![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Just had a small pot chopped in 4-8 and I have a question about how it was done. After the river there were 4 players left and it was checked around. The first two players threw the hands in the muck and I and another player, played the board. At this point the dealer said the board played and went on to chop the pot four ways. I feel that since myself and the other player had cards and the other two did not, there should have only been a two way split. Am I correct or not?
You are correct. When a player throws his hand away he is no longer in the hand. Even if the nuts is on the table (e.g.- Ace-high straight with no flush possibility or four of a kind with an Ace) each player must have a hand to be in the pot. It is the player's individual responsibility to protect his hand and to be aware of what is going on.
ive played where they let the hands still be live but i dont like it. also some places let you say board then fold which keeps your hand live for the board. in small stakes games it may be better to allow their hands to be live as losing on misunderstanding of the rules or proceedures isnt always in the best interest of anyone. i do feel that in order to win in most cases you need to have a hand to show. once aperson who was an angle shooter threw his hand away and claimed half the pot on a board split. i complained and said he had three cards and thats why he threw them away and his hand must be dead. so it pays to have the things to say planned in advanced to give yourself a chance when the decisions are made by floor people trying to keep everyone happy rather than do the right thing.
Thanks for the info. The pot was small and I had just sat down in the game, so I did not want to state a fight about a small pot. When I get back I plan to talk to the floor to find out for sure what the rule is.
I saw a post on RGP that said that at the Taj the rule is best five card hand gets the pot, not best seven card hand. I'm glad I knew this rule; at the Taj one day, the pot was heads up on the river and checked around. The other player mucked his hand, and the dealer waited patiently for me to turn my hand (AT) up before awarding me the pot. If I played the board (by, for example, mucking), the dealer would have chopped the pot.
In Boloxi Miss. at the Grand Casino you can say i play the board and throw away your hand face down and recieve part of the pot.
You must declare you are playing the board. I once throw my hand in by accident when the board played and did not get any of the pot because i did not declare playing the board before my hand hit the muck.
Part of Morten's concern was "suckouts", occurring too frequently against the best hand on the flop. He was seeking an answer to that, (among some other issues). I believe that opponents who are "drawing", in a Holdem hand, should (rightfully) be considered an "aggregate". From that point of view, the best hand on the flop, has practically no edge, at all. Mathematically, the "edge" is there. However, it is so slight, it is diminished, over what has come to be called the "long-term" (against the aggregate).
But JJ, the fact that the best hand is an underdog against a collective on the flop does not mean that the best hand has a negative EV. When it holds up it will win a bigger pot as a result. It just won't hold up as often. Furthermore, when one of the draws arrives it is frequently obvious and the guy who had the best hand can fold and not payoff the suckout.
One solution to the problem would be to change the betting so that the big bet begins on the flop instead of on the turn. In stud, when you see 5 cards the betting limit doubles. In would be nice if hold-em were the same way since the best hand could be protected more easily.
...which would of course kill the games in the long run as the chasers will not win often enough to come back.
maybe but that is not entirely clear. Hold-em is such a great action game those chasers that went broke would just be replaced by others. Or maybe they would just step down to a lower limit, who knows? It would definitely increase a good players earn AND lower his variance.
P.S: Do you think the introduction of the doubling cube in backgammon in the 1920s hurt backgammon as a gambling game? I don't believe it did at all. In fact it made it an even better game for everyone.
Jim,
You wrote: "It would definitely increase a good players earn AND lower his variance."
Such a structure would surely reduce variance but the earn for the good player would be reduced in that the variance for the live ones would also be reduced. When the live one goes home a moderate loser almost every night he stops coming. Let him win big now and then and he will be back for the thrill of it. So IMO, variance is the good players friend and should be managed and welcomed.
"P.S: Do you think the introduction of the doubling cube in backgammon in the 1920s hurt backgammon as a gambling game? I don't believe it did at all. In fact it made it an even better game for everyone."
I agree that the cube is the key to the game. I was serious about the game through about 1981 and still keep up a bit (BTW, have you tried the latest backgammon software, which now plays world class?). Anyway, even now I think I could win about 47 out of 100 points against a world-class player. But with the cube, a world-class player would destroy me. And the backgammon action has dried up compared to back then.
Regards,
Rick
"When the live one goes home a moderate loser almost every night he stops coming."
He is "live" "individually". Chasers "collectively" make some games virtually impossible for those of you WHO ONLY PLAY AA KK QQ AKs AK. You are alright with others who sit and wait (as long as you don't hit a CARD DRAUGHT), because your opponents don't chase.
Morten's concern was valid. The chasers (collectively), DO GET THERE, frequently enough to defeat a tight player(s). Morten just didn't get around to the notion of game "types", and "textures".
Well, Rick maybe you are right. Backgammon was a national rage in the 1970's and started to die out in the 1980's. I guess people discovered that the skill factor was too high and so its popularity just died out. When I moved from Washington D.C. to Houston Texas in 1994, there was no backgammon action at all. Houston is the nation's 5th largest city and they did not even have a backgammon parlor by 1994. All the backgammon action consisted of a group of about 20 players who would meet in restaurants and bars once a week where they allowed backgammon and they called themselves the "Bayou Backgammon Club".
Nevertheless, I would still like to see the big bet implemented on the flop instead of the turn and see how things go for awhile. If it didn't work then you could always go back to the current system. But of course this will never happen.
Hello,
I am not all that familiar with Morten's Theorum or it's discussion, but I wanted to bring up a point I haven't seen addressed yet.
JJ's statement says that the best hand on the flop has no edge because of the aggregate effect of the chasers.
But what about the times that the chasers are chasing each other's cards?
There have been many, many times where I was holding top pair, top kicker and betting against three and four calling opponents. A blank hits the river and they all muck. One opponent says to me "You are lucky a spade didn't hit!" Another guy says to him "Oh, you didn't want spades - I had the nut draw." A third guy says "I guess my 36 of spades was no good."
I see the same situation happen a lot when people are drawing to gutshots - especially Broadway gutshots.
In both cases, the person holding the best hand on the flop has the edge over the chasers.
Does Morten's Theorum hold water?
Excellent point Dan. Frankly, I don't believe Morton's Theorem has much application in hold-em.
You have sited an instance, where the draw hands missed the hands they were drawing to. They could have had the correct pot odds. "Missing", did not make the draws wrong. Part of Morton's concern, was chasers "calling incorrectly", who actually had the pot odds, to draw. Morton was responding to (S&M)theory that when your opponent calls incorrectly, "you" profit. Morton was concerned about the numerous times your opponent calls "incorrectly", has the pot odds, and makes the hand, he is drawing to. He was concerned that the chasers seem to "get there", more frequently than "theory" would suggest. Therefore, it would not be necessarily true, that they were calling "incorrectly".
It's Morton, not Morten. The motivation for the "theorem" came from when he and I (and a couple others) were discussing poker strategy. Andy Morton was saying for some particular hand we were discussing that we should try to keep all our opponents in on the turn because some would be making a fundamental theorem mistake to call against our hypothetical best hand. I said no, the fundamental theorem often breaks down in these kinds of situations and you would often like one or more players to fold correctly, as my intuition hinted was the case here. He then worked out an example mathematically and the rest is history.
-Abdul
Thanks Abdul,
I had used the spelling that started the thread without looking into it further.
dc
a few months ago, i have discovered something about multiway pots that can be considered an extension of morton's theorem. i was going to write an essay about it but i am just too lazy. so i will just try to briefly explain it here.
let's say you flop top pair top kicker on a two suited board without any straight draws. you have an opponent in a multiway pot who has the flush draw, but not with overcards or anything else. you have another opponent who has the nut runner runner one card flush draw. (note his over card is not an out because it gives you two pair.) how big does the pot have to be for you to want the opponent to fold his A of trump? how big does the pot have to be for the flush draw to want him to fold the A of trump?
the answers are extremely, even ridiculously, big and a lot smaller than you'd think. notice that here the slim draw's call will often hurt the strong draw and help the current best hand.
the reason for this that player #3 making his back door flush to beat player #1 is not independent of player #2 making his flush draw to beat player #1.
this idea, the same principle that is behind morton's theorem, can be the foundation of a beautiful little result about multiway pots. i thought of it so i get to name it. so without further ado, i present the "krazy kool konundrum killer":
you profit from an opponent's call when his pot odds are less than the odds against you coming in second to him in a showdown. you lose from such a call when his pot odds are greater.
to john -- i am pretty sure you understand what i meant in those emails, so please help me answer anyone's questions. you can communicate poker better than i.
to rick -- are you happy? i have a couple other original ideas that were going to become essays (and, who knows, they still might) that may be soon appearing at a forum near you.
scott
'you profit from an opponent's call when his pot odds are less than the odds against you coming in second to him in a showdown. you lose from such a call when his pot odds are greater. '
This is not really true. It is most definitely possible to profit from someone's call when they have pot odds for that call.
IE you have AK of spades. Opponent has JT of hearts.
On the turn board is Ah 7h 2c.
There are 10BB in the pot.
You both turn your hands face up before betting on the turn. You each know what the other has. You are correct to bet, and your opponent is correct to call.
You both make money on this play, so it seems. Huh? The answer lies in the fact that if you CHECKED, you make LESS money than you would by betting. Also your opponent makes more money when you let him draw for free. So, top pair LOSES money by checking. It GAINS money when the draw calls.
What you would really like would be for the flush draw to fold to your bet. He would be making a mistake and would cost himself money.
-SmoothB-
i am saying nothing yet about whether i am correct to bet. and my whole point is that i don't care if he is correct to call.
my statement was correct. heads up, it simplifies to david's theorem because his winning the pot becomes identically equivalent to his my being second to him at showdown. so his being correct to call is exactly the same as my wanting a fold when the pot is heads up. but this is not true in multiway pots.
scott
I guess I am having trouble understanding the point. Sorry.
-SB-
now that might be a valid complaint. and it is the same argument that is often waged against david's and morton's theorems.
neither these results nor mine directly dictates correct play. they are just increasingly accurate theorectical conceptions of the game.
one way the example in my original post might be raising a bet from your right with a low flush draw to knock out one card flush redraws. getting these hands out helps the flush draw when the pot size is only, say, 12 sb. there are, of course, several other factors to consider during actual play that may push correct strategy one way or another. but i think it helps to better understand ideal situations.
scott
"...raising a bet from your right with a low flush draw to knock out one card flush redraws. getting these hands out helps the flush draw when the pot size is only, say, 12 sb."
I think this kind of observation is the most striking feature of what scott has found here. I think most players would probably assume they want the backdoor draw calling with pots in this range. They might assume the pot would have to be over 20 sb for them to want a fold from the backdoor draw.
So this points to the potential value of raising to drive out such a draw on the flop, rather than just calling, as the "traditional" approach would suggest ("Just call; you don't want to driver out the other players when you're tryinhg to make such a draw...")
Now scott, I think you ought to repost that thing about evaluating your opponent's likelyhood of bluffing, the pot odds you need in order to call to pick off a bluff, etc. I think it flew past everyone the first time around about six months ago. But it was a cool observation.
yes. that's it. let's get the name into common usage. i will accept 4k but not kkkk as an abbreviation.
another interesting result that comes quickly from this simple example is that, stated in the language of morton's theorem, there sometimes exists pot sizes where an incorrect call can cause the best draw to lose money.
this, i think, highlights an interesting symmetry in poker. there is no fundamental difference between a hand and a draw. a hand is a draw to a "blank." theory, as it shuold, applies equally to all hands.
i'll put that bluff thing up, but i think you could probably explain this, that, or any other poker idea of mine better.
scott
Hand #1-top pair on the flop, leading hand. Will win if no flush comes.
Hand #2-four flush on the flop hand. Will win if hits flush and no redraw.
Hand #3-runner runner nut flush, will win if hits.
If each could see each others cards on the flop, hand #1 would not be happy to see hand #2 call, but would be very happy indeed to see hand #3 call. He benefits from hand #3's call, based on the fundamental theory of poker, regardless of pot size.
Hand #3, seeing the other two hands, is not happy of course with hand #1. It makes his call incorrect. But seeing hand #2 doesn't bother him at all. He basques in the irony of it all.
Hand #2 sees hand #1 and knows his correct odds to call, so given he has it most of the time, he is none too worried. Seeing hand #3 is a cause for concern however. Why? Because hi#3s incorrect call benefits hand #1, not him. Also, on the turn, on those occassions where hand #2 makes his draw he becomes the leading hand, enjoying the fruit of incorrect calls. But unfortunately, by then, hand #3 usually has the odds to call, thus there is no incorrect call from hand #3 to benefit from. Only on those occasions where hand #3 still doesn't have the odds to call on the turn, is hand #2 happy. Fundamental theory makes him so.
Now what is hand #2 to do? Facing a bet from hand #1, he could raise, but since he can see his cards, he knows this is a mistake in relation to hand #1. He may also face a reraise. Hand #3 may STILL call, boldly defying logic. So these situations are not good for hand #2, any of them. But thats what you get for not being a nut draw.
The conclusion is this hand #2 must weigh these options, using fundamental theory and common sense and pot odds, and come to a decision. May the poker Gods smile on him.
So in a more general sense, whenever you are the leading hand (as a favorite), you benefit from incorrect action. You "lose" to correct action. This is true for drawing hands that become leading hands on the turn as well. This applies to most situations, although there are exceptions.
You state in your post that hand #1 wants hand #3 to call, regardless of pot size. This is not true. I believe with corrected odds figured in, he loses if player #3 has about 23-1 odds. Might be more than that or less, but there is certainly a point when player #1 would rather player #3 folds.
i should have explained better. it was taken from scotts original post where the two draws were the same flush draw. they are not independant. the runner runner flush cannot win unless the first draw already has hand #1 hopelessly beat. in this case it is true, correct? this is one of the reasons why this case is different from many others.
any way, you make a good point nonetheless as it illustrates the situation.
scott
I’ve read your original post a few less times than backdoor and sort of get it, more or less. I do think you need to come up with a catchier name for your “konundrum”.
Anyway, you wrote: “one way the example in my original post might be raising a bet from your right with a low flush draw to knock out one card flush redraws. getting these hands out helps the flush draw when the pot size is only, say, 12 sb. there are, of course, several other factors to consider during actual play that may push correct strategy one way or another. but i think it helps to better understand ideal situations.”
I can’t see a practical application of this play. When would you know that you are against a one card backdoor flush draw on your left if you held the flush draw and were acting after the lead bettor? I would think the answer is almost never and the “several other factors” you mention should be the ones guiding your play.
I’m looking forward to your soon to be published essays but I hope you can work in some practical examples of applying the theoretical to combat at the tables.
BTW (per your post way above), other than living under conditions of extreme emotional stress and personal turmoil, I am very happy these days. But staying happy requires considerable effort on my part; however, I feel that we all have a moral obligation to be as happy as possible. But I’m not sure they teach this kind of outlook in college ;-).
Regards,
Rick
as far as the name goes, i like alliteration and rhyming but most importantly do not want my name attached to it. maybe i can call it rick's most general theory of poker. do you mind?
as far as using 4k (aka rick's most general theory of poker) goes, it's just like anything else. we never know anything during a hand. it is all probablities.
there are lots of other reasons why you might raise with a flush draw anyway. winning without a showdown, getting a free card, etc. there are lots of reasons why you would only want to call. win more when you win, lose less when you lose, etc.
all i am saying is that one more consideration is inducing someone behind you to fold their backdoor draw.
of course we don't know they have it, but we can figure that a certain percentage do. and we can work from there. also, notice that if this guy has a 5-outer that is profitable for one bet but not two, and he plays correctly, then both you and the bettor can gain by your raise. his extra outs do not concern you, except the highly unlikely runner runner full.
all that said, i think glancing at your cards after a 2 suited flop is a decent tell for having the high one card flush draw. maybe something else too, but that doesn't usually matter.
i am glad you are happy. i suppose turmoil doesn't resolve itself very quickly. i just hope there is no new emotional stress. i don't think we learn much moral responsibilty in college. but we do learn a bit about happiness.
scott
scott,
I've read your post about thirteen times so forgive me if I have misread it.
In the case described the leading hand clearly benefits from the flop action as it will win 2/3 of the time. True difficulties arise for the leading hand when in fact, the draws themselves benefit from the action, not the leading hand. This is normally the case in true Morten situations. This drains some of the leading hands value. In the case of a flush draw, it needs more than two callers to benefit from the flop action. In this type of case, the leading hand benefits, paid mainly by the secondary draw. But the secondary draw pays the bulk of this, not the main draw. Clearly the main flush draw doesn't like the presence of a bigger redraw, but this would be also true if the leading hand were, say , two pair, and outdrew it on the river. None of this means the main flush draw or even the secondary draw are incorrect to draw as this naturally depends on the pot size.
Ok. Now what am I missing in your post? Perhaps if you reworded your idea, the lesser lights like me could get it.
By the way, the Morton theory is just an inference drawn from more fundamental theories. All this is in DS TTOP if u look hard.
Good luck and take care.
backdoor,
You wrote:
"scott,
I've read your post about thirteen times so forgive me if I have misread it."
I can't explain why, but that is one of the funniest sentences I have read in a long time.
Regards,
Rick
Dear Rick,
Yes its actually funny and true too. At first I thought I was missing something, but if you read the post , it isn't really a Morten inference, but a fundamental inference(everything stems from the underlying principles so this aint saying much). For some reason I have trouble with scott's diction and style. But a lot of people have trouble with mine too.
Anyway, all this jazz aside, good luck and take care. Ill try to make you laugh again soon.
We need to ask ourselves a question. Do the Morten concepts derive from fundamental theory? The answer to this question speaks to the validity of the concepts.
Poker begins with a struggle for the antes (or in hold'em, the blinds). As the ante increases, it becomes correct to play looser. For an excellent look at this see The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky, chap 4. Now what does this have to do with Morten? Well, if we for a moment imagine that all money presently in the pot is an extended ante, than it might correctly follow that it is correct to play looser, for example, on the flop. And it is of course. This is basic knowledge.
So it is pretty fair to say that there comes a certain range of pot sizes where it becomes correct for more and more draws to call and or bet on the flop and beyond. Now one can look at these drawing hands as a group or as individuals. Since poker is winner take all, any individual hand can look at all the other hands as an aggregate if they choose. Multi way, the strongest draws are favored by flop action, no doubt. This is simple though. They are the favorites. For example, a nut four flush draw, say four handed on the flop is usually the favorite. So the " leading hand ", the top pair top kicker hand, which is presently "winning" is not really the leading hand, now is it? Not in terms of who wins the showdown most of the time. This is the area where seeing all the drawing hands as an aggregate is a little questionable. As an aggregate, the drawing hands are often strong, but the majority of this strength comes from the strongest draws. The secondary draws, and even more so the secondary "made" hands, are often feeding the pot, the equity of which often belongs to the strong draws and, yes to that "leading hand". Remember, the "leading hand" is often a good draw on its on, especially if it is two pair or better.
There is another point to consider. Now where did all this "extended ante"( feel free to call this dead money or whatever gets you going) come from? It comes from preflop errors. This means that those pocket Aces that you are convinced are doomed against the aggregate gets a ton of its value from the preflop action. There is little doubt of this. Now there are agruments on both sides of the issue whether this preflop action is sufficient to overcome the loss these hands might endure in a Morten zone pot. In the case of AA, KK, QQ, AKs, the answer is clearcut: the preflop action is certainly sufficient to compensate this (this assumes u are getting their money in there). Other lesser premium hands are usually getting enough as well, but this does depend somewhat. The question becomes, with the lesser good preflop hands, are preflop mistakes enough to make up for the fact that many opponents will now be correct (and probably oblivious to it) in their future action.
There is a thread on RGP involving DS and another excellent poster here, Izmet Fekali. This thread deals with AQ and whether to raise it after a few limpers. It is basically a Morten question (which really is just fundamental theory question). I wont go into that here. You can find a link to it here.
Anyway, jeez, I don't have time for any more of this. The bottom line is that in games where pot size is large on and beyond the flop you should recognize that the "leading hand" is not usually the favorite at all, and in many cases is sometimes dead in the water to multiple strong draws. A simple thought process to consider is just imagine, based on the number of players and board, what kind of hand is needed to win. Usually the absolute minimum is top two pair on the end and often much more. Now top pair, in this case, is a weak drawing hand, feeding the pot for the others. For all practical purposes it doesn't really matter how we look at the opponents hands, as a group or individually. But I could be wrong.
Now does Morton hold water?
Don't ask me.
Good post. "Poker begins with a struggle for the antes (or in hold'em, the blinds). As the ante increases, it becomes correct to play looser."
Excellent point. I often forget this whole thing is about money. (Not just theories and approaches)
Yes but that idea of the struggle for the antes leads to most of the theories. You have to do some fancy footwork to get there mind you.
Money aside, its interesting to talk theory, even though all of us know it really has very little meaning in a practical profitable sense.
Good luck.
I've heard that winning a big bet per hour is pretty good. I think this means that in a $20-$40 game, for instance, you would be aiming to win $40/hr, $40 being the big bet.
Is this correct?
Thanks!
(n/t)
That's what a big bet is, but winning $40 per hour in a 20-40 game is more than just pretty good, it's excellent. The number of big bets you expect to win per hour goes down (to a fraction of a big bet) as the limit increases.
I am a $10/20 players who believes a leak in my overall play is continuing to play in games after they have become too tough. I could use a little advice as to when to leave a game. For the record after 700 hours over three years, I am currently averaging $12.00/hr and seem to fluctuate in the $8-$15/hr range.
The usual player in my game is fairly knowlegable as to hand selection and post flop play. Their weakness, as a group, is that they play someshat passively (if they three bet, they are loaded). The other types of players that I face can generally be described as: 1) skillfull and aggressive or 2) playing too loose both preflop and post flop.
A good game would consist of six tight players and three loose players. If I replace a loose player with a typical tight, but passive players, is the game still good with 2 loose players, 1 loose player, 0 loose players. Also if I replace the loose player with skillfull, aggressive players, when does it become time to "get out of Dodge".
Thanks, Calvin
If it gets raised 90% of the time pre-flop, or it is almost never checked around you are probally in a tough game and it is better to look else where.
every change needs a new evaluation. when one leaves add to your value or take away based on your perceived earn from the new person. after a while you should get pretty accurate at guessing whether you are a favorite to win what you want to make it worth continuing on in the game. i always try to leave when tired and fresh players come in even if they are not too good but the least bit aggressive.
The value of passive players depends on how you play. If you play 'no-limp' poker, passives are a gold-mine. Trading a lose player for a passive is not nearly as bad as trading a lose player for another aggressor.
If you limp along with them, trying to hit the flop, then having two lose players instead of three might be exactly the threshold you're looking for when deciding when to cash out.
Tommy
I am trying to find just the right balance of aggressiveness in my play. While most of the advice on this forum seems to be spot on with my analysis, some players advocate a hyper aggressive style of play that leans heavily toward overplaying, if you ask me.
For one thing, I VERY RARELY 3 bet the flop with top pair ace kicker. And, I can remember very very few hands where it would have been correct for me to do so. In fact, of the times I have 3-bet the flop with an overpair, I can't remember very many times when I wasn't beaten and raising with the second best hand.
I do mix up my play and raise with good draws - and even gutshots sometimes if there are enough people in and I am last to act (looking for free card).
I realize that by playing borderline hands strongly, you create more ways to profit - less respect from bets and raises in other hands, you can thin the field increasing your chances of winning, etc.
Any comments?
-SmoothB-
I believe that many players confuse aggression with grossly overplaying their hand. I have seen these "aggressive types" pound the pot with top pair as if they had the nuts and lose more money than necessary. How aggressive you get depends not just on your hand but also on the previous betting action, the texture of the board, and most importantly how many opponents you have.
the more aggressive you play the more often your opponent makes a mistake and throws away a hand with value. with passive play in a hand this does not happen. many times i misread a players hand for whatever reason and by betting or raising win a pot that i normally wouldnt. any time you misread a hand you will misplay a hand unless it works out the same by dumb luck. a passive misplay is disaster compared to misplaying from an aggressive standpoint. in most hands you are playing, you should be the one betting or raising, with calling being reserved for later on in the hands when more info has been received from the players.
Like Woody Hayes said "3 tings happen when you throw a forward pass and 2 of them are bad"
I feel the samy (in reverse) about betting and raising vs checking and calling.
Controlled aggression is the key here - an aggressive player is always a lot more difficult to handle than a passive one. I like to be as tricky and unpredictable as possible specially when playing better opponents.
Great quote, Rounder!
I had to yip in here to say that even though I'm in California now, I lived for 38 years within two miles of the Horseshoe. Not a casino, but a football stadium, where my beloved Buckeyes rule. I've been to about 70 games. My dad was a prof at OSU, and he used to play handball with Woody in the 50's and 60's.
The lingering press about Woody getting the boot after hitting that kid from Clemson is a classic case of negative journalism overpowering the public mind. Woody Hayes was a great man, by any definition of that word.
I bleeeeed Scarlet and Grey!
Tommy
There are few men who can get the most out of their charges - great men expect (demand) and get great things - to bad in this era if PC REAL men are seen as cave men.
Ask yourself how would Vince Lombardi do in todays environment????
Where will our kids get their heros from - not sports anymore - drug addicts and do anything for money mercineries is all they are anymore with a few exceptions. The last great American Baseball player from a era gone by is Pete Rose. It is a shame he is not in the hall of fame.
I could go on and on but I think you get my point.
if you really believe that winning is the ultimate end in sports thats sad. to show truely bad conduct and the attiude that anything goes as long as i win is not good for sports and thats why maybe todays youth are mixed up in the eyes of the past generation. a coach that uses violence against his own team to achieve an end only brings a bad ending to himself and his team. i dont think that is what you are advocating but it sures sounds like that.
Hold a sec here, Ray. Woody was NOTHING AT ALL like Bobby Knight.
As a Big-Ten dude, I was brainwashed into thinking that Bobby Knight was the nuts. I watched him coach several games. I was impressed by his intensity and passion.
Then when I saw his recent post-firing interview, I was downright embarrassed. I felt betrayed. He acted like an unrepentent, rude adolescent. He had a chance to make it all well with two words, "I'm sorry." At least he was honest by continuing to be an ass when everyone was watching.
Woody, on the other hand, DID say he was sorry, over and over, even though his 'violent outbreak' was an isolated event, not a pattern. I've seen Woody speak. I've read his book, "You Win With People." That man was a deep-thinker, not a criminal as the press painted him. And that's really my only beef. Woody's legacy did not deserve to be ruined (outside of Columbus Ohio) because he messed up one time.
Tommy
Tommy,
My favorite sports memory is attending the OSU/UoM football game in late Nov 1969. Bo had just taken over my beloved Wolverines at the beginning of that year, and, to virtually everyone's surprise, the Wolverines were playing the hated Buckeyes for the Big Ten championship and the Rose Bowl bid. The week prior to the game found the No. 1 ranked Bucks on the cover of Sports Illustrated, touted, I believe, as yet another Team of the Century.
Rex Kern was quoted as saying he would enjoy his New Year's Day, sitting next to a roaring fire, watching the Big Ten team playing the Pac 8 champ in the Rose Bowl. OSU had beaten USC in the previous Rose Bowl game, and, at that time, the Big Ten did not allow a team to repeat a Rose Bowl trip. Also, the Big Ten did not accept any other Bowl bid -- just the Rose Bowl. Many pages extolling the superlatives of this OSU team, crushed by the prehistoric Big Ten no-repeat rule.
And I'm sure you remember the outcome, Tommy. Michigan 24, OSU 12. Ohio State never lead in the game. Two years later, Michigan beat OSU 14-7, and Woody began his unfortunate decline by breaking the yard markers over his knee in a tirade over a Michigan interception late in the game that sealed our victory.
God, we loved to beat that man! And until he punched that kid in the Gator Bowl, I did respect him. Beating up on Cooper is just not as much fun, although it has been a lot easier......
Paul T, U of Michigan, BS 1971, MS 1972
Paul,
You sound like a friendly bloke. I am too. But since you brought back such vivid nightmares, there's really only one thing I can say . . .
BITE ME!!!!
lol
Tommy
xx
First of all I used to be an OSU fan. If you remember to year before the big upset by Michigan in 69, Ohio State was beating up on Michigan something awful in 1968 and scored a touchdown late in the game with about 1 minute left to make the score 48-whatever. Woody went for two points to make it 50. This was Bo's first year at Michigan and it was the stupidest thing that Woody ever did. Woody was a redneck rude jerk. A perfect example of a good winner-bad loser. I'll take this up on the Other Topics forum if anybody wants to.
I'm incredibly impressed that you remember/recall that 2 point conversion. I remember that Michigan was having a much better than usual (at the time) season, and we had an outside chance to going to the Rose Bowl if we beat OSU, someone beat someone else, etc. Unlikely, but you do flop quads.....
Anyway, OSU was really putting the wood to U of M, and then the two point conversion near the end of the game. I seem to remember Woody saying something like, "We did it 'cause even if you practice it, it's not the same as doing it in real game conditions." Pure BS. He just wanted to rub our faces in it, and he did. Maybe that play was the beginning of his decline.
I'm pretty sure that Bo started in 1969; the two-point conversion play in 1968 turned out to be Bump Elliot's last game as Michigan's football coach.
Stated like the flower child, closet hippy you strike me as.
Enjoy Walden Ray hope the fish are big and the winter mild.
Great basketball coach John Wooden never, ever mentioned the word "win" to his teams. He simply taught them how to play the game and execute the fundamentals.
If I have any hero in sports it has to be John Wooden. BTW did you see him interviewed at the NCAA's this year? Amazing as always not to mention he is 91 years old.
"I VERY RARELY 3 bet the flop with top pair ace kicker. And, I can remember very very few hands where it would have been correct for me to do so. "
In general, this is good poker. However, there are some instances where you should three bet with top pair, top kicker.
For instance, I play in a lot of loose aggressive games, where some of the players are either FOM (full-on maniacs) or at least semi-maniacs. Here is one hand that provides an example of when to do this:
I am in middle position with AQs. FOM is on my right and has been raising frequently on all rounds with less than stellar hands. This is one of the few times he has not raised BTF in the last two rounds, two limp to FOM, he limps, I raise, button calls, both blinds call, limpers and FOM call.
Flop is Q 9 6 rainbow. SB bets, FOM raises. Since I know he will raise with crapola, just trying to buy the pot, I decide to three bet him. I am trying to thin the field, increase my chances of winning the pot, plus charge the lesser hands and draws the max to try and outdraw me. Button and SB cold call. In this particular hand, FOM caps the betting and all call. This is typical play for the FOM, he will cap with draws and many other worse hands than mine. He plays for action and doesn't mind putting in lots of chips on every hand. There is some chance that he actually has me beat, but I am calling him down to the end!
Turn is 3d, making a two flush. BB checks, FOM bets, I call, button folds, BB calls.
River is 3h. checked to me, I bet. I think that the BB missed his draw and the FOM has a weaker queen, so I value bet. BB folds and FOM calls with QJo.
dave in cali
While waiting to get in my 5-10 game the other night I was watching the action in the 10-20 game.There was a player sitting opposite the dealer who was showing down some hands I would never play in his position but he had taken down some nice pots.I didn't watch long as my game started but I would describe him as 1/2 maniac and 1/2 fish.The next day I got to the club early and sat in a 1-5 stud game with 7 rocks waiting for a 5-10 holdem game to start up.I saw the maniac from the night before enter and sign up for his 10-20 game and he wandered over to my stud game and said to the whole table, "You don't want me in your game, I'm too aggressive for you" and other such bravado which told me he thought pretty highly of his poker skills in general.Well soon after this my holdem game started and my name was called.I got up and went over to find Mr.Maniac in his favorite seat (opposite the dealer) and the seat immediately to his left was still available so I quickly claimed it.There were several other 10-20 players at the table while waiting for their game to start as well.Right away, the maniac started to try to run over the table with raises and re-raises and he quickly lost his first buy-in.He made a big show of flashing his cash about and how he was playing "lower-limits" than he liked, etc.I already knew he was an asset to any poker game, but that was confirmed when another guy at the table invited him to his home hi-lo game.Anyways for two rounds I hadn't gotten a single playable hand and my blinds were raised by the maniac every time.(which I folded as I had trash and other players were in the pot.)Now I know other players in the pot had noticed I was a tight player so when my big blind is raised by the maniac again who was in small blind position, I call with Q-8 offsuit.There are two other callers so the flop comes 4-handed.The flop is 9-9-7 offsuit.When the maniac just checks on the flop I decide barring any major resistance I am going to make a move for the pot.I bet out and one early position player calls, then a fold, then the maniac calls as well but I detect some reluctance on his part.Well the turn is a 3 and the small blind maniac checks again, I bet, the EP calls and as the maniac mucks he flashes A-Q offsuit.Great! 1 player to go!The river is a 5 and I bet out.The EP ( a good player, also waiting for the 10-20 game to start) thinks long and hard, but finally mucks his hand.(I think he figured I would'nt try to bluff out the maniac)Since it was obvious to the whole table I was a tight player and I wanted some action when (if) I started to get some cards, I decided to show down my bluff.Well almost immediately I regretted it, because even though a good player to my left said "nice play", the maniac was furious and said to the whole table, "why did you show your hand?to prove you can buy us, or to show what a bad player you are."and all his friends started laughing.His comment and the laughter thru me off guard.I wish I would have said "Hey don't you show down your bluffs?"or"Hey isn't it about time for you to make a rebuy" instead of what I did say which was, "well you've been raising my blinds and I just wanted to make a stand."Maybe it's for the best that I just defused the situation as he then just said he wasn't trying to move on me he was just trying to play poker and win some pots and I came away thinking he was more fish than maniac.I will admit my showdown of the bluff was intended to put him a little further towards tiltland, and also get a little respect from the table as well, but his immediate reply to me did surprise me and put me on the defensive.(although not on tilt;)Nothing more came off it and about 10 uneventfull hands later I had to leave to meet my wife so I really didn't get to see how another couple hours might have turned out.I cashed out a small winner (thanks to my bluff)and I'm sure I will play against that whole table sometime in the future.Apologies for the longwinded account but- Should I have just kept my bluff to myself?
Hillbilly,
The short answer is no, you shouldn't show down your bluffs. Profitable bluffing situations usually arise far more often than those times when you actually have a legitimate hand. Personally, I'd rather steal a couple of 10 BB pots in a night than get a couple of extra 1 BB calls on the end.
Besides, if you are bluffing with the correct frequency, you'll be caught often enough to get you some extra action anyways.
Hope this helps,
Dave
Your math explains it very plainly!
My reasons for never showing bluffs
1) It's rude
2) In the "information war," anytime I show a hand I don't have to, I've lost a battle
Tommy
Hi Tommy, appreciate your thoughts on my post and would like to comment.I have seen others show down bluffs in the past and I never got the impression from other players that it was rude.In facts as a general rule their play was admired.I am one of the most polite players (to a fault)you would ever play against.I personally thought the maniac's cocky, boorish behavior was rude (but highly profitable to the whole table) and also thought it was rude of him to constantly (every time) raise my blinds.The reason I showed down my bluff was to let him and the table know I would infact defend my blinds so I wouldn't get run over by the table.As far as the "information war" goes, if the table thinks I'd call a raise with Q-8 offsuit from the big blind,(something I would never, he-he, do)then I've won that battle as well.
Hillbilly,
I regret sounding like I was passing judgement. Believe me, I wasn't. I was only telling the reasons that *I* don't show bluffs. Sure, it's part of poker, and perfectly ethical, and also a potentially effective tactic. Within your interesting story, showing that bluff was a dandy play.
No doubt there are many games in which showing a bluff is common and fine. The games I play in are uncommonly polite. If someone shows a bluff to rib or agitate another player, well, in these parts, that's rude. I was out of line to suggest that it is rude in ALL games.
As to the information war, this is distinctly a personal choice of how to fight the battles. Again, by no means universal or better.
Tommt
No offense taken Tommy, my main goal is to be a better player each time I sit down at the table, and to never stop learning.Each move I make at the table I try to have a reason for.Between yours and Dave's post I can see there are some reasons for keeping my bluffs to myself as well.Take care, I'm off to my tues. night 1-5 hi-lo game.
Hi all,
I believe it is generally accepted that your position with respect to the bettor is an important factor to consider in all forms of poker, but especially so in Hold'em (and other similar games), where your position remains fixed throughout the course of a hand.
I'm curious, however, as to the order of magnitude of the contribution of the relative positional advantage or disadvantage to your EV on certain plays.
Consider a heads up situation on the turn, with you as the button. Your opponent bets into you, and your assessment of the EV of calling, raising, or folding based purely on outs counting, your read of the opponents hand, etc., leads you to believe that while raising is clearly wrong, and folding is EV neutral, calling is only marginally wrong, i.e., say, EV(call) = -x BB, where x is some small (+ve) number. How small would x have to be before the additional contribution due to your positional advantage would make calling a +EV play?
Similarly, consider an alternative situation, where you are now first to act, and you check to your opponent, who bets. Once again, folding is EV neutral, raising is clearly wrong, but now EV(call) = +y BB, where, again, y is some small number. How large does y have to be to overcome the negative contribution to your EV on the play due to your positional disadvantage with respect to your opponent?
It might also be interesting to consider whether x and y are necessarily equal, or whether they differ significantly in certain situations.
I have been devoting some thought on this over the past little while, and am interested in the opinion of the forum contributors. What do you guys think?
Your examples make for good "implied odds" NOT "positional" calculations. In both cases what matters is how well you can expect to do on the river.
If in both cases you have an obvious straight and the opponent MAY have a flush. Both situations are exactly the same since you cannot bet nor raise the river and will check if first. Position in not an issue. Clearly you are in pretty bad shape on the river.
In any case, positional advantages generally decrease has the hand progresses partly due to the increased pot size and partly because the opponents have a much better idea what the other's have.
But to anwser your question, how MUCH does it matter? I know exactly, but I'll let other's elaborate...
- Louie
Position will increase your implied odds slightly. The increase in implied odds will normally be less than 1 big bet, but it could be 0.5 big bets in many cases.
For example, suppose you have a nut straight draw, and you believe your opponent has a strong hand. With position, you get to raise when you make your hand, getting an extra bet. However, position won't normally be worth a whole extra big bet of implied odds here, because you only get to raise when he bets, and if he would definitely bet if he had position and you checked to him, then you could check-raise when out of position.
There's also bluff potential, but it's not clear to me that this improves with position on the river, though a semi-bluff raise on the turn is another matter. What's more important is the bluff potential of your opponent, which may be greatest when you have position - e.g., out of position he may bluff bet KQ high into you, whereas in position he may check that hand if you check to him.
I would guess position is worth 0.5 big bets extra implied odds when you have a strong draw, and 0.25 big bets extra implied odds when you have a made weak hand that you can thin value bet if your opponent checks on the river (and that you can crying call with if your opponent bets.)
You spoke in terms of expected value, whereas I spoke in terms of implied odds, so here is the relation: the expected value of the call on the turn is ((P+I+A)*C/46)-A, where P is the current pot size, I is the extra implied odds bets that your opponent will put in on the river when beat, A is the additional bets that you will put in by the river, and C is the number of outs you have. If my estimates are correct, then when facing a bet on the turn, positional advantage will not normally be able to overcome a base expected value of negative 0.15 big bets or worse.
-Abdul
Dave, Louie and Abdul,
Great posts. Most helpful and well explained.
This type of quantifying is new to me. And I can't argue with any of Abdul's conclusions. Still, something inside me says that .15 big bets doesn't seem high enough. Two possible reason for this hunch are:
1)Perhaps fewer of my opponents than your opponents will bluff or check-raise on the turn.
2) There could be a value in getting the first read. The turn card hits, and now it's the other guy's turn to act. I'm watching him, and he's sending messages: tempo of action, attitude of action, stuff like that.
Obviously against fierce players neither of these things would some into play. But against weaker foes, they do. Doesn't that mean that the quantified value of the button in the example goes up as the opponents get weaker, and down as the opponents get tougher?
Though I welcome its method of arrival, I want to believe that the number .15 is too low. Can I do so? Rationally?
Tommy
I was talking about the positional advantage on the river, when considering calling a bet on the turn. You're talking about positional advantage on the turn and river combined. Positional advantage is also greater on the turn than the river; on the turn, a bet or raise from the player with position will often convince the other player to either fold immediately or check the river; on the river, folding is less common and there are no later streets for your actions to benefit.
Position going into the turn might give you 1 big bet extra implied odds in many cases, and it also often gives you extra effective outs from bluffing/protection ability. The extra outs give you an extra cut of the pot. So, it depends on the size of the pot, the strength of your hand, the strength of your opponent's hand, and your opponent's weak-tightness, but position here will often be worth 1 big bet or more in expected value.
-Abdul
x
.
if you have read through the discussion of my krazy kool kunundrum killer, you have seen john mention something i thought of several months ago concerning calling bluffs on the river.
this has appeared on the forum before. john played a hand that involved an unlikely (david and ray and gary thought impossible) river bluff raise. in emails with john i explained how this particular instance even the slightest doubt warrented a call even though the pot size was not abnormally large.
later the hand appeared rather insidiously on the other topics forum. desperate to give wrong forum man (o! were are the wrong forum men of yesteryear?) a chance to post "that belongs on the general theory forum," i responded in that thread with a brief explanation of the following theory. incidently, i seem to recall sammyb responding to that post and after a short exchange understanding what i was saying. so if you fail to understand me here, just ask sammy or john.
alright. here we go.
the situation is a simple one. we are heads up we have a hand that can only beat a bluff and we are facing a bet on the river.
david, in the theory of poker, pretty much tells us what we should do. the pot contains P bets. if the odds against our opponent bluffing are at most N:1, we call. otherwise, we fold.
we are left to our own devices to determine the chances our opponent is bluffing. and, truth be told, this is not always an easy thing to do. we have to know our opponent's tendenies. we have to look for possible tells. finally and perhaps most importantly, we have to consider how the hand has been played.
let's say that after the river card hits, but before any betting occurs, we determine our hand to have a certain probability of winning. call it x, 0 =< x =< 1. we now face a bet. we can compute the chance it is a bluff (remember we are assuming we can only beat a bluff). it is x * P(he will bluff given that he can only win by bluffing) / (1-x).
this assumes he will always bet with the best hand. otherwise it gets more complicated, but is fundamentally the same.
but, notice what we've done. we have isolated the actual tendency of our opponent. the chances he will bluff given he has the opportunity to bluff. this is what varies from opponent to opponent. not the chances a bet is a bluff.
we have distilled the chances his hand will be best from his chances of bluffing.
this will normally be a lot of work that won't really help decisions at the table. however, if you remember john's hand, it is of critical importance.
when the river card falls, john has 95% chance of having the best hand. he bets the river and his opponent raises. the way the action went, this raise was either a better hand or a bluff. because the pot was not large, say 8 bb, several people recommended a fold.
but if you take into account a little bayes' theorem math, you get that he only has to bluff about once every 160 times he is in a position to bluff for a call to be correct.
most people will bluff, even an unlikely river raise bluff, that often.
scott
scott,
I remember the hand (once again, more or less) but am too sleepy to comb through the archives where seeing Badger's deleted posts are sure to piss me off just before bedtime. Avoiding being pissed before bedtime is a minor key to happiness.
In reviewing the play of the hand (if memory serves me), John's opponent's raise on the river either meant a very strong hand or a bluff. As I recall, the action on the turn was not consistent with a strong hand and IMO it was an easy call for John.
Anyway, why did you call this "general custer's bluff buster"? Are the recreational substances that much better then when I went to school?
Regards,
Rick
again you don't like my name! custer rhymes with buster and the only custer i know is general custer. and the abbreviation, gc2b, is super cool.
the most important part of naming these results is keeping my name off of them. the next most important thing is to prevent them being confused with some other results. i suppose toungue twisters would really be better, but i couldn't think of any appropriate ones.
maybe we should call this one sammyb's theory of bluffs.
scott
scott,
Pay no attention to Rick; he real cool, but he ain't super cool, and yesteryear is all behind him.
Shouldn't Louie have written "Villion" instead of "villian"?
John
I like your notion of chance-to-bluff times his opportunity to bluff. But keep in mind the opponent does NOT know what YOUR hand is and therefore doesn't know exactly when he has the opportunity.
In any case, xP/(1-x) represents the ODDS that he is actually bluffing. In John's case that's (.95/.05)P = 19P. Compared to 8bb:1 odds reveals 19P/8, P=.42. So if villian will bluff more often than 42% hero should call. But this presumes he will ALWAYS raise with a better hand AND will consider bluffing with a slightly inferior hand; pretty bad assumptions.
Your Bayes theorum approach is excellent so long as you compare the hands he will RAISE with the hands he'll bluff; thus deleting the hands with which he'll fold or call.
------------------------------------
Anyway, a strong key to determing the chances a bet is a bluff is to calculate the chances your opponent will bluff in his situation, and IGNORE the chances YOU would bluff in HIS situation.
"How can he bet that hand?!!??" really means "I would never bet that hand!", which is pretty meaningless.
- Louie
I'm too tired to think about this much right now, but if I get a chance in the next day or so, I'll try to remember how I was thinking about it to simplify it to myself. I seem to recall that one very simple, intuitive way of looking at such a situation, with which good players are familiar, and which I think derives from your formula, was along the lines, "Are there many non-bluffing hands he could have played this way up to this point?" The fewer there are, the more it starts to look like a bluff.
dear scott,
You wrote (and, yes, Rick, I read it several times.):
"....but, notice what we've done. we have isolated the actual tendency of our opponent. the chances he will bluff given he has the opportunity to bluff. this is what varies from opponent to opponent. not the chances a bet is a bluff."
OK. But isn't the chance a bet or raise is a bluff entirely dependant on whether the better had an opportunity to bluff and how often he will do this? Isn't this the same thing?
Does your bayes theorem accounting take into consideration what Mr. Landale said about subtracting the hands he will call or fold with? Notice when you do this judgement rears its ugly head.
Do these calculations consider the possibility of a bluff reraise?(This is probably almost neglible value).
This one is very important. Do you realize what happened to General Custer?
Anyway, good luck and take care. I love your posts and your names for the stuff too.
Hi Everybody.
I have some poker questions that I hope you will be able to answer:
1. Who have won the 10.000 $ dollars buy-in championship most times??
2. Who have been at the final table most times??
3. Who is considered the best poker player ever??
Also, where can I find some books with stories about great poker players??
BEst, Daniel
1. I think Stu Ungar won it 3 times. Johnny Chan, Doyle Brunson, and Phil Hellmuth 2 times each. Johnny Moss won the "WSOP" 3 times, but I think at least one of those was by vote rather than a tournament.
2. TJ Cloutier has finished in the top 5 of the main event 5 times. That must be the record.
3. Ray Zee (or maybe Rounder)
I know TJ is the wsop all time money leader, and since he has never won the big one that means he has had to show up there an awful lot.
Take a look at this page: http://tocpoker.com/wsop/tidbits.htm
I've been playing holdem for about 5 years more off than on. The last year I've put other things aside and spent more time on just holdem. I've been averaging about 60 hours a month. Most of my play has been at 5/10 and 10/20 for a $740 Sept profit. When making the jump to 20/40 and above I suffer. My question, to whom ever chooses to respond is: How long at did YOU spend at each level? If YOU were advising your mother/brother/son, how long would YOU recomend winning at one level before moving up? How many times did YOU need to a take step backwards before finally breaking through to the highest limits? I know this answer will be different for everyone. I understand that some people never make it. From the stand point of time I am wondering if I've "learned" long enough at the lower levels. Thanks in advance!!!
i've been at the lower limits (1-5, 2-6, 4-8) for a year. I'm starting to crave an ante in stud games, so I'm moving to 5-10 in stud. I'll stay at 2-4 in holdem for a while longer, as i still leak lots of chips sometimes.
Read everything you can get your hands on esp. the books from 2+2, read the posts here, find a friend who you can talk poker with intelligently. Poker is a game of experience. You have to get your feet wet first. Doyle Brunson didn't start out playing big no-limit games first. Myself personally for about 2 years playing 2 to 3 times a week I would play 3-6 or 6-12 and beat the game pretty consistently and evertime I ventured into a bigger game I would get drilled. Finally I was able to break that pattern and I have been reasonably successful for the last ten years. You are going to experience multiple peeks and valleys playing poker. Be prepared for swings. Keep accurate records and don't fool yourself. You need to play at least 500 hours before you can draw any accurate statistical conclusions.
Bruce
As long as it takes.
My suggestion might depart from Mason's teachings about bankroll usage. I don't know for sure.
Let's say you have a job that pays the bills and leaves you not much extra, and you dream of making it full time at poker. Let's say you have a good run at 5-10 and 10-20 and build up to $2000.
Then you move up to 20-40 and blow the whole $2000 in two sessions. Yeah, that sucks, but I think it's necessary. Stick with the job, work on your game, play good at 10-20, build up to a thousand or two again, and take another shot. You'll go busted again, but so what? If you're goal is to make a living at 20-40 and up, then you're gonna have to play 20-4o at some point, right? If you wait until you are properly funded, the way full-timers are properly funded, you might never even sit in a 20-40 game.
That's because the common bankroll formulas provide for a cushion, and they assume that you are good enough to consistently beat the games. At your point, you've gotta go after it, without a cushion, and without even having an edge at 20-40!
But you're only hope of getting that edge is to practice 20-40 when you can, and think, and to suffer repeatedly. Keep your expectations low, and the pain of going broke over and over isn't so bad. And if you ever get to tell your boss goodbye, you'll forget all about it.
Tommy
That is some pretty kewl advice, in my mind. Adds to the whole "gamble" aspect of poker.
For me, I am playing in a small town at a casino that only supports one game (5/10 Dealer's choice). Every Thursday they spread a bigger game (20/40 half-half or 5-10 pot limit half-half). The last two weeks I have taken a shot at the 20-40 game because it is very weak. It would be no tougher than a 5-10 game in my opinion. I started it with a 3k BR and I've managed to do ok.
20/40 is not Holdem as you know it. It is not Holdem as you know it, even after you play a hundred hours. It is my opinion that persons, who succeed at 20/40, have the dedication, time, and money to hang in there. You simply have to put-in the time. The plays, circumstances, and scenarios will be like nothing you have experienced, at lower limits. I am struggling, after about 300 hours at 20/40.
by the way, probably the best advice relating to the higher limits comes from tommy about not defending your blinds. i occasionally play 20/40 he, and this advice has really helped me hold my own.
i would recommend that anytime you see a favorable situation, like a real fish who is sure to lose 2k, or a couple players you know you can beat, etc., go ahead and take a shot. if the games are stratified and the 20/40 is basically a closed system, then you kind of have a problem and the best you can do is watch from the rail, talk to regulars/dealers about the game, and then go ahead and take a shot.
brad
I moved up from 5-10 to 10-20 and about a year ago when I got a real job and could finally afford to play in something bigger than 2-4.I noticed that I always did very poorly in the bigger stakes than I was used to for the first session / maybe first two sessions. Atleast for me personally, there were a bit of nerves about playing in the new game which caused me to play overly tight passive. Once I became comfortable at those stakes I've done fairly well
IMO, jumping from 10-20 to 20-40 is a bad idea. Didn't you ever play at 15-30?
Also, your profit of 740$ for just one month's play is not really an accurate indicator of how well you are playing. What are your results over the past year? Have you been a consistent winner over a long period of time? I'm not talking about a lucky streak, I'm talking about a long term trend.
It seems to me that you probably need to spend some more time at 10-20 before moving up to 15-30, and then you need to consistently win (over time) at 15-30 before moving up to 20-40.
You are going to get into a self-defeating pattern if you win some at 5-10 and 10-20, but then go into a tougher game like 20-40 and lose back all your profits, only to have to drop back down again.
You want to be a long term winner at your current level before moving up to the next higher level. Don't be in a rush to move up. Remember, it's better to be a consistent winner at a lower level than to lose your ass at a higher level!
dave in cali
Dave writes: "It's better to be a consistent winner at a lower lever than to lose you ass at a higher level."
For some people, this is not true. It depends on the goal. If the goal is to eek out a few bucks to suppliment an existing income, then I agree with what you said. But if the goal is to quit a job and go full-time poker, underfunded shots at the mid-limit games is the only way to do it.
Tommy
underfunded shots at middle limits are OK, but as long as you are not risking a large portion of your bankroll. you have to be able to stay in action at the smaller limits if you lose at the bigger ones or else your hopes of making it at the higher limit are shot.
dave in cali
It depends on how you define "bankroll." For me, for example, if I lose my bankroll I have to get a job. Disaster! But for a person with a job, their low-limit bankroll is presumably renewable. So if they build up to, say, $1000 at low limits, and take a shot at 20-40, and blow it all, it doesn't really affect their ability to return to the low limit games. They are not out of action for long.
Tommy
Can someone tell me how to do this? I've given it some though over the last little while and I think I have determined a nice little formula, but I'd appreciate it if someone can tell me.
If it is in Mason Malmuth's Gambling Theory and Other Topics, please tell me anyway since I have ordered that book and am STILL waiting for it to come from Chapters Online (bad press, which they deserve. They advertised shipping within 7 days on this title and that was over two months ago, I believe it is approaching 3 months now).
What I am interested in, is if you know the pot odds and the odds of making a draw, how do you calculated what the expectation value is for this draw?
Also, if it differs, how would you calculate expectaion value for other situations? I would even appreciate a general expression for all circumstances.
See my first post in the positional advantage thread.
For more complicated situations, you need a tree-like formula custom-built for the problem, branching through the possible scenarios.
The general expression is, of course:
EV = summation{Pi*Vi}
where the summation is over all the possible outcomes (i), Pi is the probability of an outcome i, and Vi is the value of an outcome i.
Got it?
-Abdul
If you didn't get Abdul's explanation tell us and I'll do it.
I didn't understand Abdul's explanation.
Thanks, Hugh Jardon
David Sklansky is great at providing intuitive layman's explanations for such things, but I will take a stab.
Expected value sounds intimidating, but it's simply the average result. The average result is the sum of each outcome weighted by its frequency.
Example: Suppose you bet $11 to win $10 on a sports ticket, and you have a 52% chance of winning and no chance of a push. What is your average result?
0.52($10)+(1-.52)(-$11) = -$0.08
So you would lose 8 cents on average, though of course on any given instance you would either win $10 or lose $11.
-Abdul
See my response to Abdul's post. I think I kind of get it but I am not 100% confident that I do. I'm sure I would benefit greatly from your explanation.
No I don’t think I get it. Here is my problem.
Let’s assume EV = summation(Pi*Vi) where Pi = probability of ith event occuring and Vi = value of the ith event. It makes sense and Abdul is a poker genius so I have to trust him. Besides, this does make sense to me but it seems like a cumbersome way to do the types of calculations I am trying to do. I know how to just grind out the summation to get the answer (David gives a simple example in the Theory of Poker, when he talks about the coin flip).
Probablity for coin flip is 0.5. Someone gives you 2:1 on your money. Therefore EV = 0.5(2-1) = 0.5. Here is my first question: What units does EV have? The way I understand, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that EV has the units of "wager / bet". For the above example, if I bet $10 on every coin flip, then my EV = 0.5 [wager/bet] * 10 [$/wager] = 5 [$/bet]. In David's example in The Theory of Poker, he was wagering $1 and was therefore making $0.5 / bet. To be honest, the units aren't very important and I understand that this would be a dimensionless quantity in terms of SI units, but it will help me understand EV value a little better if we attach units to it (like the ones I have used above).
Ok, so that's simple, and all we have done is expand the summation (since the probability for each event is identical I put it outside the summation). But, any situation similar to the coin flip could be expressed as: odds against event occuring = X:1, payment on wager = Y:1. Using these definitions the summation will always be EV = (1/(X+1))*(Y-X).
More generally if the odds aginst an event are X:A, and the payout for a wager on the event Y:B, then substituting into the above expression will yield EV = (A*Y-B*X)/(B*(X+A)).
In my opinion, if I my formulae are correct, these are much simpler to use than grinding out the summation.
Let's do a poker example and see if I am on the right track.
You have 7c 8s.
Opponent has Ac As.
On the Turn the board is: 9h Th 3d Kd.
There are 44 unseen cards, and you only have 8 outs. Odds of winning are 36:8. There is $100 in the pot and your opponent has bet $20. Therefore the pot odds are 120:20. We all know this is an easy call, but what is the EV for this call? Assume that if the straight card comes your opponent is Ray Zee (or some other superstar) and he will not pay you off.
Using my formula, I get: X = 36
A = 8
Y = 120
B = 20
EV = (8*120-20*38)/(20*(36+8)) = 0.2727 [wagers/bet]. The wager was $20, so the EV = $5.45 [per bet] or [per hand].
Is this correct? And are my formulae correct? Is this the best way to calculate EV for poker situations or am I way out to lunch?
What do you mean you don't get it? You understand it completely.
Your formalae are correct. You used:
EV = (1/(X+1))*(Y-X)
I prefer this equivalent but more intuitive (for me) version:
EV = (1/(X+1))*(Y+B)-B = P(Y+B)-B
That says "your expected value is your probability of winning times the winning amount, which is equal to your payoff plus your bet back, but you always lose your bet."
For units, you can just note that the units for EV must be the same as the units for B, or else the units are going to get corrupted when you subtract B from the first part of the equation. So, EV is expressed in terms of the bet amount. If the bet is expressed in terms of dollars, then EV is in terms of dollars. If instead you speak in terms of odds, then B=1 bet, and the EV is in terms of bets.
The formula I gave in the other thread includes implied odds, but it's the same thing:
EV = (Y+B+I)*C/46-B
Note that (1/(X+1)) = C/46 (odds of hitting your draw is equal to your number of outs, C, divided by the number of remaining cards, 46.) And note that (Y+B+I) is the same as (Y+B) when the implied odds I=0. So, your equation and the two I gave are all equivalent when I=0.
Now as far as the general version, well, you asked for it, and so I gave it to you. Actually, few others will understand you if you use our little mathematical shortcut. Hell, even though you understood me, you thought you didn't!
When you try to solve more difficult poker problems, you'll need to break the expected value computation into P*V1+(1-P)*V2 format, where component expected values V1 and V2 might themselves be computed in that format, and where P is the probability of outcome V1, and V2 is the only other possibility so its probability is 1-P. Of course you can generalize this to more than two outcomes if need be.
Got it? Don't lie this time. :)
-Abdul
Got it this time, although I'd really appreciate seeing an example of the component problem you mentioned. That sounds very interesting.
Oh yah, and now I completely understand the formula you used in the other post (I had no problem with the implied odds aspect of it). BTW, you are right, it is intuitively easier to include your bet in the total pot and then subtract it later. I like that, in some way it it helps make the situation clear.
Hey... and about me not understanding, I wasn't positive my formulae were correct so I didn't want to tip off my poker hand too early in the betting. You can understand that can't you? :)
Suppose you have As8s, the board is Js6d2h, and you know your opponent has KsKh. Your opponent has bet into you, there's no one else in the hand, and now the pot is 6 small bets. What is your expected value of calling on the flop? Assume your opponent keeps betting into you unless an ace hits the board, in which case he check-calls. If you hit your flush, you get to raise and he will call.
So, your expected value is:
EV = P1*V1+P2*V2+P3*V3, where P1 is the probability of case 1 and V1 is the expected value for case 1, and so on.
Y = 6 (pot size on flop in small bets)
P1 = 9/45
V1 = P1a*V1a+P1b*V1b+P1c*V1c, where P1a is the probability of case 1a, and so on.
P2 = 3/45
V2 = P2a*V2a+P2b*V2b
P3 = 1-(P1+P2)
V3 = -1
P1a = 8/44
V1a = Y+2+4
P1b = 3/44
V1b = Y+2+2
P1c = 1-(P1a+P1b)
V1c = -3
P2a = 2/44
V2a = -3
P2b = 1-P2a
V2b = Y+2+2
The answer I come up with .016666 small bets. There is a good chance this answer is wrong due to the complexity of the problem. Note that if you turn an eight, you don't have odds to call, so you just fold.
Awesome example. Because it is late I am going to review it at work tomorrow and see if I can come up with the same answer as you.
I will post my answer as soon as it is available.
Thanks for the great responses. I've learned a great deal from these simple posts, and it'll be put to the test tomorrow when I solve this problem. I find this stuff intriquing, especially since intuitively I assumed the flop call would have a negative expectation.
BTW, how useful is it to know how to calculate expectation? How do YOU use it personally?
I find calculating expected value is most useful when an arrogant but ignorant poker "expert" posts on the Internet an incorrect claim that I would like to decisively refute.
-Abdul
Are you sure it's correct to call in that situation? With a 3 flush to the nut flush on the flop plus one overcard? I usually fold this! Considering it's against only one player... It just doesn't seem right intuitively to me though I didn't do the math :).
You have to remember that the example assumed you knew exactly what your opponent held, and anyway it came out to about breakeven. But yeah, in general there is no way you can pry A8s out of my hands on the flop when I have a backdoor flush draw and the board isn't too weird otherwise and I would only have to call one bet to see the turn. With larger pots, it's a pretty big winning play.
The ace outs are much more important than the flush outs. With two low suited, the expected value for the example comes out to -0.8545 small bets. With only an ace and no flush draw, the expected value comes out to -0.306 small bets. Together they are stronger than apart, because on the turn you can back into a flush draw when going for an ace, and then on the river you can back into a pair of aces when going for a flush draw.
-Abdul
Assuming you KNOW his cards, then I get the exact result. But if you don't know his cards, then you would have to pay him off on the end when he makes his King on the river (Case 2a) and your expectation value goes down a little (I did the math but I don't have the numbers on me) but it still remains positive (0.010... I think).
In the response to Paradise Player you say you would call with this hand with this flop with one opponent. Would you change this answer if you were playing low limit poker and there were more than one opponent (2 or 3 or 4 - a raise means little in these games). These are the games I play and this is why I would fold. Even though I may be able to put the one raiser on a high pair (KK or QQ) it is quite possible that someone else cold called the raise with an A6 or A2 or AJ, and I am essentially drawing to a backdoor flush, which I don't usually do. Specifically, if someone else had called his bet before you were to act would you still make the call? Any comments on this would be appreciated.
As I vaguely recall, I previously calculated that you need about 20 small bets in the pot on the flop to go for a backdoor flush draw in a many-way pot when you don't think your high card would be good if you hit it.
The cold callers in a low limit game could have A6, but what you're really scared of is a bigger kicker ace. Anyway there are a whole lot of other hands they could have, like JT, 32s, or, in the San Francisco Bay area, 94s. The conditional probability that a loose player has an ace is not all that high even given that he cold called preflop.
You ask specifically about when a suspected big pair bets into you and a single player calls who also cold called preflop. I'll assume the cold caller is a tight player. You have better implied odds, but there is maybe a 50% chance one of your opponents has an ace, and it will be a bigger ace. With some rough calculations, I guestimate you need 11 small bets in the pot to go for it in this case, maybe only 9 if the caller is loose.
So, as you add more and more players, your implied odds get better, but your probability of winning with an ace approaches zero, and that's more important than your flush outs and implied odds. The required pot size goes from 6 small bets against one player when you know your ace is good, to 11 small bets against two players when you aren't sure your ace is good, to 20 small bets against many players when your ace is very likely no good.
-Abdul
x
Assuming a typical 10/20 or 15/30 hold'em game, how bad would the following advice be for a reasonable player?:
"NEVER fold for one more bet if you can beat a bluff on the river in a heads-up pot."
Maybe th generality could be amended to something like NEVER fold if the pot size is larger than X.
My intuition tells me that this would be decent advice that can't cost more than a fraction of a big bet's expectation over time. It might have a greater impact on variance, though.
I know the usual answer is it depends, but for some people you can't plug their leaks unless you give them an ultimatum. And I would like to give this ultimatum to a beginning, tightish player if it isn't too costly.
I would think that a player who could profit from this advice should not even be in a 10/20 or 15/30 game - heads up on the river or not.
a
Thank you for that advice. Let's just assume that this guy has a large non-poker bankroll and needs to play at least that high to care.
I was looking for some theoretical or analytical considerations. Some guys like Abdul, Mason, and David also seem to be able to "quantify" these types of concepts (e.g. what is the value of posting behind the button vs. waiting for the blind.)
Of COURSE it depends! What other answer could there be?
For the most part, this advice probably applies about 80 - 85% of the time. When you CAN beat a bluff, and there is a reasonable amount of $$ in the pot, it is probably a bad idea to fold most of the time for just one more bet.
However - I would think that the most important consideration here would be the playing tendencies of your opposition. Someone who is a frequent bluffer should be called down with as little as ace high virtually every time. But a tight player who virtually never bluffs, and will not bet a worse hand than yours, should be folded to more often than not.
You have to look at the size of the pot vs. the amount it costs you to call, and determine just how often you need to have the winning hand in order to make a call profitable. for instance, if there are 5 big bets in the pot, and it costs you one to call, you are getting 5:1 odds, so you only need to be right about 20% of the time in order to have a profitable call, at least theoretically. Adjust your borderline decisions based on your read of your opponents.
dave in cali
or say dont fold anytime you think you have any reasonable chance of winning. and on 4th street dont play unless you think at the river you could have a good chance of winning. then back to the same thing on the flop. so where do we stop. i suspect your beginner wouldnt be bluffed too much anyway in the game. he needs a better understanding of what to do on each street.
I have observed persons, who have incorporated "walking", as part of their Holdem "strategy". Some of them have become very proficient at what they are trying to accomplish. This is a scenario, where management is losing nothing, thus has no incentive to stop the "walking".
I believe "walking" takes a long-range, and short term (money) toll on persons, who don't walk.
Any recommendations on how to stop "walking" on the game (missing the blinds three or more times, consecutively).
Yes. You need a "third man" walking rule. If two players leave the table, the third player who leaves has only a few minutes to return (usually one time around to his big blind) or he is picked up and replaced by the next player on the list. This practice started in Tunica, Mississippi and has spread all over the country. Linda Johnson, the former editor of CardPlayer Magazine, has been campaigning for it all over the country. She has talked to card room management in Vegas at the Bellagio and the Mirage.
What gets me mad is to see someone gone from the table for close to an hour and then to see them return and pick up there chips. Perhaps you should only be able to miss you blinds once or twice then you are posted by the dealer or picked up. I believe that the Sun in Conn. has put in the third man walking rule, hope that it works.
its hard to stop. but almost all the walkers are tight or good players so it may be better to have them walk. also if you do play well you should get in more hands per hour and get to play more with the live ones. the downside is in rake games where the rake is not adjusted for the smaller amount of players accordingly. in those places that tolerate it use it to your advantage. walk when the players you want to play with go eat and whenever you want a break. id like a rule where if you are going to be gone for more than a half hour you pick up and let someone else play till you return. you get enough time for dinner at the casino you are in. than only let walking for up to 20 minutes without an ok from the floor. time games cut down on walking considerably but not enough.
I suspect if you are good player you shouldn't mind the players walking. And part of being a good player is adjusting to particularities of the game (such as the game being somewhat short).
It seems unfair to practice this third man walking rule. Why should he have a shorter time to walk while the first two who are walking have considerably more?
I think the house should give shorter rakes as the games gets shorter, and most places i have played in have.
The 3rd man walking rule is great. I have been in a 10-20 game many times with chips infront of 10 seats and 4 people be at the table. I do not mind it a little short but 4 handed with the table full and a waiting list is a little rediculeless.
I hope all poker rooms have this rule some day.
some casinos, such as trop in AC, have a dinner list where you can get right back to the top of the listfor your game if you notify the floor beforehand of your intentions. this way you are courteous to the other players, plus you usually only have to wait a few minutes before getting right back into the game. This practice is really a great idea, however, usually only the more experienced regulars are aware of the rule. casinos and cardrooms need to make this rule more well known perhaps by posting it in the cardroom clearly.
I am also of the firm belief that any cardroom should not give anyone more than 20-30 minutes away from the table before picking up their chips. It would be nice if everyone spread this sentiment around and perhaps eventually it will catch on like the third man walking rule. I especially hate it when someone is gone for an hour then comes back and picks up their chips! I suggest cruel and unusual punishments when this happens.
dave in cali
Lobbying rules vary, and they should. For instance, casinos that allows eating at the table need to have different rules than casinos that don't.
I've played countless hours in casinos that employed the third-man walking rule. Yet I have never seen this rule enforced. Has anyone else? Has anyone actually seen the third lobbyer get picked up after five minutes?
The Third-man-walking rule looks good on paper, but it's a tough one to enforce fairly. Every floorman I've talked to about it thinks it sucks.
At Lucky Chances you can eat at the table. They now use a rule that I invented. The three-button rule. It's similar to the three-button concept used in Vegas, except that instead of a player getting a new button with each new dealer, they get one each time the blinds go by. The details have been refined through usage. This rule is working well. It is accepted by the players, and fairly enforced by the staff.
Tommy
When I played at the Horseshoe in Bossier City and in Tunica they enforced the 3rd man walking rule and I saw players get picked up. In addition, the mere threat of getting picked up when you are the third man instills a lot of discipline in the game and keeps players from meandering.
I would think that for this to work, that the house has to be willing to pick up the first two walks when ever they reach there time limit. Does this happen as it should?
Yup. They've got it down pat. If a player has two buttons and the third lap is about half over, the dealer tells the floorman that a player is about to get three buttons. The floorman does a "call back" for that player on the PA. That gives the player ample time to get back before they get the third button. If they don't come back before they miss the blind again, they get picked up.
Tommy
Sounds like they are a doing a fair and competent job with the Third Man Walking rule at those casinos, Jim.
At Lucky Chances they had the TMW rule on the books for two years, but since it was never enforced, the rule had no effect other than to annoy those patrons who knew the rule was in the rulebook but not enforced.
That's why I wasn't too high on the TMW rule. But I can see that it is a useful rule, if the players know it exists and it is used fairly.
Tommy
In games where the house takes a collection every half-hour they really have no incentive to worry about people leaving the table since they simply take their money from every player's stack each half hour whether he is there or not.
and for all the rules with good intentoions to so called protect the players, the only people that get picked up are the ones that are complained about. when does a live one or a friend of the regulars ever get picked up unless they are gone forever. and do we really want to enforce the rule so severly that the live one gets picked up and goes across the street to play. so basically it still comes down to what jim says is that the house does whats best for their bottom line in the short run.
Agreed, except for those times when lobbying causes a game to break that otherwise wouldn't have.
a
Solution to walking? You still have two persons absent, with the "third man walking" rule. Here is the ultimate solution to stop the effects of walkers, on non-walkers. Here is the RULE: Once seated in a Holdem game, every player is responsible for paying the blinds, EVEN IF HE IS AWAY FROM THE TABLE. The only exception is for a player who has requested a LUNCH BUTTON, AND IS TAKING LUNCH, within the prescribed time limt established by the house.
a
Youve got to be kidding me! The rule the everyone has to post their blinds stinks! Are there now more blinds? (That is when SB and BB are absent are more blinds introduced?) IF not does teh button get to keep the money if everyone else passes?
WHy is it that everyone wants to tie all the other players to the table? With the attitude I hear in this thread I can't imagine it would much fun to play with people who are so serious about enforcing such a rule. This attitude will certainly chase away alot of social players. And certainly take alot of fun out of the game. Granted a few people play for a living and this hurts their bottom line, but creating such a militant attitude about such technicalities might very well be more dangerous to their bottom line.
Most people play poker for social reasons and it is leisure for most even if they also happen to making money. Trying to strictly enforce rules such as 3rd man walking only creates a bad environment and may have a bad effect on your game.
Finally the reason why this rule wants to be enforced seems to be because people don't like playing shorthanded. Despite the fact there probably is more skill in shorthanded games than full handed games.
Hey, Tommy, GREAT idea with the three button rule. Can we take it a step further? The rule has helped me at Lucky Chances because I play LL and do far, far better in 8- and 9-handed games with only 1-3 maniacs/calling stations/wishful thinkers. The problem is less now the three button rule is in effect, but what about the guys who take three buttons, return for a few hands, take 3 more buttons and so on? Can we limit the number of total missed blinds PER SEATING as well somehow?
At Binions down town Las Vegas you get 3 buttons you are picked up.
You can only give 1 button back per dealer, so if you come back and only play a couple of hands you still have buttons and can be picked up,if you go away for very long again.
I seem to run myself into trouble playing over cards to the flop. Is it generally right to take a card off the deck with hands such as AK, AQ, or KQ if they are both over cards to the flop, possibly raising with them if you have a backdoor draw possibilities? I feel that this is one of the leaks in my game, and feel that if I found a stronger/more effective way to play these cards then I would make much more profit either by saving bets or gaining some. Any comments appreciated.
If I have AK, and I raise with it preflop, I will often bet it if everyone has checked to me, unless I am on the button - then I'll just go for the free card.
I do this for a couple of reasons. First of all, it is entirely possible that I have the best hand. Why give free cards to let someone draw a pair against me?
It adds deception to my game. If I have AK and NEVER bet when the flop misses me, then I will be easier to read - when I have a big pocket pair and I bet into a flop of little cards, people will know where I am.
Here is another thing - if I raise preflop in early position, chances are I have a big pocket pair, AK, or AQ. If I check when little cards come, then any observant player can bet and keep betting until an AK or Q shows up even if he has nothing. To safeguard against this, I also check raise big pocket pairs on the flop too.
-SmoothB-
Frankly, this is one of the toughest aspects of limit HE to learn.
Much depends on things such as the texture of the flop, was it a raised or unraised pot, your position in relation to the button and your position in relation to the bettor.
In other words, it is hard to describe when to properly play overcards unless you have enough time to write a book chapter.
Here's one tip: Often, you will be better off playing KQ or QJ (as overcards) as opposed to AK or AQ. This is because the Ace has a nasty habit of giving you top pair/top or good kicker while at the same time giving someone else two pairs.
While I would say that TJ Cloutier is incorrect when he intimates that playing overcards in a raised pot is always a losing proposition, he really isn't all that off the mark if you lack the experience and the feel for the game to know when it might be profitable to chase your 6 outer. Until that experience and feel comes, you may be better off always pitching overcards into the muck.
IMO, playing these hands on the flop depends on a few things.
First, you have to consider the texture of the flop. Certain flops make taking one off a much better play than others. For example,if you have AdKc, a flop of Qs 8s 9h is not as good a flop for this play as a flop of Js 7c 2h. In the first flop, you have to worry about a flush draw, plus there are several straight possibilities that could hurt you, including the commonly played hand of JT. The second flop makes it much more likely that your spiking a pair will make you a winning hand.
Next, you have to consider the pre-flop action. If you raised first in, and only the BB called, you might either bet if he checks, or raise if he bets. It would depend on your assessment of his playing style and the texture of the flop. But if there are many players, you should be more inclined to fold This is especially true if you have no flush or straight draw possibilites, and especially if the board is paired or coordinated.
Also, you have to consider your position. if you are UTG with AK and the BB bets, and there are several aggressive players behind you, folding may be your best play. But if you are late and there is little chance of a raise, calling might be a better play, or perhaps even raising, depending on the board and action.
Also, your starting hand makes a difference. I am usually more reluctant to take one off with KQ than I am with AK or AQ. Taking one off with AK or AQ after a flop of T 5 2 rainbow is usually worth consideration, because you still might even have the best hand if no one flopped a pair. However, KQ is much less likely to win without improvement, thus lowering its value over AK or AQ hands.
dave in cali
I am going to presume that you are speaking of A-K or A-Q when you say "overcards." Players who think that Q-J has much value when the flop comes raggedy are just asking for trouble.
With A-K/A-Q and missing the flop, the most important factor is the number of players. Against the big fields, you can just pitch them in the muck, as they most assuredly are not the best hand. Against two players, I'm going to play them for the best hand until proven otherwise. You can work out the rest with practice.
Most players would make money just throwing A-K/A-Q away when they miss the flop.
"I am going to presume that you are speaking of A-K or A-Q when you say "overcards." Players who think that Q-J has much value when the flop comes raggedy are just asking for trouble."
Not sure that I agree with this, Earl. As I said above, I often prefer to have QJ as opposed to AK when I decide that it is right to call with my 6 outer in a multiway pot.
In addition to the fact that hitting a Queen or Jack on the turn (as opposed to an Ace) is less likely to make someone two pair, there is also the fact that when I do make the better hand after hitting on the turn, there is a greater likelihood that the flop bettor will fire again on the turn when a Queen or Jack comes off which would allow me the chance to raise and narrow the field.
Of course, on those occasions when you make the better hand on the turn, a pair of Queens is more vulnerable than a pair of Aces (as someone could hit a King or Ace on the river) but this is not that big of a detriment as usually all overcard draws fold on the turn and besides, you may be able to raise to ensure that overcard draws don't stick around.
The biggest point is to avoid continuing with a dominated hand. If you have AK, the flop comes Q95, and someone has AQ, KQ, K9, or A9, you're dominated. You're not even in great shape against JT, because now one of your outs is no good, and unless you're heads up you have a hard time making it to the showdown with AK. Usually in a multiway pot you should bail on the flop if the highest card on the flop is just under your overcards, like a Q-high flop versus your AK.
If you're in a multiway pot and continue with premium overcards like AK and spike an ace on the turn, don't play it hard. As others pointed out, here you may be up against two pair, in particular someone who had an ace kicker on the flop.
If you're in a multiway pot and you call on the flop with overcards and the turn misses you, usually you should bail then. You were calling on the flop partially for the chance of making a big two pair, and now that's impossible (unless the board is already paired.)
Usually you want a good chance of having the biggest big overcards if you call on the flop, but in the right circumstance you can try to go safely under your opponents' overcards. I once saw a good player make the following play: Player raises in middle position, another player cold calls right behind, he calls with 98s in the big blind. Flop comes something like 642. He checks, and it's bet and called back to him. Now he calls. I think that's a good play. There's a good chance a nine or eight will give him the best hand on the turn, and if the turn is a blank, there's a chance of getting to see the river for no additional price. He may also have some backdoor straight and flush outs. My quick calculations suggest that without straight/flush outs and making all the worst case assumptions it would be a breakeven call.
-Abdul
"If you're in a multiway pot and continue with premium overcards like AK and spike an ace on the turn, don't play it hard. As others pointed out, here you may be up against two pair, in particular someone who had an ace kicker on the flop."
Abdul,
I hear what you are saying but it seems to me that if you spike an Ace on the turn in a multiway pot, the pot will be of a size that you must play it hard even though you may be up againt Aces up. It's a case of protecting the pot at the risk of losing an extra 2 bets on the turn (if someone 3 bets you).
Of course, we are talking in the abstract here. There will be situations when discretion will be the better part of valour but *generally* if you get there, I would think you have to play it hard. When I say play it hard, I have reducing the field in mind as opposed to playing it hard for value.
x
skp,
The concept of playing it hard to reduce the field as opposed to playing it hard for value amuses me. How does the difference manifest itself? Do you bet with the right hand to reduce and the left for value? Or, do you just announce the purpose of your bet to the table? :-)
Jeez Sammy, sometimes I can't figure out if you are poking fun (which you are damn good at) or whether you are asking a serious question. That confusion exists here in my mind despite the use of the smiley face in your post.
At the risk of sounding foolish by responding when no response is needed, I will say this:
Playing it hard to reduce the field would mean that you would raise a bet from your right but not necessarily a bet from your left i.e. if someone bets and there are a couple of calls before it is your turn to act, you would not play it hard if your goal is to reduce the field. If you play it hard in that situation, you are doing it for value.
Now..go ahead and tell me (in your own inimitable way) why this clarification was totally unnecessary:)
Actually, I must admit I truly never considered the position vis a vis the initial bettor. Is there any way to make a blushing with embarrassment smiley face?
How do you figure out how big a favorite one hand is over another, pre-flop, flop, and turn. (I can figure it out on the river)
Hehe. The easiest way is to use a simulator, the next easiest way is to consult a book with the proper information, and the most educational way is to grind out the math.
Here is an easy way for holdem. Take the numer of "outs" multiplied by the number of cards to be seen, multiplied by 2%. That is a close-enough estimate of the % of time you wil "win".
For example, if you flop and open-ender against an overpair. (AA v. QJ on a T9x flop). The QJ will win 8x2x2% of the time, or 32% of the time, making him a 68/32 = 2.1 to 1 underdog. I think the actual mathe would yield closer to 1.9 to 1, ignoring running Js, Qs, or QJ.
This can also be used with slightly less accuracy before the flop. Take the odds of flopping top-top with AK: 6 outs x 3 cards x 2% = 36% of the time you flop top pair, which is pretty close to the actual result.
It doesn't work as well for many cards to come, where redraws are more important. Take AK vs. QQ all-in before the flop. According to this shorthand, AK has 6 x 5 x 2% = 60% chance of winning, which is pretty far off its actual odds of less than 48%.
If you play many NL games, cash or tourney, you'll end up having better approximations memorized. I think hock is looking for specifics.
In any event, here's an even LESS specific set of approximations, but one that might keep some folks out of trouble:
If you're dominated on a hand such as A-Q under A-K, with only 3 outs, you're in deep .....
If you're dominated in a hand by pair over pair, with only 2 outs, you're in even deeper ......
If you're drawing dead on a hand such as a non-nut flush versus the nut flush, well, you're covered in it.
Earl you mentioned that there were books with accurate info. on this subject, which books were you refering to?
I think on before the flop the calculations are rather tedious but on the flop or after they are easy to do exactly. You simply count all pairs of cards which will win.
Ask some particular situations and Ill post the solns.
.
Hello. Has anybody calculated what is the probability for one to win if he has as a starting hand a pair of aces and plays against a. 2 b. 5 c. 9 opponents?
How about the probability for a pair of kings and a pair of queens.
thanks in advance
Go here:
http://www.gocee.com/poker/HE_Value.htm
-SmoothB-
Any calculations assume your opponents play random cards. In a real hold-em game this is not the case.
Probability for AA? Here are some probables I have learned:
They will probably lose when you *really* need them to win, and you will probably remember that hand forever.
They will probably win huge pots when you expect them to lose, and you will probably forget that hand instantly.
When they lose, the winner will probably sigh and say "You overplayed your hand."
If you slowplay them (which you should not), the person who takes the pot from you will probably say "I would have folded preflop if you raised!"
You will probably spend too much time worrying about how often AA 'should' win.
They will probably not win as much as you expect. (because most people expect them to win 100% of the time)
A straight probability of win percentage against 2,5 or 9 random hands is probably a useless figure.
You will probably be pissed when you have AA and win only the blinds, and you will probably be more pissed when AA gets cracked by 72o out of the BB.
Players at the table will probably quote incorrect winning percentages for AA.
I probably spend too much time on this post.
x
Played a few years ago for about 40 hours and had AA 6 times and won every time. Played in Vagas a few month ago for about 35 hours and had AA once and lost. Waiting for things to even out over the long run.
PLZ help me....i have played for 6 mounths and in the beginning it was no problem i could play nomaly and chat with the other players!! Now i have a big problem icant chat I CAN WRITE IN THE FIELD but when a click enter it didnt come up something in the screen why??? am i susspended?? and why??? please help mee its very important for mee i always chat in english and i love this game so PLEEEEAASSE PARADISE POKER OR SOMEONE ELS HELP MEE!!/THX SWEDISH BOY!!
I would love to help but what do you expect the forum to be able to do about it? try support@paradisepoker.com
Your chat is probably going to the table, however you probably have the table set to "No player chat" therefore you don't see yours or other players chat.
Set it to "Dealer: Normal"
You could have been muted for cursing the ridiculous beats you have taken. They are hawks when it comes to that.
I found this thread a bit too late. I guess you figured it out somehow though, you were chatting it up the other day.
One thing though, now that we are away from the table, and I'll shout because this is important: PLEASE DON'T MAKE FUN OF THE FISH AT THE TABLE WHILE THEY ARE BUSY GIVING ME THEIR MONEY.
If you don't remember what I'm talking about, try to recall all the things you said to that nice Norwegian fellow who was happily donating to my cause. I need a new truck bubba, let him help me.
Jones
Thanks!!!
An example of 5%:
5 percent is 5/100, right? Take the bottom number and subtract the top one. 100 - 5 = 95. Take the result, write the word "to" and then the top number. You've got
95 to 5
now, right? Divide both sides by the top number and you get:
19 to 1
Simple enuff?
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Another way to express it and easy to plug into a calculator:
Odds:1 = (1/Probability) - 1
Or perhaps more simply:
O = (1/P) - 1
Using Izmet's 5% example:
O = (1/0.05) - 1 = 20 - 1 = 19 (19:1 against)
or do it the easy way anyone can understand. use 100 and divide it by the % chance and you get 100divided by 5 =20, this means one in twenty times the event will happen and 19 times it wont. thus 19 to 1.
thanks !!!
i know that this has been thrashed about before, but i'd like to get opinions on the following situations:
The game is not wild nor overly tight, average 3-5 players per flop. You are one of the better players at the table.
You are in late position with AQo. There are three limpers to you. Do you fold? call? raise? why?
You are a better player than all three limpers. What if there were four limpers? Five?
You are in late position with AQo again. There is a early raiser and three cold callers. Again do you fold? call? raise? why?
Same conditions as above. What if four players cold call? Five?
I call! I only raise in this sitution if they will check to the raiser or i feel that it will give me a reasonable chance to steal if they miss.
For 1 raise i just call unless the raiser is a real rock. I would never reraise unless I thought it would set up a steal if i missed.
For me in the low limit games i play in the number of oppents makes no difference to my call, I woud not raise a large number of players with AQo.
The questions you are asking really depend upon how well your opponents play. The worse they play the more you should be inclined to play the hand aggressively before the flop. The better they play, the less aggressive you should be. This would include folding if the pot has been raised.
When there are several limpers and you just call with an AQo you are giving up money before the flop. But by calling you may be able to (theorectically) make it back plau more on the flop. However, the more likely they are to just play junk, the more you give up before the flop. So against bad players raising becomes correct while against good players it is less likely to be so.
I agree with this. However, with all due respect, I do not believe the loose game section of HPFAP 21st Century Edition makes this clear. Instead, the book seems to suggest limping in most situations. See, e.g., p. 161 ("You should not raise with [AQo] in many situations because of a variety of reasons."); p. 162 ("We are talking about how these hands should be played in a weak game." ); p. 175 ("If you hold hands like AQ in early position, you should probably not raise if you are in a game where your raise will fail to cut down the field.").
I know that the book also says that "if people are coming in with absolutely everything, you have to raise with an AQ . . . ." But that advice is buried.
I noticed that HPFAP 21st Century Edition cleared up a lot of poorly communicated ideas from the prior edition. I think the loose game section needs a similar tune up.
This is just a little constructive criticism -- I love the book, and it has improved my game tremendously.
Raising preflop with A-Qo against a big field of loose limpers seems to be a marginally profitable play, adding more to your variance than to your bottom line.
The question should not be whether it is a profitable play or not, but whether calling or raising has the higher expectation. I believe that in most situations if you raise in late position in a multiway pot with AQ you have just made a profitable play. But I also believe that in many of those spots your play, assuming you execute well in the rest of the hand, is even more profitable if you just call.
Instead of a tune-up in your loose games section Mason; how about you and David writing a book strickly on low-limit, say up to 8/16 limit. A new theory on the button play especially in N. CALIF. BAY 101, GARDEN CITY, where you get free button play in the 2/4, 3/6 and 3 dollars in the 6/12. with no raise in front of you can check and play those hands like playing your blinds etc. anyway just some ideas for your knew book should you and David take up this challenge.
In low limit games and many medium limit games where players come in on any two suited cards, any two connecting cards, small pocket pairs, Ace-Little suited, King-Little suited, or just any Ace I always raise with AQ. In these games if anyone had anything they would raise. They must be punished for coming in on garbage and you should force them to pay more money to take a flop.
In a game with good players, I am less inclined to raise after several have limped in. I will raise if I think I can drive out players and get in down to one or two limpers with me having the better position and usually the better playing hand. When a solid player raises early, I will fold AQ.
also i find it easier to play the hand if you can get the blinds out, or at least sort of define their hands if they dont fold. very situation dependent.
brad
I think raising with AQoffsuit in late position after 3-5 limpers BTF is fine but don't fall in love with this hand if the flop misses you. remember, too, that against players who limp in with just about anything, it's harder to get a fix on their made hands. consider a flop like Q 7 2. against strong players who've called a pre-flop raise, you can afford to rule out the possibility of being up against two-pair. this is not the case against a table of weak players.
One benefit of not raising preflop is you sometimes get lots of action on the flop if you flop an A(they will think you limped with Ace rag suited ,but more importantly if you flop a Q the more astute players may slip up figuring you'd of raised and give you too much action thinking their K,J,or 10, kicker is good.Also once they see this play it makes you harder to read when you do play it strong.
how does one track his standard deviation?
There is a discussion of this in Mason's essay entitled "Computing your standard deviation" on the essays page of this site.
[I'm just showing off here, but I bet 2+2 would sell more books with responses like this.]
Mason Malmuth, 
, writes about standard deviation in his book Gambling Theory and Other Topics. Fortunately for you, the chapter titled, "Computing Your Standard Deviation" is reprinted and available gratis on this site.
I wish I knew how to do this.
Poker players who solely wish to become better poker players do not become better poker.
I'll let others elaborate on how the above applies to your post.
I don't know whether Mason was joking or not. If not, I like this response.
Mason, if you are serious, I encourage you by noting that learning "stupid HTML tricks" is much easier than, say, learning to beat 3-6 hold'em!
Here's an odd situation I found myself in yesterday. A loose player limps in 5 off the button. I'm next with AT and call. Two more players call. The small blind pops it and I know with 95% certainty that he holds AQs and up or JJ and up, no significant doubt in my mind.
In roughly 1/2 the cases I'll be dead to a ten and in the outher 1/2 I'll be dead to an ace. When he has AA I'll be just plain dead. This also ignores the other opponents so it would be easy to be completely dead if one has AJ and the small blind holds QQ.
Is this an automatic muck for one more small bet? I'm not sure. I think there may be a range of situations where a call is correct (heads up seems right) and then a range where it's clearly correct to muck (3,4,5) opponents and then again another point where it's correct to call (7 or more opponents).
Not that it matters much, but in the actual hand the SB held QQ and I mucked pre-flop in 5 way action.
-Fred-
By your reckoning, the best you could have would be 3 outs. An easy laydown.
If your AT was suited, with this many players you cannot fold. You are turning down some pretty serious pot odds by doing so. However, if your read is THAT certain on the SB, folding is not all that bad. I would call for the size of the pot but be careful if I flopped an ace. Sometimes you have to call a single raise BTF with less than stellar hands due to the pot odds, but be ready to dump if you sense that you are in a dominated situation, such as AT vs AQ when an ace flops.
dave in cali
"Sometimes you have to call a single raise BTF with less than stellar hands due to the pot odds, but be ready to dump if you sense that you are in a dominated situation, such as AT vs AQ when an ace flops. "
This is exactly my point. I know that I'm dominated I just don't know exactly how. I can: 1. Get off this bus right now. 2. I can flop nothing and then muck 3. I can flop one pair and play some expensive guessing game. 4. One time in ten flop some draw. 5. One time in ~25 flop some major hand.
#1 is cheap, known and risk free.
or #2 a bet more, automatic on the flop. ~65% #3 is the ugly one. I think this is -EV ~20% #4 is neutral to slightly positive. ~10% #5 is so rare the fact that it's a big plus X small likelyhood makes it small overall. ~4%
I have also left off the small but non-zero possibility that some yahoo behind me pops it and I'm trapped for a couple more bets pre-flop.
-Fred-
I think you should have called. If this were a $10-$20 game there would be $70 in the pot after the small blind raised. Assuming the loose limper and the other two players behind you call, this means there would be $100 in the pot and it costs you another $10 to see three cards. You will flop top pair or better over 20% of the time. You are getting 10:1 on a 4:1 proposition. Agreed that you are in danger of being dominated but this is such a great overlay that you have a clear call here.
Jim,
I thought most of the respondents would question playing this hand up front in the first place, especially you. Was this an error of omission and if not, would you limp in this position in any type of game with AT offsuit?
Regards,
Rick
If the game is loose and reasonably passive I normally limp in behind other limpers with Ace-Ten offsuit. If no one raises and the flop comes Ace-high I probably have the best hand since any one with AK or AQ might have raised pre-flop. In HPFAP this is a Group 6 hand. Page 27 discusses what hands you can limp in with from middle position. Lou Krieger, Bob Ciaffone, and Lee Jones all claim that you can limp in with Ace-Ten offsuit behind other limpers from middle position.
"NJ Fred",
I haven't read the other responses yet but I'll bet the first question at least one of them asked (certainly Jim Brier) was "Why on Earth did you limp in afer another limper with AT with four opponents plus the blinds left to act?". This weak offsuit ace out of position is an automatic fold in almost any type of game IMHO.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I wonder what your coach would think.
I expected this question from at least one leather-assed old rock. AT is the very worst hand that I would make this play and only when the game is right, passive and stupid. Your point is well taken. There are a lot of situations where AT goes into the muck without any regret.
I'll ask Coach next week and report.
-Fred-
When you've been sitting on your butt for an hour with no playable hands, A-T starts to look pretty good. Even if the limp was okay, it's a no-brainer to lay it down after the SB raises. There are only 3 likely hands the SB has, and A-To is big-time dominated.
I've found that most players don't raise with JJ from the blinds (especially the small blind) while many will raise with AQany. If your opponent played like this, then I think you were correct to fold. Include JJ and eliminate AQunsuited, and you have a marginal call at best since the flop will improve your hand to a hand better than just the raiser's about 15% of the time.
I can't see limping w/this hand this early. Maybe if the table is tight you could raise and hope to play heads up against the limper but probably a fold is best.
I think in a loose game somewhat big unsuited cards are not what you want to play early and esp in multiway pots. Calling seems to encourage this.
But given the situation your fold for a raise seems good. Maybe one should give the probability of flopping one of 1) two pair 2) trips 3) straight. I suspect its less than 1/10 but i can get back to you on this if you like....
you stick your head in a skunks hole and then ask what should i do when the skunk comes at me. why did you stick your head in the hole. now that you did fight the skunk.
This post is clipped from another thread on the small stakes forum. I thought it deserved its own thread, so I am putting it here. The original poster was asking about semi-bluff raising on the turn...
"...am I right to feel that given other circumstances a semi-bluff raise on the turn in low-limit hold 'em can yield profits simply because of its scary nature?"
For the most part, semi-bluff raising the turn in low limit [or very loose games] is not a good tactic. The reason for this is that you will very often be called by one more more players all the way to the river no matter what they have. So one of your reasons for making a semi-bluff raise, namely winning the pot outright, is unlikely to happen. Therefore you are losing expected value on your raise. Mostly what you will do by semi-bluff raising the turn is to simply charge yourself more $$ to make your draw.
I feel that the semi-bluff turn raise is more useful in short handed games, or in games that are fairly tough, or perhaps in higher limit games (for the same reason). You want to be against opponents that will stand some chance of FOLDING. This is rarely the case in a low limit game with a full table. However, I sometime use this play when the game is short, especially if I am against one or two tight players who I think are capable of laying down a hand. I know a couple regulars whom I would use this play against more frequently because I know they tend to lay down hands more easily, especially if there is a scary board.
Here is an example:
Six handed game. I limp with QsJs 2nd in BTF. Button calls, SB folds, BB checks. 4 players.
The flop is Ts 9d 4h. BB bets, next player calls, I call, button calls.
Turn is the As. BB bets again, next player folds. Here I decide to raise. The button probably would not be in this pot having limped with an ace, as he is pretty tight and usually only plays good aces (and then he usually raises with them). Forcing the button to call two bets cold is likely to make him fold unless my read here is totally wrong. The BB is an OK player, slightly on the tight side. I feel there is a reasonable chance that he will fold here. The combined chance of both players folding, plus my 15 outs with a flush card or a straight card, make this a good opportunity for a semi-bluff raise.
This pot is fairly small at this point. Since it's short handed, most of the pots are going to be pretty small anyway, so your drawing hands are not as valuable as they are in a full game. However, I am adding value to this hand by raising here since it increases the chance of my winning the pot. Keep in mind that against a full table of calling stations I probably wouldn't make this play.
Comments welcome. I hope this answered your question, or at least provoked some more thought on the matter.
Dave in Cali
So the BB called and we saw the river of a total blank. He checked. The pot was big here and the only way I had to win it was to bet. Since I thought there was some chance he would fold, I bluffed into him. I only needed a very small chance that he would fold to make the attempt worthwhile. he folded! Whew! I never did find out what he had. I suspect that he gave me credit for an ace and folded tens. This is one situation where I definitely did NOT want to show my hand. I quickly mucked after they pushed me the pot. Had I showed my hand these players would not respect my semi-bluff raises anymore and I would need the best hand much more often in order to win against them. Had he asked me what I had I would have told him something like A4s or A9 or Axs.
dave in cali
Your play is especially effective here because the Ace is such a great scare card and you have only two opponents. The only problem is that if a blank comes on the river you will frequently have to follow this up with another bet since you don't have a hand to showdown. Bottom line is that you are investing 3 double bets here to win a pot that has only about 10 small bets to start with. I guess because of all your outs it is a good play.
There is much theory and many tactics posted about raising on the button or cutoff to steal the blinds. Many have said that they virtually always raise when they are first in on the button.
But, what if the blinds are defensive and loose? Are there some hands that you would like to play for one bet against the blinds if you know if you raise they are going to call anyway?
The 21st century book covers this situation. If I recall properly, hands that are mentioned include small pocket pairs and hands such as A6 offsuit etc and I would add hands like 98s and the like. These are all hands that you should raise with on the button if you have some chance of stealing the blinds. But if the blinds are going to defend over 90% of the time or something, then you should call as folding would be out of the question (after all, you do have a hand and position).
Of course, if they check to you on the flop, you should probably bet without even looking:)
Such a situation would really depend on how badly they play later. If the blind is REALLY blind and will check-and-call every round and will only look in the show-down, then I'm sure 32 and 72 are profitable for a single bet. There are a lot of players who play somewhat this poorly.
If the blind is real tenacious now but plays well later then I suppose theoretically there are a FEW hands worth only one bet but not two, but the difference is not worth calculating.
Just because you prefer the blind to fold when you "steal" with say K7s doesn't mean you don't mind it for 2-bets; you have a better than average hand against an average hand out of position.
- Louie
I tend to choose loose-passive games to play in because I do the best in this type of game. Most of my opponents are loose enough to where they will almost always defend their blinds, especially the big blind. So the rare times that I am on the button and it gets passed to me, I will not just randomly steal with any two cards, because I will usually be called. In this type of game, I usually have to have an ace, medium suited connector, a semi-decent king or queen, or perhaps offsuit connectors like JT or higher. It is fairly futile to steal with less when you know you are going to be called, since you will simply be in a pot with trashy cards. I still fold J2o, 34s, K2o, etc.
Now in tournaments or tighter games, or sometimes in short handed games, I will lower my stealing requirements somewhat. In tournaments I will raise with ALMOST any two cards on the button if it is not a major threat to my stack. I will not do this late in a tournament when I am short stacked though. Against tighter opponents in the blinds, I will raise with lower quality hands since my chances of stealing are increased.
There are not many times when I will play for one bet against the blinds when I am folded to on the button. There is a school of thought that says you should not raise with big pairs in this situation, because they are worth much more than the blinds, therefore it is a disaster when you raise with them and get no action. In really loose games though, I would just raise anyway, since you will likely get called, they will think you are trying to steal, and now you are playing for more $$ with your premium hands.
dave in cali
Even if they defend a lot i still raise if i decide to call 1st in on the button or cut off, the only time i might not raise is if the blind is a mainac or extreamly tricky, but this is fairly rare.
I might just call with AA or KK thats about it.
I am returning to Milwaukee,WI here in a few months upon my end of tour in the Military. Where is the closest Live poker games from there, anyone know?? I really wish WI would get poker..
Thanks, Smaegol
Smaegol,
I am a poker enthusiaist, who happens to live in WI, and I'll tell you what it SUCKS! I play at Highlands, Paradise and Planet (on occasion for planet) and that is about it, live poker the closest places to Milwaukee would be the chicago river boats, or Hollywood Casino aurora ( i think they have poker), Wisconsin, has a bunch of casinos, I really think they need to get poker!
Wisconsin, through it's governor has a pact with the Indians, which stipulates (for the present time) no additional casino games. Write the governor, if you have a beef.
Smaegol,
The closest poker room to Wisconsin is probably Hollywood Casino in Aurora, IL. The next closest would be Harrah's in East Chicago, IL. I live approximately 2 hours south of Chicago and have played in both rooms. Aurora is closer for you, but game selection is very limited. They have 7 tables and usually spread $1-$5 stud, $5-$10 & $10-$20 & $20-$40 hold'em. I think they also sometimes have a $50-$100 half Omaha hi/lo, half Stud hi/lo game. If I remember correctly, the poker room closes on Saturday at 7 pm. They do this because Illinois limits the number of gaming spots that can be open at once, and the casino makes more from the Blackjack tables than from the poker room. I played there about a 6 months, and then quit going because I would drive 2 hours to get there, and then have to wait 2 or 3 hours to get on a table.
Harrah's in East Chicago has 16 tables, and I play there almost every weekend now. They are open from 9:00 am to 4:30 am 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Stud games: $1-$5, $2-$10, $10-$20 or $15-$30, sometimes $20-$40. Hold'em: $4-$8, $6-$12, $10-$20 & $20-$40. Omaha hi/lo: $4-$8 or $6-$12, sometimes $10-$20. HOSE (holem, omaha, stud, stud e/o) $40-$80. Friday nights are very busy - get there by 7 pm if you want to get in a game (depends on the game you're interested in). Saturday again there is a lot of action. Be there by 1 pm to be sure you get the game you want.
I usually go up on Friday evening, and stay over to play on Saturday also. There are plenty of motels in the area to provide a place to lay your head. If you want something fancier, Trump Casino has a land-based hotel in Gary, IN, beside their boat(but no poker on the boat.)
Harrah's is in East Chicago, Indiana (not Illinois).
I have recently reexamined my game with the use of studying everyday and playing as much as possible, I am no longer playing anything less than A9os, (as far as A's go)occasionally I see players from early/middle position dragging monsters with A4, A6. My question is Am I leaving money on the table by folding these holdings? My reasoning was I needed to substantially tighten my game, and stay out of kicker trouble that was costing me money in the long run, Now OTOH I will play any suited A for one bet depending on the texture of the game and position, but with anything less than A7 suited I will lay it down if I hit the A and theres any action. Comments appreciated!
It is normally not a good idea to play Ace-Little offsuit in a full tabled limit hold-em game. The reason is because there are very few flops that will improve your hand enough to have it end up as the best hand. A "good" flop for you would be a flop of Ace-high giving you top pair but the problem is that it puts you in a position of either winning a small pot or losing a big one because of your kicker problem. However, as your kicker gets large like around Ace-Nine or Ace-Ten than the hand because much more playable because in the absence of a raise your kicker may well win the pot for you.
Ace-Little suited on the other hand is much more playable and you should limp in with it behind other limpers although you should normally fold in raised pots. The reason is because of all the extra money you win if you make the nut flush in a loose game. In a loose game being suited means much more than in a tight game.
"Ace-Little suited...should be folded in raised pots."
Jim,
What about playing ace-little suited for a call in late position with a small number of limpers that would normally make it worth the gamble, BUT one of the limpers is all in?
I will usually fold here, even if I think there will be as many as four other players besides myself, that's becaused I'll often not get paid off on the river if I make my flush since the remaining players know they get to see my hand no matter what. Plus you lose whatever extra money the all-in player might have added if he had caught a piece of the board.
What is the minimun number of limpers you would call with Ace-little suited when there is an all-in player who has already called before it's your turn to act?
Thanks, Don
Tough question. I really don't know. I normally just limp in with Ace-Little suited behind others regardless of how many limpers there are. A guy who goes all-in may just be doing so because he wants to get all-in and actually have a worse hand than mine. I figure even in late position if one guy limps, another guy goes all-in, I limp, the small blind will usually limp, and the big blind will take a free play so you will usually have at least 5 players taking the flop.
Don't forget that Ace little still has high card equity.
Bruce
I have been working on A9 and A little suited for the last 6 mons. My conclusion is do not play less than A10o, fold A9o unless you are trying for a steal or defending against a steal in the blind.
Axs i want 5 or more callers and i would prefer my kicker is a 4 or 5 for the strait, I do not like to play when the kicker is 6-9.
Question from a long-time lurker, first-time poster...
I've been playing low and mid-limit HE for about 9 months. I think one (among many) weaknesses in my game is in not attacking the blinds aggressively enough in late position with no one in. Likewise, play fairly tightly on the blind and fold even when I'm fairly sure the late-position raiser is on a steal.
My question is this: how much of your profit in poker comes from attacking and defending the blind? I know this question is absurdly general and dependent on game conditions. Replies appreciated.
Will
You bring up a good point, but I would venture to say that in Ring games, the majority of your profit is NOT going to come from attacking/stealing the blinds, however that does not mean you shouldn't do it. In tournaments, especially in late pos. you NEED to steal the blinds, unless you have a HUGE stack, however in ring games the opposite is true b/c you can always go into your pocket. Now, as game conditions dicatate, then going after the blinds is a smart idea, 1. it helps establish your tight-aggressive image 2. it adds to your profit 3. it puts you in control when the blinds do take the flop with you. In LL HE you will probably find attacking the blinds to be the least effective, b/c of the many calling stations and LL players over-eagerness to protect their blinds, however that can also be used to your advantage. If I am on the button and the first one in, I would probably say that I raise with everything except the trash hands ie 7-2, 10-3, etc. In that situation hands worth a call are worth a raise, and if the blinds are weak players, then your raising hands maybe worth just a call in order to extract the most profit from them, example: you are on the button holding AsAc and it's folded to you, both the small and big blinds are weak passive players, in this case you are going to simply call and hope to draw one or both of them in for multiple bets, now realize that this also increases the chance of being outdrawn, but one runs the risks that one incurs. I feel that that is more profitable, but probably the biggest thing to remember is that all Poker starts as a struggle for the blinds/antes and how big/small those blinds/antes are in relation to future bets should dictate how you play your hand. And this reflects my idea about AA being worth a call if your the first one in on the button. Hope this helps, comments appreciated on my post!
JRounder2000
In a full tabled limit hold-em game very little of your earn over the course of a year comes from stealing/defending the blinds. I cannot give you a percentage estimate but I would guess it is on the order of maybe 1%. Similarily, very little of your earn comes from stealing pots and deception. This might all add up to maybe 10%. The vast majority of your profit comes from showing down the best hand. This is true whether you are a small winner or a big winner (i.e.- 1 BB per hour range).
Jim-I'm surprised you feel that way, especially since I'm familiar with the games in which you are playing. I never stealing and defending blinds were important, either. That changed when I moved up to 15/30. There were so many more hands dealt and so many instances where it was folded around to a middle or late position player who raised. Of all the adjustments I was forced to make at the higher limits, I feel shorthanded blind play was one of the most important.
There is a big difference between a 10 handed game where someone opens from middle position and a 5 handed game. The difference is that in a 5 handed game you are having to put up blinds twice as often so it becomes imperative for you to play looser, attack the blinds more, and defend your blinds more. But in a full tabled limit hold-em game pots that involve steal-raises from late position are not that many and when they do occur the pot itself is usually small since it is heads-up in most cases. Both players are frequently playing marginal hands in these situations so there is not a great deal of earn here over the course of a year. Your real earn comes from winning more than the average share of the big, multi-handed pots and having more than the average share of your good hands stand up. Full tabled limit hold-em is really about showing down the best hand by either starting with the best hand and having it hold-up or starting with a worse hand but playing it with favorable odds and hoping that you suckout often enough to show a profit.
Coyote,
I agree with Jim and JRounder. Little of your profit does come from blind stealing. However, the affect it may have on your reputation is worth doing it with otherwise substandard holdings, IMO. Showing down a winner that does not look like a raising hand after you raise first in may increase the likelihood that a weak player will call your future button raises. If you wait for a premium hand to raise again, you may rope someone in.
Do not limp in with AA in LL HE. Not in that circumstance, not ever!
KJS
It's not so much stealing as lowering you raising and starting hand standards when in the last 2 poasitions and no limpers - it also has to do with the way the 2 or 3 behind you play against a raise.
In Card Player Steve Badger wrote that when two supertight players are in the blinds and you are one behind the button, you should play for a raise, every two card combination from AA-72 offsuit. Agree or disagree?
I think as the original poster said this is very game dependent. But often in late position you are offered 1.5/ 2 on your steal. (or 1.666 /2 in most 15-30 games).
SO if you can steal 4/7 of the time this is profitable. You plby don't need to steal this often bc you have position and may even flop someting.
IF you are in loose game where you need to show down the hand almost evertime then your stealing frequency won't be big enough to be profitable but in my experience in most 10/20 games aren't like this. I would be surprised if my steals account for less 5 or even 10% of my profit...
IF Badger said that he is wrong. Unless the blinds are total passive morons. You can't do ANYTHING in poker "every time" if I have some ahole raising my blinds "every time" you can bet your bottom dollar I'm gonna start coming over the top playing back "almost every time" I have a better than random hand.
One off the button? I haven't read the article, but I guess you also need to have a button that's a lot dumber than you are. If he's not, he own't take kindly to you ruining the play he was going to make and 3-betting you won't be far from his mind.
But assuming a fencepost for a button and blinds that are both very tight and not tricky, I think Badger is about 95% right. If the blinds are very tight you can raise in the cutoff with everything better than about 84o.
Anyone out there have the new version 4 of Turbo Texas Hold'em? Are there significant improvements? Any bugs? Thanks!
Improvements have been made in the quality of play of the profiles, as well as the advisor (advice is now generated from several hidden profiles). There is also more flexibility in testing capabilities, especially the ability to turn the toughness feature "adjust to number of opponents" on or off by seat number and phase of the hand. I think they are still working on a couple finishing touches, though. If you wait a week or two to purchase the program, you will receive a new profile whose preflop programming was done by yours truly! It is a preflop maniac whose tentative name is Colonel Capp. [No, he's not based on my playing style!]
How can current owners of TTH 4.0 get access to profiles like "Col Capp"?
I'm not aware of any other profiles to be added to the program. You may e-mail me about the colonel if you wish.
So I'm considering turning pro. Strongly considering it. What things do I need to think about?
I'm based in the sf bay area, planning on playing around 20-40 and 30-60, though I'm beginning to dabble in some of the big bet games around here.
My results for 20-40 this year are as follows:
~300 hours 66.44 per hour Std Dev: 239.94
In 30-60, I only have around 25 hours of play, but I'm making $150 an hour. Short term luck, of course. I tend to play 20-40 more, simply because the drive is much shorter, no other reason than that.
What else do I need to know? How can I tell if my results, above, are reasonable and good enough? Clearly, I'm making enough money on average. The question, though, is how much of that is due to luck and how much to skill. How do I tell? Is 300 hours enough?
What else haven't I thought of?
Thanks, target
Things to think about:
1. Drive time.
2. Expenses.
3. Health insurance.
I should tell you? Are you going to help retrieve the 12 G I lost, trying to "go pro"?
what is your bankroll?
Well, it can be more or less whatever I want/need it to be. It's currently at about $20k, but that's low for professional play, so I need to increase it.
- target
well, i mean, if bankroll is not much of an issue ( can tap up to 100k), then really you can learn to beat the game even if presently youre only running good. :)
brad
The number of hours you have played for $20-$40 and especially $30-$60 are way to low too be very meaningful. Wait until you accumulate several thousand hours at these levels before you make a decision.
Hm. The issue is that I have the opportunity to go now, with relatively few responsibilities that would interfere. I'm not totally convinced that that will remain the case for the indefinite future.
It's clearly possible that I'm good enough now. It's also possible that I've just been lucky thus far.
Is there a way to tell which one is more likely?
- target
I think you answered your own question....you indicated at 20-40 your results are:
~300 hours 66.44 per hour Std Dev: 239.94
Let's round for ease and say that you have won $67 per hour with a SD of $240. I would now translate that into saying that 99% (3 SD) of the 300 hour sets you'll play will fall between a loss of $653 and a win of $787 per hour. In other words, you haven't played enough hours to get a reliable estimate. I would say you have to conclude (so far) that you have merely been lucky. More hours will produce a lower SD, giving you more predictive value.
The previous post was innacurate.
The SD target quotes is his HOURLY SD. For a 300 hour set, you would multiply the hourly SD by SQRT(300):
240*SQRT(300) = 4157
Now, you multiply his hourly EV by the number of hours, 300: 66*300 = 19,800
So, 3 SDs would put him at: 19,800 - 3*4157 = 7,329.
So, just the opposite is true, target looks like he has an excellent chance of being a tremendous player.
Now, forget about the math for a second. Target: Your numbers are PHENOMENAL. Are they really accurate? You have an hourly EV of over 1.5 BB in this relatively big game. Even more astonishing is that you have an hourly SD of 6 BB!!!!!! This, if really true, is clearly a sign to me that you know what you're doing at the poker table.
My suggestion is to go another 300 hours and make sure that you accurately record your stats. If your numbers hold up, I would say pretty confidently that you're ready to dive head first into the felt.
One thing that troubles me though is that you seem unsure as to whether you're really a winning player. With the numbers you post, I would think that you have extraordinary command of the game, able to effortlessly discern your opponents' errors and clearly see where and how much you have an advantage against most every player you come up against. If you're just playing and winning, and don't really know why, then either you're a freak and making all the right moves subconsciously, or you've been insanely lucky. Best of luck to you.
SDman
Heh. My feeling about it is this: I feel like I am crushing the game I'm playing in right now. A lot of that is that I pretty much play exclusively in a single game, and so I know the players really well.
But I don't have a good metric to measure myself against. Everyone says that pros try for one BB per hour, but my guess is that this game is easier than the games that are in vegas or wherever. So I just am not sure how I compare.
As far as records, when I sit down at a table I record the time I sat down. When I get up I record the time and the amount of monetary change. All this is in a spreadsheet in my palm pilot. So I think my records are pretty good.
I seem to win about 6 or 7 times for every time I lose, if that's any indication, but my losses tend to be a bit larger than my wins. Not sure why that would be.
I would consider myself to be the second best regular player in my game.
Thanks,
target
Target,
I can explain the phenomenon of having your losses be much more infrequent, but larger, than your wins.
You probably tend to play longer when you're losing, to try to catch up, and tend to be less inclined to pull the same long hours, when you're ahead. Of course, varying the time spent at the table by itself will have no effect whatsoever on your EV, but it WILL increase the % of sessions that you win. And when you lose, you will tend to lose bigger. Nothing to worry about.
With your records, I would think you are the #1 player at your table. This game may indeed be very easy and not indicative of a typical 20-40 game, so be careful.
-SDman
SDman is correct. 99% of the hours will fall between 67 +/- 3*240, but that is not the same as 99% of the 300 hour sets giving this hourly range. The SD only goes up as the square root of the number of hours, so the hourly range averaged over 300 hour intervals becomes 67 +/- 3*14 since 14 = 240*sqrt(300)/300. The hourly range becomes tighter the longer we play.
Even if we assign a higher SD of 10 to his results, he is close to the 95% confidence interval of being a 1 bb/hr player (only 5% of 1 bb/hr players would have results this good in 300 hours). With the SD he posted he is better than the 95% confidence level.
If we assume an hourly SD of 10 bb/hr, he is not at the 95% confidence level for 1 bb/hr, only the 87% level. He is at the 95% confidence level for .75 bb/hr or $30/hr. With his SD as posted he is still above the 95% confidence level for 1 bb/hr.
Talk to sombody you feel is a winning player in your game and try and get a honest opion of how you play.
I personaly do not feel anyone can be a pro player with less than 1000 hrs of play. You need to have a big loosing streak to see how well you handle that.
300 hrs is not very long i would wait at least another 6 mons.
"You need to have a big loosing streak to see how well you handle that."
quite possibly the best possible advice.
Hm. I guess that'd be useful, but it's not something I'm going to strive for.
It'll happen when it happens, I guess.
- target
i agree with tommy, just do it. the above just means that you wont really know if you can really be a pro until you see what happens to your game when you run really bad. no reason not to try, though. besides, you may never run *really* bad. (ha ha ha ....)
brad
Your attitude will have much to do with your success. At this point, I recommend disregarding all the other factors, do it for a few months and see how things are going. You have nothing to lose besides money, and it will be an opportunity that many never get to enjoy. Quite a poker education you will gain too.
Target,
My thoughts on when to turn pro are off the charts. Virtually NONE of the commonly weighed issues are nearly as important as they seem. And some of the factors often scoffed at should be faced head on a valued heavily.
Bankroll shmankroll. You've got plenty. That's not a factor.
Playing ability. Irrelevent. If you think you MIGHT be good enough already, then there is definitely a chance that can BECOME good enough. But that takes tons of practice and no time constraints. THIS is the classic catch 22. To know if you can do it, you have to do it first. There's no other way. That means quit your job and see how you hold up with 24 hour games available. You sink alone and swim alone. It's a whole new way of living. Few can hack it, and it ain't no cakewalk, but it is, but it isn't. You'll see.
You said your window of opportunity is good right now. That is SOOOO important, far more than all the usual jive. More than anything else you've told us, this is the reason I think you should take the plunge. If for no other reason that you avoid regretting NOT taking the plunge when you had the chance.
Reasons for turning pro? This is where you must be honest with yourself and unashamed of what you find. Surely there are many reasons. If one of them is ego, just to see if you can do it, well, that is a perfectly legitimate reason, no matter what any book tells you. Face the truth. Then, if you start out ego-motivated, and some years go by and you still have a bankroll, the ego think will likely wear off and you'll be a 'seasoned' pro, whatever the heck that means. lol Anyway, that's part of the path I took. That's how I know its possible, and nothing to scoff at. I see nothing 'wrong' with being ego motivated at first. The river of life will make its adjustments.
If your reason is to gain freedom that most only dream of, then as with any realistic dream, keep it nearby and it'll come true.
I heard you mention 20-40 and bay area. I'll be watching you from seat #1 at Lucky Chances. Say hi next time. :-)
Tommy
Moving up in limit is one thing, but going pro? 300 hours is not even close to being enough time to be able to make that decision.
I suppose that depends. What do you do for a career now? If you have a low paying job that you could replace in a week or less, then maybe it's ok. But if you are some kind of educated professional, I would think long and hard before making this decision! How are you going to explain that gap of a few months or whatever in your career if you decide to go back to your old career?
And heck, after just 300 hours poker is still tons of fun! After a couple of thousand it isn't. Sure, it's still fun, and I play because I like to. But the primary focus, for me, has become winning extra money. It can get really boring sometimes. Do you really want to do that as a career for the rest of your life? Yaawwnnnn.
Keep in mind that you will have to keep crazy hours, no insurance or benefits, no retirement, etc.
-SmoothB-
I seem to remember a post several months ago by a 50 yr old pro who was on an 11 month losing streak. He had been playing for about 25 years, and, with this nasty streak, was regretting his career choice big time. He was in danger of losing his house; he had no skills to fall back on; he was definitely bummed out (no kidding !!). His advice was to stay away from playing poker as a pro. You might also check out the 10/16/00 thread "Playing poker as a pro" on rec.gambling.poker, especially Ed Hill's post with 6 (I think) key points to consider before you jump. OBTW, good luck !!
"Do you really want to do that as a career for the rest of your life?"
There's yet another irrelevant consideration. The 'career choice' aspect can be made each day, and I feel that's the best outlook to shoot for.
"Experience a bad run first and then decide." That's bad advice in my opinion. There are two kinds of bad streaks, those with a safety net and those without. The tight-rope walker with a net has little to REALLY fear. The full-time pro is often like the walker with no net. You fall, you get hurt bad. Running bad while holding a job is no test of anything. Running bad without a job is. And the only way to know what'll happen then is to not have the job.
Fear is the ultimate enemy, far more important that earned-bets-per-hour and all that jive, in my opinion. Fears must be known and faced. That requires uncommon self-honesty and vigilance because fears take so many forms and they change.
My biggest fear used to be going broke. Then I went broke a couple dozen times and the fear went away. Now I'm pumped up like never before and it would again hurt terribly to go broke, or would it? Heck, I've been there. It ain't so bad really. The risk of going broke is nothing compared to the gains of surviving as a pro, at least in MY mind. Each person must weigh and monitor their own fears. These days my biggest fear is doing stupid stuff, whether it be making a bad payoff, missing a raise on the turn, picking the wrong game, or playing without going for a walk first. It's all so personal. There's no grand formula, but there are 'right' moves and 'wrong' moves within our own contantly refined systems of what works and what doesn't. And again, the only way to refine is to practice hard and often. And that requires leaving the job.
Tommy
This subject is one that crossed my mind often. What kind of schedule do you keep? How many days a week do you play? Do you keep some type job to substain a main stream live style? Etc, Etc. I would think there are some common factors among sucessful pro players. Most players turing pro probably have desire/need of making 200 to 300K yearly or more. My needs these days are minimal. How hard is it to make 50K a year playing mid and low limits?
I can't speak for anyone else . . .
I agree with you that some players enter pro-poker hoping to make 200K/year or thereabouts. I've never set my goals that high and likely never will.
I don't think in terms of "income per year," because January 1st is an arbitrary date, as any other date would be. Because I always take two days off every seven days or so, I think by the week. I can live just fine with plenty of options to travel or dine or whatever if I make $1000 per week. Anything over that is gravy that sometimes fuels long breaks because I'm lazy.
Tommy
Tommy, Thanks for the info. Do you usually play the same game/ limits daily? Do you travel around much looking for better games where you are not know? How much income if any comes from torunaments? Sorry for so many question!
Hey Tommy,
I kinda thought maybe I would see ya at San Pablo this week. They have the tournaments going all week and the live games have been great. Course only 1 20-40 and nothin higher. But hell I picked up over 2 grand in 9-18 and 6-12 this week. Two more days left counting today. If you do show and see me I'll buy ya dinner. I owe ya that. Somethin we conversed about via e-mail hepled me tremendously this week. Later
Sounds good, Larry. I'll take you up on the dinner, as long as I don't have to cross a bridge. I've been to San Pablo exactly once, and that was three years ago. :-)
See ya,
Tommy
Here are my guesses for what an ok pro should do in a 20/40 game : have an EV of at least 30/hr ... have a standard deviation of less than 500 per hour. your numbers are much better than this...which means you are playing well, but it may also mean that you've been lucky of late. it's hard to tell...maybe you are a great player.
as far as turning pro, if you are not missing a career opportunity right now in another line of work, turning pro is fine...if you can pick up your other careeer assuming you fall flat on your face at poker....why not give it a shot, I'm sure it would give you a lot of satisfaction if you are succesfull.
call me crazy, but I always thought it was worth more to me (this is just for me, not for everybody else), making x in poker was like making 4x in another line of work, because it means more to me somehow.
Greetings all, thanks for the responses to the "blind/ante stealing" question I posted before.
Have read and re-read all of the books in the Advanced Players series as well as TOP. One complaint I have is that those books are primarily geared towards ring games and don't fully delve into heads-up and short-handed play.
I'd appreciate it if someone can suggest some books that focus on heads-up/short-handed play (preferably hold-em). Thanks.
Will.
Was the HPFAP that you read the new edition? It has a section on shorthanded play.
Sometimes I play against opponents who won't let me get a free card on the flop when they are in the blinds and have called my early position raise pre-flop, flopped top pair, and bet out.
Me (with position))AK
Him) KT
Flop: 4,8,T
I try to counter with a Raise on the Flop to get a free card and to represent a High Pair, but he pops me back with an other Raise. Now he just committed a bad play if I truely had a High Pocket Pair, but I don't know how to counter when I have just overcards.
CV
You had a better hand preflop and he had a hand that is very easily dominated. However, the flop missed your hand and hit his pretty hard.
Looks like he put you on AK and made a good reraise. I I think your choices are reraise or fold. If you reraise here, there is a pretty good chance he will just call you down to the river and you need an A to fall to beat him.
If you think he will fold to a reraise if you represent AA, go ahead and reraise, but many low limit players will simply call you down to just see what you have.
Without knowing anything else about the opponent, I would fold here. Make sure to remember this hand, though, and use it to your advantage later.
Later in the session, opponents might think are easy to knock off a hand, make sure you come over the top on him when you hold top pair/top kicker exactly like he did to you.
Even if you're pretty sure this foiler has top pair, how can you safely presume his kicker is a K or A? I think your plan of attack depends not just upon your relative positions but upon how many others called your pre-flop raise. Even if it's heads up, you have a maximum of 6 outs, so, rather than attempting to outmuscle him on the flop, you could try just calling his flop bet (almost justified by pot odds alone) and then semi-bluff raising or folding on the turn if a blank hits. Then again, how could you have predicted he would reraise you on the flop unless this had happened before? Not many players are that gutsy against someone who has raised pre-flop from early position.
I can't be sure at the time that it happens but some people I play with do it more than others. It may have to do with my taking free cards on 4th a lot, but this is only a thought. I will have to see if this happens more often when I have been taking using position to get free cards a lot.
It seems certain people I play with tend to belive that it is 80% certain that an early position raiser has AKo.
CV
The play you're proposing will only work if he thinks you tend to fold overcards, and he'll think that only if you tend to fold overcards. So tend to fold your overcards and let him lose a bet by not check-raising. Then, unless he can't release top pair on the turn or river, 3-bet him with overcards occasionally. Folding overcards in cases like this (obviously, with other flop textures folding would be wrong) also produces the wonderful effect of inducing him to bet even worse hands when you do have an overpair, a source of considerable value.
you counter by folding on the flop and losing no more money. then get to punish him when you hit a better top pair. your play is correct when against players that routinely bet no hand at you in this spot and fold later on.
So, you are in a small pot against someone with a better hand who is going to correctly bet this hand out and isn't going to be bluffed ... I'll leave the rest of this to non-Rocket-Scientist types.
All you really need to do is GET OVER the "fact" that you were "supposed" to win this pot by virtue of your position and superior pre-flop hand.
You ARE "taking advantage" of the opponent when you fold. You also get to take advantage of the opponent when he checks. Anybody who has trouble beating a predictable opponent when in position is in serious trouble...
- Louie
Dare I be crotchedy enough to suggest that you also need to GET OVER the "fact" that "free cards" are always worth it? OK, maybe not you but certainly some others.
When you raised BTF, it is not that surprising that a blind called you. However, you raised from early position, so that would tell any at least partially observant opponent that you "have some sort of hand". You didn't specify, but I am assuming that you are heads up in this hand against the BB.
So now it's the flop and the BB bets into your pre-flop raise. Unless he is a maniac, or is on some sort of ill-advised (and highly unlikely) bluff, you have to assume that he has SOMETHING. So you try a raise, hoping, perhaps in vain, that you will get a free card out of it. When you get re-popped by the BB, what does his play tell you? Only a TOTAL maniac would three bet you in this spot without a hand that beats AK. Since you did not describe the BB in this fashion, you must assume that you are now beaten. You may have as many as six outs, but it is entirely possible you might only have three (if he has top pair with overcards that duplicate your hand, as he did in this case). This implies that three of your "outs" are actually very expensive false outs. As would have been the case if a king came on the turn.
Given my (albeit longwinded) logic on this analysis, I think you should give it up on this pot. Even your flop raise was marginal at best, since you had virtually no possibility of stealing the pot with it, and it certainly wasn't a value raise. The ONLY good your flop raise could have produced was a free card.
Get away from this hand and wait for a better opportunity to punish players who call pre-flop early position raises with KT.
Dave in Cali
Mr. Brier, CAN YOU HELP ME OUT WITH THIS? IN AN EARILER REGARDING ATo POST JIM BRIER WROTE. "I think you should have called. If this were a $10-$20 game there would be $70 in the pot after the small blind raised. Assuming the loose limper and the other two players behind you call, this means there would be $100 in the pot and it costs you another $10 to see three cards. You will flop top pair or better over 20% of the time. You are getting 10:1 on a 4:1 proposition. Agreed that you are in danger of being dominated but this is such a great overlay that you have a clear call here. " I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE GETTING 10:1 FOR CALLING. HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH ATo BEING A 4:1 PROPOSITION? I THINK (got off a chart) THAT ATo IS APPROX 6:1 AGAINST "ALL" CARDS. BEING 6 TIMES IT WON'T HOLD UP AND 1 TIME IT WILL. OF COURSE YOU USUALLY DON'T GO UP AGAINST RANDOM HANDS. Thanks in advance for your time and further explaination!!! I very much appreciate you and other experts on this fourm.
I think this is one of the rare instances Jim has misfired. The problem is that the raiser could very well have AK, AQ, or AA so that "you will flop top pair or better over 20% of the time" is misleading.
This will be long and complicated. Furthermore, it may not be exactly right but it should be close.
Suppose you have Ace-Ten. Consider the following two cases. Case One is the flop comes up with just one Ace and no Ten. Now when this happens you have a top pair of Aces but nothing more. Case Two is the flop comes up with just one Ten but no Ace, King, Queen, Jack, or second Ten. When this happens you have a top pair of Tens but nothing more.
Case One:
Probability of first card on flop being an Ace and the second and third cards are neither another Ace or a Ten.
(3 Aces/50 Unseen Cards) x (49 Unseen Cards - 2 Aces - 3 Tens)/(49 Unseen Cards) x (48 Unseen Cards - 2 Aces - 3 Tens)/(48 Unseen Cards) = (3/50)(44/49)(43/48) = 0.0482652.
Probability of the first card on the flop being a Non-Ace or a Non-Ten and the second card on the flop being an Ace and the third card on the flop being a Non-Ace or a Non-Ten is: (44/50)(3/49)(43/48) = 0.0482652.
Probability of the first card on the flop being a Non-Ace or a Non-Ten and the second card on the flop being a Non-Ace or a Non-Ten and the third card on the flop being an Ace is: (44/50)(43/49)(3/48) = 0.0482652.
Therefore the probability of flopping exactly one Ace with no Ten when you have Ace-Ten is 0.0482652 x 3 which is 0.1448 or about 14.5%.
Case Two:
The probability of the first card on the flop being a Ten and the second card on the flop being a Non-Ace or a Non-King or a Non-Queen or a Non-Jack or a Non-Ten is:
(3 Tens/50 Unseen Cards) x (49 Unseen Cards - 3 Aces - 4 Kings - 4 Queens - 4 Jacks - 2 Tens/49 Unseen Cards) x (48 Unseen Cards - 3 Aces - 4 Kings - 4 Queens - 4 Jacks - 2 Tens/48 Unseen Cards) = (3/50)(32/49)(31/48)=0.025.
Therefore the probability of flopping exactly one Ten with no Ace,King,Queen, or Jack is 0.025 x 3 or about 7.6%.
Now if I add Case One and Case Two this is 14.5% + 7.6% or 22.1%.
So about 22% of the time when you hold Ace-Ten you will flop top pair but nothing more. In addition to this there will be a certain percentage of the time where you will flop two pair, trips, a straight, a full house, or a four of a kind.
Now if you want further confirmation of this then I would check out Poker, Gaming, and Life by David Sklansky. On Page 37 he provides a chart which shows the probability of the highest card on the flop being an Ace, King, Queen, etc. The probability of the highest card on the flop being an Ace is 21.7% and the probability of the highest card on the flop being a Ten is 9.9% so the combined probability of the highest card on the flop being an Ace or a Ten is 31.6%. However, his chart does not consider the two cards in your hand. Given that you have an Ace and a Ten this probability gets reduced because there are only 6 Aces and Tens left in the deck instead of 8. For simplicity you could take 31.6% and multiply it by 6/8 which yields about 24%. This number is not exactly right but it gives you some assurance that my calculation of 22% is correct which I sort of rounded off to 20%.
To respond to the point made by Mark Harris given that you have an Ace and an Ace flops the probabiliy of someone having AA,AK,AQ, or AJ is dramatically reduced because two of the four Aces in the deck are accounted for. Similarily, if you flop a top pair of Tens the likelihood of someone having AA,AK,AQ, or AJ is reduced because you have an Ace plus there was no pre-flop raise and most people would raise with AA,KK,QQ,JJ or AK.
"To respond to the point made by Mark Harris given that you have an Ace and an Ace flops the probabiliy of someone having AA,AK,AQ, or AJ is dramatically reduced because two of the four Aces in the deck are accounted for. Similarily, if you flop a top pair of Tens the likelihood of someone having AA,AK,AQ, or AJ is reduced because you have an Ace plus there was no pre-flop raise and most people would raise with AA,KK,QQ,JJ or AK."
Jim, the post to which Joe referred (unless I'm as fuzzy as candidate wuzzy) involved a raise from the small blind with AT having already limped in from middle position. So there was additional information to factor into all those equations. To wit, a raise from either blind but especially the small blind often GUARANTEES that AT will be seeing the flop simultaneously with someone holding A with a better kicker or an overpair to TT. This means that a) an ace will be much less likely to appear in the flop; b) a ten-high flop will appear slightly more often than the percentage you calculated would indicate (2 more cards accounted for) but will be dominated by JJ, QQ, KK, AA much of the time (how much depends upon the range of hands the particular blind will raise with); c) when an ace does hit the flop, you will be outkicked a good deal of the time. Therefore that 22.1% figure must be downgraded to something like 13%. And that's if the raiser were isolated; in the original post, there were 3 or 4 other callers.
Your analysis above applies only to those instances when there has been no preflop raise. Certainly you would agree that AT should be mucked if a nonmaniac raised from early position. The general question one could adduce from that original post was: should AT be mucked after either blind has raised and several others (including AT) have already called?
No, I don't believe you can muck this hand after you limp in and it gets raised from behind because the pot odds you are getting have gone up that much more. It is very rare to see a good player limp in and then fold when it is raised behind him. The only real exception is in the small blind and he only had to call a fraction of a bet but then decided to fold when the big blind raised because it would cost him a full bet. For example, if you are playing $15-$30 with a $10 small blind you frequently see the small limp for $5 and then fold when the big blind raised and the action comes back to the small blind.
Actually this whole issue began when Rick Nebiolo stated that he would not limp in from middle position behind other limpers with Ace-Ten offsuit and he wanted to know why I would.
well, whether to call, fold, or raise in the first place is a separate discussion. I've been known to raise in that situation, but usually just call; what do S & M recommend? if I hold AT in middle position and there are two limpers, then I call and the small blind raises and the two limpers call, I will fold if I'm sure the small blind only raises with QQ, KK, AA, AQany, AKany.
by the way, a good argument for raising with something like AJsuited or 99 against multiple players (on occasion) is to entice marginal hands like AT or A9 to enter the fray when you do have them dominated; and one need not expose the hand for it to register that one has raised preflop with less than a premium hand; bowing out quickly postflop may also do the trick.
I believe they recommend just limping in behind others in middle position with this Group 6 hand and not raising or folding.
I believe you are making a mistake by folding if the small blind raises behind you and everyone else calls. If this were a $10-$20 game there would be $80 in the pot and it costs you $10. You are getting 8:1 on your call at that point and it makes no sense to now fold and not see three cards.
in this situation, I'd be up against two early position limpers plus the raiser. if the raiser holds a premium pair other than AA, then it is quite likely one of the early position limpers holds an ace (A,>7 suited, AJunsuited, AQunsuited, being the likeliest combos). the four most favorable flops, KQJ, ATx, AAT, and TTx, combined will appear no more than 3-4% of the time since another ace is probably out. if an ace flops and an early position player bets, I'm getting squeezed from both sides. if an ace flops and it's checked to me, all too often I'm outkicked when I bet but I can't afford to check either. nor am I assured of getting paid off when an ace flops and I bet since it would be correct for the preflop raiser to fold JJ, QQ, KK unimproved against that field (moreover, drawing hands are getting favorable odds to continue). if a 10-high flop appears (7% of the time according to your calculation), and I bet, it will be raised by the preflop raiser as much as half the time or more and I probably have but 4 outs if I choose to chase when that occurs. all in all, odds are when I hit the flop it will be quite costly if I come up short and not profitable enough to compensate when I don't.
I agree with you that there are specific layouts where calling here is mathematically incorrect but there are many other layouts where calling is clearly correct. One limper has 99,88,77, or 66 and the other limper has KQ offsuit, QJ suited, JT suited, or KJ suited, etc. and the raiser has KK,QQ,JJ,AK, or AQ. At 8:1 pot odds to see 3 cards I would guess that a simulation of these hands against Ace-Ten offsuit would reveal that you have a positive EV by calling. I agree with your observation that 3-4% of the time you will flop two pair or better. But at 8:1 you only need about 11% equity (1 chance in 9) to just break-even. I think the small difference between 11% and 3%-4% can be made up just by looking at all the possible hands your opponents could have and the number of times you can flop top pair/top kicker or just top pair that happens to be good once the flop comes.
O.K. then: it's barely (marginally) correct to call or a losing proposition; in this case, if I'm erring, it's on the side of prudence. here's a crude analogy as a peroration for my position: a very good high school basketball player rides his bike to a gym across town. once he gets there, there is either no one to play with or he gets his butt whipped by a bunch of college fratboys...
Am curious for opinions as to what players feel is the most common strategy error.I play 7st, hold'em and Omaha.
ty
Coach,
I play low and mid limit hold 'em. I think the most common error is checking and calling with a substandard hand (second pair, top pair weak kicker, underpair, bad flush draw, gutshot etc.). Of course, I love playing with such players.
KJS
In all 3 games, there is the same most common error, from low limits thru mid limits, until you get to high limits, and that is ...
Playing too many starting hands.
This is so common that there isn't a second place error that is even worth considering.
Dick
I'm going to commit heresy. But bear with me. I've been wondering lately just how big a mistake it really is to play to many starting hands. Don't get me wrong, I'm very disciplined, and I'm not going to change any time soon, as to my starting hands. I generally follow Abdul's rules.
But in a loose passive game, where many players see the flop, is it really such an expensive mistake to play many more hands? Isn't this kind of game essentially converted into a game that has a single-bet ante, and the game begins on the flop? So that the pre-flop error of playing too many hands is somewhat lessened if you can play well post flop.
I am not advocating this kind of play, but in a game like this, isn't the much larger error chasing hands with a negative EV, particularly when the bets double on the turn? I know so many players who just can't lay down a hand post-flop that has some outside chance of improving, low pairs and gutshots, or worse, hands that require runner runner straights or flushes, and they call them to the river, GAMBLING on a long shot, sometimes a huge long shot. This kind of mistake can make you go broke FAST, and you can't make up for it, or get some of your losses back, simply by hitting a great flop every 6-10 hands, like you might if you see every flop.
The thing about the "starting hand" errors is that this part of the game is very easy to explain, easy to identify errors, and easy to play "by the book," so we might think it's the biggest error, since it's the most identifiable. But I'm not so sure.
most common error: not folding enough
next most common: not raising enough
most common tactical error; ignoring "signals" from opponents
An interesting question is “How well would you do if you removed the word CALL from your vocabulary?”
Playing to many hands & playing marginal hands out of position.
For hold-em, playing too many starting hands especially in raised pots. This can occur in two ways. The first is coming in too early and then you are obliged to call a raise from behind. The second and most common is cold-calling raises with speculative drawing hands like Ace-Little suited, small pocket pairs, suited connectors, etc. based on the erroneous notion that since these hands play well against a lot of opponents it is okay to pay a high price to take a flop.
You said
"The second and most common is cold-calling raises with speculative drawing hands like Ace-Little suited, small pocket pairs, suited connectors, etc. based on the erroneous notion that since these hands play well against a lot of opponents it is okay to pay a high price to take a flop."
I think if your getting the right pot odds it really doesn't matter how many raises there are as long as the raises are weak. IE a loose aggressive game. So if I have 89s on the button and the there are 4 limpers and the cutoff raises, I am going to call that raise with my 89s. I am getting 6-1 on my money assuming the BB calls. 89s will make you money with 6-1 odds pre-flop no matter how many raises there are, as long as the raises are weak.
Of course, I could be wrong. Am I?
Calling or raising when you should fold.
-SmoothB-
late in the hand making bad calls or not raising or betting with the best hand. early mistakes costs less than those made later on unless you continue on with the mistake, than it goes back to mine. the late mistakes stem from poor card reading ability or lack of disiple or stupidness. take your pick.
Without a doubt its playing in bad games/failing to find good games.
Within a game: for bad players its playing far too many hands. For good players its failing to risk individual bets in big pots.
- Louie
Well, since the vast majority of players are losing players, the biggest strategy error is probably turning the wheel of your vehicle in the direction of the casino.
As Joshua said "the only winning move is not to play."
A little while ago I was playing hold em at a place where they had a bad beat jackpot. To make a long story short, it hit while I was there. Although not involved in the hand, 25% of the jackpot went to the remaining players (50% went to the "loser" of the hand, 25% to the winner). A man had left before the hand was dealt, and came back just after it ended. The House rule is you have to be at the table to get a share. Therefore, since he was gone, he got nothing. He tried to argue to all of us that he deserved a share because by him missing a hand, it affected the order/distribution of the cards. He stated that if he had been there and taken a hand, it would have changed everything and no jackpot would have been dealt. Everyone either ignored him or told him to f-off. I choose to ignore him. He got quite upset with all of us. As I have thought more about this, I think he may be right, despite the House rule. Your opinion?
The man deserved nothing, and he certainly did not deserve a full table share. Whether the players could have gave him anything is another story.
I heard of an incident at Canterbury Park where a guy busted out during a game and asked to have his seat saved when he went to the ATM to reload. While he was gone, the jackpot hit on that table.
I don't think he demanded any money from the players, but the dealer told me that many of the people at the table tossed him a green chip or two and he ended up with around $200. A table share (20% of the jackpot) was about $900.
I think the key here is this goofball you saw 'demanding' people give him money for nothing. Who does he think he is? A dealer?!?
Just kidding dealers out there. If I hit a jackpot on your table, we will both be happy people.
I think the rule "You must be at the table to get share" is designed to keep people from buying in and leaving 45 minutes and coming back, just to keep themselves eligible for the jackpot.
However, I do dislike the rule that you must be there win. I had a buddy miss out on about 500 bucks worth of a player's share b/c he was in the pisser during the jackpot hand.
I think a more equitable approach is to have everyone jackpot eligible as long as they don't have a blind button. So if you've not missed any blinds, you get a piece.
As for the guy's argument that he somehow deserved something for the table hitting the jackpot, that's rediculous. He's trying to take credit for a rare event happening when he had nothing to do w/ it.
It comes up a lot many casions have a rule that if hes is not gone more then a certain time he is in for a share.
I have seen players divvy up some money for a guy in a situation like this. It is really up to the others if they want to do it. Frankley I may throw the guy a couple of green ones if he was a decent guy.
The exact situation came up with me just before Christmas last year. One of the players was just coming out of the washroom as the dealer was starting to deal the cards, and she asked the kid if he wanted a hand. He could have run to the table, but said, "Go ahead, I'll grab a coffee." Jackpot hits, I get quad 6's beat by quad Ace's and I win $10K.
Table shares on the $20,000 jackpot would have been $625 in a full 10 seat game, but in this case all the other players got $714. I put in $150, the 25% winner threw in $100, and everyone else( except one cheap bastard) chipped in $50, so coffee-boy got a least a reasonable share. He didn't ask for a thing; we did this on our own. He was sitting there pretty glum about missing out on the jackpot a week before Christmas, and we just did what we felt was the right thing.
I wasn't there either. Where's my share?
Actually, if that's the house rule, then so be it. But it's pretty stingy. The rule at the casino where I regularly play is you can't be gone more than 10 minutes to participate in the table share. I was in on a jackpot about 2 months ago, and this rule played to the benefit of a player at our table who had been playing with us for several hours, and had stepped away to use the restroom. No one grumbled when he got his money. I would have felt bad if he didn't participate.
One thing is for sure- if he did not miss his blind he deserves a share. That is simple logic.
Where are the best places to play low-limit hold'em in Atlantic City? How about low-limit 7-card stud? Low-limit Omaha hi/low?
Is there a non-smoking poker room? (What a blessing that would be!)
Any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated! I will have a very limited time there, and don't want to spend it all searching for a game.
The Taj Mahal poker room is nonsmoking and has 2-4, 3-6, and 5-10 hold'em, 1-3 and 1-5 7-card stud, and 2-4 and 5-10 omaha hi-low. The only other Atlantic City poker room with anything other than stud is the Tropicana, but there are many more games and players at the Taj.
trop has a somewhat cramped non-smoking room as well....these 2 are the places to play for low/medium limit in ac.
Many thanks, guys! See you there!
I'm in a comfortable rut that puts me in the same game every day with almost always the same player on my left. His gives a tell about his hand pre-flop that is nearly 100% reliable. I know before I act if he is folding. I don't know if he's raising or calling and this is the strategy issue. My Left Hand Opponent (LHO) is aggressive pre-flop and raises half the time and limps the other half on average. He's also reasonably insensitive to my pre-flop raises. It's unusual for him to send the "I'm playing" tell and then muck after I raise pre-flop, bless him.
LHO plays a reasonable, kinda tight game. He's the type of player you don't mind having on your left. My problem is in adapting my game to the added information. Today for instance, 2 limper and I'm 3 off the button w/ 87s. LHO is playing so I limp in. LHO raises and I'm now in a spot I'd prefer to avoid.
I'm sure some of you have experience with this and could pass on some ideas. It seems like limp re-raising might be a play with big hands since there's a 50% chance he'll raise. Any ideas welcome.
-Fred- "Toto, I don't think we're in Jersey anymore."
Okay here's my pathetic attempt at a game theory solution. I post this mostly to get flamed so that I'll learn something so see what others say before taking my word for anything.
Let's say you want to see the flop (the cases you fold preflop to the blind bet are irrelevant here). You have two choices, limp or raise.
When you limp, half the time he will raise, have the time he will limp (your estimation).
When you raise, half the time he will reraise, half the time he will cold call (your estimation).
If we keep this simple and say that half the time you want to limp and half the time you want to raise then 25% of the time you limp and he limps, 25% of the time you limp and he raises. You are then faced with the decision of folding or calling (this is the dillema you ask about). 25% of the time you raise and he just calls. 25% of the time you raise and he reraises then you get the decision of whether or not to reraise again or just call.
So 75% of the time you get a favorable outcome (you are only concerned about his raises after you limp and you do not want him to raise). It would make sense then to think of your hands in terms of whether or not they fall into that 25% category of hands in which you want to limp and have your opponent limp. With to maximize your good outcomes relative to your bad ones you should call limp randomly with 75% of them (say every time the first card of limping hand is hearts).
If you do not limp and raise with equal frequency you can adjust the percentages accordingly.
Okay, where did I screw up?
Paul Talbot
Thank for the post. I failed to make this clear but LHO will usually only call if I raise and rarely 3-bet so this is an reasonably infrequent event.
My big concern is which hand types and projected field sizes are most vulnerable to his possible raises. My sense is that a hand like KJ or AT might not want to limp in after one limper when faced with a 50% chance of a raise. Of coure all this makes me a bit dizzy this time of day so I hope brighter minds than mine could offer some thoughts.
Okay, another shot...
Still focusing just on the outcome that you don't like. You limp, he raises. He will raise 50% of the time. Now let's say that 90% of the time you would like to limp and have him limp (the other times you want to raise: note I am ignoring limp-reraise). In those cases you would rather fold pre-flop than call his raise.
You will have a negative outcome 45% of the time (.9*.5) and a positive outcome 55% of the time. You would want to call with 45% of your limping hands. I doing so you minimize the difference between the favorable - unfavorable cases.
This is, of course assuming that all your limping hands play equally well for the current game conditions. Obviously you want to make your judgments based on the nature of the table, how many people are likely to see the flop for a raise, etc. But with no other information you should call with about 45% of your limping hands.
You could do the same sort of calculations to optimize limp-reraises.
Paul Talbot
OK the tell you have is not so uncommon a lot of players are pretty easy to figure out when it comes to telegraphing the mucking a hand. Here is where I like to use it.
Say I am 3 off the button and I have a hand I could raise with or call with on the button I will use this tell to play this hand a bit sooner than I might when I can't buy the button. It gives me some edge in position and an edge is all anyone of us can ask for.
you should certainly play much tighter than you are now doing with high cards when you know he is playing.
If you can tell WHEN he telegraphs he is going to play you have great information. Lets assume he is the button in a 10 seat game. If he telegraphs immediately, he has a hand that doesn't need callers such as high cards or big pairs.... If he telegraphs after the 3rd caller then he is on a draw himself. The earlier he lets you know he's in, the more likely he will raise your call
Wow. Light bulb lights over my head! Thanks.
-Fred-
Taking your 87s example, you've got a hand that you only want to see the flop with for one bet, right? You don't play 87s up front because there's a risk of a raise somewhere downstream (also because you don't know if there will be enough callers). I don't know what the chances are that you'll get raised having limped in in early position, but I'll guess that they're somewhat less than 50%. Here, you have a situation where you know this guy's playing his hand, and you figure that there's a 50% chance that he'll raise. Even if he only calls, there's a chance that someone else will raise. I'd say you're in about as bad a situation here as when you call up front not knowing what anyone will do after you. I'd dump small suited connectors, small pairs, etc. when he lets me know he's in. Calling and then having him call behind you is good. Calling and then having him raise is bad. I'd say the second situation is more bad than the first situation is good, and they both have probabilities of about .5. Calling when there's a 50% chance of a raise behind you has to be -EV.
And you're right, you should be able to go for limp-reraises more frequently. You might even try them in later position than you ordinarily would.
I play at Foxwoods in Connecticut and will be playing at the Bellagio in Vegas for the first time next month. I have a question about what games to play while out in Vegas. My main concern is getting into a game where I don't have an edge. At Foxwoods there is a 5-10 with a kill, and the 10-20 with a half kill is usually the biggest game spread. Since 10-20 is the highest limit usually spread I've been staying away from it because that's where the toughest action is. I'm doing alright at the 5-10, about 1.5 BB's per hour and feel like I'm playing a fairly solid game. Good pre-flop discipline, keeping track of the pot size and odds, getting a basic read on how each player plays. Now I understand in Vegas there is a much wider range of limits spread for hold'em, low limit, 8-16, 15-30, 30-60, and higher. Since there is a greater range, I'm wondering if the 8-16 or 15-30 plays more like the foxwoods 5-10 than the lower limit games. Assuming Bankroll isn't an issue, what games would be comparable to the 5-10 with a kill at Foxwoods. Has anyone played in both places?
Thanks a lot, Rob
I've played extensively in both casinos. Bellagio 8/16 and 15/30 are much tougher than the Foxwoods 5/10. I've always said that the 8/16 at Bellagio is one of the crappiest games in LV. It's usually just as tight, if not tighter than the 15/30. And unlike the 15/30, it rarely gets better on weekends. Plus, there are usually only one or two 8/16 games going. With 15/30 you have more options.
If you want to find game similar to the Foxwoods 5/10, try the Mirage 6/12 or the Bellagio 4/8. If you ever trek downtown, the Horseshoe 10/20 can be a very good game at times, too. If you have the bankroll, buy a rack of nickels and give the Bellagio 15/30 a shot. It gets very good at night and on weekends. Hope this helps.
J
Despite the reputation of the 8-16 at the Bellagio being bad its usually very good on weekend nghts and theres almost always 3 games going. If you can play higher, watch the games, if you see a juicy 15-30 or 30-60 jump in. Both can be very good on the weekends especially the 15-30.
When I was there a few weeks ago, there was a juicy 1500-3000 game going. I would have played but I didn't have the 1500! Doyle Brunson was playing. I would have loved having the buy-in for that game.
I have played 10-20 at Foxwoods and the 15-30 at Bellagio. I thought the game was a bit tougher at the Bellagio but I saw players calling UTG raises with crap and sucking out on me.
Ken
isnt it on this weekend?....is it discovery channel?...when?
It's on Discovery on the 25th. 8pm Eastern followed by an encore at midnight (also Eastern).
I recommend you verify the times on the Discovery website, though, just in case I botched it.
David
Is the tape for sale yet.
The link is
Also, TV Guide Online shows an additional time of 1:00 PM (Eastern) on Sunday the 5th.
Later, Cazz
I quit playing chess many years ago, after spending much of my teen years studying and playing in tournaments. It simply wasn't rewarding enough for the time and mental effort expended. I never quite reached expert, although I did get close and once managed to defeat a grandmaster in a simultaneous exhibition.
For those unaware, a chess expert is a precise rating (then of 2000 or better), and it isn't an arbitrary generality that is voted upon, granted by peers, bolstered by the chess industry, created by a self-published book, etc. ... rather it is a cold rating based solely on performance over time, quite unlike poker with its many self-annointed "experts". A grandmaster is someone whose ability is the poker equivalent of a Hall-of-Famer.
As to your points. Chess IS more difficult to master -- from a purely technical standpoint. Poker, however, is much more difficult to master due to the human element and the randomness of luck and idiocy. While the odds of poker can easily be worked out, the human interaction, the reading, the tactics based solely upon the moment and the person(s) you are facing, all are infinitely more complex and satisfying than a technically perfect victory over the chessboard.
For a pure poker player who plays not just for money, but for the GAME, "the goal in cards is..." NOT "...to find a weak player and let the good players take turn taking his money.." Yes, in a cash game, the weak are often the prey (but even there, they often school together for protection). But in a poker tournament, not unlike a chess tourney, the players are there for the challenge, the ego, the prestige, all of the same factors at work in the chess world.
Yet chessplayers and poker players do have things in common. Typically, I've seen a lot of chess players with condescending know-it-all attitudes, accompanied by a sneering childish demeanor. Boorish behavior at the poker table is nearly the equivalent, although I'd be much more comfortable with my poker acquaintances in a social setting than I would've my chess acquaintances. While prodigy chess players often lack social skills, I'm not convinced that isn't something common to most prodigies.
It's true that poker has what appears to be "know-it-alls" too. But in this game, you'd better have a strong opinion or you are dead. Chess is precise, and there can be little disagreement about the correct line of play for a given position, yet the essence of poker requires much discussion and analysis, because a play that works in one circumstance, with one opponent, may be the wrong play in a different scenario.
I've read a few opinions lately that says that chessplayers don't necessarily have the analytical, tactical, even intellectual capacity to make it as a great poker player. This is rubbish. Both games take concentration, tactical ability, the ability to analyze and execute strategies under pressure. Most chessplayer rated over 1600, grounded with the proper poker fundamentals, would be able to outplay 95% of the poker world and would require much less experience than current poker players to get there. My guess is that someone with a strong foundation in chess would make a much better poker player than someone without that intense training. The only thing usually lacking in chessplayers is the money, occasionally the courage, and often the experience -- all things that can't be taught.
Bob Ciaffone isn't the only well-known chessplayer / pokerplayer. Dan Harrington, 1995 World Champion, is also, and I believe is a grandmaster. I believe I've also read somewhere that Eric Seidel was once a chessplayer.
As for your grandmaster friend, do you really expect a Russian to be able to play hold-em?
(n/t)
I believe chessplayers have bigger egos than cardplayers, as hard as that is to believe. I believe this is because of the rating system. You are not a name in chess but a number. You can hardly analyze a position with someone with someone asking what your rating is. Imagine poker where you were ranked by a number. Every suckout would result in "thats why you are only a 1200." I also believe nearly anyone with enough training can become a very very strong card player....however you must be extraordinary gifted to achieve a international or grandmaster title in chess. I do not believe I have the natural calculating ability to achieve that level.
35 years ago I played chess in high school. I had a USCF rating of just under 1800. The reason I dropped out of chess was because I could see that some day there would be machines which could play chess better than I could ever hope to play. The second reason was that there is no money in chess unless you are truly magnificient at the game.
I believe that a good chess player with proper instruction and desire would make a good poker player. In fact, I believe a good chess player would also make a good bridge player, a good backgammon player, a good gin rummy player, and a good pinochle player. This is due to the fact that a good chess player must have focus and a willingness to seriously apply themselves to improving their game. However, the reverse of this is not true. A good poker player may or may not make a good chess player. Chess requires a very peculiar set of aptitudes dealing with spatial relaionships and the ability to forsee how a position will play out. Some of this can be taught through repetition and experience but much of it is inherent. The reason a chess player might perform poorly at cards is because they are not willing to apply the same effort to cards that they apply to chess. Many chess players cannot deal with the luck element inherent in many card games especially poker. But this is an emotional problem.
With regard to Bob Ciaffone in addition to being a chess master and a poker authority, he is also a backgammon expert, a money bridge expert, and an accomplished money pinochle player. I believe that he may be one of the best all-around games players in the country.
Dear Jim,
I think your last post contains a few mistakes. 35 years ago, the rating system did not exist yet. Prof. Elo implemented it in 1967 for international chess. National federations had a hole set of different systems before the 'elo-rating' was universally accepted, around 1970 or 1971. School events have never been rated.
Chess has definitely no relationship with any 'peculiar set of aptitudes dealing with spatial relationships'. The 'Polgar experiment' in Hungary has shown that top flight chess can be learned. Inherent ability may help, but is no conditio sine qua non, i.e. some, or many strong masters and GM's may have inherent ability, but those who do not have it can still become masters if they are intelligent people, study hard and more importantly learn chess at a young age.
Like poker, playing great chess has a lot to do with understanding the game, rather than independantly applying one's knowledge of tactics and strategy. It's only when you reach what Germans call the 'Fingerspitzengefuhl' stage that one can lay claim to having mastered the game at an acceptable level.
Other strong poker players who excell at chess: Klinger and Tolnai, Tolnai was a VERY strong GM, maybe only 50 Elo points short in playing strength for being a contender to qualify for the world championsip candidate matches.
Regards, Spielmacher
With all due respect, when I was in high school from 1962-1965 I had a USCF rating of around 1780 which made me a "B" rated player. My friend Robert Taylor had a USCF rating of around 1960 which made him an "A" rated player. At our local chess club, the best player was a guy named Billy Saks would had a USCF rating around 2000 which gave him "expert" status I believe but I am not sure. I played in the LA City Schools Chess Championship in 1962-63 and many of the players had USCF ratings. There was a young player named James Tarjan who had a rating over 2200 making him a master. He later went on to become a Senior Master with a rating of over 2500. I believe he ultimately dropped out of chess altoghether.
Warm Regards
Jim Brier I am not aware of the "Polgar" experiment. But I can tell you that when Bobby Fischer won the US Chess Championships in 1957 at the ripe-old age of 13 he did not have much acquired chess playing experience. Fischer had a god-given talent for the game pure and simple and no amount of hard work or effort can explain his success. The great chess master Emmanual Lasker is reputed to have said that anyone with average intelligence who applies themselves can become an expert chess player. However, he claimed that you have to have innate talent to be a master. Bob Ciaffone has taught chess to young kids and others for a long time. He claims that there are players who have struggled with the game all their life and never broke 1600.
I don't think its even close. At least not at the mid or low limits. CHess is much more demanding mentally. I suspect anyone with some discipline could beat most 10/20 holdem games that aren't too tough, while from experience i doubt most people could even reach 1800 strength let alone 2000 or better.
WHen i think about the amount of effort needed to play a 5 round game 40/80 tournament over the weekend, as opposed to playing 24 hours or so over the weekend at the card room, the poker playing is easy and hardly hard work in comparison.
ANd consider how long it takes someone to become a good chess player, as opposed to the time it takes to become a good cardplayer. It takes much longer to become a good chess player.
Maybe at the higher limits things are different but from what Ive seen CHess is much more difficult.
By the way Dan Harrington is not a GrandMaster.
One major difference between chess and poker is the transaction nature of poker. There is a deal, action, win/lose, next deal. Action in poker is limited to check, bet, raise, or fold.
A single chess game can last for hours. Every time its your turn to move there are almost incalculable possible moves and consequences.
I stopped playing chess because of the intense effort expended in a single game. In poker, play one hand, on to the next. Also, IMO there is more "playing the players" in poker than in chess.
I do strongly agree with others that a good chess player can become a good poker player but the reverse will often not be the case.
Has anyone noticed that everyone and their brother is always ridiculously short stacked? Not that it matter much, but didn't Malmuth right something that the ideal buy in was the ante because you would be getting exactly even money, but people with bigger stacks would be inclined to fold, while you would never fold, turning your EV positive. Theoretically, you could do this on the internet right?
n/t
I believe that Ken Smith is a grandmaster who has made a couple of WSOP final tables.
A large part of the appeal of both games for me is that they are intellectually stimulating games where you can really beat up on people. I have more success in beating up on people in poker, and I guess that that's part of why I spend a lot more time playing poker than chess.
However, good chess players are often smart people, and smart people play good poker.
This is a non sequitur. And I know plenty of very smart people who stink at either game.
Chess is more of battle between you and the board while the goal in cards is to find a weak player and let the good players take turn taking his money.
Chess is not a battle between you and the board. It is a battle between you and the other player. Poker is also a battle between you and the other player(s).
Your goal in cards may be to find weak players and exploit them. That was my objective for a couple of months when I was between jobs recently as I didn't have any other source of income. Generally, though, I like to find the best players I can and lock horns with them. I thrive on the challenge. You probably don't enjoy playing chess against beginners. There can't be much satisfaction in beating someone who's defenseless. Maybe it would be OK if they were playing you for $100 a game or something, but I find that people who are willing to play chess for money are generally a whole lot better than I am. :^)
I would guess that Ciaffone would say that poker's the better game because he can make more money at it. :^)
>I am 20 years old and just achieved expert status.
I was in that situation a little more than 20 years ago.
>> For those of you out there that play both chess and poker, which do you find more intellectually stimulating, >>
No contest there. Poker is a boring endeavor. The play is boring. When you aren't in the hand (most of the time) what you should be doing is boring. The table conversations are mostly stupid. The only non-boring part (when not in the hand) is looking at the waitresses. And forget about doing something to stop the stupid conversations. It's the stupid people who provide you the bulk of your winnings so it's imperative to be nice to them. It's a rare chess player who can coddle stupid people.
And that's the real deal. You play poker to make money. If intellectual stimulation is your primary goal, there are so many better options available.
>> I believe chess is the better game.......it is more complex, less repititious >>
I don't know about that. Chess is extremely repititious until you get out of the opening and of course the endgame rarely has much in the way of anything new.
Poker is just the opposite. Each situation is different, even if the same thing comes up twice or three times in a row. The people aspect of poker is why this is so.
I also disagree with Sklansky that there is some sort of correlation between chess prowess and poker prowess. The people aspects of so many chess players is so below average that their analytical skills cannot compensate. Things that make a chess player strong can make a poker player weak.
A chess player could be trained to be a decent low limit player rather quickly. But after that, the going will get much tougher than for say a used car salesman trying to learn poker.
I agree that poker is the more boring game.
I think a good chessplayer almost by definition must be an intelligent person. I don't think I've ever met a good chess player who was dumb. Most good chess players should have the capability to learn the technical aspects of good poker fairly quickly. How good they may become at the people aspect of the game is more dependent upon the individual. However one can become a winning, even a pro, poker player without being tremendously good at things like reading tells. As long as you can get into your opponents' heads and outthink them somewhat, you can beat them on the people aspect too even if you don't read their body language that well. Of course those who can feel their opponents' true emotions will be better in areas related to this, but I don't think you have to be a "people person" to read their cards and to estimate the likely meaning of their actions much of the time.
I think a good chessplayer trained in the technical aspects of poker will beat most games as long as they don't have problems of their own with things like emotional control. I also think the people aspect of poker is overrated. A good technical player can assign rough probabilities to various likely holdings that his opponent might have and thereby play approximately correctly. He might miss a tell or two, but to me the value of tells is rather limited. A technically strong player will not make a mistake like throwing away a large pot for a bet based on a misread tell.
A good chessplayer could also be expected to have the focus necessary to pay attention during the hand and to be thinking ahead.
I think the reason some chessplayers are not good poker players is either poor grounding in fundamentals and/or for emotional reasons.
Once you get up into higher limits a lot more is required. However I think all of the above applies to both low and mid limits especially if game selection is employed. I am not discounting the need for experience and thinking about the game, etc. which are more necessary at 15-30 and up. I am just saying that the above approach combined with some experience should beat most games at these limits.
>> Most good chess players should have the capability to learn the technical aspects of good poker fairly quickly >>
I agree. But I don't think you have to be "real smart" to quickly get up to speed on the "technical aspects of good poker". It ain't rocket science. The real money is from correctly applying the concepts. There are not only the many variables to consider (perhaps the chess player's forte) but the imperfect knowledge aspect of the game. Compare that to chess where you should be choosing the best move assuming best play by your opponent.
>> I think the reason some chessplayers are not good poker players is either poor grounding in fundamentals and/or for emotional reasons. >>
I vote for the emotional bit. While there are, of course, many emotionally stable chess players, emotional stability and chess prowess don't have a positive correlation (my opinion of course and only anecdotal evidence to support it) In chess, you have complete control over your result. Poker has that statistical part so that even playing perfect can leave a deep (even if short term) hole in wallet.
"Poker is the more boring game."
Sure, since you're playing w/ 10 other people and you just have to wait for good hands. Compare a heads-up no limit cash game to a chess match. I'd say the poker one-on-one is much more exciting. Just b/c you don't end up playing much poker in low and mid limits(up to even 20-40 - that's as high as I've played) b/c you just wait for the best hand and bet it doesn't mean that the normal excitement level for all forms of poker is dull.
I think shorthanded especially big bet poker is more exciting than chess.
Ken Smith is not a Grandmaster, he is an accomplished player - a master, but is not titled and certainly doesn't have a GM title.
Could well be.
You have a thread that of course is interesting to me. Let me clear up a few things. (1) Dan Harrington does not play chess any more. he was about a 2300 player in his prime. (2) Ken Smith was a senior master, not a grandmaster. (3) Arpad elo did not invent the rating system; he refined it. The USCF used ratings in the fifties, maybe earlier. (4) Tibor Tolnai is a Hungarian grandmaster, and also one of the best poker players in Europe. (5) Anyone who thinks a top chessplayer would have less of a chance to become a top poker player than an average person is mistaken. The correlation between games of any kind is sufficiently great that if all you knew was a person was good at X, the chances are the person would be above average at Y, or at least had that potential. (6) There are many reasonable chess players among the good poker players. A couple are Huck Seed and Howard Lederer.
Bob,
I agree that the average great chess player has a much better chance of becoming a top poker player than the average person does. But many seem to have trouble dealing with the short-term luck in poker and never rise above mediocrity.
OTOH, backgammon players have to deal with short-term luck. I find this helps them make the transition to poker and there are many more to be found at the tables. But I don’t know the chess world at all, so I could be wrong.
You are a top player in all three games. Would you agree that the transition from backgammon to poker is easier than the transition from chess to poker?
Regards,
Rick
The transition from backgammon to poker is easier than from practically any other game to poker, because backgammon is normally played for money. Is a background in gambling helpful to poker? Of course. I would think a background of shooting pool would be better for poker than a background of chess!
Mr. C.
I think a background in bridge for money would be the best. At least for stud. Gin is a close second. Although most great gin players were poker players before mastering gin.
By the way I suck at chess so why do I keep playing? Oh, right now I feel like I suck at poker so why should I still play?
Is life so short and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what course others may take but as for me give me intelligence or give me death. Vince's paraphrase of a famous quote. Don't ask me why. I think I'm on tilt. I think that being stupid is worse than anything else that I can imagine.
vince
You may be interested in a related topic in the "Other Topics" forum called, "Do you need logic in chess?"
(from 20-40 online game)
Position : Small Blind
Number of hands played (in the small blind) : 398
Amount invested : 10400 (including the 10$ posts)
Amount recieved : 10952
Standard deviation by hand : 59,84
This is almost 4 SD from -10$ by hand.
Extreme luck?
SD too low due to the small sample?
What's wrong here?
Two questions...Supose you were getting ready to retire(age 40) early. If you could move anywhere in the country that had poker. Where would you move? Supose you wanted to make (not have to)52K a year at poker. You decided to play holde'm 8 to 10 hours a day only four days a week. At what limits would you play to avoid big swings in your bank roll and still have the ablility to average 1K per week? Please be more specfic than Nevada or Califorina. Looking forward to everones opinion! Thanks!!!
move to Vegas, play the 15-30 at the Bellagio and the 20-40 at the Mirage. Go to the Orleans on Monday nights for Monday night football and gourmet hot dogs. Sit in the sports books, buy a racing forum, look like your playing the horses and drink Heinikens for free (minus the tip). Hook up with some hottie from Lil Darlins (it'll cost you some cash) and enjoy life. Pretty sweet....
To make a grand a week all year long at poker you cannot play any lower than $10-$20. You have to have access on a daily basis to a $10-$20 game or $15-$30 game or a $20-$40 game. Therefore you must play in either Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego area, Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Phoenix, Foxwoods in Connecticut, Tunica in Mississippi, Soaring Eagle in Michigan, or maybe a few other places.
Now the problem with any place in California is the cost of living and the fact that you have to pay high state income taxes. Furthermore, California has high collections for their poker games. On the other hand the games are better. So put Los Angeles on your list. In Las Vegas there is low cost of living and no state income tax but the games are drying up a little bit. Specifically, there is only one regular $10-$20 game in town and that is at the Mirage. There is a good $15-$30 game at the Bellagio everyday. The $20-$40 game in Vegas is at the Mirage but it is not spread every day and when it is it is frequently shorthanded. There is a $30-$60 game at the Bellagio but if you are concerned about swings and fluctuations in your bankroll you would want to avoid this game. Bottom line is that in Vegas you are pretty much limited to the $10-$20 game at the Mirage and the $15-$30 game at the Bellagio for day in and day out steady action. Phoenix can also be considered at Casino Arizona since they spread $10-$20 and $20-$40 every day. But again Arizona has a state income tax. Atlantic City and Foxwoods have plently of action but these places have a high cost of living and high poker collections. The Horsheshoe in Tunica, Mississippi has the best $20-$40 game in the country. It has a low state income tax and a low cost of living.
I guess I would recommend Vegas first, then Tunica, and finally L.A.
Unless things have changed over the past few months, the Horseshoe almost always has a 10/20 going, too.
If you're only going to make $52k per year, you'll be living at the poverty level in LA. Sounds like LV is the place for you.
Badger, I thought you didn't like the tight games and smoking cardrooms in Vegas. BTW, I enjoyed your latest installment of the Inner Game of Poker in CardPlayer. I read it every chance I get.
Or so I think.
(n/t)
Looks like Chuck missed one of Badger's posts. We don't want a law suit. So please get rid of it. Of course this migh be an imatation Badger. Wooh then what will we do if he decides not to post because we deleted his imatation post. I bet it is really Gary Carson trying to piss off Mason. O.K. Mason what's your call? To Delete or not to delete? That is the question.
vince
I don't think it's Badger. If I did it would probably be gone.
I play in a 6-12 hold 'em game where the small and big blinds are the same size (each $6). The pots are not raked. What strategy changes should I make for this game? I should note that blind steals do not occur much in this game; the blinds are won before the flop once an hour.
a couple conflicting thoughts:
1. The pots have more in them to start (12 vs. only 9 in a normal 6-12 game), and there is no rake, so I should try to steal the blinds more often.
2. There is no "smaller" blind who would have to pay 9 more if I raised, each blind will only have to put in 6 more if I raise. This, combined with the empirical evidence above (blinds are rarely stolen) mean I should steal less often.
Any comments appreciated.
The problem with this structure it that players will be more prone to raise before the flop since there are already two full bets in the pot. This will tend to tighten the game up and the small blind will defend more.
In Las Vegas there are two $6-$12 games. The $6-$12 game at the Mirage has $3 and $6 blinds while at the Orleans the blinds are only $2 and $3. The games at the Orleans are looser and more passive. If I were playing $6-$12 I would prefer the Orleans game because you take more flops and your implied odds are much better on your speculative drawing hands plus there is less pre-flop raising.
You say that this structure may casue the game to tighten up--that may be what good players would do, but this game is very loose. There is a fair amount of preflop raising, but it isn't done with the intent of stealing the bigger blinds (lots of raising after limpers).
It seems that given the above, I should try to steal the blinds less (it won't work as often) but play a little looser with my preflop calls since the "antes" are bigger. (I agree with DK on this one)
Stealing blinds in a LL game is really a losing strategy - few players will give up for 1/2 the bet not you are facing 2 bb so I don't think it is worth making a play for them without a fair hand to begin with.
As for the 2 equal blinds and no rake. Guess if you are playing a hand like 78s on the button you can be sure at least both blinds plus any limpers will see the flop with you. Can't see the lack of rack making much difference in your strategy except less chips are coming off the table by way of the rathole leaving more for you to win.
Huh. Two responses by frequent posters and neither of them told you to play a bit looser. I'm pretty sure that's correct, though. It's a general strategy guideline that the smaller the blinds/antes the tighter you should play and vice versa.
If you can't steal the blinds in this game because it is generally loose (and passive), then you should play a few extra multi-way hands. I guess I would tend to add them in late-middle position (e.g. 3 off the button) when there is already a limper or two.
If you can't steal the blinds because they over defend them, then punish them by always raising with decent "high card value" hands in late position (and don't even try to steal without big cards).
Don't add a lot of extra hands, just a couple, in a full handed game. But be prepared to get very loose aggressive if this game gets short handed (I'd probably leave myself). Be warned that a normally losing loose-aggressive player can become a very dangerous opponent short handed and this is magnified if the blinds/antes are increased.
David
Almost all players overdefend their blinds in this game. So you think that in these cases I should try to steal-raise more with big cards and less with hands like 78s?
Is AXs a good hand to try to steal with against overdefenders? (a new word I just made up)
Raise (button, or maybe cut-off) with big cards when they overdefend their blinds because you probably have the best hand. In other words, if they always defend, give up on stealing, but be sure to raise with good hands. Give up on semi-bluff raises with 87s, but sock it to them with KT. Especially if they hardly ever re-raise you.
If they truly always call a raise, it's ok to limp sometimes on the button, but don't get in the habit (this isn't something that's normally considered "good poker", but I think it would be correct in this situation).
Axs would be a bit of a judgment call. Certainly raise with any A9 or better. I would probably raise with Axs, at least some of the time. If the blinds will fold a reasonable percentage of the time you should probably raise with it often, but when they are over-defending it wouldn't be a bad limping hand.
If the game is as loose as you indicate then this would be a rare event anyway.
David
Hello. I am going to Vegas in December and would like to play in the Stratosphere No Limit game. I just want some tips on how hard the game is. The money I need to buy in, if it is a good idea for me being a admitted novice. I hope that someone can respond to me with an answer. My Bankroll for the trip will be about $1,000.00 Dollars, and when I am playing it will probably be in the Bellagio 4-8 or the small tournaments. Please any advice is appreciated. In advance Thank You very much to those who reply.
The buy in is $50 and blinds 1-2(unless it's changed in last few months). But it is more like a 20-40 game so BR accordingly. Your grand could be gone in 1/2 an hour if you are not carefull.
Moybe it's best to plan on playing the 4-8 and giving the NL game a wide birth.
I've played in that game twice and both times it was INCREDIBLY soft. If you have a grand I'd buy in for 500 and see what happens. If you not comfortable losing that much then buyin for about 200. If you are a reasonable NLHE player, there's very little risk in that game. If you don't know what your doing then don't play in the game. other than that its a lot of fun, good luck.
IMO, with this size bankroll, you should definitely stay at 4-8 or below. Your bankroll is a bit short, but you will probably at least last a while at the lowest limit games if you play fairly well. Try the 2-4 game at palace station if you want the lowest risk for texas holdem. The game is fairly easy most of the time.
As for your main question, the NL game at the stratosphere is perhaps not for you. I have played in it, and for the most part, you will not find a bunch of novice greenhorns like you will at smaller limit games. Everyone at the table (at least when I have played) was at least fairly proficient at poker. Quite a few of these players played a very straightforward, predictable game, thus making it possible to beat the game. However, I would recommend that if you are going to play, wait until the END of your trip. Only buy-in with perhaps 200, with maybe 100-200 more if needed. Use your best judgement, but consider that you can lose ALL your $$ in a single hand, while at 4-8 it will take you a while to lose it all.
I'm not saying don't play, but I am saying to use caution - it's not as easy as you think. Especially since you are an admitted novice. If you do play, you must be able to accept your losses if this happens and not get upset about it. If losing the $$ is going to upset you (whether financially or emotionally), DON'T PLAY.
dave in cali
I tend to agree with Dave. I played in it a few weeks back and had a good time. I was fortunate enough to win a big hand and double up. I bought in for $200 and was willing to lose it. I saw several hands where people lost $100 or more. I believe you should try it if you can handle the ups and downs.
As far as the opponents, there seemed to be a mix of good and bad. A few players seemed quite solid. I saw some crazy plays by a few players as well. Most players had $200 in front of them.
The night I played ( a Friday), the game started during the NL tournament which starts at 8:30. It only lasted a few hours.
Ken
Two 10-20 hands.
#1) I'm 5 off the button with KcQc. Loose UTG limps, 6 off the button limps, I limp, bb checks.
Flop 9c Qs 3d.
BB checks, UTG bets, 6 off folds, I raise, all fold to UTG who calls.
Turn 7d.
UTG bets out. This bet could mean several things.
1) UTG knows me pretty well and could be putting me on a free card play and he's holding top pair. Of course, he would raise UTG with AQ so I probably have him beat in this case.
2) He could be betting a diamond draw with middle or top pair.
3) He could be betting two pair if he thinks I'll check the turn.
I call.
River 5s.
He bets, I call.
Comments.
Hand #2 I'm in the cutoff with 2s2c. 6 off the button raises, 3 more calls to me, I call, both blinds call.
7 way.
Flop Ac 2d Jh. SB bets out.
BB folds, 6 off raises, all fold to me I reraise, sb caps it, 6 off folds, I call.
Turn 9h. Small blind bets out.
Here, again, I can't be sure if sb is trying to counter a free card play or if he called in the sb against a big field with JJ.
I raise, sb calls. So much for JJ.
River Kh. Sb bets out. Was he on QcTc, Ah2h?
I call.
Comments?
On the first hand your play is fine. Some might raise pre-flop with King-Queen suited after two players limp in but I find that King-Queen suited is a pretty hand I seldom drag pots with.
With regard to the second hand. Six months ago I would have told you to fold a small pocket pair in this situation pre-flop rather than cold-calling two bets. Since then, based on the postings of "scott" and some others I have changed my mind. I would call as you did since it looks like you will get multi-handed action and it seems unlikely the pot will get re-raised. The rest of your play is fine. You want to play a small set fast in these situations (See Matt Lessinger's excellent article in Poker Digest).
Thanks for the response, Jim.
Would you say that in boh hands a river raise would have been too risky considering the persistance of the bettors?
Also, how's the golf game?
Yes, I think raising on the river would be overplaying your hand. On the first hand all you have is a pair of Queens with a good kicker which you have already announced. Your hand could easily be beaten by the river. I would just call and be happy to win what is out there. On the second hand, again at the river your bottom set has been fully played. You could easily lose to a straight or a flush. Remember that when you raise on the river you are frequently risking two bets to win one since your opponent may well re-raise with a better hand.
I took my first golf lesson earlier this week. Yesterday I went out and hit 150 balls on the driving range. I am so sore today I can hardly move and I have blisters on my thumbs.
Jim,
You have taken the first step towards madness, despair, and anguish. But it's fun. (BTW, Nick Faldo hits 1500 balls a day.) The blisters will form caluses eventually; just make sure they're forming in the right place, and you'll know whether or not you have the correct grip.
Good Luck!
John
The sore part I can relate to, but you've got to get in shape, man. 150 balls is a short warm-up! Also, you're not supposed to get blisters on your thumbs. Insides of the index finger, maybe, or on the palms where the club goes. If you grabbed a knife and fork like that, you'd starve to death!
Just wait until you start improving. It becomes soooo addictive. You're going to be investigating memberships at Shadow Creek before you know it. Well, maybe not Shadow Creek, but Huck Seed is going to be looking you up, mark my words!
I'm a golf pro and a poker rookie. I'll trade you some on-line lessons for some poker advice.
Lesson #1) Don't take advice from anyone unless they have their name on their bag!
Lesson #2) As for that slice, try swinging from 7 O'clock to 1 O'clock (12 O'clock being in directly in front of the ball.) That one usually works for beginners.
"I have blisters on my thumbs."
Jim they wrote a song about this "Applying Pressure In All The Wrong Places" Vince will sing it to you in E flat if you would like.
Definitely get yourself four golf gloves 2 for each hand. When you wear those 4 out then you will be ready to go without a glove. If your wearing gloves and your still getting blisters stick to HE!!!
Paul
I was wearing Gloves! I will never give up. I will just get big calluses. I was hitting the ball well. About one ball in five I was "topping the ball" but on most of my strokes I was getting good loft but sometimes with a slight slice to the right. I am right-handed.
I hope you meant "glove" not "gloves". who doyou think your are? Ricky Henderson???
nt
Trade ya golf lessons for poker lessons. Just kidding. I owe you for all the great poker advise!!! Best golf advise I ever received was to take 2 weeks off and then sell my golf clubs. Kinda like poker, somedays you wish you never heard of the game. HAHA. Someday I'll move to Vegas and play golf all day and poker all night. What a life.
Most golf teachers try to advance the students to fast. Best golf instruction I ever received was to hit a zillion 1/2 shots with correct form. Make solid contact. Hit the ball straight or with a slight draw before moving on to a 3/4 swing. Once you learn this drill you can always fall back to it when thing go bad. Great for chipping too. Resist human nature (for a short while).... you need to hit it straight 100 yards before you can hit it straight 300 yards. Nothing wrong with short,straight and no trouble!!! Hard to make bogey or par from behind a tree. What a great sport!! Good Luck, and see you on the PGA Senior Tour!!!
Just like in Poker you wouldn't take a lesson from just any Pro. That is basicly what happened to me with golf though. I thought "Pro" ment good instructor. I when to 3 different guys till I found one that actually figured out the problems with my swing. Once he showed me what I was doing wrong I was able to hit the ball much farther and straighter.
But this was all before I found Poker.
CV
Getting cracked by 9-2 off when you really have the goods
Is not as bad as a 12 foot chip that you skull into the woods.
Hand #1
On the first hand I think the reasons for his turn bet listed under 1) or 2) are far more compelling and likely than the reason listed in 3). If he makes two pair wouldn’t he think you would bet again since the turn card is a semi-blank and the top card is a queen that needs protection assuming that is your pair. I prefer a raise here by a lot.
Since you didn’t raise on the turn the call on the river is OK. If he has the weak one pair with a missed draw he won’t call you anyway. But I still would be tempted to raise if I thought he would often call with the weaker pair (let’s say QJ) more often than he would reraise with two pair. Of course, my point is moot since I would have raised the turn.
Hand #2
I like your pre flop call although my guess is that some won’t.
I also like your aggressive play on the flop and turn and would be confident I am leading after the turn.
On the river Ah 2h seems much more likely than Q T but the pot is so big I would call.
Regards,
Rick
In hand #1, suppose you had raised the turn and he called. Then he bets the river. Now call, raise, or fold?
Suppose he checks the river. Do you bet?
My natural inclination would be to call and check respectively, since you've been representing something pretty strong and I'd be afraid that most of the hands he would call you with would be winners.
David
Under those scenarios, I would call the first hand and definitely bet the second hand. The only hands that can beat you on the second hand are a backdoor flush and Broadway (both of which are unlikely given the action).
Don't worry about the possibility of being called or raised only by a better hand. On a pot that size, there are lost of guys who will look you up with bottom pair.
Failing to bet at the end based on the theory that you won't be called by a worse hand is a common error made by lots of otherwise good players. Have a look at Ciaffone's "Improve your Poker" in this regard (a book which BTW has improved my poker).
One of the major reasons it becomes difficult to make that bet on the river is that the sting of being trapped lasts a lot longer than the satisfaction of a bet for value. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying why it's a very common error.
But having been bet into on the river would you raise with your set against backdoor flush and broadway or just call?
If you would just call, is that the same kind of error giving how the action preceding the river is identical?
Well, it is not identical because when someone checks at the end, they generally are hoping for a free showdown but when they bet it could mean:
(a) "well, what the hell, I have to call anyway, so I will bet"
but it could also mean
(b) "I have got the nuts and I know that this guy likes to showdown at the end, so let me bet"
(c) "I have got the nuts and I am going to look like a chump if I try for a checkraise and he checks, so I will bet"
I didn't respond to your original post because you had already posted the results of your hand before I saw the hand. So, I thought I would look like a clown if I thereafter replied "well, I would have raised on the river":)
But the fact is I *would* have raised on the river on hand No. 2 because although he could have Broadway or a flush, there are lots of other strong hand (seemingly to him) that he could have made with the river card.
If the river card was a low card which made a backdoor flush, I may just call because now it is unlikely that he could have made a strong hand which is *inferior* to my set.
Thanks skp,
Raising on the river was my first inclination. It's just that you look like such a chump when the *insert p.c. term for any really poor poker player* actually was drawing to his gutshot or backdoor flush. Man, I hate when that happens.
As for looking like a clown, just take off that big red nose and oversized shoes and you won't have to worry about that anymore.
First hand, loose UTG held Qh 8h. I guess he's seen one too many middle-pair-top-kicker-raises from me.
Second hand, Bettor had AJ.
Thanks for the input.
if this, in fact, NOT Steve Badger, would you mind using a variation on that name so we can tell the difference? Like Badger2, or something. That way, every time I go to read my favorite forum, I don't have to fear that the real Badger has come back, and I don't have to suffer from the uncontrolable urge to projectile vomit all over my keyboard.
-SmoothB-
There is absolutely nothing in the post with which someone could take exception and start an argument or a debate.
M,
My sister-in-law, who is a dental hygenist, called me the other day to tell me of the greatest name she's come across. One patient named her son Peregrine; his last name is Badger. Ain't some kids got all the luck?
John
I stand corrected!
Vince
Is a 4/8 game that plays pretty slowly with a $3/.5hr time charge plus mandatory $1 tip beatable? The competition is normal low-limit players, and I am as strong as a reasonable 10/20 player. If it is beatable, for how much? $8/hr, SD $80/hr?
It seems to me that alot of people equate Tightness pre-flop as tightness postflop - that is if someone can fold AQo against a tight UTG raiser, then that means the guy is tight, and therefore, you may be able to move him off of a ton of pots later on.
This may be the case with some people, but from what I have seen, it is more often not the case than it is. Tightness before the flop does not equal the same tightness after the flop. It does mean the guy is tighter than the looser players and will fold more easily, but you still will have problems moving them off of a hand especially if there are possible draws on the flop (either he has the draw, or he thinks you may be raising on the draw).
What do you think?
They go together... being tighter preflop allows you to play more liberally after the flop because even if you are behind you usually have outs. ALso tight preflop play allows for postflop pot pounding.
Sean
I think you're right. When I hear the word "tight," it refers ONLY to before the flop. That's how it routinely and unconsciously registers in my mind.
Perhaps that's because there are far fewer variables before the flop, and 'tightness' is more easily quantified. If a guy plays, say, 12% of all flops over a year, he's tight, period.
But the same guy might be stubborn as hell after the flop, partly because he obviously brought a good hand with him to the battle, and partly because once he enters a pot, he's looking for ways to win it OTHER than having or making the best hand. In other words, a crafty player. Not tight, by any definition.
Here again, current poker jargon is lacking and potentially confusing. Good point, Doc.
Tommy
I read the Skalansky article in Poker Digest last night. As I remember, the last question was something like, "At limit holdem, you have QQ, you know your opponent has AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AK, or AQs. The flop is QJTr. How well do you like your hand?"
Now suppose, before the flop, you raise from middle position, with QQ. Your opponent raises, with what you know is one of the above hands. Everyone else folds. You call. He knows that you would raise, with only the above hands and also AQo. He knows, that you know, that he knows this. The flop comes as above. You bet. He raises. Turn offsuit 3. You check, he bets. River offsuit 5. You check, he bets.
You know that your opponent plays rationally after the flop, but not tricky. He knows when to bet for value. You know, that he believes you play rationally, but tricky. He has seen you check raise bluff, at sometime in the past.
Should you call the river?
Gabe
I don't think you have it right. Expert play does involve making a play occasionally, but the key is occasionally. Players do show up every now and then who do have a lot of moves, but despite what they might tell you, they never win.
Agree with most of what you say but many times a "move" can set up play later on. I think a good player has to have a lot of different plays in his bag if he's gonna be successful - specially in tournament play.
The idea of making a move now to set up a win a little later is especially important in seven-card stud.
I've heard this pretty often as well and I think you'd have to read a lot of abdul's recent posts on 80-160 on rgp to get a feeling for what they're all talking about.
The way it was told to me was to be prepared for a lot of "fancy" raises. When thet're ramming and jamming with draws and you're sitting with top pair top kicker your knees get a little weak and you start seeing sets everywhere.
This is from a ring game and it's a situation I've found myself in more than once.
A loose player raises UTG. His hand range is quite broad. Next is a very sound semi-rock, tight and un-creative. He 3 bets it. I do not believe he'd do it to isolate UTG and feel very sure it's based on the quality of his hand. For his raise I would expect him to hold AA or KK and possibly QQ. AKs and AKo are less likely but possible, I'm not 100% sure of that.
This 3-bet folds out the field to me in the small blind with QQ. The UTG liveone might 4-bet, a minor issue. I've never dumped QQ pre-flop but I have been in spots where I wish I had when the handwriting was clearly on the wall. This seems like maybe one of them.
In hindsight I think if I've read the rock's hand range correctly then a muck is correct but probably a modest mistake if he'll 3-bet with AKo. Please tender your ideas.
Not that I'm results oriented or anything I'll tell you how it played out. I called, UTG did as well. Flop was Q high and rock pays me off all the way, never once raising with his alledged KK. I believe him.
-Fred-
I find that the very sound "semi-rocks" are usually not quite as rocky as their reputation. I know of very few players who always have AA or KK when they 3-bet. Most very sound players recognize a very loose player and when that player raises in front of them they loosen up on their 3-bet requirements to try to isolate.
Unless I was 99.9% positive that QQ was 2nd best pre-flop I (at least)call. I think it's very rare that the handwriting on the wall is perfectly legible pre-flop.
Andy,
You wrote: "I find that the very sound "semi-rocks" are usually not quite as rocky as their reputation."
I agree completely and noted something similar in my post below.
Fred wrote that the semi-rock stated he had KK despite the fact he never raised post flop. Somehow I doubt this and wonder if he (the semi-rock)would say such a thing to save face when he was calling the pot down with overcards.
Regards,
Rick
I don't think you need to be 99.9% sure you are beat to lay down QQ preflop.
Let's say you are at the final table of the WSOP and you are one away from the money. (not possible I know). You are raised all -in by a guy that you just KNOW would not put that move on you unless he had AA or KK. You hold QQ and you put him on AA or KK with 60% certianty, AK with 25% and worse than AK the remaining 15%.
You HAVE to fold.
Well, in a ring game, this situation comes up all the time and if you are only 99.8% sure you should still fold. If you are even %50 sure you should probably still fold. In fact, let's take the situation described in the post that started this thread.
You have worst position, a maniac is yet to act, and a super-tight rock has 3 bet it from last position. Let's not get into whether or not NJFred's read was correct. It's a super-tight rock who does not play creatively, plain and simple. So he MUST have KK, AA, QQ or MAYBE AK. The unbelievable rare instance where he will raise with less is just not worth considering. If this is his one wild 3 bet steal move this year, then you're just going to have to let him have that one.
If you call, you will be violating the prime directive of no limit: don't get involved if you are in a situation where your hand is one of either a slight favorite or small dog.
Luckily this is not no-limit so you can still call in this situation sometimes.
But if you throw in the bad position factor and the level of certainty about the Rock's hand then I think this is a fold. There is slight justification for calling but I say it's a fold.
There are 6 small bets in the pot - 1 from the big blind, two from the UTG, and 3 from Rock. If you assume UTG will call, there will be 10 bets 3 of which are yours. You're getting slightly better than 2:1 for your call and you may have to put in 4 bets at 2:1 if UTG reraises.
You are facing 7.5:1 to hit a queen on the flop. You've already decided that your QQ is almost certainly no good so if no queen comes on the flop you're dead. If you think the rock will pay you off for hitting your set AND you are good enough to fold to a better set, then calling is about even money given implied pay off. If you get trapped by set over set then you will lose a TON and this impacts your supposed implied odds, unless you are willing to see the flop and fold if an overcard comes EVEN when it comes with a Q.
Personally, I don't think I'm good enough to do that and since I've only invested 1/2 bet in the small blind, I fold here to what is very likely a better hand. Why call 3 bets cold? If you raise and it gets reraised, the call is clear. You'd be getting 9:1 or 10:1 on that third bet. But in this situation you haven't put anything in the pot yet. You're facing 2:1. Just fold and wait til you have better position, and a better edge. The Rock has you beat and you're not really getting the odds to go for the set.
99.9% sure is just WAY too high a benchmark. You have to see the guy's cards to be that sure. I'm assuming you've NEVER laid down QQ preflop if those are your standards, but there are CLEARLY situations in HE where you should lay QQ down preflop, even limit hold'em.
natedogg
If you're justifiably confident of your read, whether to call probably depends on how badly the initial raiser plays after the flop. If the 3-bet scares him enough to fold overcards on the flop then fold. But if he'll call with overcards and pay off with most pairs, the big pot you'll win with a solid overpair or a set makes calling profitable.
I think if your read is righ, it is the right play to lay this hand down. Even if the 3 bettor has AKo he isn't that much of a dog to you. The nice thing about your hand, is if a A or K comes it is easy to release your hand. I have not layed this hand down pre-flop in a ring game either, and I think that I am making a mistake by not doing this. I guess I am in the same boat as you and should learn to practice what I preach.
Derrick Ashworth
Fred,
I’ll post this without reading the others yet. It the semi-rock is also the type capable of betting/raising on the flop when he misses with AK, then I think you should fold. If he is predictable and can be pushed off overcards post flop, you should call or even reraise.
Many semi-rocks in mid limit will also try isolate in early position with JJ, TT and sometimes AQ against an UTG opponent they perceive as too loose. If this is so, then you can easily call or raise.
Regards,
Rick
Perhaps I haven't done a good job of translating my feelings about my semi-rock opponent. He is young and ultra-cautious. Raising to isolate probably is not a play in his arsenal. He also would be reasonably concerned about my cold call of 3 bets and my leading out on the flop. That said, I'm reasonably certain of my original read. Now two days later I'm even more certain I'll muck in this spot next time.
-Fred-
Fred,
You wrote: "He is young and ultra-cautious"
Gee, what's going to happen him when he gets to be a grumpy old man like me. Play suited aces only?
Regards,
Rick
Only suited pocket pairs........;>)
IMO, call and see what the flop brings. If no ace, king, or queen flops, check-raise the flop. If the rock three bets it (or four-bets it due to the maniac's action), you are probably beaten by a higher overpair. I don't think you can fold pre-flop though, it would be a mistake, especially given the extra $$ in the pot pre-flop and implied odds post flop from the live one.
dave in cali
What may seem like moves to less experienced players are likely just aggressive play and good hand reading skills.
Example: I raise under the gun with QQ. You reraise later with KK. The flop is A56. I check, you bet. I then raise, hoping that you reraised before the flop with a big pair, rather than AK. You are hard pressed to call at this point.
Or, lets say you checked behind me on the flop. I then bet out on the turn. If you are a good player, you will raise, knowing that I would have bet the flop if I had an Ace.
A lot of this kind of strategy is lost on low limit players, as they tend to call no matter what.
How many times have we called on the turn and realized afterwards that we might have won had we raised? For example, the pot is three-handed and the player in the middle has K-J. After fourth street the board is A-J-10-4. The first player bets, the K-J calls, and the other player calls. The river is a king and the third player wins the pot holding Q-J, making a straight on the river. The first player has K-10 with a flush draw and misses the flush.
A raise on the turn would most likely win the pot for the middle player in this scenario by knocking out the third player. Even if the pot isn't won that way, knocking out the third player leaves the second player heads up, with position, against a hand he might already have beat or might outdraw or might be able to check down with on the river with a loser. All good things.
At the showdown, eyebrows might go up. What's he doing raising on the turn with a hand like that and a board like that? Was that a good play or a bad play?
I don't know about good or bad, since I think that judgement is largely subjective. But I do know that this type of play could be called a "Pro move," the kind of play that few players make, and that many wish they had.
Tommy
I was wondering if anyone of you would post a late blind when taking a seat at a table. For my part, I´d always wait until the big blind came round to me so I could watch the other players in the meantime, in addition to not having to post a blind. Thanks.
I think it is better to post a late position post than to post a big blind.
If you want to watch the players you can wait a lap before you start playing or observe the game bbefore you start playing.
I think its not even close to post late, as opposed to waiting to post the big blind.
As you know, it's a good manner when you missed the big blind (especially in the internet games) and come back in the button or near button position!!!!
I NEVER post behind. I always wait for the big blind. And like 'suspicious,' it's not even a close decision in my mind. Interesting that we can disagree with such conviction on something like this. My guess is that within our own reasoning, we are both right.
Tommy
TOmmy,
you would rather post a SB and then a 1/2 SB (SMall bet) rather than post one SB on the cuttoff?
I find this hard to believe. I suspect if one has to post 1 1/2 SB on the cutoff rather than posting 1 SB when in the BB one would prefer to post 1 1/2 SB in teh cutoff.
Although at 15/30,20/40 these are not "PRO MOVES" but more of an overall strategy that you will see at this level,some examples might be check raising the turn on the come or after picking up nut draw,in hopes of blowing off a medium strength made hand,or limping with AK and reraising after a late position raise to pick off limpers for 3 bets.Maybe a check raise bluff on the river(this does not work very often),or raising UTG with 76s.Pretty basic stuff really,its that you might not have seen it before.Most people that constantly throw "moves " at you all the time are pretty live generally.Basiclly this is the level of starting expert play,whereas hand selection and basic strategy get can you by at the lowest limits.
I think you have a misconception about exactly what a "pro" move actually is, and why you might expect to have more "moves" made on you in a higher limit game.
Pro moves are simply plays that someone who is playing an expert game of poker might make. This might be raising to force out other players, check-raising the turn with a big draw as a semi-bluff, checking a big hand heads up to draw you in, or bluffing at the pot on the flop when rags come. Or ANY other play which gives him a positive expectation, or increases his expectation on a given hand or in a given situation. As Mason pointed out, an expert might "make a move" by making a play on an early round (or early in the game) in order to induce his opponents to make a bigger mistake against him later on.
The reason you might expect more of these "moves" at the higher limit games is simple: you are more likely to encounter better players or even experts at these limits. Also, since the games tend to get more aggressive as you go up in limit, it might seem like more players are "making a move" on you than you were used to at the lower limit.
Dave in Cali
You mentioned that you were not getting any respect from your raises at 4-8. I'm not sure there is too much you can do about this. I play 6-12 and 3-6 if nothing else is available. It has been my experience, especially at 3-6, that your table image doesn't really matter too much. whether your raises get respect will be dictated by the "personality" of the table more than anything.
As for the image you project, I don't have any strong opinions about this but I have found that sometimes the cards you are being dealt creates an image for you. For example, if you are playing with some solid, observant opponents, bluffing opportunities will often arise if you have been getting a bad run of cards. You will have a tight image whether this is your style or not. Of course if there are too many solid players you may want to start looking for a table change.
Rich-This seems to be much ado about nothing. You're always sitting down with players who don't know you. If you play a tight and somewhat predictable game, this is good for you. If they don't respect your bets and raises, this is even better for you. This is especially true if you're playing much better cards than they are. Bottom line: you're not at a disadvantage because no one knows you. Don't worry about projecting an image. If you're new to the game, you can't afford to make -EV plays to drum up business on future hands.
You're playing WAY too tight when you first sit down. It's ok to tighten up during the first round or two, but doing it for up to two hours is ridiculous. Mucking JJ in early position and AK in middle position are examples of plays you can't afford to make. Remember, the starting hand charts in HEFAP are your friends.
Uston,
For some reason my JJ seem to get killed all the time so I have lost confidence in them, but your right I do need to not play as tight when I first sit down.
Rich
I'm looking for a site that has tournament times and card room information like the stuff found in the back of Poker Magazine. Does anyone know if there is someplace I can find info like this online?
Thank You!
pokerpages.com cardplayer.com
Keep playing premium hands. Lock and load when when you have the nuts and soon they'll realize that if they chase you it's going to be unwise and a costly thing to do. I had the same problem when I fist started playing HE and you see that a lot more of that mentality of "no fold em" in the low limit tables. I routinely sit out 20 to 25 hands until I get the exact cards in the exact position to make my move. And then I play them very aggressive. I'm also a woman and most guys think women are loose passive or calling stations so it's to my advantage for them to bet into me thinking I'm beatable. The best two things I've learned so far in my one-year stint playing HE is discipline and position. I can't stress both of them enough. Good luck!
If you read the above you may appreciate this. This happened before my Holdem sessions. While in the tournament area another 2 + 2 poster, we'll call him young Rob, came up to me and asked me a question. The question dealt with having pocket "Kings" against a very solid player. It seems he called the guy down knowing he was beat. the other player had pocket Kings. He asked me what I thought about the play. Well...
I lost anohter pocket Kings hand to a six outer in the second session I was playing. Then had a player to my left say "you know I've had pocket kings 5 times tonite and lost every one of them". I felt a lot better! Right!!
Vince
First of all, if your mental state is not optimal, you shouldn't play. That was your biggest mistake.
The first example is really nothing more than you got unlucky on the river. But I would call to make sure. You don't have to win very many of these for this call to be correct. I wonder why you think it was a mistake to cap it when you knew your opponent would three bet with hands lesser than KK? You should have been trying to get as much into the pot as possible.
Example two is a little different. If you knew this player well enough to know he had AA, then you should have folded. But it's almost impossible to be that sure. Once he reraised, you probably should have just called, and then checked and called to the river. A good reason not to fold is the example you cite above.
I know of very few players who would surely have AA in this situation. I probably would have lost more than you on this hand, because I would have been betting and raising as long as there were no overcards on the board.
I really don't think these two hands were the reason you went home a loser. You probably made many more significant mistakes throughout the session. Don't play unless you are prepared to play your best game. It isn't worth it.
There isn't enough here for me to know, but I suspect your game would improve if you paid more attention to how to play your hands according to your position. This includes laying down hands that most others play in early positions.
AND NO MORE RAISING WITH JT!!! ~(:oD)
He can't fold after it's capped pre-flop, even if he knows he's behind with KK. The pot is laying him 7.5 to 1.
Just a few comments in the general area.
It is more difficult to win stud satellites than it is hold-em satellites. In stud, you are almost always going to have to show down a good hand.
For most players, it is a mistake to play cash games after a tournament. For me, I'm certain it is, whether winning or losing. It's not the tilt factor, it's the speed factor. Example: I drove 5 hours, played a cash game from 1 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., went to bed, got up at 3:30 for a NL tournament, finished at the final table after 4 hours, then went back to my room totally exhausted. But sleep was impossible!! After a tourney, it's like your mind is stuck with the throttle wide-open. Needless to say, this cannot be good for a cash game immediately thereafter.
Depending upon the table composition, it is occasionally a better play to limp-reraise with Aces and Kings when dealt those UTG. In your case, it wouldn't have mattered however.
"Great action" in a hold-em game doesn't usually impress me. I prefer to have most of my opponents be of the thinking class. Otherwise you're back in the situation of having to show down the nuts, which (unfortunately) I don't hold often enough to be a factor in a showdown game.
Thinking opponents are harder to beat than others, and you won't beat them for as much as the looser players. I know it can be frustrating to lose to bad hands, but overall you will win more when playing in action games.
I get no satisfaction from winning only the blinds with a large pair. It's important to get paid off in poker. One big payoff can make up for lots of bad beats.
Recently when a player was ragging on me for sucking out on her (she calls me the sickest person she's ever known), I asked her if she wanted me to play good. She said nothing, but George answered with an emphatic "NO!"
And the game went on.
Outside of a few stars, thinking opponents generally are easier to beat than others. Once you get on their wavelength, they are toast.
Hold'em
October 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo