP, and state that this is a good example of throwing in an extra bet to increase your chances of winning a large pot."
Mark Glover has stressed the need for players to weigh all the important factors before deciding whether it is preferable to bet or check the flop. He has expressed great reluctance to operate on auto-pilot and have "standard plays" in these situations. He has criticized HPFAP-1999 (pp. 168-169) for suggesting that it is "almost mandatory to bet" in certain scenarios, for suggesting that if "you are going to call anyway, you have to bet it," and for stating: "The point is that when a lot of bets are in the center of the table you don't worry about saving bets. You do everything possible to maximize your chance of winning." Mark Glover has expressed the opinion (and supported it with theory) that checking (or calling) usually will be better than betting (or raising) when pots are large.
Jim wrote: "It may be that in any particular case we are dealing with fractions of a bet but then we create an opportunity for someone else to raise thereby adding to our cost. I believe that over the course of a year these unsound bets and raises add up to a significant amount of money because they occur frequently."
Mark Glover agrees.
"This is just another example of a results oriented column". No kidding. I have never played against this man but look forward to doing so. I remember an article called "Sucking out on the Cis" meaning Cissy Bottoms, who is one of the best limit players anywhere. He had AKh and the Cissy had pocket 9's. The flop came 239 with one heart and after she led into him he raised and then re-raised her raise trying to shut out a player in between them. That sounds pretty ridiculous to drive out players while your drawing to a runner-runner! I hope this guy plays better then the stories or maybe that's why he can't make a living playing poker and has to instead sell real-estate to afford to play poker... Oh and yes for those results oriented people out there he made runner runner hearts and took down a huge pot.Well, I guess it was the right play then huh COOKIE?!@$
Furious
Well Sklansky, I blame you for all this Math stuff. For some reason some people don't understand that you are a Poker Player that happens to be good at Math and not visa versa as you would have them believe. Consequently we have to wade through responses filled with % signs. An obvious attempt to win favor with the mighty David. Say it again "Play Poker". Now put that in your calculator and raise it!
Vince.
David wrote: "For the umpteenth time. If an extra bet on the flop may in fact increase your chances of winning a big pot, you are wasting a lot of poker talent trying to decide when the play is not quite worth it."
Any extra bet on the flop might increase your chances of winning a big pot, if for no other reason than it theoretically could cause everyone else to fold. The question isn't whether betting increases your chances of winning. The question is how much it increases your chances of winning and whether the benefits exceed the costs (or come close enough to make it not worth worrying about).
Certainly David isn't advocating betting (or raising) on the flop in big pots regardless of your holdings. If this was correct strategy, then why aren't all big pots always capped on the flop, at least when two strong players are still involved?
David wrote: "For now please stop worrying about saving tiny fractions of small bets except as an intellectual exercise."
If we knew when checking only saved a tiny fraction of a small bet, then we might not worry very much about whether we should check or bet in those situations. The question, of course, is how do we determine when checking only saves a tiny fraction of a bet and when checking saves a significant amount of money?
Let's take an example. You have Ts9s and the flop comes Ad7c6h. Let's assume David and Mason are correct and that "it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position" and the "pot is pretty big." (HPFAP-1999, p. 168.)
What constitutes a "pretty big" pot? A dozen small bets? Ten? Eight? Six? If there are only four small bets in the pot, then should we start worrying about whether it is preferable to bet or check the flop?
Suppose the flop came AdJc7h, leaving us facing two overcards? Now should we worry about saving bets?
Suppose the flop came AdQc8h, leaving us to face two overcards with a non-nut inside straight draw? Can we worry about saving bets now?
Suppose the flop came Ad7d6h, possibly giving an opponent a four-flush draw and causing us to be less than thrilled if the 8d completes our gutshot draw? Is it worth worrying?
What about AdJd7h? AdQd8h? Ad7d6d? AdJd7d? AdQd8d? Should any of these flops cause us to pause and think about what our best course of action might be?
What about Ad6h5c or AdKh5c, giving us a runner-runner gutshot draw? What about Ad6h4c, giving us no straight draw? Ad6d4c? Ad6d4d?
Where to draw the line between betting and checking the flop might be obvious to players like David. It's not so apparent to some of us. That's why we discuss these issues on this forum, despite David's admonitions.
David wrote: "I will have more to say on this shortly."
It should be interesting reading.
I've said this before, but it is worth repeating.
While most of us would welcome David's participation in this discussion, he certainly is under no obligation to share his insights. But when he attempts to suppress the exchange of knowledge concerning this issue, I believe he does a disservice to this forum's participants . . . at least to those participants who are interested in something more than one-size-fits-all "cookbook" poker.
I really like Roy's reraise on the flop here. If he knocks Ben out. Great. If he does not that means that Ben called and most likely the other two called that 1 extra bet which gives him 3 to 1. I don't see how Roy can loose here. Also if he decides to check the turn it might get checked around because they might think he is trying for a checkraise.
And when a club falls how likely is it that Roy will get paid off? If you're checking and calling Roy's $30-60 opponents are likely to read Roy for the club flush and not pay him off. I believe you have to factor this into your calculations. Also an Ac will give Roy the nut flush. One last thing, if a fold by Ben means that you can absolutely put him on AK, the chances of an Ace hitting the board have been reduced as well. Apologies if others made these points and I was being redundant.
Your point about Ben folding an AK if he has one and thereby reducing the chances of an Ace showing up is a good one that I had not thought of.
With regard to Roy getting paid off, I think when the pot grows to around a grand someone will usually find a call for $60.
Jim in this case he got two calls on the turn and river. I'm not so sure he gets all of this action if he played his hand passively on the flop.
some thoughts. i am sorry, that there are no paragraphs, rick. i don't always think in paragraphs.
i think the limp reraise with AKo is an ok variance play, but is a losing play in isolation. i like his hand on the flop a lot. the preflop action should have make two pair (and a set from all but the last 2 cold callers) extremely unlikely. also, the flopped straight is very unlikely, except perhaps from the last cold caller, and, even if it's out there, we have 9 flush outs for a win plus 2 6's for a tie. and if the straight is not out there, he doesn't really have to worry about the straight draws. the inevitable flop action will shut out the gutshot draws. and noone has 23s. his straight is good if it comes. i like his hand a lot. i agree that ben's with AKo bet is a bad idea, unless he has the Ac. then he knows noone else does and i would often bet it. from his point of view lots of good can happen if he bets. so the 1st preflop raiser raises ben's flop bet with his pair. i put him on 9's-Q's, because he called the preflop reraise, but did not cap. one cold caller. we don't know which one. if it is one of the first 2, then i would put him on JT or J9 or 9T (maybe also with the flush draws, but wouldn't he reraise?) or maybe two overcards (AQ, AJ, QJ) with the flush draw. but if we can count on ben to have the Ac (if he has AK) then we don't have to be too worried about the higher flush draw in the cold caller. but if it the last cold caller, he may be slowplaying a set or a straight. or he may be drawing with one of the hands that the earlier cold caller might have had. but now that getting ben's AK to fold (if he has it) also gets the Ac redraw out, i think it is a good move. and if he reraises with AA or KK, we are still getting good money for our draw. good reraise. but more complicated than the article makes it seem. at least, that's my take.
scott
Excellent points!
"he doesn't have to worry about the straight draws, the inevitable flop action will shut out the gutshot draws"
Yes, and I had not thought of this. Perhaps if someone has a Seven as part of some other holding that gives them a reason for hanging around, but clearly you are right that no sane person with just a gutshot would be there on the turn or river.
"i put him on 99s-QQs"
Yes, I think the daily grinder probably has one of these hands.
Like you say it is more complicated than the article makes it seem. Perhaps these cold-callers also have flush draws which reduces Roy's outs. I don't think Ben should bet big slick on the flop even if his Ace is the Ace of Clubs since all he has in runner-runner Clubs. Again, this reduces Roy's chances of making his flush.
first of all, he can't do anything about the cold caller who might be on the under flush draw. if he has it, then we lose 2 outs but gain some action. and it not, well ok. second of all, unless there are so many flush cards out that odds at the flush are so unlikely that he would not raise if he knew every one would call, he should raise. if the AK (or some other hand that ben may have) calls, great. the value raise worked. otherwise, we gain 2 outs. win, win. the raise is good. the only way this is a losing play is if AQc or AJc is in the cold caller's hand. i would take that chance. note that if the K is a dead out for you disregarding ben, it is less likely that ben has a AK and more likely he has AA.
scott
scott writes:
i think the limp reraise with AKo is an ok variance play, but is a losing play in isolation.
In a tight game where there is a distinct possibility of taking the blinds, a limp-reraise is almost alwyas the BEST play when opening with AKs from early position. It is OFTEN the best play with AKo in an aggressive game. Note, if Ben had AKo he got what he wanted, the next player raised.
Beyond that my analysis agrees with your analysis of the analysis of the analysis.
- Andrew
How can re-raising after six opponents call the first raise ever be right with big slick? You won't eliminate players unless the original raiser agrees to make it 4 bets thereby forcing everyone else to call two more bets cold. Furthemore, if the raiser is raising on AA,KK,AK,AQ, AJ suited, or even KQ suited your hand is crippled when playing against six other players since the raiser has cards you need to improve. I can understand doing this with AA or KK because these hands have immediate value and can occasionally win a multi-way pot unimproved. But big slick needs help to win a pot.
As you know from my original post, I agree with you. However, what about AK suited?
I still don't like it but the suited value with a lot of opponents makes the re-raise far less objectionable.
Jim writes:
How can re-raising after six opponents call the first raise ever be right with big slick?
That's an easy one. Because you'll win more than one in seven times.
Unless you know that the raiser is so tight that he will ONLY reraise *you* with AA/KK, then it's a pure value raise. If the next player to enter the pot had four bet the pot, then I think calling - not five betting - is prudent.
- Andrew
But Andrew you will only flop top pair about 30% of the time with big slick normally. You then have to go on and win the hand from there and in this case against six opponents. But if you factor in the probability that a pre-flop raiser has an Ace or a King not only do your chances of flopping top pair go down you are in some danger of developing an expensive second best hand either because you are dominated (although unlikely) or your chances of improving beyond the flop have been seriously reduced. Keep in mind that anyone with a pocket pair has a better hand than you do and you need an Ace or a King to flop.
I think big slick is a strong hand I always play it aggressively pre-flop against limpers regardless of my position. I raise not only for value but to put pressure on the remaining players if they choose to play. But when someone voluntarily raises under circumstances that indicate they should have a real raising hand, big slick loses value. I will call a raise with it but not re-raise a legitimate raising hand. It is especially bad here because my raise loses a lot of value when I cannot eliminate any players.
It is not clear to me that my chances of winning are more than one in seven in these circumstances.
Jim,
I'm confused. Are you saying that you won't win more than 1/7 of the pots? I don't advocate strange analyses - just ask scott - but I'll give you something to chew on.
Let's say you ONLY stick around when at least one Ace or a King falls on the flop, when we flop a flush draw, or when we flop a straight draw or straight.
You will flop at *least* one A/K 32.5% of the time. You will flop a straight .33% of the time. You will flop a flush draw 2.24% of the time. You will flop a straight draw about 3.43% of the time.
So you will flop favorably about 38.5% of the time. To win more than your fair share you only need to win 37% of those flops.
I'll let you decide whether you think that is "unreasonable" or not.
Besides, if AKo doesn't win more than it's fair share here, what hand does?
- Andrew
Andy's thinking is very correct. With seven people in the pot, reraising cannot be a mistake with most of your strongest hands, including AK. Even if against a better hand, your mistake will be covered by other players' monnies. You will win often enough to make a profit in the long run of similar situations. However, the better hands you are against (let's say QQ or JJ) will win even more.
AK will win more than 1/7 of the pots seven-way and is therefore happy to see any additional money going into the pot. Deception is useless in monster pots like this.
In family pots, preflop jamming can be profitably done with second best hands. Reraise liberally (but not carelessly) in multi-multiway pots with hands that figure to win more than fair share (suited connectors, big pairs, big suited aces, AK and AQ).
Of course, in big pots like this, postflop hold'em becomes kinda crapshoot. If your bankroll is high enough, there's nothing wrong with this, you have put your money in when having the best of it.
The key concept to remember is as follows:
When there is lots of fish in, you can profit with a second best hand. You do *not* fear the better hand and you certainly don't have to back off. The fish will feed you both.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
Andy, you and Izmet may be correct. I want to think about this and post this as a special problem later. Thanks for your input.
Count me in as well.
I too want to think about it for a bit. Prock and Fekali may well have corrected the error of my ways. Thanks guys.
I'm short on time, but maybe I can follow up later. I just wanted to say that I don't buy the argument in favor of routine limp-reraising with AKo (and certainly not with many of the lesser hands for which the tactic is often suggested). To the best of my knowledge, no top hold'em players make routine use of the limp reraise. Certainly in my area the number is zero. They use it as an occasional variation, rarely without AA, AKs, or a few other hands which play very well in large, multiway pots. They just about never do it with AKo. They simply open for a raise with it. [1] Now, I think there are good reasons for this. For now, I'll just throw out a few quick thoughts.
1. Why do we open for a raise with *any* hands instead of limp-reraising ? I suspect most early position raising hands are "fair share winners". But many will undoubtedly *earn* more opening for a raise. Perhaps a few do a little better with a limp-reraise in isolation. But that has implications for one's image and the profitability of one's overall play. There may be more to be gained by open-raising.
2. AKo is certainly not the worst hand one could limp-reraise with. But do you make more with it by building a bigger pot preflop, then winning it considerably less often? That has not been established. (Disregarding the limp, it's an issue as well for the simple reraise with the AKo in this hand.)
3. As a slight aside, I have seen limp-reraise advocates suggest it as a routine pay in some games with hands such as AQo and worse. There I think it likely that those hands will too frequetly be reraising better hands which have postition on them.
[1] No disrespect intended, but the only advocates of this play as a routine, integral part of one's overall preflop approach that I'm aware of are Abdul and a handful of his followers. It's hard to believe that this play has simply been overlooked by almost all top players.
>To the best of my knowledge, no top hold'em
>players make routine use of the limp reraise
The limp reraise is an invention of high-limit players. The idea was around long before Abdul started studying it. Actually, he is quick to point out this play was first suggested to him by Mason Malmuth. Abdul gets the credit for researching it thoroughly and publishing the findings.
Limp-reraise should only be done in tight games where opening with a raise will take down the blinds often and in some loose-aggressive games where you can be sure of a raise behind you.
When holding a monster preflop, you cannot be happy when the field folds to your UTG raise and the dealer pushes you those measly three chips, smiling broadly and expecting a tip for dealing shitty cards to your opponents. Happy camper you are not. It's a disaster. It's a catastrophe. It's a conspiracy and everybody is in on it.
Aces are worth about four times the blinds ($120 in a $20-40 game), they simply need some action to provide best results possible, the same goes for other top hands (TT, JJ, QQ, KK, AKs, AK), even if they are worth much less than the bullets, but still more than the value of the blinds.
There never was a talk about "routine use of the limp-reraise". In fact, limp-reraising should be viewed as an exception (appropriate for some types of games only).
>It's hard to believe that this play has simply been overlooked by
>almost all top players
Believe it.
I guess most professionals shun higher-variance plays almost religiously and are probably right to do so with their measly bankrolls. Still, when you fold against their pocket monsters, they grumble in disbelief, cursing the dealer and their unbelievable bad luck.
Remember, when the blinds start folding on you, you better start limping with the aces (and subsequently reraising, except maybe when headsup, for deception purposes) or you will be frequently left with one option only: you can shove them up your bass (this fish analogy is for 2+2 forum purposes only, on rgp I'd use a three letter word).
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
how were the ev's for particular hands figured?
also, this does not seem to be independent of the way they are played. so i don't see how the fact that raising AA in early position has an ev of 6 sb, which is far more than the blinds, has to imply that the ev of limp reraising AA in early position an ev higher than 6sb. sure you steal the blinds less, but maybe you lose the pot more often. or something unforseen happens to the post flop action. my question really is not for AA, or KK for that matter. but i don't find this line of arguing convincing for the other hands that are 'worth more than the blinds'. the reason that it seems more reasonable for AA and KK is that they are worth a good deal more blinds (whatever that means, it seems it would be true for these 2 hands.) and they are quite robust, so the number of opp and the dynamics of postflop play cannot really harm them. i will also not object to limp reraising with AKs, because it is so strong multiway. i guess QQ is ok, but i'd rather raise to limit the field and if i just won the blinds i would not be crying.
i just think the better way to take advantage of a tight table is to steal the blinds with more marginal cards. i would rather have them fear my raises than my limps. because since their odds are worse when i raise, there would be two factors inducing them to fold. i want people who fold too much to fold more. i think that limping with your best hands prompts these people to play more correctly (they will call more of your raises).
scott
scott asks:
"how were the ev's for particular hands figured?"
Turbo sims. Whether the figures are correct or not is besides the point, as EV for a particular hand is heavily game-type dependent. However, there is no doubt that S&M Group 1 hands do *not* want merely to pick up the blinds. They are worth more.
"i would rather have them fear my raises than my limps"
Not preflop in a tight game. When the opponents get conditioned to your limps, you can start open-limping UTG with hands like pocket sixes, as you will only get raised by extremely good hands. Plus, in a tight game the problem is how to get your opponents to call, NOT how to make them fold.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
one of my points was that the ev is dependent on the tactics used preflop. that is why we bother to discuss it. the question is not 'are the hands worth more than the blinds?' the question is 'does limp reraising increase the ev?' just because it steals the blinds less, and it is worth more than the blinds, does not mean that it makes more on average. AKo in early position would be a hand like that. it is a very good hand and if a some guy on the rail offered my $15 (in 20-40) i would not sell my hand to him. but i think that its ev is lower limp-reraised than open raised. i am not sure if i am right, but i am sure that it being worth more than the blinds is not sufficient to make it a good limp-reraise.
i also disagree with your second paragraph. if people fold more than they should, then i want them to fold more. i want to magnify whatever mistakes they tend to make. i see your point that limp reraising makes your opp more passive preflop, allowing you to play more hands profitably. but i don't think that makes up for the blinds that you can no longer steal regularly.
scott
whoops.
scott
scott asks:
"does limp reraising increase the ev"
It does. That's the whole point.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
i am sorry. i should have been more clear. i meant 'why does limp reraising increase the ev?' and it is insufficient to argue that the hand is 'worth more than the blinds'. becuase its 'worth' is related to the way you play it. and the way you play it can affect things besides stealing the blinds less.
scott
scott,
Here's a very weak mathematical defense of limp-reraising with AA. I'm not going to defend it, but I think it illustrates the point at some basic level.
- Andrew
i understand that you do not want to defend it. i wouldn't either. i know you are not claiming that it is an accurate description of real play. for arguments same let's look at no foldem
ok, 6 opp for 3 bets or 3 opp for 4 bets. what are the no foldem ev numbers for AKo? TT?
scott
scott,
like I said, I am lothe to defend these numbers as they are pretty much meaningless. In fact, going back and checking the numbers again, I see that they are wrong. AA makes *less* money in THIS exact situation with a limp-reraise.
If you want a better set of numbers based on something a bit more profound than nofoldem strategy check out this link.
There are dozens, if not hundreds of assumptions that go into making this chart. I'm sure more than one of them are questionable.
- Andrew
adbul's results are interesting. but they don't feel right. he does propose routine limp reraising. he only recomends limp reraising for 99 - AA and AKs. he also, says that limp calling is better than open raising for these hands, except for AKs and 99. that doesn't seem correct. in addition this game must be awful tight because it seems several marginal hands are profitable raises mostly from stealing the blinds. does he take into account people respecting your raises less once you have removed big pairs and AKs from your raising hands?
scott
scott,
Those are all questions for Abdul, not me. The game he modeled WAS tight aggressive. I think his idea was to model the game in which he played.
As far as what *seems* right, this is due to two factors. First, what *is* right depends heavily on game conditions. Second, what *is* right is often counter-intuitive to most players. This is primarily because, you'll do better if you use a *different* strategy than your opponents. The corollary is that if you all play the same strategy, you'll all equally share the cost of the rake and wind up losers all.
- Andrew
Playing Group I hands is usually quite straighforward for a sane player (compared to playing vulnerable hands correctly).
For example, aces will always be worth much more than the blinds even when played with a simple strategy: bet all the way to the river. Their "worth" is indeed related to the way you play them, as you say, but even if you stupidly waste half of their "worth" with poor play), stealing the blinds with them still remains a no-no.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I would like to echo what Izmet said by bringing "giving away" how I use the limp-reraise (LR) in a standard low-limit game.
When I *plan* on making the play, I always do it when I'm the first in. I almost *never* LR from late position when I'm first in, even if I have Aces. I do it with a variety of the quality hands for which I want callers, and which are powerful. For less powerful hands, I am more likely to limp-reraise from middle position and raise from early position when I open.
There are also hands which I will LR when enough callers end up in the hand. The other night, I limp-reraised with ATs one off the button when one of the blinds raised. In this case I had six opponents, and I felt that the late position plus the number of callers warranted a raise, especially if I could buy the button by offering him a double bet to call.
Two good things happen when you LR. First, you can get dominated hands to call. If you raise with AQo, Axo might not call figuring you for a better Ace. If you limp, they could very well call. Second, when you LR early, you get most of your profit in preflop. This is good because you'll be at a positional disadvantage for the rest of the hand, which makes it hard to extract extra bets form your opponents. When you have the best hand early, get the extra bets in early, any way you can.
That said, I do think it is over-rated, especially in a loose game where two or three players are going to call your raise.
KNOW THY OPPONENTS
- Andrew
To save writing two posts, I'll try to respond to Andrew, and to some extent to Izmet as well in this post.
Izmet's summary frames limp-reraising fairly conservatively, suggesting it's use with only a select few hands. I think this is close how Abdul looks at it, with the exception that he does it with a "balanced" mix of hands to make it harder for opps to read him. While I still think this overdoes it somewhat, I wouldn't be particularly critical of this specialized use of it, particularly in a very tight, aggressive game.
I would note, though, that the problem of not getting action, and just stealing the blinds, with big hands (AA KK…) in tight games can be addressed differently. If they all fold to your raises, start lowering your raising standards to steal the blinds with hands worth much less than the blinds. As they adjust, then revert to tighter standards and get the action on your big hands that you didn't get before.
Let me address a couple of your specific comments, Andrew:
For less powerful hands, I am more likely to limp-reraise from middle position and raise from early position when I open.
I believe this middle position LR with less powerful hands is probably counterproductive. When you're opening from a middle position with these less powerful but presumably raise-worthy hands, by limping you are giving up your chance to pick up the binds or at least buy the button. I can't prove it mathematically, but to open-limp with reasonably strong hands from middle positions is, IMO, not very fruitful. Moreover, when you do get raised in this spot it may well be by a hand that dominates yours which might have folded had you open-raised. . You are also setting yourself up to be reraised quite often by better players whenever you open for a raise in a middle position. They'll know that you limp with your better hands, so will figure you for a very marginal raising hand.
…I limp-reraised with ATs one off the button when one of the blinds raised. In this case I had six opponents, and I felt that the late position plus the number of callers warranted a raise…
Andrew, you missed your first raise! You're one off the button with a likely best hand. Raise right off the bat! Raise for value and buy the button too. Once you do limp and the blind raises, I do see value in your reraise, but maybe not the same value you see. You have a decent multiway hand that does okay in a big pot. The reraise is okay as a variation in play, and you may be able to generate some tie-on effect for those times you flop a flush draw (or otherwise make a big hand). Still, there's the problem that the raise came from a blind. Unless you know this to be a loose raiser, raises out of the blinds are quite likely to mean very big hands. Your chance of being up against a big pair or maybe something like AKs was thus a concern. It think that probably negates the reasons to reraise.
Two good things happen when you LR.
I think they're often outweighed by bad things…
First, you can get dominated hands to call.
But you can also get raised by hands that dominate *you*. Now, out of position, you make it 3 bets without knowing that they dominate you (information that you would have gotten to some extent had you raised and they 3-bet you to begin with), risking having to put in a 4th bet as well.
If you raise with AQo, Axo might not call figuring you for a better Ace. If you limp, they could very well call.
You are also letting in all sorts of other hands cheaply, without punishing them preflop unless someone does raise. Many of them will be right to call for one bet, even given your AQ.
Second, when you LR early, you get most of your profit in preflop.
Or less, when no one raises you. Actually, you may be making a case for raising rather than limp-reraising. See below.
This is good because you'll be at a positional disadvantage for the rest of the hand, which makes it hard to extract extra bets form your opponents.
I think there's something illogical here. It sounds as if in early position you know you'll be better able to extract extra bets preflop than postflop. But you're at the same positional disadvantage preflop, with the same difficulty extracting extra bets. I see no reason to believe that limp-reraising remedies this any better than, say, check-raising postflop when appropriate. In fact, by risking letting a bunch of people in for one bet you end up with a situation that's even harder to deal with out of position. When you do get to reraise, you end up with more players and a larger pot, but less clarity regarding the hand that raised you. This is a very hard to read, hard to control situation for a one pair type hand such as AKo to be in. Now, on a pure value basis with a hand like AA or KK, there may be something to be said for it in a tight aggressive game. But when you consider a hand like AKo, I think it's easy to understand why most skilled players would far prefer to open-raise.
(You've made use of the "fair share" concept. (A hand that statistically wins more than it's fair share of pots - e.g., more than one out of six in a six way pot - is worth a raise…) So as an aside I'll just mention that I find the application of that idea sometimes to be misleading. There are other equally valid concepts which can conflict with what the fair share concept may tell you to do. Overall, basing decisions too strictly on the fair share concept seems rather "bot-like", like you're a TTH player making plays automatically based on this one concept rather than weighing all variables that come into play -- how your preflop action will affect opps postflop, how it will affect your image, and much more. But that's a bit of another topic.)
Izmet mentioned that the LR is an invention of high limit players. But he also seemed to acknowledge that it is not much used by most top players. I *think* that it probably came into limited use, much as Abdul says in the post Izmet references, to get a little more action on AA and maybe KK, and as an occasional variation in play with hands like AKs (as in HPFAP). I suppose that to extend it just a little beyond this is no big deal, but I do get the impression that some folks are going considerably further with it. I still doubt that most top players have just overlooked it. I think that winning play has evolved as it has for good reasons. I suspect that were the LR truly valuable as an integral part of winning play, then winning play would have evolved to incorporate it as such. Of course there is some chance that that it could have been missed. Time will tell.
John seyz:
"Izmet's summary frames limp-reraising fairly conservatively"
True. But it has to be said I was not clear enough in my post, as by "limp-reraising" I had in mind opening with a limp in early position with the intention of reraising.
However, there are some situations where I do advocate limping and then reraising *depending on the situation*! Andy pointed out some of those and I do agree with his plays in most cases. As I mainly play in extremely loose games, building a big pot preflop is often correct against the fish.
For example, I often limp with pocket 88 UTG in loosest games. If everybody calls behind and somebody raises (this happens a lot in loosest games, as the fish love big family pots), I am quick to reraise with my pocket 88 (for win share).
I did not *plan* to limp-reraise here, mind you, but the situation was right to do it. That said, I do limp-reraise much more often than my earlier post suggested.
However, I almost never limp-reraise in late position. As John correctly points out, it's better to raise immediatelly with a hand like ATs when a few limpers enter in front. I do *not* merely call here, except when one of the blinds is extremely likely to raise it up (he's a maniac or exhibits a tell). If so, a limp-reraise is in order again.
Against the loose fish, limp-reraising depending on the number of callers behind can be done fairly liberally for profit. Pocket pairs above 77, big suited aces and suited connectors above 98s are usually a safe choice for this move if there are enough limping dupes in the pot.
However, you must expect and tolerate the swings playing like that. Big bankroll is a must when trying to extract maximum EV.
I also have to point out I'm not trying to persuade the readers to adopt these kind of plays. You will do just fine avoiding them. But you should know about them and keep them in mind.
Personally, I find them very rewarding. Apart from immediate (albeit sometimes small) EV boost, raising/reraising liberally preflop tends to produce more action and keeps the opponents guessing. They just can't expect me to have AQ/JJ or better when I pump up the volume.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
http://izmet.desetka.si
I wrote:
I limp-reraised with ATs one off the button when one of the blinds raised. In this case I had six opponents, and I felt that the late position plus the number of callers warranted a raise…
John responded:
Andrew, you missed your first raise!
Ack, probably right. One of my leaks is that I'm probably a bit TOO passive-aggressive.
That and mini-tilt.
- Andrew
my problem was not with the limp intending to reraise, but with the actual reraise.
scott
This is a question about pot odds.
For the moment, leave out implied odds. In HTH:If the pots odds give me 4-1 and my chances of drawing to a winning hand are 5-1, I should not make the bet.
If I check and my opponent bets giving me proper odds to call, should I make the call?
If I am sure that my opponent will answer a call in the first instance, should I make the first call and if so, is it due to implied odds?
Thanks for any help.
This is a very good spot to semi-bluff bet right out.
By betting your draw you might increase your chances of winning from one in six to one in four or better. With the pot odds offering you four to one, that makes it a profitable situation to bet, provided that you think there is a reasonable chance that your opponent will fold.
The previous responses make good points about the advantages of betting out which aren't directly related to your question.
It seems strange, but you should call once you're getting sufficient pot odds which include the bet made by your opponent. You should not bet without pot odds, and drawing hands usually NEVER have the odds to bet. Here's why.
In your example, the money is the same whether you bet and he calls, or he bets and you call. As noted by the previous appends, betting is frequently best when he doesn't call and folds instead. But what if he raises? Also, what if he checks behind you? A drawing hand usually gets its best odds by checking and calling or folding depending on the pot odds. You don't get raised, and you may get a free card. The exception is when there are enough callers to give your bet good odds by itself; example: 4-1 against making your hand and 5 probable callers. Here you're getting odds to bet AND raise.
DON'T presume I'm suggesting you become a calling station. The tone of this forum is VERY aggressive, and aggressive poker is the standard advice from good players.
Fat-Charlie
Thank you. The previous responses have given me thought provoking insights. But, you have answered my question on point.
Is the bet or, as you suggest betting and raising with 5 probable callers due to implied odds or have do I have a confused concept of implied odds?
As always, your response and the others engender a deeper thought process on my part.
Thanks again.
No, in the example I gave there are no implied odds. If 5 people will definitely call your bet on a 4 to 1 shot, you're getting positive expected value from the bet itself even if the pot size is 0. That's not very realistic because you seldom know all 5 players will call your bet, but it's likely in some raise situations. Suppose you're on the button and 4 players call an initial bet. It's fairly certain they'd all call a raise. Of course there's the risk of a re-raise driving some out and messing up your odds.
Implied odds usually refers to bets you expect to win later when you make your hand. For example: suppose you have AA and after the turn there are four unpaired cards with no straight or flush possible. A tight player bets who MUST have at least 2 pair and there are three callers. You're on the button, and there are now 21 big bets in the pot. An ace gives you the nuts, but the odds are 22-1 against, and the pot is only offering 21-1. Pot odds say fold; however, if you are sure several players will call the river if an ace hits, those bets mean your implied odds are 23-1 and you have a call.
Fat-Charlie
If you bet and your opponent does not call you win, so the odds don't matter at that point.
If you expect him to call or you call, then you need the odds. You need to consider the probability that he will fold to your semi-bluff if you don't have the odds. When the odds are close like in your example, a semi-bluff will almost always be right.
D.
"If I am sure that my opponent will answer a call in the first instance"
If you are 100% sure that your opponent will call and only call, and also you are sure that he will bet if you check, then odds vs. implied odds is totally meaningless. I would bet every time in this case. There has to be some chance that he will fold if a scare card comes later (even if you don't hit your draw).
Of course, I have never quite been 100% certain in such cases, maybe 99.5%, but never 100%. So there has to be some correction for error.
I was in a typical California 40-80 game. A player opened in early-middle position, and was followed by 3 other players, including a strong tricky player. I was on the button with Q-Q. Normally, I would automatically, but this time I hesitated. In the blinds were one loose player who would like to get himself involved in every big pot, and another decent player. I thought that the value of calling might outweigh raising. I'd like to hear some comments.
The particular outcome of this hand is irrelevant, but I'd like to hear pros and cons of raising vs. calling.
I'd like to hear any cons. I can't think of any, other than that of gaining deception. But that can often times work against you as well.
I'm not a con (but I play one on TV). I'm raising here every time. Screw information leakage, show me the money.
If you're in a 40-80 game, I assume you're playing fairly experienced, aggressive players, which has two immediate effects. First, since the pot is unraised, your hand is certainly the best, so a bet for value makes sense. The corrollary is that a button raise won't get much respect so your main goal of limiting the field pre-flop would be unrealized.
I would consider the aggressiveness of your opponents. With an unraised pot, someone will likely try to steal on the flop. The best case is that you're on the left of the stealer, in which case you can raise and get it heads up.
Inducing a bet on the flop that you can raise is the main reason to just call but it is not a good enough reason. You are giving up too much preflop money especially if the blinds call your raise. And if they do not call you may well have knocked out a hand that would have beaten you.
When the small blind calls with K-9o and flops a king, you will want to hang yourself for not raising.
You've got 4 in already. At least ONE of them rates to have a king. K-9o in the small blind may be more his problem.
Since you're on the button, the first 4 will always call you; you can't really limit the field. You also build a big pot preventing you from driving others out on later streets. Is QQ so favored against 4 or 5 others? Maybe you should see the flop first and then pound the pot after you've become a huge favorite.
Fat-Charlie
I probably smooth call my QQ in the sb, never on the button! With super position for the entire hand, I want to maximize every aspect of this pot. There will be plenty of warning if the flop brings trouble, and maximum opportunity for one or more opponents to make ill-advised bets if I flop big here. It helps, of course, that I have been playing somewhat looser than optimal for this session so that my raise is going to encourage participation rather than discourage it.
If I'm even playing 40-80 Hold-em, I must really be stuck like a pig from the 3-6, 6-12 and 15-30 games I've started out in. This hand might very well be my final chance of the evening to get unburied. I RAISE!!!!
"Is QQ so favored against 4 or 5 others?"
If you mean will it win more than 50% of the time, probably not. But it is still absolutely profitable to raise with it.
Looks like your going to the flop with 6 or 7 players.
I'd raise if I thought it would reduce the field - that is my goal with a big pair. Looks like a raise won't accomplish that, however, you probably have the best hand right now a raise and broadway flop maybe gets you a pot right there.
I think I raise here anyway.
You won't get arrested for gambling.
The only thing you gain by not raising here with a premium hand like this one is some deception. But when a lot of players limp in, being deceptive at this point is not cost effective. You must raise every time and collect another round of bets from everyone. The only time you should even consider being deceptive with a large pocket pair like this is when it looks like you will be heads-up. For example, suppose you have a pair of Aces on the button, a player opens with a raise under the gun, and everyone folds to you. If it looks like the blinds will fold as well, you should consider just calling the raise rather than re-raise. You have the best position and the best hand and can probably get your out-of-position opponent to bet your hand for you. This is one of the times when you win more money through deception. But when a lot of players get involved you are better just playing your hand in a straight-forward manner.
Jim,
Excellent post as usual. In the past I have not made this play (not reraising late with AA against a single early raiser) which I can see is often correct per your post. BTW, my post of a minute ago sort of repeated a lot of what you said but Wednesday is lesson night with my lurking student and I wanted attention drawn to this thread. Now I don't need lesson notes :-).
Regards,
Rick
Yan,
In late postion against several opponents, not to raise with a strong hand for "deception" or to "mix it up" is just plain wrong. There are too many hands that you could have so your raise gives nothing away. In early position your range of raising hands is much smaller so deception has some value. BTW, I think this also applies to post flop play when the lead bet comes from an early position. Your raise does not narrow down your hand much, especially when the flop contains draws.
The fact that a raise won't narrow the field (except perhaps folding a blind) is not relevant. Your hand is worth raising on value alone and to drive out the weak king or ace in the blind as others have stated.
Regards,
Rick
i have nothing new to add. but, since rick's student will be reading this, i thought i'd officially agree with jim and rick and david. and anyone else who thinks that while there are upsides to calling, the value of a raise outweighs these considerations.
scott
The Gambling Forum Archive
Hold'em
November 1999 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo