Sorry to push this topic but I think it is relevant to the Gambling Forum because:
1) I believe that the financial markets offer a form of "gambling" that is beatable.
2) You can make a lot of money.
As far as 1) goes, getting the odds in your favor is the key. Assessing your risk reward ratio is incredibly important and I'm not sure that there is any way to do this reliably. Most people that "gamble" in the financial markets that I know of have a system and back test that system against historical data provided from performance of previous markets. This approach is certainly viable but I believe that this approach has problems. I am not sure that history repeats itself all that often in the financial markets. Others rely on their experience, knowledge and beliefs to profit. I guess I would fall in this category. I actually have most of my money in what would be considered long term investments, as these are concentrated mostly in the stock markets and with small percentage in bonds. So I believe that mostly I am better off not trying to "outguess" the markets and concentrate on buying the right stocks and holding them for the long term until the fundamentals change (this is not necessarily easy to do). However, I see what I consider to be market "inefficiencies" present themselves constantly. I never really have much of a chance to take advantage of these because I don't trade my investments very often anymore. Secondly IMO one must act quickly and decisively in order to take advantage of these inefficiencies. I realized that the underlying reason I opened up my tiny on-line account was to take advantage of what I perceived as market inefficiencies and of course to see if I could make money at it.
I'm happy to report that my equity has approximately doubled from my original $2000 during the first month. This could change quickly but so far so good. I am currently long two stocks and I own 5 in the money calls that used to be out of the money. I am leveraged with margin but I can withstand a little bit of a hit. Let me say that when the market is rallying like this it really isn't that hard to make money. The goal is to make the most money possible during this rally period by choosing the best vehicles to do it with. I've traded in and out of a few things, as these trades were somewhat profitable. One of the stocks that I bought soon after I opened the account has increased a lot and I have never sold it as I expect it to move a lot higher. The other one that I own is one that I am already long in and a minor panic set in last week and I bought some very close to it's panic low and it has gone straight up from there. I used the entry point based on my beliefs about price movements. The options were purchased out of the money but the stock has appreciated to the point where they are now in the money and of course if it goes up a lot from here I would make a killing. However the stock could easily turn south and my options would be worthless. I am thinking that the odds of this stock continuing it's move north are better than 50-50. One note is that a few executions have been a little sloppy, as I wanted to pass that along. One thing I really like about having this on-line account is that I can move quickly and respond to conditions that are changing fast. So far no problems with being connected. I also get a hard copy in the mail from the brokerage firm for all my transactions. It's a big stack and I can only imagine what the mail man must think.
I'm home for New Years and I'll be playing cards this weekend. A happy and prosperous New Year to all of the forum participants and the 2+2 folks.
Have you contacted your broker about the sloppy executions? From what I've heard, you may be able to get some compensation.
I am glad you showed nice results - having said this I think you are very much underfunded for trading. $4000, even considering that witch 50% margin will ecentially will give you 8K. You are better off (I am not sure what field you are in) to work and save $$. You can play 6-12 and build a better bankroll. Poker is 'trading 101'. Funny thing I just came back from Vegas and visited Bright Trading group just off the strip. These guys have a lot of money and every 2-3 months one guy just vanishes (busts out - they start with $25000 plus ) there is a waiting list for a 'seat' and it's very feasible to do it. Yet when I sign up even knowing that the office is full I am pretty sure I will be in within a couple of months. Why ? Because trading like poker can be very DANGEROUS to your bankroll !!!
Do you think there's higher turnover at Bright Trading's Las Vegas location than at their other locations?
No, except as a town Vegas is more transient always fresh money but getting busted in Chicago or New York is just as real and possible. What struck me as odd is while San Francisco, New York or Chicago offices may have a few 'seats' at any given time, Vegas was full !
I've played a few hours of hold em at PP and havent had much luck. I usually have success at casinos but at PP ammazing draw outs seem to consistently happen. Maybe their just bad beats but I have to wonder if there is a way for a computer hacker to see everyones' cards and manipulate which cards are dealt. I have a natural distrust for sending important info or financial info across the internet, so maybe I'm just paranoid.
What are the dangers in playing poker on PP? Is it safe?
While I certainly do not have the poker expertise to comment on your experience playing on-line. I can comment on the potential for your bad beats being influenced by a "computer hacker".
Point 1) Could a hacker see all the other players cards. Assuming that the "hackers" were working independantly of the on-line casinos, and did not have direct access to the site's computers and networks then they could not see the data that is representing the cards dealt. There is a well known technique known as "sniffing" that allows data to be seen, or captured. In order to do this the individual would have to have direct physical access to the medium (network cable) that the casino's site is attached to.
Point 2) Could a hacker somehow manupilate the cards dealt. Once again assuming that the "hackers" were working independantly of the casino, this is extremely unlikely. In order to accomplish this the "hacker" would have to break into the site download the source code for the software, modify the source, then replace their modified program with their own. Very unlikely.
Does this reply intend to give on-line casinos my resounding support for the complete protection of the players. NO.
There are some things that an individual or groups of individuals can do to improve their chances against other players.
Group Play: two, three or more individuals can all be playing together as a team. Their computers could be physically located in close proximety to each other and therefore have access to each others screens. Groups can also be communicating with each other using some network communication program (ICQ) or other means and informing each other of their hands.
Another possible method that a hacker could increase his edge. There are a couple programs out there (Back Orifice, Netbus) that allow hackers to view/remote control other peoples computers over a network. While this is possible, it is unlikely as the server software has to be installed on the victim's machine.
Of course all of the above noted techniques have made the assumption that the "hacker" has been working independantly of the on-line casino. I do not mean to imply that pp (or for that matter) any other OFFSHORE site, located outside of American, Canadian (insert your countries name here :) ) legal boundries are not secure or unscrupulous, but one should always question the integrity of ANY on-line site that you send your hard-earned dollars to.
S. Doyle
I have been making some of those really amazing draw outs... I played some Planet Poker some time ago and only thought to re-visit it three days ago. Since Dec 31 I am up $1100 in about 11 hours. I have been getting *very* lucky.
I have often vouched for the integrity of the ownership on RGP and I will add that here... I met one of the partners at Card Player's World Poker Industry Conference and played with him at The Orleans. There is no doubt in my mind that the house is square. When I cashed out prior to BARGE I got my cheque in three days.
OK... I am starting to get accused of being a shill for PP... enough already I won't vouch for them anymore.
Regards, Dave Scharf
Dave,
I only know you from your posts to rgp and here, but the fact that you've met one of the owners and believe him to be honorable and honest is important to me. It isn't like you are putting up your personal guarantee, you are simply sharing your perceptions and opinion. I often rely on the opinions of other players when making decisions about where to play. Thank you for having the strength to give us your take on Planet Poker's owner.
Regarding (1): In the absence of a dedicated line, couldn't the data packets be sniffed at any point along the connection? Does PP use powerful encryption for the transmission of information? I don't know the mechanics of the operation, but I'd postulate that someone could just sniff for packets with some sort of PP formatting going by.
Regarding (2): This is not possible to prevent given the current setup for anything modulo headsup play.
Just the same, I know more and more people who are playing. It kind of tempts like the idea of playing in games where the rake is highest because only idiots would put up with such a hight rake. Just the same, the stakes that merit my interest are high enough that I wouldn't feel comfortable playing "in the dark."
Regards,
JG
If you are a good player at 15-30 but also 20-40 and are capable of winning consistently would it be better to play 15-30 then 20-40 because it would reduce your bankroll requirements and reduce your flucuations? The difference in potential hourly rates is not great enough for me or so I think.
Assuming the exact same typical player limeup to play against at both limits, I would play $20-$40 stud and $15-$30 hold 'em. If the players are exceptionally loose and call no matter what, I would then switch over to $20-$40 hold 'em.
I'm not Mason nor Ray but I would like to respond. I have been playing hold-em for twenty + years and I find the 3 chip game with the 2/3 small blind a better game than the 2 chip 1/2 small blind game. Mason comments that if the players are loose than he prefers the latter. I'm not sure, but this may be that loose players tend to play the SB at a more optimal rate than a tighter player. Just a thought.
I don't play tournaments and rarely play in satellites.
My question is this; from a cost benefit perspective how profitable are satellites. (Assuming you just sell the proceeds.)
Personally, I don't believe they are. I feel you can get lucky, go on a rush, and win a bunch of satellites in a short period of time (say a major tournament), but you can go cold just as quickly.
Considering the money they rake off are satellites profitable from a probability-time standpoint?
Has anybody done any mathematical analysis?
Ciaffone claims that an expert satellite player can win one in five ten-handed satellites. While this may be true of small satellites, I question whether it is still possible against players of WSOP caliber. In high buy-in events, where the rake is proportionately smaller, a 1/5 win rate would give a huge hourly profit, although with a high variance. A 1/7 rate would still give a nice profit, but the rake, tips and loss from selling the lammers below face value might make the side games a higher EV option for most players.
It has nothing to do with being cold or hot. There is more luck in a satellite, since the blinds increase so rapidly. As different strategies are called for depending on the size of the blinds relative to your and opposing stacks, many players will misplay certain phases of the satellite. Due to this, a satellite expert will win somewhat more than their share. The issue is how much more.
Ciaffone's figure is pretty close; a great satellite player will win 20-30% of the satellites he/she enters, and this includes WSOP satellites. An objective expert in this area would be Becky Kerber, one of the coordinators for the single table satellites at many of the major tournaments (including WSOP), who has acknowledged that a small percentage of players come to play ONLY the satellites.
Incidentally, in response to F. Pierce, who appears to lump them together, there's a huge difference between satellite and tournament play, particularly at the WSOP, where the tournament rounds are longer than in any other tournament, while satellite rounds are universally "fast-action". Failure to adjust your game in either direction is fatal.
For those who think that satellites are luck, it's significant to point out that O'Neil Longson won at least 4 super-satellites in 1998. While a super-satellite calls for unique strategy adjustments, it is also a fast-action event with rounds similar to a single table satellite.
While it's true that bad luck and bad runs of cards play more of a role in a satellite, a player who believes that luck is the dominant factor needs to work on his/her game.
I basically agree with Ciaffone's numbers. Part of the reason for this is that some of the players who sit down in one table satellites are poor short handed players. They tend to be too tight once several players have been eliminated.
Well, Ciaffone doesn't agree with Ciaffone's numbers.
He stated, in personal email, that his claim of winning 1 in 5 satellites was meant to only apply to Pot Limit Omaha and perhaps No Limit satellites, not Limit anything satellites. (He agreed that the actual text of his essay, wherein he states the 1 in 5 win rate, is very misleading in this regard)
I published a mathematical analysis of satellite win rates and standard deviations and their implications, using Ciaffone's 1 in 5 win rate as a intro (hence his subsequent correspondence with me). You can find this article in
'The Intelligent Gambler', published by Conjelco (www.conjelco.com). It's the issue that was published in May or June of 1998.
Well I disagree that Ciaffone disagrees with himself. The reason for this is that limit satellites play fairly close to pot limit satellites since it doesn't take very long for someone to virtually always be all-in on a hand.
Furthermore, this aspect of tournament play is part of the explanation why some people do well in tournaments yet can't beat any side game no matter what the limit or who the opponents are. When someone is constantly going all in you don't need later round skills. Thus I don't see that big a difference in limit satellites and pot limit satellites, yet in a ring game there is a huge difference in these games.
While I realize to disagree with an author, on his own site, is asking for it.....the win rate for limit -anything satellites will be less than pot-limit/no-limit, due to mistake/bad beat factors. Even I can survive a first or second round mistake in limit HE, in no-limit it would be time to sign up for next satellite, skip event, or just pay the buy-in. Second observation: between the significant casino hold on low buy-in satellites, some toking, and tremendous luck factor, I doubt that any player could eek-out an existance on such satellites. Best of luck in 1999, Gary
While it's true that some NL mistakes are terminal, some NL mistakes can also be recovered from, and the irony is that in NL you can make a quicker comeback than you can in Limit. Down to 3-handed, the luck factor is about the same in both types of games, what with high blinds and antes.
As to the second part of your observation, yes, the *low* buy-in satellites are only marginally profitable, even at a high win percentage, due to the factors you mentioned. On the other hand, satellites for events such as the Queens, the Rio, and the WSOP can be quite a lucrative proposition for some players.
I thought I would share part of a hand I played today in a jammed packed Mirage Poker Room. The game was $20-$40 stud with a $3 ante and a $5 bring-in. A deuce brought it in. The first player with an ace up just called. This person was playing virtually every hand (and not doing very well). The next two players passed. I was next with a pair of tens and a deuce, three different suits, and was the highest remaining upcard, and my hand was completely live. I raised. The next two players both with a nine up called. The remaining players (including the bring-in) folded, the live one with the ace up then reraised. It was now my turn. My question is, what should I do?
throw your hand away.
$229 in the pot for a $20 bet -- looks attractive.
I put the two 9 hands on a draw or low buried pairs (from this distance, it seems clear that both the 9s are on draws), and the Aces may or may not be there (would he have raised with a 3-flush?).
At 11-1, a call seems automatic, although I am never happy with a middle split pair and a weak kicker. Here, the situation is even more dire, because either one or both of the two other players may have your 10s .. you might be dead already. I would consider folding the hand. But if I believed that one or more players would pay me off if I hit the set, then I'd call the raise with the intention of calling or raising a 4th street bet also. Apparently you have a customer and a call.
(Running the numbers on a simulator shows you have about a 16% chance of winning if he in fact has Aces and you are up against a flush and a straight draw (one of them holding a 10), and about a 20% chance against two Aces and two smaller pairs. If he is on a 3-flush, all 4 hands are nearly co-favorites.)
In years past, I've played in that 20-40 stud game at the Mirage: it strikes me as one of the toughest stud games in the country. For what it's worth, I believe that your winning percentage would be much higher in the 40-80 or 60-120 stud games at the Commerce. Watch out for the colluders in the end seats tho ....;-)
It depends on the A holder. You said that he was playing every hand. My question is HOW was he playing every hand? Was he raiseing every hand or calling or even with both? The two 9's I would think are split on a pair and a draw of some kind. If I would add this up I would either raise or fold and the way I play it would be a fold. TT with a deuce kicker rainbow is not good enough for me to play against a A reraiser and two 9's who called the A. I would fold.
Reraise.
Tom D
Mason
You say that a deuce brought it in and you had split tens with a deuce kicker...later you say your hand was "completely live". If your kicker was a deuce your had was not completely live.
You say that the guy wit the A was playing every hand..but you didn't say what you thought he had when he raised after just limping in.
If I thought he had a pair of Aces I would easily fold...If I wasn't sure what he would raise on...I would still fold since his most likely raising hand is a pair of Aces.
If I had seen him make this move with a three flush before I might reraise to try and get him heads up...but I'd need to be pretty sure that he WOULD make this move with a three flush.
I meant to say a trey brought it in.
Just the same, Jim M brings up the idea of limp reraising the 3 flush. This doesn't seem too out of the question for an "action" player. In fact, if I know you're an expert player, but you don't know I am yet, I think it's a very strong play. The next time we get in a game together I'll try this first chance I get and we'll see if you remember me.. :)
JG
Very interesting question. What are your options? (1) Call (hoping to catch a ten). It is unlikely that one of the others will reraise and very likely that they will call creating a very large pot. (2). Reraise, trying to isolate the A (because you can out play him and he is likely to make a mistake or may have little). Also, if the others do call your pot gets very large. You must, however, consider that the A will more cap the pot. (3) Fold (because you believe that you have too much to overcome and the pot odds, even though high, are not high enough to warrant this gamble). If I am reading this right, and it's not really a trick question, I would and have applied all three of the above tactics at one time or another. Quite frankly the only reason I can give for selecting one over the other was how I was playing for that session. I certainly conmsidered my opponents but for the most part I normally consider my own play first in situations like this. If I'm playing well and limiting my mistakes and mentally focused I will usually make the more aggressive tactic of (2) reraising. Typically and reluctantly I would use the weaker tactic (1) and call because of pot size. If my game was not going well and I was trying to get in the proper state of mind I would (3) fold. Opinion By Vince
I would call hoping to improve on 4th street. If I didn't and the Ace came out betting I would muck it then. I think the implied odds are too good not to take a card off. I think raising is a mistake if you intend to do what I think is right on 4th street, since you don't want to put more bets in when you may throw your hand away soon. If the Ace catches an off-suit blank, and checks, of course I would then play this hand strongly.
Danny S
But aren't your implied odds virtually as good on fourth street. The pot will now be bigger and you will call for the same amount of money.
Furthermore, if the ace catches a blank and checks what do you accomplish by betting? Won't everyone just call.
There is only one correct answer and that is to re-raise without blinking an eye and I am willing to bet that is exactly what you did.
If that was the first time I saw him call-raise, then I would be tempted to just throw it away, or maybe call and look at one more card. If not, I would re-raise. If either 9 could call two bets I would be very concerned, but at least I would know now where I probably stand (they know that everyone on the table can see the other 9, and that there are two overcards to their 9's, both of which are betting).
If all worked well (the 9's folded and the A just called), then I would either have position or a much clearer situation on the next round. If I dont get an A or T (both of which would be good), then I will have position on him. He will generally have to check to me if he doesn't improve, so I have opened up my options.
A Poker Guy!
Post deleted at author's request.
I disagree that calling is an option. The two nine callers could have you beat with JJ-KK in the hole, how would they have played these is just as important as what your first call raiser has, a call would let them in cheaply, or they might re-raise. What suit tens did you have, and what suit 9's did they have, because 9-10-Js is a godd possibility of what you are up against, and you would be drawing dead to those tens or almost dead. Re-raising you might be just throwing more money to rolled up Aces. I would throw the hand away, because of the strong possibility of a ten being out, and even if he is three flushing, he might even have two more overcards to your ten.
This post misses the whole point. You are re-raising to try and get it heads up (with position) behind the LOOSE player. You have to TRY and get the other two players to fold in light of the double raise. If the Ace is just gambling then you have a very favorable situation. But NOT if the other two call. If he has AA and the other two fold then you are a dog but with all the dead money out there you certainly have to go with him. Besides, your hand is live and the pot is too big to fold. Now, isn't it better to be heads up against aces than to play four handed against two aces and whatever else and then have one of the OTHER players make two pair or better to win? Or, for you to make two pair or trips and then have one of the THREE remaining players draw out on that! You definitely want as your main goal to try and drop the other two players. If he has AAA then you are a genius to figure that out and you should be wealthy soon from your expert poker play. (Besides wouldn't most players just call on third st. with a rolled up set and then play the hand strong later?) Even if he did play a rolled up set strong on third street (which I admit would be very tricky, especially against good players) there isn't anything you can do about it because if he has it he has it and that's just the way it goes.
If the other two players have a hand good enough to call then you just have to deal with that as it comes up but by all means I believe your best chance to win comes with re-raising to try and get it heads up against the Ace.
Did you read my whole message? I said calling is definately not an option, you have to either fold or reraise. Mason made it a point to mention that "ace" is a loose player, but did not mention what he felt about the other two players. I would assume that they are average to good players considering the level and lack of acknowledgement (i.e "the two behind me suck" or "the two nines behind me are very tight". Is this the correct inference Mason?
If so, what they would play becomes important in your desicion, because a good player would have put Mason on at least a pair of tens, and would not call the raise if he wasn't getting the correct odds to draw, and would figure so if either one had a three straight flush (esp. including a ten) If they were loose players, a reraise would not likely drive them out anyway. If you ahd this many loose players in this level game, you could wait for a much better oppurtinity to clean up. Even loose players get pairs of aces. I really don't think by passing up this hand you are giving away that much. Two tens with duece kicker isn't that great considering two nines behind you called your raise and ace reraises.
You said that reraising is your best chance to win, and I agree without a doubt, but your gaol is to win a lot of money, not a lot of pots, and this one doesn't seem to be your pot. About the amount of money in the pot, it's a lot for this stage of the game, but your implied are not that great, if your miracle 10 falls even the house idiot will put you on trip 10s, and what kind of action do you get, you'll have to pay out them to draw to your hand, because you really don't know what they have, and if no-one improves, my bet is youre beaten. Its not easy to dump that pot but I think you have too. I am hardly an expert (even a good player at that) and if I was at the table I probably would have called, but being able to look back at my books, read posts on it so far, and having half a day to think about the hand, I would say fold it. Rock On!
Gator mentioned it before I could. I believe Gator is Right about Re-Raiseing or Folding, with Folding being the Best Option. The Problem is the two Players with 9's showing. What could they possibly have that would be worth Cold Calling Mason's Raise. I think we can assume that one of Mason's Tens is caught up in a Straight Draw.
CV
In a lot of the 15-30 and 20-40 stud games I've played in, many of the players with drawing hands (the "9" hands) look for opportunities such as this, to build a massive multiway pot on 3rd street to ensure pot odds the rest of the way. Unfortunately, these players have all read the books too, and a reraise here will NOT cause them to fold, rather it will gleefully keep them in there chasing, feeding off of each others calls -- even for a double raise (in S. California, where the 2+2 books gather dust on the gift shop shelf, the two "9" hands would beat you into the pot with their money).
Folding is a better option than raising with a medium pair weak kicker. If you had "table control" and KNEW that you could induce a laydown from the two drawing hands, a reraise would be a better play. But you are not a favorite over any of the hands you are facing.
Being a gambler, however, I tend toward taking a couple of cards off for two more 1/2-price calls and making a decision at 5th Street (in many stages of a tournament, this would be a clear fold). But calling here creates more opportunities ahead with more information to outplay the drawing hands, putting them in a position to make an expensive mistake.
Frankly, this is the kind of hand that can make a person look like an idiot or a genius, depending upon whether you can accurately perceive what your opponent's reaction will be to the move you make.
"Mason made it a point to mention that "ace" is a loose player, but did not mention what he felt about the other two players."
Not that important. They just called the original raise--no re-raise, so you SHOULD be able to drop them.
"I would assume that they are average to good players considering the level and lack of acknowledgement (i.e "the two behind me suck" or "the two nines behind me are very tight". Is this the correct inference Mason? If so, what they would play becomes important in your desicion, because a good player would have put Mason on at least a pair of tens,"
"Another reason for re-raising. Now with your re-raise you are representing BETTER than a pair or tens. After all, you re-raised an ace didn't you?" Most reasonable players are going to ask themselves, "How could he re-raise an Ace? Does he have Aces himself? He must have something good to re-raise an Ace after two other people called."
If they were loose players, a reraise would not likely drive them out anyway.
"At the 20-40 level I disagree. 3-6 yes. But so what if they call. You have to give them the OPTION to fold. You have to give them something to THINK about.
"If you had this many loose players in this level game, you could wait for a much better oppurtinity to clean up. Even loose players get pairs of aces."
If you are SURE they will not fold, then I would just call the raise. I would definitely NOT fold.
"I really don't think by passing up this hand you are giving away that much. Two tens with duece kicker isn't that great considering two nines behind you called your raise and ace reraises."
I like the fact that the nines are duplicated. All the more reason that I think they will fold.
"You said that reraising is your best chance to win, and I agree without a doubt, but your gaol is to win a lot of money, not a lot of pots, and this one doesn't seem to be your pot."
I admit this isn't the greatest situation in the world but you have to play the situations you find yourself in. IF you would fold in this spot then you probably aren't giving up that much but if the Ace has a three flush or a pair smaller than tens in the hole then you are giving up a LOT! (Especially when you can get it heads up!
"About the amount of money in the pot, it's a lot for this stage of the game, but your implied are not that great, if your miracle 10 falls even the house idiot will put you on trip 10s, and what kind of action do you get,"
If you make trip tens on third street it is my experience that most players (with two aces) will pay you off. Especially when you re-raise an ace and are representing a hand BETTER than two tens. (Say Kings up) Even good players will pay off in this spot because aces up will win most of the time.
"you'll have to pay out them to draw to your hand, because you really don't know what they have,"
I'll be honest with you. There are many times when I don't give a damn WHAT someone has. I know what I have and I am confident of my analysis of the situation and in many of these cases it is full steam ahead. I take an aggressive stance and represent as much strength as I possibly can and hopefully my opponent doesn't have anything or will give it up. I'm wrong on occasion but that is how I play. I can still draw out once in a while. I try to take charge of the hand and put people on the defensive. The reason for that is because you are more than likely to get them to make a mistake. This works even better if I am playing tight and aggressively and getting some respect at the table.
and if no-one improves, my bet is youre beaten.
Not mine. As I said, this situation is not clear cut at all. (If I do get it heads up and make an open pair, four straight or four flush on board and my opponent folds, now I am very happy!)
Its not easy to dump that pot but I think you have too.
They would have to hit me with a board to dump this hand.
I am hardly an expert (even a good player at that) and if I was at the table I probably would have called,
You said earlier, "Did you read my whole message? I said calling is definately not an option."
but being able to look back at my books, read posts on it so far, and having half a day to think about the hand, I would say fold it. Rock On!
Different strokes for different folks.
PS The only alternative I can think of to re-raising on 3rd street would be to call and then raise the Ace on Fourth st., if I caught a live card and the two players behind me caught non threatening cards. Now, If I so desire, and I am able to drop the two hitchhikers, I can take a free card later on.
It has certainly been alluded to by others... and perhaps stated outright, but it appears to me the the *critical* issue is what you anticipate that the 9's will do. If you believe that they will not fold to a double raise at this point then fold or call. If you think that they will fold then go ahead and re-raise.
My guess is that I would re-raise. My thinking is that the two 9's are sophisticated enough to realize that the loose-goose ace original limp-in is meaningless (he is calling with anything) AND the two nines are sophisticated enough to know that I ("I" being Mason Malmuth in this case) am certainly capable of making an isolation raise on the loose money with something other than TT or better. So, they two 9's call the original bet because things don't look too scarey (yet). Now the ace re-raises and "I" re-raise. They must now be doubting that I am isolation raising with gumbo... I have TT or better. So they are facing TT and maybe an AA as well... they better have the goods of they fold. If they bother fold then I am heads up with the loose-goose and if one or more of them call then it's not the end of the world since my hand is live (although I'm not too excited about tens up).
Again, the decision for me depends upon what I think the 9's will do more than what I think the Ace has.
Regards, Dave Scharf
Your outlook on this hand was in every way opposite than mine. I think you make some excellent points although in this particular situation I can't give them too much credit. Your critiqe made me look at my case again, but I still feel that folding is best. It really goes to show that in poker there is one corect decision (no matter the outcome) and you have really got to know the situation, I'm talking more about your opponets than your odds. In this case I think most people find it to be what the nines are gonna do, cause you can rarely put a loose palyer on a hand with any degree of certainty (why it would be nice to have him (ace) heads up). Thanks, Rock On!
.
Normally when you have a pair of tens with a bad kicker and you raise and an ace reraises you should fold. The only time to call is when you believe that the reraiser could have virtually anything. This was not the case in this situation. My experience is that when someone limps in with an ace up and then reraises several players he has a real hand.
However, in this spot I felt that there was too much money in the pot to throw away my hand, but a pair of tens does very poorly multiway. Many of my wins against a pair of aces are when I will make two small pair. But with two other opponents my two pair might beat a lone pair of aces but easily lose to one of the other hands.
So unless I believe that the two other players will come for the two additional bets, I should reraise, and this is what I did.
For those interested, the other two players both came for the two bets which showed my judgement was wrong and that I should have folded. I did win the pot. I caught a ten on fourth street and a ten on fifth street.
Mason, I think this was a good hand to discuss, but I have one question still. I assume YOU bet your tens on fourth street and were called, did anyone stick around for sixth (I assume you bet again on fifth) and what hands were keeping the nines around and the loose ace, (obviously they didn't have 10's for straight or flush draw). I guess this hand was bugging you because you made such an awesome hand and wasn't sure you made the best decision to stick around on third. Thanks for the lesson.
The play of the hand was unbelievable. When I paired my door card on fourth the ace called but the other two hands folded. On fifth when I made the third ten up, the aces made a pair of treys and called again. On sixth, I caught an ace and my opponent finally folded.
You are right, this hand has occupied my thinking away from the table. I'm not 100 percent sure that I made the right play.
>>For those interested, the other two players both came for the two bets which showed my judgement was wrong and that I should have folded. I did win the pot. I caught a ten on fourth street and a ten on fifth street. << These two statements are 180 degrees out of phase. Furthemore, I think your judgement was sound. I question the judgement of the players with the 9's. I would sure like to know thier starting hands and strategy. As for the 4 tens it's nice to know but clouds the issue. Obviously from the play of the hand the A had Aces. In most instances your are a big dog against him even with the live T's and three (Well maybe not a big but still a dog). With the other two callers you become a bigger dog in the hand. I think this is important. Another thing that is important is that the way the A played his/her hand indicates he/she is an opponent against whom this play will almost always be correct. That information alone was worth the raise. I'm sure he thought that you had two pair or did he? Maybe he though that the pot was too big to let go. BTW Did he cap the pot upfront, confirming that he had AA. All said I believe it was the right play. Opinion by Vince
If my count is correct, the pot contains $129 when you are put to a decision. It will contain $189 in your stated best case, where the nines fold and the ace merely calls. Your raise of $40 will have given you a chance to win $149. So if we assume the best case, your decision whether to raise or fold is like a decision to call $40 to win $149 versus a pair of aces. You're not getting the right odds to call for one card in this spot, nor for two ($60 to win $169 getting two cards). And you're definitely not playing past fourth if you don't improve and he keeps betting.
So it looks like the raise is wrong even in the best case where the nines fold (if we assume the guy has aces---but note we've also assumed he doesn't reraise). What about calling, $20 to win $189 (after the nines call and the ace only calls, another assumption)? This also doesn't look good.
Fold looks right by a lot.
Your odds computing is wrong. If you do get it heads up, and you automatically go to the river, you should win about one-third of the time. But you can do better than this. If the aces makes an open pair you can fold, and he may not bet on sixth street if he doesn't improve.
But in going to the river you are putting in at least another $60, probably $100. If he bets fourth, fifth, and sixth and you call, you're now paying $140 to win $249. Even saving a bet here and there, it's not even close.
Furthermore, you note that you can fold if he makes an open pair; but against that also note that some of the time he will make concealed aces up on fourth or fifth and you'll be drawing nearly dead.
And occasionally he'll have rolled up Aces.
I think one of the central tenets of your and Sklansky's writing is that excessive reliance on expert play when the fundamental odds aren't there is a common mistake. This seems to me to be the problem here. Of course you'll outplay the guy and you have various advantages, but fundamentally, you are likely behind much more than expert play can compensate for.
Where can i get these books: Pot limit and no limit poker(Reuben B, Bob Ciaffone), Championship no limit and pot limit hold'em (t. Cloutier), Omaha Hold'em poker (Bob ciaffone)? Is it GBC? if it is how the hell can i get to poker menu? It seems to take forever to get through.
You can buy Ciaffone's books directly from him: coach999@naples.net.
Cloutier's book is co-authored by McEvoy, and he can be reached through the Cardplayer website.
Mason reviews it in Kimberg's archive, but Gambler's Book Club is unaware of it.
You may want to go to Caro's web page at www.caro.com and ask him there if these are still available.
Having been primarily a stud player during the first half of the last 20 years, I followed Mason's recent stud post ("What to do?") with much interest, and it made me think of a topic that's been on my mind for quite awhile, but haven't seen discussed yet: Is the power game dead?
In the mid-80s, there were few knowledgeable stud players, and money could easily be made by running over the games. Then the books began to be published. Today, it is a rarity to find a mid-sized game that you can run over using the same techniques.
The point I make, particularly for those relatively new to the game in the past couple years, is that all of the good players have read the books -- trying to power up over a table full of skilled stud players with a reraise is akin to the old adage about urinating in the wind. To paraphrase Bob Ciaffone, "your opponents are at the same library as you."
As this relates to stud, your reraise with a middle or high split pair usually only defines your hand precisely to your opponents rather than doing what you think and/or hope it will do, that is, the concepts stated by some folks of trying to "take control of the hand" or "put my opponents on the defensive". If multiple players give you credit for what you have, yet call you, for example, as happened with Mason's hand (given as an example since he noted that he wasn't sure if a reraise was the correct play), you often will have unnecessarily trapped yourself.
Yes, raising and reraising with middle-to-high split pairs does "define the hand," but not necessarily in ways that you want. David Sklansky's time-honored theory that deception pays best has lost none of its luster: when you are "defining" your hand in this way, you are usually losing money. As I believe Sklansky pointed out many years ago, it should be obvious that if a skilled opponent knows your approximate starting hand, they can take slightly the worst of it on the earlier rounds and punish you severely in later rounds.
For example, in a 4-way pot, if an opponent knows you have Aces, but he has a 4-flush with one of your Aces in the hole, that's very likely to be one of those hands where you end up riding those Aces into the river and lamenting about "getting Aces cracked again." (A pot-limit hold-em corollary: with a large stack, you take the first pot-limit raise with A-A and get called by 7-8 offsuit; notice what happens when an apparent garbage flop of 5-6-9 offsuit hits.) In both those situations, you have "defined" your hand well, and have "taken control" in the early rounds -- and your opponent thanks you for it too.
Maybe "taking control" works in smaller games, but I suspect that most players prefer strategies that work against skilled opponents. Which leads me to my conclusion that if the majority of players are at the same "library," yet are still trying to power up over a knowledgeable field, it seems to make more sense in many situations to go in the opposite direction. That's not to say in any way that raising and reraising aren't proper strategies in certain situations, rather that learning how to make skillful calls may be an art whose time has come to be rediscovered.
The willingness of a player to take a hand that is not the best hand and put a lot of pressure on the pot makes that player a feared opponent. Of course if its done in bad spots the player will go broke but if done in places where having the worst of it is not clear the other players will become passive against the active player. I find that almost all players do not like to put alot of money in the pot gambling, except for the maniacs at large. When you are willing to do this it turns out that many players play improperly against you in big pots and poorly against you in smaller shorthanded pots. It looks like in Masons hand that the ace maybe didnt even have two aces and even if he did so what? Masons hand maybe had a little the worst of it but not so much that playing it after all that money went in could be wrong. If he knew how it would unfold on third street he would have folded right away but after the pot got built then a different route needed to be found. He chose to reraise to drive out the other players which didnt work. But that is looking back as it may have worked. Since it didnt he needed to go ahead and play the big pot. Maybe after the pot was over the two other players were kicking themselves for throwing all their money away and the guy with the ace is telling himself how hard luck he is against Mason. Dont you think Mason has increased his earn in the game for awhile? I think so. Good Luck and a better New Year to all.
The point of my post is only tangentially related to Mason's particular hand, and is not intended as a critique of the play. Rather his example provided a perfect segue into my question of whether the concept of putting pressure on a field is as valid as it was in the past -- particularly against good players.
The key element is as you state, "if its done in bad spots the player will go broke but if done in places where having the worst of it is not clear the other players will become passive against the active player." But in many mid-high- limit games, it's no longer clear that there are as many passive players out there to make pressure uniformly profitable -- or power-plays that will turn otherwise strong players into passive players.
Put another way, taken to its extreme, if 10 aggressive players sit down in a game, I don't see that the best approach is going to be to try to overpower the field; more likely it will it be to try to finesse a win. What I question is a whole flock of up-and-coming poker players believing that the only way to success is to try to overpower players who have seen all those moves and then some.
Power poker is not dead. It is just another tool to use in your arsenal. Power poker has always been a 2 way street though, win big/lose big if one is not qualified to use it right. Doc-
"Hold'em's all about saving a bet here and getting an getting extra bet there," I said to one of my nit-friends as we waited to be seated at the Horseshoe buffet.
"Hold'em," he countered, "is all about trapping people."
Of course hold'em is not all about any one thing, but of the two kind of dumb statements, mine clearly is the least dumb.
Yet I think Earl is on to somethiing. I have run into more and more trappers lately, perhaps inspired by the movie "Rounders," where the admired plays are about checking the nuts. Some decent players seem to be checking and calling more,lately, aware that much of the betting and raising a player like me is doing is in the catagory of the semi-bluff, or the pure bluff on the end, or trying to narrow the field, or something other than betting the probable best hand.
I have had to add "loves to trap" to player-profile criteria. Once you identify this characteristic in a player, especially if they over emphasize this tool, then strategy adjustments shouldn't be difficult.
We dislike smooth calling so much that where it is routine, before the flop, we call it something else -- limping. But I think Earle is right, the smooth call further into the hand, where most of us would traditionally prefer to raise or fold, may be the correct play more than we might think. It is something to think about.
However, as Brunson wrote in the intro to Super-System, (something like this) if you can't beat a man who checks and calls, you can't beat anyone. I can't believe that this is still not true.
power poker is not dead. Even if the experienced players put you on a play, they have to be sure and usually side on the side of caution.But as well I think that what I call perceception plays works well when we are all in the same library. For example raising out of posisition in the small blind pre-flop against a small number of players is usually saved for big pairs, or big cards in hldm. So instead of using good posisition to be aggressive against passive callers,(which might invite skepticism), using poor posistion might be viewed as more legitimate, since , why would you raise in poor posisition unless you had something is a common mind set with many players, because theory tells us not to raise in these spots unless strong. I see many players react by quickly mucking their hands because it's an almost automatic perception they have of what the player is raising with.There are many opportunities for these plays that go against the common mindset in hldm, and I'm sure their are in stud as well. so when in the same library, use their perception of correct play against them. See ya
Earl You mentioned that you have BEEN a stud player in the past, is the implication correct that you don't play as much stud as you used to?
If so you are part of a large group...it seems every time I return to Las Vegas I meet up with guys who were pretty fair stud players ..now playing holdem....at this juncture I usually throw my classic line at them "A mind is a terrible thing to waste"
But seriously, I didn't come on to put down holdem but to glorify the game I love...7 card stud.
Your post had a lot of food for thought and I agree with some parts of it. It certainly is more difficult to dominate a high stakes game than it used to be, ...but I still believe that stud has so much more scope for creativity that the skillful player still has a bigger edge than in other games.
There are many circumstances that you may be aware that an opponent is being overly agressive but there is little you can do about it. Here's an illustration.
Suppose on fifth street your hand is (Q T)/Q 7 T and your lone opponent is showing (??)/6 8 K . Let's assume it is a heads up situation where you raised on third street and got one caller who checks and calls your fourth street bet and then check raises you on fifth street.
In some games against certain opponents its a pretty easy laydown. I'd give it up pretty quick against typical 10/20 and 15/30 players.
A good or even just fair 40/80 players who makes this check raise however has given you much to think about. Would he raise you with K x in the hole maybe having started three suited and taken off one card when he missed his suit on 4th street or does he really have that random K 8 in the hole suited to his door card 6, or did he start with K 6 in the hole?
Suppose he started with (A 5)/6 all clubs catches the 8 of diamonds on fourth and the K of clubs on fifth...Many players will check raise here...I don't like the play myself because I still have to act first on 6th street and therefore can't get a "free card" to try for my flush...but I've seen players do it.
This "power move" will make me fold often enough because of the fact that if he has K's up I am drawing very slim.
There are other scenarios that can be explored from this example that just don't ever occur in holdem...and as Ray Z rightfully pointed out in his response there are many ways a good player can turn these situations to his advantage.
Just my 8 cents worth
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
I try not to insult the hold-em players, because we'll never win the WSOP being only a stud player, and I enjoy the variety. But yes, stud paid for my O-8 "lessons" this past year, and I wholeheartedly agree that stud still provides so many more moves and "so much more scope for creativity" (well-put) than limit hold-em does. (Another scenario in your above mentioned hand is a play where you give an over-aggressive player enough room to hang himself by call-call, then pull the trapdoor open with a check-raise on 5th Street -- with no hand at all.)
And heads-up situations DO give more room for power plays. It is getting into those situations that no longer seems so clear-cut. In most of the 20-40 games I've been in this year (not to mention the very wild 60-120 games at the Commerce), players are playing a very high variance game and even the bad players come out firing on 3rd street just as a good player would. A lot of these games, you are unlikely to ever find yourself heads-up on 3rd or 4th street -- no matter what you do, no matter how many check-raises, reraises, etc. These players want to play! I strongly believe that much of this is due to the book knowledge out there and everyone trying to see through the power plays, where they revert almost to playing like a sucker, playing on the slimmest of chances in order to win a big pot. Different tactics are called for.
When I read Mason's initial post, I thought to myself immediately, "in most of the games I've been in this year, a reraise isn't going to make the drawing hands lay down". But this is the way it's been taught for the last 20 years: put in a double-raise and blowout the drawing hands. Today, a lot of these players are looking for that double-raise and the opportunity to win a big hand. Whether this is due to the books, some need to gamble, cultural influences (California), or is an attempt to beat higher and higher rakes (riverboats), I believe the game has changed.
My point was not to call for a return to "the waiting game" or to see players turn into calling stations. But the idea that early power plays are the best and only way to win -- particularly against knowledgable players -- is no longer valid.
your situation sounds like playing in a no fldm hldm game. I still believe in using as many perception plays as possible, and by the way, I dissagree that there are more plays possible in stud, but that's another subject. anyway, it seems that as in no fldm your variance is going to be much higher, but you should do quite well. Third street is like before the flop in those games. I know you are an accomplished player, so offering advice might be redundant as I know you think about the game quite a bit. i would just say that when I try to think about getting additional edges, I think about my own game(as I know I am tight/aggressive)and my image is as such.That being so, I try to find those situations where I react almost automatically, and I give other solid players credit for reacting the same. Then I will try to use these situations to my advantage when they come up, by altering from the norm. an example would be when I have the RIGHT game conditions in hldm,... I will STEAL the blinds from first and 2nd posistion, not late or on the button.Solid players are solid, but still react according to the prevailing mindset. Anyway, i'm sure you will find many profitable opportunities by tweaking the current mind set in those games. Good luck earl
Jim,
Your example of having queens up and folding applies to smaller games as you stated. When playing in the bigger games your opponents can have too many other hands for you to fold here. How do they know you have two pair. At this point I might think you may have just a busted flush or four high cards. So I might raise with any four flush or a three flush with a pair, or certainly with two kings or sixes and eights. If you have shown me that you may lay down a big pair or better here you will get raised so many times your head will spin. I would love to have a straight draw with a chance to catch a king or open pair to knock you out of the hand or make the straight and get action. This is why in higher stakes games hand selection becomes more important for a good player than in smaller games. The reason is that in the bigger games you tend to go all the way with many hands because it is all too likely that your opponent is just fooling with you. The good laydown is a possible huge mistake. In the example of queens up I would likely raise back myself since I have position and he would not usually raise again for fear of trips. In the smaller games I might fold as you said. The idea of power poker really doesnt mean blasting your way thru every hand played as a good or even passive person soons learn to call more and then beats the power bettor. Good Luck.
Ray,
Thanks for your response...I always value your input.
You said "I might raise with any four flush, or three flush with a pair, or certainly with two kings, or sixes and eights."
My question is, would you do this on fifth street, in this particular situation knowing that you would be out of position and would have to act first on sixth street?
Its easy to make this play if your board is 6 8 J opposite a Q 5 T who is acting first... and part of the value of your raise is getting a free card if you don't improve on sixth.
My feeling is that when I am holding the Queens' up hand and a GOOD PLAYER raises me in this situation with 6 8 K (especially unsuited)...and I KNOW that HE KNOWS that he is out of position...I am tempted to laydown here.
You seem to be saying that this is a mistake at the 40/80 level.
I'd also appreciate it as well if you would comment on this play if the original hand had only a pair of Queens on fifth street instead of Queens up.
regards
Jim Mogal
Jim,
I would make the raise on 5th street because that is the street you might lay it down on. On 6th you wont fold so my raise there was just to save a bet if you paired on 6th. But my play is to raise on 5th so I have the chance to win the pot without the winner or if I have a good hand to maybe keep you in on 6th if I catch a scare card. In the bigger games I would very rarely throw the hand away because of a raise unless I knew the player well. Even with just Queens I would play on after I put the 5th street bet in most of the time as You cant let them run over you and this is a normal situation to be in with queens so how could you just throw them away unless you know more. Also if I raise on 5th street and you call I still can check on 6th because if I feel that no bet will be to my advantage on 6th street most people will be scared to bet into me anyway after my check. Good Luck Jim.
My biggest gambling problem, lately, is emotinal, not technical. It frequently occurs, lately, and seemingly out of the blue, that if I give myself a mental instruction, either formulated in words or written down, I immediately do the opposite. The negative behavior seems linked to the positive statement. I call the problem "The Imp of the Perverse" after the Poe story of the same name.
In that story, Poe's typical hyper-rational narrator speculates about this human characteristic ignored by phrenology (not catagorized by experts), as strong as that of self preservatoin, called *perverseness*. The narrator had commited a perfect murder, had gained the properties of his victim, and had prospered for years, unaffected by guilt. Untill one day, while gleefully chanting his customary mantra, "I am safe," he unaccountably adds "unless I be fool enough to make open confession." He feels a chill. Once this sentence is in his brain, the Imp arrives, and the murderer compulsively tells a crowd on the street about his crime. He is giving us this lecture in prison, as he waits for the hangman.
This seems to be different from simple steam -- a concpt I am also, lately, aware of. I have wondered if it is somehow related to Deridian theories of language -- that an argument inherently contains its opposite; that we build statements on binary oppositions, rather than on transparent views of the world. I have also wondered if it is related to social theories of language (Halliday) where, at the most fundamental grammaical levels, clauses have an interpersonal (meta)function. That is, language can't exist without a speaker and one who is spoken to. When we speak to ourselves we must somehow become both, and this again may contribute to the identity, or equality, of opposites.
Aye aye aye. Am I really going to post this crap? I guess I am interested if, among the awsome pool of talent who frequent this site, anyone has any insight or experience with the Imp of the Perverse, or with behavioral problems in general. I play professionally (poker, bj, vp, and hustling machines) and have been able to stay alive, but have not been able to break away into bankroll comfort. I am beginning to fear I am the dreaded "compulsive degenerate gambler" -- a hopeless case. Anyway.
PF
Wow! What a post! To begin with, I believe that what you really are asking but can't quite seem to spit out is this question... "can a fella' really have the self control to win at gambling?" To help with this problem, I will start with this advice...Quit HUSTLING MACHINES! Quit play BLACK JACK! Quit playing everything but your best poker! Play ONLY POKER! Okay now on to the lesson towards self improvement/preservation. If you really want to have self control you will find it deep within. No one but you can give you what you are needing to control your inner demons. If you have a problem with gambling then seek professional help. Gambler's Anonomous. a shrink etc. Remember this "There is nothing to fear except fear itself" W. Churchill. AND, "reality is what WE make it to be..Doc River.
I have the exact same thing happen to me. The thing that is funny about it is I usually have had several large winning sessions in a row, and in an effort to keep myself in control i verbally enumerate all the rules that have gotten me on the winning streak I was on. What seems to never fail, is once i have quantified all the winning rules I promply seem compelled to break them. AAARRRGGHHH!!! If anyone knows of a way to controll this phenomenon I would love to hear it. The worst thing is I know i am breaking the rules but i feel somehow I can overcome a small amount of bad play with a large aggresive amount of good play. It does not seem to work though. I guess to really break through and play excellent poker at all times is somehow out of my reach. Any suggestions?....thanks KidHoldem
We would all love to fly but the sun is too hot for our wings. I think to really break through and play excellent poker at all times you need to understand, really understand, why you play in the first place. I didn't really begin to play consistently well until I recognized and accepted that I hate working for others - a deep-seated,dark and roiling hate of "gainful employment". Playing poker is one of many income streams I depend on to remain self-employed. I *need* to play excellent poker at all times.
"if I give myself a mental instruction, either formulated in words or written down, I immediately do the opposite" First, my friend, you must ask yourself: Why do I need a mental instruction to guide my behavior? Is it because my normal behavior or reaction is opposite of the instruction given? Is the behavior contrary to good poker play? Is it a mistake? Like calling to often or playing to many hands. Well, if so, we got "Perverseness" my friend, right here in Poker City, "Perverseness" with a capital P and that rhymes with T and that stands for Tilt! Ah! But fear not my friend there is an answer to this "perverseness". But the answer does not come without cost, my friend! No sir, in fact it may cost you all you hold dearly, all your treasures, all your beliefs, everything you now possess, yes even your very soul!!! You see my friend,the answer to your dilema, though seemingly simple, is truly the toughest of all goals one can attain. But attain it you must or you will be forever in the clutches of that most evil of evil that you refer to as "Perverseness". Now, my friend, since you are a fellow resident of Poker City, I, who has also suffered form similiar trappings as what you term "Perverseness", will share this little secret with you for no additional cost to those listed above. The secret, My Friend, is "FREEDOM"! Yes "FREEDOM"!!! Find it, My Friend, and you will never be accosted by "Mental Negativeisms" again. Hope this helps. Vince.
Very interesting post. Statements imply their own need. When we tell ourselves upon sitting at a higher limit for the first time, for example, that "I can beat these guys", then we are also telling ourselves that we need to be told we can beat them (if it was truly self-evident, you would't have made the statement), which is telling ourselves, therefore, that we doubt we can beat them. And if we are telling ourselves that we doubt our ability, that gets us second-guessing our actions, which leads to wrong choices, leading to losses which confirm our original doubt, so that we second-guess more, so that we get caught in a downward spiral of reinforcing bad decisions. As to your fear of being a degenerate gambler, ask yourself why you play. The lights and noises? The absence of anything else to do? Or the desire for cultural freedom? I suspect, from your willingness to think about your own thoughts, which is the most distinquishing characteristic between professional poker players and the multitudes, that you have what it takes to make it in this game, and I almost never say that. But if, as it sounds like, you're facing a practical problem in not being able to play at a high enough level to grow your BR after covering expenses, then you need to make a practical change in your approach. Good games, Rick Bennet
The Craven
Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Playing too tight was such a bore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly the bets were capping,
As of someone gently capping, capping my seven and offsuit four,
"Tis some bluffer," I muttered, "capping at my offsuit four;
I'll call it once, and nothing more."
---------------
Ah, distinctly I remember, it was in the bleak December,
And the flop brought a pair, for that offsuit four,
Eager I wished the morrow; my poker bankroll I had had to borrow,
From my books surcease of sorrow, sorrow for the bottom pair,
For the rare and radiant lady luck, an angel, oh so fair,
failed me here, forevermore.
--------------
There is still the turn card,
Thrilled me -- filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;
So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating,
"Tis some bluffer, capping my offsuit four,
Some late bluffer capping my offsuit four;
The turn was a blank, and nothing more."
---------------
Presently my soul grew stronger; The river card would match my four,
"Sir," said I, "I raise " and he capped again, once more;
But the fact is, he was tapping, a tell for his bluff while he was capping,
And so faintly was his tapping, while capping at my offsuit four,
He had to be bluffiing, I had seen the tell and I raised just once more,
The river was a two, and nothing more.
-------------------
Deep onto the board peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing,
Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortals ever dared to dream before;
But the silence was broken, with the sound of his token,
And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, "Raise"
This he whispered, and I murmured back the word, "Raise!"
Merely this, and nothing more.
-------------------------
Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a capping, something louder than before,
"Surely," said I, "surely, This pot from me will not be stolen";
And so I called his bet once more;
Let my heart be still a moment, and this mystery explore;
He wasn't bluffing, I lost some more.
-----------------------
Once again I went on tilt,
Played some cards that oh did suck,
They should have been tossed straight in the muck,
The next hand would be the one, I would play just once more,
This time it was a eight and offsuit four,
I raised again, but nevermore.
--------------------------
Hope this helps,
S. Doyle
Very good, I did enjoy that. I would also say that "The Purloined Letter" should be statutory reading for all poker players.
That was beautiful, Man! "Quote the Craven Never More" Vince
I have recently started playing a little bit on Planet Pokers interactive holdem site. I am actually quite impressed with it so far. I was wondering if anyone knows of any other interactive, real money poker on the net. All I seem to be able to find is video poker sites. I want sites where you play against humans on a flop game for real cash. Any help would be appreciated.. KidHoldem
CasinoCoco.com. But BEWARE!
I have seen it written, but for the life of me I don't know where, that a Holdem's players biggest mistake is playing too many hands! I agree with this! Some of you may not but most of you will agree that if not the biggest mistake then it is certainly a big mistake. The problem I have is not that playing too many hands is a problem but that it is a problem for those of us that are informed that it is a big mistake! I think we can all understand why novice Hold'em players play too many hands and hope they continue to do so! But why do we the Creme de la Creme, present company excluded of course, play too many hands? Come on now, you all know we do it! So why? Perplexed! Vince
I can't speak for everybody, but I can speak for me. Do I stick exclusively to Sklansky and Malmuth starting hands? No. But neither do Sklansky and Malmuth. I generally never vary too far from that either. Do I play trash hands based on a "feeling"? Never! However, sometimes when I am running over the table and they are giving me too much respect I will stop playing the cards and just play the players.
Poker is a game of discipline. I used to be a good, undisciplined player. I would always play well the first hour or two, and then the urge to push it and play more hands would take over. Sometimes it worked, usually it just resulted in me walking out with half (or less) of the winnings I had accumulated when I was playing smart.
Just like everybody else, I get the urge to play trash hands sometimes but I have found a way to deal with it. Rather than play the hand, I just count the number of bets I would have won or lost if I had played it. I keep a separate stack of chips (each chip represents one or more bb) as a running tally of where I would stand if I played those hands that I had a "feeling" about. Usually when the stack represents about 20 bb lost, I lose the urge to keep track of it anymore.
A Poker Guy!
I don't. But if I did it would only be to mix up my play. Doc-
Since nobody is ever forcing someone to play a hand, the "cause" of the problem is obvious. Lou Krieger talks about ZTF (zero tilt factor) in his column in an online zine (www.playersedge.com). If the estimates about the expectation for poker players are accurate, the best you can hope for is to be a small winner unless you practice ZTF.
I disagree. Some of the top players steam a little, especially in stud. The key is not to steam late in a hand.
How much does it cost to "steam a little"?
While playing too many hands may be the "Most Common" mistake, the "Biggest" mistake a Hold 'Em (or any poker) player can make is: Failing to protect his hand.
Sgt Rock (aka Wood Rack)
if you want to be convinced that playing too many hands will beat you in the long run, pay attention to the extremely loose player at the table. sure, sometimes it will seem like he is winning a fortune but at the end of the night he will be the one going broke, i've seen it happen tonight and i've seen it happen countless of other times!! I don't want to be one of these people and neither do you!!
i think not only is it a great mistake to play too many hands, but to also start with great starting hands and not knowing how to play them on the streets correctly and not disiplined enough to fold them if necessary!!
I've just come off of a month long losing streak. I attribute that streak to playing too many hands. I was getting sick of the game. A buddy of mine gave me this advice "only play pre-flops for two bets". I tried it and it works. By forcing myself to either raise or call a raise, I'm thinking harder about the hand. I also found that my pre-flop initiative extended to the rest of the hand. I become more in tune with the game and I enjoy mayself alot more. I think a lot of us play too many hands because we become bored and passive. "Limping in" takes little effort. I found that loose passive play is an easy trap that can drain me if I'm not careful.
Vince, maybe the leak begins (for experienced players) when a few pots are won without relevance to ones hole cards. Perhaps a couple of semibluffs which didn't need to improve, or a checkraise (flop) and bet (turn) move with just overcards was successful. Now that player might start to believe that similar short term results are possible and deliberately play marginal and sub-marginal hands *knowing* that outplaying the field is another way to win. Obviously playing too many hands especially up front costs money, but the psychological question of why this syndrome exists is interesting.
The simple answer to this question is that an experienced player plays too many hands because of his/her "ego". He is better than his opponents. He can make up for starting mistakes by good play on the turn and river. Therefore, he can play more starting hands. The real answer though is more complex. There is "gamble", risk taking, in all of us! We want to win (ego again) because winning is good! A godsend! When we win we're in the good graces of the Poker God(s)! A good poker player knows when he is playing too many hands! Hell, if he didn't he wouldn't be a "good poker player". He would be what most others (not me, because I don't label people) call a "fish". The difference is that the good poker player is able change gears when necessary. When he plays a lot of hands and finds himself in a deep hole he is very likely to turn around and play his best poker (expert poker). Because he knows how to do this! How many times have you been in a hole and tightend up and pulled yourself out. Think about it! We play poker to win and if we are successful then we must be playing the right amount of hands (or there about). The child in us wants to play. Sitting and watching is boring! You might as well play BJ! (Ugh). We want to be in battle, we love a good "honest fight" because the truth be known, a Poker Players heart is that of the "Ultimate Warrior". Don't worry, when the child gets out of hand the adult takes over. the adult puts in effect the rules that make a good player successful. Thank goodness for the adult or else all of us would be sitting on the rail watching some other players child having all the fun! Just remember to not let the Parent in you come down to hard on the child. When he gets out of line, a simple "you know better" is usually all that is needed! Vince
Playing many hands in different situations can achieve diametrically opposite results. To illustrate, at time 1 Players A and B play begin playing "too many hands." Player A, however, has stumbled into a loose, aggressive image from hitting a slew of big hands and a number of successful bluffs. At time 1, his weaker opponents overadjust and start calling him with every mediocre holding. In essence, the table is now filled with passive callers, and Player A can now play several (not many) hands that he'd otherwise fold. Of course, he's not going very far without a pretty big hand. The great thing about this situation is that Player A can still bluff a fair amount against select opponents.
Player B is sitting at the same table and at time 1 succumbs to the deadliest form of tilt: playing hand after hand but folding everything but monsters on the end. He's seen good hands cracked and a lot of second best hands so his sense of hand values is out the window. Psychologically, he thinks he's "due" or running out of time, so he limps with and draws to nearly everything but scoffs at everything short of the nuts. Other players start taking shots and it becomes particularly brutal. Frequently, Player B finds himself folding to Player A on the river.
This is obviously more true in low limit, but I submit that these results can follow even if Player A and Player B are dealt virtually the same cards after time 1.
>>In essence, the table is now filled with passive callers, and Player A can now play several (not many) hands that he'd otherwise fold.<< If this is true you could make a case that Player A could be guilty of not playing enough hands. opinion, vince
Playing loose post-flop is a mistake, barring steal potential. However, loose pre-flop play can be profitable and is based on:
1. Your image 2. The game type 3. Situational field conditions
The better the player, the more hands that can be successfully played.
Please,any advice on low to medium limit hold em games in Reno would be appreciated.
The best low limit game I have found in Reno is the 4-8 full-kill holdem game at Circus-Circus. Anything less than that is pure nofoldem in Reno. The reason that game is so good is that many players don't have the bankroll or guts for the $16 bets, so aggressive play works well to limit the field and reduce suckouts, but they will play the $8 bets loose enough to build decent pots.
A Poker Guy!
Just a reminder that we would like posts of this kind to go on The Exchange Forum. See the column on the left to access The Exchange.
Sometimes one or more strategy considerations conflict with themselves.
You’re first to act in middle position with AcKc.
You raise, and only BB ( a totally average player ) calls.
Flop: Q T 4 rainbow with no clubs
He bets. You raise. He calls.
Turn: another Q
He checks.
Now, should you bet because you have two overcards plus a straight draw vs one opp?
Or, should you check because you have a draw to the probable nuts?
If you check, and a Brick hits on the River, and he checks the River.
Do you bet to see if he folds?
Or do you check and see if an Ace high is good enough?
You would have to know your players, but you're probably beat and only have a gutshot straight draw as an out (unless he's got QJ).
Why do you think you are beat if your opponent checked?
What hands could the blind hold (he did call a raise remember) that could lose to AK?? Not many.
I agree that you very well might have a worse hand, but you have position and you are "in charge" of the betting. If this guy has a monster and comes over the top of my bet, then a fold is obvious - his check-raise earned him one extra large bet. But, he is not showing any real strength, so the question I would ask is not "what hands could the blind have that could lose" but "what hands could the blind have that he would call with?" Remember that a bet on this turn has a strong inference that I will bet again on the river. The opponent has to look at this as not just calling one bet but probably two. At this point in the hand, I would keep the pressure on to try to get him to release what very well could be a better hand - plus I have some outs.
I'm sure you would rather have one of the twoplustwo guys answer first but I'll give it a quick stab before getting ready for work.
"You’re first to act in middle position with AcKc. You raise, and only BB ( a totally average player ) calls. Flop: Q T 4 rainbow with no clubs. He bets. You raise. He calls."
This is the right play so far head up IMHO.
"Turn: another Q. He checks. Now, should you bet because you have two overcards plus a straight draw vs one opp?"
I think he has about four possible hands: First, a weak queen (even QJ - ouch!) and is planing to check raise. Or perhaps a J9 and is on a draw. He could have a ten (or even an A4 and is planing to call you down). Lastly, he could have a hand like AJ and is looking for an ace or king.
For only the first option I would wish I had checked and would call down a river bet. For the other three I would prefer to bet since I am either in the lead or in a situation where a check raise is unlikely. I would tend to check the river if I didn't improve.
If I am check raised on the turn I would throw the hand away unless he was an extremely tricky, aggressive opponent.
"Or, should you check because you have a draw to the probable nuts?"
The way the hand is played consider checking only if he will often bet the river on a bust if you show weakness on the turn (of course you would call).
"If you check, and a Brick hits on the River, and he checks the River. Do you bet to see if he folds? Or do you check and see if an Ace high is good enough? "
He will call with more hands that beat yours (a ten or a four - he would bet the queen) and may only call with the AJ). I would check here.
Regards,
Rick
I doubt he would have J9. With no callers and one raiser, calling preflop would have been a bad play.
DMAN,
I still think J9 (especially suited) is a reasonable possibility. The original post indicated the following: "You raise, and only BB ( a totally average player ) calls."
When I am told my opponent is "a totally average player", I believe this indicates a player who indeed makes relatively bad plays. I'm not thinking of the type of player who studies the game and has great discipline at the table.
Maybe I'm lucky to be playing in Southern California, but at the yellow chip level (10/20 to 20/40), I would say about 70% of my opponents would call with this hand offsuit and about 85% would call with this hand suited. These figures would be less if they new me very well but this is rarely the case as I tend to be a bit of a "rounder" and avoid playing in the same card club day in and day out. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, I suspected you were a CA player. I've never played there, but I know the games are looser. Often when I read posts I think "This has to be a West coaster, battling in the no foldem arena." I play 1-4-8-8 where tight play is rewarded and this sometimes colors my opinions.
The most important thing in this situation is your understanding of the player. Is he the kind of player who would protect his big blind with any two cards? Is he the kind of player who would bet any hand into a pre-flop raiser, hoping to get something like AK to fold?
Regarding a bet on the turn, the important question here is not how many outs you have, but what chance you think you have of getting this player to lay down a better hand than yours if you bet. Some players will play agressively against a pre-flop raiser to try and find out if they are up against a big pair or two overcards. If you're representing a big pair with the raise on the flop, you should follow through on the turn if you think the player was doing that.
If you check the turn, you should be prepared to call on the river even if your AK doesn't improve if you're against a player who's capable of making a bluff here with a hand like J9 or JK. Your check on the turn is screaming, "I have two overcards, and I'll probably fold if you bet".
When I have a hand like AK and hit a reasonably good flop (and QT4 is not a horrible flop for this hand - a gutshot with two overcards has a lot of outs if you are up against only one pair), I tend to play it like a big pair. In fact, I'll tell myself "I have a pair of Aces", and try to make myself believe it. That way, I'm sure not to give anything away with mannerisms, delays, etc.
But once again, the truly important thing here is the nature of the player you are up against. It's up to you to use your judgement based on your experience with this person.
Dan
I would probably represent the queen and bet, unless I had a reason to think this particular player could be capable of a check-raise bluff.
Or if the opponent was an absolute calling station who would never fold. In this case I would also refrain from betting.
Principle? If you mean "raising to get a free card" then you accomplished your goal. There are a number of hands an "average player" may have called with in this situation. A lot of them contain a Q or T and some more contain a 4. Others may be KJ, J9. You obviouslt considerd this in your "rasing the flop". Since you obtained your goal on the turn of getting him to check and since the Q in no way improved your hand, the question becomes Why bet. Your raising preflop must have told this guy that you had something. Let's say he had a 4 (His most likely other card is an A, then a 5 or 3). He bet, you raised, he called. What does he think you have. He must be putting you on AK, AQ, (AJ), AT or a pocket pair. Given that he has an A he must feel you have a pocket pair bigger than Q or precisely KK or AK, AJ or he can't call you raise. Even an average player understands outs. We could go on with this but in the interest of time. The play here is to check the flop and if the river brings a rag to check behind him on the river. The "principle" on the river is that you don't bet a mediocre hand. AK in this situation is a mediocre hand! Opinion by Vince BTW I know recommending checking will not sit well with a lot of the Aggressive players that play Hold'em. Oh well!
Did you mean to say check the turn and then the river?
Yes. Thank you, Dan. Vince
Why would you call in this position with J9? Unless I knew my opponent was the type to raise with weak hands, I would probably fold, suited or not. Implied odds here are weakfor a drawing hand, aren't they?
There are some "average" players (and solid players also I might add) that will protect their blind with anything that ressembles a connector. Suited or not. Somewhere it was writtem that the BB is getting 3.5 to 1 by calling a raiser and some think that in itself is enough! Vince
I meant check the Turn and the river.Sorry vince
Some crucial information is missing from your question. In this situation I need to have some idea what my opponant thinks of me. Specifically, what do they think I've raised with first in, middle position. Am I playing against my ussual crowd who know I raise anything juicy in this spot? Or am I against a stranger? If stranger, have I been acting loose-aggresive, tight-aggresive, weak-tight, call station-fish, etc.? Deciding what my opponant thinks of me leads me to my play.
in any situation you can always say that it depends on the player and how they perceive you etc.You played aggressive and this player is still with you. If the player checks the turn it can be for a number of reasons, and you have to be Carnac to know what the reason is. No one reads people this well on a consistent basis. it is easy to say that you must know the player here,.. but there is no reasonable explanation for which reason he checks over another. Why did you raise on the flop????just to be aggressive? He is representing at least a pair odf queens and you are saying by your raise that you have a better kicker or higher pair or better.With that in mind, the player could possibly just call it down with three queens bad kicker among other things.Your raise is fine but you should know why you are raising, and this will give you a better idea as to what to do later. in this case I would be raising , in order to get him to check the turn if he calls, so I can get a free card if I don't improve on the turn....So the answer is to check. There are too many ways you are beat. You would have to have an unusually strong read on this player in order to bet on the turn, hoping to get him to fld when the top card pairs. And yes I would check the river if he checks and I didn't improve.gd luck!
Your second question is the easier one to answer: Check behind your opponent if a brick hits the river. When you check the turn, I'd put you on two high cards and would call you with even a pair of 4's. In fact, I might even check a Queen to induce a bluff from you.
As to your first question: I would generally bet on the turn. The key here is that since you raised before the flop (from middle position) and on the flop, you could well have a hand like AQ or KQ. Acordingly, your opponent would be hard pressed to check raise you on the turn even if he held a Queen. In that sense, your bet on the turn is a protected one. Of course, if your opponent check raises you on the turn, you should probably muck your hand.
Checking on the turn IMO is just too weak a play. If a low card hits on the River you are apt to be robbed blind. In fact, you almost have to call the bet on the River to ensure that you are not being bluffed out (a very likely possibility). Thus, you have a check on the turn and a call on the river. IMO, it's better to bet on the turn and check on the River. Either way it costs you the same but the big plus to the second alternative is that your opponent may well fold on the turn. For example, it is not all inconceivable that your opponent would checkraise you on the flop with a 10 or AK or a host of other hands that don't include a Queen. If you continue to put pressure on the pot by betting the turn, he will likely fold any of these types of hands.
In sum, I'd bet the turn and check behind my opponent on the river.
I hate to disagree with you skp, but the question was "what principle" applies? The way the hand was explained "the principle", if you will, is that of buying a "free card" (cheaper card) on the turn. He accomplished that goal when the opponent checked. His hand did not improve on the turn. He now must take the free card. The question then was what does he do if the opponent "checks again on the river". I believe the answer is obvious: Checking behind him is the correct play! The principle here is "Do not bet a mediocre hand on the River", which is what he has! I still believe two (ugh) checks are in order! Opinion by Vince.
Why *must he take a free card? Perhaps his hand doesn't need to improve, in which case he is *giving a free card. In any event, this opponent could be betting all kinds of hands that he would now be willing to lay down if the hero bets again on the turn.
In the games I play in, my opponent could easily have a small pocket pair to play this way, and if I bet again on the turn after raising the flop, I've got perhaps a 50% chance of getting him to lay that pair down. That's a lot of EV to give up by taking a free card.
Dan
Vince, I gotta agree with Dan Hanson's response.
If I intended on checking the turn, I'd probably just call on the flop and quietly muck my hand on the turn if I do not improve. However, once I take an aggressive stance on the flop (particularly in a heads-up confrontation), I like to continue to put pressure on the pot. In heads-up situations, I don't usually raise just to buy a free card. More often than not, I raise on the flop in order to get my opponent to fold on the turn.
I have to disagree and suggest that this is a good situation for the brakes. My analysis at the table would go like this: the pot's offering me slightly more than 4-1 on the turn so I need him to fold more than 20% of the time (I figure that the chance of him being huge largely cancels my draw). So far, he's been acting as if he sort of likes his hand and I've been acting like I'm trying to bully him out of the pot. He even he has reason to suspect my exact hand. So I can't expect a "totally average" player to drop out on the turn more than one time out of 5. If he's on a draw, I can't see much EV if he throws it away, and since he won't do that on the turn anyway I'll have to invest 2 big bets and, of course, any K, J, 9 or 8 might hit him. I know, you can always rely on firing a second barrell on the river, but without more information I'd just be gambling: any rag might induce him to call and any non-rag might kill me.
Actually,you only have to invest one big bet because you would check on the river if a brick hit. Also, you will find that you have to call on the river (if you check the turn) on several occasions to ensure that you are not being bluffed out. So, this too requires an investment of one bet.
I prefer to do my "investing" on the turn.
You also have to consider how your play in this type of hand will affect future plays when you in fact do have the goods (say, AQ in this example). Obviously, if you have shown that you are capable of "driving" a hand like AK in this spot, you are likely to be paid off when you hold AQ in this spot.
Bottom Line from my viewpoint: If you play aggressively on the flop, continue to be aggressive on the turn. Frankly, buying a free card is not a sexy enough reason for me to raise on the flop.
sexy???? there is no reason to think that this player doesn't have some sort of hand.He has called a preflop raise and bet into the raiser on the flop. if he is average, it lends even more credence to him having something.Putting pressure on the pot with nothing when the board gets alot scarier isn't good poker(imo).You have to adjust to the board as well as the players. This board says "put on the brakes". The player doesn't need qq to call you down! remember, you have outs only and some of them are possibly dead.Putting pressure on the pot is good and so is firing the second barrell, but you have to know when to back off, and this is one of those spots.
I don't doubt that the player probably has some kind of hand. But there are several hands which he might bet with on the flop but be willing to lay down on the turn.
You say that the board has become "a lot scarier". Once again , you are correct. But, it has also become a lot scarier to the other guy and he has shown he is scared by checking.
IMO, this board doesn't call for a check on the turn. Other boards in seemingly similar situations might. See my post above concerning the "Variation on the Which Principle Applies Thread".
Many of the tight, predictable, "by the book" types, take the free card on the turn where a bet on the come is clearly indicated. However, this situation may call for some prudence.
Being raised on the flop in a heads-up situation does not indicate anything other than that the bettor thinks he has two overcards beat, or that he thinks he can get two overcards to lay down with a raise, even though he has nothing himself.
Weak players may have a hand like TJ that they'll raise with on the flop, and then fold to a bet on the turn when a scary card lands. Here in the quiet spaces of a forum where you have lots of time to think you can see that this should be an easy call for a pair of tens, but in an actual game, where people may not be thinking clearly, may have just suffered a bad beat, may be short-stacked, etc., having a card like this land can be terrifying and can cause them to lay down a perfectly good hand.
You also have to ask, "Why did this player check the turn?" This indicates to me either weakness, or that I'm being lined up for a checkraise. Either way, I don't mind betting. If I'm raised, I can drop the hand. If the opponent calls and then bets into me on the river, I can drop the hand. If he calls and then checks, I can turn my hand over on the river. Either way, it's one bet.
If, on the other hand, I check behind him, I'm often going to have to call a bet on the river anyway, since my hand can beat a bluff. So it's still one bet.
Now look at that bet a little closer... Checking or betting costs me one bet either way if I have to call a bet on the river and I don't improve. But betting does several nice things here - first of all, I may get my opponent to fold. In my experience, against an average player in this situation I have better than a 20% chance of getting him to fold, making the bet worth it for that alone. Second, I may have the best hand, in which case it's a value bet (I make money when my opponent is also on a draw but I have him beat). In this case, you are not *getting a free card on the turn, you are *giving one.
Now, if I hit my hand (either by making the gutshot or hitting one of my pairs), I make an extra bet by having bet on the turn.
Finally, future action on my real hands (AA, KK, AQ, QQ), requires that I play my overcards agressively when the situation is right for it. And this is one of those times.
Couldn't agree more.
couldn't disagree more! if you would back up to before the turn, and tell me what your experience is when you raise pre flop, and a ace,king ,or queen flops and you get bet into, what percentage of the time the player betting into you has nothing as opposed to top pair or better.Again you really don't have a concrete answer as to why you are raising on the flop.This is what the crux of this problem is.You are voting against this player having a legitimate hand in this scenario most of the time, when I believe that in this situation you have to give this player credit for having something. And if this player has something, then it is likely heads up that if he doesn't have a queen you are still going to get called down. You balance your play by not betting all the times when you make a big hand or have an over pair when the top card pairs.You are saying that you are giving a free card instead of taking a card when you don't even have a pair.That is stretching that concept just a bit , don't you think.The raise IS to get a free card since you are not made. you can twist this anyway you want but that is the reality of the situation. Know why your raising.bu bye.
First of all, the parameter of the question was that the raise had already been made, the discussion was about play on the turn.
In my experience, a flop with a Queen as top pair is much less likely to intimidate another player than a flop with an Ace or a King. So the player is more likely to bet into you with a marginal holding.
IMO, checking and folding two overcards and a gutshot in this situation is just weak play, given a typical opponent. There are certainly many opponents that I would check and fold to here, but many more that I would not.
Ask yourself why the player checked the turn. Is he going to risk a checkraise here with three queens? After all, if I have Aces or Kings in this situation I'll often check right behind him, and this is a fairly scary flop for even a set (I could easily be the one on the KJ straight draw). If he checks, he's showing some weakness.
Again, I would have to maintain that against a typical opponent you are committed to paying off one bet anyway, since if you check behind him he's likely to bluff on the river. So if you're going to pay the bet, you're better off doing it on the turn.
I don't like the idea of raising to buy a free card in a heads-up situation. I'm raising to win the pot, hoping that he'll fold on the flop after I play back at him. However, there are a lot of players who would bet as little as a gutshot on the flop as a bluff against two possible overcards. When you raise, they'll call the raise and then fold to a bet on the turn, especially when a scary card lands (and pairing top pair is about as scary as it gets if he doesn't have a queen himself).
Dan
There seems to be a fair amount of agreement on how to play the hand (BTW, in my original response, I neglected to mention KJ as a possible holding - thanks Dan Hanson). Most respondents indicated a desire for more information about the way the opponent plays and what he thinks of your play. This has to be the most important principle - knowing your opponent.
The other important principle is expect even the "totally average" player to be tricky when he is playing heads up (and you should be too!). Thus, lead betting on the flop into several opponents is much more likely an indication that a queen is out against you (by the better or a caller) than a lead bet heads up. Laying down when the board pairs queens is the first situation (multi-way pot) is indicated by technical and logical analysis. Heads up expect the unexpected and know your opponent (and what he thinks of you). This will dictate your play.
Regards,
Rick
I'd like to point out that heads-up you should consider varying your play in different ways with hands like two overcards, so you don't become too predictable.
For instance, once in a while I would smooth-call the flop here, and raise the turn. This option costs you a half-bet more than raising the flop and betting the turn, but it puts a LOT more pressure on a marginal hand. A play like this indicates that you have at least an overpair, and perhaps a set.
Against a habitual bluffer, I might just call all the way to the river on occassion.
In tough games, you wind up in situations like this quite often. If you play them too mechanically, you're in for a world of hurt.
On the other side of the equation, if I'm the one calling a pre-flop raiser, I also mix up my play a lot. If he bets into me on the flop, I might just smooth call, then raise on the turn when he bets again with nothing more than a draw, because the odds are that he's got two overcards instead of a big pair. If he plays his overcards agressively all the time, I might just check and call all the way to the river with nothing but a small pocket pair. It really depends on the player. Against some players, I can check and fold top pair in this situation, because they *always have a big pair if they bet.
Dan
If you raise him on the flop and he checks to you on the turn: BET! Your raise on the flop wasn't a free card play like one of the other posters suggests, but an attempt to take the lead in the betting sequence.
You're trying to win the pot, not trying to make your hand. Especially heads-up you got to keep shooting to find out if the other guy has something. He may have bet the flop with the second or third button hoping to either win betting the flop or improving his hand. Bob Ciaffone has great advice on situations like these in "Improve your Poker". Take his advice and fire that second barrel. If he calls you on the turn don't bet the river unless you make your straight. You won't make him lay down his hand at this juncture.
A check-raise on the turn by the BB? Cross that bridge when you get there. I would probably start waving the white flag at this point unless the guy has shown a lot of moves before.
Spielmacher
I'd check it all the way to the river (unless I hit) because (1) the second queen makes it harder to represent having one and (2)there is less equity in bluffing than would otherwise be the case because the hand he is most likely to fold if you bet, a draw with no pair, is one that you can beat anyway. Also, since your overcards are vulnerable against this board I wouldn't have raised on the flop.
What card will give you nuts?
Oh, all right. The board is paired. He may have a full house already. I'm not going to worry about that until I see evidence of it. If he's got a full house he's probably going to checkraise me on the turn, in which case I can lay the hand down for one bet. No big deal.
Dan
To All the Posters On This Thread:
Last night I wrote a post in this thread and mistakenly thought I was sort of summing up the ideas in the post so I remamed my posted reply as follows:
"The Primary Principle(s)!
Rick Nebiolo -- Tuesday, 5 January 1999, at 12:49 a.m.
When I came home tonight and saw all the excellent writing and ideas posted after this I honestly felt sort of foolish. Having the opportunity to read the continuing posts of all the excellent players who take time to write out their thoughts and analysis is a privilage and really makes my day. I would like to thank all out there who so obviously love the game of poker and have a lot to contribute. In the future I will try to be a little more humble.
Regards,
Rick
>>There seems to be a fair amount of agreement on how to play the hand (BTW, in my original response, I neglected to mention KJ as a possible holding - thanks Dan Hanson)>> If your talking about the post that began like this then you leave that post alone! It totally woke me up to errors in my thinking about the hand in question. If it is another post and was written similiar to the above as I believe it probably was the all I can say is Keep on contributing to this forum! Please!!! Vince
Thanks to all who posted earlier, responses were discussed to no avail...so..I agreed to post more specific details: The game in question was 5 card draw, 2,3,one eye jack,suicide king wild.(yep thats eleven) An absurd game I admit, but the $ is as real as any. We play wild cards to be whatever,(or so I thought), BUT when playing stud with wilds, highest natural card always bets. (twos wild, a seven up has the bet over a two, Kings wild, a king has the bet over a ten...) My thoughts are that the high natural card gets the bet by default, but in the end, the best hand wins...natural be damned. Am I wrong here? Case in point the hands were as follows: WILD2 WILD2 WILD3 KING KING; WILD2 WILDj WILD3 WILD3 WILDk. Both had 5 Kings, one player 5 wilds...(5 aces?), the other a more natural 5 Kings. I hope the situation is fairly clear to you. This is not really a matter of money, the two players in question are brothers, and both pretty much ox-like in their stubborness, but friends none the less. I'm trying to set a precedent for future games as I'm sure the issue will re-appear someday. All help is greatly appreciated. Prosperous new year, Matt B
In the games I play in, the highest hand would be 5 aces. We also don't distinguish between hands that have differing numbers of wild cards.
This response, of course, is really of no help to you because the house rules can be set up any way at all. The most important thing is that you and your brothers come to an agreement that will resolve future situations, and that you all understand the rules you are playing by.
My thoughts:
The "highest natural card" leads the betting has nothing to do with the winning hand and should not have impact on the winner.
Case in point. One player has 4 5 6 8 10 (4 and 5) buried the other has 4 5 2 7 8 (4 and 5 buried) the first hand would lead the betting all the way but would loose the hand to the hand with the wild card.
About the wild wild wild King King, winning against wild wild wild wild wildking.
In my opinion the wild wild wild King King should be the LOOSER. His logic is based on the fact that the wilds must match a natural. Therefore the best hand his opponent could have is 5 kings (using the wild king as a natural) therefore his 5 kings is better because it is more natural.
I can not accept this argument. First off if a wildcard must match a natural how ever could it be used to fill a straight or a straight flush. It could not as there is no natural for it to match against.
I have seen wild cards played where they can only be used to fill staights, or used as an ace.
I have also seen wild cards played where they can match any cards no need for them to match a natural.
In both of the above the hand with the five wilds would win.
The technicality that a wild card must match a natural seems in my opinion something that is not a default but should only be applied if it is specifically stated by the dealer calling the game. Not the default.
I would suggest that you and the other players try to think of examples, that night, where a wild card might have been used without matching a natural for a previous winning pot.
How can you resolve the situation: You can not resolve the situation by logic with the two players involved Niether will budge.
Some possible solutions: 1) Split the pot. 2) Binding vote. Have all players not involved in the pot vote with the two brothers agrreing to accept the decision of the floor. 3) Save the pot until the next time the two brothers are head-up against each other with the winner of that hand taking this previously created side pot. 4) Use the money to pay for the beer, booze and snacks for the next poker event. 5) Spend it all on lottery tickets for all the players to share in the winnings.
In any event when it comes to these "house rules" the importnat thing is not necessarily what the rules are but rather that all the rules are clearly understood by all.
S. Doyle
I think that the rule that wild cards must match a natural in the hand is simply a result of someone getting dealt 5 kings and not wanting to lose. Never have I played in a game where this rule was in effect. As a couple people have noted, this type of wild card could never be used to fill a straight. Obviously, it is probably best for regular home games to have these specific rules agreed upon (written down if big money or short tempers are involved) in advance and made clear to everyone.
------------------------------------
Another wild card question that caught my interest when someone mentioned it to me a while ago. Deuces are wild. Who wins?
Player 1: Ac Kc Qc 7c 3c
Player 2: Ah 2s Jh 7h 3h
Possibility A: Player 2 uses the 2s as the Kh and his A-K-J flush loses to the A-K-Q flush.
Possibility B: Player 2 uses the 2s as another Ah and his A-A-J flush beats the A-K-Q flush.
Personally, I like possibility A, but either way seems legitimate to me. (Obviously, when someone makes a 5-of-a-kind, they are duplicating exact cards, so that logic might favor possibility B.)
Thanks for situations I had not thought of...further clarification though...A wild card need not "match" a natural, it just needs a natural to go with. Definitely, it could be used in a straight, flush, or to match for two, three, four or five of akind. The point about the two aces flush is interesting what with an obvious duplicate in five of a kind. I fully realize this is a trivial query for such a list, but I welcome all other responses, and thank you for your time. Matt B
AA flush doesn't exist in most games. A wild card filling out a flush is used to make the highest card possible that doesn't copy another card already used in the flush.
Some players play that you can have an AA flush. There are also poker and poker-derived games played with multiple decks that have new hands defined for "flush-plus" situations. Flush+pair, Flush+trips, etc. In one table game, Fast Action Hold'em, the flush-plus hands are all better than quads, and the best ones are even better than straight flushes.
In a home game, you can use whatever rules you like, but make sure everyone knows the rules and agrees to them.
There will always be dispute in what is the "right" way to handle all these situations.
Unambiguous bad rules are MUCH easier to live with then ambiguous good ones. Simple bad rules are better than complicated good ones. For example: "a wild card can be any card, duplicated or not" gives great coverage.
All in, Wild cards, and "declare" split pots can create great havok in home games. Dream up these situations, WRITE THEM DOWN, and post them. Change the rules only BETWEEN hands.
- Louie
I don't write this as a 'bad beat story' but I am somewhat preplexed. I limp in with A 7 suited in late position. Flop comes 7 7 4, bet, call - I call !! Turn harmless Q ( I mean no flush possible) I don't think anyone limps with QQ so I am still happy... bet, fold, I call. I forgot or let's say 'try to erase the river from memory as a phych experience. Anyway river was unimportant because the guy under the gun had 4 7 offsuit. The bettor later told me that he put me on A7 and if Ace had came on the river he was ready to muck !! I raised him on the river and he did not raise back - clear sign the he was not that good player. I mean I could have had Q7 - just to show that he thought I was a complete idiot (playing Q7) or felt bad and did not re-reaise on purpose.
Andras,
Let me try to cheer you up although this sounds suspiciously like a bad beat story. You should be thankful you play in a country where opponents in a 30/60 game play a 4 7 offsuit under the gun! Although you would prefer others get the bad beats, being in a game and not seeing this type of play is the worse beat of all (if you are playing to win).
You said "Anyway river was unimportant because the guy under the gun had 4 7 offsuit. The bettor later told me that he put me on A7 and if Ace had came on the river he was ready to muck !!"
I would bet my life that anyone who plays such a hand would never muck his full house on the river and it is baloney he could put you on an ace seven. The point here is that I hoped you were able to nod your head in polite agreement (or keep your mouth shut to put it less delicately) when he described his grand strategy. This way he will still be around to donate to the starving poker masses (I assume food comps are hard to get at the Belagio) at least until his money runs out. Anyway, better luck next time.
Regards,
Rick
Great advice! I wish more of the so called "know it alls" would subscribe to this line of reasoning and shut their mouths and quit bitchen when things don't go their way. For the life of me, I will never understand why anyone would be upset when they see their opponent playing incorrectly. Sure it hurts when you get the occasional beat but if everyone played perfectly, the casino would be the only one making any money.
I don't blame you for being perplexed! I play poker to win money! True! But if money was my only goal I would go to work. It's easier! The simple answer to this dilema is "you gotta love it" but it's just not enough! This is one of those totally unexpected events that could ruin your session. Poker to be played well must also be fun! When something like this occurs the fun is taken out of the game. I have seen statements in this forum to the effect the more defenseless the opponent the better. Bullshit! Poker players are warriors. We want to win money sure, but we also want a good fight. It's true this guys money is as good as the next and if he wants to gamble, sit on down. But I for one would not sit very long at a table filled with incompetent players and enjoy myself. That's partly my reason for not playing low limit no foldem poker. I like to think the time I've spent learning poker skills was worthwhile. I relly don't know the best answer to this post. But in general it is usually better to turn a bad situation into a good one by looking at it in a positive light. There must be a lesson in there somewhere! Good Luck, Andras! Vince
Well, if I understand this correctly, there was one limper ahead of you, you limped, button and sb folded, and the bb checked. Why would you limp in that situation? A7s a good limp with a lot of players as it will generally either give you a nut flush draw or easy to get away from on the flop. It is a decent heads up hand because of the ace. It is kind of a crappy 3 way hand because you wont get odds for a draw and you can't win without another ace (generally). I think that raising preflop would be a stronger move. Whether he would have dropped, I don't know ... but maybe.
You were beaten from the flop on, drawing to only 2 outs for the turn and 5 (including a split) for the river. I seriously doubt the bettor put you on A7, it was just table bullshit to psyche you out. If I know what someone has, I would never let on. If I didn't, I might pull a line like that just to mess with them. I think after the other player folded on the turn, I would have raised. It would have cost you in this case, but generally I don't like giving a free card for a river suckout with a paired board if I think I am ahead.
A Poker Guy!
Well, maybe. The reason I coined this a 'lesson' cause I think what I did wrong was not to checkraise after the flop and when called I should have folded. You think I am full of it but I could have even if I didn't I would have known where I was at. The lesson in Vegas 30-60 when bet and called (or raise and called) you have better than 50% to be beaten unless hold the nuts. Thanks for all of your comments ! Andras
I have a very good hourly rate in 10-20 and up (about 2 to 2 1/2 times the bb). But sometimes waiting for a seat at a higher limit game or when it has broken up all that remains is 6-12 and 4-8. It seems that no hand is good enough until all the cards are out and you hold the nuts. I believe a large part of my profits come from getting players to fold hands that would beat mine by my aggression. Sometimes by switching gears and making good players look me up when I have the nuts and making them gun shy in the future. I feal like I am in complete control at higher limit games.
Now let us talk about lower limit games for a minute. I feal there are few if any astute players in the game and any action on my behalf goes unnoticed. I have tried to play many different styles and or stick with one for the duration of a session with little results. Large wins and losses my deviation at 6-12 is not comparable perctage wise to the higher limit games. It seems to me lower limit is more like gambling than playing poker. That may sound like a shrewed comment but I like to make money not gamble. I am not interested in traditional casino games of luck with large pay offs and astronomical odds. If that were my desire I would not go to the casino I would play the lottery. I am not saying there is not money to be made in lower limit games. It just seems to me there is a much greater luck factor.
In a lose low limit game people will play almost anything and not show any consistancy on how they play their hands. Not all just some if they truely believe they have the best hand they will bet it accordingly with no regard for their kicker or any other possible hand.
Maybe I am strange or have just not figured out a good way to play against yahoos. I am not sure but I now my success at higher limit is well documented. I also fair very well in private games and no limit tournaments. Is it possible my concern is for odds and how people will react to plays and not to the money amounts attached. I truely do not know. I feal people playing poker often concern themselves with the money envolved and that is a major down fall for most. My play is not dictated by the amount of money I have left for that session. Is that good or bad?
My main reason for posting is for some constructive critism. I hope I recieve some. Thanks for your time I know this was lengthy.
Brad
Anticipating that you would one day ask these very questions on this forum, back in the 80's David Sklansky answered them for you in two essays in his book, _Getting the Best of It_. See "How to Play in a Loose Game" and "Why You Lose in a Good Game." (Note that while Mike Caro can't finish a project, David is some 16 years ahead of schedule. ;-))
John Feeney
Repeat after me "They're only chips". When a poker player thinks "wow, I just bet the car payment", he is done. Money for poker should be viewed as a businessman views capital. So there is nothing wrong with your attitude towards your stake. The problem is your play. You can't trick or decieve players who aren't paying attention, who are ignorant of the odds and so don't know they shouldn't call, who cling to their gutshot draws and underpairs and lo and behold if there are enough of them in a game-ONE OF THEM JUST MAY MAKE THEIR HAND. And you lose, because you were playing correctly, but you were in the wrong game. Winning 2 BB/hour is a nice problem to have. Forget the low limit games. If you have the discipline to win at 10/20 and above, you ought to have the patience to wait for your game.
I have noticed that one of the best ways to beat a no-fold em game is two have one or two other "solid" players at the game. Preferably evenly spaced. With one or two other players of this kind, I find it much easier to deal with the loonies that may be in between. Its sounds counter-intuitive, but it has been my experience.
I am sure that I could find a mathematical basis of this rule (perhaps an application of Morton in a modified form). But for now, here is a example:
Supposed 4 people go in to see the flop, call them A-D. A&C are maniacs and B&D are solid.
Flop 2h 5d Kc
A: 9d Td B: Ks Qs C: 3h 8c D: As Ad
So the maniacs need runner-runner to make a flush and runner-runner to make a straight. B and D with solid hands, top pair good kicker, and pocket overpair will bet and raise. Perhaps several raises.
In the long run, both B&D win because A&C are just donating so much money into the pot. Even though you are in a game with another solid player (one who might even be better than you) you can put the maximum heat on those loonies with perfect-perfect draws.
Just yesterday a hand like this happened. I flopped trips, loonie needed perfect-perfect, the other solid player had top pair with ace kicker. Guess who won? Yeah, the loonie, he made his gutshot straight on the river. I was a bit unnerved so I took a short walk around the casino before returning to the table.
Paul Martino
If you look around and notice that you have become the "least" favorite at the table, How much of a consolation is it that YOU KNOW this. Meaning, you may want to stay and play to "tune your game" or to "study" some of the these "better" players?
Most of the money you make at poker is not because of how well you play, but because of how poorly your opponents play!
I get a great deal of consolation knowing I'm an underdog. You minimize/fix your limitations by first acknowledging them.
Dare I suggest that each successive "lesson" in a night has diminishing returns: you are much more likely to learn from the first lesson than the 20th (who reviews more than 10 hands on the way home?). If so, deliberately exposing yourself to numerous -EV lessons accomplishes little. There is always someone in a nomal +EV game who can outplay you in some situation or another, and you should get plenty of "tuning" against them as a matter of course in a normal profitable game.
- Louie
Last night I was at the final table of rather large area tournament. There are three players left. I am on the button with 25,000. The other two have about 30,000 and 40,000.
The blinds are huge 2500-5000 and the limits are 5000-10000. So even the chip leader at 40,000 only has a couple of bets.
Three handed I am dealt AQo on the button. I raise it to 20000. The small blind calls me. Flop K 9 2. Its checked to me, so move the rest of my chips (5000) in. I go on to lose the hand to KTs.
In my estimation, I made the right move going all-in here. Those huge blinds were coming my way. But my real question is this: those huge blinds were coming everyones way. There was no big chip leader. What is the best way to deal with this sitatuion? The leader has 4 small bets, 2nd place 3, and me at almost 3. It really seems like it comes down to a crap shoot at this point. The guys in the blinds almost have to call a raise because 20-30% of their chips are already in! Any comments on a situation like this?
Also, one other question: About 10 mintues before I went out, when the limits were 1500-3000 playing 3000-6000, I was the chip leader (by a small amount). I offered a three way chop. To my surprise the guy with the least chips, and in my estimation the least skill, said no. The payouts were in the proportion of 1-2-4 for 3rd, 2nd, 1st. One other note: we were in the 6th hour of play approaching midnight.
Thanks for any comments.
Paul Martino
It is a crapshoot. A-Q is a monster hand in that situation, so you can't be faulted for playing the hand (even Q-10 would be playable, although in a different fashion). Your opponent had a playable hand also. The only part I don't like about the equation is that you couldn't get all-in before the flop; the only strategy adjustment that you arguably could have made would be to call the blinds with A-Q and move in on the flop if you liked it. But really you can't be faulted for playing the hand or playing it the way you did.
How can you raise it to 20000 before the flop if the blinds are 2500/5000 and the limts are 5000/10000? In a limt tournament, I might be willing to check down the hand given this flop. If the guy has any King, he is going to call your bet, and if he has an underpair, he is also likely to call you down. In both cases, you are more likely to benefit from the free card than he is. That last bet is very valuable at this stage since it can be the difference between one pay place.
Of course, given your invesment in the pot, I think you have to CALL any bet on the flop. Even if it puts you all-in. Make that ESPECIALLY if it puts you all-in since you get two cards for the price of (less than) one.
Sorry for the generalities, but I don't really understand the size of the pot/chip position, etc. given your description of the pre flop betting. Maybe you only had 15000 in chips, and raised it to 10000. If thats the case, I would still probably take the free card on the flop, although your opponent is certain to put you all-in on the turn with ANY pair at that point.
As far as the deal you offered, the small stack probably figured you weren't offering him much more than his guaranteed third place money (were you?), so he should take a shot and might get lucky since skill is dominate by fate at this stage.
You are correct, I had 15000 in chips at the time. Sorry for the confusion.
Thanks,
paul
You may have tried to negotiate a deal in this spot. Good luck Andras
While at that point, you are hoping that the other two lock horns and one gets knocked out, I absolutely agree with your AQo raise. I understand your motive with the follow through bet (I have done the same thing many times in the heat of battle). The odds of your opponent folding vs this 5000 bet are small. Without making this bet, you have "a chip, a chair, and a prayer". I think you undervalued your final chips when deciding to toss them into the pot. *Anything* could happen on the next two hands, and you might have slid into second.
Dan wrote: "The odds of your opponent folding vs this 5000 bet are small."
Why do you think so? Playing 3-handed, you usually play a lot of hands. Therefore, the blind might have called preflop with a lot of hands that have made nothing now, and therefore fold to your bet. I mean, how would you feel now if you were the blind holding JT? Other than a Q on the turn or river, would you think that you have any outs? While a J or T one-pair hand might be a winner, you probably wouldn't give it much weight. Therefore, I think that there is still a pretty good chance of getting this person to fold here. Of course, some opponents would never fold, and against this type you would always check now, and hope to check it down.
"Without making this bet, you have "a chip, a chair, and a prayer". I think you undervalued your final chips when deciding to toss them into the pot."
I'd be worried about giving a free card to a hand like JT, A5, Q8, etc., hands that might have called preflop but also might fold now. I'd rather risk the bet and avoid any chance of giving these hands a free shot at winning.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In these type of spots you need to think about how likely your opponents are to fold to your preflop raise. If they are likely to fold, you should raise with a lot of hands, if they are not likely to fold, some raising hands should become calling hands. However, with this being said, AQ almost always has to be a raising hand because it is so strong.
You should use the same kind of reasoning on the flop. There is a good chance your AQ is good, but since you can only bet a small amount your opponent is probably correct to call with many hands, and even though some of these hands are weaker than yours, you would still like him to fold. For example, suppose your opponent has 87. Do you want him to get two cards for his call of only $5,000 in tournament chips?
The blinds are 2500-5000, limits are 5000-10000, you have 25000 on the button. You said you raised it to 20000, leaving you with 5000 in chips. But you would have only been able to raise it to 10000, leaving you 15000 in chips. That kind of changes the decision about going all-in. This leaves you being able to make a full bet on the flop, which is an even stronger bet, but checking the flop still leaves you with a viable stack. Did I miss something? Hard to say which move is better. At that point it really depends on your read of your opponent.
A Poker Guy!
It seems to me there is a flaw in the tournaments betting structure that the blinds are so large relative to the remaining amount of money, making skill far less important than it ought to be
Yes, that was exactly my point. The tournament drug on so long that this was the case.
It's funny how 2 poker situations which look so similar on the surface can in fact be quite different.
In the "Which Principle Applies?" thread below, Erin raised with AcKc from middle position. BB called and led out with a Q,10,4 flop. Erin raised on the flop. BB called and checked on the turn when another Queen hit. I then suggested that Erin should bet the turn and check behind her opponent on the river.
Now, let's change the situation a little: Suppose Erin raises with KcQc from middle position. BB calls and leads out on a 10,9,4 flop. Erin raises. BB calls and checks on the turn when another 10 hits. In this situation, Erin should be more inclined to check on the turn (subject as always to her knowledge of her opponent and how she thinks he perceives her play).
The key difference is that a bet on the turn in the second example is less "protected". Erin is more likely to be (a)raised by the BB if he has a 10 and (b) bluff-raised even if he doesn't have a 10. In the second example, Erin's opponent's raise is "protected" as it is less likely that Erin (being the pre-flop raiser) holds a 10.
BTW, in one of the more recent Card Player issues, Bob Ciaffone wrote an article on the "Protected Raise". I thought it was a splendid essay and would urge all players to read it.
It is easier to define where you are, or to attempt a bluff when a Q falls as opposed to when a T falls. It much less likely that an opponent has two overcards.
good principle, but wrong situation to use it in.
skp wrote: "BTW, in one of the more recent Card Player issues, Bob Ciaffone wrote an article on the "Protected Raise". I thought it was a splendid essay and would urge all players to read it."
This is a great essay. As a mostly California player, one part of Bob's essay lept out at me. He mentioned specific situations were you wouldn't raise in Las Vegas (four raise limit) and would raise in California (three raise limit) because you would only have to fear one more raise in California. In a chapter titled "Two Califonia Rules that Need To Be Corrected" in the book "Poker Essays - Volume Two" by Mason Malmuth, Mason essentially mentions the same thing. He points out that the three raise limit in California actually leads to bigger pots which is exactly opposite of the intentions of card room management. This is another example of the irony that makes poker so fasinating.
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
I found when in Washington years ago that the 2-raise limit also encouraged larger pots, since assertive players are encouraged to raise since they will not show weakness by "just" calling the 2nd raise, and aggressive players liked to put in the 2nd raise without fear of a reraise, what-the-heck.
Back to the original post: AK is more likely to be the best hand in the 1st example than KQ is in the 2nd; which adds A LITTLE weight to betting KQ out on the river, hoping AJ folds.
- Louie
Well, this header ought to say it all. Usually I play in a couple home games, but occasionally during the week (usually after I'm done teaching for the day) I'll pop up to Central City and play a little 2-5. Obviously, this game isn't a big money maker- in fact, I'm not even sure it has a +EV, considering that the rake is formidable (10% or three bucks) and there's an additional buck taken out of every pot over forty bucks for- you guessed it- a jackpot. But since I'm no mathematician, I can't be sure.
What's the verdict? Is this even a marginally +EV game? I logged about 200 hours at this game in '98, and won about three dollars an hour, but I'm not sure if this is just short term success.
Any insight would be most appreciated.
Tight, game selective players can make $7-12 an hour, maybe more. It is not true that the Colorado rake makes $2-5 unbeatable.
Agree here.
Except that "tight" refers to the first bet, not the $2 bring in. In these loose games you can speculate liberally for $2; so long as you routinely fold for a raise or a bet on the flop.
There are bad and bad-loose games up there, but you must be willing to seek and find them. Having just a couple hours after work will put you at a disadvantage in game selection.
- Louie
Here in Vancouver, B.C., there are no Omaha games other than a 20-40 hi-lo game which I have not yet played in given my inexperience with the game. I was in Edmonton, Alberta over the holidays and got to play some Omaha. The games in the casinos there alternate every half hour between Hold 'em and Omaha high. I gotta say that I now love Omaha high.
I encourage all Omaha players to share their ideas on strategy with us on the Forum. I, for one, would love to learn more.
Dan Hanson, since you play in those Edmonton games on a regular basis, I invite you to provide your valuable insight more often on Omaha strategy. Obviously, I extend the same invitaion to Ray Zee and the other experts.
Jeez, the way you ran over the table that night, I'm not sure I can add much... (-:
I have to say that Omaha High is my favorite game, because you still find players at the middle limits that make terrible errors. In Holdem, it's rare to find even weak players that will make huge mistakes like calling with 92o, and in the no-foldem games their other errors (chasing too much) don't cost them a whole lot.
Omaha, on the other hand, gives players a chance to make brutal mistakes like calling when they are drawing completely dead, and this happens all the time. Many of the players I play against will routinely call any bet with bottom two pair or top and bottom pair, even against evidence that they are up against top set. Or, they'll call to make their flushes against a large field with the board paired and previous raises indicating a boat is already out there.
Any time players are making mistakes this large, there has to be a lot of profit in the game for a good player.
Dan
I am not experienced in LIMIT Omaha high, but as compared to pot-limit, I assume that hands with high pairs and ace-high flush draws would go up in value, and hands with straight runs would go down. The straight runs are worth less in limit, since you can't protect your hand from players drawing to flushes or to fill (who would not have odds to call a pot-sized bet). A big pair that makes top set would still have call odds in limit even with an obvious made straight or flush on the turn.
In pot-limit, I avoid middle pairs, since they don't make the nuts. I like hands like Ac9c8d7d, that have the potential to make the nuts with redraws against an opponent who has the dry nuts. (This hand might be worth less in limit for the reasons above.)
Semibluffing is very effective in pot-limit, where few hands will have call odds. As compared to holdem, drawing hands tend to be stronger in Omaha, especially when many players take the flop. Another nice thing about Omaha high is that there are more playable hands than in holdem or Omaha-8, as much of the value in the latter games is contained in a small number of the very strongest hands.
The game changes entirely when tight or shorthanded, since you can't just play for the nuts. Very weak hands like an overpair can win in a shorthanded pot, and you have to really read your opponents and the situation to tell where you stand.
If my opponents in a full game were playing any trash, I would be inclined to raise many hands preflop, provided that it would not narrow the field or make them tighten up. You don't want to knock out hands that you dominate and that will pay you off. Some players, however, will virtually never raise preflop, or only raise with aces (watch for this). An Omaha expert I talked to says he almost never raises AA in limit Omaha, since deception is worth more than a little extra preflop value.
Inexperience Omahaha players, such as myself, should play the nuts. The problem is the non-brain-dead opponents will notice and give little action.
The half-Holdem half-Omahaha game offers a valid strategy in that you could play Holdem assertively, routinely betting and raising in the marginal situations. Many opponents will NOT notice the "nut" nature of your Omahaha game and you can get a bunch of unwarrented action.
In a tight game you could reverse it, failing to bluff in the obvious Holdem situations and then stealing them silly in Omahaha.
- Louie
You're right in that playing the nuts is a good way for an inexperienced Omaha player to start the game... Against a typical field you could probably post a small profit this way, and you'll certainly avoid the big errors that some players make.
However, if you want to be a really good Omaha player, you have to learn how to play the marginal situations, and there are a surprising number of them even against a large field. Two pair is often the best hand, and running straights and flushes are often missed.
There are also a number of good bluffing opportunities in Omaha, and especially semi-bluffing raises and such, since you can often hit a big draw that you can raise for value, using the deception to move on the pot when the board doesn't change. There are also a lot of very scary cards that can land in Omaha that can set up profitable bluffs. I'm trying to compose a post about this right now, but I want to go through it and make sure I don't make any errors or give any misleading information.
Dan
So what if the higher limit players are a little bit tougher. If you are the best player, and the smartest person in the game you should be able to overcome their talents with your super capabilities. Right?
A preliminary question: What are the bankroll requirements, for someone who plays $300-600 every day, to ensure not being wiped out by a standard negative deviation?
Dr. Stern, who is a dedicated professional, admits in his book that he rarely plays above $20-40. Bankroll comfort?
The very best 300-600 players really only average about $200 an hour in the typical game. And there is a small chance of a half a million dollar downturn even for them. Thus it is hard to justify a tenfold risk for a very small increase in earnings. Furthermore, the stategy needed to beat those games would often backfire if you tried them in the games we write about.
Good answer David. This seems to hold true most limits down the line.
David:
What is the optimal limit to balance risk and maximize earn?
It depends how well you play. The subject is covered in detail in our book Gambling for a Living.
I've read Gambling For A Living, and I don't recommend it to anyone. It's basically a rehash of five books: Gambling Theory, Poker Essays I & II, Blackbelt in Blackjack and Getting the Best of It. There's virtually no new material and the material presented is not well explored.
However, the little chart on expectation, limit and player skill does indicate the best expectation balanced for bankroll requirements.
Scot wrote:
"I've read Gambling For A Living, and I don't recommend it to anyone. It's basically a rehash of five books: Gambling Theory, Poker Essays I & II, Blackbelt in Blackjack and Getting the Best of It."
Wait a second. I agree that the four books of ours that you mention would be tough to read a second time. But didn't Arnold Snyder write Blackbelt in Blackjack? And, furthermore, he had the nerve to publish it himself, instead of giving it us.
The book does contain much that we said elsewhere. But only very serious players have read all of our previous works. Thus a synopsis is valuable for eveyone else. Furthermore there is some good new material as you yourself admitted. And for the professional or expert player who has read all of our other stuff, even one new paragragh that they did not allready know, ought to pay for the book many times over. So to who would your recommendation not to buy the book apply ?
David, honestly, I cannot imagine someone finding insight in Gambling For A Living to be a winning player at any game, nor would I expect this book alone to tilt the odds in their favor.
Start imagining.
What he said.
What part of the book enabled you to recover your $24.95? The part where it said reading more books would be helpful? Seriously though, what part helped you out?
Scott,
I guess the real question is can't you think for yourself? One of the biggest points especially to Sklansky's work is to make you think. If you don't think and read much more into his books there is no point to read them. If you honestly believe someone could or would write down every aspect of his or her winning ways YOU ARE CRAZY!! Next time you read a book especially about poker think about what you are reading. Basically all S&M's books deal with the mathmatics of poker and some basic stratagies which are both crucial to winning. Only you can take your game to another level no book will do that.
Good luck I think you may need it.
Thanks for the advice Sherlock.
David, honestly, I cannot imagine someone finding insight in Gambling For A Living to be a winning player at any game, nor would I expect this book alone to tilt the odds in their favor.
I think a better response is why play with people at or close to your same level when you can play with so many people that are inferior to you. When a world class player sits in on a normal game they are given an instant image with out any effort and anyone intelligent can pray off of that. I believe this is a large part to David and Mason's success. At a higher stakes game (generally) people are more intelligent than that. JUST MY OPINION!!!
S&M's books are filled with solid theory and sound advice that go slightly past the basics in some cases and further it seems in others.Since most readers are newer players , they have to gear them to that audience for the most part. So many newer players are hoping to find the grail, in these books and it just isn't anywhere to be found. to get an edge in any form of "beatable", gambling forums, you have to eat it, drink it, breath it, all the time. most of us are not willing to do that. We want a nice simple formula for success. S&M and ZEE's books come closer to that then any other I've read. But once you get to the next level like you might be Scott, you realize the rest is up to yourself.What's for breakfast? poker again!!??
Why don't we just skip the advertising bull :
1. Gambling for a living is not easy or sure no matter what you've read.
2. Cheaters are out there.
3. Winning Poker is basically predatory. Find weaker players and exploit them.
4. Dave et. al. have become authors. Succesful authors can get mortgages. Pro Poker players...maybe not. As one dealer I met puts it, "All the local pros are losers. Even the winners are living in trailers and everything they have is in a bankroll for playing cards.". Or another dealers joke, "Half the poker pros are at the Mirage tonight, the other half are sleeping at the mission.".
5. Dave et. al. have not published the grail. but I'd bet (and it might be a sucker bet) that it exists and once you've boiled it down it's not as tough as all the theory makes it. Example : The theories of flight can be very complex and are neccesary for designing and building aircraft. From experience I know that flying one is not nearly as difficult as say...calculing the drag coefficient of a lifting body.
6. If they did publish it, what would they sell next?
Thanks to everyone for your answers.
Shows how complicated Hold’em is.
The original raiser will surely bet heads-up if checked to on the flop, and the BB knows this. The fact that the BB bet indicates, at least to me, that this player is very likely to have a weak hand and unlikely to have a strong hand such as top pair KT. (I have noticed that low-medium players are MUCH more likely to semi-bluff BET than CHECK-RAISE.) Such weak hands (such as 2nd pair 98 or draw QJ) get worse when the board pairs tops. However, the no pair KQ WANTs these weak hands to fold on the turn.
Using this premise I conclude that "stealing" with no pair KQ over-gut-shot has considerable EV weight; and so I would be MORE likely to bet since the BB is MORE likely to fold when the board pairs tops, then if some randon small card came on the turn.
I believe this outweighs the fact that the KQ's hand value got worse when the board pairs tops. ... risk a bet to win the pot and all ...
- Louie
Err ... let me add that if you would NOT bet any hand worse than trips in this spot (such as QQ) and you are against an observant opponent then you have considerable difficulty representing any hand; and the opponent will correctly be suspicious, often to the point of BRAVADO. If so, check.
=== Routinely betting marginal hands for value in OTHER situations has the condiserable benefit of letting you semi-bluff with impunity like this in THESE situations.===
the idea that when someone bets into a raiser on the flop and has nothing most of the time is ridiculous. all this talk about firing the second barrel etc is out of context with the situation. Granted you have two overcards and the gutshot that gives you ten possible outs, and is a good raising hand on the flop. but no matter what the turn brings, if it doesn't help you, and possibly hurts you , you must stop. This isn't the time for second barrels. You fire second barrels when your opponent is passive, not when they have previously done the betting into you after you have raised pre-flop. That is why in previous posts I have stressed, "knowing why you are raising", because this isn't time to put pressure on the pot...it's free card time.Putting pressure on the pot and firing the second barrel is done when for example,if this player checked and called on the flop. Then I would bet the turn here,.. but since he is being aggressive by betting into you on the flop it's not time to try to out aggressive him on the turn,...unless you have an exceptionally strong read on him. The idea that if you don't bet the turn that when you do have a hand you will be read is also incorrect. You must balance your strategy(you can use randomization), so that you don't always bet your strong hands behind a check. This concept is very important, as it also applies to when you raise pre-flop and miss. Do you always bet when checked to for fear that if you don't you won't get paid of when you hit the flop??? It's the same concept, and you must devise a balanced strategy where by you are checking when you miss both the times you miss and hit the flop, based on the number of players and the board.Most of you don't have a concrete strategy for these very common situations because you haven't been fed one from the books you are reading.I don't mean to scold, but you better go beyond the books and start thinking about situations that commonly come up , and devise strategy that is fairly automatic but flexible enough to change based upon player knowledge. sorry for the long post. seeya
We're just going to have to disagree on this one. This player has NOT shown a lot of strength. All he did was bet once. He just called when raised, then checked on the turn. He could easily have a straight draw, a pocket pair, or some other marginal holding.
I should point out that a lot of players will call the raise on the flop with a marginal holding simply because they are hoping that you are raising for a free card. When you follow through on the turn, they give up and fold.
I took an informal survey of some players that I respect the other night. I asked the question exactly as presented, and EVERY one instantly responded, "You should bet the turn". A couple of them commented that this was an obvious situation for a bet, and were surprised that I had to ask them. Perhaps this is a reflection of the typical opponents we face in this area, and you have a different opinion because of your experience with players in your area.
Dan
Yes, a year or two ago, I also would have said,
“Bet the turn, what’s the problem?"
Now days, I’m not so sure.
What is the best Omaha book? Thank you.
I have just started to read up on Omaha. I suggest that you get Ciaffone's book and Ray Zee's book.
Ditto,Ciaffone's book for Omaha hi only and Zee's book for Omaha hilo. They might be the only good books on Omaha.
The best Omaha book I have read to date is "Omaha Hold'em" by Bob Ciaffone. I don't know of any other good books on Omaha straight High.
Dice
Thank you.
I disliked Capeletti's (sp?) book.
The only really good Omaha book I've seen is by Ciaffone. There are some other books out there, but most of them have errors, or suggest play that is too tight (Capeletti is too tight for my taste).
None of the Omaha books (including Ciaffone's) have a lot of really in-depth information in them. Perhaps this is why there are so few good Omaha players around...
Dan
I was talking to two old time good hold'em players -- they play good in spite of some bad ideas, like streaks, players who "hold over you" etc. I was happy to hear them lecture me about playing omaha split. "Too easy to get drawn out on, too much luck, you flop the stone cold nuts and still lose, etc." Glad to have these ideas out there in the poker room, because, fact is, the loose hi/lo omaha games are the best games in town, as far as ease to play, standard D, and profit.
Ray Zee's HiLo book, along with some experience, gave me all the info I needed to get my share of this great action. Hopefully not to many more players in town get, understand, and use this info.
There are many posts on this Forum seeking advice on how to play in no fold'em games. The advice usually given is that hand values change in such games i.e. small pairs, suited connectors, Axs all go up in value etc. I would agree with all of that.
But there's one error that players make in these games which hasn't been talked about much: It is slowplaying monster hands. Last night, I saw a perfect example. It was truly a no fold 'em 10-20 game. Almost every hand had 7 or 8 way action. A player (who I'd say is a break-even player or a small winner) held AJ when the board on the turn showed Jd,2h,9h,Jc. A lady bet, our hero raised (as he should). However, a 10 hit on the river giving someone who cold-called the raise on the turn the nut straight.
About an hour later, our hero held QJ when the board showed Qd,Qh,9h,Jd. A man to our hero's right bets. There are 5 active players behind our hero. Our hero just calls figuring that he does not want to "chase anyone away by raising". This is an error I see all the time. The board shows several possible draws. In these loose games, players aren't going to lay down a draw for 2 big bets. If they have something (anything?), they will coldcall a raise. If they have nothing, they will not even call a single bet.
Perhaps this was too long a post to make a simple point: Don't slowplay in no fold'em games.
I agree skp, I slow played six hands in 98, the six hands I flopped quads. BTW I would also slowplay a straightflush on the flop but on the turn both hands get both barrels.
There are many posts on this Forum seeking advice on how to play in no fold'em games. The advice usually given is that hand values change in such games i.e. small pairs, suited connectors, Axs all go up in value etc. I would agree with all of that.
But there's one error that players make in these games which hasn't been talked about much: It is slowplaying monster hands. Last night, I saw a perfect example. It was truly a no fold 'em 10-20 game. Almost every hand had 7 or 8 way action. A player (who I'd say is a break-even player or a small winner) held AJ when the board on the turn showed Jd,2h,9h,Jc. A lady bet, our hero raised (as he should). However, a 10 hit on the river giving someone who cold-called the raise on the turn the nut straight.
About an hour later, our hero held QJ when the board showed Qd,Qh,9h,Jd. A man to our hero's right bets. There are 5 active players behind our hero. Our hero just calls figuring that he does not want to "chase anyone away by raising". This is an error I see all the time. The board shows several possible draws. In these loose games, players aren't going to lay down a draw for 2 big bets. If they have something (anything?), they will coldcall a raise. If they have nothing, they will not even call a single bet.
Perhaps this was too long a post to make a simple point: Don't slowplay in no fold'em games.
So in a no fold'em game its just playing fairly tight with generally no deception whatsoever. No bluffing and no slowplaying either. I think you're right, but it does make playing in these games very dull.
I agree that these games are more boring and that slowplaying is virtually always wrong. Deception, however, still plays a big role. You make fewer deliberately deceptive moves, but also need to be thinking about how your straightforward play has deceived your opponents.
One reason for this is that your opponents will occasionally commit their entire stack based on an erroneous read. For example, when you raise after the flop in early position with the a flush and a suited board, a lot of players -- particularly the ones in these games -- will put you on and keep you on two pair or some other hand that needs protecting. Flush draws and straights will occasionally raise you, and more than once. Limping with big pairs in early position with the intention of raising is another favorite move, as is repopping from the blind when a player always raises with crappy cards in late position. Check-raising is also important. When I'm in early position after the flop with a likely best hand (pocket overpairs, sets), I often check with the intention of raising, hoping mostly to raise a late position bettor but raising anyway if an early bettor bets and the whole field calls. Note that none of these moves amount to slowplaying.
I don't get either example..
In the first one our hero correctly raised and got drawn out on, if I understand the post.
In the second example it doesn't seem so clear that calling is wrong with the top full house. AQ or KQ will probably do the raising for you and some weaker draws might fold to two bets with such a scary board I think. If they are all going to call anyway, as you assumed,then raising seems ok although you lose the call-reraise option. I think it depends a lot on the previous action for a final decision.
A more clear no-foldem error like this is to slowplay sets and trips I have observed.
D.
IMO, the player played the first hand correctly and just got drawn out on.
In the second hand, he should have once again raised (given that he was in a no fold'em game). There are so many possible draws that he is bound to get callers. Notice that 2 callers for 2 big bets (a very likely possibility with that type of board) is better than 3 callers for one big bet. Further, a hand such as AQ, KQ, or a made straight may even make it three bets allowing our hero a chance to cap it.
The problems with just calling on the turn include (a) our hero may not get a chance to call-reraise (b) if a brick hits on the river, he gets no action whatsoever and (c) he loses out on some great action if the original bettor on the turn also happened to have a big hand (say, a smaller full house).
If our hero raises on the turn and a draw card gets there on the river, he can probably pull off a checkraise on the river.
I have just completed one week in Vegas! Thank you very much! And I am ahead! I played a short session (2 1/2hrs) of 15 Holdem this morning at the Bellagio. Won $280. Now take my word for it I played poorly but was "card fortunate". The reason for the post is because of a hand I couldn't seem to get away from. It went like this: Short handed game (6)! I'm one from the button! Pass to me. I spy pocket 9's. Raise. Button folds. Small blind, the worssstesss player in the world, next to me that is, calls. Now he had earlier called 3 bets cold in mid position and won the hand with a 6c and 3c in his hand. (6,3 flop) I could go on, but... Needless to say I expected him to call. BB, a solid or at the time I believed a solid player calls. Flop A,A,6 rainbow. SB - Check, BB - Bet. What is my play? (I raised hoping beyond hope to drop the sb). SB - Call. BB - Call. Turn - 8 (suit ?). SB - Check. BB - Bet. What is my play? I (weakly elected to call, folding or raising may have been better, BTW I expected the SB to fold. If I raised I expected to get reraised by the BB). AS fortune wouud have it the SB raises (another thing, he has been raising with noting the whole session). The BB now to my amazement folds! I was ready to send my 9,9 to muck ville expecting the BB to reraise! Now what do I do? I thought for a while and you guessed it I again meekly called (Good size pot by now). River - 9!!! SB - No hesitiation Bet! Me, I raised. SB call! When he turned over the A,6 and said I flopped a full house I thanked whoever for saving me a bet when he didn't reraise. Two questions: Could I have gotten away form this hand? More to the Point: Should I have gotten away from this hand? See you at the table! Vince
No doubt that the BB also noticed that the SB was a live one. Thus, if the BB really had an Ace, he most likely would check the flop, have you bet and have the SB call so that he can raise and catch both of you for two bets. That to me indicates that the BB did not have an Ace when he bet the flop. Besides, given the shorthandedness of the game, a solid player like BB may well have made it 3 bets before the flop with an Ace in his hand. A solid player certainly would with a strong Ace (in a shorthanded game) and he may do it with any Ace.
So, when BB bet the flop, IMO, the correct play was to raise.
Using the same logic, I would have once again raised the BB on the turn with the intentions of checking it down on the river if anything other than a 9 hit.
Up to the turn, I wouldn't have bothered to factor in the SB's actions in my choice of play. Presumably, it would have been a futile exercise to try and put the SB on a hand. However, his raise on the turn obviously should have caused you some concern. Even live ones are not apt to go too far out of line on the turn against two opponents when both of them have shown strength at various stages of the hand. At this point, you have to give him credit for a big hand. The decision on whether to call the raise on the turn is a tough one to make from out here in Cyberland. One would have to be at the table...but you know what, I would have also probably meekly called.
Congratulations on your win in Vegas! Where do you normally play?
Actually, I'm the worst player in the world and I don't appreciate your trying to steal my claim to fame. I would have raised the flop, but would likely have checked and folded after. Even bad players get good hands now and then.
What are the best ways to discover collusion at the table?
Find a good player who is willing to collude with you. Ha! Jusk kidding!
A telltale sign is where the two colluders constantly trap one or more other players in raising wars and then one of them conveniently folds his hand on the River when his partner bets.
But you probably know that already - so, why am I posting this? Probably cause I'm stuck at work waiting for my 6:00 meeting and have nothing else to do.
It strikes me that there must be other subtle forms of cheating that are probably hard to detect. For example, If a player folds a hand containing an Ace or King before the flop and is able to convey that info to his partner, you can imagine how that could greatly assist his partner in playing the hand if the Ace or King turned out to be a critical card in relation to the texture of the flop.
Anyways, I'll try and find something to do for the next 30 minutes and let someone more knowledgable answer your query. BTW, I think there was a similar thread a month or two ago started by Vince Lepore. You may want to check the Archives.
Gentlemen,
This is an intersting topic as I'm sure it goes on. Consider of 5 guys were to sit at a table and simply play, but they pooled thier money. Would'nt they get at least 5/8's of the winning hands on average. Now suppose the were easy on each other and tough on the visiting tourists.
Anyway, just a thought. Someone on the 301 (bus on the Strip) once mentioned to me that the problem with the Mirage was that they wouldn't tolerate groups of friends at a table. By the convesation he was implying the way to win was to collude, so do it somewhere besides the Mirage!
Anyway, even though the author of the books I'm about to give you a link to seems to have recently gone off the deep end and wants to be cult leader of some sort, with this stuff about "Neo-Tech". However some of his earlier works show to just what Machiavellian lengths people will go to to make money at poker. The following link will get you to page with links to "Poker, A gauranteed Income for Life" and "Neo Cheating, the Rising Menace". Both of these books discuss cheating in detail and might interest you. I also looked a bit at the stuff about Neo-Tech. This guy seems to have gone from Poker to some Neitzian concept of God-Man but that's just a preliminary impression on my part. The earlier stuff seems interesting at least and has even given me some ideas that might be useful in defending against corporate gamesmanship. Something I find a little more than detestable.
Well here it is :
http://www.neo-tech.com/precursors/
Large Luck, Frank
I would say if you aren't able to immediately detect collusion you aren't playing a high enough limit to worry about it (or you are in so far over your head that it still doesn't matter).
Randy
I don't agree with this at all. There are many forms of collusion, and some of them are nearly impossible to detect.
Dan
I believe that there is collusion going on in medium to large poker tournaments. For this reason I have stopped playing in them. There are so many players that have pieces of other players that it has to influence their play.
Here's a sure-fire way to avoid the costly loss associated with playing against colluders. Just find out what game Mason is playing and join in. He's never been cheated so it's sure to be safe.
I've seen folks cheat at quarter poker. They probably quit it once they graduate to dollars.
In a recent column I wrote for Poker Digest I explained why games in public cardrooms are honest. Here's the gist of the column.
During the recent BARGE gathering here in Las Vegas, David Sklansky and I gave a one hour question and answer session. One of the questions that we were asked had to do with cheating, and collusion in particular. David gave a detailed answer which is summarized here.
First you need to understand that two people are not that strong. This is because one needs to help the other, and there just aren't enough times when both players will be in the pot together. So for collusion to work you need a team of three or four people.
Second, you can't do anything real obvious. Experienced players will quickly pick up on any hands that are not played normally, or in which something unusual happens. The idea of putting a player in the middle and trapping him for many raises will be quickly identified by other players at the table and cannot last for any reasonable length of time.
Therefore, unless the cheaters are very good players, they will still lose because colluding can only add a small amount to their profits. They would have to trust each other for the rest of their lives to remain silent, and with the exception of the very biggest games it would look "fishy" because they would always be in the same game together. (At the highest limit there is usually only one game spread so it is more natural for the same players to be in it all the time.)Thus they would be forced to constantly play in bad games since they can't all change to the better game, and they would make less money scamming a bad game than they would make on their own with the freedom to move around. And finally, you as a player would normally be avoiding games with them anyway because with so many good players at the same table you would usually be choosing a different game anyway.
Now none of this is proof that collusion is not going on somewhere, but it does imply that if you are an unscrupulous person you are probably making a mistake by joining a partnership. Furthermore, since it would be a mistake to join a partnership (even if you are unscrupulous) you have to assume that other good players wouldn't make that mistake either.
Again, I want to point out that this doesn't apply as much when there is only one game in town because now it doesn't look as funny when the same players are always at the table. Furthermore, a mild scam can never be caught because it virtually never involves putting someone in the middle. If you are an excellent player any extra edge will only add to your profits, but putting someone in the middle is too obvious and an excellent player would understand this and virtually never try it. (End David summary.)
Part of the reason that poker games are honest is that cardroom management has learned that once their room gets a cheating reputation, whether it is deserved or not, it is only a matter of time before their business is doomed. This is one of the reasons that I have recommended to cardrooms not to spread pot limit or no limit games on a regular basis. In a game where someone can and will occasionally lose all their money on the turn of a card it is inevitable that cheating accusations will materialize..
Another reason why cheating is not widespread like some of the claims represent is that the players "police the game." I'm an experienced player, and I'm usually in a game with several other experienced players. If something "funny" was to happen, one of us would quickly pick it up.
I do advise that you remain forever vigilant. When playing poker you should always be paying attention. This is not only good for your game in that it will help you make strategy decisions better, but it is good for everyone's game since it helps to assure that the poker games are well run in every aspect.
The book Gambling for a Living, says the expected win per hour for a very good, selective 10/20 player is 30 per hour. Does this estimate allow for the rake?
Yes.
Gentleman,
I think that this book is a little dangerous. (Gambling for a Living.)
It basically implies that one (and by its tone, anyone) can make an executive salary by gambling. "Just buy this book and do what it says and you'll be on easy street." is how I figure most interpret it.
(I can't say that the literature out there on things like day trading are fundamentally any different. Oh, they're full of disclaimers, but they're written in such a way that you tend to ignore them. See Jake Berstien! The Dave Sklansky of Commodities. He too has written many literate books on his subject that are better than most. In one he actually talks about "The Fuel of Trading" being money. Seems I remember Roy West saying, "The Fuel of Poker is Money". No doubt the trading pits are just big poker games using stock certificates for cards and money. After all its a room full of hand picked MBA's from Ivy League schools trying to "get the best of it (eac other).)
Sad truth is most, including myself (and I've read at least 10-12 top notch Poker Books) are net losers. Trust me, "it ain't that easy". And I think the authors know this. In listing of thier books in various sources this title is often omitted. Also they sell it at the Mirage. Would a casino really sell a book that could possibly contain a real way to take thier money. (Though I guess if they haven't read it they might.)
At least in Poker the swings of the game are such that the idea of hourly average has to be considered over a long period of time. And therein is a problem for someone without an independent means of survival. That is you never really know when you are ahead.
One "old timer" I know claims to have made $47,000 at poker one year and lost it all back.
Even though my experience is limited, I believe gambling for a living is significantly tougher than any book on the subject really states or implies and is probably tougher than most jobs. I started out with a simple goal. To average $100 a week extra playing poker on the side of my "real" job. (In essence, giving myself a small raise in my "recreation" time. Except for the losses, I'd probably play poker for the social aspects alone. However, it's a mighty expensive way to socialize.) After reading materials in the local library and then buying about a dozen books, and reading them all fairly thoroughly, and attempting to apply them I can honestly make a point or two :
1. I'm down on the order of thousands. 2. I never reached my modest goal. 3. There seems to be much misinformation out there. Though I've not wasted a lot of time on it, any books claiming long term mothods that work for Craps, Roulette, etc. are at least mathematically false. 4. Many poker books talk about "marginal hands" etc. and never clearly define which ones they are! I play 7 card stud so that may be part of this observation. I believe "Percentage Poker" makes a stab at clearly defining this for the Hold 'Em player. Seems 7 Card gets the short end of the research stick these days. 5. To be a winner at poker, it seems to me, you'll need to obsess on it. It's going to take as much effort as any executive puts out...and probably more. After all, you have no subordinates to delegate to. But of course the tradeoff is there is no ladder to have to climb.
I guess one could also make that point about some other risk related professions, for example, being a commodities trader. Statistics from Lind Waldock, biggest brokerage firm in the business (commodities) claims 2/3's of the small investors lose thier money to hedgers and large institutional investors. It is also commonly bandied about by various authors that most new floor traders loose all there capital in two years of less.
For most of us that have been stuck working for others all our lives gambling, floor trading, etc. all seem like exciting ways to be your own boss without the agravations of a traditional business.
However, I truly don't believe it's any "easier". Even Doyle Brunson states he went broke on more than one occassion. I say to you, unless you've ever really had to face the possibility of being put on the streets when the money runs out, you don't know what that means. You may read it, but a know for a fact you don't know.
So some advice as one human to another. (As someone who's experimented with these things) Be well padded financially before you start. Of course that's the catch, we all are really looking for a way to turn a small amount of capital into a big amount.
Megabucks and the lotteries are probably the best indicators of the above and how stuck in thier lives the majority feel. (Though they are definitely better off than those who are broke). They say the economy is doing great, but for who? Seems to be a Wall Street phenomenon to me. Those of us who've been squeezed to make it happen (working America) don't seem any better off. Trust me here I know, I've worked for a number of Fortune 500 conglomerates.
Anyway, enough critique of big business, the topic was Poker. Give it your best shot, you won't be happy if you don't. But then you might not be happy if you do. Most authors claim 95% end up net losers. That's some mighty steep odds. Hope you beat them!
Best Wishes, Large Luck, Frank
A lot is discussed on this forum about knowing your oppents, i.e. what they would bet or raise on, how they act in situations. Undoubtedly this is the cornerstone of a winning player. But rarely do I read anything interesting on "tells" (I know they are easily faked and sometimes very unreliable). Caro's book is good but it seems to me to be lacking something more simple. What I ask is what are some of the old reliable tells you all use out there. What about the twiches in the eye, the swallow, the breath holding. What do these mean, and what is the reasoning behind it? I am really interested in what everyone would look for in a face or posture if they were to sit down at table with all first time players who are unaware that their body's are being read like a book. I think this would be great to get a lot of responses to, because we can alwayslearn something new to look for, or maybe correct a spot we might be leaking from. I am a young player and would invaluably appreciate some of the wisdom from the older more experienced generations. Some maxims a grandfather or father would pass down to their sons. Thanks!
I find those kind of tells are not all that reliable. Here are some that are more reliable:
- If a player calls a bet or a raise instantly without having to think about it, consider that he may be on a major draw (flush draw, open ended straight draw).
- In Holdem, if three cards of the same suit are flopped, glance around and look for the players who glance back at their hole cards. These players are probably unsuited, and they are checking to see if one of those card is of that suit.
- In stud, if a player is not called on the river, but he looks at his hole cards again before throwing them away, he may have had a big hand. He looked at his cards again because he had such a pretty looking hand. Most players wouldn't look at their cards again if they were bluffing.
- If a person shows his girlfriend or wife his cards after he bets, he almost certainly has a real hand. Most players don't like to show wives and girlfriends their bluffs, because it makes them look like they are being foolish with their money when they lose.
- In Omaha, if a player looks at his hand again after a card lands that brings a lower straight onto the board than already exists, he never had the big straight to begin with. If the player has been leading the action, he probably has a set or a nut flush draw.
I'll post some more as I think of them, and I invite comments and criticism of these.
Dan
All good points.
On Point #1, the converse of your proposition is not always true. That is, if a person hesitates or takes his time to call a bet or raise, you can't rule out the possibility that he is on a flush or openended straight draw. In fact, my practice is to "hesitate" before I call with a major draw to avoid giving away the very same tell that you talk about in point #1.
Other tells and/or implications of betting patterns:
1. A stud player gets his last card and alternates glances between his hole cards and his exposed cards: Here, the player is probably trying to figure out if he made a straight. You likely don't have to worry about this man having made a flush.
2. In Hold'em, you raise pre-flop from a late position. An early position player bets on the flop and a solid player smooth calls: Here, you have to give consideration to the solid player having flopped a big hand (eg. a set).
3. On the flop, a solid player to your right checkraises you after you have bet and several others have called. If the preflop betting was such that you gave no indication that you would be the likely bettor on the flop, then it is highly likely that the solid player does not yet have a hand but is on a major draw. On the other hand, if the preflop betting was such to indicate that you would be the likely bettor on the flop, then you can't rule out the possibility that he has a big hand.
4. A solid player to your immediate left and with several active players behind him raises you with a flush draw showing: Here, you can rule out the possibility that the solid player is on a flush draw. Serious consideration should be given to a checkraise bluff if the flush card hits on the turn (see my essay "Profitable Bluffs in Hold'em" on the essays portion of this Forum).
5. A late position bettor bets on an Ace or King high flop. If the field is shorthanded, a checkraise from the blinds often works: This is because the late position bettor would likely have raised preflop if he held an Ace against a small field.
I too will add more as I think of them.
No doubt, there are countless other "tells' based on betting patterns.
I rely more on betting patterns rather than physical tells to read my opponent's cards. To be frank, I found Caro's book on tells to be of no help to me whatsoever. I know that most players think it to be some kind of masterpiece. Perhaps I haven't "studied" the book enough.
I agree about the Caro book to some extent, however there are a few tells in there that are reliable and those alone more than paid for the price of the book. The tell regarding a player showing a wife/girlfriend his cards is 100% reliable in my estimation, for instance.
Here's another one off the top of my head - if a 'book' player looks at the pot after someone bets, he may be trying to figure out his pot odds, and has some kind of thin draw. I actually see players stop the action sometimes and start counting... You can see their lips moving.
Dan
skp,
I only have a moment so I thought I would add to one item in your excellent post.
skp said: "2. In Hold'em, you raise pre-flop from a late position. An early position player bets on the flop and a solid player smooth calls: Here, you have to give consideration to the solid player having flopped a big hand (eg. a set)."
I believe the board makes a big difference. With a board such as a Q 7 3 rainbow. The solid player who calls is just screaming he has the middle set (77s) or maybe the bottom set (33s). With a board like Qh Td 9h, a call would more likely mean a drawing hand since a set would raise to make the drawing hands pay.
Just a thought. Regards, Rick
Yes. Good point.
>>To be frank, I found Caro's book on tells to be of no help to me whatsoever<< Hi there skp. Let me say I always read and value your responses. This one no less. Also, I have not read Caro's book. Your review of it just increases my reluctance to do so. I think the most valuable lesson one can take from your response is that "Hand Reading" is much more important than reading tells. If you are aware and alert in a game you will pick up tells in the natural course of events. But if you want to be very good at poker, learn to think along the lines of the 5 points in your post! Opinion by Vince. BTW Bellagio. 15-30 Hold'em (Occaisionally Mirage 20-40 Stud). Answer to a previous Question you asked me. Where do you play? Good luck.
Vince, thanks for the nice words. I should add that I wouldn't want Mr. Caro to lose out on a sale based on my opinion of his book. I believe that Mason and other experts think highly of the book. Obviously, you ought to prefer their opinion.
Actually, I think I'll curl up with Caro's book tonight and "study" it. Hopefully, I'll pick up a few pointers that I hadn't really thought about or used much up to now. As Dan Hanson points out, even if you learn just one tell, it'll likely pay for the cost of the book.
I play in the Government run Casinos in Vancouver, B.C. Approximately 15 hours a week and mostly 10-20 Hold 'em. Occasionally, a 15-30 game is spread. There was a 20-40 game in town but it died after about a year due mostly to the ludicrous rake ($8).
>Also, I have not read Caro's book. Your review of it just >increases my reluctance to do so.
Caro's book is simply the best on the subject.
I don't doubt that! That is not the reason I don't want to read it! A long time ago I read an essay by Mason Malmuth that (and this is not a quote) implied that tells did not add a whole heck of a lot in terms of win rate. I believe that. I have played casino poker for about 5 years now and Hold'em for just a little over a year. Not a long time by any standard. In that time though, I have found that if you are alert and aware during a session you will pick up enough information (aand I don't mean tells) about your opponents to make intelligent decisions when the chips are down. No more is needed or warranted. I am not a fan of the movie "Rounders". I think it poorly portrayed the ethics of Poker Players by only emphasizing the character of a guy like "worm". Back to the subject. In that movie a scene arises where Damon is playing against a "mad russian" and picks up a tell. Throws away a big han in a big pot but avoids losing his family jewels. The "mad russian" gets mad and shows his hand. I suppose throwing a big hand away in No Limit holdem in a big pot because he picked up a tell against a supposedly expert player (I can't believe it would happen) was wonderful for the movies and maybe correct for No limit Hold'em. I don't know I don't play NO Limit. But I can tell you that making plays in Limit Holdem because a guy picks his nose before he bets is a big mistake! Opinion by Vince
You're not goint to make a plus just because of a tell. But tells can make the difference in a close decision. And occasionally you will find a player who's tells are easy to spot and you make a lot of money. Most players in this category are 'actors' who are trying to mislead you with reverse tells. They are usually quite bad at it.
Anyway, I don't think a poker library is complete without the book. It may not raise your win rate by much, but just how much do you have to raise your win rate by to pay for a $20 book over a year's worth of play. If something you got from the book wins you one extra pot that year, you're way ahead.
I apply that same logic to all poker books. The cost of a book is trivial compared to the cost of decisions made in a poker game. Get 'em all, as long as you are analytical enough to separate the nonsense from the quality information.
Dan
I have Caro's Book of Tells. I think it has helped me most by forcing me look at other players and their actions when I'm not involved in pots. I have found that many players give away indications of interest and display repetitive movements that are revealing. In lowball, this has been most rewarding, allowing me to get out of people's way when they have big hands and are waiting to raise. It helps me most when I can smooth call in almost certain knowledge that someone else will raise and I can then reraise when I have a big hand. I know many players who put bets into the pot in ways that signal the strength of their hands almost as clearly as a verbal announcement.
Remember that the whole concept of "tells" was unknown to the vast majority of players prior to Caro's book. Players today, having heard all about tells, forget that someone had to codify and distribute that information before it became so commonplace to look for. The idea of groups of rankings for Hold'Em starting hands seems basic today for the same reasons. Buying poker strategy books has certainly not been a leak in my EV......................
I think you bring up an interesting point. You state "tells in lowball." Years ago I use to play a lot of lowball and high draw. Tells were everywhere. My book WINNING CONCEPTS IN DRAW AND LOWBALL has a large section devoted to this. But I've also written that when I began to play hold 'em it was like someone turned the sound off.
There are many reasons for this, and it would take too long to go into them here. (Some of you may want to speculate on it.) But I believe it has to do with the increased complexity of hold 'em and stud, the fact that you start with very incomplete hands, the multiple betting rounds, the overall structure of the game, as well as other factors.
I read a post by Mike Caro on another forum. The only thing I remember is that he associated the word "Pride" with winning at poker. Someone explain to me where the "pride" comes in by studying the behavior flaws of fellow human beings in order to take advantage of those flaws. Just to win a few "bucks". You might as well rob them! If I see a player with an obvious "tell" or an extreme flaw like picking up their cards to look at them ( a lot of "old folks" do this) I'm the one thart does the "telling". I "tell" them that they may want to consider correcting that flaw! Opinion By Vince. Proud to Play Poker and win, occaisionally!
You (SKP) make some excellent points. But the reality is that you are describing reading hands, not pure tells. And, as both David and I have pointed out, this is the real seperator between the great players and those who only play okay.
4. A solid player to your immediate left and with several active players behind him raises you with a flush draw showing: Here, you can rule out the possibility that the solid player is on a flush draw. Serious consideration should be given to a checkraise bluff if the flush card hits on the turn (see my essay "Profitable Bluffs in hold'em" on the essays portion of this Forum). You can not complletly rule out flash draw. Say flop is Qc7d5d. You have JsJh. You raise before the flop and get 5 callers. You bet flop and player to your immediate left raises. You can not rule out QdXd, AdKd.
Yes, good point...but I wouldn't let that possibility affect my decision very often.
More Tells and implications of betting patterns:
6. A "statuesque" posture is often indicative of a bluff. The player doesn't want to draw any attention to him at all. If he could, he would crawl into a hole after making the bluff!
7. When a player who has been eating his lunch or dinner at the table suddenly puts his grub back on his plate and starts bombarding you with chips, you can be fairly certain that he's got the goods. Most players don't interrupt their meal to pull off a bluff.
8. In Omaha, if a player raises on the turn on a raggedy looking board but one with a possible flush draw and if that player bets when a straight card hits, there is a good chance that he missed his flush. Many players would even check a set in this situation. Of course, the texture of the board has to be taken into consideration before you arrive at this conclusion.
9. In Hold'em, a player who having suffered a bad beat the previous hand makes it 2 bets and says "steam raise" probably has a Group 1 or Group 2 hand.
10. In the game that I play in, there are at least 2 players that I can think of who never ever make it 3 bets with big slick (suited or not) but who always do so with pocket Queens, Kings, or Aces. If there are any such players in your game, you can often outplay them if the flop has an Ace by check-raising them on the flop. This is because with an Ace on the board, they are 4 times more likely to be holding pocket Kings or Queens as opposed to pocket Aces (assuming you don't have an Ace, King or Queen in your hand). Notice that in this situation a Queen or King high flop is a much more dangerous one from your perspective if you happen to hold a hand like pocket Jacks.
The 2+2 authors put less value on tells than some other authors. I agree that you should put energy into reading tells only AFTER you are confident in your solid game and confident that you understand the tendencies of the opponents; these being MUCH more important than tells.
- Tells are icing, not cake.
- Rely on tells in the split second after an event, such as new cards dealt, you have bet/raised, or after they have bet and withdrawn their hand. "Tells" following a pause are unreliable, since the opponent has had time to "plan" his mannerisms.
- Unobtrusively watch the opponents as new cards are dealt or AS you raise since their instant reaction is revelaing but fleeting, and the cards/chips will still be there in a seconds.
- IMO, HANDs give away much more tells than literature suggests. IMO the action of an opponent immediately AFTER she has acted gives away much more tells than literature suggests (where does the opponent put her hands after betting?).
- "Reverse" tells (those trying to fool you) are relatively easy to spot since the fooler will routinely exaggerate them. There are lots of "shark want-to-be's" that routinely offer reverse tells; to their demise.
- You MUST always know whether they know you are watching or not.
- Ignore tells from superior opponents, since they will inconsistently broadcast tells, if any.
- For an unsuspecting opponent: noting a tell with a hand and noting the absence of that tell with a different hand is PLENTY of evidence to correlate that tell with that hand; so long as you continue to monitor and are willing to adjust.
- Use tells to decide MARGINAL situations; rarely change OBVIOUS decisions based on tells.
- Rather than broadcasting "reverse" tells in self defense, practive betting/checking etc. in the same neutral manner.
- Louie
> "Tells" following a pause are unreliable, since the opponent has had time to "plan" his mannerisms.
If you detect your opponent to be "acting", then try and figure out what the purpose of the act would be and do the opposite. I've found this to be one of the best of all tells among players "who think they're smart".
One common act by players "who think they're smart" involves tossing chips into the pot with a splash when they have a hand and hope you'll call suspecting a bluff, and the opposite - placing their chips in carefully and quietly - when they know their hand is vulnerable. Obverve the actors doing both betting styles within a reletively short time and you likely have a reliable tell. Related to this is the smart guy who tries to induce a call by behaving in ways reccognized as "bluff-tell", e.g. staring at you in a challenging way, or the "bluff-tell" opposite - sitting motionless, looking at the widow, and holding his breath. That one of your opponents is acting is a great tell.
Reading tells against typical opponents, regardless of limit, are very important. Caro was exactly right when he said, and I paraphrase, "you must decide if your opponent's body language is genuine or acting and in the latter case do the opposite and disappoint him."
Presenting reverse tells are important, but must be done in a very subtle way in order to be effective. There are very few players who are fully immune to reverse tells.
And, of course, using logic or what some have referred to as "betting patterns" to deduce your opponent's hand is mandatory.
This thread has easily saved me tons of money. I can spot many of the tells described in the thread, but the real value for me is realizing the tells I'm giving away. When I first started playing poker, the very first tell I picked up is breath holding, the person is bluffing, it is also the first tell that I corrected in my own game. Also in seven card stud after my opponent receives his last card the look of disgust on his face is very easy read. You can tell in an instance if there acting or not. I normally play in the small stud games, and part of the fun for me is picking up these tells Danny H
What would you say the best procedure and requirements would be to make the move from 5-10 hold'em and stud to the 10-20 limits?
Do I really need to be consistently crushing the 5-10 games to move up?
You may want to look at my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II where an essay titled "Moving Up" appears. It addresses this very subject.
Didn't Louizee Jefferson move on up to that great poker palace in the sky this year?
I'd say to just take a Shot at the Higher Limit game. You don't have to stay there if you find that its too tough.
CV
The secret to successfully playing at higher stakes is to have an adequate bankroll. Far and away the biggest reason most people fail at higher limits is because they were not properly financed in the first place. A bad week or two along with whatever expenses you incur is the the quickest way to ruin when you are undercapitalized. If you have enough money you can give it enough time to be able to take adversity in stride.
Don't "move up"; "Ease Up" instead. Play 10/20 once in a while when the game is good but 5/10 otherwise. As you win your frequency will increase, and then you will "be" a 10/20 player who occasionally plays 5/10.
If you have to ask, you probably shouldn't move up!
I have been playing planet poker recently and am virtually positive that collusion occurs. It would be very easy for two people to talk on the phone while they are in the same game together and disclose each others whole cards. How much does this cost a player who is not colluding? Does this take away whatever edge you might have had to the point where it is no longer a profitable game?
It seems to me that two players working together to trap a player in the middle isnt really worth the effort, given the fact that you have to figure out how to split those profits/losses considering each persons abilities, etc. It doesnt seem like it is really worth it to the colluder if he logically considers the affect on the game:
1. if a game is known to be full of colluders, won't it eventually disappear?
2. if you continually try to trap people in the middle by raising, won't you eventually get beat yourself and loose double what you would have playing it straight?
3. good players will probably give a colluder credit for at least being a good player , even if he cant tell he is colluding, therefore, when a good player does tangle with the colluder it should be with a pretty strong hand.
Is it safe to say that the better players are somewhat protected from colluders by their ability to play well?
I would be especially interested in knowing if mason or david have mathmatically considered the affects of collusion on a game. Hope my rambling makes some sense, thanks for your responses
Trace, If they are talking on the phone you cannot win if they can play at all. In a real game you still cant win if three or more are together and you dont know it. If you know who is working together you may beable to win and if they know you know you can get an edge because they must give you many pots or you may expose them. Good players colluding will not raise back and forth to squeeze anyone ever. They will play the best hand and only play together when one has a hand and another a draw or when one bets to bring the field to the other. If they have good but similar hands one in front will go out so partner in back can play. Such more careful play will get the money without detection. If you must gamble on the telephone without any way of being in control of your destiny I would like to flip coins with you over the phone and lay you 2 to 1 odds on every flip for any amount. Good Luck.
I have no proof that people are colluding in the planet poker game. I just have to believe that it occurs. So you are saying that even if all the colluders are doing is telling each other their hole cards then the game is unbeatable?
What if all ten people at the table are colluding including yourself with some one else. (IE... there are 5 pairs of colluders) How does this affect ones overall edge?
I guess you havent played in planet poker and dont intend to?
I believe he said that you can't beat the COLLUDERS if both know their partners hand, neither is brain dead, and they are willing to use this information. You may be able to beat the other fish enough to overcome the colluders advantage over you.
5 pairs of colluders, of course, will give advantage to the pair that colludes the best and adjusts for other colluding the best.
- Louie
Do feel the only way to detect this type of collusion is by observation over a long period of time? What I am asking is that let's say I join in on a game in which I don't know any of the players, what can I do to protect myself from this type of team play?
Nothing. If the colluders are blatant and are constantly centering you and then folding when you fold, I suppose you could try bringing it to the attention of the management. If they are smart, it's going to be really hard to see or defend against.
I seem to recall one of the owners of planet poker posting a message in rec.gambling.poker saying that they were being extremely vigilant for this sort of thing, but even if you can see everyone's cards and watch the game from a sys console it's going to be tough to see the more subtle forms of collusion. After all, how do you know that the guy who folded his ten-high flush draw did it because he knows that someone else has a queen high flush draw, or because he's just a tight player?
Over a long period of time, you could start to notice patterns like this, but it's certainly hard to prove, and the random nature of the game is going to exhibit all sorts of 'patterns' that are meaningless. If they start harassing their customers every time a spurious pattern emerges, they are going to not only lose customers, but increase the perception that a lot of cheating is going on.
Online poker is simply a bad idea, in my opinion.
Dan
I had this discussion with Randy at Planet Poker just before they began *real money* games. He insisted that he could monitor or review the action and would be able to spot collusion. I believe that even if you could spot such cheating it would be next to impossible to prove or penalize. There are just too many easy ways to cheat in the virtual environment. Since I also have extensive computer programming experience with games and simulations, I know for example, it would also be fairly simple to include ways to have a *dealing algorithm* give me a big pocket pair when I enter certain keystroke combinations at any remote computer.
All one partner has to do is signal if he/she has an ace or king in their hand, and they'll have an overwhelming advantage. I'm by nature a very paranoid person, and I play in a casino where there are several couples some of whom I have developed a poker room friendship with but whenever I play in a game where both are playing I leave. Its not that I don't trust them (although I'm convinced that two couples that sporadically play at the casino do collude), but it seems to affect my play. Sklansky once said there are only two reasons to leave a poker game; personal or it gets too tough. I'll throw in a third; uncomfortable.
I have to believe that if there is enough money available, there are pros in the game colluding. Being able to show each other your hand is such a huge advantage that you have no shot in the game if it's happening.
Much of your profit in poker comes from fundamental theorem errors that the other players make. For example, two players may be on the same flush draw. One of them is putting completely dead money into the pot. Or, you may have top pair, and two players are drawing to second pair and bottom pair, but both have the same overcard as a kicker. The guy drawing to bottom pair has two outs instead of of the five he thought he had, and is making an error if the pot isn't laying him odds to draw to two outs.
In almost every multiway pot these types of errors are occurring. If the other players in the pot are colluding, they'll never make those errors. However, you'll still be making them. This means that every pot you win will be smaller than it otherwise would be, but the pots *they win will be normal size.
It is so trivially easy to cheat in that game, and carries such a huge advantage, that I would assume that it's happening now or soon will be. I'd never go near an online poker game with real money.
Dan
Forgive me; I didn't realize this was on-line poker.
You are "playing" in an un-regulated un-liscenced "game" with no enforceable rules, they control the decks and your money, and you probably have no legal recourse to get "your" money back. You give them your money and they tell you how much you get back.
If I were unscrupulous and wanted to create a risk free swindle, what would I do? I would go off-shore and set up a "casino" and go out of my way to keep the credit card companies happy. If I were unethical and wanted a risk free cheat, what would I do? I would play in an on-line poker game from 2-3 computers on my desk. If I had set up an on-line "casino" I suspect the temptation or the mafia would convince me to swindle.
Yes, MAYBE they are not swindling you and MAYBE there are no players that have figured out how to cheat it via collusion or otherwise. MAYBE is not good enough; not by a long shot.
On-Line gambling is -EV. Gotta be.
- Louie
I don't play on line poker. If I did I would have two phone lines (maybe more) installed in my home and open two accounts (maybe more) on "planet poker" and play two hands (maybe more) in the same game. I don't think this falls within the definition of collusion but ... enough said. BTW Ray Zee had the best response to this question, I humbly, echo his comments. Vince
Dear Trace,
Collusion is one of my favourite subjects. I have been thrown out of my local casino three times now for my noise on this subject, so I consider myself to be firmly in the proverbial hot kitchen and qualified to talk on the subject.
>I have been playing planet poker recently and am virtually >positive that collusion occurs.
Of course collusion occurs here. Frankly it is very trustworthy for anyone to play with real money over the internet in a game like poker where the game and the medium are perfect examples of cheatable situations. It is insane to play here - unless you are colluding yourself, you're just throwing money away.
>How much does this cost a player who is not colluding?
It depends how it happens. I reckon that if three out of 10 players at a holdem game were colluding, they would get such huge overlays on their bets that the game would be completely unwinnable, and rapidly destructive of your bankroll. Some people do it incorrectly, though, and then you win. Mel Judah told me of the time he was 3-handed in a big tournament against two people who most people knew to be colluding. He cracked them by getting 2 to 1 on every bet.
>It seems to me that two players working together to trap a player in the middle isnt really worth the effort, given the fact that you have to figure out how to split those profits/losses considering each persons abilities, etc.
Colluders don't usually work in such a professional manner. It is worth the effort to collude, though.
>It doesnt seem like it is really worth it to the colluder
Of course it is. They win in the long run.
1. if a game is known to be full of colluders, won't it eventually disappear?
No. It depends if there are is competition for them to move to instead. Planetpoker is the only real Internet poker available, so they have no motivation to get rid of collusion.
Here, before the casino opened, there were card clubs where collusion was blatant and par for the course. The gamblers knew they were getting duped, but they knew no other way to play. These clubs thrived on a 5% uncapped rake and open collusion between management and players, and between players. The nearest legal cardroom was 500 miles away - that's not an exaggeration.
And at that cardroom, in Adelaide, Australia, the poker room manager was colluding with several pro. players to destroy newcomers. (Before the s*** hit the fan, a well documented government investigation that almost destroyed Australian poker as we know it.).
Until the government woke up and stopped the bastard, the players had no choice. If they did suspect something, they didn't know what to do about it. In Las Vegas or SoCal, where you have world-class facilities competing with each other, the games should be clean. Stick with them. That's where the value is.
2. if you continually try to trap people in the middle by raising, won't you eventually get beat yourself and loose double what you would have playing it straight?
If two people do the reraise sandwich correctly, they will be getting tremendous overlays on their bets. Though, you need to play very differently to how you would play if your bankrolls weren't combined - you need to think of you and your friend as the one player sitting in two positions. If you jam the pot with a nut flush draw with just you, yourself and your friend, you'll take the worst of it - it's no longer 2 to 1 on a 1.86 to 1 shot, it's 1 to 2 on a 1.86 to 1 shot, which is way the worst of it. You're putting twice as much money in as before. If you're colluding, all strategy changes. You really need to think of the one player (the one bankroll) playing two hands simultaneously. Often you cannot play garbage for the second hand - both hands need to have outs, then their EV increases geometrically.
Have you ever had something like this? You're playing omaha. In first position, you flop top set with 3 spades on board. The guy in middle position and you now cap the betting on the flop. Every player between you two is now taking the worst of it. Both of you are taking much the best of it - but you're happy to have him take the best of it in return for him building up the pot. Only a good player will jam the pot like that for you, and on those occasions you're thankful that he's in there. That's the kind of situation where collusion becomes overwhelmingly powerful.
Colluding is about much more than just sandwiching - there are all kinds of techniques which don't exist when each man plays his own game. Colluders are best seated next to each other, so that they are both first and last to speak every betting round.
- Is it safe to say that the better players are somewhat protected from colluders by their ability to play well?
Certainly. But if they're taking the best of it, then you're...
- I would be especially interested in knowing if mason or david have mathmatically considered the affects of collusion on a game.
I have. Also, there are numerous books from way before I was born explaining how to cheat. The poker literature before about 1960 was exclusively concerned with cheating as your primary method of winning. Collusion was not properly developed until we started to understand Morton's Theorem, and it still remains a largely unpublished area (thankfully). If colluders do it right, it changes everything. It changes your strategy and your ev with every bet. Stay right out of it, and for God's sake, don't play planet poker.
Richard.
The game is a small 6-handed no-limit hold'em game with generally solid players. The blinds are $5/$2 and I have about $400 in front of me and am one position to the right of the button with 45 of hearts. Both players to my right limp, and I decide to play the hand and put in a raise, making it $25 to go. (I have to mix it up in this game to make any money short-handed since I have a pretty tight image, and there was a decent chance to pick up the $17 pot since both limpers would play bighands aggressively and the blind are relatively tight.)
Putting aside the merits of this play, I get cold-called by the button, who is a VERY tight player with only about $175 in chips left after his call. The BB (loose player with larger stack than me) also calls, and the others fold. The flop is a beauty for my hand- Ah-3h-6s, giving me an open-ended straight draw and small flush draw. How do you proceed?
I decide to make a pot-size bet of $80, figuring that the tight player on the button will move all-in if he has a big ace (which I don't mind given my 15 outs and his short stack), or fold if he doesn't. I figure the loosey missed this flop completely since it doesn't offer any typical draws except my flush.
The tight button COLD CALLS AGAIN and the BB folds. The trun is the 4 of diamonds. Now how do you proceed and what hand do you put tight player on? (I would thinking he's got a set and puts me on a big ace, but thi is not the type of guy to playy 55 or 44 in a raised pot).
I decide to check since I know that he is committed to the pot, and on the off-chance he is on a bigger flush draw, I may get to show down a winner with my pair of fours or hit a nut straight for free. Alas, he bets his last $95 into the $250 pot. At this point, a call seems automatic to me since I have near pot odds against any made hand and can currently beat a likely drawing hand. Agree? I'll post the results of this match-up later if there is any interest.
With the caveat that I have never played no limit, I offer the following:
A call on the turn if your opponent bets seems automatic. Thus, I would have probably bet the turn instead of checking. Given your opponent's short stack, you can't be raised. A bet obviously has the added advantage of your opponent possibly folding.
Your hand is not strong enough for you to want to keep your opponent in or to induce a bluff from your opponent on the turn.
If your opponent is on a heart draw, he has only 13 outs (i.e. 7 hearts and the 6 cards that will give him a higher pair). I'd want to get the money in on the turn because if the heart hits, you will be calling him on the river anyways (assuming he checks behind you on the turn).
Unfortunately, you got out of position with a big draw. You would've been much better off checking the flop, with the intention of check-raising all-in if someone made a move (a drawing hand with that many outs is better off getting all the money in on the flop). While most of the time, a bet on the turn is a mistake, here, you have an opponent who is nearly all-in, so it's clear you will have to follow through, and the sooner the better. Seeing that your opponent also has to call with any reasonable hand or draw because he is pot-stuck, there's no merit in assuming that he would fold to a bet. Although you may already be drawing dead (he may be full), I see no equity in either checking or betting all-in on the turn -- this is one of the problems being out of position with a draw in no-limit.
"The game is a small 6-handed no-limit hold'em game with generally solid players. The blinds are $5/$2 and I have about $400 in front of me and am one position to the right of the button with 45 of hearts. Both players to my right limp, and I decide to play the hand and put in a raise, making it $25 to go. (I have to mix it up in this game to make any money short-handed since I have a pretty tight image, and there was a decent chance to pick up the $17 pot since both limpers would play bighands aggressively and the blind are relatively tight.)"
Still, I think I would avoid raising with that hand even if the limpers were fairly tight. You might not get everyone out, you don't want to be heads-up or three-way with that hand; you want a crowd so that there will be a good chance that someone will give you action those few times when you make your hand. There will be other chances to steal, and you have a playable hand in good position.
"Putting aside the merits of this play, I get cold-called by the button, who is a VERY tight player with only about $175 in chips left after his call. The BB (loose player with larger stack than me) also calls, and the others fold. The flop is a beauty for my hand- Ah-3h-6s, giving me an open-ended straight draw and small flush draw. How do you proceed?"
"I decide to make a pot-size bet of $80, figuring that the tight player on the button will move all-in if he has a big ace (which I don't mind given my 15 outs and his short stack), or fold if he doesn't. I figure the loosey missed this flop completely since it doesn't offer any typical draws except my flush."
With your preflop raise, he probably has you on AK or AQ from your bet on the flop, unless he has one of those himself. The only other hands that would play at this point would be a higher heart connector (unlikely from a good player), or a set (unlikely and nothing you can do and you still have outs).
"The tight button COLD CALLS AGAIN and the BB folds. The trun is the 4 of diamonds. Now how do you proceed and what hand do you put tight player on? (I would thinking he's got a set and puts me on a big ace, but thi is not the type of guy to playy 55 or 44 in a raised pot)."
55 and 44 are good hands to play in raised pots, provided that the implied odds are there. If you hit your set, the raiser would be likely to play his hand strongly. Expert players would be more likely to have pocket pairs, and very unlikely to have AJo here. With his stack only $200, calling $25 with 55 or 44 is iffy, and depends on how tight the play on the flop is in your game.
"I decide to check since I know that he is committed to the pot, and on the off-chance he is on a bigger flush draw, I may get to show down a winner with my pair of fours or hit a nut straight for free."
Let's look at the possibilities. AK might check and call if he thinks you would bet a weaker ace all the way, but this is not probable given your table image. There really aren't many possibilities on that flop, and even if he puts you on a bluff, it would be too dangerous to play KK or QQ this far. If he has 33 or 66, he wants all the money in, and can count on top pair to keep firing. With only $95 left to bet, you have enough outs over AK or AQ to call on the turn. With AK or AQ he probably would have reraised all-in on the flop though. If he has the set, a check might be better, since he will either bet anyway, or check behind you trying to trap you on the river. In the latter case, you might escape the hand if you miss your draw. There is nothing he is going to release here for his last $95 that he wouldn't have released on the flop. Even if he has the set, all of your straight and flush outs are good, but he is still the favorite. So why put the money in yourself?
"Alas, he bets his last $95 into the $250 pot. At this point, a call seems automatic to me since I have near pot odds against any made hand and can currently beat a likely drawing hand. Agree? I'll post the results of this match-up later if there is any interest."
The call was correct, as was the check on the turn. Two things I might have played differently were the preflop raise and the amount of the bet on the flop. If the BB tends to bet out strong hands, and the button probably would call with top pair, why not bet the whole $175 right then? With a strong draw, you might as well get him all-in on the flop and see two cards. The problem with leaving money left for the turn is that he can escape if the flush hits, and get all-in as a favorite if it doesn't. If you bet all-in, he also might release something like AdJd, which is to your advantage since you are only a slight favorite then.
M7,
Since you bet on the flop and got called you can narrow down his hands to aa,ak,kq of hearts,66 as all these hands a very tight player will still call on the button most times. You can eliminate some of these by knowing your player, as some if not all of the hands most people would raise with. The one least likely for him to raise with is the kq hearts. You must bet on 4th street as the only hand he wont bet after you check is the kq which you can beat and as you say you must call for the pot odds. The bet on the flop is correct if you feel there is a chance you can win it right there. If you check and they all check then a bet on 4th street is in order no matter what comes. Good Luck.
I think hitting the 4 on the turn makes the difference between checking and betting. You can now beat something like KQh, so you should bet.
My thinking is this: If he has a hand that has you beat, the money is going in anyway, and you have to call. The only way he might check behind you is if he is also on a draw, in which case you're ahead and missed a chance to get his last $95 if a blank lands on the river.
Dan
Yes, the call is automatic as you have as many as 20 outs and an extremely thin possibility of holding the best hand. Except for the preflop raise, which isn't too bad under the circumstances, I don't see any flaw in the way you played the hand.
Boy am I glad you guys don't play in my game! If your on-the-money analysis can be done in the heat of battle, I would have no chance. My opponent had pocket Aces and had flopped top set. I was about 90% sure that this was hand when he smooth-called my flop bet. As Dan pointed out, this solid-tpye player would not call my $25 raise with a small pocket pair since he only stood to win an additional $175 if the stars lined up on the flop.
RZ's logic about betting the turn since the only hand he will check behind me is a KQ flush draw (which I can beat) is dead-on. However, my read on this player led me to rule that out his holding that dog with 99.97% Ivory Soap certainty. I knew the money was going in anyway and chose to check-call instead of firing again for future "advertising" value. I play with the same core players regularly and this was a good opportunity to put guys on notice that my checking the turn after showing strength early is NOT a license to steal.
Epilogue- In this game it is common to make "deals" if two players get all their chips in before the river. I asked him if he wanted to consider doing business and he said "I'll do anything you want; I have a monster hand." When we turned our hands over his elation waned when he saw how vulnerable his "monster" (and stack) were. He must have figured I was drawing dead with AK or an under-set. We decided to turn three separate river cards and I won one-third of the pot with a heart on the first turn and no help on the last two. I guess justice was served since I got my equity back.
My rationale for doing business here was that I figured his getting beat out of this pot would cause him to quit and the game might break. And I still had my sights set on the weaker player's considerable stack.
I have been playing 1-5 and 2-10 Stud at the Showboat in East Chicago. If a pair is showing on 4th street, the betting doubles. I play with a session bankroll of $100 in the 1-5 game, and $200 in the 2-10 game. Is this enough to protect myself from normal swings?
You can routinely get one bet in a round, there are 5 rounds per hand, $5(10) per round, or $25(50) per hand. So with $100(200) you can play 4 losing hands. That's a little low for a full 8 hours, IMO. But its OK for a couple hours after work.
Assuming you are a long term winner (even if small) and respect your bankroll: the real point is how much can you lose before it is a psycological "disaster"? No matter how high that figure is, set your "session bankroll" less than that.
If you are not a long term winner or disrespect your bankroll, add "or fiscal disaster" to the above paragraph; and buy and read some more 2+2 books.
- Louie
The 10% $5 rake there is tough to beat, eh?
IMO, a 10% rake to $5.00 in a 1-5 stud game is almost impossible to beat. Almost every pot is raked to a maximum 10%.
I had an interesting experience a couple of months ago - a local casino was shutting down their last stud game, but they still had a bad beat jackpot (about $3500), and the government wouldn't let them close the stud game without playing off the jackpot. So, they had a special day for the regulars in which the requirements for the bad beat dropped every hour until it was won.
On that day, I played in a 1-5 stud game with the same rake (10% to $5.00). We played for seven hours, without a single player leaving the table. At the end of seven hours, one player was up about $100, one was up $50 (me), and the other six players were all stuck, in amounts ranging from $50 to $300.
Guess why the casino was shutting down their last stud game? After the government raised the rake from $3.00 to $5.00, almost every stud game in the city vanished within a matter of months. Greedy management that doesn't understand poker killed their own games.
You may want to look at "Comparing the Rake" which appears on our essay page.
>>Is this enough to protect myself from normal swings? << Most authors recommend a minimum session bankroll. In structured games between 100 to 500 times the minimum bet are the numbers I have seen. Good numbers to "start" with. In spread limit games such as you play I would "start" with 100 to 500 times the maximum bet. You must keep track of your chip level during play. Your goal is to establish your session "Standard Deviation". This will allow you to set your session requirements. Always "try" to start with a bankroll that will allow you to be comfortable throughout the session. Experience is the best teacher. Hope this helps. Vince
I was hoping one of you would jump into this thread we've been having with your opinion. There seems to be some fundamental disagreement about this play.
Here's the setup:
You’re first to act in middle position with AcKc.
You raise, and only BB ( a totally average player ) calls.
Flop: Q T 4 rainbow with no clubs
He bets. You raise. He calls.
Turn: another Q
He checks.
What would you do? Your input would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Dan
Dan,
Its probably close as to whether you have the best hand or not with the ak. It may not matter if you bet or not. With most of the hands he may have he will call unless he knows you to be a non bluffer. If he is a bluffer I would check and call him on the river. If he is a non bluffer I would be inclined to bet hoping he may fold a pair and then check on the river. Against some players the fact that he bet on the flop means you should be done with the hand. Good Luck.
Thanks Ray. I think the one consensus we came to was that your read on the player is the overriding factor in this situation. I guess the difficulty comes from our conceptiojn of the 'typical' player.
Dan
dan, I'll respond since I am the one putting the most pressure on the opposite side. All of my disagreement has been qualified with the statement,"unless you have a strong read on this player". This situation makes it difficult. My other disagreement is with the second barrel concept, as I have posted below. if the other player has shown aggression, then firing a second barrell doesn't make sense to me. You want to use it when the other players are passive.In all these threads you can bring it down to what type of player you are up against. The problem is, in the games I play in so calif., players faces change often, and it takes a little time before you can accurately label them and then there is an argument agaisnt doing that.So I try to look at these questions as if i know really nothing about this player. so if someone stands a raise pre-flop and comes out firing, in general I am going to give them credit for having something(until they show me otherwise).In my opinion your thinking about this situation is excellent, so lets agree to disagree somemore down the road. It's good to look at both sides of a situation. seeya
Sure. Obviously, talking about the 'correct' way to play a heads-up situation in the forum is somewhat suspicious because these things depend mostly on factors that are hard to quantify. If were to start to list the things that could change my decision here, it would be a pretty long list (my image, the other player's image, whether he's stuck, etc. etc.).
For the record, I like to play overcards in *many different ways, to keep people from putting me on a hand. For instance, I'll often just call a bet on the flop here, and wait for the turn card. If it's a scary card for the other player (an overcard that's not one of mine) I can often win the pot with a bet. If it's a scary card for me, or my opponent shows strength, I can dump the hand without having to pay even an extra small bet on the flop as I would with a free-card raise.
Once in a while, I might even raise the turn with two overcards against a particularly tricky player, if I think he has very little.
Dan
Al, I don't want to sound like a broken record but...I maintain that if you intend on calling on the river after a brick hits, it is better to bet the turn for the reasons that Dan and I have already offered.
It was an interesting thread and we probably have to agree to disagree.
ps If i didn't improve and was bet into on the river, I'm gone. Like I said in earlier posts. I have to give someone credit for some type of hand if they call a raise, and then bet into the raiser. A typical player checks to the raiser. seeya
I think average players in middle to high stakes games are fairly good players. I put him on a pair of tens with a good kicker; if he had more he would probably have reraised on the flop. I would not spend any more money here but take the river card for free. Besides your going to have better opportunities down the line.
I was thinking we were done, but I can keep going.if you need the last word, just let me know and I'll let you have it........maybe. Just kidding. I think that one of your guys's worries here is that if you check the turn you are going to get taken out with a bet on the river. This probably won't happen as it's reasonable for the other player to put you on an overpair etc. and still check, since it's reasonable for you to not want to walk into a trap even though you have a hand. I'll bet that if you did have an over pair, that you would check the turn knowing you could call the river. but my bigger concern with this thread is that you guys have kind of decided on an automatic strategy, so to speak when this is not clear cut. You have valid arguments, but it is not automatic by any means. When I see threads develop that seem to be lop sided towards one way of thinking when it is clearly not a cut and dry situation, then I will post sharply in the other direction in hopes of making you realize that there is something more important to think about. It's not that I don't believe what I'm posting on this thread, I do, but it's more important that you realize there are very few automatic strategies in this game. Also, when i said to agree to disagree, I meant on future threads. it is excellent to hear two sides. It forces you to think . keep your minds open guys.Let's move on to the next one.
To continue the "What to do" thread by Malmuth below: == Stud: Ace limped, Hero raised with TT2, two 9's called, Ace re-raised... Solution: ReRaise ==
If you had KK2 would you be less afraid of losing with your prospective two-pair to one of the 9's (who may make Qs-Up); and if so would you flat CALL the presumed AA re-raise?
Re-Raise? Assuming the Ace will 4-bet it now and bet it all the way to 6th, it costs you 3-bets now, 1 on 4th, 2 on 5th/6th or 8 bets to try to run AA down. I count slightely more than 6 bets in now (counting antes and rake), the AA will put in 7 more; so it appears you are getting 13+:8 or call it 1.7:1 pay-off for what you say is a 2:1 dog hand; assuming you succeed in dropping the other 2 players.
Adjustments in you favore include superior play later especially on the river, the A may not have AA, your hand is live, and the AA may get scared and check. Adjustments against you are the 9's may not fold, its a disaster when the AA makes consealed As-Up, you have no additional value, the A may have additional value like a suited Jack or a third Ace, and the Aces hand is probably live as well.
Even if the A is 50:50 to have a face-card flush draw, a re-raise still only looks marginally profitable.
Please convince me a ReRaise is better than a Fold.
- Louie
"Please convince me a ReRaise is better than a Fold."
Why? You're mind is already made up. If you want to fold fine. That's your style. Go with it.
Because people who assume they can figure everything out don't learn anything. Because people who assume that a conclusion they come to is correct don't learn much. Because people who assume their reality is the only "true" reality become aware of very little. Because first impressions or "instincts" are not routinely correct; at least for most people. Because my "style" would be to reraise, but it APPEARS now not to be the better play. Because getting "better" means REASONING better, not just mindlessly accepting conclusions. Because reconciling differences in evaluation is an excellent learning tool.
- Louie
Is this software worth of buying? If it is, what are the minimum system requirements? I know that Wilson software is better (more realistic, i guess), but i can't afford it. I'm a beginner and looking for a training software. I know that any software can't beat the real action, but at least i can practice calculating odds with it. Thank you for your responses.
If you must buy software, save your money and buy Wilson's. WSOP Adventure is extremely slow (there's no way to adjust the speed), doesn't keep good records, can't program players and can't run simulations. (The NL part can be fun at first, but it's too easy -- and slow). As for system requirements, I think that any computer made in the last 5 years (e.g., an old 486) can handle it.
If you could play two hands in a game of holdem, how much would this increase your edge or take away from other peoples edge at the table?
I use HPFAP as the bible for advanced Hold'em play. I bought and read Lou Krieger's book. I didn't find anything useful in it that supplements Sklansky et. al in HPFAP. Nor have I heard of any book that updates the information in HPFAP. But HPFAP was written years ago, years before I started playing casino poker. It was written years before a lot of the posters on this forum began playing poker. Some of us have studied it and developed our games using the information found in that book. I am fairly confident that there are those working on Their next great Holdem book (in their own opinion) so I am sure more books will be written. My question is not when but what should be in that book? What does an above average poker player need to know, now, since so many have had access to and studied Hold'em books especially HPFAP. I don't think a revision of HPFAP will be enough. I for one think that the names and photographs (hopefully not mug shots) of all you rascals that use this forum should be included. Also, a section on poker ethics should be included. I have a number of ideas as I'm sure most of you have. If we post them here maybe our illustious hosts will take them into consideration when THEY write The next great book on Hold'em. Vince
First, you don't mention THEORY OF POKER by Sklansky. You should be reading and studying that text. Second, approximately the middle of this year, we will be releasing additional material on hold 'em. That is all that I will say for now.
I studied the THEORY OF POKER when I first began playing poker and agree that I need to reread it. It is, I believe, the foremost primer on Poker theory. When I first began I played Stud exclusively. I must have had a foolish mental block when I was thinking of Hold'em books and didn't associate TOP and HPFAP. Your response was a thankful reminder. BTW I lost my copy of TOP (could also account for my lapse of memory) and have been meaning to go to the Vegas Gamblers store to pick another one up. Anyway, I don't know which came first TOP or HPFAP. But they both have been in print for a long time. I again agree, TOP is a required reread but it does not provide anything new. It does not identify changes (if any) to material in HPFAP. I am not claiming a new book is necessary. Correct use of HPFAP will make a winner of all but the most awkward of users. Also, for the record, Poker Essays Volumes I and II (Malmuth), IMO , are required read and reread material for stud and holdem players. I thank you for your reminding me of the need to review basics. I respect your decision not too discuss your future works. Vince
"I again agree, TOP is required reread but it does not provide anything new. It does not identify changes (if any) to material in HPFAP"
Are you sure you've read TOP before? Its not game specific.
Personally, I don't know that we require another textbook on Hold'em.
What I do hope for is (say) Poker Essays Volume 3. Now, as useful as the other volumes were, in Volume 3 I personally would like to see a lot more practical advice dealing directly with playing strategy rather than discussion on aspects peripheral to the game (i.e. rakes, bankroll requirements, expected earnings etc.).
I think that reading hands and understanding betting patterns are two of the most important skills in hold'em. I would hope for a book that devotes a lot of pages to those particular aspects of the game.
Heck, I would even like the book if it contained nothing more than 2 or 3 dozen problems along the lines of "How would you play this hand" with a clear, detailed analysis for each problem. Since I began participating in this Forum, I have probably learned more from those types of threads than any other.
In any event, I eagerly await 2+2's next offering.
>>Heck, I would even like the book if it contained nothing more than 2 or 3 dozen problems along the lines of "How would you play this hand" with a clear, detailed analysis for each problem. << Hey that is what this forum is for and I think it does it very well. I prefer debateable analysis. I don't think there are many if any poker hands that can be analyzed in such detail that a single conclusion of correct play can be obtained. But I agree about Essays, I certainly would buy an ESSAY Volume III. vince
I hope that the next "great" hold-em book will be on big-bet poker, giving it as much detailed attention that limit has been given. While Bob Ciaffone and TJ Cloutier have given new material to augment Doyle Brunson's section in Super/System, the poker world awaits a definitive up-to-date text, encompassing not only theory, but specific hand examples (e.g., "where did so-and-so go wrong?") from not only ring games, but from the last 10 years of the World Series.
Well, we sure know where Bonetti, Vincent, Stanley, Carter, McBride and Ciaffone went wrong, don't we? :)
You guys are all ignoring my sone to be published classic "Braindead Holdem". Actually a Q&A book based on situational play would be welcomed.
One of the Indian casinos where I live just recently opened their poker room (again). They are having pot limit and no limit tournaments. I have not played pot limit in my entire life. I have read a lot about it and observed a few ring games. I am planning to play in a pot limit tournament in a week to get some exposure and feel for the game. Are there any books or articles I should read to help better prepare myself. All helpful advice welcomed.
Thanks,
Dice
Over the Past 2 and a half years, I have taken 6 trips to Vegas and played 20-40 hold 'em at the Mirage. While I'm proud to say that I have posted wins on each of those trips, I am enough of a realist to understand that it wasn't solely due to good play, lady luck was clearly on my side on each of my visits. It seemed to me (at least on my last two trips where I was there Monday through Friday) that almost every player was super aggressive. I mean, I rarely ever saw any calling, the only actions players knew were folding and raising. For example, players would routinely three bet before the flop with a medium pocket pair in order to try and get heads-up with the two-bettor. Once there was a preflop raise ( which without exaggeration was about 98% of the time), the preflop raiser would always bet the flop at which point he either won the pot unchallenged or was immediately raised. Everybody played this way. I mean, it seemed like I was playing against 9 robots all programmed to act the same way. Of course, soon enough, I joined the team of robots.
Nevertheless, I hear Card Player columnists such as Roy Cooke constantly saying "I was in a very loose 20-40 game last night", "I raised and I got called by a clueless tourist" etc.
So, what's the real story? Can these Vegas games be good (often enough) for out-of-towners like myself to continue to come to Vegas rather than go to California (I have also played in the Commerce 15-30 game and that game was decidedly easier to beat than the Mirage game).
I have also heard people say that the 10-20 game at the Mirage is tougher than the 20-40. I find that hard to believe.
Finally, where and when are the best 20-40 games in Vegas.
I am going to be taking a trip to either California or Vegas later this month so I'd appreciate any responses.
(Mason, please accept my apologies for not putting this on the exchange forum).
I forgot to add a comment in my original post: I felt that I might as well throw HPFAP out the window in the Vegas games. Looking back on my Vegas trips, I probably relied more on playing experience, instincts, and my 6th sense to tackle situations rather than any "book knowledge" (I am quick to say that I couldn't possibly overstate the value of HPFAP, the Theory of Poker etc. to me in the regular games that I play in locally).
You are describing games that I have only rarely seen. On the other hand, there is no question that the typical Las Vegas game is more aggressive than the games are in other locations.
If you want to play $20-$40 hold 'em you will have to go to The Mirage. They are the only place in town that currently offers that limit.
Mason, skp, David Sklansky et al.,
I have to agree with skp on the value of the poker literature out there. I've read 10 to 12 of the top titles and applied as much discipline as anyone could muster and an still a net loss player.
At one point I gave all the books away in complete and total frustration. (They were : The Theory of Poker, 7 Card Stud for Advanced Players, The 42 Lessons, Super System, Caro's Book of Tells, Caro's Winning Poker, Play Poker - Quit Work Sleep - Till Noon, Caro's 11 Steps to 7 Card Success, Caro's Professional 7 Card Stud Report Version 2, Caro's Guide to the Super System, 7 Card Stud - The Waiting Game, The Psycology of Poker Simplified, Playing Winning Poker, and others ....)
Obviously I chose 7 card stud.
What is the real story?
How does one really survive at this stuff?
Is it like one author claims? The majority of pros are cheating?
One of the popular authors mentions that game theory could provide a method that would always work, however you could make more by "adjusting".
I speculate that if a computer can be programmed to consistently win against human opponents (As it is claimed ORAC currently can) and assumming the computer os not using abilities people don't have (such as accessing a 300 GB database of stats or caclulating every possible outcome before making a move like Deep Blue) then there must be a algorithm people can use consisitently to win
Wilson's software in a way embodies this. The program is the algorithm and the tables it has represent decisions that have been made in advance as to how to handle situations.
So how about it poker authors, what is the winning strategy in clear concise, actionable english?
You guys claim to have done it. Having made the investments in your materials, I'd like the real answers.
MM often mentions in his writings that you need experience to win, but, still, he underplays it a bit.
When I think back on some of the plays I made four years ago vs today, it's really comical.
You've got to know what to expect when you bet or raise vs three or four different types of opponents.
When they don't act like you expect, WAKE UP, and do something differently than you're doing now.
Really, there's not much more to it than that.
"You guys claim to have done it. Having made the investments in your materials, I'd like the real answers."
"20 years of schoolin and they put you on the day shift."
Frank,
You are obviously someone who follows instructions very well and that is how you have survived. Try a different approach use your brain. Think about the stratagies and how others would apply them. Then take advantage of the others misconceptions. Anyone with some commmon sense, logic and some intelligence can make money playing poker. Maybe not as much as others like M&S. If you look at poker like an intelligence contest in a way you need to be more intelligent in reguards to cards than the majority of your competion. That is one of the most important reasons. Take Mason and Sklansky for example it is not hard to figure out that these two are more intelligent than most if not all of there competion. Are you see a corralation.
Just something to consider.
Brad,
That's an interesting thought. It's clear Mason and Dave have given a lot of thought to the game. As matter of fact so have I. I sat down one day and said "OK, lets write down what I think my stategy is, starting hand by starting hand, based on what I've read and seen". I ended up with at least 20 pages of material. So I don't think it's a matter of lack of thought.
My critique of many of the books, especially Dave's work is it's lack of concise reasons. A lot of "things to consider" as Dave says on the cover of "The Theory of Poker". I cannot fault the work of these authors in terms of its depth or literacy. It just needs to be boiled down to what works.
Otherwise one wastes years and dollars trying to figure out the answer to something like, "Many times in stud it is correct to chase" (Sklansky - advanced 7 card stud) how about an enumeration of exactly when that is?
Not to say Roy West is a better player or theorist, but a rule like his "Rule of 2" for when to start with a 3 straight is an example of an actionble "rule".
Also, when it comes to card reading, Roy gave some good point like, "A person cannot have a full house on 6th street without showing a pair". That is a useful piece of knowledge in the practical sense.
Actually a dual format would be good. Direct actionable advise or rules, then the theoretical and mathematical points which make that advise correct and applicable.
Even the definition of "dead cards" seems somewhat unclear obviously "totally dead" is unambiguous. However some others seem to be indicating dead is 1 of your pair cards out on the board, others it seems to mean both.
I just don't believe that the winning players are mentally going over hundreds of pages of text before making each decision. I speculate there are things they watch for and act accordingly. That basically amounts to an algorithm and set of decisions tables. It ought to be able to be boiled down to something like basic strategy for blackjack, with of course the caveats about human opponents vrs. playing against a fixed house stategy.
Another aside is that I believe something is being held back is because many players I met who claim to be anywhere from 15,000 to 26,000+ a year ahead (on small limit no less) claim to have taken "lessons" from a particular local pro.
Bottom line is that it seems none of these books is what it claims to be, a silver bullet to winning. At best they seem to be jumping off points. Problem is I've found one can be jumping off a cliff!
P.S. Just as a point of conversation, many dealers have who've seen Caro, Slansky, and Malmuth play claim they are not big winners. Anyone know how true that is? Even one local pro who claims to know Mike and is a ghost writer of some stuff on poker psycology claims Mike is about a $3 an hour player. Since I heard these things in a poker room they obviously might be false. I have no way of knowing but maybe someone out there in poker land knows. :-)
P.P.S. Can anyone deny the predatory nature of Poker? Or at least it's most vaunted authors? Almost every author points out that the "best" games involve finding "weak" players. I've heard it said that it is well known that some of the info in SuperSystem's Hold'em sections is intentionally false!
Yours, In search of the truth, Frank :-)
Check out FoolProof by Richard Allen (800-203-7042). From what I've heard it attempts to "chartize" HE play.
Personally I think you are pushing big rocks up hill. Poker is a non-stationary game. At all but the lowest limits I gotta believe your opponents are going to take advantage of your "chart" play to your detriment.
Mike,
Believe it or not I do tend to agree with you.
I once became very good a beating a Checkers playing computer. It could, in fact, beat everyone else who tried it.
Yet, some of those people could beat me!
Why?
I'm a systems analyst, I was good at discerning the computer's program from its actions. Therefore I would make plays that the typical human player would't think of against the computer.
For example, I found that moving a piece back and forth on the same two squares enough times made the computer change its actions. Often in an exploitable way. However that probably wouldn't be of any value against a human player, they'd probably just get upset at you! (Which could be a tactic I suppose!)
But then checkers and chess are complete information games (exept that you can't read the other players mind! They say as one progresses in chess one goes from thinking 1 move ahead to several, and one begins to play in "chunks" of stategy. I suppose poker can be like that too.)
I am aware of attempt to chartize Hold Em. (E.G. Percentage Poker) Since I've not played it I cannot comment directly. However poker writers seem to be indicating that Hold Em as compared to stud does have a set of strategies which win and that everyone who wins eventually is using them. I read that in Card Player or Poker Digest I believe.
My basis for claiming there is a methodology to winning is a mathematical one. Which is that if you make plays with postive expectations only, in the long run you must profit. (Just as the casino must profit from negative expectations games).
Every poker author seems to put this forth. The problem is coming up with an effective method of determining exactly which plays are positive expected value on a consistent basis. (Of course that changes with every card dealt.)
I suppose one method would be to be well versed in card odds and continually be trying to calculate the pot odds. However, one quickly gets into implied odds etc. there.
The variablity of human players is another stumbling block. However given a reasomble simulations, monte carlo analysis should be able to come up with a workable solution.
As an aside, I believe it was either Caro or Sklansky (can't remember which, I've read so much of thier stuff lately) that stated that there IS, by game theory, an optimal stategy that will yeild a positive expectation but you would earn more by adjusting.
Unfortunately, that author did not present that stategy. I felt that was cheap. Mention it then don't present it!
So really I guess I'd like the authors to present of checklist of points to watch for and attendant decisions to make that is at least sensible and then the related caveats.
To some extent you could say that exist because it seems the high level stategy presented by most writers is something like :
1.Large trips - Slowplay 2. Small Trips - Play faster 3. Premium Pairs - Play hard and fast, raise out others to protect 4. Speculative Hands (Drawing hands) - Play cheap, try to keep callers in to get pot odds. 5. If your made hand looks good but is vulnerable raise for protection. 6. If you have the nuts, slowplay 7. Fold when you think you're beat or the pot odds don't justify contining.
However point 7 is a killer. You often need to be a good card reader to accomplish this. However, solid card reading tips are hard to come by. In reading 10 to 12 books on the subject the list of them I can remember is very short :
1. Hands requiring dead cards can't be made. 2. A person cannot have a full house on 6th street without showing a pair. 3. A person cannot have 4 of a kind on 6th street without showing a pair. 4. A person cannot have a flush on 6th without showing 3. 5. A person cannot have a straight on 6th without showing 3.
and a few others, some which are extrapolations of these.
Obviously a quick mind with a good card memory is a asset. At least in stud.
I have a feeling that's one reason Hold Em is popular. The card memory thing isn't there. However, reading of tells and being able to calculate multiple possible hands against you probably are magnified neccessities.
What would be nice is if one of these authors would state directly the method and rules of both the decisions made and all known card reading "tips" in one place.
Then go on to explain and justify them one at a time.
After all isn't that what we want out of book on "Winning Poker". The way to win...as opposed to "things to consider".
>>I am aware of attempt to chartize Hold Em. (E.G. Percentage Poker) Since I've not played it I cannot comment directly. However poker writers seem to be indicating that Hold Em as compared to stud does have a set of strategies which win and that everyone who wins eventually is using them. I read that in Card Player or Poker Digest I believe.<<
Play of the first two cards in hold'em is relatively simple. It gets quite complex after the flop. But you really need to understand the underlying logic behind what you're doing with various kinds of starting hands. And while that part of the game is comparatively straight forward, it actually contains much more subtlety and room for expert play than most players realize.
>>...solid card reading tips are hard to come by.<<
The sections on this in the 2+2 books give a good intro. To a large extent it's a logical process of correlating a player's actions and what you know about the player with possible hands while you think back (deconstructing) and forth throught the hand.
>>I have a feeling that's one reason Hold Em is popular. The card memory thing isn't there. However, reading of tells and being able to calculate multiple possible hands against you probably are magnified neccessities.<<
I agree that not needing to track cards is a major plus contributing to hold'em's popularity. In fact, it's the main thing (besides the popularity of hold'em) that makes me prefer hold'em to stud. I see keeping track of cards as menial labor. I'd rather be freed up to read players and think about more interesting aspects of strategy.
John Feeney
"I agree that not needing to track cards is a major plus contributing to hold'em's popularity. In fact, it's the main thing (besides the popularity of hold'em) that makes me prefer hold'em to stud. I see keeping track of cards as menial labor. I'd rather be freed up to read players and think about more interesting aspects of strategy."
You are probably right, but you may also be wrong. I have yet to play any hold 'em this year and it is because of tracking cards. Actually, it's not tracking cards per se, but actually evaluating hands based on the cards that are out for not only yourself but for your opponents. In many ways this makes stud more interesting and fun to play.
>>...evaluating hands based on the cards that are out for not only yourself but for your opponents. In many ways this makes stud more interesting and fun to play.<<
Well, yes, I suppose I was overstating it or coming at it from the wrong angle entirely to call it "menial labor". Since stud is almost nonexistent in my immediate area, I definitely haven't played enough to appreciate all that goes into evaluating the implications of the cards that are out. Actually, if I had the chance to play a lot of stud, I have no doubt it would be my other "main game". If I ever do get that chance, I hope that part of the game will become enjoyable for me.
John Feeney
Frank, the most important thing is to make sure you are playing in games where you see other players either playing too many starting hands and chasing the pot etc. As long as there are 2 -4 players whom you know you play better than, everytime you play, you should at least break even. I know a player who plays 10-20 5 days a week, and he is very average but he makes very few major mistakes and never tilts. He has been playing for just under 4 years and he is making 30 an hour. Now , he probably is running alittle better than others, but I think it is his simple yet solid game, and intestinal fortitude that makes him a winner. You are not going to find all the answers in the books.You have validated that.After the basicis, it becomes a game of people more and more. Only experience and staying power will get you there. You might also want to try your hand at tourneys.gd lk
Al,
Thanks for agreeing it's not in the books. Your comments here are very worthwile.
It seems difficult to determine what at good or solid strategy really is.
I really thought that's what I was doing.
Guess not. Figuring where the difference is, is the hard part.
Any suggestions there would be appreciated.
Thanks, Frank
Frank,
You raise so many questions in your various posts in this thread that I can't possibly address them all. But as they are questions that I think a lot of ambitious, learning players struggle with I'll try to respond to a few of them here and in response to your other posts.
You write:
>>Another aside is that I believe something is being held back is because many players I met who claim to be anywhere from 15,000 to 26,000+ a year ahead (on small limit no less) claim to have taken "lessons" from a particular local pro.<<
I think there are few complex skills that can be adequately learned just from books. Some personal instruction is usually necessary as well. Serious study of the poker books (and additional analysis and thinking on your own) can, however, take you surprisingly far. That may be because so many players don't read them at all.
>>... many dealers have who've seen Caro, Slansky, and Malmuth play claim they are not big winners. Anyone know how true that is? Even one local pro who claims to know Mike and is a ghost writer of some stuff on poker psycology claims Mike is about a $3 an hour player. Since I heard these things in a poker room they obviously might be false. I have no way of knowing but maybe someone out there in poker land knows. :-)<<
You hear all sorts of things around the poker world. You hear that this or that author doesn't win much. You hear that someone thinks highly of the play of a player you're *sure* can't win. You hear that one of your opponents thinks you're the best player in town while another thinks you're just a rock. But, in time, you realize that few players really know how anyone else is doing. (You also hear outright lies.) Moreover, you realize that bad (and average, and even most better than average) players can't really recognize expert play when they see it. Otherwise, they'd be able to do it themselves. So unless you're *sure* of the knowledge/ability of the source from whom you hear something, you usually can't make much of it.
John Feeney
John,
Suprisingly enough the story about Caro being a $3 an hour player comes from a teaching pro many of the $20,000 + a year positive players swear by! :-)
But you're right. It is hard to evaluate these things. After all Las Vegas is what it is!
I find this pretty hard to believe. Although I disagree with a lot of what Caro says in his Card Player articles, there is no question that he is a pretty intelligent guy. Now, you tell me how an intelligent guy with lots of poker experience and know-how can only be making $3 an hour. I'm sorry...but I don't buy it.
skp,
I honestly don't know. I'm repeating what one of his alleged ghostwriters for Book of Tells has to say about it.
Like you, I'm trying to discern the truth from the bull.
I threw it out as a "heresay for discussion" kind of comment.
Sort of like, "Well what do you think?"
A lot of Caro's stuff makes sense to me. But I've been told by supposed acqaitances of some of the poker writers that some of the theoreticians don't do so well in practise.
However, I really do not know.
I find it almost as hard to believe we all put so much effort into something so basically silly as a card game! Think about the man hours and brain power we and the various poker authors have put into this!
>>I'm repeating what one of his alleged ghostwriters for Book of Tells has to say about it.<<
Well, I have no first hand knowledge of this, but my bluff detector just started beeping. If someone is claiming to be a ghost writer for Mike Caro, I think you should be very skeptical. After all, Caro's been writing steadily for years. Why would he need a ghost writer, even back when that book was published? Also, from what he's said, he plays mostly at pretty high limits - say, 60-120 and higher, often in short-handed games. Where would an hourly rate estimate of $3 per hour ever come from when talking about games like that? I mean "big loser", "$150/hour winner", okay - but $3/hour winner????
John Feeney
I see Mike sitting in the 40-80 hldm off and on at Hollywood park. I don't know how he does and don't care. His business is teaching and writing, not playing poker for a living.I believe at this point he plays purely for enjoyment, as all of you should. The same can be said for S&M. it doesn't make them frauds. They are not guaranteeing you will win. But you can learn alot about playing these games so you don't give your money away, but get used to the idea of having many losing nights. Put it in perspective. I know S&M and many others would disagree, but , much of the problem lies in how many hands we play. If you play for 30 years 40 hours a week you might see a total of 2,246,000 hands. if you play a third of that time you might see 748,800. I believe that this is barely enough to get into the long run of a winning strategy at these games. S&M contend that roughly 1 year of full time play can get you there,if you are an expert, or a measly 17,280 hands. I just don't see it, but I'm not a mathemetician. There are many things that imo are a waste of time like standard deviation and the like, but it's interesting and fun to learn. This doesn't mean I don't have fun playing these games,.. just the opposite. But I try to put it in to perspective. You can learn to be a great player and if you choose your games well EVERY TIME, hopefully you will come out ahead. To put it into further perspective go look into the commodoties market and look at all the hype and systems that are touted in that arena. There are some winners there also, but again, most of the players lose. Love the game, but don't expect much.
Al,
I don't really care what Mike earns playing either, beyond its value as an indicator of his playing philosophy's effectiveness.
As for playing for fun, I don't recall any of the major poker authors pushing thier works as that. They all seem to be designed for the "aspiring pro".
I agree with your thoughts on the number of hands played. Statistics divides the world into two parts. Small Samples and Large Samples. With greater than 30 trials being large samples. Arguably, large samples produce better inferences about the population. So 30 * 2.5 million would be a minimum Large Sample group for this game if the strategy you employed was exactly the same on all runs.
I'd guess computers could make this kind of test possible if you could program the other players realistically enough. Or if some argument could be made that a "break even no matter what" strategy exists.
Yes, I also agree that the commodities writers are in the same boat, as is commodities trading. In one post I drew some parallels to Jake Bernstein's work...at least prior to his Infomercial debut. :-)
Thanks for your considerate input. You have some of the most intelligent points I've read.
Thanks, Frank
John,
I guess +$3.00 an hour beats any lesser figure. Given the swing of the game, I'd have to agree, that's a lot of risk for that return!
I see some possible explanations :
This person is making his story up.
He really is who he says but was being cynical and I missed the joke.
Don't really know. Someday I'll ask Caro if I ever get over to California.
Thanks, Frank
First, forget all the garbage - Mike Caro, "the waiting game", "Psychology of Poker simplified". Anyone listening to Caro will quickly go broke.
The worthwhile poker books are those from Sklansky, Malmuth and Zee, and those should be followed closely until you understand how your particular situation differs.
"Obviously I chose 7 card stud."
You may want to start with holdem; it's easier and you don't have to remember the cards.
"What is the real story? How does one really survive at this stuff?"
Keep in mind that a winning player at most levels only earns one big-bet per hour. All it takes is a few extra calls to turn a winning session into a major loss. Your game can be solid overall, but with fatal flaws that keep you from the money.
"Is it like one author claims? The majority of pros are cheating?"
That isn't true at all. What sets the professionals apart is their skill at reading hands and escaping situations. They are also more likely to be aggressive in the right spots, while many mediocre players are not.
"One of the popular authors mentions that game theory could provide a method that would always work, however you could make more by "adjusting"."
Game theory is not too useful in poker, except as a general concept. Against experts you want to design your play so that you are unpredictable. I frequently see players who you can count on to do a given thing (steal when you check the flop, etc.), and you just wait to trap them. Holdem or stud is far too complicated to "solve" like Tic-Tac-Toe, and even if the solution involved limping with AA 30% of the time against nine computer opponents with a preset optimal strategy, in any real life game there are too many other factors, and you would play the hand according to your opponents and the situation.
"I speculate that if a computer can be programmed to consistently win against human opponents (As it is claimed ORAC currently can) and assumming the computer os not using abilities people don't have (such as accessing a 300 GB database of stats or caclulating every possible outcome before making a move like Deep Blue) then there must be a algorithm people can use consisitently to win Wilson's software in a way embodies this. The program is the algorithm and the tables it has represent decisions that have been made in advance as to how to handle situations."
Even the best programs aren't very good and are far too predictable. The potential exists for there to be better ones, but poker is not a game like chess where there are a fixed set of outcomes from a given move and you just have to scan the entire sequence to figure out what to do. A bet on the flop can mean so many different things that you can't just simulate 1000000 hands from that point on to figure out what to do.
"So how about it poker authors, what is the winning strategy in clear concise, actionable english?"
For starters, buy new copies of "Theory of Poker" and 7CSFAP. Read them cover to cover, and then figure out where you are losing the money - on fourth street, chasing when you shouldn't, losing to hands you should have knocked out earlier, etc. Focus on that aspect of your game. It might help to step down in limit for a while, and see if you can beat a lower level.
Also keep in mind that not all of the plays in 7CSFAP are ideal for all games. In a low-ante game, or in a game with several players who call too much, aggressive play will backfire. Below 15-30, stud is a very different game.
"You guys claim to have done it. Having made the investments in your materials, I'd like the real answers."
Even top players have losing periods. I recommend you keep careful records of your play - so you can see which games are the best for you and whether your apparent losses are just a temporary downswing.
Centurion,
Sounds like good advice. But what of mathematical concepts like expected value?
Isn't the essence of long term winning really the isolation of plays with a positive expectation and executing them repeatedly?
If we accept that, then the problem really boils down to which plays are positive and how to recognize them.
Clearly, card odds, pot odds etc figure into that. It would seem to be problem of boiling it down to a recallable amount of information that can really be used at the table.
From your comments I believe you're a Hold'em fan. I have'nt tried it yet. My cursory thoughts on it were that since there's less infomation on board about a given opponent that it would actually be a tougher came for a new player. With Stud I can at least assign some cards to a particular player.
I do have to agree that it is not like chess. The biggest difference in my mind is not that it can't be effective treated in a mathematical sense but simply the fact that you can't see all the cards so you have incomplete information.
In my mind that can account for a lot situations where you get a hand "cracked". For example we've probably all had the experience of being beaten by an an unanticipated set of rolled up 3's or whatever your favorite bad beat story is. :-)
Anyway, as to Theory of Poker and Advanced 7 Card Stud. They seem to raise as many questions as they answer. Dave's writting style seems remenicent (to me) of his college days. It's somewhat professorial with a peppering of borderline scatology like "suckers". Mason's style where he has a boldfaced point and then supporting ideas is a little easier to read and apply. This is not to fault Dave. After all the book is called "The THEORY of Poker" not "The PRACTICE of Poker". Perhaps in my reading of it I missed something but it always seems to lack a way of resolving a a question. It simply says, "These are things to consider".
Having been to Law School at one point (though I did not finish a JD, life got on the way) I can definitely say that many academics (for example law school staffs) are happy to cede practical matters to others and only discuss theory. Sometimes proudly so.
I do have to agree that Caro's stuff is difficult to apply. But then his claim to fame, Tells, is somewhat inexact anyway. He does seem to have a lot of followers though. But then again many claim as you do that his methods are the route to the poor house. But then he has made a career of it. He's obviously in there with the original SuperSystem folks and has been at it a long time.
In any event thanks for your thoughts. I will consider your advise. I'm sure there are things I've missed in all that material.
Thanks again, Frank
Hey this is a great post. One comment though. I am beginning to wonder if 7CSFAP is applicable to 15-30 anymore. My experience is that at the 15 level there are now more third street callers (multi-way pots) than ever before. It appears to me that this begs an adjusted or unique strategy which may include more check raising! Any opinion? Vince
Sorry, I reread your post! I still like it but have another comment! Hold'em is far from easier than stud! IMO Hold'em is more dificult than stud. I believe many more mistakes are made by hold'em players during the course of a hand than Stud players! That's why I switched to Hold'em after playing Stud successfully for 4 years. Opinion by Vince
Centurion,
I was rereading your post and in it you said basically to closely follow Malmuth, Sklansky and Zee's information.
That's the problem it vacilates from theoretical to very specific examples causing one to walk away from it saying, "Just what should I do anyway?"
It is not material that can be followed closely.
As the cover of "Theory" points out "[These are things] to consider".
I met one semi pro who carried Advanced 7 Card in bag marked 7-11 to the tables with him. After a game he showed me the book, saying it was his secret to making $25 an hour at $5-10 stud (even though he was down for that evening. Apparently he didn't want anywone to suspect he was carrying it aroung with him. When he opened it up he had highlighted numerous passages and had literally tons of notes in the margins.
Obviously he had to study it very, very hard to get anything worthwhile out of it.
He went on to say you have to approach it like a religion!
Well, I have to say, yes the bible is also very tough to get clear messages from. Though many will claim they are in there. (Please note I'm not trying to start a big argument about the bible. But it can be obscure at times.)
As far as I know Dave and Mason are highly educated people and should be able to boil thier points down to a practical level WITH attendent detailed explanations.
But then even the detail is missing at some points.
I've sat down to calculate drawing odds and the like for various hands and the first thing that confronts one is that the number of remaining players affect the calculations.
Yet many authors list odds with no comment about how many players are left standing at each street.
The last piece of that sort of analysis I did for some acqauintances and myself I included a table indicating how many players there were at each street.
Occasionally Caro will justify by saying "With 6 players" etc. If your read between the lines some times you can find it.
Thanks again. Frank
>>I've sat down to calculate drawing odds and the like for various hands and the first thing that confronts one is that the number of remaining players affect the calculations.<<
I think what you're referring to here is addressed by "implied odds".
Frank,
If you are talking about or explaining something that you are very familiar with one simplifies things. There are many issues and items that are taken for granted. This is where your claims could be valid. If you do not have the intelligence or the experience to fill in the gaps the books would be useless to you. These books are not going to give you all the answers. This is not by accident. As for your comments on the bible we are not referring to here say that was not documented for 1000's of years. Try an experiment tell a friend a story and have him repeat it to others. Then one week later get the refurbished story from the last person to here the story and let me know the result.
Just some things to consider.
Frank:
I believe that you are suffering from a major misconception. It is that you think poker can be made easy. If that was the case, everyone would be doing it correctly and no one would have an edge.
We point out in our books that poker isn't this way. For instance, in the introduction to HPFAP we state: "In any case, becoming an expert hold'em player, even with the help of this book, will not be easy. It will require not only a great deal of study, but also a great deal of thinking, plus many hours of playing time at the hold'em tables."
It seems to me that you are complaining about exactly what we state to be true. That is if you want to become a good poker player it takes time and effort. But we believe that this is an effort worth making. Poker can be a highly rewarding game in many ways. So study hard, get your experience, and good luck.
Mason,
I have to admit, I've not read HPFAP. I settled in 7 Card Stud in the belief that I'd have a hard time calculating an opponents holdings with out the additional information of him/her having board cards.
As far as complaining, well maybe. But it seems that almost all literature involving money. Not just yours but the entire financial press, as well as most all lifestyle literature seems to paint pictures of success and then throw a few disclaimers in.
Having read probably thousands of titles in lifetime and made attempts at applying many of them I've come to the conclusion that most books out there are as much marketing phenomenons that really accomplish little more than lining the promoter's pockets.
Attempts at applying your stuff has cost me literally thousounds. In that respect your literature as been some of the most costly I've ever owned.
No doubt you can blame me. You can say, "We warned you", or "Maybe you didn't study it hard enough" etc. but it would seem from my experience that it's all just another crock.
I mean come on Mason, what does a title like "Gambling For A living, Earn 100,000 a year". imply. I still can't believe you guys let that title go to press after reading your other works. Everytime I see that one I say to myself, "They must have been trying the Info-mercial approach when they picked that title."
This is not to say I don't respect your abilities. Oddly enough I do. Writing anything of value is a bear of a task, be it a program like Wilson's or books like Poker Essays or Theory of Poker.
I feel that this world has become little more than one ploy to make money after another. And since your company IS a BUSINESS, parading as learned Poker Scholars (or poker royalty as one writer calls it), this is a well placed critique.
In essence I feel like I've been the sucker at the economic table and the purchases of your books are one more bet I've foolisly called. That is to put it in poker vernacular.
Why not put an honest disclaimer in there and repeat it often like, "Statistically, you are likely to lose a lot of money playing this game and may never become postive." Or "It is POSSIBLE to make 100,000 a year gambling, but highly improbable."
Well, you and I both know that message won't sell.
Frank,
After one year of Playing I can say that I'm better than Break Even. Of course I don't get to play every day. I live in Idaho right now.
Now I have studied the 2+2 books and others almost every day since I've been interested in the Game, I have also taken a Couple lessons from Sklansky. I really enjoy playing Poker, but I now see that Poker is much harder to become good at than it first appears. Half a year ago I thought I knew it all, and played the 6-12 Hold'em game in Vegas. I came back with my tail between my legs. I didn't know half of what I needed to know. In fact it took a Lesson from David to set me in the right direction.
Your right, making 100,000.00 a year form Poker isn't very probable. When you think about it anyone making over 100,000.00 a year doing anything isn't very probable either, but I bet that if you spent 4 years studying the Game, and if this Forum starts giving you A's and B's on your thinking you can achive a good living form Poker. How about Day Trading?
CV
Actually, I don't doubt for a minute that one can make 100k a year playing poker. Heck, I know a 10-20 player in town who has averaged 70k per year (Approx. 2000 hours of play per year). This fellow is an excellent player and would play higher limits if they were available locally. Obviously, if he had the opportunity to play 20-40 or 40-80 and remain comparatively excellent in those ganmes, he would easily surpass the 100k mark.
skp,
Yes but he's got to be an exception. Otherwise, as CV points out, we'd all quit our jobs and play poker. I met a player who made 47,000 one year, lost it all back the next... So go figure.
I don't doubt it's done, but to tell someone to get into poker to specifically make that kind of money is a little irresponsible, don't you think?
Oh, there's no doubt that 100k is not possible for everyone. The game of Poker has to have losers (obviously).
I don't think the authors claim that anyone who reads their books can go on to expect an income of 100k per year. I think the authors merely say that making 100k per year is a reachable goal for an intelligent individual if he/she studies the game, gets lots of playing experience etc. That statement, I don't take issue with for a moment.
I personally began playing Hold 'em on a semi-regular basis (i.e. 15 hours a week) in February 1996. I don't want to seem like I'm Kowtowing to the 2+2 authors, but I can tell you that reading their books has added a lot of extra income to my bank account. In fact, in the games that I play in, the winning players are invariably students of the game; they feed off those who try to play without any help from books, this forum etc.
The book in question doesn't suggest just poker, but other forms of gambling as well. The professional gambler they describe would not only play poker, but would also bet sports, watch for profitable casino promotions, etc.
To make 100K a year this way would require a sizeable bankroll. For instance, they suggest blackjack as one of the ways to make an income. To make 100K a year playing blackjack with a small risk of ruin would require a bankroll on the order of several hundred thousand dollars. A blackjack player making $100/hr would typically have a standard deviation of perhaps $3000/hr.
They also suggest playing progessive video poker machines and such, although from what I've heard even the pros that focus on these machines don't make much more than $10/hr or so at it.
To make 100K a year playing poker would require regular play at 20-40 limits, and it can simply be tough to find a game like that on a regular basis, especially if you are looking only for soft games.
So... 100K a year is probably a bit of an exaggeration for the average person. However, it certainly is within the realm of possibility.
Dan
skp,
Well, feed is probably the correct choice of word. :-) I don't deny Dave and Mason's stuff to be good food for thought.
However, It hasn't helped me as much as a much less touted author, that being Roy West.
I think highly of Dave and Mason's stuff despite my critiques. I just find that it's not the excaliber it is marketed as.
Theory of Poker, if nothing else, clearly defines many of the elements of the game. However, myself, and someone I gave a copy to, agree that 7 Card for Advance Players is not as useful as we had expected.
In Dave and Mason's defence I will say I found one semi-pro who caries a copy with him right into the casino, wrapped in a 7-11 bag so no one knows what he's carrying! He swears it's how he earns $25 hr. average at 5-10.
Thanks, Frank
CV,
You're right nothing's easy. My gripe is that so many marketers send the opposite message. It's only after they have your dollars that it becomes clear.
Yes, making 100,000 a year at most anything is improbable, yet you could make a million at paper clips or gum balls...people have! The big pain in the butt is that these days, if you don't make 100,000 a year your life will probably suck. Price a house in a nice nieborhood and a car that you favorite lady would like to drive...price the lifestyle that you or your significant other would really be happy with...and would also provide for any kids you have to actually be able to have a shot at "the good life" 100,000 a year would really just start to touch it.
And yet, as I drive around Vegas, or my old home town, Palm Beach County...the mega houses and Lexus's are everywhere...as if to say...hey dummy where's yours?
Either most of us really are dumb...or we're being totally ripped off by the "haves". You figure it.
And even with the money that's here Vegas sucks... In the last 5 months I've has a motor bike stolen and my car trashed (On New Years no less) in a theft attempt. Both incidents in a gated community! So don't believe Vegas is any great mecca. It attracts everything...including a high crime rate.
I'm fond of saying that most lifestyle myths be it bodybuilding, rock and roll, rollerblading, Poker Pro, you name it, or better yet go to a newstand and pick titles of periodicals for a better survey, all promise things like perpetual adolesence, great sex (though I've never seen that said about poker, though winning in general is an aphrodsiac), wealth, acceptance etc. for one and only one reason.... To make the promoters rich.
One can only speculate by thier circulation that these ploys are wildly successful and that the masses truly are as manipulable as Dave says the average "sucker" is. Though why he has to refer to beginners and other donators to his pot that way, I don't know. What they really are is competitors with inferior skills. Does anyone call a baseball player that didn't make the majors a "sucker". (Though he might be considered that if the media got him to throw his life away on it when he might have made a better life elsewhere. At least one basketball player came clean on this and advised ghetto kids to think more about becoming professional doctors and lawyers due to the fact that there are only about 900 pro basketball players in the world. To wit how many pro poker players are there really? Probably a thinner slice than Hollywood stars.)
I know I spent YEARS chasing the Rock Star thing, mostly when I was younger, only to find that most of the people who pursued it became middle aged drug users who continue to grow long hair, even though balding. Basically loosers. Why? because they continued to believe the myth. They were fodder for what was basically a marketing trick. A lifestyle myth. Myself, I pursued a professional career all along because I saw the odds of "making it big" were slim.
But after seeing the obsession wreck the lives of many a high school friend I'm very quick to criticize similar myths. Poker seems to fit the bill. I see many a toothless gambling addict at the Mirage and other casinos...still chasing the dream. Many sleeping on the bus stops.
It has all the halmarks of drug addiction. Bigger limits for bigger thrills. Hell the first time I put a quarter into a slot machine it had the hiar on my spine standing. Now it would take a 40-80 game to do that.... Have to admit, on recognizing that I've slacked off a bit. Though I might go down town for a buffet and a little 1-5. (Which of course can't be beat due to the rake....Unless you know Ron who claims he's making a living at 1-5!)
Now back to poker. Perhaps a lesson or two from Dave would be helpful. I didn't know he was teaching at the moment. I'd bet his rates are quite high given his celebrity status in the poker community. Currently I'm pursuing career opportunities that may cause me to leave Vegas...so I don't know whether it wouldn't just be wasted effort.
You mentioned your first try at poker and coming home with your tail between your legs. Actually my first time out was not so bad. I had made some money at blackjack and found myself at the MGM Grand. I didn't even know how to play. They gave me a pamphlet. I read it. I said give me some chips (About $138...my blackjack money) 15 hours later I was only down 50 bucks... I thought not too bad. In all honesty though, I had browsed Tony Korfman's "Playing Poker To Win". It's a little $3.50 into book. So I had some idea of starting hands. I believe I had the book in my pocket but had not read it thoroughly yet. I actually had to sit at the table with the pamphlet and the list of hands sitting where I could read it! Nobody seemed to mind. Guess they though they could make some money off of me!
Well, I played at the MGM for another few weekends... I met a guy who made about 200 in the time I lost 30. He said to me he had taken some lessons from a local Pro (RicK Grieder I believe) and that I should read Percy's "Waiting Game". Well I did.
after that I lost about 50 for two weeks running. Then made 50, then had a 200 rush (all at 1-5) then went on tilt one week for the first time. Went from 60 ahead to 200 behind. Learned a lesson there.
From there I've had all kinds of up and down swings at various limits. Sometimes I've lost a few hundred at a low limit, moved up a notch a made it back. Other times I've made 200 in an hour or two and left.
But after summing it all up the losses have far outwieghed the wins.
And I believe I'm being "selectively agressive". Though at this point I don't know what to think.
As for day trading...seems like a similar set of concepts from the math angle. However the probabilities are going to be a little harder to pin down. A card deck has 52 cards and the probabilities are all within that universe.
But let's say your trading T-bond futures...What's the probability the Fed's changing interest rates next month? How much, which way?
Or a real world case. One day England decided to change the amount of T-Bonds they were going to hold. Totaly racked the market that day...most traders didn't know England even had the policy.....
I have a theory for day trading that goes like this, though it's as yet un researched....
Every day every comodity had 4 prices listed, open, high, low, and close... Every day an issue spends some time, on average, above, and below the open.
If you could buy the open, and the intraday volitility of your selected issue is enough...you should be able to buy or go short and wait for a profit to appear, then execute the exit trade.
However, you must have an issue that is volitile enough to cover commisssions, and slippage, and can get a reasonable shot at the opening price. Further, the historical data needs to show a fair consistency of spending time on one side or the other.
Anyway, the full concept is to intracate for here and I've not done the required statistical analysis. So I may be wasting space.
After this next career move, when things settle down I will finish the investigation.
Large Luck, Frank
CV,
You're right nothing's easy. My gripe is that so many marketers send the opposite message. It's only after they have your dollars that it becomes clear. Further, things don't have to be such a bitch except that people who can decide to make them so...do! Witness, NAFTA,GATT, corps. chasing share price via downsizings...and so on. If you were to divide the net worth of the world by the number of people and it was enough for all to have a good life...the only explanation for people not having good life is that those in a position to screw others, do so.
Yes, making 100,000 a year at most anything is improbable, yet you could make a million at paper clips or gum balls...people have! The big pain in the butt is that these days, if you don't make 100,000 a year your life will probably suck. Price a house in a nice nieborhood and a car that you favorite lady would like to drive...price the lifestyle that you or your significant other would really be happy with...and would also provide for any kids you have to actually be able to have a shot at "the good life" 100,000 a year would really just start to touch it.
And yet, as I drive around Vegas, or my old home town, Palm Beach County...the mega houses and Lexus's are everywhere...as if to say...hey dummy where's yours?
Either most of us really are dumb...or we're being totally ripped off by the "haves". You figure it.
And even with the money that's here Vegas sucks... In the last 5 months I've has a motor bike stolen and my car trashed (On New Years no less) in a theft attempt. Both incidents in a gated community! So don't believe Vegas is any great mecca. It attracts everything...including a high crime rate.
I don't know that any game warrants 4 years of study. What good comes from being able decide the best strategy for what to do when a pair of tens turns up? I mean really, since the house rake is always draining money out of the game and the game produces nothing of value...it must always bring in new money from somewhere. So it's basically just another way of tranferring money from productive people to the house and of course the successful players. Seems a little bit useless if not downright parasitic, doesn't it? Bet then so is pro sports. Though that statement will no doubt raise cries of heresy among the mindless minions of sports fans.
So really, why should I play cards and let money go to people who are making a living playing a game? That money represents the time taken out of my life to acquire it. Not just it's material value. AND I GAURANTEE YOU CAN'T GET THE TIME BACK! It's gone for good.
I'm fond of saying that most lifestyle myths be it bodybuilding, rock and roll, rollerblading, Poker Pro, you name it, or better yet go to a newstand and pick titles of periodicals for a better survey, all promise things like perpetual adolesence, great sex (though I've never seen that said about poker, though winning in general is an aphrodsiac), wealth, acceptance etc. for one and only one reason.... To make the promoters rich.
One can only speculate by thier circulation that these ploys are wildly successful and that the masses truly are as manipulable as Dave says the average "sucker" is. Though why he has to refer to beginners and other donators to his pot that way, I don't know. What they really are is competitors with inferior skills. Does anyone call a baseball player that didn't make the majors a "sucker". (Though he might be considered that if the media got him to throw his life away on it when he might have made a better life elsewhere. At least one basketball player came clean on this and advised ghetto kids to think more about becoming professional doctors and lawyers due to the fact that there are only about 900 pro basketball players in the world. To wit how many pro poker players are there really? Probably a thinner slice than Hollywood stars.)
I know I spent YEARS chasing the Rock Star thing, mostly when I was younger, only to find that most of the people who pursued it became middle aged drug users who continue to grow long hair, even though balding. Basically loosers. Why? because they continued to believe the myth. They were fodder for what was basically a marketing trick. A lifestyle myth. Myself, I pursued a professional career all along because I saw the odds of "making it big" were slim.
But after seeing the obsession wreck the lives of many a high school friend I'm very quick to criticize similar myths. Poker seems to fit the bill. I see many a toothless gambling addict at the Mirage and other casinos...still chasing the dream. Many sleeping on the bus stops.
It has all the halmarks of drug addiction. Bigger limits for bigger thrills. Hell the first time I put a quarter into a slot machine it had the hiar on my spine standing. Now it would take a 40-80 game to do that.... Have to admit, on recognizing that I've slacked off a bit. Though I might go down town for a buffet and a little 1-5. (Which of course can't be beat due to the rake....Unless you know Ron who claims he's making a living at 1-5!)
Now back to poker. Perhaps a lesson or two from Dave would be helpful. I didn't know he was teaching at the moment. I'd bet his rates are quite high given his celebrity status in the poker community. Currently I'm pursuing career opportunities that may cause me to leave Vegas...so I don't know whether it wouldn't just be wasted effort.
You mentioned your first try at poker and coming home with your tail between your legs. Actually my first time out was not so bad. I had made some money at blackjack and found myself at the MGM Grand. I didn't even know how to play. They gave me a pamphlet. I read it. I said give me some chips (About $138...my blackjack money) 15 hours later I was only down 50 bucks... I thought not too bad. In all honesty though, I had browsed Tony Korfman's "Playing Poker To Win". It's a little $3.50 into book. So I had some idea of starting hands. I believe I had the book in my pocket but had not read it thoroughly yet. I actually had to sit at the table with the pamphlet and the list of hands sitting where I could read it! Nobody seemed to mind. Guess they though they could make some money off of me!
Well, I played at the MGM for another few weekends... I met a guy who made about 200 in the time I lost 30. He said to me he had taken some lessons from a local Pro (RicK Grieder I believe) and that I should read Percy's "Waiting Game". Well I did.
after that I lost about 50 for two weeks running. Then made 50, then had a 200 rush (all at 1-5) then went on tilt one week for the first time. Went from 60 ahead to 200 behind. Learned a lesson there.
From there I've had all kinds of up and down swings at various limits. Sometimes I've lost a few hundred at a low limit, moved up a notch a made it back. Other times I've made 200 in an hour or two and left.
But after summing it all up the losses have far outwieghed the wins.
And I believe I'm being "selectively agressive". Though at this point I don't know what to think.
As for day trading...seems like a similar set of concepts from the math angle. However the probabilities are going to be a little harder to pin down. A card deck has 52 cards and the probabilities are all within that universe.
But let's say your trading T-bond futures...What's the probability the Fed's changing interest rates next month? How much, which way?
Or a real world case. One day England decided to change the amount of T-Bonds they were going to hold. Totaly racked the market that day...most traders didn't know England even had the policy.....
I have a theory for day trading that goes like this, though it's as yet un researched....
Every day every comodity had 4 prices listed, open, high, low, and close... Every day an issue spends some time, on average, above, and below the open.
If you could buy the open, and the intraday volitility of your selected issue is enough...you should be able to buy or go short and wait for a profit to appear, then execute the exit trade.
However, you must have an issue that is volitile enough to cover commisssions, and slippage, and can get a reasonable shot at the opening price. Further, the historical data needs to show a fair consistency of spending time on one side or the other.
Anyway, the full concept is to intracate for here and I've not done the required statistical analysis. So I may be wasting space.
After this next career move, when things settle down I will finish the investigation.
Large Luck, Frank
Frank,
I'm only going to say a couple more things, and then I'm done with this Thread.
First, I believe most people are either Dumb, Ignorant, or Lazy. Especially when it comes to Gambling (Poker). Thats why some Intellegent, Asertive, Open Minded people can actually make money playing in a Raked Casino Game.
Second, what makes a person a "Sucker" is when they play in a game where they think they have the best of it when in reality they have the worst of it. They wouldn't be a "Sucker" if they realized this, and played in a Better game where they acctually had an advantage.
Third, If you are playing Poker to get a Thrill or Rush you may have a problem with Gambling. I know a player who shouldn't be playing above 3-6, but gos to Las Vegas and plays 20-40 because he gets off on the Rush of playing against the Odds more than the pleasure of Winning.
By now you should know if Poker is for you or not.
CV
CV,
The spelling of ASSertive should tell you something.
I'm none of the things you imply, and I get no rush from Poker whatsoever. I certainly get a feeling of tension when the limits are significant to me. I think anyone not brain dead would get that.
And you may be right, working hard for my money and then wasting it on ASSertive people is definitely not for me.
I think I'll look for something more win/win than to surround myself with a bunch of parasites that produce nothing. :-)
Thanks, Frank
P.S. I also agree, many are dumb, ignorant and lazy. Quite a few are poker pros.
You are right.
Get a job, any job. Enjoy it, enjoy the money, enjoy being productive.
Fast, do not pass GO, do pass all poker rooms.
Playing poker for profit requires a passion; without proper passion any activity is a chore. You are dispassionate, negative and critical at best. Give it up and move on to better things for yourself. You'll be happier, the poker tables will be happier and the earth will continue turning.
Good luck indeed!
Chris,
I not quite sure the light you intend your comments in. If it's as nasty as it sounds, I'm going to tell you the same thing I told CV.
Though first I'd say someone who's read 10-12 books on Poker and gone out and done it has the right to his opinions. I'm sure I'm correct. Also, that level of effort to not reflect dispassion.
Dispassion comes when things don't work as advertized.
Try a number of these things over your life and maybe you'll wake up from that positive thinking crap. The powers that be have made life a class battle. If you, as a supposed poker pro (or whatever) can't see that clearly, and how this game illustrates it. I don't know what to say. Maybe you haven't passed GO in a very real sense.
Also I've been working since I was 14. I've had jobs from Dishwashing to running major parts of some goverment entities to a number of positions in the Fortune 500. I also have degrees earned while SIMULTANEOUSLY holding down those jobs. So you, a card player, are in no position to critique me, no matter who you are. I don't care if you are Hoyle incarnate.
So I guess your right. I should move on to something win/win, if it exists at all, and leave you parasites to find more hosts.
The SUCKERS are the pro's. As in REMORA's or ticks or whatever. You are non producers. I'm sorry I even ever considered it. Not due to the losses, which I could write off if the people were worthwhile (and many were and are) but I've met so many truly poor examples of humanity out there I'm at a loss for words.
Thanks, Frank
Chris,
Just a few more thoughts for you,
1. Jobs are just as parasitic. Everyone over you makes more money than you on your efforts.
2. You must be one of those types with a "Shit Happens" sticker.
3. I've been though enough is Corp. America, Gov't, Education and a few other places, such as having a Secret Clearance, to have EARNED THE RIGHT to be critical. But then most of you raised on advertising and "The Power of Postive Thinking" find even just a statement of fact without a Madison Avenue coating to be "Negative".
4. Yes the earth will keep spinning, even if YOU were gone tommorow, or a nuclear war broke out (which from my days with a Secret Clearance I can tell you is more possible now than before, though less likely. Though eventually it will act up again as global capitalism makes resources scarce.)
5. Poker, in all it's "glory" is nothing compared to the stakes involved in other things I've been involved with. You'll just have to trust me on that.
6. "Productivity" really is the wrong word for what I mean. "Productivity" is really an exploitation index. I'd be the first to point that out. I've seen enough to realize it's just a word used to get over on workers. I guess I mean that the contribution of all the "correct" poker decisions in the universe contribute nothing to anything.
So go ahead, Pass GO ... and send me an e-mail in five years. Let's see if you went broke...assuming your not a silver spoon brat who has a trust fund or something.
Thanks, Frank
Sounds like Marx's Labour theory of value. Which is a lot of twaddle.
Dan,
Can't say I've read any of Marx's stuff. The communist manifesto sounded dumb enough for me to stop right there.
However, I don't think there can be any doubt about the upper echelon's being in a position to screw the lower ones. That just pure observation. Of course you might defend that sort of status quo if somehow it was benefitting you. Many a elite has used allusions to communism as a way of defending thier status and trickledown economics.
Just for the record...I'm a conservative and sometimes Republican. I have little or no alignment with the Democrats. For what it's worth both parties want the same thing. The power. One chooses to court the elite. The other the masses. Guess that's similar to quality vrs. volume marketing approaches. As always, it boils down to money.
I've been working since I was 14 so I think I'm qualified to comment.
So whatever it "sounds like" it true just the same.
Every contract in the world reads the same in essence :
"Big guy responsible for nothing, gets profits, little guy responsible for everything, and pays."
Don't believe me? Check out you're mortgage. More proof? When you learn how, go to Corpus Juris Secondum ("Body of Laws Second Edition" in essence) and check out "At will employment".
I'll leave other examples to you to see. I've been inside Gov't and industry. I speak from experience here. Not from some Marx inspired crap.
So bottom line. I've said what I've seen and participated in and I can't comment about Marx because I flat out don't know.
Thanks, Frank
A word about Wilson software: I am one of the proponents of Wilson software. However, I would not for a moment believe the computer players to be tougher than the average fair to good player. I beat Wilson like a rented mule, on it's toughest level. I can't do that vs. real competition. Also, remember there are different levels in the learning process, six in all I believe. It sounds to me like you are at the stage of possessing information, but not being able to apply it, either with effort or automatically. Proper application of poker knowledge can only come with lots of experience. Plus, stop playing so many hands, dog gone it.
Dman,
What makes you believe I play too many hands? No doubt when I've gone on tilt I have. But my starting standards are at least a lesser set of hands than say Percy (or any of the beginners books) mention.
Large Luck, Frank
Actually, it was an attempt at humor albeit a bit arrid. An earlier thread discussed the most common mistake in Holdem, which was playing too many hands. But by your post, you have acknowledged a major leak, going on tilt. Most players who tilt don't have enough skill to overcome what they lose when they tilt,IMHO. You may consider that you have answered your own question as to why you can't win. I will simply say while I have admitted that I am the world's worst serious poker player, I do not tilt. And I do not play too many hands,probably too few.
DMAN,
Yes, I did go on tilt in the past. However, most of my critiques have come since I put that leak to rest.
When I was greener than now (though still mostly green) an had just come to Vegas I felt guilty just losing $10 (that's right TEN dollars) in a slot machine. I had just come through some rough times and it still felt wrong or at least a waste.
Then I learned the difference between positive and negative expectation games.
So naturally I tried blackjack. However I lost one weekend and counted every card. So I decided that was a crock and tried poker.
Anyway, It's a more engaging game but and I like it a lot. But it's still a crock.
All the books out there toss in some lame, weak disclaimer and then go on to paint a rosier than reality picture. Though I guess to go through what it takes to write a book does take someone enamored with a subject.
They say that in poker the money goes to the better decision makers. That may be true, in some long term sense or even shorter. But, the decisions don't mean anything. Oh, they affect your immediate bankroll, but what does it really accomplish. So what if I can tell that the 3 of diamonds is next better than someone else?
The majority of the literature still tacitly admits 95% are losers. How many of them have read the books and spent hours at the table? I know I have.
Thanks again for your well thought out replies. Frank
P.S. What do the acronyms IMO, IHMO etc. that you use mean? I'd hate to misinterpret something. :-)
"IMO" is "In my Opinion" and "IMHO" is "In my humble opinion".
A couple of other possibilities is that you are playing in games that are too tough, or that you are playing in games in which the rake is too high.
Stud can be pretty bad from a rake standpoint. Because there are fewer hands per hour dealt, the house often rakes 10% instead of 5%. In the lowest limit games, this can be impossible to overcome.
If you're searching for the 'magic formula' for poker success, there isn't one. How you should play a given hand depends on far to many variables with too many unknowns. At some point, you have to be able to integrate everything you've learned about the game and make a judgement call, and that decision may or may not agree with the books for that given hand.
Not everyone can be a great poker player. In addition to learning the material, you have to have a high intelligence, you have to be emotionally stable, have good people reading skills, have a big enough bankroll, etc. There are many attributes that go into making a winning poker player.
If you'd rather approach things from a 'cookbook' point of view, I might suggest that you try your hand at blackjack.
Dan
Dan,
You make some very good points. I did try blackjack. I switched to poker because I thought I saw more potential to it. It's more interesting and there's no house bias against winners. Also, I've lost money to blackjack and still accurately counted every card. I's swear the dealer wins when the count is high as often as not! A high count often ends up with the dealers downcard being a 10 if not the upcard also. Additionally, a 1% edge pretty much gaurantees you'll need a bankroll the size of the houses. After all, that's about all the edge they have on many bets.
I still think a set of guiding principles must exist otherwise no winner could be consistent. He must be operating to some set of guidlines.
I must agree though, that not everyone can be great at it. Differences in the ability to remember folded cards etc. simply vary from individual to individual.
It reminds me of when I took the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test). I was ranked higher than 85% of all test takers for the three years running I took the test in (1990-1993). The test had 3 basic parts. Analytical Games, Logic, and Reading Comprehension. I literally Aced Logic and Comprehension. However the Games part was really tough for me. Other I met said just the opposite. So I'm convinced that you're on the mark. Perhaps I have no apptitude for games in general. Though I generally find poker concepts easier to follow than what was on that test.
So yes, I admit it. I may not have the pure talent base. However that doesn't explain the other 94.99999% that lose.\ It also doesn't alter the fact that most media sold these days is an answer to someones search for wealth, or that most published media about money doesn't work as written. (For example how many books on getting rich via foreclosures have you seen? How many foreclosure "millionares" have you met?)
So I believe gambling literature is on the same plane.
Also, It's not that I would rather approach things from a cookbook approach, it's that I believe the core winning strategy(s) cannot be all that difficult to master if you really new what they were and had them clearly explained.
Experts in all fields have shortcuts and methods generally unknown to those outside the guild.
Thanks for your well thought out comments. Frank
Of course I could argue that the cookbook would simply have to contain all possible combinations of cards. That however is not humanly possible to recall. The need is for concise appliable information.
In blackjack the dealer DOES win almost as often when the count is high as when it is low. The advantage you get from a high count comes more from an increase in blackjacks (both for you and the dealer, but you get paid 3:2), and from strategy changes you can make that the dealer can't make (i.e. increasing your double-downs when the dealer has a stiff card, surrendering more bad hands, etc).
It is always possible that you have simply been unlucky. I was a blackjack pro for some time, and always made money at it, although not very much (I averaged something like $9.00/hr), and I saw some truly ugly swings in my bankroll. For me, it wasn't worth it.
Poker, however, has been much different. My win rate is much higher than that, and the swings aren't too bad. I've gone through some long losing streaks, just like everyone else who has played for a long time has, but overall I see a steady increase in my bankroll. I taught a friend to play (mostly using 2+2 books), and he started winning almost immediately. Several other good friends of mine make a steady income from poker as well.
However, I had an interesting discussion with another player the other day. I had always considered him to be a good player, although not great. He's been playing for years, and plays quite conservatively. He said that he's never been a winner at poker. He has a separate poker bankroll, which he started at $5,000 several years ago, and today it's almost exactly the same. This suggests to me that the difference between the winners and the breakeven or slightly losing players is very subtle - the difference between one extra good decision a night, or a situation where a good player gets one extra bet a couple of times a night, or whatever. It doesn't take much of a leak to sink your game.
Dan
The difference is indeed small. As you say, a couple of more correct decisions an hour (even if the decision is as simple as folding on the river instead of paying off when it is obvious that you are beat) can amount to 2 big bets an hour. Taking a simplistic approach, in a 10-20 game, that could amount for the difference between a $30 or $40 an hour player and a break-even player.
skp,
See my reply to dan on this thread about this... I agree totally. And further, this adds fuel to the idea that a set of explicit rules for winning play can be written up.
A theorize that a winning player makes the correct decisions. These are based on some set of inputs and thier evaluation.
These can be elaborated on and concretely described. Thus yeilding the winning set of decision tables, or rules or what have you.
All the theory in the world may *explain* those decisions... but pragmatically, the winning subset of decisions can be explicitily described. Otherwise no one could consistently win ever. The winners must have some set of manageble rules they go by.
It may have to take the form of a decision tree with may "if ..Then... Else" type of constructs. But based on dan and your comments I'm now more sure it exists than ever.
I don't agree at all. Poker is a game of incomplete information. There is no A-B-C approach that can possibly win against good players.
This is why computer programs have yet to come anywhere near humans in poker playing ability. A good friend of mine is working with a computer poker research group at the University of Alberta, and they have a LONG way to go, even though this group has produced some of the best game-playing algorithms around for other games (I believe they wrote the best checkers playing program, and a couple of others). Poker is just much harder to solve algorithmically than games with perfect information.
Take a simple decision like a pot-odds decision. Should you call to make a flush after flopping a four-flush against one opponent? Even this simple decision depends on many factors - whether or not your hand would win if you hit one of your pairs instead of the flush, whether your opponent will pay off on the river if you make your hand, whether a semi-bluff raise can win the pot, whether your opponent may give you a free card on the turn, whether your opponent is drawing to the same flush, etc. ad nauseum. And all of these decisions are 'human factors' decisions that are impossible to plug into a formula. You just have to develop good enough card sense to feel your way through these situations. There is no substitute for experience and good judgement.
Dan
Dan,
Good judgment is a decision process. All the things you mention are decided by some set of inputs and prior experience.
I'm a systems analyst. As a professional, I see that everything you say is both valid, AND programmable.
It would just take a hell of a lot of effort and/or hardware.
A-B-C maybe not A-Z perhaps.
Somethings a computer might do better also, like calculating probabilities quickly and accurately.
I'd rule those out in my search for an algorithm though, as I couldn't do them at the table.
Anyway, I'm going to let it all go for a while. Some of the other posts have convinced me for certain that the general win/lose thing inherent in poker is not for me. Nor perhaps are the many who think it's the only way the world could be, as opposed tho how it is. Consider too that I make this statement as a conservative not a liberal!
I'd prefer a win/win scenario.
Thanks for your comments, they've been more thoughtful than some.
Feel free to e-mail me if you hear of any advancements in all this. It's still interesting. However, being a pro, even if it would free me from corporate america, just doesn't sit with my conscience.
Thanks, Frank
skp,
Dan Hanson wrote :
< This suggests to me that the difference between the winners and the breakeven or slightly losing players is very subtle - the difference between one extra good decision a night... >
The "correct" decision will not necessarily win the pot. The difference between standing and hitting with 16 versus the dealer's 10 in blackjack is not the $100 bet I just lost by hitting (or standing). Similarly, "a couple of more correct decisions an hour" in $10-$20 does not translate into "$30 or $40 an hour".
Etienne
That depends what those decisions are. If they are pot-sized decisions then this could well be the case.
Dan
Dan,
You wrote :
< That depends what those decisions are. If they are pot-sized decisions then this could well be the case. >
Give me an example of the "pot-sized decisions" that Frank (or the conservative, breakeven player whom you consider to be good and mentioned in an earlier post) is likely to make that will cost him $20 each hour in $10-$20. I just feel that it is more likely that they are making a series of small mistakes rather than one big one. Put another way, players of their calibre by definition possess sufficient judgement to recognize a $20 EV blooper.
Etienne
Folding the best hand on the river? This is a mistake that I see 'tight, cautious' players making all the time.
Tonight in the 10-20 game, a conservative player played heads-up after the flop in Omaha against a maniac, with a large raised pot (I think there were 5 callers initially). I watched this contest with interest - The flop is J96, with two diamonds. Conservative player has nut diamond draw. Maniac bets, conservative player raises for a free card (bad idea against a maniac), maniac re-raises.
The turn brings an eight of diamonds. Maniac checks, conservative player bets the nuts, maniac raises him. Conservative player just calls.
The river is another 8, putting a running pair on the board. Maniac bets, and conservative player throws away the Ace High Flush.
Now, there's a good chance that this guy is beaten, but the maniac would also have jammed smaller diamonds, top two pair, straight draws, etc. (Ironically, when the conservative player just calls on the turn with the nuts, it induces a bet from the maniac if he's betting something like King high diamonds, because he'll think he's the best).
So, if there's a 50-50 chance that this guy threw away the best hand, then this was a $130 error.
How many of those do you need to make to make you a losing player?
Dan
Dan,
You wrote :
< Folding the best hand on the river? This is a mistake that I see 'tight, cautious' players making all the time. >
<..snip..>
< So, if there's a 50-50 chance that this guy threw away the best hand, then this was a $130 error. How many of those do you need to make to make you a losing player? >
If there's a 50-50 chance that this guy threw away the best hand, then he has been unable to differentiate between an even money and a 14 to 1 proposition. This type of player is mentioned in TOP and HPFAP when S&M talk about imbeciles.
Etienne
I agree. Nonetheless, I see otherwise good players making this mistake all the time.
I do a lot of thin calling on the river, and I often get comments from other 'good' players about this. Many otherwise good players seem to have this built-in feeling that they have to be pretty sure that they have the best hand to call on the river, or at least that they are even money to have the best hand. I think part of the reason is that good players have pride in their play, and they don't want other players to think they are stupid when they call on the river when an apparent flush bets, and they indeed get shown the flush. But clearly, in games with lots of loose action it's correct to call on the river if you have any doubt at all about the status of your hand.
I think this is one of the biggest reasons why you hear so many conservative players complain about how they can't beat those loose, passive games. If they are making folding errors, then THEY are the fish in those games.
Dan
Dan,
Sounds realistic to me. It would make a great case study to figure out why you're profitable and he's not.
Since it's a game of decisions, some of his are different than yours. Knowing which ones would answer the question.
This of course leads down the road I've been talking about a lot lately. That is that the winners have a set of decisions they make that work.
Those decisions can be written down and described.
The poker winners, or at least the authors should present that set of decisions.
Of course if they did, and they were widely used, the game would then be a crapshoot. The money going to whoever got the cards that day.
No matter how you slice it the winning players must make decisions based on some set of inputs. Defining the inputs, the order in which they are evaluated, and the final decisions would represent the written elaboration of the winning strategy (or set of tactics or operations, etc.).
As an aside a leak is really just a bad decision that is made repeatedly. A decision is something that can be concretely described. Therefore, I speculate, a concrete winning set of decisions can be defined.
That you believe this indicates to me that you *aren't a winning player at poker. Those 'inputs' you describe change with every hand, and there are thousands of them. The decision making is a process that is dynamic and changes with innumerable variables.
One type of poker game you might be able to beat with a cookbook approach would be a very loose, passive holdem game. You can probably beat this game for a few dollars by simply adhering to a solid set of starting hands and then betting your real hands for value when you hit them. But as soon as the games get a little tougher, judgement becomes the main factor.
Dan
Dan,
Yes, in one post or another I admit to being down a few thousand. I am in the 95%. I've no problem admitting that. :-) I'd just call it an honest assesment.
However, those inumerable variables can be descibed and thus programmed.
Judgements are founded on something, difficult though it may be to describe.
If I stopped you at any point and asked, "Why did you do that?" Unless you said, "I don't know", it can be described.
Cookbook approach, probably not. Well founded strategy, I think so.
Well, I've decided to move on to other things. Recent experiences both on this post and in the cardroom lead me to believe that the "win by taking" philosphy is counter to my general belief system in peace time (warfare is a different matter) even though it is quite representative of modern business life in general. Consider that that statement is being made by a conserative, not a liberal.
One poster on this board suggested I "get a job" and leave the card room! Well, I've had a job since I was 14. I was hoping this stuff could free me to some extent. Truth is, it's just more of the same. Having worked in gov't and Many a Fortune 500 company...including several of the largest...I'm quite qualified to judge.
Thanks for your considerate efforts, Frank
If you think innumerable inputs can be programmed to give a computer judgement, I offer you your first assignment:
"Write a program to give a computer a sense of humor"
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary,
Good point. I never thought about the cocktail waitress thing! I agree there are "inumerable" things. But if you can describe them, and why you made the decision, as systems professional, I gaurantee they can be modeled.
It just might take tons of effort.
And some may not have enough impact to model.
:-)
Thanks, Frank
Post deleted at author's request.
How high do you have to play to justify paying $89 a night for a room?! ($119 on the weekends!)
I prefer to play 4 hour sessions, so that means to cover room cost only, I'd have to "earn" $22.50/hr. Making a minimum of $40/hr working from home, I'd need to make $62.50/hr. playing poker (not counting travel and other expenses). Sounds like at least a $15/30 game at approx. 2BB/hr.
"I prefer to play 4 hour sessions, so that means to cover room cost only, I'd have to "earn" $22.50/hr. Making a minimum of $40/hr working from home, I'd need to make $62.50/hr. playing poker (not counting travel and other expenses). Sounds like at least a $15/30 game at approx. 2BB/hr."
So, you would feel comfortable making $60 an hour x 4 hours = $240 and paying $90 of this for your room? Net, $150. (Not to mentin air fare, car and food.)
Is it just me or should the ratio be higher?
The point is that even at $15-30, you wouldn't be comfortable doing this for a living -- and would have to be a consistently winning player at higher limits. But you asked what size game to cover your room, and since I want paid for my time, I'm going to factor that into the equation. Obviously I actually "lose" 4 hrs pay a day were I to adopt such a scenario on a regular basis, whereas an 8-hr day theoretically nets $62.50 x 8=$500 -- adequate to meet what I believe should be the goal of a professional, that is to make greater than $100k/year. Incidentally, unless you insisted on staying at the Bellagio, most hotels in Vegas would not set you back this much.
Greetings:
I am really interested in Mr. Sklansky and Mr. Malmuth's opinion of "The New Guide to Starting Hands", a paper done by a man named Todd Mummert (I believe) which can be found very easily on the net and is specifically listed at www.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker. I am interested in your viewpoints of Mr. Mummert's revaluation of your startings hands, in particular his downgrading of the suited medium connectors: 98s, 87s, 76s, and 65s. Do you agree, disagree, etc?
Thanks,
GuangJoe
We discussed this before. You may want to look at some of the early archives. In a nutshell we felt that the model they used didn't do a very good job of representing poker. Specifically, it should be quite expensive if you follow their advice.
Corrections:
1. Poor Todd Mummert. I am the author of the new Guide to starting holdem hands referred to here. Todd merely volunteered to host HTML and PS versions of the study, so he shouldn't be blamed for the content.
2. Mason misrepresents 2+2's response to that study. To date, it has NOT been discussed although it has been dismissed. Since Mason elsewhere has written that the S&M starting hands published in Holdem for Advanced Players have been estensively revised you no doubt will have a leak in your game if you follow those.
Dick Taylor
Post deleted at author's request.
"2. Mason misrepresents 2+2's response to that study. To date, it has NOT been discussed although it has been dismissed. Since Mason elsewhere has written that the S&M starting hands published in Holdem for Advanced Players have been estensively revised you no doubt will have a leak in your game if you follow those."
I never wrote this. This statement is totally inaccurate.
Mason,
Facts never get in Taylor's way.
Tom Haley
Note from JG:
The following is reprinted with permission from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/
I have tried to format it as well as possible for the forum. Some 3-dimensional figures could not be converted to ascii text.
Begin Essay:
The key decision any hold'em player makes is whether or not to play the starting 2 card hand they are dealt. And, if so, how to play it. We present here some valuable new facts.
Our Model
We have developed these new facts from a new, very comprehensive, computer simulation of our own design.
This document is a Player's guide. It's meant to bring the practical implications of our results to bear. To be helpful to the hold'em player who may or may not care about simulation.
If you're a poker player who is also a technical person, or if you're just curious what a sophisticated simulation program looks like inside, then we invite you to ask about getting the complete source code of this program as well as the detailed print outs from a reasonable run.
For information about how to secure the source code and detailed print outs, see our web page at: http://www.evgr.com/poker, or write to us by e-mail or snail-mail at the address(es) on the cover.
This source code constitute the proofs as to the facts we do summarize here. Usually the best you can get from a poker book is the author's naked recommendations. No proof, no detailed calculation worksheets and certainly no source code.
Shuffle and Deal
First, imagine a simple computer program that shuffles a regular deck of 52 cards and deals out hands to 10 players, plus 5 community cards face up on the board. The "shuffle" involves picking these 25 cards at random (without replacement) from the deck of 52. "Dealing" is done simply by assigning beforehand particular sequence numbers to particular parts of a complete round of play. The 7th card picked, for example, is always the 1st card dealt to player 7, and so on. Randomized shuffling and dealing should be part of any poker simulation. The only thing unusual in what we have done is to have read about, and worried a great deal over, the quality (and efficiency) of the random number generator algorithm we would use. For more details on that, check out random.zip in the FREEWARE section of our website (http://www.evgr.com/poker).
Hero's Play
Player 1 is always our hero. Whatever starting hand our hero is dealt becomes the focus hand in that round of play. Focus hands are always played aggressively all the way to the river.
To illustrate this, suppose Player 1 gets dealt a pair of 5's. During that round all of the other players make four decisions: (a) to play or fold before the flop, (b) play or fold after the flop, (c) play or fold after the turn and (d) play or fold after the river card is turned up.
At the showdown it may be that everyone but our hero has folded. Fine, then 55's frequency counter for 0 river foes gets bumped by 1. And 55's win counter for 0 foes at the river also gets bumped by a fraction, depending at what stage of play the last foe in the round folded.
Depending on the HE Table environment, there will usually be one or more foes contesting the river. If it turns out that our hero has a winning-ranked hand along with one or more foes, then this tie is divided up proportionately. Let's say hero ties with 2 foes, then hero's frequency counter for 2 foes gets bumped by 1 and his win counter for 2 foes gets bumped by 0.3333. So, we continue in this way for several million (or billion) rounds of play, keeping track of the frequencies and wins for each condition being examined in the simulation. When the run is done, our program then goes through and calculates, for each condition, the likelihood of winning, or p(win) and saves that information as well.
Foes
Foes are always players 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and up to 10, depending on the particular condition. The foes our hero faces sit at 5 different HE Tables in the same round. Don't try this in a poker room. It only works on a computer.
HE Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 always have 10 players.
At HE Table 1 they play as tight as you'll likely ever find. Every foe assumes that there will only, on average, be 2.5 other players seeing the flop. He/she plays rationally, based on an expert knowledge of "old" facts. In this case he/she would play the hand he/she was dealt only with knowledge that it had favorable odds of winning at a HE Table with 3.5 players (since he/she will always see our hero's bet). If the foe was player 8 or 9, however, he/she would have additional information. there would be the cumulative prior action of all preceding players (our hero and other foes) to use as well as an expectation about overall HE Table conditions. HE Tables 2, 3 and 4 are similar to HE Table 1 except they are progressively "looser" in pre-flop play.
The idea of "looseness" is not vague in this simulation model. It, and how the foes play, consist exactly of the following rules strictly enforced (as only a computer can do).
At HE Table 1 if a player does not have any current information, that is no other player has acted yet, a foe will always assume at least 2.5 small bets have been (or will be) put into the pot, as we just described above. At HE Table 2 the assumption is 3.5. HE Table 3 believes in 4.5 and HE Table 4 foes assume 5.5. This starting assumption gets modified by actual play. For example, Player 5 always gets to adjust his/her overall assumption about the Table if Players 2, 3 and 4 all are in the pot ahead of him/her. The foe uses this "assumption" to calculate the odds the theoretical pot is offering for the particular starting hand he/she has just been dealt. This is expert play based on "old" facts. Armed with (a) the odds of winning at the river against the presumed number of foes for this HE Table, adjusted by the actual number, in case that is greater by the time this foe must make a play/fold decision, and with (b) the odds the presumed pot is offering to continue playing, the foe makes a rational decision whether in fact to play or fold before the flop. After the flop, the foes at these HE Tables will then play only when they have either a made hand or a 1 card draw to a straight or a flush. At the river, they will play only when they've made at least a pair or better. Missed straight and flush draws fold at that point. At HE Table 5 the players are as loose as possible. they play the classic showdown game where every player goes to the river. Except we provide here for 2 player showdowns (consisting of hero plus Player 2), 3 player showdowns (add Player 3) and so on up to a 10-player showdown (add Players 4 thru 10).
So, HE Table 5 is really 9 different HE Tables, each with a different number of starting players. But instead of numbering them as such we preferred to simply indicate the number of players at the river as being 3, for a 3-player showdown game, 5 for a 5-player game, and so on. That way, we can easily compare them with number of players at the showdown under the more realistic playing conditions of HE Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4.
If you wish, you can imagine in our study that Hero is sitting simultaneously at 5+8=13 different HE Tables, four of them where the foes play their hands quasi-realistically and nine of them where all of the foes play loose and crazy, but at eight of these they are playing short-handed.
Playing Position
Although playing position is generally thought to be the most important factor in selection of starting hands in hold'em, it is not particularly important to the conclusions we've drawn here.
We keep track of the fate of starting hands under the control of our hero. All other hands are distributed randomly across position. Our hero is always, in effect, acting "under the gun" but could care less.
If you wish to vary your starting hand selection based on your playing position, which is fundamental to the playing strategies advocated by noted poker authors, then you'll be using the overall ranking of each hand as a basis for doing so anyway. That's it! Or, at least, that's the beginning of our more detailed story.
Look at it this way. We've covered in our model a broad spectrum of HE Table conditions varying from very tight to maximally loose. We've also covered the issue of number of players in both possible ways: the number of players at the HE Table in the first place, and the number of good players out of 10 who play rationally and by doing so end up as foes at the river. This simulation is, we believe, unique
Aggression
Since our hero always plays aggressively, we need to be able to separate out the wins that occur because of the absolute winning power of the hand from those that occur because the winning hand folded before the showdown, at least for HE Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4. The proportion of p(win) that is left represents the pure power of the hand.
The first step is to find out how much of the total p(win) is due to the winning hand having folded before the showdown. This is shown in Figure ___ as fluctuations above and below the zero plane..
This is easy in the case of HE Table 5, because every foe is playing aggressively as well. Figure __ shows the difference between chance p(win), for each condition in our model, and actual p(win) accumulated across all 169 starting hands. the zero plane is chance, and you will be able to see that regardless of the number of players in the game, in this case, there is no difference between chance and actual p(win)s for HE Table 5.
Any fluctuation above or below the zero plane in the Figure reflects cases where a random hand played aggressively either picks up wins from hands that could have won if they had not folded (above zero), or loses wins because the hand was played too aggressively. That is, our hero should have folded sometimes (below zero). Somewhere between the HE Table 2 and HE Table 3 overall playing conditions aggression acquires value, at least against a small number of foes. At some tighter playing conditions aggression with a random starting hand is a losing strategy. At some looser playing conditions aggression with a random hand has positive value. Since the only difference in the foe's decision rules between HE Tables is on whether or not to play before the flop, we can see that when everyone at the Table believes there will be an average of about 5 players seeing the flop, or so, selective aggression can become an important factor in play. This increase in overall expectation can be dramatic, especially when only 1 or 2 foes survive to the river. Figure 1 also shows as the number of foes who play to a showdown increases, when each has an opportunity to fold, the less value there is in aggression with a random starting hand. In other words, the more likely you are to be beat.
Power
So, by subtracting from the measured p(win)s in our simulation run the effect of aggression, we are left with an estimate of the pure playing power of each of the 169 starting hands in Texas hold'em.
We turn now to see how well some of the conventional authorities and writers have done in the past when attempting to derive this estimate of power .. using private methods never fully revealed, even if you buy their book(s).
We will examine in detail the recommendations about starting hold'em hands in each of the following poker classics,
Hold'em Poker by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth
Winning Low Limit Hold'em by Lee Jones
"Super/System's Power Poker Course in Limit Hold'em" by Bobby "The Owl" Baldwin, in Super/System by Doyle "Texas Dolly" Brunson.
Sklansky Groups
Sklansky was the first poker author to have both ranked all of the starting 2-card hands, and then grouped them with recommendations about how to play each group.
David "Einstein" Sklansky (a nickname attributed to him in Doyle Brunson's book, Super/System) has been a professional poker player and poker theoretician for decades, and his advice is widely respected. As for the starting hold'em hands, did he get it right?
The Sweet 16.
Let's start off with the good ones. The top 16 ranked starting 2-card Hold'em hands are fundamental to solid play. They constitute only about 7% of all hands you will be dealt, however, so it's improbably that you will get rich by limiting your play to just these.
But it is imperative for good play that you KNOW what they are, and how well they stack up against each other.
Table 1 - Sklansky's Group 1 hands
AA..KK..QQ..JJ..AKs
Sklansky (actually Sklansky and Malmuth, which we will shorten to S&M to save space here) defined 5 members of Group 1, as shown in Table ___above. They also indicate in their book that the overall rank order of these hands is as shown reading from left to right. AA, that is, is the highest ranking hand of all. We confirmed, as shown in Figure __, that these are, indeed, the 5 best starting 2-card hands as well as that their actual ranks within the group are exactly as S&M represent.
AA and KK are substantially more powerful than lower ranking hands, however, even than QQ. These two hands are also the only ones with positive power ratings at HE Table 1. You will recall this was the "tightest" HE Table in our study. Under very tight HE Table conditions these are the only starting hands that should be raised for value. But, as we shall see, if you find yourself at a very tight HE Table you should probably get up and go find better playing conditions anyway.
Table 2 - Sklansky's Group 2 hands
TT..AQs..AJs..KQs..AK
The S&M Group 2 hands are shown above.
Since S&M indicate that their determination of relative rank order within the group is "approximately" as shown, from left to right., we need to point out a minor correction before otherwise endorsing the membership of Group 2.
The overall power of AK is slightly greater than that of KQs, so we would reverse the order of these two hands within the Group.
We confirm that the membership of Group 2 is the same as that asserted by S&M. Or, rather, we confirm that these hands rank 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in overall playing power. However, there is actually a small advantage held by AK over KQs, so our list (Figure ___) shows a correction in the relative rank order within the group, which is just a matter of fine detail.
Why Raise?
There are 10 hands in these groups, but they are not treated equivalently for purposes of decisions to raise (or not).
Although the S&M rationale for doing so certainly appears to be plausible enough, they do not present any computational rationale or other proof. One must take some of it on faith. As it turns out, however, there have probably been some errors made in these recommendations.
S&M give different reasons for raising (or not), including each of the following.
raise 4 (AA, KK, QQ, AK) in part because "..they lose much of their value in large multi-way pots."
raise 4 (Aks, Aqs, AJs and KQs) only sometimes in part because "..they do play well in multi-way pots."
raise 1 (JJ) in a tight game "..to get out hands like A9." the idea being that this hand also loses value in multi-way pots, or perhaps that it has less value at a loose HE Table .. which is a similar, but not identical idea.
Never raise1 (TT) for reasons that are not stated.
These are key ideas in current hold'em playing strategy. Since S&M assume certain difficult to prove facts that our model encompasses, however, we can put these assumptions to test.
We measure directly the effect of multi-way action. Also, we vary the degree of looseness of the Table in seeing the flop. So, we can separate out the effects of HE Table conditions and number of foes contesting the pot for each starting hold'em hand.
When we look at these facts for the 10 best starting hands, we get the results shown in Table ___ (below).
Table 3 - MAD Sensitivity to Playing Conditions
Rank..Hand..Table..nFoes..T x F
..1...AA....0.0....0.0....0.0
..2...KK....0.1....0.0....0.1
..3...QQ....2.3....1.9....2.5
..4...JJ....5.7....4.6....6.6
..5...AKs...6.1....5.3....7.2
..6...TT....7.1....3.7....7.2
..7...AQs...5.3....5.4....8.9
..8...AJs...9.7....9.0...13.1
..9...AK...13.3...20.6...27.9
.10...KQs...5.7....4.2....8.4
The mean absolute deviation (MAD) in the rank of a hand among all starting hands is a measure of sensitivity by the hand to playing conditions. Table ___shows MADs for variations in HE Table conditions, variations in number of quasi-realistic foes contesting the pot at the river and in combinations (or interactions) of these two conditions.
Of the 4 hands S&M assume would be most sensitive to multi-way action (AA, KK, QQ, AK) only one (AK) actually is. In fact, it's mean absolute deviation in rank (among all 169 possible hands) due to varying numbers of foes at the river, at 20.6, makes it one of the most sensitive of hands.
By contrast, the very least sensitive hands to multi-way action are AA, KK and QQ.
Of the 4 hands S&M assume "play well" in multi-way pots (AKs, AQs, AJs and KQs), this conclusion can only be correct if by playing well what is meant is that in each case the hand ranks at about the median of all 169 possible hands in sensitivity to multi-way action.
These hands that are presumed to "play well" in multi-way pots do NOT increase in relative value with increasing multi-way action at all, as many current poker players are inclined to believe.
S&M ignore TT and reserve a special status for JJ in terms of multi-way action. Yet, neither of these hands seem particularly sensitive to multi-way action and it is difficult therefore to take those recommendations too seriously.
Table 4 - Mean Rank Order of Hands
Number of Players at River
Rank.......2.....3.....4.....5.....6
1...AA....1.0...1.0...1.0...1.0...1.0
2...KK....2.0...2.0...2.0...2.0...2.0
3...QQ....3.0...3.0...3.0...3.0...3.0
4...JJ...14.4...4.8...4.4...4.3...4.0
5...AKs...5.0...5.4...5.4...7.2..26.6
6...TT...26.4..11.0...8.0...6.0...5.8
7...AQs...9.2...8.6...8.6..11.8..33.0
8...AJs...9.2...8.6...8.6..11.8..33.0
9...AK....7.5...7.8..10.0..26.2..40.0
10..KQs..11.2..12.2..18.2..18.0..20.0
Another way to look at these assumptions is to show the mean rank order of each hand for 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 foes at the river, as shown in Table ___ (above). S&M ignore TT, but it actually benefits from multi-way action, as does JJ. We would therefore urge you to consider raising these hands for value if the raise is not likely to drive out foes in a loose game
Five of these hands are particularly vulnerable to heavy multi-way action, the kind that increases the likelihood of 6 or more foes playing to a showdown (Aks, AQs, AJs, KQs and AK). With moderately loose showdown action they are neither especially sensitive, one way or the other.
One hand, AK, suffers tremendously with nearly every additional foe who plays to a showdown. This is the only hand in the group that should be raised pre-emptively in an effort to weed out the competition.
With these changes, then, we would recommend a re-write of the pre-flop raising recommendations for Sklansky Group 1 and Group 2 starting hold'em hands.
Table 5 - Sklansky Group 3 Hands
99 *JTs QJs KJs ATs AQ
There are 6 members of S&M Group 3, as shown in Table __ (above).
One hand, JTs, doesn't belong in the group. But KTs does. Also, the rank order of each hand in the Group is slightly different than Sklansky suggested. These changes have been reflected in Figure __ which is the rank ordered power hands that fall in the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th and 16th overall. positions
This discrepancy has the following potential impact on player strategy. S&M recommend playing only Group 1-3 hands in a tough game from early position. If you follow this recommendation, you should fold JTs from an early position in a tough game, and start playing KTs instead.
So, that's it for the Sweet 16. Did Sklansky get them right? In terms of group membership, only 1 hand out of the 16 needed to be replaced, although error of ranking within groups tended to increase. In fact, as we shall see, this error becomes even greater as we move down into the area of Expert playing hands. In terms of stated rationale for various raising/calling strategies, however, there was considerable error among these very best of hands.
The Expert 24 and the Medium Suited Connector Myth
When we add the next highest ranking 8 cards to the Sweet 16, we reach what we consider to be the smallest playable subset of starting hands. In doing so, however, we encounter what we have chosen to call the "Medium Suited Connector myth." Like most myths, it contains some elements of truth. But the truth has been blown way out of proportion.
Figure 6 - Sklansky Group 4 Hands
*T9s KQ 88 QTs *98s *J9s AJ *KTs
There are four hands in S&M's Group 4 that do not belong. In the case of one of these, KTs, it got moved up to Group 3 and was replaced by JTs, which was demoted from Group 3. This was a relatively minor adjustment in hand rankings.
But we are left with 3 suited connectors (T9s, 98s and J9s), the valiues of which keep being rediscovered every year or so, but whose true values have not been put in perspective in practical terms for the regular hold'em poker player. We need to consider here the overall context, to look at all of the medium suited connectors together, to gain some perspective.
Figure ___ shows the rank for each medium (and small) suited connector, starting with T9s and working down through 54s. The mean rank of these hands is shown for each of Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
You will note that the classic 10-player showdown results (T5) show a very simple linear deterioration in the relative rank order of these starting suited connectors as the value of the top card gets smaller. This was discovered sometime around 1972. A few years later several people discovered that some of the smaller suited connectors (such as 87s and 76s) sometimes played better than their larger cousins (such as T9s). This reversal of the 10-player showdown results was both surprising, and held as a professional holdem players' trade secret by many. This U-Shaped effect is clearly visible in the HE Table 1 results shown in Figure____.
The problem is that playing in the extremely tight games, such as those we characterize here by HE Table 1, it is difficult to make any money: the pots are small (which is the natural consequence of tight players), and these medium suited connectors, even though they improve dramatically, never rise to the level of being powerhouse starting hands. In fact, as the games become looser there is a clear trend visible in Table ___ for the showdown linearities to dominate. Even if you think you're playing under the ideal conditions for medium suited connectors, if one player leaves or a new player joins the game your assumption may suddenly no longer be correct and inertia could easily lead you to end up playing what are just relatively weak hands.
Another thing that is potentially dangerous is to rely on various "probe" software packages common available today that allow you to pit one hand against another to a showdown, seeing which of them is better. These would be fine, and the results reliable, so long as there do not exist any underlying non-linearities of the type visible in Figure __ for medium suited connectors. But we DO know that assumption is incorrect, and it has been known to be incorrect in the poker literatures for decades. We recommend that, unless you already know the answers to the questions you're seeking and simply want to be precise, you do NOT use isolated one-on-one type simulations at all (the U-Shaped function we've already discussed is not the only one in the underlying fabric of Texas hold'em).
Turning back now to the Sklansky Group 4 hands, we need to replace the 4 deviant hands by better ones.(A8s, A9s, JTs and AT). Because the T4 and T5 HE Table conditions still have positive power ratings two of these (J9s and T9s) have a high enough overall power index to just be demoted to Group 5 while the third (98s) slips down to Group 6.
The Starving Play List
We come now to our first overall recommendations regarding limit hold'em play strategies. We call it the "Starving Play List" because it should be appropriate to the most risk-averse, or conservative player.
Pick your 10-player HE Table carefully. Look for players who seem to be having fun, and where at least half of the stay in to see the flop. Table selection is a major determinant of how well your hands will hold up in the long run. Play only the top 24 hands, as shown in Figure__ thru__. Be sure to note that the figures indicate groups rather than particular hands. That is AdTd means ATs, and KcQh means any KQ except KQs, etc.
In poker, when every other player knows what your hand is, you suffer tremendous disadvantage. Just playing good cards is not sufficient, nor is raising AA and KK only. You need a carefully planned but hard to read raising strategy. We suggest using what we call a "parallel game" plan.
Suppose you play lower limit games like 3/6, 5/10/, 6/12 and 10/20, but would play other games such as 6/6 or 10/10 if they were spread. You can decide to play two different limit games at the same time, at the same table, simply by having the following betting strategy: play hands 1-12 at a $10/$10 HE Table, while hands 13-24 you play at the $5/$10 HE Table. This is quite simple. You just decide to always raise hands 1-12, and never raise hands 13-24. Otherwise, make appropriate other adjustments in your response to raises by other players before the flop. You can also adjust the fraction of hands you play that you'll raise, and so on. The Starving Play List will allow you to play about 3 hands per hour under typical playing conditions. Very conservative, but it will require a great deal of patience.
The Tight Expert's Play List
If you'd like to play more hands, and are an experienced player, then consider the "Tight Expert's Play List", which adds the hands that belong to a corrected Sklansky's Group 5. The original members of Sklansky's Group 5, arranged in the order suggested by S&M, are shown below in Table __.
Figure 9 - Sklansky's Group 5 Hands 77 *87s Q9s *T8s KJ QJ JT *76s *97s *A9s *A8s A7s A6s A5s A4s A3s A2s *65s
There are 18 hands in Sklansky's Group 5. But 7 of these belong elsewhere. Two (A9s, A8s) deserved promotion to Group 4, as we have already seen. The five remaining hands are weak suited connectors, and "semi-connectors" (T8s, 97s, 87s, 76s and 65s). We have already discussed the error associated with over-rating the nonlinearities in these hands, especially 87s and 76s. But these are also among the most sensitive hands to both number of foes and overall tight/loose HE Table playing conditions. 65s, for example, ranks 25th (out of 169) in sensitivity to HE Table conditions, 24th in sensitivity to number of foes at the river and 29th in sensitivity to interactions between these factors. Indirectly, as a result of their (a) extreme power nonlinearities and (b) extreme sensitivity to HE Table playing conditions, these hands drop out of the top 84 starting hands entirely. In typical limit hold'em casino games at mid and lower limits, these hands should be folded by the advanced player. The three others (87s, 97s and T8s) are simply demoted. T8s goes to Group 6 while 87s and 97s get moved down to Group 7.
The 7 additions to Group 5 include two (KT and QT) that are obviously closely related to three original members (KJ, QJ and JT) and five higher ranking suited hands (K9s, K8s, Q8s, T9s and J9s) than the small suited connectors they replace. This is because with suited starting hands the rank of the kicker is usually more important than the connected-ness of their values, although with T9s both factors may combine.
If you otherwise follow the S&M guides to poker strategy, some of these changes would impact how you play the game. For example, "some hands, such as 87s..play well against many opponents. If there are usually a lot of callers ... these types of hands become playable in early position. However, over playing these hands up front (and most players do just that) can get you into trouble." (S&M, p.15).
87s is now a Group 7 hand, which S&M do not recommend for play in early position at all. The problem, of course, is that recommending the play of 87s against "many" opponents, without specifying exactly how many or the consequences of not counting accurately, is not clear guidance. S&M do, however, provide themselves an out by the observation that "most players" over play these hands. We would agree both with (a) not playing Group 7 hands in early position and (b) that anybody who does is over playing them.
You will be dealt one of these starting hands, ranked 1 to 42 globally, about once in every 5 hands. This means you should be involved in about 6 pots per hour. We consider this to be the Tight Expert's Play List.
Our rankings take into account the pressure that you can put on someone or that someone can put on you on fourth and fifth st, So for example K10 has the problem that making top pair only, puts it in a difficult situation on later rounds. On the other hand 98s when it does win, usually wins with a hand that gives it betting power. It is NOT simply that it does better in a multiway pot. One way to see this is to compare K10 s with 98s if you are thinking of calling a raise in a nolimit holdem game. Good players would prefer 98 even head up. Do these other rankings take these factors into account?
Post deleted at author's request.
The Tight Expert's Play List
If you'd like to play more hands, and are an experienced player, then consider the "Tight Expert's Play List", which adds the hands that belong to a corrected Sklansky's Group 5. The original members of Sklansky's Group 5, arranged in the order suggested by S&M, are shown below in Table __.
Figure 9 - Sklansky's Group 5 Hands 77 *87s Q9s *T8s KJ QJ JT *76s *97s *A9s *A8s A7s A6s A5s A4s A3s A2s *65s
There are 18 hands in Sklansky's Group 5. But 7 of these belong elsewhere. Two (A9s, A8s) deserved promotion to Group 4, as we have already seen. The five remaining hands are weak suited connectors, and "semi-connectors" (T8s, 97s, 87s, 76s and 65s). We have already discussed the error associated with over-rating the nonlinearities in these hands, especially 87s and 76s. But these are also among the most sensitive hands to both number of foes and overall tight/loose HE Table playing conditions. 65s, for example, ranks 25th (out of 169) in sensitivity to HE Table conditions, 24th in sensitivity to number of foes at the river and 29th in sensitivity to interactions between these factors. Indirectly, as a result of their (a) extreme power nonlinearities and (b) extreme sensitivity to HE Table playing conditions, these hands drop out of the top 84 starting hands entirely. In typical limit hold'em casino games at mid and lower limits, these hands should be folded by the advanced player. The three others (87s, 97s and T8s) are simply demoted. T8s goes to Group 6 while 87s and 97s get moved down to Group 7.
The 7 additions to Group 5 include two (KT and QT) that are obviously closely related to three original members (KJ, QJ and JT) and five higher ranking suited hands (K9s, K8s, Q8s, T9s and J9s) than the small suited connectors they replace. This is because with suited starting hands the rank of the kicker is usually more important than the connected-ness of their values, although with T9s both factors may combine.
If you otherwise follow the S&M guides to poker strategy, some of these changes would impact how you play the game. For example, "some hands, such as 87s..play well against many opponents. If there are usually a lot of callers ... these types of hands become playable in early position. However, over playing these hands up front (and most players do just that) can get you into trouble." (S&M, p.15).
87s is now a Group 7 hand, which S&M do not recommend for play in early position at all. The problem, of course, is that recommending the play of 87s against "many" opponents, without specifying exactly how many or the consequences of not counting accurately, is not clear guidance. S&M do, however, provide themselves an out by the observation that "most players" over play these hands. We would agree both with (a) not playing Group 7 hands in early position and (b) that anybody who does is over playing them.
You will be dealt one of these starting hands, ranked 1 to 42 globally, about once in every 5 hands. This means you should be involved in about 6 pots per hour. We consider this to be the Tight Expert's Play List.
The Professional's Play List
We turn now to Sklansky's Group 6 hands, as shown in Table __ below.
Table 6 - Sklansky's Group 6 Hands
66 *AT *55 *86s *KT *QT *54s *K9s J8s
There are 9 members of S&M's original Group 6. Four of these have already been promoted: AT to Group 4, and three (K9s, KT and QT) up to Group 5. One (55) deserves demotion to Group 7. A medium 1 gap suited connector (86s) is dropped from the list of playable hands entirely. It has a power profile across HE Table conditions similar to those discussed earlier as Group 5 deviant suited connectors. Also, it's the 86th ranking hand overall.
We've replaced these 7 changes with the highest available power ratings (T8s, K7s, 98s, A9, K6s, K5s and A8). Some of these are demotions from higher Sklansky Groups as described previously. These starting hands, ranking from 1 up to 51, constitute 24% of all starting hands. If you follow this Professional's Play List, you'll bet in about 1/4th of the pots at your HE Table. But, choose your HE Table with care. Leave tight games or change your strategy.
The Savvy Gambler's Play List
We turn now to Sklansky's original Group 7 hands, as shown below in Table ___.
Table 7 - Sklansky's Group 7 Hands
*44 J9 *43s *75s T9 *33 *98 *64s *22 *K8s *K7s *K6s *K5s K4s K3s K2s Q8s
There are 17 hands in this Group. Unfortunately, 11 of these do not belong here. The two low pairs, 22 and 33 are not worth playing. Group 8. They have been dropped from all our play lists entirely. Neither are the small suited connectors, 64s, 43s, 75s or the connector 98.. The pair, 44, is demoted down to Group 8. Suited medium Kx's have been under valued by S&M, and each of these deserves promotion out of Group 7: K8s up to Group 5, while K7s, K6s and K5s were promoted up to Group 6. S&M had originally placed all Kxs from K2s through K8s into this single Group.
We also recommend a slightly different playing strategy with the corrected Group 7 hands. S&M recommend Group 7 only when you're on the Button, with one or more callers in front. In particular, they recommend raising with the small pairs or small suited connectors. But all of these hands have either moved down to Group 8 or taken entirely off the play lists. Each depended on hitting the flop with trips or a flush/straight draw. It turns out, however, there is more value in hoping to hit the flop for a King-high flush draw.
If there is merit in the S&M strategy for Button raises with Group 7 hands in general, then, you should consider each of these hands for the following decision paths: either call unraised pots in late position, raise an unraised pot from the Button or otherwise fold these Group 7 hands. If you've played one then wait for the flop and, if you haven't made a hand such as a flush draw, trips or two pair, fold.
The Savvy Gambler will have these hands in his/her Play List knowing both that they are good hands with a good flop, that foes generally discount the likelihood you'll be holding them thus encouraging action when the flop doesn't look too scary, and he/she will have the iron discipline to discard them on those many rounds when the flop goes elsewhere. The gambling part of this Play List is in the need to pray, or otherwise invoke the Poker Gods, for a suitable flop more than with hands in the other groups. By adopting the Savvy Gambler's Play List, without regard to your position, you would on average, participate in about 1/3rd of all pots at your HE Table. The actual number will fall in the range of 1/4rd up to 1/3rd because of raising by other players and your opportunities for late play of these hands. As is true in general, of course, stay away from very tight HE Tables.
The Gambler's Play List
We turn now to the Group 8 hands which, when added to all of the previous Play Lists, constitute up to 44% of all hands dealt in Texas Hold'em.
Table 8 - Sklansky Group 8 Hands
*87 *53s *A9 *Q9 *76 *42s *32s *96s *85s J8 *J7s *65 *54 *74s *K9 T8
There are 16 hands in S&M's original Group 8. Of these, only 2 belong in the group. Four hands deserved promotion: A9 was moved to Group 6, while K9, Q9, and J7s were moved to Group 7. Otherwise, all of the remaining changes are demotions out of the Play Lists entirely. Examples are the medium connectors 87, 76, 65 and 54, and the small suited connectors 53s, 42s and 32s. While these hands can sometimes hit ideal flops, and might be played occasionally for surprise value, they are not robust enough overall for us to recommend their play even on the Gambler's List.
The Jones' Combinations
Lee Jones, in his book "Winning Low Limit Hold'em," does not rank all playable hands, so we will have to take a slightly different approach to evaluating his recommendations.
Early Position
Raise with AK, QQ and JJ if "..it will limit the field." We would strongly urge raising with AK for this purpose, as we have seen. The value of AK deteriorates dramatically as the number of realistic foes increases beyond one at the river. But QQ and JJ actually hold up well, so if you raise these hands it should be for value rather than to limit the field.
"Always re-raise with AA and KK". Yes, we agree entirely.
Table 9 - Jones Early Position Hands
AA KK QQ JJ TT AKs KQs QJs *JTs AQs KJs *QTs AJs KTs AK *KQ AQ *AJ
The table above shows 18 hands that Jones recommends for early position play. If we assume that these would be the top 18 ranked hands in the game, then 4 of these do not belong: QTs, JTs, KQ or AJ. In their place should be ATs, AQ, 99 and 88. But Jones goes on to say that "..if the game is loose-passive add.." 99, 88, 77, 66, 98s, 87s, QJ, JT, T9, and 98 to the list above. These should be the 19th thru 28th ranked hands. Unfortunately, we show little correspondence with these recommendations. So far, of 28 starting hands recommended by Jones we would agree with only about half. This is substantially less than for Sklansky and Malmuth. We leave it as a reader's exercise to work out the details to compare our rankings with what we have to assume must be Jones' rankings.
Wrap-Up
We have, during the course of examining in detail the hand rankings of Sklansky and Malmuth, as put forth in their book, "Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players," updated and revised their rankings and reasons for playing or raising some starting hands. We've also presented five overall playing strategies for you to consider, in the form of Play Lists.
Table 10 - The 5 Play List Strategies
Personality.......Play........Threshold Starving..........11.3% .....Top 24 hands
Tight Expert......20.0%......Top 42 hands
Professional......24.0%......Top 51 hands
Savvy Gambler.....32.9%......Top 68 hands
Good Gambler......43.9%......Top 84 hands
Why not just wait for AA and only play it, folding every other hand that you are dealt? Because of the need to post blinds in hold'em, you pay for playing at the rate of about 4 ½ small bets (4.5sb) per hour, If you waited only for AA, you'd be waiting an average of 5-7 hours to play one hand at a cost of 27sb. This is a fairly good net pot to win, just to break even assuming AA always won, which of course it doesn't. Hold'em is structured so that you must play to win. Each of the recommended Play Lists should suit some hold'em player. But playing any one of them will require patience and discipline.
i'm so suprised that this thread didn't receive more attention. Thankyou Jim for making the information available. Instead oF reacting defensively to this informationDavid, you could respond by saying something positive about the PEOPLE involved, and then talk about how your groups are different. You can't simply dissmiss these people as having nothing to offer. If it is true that your starting hands have changed again, then let's hear why. To say that following these new starting hands will make you lose alot of money seems, alittle out there.It is really disappointing for you two to react this way.
Every now and then my friends and I play a little 7 card stud but with 1 joker added to the deck. Does anyone know the odds of getting a natural royal flush, wild royal flush, natural straight flush, and wild straight flush? I believe I have calculated the odds for the natural royal and natural straight flush correctly but am not sure. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Recently I thought that there might be some universal truths that could be derived from Wilson's Turbo Texas Holdem if one started from the premise that while the individual tactics might not hold true in real life poker, a carefully constructed test should expose the underlying mechanisms, the universal mathematical truths, maybe, and knowing these should be important. Anyway, I started with the simplest possible test and then let the results guide me to the next test. I thought I would post each test as a separate thread in the hope that some of this data will be useful for others to discuss. To start the discussion I have also included my own conclusions--although as an Anthro major I am certainly suspect when it comes to interpreting statistics. This post includes the first test results. All tests were run for 5,000,000 hands in a structured $10-$20 game with 5-10 blinds, no rake.
Test 1: 10 players, all the same person (Conan, quite a solid player). The other tests will be a bit more interesting I suspect, but this is a nice starting point.
Run 1: Button moving Result: 7 winners (+$17k to +$115k), 3 losers (-$110k, $137k, $155k)
Run 2: Button Frozen Result: SB -$15,600k bb -$33,192k #3 +$4,733k #4 +$4,799k #5 +$5,194k #6 +$5,432k #7 +$6,070k #8 +$6,494k #9 +$7,574k #10+$8,492k
My Conclusions: 1. The SB costs a player an average of about 38% as compared to the BB which costs 34. I would guess that the percentage advantage should be attributed to position--BB acts last.
2. The positional advantage, while clearly expected, is much bigger than I had supposed. An almost 80% advantage of the 10th position over the third position. The 10th position enjoys about a $1.70 (17%) advantage per hand just on the basis of position.
Puzzling result: Why are there only 3 losers (who are therefore quantatively higher)and 7 winners? I expected 5-5 or maybe 6-4, shouldn't 5,000,000 hands be enough to smooth this out? Isn't 7-3 a pretty strong skew to three players?
Darrell,
If the button is frozen, the same 2 players (SB + BB) contribute payments of the blind for each hand.
Regards,
Dave J
Right, Dave. The message that came from the frozen button though is that there is about a +8% incremental advantage as one moves away from the button. The position immediately after the button had a win amount of $4,733k and the furthest player (on the button) had a win amount of $8,492k. I was also surprised at how smooth the increment was from seat to seat. Doesn't the fact that there were ten players playing identically with rigid discipline indicate that this 8% increment is fundamentally accurate?
Re-do your simulations and this time include a $2, or $2.50 per hand average rake. With a maximum of $3. (All pots are not raked the max.)
<< Why are there only 3 losers (who are therefore quantatively higher)and 7 winners? I expected 5-5 or maybe 6-4, shouldn't 5,000,000 hands be enough to smooth this out? Isn't 7-3 a pretty strong skew to three players? >>
No. Due to the symmetry of your Test 1, there will not any skew IN EXPECTATION. However, no matter how long you run the simulation, there's about one chance in 12 that your simulation results will wind up with a 7-3 or greater "skew" when comparing winners to losers or vice versa (it will be 5-5 about 43% of the time and 6-4 about 49% of the time).
What you really should be looking at is whether the deviations are larger than you'd expect due to chance. They aren't. Your results suggest a variance per hand of about 6 (Big Bets)^2. After 5 million hands, this will generate a standard deviation across the players of about $100,000. That's exactly what you're seeing.
<< The SB costs a player an average of about 38% as compared to the BB which costs 34. I would guess that the percentage advantage should be attributed to position--BB acts last. >>
This is not the correct way to express these results. What is actually happening is that the small blind RECOVERS 38% of the $5 he posts while the the big blind RECOVERS 34% of the $10 he posts.
But it's not clear why we should make a percentage comparison rather than an absolute comparison. In absolute terms, the small blind profits $1.88 per hand AFTER posting, while the big blind profits $3.36 per hand AFTER posting. These numbers are both larger than the button's $1.70 profit per hand (after posting $0). These are the numbers that really need explaining.
The button does not post 0. To make some profit, the button also has to post the bet or raise. I don't see a mystery in these results, they seems about right. It is correct to think of the blinds as bets that are lost in this case. Perhaps you are thinking of the game situation where you would be correct to consider the blinds as just part of the pot and not a bet you made but in this context it is the correct way to account for the value of a position.
D
<< The button does not post 0. To make some profit, the button also has to post the bet or raise. >>
A "post" is a forced bet. The button is not forced to make a bet, and thus posts nothing (0).
<< 2. The positional advantage, while clearly expected, is much bigger than I had supposed. An almost 80% advantage of the 10th position over the third position. The 10th position enjoys about a $1.70 (17%) advantage per hand just on the basis of position. >>
This isn't the most illuminating way to measure the button's positional advantage. Some of that $1.70 comes from the $15 posted by the blinds, and everyone, regardless of position gains from that contribution to the pot.
A better way to measure positional advantage is by comparing the expectation of the button to that of the player under the gun. The difference is $.75 per hand.
Note that it is not correct to express this advantage as 7.5% ($.75 / $10). If we want to measure the advantage in percentage terms it must be done relative to the average amount risked by the button.
>2. The positional advantage, while clearly expected, is
I think with this similation of 10 Conans at the table and the button fixed, you have determined how well Conan's strategy utilizes positional advantage. This probably will not yield a very good generalization.
>My Conclusions: 1. The SB costs a player an average of ....
> much bigger than I had supposed. An almost 80% advantage
> of the 10th position over the third position. The 10th
> position enjoys about a $1.70 (17%) advantage per hand
> just on the basis of position.
Opinions polease: What are the most important Poker Skills one needs to be a great No Limit Hold'em player? Why are they important? Vince
Vince,
Mostly the same skills apply, but more value is put on people reading skills. Learning how much you can win out of a hand is important as well as the amount to bet in a bluff. There are quite a few more of which some others will add and more on this is back in the archives if you can find it. Good Luck.
I would say knowing how to suck your opponents in.
Along with people reading skills you need a lot of heart.
Along with people reading skills you need a lot of heart.
Vince.
You've asked a question that has no single, correct answer. Different NL Hold'Em games require different skills. In games I play in, I always look for the players who are willing to commit too much money with too little chance of winning. ( Like paying too much to try to make a draw) Gamblers will get killed in NL ring games due to taking too many risks with the odds decidedly against them. A second group that loses in NL is the players that need to continue on when they have money already committed to the pot. They can't seem to lay a second best hand down.
I play my best by committing my money after another player has committed his, by reacting to his mistake. I might play big hands fast from in front at times, but I'd prefer to limp or smooth call when there is a good chance that someone will raise from behind and create a pot worth going all in over. I don't like limping with starters that need a flop, hoping to see a cheap flop unless I have good position or a reduced entry cost from the blinds and don't fear a preflop raise.
I don't always play the same way in NL, preferring to play tight/aggressive at times and loose/aggressive at other times. A good NL player needs to be able to accept the fact that he will lose it all from time to time. When I lose the money I have in front of me, I simply buy in again and try to play as if I am starting anew. In a full NL game, if you look around and don't see at least three other players in the game that you know you can outplay, you probably shouldn't rebuy if you lose your first buy in. In a shorthanded game, a single player with lots of chips in front of him that you know you can outplay,is enough reason for the rebuy. Hope this perspective helps.
Big John, I was hoping (and expecting) for your welcomed response. From some of your comments ("Gamblers will get killed in NL ring games due to taking too many risks with the odds decidedly against them") and from some limited reading I have done on the subject I have come to a simple conclusion. One of the most, if not the most (although I'm sure, knowing your opponent ranks right up there), important skills a NL player needs is "Odds Application" (my term). I am stating this more as a question and conjecture not as something I have determined through rigorous analysis. AS stated I have no NL EXPERIENCE! By "odds application" I mean the ability to make the correct bet, raise, call or fold (correct decision) given the odds that the pot is offering for the given hand (situation). I know that "odds application" is kind of a weak term but it's the best I could do on short notice. I didn't want to say "knowing the Odds or soemthing similiar because I consider that knowledge and not a skill. Correct application of that knowledge is my point! Anyway your comments as well as those of other forum poster are solicited and welcomed. Thanks Have No Fear! Vince
Vince,
NL is a game of mistakes. There are some players who almost always bet only with the "nuts". They are trying to trap someone into making a bad bet, call or raise. It is fun even when you aren't participating in the pot as you watch players setting and avoiding traps. Players with predictable playing tendencies fare poorly in this game. Your stack doesn't erode slowly from a series of missed draws, it is ripped away from you suddenly when your opponent flashes a smile and pushes all his chips to the center of the felt, announcing his call or raise.
Odds Application: Making a decision based on probability and hope. More than half of the pivotal pots that develop in a good NL Hold'em game result in heads up action with one player all in before the flop. In a weak game you'll see more multiway action before the flop, but these games favor the tighter players and seldom result in much of a game. As in boxing, having only counter-punchers seldom results in a good fight. When you have lots of rammer-jammers though, it always makes for a great game as the money goes flying around the table.
When tight/aggressive, limit oriented players leave a good NL game they usually lament their inability to find a good playable hand when the big pots occurred. When a ramming-jamming NL player leaves the game, he is usually muttering about how much he regrets being busted before he could get anything to stand up for him. Solid NL players don't usually leave the game until it breaks up; they are usually lamenting about there being too few "scared" players and GambOOlers to keep the game fed.
I thought I'd post some actual situations I was in in the last couple of weeks in the local 10-20 Omaha high game. I'll give you the setup, and then ask for debate on the proper next play. Later, I'll tell you what I did and what the result was.
Hand #1: -------- I have JhTh9d9c. I call from early position with one other caller in front of me. Several other people call behind.
The flop: 9h6c4d First player checks, I bet, two people call, and the button raises. First person folds, I call, one other person calls.
The Turn: Qs I bet, person in the middle folds, the button calls.
The River: Ks What would you do?
Hand #2 ------- I have AdJd8h7h in late position. 5 people call the blinds, I call, and both blinds call.
The flop: Kc5h6h Big blind bets, two people call, I call, small blind folds.
The Turn: Qc Big blind bets again, both other people fold, I call.
The river: Ac Big blind bets again.
What would you do?
Hand 3 -------- I have AdKc7d7s on the button. 4 people call the blinds, I call, and both blinds call.
The flop: Jc7h4s Both blinds check, early position caller bets, two people call, and the next person raises.
What would you do?
Hand 1 - Bet - the button most likely has AA or 66. If she has KK your beat. If you only bet on the end with the nuts, everyone will know what you have when you bet.
Hand 2 - Fold; what's the problem?
Hand 3 - Raise - knock out the other players when you probably have the best hand. Raiser either has JJ or J7 or 44.
Wenatchee Max
Some comments:
Hand 1 - What would make you think the raiser has AA?
Hand 2 - It's not a clearcut decision. After all, you can beat a bluff...
Hand 1-Bet, and re-raise if raised. Hand 2-Fold. Hand 3-Call, then catch case 7! Frank Brabec
Hand 1: ReRaise on the flop and bet it all the way even after you make the nuts straight on the end. If I just called the flop (hehehe) I would check-raise the turn.
Hand 2: Either you mis-typed or this is a trick question. Do NOT call with a pair of Aces. Raise on a bluff? Why not! This looks like the best time to do so. On second thought, Axh looks like a reasonable hand for this player to have, so MAYBE your J is a good kicker. Bt a raise will get him to lay down Aces-Up. With your dead flush draw and no-additional value straight DRAW, FOLD was an option on the flop, wasn't it?
Hand 3: Fold quietly and NEVER let anybody know you layed down 2nd set. This fold is especially good since none of your other situations featured any body raising, indicating a particularly passive game; thus the raiser should have JJJ.
- Louie
Hand 2: A lot of players would certainly over-value this hand on the flop. There are lot of Omaha hands that look great to new players but are really lousy. I often hear comments at the table along the lines of, "How could I miss? I had a gutshot straight, top pair, a jack high four flush AND a ten high four flush on the turn! I was hitting everything!" And of course it's more likely that instead of hitting everything the guy was drawing to maybe 3 cards or was drawing completely dead.
Still, The nut straight draw is valuable here. The fact that I have two hearts in my hand improves it, not because I want to make a flush but because it makes it less likely that the flush will come in. And of course, I have two outs to a straight flush which is nice because you can often get 3 or 4 big bets on the river if you hit it.
As for calling on the river, see my other message. That's exactly what I did. But the argument for raising has merit as well.
Dan
Hand # 1- Reraise the flop. You have the best hand at this point plus you want to drive out the possible straight draws. Bet the turn, you still have a powerful hand. Bet the river and hope for a raise, you have the nuts.
Hand # 2- Depending on the other players I might semi-bluff raise the flop with 15 outs, 8 of them giving you the nuts, maybe a free river card if turn doesn't help you. (which it didn't) Definitly call the turn with $140 in the pot and now with 18 outs, 10 of them giving you the nuts. Fold the river.
Hand # 3- Reraise, Raiser may or may not have JJ, maybe 44 but you need to try to drive out straight draws and weaker suck out hands.
Comments or flames to my analysis are appreciated as I am still learning and have a long way to go. Tom S.
Hand 2 - I would never consider that I had 15 outs here. It's almost a certainty that hearts are no good unless I hit my straight flush. Given that, I really see this hand as pretty weak on the flop. Definitely worth a call, but I don't like free-card raises in Omaha - they almost never work, and I don't like giving away my hand on the turn. Also, there are lot of times where a card comes on the turn that would make you ready to fold whatever draw you had, and you'll wish you hadn't invested another bet.
On the turn my hand improved dramatically - with the other people folding I now had to consider that perhaps any heart would be a winner for me, plus I picked up the gutshot on the top. You could consider a semi-bluff raise here. However, a likely hand for my opponent to have at this point is KK, and if he has that then the semi-bluff is going to cost you 3 big bets.
I would much prefer a semi-bluff raise here if the board paired, especially if it paired on the lowest card. If he has a full house, you can drop the hand if he re-raises or calls and then bets into you on the river (even if you hit your draw), and if he doesn't have a full house he'll probably fold his nut heart draw and you win the pot outright. If he had top two pair, he might call on the turn, in which case you win if you hit your draw, or if you think he might lay down you can bet again on the river.
Dan
Caveat: Analysis herein provided by an Omaha neophyte
Hand #1
Checkraise.
When your opponent raised on the flop and only called on the turn, I would assume that he raised on the flop with a draw and was raising to buy a free card ( For example, he might have had 8,7).
He may have had a hand like AA,66,44,or KK.
He probably wouldn't call on the end with AA so you don't lose out on a bet by checking. With 66 or KK, he would likely bet after you checked but would likely only call if you bet. Thus, once again, it's better to checkraise.
A further advantage of checkraising is in relation to future hands: Your opponents will be less likely to value bet a medium strength hand after you have checked on the river.
Hand #2
Call.
There's $180 in the pot. Is there a one in nine chance that you've got him beat?...I'd think so.
This man probably does not hold J,10. If he did, he wouldn't be betting the flop unless he also had pocket Kings to go with the Jack Ten. Now, if he had King, King, Jack, Ten for a hand, he would likely have raised preflop despite his poor position. In sum, he probably does not have Jack Ten.
Thus, given that he doesn't have J,10, why is he so brashly betting on the end? Most players at this stage would check even a hand like trip Kings. His bet indicates that he may be bluffing. He certainly ain't betting a hand like Aces up.
All of these factors would suggest to me that this guy's hand is weak. He may have been on the nut flush draw and was just driving on the turn and the River. If I did not hold an Ace (and was in a particularly intrepid mood, I might even raise. But with an Ace and a Jack kicker (which is top kicker here, I would just call).
Hand #3
Fold.
I'm assuming that both the early position bettor and the raiser are fairly decent players and not just live ones.
The flop offers very few draws. About the only drawing hand that the bettor and the raiser might be in there with would be something like 8,9,10,Queen. Either player would probably have raised preflop with that type of hand. In any event, you are probably looking at having at least one of your opponents having a set. Is the early position player someone who would play 44 from an early position? Is the raiser capable of playing 44?...Chances are that you are facing JJ. Fold.
Your analysis matches mine almost exactly, except that I screwed up question 1 (see my other post).
One disagreement - There aren't many Omaha players around here that would raise a hand like 89TQ, except maybe in very late position, and probably not even then.
Dan
Dan, if you did have J,10,9,9 in Hand #1, do you agree that a checkraise is the best play on the river?
No, I probably wouldn't go for a checkraise here. Having the big straight come in on the river will often scare an opponent with something like a set into checking, and I lose a bet if I'm against a smaller set. In addition, if I did get someone to bet, they might not pay off the raise anyway.
On the other hand, if you bet you might get a call from a hand that would *never bet the river, like two small pair, if he thinks you are on a bluff.
I would go for a checkraise here if I had 3 or four opponents in the hand, and the opponent to my immediate left was leading the action. If I can trap 2 or 3 people for two bets it might be worth the risk.
Dan
Dan, Re: what would you do if you held J,10,9,9...While I certainly don't quarrel much with betting on the river, I do believe that a checkraise can often be the better play for the reasons stated in my original answer to your interesting quiz.
The situation reminds me of a play mentioned in one of Sklansky's books (I think it was Hold 'em Poker). That play went something like this: You limp in with a King in your hand. A player raises and everyone including the blinds fold. The flop is Kxx. You check and call. The turn is a blank. You check and so does your opponent. The river card is a Queen. Sklansky says that the proper play here is a checkraise. However, he does not explain why; he leaves it to the reader to figure out the reason.
Now, I think the reason why he identifies a checkraise as the proper play is because once you check, your opponent will likely bet for value any hand with which he would have called had you bet. If he cannot bet after you check, his hand was probably such that he wouldn't have called your bet on the river. Thus, a checkraise is better than a bet because not only could you possibly make an extra bet, you also allow your opponent a chance to bluff with a hand that he would have thrown away if you had bet. (BTW, if David is reading this post, I would ask him to respond if my understanding of the rationale of his play is misguided).
In any event, I see some parallels between Sklansky's play and the play of your Hand #1. Although, as I stated before, I certainly do not quarrel much with your suggestion to just come out betting.
One ancillary point: Our analyses of your three hands were quite similar. The difference was that I had time to think about my responses while you did not. I congratulate you for making these tough decisions quickly in the heat of battle. Given my lack of experience with Omaha, I doubt that I would have been able to do the same at the table. But this is what seperates great players from merely good ones. You have to have an appreciation of these types of tough situations before you even walk into the cardroom so that when the situations arise, you make the correct play more often than not and can do so WITHOUT HAVING TO THINK ABOUT IT.
Keep those quizzes coming. They are both interesting and educational.
Dan, would you raise preflop with a hand like 8,9,10,Queen in the games that you typically play in?
That's a little weak to be a regular raising hand. Once in a while I might throw a raise in with something like that if I think it might buy me the button, but not very often.
I don't do a lot of raising in Omaha from early position. The types of hands that are strong enough to raise with there are also hands that like many callers. I might consider a raise with a hand like AA99, if the aces aren't suited.
In late position I raise with quite a few hands like 789T, AKJ8 with a suited Ace, etc. Three big cards with a suited Ace is usually worth a raise in late position. Big pairs with any other equity are often worth a raise (say, something like KKT8, with one suited King).
I think I get quite a bit of EV from raising with hands like this. Another reason why Omaha is such a good game right now is that there are many players who think that you should never raise before the flop, or will only raise with something like double-suited Aces. So, when they have position on me and good hands they don't make me pay for it, but when I have position on them and a good hand, they have to pay double.
These players who only raise double-suited aces are also good to have in the game because when they do raise they are turning their cards face up. If an Ace lands on the flop, you know you're facing top set, and I can fold otherwise playable hands before the flop if they make second-nut flushes.
One caveat about raises - once in a while you'll find really juicy Omaha games where you routinely get 9 or 10 callers before the flop, and there is rarely a raise. In games like this, I don't want to upset the apple cart - if you start raising a lot, soon you find that those 10 callers before the flop have become 5 or 6.
Dan
My first post covered a simple test of a sound player playing against himself and showed the advantages of position. This test introduces a single poor player to a mix of 9 solid players. Reminder: The tests are run on Turbo Texas Holdem, 5,000,000 hands, $10-20 structured, 5-10 blinds, no rake.
Test 2: 10 Players, 9 are all the same person (Conan a solid player), and one loose player (Welcome Waldo)
Result: #1 +556k #2 +610k #3 +429k WW -6,277k #5 +938k #6 +794k #7 +726k #8 +821k #9 +738k 10 +660k
Conclusions: 1. Look for a game with a live one! Just introducing one poor player makes a huuuuuge difference. 2. Wow, does the position relative to the poor player matter! At least in this case. The number sure do confirm what has been said many time: "Sit behind the poor player". The player in front had less than half of the total winnings of the player in back. (+$429k v. +$938k). 3. Even just one poor player can make the game a good one.
Question: Would the positional advantage hold true if the poor player played a dramatically different style. What factors should be changed in the way a "live one" plays that might affect position differently?
This test used a moving button, right?
Yes, right.
If you check out www.playersedge.com, in the back issues you'll find an interesting two part article that where simialr simulations were performed with some interesting analysis as well.
I was catching up on some posts and wanted to respond to two things. One was on the "tells" thread. I was suprised no one posted on reading a players eyes. I have learned that pupil dilation is a 100% effective giveaway. I'm sure most of you are aware of this but for those who aren't, i'll describe. When a person becomes very excited, their pupils will dilate (get larger). This is a completely involuntary response. It is definately not something an "actor" can put on. I you see an opponent pick up a card, or looks at the board and his pupils get big you can be positive he is on to something big. The limitations of this sort of thing is that you have to be aware of what it is that could have made your opponet so happy, (weaker players may become excited with a hopeless hand) and picking up on this sort of thing will not win you any pots, just save you a bet or two (wich could mean the world in No Limit). I have found it damn near impossible to catch this (some players wear dark tinted glasses because of this). I would like to read some posts of people whom have succesfully used this. The other thing was on the posts about the next Hold'em book. Some one had said how they would like a book of just how would you play this hand analysis, as this was the type of post he learns the most from. I couldn't agree more. Being succesfull poker authors themselves, I would like Mason, Dave or Rays opinions on the following.
I was thinking a really good idea would be to base a book on a fictional session. The book would start off as if you just sat down to a game. Hands are disscussed, and later hands build upon the earlier hands: i.e. image you are presenting, picking up of sublte clues in opponets past hands. With the proper planning, analysis and creativity, thids could be one of the most effective learning tools on poker. Reasoning as follows. Last semester, I had the oppurtunity to learn about the "three domains of learning" i.e. the cognitive, affective and psychomotor. The most important in poker, the cognitive domain can be broken down into 6 parts. The first two are where most poker manuals stop. KNOWLEDGE (this is the core material found in most poker books) COMPREHENSION (the readers ability to understand the concepts). The next three are intelectually the most important, and are exavtly what this type of book would emphasize. APPLICATION (apply the material learned say in HPFAP to actual situations) this could be done in the casino but there would be no "teaching". SYNTHESIS taking apart and puting together the various componets of each hand and piece of information. This is the stage winning poker players want to master. The last part would be EVVALUATION: judging and evaluating new information and research. This would be the equivelnet of doctoral research in graduate school. Few players will ever attain this level of mastery. Sklansky has with TOP. Anyway, I would like to hear somew ideas on this. I think it would make an incredidible book.
On your first point, pupil dilation, I think you are correct. Early on when I first began to play, I could feel my eyes widen whenever a big one hit. I've worn a hat with a large brow for years now to hide this tell. When I sit in a game with strangers it is one of the first indications of self-awareness I look for...who's taken steps to hide their eyes.
On your second point we can only hope. I think your ideas would make for a very educational book.
Spitball,
I'm of the opinion that the hat or glasses routine is probably counter productive. Whenever I see someone with either, it arouses my suspicions and I watch them extra close!
Back in the last years of the Gardena Draw Poker Hay-day I used this tell surprisingly often. I have not used it in years. I suspect this is because experience players do NOT get excited when they make the nuts like the draw bozo's would; but also because I can see all opponents physical reaction with periferal vision, which I would not be able to do if I were focused on one blue-eyed opponent's eyes.
I wear light tinted glasses so the opponents cannot see WHERE I am looking; my brown eyes protect me from this pupil dialation tell.
Your "three domains of learning" looks quite interesting. Consider investing some time in writing about this with clear poker examples; I am sure it would be a very beneficial post.
- Louie
> I have learned that pupil dilation is a 100% effective giveaway.
Good luck seeing it. Not only do you need to be close enough, but unless the dude has blue eyes....
In this series of test I progressively added loose players to the set of solid players (Welcome Waldos to a set of Conans). I ran the results three more times: for a mix of three Waldos/ seven Conans; five Waldos/five Conans; and 8 Waldos/two Conans. Together with the previously reported test of a single Waldo with nine Conans I compared the results of the four tests. Not to be confusing, I did previously run one test with a moving button, but that was the only test of that type.
The first and most obvious result is that position relative to the poor players is extremely important. In every case a Conan sittng behind a Waldo had substantially greater winnings than did a Conan behind a Conan (a significant amount, about 15% higher). And a Conan sitting behind more Waldos in a row did proportionately better the more Waldos he sat behind. In the final test I had seven Waldos in a row behind a Conan/Waldo/Conan and the results were the same for the Waldos: Each lost progressively less depending upon the number of Waldos they sat behind (the range was -$1,667k to -$852k--pretty substantial).
In this series the Waldos saw the flop 38% of the time in the first test, 39% in the second, 40% in the third and 41% in the fourth. They saw the river 13% to 19% of the time. I attribute the higher drop frequency in the early runs to the fact the when there were more Conans in the pot they tended to bet more agressively. OTOH the Conans varied in percentage from 18% to 20% seeing the flop to 7% to 9% seeing the river.
The longest losing streak for Conans was one of the more interesting statistics. They averaged 132 hands in the game with a single Waldo and averaged 221 hands in the game with eight Waldos. This supports the belief that playing with looser players can cause a higher variance. The average size of a pot won went from $65 to $120 depending upon the number of Waldos in the game. This, I think, is another indicator of a higher variance in a looser game. Finally, Waldos averaged about 60% more pots won than Conans.
Conclusions: 1. Position seems to be much more important than I had thought before running this series. I usually sat to the left of a loose player if I could, but I will certainly make it an even bigger priority. And the fact is that sitting behind a loose player is much more important than sitting ahead of a tight player.
2. The average amount lost per Waldo was proportionately less as more Waldos entered the game. The Waldos benefited even more, percentagewise, in improvement to their ev with more Waldos in the game. While the Conans total $ won went up with the increase in Waldos, the improvement was not proportional percentagewise. The ideal game if you are interested in controlling your variance would seem to be five Waldos or less. If you don't care about variance then the more the merrier.
It seems to me that those who suggested that no fold 'em games were tough have some support from the data here.
It is interesting to me that this series of test so closely followed the best advice from this forum. Validation is good, of course, but being able to quantify positional advantage should also have value. To the extent that these tests were done in a rigid environment the exact results in terms of $won etc may not be too reliable, but the fact that the seat bhind the loosest player in the game always has an expectation of 25% more profit than the seat three seats away should be of significant value, and it was certainly news to me that the positional expectation was so high.
The other significant note is the importance of having a single "live one" in the game. Playing with ten equal or nearly equal pros isn't going to beat the rake, but adding just one loose player everything changes.
How many times have we said game selection is important, but we haven't defined it beyond that point. I have heard many other players say "Don't play in that game, Mr. X (or Mr. X and Mr. Y) is in it and he's too good". The fact is that this data suggests that the presence of the pros isn't the most important issue in game selection, it is the presence of one or more loose players that matters. (Mason, anyone, your thoughts here?) Play your solid game and get your share of the loose money, even against some others present you may not have the best of--just make sure that the "live one" isn't you!
I'm not sure you can draw that strong a conclusion from this test. Your results could be wrong because the coding of the players in TTH2 doesn't have them compensating enough for being out of position.
The results with the loose player in the game could also be an aberration because the loose player may have a certain leak that the other computer players have learned to adjust to. Generalizing this specific situation to every game where there is a loose player is just not warranted, IMO.
To get better results, try doing the positional advantage test with 10 groups of the same player (i.e. 10 loose players, 10 tight players, etc.). Then see if the correlation still exists. This will still be suspect though because you don't know if all the profiles have the same problem.
Dan
I did some similar positional tests and got the same kind of results that I posted a few months ago. Somone else posted that they thought a serious problem with the positional results in TTH2 is from the lack of much check-raising by the computer program. IMO this would not skew the results so much. In the example of all experts and one live-one, the computer experts will do equally little check-raising and a real life live-one would probably not do much check-raising at all.
Are there more opinions on these very strong positional effects that can be seen in these simulations? I know there are some strong players on here that make extensive use of TTH for other strategy ideas.
D.
Post deleted at author's request.
Yes, a HUMAN and a clever custom profile can take advantage of late position more in TTH than live. But the pre-generated computer profiles do NOT take nearly as much advantage, so I suggest that position is worth MORE live than in TTH million-hand simulations.
- Louie
Post deleted at author's request.
The lack of checkraising increases positional advantage. Since the profiles in TTH2 do not checkraise properly, I would think that positional advantage will be skewed on the high side.
Dan
Where can we down load the TTH software?
It is not shareware.
You have to purchase it from Wilson Software or perhaps conjelco for $79 ( I think that is the price ).
David
Hand #1 ------- First of all, I screwed up my first question. I had Qt99. The point was that the King and Queen on the turn and river put a possible straight on the board. I still bet, and was paid off.
The point I was trying to make here is that a lot of weak Omaha players will automatically check their hand on the river if the board changes and they no longer have the nuts. After all, no matter what a person was calling with on the flop, the other two cards in his hand may have hit some runner-runner draw. However, it's unlikely. When you bet the river, you should be trying to evaluate whether it is more likely that you are betting into a better hand, or whether you can get a worse hand to call you. Ironically, having the board change on the river in Omaha will often make it MORE likely that a worse hand will call you, since players are so used to seeing checks on the river from legitimate hands when the board changes that they simply won't believe you. I might have bet as little as top two pair on the river here against the right opponent.
Hand #2 -------
I called, and won the pot. Raising is a pretty good option here as well, but I think a call is okay.
Whenever the board changes TWICE on the turn and river, if the same person keeps betting all the way through his hand is suspect.
If I thought I was against two pair, a raise would be a good play, because I can get a better hand to fold. However, most players would CHECK two pair on the river against this board, because they are more likely to be able to win a showdown. If the person keeps betting, it's more likely that he either backed into a flush, in which case I'm paying him off and can save a bet by calling instead of raising, or he bet because it's the only way he can win, in which case my pair of aces is good. A lot depends on the player you are up against. There are some players that simply will not bet unless they have the nuts, and that never bluff in Omaha (this is quite common, and one reason why Omaha can be so profitable if YOU know when to bluff). There were probably 3 or 4 people in the game that night that I would have folded a straight to if they had bet the river.
One more side benefit of calling here - it scares the other players. A raise on the river, even if you show your cards, looks more like a bluff. A call makes it look like you can see through your opponent's cards. You are much less likely to have people take shots at pots you are in if they know you will call on the river with anything (of course, YOU know that this hand was an aberration and normally you wouldn't call with just anything, but they don't know that).
Hand 3 ------
I folded, and caught the case 7 on the river (-:
My reasoning for folding this hand was that the most likely hand I was up against was JJ. The other possibility was 44, but there are a lot more playable Omaha hands that contain a JJ than a 44. I don't like playing any hands where I'm drawing almost completely dead. Given the number of callers and lack of a flush draw on board, I thought I was looking at a set of some kind. And even if the raiser had 44 and the first bettor had top two pair I'm not in a very good situation if the other two callers have the straight draws covered. The odds are that I'm going to have to improve to win, and I didn't like my chances.
It turned out that I was up against JJ. The straight came in on the turn, the JJ hand had to call a bet and a raise, and I was patting myself on the back for a good laydown (I was certain he had JJ now). Then the case 7 came on the river. JJ bet, and both straights paid him off.
Dan
Any campaign be it in warfare or the poker room needs to include three main elements, if it is to succeed. They are Theory, Strategy, and *Tactics*. There was an earlier post re: next great poker book. There have also been posts lamenting the shortcomings of poker books, including 2&2's. 2&2's books are excellant. They thoroughly cover Theory and Strategy. Where they lack, where all poker books I've read lack, is in the area of Tactics. Theory and Stategy are great and have there place (tactics would have no foundation without them). But in the poker room, as in war, tactics is where the killing takes place. The reader with a Machieavillian bent might say " the writers are holding back on the good stuff". Perhaps. I do feel 2&2's authors have given more than others and I believe they have been rewarded with loyal readers,myself included. As to the next great poker book I can tell you what it is or at least what can be it. THE NEXT GREAT POKER BOOK IS THIS FORUM. And it is constantly being written and edited. So here is a tactic I used the other night in Holdem (it had worked for me before in Omaha). You might call it a bluff. It is a bluff, but a specific bluff is a tactic. I will preface this by saying I am known to be a tight player. I had Ah-Jc in late position and called a raise. Flop came Kh,8s,2h. The button had folded and I was in last position. I decided to play it as if I had the four flush. This is the key to the tactic working. Checked to preflop raiser,he bet,and I raised. "Raising" to get a free card?! One loose player called as did the bettor. Turn Js, I made second pair, but said to myself "I'm drawing to the nut flush". Which of coarse I wasn't. Checked to me, I checked. River comes 9h. I say to myself "I have the absolute nuts". This sees me through because loose player bets! Now I could say this player is loose enough to bet on the end having just made a pair, which he is. But it doesn't matter because I'm saying to myself "I have the nuts!" Middle player folds, I raise. My jacks beat the loose player's nines. Middle had folded AKs, in diamonds. Not because of loose players bet, but because he suspects me to be a tight "book" player who he believes made his flush. He later said it was just as well he didn't call the loose player, because he would have never called my raise. So that is my contribution to tactics- Ace only flush bluff. I sure some will be critical of it. I believe it can and does work-if you're against a player who feels they know how you play (your play being tight and by the "book") and you play it out exactly like you are drawing to the nut flush.
DMAN,
I'm not sure that Theory is essential. Some would argue that campaign (war or otherwise) has the following :
1. Goals and Objectives 2. Stategies (To achieve 1.) 3. Tactics (To achieve 2.) 4. Operations (To execute 3.)
So in poker it might read "
Goals and Objectives : To be a postive expectation player
Strategies : Be well rested when you play, know the odds, know positive expectation plays and make them, Play slightly tighter than the game, Call a loose player more often, respect the bets of a tight player, etc. etc., Bluff 30% of the time, employ deciet. etc.
Tactics : (This is the area we've been debating, to your credit you summed it up nicely by saying this is what many authors are leaving out.) Raise with a premium pair on third street, slowplay trips, execute a bluff, lie about down cards when asked, etc.
Operations : Drive to the casino, sit down, get chips, have a poker face, place chips in pot, look at card, ante, etc.
Theory would come into play when trying to build a coherent model of what works and trying to understand it. For example, there where many scientific theories that evolved long after the actual practices were well entrenched. They were only later understood and explained.
As an aside, a Theory is not neccesarily proven. When a theory reaches the point of assured fact it becomes a Law. (A page from scientific method and mathematics). So, If I'm correct, Dave knows this and that's why he chose the title "Theory of Poker" not "Laws of Poker".
Some would also claim that Dave's book exists at the level of Strategy.
Anyway to lift another page from military thinking, SUCCESSFUL Campaigns generally follow the form :
1. Study of the Problem (See Sun Tzu, Art of War - Chapter 1 Initial Estimations, for an intersting early version of this) 2. Planning 3. Training 4. Execution 5. Backup Plan (To cover your butt if plan A fails!)
This basic outline is layed clear in many books on strategy as broadly different as "The Art of War and Corporate Management" to "The Rogue Warrior Series" (for what it's worth though, the auther of that one seems to spend a lot of time telling us what a great special forces officer he was, which I'm not doubting, it just seems to dilute the message.)
Some interesting literature along these lines, in no particular order is :
Art of War - Sun Tzu The Prince - Niccolo Machiavelli The Book of Five Rings - Myomoto Musashi Warfighting (Now official Maring Corps. Doctrine, the entire book is on the web on the Marines Site.)- Admiral Grey The Westpoint Way of Leadership - Major Dinithorne Hope is Not a Strategy On Power - Robert Dilenshnieder The Rogue Warrior Series On War - Von Clauswitz Etc. Etc.
However most of these deal with much larger organizations that simply 1 poker player and the parallels probably really only apply down to the strategy level. Further, poker is kind of low stakes compared to some of the things these books are about. Also, most academic of strategy consider the first 3 to be the essential foundations to all writings on strategy.
However it is interesting that many poker phrases have made it into the vernacular, such as, "I'm going to call his bluff".
They say many presidents and civil war generals were poker players and that Richard Nixon actually funded his first campaign out of $6,000 of poker winnings!
Thanks again for your well thought out comments.
Large Luck, Frank
I agree. I hesistantly used the term "Theory", actually only out of deference to Sklansky's book. I have also considered that incorporating the concepts of The Art of War into a poker book "Poker as War" would make an interesting read, not just for poker players.
DMAN,
Yes, "Poker as War" would be interesting. There are some distinct parallels. I actually see even more parallel to "Poker as Politics" or "Poker as Business".
Poker is really a parallel for any zero sum (or somewhat negative sum, if it's a casino game) activity.
If you write it, I'll read it. :-)
Frank
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you that tactics are not included in Hold'em books. Bluffing, Semi-bluffing, raising, slow playing, etc are all tactics. Mr. S et. al. do a great job explaining what they are in HPFAP and 7SFAP. Strategies such as loose and passive, loose and aggressive, weak tight, tight and aggressive (effective in most games) etc. are also mentioned. >> "I say to myself "I have the absolute nuts"<< This statement of yours is also a tactic. But this tactic is a personal psychological tactic designed to help the user overcome the fear of the consequences so that he may proceed with his action. What ever works! Have No Fear! Vince
The concepts of free card play,bluffing,etc. are strategies. Specific applications of these strategies, what "play" or "move" worked and how it was done,is a tactic. In the example I gave, I used free card play not as it was intended, but as deception (to indicate to a decent player that I was drawing). I admit I got lucky beating the loose player, who wasn't paying attention. My point is most players are not willing to reveal tactics, for obvious reasons.
Strategy: A Careful Plan Tactic: Method of employing forces (chips)! Strategy: Tight agressive play is a plan for obtianing your goal. Goal: Win money!
Tactic: A bluff is a method of employing forces. A raise the same etc. Respectfully Vince
The only thing I liked about your example was the raise for value on the river against the idiot. I dislike bold-faced bluffing loose players who will call double bets with nothing AND drawing dead against tight players.
However, assuming that was a valid example of a "tactic"...
Notice that it was a little difficult for you to tell us what happened. Imagine the nightmare if you tried to explain all the physical and mental details of this tactic. Now imagine the volumns it would take to explain "lots" of tactics. And even if you did, the amount of "learning" that would go on is minimal.
I suggest, therefore, that if your definition of "tactic" is correct then the reason you see so few written in books is because it can't realistically be done.
The 2+2 authors have correctly adopted a superior and practical approach. The explain "strategies" and "priorities" and "relationships" and encourage independant thinking on the part of their readers. Then on the felt battlefield we are often able to create and implement our own successful tactics, and more importantly be able to understand WHY they are successful.
While previous books explain how one "should" play, I suspect that future books will include large sections on how real people "Do" play, and how to adjust profitably to them. I suspect they will also have more discussion on what I call "grand strategies" (maximizing the war) and less discussion of what I call "incremental strategies" (maximizing each battle).
- Louie
DMAN -
Congratulations on your well-thought-out tactic. Its a very good example of using how others view you against them. Could I ask you how often you've made this play? Is it often? Good Luck!
I've used it once in Omaha hi only. The example was the first time I attempted it in Holdem. I'm sure I will use it again sometime, under the right circumstances.
I am writting a book now - called the 'inner game of poker' from the myrads of books like 'inner game of skiing' inner game of chess etc. This area is much to be explored so the reader will make some money and won't end up a junkie. In poker as in many other fields the worst opponent is YOU. Most money is lost not DUE to the 'other' pro or expert player is rather than your own 'ill' actions !!! Also there is much abuse and distractions in life expecially in the life of a poker player (pro, semi-pro,casual alike) Even if one is a winner like Stuey - can be a loser in life as a poker game. So I write about this since I am a lifelong student of the Human condition, behaviour sience and neuro linguistiuc programming. Please e-mail me your first impression about this idea to andrasnm@yahoo.com
BTW- I will ghost write as my english is the second language and I rather have some English writer do the writting.
the ideas are 100% mine.
Does anyone know anything about Ken Warren's book "Winner's Guide to Texas Hold'Em Poker" published by Cardoza? Is this book's strategies valid for low limit (10-20 and below) games, etc? Thanks in advance.
While there is some useful info for the beginner (like take lots of smokes if needed as they are expensive in a casino) the strategy he proposes looks costly to me. Playing AK weakly regardless is not a good strategy (IMHO).
I think everyone I've heard of has panned this book. Check out Ken Churilla's poker page for a particularly scathing review.
I would not read ANYTHING from Cardoza if you paid me for it !! He is a self appointed expert on BULL SHIT !!!
The way the Home Game I play in plays High Chicago: Seven Card Stud High with the High Spade in the Hole (any of the three Down cards) splitting the Pot with the High Hand, or Scooping if the Highest Spade is with the Highest Hand. Aces are High.
Since every Pot is Split I would think that you would only Play the Best High Hand on Board if you didn't have a High Spade in the Hole.
Straight and Flush Draws go down in value since they won't be getting good enough Odds due to the Split Pots.
Now if you have a High Spade but not the Ace you can play Less than Best Hand, or a Good Draw since you may have the Highest Spade. I don't think a Jack of Spades would be considered High in a 8 handed game.
Thanks, Chris
Chris,
The game has no future as it pays to just wait for the ace of spades. Unless the ante is high when you get it every few rounds you get half a pot you will be up quite a bit. Its easy to figure out about how much an hour they will give you for sitting there. Since its a home game some other hands can be played for good public relations. The games I played like that sooner or later the player with the high spade conveyed it to the high hand so they jammed it, its just a bad game to have. Good Luck.
Slowplay the ace if you have it. You want to trap the weaker spades and induce people to chase for high. Also, call the game "Cards Speak", since having an ace to start gives you an above-average chance to win high and you will get backdoor scoops that you wouldn't have been sure enough to declare.
I played a hold-em hand the other day (4-8) at the local casino . At the time I thought I played it fairly well, now I'm second guessing myself. Here's how it went down.
I'm on the button with a pair of 2's. 4 people are in the pot when it gets to me and I call, trying to hit a set.
The flop comes Q J 2 all different suits. The two blinds check, and wild player bets, a weak and in my opinion unimaginative player calls, I call , and the two blinds fold.
Fourth street comes a jack. The wildman bets, the weak player calls, and I raise. The wildman just calls and the weak player thinks for a long time. He finally throws in an additional 8 dollars. At this point I'm convinced I have the best hand because I believe a bigger full would of raised me.
The river comes the last card I wanted to see, a jack. Both wildman and weak check. I turn my hand over and announce that my full house has been counterfited. The wildman turns over A - T , and Mr. weak turns over Q - T
At the time I figured that a bluff would certainly be called because someone for sure would have a pair in their hand, probobly a queen. Now I'm not so sure. Should I have bet representing four jacks? Any chance that both players would have folded? The weak player almost didn't call my turn bet. Is this a decision to lose sleep over or just one where it doesn' really matter what I did?
Thanks for your responses . Tom B
Tom,
Here is my analysis for what it is worth. Hope you have fun with it.
Tom wrote: "I'm on the button with a pair of 2's. 4 people are in the pot when it gets to me and I call, trying to hit a set."
There is nothing wrong here as you have sufficient implied odds, especially against weak competition.
"The flop comes Q J 2 all different suits. The two blinds check, and wild player bets, a weak and in my opinion unimaginative player calls, I call, and the two blinds fold."
Why not raise on the flop since you are not giving your hand away? There are a variety of hands you could have with a raise. Avoid falling into the pattern of waiting until fourth street to raise with strong hands such as a set. It also has the added bonus of getting a re-raise from the wild player, which may force the middle player to fold or pay extra if he is on a draw. (Note: At this point, you do not know that he has a jack and it will come jack - jack. You want this call from the middle player as he is drawing almost dead).
Tom continues: "Fourth street comes a jack. The wildman bets, the weak player calls, and I raise. The wildman just calls and the weak player thinks for a long time. He finally throws in an additional 8 dollars. At this point I'm convinced I have the best hand because I believe a bigger full would of raised me."
Maybe the weak player wasn't so weak. Most weak players would call without thinking. LOL.
"The river comes the last card I wanted to see, a jack. Both wildman and weak check. I turn my hand over and announce that my full house has been counterfeited. The wildman turns over A-T, and Mr. weak turns over Q- T."
My quibble concerns the fact that you felt the need to announce to the table how smart you are at analysis (I bet half your opponents don't even know what it means to be counterfeited!). Why would you want to show the table you are intelligent? This costs you money in the long run by discouraging bad play. Just turn over your hand and accept your fate with a polite shrug of the shoulders.
Tom concludes: "At the time I figured that a bluff would certainly be called because someone for sure would have a pair in their hand, probably a queen. Now I'm not so sure. Should I have bet representing four jacks? Any chance that both players would have folded? The weak player almost didn't call my turn bet. Is this a decision to lose sleep over or just one where it does' really matter what I did? "
I'm fairly certain the chance that any pair would call you exceeds the chance that a hand such as ace high would call. It is correct to check.
IMHO, you made a medium sized mistake on the flop (based on the correct play for the long run), but no matter what you did you would have lost the pot anyway this particular time. Remember that the fact bad players will have the opportunity to hand out bad beats is one factor that makes poker possible to beat over time. In this case it is what keeps the wild players playing AT up front and lead betting inside straight draws against four opponents with a board indicating almost no chance of success. It also keeps the weak players calling from the middle with hands that are drawing almost dead. You were very unlucky; however, please penalize yourself one hours sleep by getting up early and doing some good deed of your choice for being "politically incorrect" during the showdown.
Regards,
Rick
I agree with Rick's analysis except:
"I'm fairly certain the chance that any pair would call you exceeds the chance that a hand such as ace high would call. It is correct to check. "
You are getting almost 10:1 on your river bet.the river analysis should include the chances a worse hand would call (value bet) AND the chances a better hand would fold (promo bet). The result would probably be the same tho. I doubt that the "weak" player would call with the under pair. I would trust that one of them had a queen or was ready to checkraise a jack.
Check it down, tough luck.
Hope i'm never drawing dead,
albert
Rick is right on here and all should listen. The one thing I would add is that since Tom was last to act he should not have even turned his hand over. In most all cardrooms the first to show is the person who was first to act when checked down. I see it all the time and am glad to get the free look and explanation of how he plays particular situations. Good Luck.
Ray,
Thanks for responding to my post. The content on this web site makes me regret that I delayed so long before getting a modern computer and you guys (and gals) at twoplustwo deserve every bit of success it appears to be generating.
Here in Los Angeles County the rule is essentially as follows: If the river is checked down you show in turn unless you think you hold the probable winner, in which case you should show the hand without delay. I believe it is wise to follow this for political reasons (i.e., to keep a friendly image). However, since the deuces were almost hopeless you are right in pointing out that it is smarter to let the others show their hand first and then fold your hand without comment.
I don't get out to play in Las Vegas very often these days and the only rulebook I have from Las Vegas is the one written in 1988 for the LV Hilton. This book also requests that a player who believes he holds a winning hand show the hand down first. However, it differs in that if the river is checked down, it requires that the player who last "showed strength" reveals his hand first. Is this the way it is done at the Mirage and Bellagio where you do most of your playing? What do you think is the better rule?
From this post you may think that I am obsessed with rules. Actually, I have only been involved in or requested a decision on about two occasions in well over 10,000 hours of playing (I'm careful in my own actions and do not like to nit pick the live players). However, when not playing, I am working in the industry as a floorman (day shift, middle section, at Hollywood Park casino, so you would not have known me from your recent trip there) and may have some future involvement with the development of an improved, simpler, more universal rulebook.
A week ago I was involved in a thread on the "Exchange" forum in your web site. On January 3rd, Mason Malmuth wrote the following regarding the Las Vegas Hilton rule book:
"In hindsight, and I know several poker room managers who will agree with this, giving the rulebook to all the players was a mistake. Successful rooms like The Mirage have an extensive rule book, but it is not put in player's hands. It is used and interpreted by management, and I believe that while this is not a perfect system, it is the best available."
Never having seen or needing a rulebook in the twenty or so times I played there, I have no doubt this is true but I essentially disagreed with Mason that keeping the book from players is a good idea. If you have time I would appreciate a few of your thoughts on this.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
You should show down in turn just like you should act in turn. The person who believes he has the best hand doesnt bet first, he does it in turn. Whoever put the suggestion in is the one who caused confusion. It encourages people to wait before showing down to see if someone else will show first. Rules are proceedures to be followed to eliminate confusion and they work best if clear and simple and reasonable. Its the dealers job to know who bets first and who shows down first and I found in L.A as well as elsewhere many do not. If the showdown happens the dealer needs to tell the person whos turn it is to now act if there is a hesitation. As for political reasons it may be best to turn over quickly when you have a sure winner, not just a probable winner. As for the rule of who last showed strengh does nothing for me as how can you go back to a previous betting round to determine whos turn it is on the succeeding round. Good Luck at H.P. and say hello to Rod and Sandy for me.
"I don't get out to play in Las Vegas very often these days and the only rulebook I have from Las Vegas is the one written in 1988 for the LV Hilton. This book also requests that a player who believes he holds a winning hand show the hand down first. However, it differs in that if the river is checked down, it requires that the player who last "showed strength" reveals his hand first. Is this the way it is done at the Mirage and Bellagio where you do most of your playing? What do you think is the better rule?"
The old Hilton rulebook did things a little differently. There is no room in Las Vegas today (that I know of) or any other poker room at that time that didn't have the players show down in order.
Why shouldn't the players have access to rule books? At the Taj in AC it seems to me that the rules are interpreted very widely (and often wrongley) by floor people.
I have seen floor people flip-flop on many decisions. Rules like laws should be seen and understood by those subject to them. After all there is no court of appeal in the poker room!
"that my full house has been counterfeited." I apologize for my ignorance, but what does it mean for a hand to be counterfeited? I've only played casino poker tables a few times, and am able to figure out most of the lingo y'all use, but I don't quite get this one. It's a very interesting list, I must say. Regards, Matt
Matt,
Actually the term "counterfeited" is most often used in Omaha Hi Low and it usually refers to the situation when you have the nut low made put the river pairs your card and you no longer have the nut low. For example, you have Ac 3h Kd Kh and the board shows 2d 6c 8h Qd on fourth street. You have the nut low already made. The river brings a 3c pairing the 3h in your hand. This ruins your hand since you no longer have the nut low (now any ace four) or even a good low. Omaha players call this being "counterfeited" and the top players (such as Ray Zee) stress that your hand needs protection from being counterfeited in order to put in a lot of action on an early street with only the nut low made (and little chance for the high). Change the example hand to Ac 3h 4d Kh and you have "counterfeit protection".
I've seen this used in holdem in situations where you have a full house made with a small set such as in the original posters example and the board pairs big somewhere else giving top two pair a better full house. But the expression is by no means universal in holdem.
Regards,
Rick
The weaker the player the more likely he will consider the absolute value of his hand (Jacks full of Queens) rather than the relative value (3rd nuts "obviously" beaten). A weak player will rarely lay down a big full house. A weak player is unlikely to fold Jacks full of Eights.
If this was a strong player and believes on the river you either have quads or a counterfeighted full, then he wouldn't have called on the turn. If the player had two pair then his hand got BETTER when the Jack hit; and there is little reason not to pay it off.
Good check.
- Louie
PS. "Second Guessing" yourself is very beneficial, so long as your attitude is on "improvement" and not "blame".
BTW, when you get counterfeighted and have the stomach for it, mutter something like "Missed again" after raising on the turn....
Ouch! But the answer to your question is: did you really think that both of your opponents would lay down a full house on the river? If not, checking is your only option. Remember, the hesitation by the weak player was before he improved his hand. I would never represent quads in a low limit game because the rarity of the hand makes it inherently unbelievable, especially to players looking for a reason to call.
who has a schedule of events for 1999 wsop?
look on exchange forum or go to pokerwwworld.com
You’re heads up on the River vs the Button.
He bets before you’ve checked.
Are you allowed to raise?
Or, can he take his bet back and get two way action?
This has happened three times in the last six months twice by accident, and once, I think, on purpose.
The floor at the Taj ruled that he could retract his bet. This doesn’t seem right.
Other players said that I should just say that I did check. This doesn’t seem right either.
of course he cant take his bet back because he would win the pot if you folded. The floorman needs some schooling in reasoning. He should only beable to take his bet back if you let him. Its ok to say you checked and make him leave it in or he gets too large an edge by being able to withdraw his bet. If he realized his mistake quickly and corrected it I would let him go then. Good Luck.
Yes, that's what I said. The button couldn't lose with this ruling.
But on the bright side at the Taj, if you don't like the rules, don't worry.
Wait a half hour and they're sure to change.
I'm with Ray on this one! BTW who told him he bet out of turn! If you were asked if you had made an action and you said no, well then it may be your fault. I know I have done stupid things like that in the past. Once he puts the money in it stays unless someone says he bet bet out of turn. I hope you didn't! Vince
I would appreciate comments concerning the following example, which is a simpler but more extreme example of what has been described in this thread.
Let's say I am first to act heads up against a regular player who is also wild and reckless (I admit, this is a bit contrived since regulars quickly learn not to be wild and reckless). This player has been calling my lead bets as I barely break my stack to bet on the flop and the turn. (Note: Let's pretend I have the nuts and this isn't about strategy as to whether I should be trying for the check raise or induce a bluff on these betting rounds.)
Anyway, besides being a reckless player, he is abusive towards others so I don't feel too badly about punishing him. Before the river comes, I intentionally hold my hands motionless and of course he flings his chips in the pot (in his mind calling the bet I was sure to make). After he puts his chips in I check-raise.
Questions:
Is this ethical under the circumstances?
Assume the wild player calls for a ruling from a floorman. The floorman finds the facts to be as described (including an admission from the lead better that he did not act). What should the floorman decide (I am open to rulings from different jurisdictions).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I have a couple of brief comments elsewhere in this thread that may give more of an idea of where I am coming from.
Rick,
With the facts as you described I would also check raise the person. Also anytime someone bets behind you out of turn their money needs to at least stay in the pot. I can see where you may be ruled not to beable to check raise but you should beable to bet and his call must stay. When he bets behind you he has shown that your bet will be called and now it becomes impossible for you to bluff. If he can now take his bet back after you bet he knows you are not bluffing and can fold close hands. Also you may fold when he bets and then he wins. It is too much of an edge even if inadvertant for a player to get his bet back.
The floorman made a terrible decision. By the way I'd bet that the other two people didn't "accidently" put their money in either. Here's a similar situation that happened to me in a satellite and how it was handled properly.
Were down to three handed at a satellite at the Gold Coast. I have A - T on the button and have a reasonable amount of chips. One short stack was in the blind. He bet at a ten-high flop, I raised and he called.
He check-called me on the turn ( a rag fell).
On the river the dealer put out a rag, and my opponnet, being first to act turned his hand over, exposing K - T. Not having much experience in satellites (I still really don't) I looked at the dealer, who remained motionless and I then made a horrible play. I forgot that I could bet and turned over my hand without betting.(His play had startled me into showing down my hand). Worse yet, the blind, would have been knocked out if he called my bet on the river.
I could have kicked myself, I could have knocked out a player and I fell for a really great (though somewhat cheesy in my opinion) play by my opponnet.
The dealer acted perfectly in my opinion. He didn't say anything and just waited for me to act. I'm pretty sure that if I had bet he would have made the other player call or fold. (He was paying attention and knew what my opponnet was doing)
By the way card - turner went on to play for several more rounds, almost came back, and was eventually knocked out.
I did learn a lesson from this experience.
Thanks for this forum, Tom B.
I had this story happened to me once in a 3-6 HE game. I was in late position with a Ac4c. The two blinds were in and so were 2 other players for a total of 5 in the hand.
The flop came A45 rainbow.
And I bet as I thought everyone had checked and the dealer did not stop me from betting. So, the player in the SB said 'I haven't checked yet' and I said 'I apologize, I thought it was my turn'. So he bet. And there you have it I raise my 2 pairs. He just called. Turn brought another 4.
The board now looked A 4 5 4
He checks. One player to my right calls. I bet.
River brings a Q. And then SB bets! I was a bit confused. Then the player to my right raises. So I said to myself, either I am a huge favorite with my fours full of aces against his fours full of queens or a big dog against his queens full of fours. I thought for a moment and decided not to raise since he had been a calling station the whole way and I thought the only hand he could have is QQ.
In fact, that's what he had and the SB had flopped a wheel with a 2 3.
What struck me though is that he did not go for a check raise on the flop knowing that I was going to bet or made it 3-bet when i raised him. So in fact he could've used the fact that I was going to bet to check raise. But he did not and we both lost the pot :(
Carlos
In "Poker Essays", Mason Malmuth leads out with a chapter called "The Worst Plays In History". In it you will find a similar and very amusing story.
Regards,
Rick
In most casinos that I have played in or worked in,a player is held to his action.This means if he bet out of turn he cannot retract his bet.The dealer should have asked you what your intention was,if you wanted to check then he would still have to make his bet and you could also raise it.If you bet he would still be held to his action and would not be able to raise you,that's the price of betting out of turn.
I have read all the other responses and comment on a related but different topic:
I'd urge upon seasoned players to give new players a break. For example, if I held the nuts and the proverbial "little old lady" innocently bets out of turn and if, as in your case, the floorman allows the lady to take the bet back, I would just come out betting instead of trying to get in a checkraise and squeezing out an extra big bet from an obviously inexperienced and inferior player.
There are several other technical rules such as "string raises" etc. that new players are unaware of. In these situations, give these players a break. Undue adherence to all of these technical rules is apt to discourage new players from trying Casino poker. We ought to be doing everything possible to encourage new players.
Frankly, I would wish for a lot more discretionary power vested on dealers and floor personnel in making rulings.
Oh pleaze!!! I thought you played poker for money. The little old lady is there to gamble, let her gamble. You are supposed to take money from the inexperienced players. Personally, I find it difficult to take money from players better than me. I don't have any problem taking money from inferior players. Now if we followed your advice, we'd lose money to better players and not take as much as we could from losing players. That sounds like a losing proposition.
I was playing at a table with "mr. nice guy" once who actually stunk. On an important hand, he had a monster but wouldn't raise a little old lady (who was actually better than him) because he didn't want to take advantage of her. I thought, "Raise her dumbass so you can get more money that I can take from you because it's harder to get the money from the little old lady because she is better than you."
This was a lot of rambling but in a cardroom this is the attitude you must play with. Most tourists (including little old ladies) don't expect to win at any game in the casino. They have big hopes but won't be crushed by this extra bet. In fact, they are likely to go on tilt and become very profitable. There are plenty of tourists and little old ladies, don't worry about scaring them off.
You should take a longer view of the game. If you are nice to the weaker players and give them the odd break, they will keep coming back to the game.
In our regular 10-20, we have a couple of very nice, very friendly weak players who show up all the time because they like the action and they like to socialize. Everyone takes it a little easier on these players. Grind them up, and they'll just go away.
Dan
There's a difference between putting the boots to an experienced but inferior player and putting the boots to an inexperienced player (i.e., inexperienced with Casino games and its myriad of rules). I personally want to make the inexperienced player feel welcome and at ease. You may have a cut-throat attitude towards everybody at the table, but, as Dan points out below, that is a shortsighted approach to poker profitability. You have to approach the question of EV at a macro level.
I agree. Last night, a new player bought into the 10-20 game. He was short $10. Of course, one of the grinders started complaining about a short buy. The new guy said, "Oh, ok. I'll go to the bank machine and get some more". There was a line of maybe 4 people at the bank machine, meaning this guy was going to have to stand in line for 5 minutes to get the last measly $10.
At this point, I spoke up and said, "I'm sure nobody minds a buy that's only $10 short. You can get more money if you want to later. Does anyone object?"
This time the grinder used some sense and kept quiet, and the new player smiled and said thanks, and the game got underway.
Dan
I agree with skp and Dan here, although Karpov's comments in that particular situation are hard to argue with. I work as a floorman and make every effort to give the inexperienced a bit of a break (along with some brief advice on how to avoid such a procedural mistake in the future). I do this whenever I have some discretion in the rules or in the fact-finding stage prior to making a decision (e.g. when determining whether a string raise took place or not, when it is close the experienced player will get the worst of it as he should know better). As a serious part time player, I also try to do the same for the good of the game.
However, I'm not above playing God a little here. Sometimes I'm in against a player who is a regular and a loser (thus unlikely to be chased away by one small incident). Let's say he is a "rear end", (e.g., the type who treats a dealer, waitress or chip runner like they aren't even human). In this case I may be inclined to take maximum advantage of his or her sloppy betting.
Justice is a beautiful thing and we must find beauty when we can.
Regards,
Rick
I used to give players a break when I saw them broke, spinning their wheels and losing If I had the best hand and on the river I had position he checks I just flop my cards over with a 75-80% of a winner. Often not always he may pay me off had I bet. Why don't you promoting my old foolish ways ???? Where would you stop in 'giving breaks' ??? I only did it to players I liked otherwise and felt sorry for (DISCLAIMER) some players I would bet if their playing their babies food money. You see in poker luck/cards change players change, money comes and goes but you can't break the RULES !!!!!
Right on! Bet! Vince
I was involved in an interesting hold'em hand last night in a $10-$20 game. I'll lay out the situation and ask what you would do on the turn with my hand. Later, I'll say what I did and why. (I should add that I do not know if my reasoning was correct when I made my play but I'll invite comment on that later on. For now, I'm more interested in hearing how you would have played the hand).
I was one position to the right of the button and held 9d,8d. 5 players limped in. I also called. The button folded. The small blind called. The big blind raised and everyone called except the small blind. Thus, seven players saw the flop with $150 in the pot.
The BB was a fairly tight and unimaginative player. I put him on Pocket Kings, Aces or possibly AK suited.
The flop was Jd,10s,8h.
The big blind bet. Knowing this player, I now figured him for Kings or Aces rather than AK suited. One player folded. The other 4 called before it was my turn to act. I called.
The pot now had $210.
The turn was the Ad.
The big blind bet again. Now, I was nearly certain that he held pocket Aces. This was made more probable when 3 players just called him rather than raising. Two of the three callers were average players - neither very bad nor very good. The third caller was an unknown entity to me.
It was now my turn to act with $290 in the pot.
What would you do with my hand?
You certainly have the correct pot odds to call the bet and see the river. My concern at this point in addition to the BB bettor would be the other callers in the event you hit your hand and it also hits one of the other callers (Q does you no good since there is bound to be a singleton K among the group to make the high end straight). Even if the board pairs with your 8, you might loose to BB (if he has AA). If a diamond hits then I put you on the only flush draw, and if a seven hits I also put you on the only low end straight draw therefore giving you best hand either way. You seem to have 11 outs making you a 4.1-1 dog, but the pot odds are 14.5-1, so therefore IMHO it is definitely worth the call. Raising is out of the question in this position since the pot is definitely protected at this point and no one is leaving!! It could be possible that one of the players is slow playing with KQ at this point, and then you are drawing dead to the flush, but it's hard enough to read one-two player's hands let alone four hands!! If your hand hits and holds up though you win a monster pot!
Excellent points, but I count 12 outs (9 diamonds and 3 more 7s) and 6 cards you can see, so there are 52-12-6=34 bad cards, so its 34:12 or 2.83 to one against making the small flush or low straight. Plus a Q or 8 MIGHT win; minus a Td8d may lose to a full house; minus someone may have bigger diaomonds or bigger straight; minus someone else may have a 9.
A raise for value CAN get you 4:1 payoff for your 2.83:1 dog HAND; but you will too often get re-raised now or lose on the river when you get there, to make a raise-for-value a bad choice; but one that is not completely out of the question.
A raise has advantage in that the player with the stiff King (KJ?) or stiff 9 (T9?) MAY lose hope and fold; giving you more outs. When combined with "image enhancement" this may be enough to call for a raise (no flames, please!).
A always, I try not to confuse "making my hand" with "winning the pot".
- Louie
You don't have to worry about the 8d hitting and making the BB a full house because you hold the 8d. The only bad diamond is the 10d giving you 8 diamond outs. But treally this small error is pretty irrelevant to your analysis. IMO, raising for value is a consideration as Dan points out in his response below.
Marc, while I agree with most of what you say, I disagree that no one would fold for a raise here. A hand with a 9 in it may fold if he puts me on Broadway. He almost definitely would fold (along with the player who had K,10) if the BB made it three bets.
Call. I agree with your read on the BB and figure you have 11 outs from 44 unseen cards (8 diamonds -- not the 10d, and 3 other sevens), giving you a 25% chance of hitting your hand, which I guess will hold up about 95% of the time or more. I particularly like your flush draw, given that the KdQd probably isn't out, Axd is impossible, and there was only one diamond on the flop, leaving you to worry only about KdTd and QdTd. And you might get a fair amount of action -- in position -- if the Kd or Qd falls on the river.
Although you will get 4 to 1 if everyone calls your raise, the BB will surely reraise and at least one, probably two and possibly three of the remaining players will decline a double bet from a set and possible broadway. Folding obviously is out of the question. The more difficult decision is what to do if 10d falls, but if the BB is as tight and unimaginative as you imply, I would muck the flush without much regret.
I guess I shouldn't be talking about the benefits of getting action on the river without considering the implied odds. Lets see. If you hit, particularly with a rag diamond, the BB will probably bet into you on the river, allowing you to trap him and anyone in between. Therefore, if you raise on the turn and even if only one other player calls the BB's reraise, your raise on the turn (and call of the BB's reraise) will return at least 8-2. If the Kd, Qd or 7d comes, you may get even more action from a second best hand, although the BB will probably check at this point. It is remotely possible, of course, that the three callers will all call a double bet on the turn, given the size of the pot, in which case you might want to just keep on raising.
So I reverse myself: if you think there's a substantial probability that the three callers will throw 5 or more big bets in the pot after you raise (I figure the BB is good for at least 3 bets -- two on the turn and one on the river), a raise would be in order. (I'm using 5 extra bets from the callers (4-1) instead of 4 extra bets (3.5-1) to offset the great many bets you'll lose when you hit and make a second best hand).
We took different approaches. You wanted to keep the limpers in and feared that they would go out if you raised and the BB reraised. I wanted BB to reraise and knock out the limpers.
BTW, it would be a tough fold on the end if the 10d hit. I would probably make a crying call given the size of the pot (perhaps that's a leak in my game).
Pot odds are great. Any 7 makes you a straight. Any Q makes you a worthless straight. 9 diamonds make a flush. If a Q/K falls, somebody will have A high straight. Also, it is very possible someone else, with a diamond, has a bigger flush. I would doubt anyone other than BB to have made a set or they would have raised BB on the flop, unless they were slowplaying trips, generally a mistake. If Kd or Qd fall on river, someone could have a royal. Really only 3 sevens (7c,7h,7s) give you the nuts. If a diamond falls, I would think my chances are about 2-1 to have the high flush. So I call on the turn. If I get one of the 3 "good" sevens, I will raise any bet and bet if checked to me. If a diamond falls and BB bets, I would call reluctantly, even if someone else called. If checked to me, I would check. Without a seven or diamond, I would check or fold.
Assuming you are up against other draws, it is more likely that you are up against straight draws rather than a flush draw. If a diamond hits and everyone checks to you , IMO, you should obviously bet.
Yes,I wrote check,meant to write bet there. I need to start checking what I write before I post. But none the less, other than BB, I would have others on draws. If anyone else was playing the flush draw, I would likely be the dog. Other than playing in a twice a month home game for a couple years, I've played casino poker for about six months. I know I have a lot to learn.
Are you absolutely certain the big blind had aces? AKs is a pretty strong hand for this flop, with the gutshot, two overcards, and a 3-flush to the nuts... Then he hits his ace on the turn and continues betting...
This type of flop is tough to play - it's hard to really know where you stand. You may have as little as 3 outs to a split, or you may have a humongous collection of outs. Everyone seems to be assuming that the other players are all on straight draws, but that isn't necessarily the case. There could be anything from a set to two pair, to someone limping along with a hand like Q8 or KJ or something like that.
To be honest, I probably would have raised on the turn, for several reasons - the best one is that if you are getting enough callers for the bet to be a value bet, then I try to opt for the more agressive option, since it buys me action on future hands. If the big blind re-raises and gets a hand to fold that would have tied you if you hit, then you gain significantly in EV with a pot this size. The way I see it, you have at least 9 probable outs to win the pot, which is enough to warrant a raise against four callers, and if any of your other outs are good then you're making money with the raise.
Another time I like raising on the turn with a flush draw is when I also have a pair. I hate folding the best hand on the river, and if everyone checks to me on the river after I raise the turn I get a free shot at a showdown. If someone bets the river, your pair had no chance anyway. Of course, given the situation as you described it, the pair is no good.
Also, if there's even the tiniest chance that you could get a hand to fold that might beat you if you hit (say, another 8 with a bigger kicker), then that's a big EV gain when the pot is this big.
Raising also has value for deception. If you raise the turn, there is a chance that you'll pick up an extra bet or two (or three!) on the river if you hit your hand.
I can't see folding here, since I have no evidence that my diamonds are no good, so I either have to call or raise. Since it's a close decision either way, I'd opt to raise.
When the pots are this big, and I have a major draw, I'll ram and jam with the best of them. My attitude is that I'm going to do anything I can to win this pot.
Dan (posted a nice $1005 win in the 10-20 game tonight.)
Hanson, next time I'm in Edmonton, let me know which Casino you'll be playing at. I'll make it a point to go to a different one.
I like your analysis.
BTW, when BB bet the flop, I was absolutely certain that he did not have AK suited. This player is an elderly gentleman who just about never "stepped out" and I was sure that he wouldn't bet into a large field without a pair. But the funny thing is that this player (and several others that I know) would call $20 cold after checking. This I can never figure out - why would someone be scared to bet $10 but be willing to call $20 cold with a hand like AK on something like a J,10,x flop??
'Cause they're always hoping to get the cheapest card possible.
This is the nature of calling stations and timid players. How often do you see a pattern like this: check, check, check, check, bet, raise, call,call,call,call..... They'd rather only put in a small amount of money, but they'll pay off anything. The nature of bad players, I guess.
Dan
Raise the turn. You won't get reraised by the big blind. A tight, unimaginative player won't reraise you in this spot for fear of the straight. Further, with no raise flop or turn, no-one will have a straight at this point.
The benefits of the raise on the turn: 1) you might get lucky, getting the big blind to three bet and knock a nine or king out that would have tied or beat you, 2) you get an extra big bet from up to four players when your diamond hits and is good (and your flush will be good the vast majority of the time), and 3) you are less likely to get moved off a good nine on the river when, to your dismay, the big blind does hold AK or the like -- you'll usually get checked to on the river.
One caution: very predictable opponents can become very unpredictable when the pot gets big. I'd call a bet from the big blind on the river with a paired diamond unless he is utterly incapable of playing AKs or the like in this situation (pot odds speaking, he has to have a hand other than pocket aces (or pocket jacks or tens) less than .5% of the time for you to fold here.)
"3) you are less likely to get moved off a good nine on the river..." meaning every so often you will catch your third nine on the river and it will be good.
Replace nine with eight, and I can finish this post off.
Agreed.
You are correct in stating that a tight unimaginative player such as the BB would not reraise me with the possibility of Broadway on the board. When I made the raise, I wanted him to reraise. He disappointed me.
>You are correct in stating that a tight unimaginative player such as the BB would not reraise me with the possibility of Broadway on the board.<
A tight, unimaginative player won't reraise you if he thinks you have Q9 or 97 either.
I don't like the pre-flop call from your position with five limpers. There are too many hands the button can play for a single bet with six players and the blinds. I would also prefer that neither blinds get involved since a flop which helps 98s may fit with a blind hand as well. Middle suited connectors often need to take a free card after the flop, and a raise here caters to that possibility later. My preference would be to raise hoping to knock out the button and the small blind.
If the large blind has the big pocket overpair, then why wouldn't he have played for a checkraise on the flop? With a board that is likely to have made one of the other limpers top pair, and despite having shown strength with the pre-flop raise, there is a very good chance that there will be a late position bet anyway. By coming out betting on the flop he would just be giving anyone with two overcards implied odds for the gutshot broadway draw. Particularly with an unimaginative player who is likely to follow up a pre-flop raise from the blind with an automatic bet on the flop, I couldn't rule out any reasonable holding at this point. You know this player, so I defer to your card reading capabilities and assume he doesn't have the big ace suited from here on too.
At the critical point (on the turn with a drawing hand) I like to think in terms of effective outs rather than what the implied odds need to be to when trying to improve to less than the nuts. Since the middle position players are typical, I would not rule out KdQd KdTd QdTd 99 or T9s. I can also see a level one thinker calling with QQ, but obviously no one has Q9s or they would have raised before now. Do you think these players are calling with two pairs or a set (I sure don't) rather than what they think is a good draw? The way I read it is there's about a 75% chance that someone has a bigger backdoor diamond draw (eight apparent outs excluding Td since I'm crediting the large blind with top set), and about a 50% chance there's another nine out there (two apparent outs excluding 7d since this card is included with the flushes outs). Now .25 * 8 + .5 * 2 yields 3 effective outs considering the split pot and dead drawing possibilities. I would be getting 14.5:1 for three effective outs. There is no guarantee that if a seven comes and the pot is split that I'll pick up another half of a big bet from a third player calling on the river, but if a small diamond falls and I have the only flush, then I might get a call from top set. Since I need a little more than 15:1 implied odds, I have a very borderline call on the turn. If this hand was typical of the action at this table (multiway before the flop) I probably muck, take the three small bet loss and wait for an opportunity where I clearly have the best of it. However, if this is already an abnormally large pot for this game then I'll make what I'd consider to be a loose call here.
My guess is the river brought the 7d and the nut flush won.
I like your analysis, but how do you figure there's a 75% chance for a bigger backdoor diamond draw to be out? If the BB could only have KQd or AA, it's 3-1 against the diamonds, and much less if BB can be playing AK. Excluding the unlikely event that one of the callers is slowplaying a set or two pair, the most playable combinations out there (if BB has AA) would include AK, AQ, AJ, AT, KQ, KJ, KT, QJ, QT, 99, and K7d, and I wouldn't put the last on par with the rest. So I count 88 combinations of which only 4 (4.5%) are diamond-diamond (KQd, KTd, QTd, K7d), and even less if the BB doesn't have two aces. With three callers representing three chances of having the better draw, I get about a 13% probability. Even if we assume that the field is more likely to play QJs instead of QTo, and that AK and AQ would have made a preflop raise, my guess is that the overall likelihood of a bigger backdoor diamond draw being out is substantially less than 1/4 (although greater than I originally assumed).
You have to give everyone simultaneously credit for some kind of draw other than the big blind who I assume has pocket aces. Individually I would agree that any one other player is unlikely to have a big diamond draw, but together someone is very likely to also have the better draw. How would you give them ALL reasonable draws with no one else having diamonds?
Because they'd have to have (1) a hand that could justify a call on the flop plus (2) two diamonds, a longshot given the other draw combinations that are out there. Also, I took into account that the fact that three players equals three chances for the diamond draw to be there, and still couldn't come up with any number that approaches "very likely."
Let's not forget that the big blind raised before the flop in a multiway situation, and continued to drive the pot including the turn when an ace fell. This condition makes the hand unusual and in my estimation greatly increases the possibility of one or more of the chasers having extra outs (read backdoor flush) in addition to just overcards to the gut shot. If we give the big blind credit for AA and the player UTG limping with AK or AQ, and no one with KQ or they'd have popped it on the turn, then that leaves KJ KT QJ or QT as big card possibilities. Now I don't think an average 10-20 player (weak players yes) gets involved with these hands unless they are suited (at least not without raising before the flop). So I give the second limper credit for pocket nines or a singleton nine suited. Now there are two limpers from early position which means the third player can trigger a no-fold'em effect (at least for this hand) with a call. An average player expecting a couple more calls from behind, may indeed come in with KXs in this spot. This seems just as likely as someone limping UTG with AK unless the table conditions are severe (very loose/passive or very tight/passive). This holding plus the call/call only makes sense if they are diamonds, otherwise he flopped open-ended with Q9 and was concerned enough about AQ not to have raised the flop. The other possibility which is consistent with the betting sequence is the royal draw. Many players slow down automatically with this draw because they value whatever promotion the cardroom is offering. An invitation to a freeroll tournament or a poker jacket can cloud ones judgement. I don't expect an average player to raise with the royal draw even though there's no danger of everyone folding on the turn. Calling hands tend to be much stronger when the big blind is controlling the action this far into the play. When it's as multiway as this going into the river I'm crediting one of the three limpers with a strong possibility of another diamond draw.
Andrew, it's a math problem. There's a greater combination of hands that will not make a flush draw than will make a better flush draw and all of these former mentioned hands will be played exactly as the described typical field did. I agree in a tougher game there would be a greater chance of a better flush draw simply because many of the non-flush draw hands you can attribute to the field in the loose game would not have been played or played differently by a tougher field. This is not to say a better flush draw was impossible in the loose game. It's to say that your goal is to play hands in situations like this for maximum positive expectation.
I hope you're not assuming that the probabilities of all possible combinations a chaser could be holding will remain constant throughout the hand. I suppose the arguement really comes down to what hands we each eliminate, or give greater/lesser weight to during the play. Perhaps we're also too far apart (not trying to be Clintonesque here) on our characteristics of an *average* 10-20 player. The play described in the original post allows for many more potential hands from a weak player than from an average player as I see it, and from them I'd expect a more uniform probability distribution - in agreement with your analysis. Yet, I give an average player credit for knowing that two big cards play better against a small field than a large one - that calling before the flop with such a holding is worse than raising or folding. Maybe though I'm just accustomed to a generally *tougher* lineup than what skp is beating?
Even assuming your assumption is correct about the importance of a backdoor flush draw to these players, there are two other suits on the board, and having seen 3 diamonds already it's more likely that their backdoor flushes are in other suits.
With this amount of action and this flop, even if two diamonds were on the FLOP I would estimate my chances of being against a bigger flush draw would be less than 75%.
Dan
Then they would be left with broadway draws where they could count on opponents already holding some of the cards they're considering calling for, and I'd expect at least one of them to have released their hand on the turn. In otherwords someone holding QcTc for example, would have mucked.
Andrew, the game I play in has more weak players than tough ones. No doubt that influences a lot of the stuff that I post on this Forum. I have not played much away from my home town (Vancouver, B.C.). I have played 20-40 at the Mirage on 6 trips (4 three day trips and 2 five day trips). I have also had a three day trip to the Commerce Casino.
I would say that the 15-30 game at the Commerce is not particularly tough (Of course, I say that on very limited experience. Those of you who play there will surely have a more informed view). The 20-40 Mirage game was very tough. I'm glad I don't have to play there regularly. If I did, perhaps the content of my posts would be different. Worse, I may not have any money left to play poker with!!
Where do you play?
Both Connecticut facilities, usually the 'woods because I prefer the kill games.
It is highly likely there is not a bigger diamond draw out (over 90%). Now on to see what happened...
If you think so, I'll keep a seat open for you in my game.
Your opponents can hold AK, AQ, AJ, KJ, KT, QJ, QT, AT, T9 and A8 and others compared to better flush draws of KdTd, QdTd and Kd7d. Your point is well taken that the field makes a difference, increasing or decreasing the likelihood of a flush draw. In the situation described by skp, your opponents can hold each of the above hands pre-flop and will play them exactly as they did. Another thing to consider is, because the game was loose, even good players will limp pre-flop with most of the above hands and will play many of them as the typical opponents did.
Nonetheless you're wrong. The likelihood of a better flush draw is slim.
.
Re: Para. 1 - There are many times when I would raise preflop with 9d,8d in this situation. There are also times when I'll just call. I opted for the latter here.
Re: Para. 2 - If I raised in the BB withh pocket Aces against a large field, I too would often checkraise on a J,10,x flop. There was nothing fancy about the BB's game though. He would always bet his Kings or Aces. More importantly, he was the type of player that would never bet AK into a large field from the blinds without a pair.
Re: Para. 3 - This type of detailed analysis assumes that all of your opponents play solidly. In my experience, when the pots get big, guys are fishing in with the slimmest of draws. With respect, I would not at all consider that I have made a "loose call" on the turn (were I to just call). While there is certainly a possibility that the two-diamond hands you mention are out there, the reality is that there are several other slim draws that are also probably out there. Don't forget that I backed into the diamond draw; this makes it much less likely that I'm drawing dead to diamonds (i.e. as opposed to if 2 diamonds were there on the flop).
Generally it is correct to think that you are the only player with a flush draw when you pick-up the backdoor draw on the turn. I see this example hand as an exception, unless as you suggest, your 10-20 game is a whole lot weaker than what I'm accustomed to. Your playing for a reraise out of the big blind has some merit, but if they are as weak as they appear to be I don't think someone else with a nine and a gut shot for maybe half the pot is going to fold for two bets here either. I also don't see how you can think they'll expect you to cap the turn.
They have to consider the possibility of the betting being capped because I could have KQ.
I hadn't considered that aspect. You have increased the weight of your arguement for raising the turn now.
Wow. That advice is WAY too timid. And I think a 75% chance that someone else is in there with a running flush draw is way too high in a 4-way field. I'd guess that the chance that another diamond draw is there would be more like 10-20% or less.
If you're folding draws like this in pots this size, you're giving up a swack of money, IMO.
Why don't you think they are calling with two pairs? That seems like a pretty obvious possibility to me. With a pot this size, they could also be calling for gutshots, one pair with a gutshot, and all kinds of other things. Someone also could easily have AKo or AKs (many players limp with this in early position).
If you're always going to assume that your hand is counterfeited, why even play? This isn't Omaha...
Dan
I would expect most of those other hands you mention to have put in a raise themselves somewhere along the way. I know I sure wouldn't smooth call the flop with two pairs, or fail to raise before the flop with AK front or middle. It is especially because everyone (except the big blind) just called before the flop and on the flop that I would rule out many of those possible hands you mention. It's when people have jammed the pot that I expect mediocre backdoor flushes to be good, not when it's multiway and everyone calls the ace on the turn despite a blind raiser involved. Lastly, no I don't fold draws like these in big pots, but this hand has peculiarities which I can't ignore.
There's only two undefined hands here. We know what the player in the blinds has. This particular flop has a lot of ways that you could hit it and wind up calling for a thin draw, especially when the pot is large. You could easily see someone else with the same 98 hand, or JQ, or KJ, or QT, or KT... If the player in the blinds is as predictable as skp says, then they might not be all that eager to raise into an obvious overpair, and a lot of average players just won't let go of top pair even when it's clear there's an overpair out there.
In a pot this size, it wouldn't even surprize me if a weak player was calling with a hand like 66.
Remember, we've already seen 4 diamonds, so it is much less likely that any other suited hands are also diamonds.
Dan
This is true but out of context with the betting sequence through the turn. The chasing behavior is more characteristic of weak players than average ones though. I don't see an average player going past the flop with a pocket pair lower than nines. Sixes won't chase when a flop with JT in it is going to help everyone else too much.
When the pot gets large, even good players become chasers. This pot isn't quite at the stratospheric levels that would induce a good player to call with something like 66 though, so I would tend to agree with you in this case.
Dan
Well skp, since you already missed two raising opportunities I'm not sure what to say other than: RAISE for #*%#%& sakes! Respectfully Vince.
Well, I contemplated raising on the flop. But I had aready put the BB on Pocket Kings or Pocket Aces and I knew that if I raised, he would reraise. While this is what I ultimately hoped for on the turn. It wouldn't have helped me on the flop because a guy with a 9 or a hand like K,J or K,10 would not bow out on the FLOP for two more bets given the size of the pot. So, a raise on the flop would invite a raise from the BB which would get out the hands that I don't mind having around but would not get out the hands that I'd like to see go out. That goal could only be accomplished by a raise and BB reraise on the turn. In fact, when I made the raise on the turn, I was hoping that the BB would use some sense and figure that if I had KQ, I likely would have raised on the flop. I was hoping that he would come to the conclusion that I couldn't have KQ and likely had Aces up or something and reraise.
In short, I believe that a raise on the flop would have been incorrect.
As for raising preflop with my hand, I don't quarrel with that suggestion at all. I often do it.
We do agree about not raising the flop. It's necessary to keep the pot as small as possible if you're looking for the big blind to play off your action on the turn. But you say this was an old timer, and they tend not to reraise on the turn without the nuts, so it might be a stretch to be hoping for three bets from top set here. You'd have more success getting someone with a nine out, if the big blind tries for a checkraise on the turn.
The reason for the raise on the flop is not to get players out! As a matter of fact the more callers the better. I'm not sure that I would welcome a riase from the BB if it caused others to fold but if I had a lot of callers I might just cap it. The reason for the raise on the flop is the same as the reason for the raise on the turn. Get more money in the pot if you make your hand. Vince
Yes. But I was sure that the BB would reraise thereby limiting the field which is exactly what I did not want on the flop. In other words, if I raised on the flop, it would increase my cost to $30 and it would reduce the field. Thus, while the pot would grow by raising, my proportion of the money going in would be greater. Now, had I felt that there was a good chance that the BB would not reraise, I would definitely have raised on the flop in order to get an extra $10 into the pot from everybody. My proportion of the money going in would be the same.
The situation is similar to this: man to your left raises pre-flop. You flop a flush draw with say Q,J,. On the flop, the man to your left bets and 4 others call. It is not an easy decision as to whether you should checkraise here. You should if you think that the original bettor will not make it three bets. You shouldn't if you think that he will.
Back to my hand, on the turn, the situation changed because of the Ace; I did want the limpers out because it would improve my outs to 14 and ensure that I was not drawing dead if I hit an offsuit Queen. Plus, another 9 might fold (fearing that I already have KQ). This would give me the full pot if I hit an off suit 7.
Pumping this pseudo-openended draw for value as you suggest seems too agressive as any queen (or other overcard as in the example) can be a serious problem.
I play in a Eastern Casino $10-20 texas holdem "typical medium tight to tight game(Mon-Thur). Can anyone give me a great tough line-up they use with this computer game?
Make all the opponents ADVISOR_T.
I am interested in TTH2 lineups as well. Has anyone made custom players that they feel represent more accurately some types of players they see at the tables?
There does not seem be any default players that play closer to the popular textbooks. I should think it would be easy to make a Lee Jones starting hands player for example.
D.
Post deleted at author's request.
I have given programming TTH profiles a shot along these lines and programmed players to play Lee Jones strategy as well as Sklansky's. Both made for far better opponents than most of the TTH lineup.
As my interest also lies in figuring out maximizing opening hands I did the following:
For Jones book, using Advisor T as a base, I programmed his opening hands as callers using the maximum # of callers before the flop (4 or more middle; 5 or more late) to determine the cutoff points for each category. (suited connectors; pairs; etc.) Then, after running a simulation, it is possible to cull out the decisions on 3 or less middle and 4 or less late using the number of active players button on TTH to see how his cutoff points work in practice.
For Sklansky, again using Advisor T as a base, it was a bit more difficult to make decisions as the book, sometimes, isn't as clear-cut as Jones re: what categories to call with; call a raise with or raise with. I took the "tight, average" games advice to determine which groups of hands to use and came up with appropriate matchs for TTH.
I just started writing them out here but, deciding I'd like some more feedback on this in particular, decided to make a separate category post here entitled TTH Programmed for Sklansky Groupings -- Comments Welcome.
Anyhow, much fun was had with this although I'm still in the preliminary days of analyzing it. I haven't bothered to reprogram Advisor T's betting decisions post flop re; Sklansky and Jones but figure that's next. Lots of grist for the mill but tend to agree so far with Malmuth comment that too much reliance on computer sims isn't a "great idea" but very well be a "good" one.
Onward and upward...
Bill
I tried to post a chart with my Sklansky groups correlated to the TTH categories but the spacing didn't conform when I previewed it. Sorry.
Anyhooo.... The basic idea was to place a Sklansky player into TTH. It worked quite well creating a tougher player than most in the TTH lineup.
I had some general questions about this concept and would be interested if anyone else has attempted it. Thanks in advance.
Bill
I am beginning play in a 5-10 7 card stud structured game with a $1 ante and a $2 bring in with a raise to $5. I know this is a rather high ante game and should influence the strategy vs a low ante game. Usually, such a game in a casino would be $.50 ante with $1 bring in.
Would some one advice me on what changes should be made in playing in this type of game. What should the starting cards be? When to try ante steal? How to consider the pot odds?, etc.
Thanks for any help.
Still looking for help on my original post. Any 7 card stud players out there?
Tom
Tom,
A couple of years ago, the Taj changed its five-and-ten stud from a $.50 ante, $2 bring-in, and $5 completion structure to a $1 ante, $2 bring-in, and $5 completion. It is my understanding that the dealers lobbied for this change so there would be no half dollars in the game, so the players would have to tip a dollar. This was good for me, because I stopped tipping entirely, cold turkey, where before, I had felt compelled to tip fifty cents most of the times I won a pot. Unfortunately, the game was returned to its original structure so quickly that I don't have any meaningful personal data.
However, I saw this new game as an opportunity to take advantage of the many players, at this level, who don't realize the impact structure has on strategy. Anyway, I played with some numbers to try to compare the two games above.
The old game has $6 in the pot after the antes and bring-in, and the new game has $10. In the old game, the steal ratio, as I call it, is risking $5 to win $6, or 5/6, where in the new game, it is risking $5 to win $10, or 1/2. (I'm ignoring the rake, but it should be considered). If you win 3/5 of your steals, for example, you would make an $8 profit in the old game, and a $20 profit in the new game, for every 5 attempts. If there is an argument that the new game shouldn't be played more aggressively than the old, from the beginning, I would be interested in reading it.
Ultimately, however, strategy does not follow from numbers, alone. How tight, loose, timid, aggressive, etc. your opponents are is you major concern. Two mistakes I would expect my opponents to make, until they adjusted to the new game, would be playing too tight, allowing me to steal more than my share, and not betting aggressively enough to keep me from limping in for the longer odds the pots would be offering.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss stud. Tom D
Tomcat,
You ask alot but you can still play tight with this structure as it approximates the structure in the higher stakes games. You really need to read some stud books as they can guide you thru your questions. Your bluffing frequency is determined by your opponents calling frequency and the pot odds. Good Luck.
I raised on the turn and hoped that the BB would reraise!
I did not like my chances of winning if an off-suit Queen hit and I was probably looking at a split pot if an off-suit 7 hit. I felt that my hand would be good if a diamond hit (other than the 10d). Given the size of the pot, I wanted to get it heads-up with the BB which would give me 14 outs to take the full pot. I was prepared to invest $60 on the turn in order to have a better chance of winning the whole pot rather than keeping my investment down to $20 but take a chance at having one of the limpers hit Broadway or make the same straight that I was hoping to make. I figured that if the BB raised, about the only draw that would call two more bets cold (with the possibility of a capped raise behind) would be another diamond draw which I felt was unlikely to be out there.
As it turned out, the BB just called my raise with his pocket Aces (I told you that he was a tight, unimaginative player). Two of the limpers also called. One folded.
Fortunately, this hand had a happy ending: The river card was the 7s and I got paid off by the BB. I was told by one of the two limpers that he had K,10.
I'll comment on the other responses below.
Well my posting buddy, if you didn't raise I would have certainly reevaluated my previous sparkling comments about your posts! Carry on! Vince
Yeah, I like your action and the reasons for it a lot. I didn't consider that heads-up, you now have 3 more outs that you probably didn't with the whole field. Good job.
I haven't read the responses here yet. I think raising was okay, in order to get it heads up, but remember that you need to balance your odds of improving against your opponents odds of improving.He was the favorite and also had about as many outs to improve as you. I would have played this hand differently on the flop though. I would have raised since at that point you had posistion with a ten out hand. Similar to raising with a flush draw with posistion.if aces re-raised you might have had it heads up on the cheaper street.
Al,
I don't have to concern myself with the BB's outs. I know he's got a hand. The only outs that matter are mine. So, I am not sure what you mean by "balancing the odds". Perhaps, I am just being thick and missing something.
I don't believe that raising on the flop would have been correct. BB would have surely reraised (remember I put him on a big pair). On the flop, I have no interest in getting it heads up. On the turn, I do have an interest in getting it heads up because of the presence of the Ad. Here, if I can get it headsup, I can increase my outs to 14. A raise on the turn can cause another hand with a 9 to fold (i.e. he might think that I have KQ and is drawing dead). That same fear would not be in his mind with a raise on the flop. In fact, the chap with a 9 will call all raises on the flop.
skp, you had enough odds to draw to your hand based on pre-flop and the bet and calls on the flop before it got to you,... so why do you want more people in against you?If you raised on the flop and got re-raised , as you agreed, it probably would be heads up.When the ace comes on the turn, this player very well might have checked, looking for a check raise.Again, it sounds as if you are looking back at the hand an deciding after the fact what your strategy was. If you thought he had aces as you said, to begin with, then even if you didn't have all those outs,(but you want to play), then you should be aggressive and use your posistion to try to get it heads up. On the turn, you had no choice but to try to get it heads up since he improved even more! Also, you comment on how this player was so boring by his play. I see nothing wrong or boring with how this player played.How would you have played it if you were in his spot. I know ,you would have just called pre-flop, and then tryed for a check raise??? Wow!! How creative! One of the most profitable players I know at the 10-20 level makes $30 an hour, and his game is very simple and straight forward. Probably boring by your standards.Many players suspect tricky plays and check raises etc., and get stomped by the straight forward player. good luck
I don't think I explained very well my reasoning for not raising on the flop. A better explanation is there in my response to Vince's post. Let me add that I do not vehemently object to a raise on the flop.
BTW, I didn't say that the BB's play was boring. I said it was very predictable. There's a difference. You show me a predictable player who claims to make $30 an hour in a 10-20 game and I'll show you someone who's prone to tell a tall tale or two.
As for how I'd play if I was in BB's shoes: I too would raise pre-flop with Aces in the BB. The difference is that players can't earmark me for Aces when I do that because I may also raise pre-flop from the big blind with deuces against a large field. As for play on the flop, turn etc., I would vary my play based on way too many factors to enumerate in a vacuum.
the funny thing is, if this player is so predictable, then you should have never called the raise pre flop. For being so predictable, he had a nice size pot going, didn't he? You see, sometimes it doesn't matter, because of posistion etc. If this player never semi-bluffs etc, then he might be too predictable. But I distinctly remember words such as unimaginative. You might think I'm on your case skp, but my impression is that you are a fairly new player with maybe 2-4 yrs playing experience, under 30 years old, and thinking you can beat the game, and I'm alittle afraid for ya. I think from the posts I've read of yours that you might be a little too aggressive in the wrong spots. I haven't written a book, and you don't know who I really am, but I see a little of myself in you from about 12 years ago. Be careful, cockiness and poker don't mix well. good luck, seeya nxt thread
For the record: 33 years old. Started playing Casino poker in Feb, 1996. To date, I have only logged about 2200 hours of play. So ya, I am still pretty wet behind the ears.
As I have stated elsewhere in this thread, I play in a relatively weak game (and I'm thankful for it). In that game, there is no doubt in my mind that I am a favourite but there's also no doubt in my mind that I would go broke were I to play on a regular basis in tougher games such as those found in Las Vegas.
I am a confident player - not a cocky one.
But, in all seriousness, I do appreciate the advice.
....next thread
SKP,
Your thinking as I see it in your posts leads me to believe you would win in L.V. and probably anywhere else. Too many players have the idea l.v. is a place where all the champs are. This is far from the truth. In the biggest games that is true but in mid limits and down the play is horrible but sometimes tight. When tight just leave as there are many other games in town. You posters out there in poker land think and act more clearly than all the tight grinders ive ever played against. If you can keep from steaming and stay away from sports and the pit games you will win and leave with a profit if you play as good as you write. Remember l.v. also has a lower rake than most anywhere else and that adds up to a signicant amount. Good Luck.
Ray, thanks for the encouraging words. They mean a lot to me coming from you.
He should have never called the raise? He's getting 12-1 on his last call. Even if the guy turned his cards over and showed his aces I believe a call is correct here. And BTW, the power of this guy's hand is diminished quite a bit by the fact that we know what he's holding.
In weak games, it's not much of a disadvantage to be predictable, because most of the players aren't observant enough or have enough conviction in their reads to respond appropriately.
There's a player in our regular 10-20 game who I think last bluffed before there was electricity. Yet, I see people pay him off all the time. It amazes me that the guy gets any action at all, but he does. In a tough game, he would get killed, but here he posts a small but steady win with very low variance because he's as tight a player as you'll ever find.
Dan
"if this player is so predictable, then you should have never called the raise pre flop"
I strongly disagree. skp was getting 14-1 to call in last position with 8d9d and maybe 15-1 if the SB would have called. (SB folded -- almost certainly wrong too). One player with AA, KK or AK will not significantly affect the chance that 8d9d will hit the flop or win. When a bunch of players hold big cards and big pairs, 8d9d becomes very juicy. Therefore, if it's wrong to call here, it's wrong to ever play the hand at all. (BTW, I ran a few Poker Probe sims with all manner of horrible hands combinations against 89s in addition to AA (like TT, 99, 88, 77, JTs together with 76s) and couldn't make the 89s more than a 13-1 dog, and it was usually around 5-1 or 6-1. Which I think is at least a crude indication of its strength).
skp, Dan, al raisya, Andrew, Scott and all,
If anyone wonders where the next great poker book could come from, take this thread, duplicate its quality a few times on a different hand, edit it just a bit, and interject a few comments from Ray, Mason, or David. The title of the book could be "Inside the Thinking Holdem Players Mind". I'll leave the problem of how to split the royalties and the nuances of copyright laws out for now but it would certainly make my bookshelf.
Forgive me if I appear to be a little incoherent (I'm pretty dazed from looking at that little hourglass on my CRT waiting for each page to load). Here are my "after the game is all but over and the second string is playing out the clock" comments.
Andrew: I must have played in your 10/20 game at Foxwoods one weekday last Spring while visiting family in Rhode Island. It was the first time I ever remember playing in a game where I was one of the two or three loosest players in the game rather than the one of the tightest. However, bluffing opportunities were common and I did OK by taking advantage of scary boards and so on. Perhaps the prevalence of stud in New England has left the holdem game with the tighter players since there didn't seem to be much live action coming into the game. However, the atmosphere was great, the company pleasant, and anyway I had to wait for my Mom to finish her donation to the Native Americans at the bingo parlor. I agree with most that your estimate of the chance that the higher diamond flush is out against you is way too high (I liked skp's comment that it is way less likely since in is coming runner, runner).
skp: I'm not so sure that a raise on the flop is not the best play at that point (maybe I'm used to the California style). The type of gentleman you describe in the big blind would often slow down right there and if he doesn't slow down (hopefully folding people in the middle) it really nails his hand to AA or KK and this makes pairing your eight (or even nine) much better. Otherwise, this is a fantastic analysis.
To all the others: I'm glad you guys are spread out all over the continent discussing this hand rather than at the bar at the Commerce after torching the yellow chip (i.e., 10/20, 15/30, 20/40) game there. If you weren't, players like me would have no chance after collection.
Regards,
Rick
Some recent posting has indicated that specific hand analysis is appreciated by certain forum contributors, myself included. Where else can one find a peer group of poker experts who might see something differently than we do, without having to discuss strategy with competitors? With this in mind, I offer the following hand for critique and disection.
Monday morning, regular crew, only hold'em table opening - no game continuing from Sunday night - yet full (ten players) before the first hand is dealt. Play seems a bit cautious and on the passive side for this lineup. Twelve hands into the game there's been one showdown and no one is shortstacked yet.
I'm first to act with pocket tens, and decide to limp. I don't think the game is tight enough to raise looking for two or three way action. There are two callers and a raise from a weak straightforward player in late middle position. The small blind makes it three bets and the big blind folds. I have seen the small blind reraise from that position in prior sessions with some fairly unusual holdings, and suspect he's aware of the principle of reraising a possible late position stealer with a playable hand from the small blind hoping to knock out the big blind and get it heads-up against the original raiser - but has somehow distorted the strategy and has been misapplying it in situations where the raise can only be legitimate or when he's not likely to get everyone but the raiser to fold.
I capped the betting. I thought I could get the two limpers between me and the original raiser to muck rather than call three bets cold, and thought they were likely to cold call two bets since they're aware that the original raiser is a live one. Also, if the raiser had a big pocket pair I didn't want him capping and defining his hand to the reraiser in the small blind. My capping would also give me some camouflage if I flopped top set. The next player released but the player ahead of the original raiser put in the three bets, so we saw the flop four handed (worst result for my pocket tens) with eighteen small bets in the pot.
The flop (T66 suited) was a beauty however. The small blind checked and I bet out. I think there are many players who would slow down here with this monster, and I was tempted to do just that. However, the pot has become quite large so my main concern was getting it into my stack, and I had elected to cap the pot pre-flop so a check would not be in line with what I was representing. I would not attempt a checkraise in this spot with aces or kings while checking and calling would mark me for a powerhouse. My bet was called, and the original raiser made it two bets again. I put him on the big pocket overpair or the nut flush draw at this point. The small blind cooperated by folding, which was nice since he was the only player capable of having had the nuts on the flop anyway.
Again I was tempted to slow down and smooth call hoping the turn would complete a flush draw, but I made it three bets since I was sure any overcard particularly an ace or king might leave me drawing nearly dead to the case ten. Furthermore, anyone with the nut flush draw isn't going to fold to my reraise and I wanted the player behind me (if he had started with a hand like 76s) to have the opportunity to smooth call rather than make a backraise with the intention of putting a brake on the action. Both players just called and we saw a blank (I don't remember what card, so let's call it an offsuit deuce) hit the turn with twenty-seven small bets in the pot.
I led again, and both players called. If the flush card had appeared on the turn I was going to bet and smooth call a raise if it was heads-up, otherwise I'm reraising even though this defines my hand because neither player is capable of folding the nut flush in this spot. The river brought an offsuit king to the board, and an involuntary audible gurgle from deep within my stomach while the original raiser just sat with a frozen stare eyeing this card. I checked. They checked, and the dealer eventually pushed me the pot.
I agree that slow-playing was not called for in this situation. In fact, slow-playing could be counter-productive in that a check raise on the turn may cause your opponents to release a mediocre hand. Often, when I flop such monsters in early position, I exude strength on the flop by say betting and then making it three bets. Players incorrectly assume that I can't be all that strong because they expect that I would slowplay a monster. Then, I might check on the turn. This often confuses them and causes them to take a stab at the pot even with as little as an unhelped AK. I then of course raise.
One point: If I were to check on the River after the off-suit King fell, I would be doing it not because I feared a raise but because perhaps I felt that my opponent had nothing and might bluff. However, here you have two opponents. It is unlikely that either one of them is going to bluff. I would bet. I would not be too concerned about running into a bigger full. In fact, if you put the original raiser on Aces or Kings, the King on the river makes it less likely that he's got Pocket Kings (half as likely to be exact). Also, he might very well have another smaller pocket pair altogether with which he might call a bet on the river but not bet himself.
There's another reason for betting: I don't want to give the impression that I'm always fearing the worst. If I do that, aggressive opponents are bound to eat me up.
Actually it's 4:1 against since I'm giving the original raiser credit for AA KK or QQ. Also no one is going to call or raise me here unless I'm beat since I three bet the turn, so I might as well check and pick off a possible bluff bet even though the pot is way too big for anyone to reasonably expect a bluff to succeed. A bluff may be better here three handed instead of two since there is a perception of the pot being protected.
I understood you to mean that you had three bet the flop (not the turn). Even if you had three bet the turn (perhaps moreso), the chances of you being called by a weaker hand on the end would likely be greater than the chances of inducing a bluff. Certainly, that's the case in the games that I play in but perhaps the situation is different in yours.
Typo. I meant the flop, yes. This player would bet AKs - what he believes is a lesser hand - and not call on the river with it, while checking down AA.
Your observation about a player being more likely to call the river with a weaker hand after his raise on the turn was reraised is interesting. This is something I'm going to have to give attention to, but I think intuitively your right on the money with that comment.
"if you put the original raiser on Aces or Kings, the King on the river makes it less likely that he's got Pocket Kings (half as likely to be exact)"
Actually, the likelihood of KK under those assumptions goes from 1/2 (6/12) to 1/3 (3/9).
What I meant by "half as likely" is that the chances of him holding Aces are twice the chances of him holding Kings.
I agree that the hand shouldn't have been slowplayed after the flop. The test is: what's the likelihood that most everyone will fold if I bet? With three opponents in for four bets each before the flop, NOT VERY. (Although I would go for a check-raise on the flop if a preflop raiser were to my direct left.) I would have bet on the river unless I knew that neither player would pay me off with AK or AA. Even then, a raise from the last position player ("weak, straightforward") would pretty clearly indicate KK, and I could release. Given the King on board, I would give him about a 20% chance of KK, and an equal probability (40%) of AA or QQ. Therefore, if he'll call with AA more than half the time, my bet looks good. However, the player in the middle makes it difficult to know where you're really at, so the check is far from terrible.
The only play I don't like is the 4-bet out of position before the flop. Three-handed out of position with all that money in the pot is still a bad place to be. It's about even money that at least one overcard will flop, then what? Even if no overcards flop, you can't feel very good about your hand when the SB has god knows what and someone raises.
I know the pre-flop raiser well. I'm not going to get called on the river with AA or AK after I three bet the turn. He's capable of betting AK (but not likely to do so) on the river if it's checked to him. Before the flop, I felt I had a good opportunity to narrow it down to three handed which would have greatly improved my chances of winning with an overpair if the flop was favorable. There was also a significant possibility that the original raiser would cap it, which would have been consistent with his play from many prior sessions.
IMO, this fellow probably misses out on several value bets at the end if he checks down Pocket Aces or AK in the situation that you describe. The way I see it if players are checking to me on the end, most of the time they do so because they fear that they are beat. Most players don't check for esoteric reasons such as inducing a bluff etc.
If I was in your opponent's shoes, I would most certainly bet with Aces or AK after you checked in the situation you described. Your three bet on the flop wouldn't worry me too much.
He was in last position, so there was no bluff to induce. He certainly must have believed he was beaten, and he was right this time. Betting out with my hand on the river is a reasonable alternative, I agree.
In my local card rooms, it frequently happens, at the lower limits, that if the big blind in an unraised pot pushes his hand toward the dealer, not paying attention, or simply know knowing better, the dealer will push it back to him or her, saying something like, "you're already in."
This rankles me, but usually, for ths sake of keeping the game friendly, I keep my mouth shut. But some day, one of these players is going to beat me in a big pot with a hand that should have been in the muck. And I'm not going to like it.
What should you do? Thanks. PF
I do not profess to know what the rule is but I offer this: I think that the dealer did right.
Ideally, a dealer would have some discretion: If a player who should know better mucks it simply due to inattention, I would say "tough beans" but if a new player mucks it because he does not know any better, then I would ideallly want him to have his hand back. But that kind of ideal world obviously can't exist;we can't have 2 sets of rules. Accordingly, I prefer the more forgiving rule for everyone.
You must have one hell of a tilt problem if this will rankle you. My advice is to take some valium or adjust your attitude to accomodate players who are less aware than you -- the same players who make your game easily beatable.
Ditto. You are going to win so much more from these guys then you could possibly lose that you have no cause to complain. It would be like repealing the "cards speak" rule to punish players who can't read their own hand.
Scott's diagnosis is correct. I never used to play like that -- I mean, getting "rankled." I also agree with skp, Chris, and Louie -- the problem clearly is mine. I need to step back a little and get back in sync. Thanks, guys, for taking the time to remind me. Sincerely, pf.
Don't bother talking to dealers. Inquire about management's position. IMO it is reasonable for them to have some such "sucker protection" policies such as this; since it is clearly in the card rooms interest not to alienate a new customer. It is also not in YOUR best interest, either.
- Louie
Having read most, if not all, of Frank's posts here on 2plus2, I've noticed a tendency for his attitude to get progressively more negative about poker, professional players, poker authors and the whole idea that there are "real" winning poker strategies that can be learned and used.
Frank, almost all the material you cited as having been read and studied by you, contains the information you would need to go into most public poker rooms and win money. To win, you have to synthesize that information, temper it with experience and, finally, mold and shape it until it suits your personal playing style tendencies. If you give a great recipe to a beginning cook and that same recipe to a journeyman chef, I guarantee you the two meals won't turn out the same. I suspect that you allowed your ego to put you into games where your poker abilities were overmatched by the other players.
In your latest posts you seem to be declaring that successful poker players are parasites and, because of this, you have decided to withdraw from the arena. Failure leads to rationalization. If you are unable to see something through to a successful conclusion, don't place the blame on your tools or the blueprints. Everything you require to be a winning poker player is available to you. I urge you to make a stand and see this through. Believe me when I tell you that you will become a better man for having done so. Success in life is built on successes, not failures. Quitting, in your case, would be just another failure.
Big John H-
I'm afraid this forum has been infiltrated by Doug Grant from RGP in disguise. He is trying to project a more constructive image to lure us into responding to his negative and cynical rants. Resist like you would resist drawing to the ignorant end of a gutshot straight.
Funny, after seeing this last group of messages from 'Frank' I've started to think the same thing.
Dan
Who is Doug Grant and what's his scoop?
Go to rec.gambling.poker and post: Wayne Cowey, please tell me what you think about dggrant? greg
Bravo
Bravo was directed towards Big John's post. Losing streaks can be extremely discouraging, but to blame them on available information is both naive and exhibits a lack of patience. If one's goal is only to win pots, the long term prognosis is dim. On the other hand, if an individual is committed to learning how to consistently make correct decisions within the framework of the game, success should follow.
Big John,
I think that a lot of posters addressed Frank's lament very well. David Sklansky states in an essay in his book, "Fighting Fuzzy Thinking", that the odds of a player who reads the best books being successful as a pro are 9-1 against. David also states that the odds of a player, who utilizes playing experience only, being successful is 99-1 against. Personally I think that a player who reads and makes a concious and dedicated effort to improve by utilizing their experience and knowledge has much better than a 9-1 against of being at least a winning player. To reiterate what others have said over and over; experience, knowledge and thinking away from the table are the keys to being successful. Expecting that just reading and studying the best poker books will turn you into a winning player is expecting too much from poker books.
Tom Haley
Tom,
Thanks, I agree.
Even at 4 to 1 against it would still be pretty steep though.
You've summarized exactly what I've been trying to say all along. It isn't in the books. I've just been criticizing that they are advertised at though it is in there.
Apparently "Fighting Fuzzy Thinking" is a little more direct on the odds of failure. I have to commend Dave for printing that statement.
Credit where credit is due.
Well, It's been fun. I'm going to make this my final transmission for a while. (Much to y'alls relief I'm sure!).
I've got to pursue some other things that will likely take me away from here.
Thanks a bunch! Frank
Big John,
I agree with your stance about quitting in general. But then Custer had a problem with quitting. :-)
God knows that If I'd have quit a certain points in my life I'd still be in a transistor factory earning 5.96 an hours and probably contracting cancer from the chemicals.
So I have to support the idea of kicking butt through things that are tough. But suppose the game was Craps? Would you say to stick that out? Well for most the out come is about the same.
See my point. Maybe it isn't as easy as the authors make it out. And then again maybe it's near to impossible.
So my negativity was the result of seeing lots of effort invested with little return. Perhaps there are better uses of effort. And perhaps I was also taken in by slick advertising on book covers.
So again, I'll agree. Tough it out a kick butt where it's warranted. But call them as you see them. The gambling press in general is full of disinformation and wrong information. Further, almost all marketing is a little "pie in the sky"...For example the title "Gambling for a Living...earn 100,000 a year".
I still have to say that Pro Poker players are, like casinos basically a bit on the parasite side. After all, what do they do? Oh, ok they provide entertainment! But think about it. An entire falsehood surrounds the whole thing. Even if the rationalizations poker players make, "The money goes to the better players." and "Poker is a game of decisions." are true...and they seem to be (std deviations aside)... so what? What difference to the world does it make that you or I can better predict what card comes off the top of a deck? Look at all the energy we've put into this stuff. What has it really accomplished. For the few, maybe an escape from the 9 to 5. What about the rest? I can occasionally recall feeling bad after winning! Especially if I knew my opponents were less skilled!
I'd not be the first to point that out. There are at least a few authors that have written books about that. They just don't sell to well because they're not "optimistic".
Far to many have been brainwashed by Norman Vincent Peale. To the point where objective statements appear negative.
Anyway, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor and a good run will let you come back and fight another day.
So for now, it's imperative that I focus my efforts on something more profitable vis a vis my efforts.
But I will always say poker is the king of games. It really does distill the world down to a card table size playing field! :-)
Big John,
I've seen some comments about a Doogie in here. Just for the record, I'm not Doogie. I could've let him take the "blame" but my sense of honor won't tolerate that.
Even if Doogie is in the wrong or whatever. So don't blame him for my "rants". Although I really don't think I'm ranting. Just pointing out what I've experienced and seen.
Anyway, Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Frank.
P.S. I Do believe there are winning strategies. I'm just not sure they're being layed out clearly or properly.
Thus my "disenchantment" in having purchased the so called answers and again being dumb enough to let advertizing sway me into it. :-) I was basically yet another "sucker" for Dave and Mason. Sucks...but it's true none the less!
Of course there are plenty of others playing thier new game too. All the lifestyle publications etc. For Muscle & Fitness promises a great life if you work out. Well most people quit because sooner or later they figure out you cannot look like the cover without steroids. Cosmopolitan promises every woman they can have a great sex life and be like Cindy Crawford if they do what they say. How many women have totally ruined self esteem from that crap? And the list goes on. So I really see the Poker Literature as another variation on the them. Another lifestyle myth sold to hopefuls for a profit. To be sure a few make it. There are a few Arnold Swartzneggers and Cindy Crawfords...but everyone cannot be. That is what the publications leave out. Otherwise they'd go broke.
I don't know how much clearer an observation one could make about it all. It may have something to do with quitting or not. But overwhelmingly the odds are against success.
I'm also of the opinion the answers are simpler than 2+2 makes out. Otherwise how could Dave and Mason apply them rapidly?
Also, yes again, if successful poker players are those who intentionally, as most books reccomend, seek out weak players and fleece them as a dominant strategy...well you tell me what to call it. Still seems parasitic or at least a form of bullying or something. So no, I don't mean to imply all SUCCESSFUL players are parasites, just CERTAIN FORMS of PRO.
Perhaps I've dismissed it too soon. But it's really just my survival instinct kicking in. And like you, I've learned to trust my own judgement over the years.
If successes are built on successes there comes a time to call something a failure and move on. There is such a thing ,as Sun Tzu pointed out, as battle not to fight. (Or as he put it, fortresses not attacked.)
Anyway, good to meet you, hope we meet someday In the event we haven't met already. ;-)
P.P.S. Don't I owe you a beer?
Further down this page you will find "The New Guide to Starting Hands" by Dick Taylor. We welcome all discussion on this topic.
Things are seldom as they are When played upon the blue guitar.
From "The man with the blue guitar" Wallace Stevens 1936
Taylor's program as much chance of writing a poem as it does of playing Texas Hold'em.
When he actually writes a program to play Texas Hold'em and not Taylor Hold'em, I'll believe his results.
Until then, we're all better off relying on the experience of human experts.
I'm not a very experienced poker player but I am a professional software engineer. A couple of weeks ago I ran some simulations for a poster on this forum and finished with the warning "any simulation is only as good as your assumptions". On a brief study of the explanation below (I can't spare the time to go through it line-by-line) I believe that several of the assumptions made are sufficiently unrealistic as to make the results next to worthless. As much as I believe that computer simulations can be valuable for certain specialised situations, I too am much happier to consider Two-Plus-Two's advice than the advice given below.
Andy.
I haven't gone back down to see if you responded directly to me, but thanks Mason for opening this up.Although these sims might not be totally realistic, I am wondering what type of weighting factor was used by S&M to move certain hands up in value based on playing experience.The assumptions and experience of S&M are superlative, yet I still believe that it is very difficult to weight hands by experience and move them higher than general probability and the best sims available show. The responses to these sims have been so negative, that I question whether there is some kind of personal conflict going on here. I f the sims are innaccurate, we should engage in a disscussion with the programmers and encourage them to improve their work, but we should not squash them. I give them alot of credit for trying, and we should continue to encourage them to improve it. One thing though. I have been hearing for over two years that S&M's middle connectors are rated too high, from many other players, so these guys are not the only ones coming to this conclusion.
Al, Is that the unsuited connectors or both?
both. This is the only thing I find viable with this new sim. The game has changed(imo) as I posted above. I think both S&Ms and others need tweaking.
Mason,
I think ranking starting hands isn't very useful for playing a winning game of hold'em. Discussing starting hands in terms of different re-occurring situations seems a lot more relevant to winning play. The real problem I have with Taylor's starting hands document is that IMO it has virtually no discussion of strategic concepts that apply to pre-flop play. Attempting to use this document as the basis to playing pre-flop limit hold'em will be very harmful to one's bankroll IMO. It's unfortunate that Taylor's document is given so much attention (mostly due to Taylor's hyping it on RGP) because it really doesn't compare favorably to the chapter in HFAP on pre-flop play.
Tom Haley
I've been taking poker seriously for about a year. Not a pro and don't aspire to be one, but don't play to lose either. Play mostly 1-4-8-8 and generally a little tighter than HPFAP, re:starting hands. I think this is OK because of lower blind structure. Will raise preflop about as much as I call, though usually not the max. Just trying to make all those loose callers pay a little extra, in a siuation where I feel I have the best of it,usually. Though starting hand play is actually a dynamic, based on position, number of players in the pot,etc, I feel HPFAP's starting hand guide is the best to follow. Having previously read Dick Taylor's guide, I examined it but dismissed it. Do you think my playing a bit tighter than HPFAP is correct for 1-4-8-8, with it's $1&$2 blinds?
no
The 1-4-8-8 games change the structure of "normal" holdem when played with just $1 & $2 blinds. It allows you to "open up" a bit and play some hands that you get good drawing odds on that you wouldn't otherwise in a standard structure game due to the increased entry fee up front. So by tightening up you're actually pushing your pre-flop model in the wrong direction vis-a-vis the modified structure.
For example in a typical 20-40 game, you might not limp in with 89s in early mid position because there might not be enough callers and you could get coerced into putting too much money in pre-flop compared to your potential payoff. By substantially reducing your proportionate pre-flop expense, this is less of a danger. If by playing the drawing hands, you're getting overlays to draw you wouldn't otherwise, who is laying you this price? Those who have "tightened up" and aren't playing such a diverse collection of hands. These recommendations are premised on this being a typical low-limit game with many fishies. If not, disregard.
When the structure changes it will affect the hand rankings. In David's original version of HOLD 'EM POKER (1976) the hand rankings were somewhat different, but so was the structure. This is one of the weaknesses in the Taylor report.
Our hand rankings reflect the overall probability structure of Hold'em, when table looseness and number of players are varied. They DO NOT CHANGE with game betting structure, although a player's decision about when particular hands to play should, indeed, change. I think it serves no useful purpose to confuse your readers.
Dick Taylor
I'm not confusing our readers. Let me be specific. In 1981 David Sklansky revised his hand rankings from those that originally appeared in his 1976 book HOLD 'EM POKER. In his 1981 book ESSAYS ON POKER (which is now part of SKLANSKY ON POKER) he wrote:
"Since Hold 'em came into being there have been a few changes in the Nevada Hold 'em scene. These changes have served to make my original rankings somewhat out of date.
Two Things have happened:
(a) The players are tougher and
(b) The blinds are bigger
For instance the Golden Nugget $10-$20 game which was described in my book as having one $5 blind, now has a $5 and a $10 blind (as well as a 50-cent ante)."
Larger blinds tend to encourage MULTI-WAY POTS. This in turn raises the value of suited hands, especially SUITED CONNECTORS. You will see this reflected in the new rankings."
No, it is your comments about OUR study that are misleading. As for the idea that small suited connectors go up in relative value when the table has lots of multi-way action, that idea is a myth. The truth portion of the myth is simply that more hands become playable pre-flop the bigger the expected average pot .. unless that is achieved by increasing the number of players.
Dick Taylor
What's the matter Dick, are you finding it hard to believe that your study is starting to fall apart? Remember that I privately offered to discuss it all with you last year in an effort to save you public embarrassment, but that you refused.
For those of you who regularly read our forum, I have been tied up with some 2 + 2 projects. But starting today, I will work my way through Taylor's report (again) and post my comments here.
So what you are saying is I should see more flops, since I can see them cheaply. Then get out if the flop doesn't hit my hand. I see alot of players use this strategy,except invariably they will pick up third pair or inside draw and not dump the hand. They are losers, but I suppose this is because they misjudge the relative strength of their hand,after the flop and don't fold.
Ding.
If you're playing in a game against players who draw to third pair, this is the structure to which you want to aspire, the idea being that the reduced pre-flop monies make this a neg EV play. Note that in some games where a lot of money goes in pre-flop, it may be correct to draw to some 5-outers, tho you need enough card reading sense to correctly determine whether you're actually going to win the hand if you hit.
Hand Ranking is a valuable tool for learning and teaching Hold'em Poker. Sklansky's Rankings are by far the most accurate given for this purpose (my opinion). Once a player becomes skilled, experienced and successful the value of hand ranking is markedly decreased. Good/Expert Hold'em players do not put much emphasis on a hands ranking (other factors are much more important) when deciding to play a paticular hand, including hands like T2o. (Ask Brunson). I don't know this other author, "Dick Taylor", and until I hear some positive feedback about him from authors like Malmuth, Sklansky, Zee or Caro I will stick with Sklansky! Opinion by Vince BTW I know it (Brunson) was in a tournament but the point is still valid!
In limit holdem, (as HFAP shows), slowplaying is rarely a correct strategy. The preflop pots are usually so large that a hand which is in any way vulnerable would in most cases rather claim the pot than risk it to gain a few extra bets. Even with an absolute lock, it is often better to bet in many cases,(see the chapter "Slowplaying" in HFAP) and against weak-loose opponents, you make more by betting out or check-raising than by slowplaying when they will call anyway.
In no-limit, many of the reasons not to slowplay are removed. If your free card gives an opponent a draw to a better hand, you can still shut her out of the pot with an overbet. The pot on the flop is small compared to the potential gain from trapping opponents for a few extra bets. Giving a free card to an opponent that makes him two pair may induce him to play his hand strongly. I look carefully at the board, and am less inclined to slowplay a flopped set or straight when (1) there was a preflop raise from a player who has not yet acted on the flop and that would be likely to bet AK or an overpair against that flop (2) the board has a 2-flush and many players took the flop or (3) calling stations are in the pot. Ciaffone says to slowplay sets very rarely, and that the purpose is to show your opponents that they can't always steal from you when you check. But I'm thinking that the potential reward on trapping someone into a second-best hand that they play strongly when they put you on a good-but-weaker hand might make this a frequent choice.
There are many reasons to lead out with sets - players may put you on top pair-weaker kicker and give you a lot of action, you avoid giving free cards to draws, a check-raise might make top pair fold, if you tend to bet strong hands your bluffs are more likely to work. However, the structure of a no-limit holdem game with deep money is such that the starting pots are usually insignificant compared to what you can win on a hand, and so you would not always want to risk shutting off the action.
When would it be correct to slowplay a strong hidden hand in no-limit, assuming deep money and skilled opposition?
I think a good rule for slowpaying would be not to unless the great majority of cards that likely help someone would make them a hand you can still beat and get good action with still. In nolimit it is a total disaster to let a person catch up and then go broke to the hand. Then listen to him tell the table how you gave him implied odds which you did.
How about this example from last night's game? Tight early position player with about $300 raises the 2/5 blinds and a loose UTG limper to $25. Loose guy with larger stack cold calls. I call with pocket tens on the button and both blinds and the UTG limper fold. I have about a grand.
Flop is T-6-4 rainbow. Tight early player bets $75 and other guy folds. I put the early player on an overpair, probably not Aces since he would have limped and gone for a reraise before the flop. He has about $200 left and I figure the best way to get it is to reraise right now:
1. A smooth call of $75 with no draws on the board would look mighty suspicious and he is a god enough player (and respects me enough) to shut down on the turn if he doesn't improve.
2. If he has AA, KK, or QQ he might convince himself that I have a smaller overpair and call.
3. If he has QQ, or JJ, and Ace or K on the turn might kill any further action form him in the remote case he thinks I cold-called with Overcards.
4. I like to sometines move all-in on the flop with a big drawing hand, and want to let the observant regular players know that that the nuts might be played the same way.
Anyway, the guy had JJ and made the proper laydown. He said figured me for at least AA, but probably a set.
Do you agree with my reasoning and under what circumstances would it be better to smooth call with top set?
Post deleted at author's request.
If there are any Mike Petriv types out there, It would be interesting to know the odds of having this happen i.e. 5 pat full houses.
Post deleted at author's request.
Why not compromise with a $100 raise to get his money in and him tied solidly to the pot? My experience is that even good players will call a raise only slightly larger than their initial bet. Once he calls, you can put him all in on the turn for his last $100. A small raise might come because you have top pair with Ace kicker and want to find out where you are at, much harder for him to not call. Your flop is just too good to allow him to escape with the bulk of his stack intact. In his position, if you raise me the $100, I think for a minute and raise you all in, deciding that if I'm going to put the $100 in I might as well put the rest in now when I'm sure you will call. Alternatively, I'd go for a delayed smooth call and peek back at my hole cards after putting my $75 in the pot.
Your reasoning is sound, and it may be that you made the smartest decision, but this guy just was able to get away from it this time. It could be that you misread this player's ability to fold to your bet, and made a not so smart decision. However, there must have been some way to get all of this guy's money in the pot (or he's the easiest player to bluff I've ever seen). Just file away this information, and use it next time against him.
To answer your question, it's better to smooth call with top set when a) you're not overly concerned about the next card, that it, there aren't many next cards that are likely to beat you. b) you've decided that smooth calling is the best way to get this guy's money.
b is kind of a non-answer, I admit. However, it's another way of saying you want to know your players. Against some guys a smooth call here would scare me more than if they raised. Against others, I would know a smooth call indicates a hand like JT (too good for them to throw away, but they're not about to raise with it). You need to decide what the other player will put you on if you call, raise small, or jam (your only three options here). Based upon that, you make your choice. Admittedly, it's impossible to be right every time. That's why I differentiate between smart decisions (that's the best you can do) and right decisions (these often follow from smart decisions, but not always; anyone who guarantees a right decision is either lying, or isn't dealing with something as unpredictable as poker).
Your analysis is good. The only question you need to ask is whether your read of the player was also good (was it a smart, albeit wrong decision; or a not so smart decision that was also wrong).
Also, sometimes analyze your right decisions. They may have been not so smart, but just turned out right this time.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Post deleted at author's request.
Here's an example from pot-limit holdem on the IRC. I have T8 in the BB and several players see an unraised flop of Ts8sTd. I have 10K and check and call a pot bet of 500, and there is one other caller. The bettor (#1), who just entered the game is almost all-in. The caller (#2), a solid player, has about 750000 left. On the turn of 9s, I check, #2 bets the pot, #1 raises his last 1000, and I reraise 7000. #2 folds (he had KsJs), and #1 had 7s4s. I was thinking in retrospect that maybe I should have called the turn. #2 might have overcalled for only 1000, and he might bet the river with the nut flush. #2 could have AT, JT, T9 (gulp), possibly KT or QT, Ax spades, KQ/KJ spades, QJ spades, 76 spades, 88. If #2 had the SF, he would probably check it and hope for a bet from the nut flush or for a fourth spade on the river that would lead the lone ace to bet. I put him on the nut flush, and figured #1 for AT/KT/JT.
I was recently offered a heads up challenge playing limit hold-em. The only difference is the betting structure; instead of the standard 1-1-2-2 structure it will be 1-2-3-5. What, if any changes do I need to make?
Thanks
Danny S
Dan,
Bluffs will be stronger
It will cost alot more to call down
You get paid higher but less often if you hit a hand
You will do better against a caller
You will do worse against a random bluffer
You will fold often on the turn and end
etc,etc. Good Luck
In thinking about some of these strategy posts over the last few days, I realized that it has been a long, long time since I raised the flop to buy a free card on the turn, yet I see other players go for this play all the time.
Frankly, I think the play is overused by a lot of inexperienced players. Because it is prominently mentioned in most of the poker literature, people seem to think that it should be used all the time. But it seems to me that there are a lot of drawbacks.
Here are some thoughts on the subject:
- If I am against 4 or more players, I can bet again for value.
- If I'm against 3 or less, I usually have some chance of winning the pot if I follow through with a bet on the turn when it has been checked to me.
- By taking a free card, I am giving up control of the pot.
- By taking a free card, I may not get paid off on the river if my flush or straight hits.
- If I continue betting on the turn, I have a chance to win a showdown on the river if I hit a pair and it is checked to me on the river, whereas I may not be able to call a bet in the same circumstance.
- If I miss my draw but a scary card lands, I can still win the pot with a bluff on the river.
- If I'm against someone else who is on the same draw, then by continuing to bet I win the pot if both of us miss.
There are also some good reasons for raising for a free card, but I'd like to hear from other players. Do you use this technique a lot?
When I do raise for a free card, I tend to do it with a deceptive hand, like a gutshot straight with an overcard and a 3-flush. Then if I take a free card on the turn I'll actually get paid off even better if I hit one of my outs on the river, because it's hard for people to put me on that hand. Even so, it seems like my judgement at the table rarely suggests that it's the right play.
Dan
Dan, I don't have time right now to add anything meaningful to your post. I will later on but I think your points are excellent. IMO, too many players check on the turn thinking that they have accomplished their goal of buying a free card rather than taking it one step forward and considering wether a bet on the turn will advance other goals (i.e. including taking down the pot right there).
Gotta go.
A situation happened to me a while back that really underscored this. I was up against a player who I knew liked to make this play. I flopped an open-ended straight flush draw, and we were heads-up. I bet the flop, and he raised. Now, I had already decided to play this big draw very agressively. I re-raised, and to my surprise he capped it. That startled me, since I didn't think he would cap it without a big hand. So, I checked the turn. Sure enough, he had capped it for free turn card. He gave me a sly grin, and checked behind me.
Of course, I bet the river in tempo (it was a blank), and he folded, happy that he had gotten his 'free card'. I commented him on his 'nice move', while I stacked the chips. My draw couldn't even have won a showdown on high card value.
Dan
Ya. Good illustration. This man's 'free card' play actually cost him $40 when a call on the flop and the turn would have only cost him $30. More importantly, as you say, he lost control of the pot on the turn.
Here's another example. This hand came up a couple of weeks ago.
I limp in with Q,J, suited under the gun hoping to start a calling frenzy. No such luck. Man to my left raises. Two others call and the blinds fold.
Flop is 9,8,3 (I can't remember if it was suited or not).
I bet and get raised by preflop raiser. The others fold. I call. Turn is a 7.
Check-Check.
Well, that's it. That guy has just lost control of the hand. That pot is mine unless a Q,K, or Ace hits. I'll bet if any blank hits. If a Queen hits, I'll check with my pair and hope he doesn't have AQ. If an Ace hits, I will not consider a bluff but I might if a King hits.
This play I see all the time. I think it's an error. If the raiser had put in another bet on the turn, there's no way that I can call $20 to hit my gut shot. I am not saying that he should know what I've got but I'm saying that he should know that (a) I can't be all that strong (because if I flopped a set or something, I would let him bet and hopefully have the other two players call before I raise so that I can trap everyone for two bets) and (b) if he checks on the turn, I'll have a pretty good idea of what he's got i.e. most likely AK.
This player obviously raised with his AK to get a free card and to buy the button. Ok, that's an acceptable goal on the flop. But why not follow through on the turn because most of the time in this situation I am not likely to have a strong enough hand to checkraise him on the turn. For example, he should know that I am unlikely to hold a straight on the turn because (a) I wouldn't bet J,10 on the flop into a possible raise to my immediate left and (b) I wouldn't call preflop with 6,5 or 10,6 UTG. He can probably also rule out the possibility that the 7 gave me two pairs given that I limped in UTG.
I guess my point is that you shouldn't be content with just getting a free card. Once that free card has been given, consider whether you can do more with your positional advantage. In my example, the guy should have known that a bet from him on the turn is likely to cause me to fold. In any event, the chances of me checkraising on the turn are much slimmer than the chances of me folding.
Some might say "Well, how is the raiser to know that you don't have a 9 and will just call him down all the way?". Yes, that is a possibility but this man's cost of betting is only $20 (because he can just check on the river if he gets no help). That's a small price to pay for a chance to win a $135 pot particularly when he still has a chance to improve on the River.
Sorry guys, I got to learn how to make my points more concisely. This is way too long a post to make a simple point: Play your position well and play it aggressively.
So your question raises a subset of this thread. How far to push big slick with all under cards and a non threatening board. IMHO not too far against strong players and like hell against weak. Also this would be a good time to look for weakish kind of tells.
You shouldn't push it if, in your judgement, you have no chance of winning the pot with a bet. I wouldn't use the terms 'strong player' and 'weak player', to decide this... 'weak tight' would be the kind of player I would jam this hand against... Some weak players are calling stations, and you have no chance of getting them to fold if they have anything at all.
Another reason why I don't like taking a free card with a hand as strong as AK is that you might not be *getting a free card - you might be *giving one. You may be betting the turn with the best hand. And your bet on the turn will often buy you a free showdown on the river, at which time your AK may win the pot. If you check the turn in a tough game, the chances are that someone will bet into you on the river, and you may have to call anyway. And if you don't call, you may be making a pot-sized error.
I would only use a free-card raise if, A) I was pretty sure I wouldn't get re-raised on the flop, and B) there aren't enough players to warrant betting the hand for value on the turn, and C) the players that are in the pot are guaranteed to call my bet on the turn, so I have no chance with a semi-bluff.
Those situations just don't seem to occur very often in the games I play in.
Dan
BTW, I am not saying that the guy with the AK in my example should always raise on the flop and always follow through with a bet on the turn. Obviously, there are several ways to play AK in that situation (fold on the flop, fold on the turn, call on the flop and raise on the turn even if unhelped, and sometimes even call-call).
What I am saying is that it would rarely be correct to raise on the flop while buying the button and then check down the turn feeling smug about tricking your opponent into giving you a free card.
I made my views known in a recent similar thread: I rarely raise just to buy free cards in heads-up situations.
Another bad thing that can happen when you try for a free-card raise - you may trigger a re-raise from the original bettor, which means you not only will pay the same amount for your draw, but it may cause a lot of players to fold to the double raise, killing your own action when you have a big draw.
i'm starting to think skp and dan are one in the same. keep trying guys or whom ever, you'll get there. I can't buy into these posts anymore.Ridiculus is too good a word. buh bye
Well, that was a helpful comment. If you disagree, why not share some reasons?
One good reason for occasioanlly raising for a free card is that it buys you more action on your real raises. If people think that you are raising for a free card, they'll call you with marginal holdings, which is nice when you have a big hand. So, you have to balance these things out. Do you not agree?
For the record, SKP and I know each other only peripherally, and have only played in the same game together once. Both of us have thousands of hours of play at middle limits, and we've never discussed strategy outside of this forum.
Perhaps the reason we agree is that we are both playing in Canada, and perhaps the caliber of play here is weaker, or the players are more 'weak tight' than Vegas and California players, leading us both towards a more agressive style of play.
I think the key to winning poker is to find the proper balance in your play. For example, if you raise for a lot of free cards, you should be willing to raise weaker hands for value on the flop as well, since you'll be getting more thin calls. You should also be willing to make more thin calls on the river, since astute opponents are going to start running at you when you check the turn. For example, if I were inclined to take free cards with an AK, I'd have to be willing to call on the river on occassion with an unimproved AK. On the other hand, if you never raise for a free card, then your flop raises become scarier to other players, and you should probably semi-bluff on the flop more often. Both styles of play can win if you're in the right game and you find the right balance.
Dan (trying to re-inject a civil tone to the discussion)
Al, obviously you feel that my views are way too aggressive. Maybe...but with all due respect, you are off the mark in characterizing them as "ridiculous". Aggressive poker is generally winning poker in my experience.
I can't sign off without saying that IMHO, your strategy appears to be way too meek...perhaps you ought to change your handle to Al foldtoya.
Of course, I haven't seen you play. So, it is "ridiculous" of me to characterize your play solely on what you write. You may well play great.
See ya.
I'll jump in with a few thoughts here because skp's example makes a good point of reference. I understand Dan's and skp's reasoning, but I may have a more moderate view. I would agree that the free card raise is a bit overused, but see that as players who are simply misapplying the concept. A major way to misapply it is, as Louie mentions below, to raise the bettor on your immediate right with your draw when you have a row of players left to act behind you.
But consider skp's example:
>>I limp in with Q,J, suited... Man to my left raises. Two others call and the blinds fold. Flop is 9,8,3 I bet and get raised by preflop raiser. The others fold. I call. Turn is a 7. Check-Check. Well, that's it. That guy has just lost control of the hand...<<
I don't see the guy's check as necessarily wrong here. Yes, if he knows you (skp) well enough to know that you wouldn't have bet JT into him on the flop with players left to act behind him, then he should be more inclined to bet. But lots of players would make that bet (with the JT). They don't think about the likelihood of driving out other players when the preflop raiser raises. Even if he does know you well, it depends on what else he knows about you. If you're a frequent check-raiser on the turn and/or a frequent bluffer, then his check may be correct as he can avoid a check-raise and perhaps induce a bluff on the river (not to mention the possibility of hitting his hand). If I were in his place, that pot would not be yours just because I checked. I'd know that you were now likely to bluff on the river and would call you with no pair with a fairly high frequency.
On the other hand, I do think there's some overuse of the free card thing by players who just don't recognize spots where they can pick up the pot. For these players, checking along on the turn may actually be the best thing they can do. But once they become better at reading subtle cues from their opponents and at recognizing opportunities created by the board cards they should replace some of their checks with bets when indications are that the pot is there for the taking. Also, I agree with Dan that if you can read the situation well enough to know that your AK is best and you'd be *giving* rather than taking a free card, then certainly you should bet. But that can be an awfully tough read.
I hate to say it depends, as that's got to be the "most overused" *posting* tactic, but...
John Feeney
YES.
Excellent post. You said it a lot better than I ever could.
John, a player like you who would call with no pair on the end with a fairly high frequency can often be making the right play by checking on the turn because as you say he will at times catch me bluffing on the river. Not only does he avoid the possibility of a checkraise, he also makes $20 which he would not make if he were to bet the turn and have me fold. Plus, there's the psychological effect of the play: it always scares me a little when my bluff gets called by a no-pair hand. I start to give the player a lot more respect for his poker knowledge.
But most players don't call on the end. Against those players, the pot is mine unless a A,K, or Q hits on the river.
So, I guess these players are making one of two erors or some combined form of the two errors:
(a) They lose control of the pot by checking the turn; and
(b) They fail to realize that I realize that they don't have a hand and are therefore vulnerable to being bluffed out on the river.
In any event, your post was a nice summary of the differing viewpoints.
I read a lot of posts and people seem to think this is a "secret" great play, and those who use it must be sophisticated. It appears to be a badge of honor; the acknowledgement of rite-of-passage; membership into an elite club, thank you very much.
When I see satisfaction in a players face when he uses that play, I target that player, since it is easy to "represent" any hand since the player is clever enough to deduce my hand; but not yet clever enough to realize that I know it. Cha-Ching!
A recent post embraced the notion of raising a surely-got-kings bettor on his right since he had a nut flush draw; this being the "standard" play. Never mind all the loose players who must now face the double bet. Sorry. With multiple loose players and a sure show down, the "standard" play with a big draw is to CALL a right-side solid bettor.
The "free" card:
-- It is not "free". You are investing 1sb in order to "save" 1bb, so your pay off is only 1sb.
-- You are risking 2sb since you may be re-raised.
-- All the callers are subject to a double bet, and you may lose "customers" by raising or getting reraised.
-- It seems to be a good enough excuse to play a hand that is not worth a call; such as an under-gut-shot.
-- Most of these players would slow-play any solid hand hoping for a double bb on the turn, hehehe. So MOST of their flop raises are "free" card raises, so they should be routinely reraised with any old betting hand.
The "free" card raise is NOT a great play; its just another play, to be used in conjunction with other reasons to raise.
Having said that, there ARE good reasons to raise with a draw on the flop: with several callers it is a raise for value; you get a solid gauge on your chances of stealing this pot; with few callers you can routinely steal this pot; it disguises both your 2nd pair raises AND your top set raises. There are others.
- Louie
Lets start calling it a "cheap" card raise.
Because a tactic is overused (and/or incorrectly used) by the general playing public does not lessen it's value. You may need to be more selective when you use it but if you disregard it you will be giving up a lot. My advice (unsolicited I know) is that you revisit the reason for buying the free (cheaper) card and keep this tactic in your inventory. It is a valuable tool when used correctly. An after thought: Buying a free card is directly tied to pot odds. Multi-way pots are often offering odds that may not require buying a free card. You must be the judge. I for one will continue using this tactic when needed. Vince
Oh, I agree that it's valuable. It's just that I see some otherwise good players using it all the time, and with me my judgement tends to make me bet again on the turn when I have a big draw, especially if I have big cards. If I've got something like an Ace-High flush draw, having everyone check to me on the turn suggests that my overcards might also be good if I hit one of them on the river. That gives me a lot more outs, and makes it okay to value bet even if I have only a couple of callers, especially when you add in the small but real chance that I might in fact have the best hand.
Of course, there are times when you absolutely know you are going to get called, even if you're heads-up, and at that time it would be correct to take a free card.
How often do you find yourself raising the flop and then taking a free card on the turn? Once a night? Several times a night? Once a week?
Dan
Dan, 15-30 Holdem. You: AsKs. You raise preflop. BB only calls. Pot: $70. Flop comes. Qs,7s,2h. BB bets. You raise. BB calls. Pot: 130. Turn comes 5d. BB checks. Do you bet? (let's forget about an important point, knowing your opponent). You have two over cards and the nut flush draw. Do you bet? Sklansky might say that if there is a chance your opponent will fold than you should bet. Let's forget that! Do you bet? You have 15 outs maximum if your opponent has only one pair. There are 46 unseen cards. 31 to 15 against you. Do you bet? In this situation you are more often than not giving the worse of it when you bet! You may even get check raised. The free card in situations similiar (and they come up all the time) to this is very valuable. Saving a bet is sometimes (not usually though) as important as making a bet! Vince
Against an opponent capable of bluffing the river, I would almost always bet, since I'm going to call him some of the time anyway if he bets the river, even with my AK unimproved. By betting the turn, I can induce a check from him, and I can turn my cards over and hope to win the showdown. Either way it costs me one bet.
If it's an opponent who never bets unless he has a pair, and never folds a pair to a pre-flop raiser unless an Ace or a King comes, I would check. But on the other hand, against this opponent I might not raise on the flop, either.
Against an average opponent, I would bet. In my experience, there is simply a much greater chance than 1 chance in 15 or so that this opponent will fold, which is all I need to make the bet correct.
When I'm in these situations, I try to extend my feelers as far as possible to gain any information about the situation that I can. Sometimes I just sense that I'm being lined up for a checkraise, and I'll just check. I'm not always right, of course.
Sometimes I will play these hands much differently. One reason I don't like always raising on the flop is that you can gain much deceptive value by just calling. I'll give you an example that happened just tonight in a 10-20 game:
I have AQc. I raise in middle position. Two people behind me call, and the big blind calls.
The flop is T95, with one club. Blind bets, I just call. One person behind me calls.
The turn is the Kc, giving me a gutshot, one overcard, and the club flush draw. The blind bets into me again, and I raise. Now, this is a scary raise. I could have QJ, KK, TT, AK, AA, and have a big hand. Anyway, both players folded, and I took the pot.
Notice how just calling on the flop made this raise look much more credible. If I had raised the flop, lots of people would have put me on two overcards (they probably aren't going to give me credit for having a ten). Now the king comes, and the first player checks to me. I bet, but now both players are faced with only one bet from a player who was checked to. If one folds, the other one might decide to call me just to see if I was bluffing or not.
Also notice that if the turn card brings an ugly card for me, (say, another ten), and the blind bets, I can fold and I saved half a bet.
So, the answer is that it really depends (as the answer usually is). My whole point to this discussion was that I find that of all the options I have with a hand like this, raising for a free card is usually, in my opinion, not the best play.
Dan
Vince, I agree that the play definitely has its place in the arsenal of a winning poker player. I am going to reread the HPFAP chapter on it to see how I can use it more effectively.
My real beef is with those players who raise on the flop and then just routinely take the free card without giving any thought whatsoever to whether a bet on the turn may be better than taking the free card (BTW, Louie's right...we should call it the cheap card rather than the free card).
Sklansky points out that it is a cheaper card and not really a free card. But the term "cheap card" does not emphasis the importance of this tactic as much as "free card". BTW, you win money at poker because other players play badly (Malmuth & Sklansky). Why complain if someone overuses or incorrectly uses a poker tactic. Isn't that palying badly? Vince
Vince, I never complain about this at the tables. Hell, I wish more people would use the tactic incorrectly more often.
When I said "my beef is...", what I meant was that I did not agree on strategy with those who routinely used the free card raise this way.
Dan, here's a situation where I might raise in a heads-up situation to take a free card:
I am in late position with say Js,10s.
Flop: Jd, 6h,7h.
Early position player bets.
I raise. He calls.
Turn: Blank.
Check - Check.
My thinking is this: My Jack is probably no good because I figure the player is good enough not to play J,9 or worse from early position. I put him on Q,J, or K,J (if he had A,J, he would likely make it three bets on the flop or would at least bet again on the turn instead of getting sucked in by what looks and smells like a textbook free card raise. BTW, if he does bet, I'm probably mucking my hand).
Here, by checking, I give myself a free crack at hitting one of my 3 outs AND my play has the added benefit of making my opponent think I'm on a flush draw. Against the right opponent, I can often steal the pot if the flush card hits on the river. If the flush card does not hit, this is the same type of opponent who will probably check on the end even with K,J, or Q,J (IMO, correctly) in order to induce a bluff from what he assumes (correctly) to be a busted flush draw.
Now, you might ask "Why don't you fold your hand on the flop if you think your Jack is no good?" ...well, Al raiseya is right...I am a bit of a kamikaze player and I find it tough to fold for just a single bet when I hit top pair and when there's no one left to act behind me. Maybe, I ought to exercise a little more caution in these marginal situations. However, in the example given, I will fold my top pair against the right opponent if the flop did not have a flush draw.
Are your early position players dependable enough that you know a bet into a flop like that has to be top pair with a good kicker? He couldn't have KTh or something like that?
I have no quarrel with that play. I'll often take a free card with a hand like a pair of Aces or Kings with a weak kicker. Here, I'm thinking there isn't much free card danger, I'm a big dog if I'm up against a bigger kicker, and if the other guy doesn't have much, I may induce a bluff on the river. So, if he was on a flush draw or straight draw I don't even lose a bet if he bluffs into me on the river, but I save half a bet if he actually had a better hand. And, you may get a bet you could never have gotten any other way, if your opponent was ready to fold on the turn but the free card makes him a second-best hand that he either bets or checks and calls with.
Dan
The bettor could very well have Kh10h and could very well bluff on the end if he gets no help. If the flush gets there, most players in my game do bet out in heads-up situations.
Would you please settle an argument that erupted at last month's game. When you go for both high and low in a high-low game (with a declare), you have to win both high and low to win the pot, but what happens if you tie for high or low? In this hand, the both-ways hand beat the highest hand on the table and had a perfect low which tied another hand for low. Did that person win? It seemed to me that he did, since when you tie you tie for the winning hand (in a dead heat, for example, both racers win) and thus I argued that he should get three-quarters of the pot: half for winning high and half of the other half of the pot, that is, splitting the other half of the pot with the other perfect low. What's the rule?
Steve,
I agree thats how it should be but in just about all games when you declare both you must win ,not tie, both to get the pot. In other words when you declare both you get all or nothing. When you have private games the situations that make for hard interpetation of the rules should be thought out in advance and made clear. Also some way of deciding disputes must be made, such as a majority vote of players that were dealt in the hand or whatever. Good Luck.
When I play our monthly "quarters" game and we play the split pot games in order to win both pots the person must clearly win both pots, any form of a tie and both pots are lost.
In any event deciding on what the rules are is not the most important consideration but rather ensuring that that everyone knows the rules is.
What adjustments are required for a 'tight passive' Hold'em game? Also, what adjustments must be made for Hold'em with a 2-5 betting structure?
rjk:
Sorry to give such a long response to such short questions but nobody had responded and I wanted to do some thinking myself.
First question: It depends on which word of the term "tight passive" predominates. Passivity predominates in a tight passive game when, for example, (1) 3-5 players are seeing a lot of flops, (2) there is little preflop raising, (3) there is not much aggression after the flop, but (4) the second best hand usually calls on the river. I believe this is what the term "weak-tight" means.
In these games, you can play more hands and see more flops than usual. You can bluff and semi-bluff more often. Your opponents' good hands will be easy to spot. Draws are easier to spot. You have to keep track of the calling stations and players that like you to bet their hands for them (the guys that constantly check and call with top pair, second kicker). These games are very beatable, but are not as good as the games with looser callers.
In tight passive games where tightness predominates, many hands are folded around to the blinds. Few flops are ever 4-handed. Solid hands predominate, few hands are shown down on the river. You can bluff more often, but the size of the pots don't make it worthwhile and you'll be taken on the "milk run" a lot. These games (remember we're speaking limit) are neither fun nor very profitable. Unless you expect the table to change soon, find another game immediately. This is particularly true if you play low limit, where good games grow on trees in every place I've played (Colo., LA, San Diego, Seattle & Vegas.).
As for $2-5 holdem (one $2 blind, $2-5 on all rounds), I have the following observations:
(1) You need to consider the minimum cost of playing. In fixed limit, the blinds cost you at least 75% of a maximum bet every 10 hands. In 2-5, the single $2 blind costs you 40% of the maximum bet every 10 hands. To see 2 flops every 10 hands in fixed limit, you pay at least one big bet. To see two flops in fixed limit, you pay 80% of one big bet. This means that, all other things being equal, tight preflop play in 2-5 puts you at less risk, and that the smaller pots preflop make aggressive play less profitable. Rule of thumb: it's hard to play too tight.
(2) A preflop raise of $5, however, changes all of the above and makes it more expensive than in fixed limit to see the flop. So fold marginal hands more often, and concern yourself with position even more.
(3) The lopsided betting structure ($5 raises preflop) means that preflop raises put in a disproportionately larger amount of money compared to later streets. It's not wildly disproportionate, but remember that the max bet preflop is the same as on the river. This means that it's harder to bluff and more difficult to punish weak draws with a bet on the turn. So be preapared to get drawn out more often and bluff less on the turn.
(4) Obviously, raising to get a "free card" makes no sense.
(5) In games with little preflop raising, any pair in any position is playable. (Yes, 22 UTG when you expect only 4 people seeing the flop). You're paying $2 to flop a set. You need to win about nine times that amount (including the preflop calls) when you do flop a set to make the play worthwhile. This means only $18, and you've got three streets ahead of you with what amounts to a $5 minimum bet on each street. So pairs are huge in a passive game. However, this is an entirely different story when players tend to raise before the flop, unless five or more players are in. Of course, be sure to dump you hand if the set or open-ender doesn't come.
(6) The foregoing also holds true to a lesser extent with connectors. The key difference here is that connectors must usually be "paid for" with bets before and on the flop and sometimes on the turn, and you rarely get to jam with them until the turn. As a rule of thumb, you want to pay less to see the flop with connectors. The difference between them being suited and unsuited is magnified in 2-5. You want to play them far less -- if at all -- when there is a lot of preflop raising.
(7) A $5 preflop raise obviously a much bigger hammer that must be handled with care. You can't bet all your good hands this way because you'll end up winning $2 with big pocket pairs, or just get called with bigger pairs (unless the game has very loose callers, hardly uncommon). But you can manipulate the table to a great extent with a preflop raise. For example, if the blind thinks that you are a loose player, or that you bluff a lot, you'd be amazed how many times a $7 bet with a good pair will elicit a call from a mediocre hand in the blind. Your bet looks too huge to be believed. (You, however, should let the constant bluffers have the $2 unless you have a solid hand.) You can also isolate more, so sitting to the left of the maniacs and pounding the crap out of them is much more effective (provided there's just one or two of them in the game). The big raise also makes it easier to read players. With some, a preflop raise from early position or the blind means AA or KK and nothing else. With others, you can virtually rule out AA or KK (becuase they always limp-raise with these hands).
(8) Making it three bets before the flop with hands like 88 and 78s makes much less sense in 2-5 because (A) you're paying far too high a price for deception, and (B) 2-5 tends to be played with players that won't get your point. On the other hand, image plays are more effective against weak players, so you don't want to ignore the deceptive aspects of the game entirely.
(9) a $2 preflop raise in late position against a good-sized field usually means Axs (most likely) or a small pair.
(10) find a copy of "Claiming Colorado" by G.D. "Ed" Conley, the only book on $2-5 holdem I've ever seen. (Try "The Tattered Cover" bookstore in Denver.)
There is much more to this game than I know and that this post suggests, but I hope the foregoing makes sense. Good luck!
Poit 4 is wrong whith big draw i beter invest $10 on flop than $5 on $5 on turn.
Boris:
I agree that raising a $5 bet on the flop by another $5 may often be correct when you have a big draw, but you cannot possibly do this for the purpose of avoiding the price of the river card ($5) because you have already paid that price by raising. (BTW, always or almost always raising with a good draw on the flop in this game is an expensive mistake unless most of the pots are both multiway and raised before the flop).
I lern it hard way in poker there is almost no always and never.
Limit Hldm has changed right under our noses since the last S&M book, hfap. This isn't exactly late breaking news, but if you are just starting out, or only have played a couple of years this might help alittle. The main change that I now see as the new Dogma, is the frequent pre-flop re-raising with medium pairs, and less than group 1 or 2 hands, in order to get it heads up etc. Is this strategy new? NO!! Good players have been aggressive pre-flop for a while, but with so many tourneys out there more and more people have been exposed to very aggressive re-raising, especially in short handed play. Although what works in tournaments, doesn't work the same in ring games, some of it does I believe.Also with the developments of software programs with programable players(namely Wilson) whose strategies suggest aggressive play with medium pairs, I believe, have had a large influence as well.Where as before the last 3-4 years you would occasionally see good players re-raising with med. pairs or AJ etc., I now routinely see this as accepted strategy.I think in general it is a viable strategy if used correctly. But I now even see conservative props re-raising more , so I now believe this is the new Dogma of limit Hldm. So how do you defend. Well it's my opinion that you now have to be very very aggressive pre-flop in games 10-20 and above.More aggressive than in years past.In other words you need to raise back with hands you normally wouldn't. As always, knowing your player can be key, but still I think some new guidelines should be set forth, as the new hldm is here to stay. I play mainly in So Calif and Nevada, so I'm hoping to get feedback from all over , thanks.
When I play I occasionally notice a player who I will classify as a "loose raiser." They are an immediate candate to be three bet if no one else is in with a hand like AQ offsuit or a pair of eights. Against a solid, expert, or unknown player I will throw these hands away if I consider their raise legitimate (as opposed to a possible steal.)
I think this is a very interesting topic. My short answer would be right in line with what Mason said. But to address it a little further, I think we need to consider a couple of questions: 1) Are these raises and reraises with medium pairs, AJ, etc. *correct* as routine play? 2) How can you best counter them?
I agree that players are making these raises more now. But for the first question my opinion would be that they are not actually correct in doing so. For instance, if you routinely reraise a solid, tight, early position raiser with pairs like 88 (much less a hand like AJ), then I think you're too often going to run into big pairs and difficult situations (flop comes AsQs3c) for the play to be profitable. That's why Mason makes this reraise only against "loose raisers". It's profitable there, but a losing play otherwise.
The other side of the coin is that if you routinely open-raise with hands like medium pairs, AT, KJ, etc. in earlier positions, then you'll *be* one of those loose raisers and will be effectively countered by anyone astute enough to apply the thinking that Mason talked about. I guess that answers much of question #2 as well. These raises are also countered simply through good hand selection. The loose raiser runs into your superior hand too often. Whether it's right - when the action gets back to you - to four-bet a loose *reraiser* when you hold something like AK or AQ is a tough question and probably very situational.
I'm sot sure why more players are making these raises and reraises now. Maybe it's the reasons you suggested. Or maybe they're taking something they've seen and then using it in the wrong context. e.g., they see a good player reraise someone with 88, then conclude that this is how this hand should usually be played. Overall, I would speculate that this phenomenon arose from "unschooled" players who played too many hands but discovered that raising with some of them improved their results a bit. Their preflop play became less "self-weighting". Through "networking" they spread the word to their colleagues. Their results would have improved more, however, had they learned to fold certain hands and to play correctly with the others. Just a guess.
John Feeney
I just finished reading the intro to the new card player by Linda Evans (I think that's her last name, I don't have the book in front of me). She claims that a lot of players take a piece of each other during a tournament. She goes on to say that as long as they "Play Their Best" against someone they have a piece of then this is not collusion. She also defends this with her own definition of collusion. How convenient! She must be one of Clinton's advisor's. She can't really believe that a player with a vested interest in another player will not put his chips in that players pot rather than another players if given a chance. Bullshit! Now, I will not sit here and say that the fact that certain players take percentage of other players in the same tournament is collusion or illegal. I will say that it is unethical and gives the "impression" of collusion and also smells to high heaven. I know it goes on, you know it goes on, and when the general public becomes aware of it I wonder about what their opinion will be. I cannot for any reason see how behavior like this can be good for poker. Opinion's welcomed. Vince
Then don't play in any tournaments. The reality of the situation is that players trade action, and deals are made at the final table. There is even some real collusion that goes on too.
Forcing players to not be open about their action trading by making it illegal will not mean that the action won't be traded, but that a lot more "illegal" activity will go on around tournaments. I'm not worried about the players that are open about the action they've traded, I'm more worried about the ones that are silent about their interests.
Vince,
I often trade 5% saves with several people at tournaments I play in. With most, there is a double to 10% escalator clause if we both make it to the money table or tables. I play just as hard against them as I do against anyone else. The saves just reduce my variance and represent a way of expressing my confidence in the other player's ability and chances and his in mine. On the occasions when I have a piece of another remaining player and dealmaking is being discussed, I would disclose the fact that we traded saves in the negotiation. I was once at a final table with three other players that I had 10% each with. We played it down to the end without making any other deals. I wound up getting 10% of 1st, 2nd and 4th and they each got 10% of 7th. I trade pieces better than I play.........
Big John,
I play in a tournament in which several players team up to reduce thier varience. I guarentee you that, although they may not plan to collude/cheat, they will aim at taking the odd person out. You say that you don't play any differently regardless of who is left in the tourny. I say you are the exception not the rule.
The practice of saving a percentage with other players is common and helps cover tournaments expenses. The problem currently rumored around the tournament community is the salting of numerous players in an event, by staking them and they in turn, dump their chips off to the backer. This has been fueled by the explosive actions of a highly ranked and *uninvolved* player, concerning a ruling at another table in a tournament. On occasions, reports of seating assignments being altered or an attempt by a player to trade seats to get to a given player's table, have occured when a table breaks. These incidents have fed the rumor mill for months. I doubt that either poker magazine will ever address anything so controversial or negative about the game, as it could affect their advertising sales.
If you were to put players in a tournament so that they could dump chips off to you it is a losing bet. The reason for this is that in tournaments the more chips you have the less each indiviual chip is worth. (See my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS.)
On the other hand if you were to put many players in a tournament and their instructuions were to always try to even their stacks whenever they had a confrontation it would be profitable to do so.
"On the other hand if you were to put many players in a tournament and their instructuions were to always try to even their stacks whenever they had a confrontation it would be profitable to do so."
With the payoff structure of most tournaments being so heavily weighted towards the top places, increasing the chances of getting those top places even at greater risk of being knocked out can be advantageous. (For this reason, players are advised to play somewhat more hands early in a tournament, and to play aggressively late in the tournament with hands that are probably only even-money chances) Especially in a satellite or supersatellite where the blinds double so rapidly, colluders who even their stacks would rapidly find themselves short-stacked and with little chance of winning much.
The math doesn't support this. However, because many players play too tight at this stage in the tournament it frequently becomes strategically correct to play as you describe.
I understand your point that you can have $3.5M in chips that will only earn you $1M, and that 1 10000 chip at that point will earn you 670000 for 2nd. Also, it would be pointless in most cases for five players at a final table to agree to be knocked out to each other, as the EV gain would mostly transfer to the non-colluders who would be bumped up the prize level. And in a satellite, if nine players collude and give their entire stacks to one of them, the single non-colluder has a better than 10% chance of winning with 10% of the chips.
But I'm not sure the concept of chips being worth more or less depending on your stack size applies to the same extent in earlier stages of the tourney. Part of the value of chips earlier in the tournament is that they let you get to the point where they are worth far more than their actual amount - 10000 on the first hand is worth 10000, 50000 on day one may be worth far more than 50000. The value of your stack at any point can be expressed as the following series:
P(finishing first)*$(first place)+P(finishing second)*$(second place)+P(finishing third)*$(third place)+...
So if the prize structure is sufficiently tiered, it might pay for a group to all sacrifice their medium stacks (which confer virtually no chance at the top prize) to create one large stack that would have a decent shot. If there are 100K of chips in play, the prizes are 60K,26K,5K,2400,1600,1400,1200,1000,800,600 and the stacks are 50K,30K,2K,2K,2K,2K,2K,2K,2K,2K and the blinds are 1K-2K, the short stacks would do better to combine and have a chance at the big money rather than just get picked off one-by-one and get very little.
Having gone to the final table with a both, a small stack of valuable chips and a large stack of of not so valuable chips,I'll suffer along with the latter. No doubt, when short stacked, those few remaining chips are indeed precious. Chip position near the end, may be the key to winning an event.
Norm wrote: "Having gone to the final table with a both, a small stack of valuable chips and a large stack of of not so valuable chips,I'll suffer along with the latter. No doubt, when short stacked, those few remaining chips are indeed precious. Chip position near the end, may be the key to winning an event."
That's not the point. Of course, for an individual, a larger stack is always better than a smaller stack. However, what if you could show up at the final table once with 30% of the chips, or 5 times with 6% each time? I'm pretty sure that I'd make more money with the latter, which is exactly what's going on if a group of persons is colluding by evening up their stacks. They get to the final table with a big chip lead less often, but they get to the final table a LOT more often.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
This is a great post. I have heard for years about certain players who I won't name who were putting others in so that they would dump off chips to them so that they could win the tournament. This is not the way it would be done. As this post shows it would be done exactly the opposite.
Having heard those same rumors, and having been sitting in tournaments where some very questionable betting, raising, re-raising, folding sequences took place between the staking player and the staked players, I think it might be possible that the staking player believes he is capable of winning any tournament if he only has fuel (chips). Believing this, it makes sense that he would place refueling depots along his pathway. If you happen to be one of the premiere players, a chance to reload somewhere along the way is a huge advantage. It isn't that expensive either, as some of the staked players are pretty decent players in their own right. When you stake six or more players per tournament, you can be fairly sure that you will be at the same table with one or more of them should the occasion arise that you need a quick reload somewhere in the middle or late rounds of a tournament.
If the staking player didn't have excellent tournament playing skills, this strategy wouldn't be profitable. With some of the players that have been staked in tournaments, it would only be profitable early, since they are almost never still around for the middle and late stages. The player I'm thinking of has been able to get me to give him a ton of chips in tournaments by simply showing down a better hand than me on several occasions. It is my opinion that he stakes others because he wants to help them. I wonder how questionable those betting sequences would have looked if they had been made against players who weren't the same ethnic background as him? Sometimes, when you hear enough rumors, you start to see things that aren't really there.
Since the rumors persist, it might be better for the tournament circuit if top players ceased to stake other players in tournaments they were competing in themselves. I have no idea how it would be possible to enforce something like that.
You raise some good points, and as I have pointed out in other places this is the achilles heel of tournaments. The solution is that the tournament directors need to step forward and try to do something, and as you point out, the so called top tournament players also need to step forward.
When I say step forward, I believe the efforts need to be made to put all the deal making our in the open. This should reduce some of it. Unfortunately, due to the nature of poker and the nature of tournaments I don't believe that it will ever completely disappear.
I have overheard with my own ears discussions between several top players (I don't even remember all the names because this was several years ago) who admitted playing in such a way as to avoid confrontations with other players being backed by the same backer or with whom they had traded action. In the later stages of a tournament, this is hugely profitable because when two players get into a confrontation, together they lose equity to the rest of the field.
This really isn't surprising to me after spending some time exposed to "culture" of high stakes tournaments and players.
You have to understand that many of these players are under incredible pressure to make money. Even as a top player, it is very easy to run cold in tournaments. Do this for a while and you can burn through a lot of cash. Many (probably most but not all) of these players are more gamblers than truly professional gamblers. They have no idea what a Kelly bankroll limit is or how to calculate one. They have no idea that they are seriously and regularly overbeting their bankroll by playing in very large tournaments and as a result, are often broke. Even those who are fully backed have to worry about losing their backer if they don't "perform."
Think about being in a situation where if you don't win, you don't have money to eat or pay your rent. Faced with such a situation congative dissonance kicks in and and it is no longer cheating, it is survival. Even for those who are not one loss away from hunger, many have a "dog eat dog" mentality about poker and feel it is okay to exploit any edge that is not cheating in the literal (card marking, holding out, etc.)
Vince,
I often trade 5% saves with several people at tournaments I play in. With most, there is a double to 10% escalator clause if we both make it to the money table or tables. I play just as hard against them as I do against anyone else. The saves just reduce my variance and represent a way of expressing my confidence in the other player's ability and chances and his in mine. On the occasions when I have a piece of another remaining player and dealmaking is being discussed, I would disclose the fact that we traded saves in the negotiation. I was once at a final table with three other players that I had 10% each with. We played it down to the end without making any other deals. I wound up getting 10% of 1st, 2nd and 4th and they each got 10% of 7th. I trade pieces better than I play.........
This issue was addressed in length on r.g.p. back when two ladies were "caught" colluding at a final table of a tournament a couble of years ago. I believe one was giving the other chips (by mucking the winning hand) to even out their stacks and increase their overall expectation. I believe that Karen W______ was one of them and was banned from tournaments in that casino (my facts may be a little off--it's been a while).
My view then, as it is now, is that deal making should be allowed (both splitting up the money and trading percentages) but must be declared. Players should be required to declare their deals in writing when signing up for the tournament.
This is not such a big deal, as many tournaments now require palyers to fill out forms with their name, etc. and require them to sign off on the rules. Later in the tournament, when down to one or two tables, all remaining players would be informed of all deals made by the remaining players by the tournament director. This would discourage otherwise honest players from acting out of line when playing with their partner in a hand.
If a player is not willing to make known his/her deals then his/her motives may be suspect. I can't think of a legitimate reason to keep deals a secret. Certainly, the gains from disclosure outweigh the loses. So why don't tournaments require this?
In my recent POKER DIGEST interview I had these comments to make on this subject.
Question: Will we ever see corporate sponsorship for tournaments?
Answer: I don't believe so. I just don't believe that poker lends itself to that sort of sponsorship. Poker is a competition or a fight or even a war in some sense, between players sitting around a table. It is not as good a game when someone else comes along and dumps money into the center of the table. Needless to say, the players would like it. I just don't think the game would work as well, and I think that all the talk about sponsorship just isn't going to develop into anything positive. Also, there are a lot of problems in the poker industry which need to be addressed. The perception of cheating and deal making, in particular, must be resolved for there to be sponsorship. In other words, even though it would probably be a good thing to happen as far as the poker players are concerned, I don't really think that poker tournaments lend themselves to sponsorship and I definitely do not see it happening.
Question: Speaking of deal making, what are your opinions?
Answer: I actually have mixed feelings. Deal making is certainly part of poker tournaments. In fact, in Poker Tournament Strategies, which is a book our company, Two Plus Two Publishing, just put out, we even have a section on deal making. On the other hand, deal making is certainly the Achilles heel of tournaments. Deals can be made in unethical manners, or at least in a manner that appears to be unethical. I think that poker tournament management needs to work hard to put all the deal making out in the open. In other words, if the final two players in the tournament split the prize money, that should be announced. It should not be perceived that one player got first place money and the other player got second place money. Also, if deals are made in a tournament, they should be announced so that all the players know. Moreover, it should not be hidden knowledge as to which players have sold pieces of themselves. Now, I know that even if a poker tournament tried to comply with all of this there are some players who will simply refuse; however, I think that peer pressure can play a part. In other words, when tournaments begin, all players should sign some sort of statement that says they will disclose any deals they have made. I think that this alone would help to reduce the potential for unethical events to occur in deal making, but it won't stop it completely..
Vince,
This issue has been out there for a long time and has been brought up on this forum from time to time. I don't see any way to stop players from making deals as deal making has some very practical advantages. The players usually put up all the money so they basically have the right to make deals is how the argement goes and IMO it's a valid argument. I agree that it can and does leave the impressions you state so there are drawbacks to tournaments. This aspect of tournament play has inspired a movement to obtain corporate sponsorship where all the prize money comes from the sponsors. The argument goes that with corporate sponsorship deals would be banned since the sponsor puts up the prize money. I'm not sure that this alone would eliminate deal making. There has been limited success in obtaining corporate sponsorship for tournament play. The prospects of obtaining wide spread corporate sponsorship appear dim to me. However, I don't want to be a naysayer on corporate sponsorship as some person with vision and imagination may come along in the future and pull it off. If corporate sponsorship does come about for poker tournaments, I'm not sure that the changes to the format and structure of tournaments would be that well liked or welcome by the players.
Tom Haley
Thank you, Mr. Zee, for writing your fine book on 7 stud/Omaha Hi-lo. I am finally gaining enough playing experience to appreciate the gem that it is. There are two situations that are not covered in the book, and I was hoping that you could comment on them, if you have the time. First is when I am forced to play with a 2-3-10, for example, with the two up, and having to bring it in. Then I catch a four, and the other players either bricks or rougher lows. How far can I take this hand? It has scoop potential, but we're running out of time to complete the hand. Or, should I just muck it and move on? The other question is that in your starting hand rankings, you rate three to a small straight, three to a small straight flush, but not three to a small flush that has no straight potential (A-3-8 Hearts, for example). This hand has a lot of ways to go, but how strong (or weak) do you feel it is, in relation to the other starting hands? Thank You. Frank Brabec
Frank,
2,3,4,10 on fourth street is typical of how I tell about play in the chapter fourth street on page 43 I think. I would take a cheap card off in the right spots and muck it in places where I could get raised behind me or a real hand may be out.Alot depends on the pot size. a,3,8 hearts is a big hand and and the ace makes it play well shorthanded. Its about the same as three low straight cards with and ace. Hands change value dramactically after looking at your opponents board and what has been folded. Good Luck.
In the book, Gambling For A Living, Mason and David talk about regression to the mean. This does not make sense to me. Lets use a hypothetical situation. A player has been losing badly at roulette. He always bets on red. From what you have said, it implys that the player will now be expected to win more on red. But this does not change the odds. The law of averages does not exist. If a basketball player has been cold and missing a lot of shots, this does not make him more likely to make shots and regress to the mean. What am I missing?
He does not have to win more on red or shoot better than expected to regress to the mean. The law of averages does exist but only as it applies to overall percentages.
Allow me to take a shot at explaining regression to mean. After ten coin tosses it is possible that heads is ahead 7-3, for a lead of 7. After 1000 tosses heads might be ahead 510 to 490. It's "lead" has increases to 10, but the totals are much closer to the 50% each way one would expect. It has approached the mean without any "catching up" by tails.
Randy
I understand now. I was confused by the book. It is really just the Law of Large Numbers.
Gambling for living is wrong as the whole premise. If I am owner of a house (daddy left me one) have some sizable money in the bank, broker etc. Maybe a nice annuity and wrote a few books I have some royalty on AND I play poker 20-30 a week I am a professional ??? Don' tell me, only if you are a winning player cause it can only be viewed as a statistical long run. Right ? So if I just started out, what am I ?? Am I a 'pro' ? Hell NO !!!! There are many so called pro players like this. David wrote this book (I have not read it yet) but my comment who cares ??? He can't teach me how to be a pro He could just as well post a message here. GET RICH !!!! No disrespect here but I hate to hold back... I read most of his stuff and I value most of it !!! In LA I view it in the store and I will not pay 24.95. The bottom line of this is you are better of just have a good flexible business/job on the side !! You know what I mean ?? Like, write, own a publishing business, sell Real Estate etc. etc. It is better all around with the I (you know who R) S.
huh ?
David, What I meant to say is that I don't even understand why you would write a book such as 'Gambling for a living' ?? WHo is it for ?? Who did you target when you concieved the book ? You have chapters on Sports betting as well as other stuff besides poker. The average joe who is unintiated and just reads your book WILL lose all his/her money. I would have considered it for a purchase if you just stick to poker as such. I apologize for my ramblings above ! I should have been more concise and clear.
Sklansky is an author. He writes books to sell books. There is no shame in this. People write books about all sorts of things that you might not like, but that doesn't mean they are worthless books. If authors wrote books only about one subject and only ones that they thought were perfect, most would be out of business. There is no shame in writing books about other games. Sklansky is not at fault for the stupidity of others.
"The average joe who is unintiated and just reads your book WILL lose all his/her money" - That's sklansky's fault? People have their own brains, let them decide the merit of the book and let them look deeper to understand the material. It's like saying that most people who read Money magazine end up losing money. Is that the fault of the authors? No, there is valuable information in those articles, people just have to learn it. The average joe who is unintiated and just reads the Kama Sutra will just end up hurting himself, too. You have to work at these sorts of things.
I'd also point out that there are a million books out there teaching FALSE information. Gambling For a Living at least gives correct advise. If the uninitiated stumbles across this book before he stumbles across some book touting the last million-dollar craps system, it may save him a lot of money.
Never criticize someone for publishing correct information especially in a field as full of crap as the gambling literature is.
Dan
I agree with you. I am not criticizing Sklansky at all. Of course, we can't take for granted that everything he writes is true either. My point is that it is the responsibility of the reader to investigate all ideas further for clarity. BTW, I agree with almost everything in the book. But, I wouldn't ever bet on anything but poker and blackjack though.
I was looking in this book for a section on scamming food stamps when you're running bad, bankroll goes south. The stupid review claimed it had everything you needed to know.
No section on homeless shelters, pan handling in the casino, or where to do the best dumpster diving.
Hurt oneself after reading the Kama Sutra? Dare I ask, how?
Wait! Don't answer that, this is a poker forum. I'm sure there's a newsgroup for those who are interested. Besides, I'm sure the injured had fun in the process. ;-)
Ramble on Andras, I own 7 books from 2&2. I think they are all very valuable, except Gambling for a Living. I would take my money back on that one, but since the others have given me more than my money's worth, I figure I'm still ahead.
Andras is right, David. Although, I must say this is the first negative criticism of you I've read that was justified.
What books are recomended for short handed or heads up games. Thanks Ryan
Ted said in part: "If a basketball player has been cold and missing a lot of shots, this does not make him more likely to make shots and regress to the mean."
I recall a study about shooting a basketball that may be somewhat related to the topic. While working aerospace in the mid eighties, I spotted a cover story in a statistician's journal regarding the subject of whether or not shooting a basketball is something that is subject to streaks.
Almost all sports fans (and players) think shooting a basketball is "streaky" in nature (i.e., players who have made their last few shots are more likely to make the next shot they attempt). The study kept track of every shot taken by the Philadelphia 76'ers in (I believe) the 1983 season. The team shot almost exactly 50% (defense wasn't so good in those days). The number of hot and cold streaks was approximately what one would expect if you flipped a coin for that sample size. The author's concluded that shooting a basketball is not "streaky" in nature but that people tend to remember the streaks and thus believe more streaks take place than what would be indicated by probability. Anyway, it was sort of interesting.
Regards,
Rick
That is interesting. I would also be interested what coaches might say if you told them that it wouldn't matter if they left in or took out a player who was on a streak.
Karpov,
I don't know about the coaches but I bet the players would say something like #$@%&*(@@#$*!!.
Rick
They would say "those ivory-tower psychologists don't know a damn thing about sports". And they would be right!
Paul,
I don't remember the exact magazine or jorunal but it was the type meant to bridge the gap between what a statistician might read and a technically orientated person in the general public with an interest in statistics (now that is a large audience, perhaps larger than People!). It also had an ongoing debate concerning the validity of studies (many of which bypassed peer review) regarding the dangers of second hand smoke. This was of interest to me since I don't smoke but felt that playing against a table full of smokers was on the average more profitable.
Anyway, you may want to read my reply to Dan Hanson. Their analysis of the people factors in streak shooting makes some sense.
Regards,
Rick
You could be right about free throws, but I think streaks do occur in other sports simply because players may be inspired to play better when chance gives them a few wins. In sports where critical timing and control are important, confidence and focus are very important. If you get lucky and make a couple of great shots, it may boost your confidence, making it more likely that you'll make more great shots.
Dan
Dan,
My recollection (keep in mind this was something I read on a lunch break about 14 years ago) was that the statisticians did expect to find evidence of streaks because of the human factors (such as what you mentioned in your post). However, after doing their analysis, they found very little if any correlation. At the conclusion of the study, I remember they listed certain factors that they believed counterbalance one another. First, once a player is on a streak, he gets the ball more but then attracts more attention from the defense and starts to take poorer and poorer shots. On the other hand, one who has missed a few shots tends to be ignored a bit and when he finally gets the ball he is more likely to have an open shot with little defensive pressure.
The fans (as well as players and coaches) notice the streaks because when a player appears to be on one he has gotten the ball a lot and tends to have scored a bunch of points in a short period. When the player has missed many shots in a row, it typically takes place over a longer period of time and therefore is not as noticeable. However, the players with the "hot hand" tended to have just as many streaks when they missed an equal number of shots in a row (when the whole season is taken into account).
Somewhere there is an application to poker but I'm too tired to think of one right now. Maybe someone out there can help me.
Regards,
Rick
I was playing in unusuall game 5-10 Hold'em whit a kill. But triger event for kill was not wining hand over $95. To kill someone have to win 2 hands. I come to Mohegan Sun to play 1-5 78Stud or 4-8 HOSE. 1-5 78Stud has 3 names on list and no game. 4-8 HOSE was full whit one player on list. When i come i put my name for 1-5 78Stud, 4-8 HOSE, 3-6 Hold'em, 1-5 Stud. In 5 minutes I was called for 3-6 Hold'em. I won one hand from big blind whit T high straight. 3-6 Hold'em was bad game. 5-10 holdem whith kill was good game and has no list. But 5-10 is not game for my bankrool. Was it a mistake to play? But i think it is beter to play good 5-10 then to play bad 3-6 game.
First hand i was in big blind i get Jd8h, 5 players in, one raise. I fold. Was it corect? Next hand i get Jh5d, 6 players in no raise. I fold. Was it corect? Next hand i get 6s5s, 4 playes in, no raise. I call. Was it corect? Flop Ts8h3s, 7 players, check to me. I bet. Was it corect? Small blind call, everyboby else fold. Turn Kd. Small blind check. I bet. Was it corect? Small blind call. River Qd. Small blind check. I check. Was it corect? Small blind had 4s2s. Next hand i get AdAc, 4 players in, no raise. I raise. Buton, big blind and players whith was in called. Flop QdTs2d, 7 players. Big blind bet. 2 players call. I raise. Was it corect? Buton and players whith was in called. Turn 3s, 5 players. Big blind bet. 1 player call. I raise. Was it corect? Buton fold. River 6c, 3 players, check to me. I bet. Was it corect? Both players call. Big blind had AsQs, second player had Td7d. Next hand i get KcJh, 4 players in. I check. Was it corect? Flop Kd5c3s, 8 players. UTG bet, 3 players call. I call. Was it corect? Turn Js, 5 players. UTG bet, 2 players call. I raise. Was it corect? River Td, 4 payers, check to me. I bet. Was it corect? 2 players call. UTG had Kh3c, second player had Jd5d. Next hand i get Qd2h, 3 players in. I check. Was it corect? Flop Qh4h3d, 9 players, check to me. I bet. Was it corect? Turn Qs, 7 players, check to me. I bet. Was it corect? River 9s, 5 players, check to me. I bet. Was it corect? 2 palyers call. First player had 8s8h, second player had As4s. Next hand i get 9s7s. I check. Was it corect? Flop Jc8c3s, 6 players, check to me. I check. Was it corect? Next player bet, evrybody call,me to. Was it corect? Turn Js, check to me. I check. Was it corect? Same player bet, 2 players call. I call. Was it corect? River Th, check to me. I bet. Was it corect? Betor raise, others fold. I call. Was it corect? Raiser had AsJh. My name was called for 4-8 HOSE. I told to luck up a seat. I stad up pick up my chips. But i was told i have to play a kill. I get Tc4c. I check. Was it corect? Flop KhQh4h, 9 players. Big blind bet, 2 players call. I call. Was it corect? Next player raise, 2 playrs cold call, players which was in call. I call. Was it corect? Turn Kc, 7 players, check to me. I check. Was it corect? Raiser bet. 3 playrs call. I call. Was it corect? River 3c, 5 players, check to me. I bet. Was it corect? Betor raise, 1 player call. I call. Was it corect? Raiser has AdKs, caller had KdTh. Next hand i get 9d3d. I check. Flop Qd6h3h, 8 players. Small blind bet, UTG call. I call. Was it corect? Next player raise. Players which was in call, others fold. I call. Was it corect? Turn 9h, 4 players. Small blind bet, UTG raise. I call. Was it corect? Flop raiser reraise, small blind call, UTG cap it. I call. Was it corect? River 9s, 4 players. UTG bet. I raise. Was it corect? Flop raiser raise, others call. I call. Was it corect? Small blind had 3c3s, UTG had Ah7h, flop raiser had 6c6s. Next hand i get 8s8c. I check. Was it corect? 5 players in, one raise. I call. Was it corect? Flop Js8d2s, 6 players, blinds check. I bet. Was it corect? preflop raiser raise, big blind call. I reraise. Was it corect? Both playres call. Turn 7s. Big blind bet. I raise. Was it corect? preflop raiser raise. Big Blind cap it. I call. Was it corect? River 8h. Big blind bet. I raise. Was it corect? Preflop raiser reraise, big blind call. I cap it. No brainer closing action whit nuts. Both players call. Big blind had JsTs, preflop raiser had JdJh. Next hand i get 7h5h, 9 players in, no raise. I raise. Was it corect? Flop Kc6d4h, 10 players, check to me. I bet. Was it corect? UTG call, buton raise. I call. Was it corect? Turn 6h, 3 playres. I check. Was it corect? Buton bet. I call. Was it corect? River 3h, 3 payers. I bet. Was it corect? UTG call. Buton raise. I reraise. Was it corect? Both players call. UTG had AhKh, buton had 6s6c.
Floor come to me and say, if i do not take seat in 4-8 HOSE, He will give it to somebody else. Deller tell him: "HE have to play my kill. And floor say: "in this situation he may leve, becase he put his name on list for difrent game before he won 2 hands" What you think was floor dessison fair for other players.
Wow, that's a lot of questions. I'll take a stab at a few of them:
> First hand i was in big blind i get Jd8h, 5 players in, one raise. I fold. Was it corect?
I would tend to call in that situation, but it really depends on where the raiser was, and if there's a chance it might be re-raised.
> Next hand i get Jh5d, 6 players in no raise. I fold. Was corect?
Trash hand. You should never call with a hand this weak in a full game.
Heads-up, with one person checking to you all the way, with a hand that can't possibly win a showdown... You should have bet the river. Other than that, you played the hand fine. But that's kind of like saying, "Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" The check on the river cost you the pot.
>Next hand i get AdAc, 4 players in, no raise. I raise. Buton, big blind and players whith was in called. Flop QdTs2d, 7 players. Big blind bet. 2 players call. I raise. Was it corect?
Absolutely. Just calling with your aces would be worst possible play.
>Buton and players whith was in called. Turn 3s, 5 players. Big blind bet. 1 player call. I raise. Was it corect?
I'd probably make the same play. The big blind probably figured you were raising for a free card, so he led out again. When you have real hands, punish them for doing this. Whether you should raise again on the turn with Aces is a judgement call that only you can make based on your experience with the players and the nature of the game. In some games, against some players, being bet into again like that means you're up against at least two pair, and you should either fold or call hoping for the board to pair on the other two cards or to hit your ace.
>River 6c, 3 players, check to me. I bet. Was it corect?
Probably, and not betting the river for value enough is one of the biggest leaks I've seen in otherwise good player's games. Unless I've seen serious evidence of a strong hand, I'll often bet a hand as mediocre as top pair with an average kicker into 2 or 3 people on the river. I figure the chance of getting calls from weaker hands is greater than the chance that someone had a stronger hand AND wouldn't have bet if I checked to him.
I'll post some more thoughts later unless others beat me to it.
Dan
Just a quick point on calling a raise with Jd,8h from the blind...IMO, only the very best players (in their particular game) should even consider doing this (and even then it's questionable). A player must play extremely well on the later betting rounds if he is going to enter into the fray unarmed. Otherwise, calling with such thrash hands (even though it's for a half price) can be a chip-draining decision.
I used to think so, but there has been a lot of work done lately that suggests that most players play too tight in the blinds. I would definitely fold something like A8o, or K8o, or something like that, because they are probably dominated. But J8 is a little different... the straight potential and 'special' potential (i.e 2 pair, 3 eights, etc). is probably enough to warrant a call when there are a lot of callers and you are getting in for half price. You are also less likely to be dominated with this hand.
I'll agree that you need to have enough skill to get off the hand cheaply if you hit a pair and it's no good.
And of course, I could be wrong. This is one area where the 'correct' course of action is not all that clear, in my opinion. In any case, it's a very marginal call, and in a rake game might be a loser.
Dan
>Heads-up, with one person checking to you all the way, with a hand that can't possibly win a showdown... You should have bet the river. Other than that, you played the hand fine. Put that's kind of like saying, "Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" The check on the river cost you the pot.
I put him on 8's maybe 10 bad kiker and thout he had hand to call whith
I'd probably make the same play. The big blind probably figured you were raising for a free card, so he led out again. When you have real hands, punish them for doing this. Whether you should raise again on the turn with Aces is a judgement call that only you can make based on your experience with the players and the nature of the game. In some games, against some players, being bet into again like that means you're up against at least two pair, and you should either fold or call hoping for the board to pair on the other two cards or to hit your ace. Probably, and not betting the river for value enough is one of the biggest leaks I've seen in otherwise good player's games. Unless I've seen serious evidence of a strong hand, I'll often bet a hand as mediocre as top pair with an average kicker into 2 or 3 people on the river. I figure the chance of getting calls from weaker hands is greater than the chance that someone had a stronger hand AND wouldn't have bet if I checked to him.
I just did not want to look scared and i bet my hand like real man.
No.No.No.Yes.No.Yes.No.No.No.No.Yes. Hey I'm tired I'll finish this some other time. Maybe. Vince
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladnerdowns.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 16 January 1999, at 7:45 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 January 1999, at 9:29 a.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPeenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 January 1999, at 5:33 a.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPeenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 January 1999, at 5:41 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (Leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 17 January 1999, at 2:43 a.m.
A maniac was to my left last night (I couldn't get a seat change for hours). This Yahoo was raising every hand preflop and most hands on the flop.
I pick up the red Aces on the button. A good player raises from middle position. I smooth call fully expecting the maniac to reraise. He does not disappoint me. The good player then caps it.
The flop is one that I do not like too much: K,K,Q with 2 clubs.
Maniac checks. The good player bets. I fully expect the maniac to raise. I also figure that he will three bet it if I raise.
How do you play my hand?
Ick. Tough situation. These are the types of situations I have most trouble with. If you just call, and the maniac raises, the good player could possibly make it three bets with something like AQ, to put maximum pressure on you if you don't have a king.
If I figured the maniac to really have just a random hand, I'd probably raise, hoping that the maniac re-raises. Then, if the good player calls or caps it, you know he's got a King and you can drop your Aces. If the good player folds, then I'd probably just check-and-call all the way to the river, letting the maniac hang himself if he doesn't have anything, and getting out with the minimum number of bets if he did in fact have a King.
Dan
Dan,
You beat me to the punch. I agree with the strategy outlined in your last paragraph. If you play passively, you'll lose lots of bets to the solid player when he has a K (and to the maniac when he does as well). I would expect your strategy to work frequently, and thus save you a lot of bets when the solid player has a K (although it will not save you when the maniac has a K and the solid player folds).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I played this hand just brutally.
I called on the flop (As you and Greg point out, a raise was probably the better play. Folding was probably also acceptable. Calling was probably the worst thing I could do).
To my utter amazement, the maniac also just called (now, I started thinking that this yahoo must really have something this time). The turn card was a blank.
They both checked to me. I didn't really know where I stood so I checked.
River was a Queen.
Maniac bets. Good player calls. I muck figuring that the good player has to have AQ.
Maniac flings his cards into the muck and the good player takes the pot without showing his hand.
skp said "I played this hand just brutally."
Yes, but at least you realize it and will learn from this for the future. Most of your opponents won't. Take comfort in that.
He continues: "I called on the flop (As you and Greg point out, a raise was probably the better play. Folding was probably also acceptable. Calling was probably the worst thing I could do)."
Raising was by far the best which means I can't see folding at all. Remember you are not the only player that knows that the maniac is a maniac (especially considering what you said about not being able to get a seat change!).
skp continues: "To my utter amazement, the maniac also just called (now, I started thinking that this yahoo must really have something this time). The turn card was a blank. They both checked to me. I didn't really know where I stood so I checked."
At this point you made the best play by checking behind since you are now in what I call an "either or" situation and giving free cards is not a major problem. You are "either" beat "or" have the best hand. The chances of having the best hand (plus catching an ace if you don't have the best hand) justify a bet (if checked to) or call on the river.
skp concludes: "River was a Queen. Maniac bets. Good player calls. I muck figuring that the good player has to have AQ. Maniac flings his cards into the muck and the good player takes the pot without showing his hand"
Note that the "good player" can call with a wide range of hands since you checked the turn. He doesn't have to fear a king from you and also can figure you would have bet a queen (with the intention of folding if raised). Basicly you induced both a bluff from the maniac and a call with a weaker hand from the "good" player and so it would be correct to overcall here.
The problem with a lot of us players who at least try to play well is we tend to fear looking silly in front of our peers with overcalls or seemingly weak calls when it turns out we were way behind (I had this weakness for many years). Yet in the type of situation you describe, we can make money in the long run since the pot is large and our hands will hold up often enough to justify the call.
Good luck next time!
Regards,
Rick
Rick, good analysis.
One point on the overcall on the end: I figured the good player must have a Queen.
Given that there are two pair (Kings and Queens) on the board, the only other hands that he could possibly have with which he might raise preflop, bet the flop, and call on the river is a hand like A,J or A,10. Given that he was probably expecting a checkraise from the maniac, I figured he wouldn't bet AJ or A,10 on the flop. Thus, I figured he must have A,Q.
skp,
Put yourself in the "good players" shoes (BTW, while in his shoes don't make the mistake of thinking for him like you would because you are better than a mere "good" player). Anyway, if he had AJ or AT why wouldn't he often bet the flop hoping to put pressure on you (and perhaps find out where you are at) and hopefully get head up with the maniac. Remember, the pot was both big and short handed so he figures to give it a shot with these lessor hands.
When you called him on the flop he now has to be more concerned with you than with the maniac (unless he does hold the good king). His check on the turn with AQ, AJ, AT (or even KJ assuming he would raise pre-flop with this in middle position) makes some sense. Once you failed to bet the turn, he no longer needs to fear you so much. When the maniac leads out and he can call with any one of these hands (although a great player might raise with the lessor of these hands (AJ, AT) to prevent you from overcalling with a similar hand).
These possibilities make a call on the river a good bet for the money (if my math is correct, you are getting ten to one on your call). You will be beat in two places some of the time but you should take down the pot enough to justify the sometimes silly looking overcall.
Regards again,
Rick
Rick, makes sense to me.
In retrospect, I probably should have called (one more error in my play of that hand...oh well...live and learn).
See my post above on "Sklansky on Poker". In folding, I was making a worse decision than would a live one.
First let me say I hate to play with maniacs. My experience is they make the game worse for me because the formerly loose types start to tighten up. And you can't steal because of the maniac. I'm not a pro. If I've been playing for a while and I can't move, I will probably call it a night. BTW, all advise says to put the maniac on your right. In some cases, that can actually hurt you. Case in point, 3 in pot, maniac on my right good player (best at table) to my left. I was on Ace high flush and missed on river. Pot was large. Maniac bets. I would have called the maniac, but because of the good player, I folded. Good player called. Maniac had nothing. Good player had King high and was drawing to the flush. If I had been to left of good player, I'm sure he would have folded, and the pot would have been mine. I guess that's why they say put maniacs and solid players to your right. As an aside, three hands later, I get AA preflop. I get into raising war with the maniac, pre and post flop. Flop was rainbow, 9-6-5h. Turn and river come hearts. He beats me playing 10h-3h. Two hands later, I called it a night.
If you thought the maniac had nothing on the river, the correct play would have been to raise. A good player behind you is going to have a tough time calling a raise with even top pair.
When you have a maniac to your right like that, the raise becomes a powerful tool, and you have to use it a lot. His bets are protecting the pot for you, because you can raise and freeze out better hands than your own.
This is obviously a high-variance situation, and one that requires a lot of judgement. There are times when the maniac has the best hand (even a blind squirrel will stumble over an acorn once in a while), and there are other times when there will be a big hand behind you that was waiting to trap the maniac. So, you have to play your best poker in these situations. But you can't play timidly, or the maniac will run all over you.
Dan
The problem is with a maniac one can never know. Heads up on the river, I would call the maniac almost every time, because of his large bluff factor. In the first case, I had nothing but Ace high and was facing two opponents. I can't see a bluff having positive expectation. It was hard to put the good player on a hand because the maniac's actions were causing everyone to play tighter and weaker. He was the quintessential maniac: he raised *every* round,usually not looking at his cards till the river, posted every live straddle he could, brought nothing but $100.00 chips to a 4-8 game, drank like a fish. Sklansky has a formula for bluff raising on the end, but it only applies to heads up play, I believe.
You aren't bluffing - you think you have a better hand than the maniac. But you can't stand an overcall behind you. In this case, the correct action is to raise.
Now, even if the good player knows what you are up to, he has to figure you for at least a pair of some kind. There's no way he's going to call a raise with king high.
If you think someone will call a raise behind you, then you should fold. But understand the advantage you have being directly to the left of the raiser: YOU are the guy that gets to snap off his bluffs. The raise is the tool that you have to use to do this. Or, if you have so much as bottom pair you can just call. When a lunatic bets the river, often the first guy to call him or raise is the one that gets the pot, because people cannot overcall with nothing. So, you get first crack at the pot every time.
This doesn't mean you should indiscriminately raise him every time on the river - it means you should be paying close attention to what's going on behind you. If your card sense tells you that the people behind you are weak, then it doesn't matter what hand you have on the river - if the maniac bets, raise. If the maniac is crazy enough to re-raise on a bluff with nothing, your job is a little tougher. At that point, only raise him on the river with a hand you think can withstand a showdown against the maniac (like Ace-high). Then if you accomplish your task and isolate him but he re-raises you, you can call and hope to win.
Dan
I don't know if you will read this since I'm posting days later. I understand what you are saying now. Question, should I have reraised early in the hand, say on the flop? That would have forced the good player to cold call two bets. If he folds, I'm heads up vs the maniac, which is where I want to be. If he calls, he defines his hand for me, enabling me to make better choices later. Which if he cold called in this situation, would be to get out. But in the situation as it actually happened, he would have folded.Right or wrong?
Dan,
This is raise or fold time. You need to assess the probability that there is a hand out there that can beat yours - a king has you beaten already, while TJ or 2 clubs has the potential to beat you.
The way to handle a maniac is to raise him back. You can't let him make you fold the best hand, otherwise he is playing CORRECTLY. Here, I would worry about the other good player and not the maniac.
So, I raise. If the maniac does make it three bets, I'm going to find out pretty quickly if the third guy has something.
Given just the information you give here, I will usually not fold this hand.
Richard Cavell - Rabbit to the core.
fold
Thre's no way I can fold here. A good player would probably check a king with a maniac in the hand. I think the chance of me having the best hand in this exact circumstance is better than 75%. And with a pair already on the board, if my aces are the best then they aren't likely to get run down.
Dan
Except that the good player acted after the Maniac checked. If he had a King, the good player would bet and hopefully trap me in the middle because he must figure that the maniac would checkraise.
All the same, I agree with you that a raise was probably the best play for me.
Hypothetical situation.
You flop the nut flush draw in early position (say you have Ad,8d) against a large field. The pot was unraised. You have no indications as to where the bet on the flop is likely going to come from.
Do you Forum dudes and dudettes mostly check or mostly bet. What types of flops are more likely to make you bet? Which ones tell you to check?
What other factors determine your decision?
What if only 4 players saw the flop with you being first to act?
Check, and if an early position player bets and you get a lot of callers, you raise to get more money in the pot with proper pot odds. But, be aware of the opportunity to steal the pot if your flush doesn't get there. If a late position player bets, then you call to hopefully draw in other players.
Wenatchee Max
your not going to do any stealing on the river out of position if 4 people have been contending for the pot. three opponents is the dividing line. 2 opponents bet. 4 opponents check and either call or raise depending on the action. 3 opponents do what ever the spirit tells you to.
skp, Your not serious are you! Get as much money in that pot as you can! There is nothing worse than checking to a LARGE (4 or more) field and having everyone else check (and then fold on the turn when YOUR flush card shows up). Bet! (Raise and reraise) Vince.
Vince, I agree with your observation and do bet about 90% of the time in this situation. The reason I put the post up is that one of the regular winners in my game seems to check this type of hand more often than not. He and I don't ever get into strategy discussions but I wondered why he would do this ...thus, prompting the post to see if I'm missing something. Perhaps, this fellow does this because there almost always is a bet in our games on the flop and he wants to see where the bet comes from before acting (i.e., He will checkraise a bettor to the left but call a bettor to the right as Wenatchee Max points out in his post).
I suppose one disadvantage of always betting in these situations is that it becomes tougher to bluff against perceptive opponents on other occasions when a flush card hits on the turn (after you have checked on the flop and the rest of the large field also checks). I do this quite often from an early position on the assumption that no one has likely made a flush because a guy with a flush draw on the flop would have bet the flop. Perceptive opponents would realize that I don't have a flush either given my tendency to bet flush draws on the flop.
Bottom line: It's probably best to mix up your play based on the factors that Dan has mentioned.
I bet nut flush draw and check not nut flush draw.
If I've got an agressive player to my left, I'll often check a small flush draw, but bet an Ace-high flush draw. My reasoning is that with a small flush draw, I have to hit the flush to win, and therefore I want lots of callers. The last thing I want to do is bet, have him raise, and have the whole field fold.
On the other hand, if I have a flush draw with an overcard or two, there are several ways I can win that would work better against a small field (i.e. either winning the showdown unimproved or hitting my overcard(s).) So I can tolerate a raise from early position.
If I'm at a passive table where there's a reasonable chance that it will get checked out, I'd definitely bet.
Dan
I might be wrong, but I think alot has to do with if you feel one of the others will bet. And who is the likely other bettor? What is his position? What was the flop? Is it the kind of flop other players will like? If it is, I will bet. If it's raised, I hope it's raised late, I will just call, unless there was a preflop raiser. Then I would probably reraise.
SKP: "You flop the nut flush draw in early position (say you have Ad,8d) against a large field. The pot was unraised. You have no indications as to where the bet on the flop is likely going to come from."
In this position I almost invariably check. The odds of making the flush by the river are about 1.75-1 so you need two callers for a bet to make the bet profitable. In reality, I won't drive a nut or second nut flush draw on the flop without three callers to offset the occasion on which I am beaten by a full house (or nut flush if I am driving he second nut).
So... check intending to raise if there are three people in for at least one bet by the time it gets back to me. This tactic will, of course, require that you also check raise made hands so as to cover your value check raise with flush draw.
The tricky issue then become "what to do if you miss your flush on the turn?" In that case, I will tend to check. To an adept opponent you have practically announced "I have a BIG draw" but to a little skilled opponent or even some adept opponents you may get the river card free which is what you want since although you will be getting sufficient pot odds to call, you will NOT be getting sufficient callers to make the turn betting in and of itself +EV.
SKP: "What if only 4 players saw the flop with you being first to act?"
In this case I might bet out since I will certainly semi-bluff into three players. Whether to bet or not bet will depend upon the players in against me. If I have, for instance, an aggressive player on my immediate left I will tend to check since if I bet out and he raises then it may well drive out the other two and leave me with a negative EV bet on the flop and a check-call situation on the turn. If the player on my immediate left is passive I will tend to be since he will likely fold or call. I prefer the fold, but I don't hate the call since it will encourage other callers which is what I want to make my flush draw bet eiter +EV or as little -EV as possible.
Regards, Dave Scharf
Dave,
You might think about how many callers you need to have to make a bet correct if there is some small chance that they will all fold and you win the pot outright.
As I see it, this type of analysis is missed by a lot of players who are always looking for the right number of callers. A checkraise on the flop is a pretty bold statement. In my experience, if you follow through with a bet on the turn you've got a good chance of either winning or setting up a very profitable bluff on the river. This is why I almost never seem to be taking free cards - I might checkraise the flop like you did, with the idea of getting a free card in the back of my mind, but my analysis of my opponent's reactions almost always suggests that a bet on the turn is higher EV.
If you have a reputation as a solid player, as I'm sure you do, then the checkraise on the flop is even more scary to your opponents.
Dan
"You might think about how many callers you need to have to make a bet correct if there is some small chance that they will all fold and you win the pot outright."
This will be the KEY issue determining whether or not to bet out on the turn... If a semi-bluff will not cause everyone to fold then... check. If there is even a small chance that after check-raising the flop that a turn bet will win then I will bet... judgement call. In the loose low-limit little-skilled games that I am accusomted to I usually simply accept that the check-raise on the flop was +EV and that I will now get callers when I miss my flush on the turn so it's check and call.
Regards, Dave Scharf
Are you sure about that? I play in some of the loosest, no-foldem games around on occasion, and if I have less than 4 people call my raise on the flop I always feel that there is a decent chance that they all will fold, (or that 2 or 3 will fold and the other ones will fold on the river) if I play the hand strongly.
In these loose games a lot of players will call on the flop with almost anything. 3-flushes, 3-straights, one overcard, etc. Then they routinely fold on the turn to a bet.
I suggest the next time you go play, make a serious study of the action on the flop and turn, especially when a player is being agressive. I'd be interested to hear what you find. In my games, it's quite common to see as many as 7 people call on the flop, and then have 5 of them fold on the turn and have the pot won uncontested when one person bets the river.
In the very weakest games, having a lot of callers on the flop often gives the illusion that there are a lot of real hands out there, and therefore the pot is heavily protected. In reality, there are just a lot of bad hands hoping for a miracle.
Dan
Dave, sorry for the late response. I did not see your post till just now. I don't know if you will now see mine.
Unless I have some indication that a bet will be forthcoming from my left (in which case I will checkraise), I am going to bet in this situation. My hand will often be good enough to call 2 bets cold. So, in my mind, it is much better to bet. Lots of good things can happen by betting. For example, let's say the flop is Jack high. I bet and get 3 or 4 callers and no raisers. If the turn card is another Jack, I will bet again because I can be pretty sure that no one else has a Jack and can assume that the others will put me on a Jack. Most if not all of the callers with gut shot draws, second pair draws etc. will in all likelihood fold on the turn.
In essence, my bet on the flop when met by calls and no raise gives me 15 outs (9 flush cards, 3 Aces and 3 Jacks assuming the Jack of my suit is on the board). Obviously, this is a bit of a contrived illustration but there are several other advantages of betting that I am sure you can envisage.
BTW, your name rings a bell. Were you not the creator of the Canadian Poker Magazine (I apologize if I've got the title wrong). If so, what's happened to it?
P.S. One of the columnists in the magazine is a player I know well (Robert Copps).
I am a relatively new player to Hold 'Em. I 've been playing for about four months and in the first three was breaking even at low limit hold 'em (mostly $2-4 and a little 3-6.) I have learned by watching others and reading L. Jones's book on low-limit.
I 'd like to think that I have picked up the game somewhat quickly and have improved my understading of the game though I am always able to pull off a brainfart once in awhile. I have been slumping the last month and noticing that I have had good cards and getting destroyed on the river by players who will play any two suited cards or offsuits. These people are just not scared at people raising and will stay in with anything hoping to pull it off a hand.
My question is should I play in a higher-limit game (4-8 or 5-10) where the play might be a little tighter or be more aggressive in these lower limit games ( though I feel it might do me no good). Forgive me for being so naive at asking this question but I am interested in being more serious and more successful.
I really like this forum and welcome your comments.
CW
Collusion: "A planned action or agreement between two or more players playing in the same game or tournament that gives the impression of dishonesty!" Clearly deals occur, clearly they are not illegal, Clearly there is no way to stop them. Just as clearly: We are all the sole proprietor of our own character. If we can adequately define collusion and condemn those that practice it then it is they not us that must live with their actions. In my experience dealing with most poker players I have found that they would rather be known as a good honest person that wins fair and square more than anything else. So lets define collusion, cheating and all the unseemly actions that may shed bad light on poker playing and condemn thos that practice them. Vince
Dude,
Good idea to try to come up with a definition. I think your example definition is wrong, though. Every poker player should be 'dishonest'. Also, giving the impression of dishonesty is an entirely different matter to being dishonest. There must actually be something dodgy going on for it to be collusion.
Also, a lot of collusion isn't planned. Some of it is very informal.
I've thought about my definition a lot. It's very tightly worded; it needs to be Here's my masterpiece:
---------------------
Collusion occurs when one person deliberately changes the outcome of a poker hand, mostly to aid a favoured player, knowingly gaining no immediate advantage.
---------------------
Notes (relevant to the key words in sequential order):
1. 'Person' is used rather than 'player' so that it includes collusion involving poker room staff and the audience.
2. 'Deliberately' is necessary to prevent accidental outcomes (I once accidentally knocked the cards out of the dealer's hand!)
3. Changing the outcome of a hand is done all the time by players, but it should be to their own benefit. Sometimes in a poker game it is correct to give another guy positive value (such as throwing away a good hand just so you can finish in the prize money, or raising a good player out so that you can isolate the bunny in first position). But always you should do it for your own benefit. This benefit might be a long-term benefit rather than an obvious benefit - chopping blinds holds a long-term benefit for the small blind, even if it does advantage the big blind as well.
4. 'Poker hand' includes ring games and tournaments.
5. 'mostly' implies that you are allowed to give an advantage to another player while giving up +ev, as long as that's not the main reason why you're doing it (the main reason should be your own best strategy).
6. 'to aid a favoured player' - favored means that fewer than all of your opponents may be selected as the potential recipient of such action (usually one) but it doesn't have to be one particular guy.
7. 'player' means that you can only collude for the benefit of a player, not staff or audience. However staff or audience can initiate an act of collusion. This 'player' might even be at another table in the same tournament.
8. The word 'knowingly' is necessary so that accidentally failing to win remains innocent.
9. 'gaining no advantage' means that you usually give up an advantage when colluding. But you don't have to: You can collude in a win-nothing-lose-nothing situation. The best example is when you are in middle position 3 handed. First position bets, you know you can win exactly one more bet; do you raise or overcall? This bit is a little unclear about times when you reduce your advantage for another player's benefit; but fixing this minute problem would make the resulting definition too long.
10. The word 'immediate' is necessary because collusion obviously holds future value for the player who is being generous on this occasion. So it is in their future best interests to collude. But it would be collusion for you to drop a hand right then to gain reciprocal favours a few hands later. So the definition occurs on a hand-by-hand basis. You could define collusion on a long-term basis instead.
11. My definition includes all cheating involving tournament deals.
Summary:
The minute that you do it for someone else's advantage while knowing that you are hurting your immediate game, then you are colluding.
Richard.
Collusion I have seen two guys qujit betting when it gets down to just the two of them. When they become isolated on each other they do not bet into the other, Not because they are afraid of the hand but because they are friends. I also believe that they split the pot regardless of best hand. Of course this is not done at the table but on the side after the hand is over.
What would you call this. Does this happen a lot or has anyone else seen this kind of thing. Is it wrong.
Hi John,
If they split the pot regardless of the cards, then it is collusion according to any reasonable definition of the term, because they are explicitly breaking the rules of the game for each others' benefit. The exception to this would be chopping blinds in a raked game, because this is a prior explicit agreement that does not disadvantage anyone else.
If they just don't bet each other - which happens all the time in my games - this is also collusion, because they are changing the way that they play to benefit each other. It is not so disagreeable for people to do this in good faith, however, because they are colluding in an entirely transparent way in a way which, if done in good faith, will not affect the rest of the table.
I would still discourage it, though, because it can corrupt people's thinking about cheating in general, and subtley affect their play. You don't want people getting the idea that if they can softbet a mate, that they can then put the pressure on the piggy in the middle 3 hands later.
And they will if you let them. I am sure that the large amount of collusion that I experience and the no-bet agreements are in fact part of the same package - it's just a question of what you're used to.
According to my proposed definition, both situations that you describe are collusion.
Richard.
Actually, I don't think that this by itself is collusion. If two people have made this agreement (to check the hand down once heads-up) in advance and IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE WAY THEY PLAY PRIOR TO BEING HEADS-UP, then it does not help their EV as a whole and does not hurt the rest of the table either.
However, if either of these two players ever use this knowledge in decisions when other players are still in the hand, then this is collusion. An example would be when one of the players is facing a turn bet from the other player with a third player still to act behind them. If this player has a gutshot (or even total trash), a raise may be a positive EV play because of the high frequency that the third player will fold. In another situation, a "team" player with a great hand might call his buddy's bet hoping to get a call from the third player (if he knew the third player would fold to a raise), because extracting an extra bet from his buddy is meaningless. In these situations, the two players as a whole would be gaining EV at the expense of the rest of the table. THIS is collusion.
Unfortunately, if these two players are even slightly aware players, they will be able to identify situations like these during play, and nobody could expect them to play like they would play normally without having this agreement. Once the information is there, most players would take advantage of it.
Actually, simply playing from the same bankroll would produce the same results, because once the two players get heads-up, the money is theirs no matter what they do.
If you are describing these people's actions correctly, it certainly is collusion, however it's stupid collusion. If they are the only ones in it and they are in fact going to split all winnings, then the overall outcome would be exactly the same whether they were to bet or not to bet against each other. If they truly are colluding, they would be much better served to use this heads up opportunity to confuse other players as to their strategy or to simply play it out both for bragging rights and to not advertise what they are doing.
Far be it from me to attack your "masterpiece," but I do not believe that it takes into account collusion for mutual benefit if you are, in fact, expanding it to include tournaments. If you are working with someone else to even your stacks up, it is to each person's benefit (at least before they know who is going to be up) and not necessarily detrimental as, though they are helping another player, they may be helped later by the system and it may make no difference (if say they give $1,000 to their buddy and then go all in a little bit later and lose).
Certainly the above is colluding. I appreciate you attempt at a definition of colluding, but isn't it like pornography: you know it when you see it.
I'm certainly not paranoid about collusion. The definition I tried to come up with is one that can be used as the prelude or in addition to something akin to a poker players code of honor. I personally like people that have a high degree of integrity. I believe that I have integrity. I also believe that the majority of poker players would rather be broke than win through unethical or dishonest means. I believe that if players in a tournament/ring game make any kind of agreement that gives the appearance of dishonesty it is bad for the image of the game. Poker is a tough game. Played by men/women for money. For most of us it is money that we have earned and holds some meaning to us. We willingly put our money into the pot expecting the game to be honest! Cheating, collusion or whatever a player(s) does appears dishonest is wrong! It is the responsibility of all (more than casual) poker players to police their games. To ensure that the games are always on the up and up! No one else will do it. Not the house (although they try), not the police not anyone except for poker players themselves. I will strive, to the best of my ability, to ensure that any game of poker, ring or tournament, that I am in, is honest an above board. I only ask that the rest of you do the same! Vince BTW I think collusion is illegal! If it can be proven I think the courts may look at collusion in the same light as fraud orstealing or conspiracy.
I would like to know if the computer simulations that rank hands like K10 higer than I do take the following two things into account. (1) Many times K10 must fold a where it would have won if it had gone to the river. For instance if the flop is J65 it cannot call a bet on the flop. This is especially bad if players will bet small pairs and straight draws since K10 is now folding TWO overcards and maybe even the best hand. This of course suggests that K10 does better in more timid games. (2) When K10 makes a pair kings it is in a very precarious position. It would much prefer to be all in at this point. If it is not all in it has to make crying calls if bet into or sometimes get bluffed out. It on the other hand cannot expect to extract much in later betswhen the two kings are the best hand especially in tougher games. Players like Mason Malmuth and Gary Carson understand these concepts. But do the computer programs? If you can show me that they do I will gladly reevaluate. But not until then.
[re-post] I don't know about "computer simulations" in general. Lots of players have written and run simulations of various sorts. I can only speak about ours. We have mathematically separated the effects of aggression (such as always playing KTs to the river) from the relative playing power of a hand. As you have hinted, KTs should NOT be played aggressively at a tight table at the risk of folding a winner (you lose EV). The flip side of this knowledge, however, is that KTs SHOULD be played aggressively at loose tables at the risk of getting run over (you gain EV). It is the 16th strongest starting hold'em hand in our rankings. Insofar as your rhetorical examples posed for KTs (above), the hand that it replaces from your list (JTs) is weaker yet.
Dick Taylor
JTs is clearly a stonger hand than KTs I would suggest that the best way to test your new starting hand ranking is to actually play using them and then report your hourly loss over the course of a year.
Randy
David,
I am not familiar with the simulation software that ranked KT higher than you do. In Wilson's Turbo Texas Hold'em it is possible to take into account the factors that you mention viz. folding KT on a J65 flop, and making crying calls if bet into with a pair of kings (though you will need a 64 bit sound card and speakers). KT postflop scenarios are in fact adequately covered with "King overcard with rags on board", "Top pair, Q's or K's, with J or lower kicker" etc.
The November, 1997 archive is full of posts about the Taylor rankings, JTs vs. KTs etc. I append your post from that era.
Etienne
----------------------------------------------------
Hand Rankings
Posted by David Sklansky on Saturday, 8 November 1997, at 10:13 p.m.
Expert hold em players who don't even own computers would probably be laughing at all you guys who are making such a big deal about nuances in starting hand rankings. When I wrote Holdem Poker, most players were unaware how to intermingle the value of pairs, high cards and suited connectors. So I used common sense, a little math and my knowledge of how people played in a MILDLY TOUGH GAME to come up with a guideline as to which starting hands could be played as well as how to play them before the flop. However, even if there was some way of being perfect in your starting hand evaluation this is worth ALMOST NO MONEY as compared to someome who might be a little off on their starting hand evaluations but who knows how to play better the rest of the way. I see an analogy to super expert blackjack card counters who quibble over esoteric plays while their more successful counterparts are finding games with deeper penetration. This is not to say that I have changed my mind about the rankings. It's just that they are very dependent on the structure of the game and the way people are playing in that game. For instance a pair of deuces is much worse off if players yet to act tend to raise a lot of pots. In the case of king ten suited versus jack ten suited, KT becomes the better hand in games where players are seeing the flop with Kx, Qx, and Jx suited. If that is the case, JT will now lose to flushes that KT will beat. Also KT will now make money from two kings with a smaller kicker. In a typical casino game of 10-20 or above JTsuited is still usually the better hand. BUT WHO CARES. I want my fans to beat those nitwits out there who refuse to read our stuff and just play by the seat of their pants. That won't happen if you concentrate on sillly things like precise starting hand rankings. In spite of its notoriety, I always considered it one of the LEAST important things in the book (once you got the jist of it.) Thus this is the first and last time I will address the subject and I hope the same goes for you.
All this discussion about Starting Hand Rankings is becoming quite Boring! Post Flop Analysis is always more fun.
CV
Etienne, Thanks for re-posting Sklansky's remarkably candid Nov 97 discussion of starting hand ranks, and what went into deriving them. I do not recall ever having read it before. I'm glad we were able to find hands that are sensitive to numbers of players and table looseness by simulation, as well as to derive ranks that we believe are robust across a broad range of situations. Raising (and the lack of it) is apparently the most controversial feature of our approach. In particular, Mason believes that KTs is over-valued in raised pots (and our model) because JTs will be folded sooner, losing less money, in situations where KTs must stay in for crying calls. While true in many real poker games where your foes are not particularly deceptive in their raising, our study shows, I think, that the liklihoods favor KTs in spite of these particular playing conditions. Otherwise, hands like 43s that are easily let go at the flop would also outrank KTs.
Dick Taylor
For a good player in a typical game, what percentage of his revenue comes from AA?
What percentage of his revenue comes from KK?
(I'm wondering how dependent SHORT-TERM results are on the frequency of premium hands, in order to put major winning and losing sessions in perspective.)
If you were playing in a 10 handed holdem game you woould be losing $330 after 220 hands if you threw everything away. If you are a $20 an hour winner, you should be ahead about $120 after those same 220 hands. Thus your play gains you about $450 during those hands. The one time you get aces in that 220 hand period you average winning about $40. The one time you get kings your expected value is about +$20. Therefore these two hands could be said to account for about half of your $120 win. In fact these are conservative estimates especially for aces. Most winning players can artribute ALL of their profits to these two hands. But that doesn
't means the other hands merely break even. Those hands are getting you back the $330 in blinds you put up. Looking at it this way you can say that aces and kings account for about a quarter of your winnings
I don't understand all this fuss over relative hand rankings I see on this Forum from time to time. While studying the rankings in Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players or Hold'em Poker may be helpful in understanding the relative strength of a hand, it really doesn't matter if JTs is better than KTo or not. That is unless you are heads up and can see your opponent's cards. Or you are delt more than two cards in some game like pineapple and have to choose two of them.
What matters is whether the two cards you are dealt are profitable in the situation you are in when it's your turn to act. And what to do to maximize the profitability. It does'nt matter if you would have been better off with other cards or not. You must understand the cards in your hand and the advantages and disadvantages of having him in the current situation, as well as the situations that might develop.
Trying to make adjustments to someone's hand rankings by analysis by computers, or otherwise, seems a big waste of time to me (unless you're doing it simply for the mental exercize). Better to spend your time and talent analyzing how to play each hand in different situations, imho.
Of course if prefer to spend your time thinking about whether hand A is better than hand B, give me your address. I'll send a cab for you the next time I'm playing. ;-)
Being penny wise and pound foolish is in my opinion the single biggest thing that otherwise smart people can do to keep themselves from being as successful as they should be. I wrote about this many years ago in my book Getting the Best of It in the chapter entitled Knowing What's Important.
I think you are missing the point of hand-ranking. No one said that your hand before the flop is what makes your hand. Normally, it is the flop that makes the hand. Hand rankings are a way to gauge what disadvantage you are at before the flop. Of course, after the flop, you have to make bigger decisions. I understand what you are saying. In fact, there are a lot of winning players who see almost every flop. But, they know when to let go of their hands. Hand rankings are just an attempt to improve upon this type of play. By the way, it works, playing tighter makes more money. It's just that simple (at least in lower limit games).
I'm not missing the point of hand rankings. Nor did I say that your hand before the flop is what makes your hand. Nor do I advocate seeing every flop, or most flops for that matter (unless you're playing against me ;-) [winning players you say?]).
I think some are missing the relevance of ranking hands. Knowing that another hand might or might not be ranked higher than a hand that you hold is irrelevant, period. It's the cards you hold and the situation you are currently in, or may find yourself in (if someone raises behind you, after the flop, etc.), that matters.
If someone comes up with a more accurate hand rankings than those already published, I don't see how it will improve on anyone's play. In fact, thinking along those lines is apt to cause you not to think about what you should be thinking about.
I agree with what you say but there is a little more to the story. It is the idea of Grouping Hands.
What this did was to allow for new players, and back in 1976 when HOLD 'EM POKER was written virtually everyone was a new player, to quantify the game. When this was done, hold 'em began to take off as the casino poker game of choice in the cardrooms of the West (or at least in Nevada at that time). So I believed that part of the reason why hold 'em is now such a popular poker game is simple because Sklansky decided to not only rank hands, but to Group them as well.
It is only silly to advocate ignorance of relative hand strength, or to promote ambiguity about the underlying probability fabric of the game. Or, to argue that a simulation must deal real cards to real people lest it be fundamentally flawed.
Dick Taylor
"You must understand the cards in your hand and the advantages and disadvantages of having him in the current situation, as well as the situations that might develop. "
I agree with almost all your points. I actually don't know the hands in "group three and group four, etc" . I have always thought it was more important to understand the thought process in evaluating hand strengths.
On the other hand, hand rankings do have value to weak or beginning players. A little bit of studying can quickly plug some major leaks in their game.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
To know the relative strength of a hand in a givin general game situation is what Mr Taylor is trying to find. I don't think it is silly at all. It is an important starting point. With no disrespect to S&M, I think you would be penny wise and pound foolish if you only rely on S&M's books. They are excellent foundations to spring from, but I have to agree with Mr Taylor in that there is much not said in their books about how they arrive at some of the conclusions they advocate. My question to Mr Taylor is without simulating pre flop raising, how can you state that the players were playing according to S&M. This is the part i don't get, any many other players as well. Does the fact that they play to the end somehow overide the need for a response to a raise pre-flop. Also, when these players play to the end. What rules do they use to fold or stay to the end. Does this mean that in your opinion, that certain hands should be continued to be played, regardless of a raise, or even a re-raise before it the action gets to you?? if you would clarify this I would appreciate it. good luck
I don't believe Mr. Taylor was trying to find the relative strenght of a hand in a given situation. That would require a different set of rankings for all the hundreds, if not thousands, of situations one might find oneself in pre-flop, with any given hand. And I don't think that information would be as helpful as some might think. More important is how to play the hand in all those possible situations.
When S&M put the rankings into groups, the real value was in instructing the reader how to play those hands. They simplified it by making only a few groupings (eight). If they wanted to be thorough, they could have addressed each hand individually, all 169 of them. And they would have addressed them from all seats, with all combinations of raise, calls and folds in front of the. And they would have addressed them in 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, and 2 handed games. And they would have addressed them in tough/tight games, in weak/tight games, in loose/passive games, in lose/aggressive games, and so on. And they would have addressed them when the little blind was 1/3, 2/5, 1/2, 3/5, 2/3 and equal to the big blind. And they would have addressed them in fixed limit, spread limit and three different limits. And what about your image? In short, all 169 (or a majority of them) would require a whole chapter, if not a whole book, each. And that's only pre-flop.
There were enough similarities to reduce the number of options to eight for their purposes. This was probably okay for back then, as Mason pointed out, because the game was relatively new. But the smarter players understand the hands and when to deviate from the general recommendations of S&M. And I doubt if most professional players know which hands are ranked above which others, or even care.
And while ranking hands might be instructive to a new player, arguring over the exact rankings serves no purpose. Finally, as many have pointed out (including yourself) Mr. Taylor's simulations have to be flawed, given the way he did it.
george, I agree with your statements and I understand that starting hand rankings are just a quideline etc.. What has bothered me about this, is that it seems to me that if the findings suggested playing markedly different strategy ,pre-flop based on these results, well then it is important, don't you think?It seems to me that mr Taylor is advocating playing quite different pre-flop strategy, so I want to be as clear as possible before I dismiss this .I think that if Mr Taylor would consider doing a sim. with pre flop raising where weaker hands would be folding , and stronger hands would be re-raising, we would be much closer. Of course even then it still wouldn't be taking loose raisers , tight raisers etc. into consideration. I would like to thank Mr Taylor for doing this simulation, which I'm sure takes quite a bit of work, and time. I hope that the feuding etc. between him and S&M is put aside towards the goal of further research into this great game. As we learn more about how we might be able to simulate playing styles via computer, additional edges might be found. Why not try???
I haven't followed Mr. Taylor's postings from the beginning, and haven't seen any strategy suggestions from him. All that I've seen are comments and defenses of hand rankings, which say nothing about strategy. However, if any strategy suggestions are based on the same work and reasoning he did to get his hand rankings, then I doubt they will be very useful (GIGO).
I'm sure that Mr. Taulor put a lot of effort and work into his simulation, is an intelligent person and has the best intentions. But what I've seen suggests that he doesn't play poker much, or if he does, then he doesn't really understand the game. The short cuts and assumptions he has made just don't make sense and won't yield correct results.
Al-
>> My question to Mr Taylor is without simulating pre flop raising, how can you state that the players were playing according to S&M.<< This is, of course, a qualifier to the statement. But if by not including pre-flop raising our simulation was "flawed" then it is difficult to see how we arrived at the same hand rankings for AA and KK, for example, as S&M.
>> Also, when these players play to the end. What rules do they use to fold or stay to the end. << The hero always plays to the end. Foes play after the flop only if they've made a pair or better, or a 1 card draw to a straight or a flush.
Dick Taylor
Dick,
Your argument that your simulation cannot be flawed when it comes up with the same results as S&M for certain hands is completely without foundation. Suppose, in an attempt to find the best starting hand, I write all 169 hands on a separate piece of card, put them in a sack and pull one out. If I pull out AA, is my method flawless ?
Andy.
Post deleted at author's request.
Page 81, in HPFAP, is about bluffing w/ a raise on the river, when you miss a flush. You believe your opponent missed the flush also, partially because of his check on the turn. You say if he bets the river the correct play may be to raise. If he checks on the river, the correct play would be? I would think check also, as simply betting would not have the value of a raise here.
I'm not Mason or David, but here's my .25c...
With this hand, you should bet (T9h). The reason is that there's a good chance he will win the showdown with a hand that he couldn't call a bet with.
In fact, I think you should be more likely to bet here than to raise if your opponent bets, although both are good plays. If an opponent checks the turn and river, he's showing a lot of weakness.
If you had had something like AKh, then a check is okay, since you can win the showdown if you were both on draws.
Dan
Dan Hanson said "I'm not Mason or David, but here's my .25c..."
Dan,
Your posts are worth far more than 25 cents. In fact, I've really enjoyed looking for your recent posts along with those by skp and John Feeney and some others. The one you started last week concerning the "Free Card Raise" and how much this play is overused or used incorrectly was classic. Sorry I only had time to look it over this week but I couldn't have added anything you guys didn't cover. I also liked your participation in a couple of posts started by skp (I made a few feeble attempts at comments).
When did you start posting and have you considered writing for one of the Poker Magazines? They certainly could use someone who writes as well and has the ability to find fresh topics (this goes for a few others as well).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. If this sounds like a rgp "puff" post I apologize. I just want Dan to continue writing and give a little encouragement.
Wow. Thanks a lot. I've been writing about this stuff a lot lately because it's enjoyable, and also because I find that putting this stuff down on paper helps clarify my own thinking. I'm glad that others are finding it valuable.
I've done some professional writing before, and I've written a blackjack book that is 95% complete, which I never seem to find time to finish.
Dan
Dan, I echo Rick's comments.
Good luck with the BJ book. Perhaps, you ought to consider writing a poker book as well. While there's a lot of good stuff already on the market (viz S&M), IMO, there's lots that can still be written about this fascinating game.
BTW, what BJ books do you consider to be good ones?
Good Blackjack book:
"Professional Blackjack" and "Blackjack Secrets" by Stanford Wong.
"The World's Greatest Blackjack Book" By Humble and Cooper.
"Blackbelt in Blackjack" by Arnold Snyder "Blackjack for Blood" by Bryce Carlson
"The Theory of Blackjack" by Peter Griffon
And a general gambling and statistical reference that every pro player should have:
"The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic" by Richard Epstein.
I hope those help. I'd love to write a poker book, but I think that might be a bit presumptuous of me at this stage in my game.
Dan
i find that i am getting rivered more than 90% of the time that i am leading on the turn. There are various amounts of opponents from 1 - 5. The game is 5/10 hold em poker. This has been going on for about 200 sessions of an average of 5 hours per session. I am a tight aggressive player with an overall winning average of $2.00 per hour. How can i overcome this adversity. Any advice would be appreciated.
I've found this happens a lot in Loose Low Limit Games if you play Hands that make High Single Pairs, but have problems making Big Hands. Starting Hands to avoid in Loose games are AJo, KTo...ect. You may also need to adjust your strategies on how you play Hands like Top Pair Good Kicker. Use the Raise and Check-Raise to weed out those Second Pair Draws that Trip up or make Two Pair on the River. Also you will be getting good Odds to play Drawing Hands yourself so that you can do some +EV Rivering.
CV
If you do indeed have the best hand and are getting rivered 90% of the time with only one to five players against you I can only assume that you are being cheated as it seems impossible for this senario to happen over 200 sessions. Your win rate of $2 an hour is astonishing given the fact you lose over 90% of the time you lead on the turn with the best hand. I think you need to reevaluate whats really happening and adjust your play. Good Luck.
This happens to a lot of Holdem players. there are several choices but I see two obvious. 1)learn stud and mix up your games a bit. If you are in a slump go and check out OTHER games etc. 2) play drawing hands more - I suspect that you may play more premium made hands and lead on - where you should be trying to get some monster draws and just call/check away.
Comments on the Taylor Starting Hand Report
As promised, here are my comments on "The New Guide to Starting Hands" by Dick Taylor. As you will see there are many errors in his assumptions that lead to many errors in his advice. The comments follow below. (This will also probably be posted permanently in our essay area in the hopes that this confusion will not happen again.)
1. The only decisions that players make are to play or fold. Their decisions do not seem to be impacted by betting or pot size. This will have the effect of over-valuing medium high cards such as KJ and KT (and QJ, QT, etc.) and under-valuing connecting hands (especially) suited connectors, and small pairs.
2. Hands are played based on favorable odds of finishing with the best hand. How large a pot or how many bets you can lose is not considered. This will have the effect of over-valuing hands like KJ and KT, which can easily make second best hands.
3. If a player does not yet have any information, that is no one has yet acted, he assumes that a certain number of small bets are in the pot. That is, raising is discounted. Again this has the effect of over-valuing hands like KJ and KT.
4. Pot odds are considered only. They are not considered in conjunction with the number of players. That is, whether the previous players have raised or called is not addressed. This means that hands like KJ which can easily make second best hands are over-valued because the amount of punishment they sometimes take is not represented.
5. After the flop, players only continue when they have either a made hand or a one card draw to a straight or flush. This reduces the value of hands like AK and AQ, especially if they are suited. (Two overcards with a three flush is frequently a hand you should play.) In other words, hands that have some additional semi-bluffing value, or that may still be best, especially short-handed, are ignored.
6. Position is ignored. "Although playing position is generally thought to be the most important factor in selection of starting hands in hold 'em, it is not particularly important to the conclusions we've drawn here." Thus hands like KT which are particularly vulnerable to pressure by players acting later are elevated.
7. The broad spectrum of hold 'em table conditions is not covered, even though claims to the contrary are made. The reason for this is that the betting action is not considered. Only a vague notion of the number of players in the pot.
8. Aggression seems to only be thought of in terms of winning the pot. The idea of occasionally building a big pot and then enticing others to continue when you get a favorable flop is ignored. This will have the effect of lowering the value of suited hands, especially suited connectors, and small pairs.
9. Taylor states that in a very tight game that AA and KK are the only starting hands that you should raise for value. This conclusion is probably a function of the idea that players only make play or fold decisions regardless of the previous action. This is obviously not the case.
10. The conclusions about hand sensitivity to the number of players in the pot does not take into account size of the pot and the number of additional bets a hand may win or lose on the later streets. For example, on the river a hand like KK becomes more of a payoff hand in a large multi-way pot, but it tends to collect additional bets when played short-handed.
11. Hands like AQs do better in multi-way pots than Taylor gives them credit for because of additional bets that they can collect before they complete their hand. For example, in most situations, if you flop a flush draw with one of these hands you want to raise many opponents. In the Taylor play/fold criterion, this is not represented.
12. Taylor points out that hands like AQs and KQs "are particularly vulnerable to heavy multi-way action, the kind that increases the likelihood of 6 or more foes playing to a showdown." Again he fails to recognize that they occasionally will win a giant pot.
13. In the recommendation to play KTs up front in tough games instead of JTs, Taylor does not account for the fact that KTs can more easily make a second best hand (by flopping top pair with a king) and fails to account for the type of pressure that tough players can put on this hand.
14. Size of blinds and betting structure is not accounted for. For example, in today's modern two blind structure, as compared to the old one blind structure where the "one" blind was half the size of today's big blind, the value of suited hands, particularly suited connectors has gone up.
15. When advice is given on which hands to play, position and other players betting action is ignored. For example, Taylor's Professional Play List has you playing the top 24 percent of all starting hands. While there are spots where it can be correct to play more hands than this (see HPFAP), routinely calling raises with most of these hands is suicide.
16. In The Savvy Gambler's Play List Taylor points out that 22 and 33 are never worth playing. He fails to realize that these are hands which if you do not flop a set, you usually immediately fold without having it cost you very much. But when you flop a set they are highly profitable. Thus they should be rated higher than their winning percentage indicates.
17. Taylor doesn't understand that when you hit the flop with a flush draw you may be charged many bets for the privilege of trying to make your flush. (Compare this to flopping a small set where you will now do the charging.) Thus, hands like Kxs are over-valued.
Conclusion: In my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS I have a lengthy discussion on what I call non-self weighting strategies. It is shown that in virtually all gambling situations where a positive expectation can be achieved, a non-self weighting approach is far superior to a self-weighting approach. This is exactly Taylor's problem. By using a self-weighting approach where size of pots, additional bets gained or lost, pressure by late position players, ability to semi-bluff, etc., is not considered he has come to conclusions that do not benefit those readers that he is trying to help.
A Reply to Mason Malmuth by Dick Taylor
Mason seems a bit confused over what we did, exactly, and sometimes as to why we did it that way (withour bothering to ask us), as well as how our methods impacted our results. He persists in implying that weak hands should be played sometimes because they can be overplayed after the flop, while our failure to do so is called "error". My detailed reply follows his comments below, item by item.
>Comments on the Taylor Starting Hand Report
>Posted by Mason Malmuth on Monday, 18 January 1999.
>>"As promised, here are my comments on "The New Guide to Starting Hands" by Dick Taylor. As you will see there are many errors in his assumptions that lead to many errors in his advice. The comments follow below. (This will also probably be posted permanently in our essay area in the hopes that this confusion will not happen again.)"<<
>>1. The only decisions that players make are to play or fold. Their decisions do not seem to be impacted by betting or pot size. This will have the effect of over-valuing medium high cards such as KJ and KT (and QJ, QT, etc.) and under-valuing connecting hands (especially) suited connectors, and small pairs.<<
Sorry. The pre-flop action by all players other than
the "focus hand" follow HPFAP starting hand advice.
A given hand will play or fold based on (a) whether
the game is expected to be loose or tough, (b) what
group the hand belongs to, and (c) position. We did
not allow pre-flop raising, however, because we
wanted to be able to estimate the value of aggressive
play as an independent variable rather than as a
random variate. Hands like KJ, KT, QJ ... etc, if
"over-valued", were over-valued by Mason (and Dvaid)
themselves.
>>2. Hands are played based on favorable odds of finishing with the best hand. How large a pot or how many bets you can lose is not considered. This will have the effect of over-valuing hands like KJ and KT, which can easily make second best hands.<<
Second best hands LOSE. How can they have been
"over-valued"? Also the statement about what we have
not considered is NOT CORRECT.
>>3. If a player does not yet have any information, that is no one has yet acted, he assumes that a certain number of small bets are in the pot.<<
That is correct. It is how we factor in differences
between tight/loose tables in pre-flop action. So?
>> That is, raising is discounted. Again this has the effect of over-valuing hands like KJ and KT.
There is no "discounting" of raising. As I mentioned
earlier it was mathematically correct not to throw it
in as a random variable. Otherwise, the pre-flop
action follows HPFAP and will only over-value hands
like KJ and KT if S&M have done so.
>>4. Pot odds are considered only. They are not considered in conjunction with the number of players. That is, whether the previous players have raised or called is not addressed. This means that hands like KJ which can easily make second best hands are over-valued because the amount of punishment they sometimes take is not represented.<<
This sounds repetitive and a little confused. If Mason
means that some hands, like KJ, can flop so as to be
dominated (thereby losing) it looks like we have,
instead, "under-valued" them in our model ... the
opposite conclusion Mason is willing to infer.
>>5. After the flop, players only continue when they have either a made hand or a one card draw to a straight or flush. This reduces the value of hands like AK and AQ, especially if they are suited. (Two overcards with a three flush is frequently a hand you should play.) In other words, hands that have some additional semi-bluffing value, or that may still be best, especially short-handed, are ignored.<<
We have, of course, taken a different approach to
the estimate of bluffing potential .. prefering to
measure it directly in relation to table conditions
and the number of players in the game. It is correct
to say that we do not let foes pursue two overcards
with a three flush after the flop, after starting with
AK, AKs, AQ or AQs. But the value of these hands is
NOT underestimated as Mason states, because when these
are the "focus" starting hands they participate
fully in the results. This is a major confusion in
Mason's observations about our work.
>>6. Position is ignored. "Although playing position is generally thought to be the most important factor in selection of starting hands in hold 'em, it is not particularly important to the conclusions we've drawn here." Thus hands like KT which are particularly vulnerable to pressure by players acting later are elevated.<<
Sorry, position is not ignored. Pre-flop betting
sequence is explicitly modelled by following the
published S&M hand Groups. The reason why position
alone is not important is because in the S&M guides
it is heavily correlated with starting hand rank.
The unrelated point about KT is redundant.
>>7. The broad spectrum of hold 'em table conditions is not covered, even though claims to the contrary are made. The reason for this is that the betting action is not considered. Only a vague notion of the number of players in the pot.<<
Pre-flop betting action is correctly modelled, to the
extent it is correct in the S&M guidelines. Otherwise,
we measure bluffing potential directly as I've stated
previously with respect to raising. Finally, it is
nearly impossible to program "vague notions" so our
work is not guilty on that count.
>>8. Aggression seems to only be thought of in terms of winning the pot. The idea of occasionally building a big pot and then enticing others to continue when you get a favorable flop is ignored. This will have the effect of lowering the value of suited hands, especially suited connectors, and small pairs.<<
This is essentially correct. We do not anticipate
players trying to build "a big pot" with hands like
67s or 34s. But, if anything, we end up "over-valuing"
(instead of over-valuing) them as "focus hands."
>>9. Taylor states that in a very tight game that AA and KK are the only starting hands that you should raise for value. This conclusion is probably a function of the idea that players only make play or fold decisions regardless of the previous action. This is obviously not the case.<<
By definition, if you're not holding AA or KK at the
river at such tables chances are you've lost. Otherwise
you've won by default since everybody has folded.
Raising does not diminish these results, it would in
fact accentuate them.
>>10. The conclusions about hand sensitivity to the number of players in the pot does not take into account size of the pot and the number of additional bets a hand may win or lose on the later streets. For example, on the river a hand like KK becomes more of a payoff hand in a large multi-way pot, but it tends to collect additional bets when played short-handed.<<
The poker observations about KK are correct. But Mason
confuses number of players in the game with number of
players at the river in our simulation. The latter,
which we track in great detail, is linearly correlated
with the size of the final pot. The "KK-effects" are
in fact completely modelled.
>>11. Hands like AQs do better in multi-way pots than Taylor gives them credit for because of additional bets that they can collect before they complete their hand. For example, in most situations, if you flop a flush draw with one of these hands you want to raise many opponents. In the Taylor play/fold criterion, this is not represented.<<
This is a strange criticism. The S&M rankings for
"hands like AQs" are almost exactly the same as ours.
>>12. Taylor points out that hands like AQs and KQs "are particularly vulnerable to heavy multi-way action, the kind that increases the likelihood of 6 or more foes playing to a showdown." Again he fails to recognize that they occasionally will win a giant pot.<<
Any dtarting hand has the potential to win a giant pot.
But what is important is how that hand fits into the
underlying probability fabric of the game. We simply
note that our results show that "hands like AQs and KQs"
actually suffer overall from heavy multi-way action.
>>13. In the recommendation to play KTs up front in tough games instead of JTs, Taylor does not account for the fact that KTs can more easily make a second best hand (by flopping top pair with a king) and fails to account for the type of pressure that tough players can put on this hand.<<
This is becoming something of a chore. I think JTs
can more easily make a second best hand than KTs,
especially if a reader follows your hand rankings.
Also, I think tough players can put pressure on
any starting hand (other than AA).
>>14. Size of blinds and betting structure is not accounted for. For example, in today's modern two blind structure, as compared to the old one blind structure where the "one" blind was half the size of today's big blind, the value of suited hands, particularly suited connectors has gone up. <<
Here you simply re-state yours (and David's) beliefs.
I have, however, stated my belief that the starting
hand ranks, including small/medium suited connectors,
are invariant with blind structure for purposes of
estimating pure playing power, as we have done.
>>15. When advice is given on which hands to play, position and other players betting action is ignored. For example, Taylor's Professional Play List has you playing the top 24 percent of all starting hands. While there are spots where it can be correct to play more hands than this (see HPFAP), routinely calling raises with most of these hands is suicide.<<
I think we suggested that a player consider raising
pre-flop members of the Professional Play List for the
purpose of changing the limits of the game. That is,
in a 20/40 game make it 40/40 when you have one of
these hands. Otherwise, you're attributing something
to us we did not write.
>>16. In The Savvy Gambler's Play List Taylor points out that 22 and 33 are never worth playing. He fails to realize that these are hands which if you do not flop a set, you usually immediately fold without having it cost you very much. But when you flop a set they are highly profitable. Thus they should be rated higher than their winning percentage indicates.<<
No, 22 and 33 are simply not very powerful hands ...
even after counting the times they make a set on
the flop.
>>17. Taylor doesn't understand that when you hit the flop with a flush draw you may be charged many bets for the privilege of trying to make your flush.<<
Sorry, I'm tired. Next time, if any, I'd appreciate
your condensing your comments down a bit. A good
point need be made only once.
Dick Taylor
One need not read past your response to Mason's first criticism to see some flaws in your reasoning.
1. Failing to allow pre-flop raising would throw the whole simulation off. Aggression is not the only reason for raising. Sometimes players have hands that warrant it (such as AA KK QQ, etc) or have hands that don't play well multiway and want to limit the size of the field, as well as other reasons. Holding a hand like KT (or JTs) against an early to medium-early raiser suggests that you are already beat and that you should probably fold. Against a re-raise, then you should definitely fold.
However, if the game was aggressive, you might be less inclined to fold, as your opponents may not be as strong as their action suggests (as is frequently the case in a short handed game).
In other words, a pre-flop raise should tell you something about the raiser's hand. If the raiser is aggressive, that should tell you something else. If another player cold calls the raise, what does that tell you? The money in the pot is not the only information available to you.
2. You stated that the opponents played according to the S&M starting hand advice (although if they can't raise pre-flop, then they couldn't have). The problem with this is that the authors have stated that these are only guidlines. There are many times that you may want vary from this because of game conditions. Moreover, the guidlines do not cover all situations, so you must be simplifying your simulation if you're following them.
Another problem with this is that not all opponents in real life follow those guidlines. I suspect if the did, then the authors would make minor adjustments in their play to take advantage of the predictability of their opponents.
In the second criticism I think you missed Mason's point. Making second best hand more often means that you will probably lose more money per pot more often. This is because you're more apt to make those crying calls (or be called down to the end) with AT, KQ, KJ or AK versus your KT, instead of mucking your hand (as you might if you were raised or bet into holding JT).
Your response that second best hands "LOSE" seems to suggest that your simulation ignored how much they lose when they lose.
But the biggest problem with the whole analysis is that it is meaningless. It doesn't really matter which hands are ranked above which others. What matters is how to play the hand that you are dealt. I would suggest analyzing each hand, hand by hand, to see how to make the most profit with it under different circumstances, and ignore whether it is better or worse than others. That analysis would pay big dividends.
You know, there is a reason why the Sklansky & Malmuth book is referred to as "S&M". ;-)
I don't have the slightest idea what these guys are talking about so don't worry if you don't either.
Yes. Sometimes a pre-flop raise simply gives away information, but in many mid-limit and above games it is actually dangerous to infer too much from a pre-flop raise/re-raise. While I agree with Mason's poker analysis that KTs can lead to a KK trap, but disagree that KTs is unique in that respect, his conclusion that this leads to "over-valuing" KTs in our sim is simply wrong. ALL focus hands are played to the river, so that relative differences between hands has nothing to do with overplaying them. This approach allows us to measure directly both the "semi"bluff value and pure playing power of every starting hand, independently, rather than to rely on reasoning by anecdote. You are correct that the S&M starting hand "guidelines" are neither complete nor exact, and that we had to fix those up for the simulation by implied pot odds. It is nearly impossible to program ambiguity, but quite easy to write it.
Dick Taylor
Yikes!
All focus hands are played to the river?
You don't see the problem with that?
Next . . .
KT doesn't just open it itself to a KK trap, but to an AK trap, a KQ trap, a KJ trap, an AA trap, etc.
The point is that the set of all probable raising hands containing a king is larger than the set of all raising hands containing a jack. Therefore, this hand is more likely to be dominated when played against a raiser. If your simulation doesn't factor in raises, then it's worthless for this analysis.
Dan
I posted an article on r.g.p yesterday, so I won't repeat all of it here. My point is that everyone seems to be missing the point of what Taylor was doing. He was trying to separate tactics (like pre-flop raising, etc) from the fundamental, underlying, inherent strength of starting hands. If you can get that information then you have a basis for figuring out the why and when of tactics. His results show why you should raise with AK, AA, even though such raising was not part of his model. Perhaps later he will use a more sophisticated model to try to determine playability of hands rather than strength.
As I point out in the r.g.p article, Taylor has exposed himself to this kind of misunderstanding by immediately translating his results into hand rankings upon which a playing strategy is based. I think that there are some intermediate steps to be taken. The important part of his work is the results, not his conclusions.
>The important part of his work is the results, not his conclusions.
Which is because the simulation isn't simulating poker, but something quite different. Cooke's latest article in "Card Player" makes the (obvious) observation that it isn't wins and losses that counts in poker, but the sizes of the wins and losses.
If a hand rates to win a lot of small pots when it holds up and lose lots of bets when they don't, it will rank highly via the simulation (if I understand the ground rules correctly) but be a real leak in the game in real life.
Your observations would be correct except our rankings factor in the number of foes contesting the river (except for the showdown table T5) .. for example, a starting hand that wins against 5 callers scores higher than the same hand when it wins against 1 caller. The theory is that the pot won will be proportionately larger in the first case.
Dick Taylor
This is self-weighting gambling at its finest!
"Your observations would be correct except our rankings factor in the number of foes contesting the river (except for the showdown table T5) .. for example, a starting hand that wins against 5 callers scores higher than the same hand when it wins against 1 caller. The theory is that the pot won will be proportionately larger in the first case."
I thought that I would comment on this one since it clearly shows how little understanding Taylor has of hold 'em. Here's an example. You play an AJ and someone behind you raises. You now play the pot heads up and an ace flops. If you win you tend to win a small pot. But if you lose you tend to win a large pot.
What? >>"But if you lose you tend to win a large pot. "<< I don't know which particular kind of ignornance you're claiming for me here, but your analysis is too deep for me to understand on this one.
Dick Taylor
This is what it should say:
"I thought that I would comment on this one since it clearly shows how little understanding Taylor has of hold 'em. Here's an example. You play an AJ and someone behind you raises. You now play the pot heads up and an ace flops. If you win you tend to win a small pot. But if you lose you tend to lose a large pot."
Dick,
Does your analysis account for the fact that you are more likely going to be able to bet a hand like KQ for value on the river where you might have to check KT, if you have just top pair with both hands?
A crying call and a bet for value at the river are equivalent. The main thing is that each of KQ and KT, when they are the focus hand, are played against all possible tables, number of foes and mix of made hands (including each other, in true proportion).
Dick Taylor
> A crying call and a bet for value at the river are equivalent.
Are you kidding? A crying call is a call when you are probably beat. A bet for value is a bet when you are probably the best.
If you bet for value on the river, you do it because you think there are hands out there that are worse than yours, that will call if you bet, but will check if you check. You value bet the river because you want to make even more money than is already in the pot.
A crying call is a call made even though you think you have the worst hand, but the pot is laying you odds greater than the chance that you are beat. You LOSE money on a crying call, you just lose less than if you fold.
If you can't see the value of a hand that can be value bet on the river, then I don't know what else to add.
Dan
<< A crying call and a bet for value at the river are equivalent. >>
Given the context, I am led to believe that Dick is saying that on the river, the expected return from a crying call is the same as the expected return from a value bet.
This is dead wrong, so I am wondering if Dick means something else. But I can't think of any way in which a crying call and a value bet are equivalent.
I thought Dan was asking the question in the context of our simulation, where a foe at the river either beats the hero or not. Since we do not distinguish between them, in that context a foe making a "crying call" is equivalent to a foe who "bets" for value. Amazing.
Dick Taylor
Malmuth wrote:
>1. The only decisions that players make are to play or fold. Their decisions do not seem to be impacted by betting or pot size. This will have the effect of over-valuing medium high cards such as KJ and KT (and QJ, QT, etc.) and under-valuing connecting hands (especially) suited connectors, and small pairs.<
Taylor responded:
>Sorry. The pre-flop action by all players other than the "focus hand" follow HPFAP starting hand advice. A given hand will play or fold based on (a) whether the game is expected to be loose or tough, (b) what group the hand belongs to, and (c) position. We did not allow pre-flop raising, however, because we wanted to be able to estimate the value of aggressive play as an independent variable rather than as a random variate. Hands like KJ, KT, QJ ... etc, if "over-valued", were over-valued by Mason (and Dvaid) themselves.<
>We did not allow pre-flop raising Are you saying pre-flop raising was not allowed for a portion of your analysis? Or, are you saying "HFAP players" starting hand play is based purely on hand rank, position and game type with no attention to pre-flop raising? In either instance, your simulation is severely flawed: you will have "HFAP players" calling with hands like KJ and the like where they would have folded for a pre-flop raise and are now much more likely to make second best hands. The result is an unrealistic devaluation of KJ and its cousins. Unintended, your simulation will correctly value hands like KJ in games featuring several tight-passive players (those who routinely call pre-flop with AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ and KQ).
Using an approach so basically flawed, I don't see any value in your recommendations.
"Mason seems a bit confused over what we did, exactly, and sometimes as to why we did it that way (withour bothering to ask us), as well as how our methods impacted our results."
Gee, Mr. Taylor, I remember offering to talk to you either in person or on the phone, but you refused to have anything to do with us.
Mason,
As I stated in an earlier post, facts are irrelevant to Taylor. Perhaps Taylor could post some of his thoughts on "rake terrorism" and remidies for card cheats on the Exchange Forum. That should give everyone a big yuk-yuk for about a week.
Tom Haley
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary, thanks for your usual obnoxious message. Jessica Vechionne emailed Taylor a while back and informed him that I would be glad to talk with him. I suggest that you check with her.
By the way, I was just telling someone that it seemed as if you had become a real person on our forum and was on your way to being a valuable contributor. I guess I spoke to soon.
I have made the offer to several of our critics to either sit down and talk to them here in Las Vegas, (Most poker players usually show up here eventually.) or to speak on the phone, etc. I would make the offer to you but it is obvious that in your case it won't do any good.
Post deleted at author's request.
I just thought that I would comment on Taylor's first comment. I won't bother with the other ones right now because I have other things to do in my life.
Taylor wrote: "Sorry. The pre-flop action by all players other than the "focus hand" follow HPFAP starting hand advice. A given hand will play or fold based on (a) whether the game is expected to be loose or tough, (b) what group the hand belongs to, and (c) position. We did not allow pre-flop raising, however, because we wanted to be able to estimate the value of aggressive play as an independent variable rather than as a random variate. Hands like KJ, KT, QJ ... etc, if over-valued", were over-valued by Mason (and Dvaid) themselves."
This is just another example of the many errors in Taylor's analysis. The advice in HPFAP is very dependent on whether the pot is already raised or just called. For example, we say in a typical game in an early position to play hands in Groups 1-4 in an unraised pot but to only play Groups 1-2 in a raised pot. This is a giant difference and is just one of many variables that brings Taylor to the wrong conclusions
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 January 1999, at 2:52 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 January 1999, at 10:56 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (lavoncarson@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 January 1999, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 January 1999, at 4:08 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (lavoncarson@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 January 1999, at 7:03 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 18 January 1999, at 3:01 p.m.
Mason,
TTH2 is capable of addressing all your 17 points and is looking better and better.
Etienne
Are your results playing against TTH2 opponents in sync with your actual results for like game types? I've heard a few say they can beat the sims toughest line-up very easily at up to four big bets per hour. If this is true, it's a good indication the software is flawed.
Scott,
You wrote :
< I've heard a few say they can beat the sims toughest line-up very easily at up to four big bets per hour. If this is true, it's a good indication the software is flawed. >
And some can beat the game at 2 big bets per hour, and some at 1 big bet per hour. Some break even, and the game can beat a few also. For "flawed" software it scores high marks in the starting hand ranking department IMHO.
Etienne
To expand on a point I have made below, the author of this starting hand guide claims in more than one place that where his hand rankings are the same as S&M's, it validates his work, but where they are different, S&M is wrong.
As someone said above ...
Next !
In a small NLHE tourney, I played this hand. This tournament stops when it gets down to three players. The payouts were, 1st - $1166, 2nd - $486, 3rd - $292. I had invested $40. There were 7 players left. The blinds were 400-800, and doubled every 15 minutes. I was in the big blind and had 1900 left after posting. Approx chip counts were SB (fairly solid, semi-tight) - 5000, UTG (extremely loose) - 1000, 2nd (fair) - 5000, 3rd (extremely loose) - 5000, 4th (very solid, aggressive) - 15000, Button (very solid) - 2100. 3rd comes in for 1500, button goes all-in. The tournament director then announces that the blinds will go up next hand. I say, "Well, I guess I better call if I have anything", then look down and see 7-5 off. 3rd will absolutely call. What should I do?
I think, this should be an easy lay-down for you. You can be absolutely sure, that you don´t have the best hand, and you are sure, that the pot is gonna be contested by 3 players, one of them (button) being a solid player.
Don´t forget, when the blinds go up next hand, you have 1900 left. You can hope, that somebody´s gonna raise the blinds, and when you call and the BB doesn´t, there will be 5400 in the pot. I´m sure that you´ll have better chances to win the pot heads up with any hand than with 75o in a 3-way action against at least one legitime hand.
Maybe a call would be correct, if you know, that the original raiser won´t call and when you know, that the guy on the button is a player, who reraises not only with big pocket pairs. In this case, you are something like a 2:1 dog (when he´s got 2 overcards to you but no pair), and with this tournament-structure you should try, not to get extremely shortstacked.
The player you've titled "4th" has 15,000, or almost half of all of the chips on the table. Unless the remaining chips become concentrated in just one other player's hands, or people manage to survive their all-ins and this chip leader has to post some blinds, or this chip leader does something stupid, he's going to get 1st place money. He can just sit back and wait for 4 of you to get eliminated and he will still have the chip lead over the 2d and 3rd players.
Thus, you are most likely just playing for 2d or 3rd place. Notice that there is really not much difference between the two, less than $100. Thus, merely surviving into 3rd place is a worthwhile strategy, as taking additional risk so as to get into 2d just doesn't seem worth it. Therefore you fold here, and you fold your SB as well unless it's a big hand, and wait for the other folks to bust out. If you get a big hand prior to your next big blind, you can consider going for it, but your main goal in doing so is to build up some excess chips so that you can fold your next big blind without going broke in the small blind that follows.
Now, if the other players are also sitting on their chips waiting for you and the other short stacks to bust out first, then you might need to loosen up a little, and come in with less than big hands before you get a random hand in your big blind. For example, if the others are still gambling it up, then wait for AA-JJ and AK. If they are playing tight, then you might raise with any A, any pair, or KQ (possibly even as weak as QT if you think there's a very good chance that the blinds will fold).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Reread my post. Were I to fold this hand and the next one, I would have 1100 left and the blinds would be 800-1600. I would also have a grand total of five hands to wait for AA-JJ & AK, and for four other people to bust out. I'm not saying I didn't play it this way, but I wasn't thinking along these lines. The mathematics of the situation is what I'm most interested in. The difference btwn 2nd & 3rd is ~10 rebuys. To some people that may be worth playing for. 1st is ~58 rebuys. What are my chances if I win this hand and have 8300 or fold and have 1900?
I realize that there's a huge difference between playing and winning this hand, and folding this hand. About a 4-fold difference in your stack size. And, if this were a winner-take-all tournament, your strategy would not be to merely survive, you'd have to win some chips. However, in this tournament you get paid for merely surviving, as long as you get to at least 3rd place.
If the other short stacks (and everyone except the one guy is a short stack) are gambling it up and contesting every pot, then there's a good chance for you to get into the money by merely folding every hand that's not a monster. Earlier in the tournament, while the money was still far away, this wouldn't have been the proper strategy. Now, it may be. While you're not very likely to get a great hand before it's your big blind again, that's not so terrible. When it is your big blind again, you'll be all-in, but you'll probably have about a 35-40% chance of winning that hand (your random hand against the better, or one of the better, among the other 3-5 hands). If you survive this big blind, the chances become good for you to make the money, because someone is probably going to be going bust about every other hand at this stage.
I find that I don't like tournament like the one you're in. I have only rarely seen these style of events, fortunately. Because the tournament is over as soon as you reach the money at all, a higher premium is placed on survival than other tournaments. In regular tournaments, once you make the money you are still fighting to win. As such, there is a good reason to have as many chips as possible. Here, there is also a good reason, you get paid a higher spot. However, once you get near the money, a short stack has almost no chance of winning, as you have to increase your stack significantly, yet you can't bust players out in the process (or you'll get down to the specified number of finishers, and the tournament will end before you can win another pot to increase your stack).
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Fossilman has a very good understanding of how you play and think at the end of a tournament. As you can see the hands you are dealt become second nature to what you do to fight for positions in the finish. No longer is having an understanding of how to play as important as understanding the value of your chips and when you need to invest them to stay alive or give yourself the best chance to win it.
Ihave said years ago before anyone to my knowledge that computer simulations are fun to play but that is it. If you rely on them to make you a consistent winning player I advise you to rather meet someone who IS A CONSISTENT WINNER and learn from that person or persons. Even turbo2 has many drawbacks that will cost you money. And when has a computer taken into account the effect of alcohol on poker player's which is a very common thing. Computer poker programs are fun but that is it.
I completely agree with you. It's hard to really simulate someone on tilt, or a drunk, or an attitude, etc. Computer simulations are almost worthless because in poker you can calculate chances very easily with simple probability. So computer sims don't help you there.
The few interesting features are listed below in some thread about someone doing an experiment to see how important position really is. That is more difficult to quantify, but the sim gives a pretty good idea.
I agree, but not completely. Such simulations CAN be used to deduce individual truths about the game which are difficult or impossible to deduce from regular play, such as whether 77 prefers 1,2,3, or 8 opponents, or whether KT or JT is better vrs 1,2,3, or 8 opponents. Sophisticated strategies can be IMPROVED in this way; at least by a little.
And they are certainly VERY useful for beginners, since game mechanics (when can I raise?) and basic facets of the game (how bad is my Jh when 4 hearts are on board?) can be learned in a quick, safe, and CHEAP environment of home. TTH is especially gdod at this.
But you are correct when you suggest that learning sophisticated strategy is far above any such game.
- Louie
I don't even think they are fun.
Frankly, the recent onslaught of posts herein on computer sims, the Taylor Report etc. has been a real yawner...somebody please wake me up when it's over and people are back talking about real poker.
Hello David!
Hope you remember the following post you wrote:
>Posted by David Steele on Wednesday, 16 December
>1998, at 11:56 a.m., in response to Need Good
>Books On Hold'em, posted by Poker Student on
>Wednesday, 16 December 1998, at 1:49 a.m.
>
>I would suggest Lee Jones "Winning Low Limit Holdem".
>Also "The Theory of Poker" by Sklansky. "Improve Your >Poker" by Ciaffone is an excellent read, though not >specific to your request.
Thanks much! Yesterday I bought "Winning Low Limit Hold'em," and the book seems *extremely* good for novice poker players such as myself. A great book! Thanks again!
By the way, has Mason Malmuth rated this book yet? At the local bookstore, I went through some of the books by Mason since I was interested in his review on the book by Lee Jones; however, I didn't find any.
PS If Ciaffone's book is also much like Lee Jones' I'll definitely buy a copy! (The local bookstore does not carry it.)
Your Welcome!
The Ciaffone book is not much like the Jones book, it is more like a collection of his Card Player columns ( also excelent material ). The book has many interesting ideas but would not be a complete textbook.
At some point you are going to need most of the 2+2 books as well, as you get hooked on this game.
David
Hello all!
Is there any poker training software? Since there are tons of blackjack training software to beat the casinos, I'm looking for similar software programs.
I know blackjack and poker are totally different games, but if there are *reasonably* good software programs for novice players such as myself, I'd greatly appreciate any helpful inputs. Thanks in advance!
If you have played very little and want to practice cheaply before entering real games for real money then try the Wilson Software Turbo Series Poker Software (available thru Card Player Magazine).
However, this and other programs have many weaknessess you should be aware of. Look through the message index and the archives of this forum for threads discussing problems with and limitations of computer software. They won't be hard to find.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I just remembered, there is a great essay on computer software by Mason Malmuth in the Essay section of this web site. Read that first.
turbo software is adventageous. buy them all. take their advice on how to play a hand with a pound of salt. it not realistic like you are playing opponents with human intellegince, but remember this is computer intelligence, figure out how they think and kick their ever loving computer ass. same as in real life. figure out how they t hink and kick their ever loving human ass. good hunting. turbo software is advertised in card players magizine. dont have the number on me.
Is $200 enough to sit down with to play 4-8 hold 'em?
Josh
It's not enough for a "professional" to sustain fluctuations over time, nor, obviously, for a losing player.
But if you're on vacation and want to sit down and spend a few enjoyable hours playing poker, $200 of disposable income should last a few hours if you know how to play, even if you're unlucky.
Although, you would be better off in a $3-$6 game, or better still, in a $2-$4 game. The money would last longer, the players are weaker, and the fluctuations less likely to cause you to go broke (if you're a winning player).
Good Luck.
IMHO, $200 is enough for a session of 4-8 limit. However, even if you play correctly, there is not a bad chance to lose it. As always, it's important to separate results from truth.
$200 is an excellent session bankroll for a player new to 4-8. It's enough to cushion you from a few rundowns, and if you lose it it would be a good time to walk away and think about how you played and prepare for your next session.
yes
I think $200 is too short. One hand, with maximum raises at each level, costs $96. It is not unusual to invest $56 in a hand. Three of those losses leaves you with $32 left (and that can happen). You are woefully underfunded at that point. There is nothing worse than getting a big hand and not being able to bet it.
I like to have a short term bank role of 50 times the big bet. Accordingly, I believe that $400 is required for $4-$8.
Dan, I'm with you on this one. I usually walk in to the casino with $1200 for my usual 10-20 game. That's 60 big bets. I played 20-40 for about a year (no longer spread in town) and always had $2000 in my jeans to start (50 big bets).
I do not like playing with a short bankroll as it definitely causes me to play more cautiously. Put another way, it takes away from aggressive play. I too would suggest a minimum $400 one session bankroll for 4-8.
Remember, this is a new player to the game. I would recommend a smaller bankroll because if he loses the $200 it would a good time to walk away and evaluate what happened, what he did, etc. One good reason is that he may be in a -EV game for his experience level. Or he may not have developed the discipline to stop from steaming. In general, the idea is that a new poker player should approach the game in small bite-sized increments. This gives you an opportunity to re-evaluate every play you made. If you play a long losing session, those bad plays will tend to blur together until you can't remember even the majority of them.
Dan
Thanks Villalobos for attempting to solve my problem. What you say makes sense but I am wondering why I consistently get rivered when the hands I am going into the river with have huge odds of winning even if the opponents have correct odds to stay in. If the pot is paying 20 - 1 and their drawing odds are 10 -1 I should still win more than half the time and I am not. It is no fun playing the supposed correct way and winning little or no money. Can anyone give me some advice on how to solve or deal with this problem. Thanks
First, remember that while any one opponent may be a longshot against you, if you have a lot of callers drawing to longshots it may be only even money for one of them to hit it.
For example, let's say two people on the flop draw to two different 3-flushes, one person draws to his bottom pair trying to hit his kicker, another has a gutshot and calls to the river, and perhaps another one has a couple of overcards to your top pair. Each one of these people may be a big dog to your hand, but collectively there are perhaps 19 'outs' for one of these players to beat you.
When you see someone roll over his longshot on the river to beat you, it's easy to think that your luck is horrible. You forget about the other 4 longshots that missed and folded.
The bottom line is that in loose passive games you are going to get rivered a lot. To beat them, you have to play in such a way as to maximize the size of the pots that you do win. It's frequently correct to raise and reraise on the flop with a big flush draw, and often correct to raise on the turn with the flush draw. Many tight, timid players fail to make their opponents pay the most for their respective draws, and wind up losers in the game.
Also, play more hands like suited connectors and pocket pairs, and tighten up on hands that easily get run down, like KT and AT. Don't raise as much in late position with unsuited big cards like KJ. The idea is to see more flops, but see them cheaply so you can get off the hand if you flop a marginal holding. But once you hit a big hand or a big draw, make the other opponents pay the max.
The checkraise is a valuable tool in these games. Because the pots are often large, your opponents are often correct to call for their longshot draws. If they are calling correctly, you aren't making money from them. If you can sneak in a checkraise with your top pair on the flop, you can make the chasers pay too much for their draws, and now you are making money from them.
Dan
For several months, I used to play in a club where the game was basically no fold'em. I found that a raise on the turn in such games can often be much more effective than a raise on the flop because you have more of a chance of knocking out some of the longshot draws behind you. In Dan's example, if a raise on the turn succeeds in knocking out a couple of players, the 19 "bad cards" for you may be reduced to a much lower number AND you have a situation where the people behind you are putting in the same amount of money (at least in absolute numbers if not in the same proportion as your investment). i.e. 2 people might call 2 big bets cold rather than 4 people calling 1 big bet.
Often, you can play your hand in these wild games in such a way that you can set up this situation.
Example: You hold AQ. Flop is A,J,8 with a two flush. You bet. Several players call and the guy to your right checkraises. Notice that while your hand is a good one, it is by no means invincible. It is very vulnerable to being run down by one of several longshot draws behind you. It may be best to now just call the raise instead of making it three bets. (The reason for this is that if you make it three bets at this point, you are probably not going to lose anyone and the two bettor will not likely lead into you on the turn thereby precluding an opportunity for you to raise on the turn).
Now, if a blank hits and the raiser leads into you on the turn (and that's typical in such games), you can raise. I would tend to do it even if the turn card was a mildly scary card such as a 10 or 9 instead of a complete blank. This usually results in a couple of longshot draws calling but also a couple folding. This increases the chances of your hand standing up. (These types of plays can also increase the variance in your results but that comes with the territory in these types of games).
One other point: Don't underestimate the importance of value bets at the end in these wild games. In these games, I often see even good players who have been leading all the way check down Top pair/top kicker on the river even if a complete blank hits. Their reasoning seems to be "Well, I am in a chaser's game. That blank could have made two pair for my opponent".
While that's true, it is obviously unlikely. As well, in these games, you are likely to get paid off even by hands holding middle pairs because the pots are usually too big to fold on the end. In any event, the chances of you getting raised on the end after a blank hits are much lower than the chances of getting called by an inferior hand. I put in several thin river bets for value in these games.
Rick Nebiolo wrote:
<< I recall a study about shooting a basketball that may be somewhat related to the topic. While working aerospace in the mid eighties, I spotted a cover story in a statistician's journal regarding the subject of whether or not shooting a basketball is something that is subject to streaks. >>
The article is "The Cold Facts about the 'Hot Hand' in Basketball" by psychologists Amos Tversky and Thomas Gilovich (CHANCE: New Directions for Statistics and Computing, Winter 1989, pp. 16-21). I have seen the article cited in journals spanning a wide range of disciplines over the years.
Unfortunately, Tversky and Gilovich made a number of serious statistical errors and oversights that are unlikely to be corrected in the literature. The editors of CHANCE were swamped with followup articles and made the (in retrospect unwise) decision to solicit and publish three rebuttal letters (including one by me; see "More on the Hot Hand", CHANCE, Summer 1990, p. 7). So there are no peer-reviewed refutations of the article to be found.
The data collected by Tversky and Gilovich actually display clear evidence both for "streaking" and "alternation" (dynamic, rather than statistical, regression to the mean).
From the perspective of dynamic processes, streaking corresponds to "driving", while alternation corresponds to "damping". If these opposing damping and driving forces are perfectly balanced, the result is deterministic chaos which resembles statistical randomness.
Using weak statistical tests, Tversky and Gilovich naively concluded that the "hot hand" was a cognitive illusion.
However, more sophisticated statistical tests reveal that the balance isn't perfect: streaking dominates in free throw shooting (players "heat up" at the line, hitting a higher percentage of their second shots than their first shots), while alternation is slightly stronger in field goal shooting (due to defensive adjustment).
They originally published in a peer-reviewed psychology journal, and the results were very convincing. They even conducted experiments with free throws. Subjects perceived streaking even when it wasn't significantly there. Are you aware of the original article?
It is a simple hypothesis: Is the shooting percentage higher following a success than a failure? It is quite easy to compare these two percentages statistically. Your suggestion that it is sometimes higher and sometimes lower strikes me as complicated and prone to data-mining. Please elaborate, to demonstrate you aren't suffering from some "cognitive illusion"
For people looking for more recent or academic citations on the hot hand, here are some.
The original academic article was
Gilovich, Thomas; Vallone, Robert; Tversky, Amos. "The hot hand in basketball: On the misperception of random sequences." Cognitive Psychology. Vol 17(3), Jul 1985, 295-314.
Here's their abstract:
Four studies investigated the origin and the validity of common beliefs regarding "the hot hand" and "streak shooting" in the game of basketball. In Study 1, a survey of 100 undergraduate basketball fans (50 of whom were intramural basketball team captains) showed that both players and fans tended to believe that a player's chance of hitting a shot are greater following a hit than following a miss on the previous shot. However, detailed analyses of the shooting records of the Philadelphia 76ers provided no evidence for a positive correlation between the outcomes of successive shots (Study 2). The same conclusions emerged from free-throw records of the Boston Celtics (Study 3) and from a controlled shooting experiment (Study 4) with the 14 men and 12 women of Cornell University's varsity teams. The outcomes of previous shots influenced Cornell players' predictions but not their performance. The belief in the hot hand and the detection of streaks in random sequences are attributed to a general misconception of chance according to which even short random sequences are thought to be highly representative of their generating process.
Further analysis was conducted in this follow-up study
Adams, Robert M. "The "hot hand" revisited: Successful basketball shooting as a function of intershot interval." Perceptual & Motor Skills. Vol 74(3, Pt 1), Jun 1992, 934.
Compared the means of 83 National Basketball Association (NBA) players' hit-hit and hit-miss intervals. The mean interval from making a field goal to making a field goal in 19 NBA games did not differ from the mean interval from making to missing a field goal, further challenging assumptions regarding streaks of "hot" shooting.
Another study looked explicitly at the basketball betting market.
Camerer, Colin F. "Does the Basketball Market Believe in the 'Hot Hand'? American Economic Review. Vol. 79 (5). p 1257-61. December 1989.
And a follow-up paper discussed it.
Brown, William O; Sauer, Raymond D. "Does the Basketball Market Believe in the Hot Hand? Comment". American Economic Review. Vol. 83 (5). p 1377-86. December 1993.
My take on these articles: I think observers often see streaks when none exist. This doesn't mean that no streaks exist, just that the perception of streaks is more frequent than their actual existence.
There are other, more boring, articles on the perception of streaks in randomly generated numbers or other sequences. I'm happy to provide those citations for anyone interested.
I have a few things to say about the messages in this thread, but before I do I should mention that I think there is some broad relevance to poker of the reseach program out of which these studies emerge. My somewhat dated recollection is that a lot of research in this area follows a similar mold in asking what we can learn about cognition from the systematicity of errors in judgement and decision making tasks. Without commenting on the hot hand study specifically, I think studies in this area do demonstrate fairly convincingly that people make systematic errors in judgment. More specific conclusions are open to debate, though not here.
First, although I think systematic errors in judgement are clearly relevant to poker, I don't know if there's anything useful (as opposed to interesting) to be learned from this literature that educated poker players can't get from the more poker-specific literature. I think there is an interesting relevant to poker, that someone else might want to discuss, which is how stable poker ability is across time. That is, if we ignore learning and drunkenness and the quality of your opposition, etc., how variable is the individual's contribution to their EV across sessions? Personally, I feel like I'd rather play a sport or game in which a hot hand contributes substantially to performance, although I suspect that a more significant factor in poker results is the similar but more trivial cold hand phenomenon.
As for the contribution of the hot hand work to academic debate, I can share some anecdotal information. Since the Gilovich study (the original article, I haven't seen the one in CHANCE) came out, raising the issue has been a good way to start a violent argument in a psychology department at lunchtime. Of course, in my experience most of the arguments concern whether or not there is such a thing as a hot hand phenomenon, not whether or not the results Gilvich et al. report are genuine examples of the perils of heuristic reasoning. More specifically, the most heated non-academic debate has concerned whether what Gilovich et al. measured really corresponds to what people mean when they say a player has the hot hand. That is, we argue about whether the title of the article is appropriate.
Of course, you can't find out the answer to this question just by asking people, and it's likely that different people mean different things by the phrase, "hot hand," anyway. My guess is that if you asked 100 psychologist-basketball fans to design a study along the same lines, and compared both the probes they used to assess the subjects' beliefs and the tests they used to evaluate whether or not those beliefs were actually true, you'd see 100 very different studies. (I haven't kept tabs on the literature, but a brief peek at the social science citation index suggests that such a cottage industry of basketball-specific studies did not emerge.)
Anyway, it is conceivable (but not likely) that what people mean by the phrase "hot hand" is the exact statistical claim that Gilovich et al. tested. It's also possible they mean exactly the phenomenon Paul observed (I haven't read his article). Since people can fail at both introspection and at articulating complex thoughts, it's not likely we'll settle that end of the argument soon (although I'm sure this is not the issue the replies in CHANCE addressed). But I think what's interesting is that I've never heard anyone say they felt their belief in the hot hand phenomenon was reduced by this article. This sort of raises the interesting and poker-relevant issue as to why people will persist in a belief even after it has been debunked. There at least used to be a substantial literature on this, which I haven't followed at all. But I would have to guess that although people do sometimes learn things from poker books, if the definitive guide to the absolutely perfect way to maximize your profit at every poker game were published tomorrow, we would not have to worry that the games would suddenly get a lot tougher. Even if everyone who plays poker memorized it.
dan
ps Having read a few of Paul's posts, my guess is that if he chose to rebut Tversky and Gilovich in print, they said something clearly incorrect. Nonetheless, I also trust a study with Amos Tversky's name on it in the sense that if they claim subjects demonstrated some behavior that could be attributed to bias in judgement, I think they probably did. So I hope the redux turns out to be that the Gilovich conclusions are at least reasonable, if alternative points of view are still possible. Just my uninformed opinion.
ps Personally, I don't think the Gilovich study addresses what I always thought of as the hot hand phenomenon at all. And I do have a specific statistical hypothesis in mind. However, I won't tell anyone what it is, because I don't want it debunked.
<< I also trust a study with Amos Tversky's name on it in the sense that if they claim subjects demonstrated some behavior that could be attributed to bias in judgement, I think they probably did. >> Here's the most solid finding by Tversky and Gilovich. They interviewed 100 avid basketball fans from Cornell and Stanford the following question. Consider a hypothetical player who shoots 50% from the field. 1. What is your estimate of his field goal percentage for those shots that he takes after having just made a shot? The average of the responses was 61%. 2. What is your estimate of his field goal percentage for those shots that he takes after having just missed a shot? The average of the responses was 42%. They then did a controlled experiment for comparison involving 26 players from the men's and women's varsity teams at Cornell in which each player took 100 shots from a distance at which they could hit about 50% of their shots. The probability of a hit following a hit was 47%, and the probability of a hit following a miss was 48%. It's clear that people generally have exaggerated expectations about the hot hand. On the other hand, Tversky and Gilovich made their own exaggerated claim that "this misconception of chance has direct consequences for the conduct of the game.
Like other cognitive illusions, the belief in the hot hand could be costly."
>On the other hand, Tversky and Gilovich made their own exaggerated claim that "this misconception of chance has direct consequences for the conduct of the game. … Like other cognitive illusions, the belief in the hot hand could be costly."<
The illusion of the hot hand could be very profitable so long as you are aware who is susceptible to the mirage.
Before I start let me warn you I never made it past Psychology 101 and two semesters of statistics in college so maybe I'm swimming in waters over my head here. In a thread titled "Re: Is Gambling For A Living wrong? Rick Nebiolo -- Monday, 18 January 1999, at 1:03 a.m.", I mentioned a distant memory of the study regarding the hot hand in basketball and whether it actually exists. Later, in laymen's terms in a reply on the same thread to Dan Hanson, I described my recollection of the human factors mentioned in the study. I ended this post by saying "Somewhere there is an application to poker but I'm too tired to think of one right now."
Well, I just got up after a solid five hours sleep and am on my second cup of coffee so perhaps it is time to give it a try. Your typical opponent in poker is much more susceptible to a belief in "lucky streaks" and "running bad" compared with the type of player who studies S&M&Z and reads this forum.
A few years ago I played a few times a week in a 10/20 or 15/30 holdem game in a small club where the same dealers might deal to you two or three times in a session. There was one player in particular that made a big show of what he thought of the dealer (e.g., with comments like "dealer, you have been killing me" or "just deal like you did last time") whenever the dealer entered the box. If he perceived the dealer as being good for him (i.e., the "hot hand"), he was capable of being a very tricky and creative opponent. If he perceived the dealer as being unlucky for him, he would retreat into a shell, tighten up, almost never bluff or make any kind of move on the pot. I was able to take advantage of this for the two years the game lasted.
In general, many players display this sort of dual personality. If they perceive themselves to be hot they become tricky and push small or imaginary edges. If they seem to be in a funk (but not on tilt), they are much less tricky and tend to have it when they bet and so on.
By the way, I don't believe in luck in the way a typical player does and I never let on to this at the table. For example, when I enter a game a usually grab a fresh chair (because I don't like sitting in someone else's body heat). I may say something like "that chair looks like it had too many bad beats in it" or something like that. Why not BS a little?
The key thing is to recognize how a player's game changes when he perceives himself as being lucky versus unlucky and also how their perception of you changes if they believe you are unlucky. This is the main reason why I like to keep a lot of chips in front of me and never complain about running bad.
Regards.
Rick
Rick, I'm with you. I too don't believe in luck in its typical sense. However, others do and I take advantage of that by playing much more aggressively when I have been hitting cards.
I hesitate to say this because some may brand this comment as being a racist one. Rest assured, I am not racist. But the fact of the matter is that Orientals in my experience place a lot of stock on rushes and hot streaks. In my game, over half of the regular players are Oriental. Many of them honestly believe that they cannot fight lady luck. When I've been hitting cards, I am apt to play much more aggressively against these players; they are much more likely to make incorrect folds during these times allowing me to win pots that I otherwise would not have. This then only serves to perpetuate the rushing phenomenon.
Conversely, I am much lesss likely to put any moves on them when I've been missing. I raise less often on the come, semi-bluff less often etc. This is not because I believe that I am any less likely to make my draw but because I know that they believe it and will not release a marginal hand. Thus, I no longer have at my disposal the "bluff" part of the semi-bluff equation.
Bottom Line: Even if you don't believe in rushes, hot streaks etc., realize that many of your opponents do. Use that info to your advantage.
Posted by: Rachel Croson (crosonr@wharton.upenn.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 19 January 1999, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Kimberg (kimberg@mail.med.upenn.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 January 1999, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: Paul R. Pudaite (pudaite@pipeline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 January 1999, at 11:47 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Thursday, 21 January 1999, at 6:20 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 January 1999, at 11:27 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladnerdowns.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 January 1999, at 2:13 p.m.
In some games, when the first few players have folded, you can expect the remaining hands to be stronger since the deck is weighted with favorable cards. (Ace-to-five lowball draw is an example of this.) Mason has written that this is not true to any significant degree in holdem. But what about Omaha-8? In a game with decent or better players that understand the value of starting hands, the playable hands, especially in early and middle position are far more likely to contain aces, deuces and treys, while almost never containing eights or nines.
Is there "bunching" in Omaha-8?
If so, would I tend to avoid steal attempts with marginal hands against solid opposition, since there is a good chance that some strength is behind me?
And would that imply to steal instead with hands that would do well against hands (that they would be more likely to hold) like dry A2 or A3, like a connected high hand (preferably with an ace)?
i myself have come to the conclusion that as much as i would like to set the goal of being the best player alive at all the poker games, i have set the split games aside as being a situation that for me at least is not likly to be understood. i can play, but thats about it. i dont even feel close to being the master of this table, as i do at the regular games . if any one feels like the master i would certinaly feel comfortable paying a substancial fee for good advice. with credindtials of course. my e mail is aol dpoker dot com.
Dan,
I dont believe that there is any real bunching factor in omaha 8 or better. The less people behind you is the deciding factor if you will get to play against a good hand or not if you try to steal. With good players early position folds would happen with fairly good hands which may be played in back positions so because some have folded early doesnt mean that better hands are likely to come out. Even in lowball good players will fold most four card eights and rough pat nines in early positions so because they folded only means they didnt have exactly four or five low cards. What really happens is that late position players are more likely to call you so it may seem that it is more likely to have hands out. I would rather steal with hands that do well headsup as that is what you will be up against if you get called and usually will be reraised if they are good players. In omaha 8 or better almost all games the people play far too loose so unless you have "tights in the blinds" close behind you it is hard to make a true steal before the flop. A connected high hand with an ace is not a steal hand although you may prefer to win it there. Its a hand you would play first in late position for sure. Good Luck.
Omahaha split early playable hands require at least TWO COMBINATIONs of good cards. There are plenty of "good" cards (A2K) in unplayable hands; so bunching is not much of a factor when selective opponents fold.
Except when a few loose players fold, in which case I'm sure there was far fewer Aces in those hands, and so Aces would bunch noticably (but not a lot) in the remaining hands.
And except when tight players call or raise, in which case there may be no Aces left in the deck: Tight UTG Raise, two tight players call, how do you like 2345? A2xx?
- Louie
Let's see ... 4 loose players call and would find a playable hand if there was an ace ...
16 cards have no Ace, so Aces are now 4/36=1/9 rather than 1/13. So there is about 40% more potential good hands behind you. So instead of the actual 5 players yet to act you may assume 5*(1.4)=7 players to act.
If your hand selection is sensitive to the difference between 5 and 7 players yet to act, please post your selection criteria.
Perhaps a good'nough strategy is to add .4 player yet to act for every loosy-goosy that folded. Please no flames on this sloppy generalization (but corrections welcome).
How's that for seat-of-my-pants analysis?
Just finished reading the first half of "Sklansky on Poker" (haven't read the part on Razz yet).
Another great collection of essays. I particularly liked and (could relate with) the chapter on "extra outs". Without getting into details, Sklansky correctly points out that many good players underestimate the importance of extra outs (i.e. backdoor flush draw, gut shots etc). These extra outs when added to your primary draw may well turn an obvious fold to an obvious call. Sklansky further points out that the only players who properly take into account these extra outs are the live ones (who do so unknowingly) and the experts.
I couldn't agree more. I often see plays where the good (but not great) player in fact is making poorer decisions than would a live one. One often seen example is folding at the end when the pot is clearly big enough to warrant a call even though you are likely beat.
Comments?
Extra outs take on even more importance in stud.
Since I cannot make truly random decisions as Game Theory suggests, I often use extra outs as a "randomizer" when deciding to semi-bluff or bluff. That is, I'm MUCH more likely to make a weak 2nd pair raise when I also have a 3-flush. I believe this is an acceptable approach when against players of lesser caliber than the authors (who are likely to recognize it and take advantage).
- Louie
Post deleted at author's request.
A 3-3-6-12 game, 6 players see the flop, no raises. Flop is 2-2-K with 2 spades, I hold pocket nines in middle position. Checked to me, I bet on flop and there are 2 callers, button and BB. Next card is a K, BB checks, after moving hand to his stack, then deciding to check. I bet, Button folds and BB calls. River card is 5s and BB checks. I bet, and lose to trip dueces.
Should I have bet on the river, or should I have simply checked? My thinking afterwords was that checking was the correct call, except I saw weakness (and actually was thinking trip dueces, being that he was in the BB) in his hand and thought that I might induce a fold on the end. Was this thinking incorrect, and was I trying to read too much into his table actions? Being a very new player, I consider this the most important lesson, in that I should concentrate on my game, before I work on figuring other players out, true?
Kevin,
Good luck as a new player. It seems you think clearly which should lead you to be a winning player. Do alot of reading as it will pay for itself. You probably needed to check on the end as nobody in small games throw away full houses. There was not much out there that you could beat if you got called. So it means your bet on the end was essenially a bluff with a small chance of winning if called. With all those people in the flop it would seem likely that someone has a deuce or king. Maybe you needed to check on the flop and fold for any bets. I hope that went thru your mind as your hand was average to start and got much worse on the flop.
Actually, Ray has a much better point here - I didn't read his response at first. Not only is your bet on the end a bluff, but your bet on the flop is essentially a bluff, since you don't want anyone to call. The next two cards don't change whether you have the best hand or not.
You're representing at least a King, and threatening to have a deuce. So what you're really doing is trying to push it through from the flop. Which is really not a good idea - this is not the flop to do it with, and it sounds like not the sort of table to try it on.
If anyone calls you on the flop then you can't win unless you push it through (or hit a miracle 9). Perhaps you could make a cheap bet on the flop as a speculative move and then slow down.
I didn't take heed of your description of the table - 6 players, sounds like a loose game. In that game, you should just wait until you get a hand before trying anything - they'll pay you off. No need for tricky stuff in a nofoldem game.
Richard. - Compulsive gambler, but very lucky
Hi Kevin,
I would check on the end, and throw my hand face up instantly.
Remember David Sklansky splitting hairs : With a board like that, you can only bet if you want to get called, or as an outright bluff when you know your opponent will fold.
Against most of the players I know, you're not going to get them to fold a hand which can beat yours by betting on the end. The probability that the BB has a 2 or K is much higher than the probability that he has TT, JJ, QQ, or AA and he'll let you to steal the pot.
Therefore betting on the end has almost no positive expectancy. If you get called, you'll almost certainly lose. If he folds, then you could have won by checking.
As well as this analysis of the cards, you also have to mix in a healthy dose of psychology - if he looks like he's weak, then bet anyway, no matter what you have.
Particularly, if an average player pauses and moves his hand back to his stack to pretend that he's strong, I'll bet with nut low.
Richard.
I think you are correct in that attempting to "read" the opponent's manerisms will detract you from more important things; at this stage in your career.
However, review in your mind the "move" the BB made when reaching for his chips. Ignore such moves until you can confidently distinguish between a subconscious reaction and attempt to "fool" you.
- Louie
I have been studying Holdem for about a year and playing at the local casinos for the last six months. I play to a positive expectation, but I attribute it more to the poor play of my opponents, than to any consistently good play of my own. How many mistakes can a player make per hour and still have a positive expectation? This is assuming a table of "average" strength. I know in TOP, Sklansky describes how good players obtain their hourly rate, but is he implying good players don't make mistakes?
Dman,
One less mistake than they make against you. Dont worry you will get better quickly and win faster if you keep working on it. Good Luck
It also depends on how big those mistakes are. Let me give you an example. In a normal 4-8 game recently I called a 3-bet, 5-way pot preflop from the big blind with KTs. This was surely a mistake. I should have folded. But . . .
on the turn the board had QJ with two of my suit, and I check raised, limiting the pot to me and one other player. I missed my draw on the end, and he mucked his aces when I bet.
My point is, not all mistakes are equal. My mistake probably cost one or two dollars in EV. His mistake gave me about a $150 pot.
Before the Holidays I was on a real bad run. I even made a post called "Tough Cards" and from all the responses I was able to come down with my own playing style, Hit and Run, I was able to put it to the test and now after 10 sessions I have been a winner 7 of the 10 times. I usually play 4-8 w/ the occasional 6-12 game. What works for me is to limit my playing time to 2.5 hours. But what I think the main reason for the change of good fortune is Game selection. In the past I would play in any game that was going on, Regardless of who was in the game. Now If I sit down to play and I dont feel comfterble or feel intimidated, or find myself wacthing out for one particular player I will just leave the game. It has seemed to work for me in the short run. Lets see if the numbers look close after 100 sessions. Is there anybody else out there that uses this Hit and run style Of play? If so let the board hear your results.
Tight Lines Walleye
Leaving a game as you described when you feel uncomfortable is an excellent strategy.
Leaving after 2-3 hours regardless of your chip size MAY be an excellent strategy for you. It could very well be that your enthusiasm, adrenalin, attention, etc. may deteriorate relatively quickly, as it does for most people.
Leaving after you get a little bit ahead is probably a long term TERRIBLE strategy. While insuring a win may be good for your short term happiness and attitude, it is your net gain or loss at the end of the month that will matter to you at the end of the month, not whether you won 70% or 50% of your sessions.
- Louie
Well said.
I subscribe to the theory that when you are hitting cards, you generally also play better. You have table presence and others are scared of you (so to speak). So long as the game is still good, why leave when you've got things going your way?
Shouldn't table conditions take precedence? If after 2-3 hours the table is still in your favour, why leave when the next table you play could be tougher?
I didn't make it clear in this post, but last month I posted "Tough Cards" In that post I went on to state that after looking at my records that when I sat down for a session I started off winning but by the end of my sessions I would end up even or down. I asked if anyone had simular experinces and some posts said that they find a 5 hour session could be too long of a session for me. I am a non-smoker, the poker room I play in is poorly ventalated. I ussualy end up w/ a head ache when I have a long session. So I made an attempt to shorten my sessions and select better games. I once got into a 6-12 game at this particular casino sat down and played about 15 min when 3 of the other players left, they filled the seats with 3 players that I know to be good players, and players that I seem never to win against, so I left the game. I got into a 4-8 game and played for 1 hour. When the 6-12 game broke up they started moving some of the other players into the 4-8 game. I was up and doing well when they started filling the seats. I decded to keep playing, about 2 hours later I had lost all my winnings. Why?, I didn't change my style of play, the players around me changed. I really studied this session cause it shows how critical game selection can be. But as far as hitting and running, its somthing that I may have to do to be a consitant winner, play for 2-3 hours at a time, take a long break maybe a nap, then get back in. Over time I may be able to lengthen my sessions and still win. But for the mean time, I will continue to study my Hit and Run stratagy!
Fish on Walleye
two comments)
1) Session win stats are large irrelevant. I believe its _very_ important to look at the bottom line. It doesn't matter how many sessions you've won if your bottom line is negative. Since the stat is your primary indicator I'm afraid that it could be misleading.
2) What you really want to do instead of "Hit and Run" is to extend your idea of table conditions to an ongoing assessment of the table conditions and your own play. If its smoky and you have a headache...leave. If you look down at your watch and realize you've been sitting in the same chair for 12 hours...well, for most of us its probably time to either leave or _seriously_ evaulate your mental condition vs. your opponents. The only reason to preset playing time limits is if you don't think you are rational enough in the heat of battle to make the right decision about the playing conditions. In the past I've noticed that I tend to lose track of time so if I plan on playing for long periods I'll force myself to get up from the table for a rotation (no hurried late position run to the bathroom) at a predetermined intervals. This is my way of making sure that I stay lucid enough to make the "play or go" decision during long sessions. In the past I've found a good time period to use is 2.
Game selection, quality of table, inciteful theories aside what i believe makes poker a game of skill is the ability not to play every hand, or any hands. Thus the personal choice to leave after a period of time is just that a personal choice that can enhance the game of one particular person. All other factors imho come second. just my 2 centavos
a: In August I purchased a filter mask which alleviated the head aches which used to accompany long sessions in a smokey room. I found mine in a store which sells allergy relief products. b: 2-3 hours is a number I've heard from many very good poker players as their limit to an unbroken session. However, after cashing out and taking a break, they return for another session.
Walleye, I play 2 - 5 stud and h old 'em in Colorado. I agree with you that table selection is very important. Since I tend to be a very tight player, I have time at the table to keep track of things. Mostly as a diversion at the beginning, I started recording hands played, won and lost each hour. I also recorded looseness/tightness and aggressiveness of the table. After about a year or so, i entered it all into a database program which allowed me to sort by various criteria. I knew that I did better at tables that were moderately loose, but not extremely loose and better at tables that were not aggressive. What I didn't know until I used the computer was how much the difference was. -$20 per hour for some types of tables to +$25 for others. If you have the resources and inclination, you could try something like this.
DJ
I think your strategy is valid for a number of reasons. Most important is that you are comfortable with it. You are also forcing yourself to think very hard about the game your playing. I often get into trouble when the game changes and I do not adapt to it until too late.
One of the most successful poker players I know employs hit and run. He frustrates many of the less disiplined players.
If it keeps working, keep at it.
good luck and have fun.
I think your strategy is valid for a number of reasons. Most important is that you are comfortable with it. You are also forcing yourself to think very hard about the game your playing. I often get into trouble when the game changes and I do not adapt to it until too late.
One of the most successful poker players I know employs hit and run. He frustrates many of the less disiplined players.
If it keeps working, keep at it.
good luck and have fun.
Post deleted at author's request.
Another angle here. Consider that you may have some devastating, readable tell(s) of one sort or another ... it will normally take most tables full of experienced players about an hour to pick them up enough to be able to gang up on you. A hit and run strategy is a useful counter until you can find out, and correct for it (them).
Dick Taylor
Hit and run? Oh yeah! That is a GREAT idea! I use it once in awhile and I should more often. It works. Take care- Doc-
I know of a couple of travelling pros who use the following hit-and-run strategy at mid/high limit hold'em games, usually at short (6-8 player) tables. Wait for BB and coast until the button is 1 player to your left (unless you get run over by the cards in the meantime). Then bet/raise/re-raise all the way to the river, regardless of your hand (within reason). Scoop a pot and then coast until the BB comes around again. At that point you get up and leave. They claim an average of +5bb/hr. When in hit-and-run mode they prefer playing LV and AC, where they can play several tables in one night.
Dick Taylor
What happens on days when they lose these initial hands?
That's the problem with a hit and run strategy. Sometimes, they won't be able to hit...but they will nevertheless be able to run...to the nearest ATM machine.
There's no hitting a hand. The strategy assumes you're playing hard a pair of rags. That's why, I think, they only average +5BB/hr. A typical 30/60 pot that goes to the turn could easily net 8 BB.
Dick Taylor
I used hit and run, for over two months last summer, at East Chicago, Indiana's Showboat. Here is what happened.
1. The floorpersons started tampering with my name on the wait list, so as to exclude, or delay me from playing. They were angry, because I would not "start" a game, which was short-handed.
2. Some players started walking on the game, until I had left.
3. Some players really tightened-up, against me.
4. Short-term, it improved my bankroll.
Anyone contemplating using it, should realize that there are some problems with it, regarding long term profit.
I have been playing in a weekly 2-5-10 Holdem home game for the past year. For twenty dollars per player our host furnishes cards, refreshments and a very pleasant locale. Our host does all of the dealing except for the occasional potty break where one of the players will deal a few hands. During one of these breaks we discovered that two cards in the deck, an Ace and King of diamonds were slightly longer than the rest. The game ended in argument at this point with accusations flying in all directions. Our host's explanation was that he had bought four decks from a supply house, 2 red and 2 blue. We checked the four decks and found that there were two short decks and two long decks. Our charming host went on to explain that his grandchildren were playing with the cards and probably messed them up. Can anyone out there come up with something more plausible?
Dear Wally,
This is almost certainly a case of cheating. I would strongly suggest implementing force majeure to pay the game organiser what he deserves. Get your money back.
Every card magician knows about cards which are slightly longer than others - there is something called a Svengali deck where exactly half the cards are a bit longer than others. There are entire books written on how to cheat just using a Svengali deck, or a reduced Svengali (ie a normal deck with just one or two long cards). It is very easy to deal these cards in such a way as to give a preferred player an edge - you can think of the possibilities yourself.
This form of cheating is only possible between dealer and player - it's almost impossible for a player to take advantage of it by himself without the dealer's help. Likewise, a dealer who is not in the game cannot take advantage - he needs to have a player.
The fact that it was the Ace and King of diamonds rather than 2 random crappy unsuited cards indicates to me that the cards were selected for their increased edge over the others.
About all of the playing cards in the world are produced by a few large companies operating under myriad names. The US playing card company produces most of the reputable brands. No reputable company will produce decks which are slightly longer or shorter unless it is specifically sold as a trick deck.
Whenever a deck is sold as a trick deck, it is usually modified in some way. The most popular 'Bicycle' cards, which come in red and blue and have a patented 'air finish', have a curious symmetrical monochrome pattern on the backs, with a wheel. In trick decks, the colour of the spokes of that wheel is reversed. If you still have access to these long and short decks, check them to make sure that the backs really are identical. Often you might notice a subtlety, such as the spokes, which you didn't see before.
You can only buy a Svengali deck by asking for it at a specialist store. There is zero probability that the decks were mixed up by a kid.
This doesn't just sound dodgy - it's a clearcut case of cheating. The game is rigged.
I might tell you what I would do if a cardgame organiser ever ripped me off like that - but it would involve your handy second amendment and a team of likeminded individuals.
Richard Cavell
Alternate cards in a Svengali deck are indeed longer. But they also have identical suit and rank. Not terribly subtle for cheating! Stripper decks are slightly trapezoidal so you can find reversed cards. But usually these cards are wider, not taller.
Maybe your host got a little creative. There are stronger cheating methods, like making all the aces and kings long. But his case is amiguous enough to be attributable to chance (perhaps deliberately?).
Who buys cards at a "supply house"? Why not buy them at a drugstore? This is a little curious, particularly since those grandchildren had such good taste. It's interesting he got one long and one short deck of each color too.
>Alternate cards in a Svengali deck are indeed longer. But >they also have identical suit and rank. Not terribly >subtle for cheating!
Yes, I know. But it is a simple matter to create your own deck, with a long ace and king - this is what I am proposing did happen. I don't know why I'm labelled 'Wrong!' The info concerning the existence of Svengali decks allows the reader to imply the techniques of cheating - most people wouldn't know of the Svengali deck. I have a Svengali deck of the Bicycle cards. These are the cards most often used by magicians, as they have a great finish (for sleights of hand) and are popular in home card games.
>But his case is amiguous enough to be attributable to >chance (perhaps deliberately?).
I don't know what your opinion is - whether you think it's cheating. But I have to argue if you think this is possible an accident. I think that it blatant cheating. It is just not possible to accidentally get two long cards, both excellent cards to have, in a 'normal' deck. I don't think the case is ambiguous.
>It's interesting he got one long and one short deck of >each color too.
This is one of the keys. You can't get a long deck and a short deck from the one store unless you ask for them, at a specialist store.
Richard.
I wrote "wrong" because I worked in a magic shop and never saw a book on cheating devoted entirely to long/short cards. It is unlikely the two long cards would both be ace and/or king (8/52*7/51). Yet this is a weak and uncommon method of cheating. He might have kept it weak because it would have been too damning if all the aces and kings were long. Two cards gives "plausible deniability".
The host might be an inventive amateur. It is hard to believe any legitimate supply house deliberately sells different sized cards. They may have a quality control problem. Or the host might have actually shaved the decks himself.
Home games I've played in always have sealed, unopened decks of cards to minimize the chance of smudges, pin holes, etc.
Did you notice AKd in someone's hand recently? Did you notice Ad or Kd in one person's hand unusually frequently? Does this guy appear to be able to apply the delicate skill to bypass or grab the larger cards? Does he have a clear buddy?
Check out this supply house in person. Can you SPECIFY different sized decks, or do you just GET different sized decks?
Don't burn his house down; they'll come after you for that.
- Louie
If you are trying to find out the cheat, I would bet he is the one who usually dealt the cards during the dealers breaks. Was there such a person? Was it a different person who was dealing when the descrepency was noticed?
Too bad you didn't think to run a sting on the guy instead of just calling him out...
When I played home games in Colorado food and drinks were the norm, but 'Hanky Panky' - they must be desperate for players.
Are you a winner in the game? Is there one person that is much more of a winner than others? If you are playing in the game and winning keep playing and figure out who is in kohoots and never, ever see him head up. If your a looser, get out. Shouldn't be loosing to much in a game that small. Remember this though. Cheaters cheat because they cant play. If you figure out who it is get them to go to a heads up game and bbq him or better yet, if you are sure that its a cheat bring them over to your place and do it to them! There is no rule against cheating a cheater in my book!
Do you think it's possible to be drunk as a skunk and still win consistently at mid level Hold'em? ( 5/10 10/20 15/30 ).
I've seen a player like this, and, once after his tenth drink, I asked him how he does it?
He said, slurs omitted,
"I've memorized so many patterns that there's really nothing to think about"
If this is true, and, at this point, I've got no reason to think it's not, it would be a plus for an eventual computer program that could play pretty well.
Comments welcome.
The other players can't read me, because I don't know what I'm doing.
Could you please dring me another brink, my dear.
While MADD and other groups may consider this PinC, I am sure that alchohol affects different people drastically differently. I've SEEN an 8-drink drunk ride a uni-cycle.
So I suggest that this guy is very resistant to alchohol. Yes, it is very easy to beat loose-passive games on auto-pilot; so long as you have a solid pilot to start with; especially since few play tricky against the drunk.
BTW: when I was a punk I successfully pulled off such a stunt as faking drinking and faking drnk, aand wuz wel abel to releev thoz "idjuts" of their dispozble kash. *Hik*'p*
Can you get by his drinking and analyze his play objectively?
- Louie
Maybe this is what's happening.
Like a jazz musician, who sometimes plays ahead and sometimes plays behind the beat, he has an automatic random variation ( due to alcohol ) to the speed of his bets, checks, raises, calls and this constantly changing rhythm is throwing off the opponents.
Do other players stay in with marginal hands in an attempt to contest a pot with the drunk?
Senator,
Actually, the opposite is usually true. If the drunk is very aggressive (especially before the flop), it has the tendency to make the players who normally play a little too loose to tighten up a bit since they know it will cost them to play a hand. In this way and some others, the presence of a drunk or maniac can be bad for you or the game. If you have "Poker Essays" by Mason Malmuth read the chapter called "The Effect of a Maniac". If you don't have the book, I'm sure Twoplustwo will send you a copy gratis. Don't members of Congress get stuff like this all the time?
Regards,
Rick
I seemed to have misplaced my copy of Poker Essays, ah, there it is under a martini glass.
I'd be wary of a player using faked drunken behavior as a cover act to modify the play of his opponents. Does he actually pound down those drinks, or are they discreetly dumped into a nearby plant?
A friend of mine, a career politician, uses the cover act to duck from lobbyists and trick other members of congress. His flushed face and gin blossoms are the results of makeup, while this friend's slurred speech is the product of acting lessons.
Good luck at the table, and where'd my comped drink go?
Bill Smith was the best no-limit hold'em player ever, but only after two or three beers and a blackberry brandy.
I will be playing in my first No Limit tourney on Fri at the Trop in AC. The Buy in is 100$ and we get 500 in chips. Limits start at 10-20 and go up every 20 minutes I believe. I've read TJ's book and feel I'm ready. I'm concerned about early play in this tournament, ex. first three levels. What type of play can I expect and what type of play should I consider, ex. starting hands, raises, what group hands should I play, and generally any advice for the tournament. Thanx Danny
Danny,
It really depends a lot on the composition of players you get at your starting table. For a small buy-in tourney like this, you will have many players who have no clue about strategy but like the idea of being able to stick it all in when they think they have the best hand. I've played in many tournaments with $100 to 300 buy-ins, and sometimes you get a table where the play is very conservative and nobody is getting out of line and other times you find yourself with three or four maniacs who throw it all in pre-flop with casual regularity. I suggest you play conservatively until you determine what your table is playing like. During the first two or three levels you are probably not giving up much if you don't play any hands at all except AA, KK and maybe QQ. This should allow you ample opportunity to study the table and determine your best playing strategy.
Good luck with the tourney.
So Big John ;-) If you should play there and get JJ-10's to see the flop cheap you would muck ?? SAme for the brunson hands (78s - 56s etc) if I can tripple up early with cheap flops I tend to think that may not be too bad. Of course this would limit you to be last position and you can't observe as well.... Is this a no rebuy ??? Just thinking out-loud.
It is a No rebuy. I tend to agree with Johns advice, but I certainly wouldn't muck JJ's or 1010s in the blind. Hopefully I'm at a table where people aren't going crazy. The Trop tourney players seem to be pretty good so I don't think there will be many maniacs. I've read TJ and Doyles book so while it's my first tourney I do feel somewhat prepared. I thought TJ's book was especially good
This may be the wrong forum to ask this question,but who is TJ and what book on poker did he write? During the mid 70s I owned two cardrooms in the Northwest and have played all over N.Ca. and N. Nevada. The TJ I knew Then played in my cardroom,I heard he went to Las Vegas,this was 20 years ago. Could this be the same person?? Sorry I cant help on the Trop tourney. Bill Lipcon
It's TJ Cloutier, a renowned tournament player. I was hoping to get more responses from my post. Oh well, thanx to those who did respond. Danny
Danny-
Not much interest in no-limit on this forum. NL posts geneally get a modest response.
I would play pairs in any position in this tourney if you can slip into the pot for less than 10% of your stack. Great hands for doubling or trebling up if you flop a set and easy to get away from if you don't. You also don't need position to win money with a set since it is such a disguised hand. I would also play AK more aggressivley than TJ says, particularly if you notice people playing AQ and AJ. They will pay you off. And you will be amazed at how many tourney players can't realease KK or QQ in a heads-up pot even when an Ace flops. They will pay you off too.
Suited aces or KQs are OK in unraised pots on the button, but only if you are willing to go all-in with a big draw. If you play as tight as TJ recomends, you will never be a factor unless the card run you over. "It is better to burn out than fade away." Also read Bob Ciaffone's no-limit/pot-limit book and read the chapter on satellite play for advice on strategy once the blind/stack ratio goes up.
Are novice theory questions supposed to be posted in exchange? Forgive me if they are.
I have never played in a tournament before. Can someone give me an idea of a typical tournament structure? When antes grow? By what factor? In a tournament with structured betting, do the limits grow as well? By what factor? How do re-buys work? I'm sure all tournaments are different, but I'm trying to set up a game and need a basic framework.
More importantly (as this is the theory part of the question), is the basic concept that one should start tight and loosen up as play progresses and players drop? Can someone suggest some good books on tournament play? I'm looking for ones on both Stud and Hold'em. Thanks for any help.
I you look a little down on the exchange forum, there are some posts that discusss this.
Mason wrote: "I thought that I would comment on this one since it clearly shows how little understanding Taylor has of hold 'em. Here's an example. You play an AJ and someone behind you raises. You now play the pot heads up and an ace flops. If you win you tend to win a small pot. But if you lose you tend to lose a large pot." Under most circumstances, where I respected my foes, Taylor would probably check down the turn and river assuming I was against AK ... unless the raiser missed a bet and/or is a snake ... thereby making more or less equivalent win/lose pots. However, in a short game AJ is strong enough so that the cumulative win pots will exceed the loss pots and I would push the aces. We are, of course, only referring to bets made for loss pots, correct?
Dick Taylor
Dick, I think part of the problem here is that you can't communicate your ideas very clearly. I have just read your message over three times, and I can't for the life of me understand what you were saying. I've found the same problem with some of your other strategy messages - they are incomprehensible. Perhaps this is part of the reason why people misinterpret your work, if indeed they do. Perhaps you could expend more effort when composing your messages?
Dan
Sorry. First half of the post is a quote from Mason. Parse the quotation marks. ... He describes the following scenario: You hold AJ, player behind raises, you are heads up and the Flop shows an A. Mason says you'll win small pots and lose big ones. ... But I think it ain't necessarily so, and describe action where AJ assumes raiser has AK and just check/calls the turn and river. With position the raiser would have no reason not to continue betting, except sometimes at the river with a terrible hand, so the "pots" (win or lose) should be more or less comparable. ... However, the raiser could induce overbetting by AJ by missing a bet at the turn, which would lead to results consistent with Mason's observations but is not a likely variation of the scenario. ...I also claim that at a short table AJ can be played more aggressively. .. And on this issue my poker manhood rests.
Dick Taylor
Mr. Malmuth is suggesting that when opponents are playing tight (such as when someone is in from early position in a full game), AJ has poor implied odds. This is because when AJ is the better hand the opponent is unlikely to give much action (how much action can you get from A9 when an Ace flops or from JT when a Jack flops?), but when the opponent has the better hand, AJ is likely to give too much action (such as vrs AK when an A flops, or QQ when a J flops).
It is also because few people play hands worse than AJ (AT, QJ..), so AJ would TEND to win the blinds or contest the pot as an underdog.
Malmuth is correct. AJ wins less MONEY, and is therefore RANKED lower, than its overall win RATE would suggest.
However, your suggestion that AJ is gold in a short handed game is also correct, since you can get plenty of action from lesser hands from suspitious opponents.
One anomoly that I have observed is that low to medium level "experts" tend to NOT adjust playing requirements ENOUGH based on who is in from where. They tend to call a raise with AJ about as often from a tight UTG raiser as from an aggressive late raiser; *DOH*. Thus, good trouble hands tend to do a little better in the hands of more sensible players, since they can get action from lesser hands.
- Louie
I'm happy to learn from Louie, but I think Mason's example is not correct in general.
>> "Mr. Malmuth is suggesting that when opponents are playing tight (such as when someone is in from early position in a full game), AJ has poor implied odds"<<
*** But he didn't say so. Nearly EVERY hand has reduced implied odds at a tight table. His example has a late position pre-flop raiser heads up against AJ at the flop, at ANY table.***
>> "This is because when AJ is the better hand the opponent is unlikely to give much action." <<
*** This could be true in general, but not necessarily in Mason's specific example, I think. Remember the foe here has position, he has taken the initiative with a pre-flop raise, and he's now heads up at the flop against a pre-flop limper. I think at most games the raiser would try to push that advantage even if he's actually beaten. ***
>> "..but when the opponent has the better hand, AJ is likely to give too much action (such as vrs AK when an A flops, or QQ when a J flops)."<<
*** Yes, perhaps in general. BUT in Mason's specific example it is easy to believe that AJ will most likely check-call instead of being aggressive. Or, if the raiser is very respected, perhaps give it up early. What seems to me least likely is that AJ will be aggressive, in general. ***
>>"Malmuth is correct. AJ wins less MONEY, and is therefore RANKED lower, than its overall win RATE would suggest."<<
*** For Mason's specific example, I think, across a broad range of tight/loose tables, AJ should win about the same MONEY heads up as its heads-up win RATE would indicate. This is probably the least favorable example to demonstrate implied odds. ***
Dick Taylor
BTW: I dislike the phrase "Reverse" implied odds, and prefer "good" or "bad" or "no" implied odds.
I believe the intent of "implied odds" is to determine whether or not a given player with a given hand in a given situation would PREFER to be all-in or not be all-in. Prefering not to be all-in means you (believe) you have "good" implied odds, such as a small pair in loose game. Prefering to be all-in means you (believe) you have "bad" implied odds, such as one pair vrs flush draw just before last card is turned.
If I limped with AJ and a solid player (lets say someone as good as me) raised and I called head's up I would DEFINATELY prefer to be all in, and show this hand down with no more betting. That's why I agree with Mr. Malmuth. If you feel you have no preference either way (all-in or not) then you are correct about it having no implied odds. That's why you disagree.
I believe we agree that hands with bad implied odds SHOULD be ranked lower than their straight win rate would suggest.
- Louie
Dick,
When an AJ is the best hand, other people usually don't have much, so they fold. If an Ace flops, the chance that someone else has an ace with a weaker kicker than a jack is fairly small. In a tough game, the only chance of another ace being out there is typically only an AT from late position, and perhaps a suited Ace in late position. And people can't have overcards to call with, so you bet, everyone folds, and you win a small pot.
Now, if an Ace lands and you are up against AK or AQ, you are going to wind up calling all the way to the river. In other words, with AJ you have to give lots of action if you are up against AQ or AK, but no one is going to give you action if you have the best hand. Note that AK is never in this situation unless another player makes two pair.
Also, if you hold AJ and bet all the way to the river and are called by a tough player, you often can't value bet on the end. So, you miss a bet if the other player had a worse hand but would have called you. With AK, you know you're not up against a bigger kicker, so it's an easy value bet on the end.
The bottom line is that when AK wins a pot, it is typically a bigger pot because it gets action from lots of weaker aces. When AJ wins a pot, it is much smaller because there probably aren't any weaker aces that can call you. If they both lose after flopping top pair, they lose the same amount of money.
One more thing that AK has going for it - There are no overcards that can land to cost it a pot after it flops top pair. If AJ flops top pair with a jack, a King or a queen may make someone a better hand, so it gets beaten more often on the turn or river.
Dan
All of this explains why generally speaking, you would rather have a Jack high flop than an Ace high one with A,J (notwithstanding the possibility of a King or Queen hitting later on).
an interesting thread, however a more expensive problem is how to recognize small sets in these situations. i am not able to very often. help please. thanks
I don't think that it's a more expensive problem. Sets aren't that frequent an occurance. Against a good player, you can't recognize them. That's why sets are so valuable.
Dan
MM-
You'll know I have a set whenever I go all-in on the turn in no-limit. So stay out of my big pots and you will save a lot of money. See you at the D.C.
Taylor writes:
>> You hold AJ, player behind raises, you are heads up and the Flop shows an A. Mason says you'll win small pots and lose big ones. ... But I think it ain't necessarily so, and describe action where AJ assumes raiser has AK and just check/calls the turn and river. With position the raiser would have no reason not to continue betting, except sometimes at the river with a terrible hand, so the "pots" (win or lose) should be more or less comparable.<<
I respond: It depends on how you define "more or less comparable" as in my mind a big bet or two difference is very significant. I strongly disagree with your contention that the pot size in this situation is relatively the same. I can envision many situations where the A,J will have to pay off on the river with the worst hand but not get paid on the river with the best hand.
Taylor writes further:
>>... However, the raiser could induce overbetting by AJ by missing a bet at the turn, which would lead to results consistent with Mason's observations but is not a likely variation of the scenario.<<
I respond: I don't follow this argument that it is consistent with Mason's observations. Your statement seems very wrong to me.
Taylor writes:
>>I also claim that at a short table AJ can be played more aggressively<<
I respond: So what? Seems like an irrelevant point given that the HFAP hand rankings were intended to be applied to a full game that was somewhat tough. The statement you make is obvious to all players that has any kind of knowledge of the game.
Taylor writes:
>> And on this issue my poker manhood rests.<<
I respond: Which issue? The issue that A,J can be played more aggressively at a short table or the issue that all of the premises that you put forth in your post are valid. If it involves your poker manhood you need to step up from obfuscation and provide more clarity in your posts.
Tom Haley
Dick:
You are barely comprehensible -- gibberish for the most part. Your unintelligible posts are matched only by your thorough ignorance of poker played well.
*****
AJ tends to lose heavily calling a pre-flop raise for the following reasons:
1. When you miss the flop, you lose.
2. When you hit the flop and are beat, you are forced to pay flop, turn and often on the river.
3. When you hit the flop and are good, you win the pot on the flop (missing the same bets you lose when you are second best.)
4. Against good players, you risk being outplayed when holding the unapparent best hand, especially as the board gets scary.
However, against weak competition -- loose-agressive -- you'd be inclined to play the hand and play it in an aggressive manner.
Lets say you flop top pair medium kicker, you have posistion, and your heads up. Your opponent bets into you on the flop and you raise. Your opponent calls and nothing scary really hits the board on the turn. But to your surprise, your opponent bets into you! How are you feeling now? my experience has been that when this happens it's usually an in- experienced player who has a good hand, who failed to re-raise on the flop. Time after time I've found myself looking at better hands when this scenario happens, too the point where unless I have a stronger hand than a pair, or I know this player well, I'm gone 90% of the time. What strikes me about this situation, is that it seems too me that the more experienced players should be betting into the raiser if they plan to call it down(unless they think their opponent is bluffing), but they don't , me included. It can turn the momentum around for you and win you pots when the raiser isn't as strong as represented. So whenever I find myself in the posistion of calling a raise on the flop with less than top kicker, I force myself now, to bet into the raiser on the turn, if I'm planning to call anyway. If I get raised, I'm probably saving myself a bet on the river by folding.This act of checking on the turn to the raiser on the flop, even though your going to call, is the most common defensive play I see. Your comments are appreciated.
My comment:
You have described me to a tee.
In-experienced not afraid to bet, but quite often afraid to re-raise.
One of the nice things about this forum is quite often when people describe how to act one's own flaws are pointed out.
I have of late been taking advantage of the "raise or fold, don't call" plays, now I guess I need to work on re-raising a raise.
Now how many pots have I failed to pull because of a failure to re-raise.
S. Doyle
Al,
My reply is limited to general situations when you are up front (either in the blind or early position) and the play on the flop was that you bet a good but not great made hand (e.g., top pair, good kicker). Let's say you got a couple of calls and a raise from a player in back. Unless you suspect the draws are coming from the players between you and the raiser (in which case you should probably fold your lessor hands since you are either beat or likely to be beat), consider the play some call the "stop and go". Call the raiser with the intention of leading into him on the turn. The main point is that when you bet after just calling the flop, your opponents often have more trouble putting you on a hand than if you reraised on the flop. The reason for this is that the reraise on the flop usually means a made hand and your opponents can eliminate draws from your possible holdings.
Assume you bet the turn after calling the after the flop raise. If the turn card comes somewhat scary for you it is also scary for the raiser in back and hopefully to the players caught on the inside (unless it makes their hands even better). If the flop raiser or any inside player raises you are almost always right in folding. If they were on draws they don't get a free card. And if they only call you may be in the lead or only slightly behind.
If the turn card is not scary and once again you think you may be just slightly ahead or a little behind, the hand doesn't cost as much since you didn't get into a raising war on the flop. Once again, a bet on the turn should be thrown away if raised (against typical opponents). If just called you are in the hunt and will have to use judgement for the river.
I guess my main point is that when you do the reraising on the flop from early position with a medium strong hand, the turn card is often a scare card for you from your opponent's perspective. Now when you lead on the turn as expected, opponents raise is more likely to come from a wide variety of hands, some of which you wish you called. They will pretty much know were you were at and thus they can make more moves on you. But if you call the flop and lead bet the turn it is you who are putting a move on them, and their response to your move will give you a more accurate idea of how to proceed on the hand.
When my headache goes away and time permits, I'll try to come up with some specific examples.
Regards,
Rick.
rick, I didn't know it had a name. The "Stop and Go" is great.It is an unnerving play for the raiser as I mentioned. I was thinking mostly of heads -up situations when it looks like you are going to possibly have kicker problems. thanks for the post.
Do you take a lot of free cards on the turn? If you do, one of the costs of that play is that you're going to have to pay more people off when they bet into you on the turn. Betting into a flop raiser is a standard defense against a free-card raise, and the player doesn't have to have much to do it. In fact, if you're against me and you raise for free cards a lot, your raise on the flop may induce me to bet into you on the turn with a very marginal holding, whereas if you had just called the flop, I might check to you on the turn hoping for a free card myself.
A raise on the flop for a free card is a form of deception. Unfortunately, when you misrepresent your hand on the flop, it induces other people to misrepresent their hand to you, because they are acting not on what you have, but on what you've falsely convinced them you have.
If you never raise for free cards, and in general it's a fairly rare thing to see on your table, then I'd be more inclined to fold as well, unless I had some good outs.
Dan
Al,
Against bad players its easy to play your hands, its against the better people that the decisions become less clear. Good players will lead frequently into the on flop raiser with a close hand. They will not bet too often because they need to check raise enough as well. If you bet all your decent hands then your check raises say ive got a great hand or bust. Good players will also see you betting too often with weak hands in these spots and just raise you all the time. Then your back to the situation you found yourself on the flop. Thats why you must figure what will work best this time using everything your opponent knows about the past. Of course we watched everything and remembered it and put it in a package and can apply it perfectly to the situation at hand:). Good Luck.
An example:Last week in my 10/20 game i called a weak players raise from early position w/ AJ. the flop was Jxx he bet I called. turn was an x he bet i raised he called. river was an ace giving me two pair. he check i bet, he called. my two pair beat his QUEENS . i got lucky and hit a five outer. the poiunt:mis reading a weak player who could have had tens, nines or a draw. and i was lucky all weekend. If a solid player raised from early position i would have a hard time calling w/ aj. my two cents.
The strategy of bet-calling, then betting the turn when no scare card comes is used when the opponent may very well have a draw (so your hand is worth a call), but his combination of having/making the best hand goes down when he obviously missed his draw, if any.
I HATE this strategy. What are you representing? Well, its a good but vulnerable pair+kicker. That's a far too narrow range of hands to be giving it away so willingly.
If the opponent had the good raising hand you lose more, and if a draw it doesn't matter much, and if a semi-steal he can get off it relatively cheaply, and only gives up one chance to outdraw you.
You are BEGGING to get raised again by an alert assertive opponent, no matter their hand.
I much prefer either folding, re-raising, call-check-raising, or call-folding, depending on the aggressiveness of the opponent.
Having said that, I think it IS a good strategy with those flops that are likely to get a "scare" card on the turn. If you have (JT) board - Louie
I play in games where a raise on the flop from late position means very little. It could be a raise for a free card, it could be a raise from top pair/no kicker, hoping to find out if his hand is good (i.e. if I re-raise he'll fold), or it could be the nuts.
I find in general that raises on the flop are often tactical in nature. People are using the small betting round to define their hands, figure out where they stand, try for free cards, etc. If you're always folding top pair to these raises (or always folding second pair, for that matter), you'll get slaughtered.
In these games, if I have top pair with a medium kicker, I'll often just call the raise and then bet out again on the turn if a blank lands. This accomplishes several things:
1) If my opponent was trying for a free card, he didn't
get it.
2) If my opponent had a good hand and I re-raised the
flop, I lose an extra small bet. A tough opponent
isn't going to cap it and give me the information
I need to fold - he'll just call, putting me in the
same position on the turn.
3) If the major draw comes in on the turn, I can fold
to a bet, which saves me a half bet because I didn't
re-raise on the flop. (I can fold because either
my opponent had me beaten on the flop, or he hit his
draw).
4) It makes me harder to read. My not re-raising my
real hand, I induce a player into calling me with a
worse hand.
Dan
Al, I agree generally with betting into the raiser rather than falling into a check-call trap. However, as I'm sure you realize, the texture of the flop is an important consideration.
For example, if I hold something like As,6s, I will likely lead into the raiser on the turn if the flop was Ac,8d,9d but I am more inclined to check if the flop was Ac,5d,10h. Then depending on who I'm up against, I may exercise any one of my three options (fold,call, raise).
I mix it up quite a bit in this situation (i.e. bet, check-call, checkraise) but my most used play is to bet into the raiser again. One exception that readily comes to mind is if my opponent is a player who is capable of raising again on the turn with a worse hand than mine.
One key to making this play work is to ensure that you also lead into the raiser on those occasions when you do hit your kicker on the turn. In other words, if I hit a 6 on the turn in the example above, I will almost always bet. That adds a lot of credibility to my bets on those occasions when I have not yet made two pair. Many players look for the checkraise here. In my view, that is a shortsighted strategy. BTW, if my opponent calls and a blank hits on the river, I will often try for the checkraise on the river against an aggressive player who frequently bets for value on the river with one pair.
skp:
I agree with you up to the point of check-rasing on the river. In the situation you described with your A6s you bet into the pre-flop raiser on the flop, then bet again when you hit the two-pair on the turn, BUT now you elect to try for a check-raise on the river. In this situation I think that even an agressive player is more likely to check on the river in the hopes that if he has A-big kicker and a blank hits on the river, he opens himself to two bets and a check-raise with only one pair. I totally agree in betting for value, but when you raise the pre-flop raiser and then follow up with a bet on the turn and check on the river, all I do is call you down and maybe my A-big kicker holds up. Sure, you can be on a missed draw, but if not, I am now risking another bet in the event you are trying to pull off any trickery. Just another player's opinion.
I would bet against most opponents. I only attempt a checkraise against certain aggressive opponents who will bet a majority of the time after I have shown weakness.
BTW, I think it is proper for my opponent to bet. If I am in the raiser's shoes, I am going to value bet a good chunk of time with top pair after my opponent has shown weakness by checking. I do this because in my game, the chances of being checkraised on the river are much slimmer than the chances of being called by an inferior hand.
Other aggressive opponents think along those same lines. Against these guys, I'll often attempt a checkraise on the river with my A6 in the example that I gave. Even if he checks back and my play fails, I gain on future hands: He will see that I am capable of checkraising which hopefully will make him less likely to bet for value against me on future occasions.
skp, I agree . The way to really make this work against an aggressive plaer is to play a weak kicker hand the same way when you don't make two pair. Call the guy on the river and show the hand. He will always bet the river in the future on hands like this and your check raise will reap you rewards. If he smartens up and does just call you down the next time you can then alter your future strategy against him. Soon he will learn to leave you alone. Just make sure your the cat and not the mouse! Vince
Some people don't bet one big pair for value heads up on the river?
One main reason to do so is to give credability to your failed semi-steals on the turn; it now looks perfectly natural for you to be betting what is appearantly only one pair on the end.
This strategy is especially true when no-one bet on the flop, and you bet on the turn after they checked again. You will OFTEN want to have steal-again equity on the river. Thus, value betting 2nd or 3rd pair head's up (after a checked flop) should be routine when - Louie
Yes, believe it or not, there are several players in my game that don't bet for value on the river even with top pair/top kicker. I do not know what their thinking is. Presumably, they were burned by a checkraise several eons ago and vowed never to fall into that trap again.
If I flop top pair with medium kicker say a pair of T with Q kicker and get bet into on the turn I almost always call or if I know the player raise again. Calling allows me to see the river. Raising usually allows me to get a check on the river and bet if I make a hand or show down my hand if I don't like the river or even throw out a bluff if I hadn't done so til then. I don't like tossing my hand on the turn unless my hand is clearly beaten. If I still have top pair on the turn I'm usually in to see the river regardless of kicker unless I know the player so well that I am sure I am beat. I realize that saving a bet is a big part of winning at Holdem but I believe you can take it too far! Opinion by Vince
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 January 1999, at 8:35 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladnerdowns.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 January 1999, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 January 1999, at 2:33 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladnerdowns.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 January 1999, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 January 1999, at 2:03 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 January 1999, at 6:04 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladnerdowns.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 January 1999, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 22 January 1999, at 1:38 p.m.
Hello All,
I'll be in Vegas from this Saturday morning through Tuesday afternoon, and am interested in some info on Bellagio, Mirage, and Monte Carlo's rooms, or others worth mentioning.
I play 6-12 and 10-20 HE, and some stud. I play recreationally but seriously, and have found that with 3+ live or semi-live players, I'll usually profit. Less than that and I think I move from hunter to prey.
I'd like to know which of these rooms is most likely to have the maximum (tourist : semi-pro/pro) ratio. I am inclined to think that the Monte Carlo may be best, given that they cater to new players, though I've never played there.
I've played Mirage, and love the room, but have found it to be the toughest competition on average, particularly for 10-20 HE. Played MGM once 2 yrs ago, and thought it was fairly soft, but poor lighting and environment.
I plan to avoid Rio, as I imagine the side games from the tournament will have a high percentage of strong players. Also not interested in Horseshoe(smoky) or Excalibur(after having been propositioned in the men's room on my only visit there. God what a hellhole).
Finally, what about the best times to play. I assume that the best time is Saturday night, followed by Sunday night. Are the games anywhere on Monday or Tuesday likley to be live enough?
Thanks in advance for your insights and opinions.
-Alex
Alex,
These posts belong on the exchange forum. Click on it on the left side of your page. You will get good advice from our astute posters. Return the favor by giving us your impressions and experiences when you return. Good Luck on your trip.
.
A friend and I were talking the other day about what is the most profitable read you can have on weak players.
My vote was for the player who never bets on the flop when he's got the goods but will often bet when he does not. The easiest way to determine who these players are is to see what they do when a pair flops. For example, say the flop is 7,7,6. There are several players in my game who will never ever bet if they had a 7. So, when they do, I know with certainty that the guy does not have a 7. You can use this info devastatingly to your advantage to not only outplay that player but also others involved in the hand who either(a) do not have the same read on that player, or (b) are unaware that you have that read on that player.
I think this is one reason why I prefer to be in a game with one or two weak players even if the rest of the players are very good ones as opposed to a game where no one really shines but no one is really weak either. Better put, a game with 6 strong opponents and 2 weak ones is better than a game with 9 mediocre opponents.
Another valuable 'read' is that there are many players who will only bet the river if they have A) a monster, or B) nothing. Against opponents like this, you can often pick off their bluffs on the river.
There are a lot of opponents who will *always bet a four-flush on the flop. You can often push these opponents off the pot with a raise when a flush comes in.
There are a lot of opponents who play one pair weakly, even if it's Aces. In today's game I won a pot against an old rock who raised from the small blind. I had called with 98d from middle position after 3 other people had called. The flop was J97. He bet, everyone else folded. I called. The turn card was a 6. He checked his aces, I bet, and he flashed them to the table and said, "I can never win with these damn things" and threw them in the muck.
Dan
Here's another one:
A solid player in early position bets when the flop has 3 extremely low cards such as 2,3,5 or 3,5,6 etc. Chances are he is holding a medium over pair (pocket 7s through 9s). If the pot is fair sized, I 'll sometimes call with hands like J,10 or Q,J figuring that my hand is likely good if I pair up on the turn. I am unlikely to call with an Ace as part of my two overcards because (a) it is less likely that I will hit an Ace if there are a lot of players in as the Aces are probably busy and (b) an Ace on the turn can often make someone else two pair i.e. There may be players in there with Ace rag but not Jack rag or Queen rag.
skp,
If the solid player only called the big blind pre-flop, I totally agree with you. But if he raised pre-flop there is a great risk that he has a higher pair, like Qs or Ks.
Oh yes, for sure.
BTW, I am not going to call a solid player's raise pre-flop with J,10 or Q,J. I will call if I'm suited and I am confident that the pot will be contested by several players.
I agree with your assessment of this "read". With your flop example of 7 7 6 a player in early position, especially the blinds, will almost always bet out on his 6. They will almost never bet out with a 7 because they don't want to give away their hand. When I am behind them I find this to be a perfect time to raise with nothing. Most of the time you can steal the pot right here. If someone cold calls 2 bets behind you there may be trouble.
If someone cold calls two bets behind you, with all but the loosest players,there is trouble.
Here are two examples from recent sessions.
Play #1
I am the fourth player to limp in. I have pocket threes. Everyone between me and the button folds but the button raises. Big Blind calls. Of course, all of the limpers call. The flop is K,K,9 with 2 diamonds.
The Big Blind bets. All of the limpers fold. Normally, if a player bets from the blinds when the button has raised pre-flop, chances are that you are looking at a strong hand or strong draw - the player is hoping that the button raises again on the flop so that he can trap everyone between him and the button for two bets. But I knew that the chap in the Big Blind wouldn't think that way. If he had a King, he would never bet it on the flop.
So, I called (I think that this can sometimes be a better play than a raise because (a) the button might well have a King (b) I don't really have too much of a hand and will release on the turn if a diamond or other scare card were to come in and (c) a call signals that I may be slowplaying a King).
I was hoping that the button had AQ or something and would fold but he called.
The turn was a blank. I thought that the big blind might put me on a King and check. However, he bet again. I raised. Button pondered it for a bit and then folded. Big Blind also folded. I guess he had a '9' and not a flush draw. I suspect that the button had a premium pocket pair.
Play #2
A player second to act raises. Three cold calls. I have 10s,9s and also cold call. Everyone behind me folds. Big Blind and UTG player call the raise. We take the flop seven-handed.
The flop is 7,7,6 with one spade. UTG player bets. Pre-flop raiser raises again. Others fold.
I have no problem whatsoever calling the raise. I do this because I know that the player UTG would never bet a 7 and I know that the pre-flop raiser may well put me on a 7 given that I cold-called 2 bets. I figure that the chances are pretty good that I will get a free card on the turn.
That's exactly what happened. The turn was an off-suit Jack. Checks all around. The river was the 8 (Otherwise, I doubt that I would be citing this play as an example). UTG bets. Original raiser calls and I raise. Original raiser pays off.
BTW, I could have probably called on the flop even if the UTG player was not one of those easily readable players. The fact is that even a strong player would probably check a 7 from his position given that a bet is likely from the player to his immediate left.
How should a player adjust from a full game to a short hand game? i.e., Initially, we have 10 players, but as players leave, we will have 9 players, and then 8 players, and then 7 players, and then 6 players, and then 5 players.
When should you leave as well?
As the game becomes short handed, how should we adjust our strategy? And how do we define short handed?
Is the strategy the same for 9 & 8 players? Is the strategy the same for 8 & 7 players? Is the strategy the same for 7 & 6 players? Is the strategy the same for 6 & 5 players?
Great questions. I really wish there was more literature out there on shorthanded play. In fact, in HPFAP, S&M say that they could write a full book on shorthanded play. Personally, I wish they would.
I have very little experience playing shorthanded (maybe 2 or 3 hours of total playing time). Our games are generally full until closing time. Nevertheless, I think I can give a couple of pointers. If they constitute bad advice (and they very well might given my inexperience), I trust someone will tell me.
I am assumimg a 5 or 6 handed game.
1. Any Ace is a very good hand. I will play any Ace. However, I tend not to raise with them if I'm in early position. Often, if an Ace flops, you can take down a fair size pot by checkraising on the turn because your opponents do not put you (a limper) on an Ace. Of course, I would usually raise pre-flop from late position.
2. You should realize that the psychology of the game changes. Thus, you should be less inclined to try and steal the blinds with a hand like 9,8 suited from late position. If you raise, it's no big deal to the blinds. They are expecting a raise and will often play back at you with very little.
In these games, a hand like K-5 offsuit is much better than a hand like 9,8 suited.
3. I checkraise way more than usual. The checkraise is about the only defence you have against aggressive opponents who constantly use position to their advantage.
4. There will be times when you will have to pay off even with no pair. Obviously, make sure you have an Ace in your hand before you do this.
5. Do not miss value bets at the end. Every chip is important. Don't check down top pair at the end just because a flush card hit.
6. Do not be scared of running into straights and flushes. They are far less frequent in shorthanded games.
7. Of course, high cards and position take on even more importance in shorthanded games.
8. Don't slowplay. You will be betting often with very little. If you don't bet after flopping a monster, your bets on other flops will have very little credibility and may entice others to raise you. On the other hand, mimicking a slowplay often works. For example, you raise pre-flop in late position with say K,J. The flop comes with two aces. A check on the flop will usually arouse your opponent's suspicions. A bet on the turn will often give you the pot. In fact, your opponent may feel pretty smug at having "escaped" your trap.
I'll add more as I think of them (assuming I'm right on the above). Chances are some of the above advice may get thrashed by those who have experience playing shorthanded.
In any event, I hope S&M fill the void by getting a book out on this topic.
Skp, If you were discussing 7-stud your thinking would be right on, with hold'em I'm not so sure.
Poker Learner,
There are some excellent discussions of short handed hold'em play in the archives. Ray Zee and others have stated many times that being on the button in a three handed game is basically the same as being on the button in a 10 handed game when everyone has passed to you. The conventional wisdom on this forum is that the bunching factor is not important. The psychology of the players do change in a short handed game so this does require an adjustment as you won't win the blinds without a contest as often in a short handed game. I am in agreement with a lot of skp's points.
Tom Haley
>>> Ray Zee and others have stated many times that being on the button in a three handed game is basically the same as being on the button in a 10 handed game when everyone has passed to you. <<<
I don't see how 3 handed is the same as 10 handed.
Because if everyone passes to you on the button, you now have a 3 handed game? It's just you and the two blinds.
A Poker Guy!
It's not the same at all. Having 2 people call a pot out of 10 possible callers is not the same as having 2 people call in a 3-handed game.
True, it's not the same. For one thing, if 7 people have passed to you preflop, it's a fair bet that none of them has a high pocket pair or various other combinations involving 2 high cards (depending on how tight the game is). Thus you and the blinds are drawing your hands from a deck that is likely to have a higher proportion of high cards than normal. If you don't have 'em, it's more likely that one of the blinds does than if you were all drawing from a neutral deck. Conversely, if you do have a hand with a couple of high cards, it's more likely that the flop will pair you in the full game than in the short-handed game, because the flop will also be drawn from a deck that is relatively rich in high cards.
I don't know if this effect is big enough to seriously affect your strategy, but it is there.
What you are describing is known as the bunching factor. It has virtually no effect in hold 'em. I won't go into details, but David Sklansky has had some programing done that shows that this is the case. It's also pretty easy to see since many hands that are thrown away contain a big-little combination. Also, many hands that are played are either pairs or connectors in addition to two high cards.
I am aware that the conventional wisdom is that bunching, as Mason has just repeated, is almost negligible in holdem. I have always found this a little surprising. Certainly as Mason has said, the fact that many folded hands contain big-little, and that many played hand are pairs or connectors does indeed suggest that the bunching factor may not be THAT big, but how "neglible" is it, really? Perhaps this is a topic worth revisiting here on the forum.
David, Mason, could you elaborate a little on what programming David had done, and what exactly the results were? I am curious as to just HOW negligible bunching really is in holdem. Has anyone else out there done any relevant computation or calculation in this regard? Paul, what do you think about this?
Best Reagrds, and thanks in advance for your responses.
Dennis
If my memory is correct David wrote this in a Card Player column last year. Perhaps someone can find the issue.
I was not talking about bunching. I was talking the hand selection differences in a game where you start with 3 players, and a game where you start with 10 players but seven fold. In a 3-handed game the pre-flop hand requirements are radically different.
Dan
Dan,
The point I made was this, if you are in a 10 handed game and all fold to the button, this is same situation basically as a three handed game where it is the button's turn to act. If the game is 10 handed and there is an UTG raiser and all fold to the blinds then the this situation is different as the blinds can usually infer a higher strength hand from an UTG raiser.
In the 10 handed games where all pass to the button IMO demands faster play by the button than the situation where it is three handed and it's the button's turn to act because of the psychology of the situation. The button is not more likely to have a good hand in the 10 handed situation where everyone folds in front. Mason has some excellent essays on short handed play in his Poker Essays books.
Tom Haley
Way 65s is ranked higher then 66
I don't know.
No one seems to be responding to this post. I don't have my copy of HPFAP here at work. Is 65s ranked above 6-6? I would be quite surprised if this were true. If it is, I too would like to know the logic.
This is a situation that I incountered on a boat game earler and I can't figure if I made the right move or not. Any imput would be great. Please include how you come about your anwser as well so I can follow your thought proscess next time. The game is 7stud with eight players. I get delt a 3flush spades with the king up. The game was halfly made up of weak tight players with the exception of 3 players and myself. One of the other three was a idiot, the other was very agressive and the other was very solid and tight. Well back to the game. There is no other spades out and my other 2 cards 6s 3s. There are no other kings or sixes out but two threes are present. Low card opened and three players fold. One of the folds in the game was the best player solid and tight, sitting to my right. I bet the max as I would like to win the pot right here and had been doing this alot with the high card that evening.The agressive player to my left calls and the idiot calls and another player calls. 4th street I get another six and bet the max again. The agressive player gets an ace on fourth street and raises. The idiot gets a queen on Fourth street and reraises. The last player folds. At this time there is one spade out and no kings. I have the aggressor on aces and the id on queens. I considred a cap, but called. I got two more calls. On Fifth street comes my fourth spade and blanks around. I check and the aggressor bets the id raises now (got his two pair) and I call and the aggressor calls(still having only one pair I think) . Blanks all around on sixth street. No Kings out and only one spade out with a large pot. I check and the agressor bets. The id raises and I call. The agressor reraises (got his aces up) and the id calls and I call. On the river I got my flush card and it happened to be the ace. I'm still leading the bet and this is where the question comes up. I figured that if I check trying to get a bet and then raise, I take a chance of loosing two betsif everybody else checks. I figured if the aggressor had not filled, and the chances were slim when I had his last ace, he may check. There was no telling what the id might do although he really didnt play this hand to poorly I thought, but his play was erratic and I thought he may follow the leader. If I bet and get a raise from either player I could either call or raise. I figured that this was and even percentage until I figured what I might loose with the raise and reraise and figured that I would call one raise from the aggressor but would have to consider very hard calling two (probably would have any way).I desided that I would call everything from the id. So I came out with a bet. I get two calls with no raises. I did not then nor do I know now if I did the right thing by betting. A friend of mine in town, Jerry Reincourt, that is considered to be a great poker player (never played against him) says I should have checkraised then he tried to explain why and I didnt understand him. I would like to know how to figure this out for myself next time. Any ideas?
seems to me you did the right thing. You got two bets by betting and your thought process was right, I think, based on your description.If you had checked and the solid player checked, but the idiot bet and you raised, you still might have only got two bets out of it, since the solid player would probably fold.
Mason I have trouble navigating your theory forum. When I read a strand and go through all the posts, I am returned to the beginning of all the posts. But, in the Exchange forum After I read a strand of posts I am returned to the original spot where I started the strand. Is there something I am doing wrong.
When you miss a few days and then return it is cumbersome to always return to the top of the page in Theory whereas in Exchange you don't.
I really enjoy both forums and if this is the way it is NO PROBLEM I will continue reading. Thanks
I received an immediate reply from Chuck Weinstock on how to solve my problem. Another example of what a great forum twoplustwo is.
John - Would either you or Chuck please post the answer? I have the same problem with navigating the Theory forum. (Being bounced back to the beginning every time.)
Thanks.
Dick in Phoenix
I was experiencing the previously mentioned problem as well as another problem where the "exchange" link wasn't showing up on the left frame.
They were both solved by doing the following, while this will work for Netscape 4.x, I'm sure their is similar solution for Internet Explorer.
Remove the "twoplustwo" entries from your cookies file.
From the DOS box issue the command:
DIR \COOKIES.TXT /S
you should see it in a directory similar to the following:
Program Files\Netscape\
Edit the file COOKIES.TXT.
Within this file you will find entries for twoplustwo they will look similar to the following:
www.twoplustwo.com FALSE /cgi-bin/ FALSE 946583195
delete everyline containing twoplustwo.
This will reset everything that "www.twoplustwo.com" knows about you, including your name, if you have previously posted and what messages are unread.
All that I did was to change my address request to: http://www.twoplustwo.com/forum.html instead of a address that I had obtained earlier.
For every story about a bad beat in low limit hold'em I'm sure there is an untold story about making twice as much money with a big hand as you would if the players had half a clue. Here is mine.
I'm in the $4-$8 game waiting for a seat at $10-$20. I am dealt a steady stream of rags, but maintain discipline and don't play a hand for 40 minutes, even though the table is very loose. I finally pick up AKo on the button. I decide against raising after 5 players limp in. The flop comes Q-J-T rainbow.
Action goes Check-Check-Bet-Call-Raise-Fold-Fold. I go ahead and reraise since I could very well end up splitting the pot with all of the fools playing A-rag and King-rag and want to charge them and the runner-runner flush/full house/quad draws the max.
Small blind Cold calls three bets! BB folds. Call-Call-Call and now its five-handed. Turn is a total blank; it doesn't even match any of the suits on board. Check-Check-Check-Check "to the RAISER". I bet. SB and the original raiser both call. River is a 3 of clubs. No pair on board. Checked to me. I bet. SB calls. Woman who had raised on the flop check-raises me! (I guess she must have picked up a flush draw.) I reraise. SB demonstrates superior card reading skill and folds. Woman calls and says "You better have a good hand." I say "just the nuts." and scoop a monster pot just as my name gets called for $10-$20. Woman says "Go play 10/20, you're too good for us." I just smile and think to myself that if I was really any good, I would NEVER leave this game.
Oh yeah, I guess my strategy issue is whether others like the idea of just calling a multi-way pot with AKo in position in a loose-passive game. The strategy is to keep the pot small enough so that you may have a chance to narrow the field with a raise on the flop if you a nice A/K-rag-rag. It seems to me if you raise it up, you are "helping" the calling stations by giving them post-flop odds to draw to their five and six-outers. And if you raise and get the flop you like, it will be checked around and they will only have to call a single bet. If you don't raise, someone from middle position is likely to bet and allow you to double-charge the others.
Michael, I like your thinking and often employ this strategy with AK off.
Sometime ago, I started a thread on the possibility of using the same strategy even with AA in late position after several players have limped in (although I agree that all things considered, you ought to still raise with rockets so let's not go over that discussion again).
there is a huge difference between ak and aa. I think you played it perfect. If I was in the same game and I again received the same hand in late posistion, then I would raise solely to mix up my play. with aa or kk i would always raise from wherever and with 9 players if they all called . Seeya
Not long after rebuy period. Just changed Tables. No read on new players at table. Chips. 450. 100-200 Level. Blinds 50, 100. In BB. Fold to Late position player Chip Level ~600: Raises to 200. Fold to me. QTo. I think for a moment. This seems like a weak bet. Could be a suck in but I doubt it. I decide this may be my best opportunity to get lucky and pick up some needed ammunition. I call. I thought about raising all in but I thought he had a slightly better hand and would call so I just called planning on going all in if I liked the flop. Flop came T high and 2 diamonds. I bet all in. To my consternation he didn't hesitate and called. Blank on fourth. Small diamomd on the river. He turned over the Jd,8d. This put me out of satellite. Questions: 1. Should this hand be mucked before the flop? 2. Why or why not? 3. Should I have come back at him before the flop? 4. Why/why not? 5. Was raising all in after flop: The correct play? A wise Play? 6. Was he correct to call the flop with a diamond draw and one over card? Thanks Vince
I will assume this was no-limit, even though you mentioned 50/100 blinds and a 100/200 level.
1. No 2. You are getting 3.5 to 1 odds on your call. This is too a good an opportunity at this stage, and you still have enough chips for a legitimate raise on the next round if you don't like the flop.
3. No 4. If you don't think he will fold, you are either a small favorite or a big underdog. The best you could hope for is that he has two unpaired cards lower than your ten and even in this "best" case you are less than a 2 to 1 favorite. The key here is your read on whether he is capable of folding. Most satellite players would have a tough time laying down anything but total rags when 1/3 of his stack is committed and the next round of blinds will take another third him. This also allows you to fire a meaninful bet on the flop (250 into a 450 pot).
5. Yes. He has position on you and will likely put the pressure on. Make HIM do the thinking. Of course, you would really like him to fold.
6. Yes. This flop looks harmless and he may think you don't even have a pair and that a diamond, Jack, or 8 will get the money. If I'm this guy, I figure to have at best 15 outs (3 Js, 3 8s, 9 diamonds), or at worst 12 outs (8 no good.) I'm getting a chance to pick up a 700 pot for a 250 call, or 2.8 to 1 odds. Even the 12-outer figures to win more than 1 time in three.
Well played Vince. Bad break, but not a bad beat. How is the action at Rio? I have a horse out there and haven't heard from him. I'll check the Exchange for your reply.
I only played at the RIO thursday evenning. Played 2 limit Satellites. Lost both but was second in one and saved my buy in! Played the No Limit Sat. mentioned. I was wrong on the levels, it was no limit. Side action there was hot and heavy, but I didn't play. Thanks for the response on the questions. Vince
1. Yes 2. You have crap (see note below) 3. No 4. See #2 5. No, a 4-flush gets best all-in odds on flop 6. Yes, he has at least 12 outs, close to a 50-50 proposition, along with some backdoor outs for a straight
I would only call with Q-T when facing being blinded out (anywhere from 1 to 3 seats in front of an oncoming big blind). You could've waited another two rounds.
To put this all in perspective, I was knocked out of the Rio no-limit tournament when I flopped a set and the man to my right called an all-in bet with ... you guessed it, a 4-flush -- which he subsequently hit on the turn. If trips aren't safe, imagine the jeopardy you are in with a miserable little pair.
For those interested we are now taking orders on our two new books. They are SKLANSKY TALKS BLACKJACK; and POKERFARCE and POKERTRUTH by Ray Michael B. Click on our book page (go to the left column) for more information. We expect to be able to ship in about 10 days.
Mason, can you give us some more info on what we can expect to find in the poker book?
Also, is 'Ray Michael B' a pseudonym?
Mason, will the poker book help us become better players or is it mainly for fun, like Poker Faces by David Hayano?
Sincerely,
Emil
It won't help you play any better but we published it because we thought the material was very good. There is an excerpt posted.
Why BlackJack? What does it offer that other books on the market don't already profer? Vince
Shoudn't this post be in the Exchange Forum? :)
what is your rating on these new books?
For what its worth, I posted a belated response to your question concerning the Trop NL tourney. Its buried under your riginal post below.
Have been taking a crash course in Sklansky,Malmouth,Zee and Ciaffone.When I begin I will play 4$-8$ or 6$-12$Hold'em. At the moment I have a couple of questions,should I start in a cardroom or a Reno casino? how big should my bankroll be? I live in N. Ca. Any thoughts, ideas or feedback would be most welcome.
Bill, Have you ever ridden a bike? After taking a ten year lay off from riding bikes you could probably pick up a bike and just ride off like you use to. Ain't that way in poker? Start out in a casino at a level that won't intimidate you; with a bankroll that can stand heavy negative swings. Try to limit your mistakes (pay particular attention to Sklansky's 8 mistakes in poker). At levels less than 15-30 do not try to play as described in Sklansky & Malmuth's advanced Holdem and Stud books. You will get very frustrated and lose money. Also, I am almost convinced you need too adjust your stategy for the 15-30 stud level to one different than 7 Stud for Advanced Players recommends. Play cautiously but without fear. Fear is your greatest foe/friend in poker! Opinion by Vince
Try Casino San Pablo, if you live N or E of the Bay. Very quiet, nicely staffed poker room with lots of new and inexperienced players.
Dick Taylor
To Forum Manager: Is there a way for a user to sort on new messages only? Makes it easier to find them. Vince
Sort of. Select the "search/personalize display" link at the top of the forum and set it to Chronological.
Chuck Weinstock
Many people take the flop, and a tight, solid player in early position leads out with a pot bet, meaning almost certainly that he has a set or top two pair. All other players fold, and the money is deep. When you have a 16+ out straight draw or straight/nut flush draw (that makes you a favorite over the made hand), when should you TEND to raise, and when should you TEND to call?
Example 1: Flop QJ4 rainbow. You hold AKT9 double suited.
Example 2: Flop Kc7h6c. You hold AcTc9h8h.
Example 3: Flop A86 rainbow. You hold T975 in the BB and you checked initially on the flop.
Example 4: Flop KcQc2h. You hold AcJsTs9c.
If you know what he has its to your advantage to wait and have him make a mistake that is more costly later on. You get to bet when you draw out or get to steal it when a scare card comes. If you are unsure of what he may have your call would be real bad if he had something he may throw away for your raise or a worse draw that may bluff you out if the board pairs. Good Luck.
If have 7h5h whith flop As6h4d , my oponents have AcTc and KsQs. Hwo will gain if KsQs call on flop and planing to call if catch K,Q,J,T or spade. Pot is 15 small bets(sb), 6 sb, 40 sb.
I have just recently begun to learn about game theory and the examples give in the theory of poker book seem to make it sound most easily applied to draw poker. As i think about how I can apply this technique to the holdem games I play in, I am having a hard time thinking of many opportunities to apply it.
Is it a harder theory to apply in many situations in hold'em?
What are examples of situations in which this theory is applied best in Hold em?
Thanks
I use it *sometimes* to determine bluffing opportunities on the river. For example, let's say I hold K-hearts J-hearts in middle position in 10/20, four players in for ten dollars. Flop comes A-hearts/T-spades/3-clubs. There is a bet, I raise - total of three players in ($100 in pot). Turn comes 6-hearts, check to me, I bet, one caller ($140 in pot). How often should I bet if I don't hit my hand? I have 12 outs, my opponent will be getting 8:1 on my final bet - so according to game theory the odds against my bluffing should be 8:1. That means I will pick one or two other cards that I will bet as a bluff on (or I choose some other randomizer). I would probably bluff if the three of spades or diamonds came on the end, as an example. There is a really good book on game theory, although it applys to draw - Poker Strategy by Nesmith C. Ankeny (1981). It is out of print and difficult to come by, but worth searching out.
The only problem I have with this is that most opponents will not call you anywhere nearly as often as game theory suggests they should, which suggests that a maximal strategy is to bluff more often into large pots than game theoretic optimal calculations would indicate.
Dan
I agree with Dan (Hanson). Moreover, you have the advantage in that in the hand, as originally described, the player has been pressing from the git go. It is likely that he is being read as top pair (or more) and hence a bet is likely to take the pot. In my "The New Gambler's Bible" (Crown paper) I called this situation the "pressed bluff" where you start with potential, bet it strongly and continue all the way to the river. Of course, the play has liabilities since you can walk into a trap from time to time but it has long term positive expectation. It is a play that is also "player" sensitive in that maniacs can't get away with it very often while tight aggressive players can.
I appreciate that this response ducks the question of game theory but my guess is that the conditions under which GT can be properly applied are damn few--and usually not recognized until the next morning over coffee.
Check out the Exchange. I recently asked for help on getting Ankeny's book and someone quickly replied.
Check out the Exchange. I recently asked for help on getting Ankeny's book and someone quickly replied.
Nesmith felt holdem prob's were to complex for a math soln. Monte Carlo would prob work better.
Game theory is a predictive tool. One could use game theory to predict how often a profit maximizing opponent will bluff on the end. If one attempts to use game theory to decide what to do they really are using the tool improperly. The bottom line is don't look for game theory to give you any great insights, it is just a tool used to solve economic models.
Randy
I'm familiar with what Mason M. has written to the effect that the blind structure of a typical 15-30 game (2 chip and 3 chip) is more advantageous for the skilled player than that of a typical 20-40 game (2 chip and 4 chip). This, he suggests, is because poor players make more errors in the small blind in the 15-30 structure. He doesn't go into detail in the essay, but it's safe to say that they'll play more weak hands and so get themselves into trouble more often when they only have to put in 1/3 of a bet to complete the blind. (Of course what's good in the short term for the skilled player may be bad for the house and the long term survival of the game. But that's not what I want to look at here.)
Three points of discussion:
1. Recently I've had occasion to play in a newly formed 30-60 game which, instead of blinds of 20 and 30 (2 chip and 3 chip), uses blinds of 10 and 30 (1 chip and 3 chip). When compared to the other structures, does this alternative structure add to or take away from the skilled players edge? It would seem to reward tighter play, but would prevent weak players from getting into the trouble situations that the 2/3 bet small blind lures them into. My guess is that there is more to be gained for the better player from the 2/3 bet small blind. It just gets weaker players involved against you more often. But that may be too simplistic. I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this.
2. BTW, today on RGP Abdul J. posted some simulation results and suggested considerably tighter play than that recommended in HPFAP in completing a typical 15-30 (or 30-60 if it's typical) small blind for the additinal 1/3 bet. In addition to the simulation results he gives the example of Roy Cooke, said to be much tighter than any two cards in his completion of this blind. I've also noticed at least one very good player, whose play I respect, who was semi-tight in this spot when we used to play 15-30. Part of Abdul's rationale is that you must avoid hands that are too likely to be "dominated" after the flop. He therefore provides standards that vary according to the number and tightness of the players who have called before the action gets to you. But they're all considerably more selective than any two cards. Any comments on this topic would be welcome as well.
3. As it's what I'm dealing with now, I also invite comments on starting standards for completing the 1/3 bet small blind in a game with a 1 chip-3 chip blind structure. Thanks.
John Feeney
When I'm in the small blind in a 15-30 game, and I'm certain the big blind won't raise, I'll play any two suited cards, any offsuit connectors and gappers. I won't play hands like 73 or 82, and after that I make my decision based on who else has called the blinds. If the players that have called are good, agressive players, then I'll tighten up considerably. If the only callers are a couple of weak players, I might play any two cards.
For 1/3 of a bet, I think a call is +EV if you are looking for nothing but 'specials' like two pair, a straight, flush, etc. I'm ready to muck one pair unless I get some serious evidence that it's the best hand.
I'd be interested in others' opinions as well.
Dan
John wrote: "I'm familiar with what Mason M. has written to the effect that the blind structure of a typical 15-30 game (2 chip and 3 chip) is more advantageous for the skilled player than that of a typical 20-40 game (2 chip and 4 chip). This, he suggests, is because poor players make more errors in the small blind in the 15-30 structure. He doesn't go into detail in the essay, but it's safe to say that they'll play more weak hands and so get themselves into trouble more often when they only have to put in 1/3 of a bet to complete the blind. (Of course what's good in the short term for the skilled player may be bad for the house and the long term survival of the game. But that's not what I want to look at here.)"
My point was that they will call too many raises out of the small blind, not that they will play in an unraised pot for one-third of a bet.
"Three points of discussion:
1. Recently I've had occasion to play in a newly formed 30-60 game which, instead of blinds of 20 and 30 (2 chip and 3 chip), uses blinds of 10 and 30 (1 chip and 3 chip). When compared to the other structures, does this alternative structure add to or take away from the skilled players edge? It would seem to reward tighter play, but would prevent weak players from getting into the trouble situations that the 2/3 bet small blind lures them into."
This is precisely what I believe happens in raised pots.
"My guess is that there is more to be gained for the better player from the 2/3 bet small blind. It just gets weaker players involved against you more often. But that may be too simplistic. I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this."
Even though they may be correct to call a limp for only one-third of a bet out of the small blind it might still be to your advantage to have them do so if they play poorly on the flop and beyond. That is you gain more from a poor player on the later rounds than he gains from you when he calls correctly before the flop.
"2. BTW, today on RGP Abdul J. posted some simulation results and suggested considerably tighter play than that ecommended in HPFAP in completing a typical 15-30 (or 30-60 if it's typical) small blind for the additinal 1/3 bet. In addition to the simulation results he gives the example of Roy Cooke, said to be much tighter than any two cards in his completion of this blind. I've also noticed at least one very good player, whose play I respect, who was semi-tight in this spot when we used to play 15-30. Part of Abdul's rationale is that you must avoid hands that are too likely to be "dominated" after the flop. He therefore provides standards that vary according to the number and tightness of the players who have called before the action gets to you. But they're all considerably more selective than any two cards. Any comments on this topic would be welcome as well."
Abdul has been trying to prove us wrong for a long time, but I'll stand by what we wrote in HPFAP. You don't need to worry about being dominated because you don't have to play the hand from the flop on. For example, suppose you call with Q6 and the flop comes queen high. Who says you have to keep playing. For example, in a large multi-way pot, I would check, and if the last person bets I would probably check raise, but many other times I would throw the hand away.
"3. As it's what I'm dealing with now, I also invite comments on starting standards for completing the 1/3 bet small blind in a game with a 1 chip-3 chip blind structure. Thanks.
I would ppretend that you are on the button and use approximately the same standards to call in an unraised pot. It costs a little less to call and there is only one player remaining who might raise instead of two, but your position is much worse on the coming betting rounds. In most games this should roughly balance out.
>>Even though they may be correct to call a limp for only one-third of a bet out of the small blind it might still be to your advantage to have them do so if they play poorly on the flop and beyond. That is you gain more from a poor player on thelater rounds than he gains from you when he calls correctly before the flop.<< How does this question/answer relate to seat selection? Is it more advantageous to sit to the immediate right of a weak player if the blind stucture entices him to call more often than he should? Or, does it matter where you sit in relation to a weak player given that you are more or less assured that he will call a bet or raise when in the small blind? Vince
Thanks Mason. You make some very good points. Some additional thoughts:
--Certainly incorrectly calling raises in the small blind will mean some very big errors on the part of less sklilled players in a 2/3 bet small blind. But, as you touched on later in your response, they're going to make lots of errors after just completing the blind as well. They may be technically correct to call for that 1/3 bet with some very weak hands, but the next step is that they have to play them very well in order to avoid trouble. It has to be very good for the better players to have opponents constantly getting themselves into trouble in this blind. I remember when I played a lot of 15-30, I eventually developed a habit, whenever I completed the small blind with a weak hand, of reminding myself to be very careful to avoid getting into trouble with it.
--Regarding the 30-60 game with the $10 small blind - do you think it would be a good idea to urge a change to a $20 small blind, or might it actually be better for the long term survival of the game just to leave it as is (so that weaker players are *not* induced to make the kinds of errors a $20 blind would bring about)? Thanks.
John Feeney
You must keep in mind that HPFAP was written for just that, an advanced player. When we tell you to make some play that is only marginally correct, we are assuming that you do most other things correctly. If that is not the case, some of the marginal plays won't help you. (That is why we warn new players to play a little more conservative than what we recommend until they get more experience.)
As for you second question, I believe that if you are interested in maximizing your win over a short period of time, you want a $20 blind. If you are interested in maximizing your win over a long period of time, you want a $10 blind.
"My guess is that there is more to be gained for the better player from the 2/3 bet small blind. It just gets weaker players involved against you more often. But that may be too simplistic. I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this. "
I'm not clear that this is true. putting 1/3 of a bet or 4/6 in a raised pot may not be as big as putting in 2/3 or 5/6 but less often.
If you want to take the argument further. Calling 1 chip is less of a mistake preflop with any two cards. but these mistakes will happen more frequently.
To extend further, lets'add a live BB on the button like many clubs do. Does this addition of postflop mistakes over come the reduction of preflop mistakes. If putting playeres in is beneficial than blinding more players in would be even better. Heck lets blind everyone in for the BB and maximize our postflop mistakes.
Addition or increase of blinds reduces the number of decisions a good player can make preflop.
I personally don't think the addition of postflop mistakes overcomes the preflop mistakes in most instances.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
You make a good point Albert. But could some of it hinge on whether or not players may go *overboard* in their calling raises in a 2/3 bet small blind, seeing it as even cheaper or more favorable than it actually is? e.g., lets say that in a 1/2 bet small blind a player calls raises with 10% more hands than he should. When faced with a 2/3 bet small blind might he overadjust and now call raises not with just 10% too many hands, but with, say, 20% more hands than he should? I don't know.
Anyway, it turns out that now I'm going to be dealing with the 2/3 bet small blind situation. I had decided to keep my mouth shut and leave things as they were, but other players decided that the game lacked enough action and got the club to switch to the bigger small blind. Oh well.
Hope someone's drawing dead against me today! ;)
John Feeney
The game is sometimes called cougar. It is three draw lowball, four card hands, suits count - that is, the best hand is A234, four suited; if there is no four suited hand out, the best three-card hand wins. Ante is $20, small blind is $20, big blind is $40, limit is $200 on all betting rounds, three raises allowed, check and raise is allowed. Each player is dealt four cards, there is a betting round, there is a draw and another betting round, a second draw and betting round, a third draw and betting round. A total of four betting rounds. Remember it is like lowball, except a hand with two of a suit would lose to any four-suited hand. The rake is $20 a pot but is quite wild and beatable. Any tips, suggestions, insights, strategies, discussions, would be appreciated.
I forgot to mention it is seven handed and you may draw four cards.
>>The rake is $20 a pot but is quite wild and beatable. Any tips, suggestions, insights, strategies,discussions, would be appreciated. << Quit this game immediately and move to Vegas! If you can beat a game that rakes $20 a pot you will soon be a star in a real poker town. BTW if the game is "WILD AND BEATABLE" why would you need strategy advice on how to play? Vince
Vince, I've been to Vegas and this game is easier. I'm a seat-of-th-pants player and I thought some of the theorists and mathmaticians on this board might help me refine my play and reduce my swings. Thanks.
Bus, Please forgive my uncalled for sarcasm in my previous post. My point is that the rake in this game is HUGE! Too huge. $20 a hand. Thats better than $600/hour (30 hands/hour) out of the game. Highway robbery. Swings are not the problem, the rake is! Forget it! IMO Vince.
Vince, sarcasm is no problem, just keep playing... heheheh (just kidding). Seriously, I knew it was a silly post, I was just trying io trick Mason, David, or Ray into doing a little free analysis.
In the August archives, "Dick Tayor" (dtaylor@monmouth.com) wrote that the WSOP poker software is easy to beat. Is this the same Dick Taylor who wrote the guide to starting hands at hold'em? I would like to know more.
The first version of WSOP was easy to beat. Simply raise/re-raise every hand all the way to the river. Haven't looked at more recent version(s). As for Dick Taylor(s), they're all over the place. I'm the smart one.
Dick Taylor
When I have top pair with a dubious kicker heads-up against an aggressive player, I sometimes check-call all the way. Is this strategy reasonable or is it too passive?
For example, suppose I'm playing in a limit holdem tournament and I have Jc Th in the big blind. Everyone folds to the player who is one off the button. He open-raises. The button and small blind fold. I call. It's heads-up.
My opponent is an aggressive player. I have been folding a lot and probably have a pretty tight table image. Rebuys are over and both of us have about ten big bets in our stacks.
The flop is Jd 6c 2c, giving me top pair with a ten kicker and a backdoor flush draw.
Should I bet out, check-raise, or check-call?
Betting out has the advantage of not giving a free card. My top pair is vulnerable to overcards and the flush draw. On the other hand, if the opponent is aggressive, he's almost sure to bet the flop. Moreover, there's a good chance he doesn't have two overcards, because from steal position he would have raised pre-flop with ace-rag or a small pair. In other words, it's unlikely he'll give himself a free card and if he does, the free card may not be too dangerous for me because he may not have much of an advantage in number of outs.
It seems to me that check-calling could be a viable strategy here. If I check the flop and turn the opponent is likely to bet on both rounds. But if I take the lead on the flop and the turn he may fold on the turn. Also, if I bet the flop and turn I'm likely to lose more when his hand is superior, without necessarily winning more when my hand is best.
There are lots of possibilities and I'm not an expert. I'd appreciate any comments.
Roger C.
Tournament play is different than ring game play. If you have top pair on the flop, bet and "try to win it early" (Buntjer I think). Then check the turn and river if you don't improve. If your opponent bets after you check you must make a decision to call or muck. As in most poker answers, knowledge of the opponent is crucial, but now chip position and the effect of losing or winning the pot must be factored in. In a ring game betting the flop in this situation is also the correct play (Skalnsky and Malmuth et. al) unless you are sure your opponent will bet and if so a check raise may be a better play. Dependent on what bet sequence occurred on the flop it is usually better to bet the turn in most situations and check call the river if you don't improve. If you are raised on the turn, you must pay particular attention to the board (what could he have) in addition to knowledge of your opponent. IMO Vince
Thereis nothing wrong with check calling all the way with top pair heads up or against 2 opponents as long as you don't do it all the time.I love to sit back and let my opponents bluff there money away in a short handed game, when everyone is usually much more aggressive.
>>Thereis nothing wrong with check calling all the way with top pair heads up oragainst 2 opponents as long as you don't do it all the time<< There is something wrong with this statement! IMO Vince
Vince,
I think he is saying that it is good to mix up your play to keep opponents who are aware from being able to draw too fine a bead on your playing style and tendencies.
Against extremely aggressive players it might even be right to reverse this play. For instance, suppose you are the late position raiser with the JT and the flop comes jack high. Against the right player it could be correct to check after he checks on the flop. Now he will bet the turn no matter what hits or what his hand might be. However, you need to make sure that your judgement is correct when evaluating your opponent.
Vince, I agree.
I would add though that sometimes I will check-call the flop and turn when I have paired an ace but bet out on the river eg. Hand: A,10 Flop: A,J,7. With Aces, there is of course less of a problem with giving a free card.
Skp, I somewhat agee. The reason, I asume, that you check your pair of Aces is that you don't like your kicker. You are being cautious because your opponent may have a better kicker. I understand that, but in situations like this a free card is still dangerous. Granted somewhat less dangerous than with other pairs but not something I feel good about. Being aggressive will reap you benefits in the long run. I bet weak aces on the turn if there is some chance I have the best hand and/or my opponent will fold. (I usually try for a check raise on the flop). I check-call the river with weak Ace (pair) hands. IMO Vince
"Tournament play is different than ring game play. If you have top pair on the flop, bet and "try to win it early" (Buntjer I think). Then check the turn and river if you don't improve. If your opponent bets after you check you must make a decision to call or muck. As in most poker answers, knowledge of the opponent is crucial, but now chip position and the effect of losing or winning the pot must be factored in."
I disagree with some of this. If early in a tournament, you should be concentrating on accumulating chips. It might not be right to win it early. late in a tournament, where chips are at a premium, I would tend to agree. It is now usually more important to win the pot than to squeeze out an extra bet.
"In a ring game betting the flop in this situation is also the correct play (Skalnsky and Malmuth et. al) unless you are sure your opponent will bet and if so a check raise may be a better play."
Virtually all opponents will bet and they are usually correct to do so since the pot is offering them over 4-to-1.
"Dependent on what bet sequence occurred on the flop it is usually better to bet the turn in most situations and check call the river if you don't improve. If you are raised on the turn, you must pay particular attention to the board (what could he have) in addition to knowledge of your opponent."
I agree with the turn advice. The river may be more complicated than this. A lot depends on the board, who you are against, etc.
"I disagree with some of this. If early in a tournament, you should be concentrating on accumulating chips. It might not be right to win it early." Probably why I've only won a few tournamnets. I must say however there is a psychological effect, at least in my case, early in a tournament that winning/losing even a small pot must be considered.
"Virtually all opponents will bet and they are usually correct to do so since the pot is offering them over 4-to-1."
Does this mean you agree with a check raise or should one check call? If "virtually all" will call then it seems to me you should tend to check raise more often.
"Dependent on what bet sequence occurred on the flop it is usually better to betthe turn in most situations and check call the river if you don't improve. If you are raised on the turn, you must pay particular attention to the board (what could hehave) in addition to knowledge of your opponent."
I agree that the river may be more complicated. But this is good, solid, though passive, play. If a player is at an expert level he doesn't need this advice and will make a decision to bet, check/call, check/raise, check/fold, on other factors. But this play is in line with checking/calling a mediocre hand on the river. Something I believe you and Mr S. profess and I agree with, I might add. Maybe I need to stippulate for the average and a little above average (advanced) player this is the correct river play.
Thanks for the response. Vince
Have you ever noticed that in low limit games, that people like to check-raise monster hands in really ineffective ways? I was in a game the other day and the situation went as follows: 6-12 Holdem. I had QJs (spades) on the button. Almost everyone calls, I see BB loading up for a raise, so I call. Big blind (tight "squeak-squeak" guy) raises. People actually got up from other tables and came over to watch the hand when they heard he had raised. Hmmmm, I wonder what he has? Flop came A spades, K spades, blank. He bets it, EVERYONE calls, I call. The turn is the T of spades. Its checked around to me, so I bet it, and again EVERYONE calls. The river is a K. It's checked around to me ... so I bet it. Now at this table I would figure at least half, if not all, the people to call a bet on the end, even though there is no chance in hell they have a winner, because "the pot is so big". They all already had the money in their hands to call my bet. NOW THE BB CHECK-RAISES ME!!! I think strangling people should be legalized in situations such as this (btw, no bad beat jackpot in this room). Of course everyone dropped out at this point. What was he thinking? If he had just bet the river initially, we would have had them all trapped, but instead, he drove them away. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Still, it was a great pot (and a crappy RF bonus) :).
A Poker Guy!
The BB obviously does not understand how to relate his position to the position of the likely bettor (actually, he couldn't have even been too sure that you would bet for him on the end since the board paired, so this makes his play even worse).
I notice players making these types of plays all the time. They just simply don't understand what position means and how to use it properly.
A lot of players seem to think that position in Hold 'em simply means where they are in relation to the button. They don't realize that position often depends on where the bet is likely to come from on the subsequent bettting round. For example, if a player UTG raises pre-flop and if I had a small pocket pair, I would love to be in the big blind. If I flop a set, I can let the raiser bet and trap several players in for two bets. If I don't flop a set, I can just muck my hand or if there are several callers making a large pot, I can call (with no chance of a raise behind me) depending on the texture of the flop. Thus, even the big blind can be a great position under the right circumstances.
Conversely, you could be on the button and actually have terrible position if the pre-flop raise comes from the player to your immediate right. In many games, the field will automatically check to the raiser. The raiser will automatically bet. Now you have to act and the sad part is that you are the first person who will actually have to think about your play;no one else has really "acted" if you know what I mean. They were just on autopilot and "checked to the raiser". How do you like your hand now if the flop is something like Kd,10d,10h and you hold Kc,Qc?
Good points.
But what struck me as curious is that the BB thought his hand was disguised, and he thought he was the only one that know he had a full/quads; hehehe...DOH!.
Reminds me of a hand...
He raised, I raised, he raised, I raised, he called heads up. (Flop AK6). He checked, I bet, he raised, I raised, he called. (Turn 8). He checked, I bet, he raised, I raised, he called. (River was K). He checked, and I turned over my hand.
"Why didn't you bet?" the dealer asked, before the opponent turned over his hand. "Because I'm not brain dead; why do you ask?" I responded. Unfortunately, I didn't think of that response until later, after I had cooled down ...
- Louie
"Why is 65s ranked higher than 66?"
It depends on the game. In the loosest games, I'd rather have 66 - a set will bring a huge payoff, and 65s will too often make a second-best flush. But the "typical" game that the rankings reflect is the worst possible situation for 66. When 3-5 players take the flop, 66 won't win unimproved. 66 needs to hit a set, and often won't get the right odds for that if the pot is raised behind you. 65s does well against 2-4 opponents, in part because you are sure where you stand on the flop. It's a good semi-bluffing hand against weak-tight players. If you make two pair or a flush with 65s, your hand is very likely to hold up in a "typical" game, and two pair will win extra bets through a check-raise.
Dan, I don't think that I will be calling with 65s in the "typical" game that you speak of. Come to think of it, even in the "typical" game, I would rather have 66 for a variety of reasons.
One other question: If your reasoning is correct, do you then say that in the "typical" game 76s is better than 77, 87s is better than 88 etc.? Where do you draw the line because clearly AKs is not better than AA.
This question was posed earlier by Boris and got no response. I don't have my copy of HPFAP handy to see if 65s is indeed ranked higher than 66. I should say that I don't particularly pay much attention to the order of rankings with these types of hands. Obviously, they are both marginal hands. How they rank in relation to each other does not matter much to me. Nevertheless, for purely "academic interest" reasons, if 65s is ranked higher than 66 (and particularly if 65s is in a higher group than 66), I sure would like to know the logic.
Thanks.
"If your reasoning is correct, do you then say that in the "typical" game 76s is better than 77, 87s is better than 88 etc.? Where do you draw the line because clearly AKs is not better than AA."
You win with a pocket pair for one of three reasons: (1) flopping sets, (2) making overpairs, and (3) unimproved without being an overpair. Depending on the specific game and situation, you will win different amounts when those things happen, and you will lose some percentage of the time despite one of those factors. Factors #2 and #3 differ greatly between pairs. The value of pairs drops way off after the top few in most games when you can't make an overpair. In tighter games, you can also win unimproved with better pairs, but that's almost impossible with 66. You might have the best hand on a flop like K73 rainbow against few opponents, but how would you respond to a bet on the flop, or to a bet on the turn after an overcard hits? In most games, 66 is only marginally worse than 77, but AA is way better than KK, and KK is way better than QQ.
By contrast, the value of suited connectors depends on making straights, flushes and two pair. Two pair or a flush with T9s are hardly different than two pair or a flush with 65s. If you lose with a flush, it will be to Axs or Kxs, and you will lose in either case. (If your opps. play stuff like Kxs and Qxs, you might not play the suited connectors.) If you lose with two pair, you will rarely win with T9 two pair in a situation where 65 two pair would have lost. So the middle suited connectors differ less in value than pairs. When you are talking about AKs and KQs, those hands have significant high card value in making top pair, which is immensely more valuable than a pair with 65s. Also, you can be in there drawing to your flush and pair an ace or king that might give you the pot. One pair won't win when you have T9s.
In a passive game with 3-4 people seeing most flops, I would rather have the 65s. A free card is worth more to 65s than to 66. 65s will also win a lot of pots on semibluffs. 66 won't win that much from a set against tight-passive opponents.
In a "typical" game, 65s will in some situations be better than 66. TT is almost certainly better than T9s in virtually all preflop situations in virtually all games, and above that, the difference is even more marked - QQ vs. QJs, KK vs. KQs, AA vs. AKs.
65s and 66 are marginal hands, and I am careful when playing them. If the game was too loose, I would muck the 65s, and I wouldn't play either in early position of most games. (Mason would play 66 in many games UTG - see "Limit Holdem Quiz") A lot would depend on the chance of there being a later raise. In a tight-aggressive game, I might tend to muck 65s unless in late position with the pot unraised, and muck 66 unless in late position, or if there are many players in for that hand.
While I do not disagree with much of what you are saying, there are also advantages to playing 66 instead of 65s in the "typical" game that you speak of. The three most important ones that readily come to mind are:
1. 66 is easier to release. It is either hit or miss. Not the same with 65s.
2. While there are more ways to hit 65s, there are also more ways to make the second best hand with 65s. Put another way, it is tougher to make a second best hand with 66.
3. When you do hit with 66, you can jam the pot early and take control of the betting. With 65s, you often are drawing and therefore playing a calling game. You let others dictate the pace of the betting.
Perhaps, the third reason is not all that big of a deal but the first two I think are quite important.
Frankly, I still can't envisage a situation where I would play 65s but not 66. But I'll reflect on your post some more.
By the way, none of this still explains why, for example, 76s suited is not ranked higher than 77 in HPFAP. I had a look at the rankings last night. The fact that 65s is ranked higher than 66 appears to be an anomaly. 76s is ranked lower than 77. 54s is ranked lower than 55. In all other situations, the pair outranks its suited counterpart.
"1. 66 is easier to release. It is either hit or miss. Not the same with 65s."
Yes, in most games, 66 is better. In a "typical", tight-passive game, 65s is slightly better. 65s is either hit or miss, since you aren't in without a pair or draw, and often you would fold the pair.
"2. While there are more ways to hit 65s, there are also more ways to make the second best hand with 65s. Put another way, it is tougher to make a second best hand with 66."
Consider the reverse implied odds here. Your set will lose some of the time. 65s making a straight or flush will rarely be second-best in a tight game.
"3. When you do hit with 66, you can jam the pot early and take control of the betting. With 65s, you often are drawing and therefore playing a calling game. You let others dictate the pace of the betting."
In a tight-passive game, the difficult thing would be getting enough action on your set.
"Frankly, I still can't envisage a situation where I would play 65s but not 66. But I'll reflect on your post some more."
On the button in a very tight-passive game. There are two total rocks in the blinds, and there is one solid-tight limper in early position. You would have a hard time making $100 if you hit your set of sixes, and thus you might not turn a profit on that hand on average. 6s5s might knock everyone out if you bet a flop like Kh7d4c or Qs8s2d, and if not, you have a strong draw, or you muck if the flop doesn't hit. And you might get a valuable free card if one of the rocks doesn't like his kicker.
"By the way, none of this still explains why, for example, 76s suited is not ranked higher than 77 in HPFAP. I had a look at the rankings last night. The fact that 65s is ranked higher than 66 appears to be an anomaly. 76s is ranked lower than 77. 54s is ranked lower than 55. In all other situations, the pair outranks its suited counterpart."
As before, the middle suited connectors differ little in value, while the pairs gain significantly in value as you move up. Heads-up, for example, 99 is way better than 55. If you are in an overall tight game, but with a few opponents who play hands like A7o and K7s, a slightly higher pair makes a large difference.
I think the much greater "semi-bluff" potential of 65s is the only advantage it has over 66: betting the draw is much more profitable than betting the under-pocket-pair. So in games where semi-bluffing is a key tactic (weak tight games) I prefer 65s. All others, I prefer 66.
- Louie
I have written before about Lessons with David and would like to take some time and comment about them once more. I think where ever you're at in your game you'll be able to improve by taking a lesson. Unfortunately they aren't cheap they cost 200.00 dollars an hour. I look at them more like an investment, I've had two so far and have seen a giant improvement in my game. Of course I did have to put in my homework, but David was able to find my weaknesses and give me the information I needed to improve while not having to get side tracked on issues that were not important.
My first lesson with David was a rocky one. I had been posting on the Forum for about 4 months and was starting to think I knew alot about the game. David had the nerve to call me a "Baby" poker player 10 minutes into the lesson. This hurt my ego big time, but the truth was that I didn't know alot of what I needed to know to become a significant winning player. The information that we went over durring that first lession has dramaticly improved my overall proformance at the table. I think the most help I've gotten was in the form of Reading hands. I can now put opponents on hands much easier than before and this showed durring my latest trip to Vegas. By using a combination of Psychology, Logic, and Mathmatics I was able to outplay my opponents and steal pots from them when I knew that if the Hand was played to a showdown I'd be the loser. This also allowed me to get out of situations where I would be just paying them off.
I'm happy to have been able to learn from one of the Best.
CV
P.S. David do I get that free lesson now? ;-)
Thats interesting.. I never heard about these lessons. What is the format ? You go to Vegas and than take tutoring? How long have you been playing to get the 'baby' status ? ;-) Seriously your ego will never help youin poker for the long run. I sure some would consider me a 'fetus' but how others see me in poker never interested me. Letus know about the format and your years of playing.
All poker strategies can be disscussed over the phone. The first lesson I had with him he did meet me at the Mirage. I had been studying the game for about a half a year, but was pretty serious on wanting to improve. Basicly, the Format is anything you want to discuss. I would suggest taking some recent hands you played and asking his advice on how you should have played them. He can usually find weaknesses in your game by how you play your hands. His E-mail address is Dsklansky@aol.com
CV
>>200.00 dollars an hour<< Wouldn't it be cheaper to just sit in a game with him at the Mirage? Vince
I've been trying to come up with a good responce, I'll give it one last try.
I believe its tough to improve our game when we don't know whats wrong with it in the first place. Thats where I was with my game when I contacted David. So instead of taking months or years trying to iron out my problems in live games and self analysis, David was able to show me where I was going wrong in less than an Hour and the rest of the time was spent teaching ways to resolve them.
CV
I have tried that one. After Xmass I was on the list for 30/60 and every time I was up - David moved or got up for good. I prefered the tables without him but would have been interesting to play at the same table. No $200 makes no difference if you play 30-60 at the Bellagio. I could see a format where I would pay an expert to analyze my play (live money game = 1 hour $200 would be worth it !!!)
That would be tough, since he plays at Bellagio.
I'm sure if you just had a few leaks, Sklansky could help you plug them. If on the other hand, your game was like Swiss cheese (like mine), he would probably say " Read my books, when you understand them, come back". Reminds me of a story: spring training in MLB, bonus baby is shagging fly balls. After he muffs five in a row, the livid coach grabs his glove and says, " Let me show you how it's done." The first ball is a screamind line drive, which tips the top of the glove and catches the coach square between the eyes. Rook comes running over. Coach shakes his head and says, "Man, you got this position so screwed up, can't nobody play it."
I'm dealt KK (neither a spade) in middle position, and 5 players see the flop come three spades. There is a 38% chance at least another spade will fall by the river. Should I throw away my kings after a single bet, and save my money, or raise and face the possibility of a reraise by someone in late position? -Josh
I would tend to bet or raise to try to thin out the field at this point, and proceed very cautiously.
The right answer here will depend entirely upon the players you're facing. The only reason I see for you to bet or raise is to get someone with a medium or small spade to fold (in a situation where they might have the only spade out against you). That is, if you think raising will drive out the guy behind you with the Js, and it is the guy with top pair, no spade, who is betting, then raising is a GREAT play. However, if these players are so fishy that no one will give it up if they hold a single spade, then about all you can do is call them down when no 4th spade falls, and hope that no one flopped the flush.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
As was pointed out, the reason to raise would be if the better had top pair with no big spade, and there is a vulnerable spade behind you who will call one but not two bets. Another reason would be if the players are so afraid of you that you could raise and then show this hand down for free. Neither of these situations is common.
An early position bet like that routinely means a hand that can beat KK or a big draw. If you would consider laying down KK, then few would consider betting just a pair of Ts with a Q.
If KK is the best hand and the bettor has a spade, and you gain almost nothing by raising worse hands out behind you; these hands have maybe 3 outs against YOU.
My priority of options in this situation would be call, fold, then raise.
- Louie
What do the heavy hitters (experts) consider the percentage breakdown for skill (hand reading/technical playing savvy) vs. patience, game selection, hand selection would be to attain expert level ?
If your purpose is to attain expert status, game selection would be of zero importance. Recognizing type game you find yourself in would be an inportant factor. I'm not an expert, just wanted to get the discusion started.
I'm no expert either, so I wasn't going to respond....but.....I happen to totally disagree with you about the importance of game selection. To me, game selection may be the single most important skill a player can have. When I first walk into a cardroom I usually spend 15 to 30 minutes looking at the games and the players, hoping to see a situation that might offer me an opportunity to make some money. I look over the tournament schedules pretty carefully now also, looking for formats that fit my parameters over offer added prizemoney. At times, I forego tournament play and ring game action to play in satellites, especially when the cardroom is offering "no juice" satellites.
Bottom line, game selection is one method of giving some thought to the process of putting your bankroll to work in a favorable way. Sizing up the games prior to sitting down and playing gives you a head start in deciding what type of game you are sitting in, player tendencies, and a number of other advantages. If I put my name on the board for any game, I've already looked the game over and decided that I like it enough to be willing to invest a buy-in.
John, >>To me, game selection may be the single most important skill a player can have.<< I second that (e)notion. Of course I too am not an expert! But the man did say heavy hitters. And from your own discription of your, shall we say, plentifullnes you and I both can qualify as HEAVY (no offense intended) HITTERS! Vince BTW I also agree with your check calling response. Thanks.
I believe he is suggesting that experts have few top-level games to choose from; whereas us good players who play medium level have lots of games to choose from.
I agree that game selection is a very important money-making skill. The point I was trying to make is that in order to improve your playing skills to expert level you need to play with all kinds of players, especially players who play better than you.
I question whether it is necessary to play against superior players in order to improve. With all the great poker books,Turbo Texas Hold-em, r.g.p. and this forum, there are many vehicles available to improve your game. Tournaments also are a way to expose yourself to great players without putting your bankroll in jeopardy. Good game selection doesn't exclude playing with great players, it just requires that you avoid games where you don't have the best of it. I'd be willing to play in a NL Hold-em game with Huck Seed, T.J.Cloutier and Tom McEvoy if there were five or six other players with good sized stacks and limited playing skills. It isn't necessary to be the best player in a game to have the best of it.
I believe I save a lot of money by not sitting in games where the lineup is just too tough to make any money unless you get lucky with the cards you catch. One of the reasons I discontinued playing regularly in the 15-30 lowball game at the Commerce was because the game no longer contained enough "soft" players to give anyone a positive expectation with the $3.00 drop per hand. When you have eight players who know what they are doing in a lowball game, the drop becomes overwhelming to the game. If you indulge in a game with players of equal ability, it becomes a cardholding contest and only the house wins in the long run.
In order to be clasified an expert, I believe you should be able to win in any game. In order to be confident in your ability to do this, you should have done so enough to have a statisticaly significant sample. I realize it is posible to win in a game with superior players such as the ones you named, but I don't see wnat that has to do with point I (we) were discussing. If you can't beat the 15-30 Commerce lowball game, I believe you would benefit from playing in the bigger games at the Bicyle and observing Brad A. and others.
Bus,
First, I am not an expert player. Second, there are many players who are net losers from poker but who are very good players. The reason they are losing players is that they play higher than their bankroll should allow, and they play in games where they are at a skill disadvantage vis a vis the other participants. It isn't so much that the 15-30 lowball at the Commerce can't be beaten, but that it requires too much time and effort to eke out a return that is marginal and subject to high variance due to game conditions and the uncertainty that the game will continue once it gets short handed.
Winning players are always concerned with the quality of their opponents, knowing that their +EV comes from capitalizing on the mistakes made by others. If you play in order to be known as an expert player, then you probably should get in there and mix it up with the "real" high profile experts. If you play to win money, seek out the games that figure to allow you to do so most consistantly. I used to back a French Hold'em player who was truly an "expert". His only weakness was his ego that insisted that he play in the biggest games going when his bankroll was inadequate for a single session at those limits. He was broke so often that people assumed that he couldn't play well. Knowing how to play poker extremely well is a big plus, but it isn't the only skill necessary to be a winning player, and,in fact, isn't even the most crucial IMHO.
Big John, I don't disagree with anything you say, however, I thought the original question concerned what it took to become an expert player. I now realize I may have been wrong on this point. Maybe the question was what skills an expert player posesses.
There are no experts who are bad at patience, game selection, and hand selection. You cannot beat reasonably solid games without them to some degree.
However, it doesn't take much energy to acquire these "rote" traits. But it DOES require a great deal of energy to acquire reading and technical savvy. So "percentage breakdown" in Learning would favor savvy over rote.
- Louie
Good post. If he was asking how do I maximize my win next session, I was, of course wrong. If he was asking how do I become a better poker player, I think I had a point. The question as phrased, I don't think, had an answer.
I read quite a few posts that address the need to mix it up so that your opponents can't get a read on you! Although this is true to some extent, inappropriate mixing it up does nothing at all for you except hurt your bankroll. An example would be that if you use the mixing it up as a reason to raise with 98s up front when your opponents do not respect your raises/play any way, you will find your efforts fruitless. (Except to your opponents). Mixing it up must be done after considering a number of factors. How you played your last pocket aces is less important to how you play your next pocket aces than what your overall image is at that moment in the game. Mixing it up only makes sense when you are in control of the game! As a matter of fact, once you take control of a game the only way to maintain control of that game is to mix it up! My point here is that mixing it up is crucial to winning play and must be done for good reasons! Unless all other aspects of your game are at least above average then mixing it up should not be done! IMO Vince
Vince,
You make several good points and I agree for the most part. However, some alternate plays are very close in expectation (or they make a trade off between increasing your expectation a bit while also increasing your standard deviation and visa versa). In these cases, mixing it up just has to be better, since it doesn’t cost you much, if anything.
Many examples occur before the flop. Let’s say you have 77 on the button with many players in. Most players call for one bet. But HPFAP advocates raising to manipulate the pot larger so that when you hit your set players who are almost drawing dead chase the big pot. Of course your standard deviation goes up a bit since hitting a set is somewhat of a long shot. AK off-suit under the gun can be called pre flop in a game where a raise doesn’t thin the field and you have the type of players on or near the button who tend to auto-bet a flop that is checked to them. This allows you to check raise if top pair or even a ragged rainbow flops. Raising with hands like QQ, JJ, and TT with several (let’s say five) opponents already in is debatable. Why not mix it up here?
Raising up front with middle pairs (88, 99, TT) depends on table image and type of game. Most players call and it is generally right except in the toughest games. Let’s say the game is a little tight and your opponents perceive you as a solid player (especially the blinds). At the same time you have been quite for a while (sitting with a lot of chips but haven’t been in a pot lately). A raise here is more likely than usual to get you the blinds or one on one with a blind, which has to be desirable with this hand.
There are examples after the flop. On about January 15th, there was an excellent thread discussing “The Most Overused Holdem Tactic – The Free Card Raise?” You were a participant. Here were many examples of when it may be correct to use this play and when it may not be correct. Some of these decisions were close. When it is close, why not mix it up?
I’ve got to go so I’ll wrap up. The basic idea is that there are quite a few situations in poker where two alternate plays are very close in EV and/or standard deviation. Mixing it up here costs you almost nothing and makes you much harder to read on other hands. This can’t be that bad.
Regards,
Rick
An excellent post. I have a friend who is a very good player, and will sometimes call under the gun with a hand like 52s. His point is that, while this may be -EV, the cost is mere pennies, and it gains you a tremendous amount in future action and/or respect. There are many players I play against who simply cannot have a 5 in their hand if they call under the gun. They would not play 55, A5s, 56s, etc. If the flop is 557, this opponent is about to get hammered.
In a tough game, your opponents have to learn that you could have any card from any position. They also have to learn that certain plays of yours don't automatically eliminate certain hands (i.e. some opponents will NEVER check the flop with top pair, or they will NEVER check a 4-flush).
The trick is to use these plays sparingly, and to use them when it will cost you nothing and/or the minimal amount (i.e. if you want to call with 52s, choose a time when the game is relatively passive and there's a good chance you won't pay for a raise).
Dan
Dan,
I agree with most of your post (especially the part about players who never come in under the gun with a small card getting hammered with the flop you mentioned). I do think your friend can accomplish the same objective without resorting to playing a hand as bad as 52s. This hand costs more than pennies unless you are playing for pennies. Why not mix it up under the gun with somewhat better hands like 75s, A2s and so on. If these hands are losers played UTG, they don’t lose nearly as much. On the other hand, if you are observant and the flop comes A 4 3, your friend will be more difficult to play than I am. I’ll never have a straight in that situation (but I could have trip fours!).
Regards,
Rick
I don't think any suited connectors cost you all *that much in expectation in this situation. If you play them very well, and the game is relatively passive, I'm not sure that they cost you anything at all. And if you ever do make a straight with that hand under the gun, your opponents will remember it for a long time.
Let me add that we play against the same players night after night, since we are in a fairly small poker community. In Vegas, where the players change from day to day, this form of advertising may not be worth it. Where I am, it may well be.
Dan
Dan,
Your reply brings to mind an interesting point. The general area where you play makes a huge difference regarding what is really important to your overall success. I notice in your posts you seem to have a pretty precise read on the playing habits of your opponents. This must be a key to success in your area because of the fairly small player base along with the ability to properly mix up your play that has been discussed in this thread.
On the other hand, I'm not that good at sizing up the play of my opponents based on their play at my table unless they are in my game for a while. However, I try to excel at sizing up a player just by his or her looks, dress, demeanor, posture, and other factors and getting a quick idea on what their play is likely to be like. I'm not always right but I'm usually pretty close. This is important to me because I live within a 20 to 35 minute drive of all the major casinos in Los Angeles; consequently, I have always been a rounder (i.e., I rotate my play between the various casinos).
Some of these casinos have as many as a dozen holdem games with limits between 9/18 to 20/40 (my comfort zone). Obviously, it is unusual for me to play against the same player more than once or twice a month. In addition, it is not unusual for the lineup to change many times in one six hour session, even if I stay at the same table (this is true because it is so easy for a player to change tables or games).
In Los Angeles, game selection is obviously crucial. A pretty solid player who shops around and stays in very good games will do better than an otherwise great player who is not selective or lazy about table changes. I'll often enter a casino with an open seat at two different 15/30 games with another 15/30 that is full along with some 20/40s or a 10/20. It is vital that I pick the best game quickly because seats can fill up fast. Proper table change technique also becomes super important.
You may not have the opportunity to change tables at all. In your game, getting a really accurate line on your opponents while disguising your own play just has to be the key (other than playing very well or course). If I ever live in such an area, I better get better at this and forget about looking at the action at the adjoining game and wondering whom I would like to replace if a seat opens up.
Regards,
Rick
I never get a chance to change tables. There is usually only one medium limit game going in the city at any given time. The lower limits (5-10, 4-8), usually have several games going, but they are must-move lineups with no choice to the player.
Yes, mixing up your play and reading other players is very important here, and that can make the game tough. On the other hand, there are many opponents that play their cards pretty much face up, which gives a good player a huge overlay.
Dan
Rick, As usual you help clarify the issue. I agree with your post for the most part however as usual I have questions.
>>AK off-suit under the gun can be called pre flop in a game where a raise doesn’t thin the field and you have the type of players on or near the button who tend to auto-bet a flop that is checked to them<< Is this really an example of mixing it up or just good solid (obsrevant) play? Seems to me this play is not designed to keep your opponents off guard but is done because of the nature of the field. >>Raising with hands like QQ, JJ, and TT with several (let’s say five)opponents already in is debatable. Why not mix it up here? << I agree with playing these hands differently at various times. Again though I consider this good solid play designed to take advantage of your image. This type of play works and works well in typical 10 and 15 Holdem games. But is it mixing it up for the purpose of keeping your opponents off guard? Maybe. If the game is an action game full of loose players this play may work against you. Players may now stop giving you action. Or even quit the game. Recently, I played in a 20-40 game at Hollywood Park, CA. Short handed. 6 players. One real live guy just there to have fun. Play was going just fine and he was contributing ato every pot. Live one in the BB. Button smooth calls. SB folds. Flop A Blank, blank. Check, check. Turn, Blank. BB bet Button raise. BB call. River- Blank. BB check and call. Button shows pocket Aces. The live one literally jumped out of his chair and took all his chips and left. Certainly mixing it up made the button some money and can be argued that it was the correct play but it sure killed a good time! My point is, as with my original post, by definition, mixing it up is to keep your opponents off guard. If they are off their guard anyway then mixing it up doesn't make sense. (BTW I don't consider the mere act of playing specific hands differently mixing it up). IMO Vince
Vince,
Points well taken. BTW, you may want to start a thread based on the incident you described in the 20/40 holdem game. It is one of the best examples I've seen where the "good" players tactical play rather than his table demeanor was what drove the "live one" away.
Regards,
Rick
One obviously also has to consider how observant the other players are. In a tough game, you do need to mix it up. In a game full of weak players, your efforts to mix it up will go unnoticed anyway. Staright solid play will get the money.
skp:
You are so right!!! Weak players usually don't have a clue as to what's going on! When you mix it up against weak players all they realize is whether THEY won/lost the pot. What your starting tickets or position were, is inconsequential to them. Good observation!!
I stand corrected. Please except my appology! Vince
BUNCHING IN HOLD 'EM: SIMULATION RESULTS
Depending on your assumptions about how the other players play, there is a 'bunching' effect in Hold 'em, as I will show via simulation results below.
Whether or not the magnitude of this effect is enough to influence how you play is left to the reader, or for further analysis by experts.
The simulation was done by dealing two card hands to players 1-N. Each player[i] is given a criterion as to whether he will fold or play. For instance, player 1 (assumed to be UTG) may be told to only play S&M Groups 1-3, while player 5 (assumed to be in middle position) may be allowed to play S&M Groups 1-5.
If all N players choose not to play, we look at the distribution of the remaining cards. That is, we compute the probability that a given hand type (e.g., AA, AKs, 98o) will be dealt from the remaining, undealt cards.
We repeat this process until we have a sufficient number of cases where all the N players have chosen not to play, keeping a running total of the probability of each hand type. An average probability for each hand type is then trivially computed.
In each simulation below, 10000 events where all the N=7 players folded were analyzed. This models a 10-handed game where everyone folds to the button. We want to know what the distribution of hands is for the three remaining players: button and the blinds.
In the first simulation, the players choose to play according to an approximation of S&M strategy.
POSITION PLAY
UTG : S&M Groups 1-3 2,3 : S&M Groups 1-4 4,5 : S&M Groups 1-5 6 : S&M Groups 1-6 7 : S&M Groups 1-7
Here are abbreviated results, showing only pairs, AKs, all unsuited Aces, and KQ offsuit.
STD is the unbiased probability of being dealt this hand type, while ACTUAL is the average recorded probability that this hand will be dealt given that the first seven players have folded according to their rules enumerated above.
HAND TYPE STD ACTUAL
AA 0.0045 0.0053
KK 0.0045 0.0050
QQ 0.0045 0.0051
JJ 0.0045 0.0050
TT 0.0045 0.0049
99 0.0045 0.0045
88 0.0045 0.0043
77 0.0045 0.0042
66 0.0045 0.0042
55 0.0045 0.0041
44 0.0045 0.0041
33 0.0045 0.0041
22 0.0045 0.0040
AKs 0.0030 0.0034
AKu 0.0090 0.0104
AQu 0.0090 0.0104
AJu 0.0090 0.0103
ATu 0.0090 0.0102
A9u 0.0090 0.0098
A8u 0.0090 0.0096
A7u 0.0090 0.0095
A6u 0.0090 0.0095
A5u 0.0090 0.0094
A4u 0.0090 0.0094
A3u 0.0090 0.0093
A2u 0.0090 0.0092
KQu 0.0090 0.0101
We can see that the probability that you will hold AA in the Big Blind (or Small Blind, or button) given that seven people have folded is increased by almost 18%, from .45% to .53%.
The probability that you will hold a Group 1 hand is increased from 2.1% to 2.37%, an increase of almost 13%.
What about other algorithms for the first seven hands playing or folding?
Suppose each of the players play if and only if they have an S&M Group 1-7 hand, or any Ax. Here are the (again abbreviated) simulation results under this assumption:
HAND TYPE STD ACTUAL
AA 0.0045 0.0084
KK 0.0045 0.0052
QQ 0.0045 0.0046
JJ 0.0045 0.0050
TT 0.0045 0.0050
99 0.0045 0.0047
88 0.0045 0.0042
77 0.0045 0.0039
66 0.0045 0.0038
55 0.0045 0.0037
44 0.0045 0.0037
33 0.0045 0.0035
22 0.0045 0.0036
AKs 0.0030 0.0044
AKu 0.0090 0.0132
AQu 0.0090 0.0125
AJu 0.0090 0.0129
ATu 0.0090 0.0130
A9u 0.0090 0.0126
A8u 0.0090 0.0119
A7u 0.0090 0.0115
A6u 0.0090 0.0114
A5u 0.0090 0.0113
A4u 0.0090 0.0113
A3u 0.0090 0.0110
A2u 0.0090 0.0111
KQu 0.0090 0.0098
Now the probability of holding AA increases by almost 87%, while the probability of holding a Group 1 hand increases by more than 31%.
(Note: You may wonder why the probability of holding QQ is less than that of holding JJ. This is because there are more combinations of cards in Groups 1-7 that include a J than include a Q (seems strange, eh? -- Go count them. I did, and got 78 vs. 90 combinations)).
What about an even looser bunch of players? How about people who play S&M Groups 1-8, any suited Queen, any Ace, and any two-gap non-suited connector down to 64?
HAND TYPE STD ACTUAL
AA 0.0045 0.0084
KK 0.0045 0.0049
QQ 0.0045 0.0048
JJ 0.0045 0.0046
TT 0.0045 0.0046
99 0.0045 0.0052
88 0.0045 0.0048
77 0.0045 0.0046
66 0.0045 0.0043
55 0.0045 0.0039
44 0.0045 0.0036
33 0.0045 0.0029
22 0.0045 0.0029
AKs 0.0030 0.0043
AKu 0.0090 0.0128
AQu 0.0090 0.0127
AJu 0.0090 0.0124
ATu 0.0090 0.0125
A9u 0.0090 0.0132
A8u 0.0090 0.0127
A7u 0.0090 0.0124
A6u 0.0090 0.0120
A5u 0.0090 0.0115
A4u 0.0090 0.0111
A3u 0.0090 0.0100
A2u 0.0090 0.0100
KQu 0.0090 0.0097
The probability of holding AA remains the same. (This is obvious, because in both cases we've specified that any Ace will be played. So if no one plays the remaining deck will always contain all four Aces.)
The chance that you will hold a Group 1 hand increases by 28% over standard, slightly less than in our 2nd example.
It's extremely annoying that messages are not posted in the exact format you type them in, especially tables. Here's the play criterion for the first simulation again; hopefully it will come out in a more readable format.
POSITION PLAY
UTG : S&M Groups 1-3
2,3 : S&M Groups 1-4
4,5 : S&M Groups 1-5
6 : S&M Groups 1-6
7 : S&M Groups 1-7
Great job.
Is it possible for your program to simply calculate the number of group 1-8 hands in the remaining opponents hands (such as you calculated for Group 1 hands)?. With this we may be able to deduce, for example, that one should raise with group 1-8 in a 3 handed game but only groups 1-7 in a full game, when everbody folds to you on the button.
- Louie
JP,
Nice work. I can also confirm the "bunching" effect for a sim I just completed, the assumptions being that the 7 players before the button play S&M Groups 1-5 only.
Probability of button having Group 1-5 hand = 0.181
Probability of button having Group 1-5 hand given all 7 players folded before him = 0.197
Like you, I leave the interpretation of these results to the readers.
Etienne
JP,
Thanks for the info. I noticed that there are no percentages given for any suited Aces besides A,K. I am assuming that the percentages for those would be slightly higher as well.
Tom Haley
S&M players:
AKs 0.0030 0.0035 AQs 0.0030 0.0034 AJs 0.0030 0.0035 ATs 0.0030 0.0034 A9s 0.0030 0.0033 A8s 0.0030 0.0032 A7s 0.0030 0.0032 A6s 0.0030 0.0032 A5s 0.0030 0.0031 A4s 0.0030 0.0031 A3s 0.0030 0.0031 A2s 0.0030 0.0031
Loose players
AKs 0.0030 0.0044 AQs 0.0030 0.0042 AJs 0.0030 0.0043 ATs 0.0030 0.0043 A9s 0.0030 0.0042 A8s 0.0030 0.0040 A7s 0.0030 0.0038 A6s 0.0030 0.0038 A5s 0.0030 0.0038 A4s 0.0030 0.0037 A3s 0.0030 0.0037 A2s 0.0030 0.0037
Cool. The next interesting set of questions, as far as I am concerned, looks at what happens on the flop and how the probabilities shift there. If I hold an Ace on the button, how much do the odds of pairing it on the flop increase? Conversely, if I *don't* hold an Ace, what are the odds that (1) an Ace flops, and (2) that it pairs one of my opponents when it does? If I'm playing a vulnerable pocket pair (say JJ, TT, 99), how do the odds of an overcard flopping without making me trips change, and what about the odds that one of my opponents now has a higher pair if it does? Likewise if I'm playing high unsuited cards - what are the odds that I flop top, middle, or bottom pair, and what are the odds that an opponent has me beat in the latter two cases? I would guess that these are the kinds of questions that might uncover some differences in the best strategy between 7 folds to you on the button, and just playing 3 handed.
Some nice work, but I think one aspect of your assumptions skews the results. I don't see much of a significant difference between players who would play Groups 1-7 and Groups 1-8 -- if both of them will play "any Ace" (or A-x). Since the Ace is often a key card in determining whether to play on the button and blinds, it would be more interesting to see what happens when seats 1-7 play a tigher game than an "any Ace" strategy.
Otherwise your results make it appear that the bunching effect is more significant on EITHER side of what would be considered optimal S&M strategy. Intuitively, this does not seem correct. It would seem to me that the bunching effect would be more pronounced against looser opponents who have folded (those more likely to play any Ace) than it would be against tighter opponents (who might fold hands such as A-7 off).
>Some nice work, but I think one aspect of your assumptions > skews the results.
I'm not making any assumptions. It is a simple IF-THEN. IF the players in seats 1-7 play as indicated, THEN the results will be as indicated.
A different play algorithm for seats 1-7 will produce different results.
> I don't see much of a significant difference between
> players who would play Groups 1-7 and Groups 1-8 -- if > both of them will play "any Ace" (or A-x). Since the Ace > is often a key
> card in determining whether to play on the button and > blinds, it would be more interesting to see what happens > when seats 1-7 play a
> tigher game than an "any Ace" strategy.
If you want to specify a particular play algorithm I will consider running it.
> Otherwise your results make it appear that the bunching > effect is more significant on EITHER side of what would be > considered
> optimal S&M strategy.
I don't see how you conclude that. The tighter and tighter seats 1-7 play the less bunching there is going to be.
> Intuitively, this does not seem correct. It would seem to > me that the bunching effect would be more
> pronounced against looser opponents who have folded (those > more likely to play any Ace) than it would be against > tighter
> opponents (who might fold hands such as A-7 off).
That's what I thought the results I presented showed.
For a practical implementation, whether we look at this statistically or intuitively, the bottom line is the same: if loose opponents fold from the early seats, then the bunching effect is *not* irrelevant and should be considered; if tight opponents or S&M devotees fold, the bunching effect is negligible and can be discounted in deciding how to proceed from the button/blinds.
"For a practical implementation, whether we look at this statistically or intuitively,the bottom line is the same:"
If you play poker with a lot of emphasis on this kind of thinking (pure science) you better do it in a sterile environment with a surgical table full of other scientists!
IMO!
"Bad" Concept
Far be it from me to be accused of thinking "scientifically" at the table. However, there are certain situations where the concept of "bunching" analysis seems particularly relevant, and at the moment, I'm thinking specifically of super-satellite scenarios (where the precise hand to go all-in with at a particular position has also been nicely evaluated in the distant past on this forum). To my way of thinking, it's not that this type of thinking is necessary often, but having another tool to use -- and having the work already done -- on the occasion that it *is* needed, may be the difference between winning and losing.
"Far be it from me to be accused of thinking "scientifically" at the table." Hey don't get so "testubicle"! You make a good point "I'm thinking specifically of super-satellite scenarios (where the precise hand to go all-in with at a particular position has also been nicely evaluated in the distant past on this forum)" . So I was a little (o.k. a lot) off in my criticism. Sorry! What do you expect! Look at my handle!
"BAD" Concept.
P.S. Of course super-satellites were not mentioned before so how was a guy to know!
I held pocket Q's in a recnet 10-20 game. I was in seventh position, and it was folded to me; I raised and the SB(a moderately tight player)called. Flop was A-T-4, rainbow. SB checked, I bet, he raised. How should I play my hand from here? He hadn't check-raised all day BTW. Was betting the flop a mistake? Thanks for your answers.
Danny S
Let's first look at the opponent: Doesn't check raise or hasn't til now. Let's disregard his opinion of you since you haven't given a clue about your play. Better yet let's call you typical, not over aggressive/passive. Let's say the SB doesn't routinely call raises (If he does this analysis may need some adjustment). Seventh position is mid to late and if he is considering this he must put you on at least a fair to good playing hand (again if he is an habitual SB caller we must adjust). Now let's look at the flop again A-T-4 rainbow. That A gotta look just as scary to him as it does to you! If he has just a T he probably would have bet instead of check raising. If he has A,T he probably would try for a check raise on the turn or river. Same for A,4 or maybe even T,4. T,4, unless it is suited and even then, is unlikey unless he calls a lot in the big blind. What about a set? I think he would also raise later although you must be onguard against a real tricky player in this situation. But still against someone that doesn't check raise a lot I can't give him that much credit. Now what about K,Q, or K,J, or Q,J, or K,K or J,J or Q,Q (smaller pairs are out here)? Being out of position in the SB and unable to effectively obtain a free (cheaper) card makes these hands unlikely. What about A with a weak kicker smaller than the T. If he is a typical player I believe that with A weak he would tend to bet out. So what does he have? I would put him on A,K or A,Q or A with a weak kicker. How should you play your hand? I believe that you should call his raise. If he bet's the turn (you don't improve and the A doesn't pair) you should muck. If he checks you should bet! If he raises, fold! If he calls and checks the river, check behind him. If he calls and bets the river, call! Your call on the river is for information only. If he has the hand you (or I ) put him on and plays his hand this way he may be someone you want to have as much information about as possible! And if so you may want to play this guy straight up until/if you get some control over him. Now I just gave you my analysis. I am not claiming it is correct just mine. Yours may be different. So be it! However what ever you conclude must direct your actions! You must have the courage to follow through with the appropriate action based on your conclusions. If your wrong and you can determine your wrong then log it in your mewmory and analye it later. If you can't determine if it was the wrong decision because you muck and don't see his hand log that also. If it happens again (a similiar situation where you are unsure) or maybe a couple of more times then tend call to insure you are not being run over. IMO Vince
I don't play much hold 'em but isn't it possible that the blind thought you were on a steal and had garbage and was trying to represent an Ace on the flop? I know that we didn't get much information on this player, but wouldn't it be a consideration?
My analysis is not going to be as detailed or as thoughtful as Vince's response.
If a moderately tight (but not tricky player) checkraises you in this situation, you are likely beat. Nevertheless, I would call the raise and peel off a card. I do this not solely on the slim chance of hitting a Queen but that coupled with the chance that my opponent will check to me on the turn even though he has for the moment seized control of the betting.
Oh, BTW, you were definitely justified in betting the flop despite the presence of the Ace.
Sure skp, just like you. I write two pages and you say it all in one paragraph! Vince
He could be checkraising you to find out if you were raising with something like KQ, 88, etc. That means he could have anything from a set to nothing at all. Most likely, you are up against an ace and are a huge underdog. But it's possible that you have the best hand. So... You could:
A) Fold
B) Call his raise, and fold if he bets again on the turn
C) Re-raise to either get him to fold, or to try for a
free card if he checks to you on the turn.
I like option C) a lot more than I do just calling. If you just call, you're not going to learn anything about his hand, and you're faced with the same decision on the turn. He may have check-raised you with an Ace with a small kicker, hoping to find out if you have a big ace. If you re-raise, he may fold.
If you do re-raise, if he bets into you on the turn you can fold and save half a bet - you are definitely beat. If he caps it, you can either fold or call and hope to get a free card on the turn.
If he checks to you on the turn, you just might take a free card. This is not a horribly dangerous card for your hand, and if he was bluffing you may induce him to bet on the river. In any event, if you take a free card on the turn you are forced to call a bet on the river.
Dan
In this type of game, with this type of player, your best chance is the next hand.
But, if you fold, the next hand and the hands after that will be harder to play.
So, the chance of a Queen, and the avoidance of future aggravation make it a close call.
Betting the flop is clear cut.
Well, I'm not a big fan of playing QQ with an overcard (especially an A) in that situation. He did call your raise preflop, so he had some sort of quality cards (at least something that he thought would play well heads-up). When he check-raised, you only have 2 choices - fold or re-raise. I dont think either is a really bad play, but I would probably lean more towards folding unless I had some really good reason to believe that he was bluffing or making some sort of free card play. I really prefer hands where I can take control, thats where I make all my money. This is one of those religious hands, where, if you are going to continue, you have to pray that he doesn't have the A, and pay him all the way if he does.
A Poker Guy!
Permutations of this situation are common. Rather then outthinking myself by figuring all the possible hands he may have, and what the odds are for each, (something I personally am weak at) I would just almost always reraise.
After all, you represented strength before the flop. Prior to this reraise, he may think were on a steal, but the reraise puts the pressure back on him. On your best days he folds a weak Ace right here, and most times you'll at least have him call now and check the Turn.
And if he caps it with the third raise back at you, you have an easy fold. Larry
I don't think there is much of a difficult decision here. I really think the moderately tight player has Ax most likely. I would muck the hand.
On the other hand, if you are convinced for some reason that he doesn't hold an ace, re-raise. Calling is not an option here.
Betting the flop wasn't a mistake because if he hasn't got an ace, you'd prefer to pick up the pot right instead f letting him draw. After he check-raised you on the flop, I'd muck because (1) you're about a 10-1 dog (two cards to come) against any legitimate hand he could have (2) aren't gauranteed a win if he's semi-bluffing, and (3) the pot isn't all that large.
Thanks for all of your responses. I actually called the flop and mucked on the turn when he bet out. In retrospect I believe I played the hand incorrectly. Either I should call him until the end or fold on the flop. I am still not positive that betting the flop was correct, since if I am ahead there may not be many free cards that can beat me. Further he many now bluff on the turn sensing my weakness. Either way if I do check the flop, I am likely committed to seeing the end.
Danny S
Focused, relaxed, courageous, patient, positive, aware as well as many other descriptive terms come to mind when attempting to develop the appropriate mental state needed during a poker session. I'm sure most forum participants could add to this list of terms. But when I think of the need to develop and maintain a proper mentalstate to be successful at poker I wonder what is the best way to accomplish this. I made light of a previous post recommending lessons from Sklansky to improve one's game. After giving that post a bit more thought (and aplologizing for my lightly sarcastic answer) I'm wondering if lessons with Sklansy or attending something like Caro's University may actually help one attain the desired mental state. Which BTW I think is the most important SKILL (if you will) a poker player can develop. Or are lessons only beneficial for technical aspects of the game with the mental state being developed (achieved) by the self through experience? Any comments? Vince
Vince,
This kind of subject is rather conroversial and subjective. The 'inner game ' of poker can be equated to chess, tennis any competitive sports with some adjustments. In poker, like other competitive 'sports' if you will the current state will determine the start, and outcome. There are 'coaches' in this area and I am not sure who is the best - but I know Tony Robbins does 'coaching' to traders, high performance sports personalities for astronomical $$'s (kind of money that it would dwarf David S' $200/hour fee). I suggest you go to any book store and read-up on some 'self-help' books - if this is not enough Tony Robbins used to have a short intro via the Learning Annex - I found it very interesting.
Andras, I luv ya and thank you for your recommendation(I truly do!) But as long as I have this forum and posters like you to answer my questions I see no need for Tony Robbins! Thanks again! Vince
Meditation helps.
Vince,
There is a writer for a certain poker magazine who is known for his often-repeated poker tidbits. One is something like "Play Happy or Don't Play". A friend who is a bit on the dour side said to me "Rick, if I followed this guys advice I would never play!" LOL.
Regards,
Rick
I was in a 4-8 Hold'em game this past weekend and it was around 1 a.m. I was playing with a lot of calling stations and 2 tight opponents. Well, in this particular situation one of the tight players was on my right. I could tell he was getting very impatient because it was late and I was pounding him pretty hard. Well, on one hand I got KQs of clubs. This player to my right decided to straddle(I thought this was odd for as tight of player as he was). I reraised the straddle everyone folded the straddler reraised and I capped it. Flop comes 9c 7s Ks. He bets I raise he reraises I call. Turn comes 4h. He bets, I raise, he calls. River is a 9s. He checks, I bet he calls. I win the pot and he mucks. His hand. My question is did I play this hand too aggressively?? I felt that I played it very well because I had a good read on this opponent and I felt I had the best of it. Please, all comments welcome.
Dice
Some may disagree with me but yes I think you overplayed this hand against a tight player. And no I don't think you over played this hand against a player that was obviously out to GAMBLE! Any time a player is willing to straddle he is in a gambling mood. Period! Asking the question that you did makes me believe that you didn't conciously consider his gambling in your play. Although your thinking this was odd may have turned on some light in your subconcious. I don't know! But, I can only conclude that if you were conciously playing a gainst a tight player you over played your hand and in the long run will cost yourself money playing in this manner against a tight player. IMO Vince
I play 7card stud in low limit games but I have not been playing for long. I tend to be very tight and play only quality hands. I want to keep learning the game and get better but it sometimes gets boring just sitting there, is it within the rules to read a book to pass the time at the table or is it considered rude.
Yes, reading a book at the table is generally considered rude.
Anyway, it sounds like you have to work on your 'poker attitude'. When you are not in a hand you should be spending your time watching betting patterns, practicing your ability to memorize cards, looking for tells, etc. Try to put players on a hand, and then see if you're right at the end. Watch to see how often they bluff, etc. In other words, get involved with the game.
I see a lot of 'rocks' doing what you're suggesting - they read a book, or watch the television, or do something else when they aren't in the hand. So they don't know that the player in seat 3 is on tilt, or that seat 4 just had his 4th rebuy and is loosening up, etc....
Dan
Well, I think the pre-flop and flop were aggressive, but fine. When he bet out on the turn, the raise might have been a little too aggressive. At that point I would not be feeling very comfortable with only top pair, and would be happy to minimize any further investment in the hand and just call him down. The bet on the river was way too aggressive, in my opinion, except as a semi-bluff because you believed he would fold a better hand to a bet at this point. It doesn't feel like he would be throwing away a better hand and you couldn't have any certainty that you were ahead. So I would have just turned it over and let the chips stack where they may. I'm guessing he had KJ, with the way he played this.
A Poker Guy!
I agree with APG. There are only a few hands on the river that your he can have that will turn your bet into a value bet. Specifically a K with a slightly worse kicker. It's hard to imagine a promo bet on the river after all the action the "tight player put in.
I think he was so far on tilt that he misread your hand as KQs and not KQc, giving you credit for a flush and throwing away two pair. ;)
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Frequently when I bet a high two pair on seventh street, other players at the table deride me for it.
Here is a typical example. It is heads up, and on sixth street I have
(As 9s) Jh Ad 9h 3c.
My opponent's board shows
7c 9d 6s 10d.
I raised when the ace hit on fourth street, and bet on fifth street, and was called both times. The other two aces have already come out. On sixth street I check, and so does my opponent. The 8s are still completely live, as far as I know, although it's possible that there was one dealt at the start that I have forgotten about.
On seventh I catch a deuce (no help); I bet, my opponent raises, I call, and my opponent shows a straight, having caught an 8 on the river. Then some other players remark on how foolish I was to bet my aces up into a possible straight.
I analyse the problem this way: the probability of my opponent catching the 8 was less than 15%. If he didn't make the straight but had two pair he would almost certainly call my bet, and he might also call with one pair. And if he did make the straight, he wouldn't necessarily raise, because he might think that I have a flush or a higher straight. Thus with my bet there was perhaps a 60% chance of winning one bet, a 10% chance of losing two bets, and a 5% chance of losing one bet (with a 25% chance of my opponent folding). On the other hand, if I checked, my opponent would certainly bet if he had the straight and might bet even if he didn't have it. Either way I would call, so let's say that the result of checking would be a 15% chance of losing one bet and a 10% chance of winning one bet, with a 75% chance of my opponent also checking.
Of course it is also possible that my opponent has a flush, or trips, or a straight other than the 10-high straight. But this is unlikely. It seems to me that my assumptions were reasonable, and the math shows that my bet had positive expectation.
Am I right about this?
What if my opponent had three diamonds showing, for a possible flush draw in addition to the straight draw? What if the aces were still live (meaning that my opponent would be less inclined to call if his hand was worse than mine)? What if there was a third player who probably had something like kings up going into the river?
I would greatly appreciate any comments.
Nick,
You want to have your opponents think you are unpredictable. As long as you shrug your shoulders and say well i had two pair you will gain in the long run. If you explain to them your thinking they will now check back to you in those spots and get you for two bets on the end. Then they will be right that you shouldnt bet two pair at them. You have to decide each hand how your opponent is thinking exactly now and bet your hand accordingly. Good Luck.
I agree with Ray >>You have to decide each hand how your opponent is thinking exactly now and bet your hand accordingly<< Would like to add two things: 1) The hand was played backwards. A bet on sixth street was in order and a check call on seventh was correct. 2) Sklansky covers similiar situations in 7SFAP. If I remember correctly it is correct to Bet Aces on the river and check Aces up. But Ray is probably more correct with: play each hand based on the information available at the time. Vince
People who critise thusly don't understand "value". That's good. When they DO critise then say something clever, like "but I love the thrill of it".
The opponent is unlikely to call with just one small pair since you probably do not have an aggressive image, and your raise on 4th indicates a cinch pair.
However, what hand could he have to get to the river that does NOT contain an 8? Almost certainly a pair. So with 4 straight cards and 2 trip cards he has 6 outs to beat you; he has it seems 12 cards to make two pair and call.
He is likely to raise with trips, and if you "must" call then you are laying 2:1 payoff for your 2:1 favorite hand; and even money bet (so far).
But all that pre-supposes he won't call with one pair. If the opponent is suspisious of you then certainly bet your two-pair; especially with your suspisiously dead Aces.
But checking-and-calling has some merit since he will likely bet the two pair when he makes it, and if so you are laying only 1:1 payoff for your 2:1 favorite hand; a great check. And he may bluff.
Don't worry about the opponent making the straight; 4 cards isn't enough to prevent you from betting for value if it is called for.
So bet if he is suspisious and check if he is aggressive.
- Louie
Check into a flush AND straight draw.
Yes, he is less likely to call if Aces were live; so bet less.
Be much more inclined to bet of KsUp will pay you off; but check himself.
Woould you ever limp in second in late position yet call two cold from the first player in?
Loose 9/18 kill game last nite that is generally tight.
Woman one off the button is about to limp in out of turn but the player to her right is first in and makes it two. She calls two cold.
She was a loose passive player. This got me wondering... What hands you just limp in in late position and only call in 2 bets cold from a first in raiser?
Personnally this never happens to me. I was just wondering if there were any cases where thiswould be a vialbe strategy.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
It is an odd situation.
However, a hand like QJs may fit the bill particularly when the blinds are players who never release their hands for a pre-flop raise. I emphasize the word "may" in the above sentence.
If there had already been a limper or two in ahead of the raiser, I probably would call two bets cold and yet only limp in if there was no raise (of course, I might occasionally raise with my hand). In other words, QJs would fit the bill even more if there were more players in the hand.
For the exact situation you describe, no. I will always raise if I am first in from a late position -- there are no hands I will limp with from late position if I am first in.
Something like it can happen if there are several callers, however. If the main mistake most of the players make is not folding enough on the flop, and they don't adjust their play sufficiently for the size of the pot, it can be correct to just call behind several other callers with a hand like 89s, yet if those calls are followed by a raise, it might still be correct to call. To take advantage of your opponents play, you maximize your EV by having a small pot when the flop comes, but even if the pot is somewhat large, your EV is still positive, so you still play the hand. In my experience, these game conditions are quite common.
William
>>it can be correct to just call behind several other callers with a hand like 89s,yet if those calls are followed by a raise, it might still be correct to call. << This is an interesting point. I say this because folding in this situation (two bets to you, late position lot's of callers) will never get you in trouble. Yet, the gambler (in some of us) likes this play! I have to add that I have called in situations like this only to end up in a capped pot and regretted that I made the call. Vince
Really no. Actually yes.
If you have enormous good implied odds and the raiser is not tight, then there are many hands that are profitable for two bets that you prefer for only one.
The extreme case is when you are against players who will ALWAYS cap it AFTER the flop to the river. Small pairs are clearly profitable, but you still prefer for only one bet.
But in real poker, no she clearly made a mistake; probably with BOTH calls.
- Louie
What does IMO mean? What does straddle mean? To all -- thanks for great forum -- helps me (beginner) a lot!
Kate, welcome to the Forum.
"IMO" is the lazy way of saying "In my opinion".
"Straddle" is a blind raise by the player immediately to the left of the big blind. Generally, not a smart move.
Thanks, skp. Forgive my ignorance, but why is a straddle not a good idea? Thanks in advance.
The straddler is raising without seeing his cards. He is just gambling then and not really playing poker. He will also have terrible position throughout the hand (unless everyone except the blinds folds).
Invariably, a straddle bet will be raised by someone else. This makes sense because if one has a hand good enough to call the straddle bet, it is probably good enough to make it three bets in an effort to try and get it heads-up with the straddler who has just a random hand. Chances are that the three bettor will have a stronger hand than the straddler and will have better position to boot.
Hey skp, How come all the pretty girls ask you the questions? Vince
I don't know, Vince, but it seems that you are asking me a question right now. I can't say that I ever found a "Vince" to be pretty.
One passage in "Holdem Poker" has bothered me for a while. David says that any hand that can call a raise cold is a hand worth raising. He says something like this: "Have you ever seen an opponent reach for his chips to call, and then when informed that there has been a raise, simply reach for more chips to call the raise? WELL HE MUST HAVE MADE A MISTAKE" (emphasis Sklansky's).
This doesn't seem to be universally correct to me. There are hands that you would prefer to call one bet, but are still +EV to call for two. In other words, if you are in a situation where playing the hand is +EV either way, but worth more if you could just call.
An example might be a hand like 76s in late position with 7 callers. You might prefer to play this hand for one bet, but it's still worth playing for two.
After the flop, there are numerous situations like this, when the pot is laying you odds to call a raise, but you don't have enough callers to make additional bets profitable and you have no chance of winning the pot without a showdown.
Comments?
Dan
Using your example, I guess what he is saying is that if you are going to call 2 bets cold with say 76s in a multiway pot, then you ought to consider making it two bets yourself if it turns out that no one has raised ahead of you.
Generally speaking, I agree with that comment. In your example, I would often make it two bets with 76s or a hand like 55 in late position against several limpers.
However, as you point out, there are exceptions to Sklansky's conclusion particularly on play after the flop and the turn.
Sklansky is probably only slightly wrong. But in his defence, it makes better reading to say "well he must have made a mistake" rather than "well he probably made a mistake unless...".
I think his point is simply this: If you have a situation where you CLEARLY must call, consider whether a raise might be better.
I agree with it.
Oh, I agree with the general sentiment - a hand worth calling a raise is probably worth raising. But in the book it really is stated as an absolute, capitals and all.
Some hands are playable simply because they can get in cheap and there are a lot of callers, giving the hand high odds and high implied odds. The hand may still be profitable if there is a raise, but not as profitable as in an unraised pot. If this is the case, then one would rather limp in for one bet, but would still call two.
But perhaps I'm wrong... I'd like to hear what Mr. Sklansky has to say. And in any event, the general idea that the paragraph outlines is still correct. I'm just wondering how many exceptions there are to the rule, if any.
Dan
Dan, you will recall the E-mail I sent you last week asking for your opinion on a play I made with QcJc. Your post on Sklansky's statement reminded me of that hand. Maybe I'll post that play and ask for opinions.
The statement applied to the first round of betting only. There are virtually no exceptons in draw or stud and very few in holdem. This is especially true if the raiser in front of you is the first one in. Please keep in mind that our books are aimed at the fair to good player. If we allways addressed those few exceptions that an expert might find the book would be practically unreadable for everyone else.
An excellent point. The same can be said for mid-level textbooks in physics and other sciences. If they stopped to point out every exception to the general rules they are trying to teach, they would become a jumbled mess.
Dan
skp wrote:
"Generally speaking, I agree with that comment. In your example, I would often make it two bets with 76s or a hand like 55 in late position against several limpers. "
the example is referring to several limpers ahead of you.
My question is : why is a raise with 76s and/or 55 a good raise in this spot?
Several reasons:
1. The pot is laying you good odds (and good implied odds).
2. When you hit your set, other marginal holdings will likely stick around and pay you off because the pot is too big for them to fold. Of course, if you don't hit your set, you can release your hand and would have only cost yourself 1 small bet.
3. A raise in late position can often buy you a free card particularly in games where the tendency is to "check to the raiser". For example, if the flop is 4,7,Q, a free card on the flop can be very valuable if you catch a 5 or 6 on the turn. If you hadn't raised preflop, there likely would have been a bet on the flop and possibly a raise and you would have to muck.
4. You mix up your play a little and become less readable.
I am sure there are other good reasons but you get the idea.
One gratuitious pieco of advice: If you do hit a set, do not slowplay! A perfect example from a couple of sessions ago. Gut raises in late position with pocket 7s in late position against a large field. Flop: a rainbow 7,9,K. Our man just calls on the flop. Turn card is a 9. Two guys are holding 9's and all hell breaks loose. While our fellow is still in the lead with his full house, notice how vulnerable his hand has suddenly become. For the sake of argument, let's say the one man has 10,9 and the other J,9. Well, there are now 9 rotten river cards for our guy with the full house (3 Tens, Jacks and Kings). That's the same number you face day in and day out when you have top pair/top kicker and your opponent has a flush draw going into the river.
Bottom Line: Don't slowplay when the pot gets big.
Pardon the spelling errors above. I accidently hit the 'post message' button instead of the 'preview message' button.
skp wrote:
"4. You mix up your play a little and become less readable."
Does this mean that you are implying that one should not always raise with 55 on the button with several limpers?
From what I had read earlier, it seemed to state that one should always raise in this situation...but if reason #4 is correct, then that suggest that one should not always raise in this situation.
This seems to me to be a perfect example of a move that has no added expectancy, but increased standard deviation or volatility in P&L. Would you agree with that statement?
If that statement is true (I happen to think it is), then not raising, but just calling dominates raising, because expectancy is the same with less risk.
T.P. writes
"This seems to me to be a perfect example of a move that has no added expectancy, but increased standard deviation or volatility in P&L. Would you agree with that statement?
If that statement is true (I happen to think it is), then not raising, but just calling dominates raising, because expectancy is the same with less risk."
This is one of the fine points about poker (and other games). What you say may be very true. Let's say it is true. "Locally", calling is the superior play. However, there are "global" benefits which may come out at the cost of the increased risk. The risk/benefit analysis which must be done, therefore, for any play, is not only local risk vs local benefit, but also local risk vs global benefit. This, I believe, was the point of #4 (unpredictability). If I understand Mason's teachings correctly, he might use the terms "self-weighting" and "non self-weighting".
I suppose the whole idea is that the "mistakes" you make occaisionally will be smaller than the mistakes your opponents make because of them.
Raising on the button with 55 after several limpers might be very correct if you are trying to cheaply give the appearance of being an "action" player. When you show the hand down, (hopefully winning) opponents will note your pre-flop raise and begin to widen the range of hands you might be willing to raise with at all the positions you play from. This will definitely help you when you raise with premium holdings from early position. Most players who observe opponents don't take the trouble to analyze someone whose late position standards are a little loose, but whose early and middle position standards are close to optimal.
"WELL HE MUST HAVE MADE A MISTAKE" It's correct whether it seems so or not! If your hand is worth a cold call of two bets it's worth a raise! Period! Some bright boy may say well what if you are doing such and such, like slow playing or some other silly notion. Forget it! Mr. S. is correct! Vince.
Post deleted at author's request.
>>Well, no, calling two bets cold isn't the same thing as making it two bets at all.<< Yes it is! Reread HPFAP! Sklansky's point is correct! A player that grabs his chips to call a single bet, then discovers it is two bets to him and goes back and gets more chips was making a mistake in the first instance by just calling!
>>The pot can easily be laying you the right odds to call for two bets<< Let me have the example that makes this statement correct given the statement Sklansky makes in HPFAP. I am always open to learning something new! Vince
Gary, O.K. I know the statement:"WELL HE MUST HAVE MADE A MISTAKE" was from "Hold'em Poker" not HPFAP. My appology! Since I was such a BUTT I went and reviewed HPFAP myself. This is one of the things I found: "To call a raise cold, you still need a very good hand, even in late position. However, if several people are already in the pot, even though it has been raised, you can play hands like, T9s and 88." (pg 25 2nd paragraph). There may be other examples but this one suits my purpose. This statement, in my opinion, contradicts the statement at issue. One can imagine picking up chips to call one bet in a multiway pot with T9s. Then when told that it was 2 bets going back and calling the 2 bets. That is what I've read into this statement from HPFAP. So, which statewment is correct? I believe both statements are worth further analysis! Sklansky might have qualified the first statement (IMO) in such a way that he became very specific about certain situations. I personnally belive that the "Holdem Poker" is in general the most correct of the two statements. I have a problem with the HPFAP statement, altough it also has it's merits. I believe that if you call with hands such as those mentioned in HPFAP in similar situations to the one mentioned you will find yourself more times than not in a crap shoot. The pot in situations like these is so large that it's influence will govern the average/above average players decisions. You may find yourself calling the flop with as little as a back door flush. Not because it's the correct play but because the pot size warrants (demands) it! (I guess you could say that makes it a correct play.) I believe good poker players win because they are almost always in control of the situation. In multi-way (huge) pots their control is usually over come by events! Well you know me I could go on (Know it all that I am!). But, please, let's just agree to (respectfully) disagree! Vince
If you read Sklansky's response to my message, he agrees that there are exceptions to the rule. He didn't cover them in the book because it is aimed at beginner/intermediate players, and covering every single exception would be unwieldy and obscure the point being made. I agree with him. Perhaps it shouldn't have been stated as such an absolute, in full capitals, or I would never have brought it up. In any event, it's a pretty trivial issue. I brought it up because it sounded like he literally meant that there were no exceptions, and that didn't sound right to me.
Dan
Holdem poker is for beginers HPfap is for advanced players. In fundaments of poker mason malmush say it is not corect to raise whith 3 flash only whith 3 str-flush. But in 7SPfap two pages obout playing 3 flash.
There are times when you must surrender control of the hand to great pot odds. Those expert players who stay away from profitable situations simply because they lose control and become a slave to the pot size are costing themselves a lot of money especially in the looser games.
"There are times when you must surrender control of the hand to great pot odds."
I somewhat agree with this statement. However, I certainly don't like voluntarily surrendering control to a concept like "great pot odds". Pot odds are relative to the situation in which you find yourself.
"Those expert players who stay away from profitable situations simply because they lose control and become a slave to the pot size are costing themselves a lot of money especially in the looser games. "
I'm not sure what this means. If it means what I think it does, that players should involve themselves in situations that offer high pot odds simply because they offer high pot odds then I must humbly (respectfully) disagree with you. I believe just the opposite, that players who play this way are costing themselves money! In most multiway pots that have huge pot odds the outcome is almost invariably decided by the turn of a card. Where does the player (expert or otherwise) get his edge if he is doing no more than gambling with a lot other gamblers.
In most situations where you have hands like T9s and 88 in late position and there are a lot of callers before you (and there is a raise) you are not drawing to the best or even second best hand. What you are actully doing is gambling? Again where is the edge? When you are playing at your normal money level can it be that the other players at your table are that bad that preflop play is of little consequence? Or can it be that you gain some large edge because of your skill after the flop. I don't relly think that can be true for all but the very best players. Consequently, I stand by "Vince's Bad Concept" that it may be incorrect to call in situations like this for average/above average (all but the very best, expert) players. Besides, how can it ever make sense for players that: "lose control and become a slave to the pot size" to play in the manner you suggest. If they are a "slave to pot size" isn't it be better for them to just avoid these situations? Kind of "Fuzzy Thinking" isn't it? I've heard it put forth before, I don't remember by who but I agree with Him/Her: "That if you can't release a hand it may be better not to get involved with it (or something like that)" BTW, Mr. S, Thanks for the response! Vince
Vince, the point is that there are times when the pot is very large that you simply have no option but to ride out the hand hoping that you win. Yes, you are 'gambling', but you are gambling with the best of it. By definition, the situation you are in is one in which your analysis tells you that you are getting an overlay from the pot on your call(s).
This is one of the toughest aspects of very loose, agressive games. Often the pots become so large that once you take the flop you are stuck along for the ride, and are in essense gambling along with everyone else. In addition, the size of the pot often makes it correct for the weak players to do what they want to do, which is chase. So, you are all trying for longshots to see who wins the extra money put in by the people who made bad calls before the flop. These are high variance situations.
One way you beat these games is with pre-flop hand selection, but often a better idea is simply to avoid highly agressive games, because they can be difficult to play.
Dan
"Where does the player (expert or otherwise) get his edge if he is doing no more than gambling with a lot other gamblers. "
His edge comes, first from playing a starting hand that has a higher probability of being a better hand. Then when the flop comes and the pot odds are there to continue, it comes from all the dead money in pot from those that weren't as selective and also those that continue with even worse odds.
Your argument seems to be against any type of long shot even when the odds are in your favor. By that argument you may as well not play any hands ( except possibly AA in fairly tight game ).
To put it simply, when getting 15-1 pot odds the expert still has an edge because he can distinguish 13-1 shots from 17-1 shots and will play the former but not the latter.
"Isn't 7,6s good enough to raise with, in Late Position, with as little as 4 Limpers, especially if we can Buy the Button? If we don't Raise in these situations we might be costing ourselves some money."
I swore I was through with this subject because of reaction to my previous response but "Just when I get out, they drag me back in." (God Father III)
Mr S., this is a post by a regular poster on this forum. If you believe that plays (done regularly and I get that implication from this post) like this in situations similiar to this are a part of winning Hold'em then I retract all my opposition to your previous responses and except your correct statement: "Vince's Bad Concept".
Just to clarify my point. This post illustrates the kind of play that will get a player in big trouble when (IMO) routinely (incorrectly IMO) playing hands like these in situations like this. I played in a 15-30 hold'em game at Bellagio last evenning. The Hand: Two seats away from the button. Early raiser. 3 cold calls to me. My hand 5,5. I was about to muck, I thought for a moment and called (maybe I should have raised, I don't think so). I do know that the thought of the responses to this question influenced my decision to call. Well the button reraised and by the time it got back to me it was 2 more bets with 5 players before me (both blinds called). Now I'm not sure I like my hand even if I hit a set! But I call anyway and throw the final bet in on the button's cap. (At the time the button had shown no signs of immaturity. Later he proved to be a maniac) Suffice it to say I lost the pot. Not the issue. I called a flop bet and mucked my hand to a raise on the turn (If there wasn't a raise I would probably call the turn because of pot size). Please don't tell me that 7,6s or 8,8 or 9,8s are much better hands and for that reason I should have mucked my 5,5. I was getting six to one on my money and with implied odds should be o.k. odds wise. Of course if you include a probable call on the flop and a possible call on the turn beacause of pot size at the respective times my pot odds don't look as good before the flop.
This kind of poker is flat out gambling! I would like to see the numbers! The numbers that prove I am "Getting the Best of It" in these situations playing hands like this! Some comments will come back if you don't like these kinds of plays then don't make them. Just muck! Besides these hands add to the fun of poker! Not the issue! The issue is practical (and somewhat psychlogical), what (numbers) makes this kind of playing correct. To me playing like this only gives rise to: " The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat."
Sorry for the long post. If you read this, Mr. S, I hope it doesn't waste your time.
Vince (Bad Concept) Lepore
You probably made a bad call before the flop. It's already two bets to you, there are only 4 callers, and there's a chance of a re-raise behind you. It sounds like you were new to the game that night (since you didn't realize that the raiser was a maniac), so you didn't really have a feel for the game yet.
After you saw the flop, you were probably wrong for calling a bet on the flop. The button re-raised before the flop, so the chance of you facing a raise and a re-raise on the flop is great.
Dan
I would call every time before the flop and given that you were getting over 25-to-1 call most every time on the flop unless I was absolutely sure that it would be raised behind me.
I suspect from your post that you may not be taking into account the money already in the pot when you talk about pot odds that you are getting.
You would call with 55 every time from middle position into a raised pot with 4 callers in total? Hmmn... I'm usually an advocate of playing small pairs (in the games I play in I typically call with any pair from any position in an unraised pot, and with medium pairs into a raised pot in late position with 4 or more callers), but this particular situation sounds a little marginal to me, especially if I don't yet have a good read on the game and don't know what the chances are of a re-raise behind me.
The call on the flop seems a bit suspect to me as well, because I'd be expecting a raising war to break out. Capped before the flop, and now I'm facing a bet with a pre-flop re-raiser to act behind me. If I knew it wasn't going to be raised it would be an easy call, but not only would I expect it to be raised in this situation, but that it would come back to me for two more bets, and perhaps be capped.
The one factor we don't know is the texture of the flop. If it were such that I could easily be already facing a bigger set or a straight (say, a flop like AKT), then it's an even easier fold.
Anyway, I'd like to hear your comments on the above.
Dan
(Flop: K,9,3 rainbow, to answer Dan's reponse). And I Quote:" Axiom No. 1: For the most part at low and medium limits, you figure to have a losing hand unless you have the best hand or best draw to start with. Otherwise you'll be running uphill, chasing. Low-limit poker is a game of drawouts and bad beats. If you like living on the edge, and a lot of poker players apparently do, fine. Go at it, and keep drawing to those long shots. But if you play to get the money, stay with the best hand or best draw." Roy West. Feb-5-1999, CARD PLAYER Magazine pg 28. Maybe he says it better than I can. Vince (Bad Concept) Lepore
Hey Vince: 1. Don't change your name. 2. Other than the $90 you bet on the pair of 5s, how was your Bellagio 15-30 session?
1) It's done! 2) I won $300. 4 hours. Don't tell the IRS, please. 3) Man did you have to remind me! $90! ugh!
"BAD" Concept!
Dan,
This passage also troubled me. Just under ten years ago I wrote a series of questions that David answered in about the sixth and seventh issues of Card Player. In "Poker, Gaming, and Life" I was pleased to find my questions and his answers included (although I haven't received any royalty checks yet - LOL). I lent this book out so I don't know the exact page; however, if you have a copy, check out the Q & A section and look for the multipart question on pairs before the flop (also my question). Immediately before or after is a similar example except I believe I used Ax suited.
I don't disagree with David's statement but I do think your points are well taken.
Regards,
Rick
I make a flush in 5 cards. Opponent makes a boat in 5. I have one of his trips cards down. How do I feel good about my play and not lose a bundle ?(which is what happened)? Or is that just not possible?
Opponent is aggressive/loose-leaning, but not stupid. I just took the previous pot with a pot bet on a four flush, which I was careful to show to table. His stack is a good deal larger than mine. He slow played his trips, til a re-raise put me all in.
Am I to cringe at the sight of any pair? Or is this just the way things go sometimes.
Yes, cringe.
Yes, that's the way it goes sometimes.
Yes its tough luck unless your showing off earlier gave enough information to know just how to play to get you broke.
I have done well Playing cards in LA for the past few years. My best qualities in poker are my discipline and game selection which have enabled me to win. For the last 2 months I have had very bad luck. Losing what I usually win. I don't consider myself very intelectual at poker yet I can still win. I have two questions. 1. Is losing two months in a row within the paramaters of standard deviation and 2 What is a good way to improve my game.
Ron,
1. yes, but more likely you played bad as two months is long enough to be suspicious.
2. If you have to ask you are not reading enough and thinking on the side.
>>I have done well Playing cards in LA for the past few years.<<
>>For the last 2 months I have had very bad luck. Losing what I usually win<<
What's your problem? From these statements: 1. You were on a multi-year win streak. (I wish I had that problem!) 2) You broke even for 2 months. (I wish I had that problem!) Ray Zee gave you the correct answers to your questions in his response. I echo his response but in truth: Me, I (just) don't see a problem! IMO Vince
If your expectation is not very high (?$5/hour?) and your commitment moderate (?10/hours week?) then 2-months losing is very reasonable.
Discipline and game selection are excellent attributes, and will usually guarantee a modest win in low limit games.
"Discipline" means to me hand selection, B4 and on the flop. I infer your play is otherwise modest; and you do not take much advantage of unusual situations. If so, its reasonably possible that the LA players have figured you out and they are taking advantage of your modest post-flop game; such as betting their bottom pair when an overcard to your obvious pair comes knowing you will routinely fold; darn the luck.
If this is the situation then you must adopt a paradigm shift: "By-Rote-Plays" are GUIDLINES, not RULES. There will be times you must adopt a "bad" play such as raising with 2nd pair. You must look for such situations and be willing to deviate a few times per session.
And you have to do this without falling into Caro's "Fancy Play Syndrom" (such as raising pre-flop with 97o, hehehe); the death-bell of many up-and-coming players.
- Louie
PS. There is considerable benefit to assuming that a loss was due to bad play, even if it was really just bad luck. This way, you force yourself to FIND a bad play or two, which will exist, and can review and correct them between sessions. That's good for your game and your attitude.
You seem to have just a bad spell, or the SD variance. Your question however raised a very interesting point. I maintain that everyone has a different trigger point to turn his/her game around. I don't believe the 'stories' player tell - like I was a losing player in 25c-1 home game for 3 months - and then somehow I saw the light and never looked back. That's the same story like when someone tells fishing stories about the size of the fish they caught. I know a tough player (now) who by his own admission slept in his car in the Garden City parking lot for a few months. So while someone loses $5000 and that's enough for him to 'plug' his leaks others may have a lot bigger treshhold. I have heard a story about the biggest secret of the poker expert - the size of his bankroll. the second biggest secret - how much he lost before he turned his game around.
Last week, I e-mailed Dan Hanson and asked for his opinion on a play I had made in a 10-20 Hold 'Em game. As always, Dan gave me a thoughtful analysis. I will ask him to hold off on posting his response until others have responded. I was reminded of the hand by Dan's post below on "Is Sklansky Wrong...".
Here goes. I limp in middle position with QcJc. The button (a strong player) raises. Five of us see the flop. There are no active players between me and the button.
Flop: Ad,9c,4c.
Everyone checks. Button bets. 3 callers. I raise.
Button reraises. One guy folds. 3 callers (including me).
Turn: Jh
Everyone checks to button who bets. One call and then a raise. The raiser (UTG player preflop) is a loose player but not a maniac. I had only played with him 3 or 4 sessions but he had shown that he was capable of having a variety of hands in this spot. i.e. anything from a set to two pair (any two pair) to a straight or flush draw (although a straight draw I thought was unlikely in this instance).
My turn to act. What should I do and why?
Skp,
Id just call and try to make my flush and hope the button doesnt have ace suited clubs. I dont see any way to knock him out on the hope you have the best hand against the raiser. You may have picked up 5 extra outs but i dont think you need to get excited as those may not win for you. A raise may knock the raiser out if he has ace king and could be worth a try only if you know your players and understand the situation at hand. That cant be determined from your post as you have to be sitting in you seat. Having said all that, many times i will raise back here because so many good things sometimes happen like both of them fold thinking im on a real powerhouse or the button does fold and the other guy has a smaller flush draw. I bet my case money that is exactly what you did and some similar result happened. Good for you.
call. what else can you do?
There are 2 choices here - either you call or you raise. It depends on how well you know the other players (and how well they know you). I would be very tempted to raise if I thought the double bet might knock out the other two players. If it did, I would then have position on the one remaining player and even if I didn't improve on the river I would bet if the other person checked to me and I thought that bet might get this person to fold. If you didn't think that you had too good a chance to get to a heads-up situation, then I would just call hoping to river a winner.
The only thing I definitely wouldn't do is give up my hand. The draw is just too good. -Ray J
PRAY! (for a club, while your at it you may as well pray for the King of clubs). BTW The difference between praying in this situation and praying in church? Here you mean it! Vince
Yup. You're probably drawing dead, but in the heat of the moment with the pot that big, it's cry call city.
I wouldn't raise here, as there isn't any hand you could represent that would reasonably leave you heads up with UTG. I would call, hope the button doesn't reraise and hope that the river brought a club other than the A or J. If button reraises, you have to call even if UTG caps it. I wouldn't be very worried about button having any flush draw other than AKc, and would be pretty sure that he had a set of aces or nines if he reraised. If any of the seven clubs that figure to be good for you do come, I'm pretty sure you are going to get paid off in two spots when you bet. UTG can't have a flush draw unless it is AJc, and he wouldn't have limped with it based on your description of his playing tendencies. He has two pair, probably J9s.
WARNING: I play in So. Calif., so this would be my evaluation if I were you sitting in a 9-18 or 15-30 game in one of the cardrooms I frequent. (Playing this way isn't for everyone)
I have a related question. Is it a good idea to raise on the flop as you did, with a Q high flush draw? I have the impression that a draw to the nuts or at least K-high are needed for a value based raise. There would be no semi-bluff component here as everyone as already called one raise. Perhaps with 5 players it is ok but what about with 4 or 3?
Thanks
David
Generally, I don't worry about running into higher flushes. Obviously, there are exceptions. The way the hand is played should give you some indication as to whether you are actually drawing dead to your flush card but in my experience, flush over flush is pretty rare (unless of course the fourth suited card lands on the river).
A checkraise in my situation on the flop is not an automatic decision. For example, if the button had three betted it and caused everyone else to fold, my checkraise would have been an error.
I raised purely because it can often be a +EV play. 4 others in the pot on the flop with my chances of improving to a flush at about 1 in 3 (with two cards to come).
Other good things can happen as well. For example, I might buy a free card on the turn (Yes, it can be done even when you are out of position. I would play a set the same way on the flop and might look for a checkraise on the turn).
Plus, by raising on the flop, my chances of being paid off increase if the flush card hits on the turn.
If there are only 3 players in the pot (including me), I would still checkraise and if not met with a reraise, I would probably bet again on the turn even if a blank hits. My goal now is not to get a free card but to avoid giving one and to avoid losing control of the pot. The thing here is that the button (if he didn't reraise on the flop) will likely fold on the turn. Even if he is laying a trap for me with say a set, a bet isn't all that bad because it would only cost me an extra bet because I surely would call if I checked and he bet.
I reraised.
Button and limper folded. UTG man calls.
River was a blank.
Check-check.
UTG turns over a monster: Ac,7c. It turns out that I was drawing pretty slim.
A fold on my part was out of the question. I had to at least call. My thinking was that if I must call, a raise can be either (a) a much better play (it might get me the pot) or (b) a slightly worse play (it will cost me one or two more bets).
Maniacs also will make this play. The difference is that a maniac will often be reraising when folding is clearly an option. I obviously don't recommend that.
Very strange,... if you check raised from that late a posistion on the flop, even the janitor should put you on a draw.This must be a great game, for them to fold.I can see the button folding even though he probably knew you were drawing, but probably didn't have a hand.But the other player puzzles me a little. Anyway, I hate to keep at you skp, but I think you are overly aggressive in the wrong spots. I would not have raised. seeya
Al, I am not saying that what I did was definitely correct. In fact, all of the posters said they would just call. What I am saying is that if it was a wrong play, it couldn't have been wrong by much.
My point is that an error in raising can only cost you a limited amount. An error in calling could cost you a lot more. There are several situations in hold 'em where this principle applies. Granted this may not have been one of them.
Al, I have no problem with your criticism of my ideas on strategy. I welcome them. Obviously, judging by your posts, you are a successful player who thinks about the game a lot. You could well be right: I may be too aggressive in the wrong spots. A good friend of mine (whose opinion I respect) has often told me that. To date, playing aggressively has worked for me. But perhaps I am letting my results overly influence my thinking.
I have to believe the UTG misplayed his draw badly on the flop. When he showed down A7c on the river, I would have been making some major reassessments of his play. The button's play also confuses me unless he had a brilliant, but wrong, read on your play on the turn. Where was this game played by the way?
I think the UTG did misplay the flop. With that flop and his position in relation to the button, he should have bet.
I find no fault in the button's play for laying down on the turn. I suspect he had AK or AQ.
The game was in Vancouver, B.C. Used to be a loose, passive game. Of late, I am not so sure. There is a lot more pre-flop raising now. Also, there has been a recent influx of maniacs into the game who will cap it every chance they get. Lately, I have had to bring my seatbelt to the game.
skp, in limit hldm it never hurts too much if you raise in a situation like you have described, but those bets end up adding up.At the level you are playing now, it seems as though it doesn't present many problems ,since you have some overly aggressive players in the game. But if you find yourself in a game where there are more players that think about the game like you, they will soon see that you tend to push your draws and such on the turn, and they will start re-raising you out of your seat. This puts you into a guessing game, and you lose your edge. If your play is straight forward most of the time and then once in a while change to high gear, then that's great, imo. Believe it or not, I advocate a very aggressive game, but mostly pre-flop and on the flop.The reason I've made the comments about your play as I have, is that most of the posts I've read from you concern situations on the turn where it seems you might slow down, but you speed up,..but if it's truly working for you, well, I guess you have to do it.gdlk
For what it's worth, in my E-mail message to skp I said that I would have just called the turn as well, but a re-raise in this situation is not that bad an error, if it is one at all.
When the pot is very large, re-raises that make small differences can carry quite a bit of EV with them. For instance, if he can get someone to fold a hand like middle or bottom pair with the same kicker as he has, then he can give himself a few more outs to win, and if the pot is huge this alone can be enough to warrant the re-raise.
I think skp is aware of the points you mentioned about players playing back at him. I play a very agressive game, but as soon as I notice people re-raising me with average hands or slow-playing monsters against me, I'll change gears. When you play against the same people night after night, there is no 'correct' way to play. Each night is a juggling game, trying to keep your opponents more off balance than they are keeping you.
Dan
One of the reasons I have fallen into that strategy is that raising on the flop in my game means sweet bugger all to most players. A raise on the flop is just business as usual and they will often play back. It's one of the reasons that in my game, I never slowplay on the flop. For example, I will often raise on the flop with a set. My opponent will often make it three bets. I will then indicate weakness by just calling only to pop him again on the turn.
Now and then, I do the same with a drawing hand. Generally, I do this only where I have some additional outs in addition to the straight or flush cards that I am looking for.
Al, believe it or not, I don't make a habit of jamming the pot every time I get a flush draw. Obviously, I may have given you that impression based on the last 2 "what would you do here?" threads that I started. I thought they both had some interesting situations which called for aggressive play on my part.
Oh, by the way, neither the janitor nor the button would have been able to say with certainty that I was on a draw. Given that the button was going to be the likely bettor on the flop, I would checkraise in my position with a set or two pair (remember that I limped in from middle position and could well have 99 or 44). Once the button makes it three bets, I can probably put him on an ace. With a set, I would then just call the reraise and then check raise the turn.
The janitor would have to be sweeping behind me and have a look at my cards to rule out a big hand when I made it three bets on the turn.
First, my apologies for not posting prior to your report of what really happened. I hope we all realize that that is not the point.
That being said, and having read all of the responses to your post from poker players certainly beyond my experience and ability, I think it is a fold on the turn. In fact, I am very surprised that everyone seems to agree that it is not an option. Let me supply my reasons:
1. You have to put $40 into what I counted to be a $310 pot, and it seems there is a decent chance that the button will reraise. Those odds don't sound too good vs. what everyone is representing.
2. These players are representing strong hands. The button 3 bets the flop, and TWO players cold call two bets after the button is unimpressed by your checkraise. There is no draw on the flop other than clubs. Let me say that again:
TWO players cold call two bets after the button is unimpressed by your checkraise. There is no draw on the flop other than clubs.
What are these people calling/3-betting with? Well, I'm guessing sets, club draws, two pairs, or maybe a big ace. At this point, it is hard for me to imagine a scenario in which you are not facing another club draw, yes? Other hands = AK, A9s, A4s? Maybe replace one of those with 99?
What does everyone think here? OK, but it is also possible one hand is 10c8c or maybe 8c7c, so another club draw isn't necessarily your funeral, although Acxc or Kcxc sure seem like likely candidates here. The turn: check, check, check, bet; CALL, RAISE! Well, first I guess the caller could be trying to just peel one off the whole way, but it seems a little odd. BUT, the bettor is still representing a hand better than your check-raise-the-flop-hand, and now the raiser sure sounds like he has a monster. What does the raiser have? 10c8c? AJ? Acxc? KcTc? A very oddly played JJ (can't let go), 99, or 44 (likes to wait til the turn)?
Any other guesses? At this point, it's hard for me to imagine that a queen is an out for you (but you would certainly call the river, so it may be even worse implied odds for you), so how many outs do you have? Keep in mind, it looks like you may well have to beat 3 opponents. I guess I'm suggesting that in many many scenarios you have no outs, and in several other scenarios, you just have some of the remaining clubs, quite possibly excluding the Ace, and in cases where you face 10c8c or 8c7c (or 7c6c or 8c6c...), you may only have 7 outs.
All this coupled with the possibility for more heat from the button on the turn lead me to make this one a fold. Clearly not many of you agree, but have I convinced anyone to not dismiss folding so quickly?
Your thoughts and comments would be greatly appreciated.
Dennis
(P.S. - I doubt I would fold in the heat of battle, but I think it should definitely be seriously considered.)
Dennis, it's a nice analysis.
But I'll tell you something. You won't believe the types of hands that players in my regular game will call a raise with.
In my example, only the button was a strong player. The others were players that were tough to get a read on mainly because half of the time they don't even know what they are doing. The UTG man is a fellow who as I said in my original post was capable on the turn of having anything from a set to two pair (Any two pair) or even a straight draw (i.e. Q,10 or 10,8).
I'll tell you what my thinking was at the table in the heat of battle: "Okay, button's got me beat. I have got club outs and a Jack which may beat UTG but the Jack certainly doesn't beat the button. I may add to my chances of winning the pot by ensuring that the button gets knocked out. So, what's another $20? I reraised."
Now, of course, a lot also depends on how my opponents perceive me. Al Raiseya may not believe this but I am generally not regarded as a lunatic player. The button for sure respects my play and I figured he might even fold AJ in the face of two raisers who seem to be saying "I have got a set". He would definitely muck AQ. I gain a lot in that situation if UTG has a two pair hand other than Aces up.
Anyway, those are my comments to your post as they apply specifically to my game.
But I do wish to say something in response to your post which I believe applies to all poker games.
In poker, there are errors and there are colossal blunders. When the pot gets big, an error in staying in a hand (where you ostensibly have 14 cards with which to improve) will only cost you a few bets. An error in folding will cost you a lot more.
I can honestly say that I wouldn't have folded in my situation if the Button was Zee, the limper was Sklansky and the UTG man was Malmuth. I would definitely at least call Malmuth's raise (of course, after the hand, I would get the hell out of there and find a better game).
In loose games, I find that a lot of the rocks are costing themselves money by mucking too quickly. They fail to take into account "extra outs". For example, a gut shot with an overcard and a backdoor flush draw can often be good enough to call 2 bets cold on the flop. The rocks never do this. They always muck and shake their heads when those who call with similar hands go on to scoop a large pot.
The reverse is also true. The rocks don't bluff enough. If the pot is a fair sized one, you don't have to succeed too often to make a pure bluff a +EV play.
I believe that those are the two biggest mistakes that rocks make in wild games:
1. They figure a bluff will never succeed. This is definitely not true.
2. They muck hands too early without taking into account extra outs.
Sorry for going off on a tangent. Anyway, I liked your post. It was a good analysis. I just don't agree with the conclusion.
Mmmmmm... Yeah. As always it depends on who the players are in your game. I didn't realize that they were as you now describe. I certainly agree that many players laydown way too many hands, and I confess that I am often guilty of this myself. But, sometimes I pay off too much, too, and that is also something to be careful of.
Just for reference, in case anyone out there hasn't reread it lately, Sklansky's "The Eight Mistakes in Poker" addresses this topic very well in my opinion. I often carry a copy of that essay in my bag when I go on poker trips. Click on "Essays" at the right of this screen to have a look.
All the Best, Dennis
I just watched a wonderful movie! A Civil Action! John Travolta is great! The only flaw I found in the movie was a mistake the lawyer (Travolta) made when expressing odds! Describing the chances of winning a civil suit as 5 in 50, he mistakenly stated the odds as 10 to 1. It was a minor point and not enough to ruin my appreciation of the movie. But it did set me wondering on how accurate one needed to be when calculating pot odds (current and/or implied). In my experience I have most often erred on the side of aggresion, placing more emphasis on chances of winning the hand rather than the pot odds I was getting (current and implied). Don't get me wrong, I in fact, do some fast calculating to see if I am way out of line. But for the most part when I have a real close call I tend to play on! Do you think this tendencey is mistake? Am I taking the worse of it in close call situations if I am not accurate in my pot odds calculation? Hmmm. Vince
Vince,
You can keep on Hmmming because you are close enough. In the heat of battle being fairly close is ok. However the better you get the more pennies go in your pocket. Most times The biggest mistakes are when you can be exact as when deciding to call with a draw or two pair with one to come. Then its cut and dried if you cant call or bluff if you miss. Id rather play on as well when its close as it helps your image and is fun. I hope everyone understands the difference between 5 in 50 and 10 to 1. If not back to the books or ask Vince.
Funny, I was actually thinking about writing an article about this very subject, because it's a pet peeve of mine.
A lot of players apply 'false accuracy' to pot odds calculations. I hear them say things like, "I needed 9.5 to 1, but was only getting 9.2 to 1". In science, you learn about the concept of significant digits, and how not to imply an accuracy level that just doesn't exist (when digital watches first came out, people used to walk around saying, "The time is EXACTLY 9:02", not understanding that the main source of error is not in reading the digits, but the error in the watch mechanism itself and the error in setting it). The same should be said for pot odds calculations. The reason is because there are MANY sources of errors when calculating pot odds, and the smallest of them are probably errors made in actually counting the pot.
Consider this situation: Four players call in front of you. You have KTc on the button and raise. The flop is Jh9h5c. The first player bets, the next two call, and the fourth player raises.
Now, what are your pot odds, and should you call?
Well, that calculation is actually very difficult. Look at some of the factors that affect this calculation (in random order):
1) Would a King win for you if it landed? 2) How about a Ten? 3) How about Running Kings or Running Tens? 4) How about a King followed by a ten, or vice versa? 5) What are the odds of your running flush being good if
it comes in? 6) How about hitting a king and having the board pair low? 7) If you make your gutshot and the board pairs on the
river, will you lose? (i.e. Are you already up against
a set or two pair?) 8) Is there going to be a re-raise behind you? 9) If you make the straight, how many people will pay
you off? 10) If a scary card lands on the turn, can you buy the pot? 11) If you make your gutshot on the river and the heart
flush lands, will you lose? 12) Are any of my 'outs' already in play? 13) If I hit my gutshot, am I splitting the pot? 14) If I hit my gutshot, can I be re-drawn against?
All of these questions are big unknowns. If you want to improve your pot-odds calculations, forget about counting the last chip in the pot, and learn to be more accurate with these questions. And all these depend on your people reading and hand reading skills.
I think this is one of the biggest changes in thinking people have to make when moving up to bigger games. As the pots become smaller, these other considerations overwhelm the current size of the pot in making pot-odds decisions, and therefore the ability to reduce the errors in these 'people reading' areas goes up in importance. In loose passive games, you can approach the situation more numerically, because you usually need to hit your major draw to win. And anyway, the odds you are getting are probably far more than you need unless you are trying to hit real longshots like running flushes or hitting pocket pairs on the turn.
(BTW, many of these questions go way up in importance in Omaha high, which is why very good players have such a big edge at the game. There are a lot of situations which look like automatic calls to average players but are clear folds, and other situations that look like easy folds and should actually be called or even raised).
Dan
Excellent points!!!
I totally agree. It's funny how many people analyze one variable and neglect or assume away more important ones.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Dan, I think your response is a great start towards a needed article/essay. I would consider finising it and submitting to a poker/gambling publication or even this forum! Areas that need some work IMO: "Now, what are your pot odds, and should you call?" The example you give is right on the money but you never really answer this question.
"If you want to improve your pot-odds calculations, forget about counting the last chip in the pot, and learn to be more accurate with these questions." I believe this is your answer to your question. It implies that the answer is: It depends! (Again IMO))
"You have KTc on the button and raise. The flop is Jh9h5c" You don't mention the simplest calculation of all and one that will give you the nuts on the turn (with the possibility of being beat on the river, something some of us have a tendency to overlook). (Qc,Qs or Qd). This I believe is what most players are looking at when they calculate pot odds. Also the simple and unscientific way to answer your questions as a whole and not individually is: If I hit my hand will it be the nuts? I believe this is a major consideration when deciding to proceed with a hand. Pot odds aid the decision to continue. BTW I have only played a few hands of Omaha High but from my limited experience/readings I believe drawing to the nuts is essential in this game. Consequently I wonder if fairly accurate pot odds calculations are more important in Omaha Hi/Hi-Lo than in any other game. Opinion by Vince Vince
The reason I didn't answer the question was because the answer is a variable. Applying a precise 'answer' to the pot-odds equation here is contrary to the point I was trying to make.
Poker players make decisions in a cloud of probability. The best ones learn to sift through all the information and come out with the odds in their favor. The average ones think that poker is a game of numbers. The poor ones couldn't care or think that other factors are more important ("Am I hitting?" "Is this a lucky Seat?" etc.)
As for Omaha being a game of drawing to the nuts... That's a good way to start playing the game, but the real overlay in Omaha is knowing how to play all the hands that are not the nuts. Two pair, medium flushes, second-nut straights, second and bottom set... These hands are all difficult to play, but very profitable when played well.
There are also situations where you don't want to draw to the nuts (specifically, when you are drawing to a split, and believe you are being centered by several made hands). These decisions are very important in Omaha high. Omaha high requires a high degree of situational awareness.
Dan
I agree with Dan about Omaha hi/lo. Pot odd calcs and drawing to the nuts will get you very far in a loose passive Omaha game. In tight games with good players, just drawing to the nuts will put you at breakeven at best...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Omahaha also offers numerous back door draws (and opponent re-draws), which make precise "win the pot" calculations very difficult.
Very good points. The only objection I have is your using the term significant digits in this context. I am a scientist and understand what significant digits are. They are really reserved only for measurements in which you have near infinite possibilities. For example, measuring how long a pencil is would require the use of significant digits. Calculating pot odds would not because it is merely a mathematical operation. It may seem like a measurement, but it is really a calculation with no uncertainty. The mistakes people make that you are refering to are just that - mistakes. Would you say that if several people miscounted m&m's in a box that there was uncertainty involved? No, it is error in a counting operation. Of course, things are more difficult for implied odds or effective odds because they involve uncertainty. But I would still argue that they are not measurements with a near infinite amount of possibilities. Because we gamble with chips (and not fractions of chips), the answers are discrete and limited. Therefore, significant digits don't apply there either.
Of course, the above doesn't mean that you should calculate pot odds without rounding and estimating. You must round and estimate in order to do the operations quickly. This is the source of error. If someone calculates correctly that they are getting 9.2 to 1 and they didn't make any counting errors, then that is what they have and that is different than 9.5 to 1.
The point I was making is that using precise numbers like 9.2 to 1 imply an accuracy that just doesn't exist, other than in the very strict sense of the exact number of bets currently in the pot. For purposes of making a playing decision, other factors must be considered, and the errors in these other factors are higher than the range of a tenth of a bet, which our 9.2 to 1 number implies.
I still think my analogy holds (and I studied physics and engineering in University). If I measure something that is 9.5" long, and then cut it into 3 pieces, it is incorrect to state that each piece is 3.166 inches long, because that number implies an accuracy of measurement that doesn't exist. If I 'measure' the situation I am in against my opponent, and decide that I need 9.5 bets in the pot if he just calls, but I need 14 bets in the pot if he raises, and I think the chance of a raise from him is 50%, +-25%, then I've got no business talking about needing 12.75 bets in the pot to call - this implies an accuracy that doesn't exist.
This may sound like nitpicking because we've headed off on a technical tangent. The point I was making was that the adherence to these strict numbers by some players fools them into thinking that they are making complete and accurate decisions when in fact they are missing the truly important stuff.
The danger here is that a lot of winning poker players are educated, analytical types. We like working with numbers. But there are few hard numbers in poker, because it is a game of people and incomplete information. So when we see a calculation that does involve real numbers, we grab onto it like a lifeline. This obscures the real nature of the decisions to be made.
Dan
I still disagree with your use of the term "significant digits." Trust me, it's wrong. There is a difference between uncertainty in measurements and mistakes in counting systems. But I do agree with the point of your posts. Most average to good poker players are pretty good with straight pot odds, but no so hot with implied or effective odds. It's actually funny because I have been at many a table with "good" players who chastise "bad" players for drawing out on them. When many times the bad player accidently made the correct play because he had no idea what odds are. The "good" player, on the other hand, only calculated the pot odds from that spot and only based his decision on that. Of course, there are many more times when the "good" players were right. They just aren't as good as they like to think.
They miss the point of poker in many ways. I think that is why the best people at the table is still generally the old guys who just learned the hard way. A lot of the new math guys (the new generation of poker players) confuse what's really important in a hand.
Dan is correct in his use of "significant digits". It is an engineering term, not a scientific term.
"Dan is correct in his use of "significant digits". It is an engineering term, not a scientific term."
WHAT!?!?!?!
Sig Figs apply to all technical and non tech disciplines
Dan is correct as I implied earlier and Karpov is wrong.
Example:
I have JTs on the button BB raises and 5 players see the flop. 5 bb in the pot. The flop comes A45. the 45 in my suit. BB bets out, 2 callers, next player raises. do I call two bets for my flush draw? Let's calc Pot odds. If I can get one sig fig I would be extremely happy in this situation.
Why didn't I tell you more about the players? Because it affects your pot odds calcs immensely.
What if I told you that the BB only raises with AA or KK?
What if I told you that the on the flop raiser raises to buy free cards all the time and plays Axs?
What if I told you that the other two were extremely tight players on the flop?
What if all of them were maniacs?
Your estimation of pot odds including implied odds are greatly affected by your ASSUMPTIONS!!!
You may even need to take a bayesian approach to your calculations.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
Read my posts again and you will see that I am absolutely correct. sorry.
As suggested, you have much better things to spend that precious 4 seconds on than to improve a "close" to an "exact" pot count; such as whether you are drawing dead to the tight player's "obvious" bigger flush draw.
Basic "odds" comparison when faced with a bet is:
(Chance I win the pot * return (current and expected)) - (Chance I lose the pot * loss (current and expected)).
Since folding nets $0 you should call if the above equation is positive.
"Current" return is the size of the pot. "Current" loss is the size of the bet. "Expected" return and loss are good and bad implied odds.
"Chance I lose the pot" is not always "Chance I miss the hand" (e.g. you may snag a pair of 8s to win).
"Chance I win the pot" is RARELY the same as "Chance I MAKE the hand" (e.g. your straight will often lose). Confusion on this point is a critical mistake and, I believe, the most common source of bad calls in aspiring players. Yes, you have 6 cards to make an over pair ... but lets not forget that in a big pot that pair may win only 1/3 of the time...
A common example is when you have a straight draw and someone may have a flush draw and someone else may have a set. Instead of 8 outs you may have only 6; and the opponents may have 16 re-draw cards. Now you have the equivalent of about 4 outs. And you may get counterfeighted and lose to a higher straight. And someone may back door a different flush. And someone may have the same draw as you. Oh, its not even the NUT straight draw right now ...
Yuuuuck.
- Louie
Hello, everyone.
I'd like to offer a piece of information here - you know that the house edge on roulette, baccarat, craps, is only a few percent. And yet, because that edge is absolutely insurmountable, the casinos make literally billions each year. That's because the sum of that percentage edge multiplied by your bets becomes very large over time.
If it's true that casinos make a huge amount out of a tiny edge (as does McDonald's, post offices, departure taxes), then making +ev bets becomes absolutely crucial. If every bet you make has +ev, you MUST win.
So I would say that they're very, very important.
But on the other hand, you only need to be slightly more accurate than the other guy to win in the long run.
Richard.
To the extent one is able to take the worst of it on one hand to increase getting the best of it on future hands, negative EV plays can be quite profitable.
"And yet, because that edge is absolutely insurmountable, the casinos make literally billions each year" I believe that more than the majority of these billions come from slot machines. They usually have a much larger edge on a slot!
"If it's true that casinos make a huge amount out of a tiny edge (as does McDonald's, post offices, departure taxes), then making +ev bets becomes absolutely crucial. If every bet you make has +ev, you MUST win." There ain't no must at ANY poker game I've played in! And I believe the formula is someting like: Volume * edge = profit. This does not mean nor imply the accuracy required in calculating pot odds need be near 100%/hand as you imply with your statement. Also, if you believe you can get a +ev on every bet you make then good luck to you! IMO Vince.
You miss the point. Except for reasons of image (as I stated in my above post), you should always make +EV plays. It may appear that when you are drawing very thin, your play is a -EV play. In fact (assuming you know what you're doing), it is a +EV play based on the series of hands your opponent can hold, not on the specific hand he held, which produced the negative EV effect.
Post deleted at author's request.
Of course precision determination of exact odds is impossible. I would only say that to ensure +EV you error on the side of folding when you figure to have a tiny edge or tiny disadvantage, unless the play will work to generate greater action for you later on (as Ray Zee prefers. However, in my experience, you make more stealing pots via a tight image than by getting extra bets via a tricky, more aggressive image against the typical line-up.
I have begun playing a bit of No Limit Hold'em (fairly small buyin) and the transition from limit play has been anything but smooth. I find myself getting sucked along in alot of pots that actually I wish that I had gotten out of far earlier. I know that this is stupid inexperience. But, thought I would ask if anyone has any general advice on starting hands or playing the marginal ones.
You simply cannot play marginal hands in NL. Hands that you would play in Limit, or playing in the same manner as Limit, will get you broke in a hurry.
One of the best pieces of advice I've ever read was summed up in one sentence by Bob Ciaffone: you want to play hands that you will be willing to back with your whole stack. Trying to win money in dribs and drabs as you would in a Limit game is totally the wrong approach.
Except in short-handed games, playing "second-pair", non-nut flushes, weak kickers, "any Ace", any two suited cards ... all of this trash that you see in Limit play will destroy you in No-Limit. Perhaps that is another reason why Brunson referred to No-Limit as the "Cadillac" of poker games.
For solid starting hand requirements, see the No-Limit section in Brunson's "Super/System," and follow that up with Ciaffone's book "Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker" and TJ Cloutier's book, "Championship No-Limit & Pot-Limit Hold-Em". McEvoy's "Tournament Poker" also has some general tips on starting hands.
In limit the COST of a marginal call is usually one or two bets; while the REWARD is usually the size of the pot. In no-limit the COST of a marginal call is often your entire stack; while the REWARD is still usually the size of the pot. Mistakes cost much more in No-Limit. Therefore, ovoid them much more than in Limit.
I infer from the phrase "sucked along" that you are calling too much. I also infer that their bets are not big enough; for whatever that's worth.
In no limit, any hand worth a call is a strong candidate for considering a raise.
- Louie
No-limit is like real estate; position, position, position.
How often will the Trop have this tourny? Also let me know what position you finish in and how many players there were and the pay positions. Remember that this is a $100 tourny. Play agressively with some discretion. Don't be a maniac but try a Stu Unger style.
If you play in a raked game there is no such thing as playing too tight. If you play in a time game then you could very well be playing too tight. This applies when playing against poor to average opponents who do not observe your playing style and not against good to expert level oponents. But notice that in tournaments this can be very different. Now if you play too tight, unless the card god kisses you, you will be out of the tourny because of raising blinds and\or antes. Yet I see many people play the opposite of the way they should play. Yet again this is Good for us who play for keeps. In the past few months an enormous amount of discussion about computer programs dealing with poker has been raised. If you really want to play for real and win consistently the only way to do this is to play and play and play combined with understanding good books not reading them, understanding them. Then on top of this talk to people who can prove that they support themselves with nothing but poker. So many people are under the misconception that if they buy these programs and beat them for a few months that they can now go to a casino and wipe out the table. I used to think this also until I learned the hard way. Computers will never play the same way humans do because computers have no emotion. Do you realize that people play differently right after having sex? Yup it's true. When has a computer ever had sex?
Some good points..I would like to hear more about the variation in play between live games and tournament games. How does the strategy change. I have been playing in small tournaments. $20 buy-in and $20 rebuy. I never invest over $40. Now the casino is starting a $120 buy-in no rebuys. Averaging about 30 players making it worthwhile for me to really understand some of the strategy of tournament play. Suggestions appreciated.
"Computers will never play the same way humans do because computers have no emotion."
I completely disagree with this point. Because Turbo THII does not play as well as experts do does not prove that
1) simulating emotional effects is needed.
2) it is impossible to program emotional simulations as needed.
The biggest reason that it may take a some time for computers to play well is the lack of the incentive that was, for instance available for chess programing. However there is research such as the University of Alberta and others and I fully expect to see very strong poker computers in the future.
David
Dynamic real time program matrix's can be utilized to define opponents profiles.
Exactly. Put up a $100,000 prize, and I'll put some serious effort into designing a hold'em program that I can't beat.
"When has a computer ever had sex?" Are you kidding? After reading your posts my computer goes CRAZY! I agree with your well done post except for: "If you play in a raked game there is no such thing as playing too tight." Though this is technically correct because you are relating it to the rake it is not correct in applying this statement: "If you really want to play for real and win consistently the only way to do this is to play and play and play combined with understanding good books not reading them, understanding them." All the books I have read and believe understand (with some minor exceptions of understanding them that is) profess playing tight and aggressive but they mostly say (imply) that playing too tight can be a mistake. IMO Vince
Just look at it as a limit problem. As we get tighter we player fewer hands. We know that if you fold everything you will lose by the rake. Do you believe that you could pick one hand your whole life to make up for all the rake you would have ever played? Unless you play very little I believe the answer to this is no. How about 2 hands? Clearly loseing is too tight.
Now consider how you have to play to balance some EV with an acceptable amount of risk. I don't believe his number isn't the same as the just loose enough to show a small profit number.
Joe"Pre-dated-her"Nardo must have been drinking again when he stated: "Computers will never play the same way humans do because computers have no emotion. Doyou realize that people play differently right after having sex? Yup it's true. When has a computer ever had sex?"
I do agree that computers don't have emotions, but you seem to imply that that is a negative (at least as far as playing poker is concerned). This couldn't be farther from the truth. Most humans EV is negatively impacted by their emotions, How often has going on tilt benifited your game?
In all honesty I am shocked at the how naive the members of this forum are in their predictions that computers will NEVER achieve the level of expert. It reminds me of conversations in the chess area a few years ago.
Currently todays computer poker games and simulators are far from expert level. We do not judge the potential or current level of computer chess technology by the $40 game we can byu at radio shack. So then why do we use simulators created by hobbyists in their basement as proof that computers could never achieve expert level.
As stated by a previous poster their is or has been little incentive to create a computer poker player. I personaly believe that creaing a poker player of expert level would be a far easier task than the creation of deepblue the current most advanced chess program.
I would even go as far to state that had the effort been to create a computer poker player it would blow the doors off of any player in the world.
People seem to think that because poker is un-like chess and since there is unknown information or the element of randomness that computers can't and won't approach high skill level.
There are things that a computer player can do that a human could never dream of.
- Track and remember the hands of every opponent it has ever played as well as the betting pattern. Should a player vary his play the computer would probably be aware of it much sooner than we the humans.
- Adjust its own style of play better against a table or player quite easily.
- Calculate odd of draws and pot odds with exact precision.
- Play, or refer to internal tables, for every card combination available.
- Improve its own play based on its past experiences.
The moral of the story. Read MM's poker essay and take his advice, go out and buy your favorite simulater, recognise that it is a tool to help improve your game. But don't believe for a second that these simulators which are still in their fetal state to be state of the art technology created by the computer industries greatest minds and conclude that they will never progress further than your average tourist.
S. Doyle
>>In all honesty I am shocked at the how naive the members of this forum are in their predictions that computers will NEVER achieve the level of expert.<< Naive, am I? Huh! The day a computer can pray like a poker player and mean it is the day I'll quit playing! Uh! I mean praying... What the hell is this all about anyway? Vince
Poker is a game of incomplete information, and this gives fits to computers. There are several research groups in various universities trying to come up with computer programs that can play poker well, and so far none of them have succeeded.
I believe programming a computer to play top-level poker is a much more difficult task than is programming one to play top-level chess.
Dan
Agreed.
Being reasonably proficient in all three disciplines (programming, poker, and chess) and having writen some of the more critical algorithms for both games, poker was an easier task to manage, but a nightmare when it comes to tweaking random-number decision trees.
It's easy to write a program to play poker (I've done it myself). It's extremely hard to write a program to play poker WELL.
Dan
I have spent 20 years writting programs. There is quite possible writting a poker program - a quite effective one. Not quite a level of Deep Blue however - not yet anyway. If you can write a program to play expert poker - you would need to constantly input variables like new players coming in - and teach the program to evaluate the players - like who is pissed - who is happy. Bankroll stats, tells, etc. We don't have a perfect audio and optical input for computers - actually we should be talking about a robot - not a program. We don't have that kind of robot technology or artificial intelligence for normal commercial use. Maybe the military has some things but that you would not see at the Bellagio. I agree with you that a 'thing' like Data on Startek would be a perfect player - that's the difference between movies and reality. If we could build Data - we would have done it already and not for poker but for other uses.
Good PC programs like TTH2 can be used can be used successfully by students of the game. Here are some things programs can help with.
-Teaching a human to read the Flop better. (I still have problems seeing Double Belly Buster Straight Draws on the Flop, and I use the PC to help me see these combinations.)
-Helping calculate Pot Odds. The PC provides a student with a stress free environment to figure out if the Pot is offering good enough Odds to make a Marginal Draw.
I'm sure you can see other places where a program can be helpful.
CV
I have run into a problem lately in my regular game. There are 3 or 4 players who have befriended me of late and do not bet their hands against me when heads-up. Obviously, I feel compelled to reciprocate but don't really want to. Much of my poker success arises from recognizing good steal situations. Obviously, these players have a much easier time calling a bet on the turn (where there may be another player involved in the hand) if they know that it will be heads-up on the river and won't have to face another bet from me. This sure puts a cramp on my steals.
How do others deal with this situation? I am particularly interested in responses from those of you who play in relatively small poker communities.
I played in local charity poker games which tended to be the same people all the time. I bet my hands and I rarely chopped. A few grumbled but most understood thats how I played. Now if you've built up an expectation that you are a good ol' boy it might be kinda hard to back to the playing correctly.
skp,
I play in a game with the same people in it all the time, and this problem (well, I call it a problem) occurs every now and then. I've found, depending on how comfortable you are with the other players who are befriending you, you can sometimes wean them from the habit by betting small amounts that aren't necessarily meaningless, and then increasing your bets once they seem to get the hint. It works especially well when you have a great hand which isn't going to be beat. They'll eventually realize that you find checking it down boring and counterproductive. And, once one gets the idea, so do the rest.
Bill G.
I have the same problem. Not only does it cut into your steals, but if you are better at value betting the river than your opponent is, it cuts into your EV on each hand.
My suggestion is that you slowly start weaning your buddies off the habit. Take them aside and say, "You know, I'm really not trying to make money off of you, but it doesn't look good for us to check it down and then for me to bet the next guy on the river." Turn it into an ethical move - you don't want to make people uncomfortable at the table.
In my experience, not many people have a problem with you betting everyone all the time, as long as you are consistent. Just don't be inconsistent with them and offer to check it down when you have a marginal hand and then bet them when you have a monster. (I know I don't need to tell you this, but I see other players do it all the time.)
Dan
OK...OK.... I'll say it.
Checking it down with prior agreements or implied is a form of team play and therefore cheating!!!!!
I am more apt to raise my buddy to get it heads up knowing that we are going to check it down. This is teamplay. There will be dead money from the marginal hands that I bet or raised out. This causes a lot of arguments at higher stakes and just should not be done.
Just tell your buddies to bet their hands because it is not fair to the others.
Hope i'm never drawing dead,
Albert
If you take advantage of the fact that getting heads-up will get you a free run to the river, then you're right.
This is what I implied when I suggested that you tell your friends that it isn't ethical to check it down.
Dan
Albert, you are dead on. I am the outsider. I see the same faces at the main table every time I play. Once the game gets shorthanded, this kind of play really becomes obvious. I used to stay and fight. Often they squeeze me out of the hand, the unofficial? leader says" There good people, let'em live", then checks and all check behind him. Now I pick up my chips and leave. BTW, I am new to casino poker. What I am describing occurs at the HE table. I have not found this to be true at the Stud table. Comment?
Hey skp (I wrote an earlier response and it didn't post, so here I go again). I do not play in a small comunity and for that reason was not going to respond. But after rerading Albert's and Dan's reponses I thought I should join in. First let me say that I believe that you are in a difficult situation. Small comunity, same players all the time, Maybe the only game in town. I believe that you must find a diplomatic way to express your firm belief that this type of behavior is at best unethical and as Albert says, downright cheating. Now I certainly do not say or mean to imply that you cheat. On the contrary your posting of this situation on the forum indicates to me that this is a real DILEMMA for you. I don't have an answer for you on how to stop this behavior in your community. I do think, however, it is encumbent on all of us to look for ways to ensure behavior of this kind does not continue. Hope that helps! Your posting Buddy. Vince
Next time they check to you as a friendly gesture, say something like, "I've got a monster hand. I'll let you off easy, but I've got to bet this hand. You understand, eh?" Keep doing this. Eventually they'll realize you've been stealing pot after pot (from your description of them, this may take them some time). Now you can get back to playing poker.
"I've got a monster hand. I'll let you off easy, but I've got to bet this hand. You understand, eh?"
I like that one...
:)
Howsabout: " Even you would bet this hand..."
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Been there done that. It is a problem and sooner or later you will make someone mad if you contiune checking it down. Best policy is to be up front and let them know it is a problem. Maybe even copy some of these posts and show them that most players feel this is not fair to other players at the table and you feel uncomfortable with it. Let them know that you were reading the forum and this topic came up and feel you should share with them the feelings of other players.
You miss the point. Except for reasons of image (as I stated in my above post), you should always make +EV plays. It may appear that when you are drawing very thin, your play is a -EV play. In fact (assuming you know what you're doing), it is a +EV play based on the series of hands your opponent can hold, not on the specific hand he held, which produced the negative EV effect.
Sorry John! I posted in the wrong spot. Hehehe.
When I spot buddies, checking it down. I tighten-up so tight, they will be looking a AA, when in a hand with me. What is irritating, is that they will try to bust-out another player, while soft-playing their buddies. I've seen, and had enough of that mess.
See Post under "New Guy". This type of play occures after new guy folds.
Well, thanks for all the responses. I did act on them.
I just walked into the game last night and told these guys to start playing me tough and that they can expect the same from me. I just told them that showing down was no fun and I would rather play the game the way it should be played.
No one complained.
Gotta Love this guy! I couldn't have done it any better, if I do say so myself. While we're on the subject how's thhis for buddy play. First let me say that I don't make friends easily, no that's incorrect I don't make friends at all anymore! I am a friendly guy with very few friends and no new ones. Last summer I eased up on my no new friends policy and began to get friendly with another poker buddy. I decided to let it take it's natural course instead of just cutting it off at the poker table as I normally do. Well to make a long story short I end up in a 15-30 Holdem game with my soon to be new friend. I'm two positions to his right! He's in BB. Pass around to me, the button. I put the chips in to raise! He yells :Wait a minute! We chop! (Referring to himself and the small blind) I just looked at him and said: Raise! Well, both he and the SB folded and I won the blinds. He then started calling me every name in the book! Asked me how I could do that to Him since we were friends. I knew he was a big kidder and I just thought he was kidding. Kidding, why he hasn't talked to me since! Although he did say that everthing would be o.k. if I gave him his fifteen dollar blind back! All I can say is thank God for small favors. I may have actually developed a friendship with this guy.
Your Posting Buddy Bad Concept (vince to you skp)
Good decision. There are no poker buddies whilst your arse is seated.
I was thinking about entering a $55 HE tourney with the following structure: 500 units of tourney chips, 20 hands at 10-20, 20 hands at 50-100, 10 hands at 100-200, with unlimited rebuys up to the 40th hand if your chips fall below 500 units, and a final add-on for everyone at hand 40 (500 units). At the end of 50 hands, chip leaders at all tables go to the championship table, where one add-on is allowed ($20 for 500). Structure is 20 hands at 100-200, 20 at 200-400, and 10 at 500-1000. How loose should I play, being there's a limited # of hands, and what other strategies should I consider. Thanks.
Bill G.
This structure has a "time limit" to advance to the final table. Unless you have MOST of the money going into the last hand, everybody left should max out the last pot and play show-down since chips have no value unless you have the most. Simply having more chips than anybody else won't help you going into that last hand.
So one strategy is to insure you have "enough" money to win the "tournament" if you win that last hand, and so you would have a 1/n chance of advancing (n=# of survivors) rather than 1/10. Looks like you need to win just ONE other hand; or TWO if there are lots of rebuys. "Enough" looks like half your fair-share of face-value chips: 12,000$t and 7 survivors: if you have 860 you have 1/7 chance of winning, unles someone has about 6000.
A similar strategy can apply to the last table as well.
It doesn't look like HPFAP will help you much in this one. Some nuances, I suppose, exist for getting/preventing others to gamble all-in on a hand or two BEFORE the last one. Perhaps Caro has some thoughts on that ...
This is as close to a close-your-eyes WaaHooo crap shoot as you'll find in Poker. I'd patron a different room, just out of principle.
- Louie
Yes, yes... if you have a ALMOST most of the chips you may want to PASS that last hand if you have nothing, and hope a couple of short stacks win their side pots, leaving you winner by default. Now THAT's gambling!!
I am looking for advice on how to play a made flush when you hold two very small flush cards.
Here is an interesting hand I had today. This is a $3-6 Hold'em game which is very loose-passive in general, at Gila River south of Phoenix.
I had 5c 3c in the BB. Several callers, no raises, and I check. Flop = Qc Jc 5h. I bet my bottom-pair-with-flush-draw, two callers. Turn = Tc. I bet $6 on my made flush, next calls, and the button raises. The pot after the raise is about $45. Right here is where I would like readers to consider what to do now, and general rules for now and for the river.
People info: The raiser I don't know, and I have no book on him yet from today's play. The caller to my left is an old man, very tight and very conservative. He is tight before the flop (but not quite as tight as HEPFAP recommends); he folds many hands on the flop; and whenever he goes all the way to the end and shows, he always has a hand of real value.
In case you want to consider your answer before seeing what happened, I will kill a few lines here ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
OK, what happened was not good. I called the raise and so did the old man. The river card was the 4s ; I checked and called a single bet on the river. The raiser had 8c 7c, and the old man had 6c 4c. I came in third.
My personal analysis is as follows. In general, I need to call a raise like this, because the raiser could have any number of hands, including QT for a high two pair, TT for trip tens, a straight, the Ace of Clubs plus a King or a rag, or even a pure bluff based upon the board's scare cards. Furthermore, I don't want a reputation as a wimp who can be blown out by a raise in this position, because this is a game with lots of regulars, and I will have to play with them for a long time. So I don't consider my Turn call a big mistake.
On the river, I think I just needlessly contributed $6. In retrospect, I should have been able to put the old man on a flush for sure, because he called the raise on the Turn. And any flush except the 4-2 would beat mine.
Go ahead, rip me up. I am very interested in general strategic concepts for this one, because in this loose passive game, I play small suited connectors a lot, and I can expect a repeat of this situation many times.
Dick in Phoenix
Dick,
I only read the first part of yr post because I didn't want to be influenced by what you decided.
I think this is a grey area and you could go either way. I don't know what I would decide in the heat of battle, but (and I'm surprising myself because I tend to be aggressive) I'd muck the hand. If there's a flush out there then you're virtually drawing dead. The person who acted after you tends to have the goods, and now the button is raising you. The pot is not so large that the $6 now and the $6 on the river isn't a substantial amount. I would muck the hand because there are 2 players and they're both scary. If there were only one, I'd at least call. But I'll be interested to see what others think. Ray J
Dick,
I just went back and read the rest of yr post. Just a suggestion. In the future I think it's better not to say how the hand turned out until after people have posted their thoughts. Players have to think a lot harder when they don't have anecdotal evidence to influence them.
This is 3-6.
The older guy is just calling, not raising, so I can't put him on a flush. He could easily have the made straight, 2 pair on the turn, or who knows?
This is 3-6.
The raiser doesn't have to have a flush to raise here. He is raising you, the guy who bet the flop from the big blind. He puts you on top pair, maybe 2-pair. He is probably NOT putting you on a flush draw, betting into a big field of players. Thus, he could easily be raising with a set, a straight, 2-pair, or even top pair with the A or K of clubs.
Now, I don't mean to disparage 3-6. It's just that I'm always amazed at how often the players, even those I've clocked pretty well, turn over a completely unexpected hand. It certainly doesn't happen everytime, but it happens often enough that you can't automatically fold a made hand just because so-and-so bets. Maybe these guys are predictable enough for you to fold with confidence. I met very few players that predictable in the lower limits (and only a few more at the higher limits).
Again, I don't think that you can fold this hand unless the board pairs and the older guy starts betting/raising, or if another club shows up, and the action continues to be heavy.
So, if you can't fold, that leaves calling and raising. If you really put the older guy on a possible medium flush when he just called you on the turn, then you should consider raising. I think, a large portion of the time, that the button raiser will be raising here with less than a made flush. As mentioned above, I don't think that he necessarily puts you on a flush, so he could be raising with lesser hands. If you reraise here, you knock out the older guy, the guy who is MORE LIKELY to have the better flush than you. If you knock him out frequently in a spot like this, and if the button raiser often doesn't have the flush here, then reraising is a big money-maker. If the older guy won't fold a made hand, or if you think that the button raiser is very unlikely to have less than a made flush, then of course a mere call is in order (because you never know, and the pot is big).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
FossilMan -
I want to clarify one thing. After the older conservative guy called me on the turn, I would not put him on a flush just because of that. At that point, there has been no raise yet in the entire hand - pre-flop, flop, and so far on the turn. He could have a wide variety of hands. What I said is that after he called the RAISE, I could probably put him on a flush for sure. But that is after the decision point of what I should do about the raise.
Having said that, I think I like your analysis. Granted, it would not have worked out worth a damn on this particular hand, but I am not a "results merchant." My flush is a hand that usually should be played very fast with more cards to come. If I get a general strategic concept out of this thread, it might be to "raise or fold."
Thanks for a good post. Dick in Phoenix
Dick, the other reason for making it three bets is to put pressure on unsuited hands containing either the ace or king of clubs. They aren't going to fold for two bets, but if they also aren't getting more than 4:1 pot odds to cold call the turn, then you profit in the long run by giving them an opportunity to chase in a negative EV situation. In your example however, anyone with just the ace of clubs would be playing correctly.
Regardless of the outcome posted, I would have put the raiser on a straight (with K9 or AK), and I would suspect that a re-raise would push the old man out with whatever he was holding. Only calling your bet initially, I would only put him on a pair (maybe jacks).
This is the sort of situation where your play should vary at random. Approximately 3/4 of the time, just call the hand down. The other 1/4 of the time, reraise, and muck your hand if anybody raises again. If they don't raise again, assuming a fourth club does not come, again play at random on the river, either check/call, or bet, and muck your hand if you are raised.
William
Thank you guys for thoughtful posts. Ray J, in the future I will take your suggestion of not telling the outcome in the first post.
I rarely analyze a hand after play and conclude that the proper action is one that would have cost me more. But after seeing the posts, I agree that aggressive re-raising is the way to play this hand, especially since in this particular hand, I disguised my flush draw by betting out on the flop instead of check-calling.
I am concluding that a hand just like this, a made flush holding 2 small, has to played very fast, with the occasional muck if I get re-raised or capped.
Dick in Phoenix
You should be playing the way you did on the flop, and not even thinking about check/calling here. You don't need to disguise your hand on the flop from the blind positions (the blinds can have anything with no pre-flop raise) since there isn't enough information available to the other players about what you're holding.
Generally, I would say reraise. But not in your case. Generally reraise or fold are your two best options. Why do I prefer fold? 1- You have the absolute lowest possible flush. 2- You have a tight player calling a raise cold, with a 3 flush showing. And from your post, you really indicated him to be weak-tight. 3- From the way you played preflop, you don't scare anyone with a raise. Why? The suited Queen and Ten are out. With any of the scary holdings you could have:AKs,AJs,KJs you probably would have raised an unraised pot. You could have come in with Axs or Kxs, so a raise might work. Between fold or raise, for me it's a tight decision.
Played my first session of casino poker, and would like to offer my observations, and solicit comments/critics. By way of background I have been counting cards in blackjack for the last several years with good success, but due to circumstances I decided to take up poker. Bought L. Jones book on low limit hold'em, and he suggested if you have never played poker before to buy 'Fundamentals of Poker' by Malmoth and Loomis and get some experience. So I did. I read and reread the section on hold'em, and practiced dealing myself some hands. Then I went and watched the game for a few hours before finally buying in. Found a 4-8 game and bought in for $100. Went up and down, and after 1 and 1/2 hours was even. At one point I was up over $100. Went to another card room the next day and bought in for $100. Well, I was the only stranger at the table. The game was 4-8 hold'em, and about 7 or 8 of the players in the game knew each other and seemed to be good friends. Players outside the loop didn't seem to last long. Every time a new player would buy in they wouldn't last long before their rack was gone. I struggled for over 2 hours before finally losing my $100. I think the only reason I lasted that long was because I folded soo much. I also thing I'm pretty week on 4th and 5th street. Tend to stay in too much. All in all, not a bad lesson in poker. I like the game, and hope to get more experience soon, and begin studying L. Jones' book. Comments and advice welcome. I actually think I may enjoy this as much or more than card counting. Lots more opportunities to play, and a little nicer relationship with the casino. Thanks in advance. Yancy
Y,
congrats!!!
You've done better than most of us on our first few hours of casino play...
Play... Think ... Read poker...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Advice: Don't ever play Hold'em again! "I struggled for over 2 hours before finally losing my $100." You ain't seen nothing yet! If you decide against this advice then COMMIT yourself to learning the game. Start with "Sklansky's Hold'em Poker". When you finish reading that come back and ask for more advice! Vince
Like my Momma used to say: "If you look around and don't see any suckers ...". Well the correlary is "If they all think you are the sucker, than you probably are". I think you know you should not have played in that game. There are plenty of low limit holdem games with novices and tourists in them; just go find them.
If you are "staying in too much on 4th and 5th" then you are probably staying in too much on the flop. That small strucure encourages FOLDING on the flop unless you probably have the best hand. An excellent rule when the pot is small is "don't call if you would not have bet". Exceptions exists but are obvious.
Except in the very loose games, I'd say you should be betting or raising as often as you are calling (in these 4/8 games).
The deck is the only meaningful similarity between playing blackjack and playing poker. Make a paradigm shift.
- Louie
Lets pick on the new guy is a very common occurance in small town card rooms in the pacific northwest. Buy a simulation and learn the P-odds of position until you get a read on the room and the players.
Such small amounts of time. Play for a while and you will see swings 5 times bigger that you won't even blink an eye at. Just because you lost $100 doesn't mean you didn't play exactly right. In fact, you will find some sessions in which you lose around $300 or more and didn't play badly. It's just the nature of the game.
My real piece of advice is to avoid the game with all the friends. Play on the weekends when there are lots of tourists and non-regulars. The friends, probably not on purpose, are probably attacking the new guy indirectly by being nice to each other and not you.
My goal when I retired in my RV was to play in every card room I could find. In doing so I have played in many small card rooms where I am the only outsider and "lets get the new guy's money, so we can split it up later" seems to be the practice.
These games can be interesting and profitable if you relize that the value of the premium S&M groupings is inversely proportional to the number of opponents (actual/speculated). (ie: With many players fishing with middle connected cards & seeing the river you have no visibility) Therefore; Modified No-Fold'em rules and you must play a strategy that is effective against No-Fold'em. Several recent books give clues to beating No-Fold'em.
Incidently Monte Carlo practice lets you form the diciplin and rules of engagement to beat these "friendship games".
"S&M" Hey Major, this is the wrong forum for this kind of stuff!
Vince (Bad Concept) Lepore, Msgt. USAF Ret.
Poker is not for netwits.
Touche!
I'm another new guy. Studied the game hard, bought Wilson TTH2, and truely prepared for the casino scene. I play at the same level as you. I played on weekends at 2nd and must move table. Averaging 5 hours per sessions, I won and won. Started playing during the week vs. the regulars. I have done OK when table is full. Enough truely live ones. When the table becomes shorthanded, I become the dog. When this happens, I either switch to 1-5 Stud or go home and study. There is no shame in living to fight another day. I'm not as good as the tough competition*yet*. Keep studying Jone's book. Get some others. I have eight poker books, most from 2&2, because they are the best. As you gain experience, the concepts in the books will begin to make sense. But, learning is a process. You will find you understand the concepts, but cannot properly apply them. It will come in time. Good luck.
Thank you for the helpful responses I received to my query a few days ago about "betting for value on the end".
Here is something else that I'm unsure about.
7CSFAP says (p. 59): "On fifth street, it is important to eliminate players when you believe you have the best hand. In other words, almost never give a free card."
In some situations this principle is easy to apply, but in others I am unsure how to proceed. For examples, suppose it is heads up and I have a small two pair (say, nines up) while I think my opponent has one higher pair (say, queens). Should I bet, since I currently have the best hand (even though there's no way my opponent would fold his pair), or check, since my opponent could easily beat me on the sixth or seventh card.
Another example is where there are five players in and I have kings up, which I'm pretty sure is best -- the others look like they're on draws (but haven't made their hands), and/or have smaller pairs. I am first to act. Presumably if some of the other players are aggressive I should check (and perhaps check-raise if that will knock some players out). But if the other players are passive, and generally don't bet when they are on the draw, should I bet, even though my bet is unlikely to knock out more than one or two players (and possibly none)?
"For examples, suppose it is heads up and I have a small two pair (say,nines up)": Bet!
"Another example is where there are five players in and I have kings up, which I'm pretty sure is best": Bet! (and pray)
"(and perhaps check-raise if that will knock some players out)": The aggressive guy needs to be close to you on your right. If I thought this would work when I am against 5 opponents I sure would try it!
Nick, I don't know what level your playing at but 7SFAP was written for 15-30 stud. I personnally believe that the 15-30 game has changed (more multi-way pots) in recent years and that the 7SFAP concepts are now more effective at the 20-40 level.
IMO Vince
"In some situations this principle is easy to apply, but in others I am unsure how to proceed. For examples, suppose it is heads up and I have a small two pair (say, nines up) while I think my opponent has one higher pair (say, queens). Should I bet, since I currently have the best hand (even though there's no way my opponent would fold his pair), or check, since my opponent could easily beat me on the sixth or seventh card."
You should bet unless you have reason to believe that you are already beat.
"Another example is where there are five players in and I have kings up, which I'm pretty sure is best -- the others look like they're on draws (but haven't made their hands), and/or have smaller pairs. I am first to act. Presumably if some of the other players are aggressive I should check (and perhaps check-raise if that will knock some players out). But if the other players are passive, and generally don't bet when they are on the draw, should I bet, even though my bet is unlikely to knock out more than one or two players (and possibly none)?
If you are high on board and first to act and have been leading all the way, you should probably bet. You don't want to let a free card drop off. If you just caught the king to make you high and the person leading the betting is in a late position and you are very sure that he will bet again, then you may want to check.
2 small pair is a comfortable favorite vrs one big pair on 5th. Yes he CAN beat you; but he CAN beat you whether you bet or not. Since your bet is +EV and it does NOT reduce your chances of winning; then betting is a good play.
With your KsUp vrs 4 opponents, knocking them out is very +EV. If a bet will knock out ONE then a check-raise will have to do better (i.e. knock out two) before you risk it. But if a bet will not knock out anybody then routinely check-raise with any reasonable chance someone on your right will bet, since you are not much of a favorite, if at all, against all those draws combined.
Give a "Free" card? Well, if they are going to call then you only gave them a "Cheap" card. Giving "Cheap" cards is NOT a disaster. Its only a potential disaster if they were NOT going to call.
- Louie
Hi all !
This is an invitation open to all interested parties.
I am currently working on my degree course project entitled "Artificial Intelligent of Poker Game". The objective of this project is to exhibit the machine intelligence through a 2-person Poker game.
I am looking forward for comments and feedbacks on the program from others, thus, you are invited to download the program at my website and test run it.
Download and setup instructions are attached on the webpage.
This program is written in 2 level of play: "moderate" & "Advance". The Advance level is equipped with opponent modeling feature, in which the program attempts to analyze the opponent's playing pattern and produce an analysis chart (available under the game option).
After testing, kindly fill in a simple questionnaire and forward the file to me. The questionnaire form is attached in the download package.
Due to the time limit, I did not prepare a complete help file on poker-playing, however, there are some simple forms that provide explainations on the poker rules and terms.
The program can be downloaded at http://members.xoom.com/ph11/AIpoker.html
Your cooperations is most appreciated !
regards,
Pui Hua Asia Pacific Institute of Information Technology
p.s. : Please be informed that some Poker rules are simplified to reduce development complexity.
5 stud! Who the hell plays 5 stud anymore! vince
It is colege progekt like i had prodgekt to scedgele 8pairs of trains i never see line wit 8 pair
I recently responded to a 7 stud question on the forum. In my response I claimed that the 15-30 stud game had changed in recent years, mainly due to more multiway pots. When I first began playing stud about 6 years ago, 7SFAP was my bible. My problem, that I soon realized, was that I was trying to apply the concepts outlined in 7SFAP at the 1-5 level. When I moved up to 15-30 I found, as the authors of 7SFAP professed, that the concepts, when applied correctly, were very effective (indeed). About 15-18 months ago I decided to learn Hold'em. Since that time I have played only a few sessions of 15 and 20 stud. What I have found at the 15 level is more callers per raised hand than I my previous experience indicated. I have also found that the 20 level plays somewhat similiar to the 15 level did when I first started. Very few multiway pots. Lot's of heads-up action.
I now realize that the statement I made in the reponse really should have been in the form of questions to the stud players on the forum. (1) Do you feel as I do that the 15-30 game has changed and now has more multi-way pots (raised) than was the case a few years ago? (2) Are the 7SFAP concepts more effective at the 20 level than the 15? (3) What strategy adjustments if any are necessary at the 15 level? (I have been experimenting with some minor stategy adjustments, i.e increased check raising to try and thin the field, calling more on 3rd street with big pairs in lieu of raising, calling more on third street with small pairs.)
I need to add that I believe these questions get to the very heart of structure. In my (limited) way of thinking I have tied strategy to structure. I believe that one's strategy must be directly linked to the ante and bet structure. The structure of 15-30 stud game has not changed! There in lies my dilema! If the stucture hasn't changed why should it be necessary to change (modify) strategy?
Opinions appreciated Vince
Assumption: SPFAP describes a "perfect" strategy...
If you have a "perfect" strategy vis-a-vis a particular structure than it is remains perfect regardless of opposition.
But the "perfect" strategy is only the "best" strategy vrs other's playing "perfect" strategy. As the opponents stray from "perfect" you can ALWAYS do better by straying, in precise manners, from perfect yourself. E.G. while semi-bluffing at a certain frequency may be "perfect", it is silly vrs opponents who always call and turn over their hands at the river. I.E. you can take advantage of their mistakes.
So I suggest that it is not NECESSARY for you to change your perfect strategy vis-a-vis the difference in the opponent's play; its just BETTER if you find correct ways to change it.
And judging from your post I'd say you have found many of those ways.
- Louie
ive never played 15-30. only 5-10,10-20, and 20-40 stud, but if there are more multiway pots id say it has changed for the better. id still raise with the big pairs, even it it dosnt work as well as it use to its still the only way of even starting to thin out the field. you might think about the check raise on fourth as outlined in supersystem and advanced players. in unraised pots i cant think of any changes id make, i call a lot from around back if it hasnt been raised if i have something that might make something big. i think one of the trickiest things in stud is letting go of the big pairs, or even big two pairs when necessary in a multiway pot. as they say, if you know how to play two pair perfectly i dont need your action. sklansky and mason have all the advice you will need on different types of games (loose, tight) in getting the best of it, and in the theory of poker.
When draw was played in cardrooms:
How many players could play at once?
What happens if there aren't enough cards for everyone in to draw three?
What happens if the opener doesn't have Jacks or better?
Does the opener still need Jacks or better after the draw (Example: if you open with a pair of queens and a flush draw, can you draw to the flush, miss, and win the pot on a bluff?)
How many players could play at once? The games were played eight handed.
What happens if there aren't enough cards for everyone in to draw three? The muck was shuffled into the remaining stub.
What happens if the opener doesn't have Jacks or better? He cannot win the pot.
Does the opener still need Jacks or better after the draw (Example: if you open with a pair of queens and a flush draw, can you draw to the flush, miss, and win the pot on a bluff?) Yes, but you had to "split your openers" by turning your discard face up.
NL holdem tourney. J9o in the big blind. Near start of tourney, everyone is roughly equal stack size (about T6000). No raise, 6 limpers (loose-passive game). Flop is 78T, two suited. You check, knowing that this table never lets the flop go unraised. Next person bets T2000. Next person raises all-in. Fold. Fold. Next person calls. Do you call this bet? How can you not call this bet? But what if, after thinking through how each person plays, you believe that of the 3 hands, one is drawing for the flush, one has either 2 pair or a set (which turns out to be 2 pair), and the other one could have anything (which turns out to be J9o also). Now you don't know for sure what they have, and could be wrong. What do you think, call or fold?
A Poker Guy!
You've got the "NUTS"! Since you can't be beat at this point, only tied, you want to get it all in there and hope it holds up. This is better than having AA pre-flop, and by a wide margin! You have to win some hands to get to the money in tournaments. With more than 70% of the total cards defined, you have the best hand possible at the time. If you don't get beat, you are in great shape stackwise, and if you do, you lose having played flawlessly.
More money is lost in tournaments by people who were afraid to lose than any other way. People marvel when a known "maniac" like Hon Le, Mike Laing, Danny Lewis or Avner Levy win a tournament, but they always give themselves a chance by not being afraid to throw their chips into the pot. Some of the most conservative players never get enough chips early to survive the inevitable impact of increased blinds at later levels when accompanied by a hand or two that didn't hold up. These same "maniacs", with plenty of chips accumulated through successful plays early on, can shift gears and become very solid players hiding behind their comfortable stacks and picking off desperate shortstacks in the middle and later rounds.
Who was it that said: "When you've got the best of it, make the most of it."?
Poker Guy,
Certainly you want to call almost every time. To bring up something really obscure, if you flopped the nut straight with J9o I believe it would be correct to fold if your opponent also had a nut straight with a J9s that was also drawing to a flush. If the pot was multi-way and there was another J,9 in there with you I believe it could be correct to fold if you thought your other opponents were drawing super strong. Just depends what the pot is laying you and what the chances you have of winning. I should do the math but it is late so if I'm wrong I'm sure I'll be (thankfully) corrected. I just wanted to bring up the possiblity that you could be in a situation where you will do no better than to split the pot.
Tom Haley
If you know one has a set, one has a flush draw, the other has your straight ...
there are 8 cards in hands + 3 on the board = 11 seen cards, and 52-11=41 unseen cards in the deck. You lose if a flush or pair comes on EITHER turn or river.
There are 7 pair cards and 8 other flush cards for the turn, = 15 bad cards and 41-15 = 26 good cards. If you survive the turn there are 10 pair cards and 7 other flush cards = 17 bad cards and 40-17 = 23 good cards. You win if you catch two good cards, or (26/41)(23/40) = 36.5% of the time; and lose 100% - 36.5%=63.5% of the time; so your staight is a 1.74-to-1 dog vrs a flush draw and a set.
When you win you get back half of what every body puts in; = T6*4*(1/2) = T12; but T6 was yours so you REWARD is only T6. When you lose you lose T6; or you risk 1-to-win-1.
So you get a 1-to-1 pay off for your 1.74-to-1 dog hand; an obvious fold.
If the set really has 2-pair I think its still a fold; and surely a fold in a tournament. If the other straight has something other than your straight than you should happily go all in.
- Louie
Notice the fact that you have the "nuts" is not very relavant here; and rarely relavant in Omahaha.
Notice the drop from 3-1 pay off to 1-1 pay off if someone else has your straight; a drop of MORE than 1/2.
"Notice the fact that you have the "nuts" is not very relevant here."
First, big difference between putting players on a hand and knowing what they have. Second, since everyone else has about the same number of chips as you, you have to be getting an overlay to call.
In Hold'em, having the "nuts" on the flop is always relevant. It is better to have the "nuts" on the flop than to have the "nuts" pre-flop. If you have AA pre-flop, you would have no hesitancy about going all in against eight other players, so why be cautious with the "nuts" on the flop? Your chances of getting sucked out on when you lead on the flop are less than when you lead pre-flop since there are only two unseen cards, not five. Anyone else who puts money in the pot when you have the "nuts" on the flop would be an underdog to you unless they had the "nuts" too. Money in the pot might offer them correct odds to call, but they are underdogs individually to beat you.
When you start assessing your chances by assuming your opponents are holding the best possible combination of opposing hands out against you, it is tantamount to dooming yourself to failure. Poker is about maximizing your edges, not ensuring against catastrophic losses. Defensive players don't win tournaments their fair percentage of times. Anyone who wouldn't call given the situation outlined by APOKERGUY has no +EV playing tournaments. Fear is no virtue in the situation presented.
I'm with you Big John. In this case, I would put the first better on top pair, a set, or two pair. The all-in better probably has a big hand such as top pair plus flush or straight draw. The CALLER either has the current same nuts with a possible redraw, a set, or is making a bad call with top pair, two pair, a flush draw, or a combination thereof. Given this likely group of opponents and the possiblity that two of them may be drawing to the same flush, I like my hand versus the field. Conservative play in this type of situations guarantees no better than a middle of the pack finish. I again quote Neil Young for a winning tournament philosphy- "It is better to burn out than to fade away."
I agree: Yes, suspecting an opponent's hand is not the same as knowing what it is; Yes, I would gladly go all-in in that apparent situation; and Yes, having the straight on the flop is better than AA before the flop. I mostly agree about maximizing your edges, except that preventing catastrophy has merit in that it allows you the OPPORTUNITY to maximize future edges; whereas a catastrophy denys you that opportunity.
But ... the described situation was a flush-draw, two-pair, and the same straight. "Fear" was not a factor in my analysis, and equating "folding" with "fearful" or "gutless" is one big reason suckers call, and lose, so much.
And if the opponent had a set a fold is OBVIOUSLY correct: I would MUCH rather have the flush draw (the worst ranked hand out) than the duplicated "nut" straight (the best ranked hand out). The fact that it is the current "nuts" is NOT a reason to call; and therefore not very relevant.
The main point of my post was to show the disaster when you can only split the pot. Secondarily an example of calculating your chances given the assumptions of the opponent's hand.
- Louie
I happily called in that situation, the board paired, and I lost. At the time, I just wrote it off as "thems the breaks". But somewhere in the back of my mind there was a nagging question because this has happened before. Somehow I end up in this situation, and people like Doyle Brunson, Johnny Chan, etc. don't seem to. The more I thought about it, the obvious call seemed more and more questionable. So I am looking for insight on how to think about such situations. Here's what I have come up with, and I would love feedback.
Sure I had the nuts, thats always a good thing. I can read players better than most, I believe. I was dead certain I was up against a flush draw and either 2 pair or a set. The last guy I had no read on (the one with the same hand). Now that means that there are a minimum of 13 outs to beat me, and quite possibly 15 outs (or even more). If they have 15 outs, I will lose 54.1% of the time (over half the time). In limit it is an easy call because I am getting odds. In no-limit I am still getting odds but it is a high variance situation. But in a no-limit tourney, if I lose, IGHN. My hand cannot improve no matter what cards come on the turn and river. If I was against smaller stacks, where I could recover if I lost, its an easy call. If I had a hand that was ahead and could still improve (like top set) I would like that call too. But early in a tournament, with a hand that can't improve, and will lose over 50% of the time, I'm wondering if a really good player might let it go and wait for a better opportunity, or an opportunity that wont send them home if their opponents catch up. Let me know if there is a seed of a good idea here, or if you think I will just get myself in more trouble trying to second guess the play.
A Poker Guy!
I really am not an expert on tournament play, but I believe at this point, the chips all have about equal value, making your call a fantastic deal. I believe I am correct in saying that at this point in the tourney, your play should be close enough to ring game play to make your correct-according-to-pot-odds call the correct play (by a wide margin in this case).
A really good player would call. A really poor player would "let it go and wait for a better opportunity".
If you and I were at the flop and I had the straight and you had top set, whose hand would be favored assuming no more betting was possible? If we were on the flop and you had the nut flush draw and I had the straight, whose hand would be favored?
I think people tend to place too much emphasis on getting knocked out of tournaments and too little on doing the things that make profitable sense from a risk/reward standpoint. In a tournament with 200 entrants, where only 18 places receive any payout, a case can be made that coming in 195th is just as desireable as coming in 27th. If you must outlast 90% or more of the other entrants to get to the money, you have to win some chips somewhere along the way. You can wait and hope to get money into the pot when your opponents have virtually no "outs", but this will lead to your chips being anted and blinded away and you will perish from chip starvation. Ideally, you can use the skills that you have acquired that allow you to assess your hand's potential and try to put your chips in play when you believe, based on your total grasp of all known variables, that you have some slight or great expectation of positive overall return. You cannot eliminate the element of chance from your play. There may be situations where the cumulative "outs" of your opponents collectively reduce your chance of winning a particular pot to zero, and you will be putting in money to draw dead, but, you cannot compete effectively in any poker format if you are automatically assigning these best possible holdings to your opponents and making play/fold decisions based on these assignments.
People who take risks and acquire chips when those risks result in won pots, tend to survive in tournaments. They generally knock out the conservative players who finally have to make a stand when their chip position is just too precarious to delay further. When those conservative players prevail in those desperate, last stand confrontations, the chips they win, because they waited so long, aren't usually enough to last them before they have to make another stand. Eventually, they lose an all in confrontation.
i didnt read all the responses, so forgive me if what i want to point out has already been covered. the gist of the storly, for those who havnt read the post below is about in daves original hold em book. dave says that any hand that is good enough to call a raise cold is good enough to raise with. the poster rightly points out that some hands are good enough to call a raise cold but not good enough to raise with. ie 76s with seven players already in a raised pot. well this is a good enough hand with that many players to call a raise cold. actually id cold call with only 4 players plus the blinds (who of course havnt been heard from yet). but is it good enough to raise with. well its probably not best to three bet it, but with 7 players already in it would be good enough to raise with if it hasnt been raised. so daves original statment holds true in my opion. any hand good enough to call a raise cold is good enough to raise with (but not good enough to three bet it). for those of you who dont understand why 76s is good enough to raise with (given a lot of callers) is for a extra ten bucks (in a ten twenty) you create a giant pot when every one calls again, now if you hit the pot justs get bigger and bigger.
Isn't 7,6s good enough to raise with, in Late Position, with as little as 4 Limpers, especially if we can Buy the Button? If we don't Raise in these situations we might be costing ourselves some money.
CV
i generaly hit or let go. im not intersested in buying the button, im not afraid of the button im priobably on it all ready. no i dont three bet it and i would be surprised if my lack of creativity costs me anything, however you have point, if my fancy play dosnt work just right, it might cost me some money but it sure as hell helped my tight ass image if it goes to a show down.
talk about a fancy play not working just right, how bout i three bet it then just get a small piece of the flop?
I must have mis-read your first post. I agree that a hand that is good enough to call a raise is good enough to raise with, for the reasons you stated.
CV
Years ago, I played against brothers in a home game. They often raised and reraised when another player was in a hand with them. My approach to this was to feign weakness when I had a monster hand. I would check & call (slowplay). They would often cap the pot or I would make the last raise on the river, just to see their reaction. Especially of the one that was betting on garbage to build the pot for his brother, or so he mistakenly thought. It took only a few hands for them to cease their efforts to whip-saw me. Incidentally, free cards abounded for my marginal draws & it became much easier to bluff. They became so leery of my play that rarely did both stay in a hand with me.
Yes! I actually enjoy running into obvious teams that sandwich fish like you describe, because they end up building big pots for hands where I'm the likely winner. There are, however, much more clever forms of teamwork as well.
Dick Taylor
my experience up to 20, 40 (and a lot of 10 20) is who cares about team play and i dont think i have seen any bonified example in 5 years play. if they are that smart at 3,6 why dont they play 2040?
Years ago I spread a 7 handed low-ball draw game. 3-6 Four of the players were a team. If you have novice players they can sometimes be trapped. It didnt take long to pick up thier chips and cash them out. With all the casinos and cardrooms of today,most players are poker wise. The 4 people in my game forgot what they were supposed to do, ended up confused and raising each other. Kind of funny.
Generally at 20/40 and up the players are pretty savvy, so most 2-player teams will tend to work the lower limits. I was, however, in a 10k buy-in PL HE game a couple of years ago that had a couple of these guys who hit-and-run a BIG pot before anyone spotted them. I doubt very much that you were able to play 10/20 for 5 years without having been teamed at least a few times.
Dick Taylor
You have not seen examples of team play? I suggest you do not have many hours of play, in Nevada or Atl. City. And, yes there is "explicit collusion" in the 20/40 limits. It has been my experience that the perpetrators are a minority of "locals", who look for tourist types. The colluders often get away with what they do, because their actions often fall into the gray area, of "angle shooting". Often, there actions are of the hit and miss variety. If the situation arises, they are ready, if not, they just play a normal game. Usually, the perpetrators are not excellent players.
See my post under "NEW GUY" for team play by five to nine member informal/formal? teams.
Make no mistake about it team play is cheating! Cheaters should be treated in the same manner as theives! I do not advocate violence but the way to beat team play is to literally throw thier asses out of the game and don't let them play again! Of course if you really have found a way to get the best of a team then by all means do it first and then throw their asses out! But in the unlikely event (read Malmuth on collusion) that you find yourself in a game with sophisticated players acting as a team you will be in big trouble! If a player knows as little as where one significant card is he will have an insurmountable advantage over you in the long run. A team will have ways of relaying this type of information to one another.
"They often raised and reraised when another player was in a hand with them."
This simple example of team play is not something to worry about. It is childish and easily spotted . What is difficult to detect is when one player tells another what cards he has. An example is when a player on a team has an A or K in holdem and has a prearranged signal to let his team member know. With this type of information a good Holdem player becomes unbeatable. I have been approached in the past by other players asking me to play in a manner similiar to this. They said; "you keep what you win, I'll keep what I win" then we are not really cheating. Bull shit! I always responded negatively and kept a watchful eye on them after that. I have made a resolution that if it happens again that I will make the house (I only play in casinos) aware of this player and ask that his/her play be monitored. If we end up in the same game I will announce to all the players in the game the proposition that this player offered me!
I hate cheaters!
Vince
Here here!
>>I will make the house (I only play in casinos) aware of this player and ask that his/her play be monitored. If we end up in the same game I will announce to all the players in the game the proposition that this player offered me!<<
Now there's a good concept!
Righteous dude. But there's a gulf between you knowing and being able to prove thievery. If your only remedy is to blow whistles you will discover someday that you were wrong, and another righteous dude will push your button. In the meantime you're not paying full attention to the your game.
Dick Taylor
Maybe you need to reread my post. I said:
"I have been approached in the past by other players asking me to play in a manner similiar to this. They said; "you keep what you win, I'll keep what I win" then we are not really cheating."
Since I was approached, proving anything is a moot issue!
"If your only remedy is to blow whistles you will discover someday that you were wrong, and another righteous dude will push your button."
If there were a question in my mind that I was wrong I wouldn't do anything until I was sure! Not out of fear but out of fairness!
"In the meantime you're not paying full attention to the your game."
My game is poker! I pay attention to it at all times. And I hate all kinds of cheating and anything else that may make MY GAME look bad! What about you? I didn't read anything in your response that indicated whether you were for or against Team play (undisclosed, by the way) at the poker table. Your criticism, dude, seems to be with those that would take some measure to stop it!
"another righteous dude will push your button."
That'll be the day that FEAR will stop ME from doing something I think is right! FEAR: A poker players worst enemy and best friend!
Step up and be counted!! Be a man/woman! Take a side and don't provide undue criticism to those that stand up for what they believe in!
God Bless America! Sincerely, "BAD" Concept!
Bad Concept (he he he, let me just add "Oh Canada" to the end of your post.
Vince, I agree with you totally. The game that I referred to was at one of the brothers' home, so I had no recourse other than what I stated. The game was very profitable for me & I played there several times. My reason for posting was an effort to enlighten novices who may encounter this basic form of collusion in a home game. To all my brother Vietnam vets out there "WELCOME HOME"
Looking for a site with the Probabilities of a particular poker hand being drawn. I.E. How often would you draw 3 of a kind at draw poker or how often would you draw a stright.
The alternative to that would be a formula that would let me do the math.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance. LTT
There is nothing like doing the combinatorics for yourself. They are not all that hard to figure out and I find that the process often makes the result mean more.
OTOH, if you just want some pretty good charts the back of super system has some really good charts and you should own the book anyways.
I usaly do not raise in small blind whit QQ. Intersesting if it is corect to 3 bet late raiser in multiway pot if no players cold call yet. raiser often had group 2 or 3 hand whitch play good multiway
I like to try to keep the pot relatively small with QQ if the pot is multiway. If I am in the small or big blind with more than three limpers, I will generally just call and then go for a check-raise on the flop if no overcards fall. If it is a family pot, I may go ahead and raise it up for value and try to win a monster flop by hitting a set, since you may have a few peoople calling to the river whil drawing dead with a single pair or overcard(s) on the flop.
I'm not much of a fan of "manipulating the size of the pot". While that concept has some validity, I don't think it is the silver bullet some posters apparently believe. I routinely raise with any hand that will win more often than the number of callers, so long as I do not seriously reduce my chances of winning.
If I can INCREASE my chances AND win more than my share, I will raise. Such is the case with QQ in the BB when a late position raises; 3-betting it will likely force someone to fold; hopefully A4s or 77. And, you can always check-raise on the flop anyway.
- Louie
If your three betting it will make other players fold you should be more inclined to do so. The reason is that they are almost always correct to call for just one more (preflop) bet, and you don't want them to play correctly.
So i was corect in may thinking. I shold try to make calers call 2 more bets not only one more? And hi low sholld i go? JJ, AKs, AKo, lower?
I GUESS that you would re-raise a button raise from the blinds with a hand that is almost 50:50 to be the highest ranking hand out after everyone has called; giving careful consideration to the raisor's minimum value as well tight UTG callers.
I suppose that raising with a likely 2nd best hand is OK so long as you get dead money from callers who fold for the raise; but I have no feel for a balance on this point.
Lets rank and count some hands... KEY: QQ(6, 18) means the hand is QQ, there are 6 ways to get QQ, and there are cumulatively 18 hands QQ or better ... (I don't have my 2+2 rankings in front of me, so no flames, please..)
AA(6,6) KK(6,12) QQ(6,18) AKs(4,22) JJ(6,28) AKo(12,40) AQs(4,44) TT(6, 50) AJs(4, 54) AQo(12, 66).
So IF we accept the above rankings and figure the raiser would raise with AQo or better, than I see no reason to have minimum reraising requirements less than hand 66/2=33, or AKo or better.
Against loose callers and an aggressive raiser, there is considerable merit to smooth calling, and trying to drop the field with a check-raise on the flop.
There has got to be a better way to say this, and a more applicable threshold... <--- author hint.
- Louie
Q,Q in the small blind. "If it is corect to 3 bet late raiser in multiway pot if no players cold call yet". I think this means that there are the raiser (late position), you (SB) and the BB! If so, you must reraise! No way you can let the BB call with something as weak as Kx (which for one bet he will be correct in doing). If the BB is the type that will defend his blind at all costs then you must still raise to get more money in the Pot with what figures to be the best hand. If the raiser was in an early position and a solid player then calling preflop would probably be the most correct play.
"Bad Concept"
>I think this means that there are the raiser (late position), you (SB) and the BB! If so, you must reraise!> No this mean few plaers call one bet and no one call two bets yet.
""No this mean few plaers call one bet and no one call two bets yet." Since this is the case: You cannot play Q,Q in the small blind incorrectly! (Unless you make the ridiculous play of folding.) Calling or Raising is the correct play, pick one! Some may make claims that relate to manipulating pot size. If you like to gamble, you like big pots, you know how to play well from the flop on: Go for it! Raise, maybe the pot will eventually get capped and you'll have gone a long way toward maximizing your return if you win the pot. If your more conservative, you like more information about proceeding, your not as skilled or disciplined as you would like then call! You'll have made your best effort to conserve chips. Threre certainly are other seemingly valid reasons for raising or calling in situations like this. The problem I see is that they are all correct! That is why I believe that this is one of the singular cases in poker where the player cannot make a mistake by picking between raising or calling! Whatever you do, whatever the result, don't attribute it to your preflop play.
Bad Concept
Of course you would want to vary your play of QQ in this situation. For me, the deciding factor is how tight or loose the original late position raiser plays. Does this player frequently raise to buy the button and put pressure on the blinds? If so, then I think the case for reraising is stronger than smooth calling.
I have read Sklansky's Theory Of Poker many times as an up and coming player and I have benefitted immensely. There is a question I have about the book. There was a recent discussion on this board about pot odds and the benefit of knowing them. I will admit that I play more "by the seat of my pants" and try to beat my opponents rather than living and dying based on the current odds. Anyway, here's my question:
Implied odds seem to be the bets that you will expect to win on later streets. Example: The pot has $50. It's a $10 bet to you with a gutshot. If you hit, you may expect to win several bets more, which may make the call worthwile.
Effective odds seem to be the bets that you will keep putting in the pot on later rounds. Example: The pot has $30. It's $10 to you with a 4 flush in seven stud. You will keep calling, chasing the hand down to the river, because you know it will win if it hits. You have to take into account those bets.
Here is my dillemma. When do you consider your implied odds and when do you consider your effective odds. Assuming that you can't win the pot with a fancy play (semi-bluff raise, etc.) and that you won't have to call raises cold (in multiway) it seems that these two cancel each other out when the players are heads up. When it's a multiway, the implied odds are magnified in your favor.
Am I all wrong? I know implied odds are of most importance in big bet poker, but I am talking about limit. Where do you guys consider these things or are these factors that aren't that important? What's the deal?
Ralebird
You consider implied odds when trying to decide whether to see just one more card if you do not hit something. You consider effective odds when you expect to go to the river if you don't fold immediately.
I'm in the big blind with 6-8 off in a 5-handed no limit game. The guy one off the button, normally a very aggressive and very good player, calls. The small blind, a weak tight player, calls. I have been pushing pretty hard for the last hour and winning pots uncontested for the most part, and hence have a fairly aggressive table image.
Flop comes 6-8-9 with two hearts. Tight player checks. I check, planning to raise, knowing that a play will be made at the pot. The good player obliges with a pot-sized bet, which the tight player calls. I raise the size of the pot (after my call), and am reraised by the good player. The raise is roughly twice the size of the pot and amounts to about 40% of my chip stack (he's the chip leader). The tight player folds.
I sweat it for a long time. His hand could be just about anything. It seems pretty likely that I'm ahead at this point, but I muck it, deciding that the reraise indicated a lot of strength with two people acting behind and that I just did not want to commit my chips with this hand.
Two questions:
1) Do you think the fold was the correct play? 2) Should I have waited for the turn (hoping for a blank)
to make a play at the pot?
Fred,
You said "His hand could be just about anything." So how can you fold. It seems like you talked yourself out of the hand. There are alot of possible hands to put you in trouble but most of them you may be the favorite and there is money already in the pot. Against many people a fold is certainly in order but you answered your own question. You must move in and play the hand. You cant wait for the turn as most of the deck are scare cards for you. Good Luck.
Ray, I really like your response (as usual), and I want to ask a related question. My immediate response to Fred's post was to reraise, but not because of the particular poker situation, rather because of what he said: his opponent could have anything, and his judgement was that he was ahead. My experience is that the biggest mistakes I've made have been where I've changed my mind half way through a hand, and gone against my judgement. On the other hand, you can also come a cropper if you fail to take into account new information as the hand unfolds, particularly in no-limit.
My question is: how far do you go with gut instinct, and how do you balance that with subsequent action later in the hand ? Is this just a matter of experience ?
Cheers,
Paul
Paul,
Its knowing how far you can trust your gut feeling and combining it with sound thinking. Remember that a gut feeling is a feeling which is based on some knowledge such as the player making a movement or maybe the way he bet but not very much out of the ordinary as to give a real clue. You must watch out for gut feelings that you make up so you can justify a bad play. Good Luck.
A raise-fold, unless it is manipulative, is very bad NL play ... especially when you're worried about your stack. You should either have folded in face of the pot-sized bet or pushed all your chips in against the re-raise, trying to win before the turn or riding it out all-in.
Dick Taylor
Why is a raise-fold a very bad NL play? And what do you mean by manipulative?
> A raise-fold, unless it is manipulative, is very bad NL play
This is equivalent to "Raising less than all-in, unless it is manipulative, is very bad NL play." Otherwise you hand your opponent(s) a free option on the rest of your stack when you raise less than all-in.
This doesn't make any sense to me, but I would really appreciate it if you would explain it to me if it should make sense to me. The less-than-all-in raise seems to me to be an important part of the strategy set. I recognize that there are a number of situations where commitment to the pot is important, but there are a number of situations where the all-in raise seems markedly inferior to other options. Consider:
1) You want him to call. (Perhaps this falls under the heading of a "manipulative" play.) 2) YOU want the exit option. Your initial read is that
your hand is the strongest, but your read may be wrong.
A large raise will drive away the pretenders, but not
the real hands. In this case, making the all-in
raise simply commits more chips than you need to
commit to accomplish the goal of the raise---this could
simply represent gravy for the real hands and extra
leverage on the bluffers when you don't need it.
An example of #2 is the late position pre-flop raise. You may have a decent hand, or you may be stealing blinds. Suppose someone comes over the top. Well, then you muck it. Raise-fold is likely to be better than raise-call if your opponent has moved all in and you're holding jack-ten, depending on the size of the raise relative to the size of the pot. And you probably wouldn't want to move all-in to steal the blinds with jack-ten. But this isn't the only example. Reads aren't 100% right, and I think most poker players reevaluate the situation when facing a reraise. The option you grant to yourself to reevaluate and exit is often more valuable than the option granted to your opponent by leaving chips in front of you.
I agree with previous posters that Fred's fold was probably a mistake, but these last two claims about no-limit strategy (raise-fold=mistake, raising less than all-in= mistake) seem in dire need of refinement.
Just for the record, I was pointing out the virtual equivalence of "raise-fold = mistake" and "raising less than all-in = mistake" -- I was not defending either of those statements.
I would urge in NL that you consider your entire stack to be in play anytime you commit any of it. If you're afraid of someone coming over a small raise you probably shouldn't have made it in the first place. There are, of course, lots of other ways of playing poker.
Dick Taylor
6-8-9 flop. What's he got? Hell, you said he was a good player, He ain't got any of this flop! He got a big pair at best! Would a good player call in a NL tournament with anything that could hit this flop. Especially with an aggressive person in the blind. He probably was hoping you would take a shot at the pot either before the flop or after the flop (being as aggressive as you state) and would go after you with his big pair (more than likely Aces)! When you check raised him he may have just mistakenly put you on a pair of nines! Too many ways for you to win this hand! Fear is a poker players greatest foe/friend. In this case foe to you (lost the hand) and friend to the good player (won the hand)! Gotta go for it! What' I find interesting though is that if in a similiar situation you held Q,T,o and the flop came Ks,Qh,Th, and the hand was played the same way I would consider your muck the correct play! Too many way you could lose this hand!
IMO Bad Concept
Theres a small $ hold'em tournament in my town next week with some strange rules. Spread limit betting (1-10 first round, 2-20 second round, etc) and with players ante. Now heres the wierd part--theres only 3 betting rounds--preflop, the flop, then the turn and river card come over at the same time. Has anyone ever played this game before? What were some experiences? What should be some strategy adjustments for this format? Top pair is dogfood, so only play suited connectors?
I am very new at poker, and fascinated by Holdem. The idea is to learn without losing so much money in the process that I swear off it forever. I need help in choosing the best game for me, and adapting my style to that game.
I have played a few times in a 1-4-8-8 game, and found that players were much more easily scared off by a raise than the books led me to expect. Most stayed in for the $2 blind call, but disappeared quickly after a bet on the flop or before. I found that slowplaying was about the only way to win any money, and that only monster hands seemed to win.
Shall I (a) get with the program, and play almost any 2 cards to the flop or (b) switch to a structured 4-8-8 game, where it costs more to see the flop? Is there another alternative? What about a $1-5 game? What differences in strategy should there be among the three games?
Any advice would be most welcome! Thanks.
Do most casinos allow you to read a book or listen to a walkman at the table while playing 7-card stud? thanks
Yes,In Vegas and California. Used to be no head phones in A.C., not sure anymore. Books were o.k in A.C.
"BAD" Concept
While most places will allow you to read a book, it's poor etiquette, IMO. Also, you should be using the time when you're not in a hand to learn about other players and improve your own game.
A good exercise is to pretend you hadn't folded, and then try to make decisions about the hand. Try to put other players on hands, and then see if you were right at the end. Try to predict raises and folds, and see if you're right. In other words, get in the game! Poker isn't just about your own cards.
Many casinos won't allow walkmans or other electronic devices at the gaming tables. I guess they think that you could be picking up transmissions from a confederate who is either signalling other player's hands from the rail, or his own hand from within the game.
Dan
Poor etiquette...ok, I am guilty as charged.
I have a nasty habit of settling down with one of those cryptic crossword puzzles while I am at the poker table.
While I live in a fairly small poker community and have a pretty good read on the players, I should nevertheless be paying attention at all times. For example, the rock may have suffered a couple of bad beats and is now on tilt. Or perhaps the maniac has just got unstuck and is now playing a more straight-forward game instead of raising with any two cards etc.
I generally only start doing the puzzle a few hours into my session. Sometimes it helps me maintain my patience. As we all know, there are times when it seems like hours go by before you get a playable hand. During those times, doing these puzzles ensures that I don't play a bad hand out of sheer boredom.
Notwithstanding the above, you are right. I ought to be paying more attention to the game at all times.
P.S. Checked out "A Civil Action" last night. It is well worth seeing.
When I first started playing seriously, I would once in a while bring a book to the table and read when I wasn't getting any hands.
I noticed fairly soon that action at the table would invariably slow down when I did that.
This is one of the insidious effects of reading at the table. This ostentatious display of boredom often has the effect of dampening the action in the game. After all, the live ones are there because they find poker exciting. To see someone obviously just 'marking time' often slows them down, and causes them to start playing more correctly.
Next time you read or do crosswords at the table, watch the effect it has on other players and see if I might be right about that.
One more thing - reading at the table often gives other players a good 'tell'. If you're in the middle of a passage and suddenly put your book down and get in the game, I'm thinking that you probably have a pretty good hand. This is the same 'tell' you get from people who are eating at the table, and suddenly stop eating to play a hand. They generally aren't going to interrupt their meal to play 92o...
Just a few more reasons not to do it. Although I must admit I still get tempted from time to time, on those nights when I seem to get one playable hand an hour.
Dan
Dan,
As usual, a great post. I'll quickly add a few more things that hurt the action (I may add to this list later).
1. Wearing poker jackets, hats and so on.
2. Wearing sunglasses.
3. Wearing headphones (although if you like talk radio, a single earpiece on the ear away from the action isn't quite as bad).
4. Talking strategy at the table.
5. Frowning or looking bored.
6. Stacting your chips too neatly
Not only does it hurt the action, but if there is an open seat, a live player looking for a good time is less likely to chose a table full of grim, sunglass wearing, poker jacketed, book reading, serious looking players.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Why would "stacking your chips too neatly" hurt the action? When I'm lucky enough to have more than a handful of chips in front of me, I like stacking them neatly. If I observe an opponent doing this, I would initially suspect an obsessive/compulsive rather than a professional.
Etienne
Etienne,
I probably should have stopped at five items on my list since this isn't that big a deal. I was thinking of the tendency of the more serious players to stack their chips in piles of twenty in the shape of a triangle and placing them inside the elbows at the table. This is efficient, but in my experience, a giveaway that you are a better player. I still keep my chips in stacks of twenty, but I make different designs depending on where I am seating. Of course,keeping your chips inside your elbows is a courtesy that should always be followed.
Anyway, the other five items are much more important.
Regards,
Rick
"While most places will allow you to read a book, it's poor etiquette," Reading books pales in comparison with smoking! Give me the literary guy anytime! You take the smokers! I welcome the opportunity to play against people that read books and listen to something on headphones while playing poker. It takes my total concentration to play at the level I play. It's obvious to me that these types that don't need to be totally focused are much better at the game than I am. So I thank them for not using their full powers of concentration against me! Again, let them read and listen! But if we can stop one thing, I vote for getting rid of smoking! (No, I don't want to move to California. Yes, I am an ex-smoker.)
"BAD" Concept
I think reading a book cuts into your profits. Just as I am wary when the rock gets into a hand, as soon as someone who was reading plays a hand I know he/she is probably playing good starting cards.
The other point is when at a game with unfamilar faces it can sometime take a while to learn who plays quality starting cards when i see someone reading I am aware prior to even sitting down.
Of course, like anything, there will be exceptions.
S. Doyle
Artichoke Joes has a rule against reading a book, actually reading anything for the matter. I used to be pissed about this rule as being pissed at AJ was in fashion for various reasons. Now I think reading is a bad idea at higher limits. It makes you appear a kook and I know only one guy who doas it at 20-40. I firmily believe - find better use of you time or if bored go to the movies. Listening to music is distinctly different from reading a book and widely done.
Sue,
Looks like another thread was mistakenly started under your post. But I'll toss in a response to *you* and maybe others can add their ideas as well.
>>I have played a few times in a 1-4-8-8 game, and found that players were much more easily scared off by a raise than the books led me to expect. Most stayed in for the $2 blind call, but disappeared quickly after a bet on the flop or before. I found that slowplaying was about the only way to win any money, and that only monster hands seemed to win.<<
This is a rather odd sounding game. It may actually be a tougher than average game for the limit. You say that most of the players are calling if they can get in cheaply preflop, but are easily scared off by a bet. It sounds like some of your opponents may be more or less correctly playing additional hands for the cheap call preflop, trying to hit a big draw or other big hand on the flop. i.e., they may be looking at their implied odds (what they expect to make in additional bets if they hit their hand) given the chance to get in cheaply at the start of the hand.
If they do fold so easily to a bet, then you should have some profitible stealing opportunities through bluffs and semi-bluffs after the flop. However, you also say that only a monster hand seems to win. Maybe you're saying that when a player does stay in with you, calling or raising your bet on the flop or later, he/she tends to have a big hand. Then you'll have to try to read these players, carefully assessing when their actions suggest they have something, so that you can back of on any steal attempt or fold to their raise, etc.
On a more general level, however, if you hope eventually to play at somewhat higher limits, then I'd suggest you find a game with a standard structure such as 3-6 or 4-8 (i.e., $4 bets preflop and on the flop, $8 bets on the turn and river). That will prepare you better for higher limits such as 6-12 or 10-20 which will usually have that same standard structure. In such a structure you will probably not see the same playing tendencies you're seeing in the 1-4-8 game (and would see in a 1-5). The structure won't allow it. Hope that helps.
John Feeney
"On a more general level, however, if you hope eventually to play at somewhat higher limits, then I'd suggest you find a game with a standard structure such as 3-6 or 4-8 (i.e., $4 bets preflop and on the flop, $8 bets on the turn and river). That will prepare you better for higher limits such as 6-12 or 10-20 which will usually have that same standard structure. In such a structure you will probably not see the same playing tendencies you're seeing in the 1-4-8 game (and would see in a 1-5). The structure won't allow it. Hope that helps. "
An EXCELLENT point! You have expressed very clearly what has just been on the edge of my consciousness... I'd rather switch than learn what would be bad habits for a higher limit game.
I'm wondering if I will encounter significantly better players in the structured game? Any thoughts?
Many thanks for the help!
>>I'm wondering if I will encounter significantly better players in the structured game? Any thoughts?<<
I really don't know, but I'll take a wild guess that you'd actually encounter worse players in a standard structure around the same limit (say 3-6 or 4-8). That's because it sounds like the players you've encountered in the 1-4-8 game are making adjustments in their hand selection as a result of the structure. That at least means that they're thinking, adjusting, and the like. You may find less of that in a typical 3-6 or 4-8 game.
John Feeney
What are some ideas for these games? The relevant section in the Ciaffone/Reuben book is useless.
PL Stud: Since the starting pot is insignificant compared to the potential bets on later streets, pot-limit stud would be a game of trapping rather than knocking others out. Hands with hidden strength would bring a much greater reward. If you hit a straight or caught the third card of a hidden pair, there would be a good chance that you would get paid. If you hit a third flush card, you would not get action, and any card with a 3-flush on board would have a good bluff opportunity. So I would be more inclined to play 3-straights and hidden pairs if the money was deep, and avoid 3-flushes unless in a multiway pot. Certain hands that are often playable in limit stud like (5A)5 or (J2)J would usually go right in the muck. Against multiple opponents, a 4-flush on third street would be a solid hand to raise for value if you could get it all-in right there.
PL Stud-8: Razz hands are completely unplayable. You would need a low hand that can scoop to play against a high hand that can make pot-sized bets on each street. If the pot on fifth was small relative to the stacks, you would be inclined to fold a high pair against a made low with scoop potential on fifth rather than risk your whole stack to protect half of a small pot. Especially against opponents who play unconnected low hands, the high hand would try to get as much money in as possible before the low qualifies, unless a scare card hits. Ideal starting hands are a low 3-straight or a hidden high pair (to trap a weaker high hand). Three low cards with a hidden ace would also be strong.
A couple of comments on PL Stud : it really depends on the nature of the game. In the loose games I sometimes play in, flushes can get paid off and I'd rather play a flush draw than a str8 draw (especially a low one) ; I don't think even Aces is strong enough to slow-play as you don't want more than two opponents really ; and I would play both (5A)5 and (J2)J for the bring-in provided my cards were not dead, the implied odds are worth it if you spike a 5/A or a J. Playing them in a raised pot is possible if you can get heads-up and you know your opponent, but it is marginal.
Hope this helps.
The NL tournament was unbelievable! I never had so much fun playing poker. 50 people entered and I wound a dissapointing 5th place. They paid 5 spots but I was chip leader throughout the tournament. I entered the final table with 7000 in chips and got it all in with a pair of aces against the other big stack. He called with 64o and flopped a full house. I started the tourney very carefully but soon realized a more aggressive approach could dominate the tournament. Everyone else in the tourney seemed very inexperienced. I felt more prepared due to my research with books and this forum. They just started playing NL tourneys at the Trop, but it looks like they will have one 100$ tournament a month. I hope they will schedule more. I don't have Feb's schedule yet but you can call 1-888-POKERAC to find out the next NL tourney. Again thanx for the responses to my NL question last week. Hope to see ya at the Trop.
I do pretty well playing Hold 'em, When I can see the community cards and can make out a hand. three hearts possible flush, three connectables possible straight and a pair four of a kind , fullhouse,.
What really gives me fits is a community board where only trips can be made. It seems no matter what I have I always get beat. Can someone suggest to me a way to playing these boards.
Thanx
R.E. Herbst
Robert, Please excuse me, but you really need to read Mr. Sklansky's "Holdem Poker" or Lou Krieger's "Holdem Excellence"! Then ask your question again! P.S. You may want to start with Mr. Sklansky's "The Theory of Poker".
"BAD" Concept
I am retyping this because I buried this originally near the end of the page......I am relatively new to hold 'em ( about four months) I have been playing low-limit ($2-4, occasionally $3-6)
The first three months I broke even; I would win big one night and give it back in the next two. In the last month I have been slumping. This has been happening as I have increased my knowledge of the game. I notice I have been losing a lot to players who are willing to play anything ( any suited, crazy offsuits; they catch medium-good flushes, straights - I am sure this is common in $2-4). I am wondering should I tighten up more, play more aggressively, or maybe move up to a $3-6 more often or a $4-8 game where it may be a little tighter.
I want to be more successful and intent on being more serious about this. I have done most of my learning thru L. Jones's low-limit book, learning from decent players at the card club and I have stumbled upon this page which i really like.
Also, is there any correlation between being more successful on a computer simulation playing ($5-10, $10-20, $20-40. I try to play the same way as if I am at the club. I know you can't get any tells and it is probably a lot different on a computer program but I seem to do a lot better when I practice on this. Forgive me for being so naive in my question but I do welcome comments. This is a great page !!!
CW
There has been alot of posts in the past that answer all your questions and more. I'd suggest checking out the Archives on the Left of this page. I'd also suggest staying away from games structured 3-6 and under if you are a winning player. You'll find that most House Rakes are too high to make these games worth playing in a Casino. I know some people have made some money at 3-6, me included, but I feel that I can always make more at 4-8 and above while the opposition doesn't get much tougher. Though a losing player will lose less at 2-4 than at 4-8.
Chris V.
I am also a greenhorn, just as naive as you, but I do think I know something right up your alley that has stood me in good stead.
Go to the free Internet poker game at Yahoo.com. It is jammed with generation-X clowns all playing just the way that bothers you. How to win it? That's my secret. Invent your own secret system and don't tell anyone. You do this by practice. Every night for 3 months--prove to yourself that you can win at Yahoo. Then maybe you have a chance at the real money. And it won't cost a dime.
Four little disclaimers: 1) Playing at Yahoo is ONLY good for beating the rednecks that you mention. You have to be aware that this is a whole different game in itself, and ready to switch gears to the "more real" styles at the right time. Otherwise Yahoo play might only give you VERY bad habits. 2) I do not agree with the suggestion that you should play a higher level. You are either good or not. Don't gamble! (I myself wish I could find those 2 dollar games you mention!) 3) You may be constantly booted from Yahoo games for folding too often. If you play "home games" in real life with similar types, the same thing may happen. They send you out for beer and when you get back, the door is locked. This is another risk that it is up to you to balance, accept or overcome in your own way. 4) A simulation helps in a different way. You can "zip to the end," play fast and get to the big picture. But if you don't know the difference between that and real life--well, you just don't know.
In summary: you either have the brain or you don't. Offhand, I would say that you don't. Whether I'm wrong or right, please find out for free before risking your hard earned money.
If you want to play online use irc.poker.net, not Yahoo. Look it up in the archives or R.G.P FAQ
I also agree that it is hard to beat the 3-6 or under by much, if at all. I also think that for games as large as 6-12 Lee Jones is probably not enough material to do very well. I find I need a "Lee Jones Mode" and a "HFAP Mode" and really a range of strategy in between to handle the variety of 6-12 games in Northern CA.
David
Just my two centavos:I think Lee Jones works up to weak 10/20 games and it crushes the 6/12 games i play in when I vacation at Hollywood Park. Where he needs to be revised is when there are sophisticated players making sophisticated plays. (at any level)
I'd like to comment on the article by Chuck Thompson ("CT") in vol. 12, no. 2 of Cardplayer Magazine. Of course, the point of the article is extremely important to tournament players, i.e., that your chips need to be protected in order to increase your expected return. However, while Brad Daugherty ("BD") is clearly a proven great poker player, especially in tournaments, in my opinion the play described is simply awful.
As described by CT, we are early in a no-limit HE tournament, blinds are 25-50, CT has raised under the gun to T150 (out of his T1100 stack) with pocket nines. He is then called by BD whose stack is only T400. BD then folds to a bet of T250 (the remainder of his stack) on the flop of 442. As he is folding, BD shows his pocket jacks to CT, and tells him that he can't take the chance that CT has a better hand. To me, it appears that BD played this hand wrong at every decision point.
We know that it's early in the tournament, so merely surviving a little longer does no good. To get to the money, a player is going to have to win some pots, and should not be giving up much edge, if any, on each individual hand just to save his chips. At this stage, sitting on chips too tightly makes it highly likely that you'll never amass the stack necessary to reach the money and have a shot at the higher payout positions.
So, BD has been dealt JJ, and someone comes in before him for a standard bring-in raise. This, of course, doesn't mean that the player has a monster. A good ace or any pocket pair are the most likely hands. Now, if BD is reading CT for a potential monster (either a big pair or AK), then maybe BD should fold now, rather than enter the pot when he thinks he is either a small favorite or a big dog. If he is going to play this hand, then I think that reraising all-in is BY FAR the best decision. By merely calling, BD is inviting other players to call behind him, especially the big blind (who'll only have to put up T100 to see the flop with a pot of T450).
Now, if BD is rather confident that no one is going to call behind him, then I can see some value in merely calling himself. By only calling now, he can fold and save T250 if an overcard flops, and get the rest of his chips in if not. As it really happened, the flop was 442, about as safe a flop as I can imagine, as I doubt very much that BD is thinking that CT might have a hand like A4. So, the only hands BD really fears at this point are QQ, KK, and AA. However, if he really thought that these hands are that likely, then he should have folded preflop.
It appears that BD called, using up over 1/3 of his chips, in a situation where he apparently wasn't going to play on after the flop unless he flopped a set. This is clearly a losing play. Therefore, unless there is something I'm missing, it appears that BD misplayed the hand badly.
Additionally, I don't see why BD showed his hand. It seems to me that he has now taught CT (and anyone else who was watching) that the best way to beat BD is to bet him all-in, as he'll always fold unless he's got a great big hand. Since you get big hands only rarely, BD is going to get pushed out of a lot of pots where he's holding the best hand. Personally, I don't want my opponents playing aggressively at me. They're easier to beat when they're passive. This is especially true in a tournament, and even more true when I'm short-stacked in a tournament.
Of course, none of this should be taken as a condemnation of either BD or CT. I am aware that they are both excellent tournament players, and am sure that they are both better than I (at least for now, I'm working on changing that). While this example may be good for making CT's point about protecting your last few chips in a tournament, it is not an example of winning tournament strategy.
Any comments you'd like to make would be of interest.
I was thinking the same thing when I read that article. Why bother calling with JJ if your going to lay it down to that flop. I can only assume he put CT on AA or KK's. This is an excellent pot to bluff at too. Either fold or raise with the JJ's, you can pick any pair in better position to try and flop a set with.
Suppose BD knew that CT wouldnt bet after the flop without a good pair and would check and fold overcards. Now his call makes sence before the flop and so may the fold after if he feels that the game is such that his remaining money can be used to bluff his way back, rather then wait for good hands. His showing the fold may make uninformed people think when he bets he must have the goods. Im not saying what he did was right or wrong but the situation can only be seen from his expert eyes.
Ray has pointed out some other reasons why BD's seemingly strange strategy may be correct, but The Fossil Man has pointed out something that I agree with about tournament play in general. It is that early in a tournament you should be trying to accumulate chips. I certainly would be much more inclined to put CT all-in with a pair of Jacks early on then much later if I am low on chips.
Another example of this idea is that it is probably correct to call with a small pair when the odds don't seem to justify it early in a tournament, but it also might be correct to fold the same hand when the odds seem right late in a tournament. Of course stack size and other factors could influence your decision.
All comments are welcome.
I think BD played it incorrectly in two ways. First, I would put CT all in pre-flop, and second, if I had conservatively only called pre-flop, with a flop of 442, I'm going all in with my JJ hand. With a hand like JJ, why call 150 when you only have 400 anyway? If you are willing to commit 37.5% of your chips pre-flop early in a tournament, you should be absolutely committed to putting in the remainder should you get a favorable flop. It is easy to look for some expert play here, but I doubt that BD, on reflection, would call it that.
It certainly appears to me that BD knew that JJ was too good of a hand to fold preflop, but he was overly cautious and just called. Then, when CT bet into him again on a flop that clearly missed all of CT's potential high card hands (i.e., AK, AQ, KQ, etc.), BD decided that CT must have a pocket pair, and was overly cautious in folding to this potential overpair.
Now, if BD and CT really know each other well, then maybe 99 was the weakest hand that CT could possibly be holding to bring it in for a raise under the gun. Maybe CT never plays AK for a raise in that spot, nor smaller pairs. Maybe CT would play AK for a raise, but always check when the flop misses him (although I find that hard to believe). Given all of these suppositions, if this is what BD was really thinking, then it seems that he should have folded JJ preflop to CT's under the gun raise.
Maybe BD will read this page and let us know. If he's got email, maybe someone out there who knows it can send him a copy of these proceedings.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think Ray hit it correctly.he probably put ct on a range from 99-aa or big cards and wanted to see the flop before deciding how to proceed. When putting a person on a range of hands 99 is definately on the low end. Although the flop looks good, the absence of paint increases the odds of ct having a larger pair.It's a close decision based on bd and ct knowing that they wouldn't raise, and wouldn't call the raise without certain cards.Then it's down to he who shows aggression first. bd knows that ct wouldn't bet into him on the flop without an overpair, but he can't nail it down to one. he has to nail it down to 5 possibles, 3 of which are bigger than his.thereby fold. This is a good example of two players who know basically what the other player is going have in order for them to play the way they are playing. it looks wrong but is actually the play of an experienced player. he must have had some reason to show the hand.
Maybe BD is a great player and made a great move. Maybe BD is a bad player (probably false) and made a mistake.
But what about this one:
Maybe BD is a great player and made a mistake.
Its possible. For those that think BD is a great player, don't forget about the possibility that he made a mistake and made a bad play, even if he's a great player.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I assume even Sklansky and Malmuth still do and will in the future make some mistakes in poker. Obviously a lot less than most (all?) of us, but nevertheless, nobody ever executes 100% perfectly.
As soon as you make a sarcastic remark in response it comes back to haunt you! Played in a 15-30 Holdem game today at Bellagio. Aggressive guy to my left (non-blind chopper, must have read MM's Poker Essays II). Typical game usually 3-4 callers see the flop, not a lot of preflop raisers, good mix of skill levels. Any way: I'm on the button, ATo, Raise, SB Reraise. Make long story short, He had AKo (He won the pot with AA,KK to my AA,TT twas bloody!). Next round I'm in SB, Pass to me: My hand KQd, Raise, BB reraise. Long story short I win pot with flush, He calls river with Ad,Ks. Not real bloody like other one. I could go on! I consider these two incidents excellant examples of what could be called bunching in hold'em. Not that I intend to alter my play any! But it does make one wonder!
Vince Lepore (formerly "BAD Concept who was formerly Vince Lepore)
Today at Bellagio. 15-30 Holdem. In SB, 6d,8d. Two early callers. Late raiser. I call BB and other two call. Flop. Qc, 7d, 3s. Now let me say here that there was a time in my poker playing history that I was a sucker for a straight flush draw, first three in stud or an suited connectors in Hold'em. Fortunately I have gotten over the need to call with all of those type of hands and pick and choose good situations now. (I think). Late position bets, I don't know why, something in my past made me do it, I call. Fortunately the other three just call also. Yup 9d on the turn! Now, you poker player have to know how beautiful a sight that is! Sure it's a draw but Oh! Such a draw. ("Oh!Straight Flush Draw" I think that I shall never see a tree as loveley as Thee!). Back to the hand. I check, Late raiser bets, I want callers so I call. Others call. River 5s. Yup! made the nut straight (I don't want to know if I should have check raised). I bet. Fold, Fold, Fold. Late raiser. Stops, looks, shakes his head. Picks up his chips and as he throws them in the pot says (remember he's talking to me now): "Here, you deserve it!". As I toss my tip to the dealer I ask the raiser, sarcastically (I admit): "What does that mean?" There in ensued a not to poliite discussion of the merits of my calling the flop. Anyway, was I wrong challenging this obvious negative remark (remarker) about my play? Personnally I think the other guy and guys like him are the ones that are wrong and should be challenged at every opportunity! Suppose, I was new to Casino Poker. Wouldn't he be way out of line criticizing a new potential member of our beloved poker family? Your oppinions please. Don't be bashful!
Vince (Formerly "BAD" Concept) Lepore BTW He obviously doesn't know who I am!
No one EVER has a right to criticise another player's strategy, good or bad. It's your money.
If I hear people start to do that, I'll sometimes say something like, "Please, let the person stack the money first so he can pay full attention to your poker lesson."
Dan
"Today at Bellagio. 15-30 Holdem. In SB, 6d,8d. Two early callers. Late raiser. I call BB and other two call."
I'm not saying that this call is wrong, but I usually won't make it.
"Flop. Qc, 7d, 3s. Now let me say here that there was a time in my poker playing history that I was a sucker for a straight flush draw, first three in stud or an suited connectors in Hold'em. Fortunately I have gotten over the need to call with all of those type of hands and pick and choose good situations now. (I think). Late position bets, I don't know why, something in my past made me do it, I call."
As you just pointed out, this is not a good call.
"Fortunately the other three just call also. Yup 9d on the turn! Now, you poker player have to know how beautiful a sight that is! Sure it's a draw but Oh! Such a draw. ("Oh!Straight Flush Draw" I think that I shall never see a tree as loveley as Thee!). Back to the hand. I check, Late raiser bets, I want callers so I call.
I would frequently raise here. The pot is now fairly big and you would like to win it. If the bettor (and everyone else don't fold you still have a lot of outs).
"Others call. River 5s. Yup! made the nut straight (I don't want to know if I should have check raised). I bet. Fold, Fold, Fold. Late raiser. Stops, looks, shakes his head. Picks up his chips and as he throws them in the pot says (remember he's talking to me now): "Here, you deserve it!". "As I toss my tip to the dealer I ask the raiser, sarcastically (I admit): "What does that mean?" There in ensued a not to poliite discussion of the merits of my calling the flop. Anyway, was I wrong challenging this obvious negative remark (remarker) about my play?"
I generally believe you should almost never challenge a negative remark. Let someone stay upset and steam for a while.
"Personnally I think the other guy and guys like him are the ones that are wrong and should be challenged at every opportunity! Suppose, I was new to Casino Poker. Wouldn't he be way out of line criticizing a new potential member of our beloved poker family? Your oppinions please. Don't be bashful!"
I agree. You need to learn to take your beats. You don't have to complement your opponent for playing stupidly (nothing personnel) but you should quickly throw your hand away and get on to the next hand. It takes too long to explain here, but in poker it is important not to let recreational players get the idea that there is more to this game than it appears. You may laugh hearing this from me, but this is something that Sklansky pointed out to me years ago. Once a live one realizes that some people think about every decision, they may begin to re-evaluate their game.
Mason wrote: "It takes too long to explain here, but in poker it is important not to let recreational players get the idea that there is more to this game than it appears."
I like this quote. Have you or David written more about this subject? Its seems obvious that you would want the Recreational players to think the game is as shallow as "Let It Ride", but I never thought it was that important.
CV
Of course it is important. The last thing you want to do is to show opponents that you care and think about the game while at the table. It might become contagious.
The same logic applies to wearing poker paraphernalia at the table. Why not dress and act the part of a casual businessman out to have a good time at the card room (this doesn't mean lying if asked what you do for a living). Be serious but don't look serious!
Regards,
Rick
"I generally believe you should almost never challenge a negative remark. Let someone stay upset and steam for a while."
I surrender, You're right! From your writings and responses I get the sense that you are a pretty even tempered individual. One that doesn't get upset easily. I admit that I am the opposite. Although I take criticism very well I do get upset with the manner in which it is presented, mainly when done in a negative way. I just don't like some negative things that are said during a poker game. I have found that if I challenge a "Verbal Bully" I will usually end up in a heated discussion (has at times come close to blows) at best with him/her. But in my defense my challenge usually has the effect of stopping his negative barbs for quite a while. Sometimes for the rest of the time I'm in the game. If I'm right I usually get a chorus of other players at the table joining in on my side. Though I admit that the opposite is sometimes also true. When that happens I stop (usually) my attack. I am a pretty good judge of situations and have a good feel for when a player is making a comment purely out of frustration as opposed to just plain meanness. But again I must agree with you, it is probably better to just "Bite the Old Tongue" and move on! I will try to follow your lead (no promises) in the future. Since it appears that forum members are interested in this topic, I will also report back my results.
BTW I like my play on the turn. I wanted more money in the pot and got three more calls by not raising. Sure I may have gotten callers to my raise but in my judgement I thought the best thing to do was call. If the callers were on my right I would have definitely raised. I just didn't feel there was a good enough reason to get rid of second best hands in this situation. I had to believe that if they were on big hands they would have put a raise in themselves. This is one of those situation where, again in my judgement, the more the merrier.
Vince Lepore
Vince,
When I am in a game and have made a winning hand with an unlikely starting combination, I welcome sarcasm from the losers while I'm integrating their former chips into my burgeoning stack. I usually smile and tell them that that play was just one of a host of great plays I learned by reading all of John Patricks collected poker books. Needless to add, I get a lot of play whenever I'm in any more pots that session. I hope you made additional money after that by having better discipline than calling the flop with that garbage. I suck out a few times each session too; I usually do this when the pot is offering me an overlay to make a call. Calling on a nostalgic whim might be somewhat more questionable.
I think his remarks definitely were an opportunity for you to say something. Something like, "I just knew those cards were going to show up, I'm psychic." You know those were some questionable calls. Why let everyone else know that you know this. Swallow your pride and let them think you are an idiot. It almost makes them loosen up and play worse.
I play 20/40 and 40/80 Hold'em in Northern California. It seems most players are at least decent. Sure, there are your calling stations and crazy raisers, but for the most part, 75% of the players are fairly solid. To the point where it is not unlikely for a 9 handed game of "fairly solid" players. I used to sit down in such a game and think "table selection", I should move...however, there is usually not another 20/40 to move to, or its a must move game, and I have no choice, if I want to play 20/40 to stay in the same game.
But then it dawned on me one day. These players do play solid, for the most part....except for one major flaw (for most players). They play too fancy. They semi-bluff too often, they use the check-raise bluff, they try for the free card too often, they try to put on too many moves, they bluff too much, when its clear that most people will call them down. It doesn't happen on every hand by the same player, the disease seems to rotate from one player to another on any given hand. Its to the point where being a calling station with an ok hand is not such a bad play (because a raise may drive out one of these fancy players).
Has anyone noticed that? or is it just my experience (or am I making an incorrect generalization?).
F.P.S. is a disease, particularly rampant amongst limit hold-em players. Call 'em and crush 'em.
If you adopt a more conservative check-and-call strategy against them, and you should, then you must combine that with being more selective before the flop.
When you detect despair, and you will, then pound on THEM for a few hands.
- Louie
An exception to the above is against those players that are quick to give up their frequent semi-bluffs: they may raise ONCE with a weak hand, but then play straight forwardly. They figure if you call once you must surely have them beat. Against these players play fast and loose.
fps is definately around, but if you are getting raised and check raised alot when they aren't as strong as represented, then I believe you need to be more aggressive, and take a stand. I'm not sure from your post if you were saying that everyone was trying to put plays on you, or if you see them fancy playing against everyone. if it's against you , they might see you as weak tight, so I'd show them otherwise. At the same time I agree with Mr ciaffione's philosophy about straight forward play that he has recently written about, and advocates in his writings. If you haven' read it, you might want to take a look at what he says . it's right on the money imo.
Where are you reading Mr. Ciaffione's writings about playing straight forward? I like his writing alot, and would appreciate the guidance...is it in a book or in the Card Player articles?
BTW, the play is not just on me, its on everybody. Thanks for the opinions and interests.
The Gambling Forum January 1999 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo