![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Carlos,
So we don't get too far off the appropriate topics on the Exchange forum, here are some ideas on overs. David S. helped me with some of these ideas some time ago. (But rest assured, anything I get wrong is surely *my* error.) I've played overs a fair amount at the Village Club, where they used to have 15-30 with 30-60 overs, and now 20-40 with 40-80 overs (though lately few players seem to be playing overs).
Random thoughts:
When you might want to choose the overs option:
1) when most or all the other players are playing overs, especially if most of them are bad players.
So if it's 6-12 with 12-24 overs, you're now playing 6-12 preflop and 12-24 from there on, with blinds appropriate for 6-12. (At the Village club it stays at the lower limit preflop even if everyone chooses an overs button.)
2) when the few players with overs buttons are really bad players, who will make lots of fundamental mistakes after the flop. Then you have the advantage of raising the stakes whenever you are up against a weak player.
Sometimes it can be good *not* to play overs when everyone else is. If they've figured out that they can play some extra hands because of the implied odds, then you can play your normal hands and punish them preflop, while you prevent them from getting those extra impled odds whenever you are in the hand. I often choose this option.
Mason's essay mentions the greater implied odds this structure provides. e.g., you get in for 6 preflop, then it goes right up to 12 on the flop and 24 on the turn and river. His essay suggests adding medium suited connectors and smaller pairs to the hands you can therefore play early. I agree with the small pairs, because you either flop the set or you don't. But it can get tricky with the suited connectors. Say you limp early with 8-7s and no one else calls. (So in a 6-12 game there's now about $15 in the pot.) Now the flop comes Q-5-6. The big blind now bets out with a $12 bet. The immediate and implied odds make calling here not nearly as automatic as it would be in a normal structure. With suited connectors, I think your real advantage is being punished less preflop all the times you flop nothing.
What I *don't* like about overs is that a tight player cannot punish loose players preflop. In fact, for this reason, many of their usual preflop errors are no longer such bad errors.
It follows that the best players to play overs against are those who play badly on the later streets. Keep in mind that if, say, half of the players at the table have overs buttons, some hands become overs only on the turn or river. So you want players who play those streets poorly. And note that some players who are terrible preflop (and can't be punished for it in an overs structure) play pretty well on the later streets. This is true, for example, of some maniacs.
At any rate you shouldn't go too far with the extra hands idea. Over time I found that I actually only played a very few extra hands. And, as David pointed out to me, if you just play your normal game, you'll still win - just not quite as much.
The posts below regarding what types of games to look for reminded me of a couple of articles written not to long ago by Roy West and then a follow up by David Sklanksy. Roy pointed out that sometimes a game might be a little too juicy if the whole table was filled with weekend fish out to have a good time. He pointed out that many pros complain about getting sucked out on by the lucky tourists on the weekends. he further stated that it is possible to be in a game that is too good, as all the players chase which leads to a much higher percentage of draw outs. Sklansky wrote that these games are beatable if you make the neccesary adjustments, but there could be much larger swings. My own preference is to be in a game with 2-3 live ones chasing and otherwise reasonable players, which is usually what you might find in So Calif. I think that no-fldm games are theoretically beatable, but mentally un-beatable. The swings are large enough in typical games, but virtually unbearable in games where the whole table plays bad. And so it goes, the pro looks for a weak game and gets it, but it's too weak too handle. comments??
It has been a while since I played no foldem holdem, here are some random memories.
If I played one limit lower than normal I was fine, the swings may have been big in terms of units but not too bad in actual dollar amounts. No foldem at my normal limit or higher would be mentally unbearable.
The big pairs AA and KK or if you flop a pair with AK. These hands actually hold up more than you would expect, maybe as often as 1/3 of the time.
What constitutes a "good" flop is different than in a normal game. For example if you have KK and the flop comes AA7 this is a good flop, If someone has an ace your dead of course, but often times no one does and now your kings are very hard to out draw because two pair can not beat you.
I found the small suited connectors to be losers. When you make a flush it is too low, when you flop two pair half the table has straight draws or higher two pair draws. When you flop a straight someone has two pair drawing to a full, bigger straight draws are always out and flush draws including the back door variety get there often. Playing small suited connectors may be good verse 4-5 players in a tough game where opponents are player high cards, but verses 9-10 players it is like flopping bottom set in Omaha, you rarely survive to the river.
When I first started playing holdem I had no books on the subject, so I started out dealing hands and the futility of playing small and even medium connectors (in nofoldem) became quickly apparent. The biggest win I have had came in a 10-20 nofoldem game where all I played was high cards because that's what had been indicated. Now I find it hard to let go of T9s or 98s (in an unraised pot) but I still am not sure they are winners in the long run. Nofoldem is as close as you will get to a computer simulation extant. You have to show down a hand. I, unlike many of the posters here, can put up with the long streaks of drawouts that are so frustrating, because I know the money is eventually coming back. Also, I am not good enough to play at the middle limits against decent players, and I have the losses to prove it. But so far, at least, I've beaten every loose passive session I've been in. Your post pretty much defines my game. It is also my experience that AJ offsuit in an unraised pot is better off when flopping the ace than the jack because virtually everyone raises with AK and AQ and the top pairs, so you know those aren't out there. I play these very agressively, something you have to be careful with in a tougher game. With a jack-high flop, opponents will hang on to K and Q overcards for dear life, and one of them often appears on the turn or river. Goodbye pot.
Interesting comment about AJ in an unraised pot. This situation won't come up too often when I play though, since I'll usually raise with AJ up front and muck it late with alot of callers.
Was in a mid-sized stud game tonight on a riverboat that pretty well matched your description. Lovely soft game, but simply a lot of deviation with many players chasing every hand. (All my big pairs went unimproved and cracked, except the final hand of the night where one of the better (?!) players at the table drew a gutshot Jack to shoot down my only improved pair of Aces.)
The interesting thing about this game was that the apparently better players (I knew none of them, just my analysis), were playing weaker and weaker hands in order to play with the "weekenders." This is generally correct strategy, "action to action", however, playing to make 2 small pair is not really the action to give. (In an ironic twist, I really was never dealt any weak trash to play against the "weekenders" and watched them push their chips off to the "locals" who were showing down hands like 8s over 3s and 6s over 4s.)
Usually the solution to drawouts in stud is to go to a drawing strategy (flushes and straights), but this can cause the deviation to go even higher, particularly if all your live draws end up catching the dead cards in the deck. These are the times where it might seem strange -- but is correct -- to walk away from a losing session feeling good about the way you played.
Did I do something wrong?.
The game is 10-20 Holdem. I got the Bullets in the hole in late position. There's three folds then a raise. Fold, fold, I reraise, the rest fold, and the raiser reraises. I of course reraise, and he comes right back at me. I paused, "What's he got?...KK?..the other aces?" Who cares, I got AA..right? I reraise, BAM!- again with a raise, I reraise, finally he calls. Flop: Ad, Ks, Qh. He bets, I raise, he reraises..."well he can't have AA," I thought, "If he's got KK, doesn't he realize a rock like me doesn't go to war like this with anything less then AA." I reraise...an all out raising war explodes. Back and forth "This guy gotta be crazy, I know he's steamed, but this is rediculous." I keep raising, he doesn't back off, another five or six raises occur before I finally call???? (I don't even want to think about the possibilities.) The turn: 3c, He bets I call (I can't stand this hand any more). The river: 5c..He bets..I call "Could it be?" I thought,"There's no freakin way anybody, steamed or not steamed, would play.....NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"
JT-Game Over.
Did I do something wrong?.
Yes.First you should put more than $50 on flop. Second you give yor hand away. Third you should play the next hand.
You might want to take a look at the thread, "NL limit pro gets knocked out..." It has a lot of comments/information about pocket rockets.
The only thing I would have done differently is put less money in pre-flop. If the guy's that steamed (or has a really good hand for heads up play) and is putting in that many bets its unlikely that another one or two will force him out. Plus, there are many flops that would cause me to be scared (atleast very aware) with AA even head up- especially if an A didn't hit the board. So, I'd slow it down pre-flop. But once you hit top set and had to discount the possibility that he was playing JT in that manner then I'd have put the pedal to the metal.
But, never bet the ranch on one hand either. I gather from the tone of your message that hand tapped your session bankroll??? Was he atleast playing JT suited?
Regards,
Leigh Davis
Put less money in pre-flop with AA?
If I'm heads-up pre-flop and can get all my money into the pot, I'll do so every time in a ring game (and almost every tournament situation as well). Sure, there are a lot of flops I won't like to see, but there are a lot more that will be pleasing to my eye (and bankroll).
I was playing texas hold'em with one very bad player. He move to 7 card stud high-low split 8 or beter. Shuold i move to same game? Limits are same, but i do not play high-low this well.
No, you probably shouldn't move.
At low and middle limits, it usually takes more than 1 bad player to make a game good. Only at the higher stakes, where most of the players are good, does a single bad player make the difference.
Add to this the fact that you don't play 7stud8 very well, and you're probably better off staying in your current game, or moving to another, better HE game.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I forget to tell when i was waiting for holdem seat i was watching 78 game has 2 players hwo overplay 2 pair and 2 players hwo will chase any low whithout chance of making high. Hold'em players ware from medium to good so i would live anyway. You think i still shuold not go.
It depends. You say that you're not good at 7stud8, so that means that the game has to be much better than the HE game for you to make the same profit. Therefore, unless you're sure that the 7stud8 game is that much better, or you want the practice while the game is relatively easy, stick to HE.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I was playing texas hold'em with one very bad player. He move to 7 card stud high-low split 8 or beter. Shuold i move to same game? Limits are same, but i do not play high-low this well.
All: I'm a Hold 'Em rookie and play in the loose, passive 2-5 spread limit games in Colorado. My question is this:
How should I play draw hands? Let's assume that I'm drawing to the nut flush/straight after the flop, rather than drawing dead. Also assume that I'm getting good pot odds (which I assume I am if there are at least three or four other players still contending for the pot).
Should I bet/raise with my four flushes/straight draws, or should I call, and accept either a cheap card ($2!!) or check, and take the occasional free card until I actually make my hand? As I understand *HPFAP*, which I am currently reading for the first time (I checked it out from the library!), S&M say to bet those hands.
What do you think? Also, how would playing in games with different structure or texture change the options?
Thanks in advance.
Dan Radosevich.
As stated drawing hands against more than two opponents make money because of the implied odds. You want to bet because you make money betting your come hand. In addition a bet in early position as a semi-bluff may win the pot for you immediately.
In late position you might want to raise and try for a free card, although my experience is players will tagg you as drawing. I think the free-card play as described in HPFAP is so well known that it is unlikely all the other players will check to you if the flush card doesn't come, but as stated with a lot of players in the pot you will still make money. Straight draws have a higher stealth factor, and may be more profitable if there is no flush draw on board and it is unpaired.
In shorthanded pots, for example two opponents on the flop, and one left on the turn your drawing hand has negative implied odds, although the pot odds may still justify a bet or a call. But........... In short handed pots you want to be the bully. So I if I have seen my opponent fold a good portion of his hands, I'll bet and if he bets I might even raise. You want to take control of the situation. If your draw gets there on the end, you keep on betting because you have the best hand, and if your draw doesn't get there you bet because it's the only way you'll win the pot.
An exception might be if you're reraised on the turn. Not many players will reraise on the turn without some goodies. In that case pray hard for your draw to come through.
The limit hold'em section os Super/System has about twenty pages about how to play drawing hands. Excellent stuff.
Spielmacher
I think the free-card play as described in HPFAP is so well known that it is unlikely all the other players will check to you if the flush card doesn't come, but not many players know defense against it
Thanks to all who have given tips regarding betting/raising draw hands.
My primary intent in proposing the question was how to get money into the pot (betting for value), rather than trying the ol' Free Card Ploy that several authors have mentioned in their posts.
Dan Radosevich.
As you will note in the preface, HPFAP is directed to middle limit (10-20) and above games, or at least to those games that are played in the same general style. Thus, much of the advice therein will not be directly applicable to your loose game.
If there are many players, and your bet or raise won't knock too many of them out, then go ahead. You are doing this merely because you currently have about 2:1 odds against making your hand, and you're collecting more than this into the pot. However, usually don't raise when the original bet is to your immediate right, because you are now likely to just knock out all of the competition, and you won't be getting paid off properly.
Here's the exception. Let's say that it's a short-handed pot, or you otherwise think that aggressive betting/raising on your pot will cause EVERYone else to fold. Now, you can semibluff with your hand, and try to win the pot uncontested. However, don't think you're semibluffing when there are 1 or more players in the pot who you know will almost certainly call you down. If you're betting or raising with these players, the only good reason to do so is because the pot odds justify your action (as in the paragraph above), or you've made your hand.
Thus, there is a continuum here, and you only want to bet or raise on either extreme, but not in the middle. Bet when you have a good chance of winning uncontested, or when there will be many callers. Don't bet or raise if there is a good chance that you'll only manage to eliminate some, but not all, players, thereby reducing the pot to yourself and 1 or 2 others.
Also, think about the numbers. If someone bets, gets called twice, and its your turn, think about the players behind you. If you raise here, there's a good chance that those already in will call, but those behind you will fold. In this case, if there are many players behind you who you think will call 1 bet, you're probably better off just calling. Thus, while you're not doubling the stakes, you're increasing your percentage on the single bet by more than enough to compensate for this.
Example (just considering the flop bet, and not previous or subsequent bets):
You plus 3 others for 2 bets each, you will win 1/3 of the time. You've paid 2 bets, but will win 8/3 of a bet in return. This is a profit of 2/3 of a bet on this round of betting.
You plus 5 others for 1 bet each, you will win 1/3 of the time. You've paid 1 bet, and will win 6/3 of a bet in return. This is a profit of 1 bet on this round.
Thus, you've made more money this round by just calling and inducing others to call as well. However, if all 5 were going to call whether you've raised or not, then you lost money by not raising. This is where your judgment will tell you the best play.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
HPFAP's strategies are geared towards fixed limit games 10-20 and upwards, not necessarily low spread limit where the confluence of players seeing the flop is greater. Successful semibluff betting is harder because fewer opponents will fold in the face of your bet at these limits. Raising from last position with a drawing hand in an attempt to get a free card is still possible if the players ahead of you are passive. You should bet or raise from any position if the pot has become large ($30-$35 at 2-5 spread limit) and/or if it is likely that there will still be two or three other players who see the turn. You are about a 2:1 underdog to complete either the openended straight or four flush draw by the river. If you don't complete your hand on the turn, you are now about a 4:1 underdog to complete it on the river. Therefore you would prefer to still have two players calling your completed hand on the river, unless your action caused you to win the pot outright on a previous street. The problem with checking or calling from a late position on the flop occurs when you miss your draw on the turn, someone in early position bets and is raised. Now you need to have about four times the amount it would take you to call, already in the pot to continue (a bet on the flop might have curtailed the raise on the turn) with a draw to the nuts. It's far more often (in these low limit games or multiway pots in general) a superior choice to bet or raise rather than check or call with big draws. One exception might be when there is a pair on the board; moreover when the pre-flop action suggests the possibility that one or more players started with a pocket pair. Now you can complete the draw but there is a significant chance that card which helps you, will make someone else a full house. There is a major difference between drawing for the nuts and other good draws. Now you may need odds 50% better than when the draw is to the nuts. In multiway pots, no one is going to muck a hand with an ace plus any suited kicker. When you both complete the same flush draw, you may believe you're beat if you get reraised but still need to call. The pots need to be larger to make up for those times when you don't have the best hand.
One week ago I was playing in a small no-limit tournament in a private poker club in Florida. During the early stages I picked up JJ. I was in late position. My chip stack was a medium stack meaning that I had to protect it. A player in middle position with a stack about even with mine who I had a hard time getting a read on him because he never had to show a hand down yet, raised nearly all in. I thought for a few seconds and threw away my JJ. Nobody else called. He then proceeded to show me 97 suited. Had I called I whould have been the chip leader at this point. Still I know that I made the right decision in trashing the JJ. This brings me to the point of this post. 1. JJ is not a great hand like a lot of people think. 2. JJ CAN NOT stand a large raise from a early postion raiser during the early stages of a no-limit tourny. 3. JJ is much stronger at a shorthanded table. 4. JJ is misplayed by most tournament players. 5. JJ is worth playing with when your stack is not worth protecting. 6. JJ is'nt worth playing when you have a protectible stack unless you can get in cheaply. 7. JJ make me want to see the flop but also fear the flop. 8. JJ makes many players play it to agressively. 9. JJ is nothing but a pair of JJ. By the way I finished 3rd in this tournament getting knocked out with 99 against QJ when a "J" hit the flop!
I'm not sure that I agree. Even if you only become the chip leader a minority of the time, in a tournament it may be worth it. Some of the most successful tournament players would always make that call even though they know that they will usually lose the hand. They are aware that the advantage and leverage of a large stack allow them to play many hands "incorrectly." As some of them like to say "let's play a big pot."
My reasoning is this. I had a medium stack which means I had little fear of being blinded out at this point. When that guy raised it screamed QQ,KK,AA,AK. Frankly I can't understand the size of his raise. He had nothing to gain but the blinds which were $50-$100. There were still players to act after him, anyone who could have had a great hand. The only thing that I can think of is that he was trying to use his table image. But I think it's better after someone limps in to make that move!. If it was late in a tourny and I picked up JJ then theres no question on whether I would play that hand. Unless I had a big stack vs. another big stack. If I had a big stack vs. a little stack then I might play. The guy made a $2000 raise. It dosen't make much sense to me in his position yet I imagine it happens a lot. One other point,you mentioned sucessful players. You can be sucessful by finishing in the money many times. To me that's not enough. My goal is to at least finish in the top 4 places. A strategy based on that means that JJ is not worth a call in the situation I was in. In your book POKER ESSAYS you wrote about 2 kinds of sucessful tourny players. I' m like player C except that a better example is that a C type player will lay down hands in certain situations that other people would gamble on.
I'd be suspicious of a large raise from an early-to-mid position. This does NOT tell me that the raiser has a big pair or even A-K, A-Q, but more likely that he/she would like to win the pot right there or is semi-bluffing. If I've got more chips than the raiser in a tournament, we're gonna play J-J strongly ... I may even move all-in to keep anyone from slipping in behind.
Joe-
Don't be like Myopic Mike on Turbo Texas Hold-em and assume that everyone plays as well as you do. Even though you didn't have a good read on a guy, you know that he isn't a PLAYER if he raises $2000 to win $150 with any hand. Even if he has AA, KK, or QQ, this type of raise is complete amateur-hour. If someone's raise doesn't make sense, sometimes the most obvious "read" is the correct "read": it is just a bad play, with a player trying to overcome his lack of skill and ability to steal blinds with a scary-sized raise.
If you watch this guy closely, you will find that he is the type of guy that trie to "trap" other idiots when he does have AA or KK. These types of players are exactly the ones you want to call or reraise when they bet big and steer clear of when they baby raise or smooth call.
If you don't take advantage of them in the early stages to, then someone else (like me or T.J.) will, and then you will be short stacked against the real competition at the later stages.
Dig the new moniker, "Predator", but a real predator doesn't always assume he is up against the nuts. Weak players who overbet the pot have to show me their hole cards.
Hi all--
I am very new to this game and to this forum. I am reading as many poker books and websites as I possibly can. I just finished Alvarez's book "The Biggest Game In Town" and not only is it a great book, but it really makes me want to strive to be a pro poker player. One of the more interesting players in the book is a man named Jack Straus. I haven't heard much about him lately. Is he still playing? Retired? Dead? I figure someone knows what happened to this great player.
--Ralebird
Whoa - if you are fantasizing about becoming a pro after reading The Biggest Game in Town, I'd suggest you read Shut Up and Deal by Jesse May.
Jack Straus died about 9 years ago.
I've read 7CS4AP and am becoming a half-decent player. One thing that still throws me is "all in". Some specific questions:
1. If I'm down to, say, 20 or 30 dollars (in a 5-10 game), should I play the next hand (figuring to go all in if I have anything playable on 3rd street), or buy more chips? My intuition says it doesn't really matter; if I get something like wired trips I'll wish I had lots of chips, but if I get a low straight draw I'll be happy to be able to go all in; this can't be predicted beforehand.
2. If another player raises, putting him all in or almost all in, should I be more inclined to call the raise than if he raised with lots of chips in front of him?
3. If there is a side pot and the "all in" player gets a scare card or two, how do I decide whether to stay in and compete for the side pot? I suppose I could work it out mathematically, given enough time, but this type of situation always confuses me at the table.
Thanks for any responses.
These are not simple questions. There is a theoretical edge to having a very short stack in a ring game but it is a very slight edge unless you are down to almost nothing. (Imagine how strong it would be if you were all in for the ante every time!) If we assume that you are a winning player, any edge you might get from playing a small stack is more than made up for by the fact that you can't outplay them on later rounds with no chips. Your other questions I expect to deal with in a future article.
I sometimes come up against a player who is very aggressive, raising a lot (but also folding frequently).
I never seem to play correctly against this player. At first I would fold against his raises to find that I had a better hand than his. Then after a while I would call his raises, and he had a monster hand. At least, this is how it seemed.
Firstly, where at the table should I sit in relation to this player, assuming I have a choice? Immediately to his left?
Secondly, how should I play against him (regardless of where I'm sitting)? David, Mason, and Ray's excellent book gives advice on playing against loose passive players, but not loose aggressive players.
Thanks again for any help.
Sounds like you are playing abainst an excellent player. Thus your best seat is probably at another table. Second choice is probably directly across from him especially since you are not yet an expert player. Ther are problems associated with being on his immediate left or immediate right. I'll let the other members of this forum comment further on that.
You said this player raises a lot, but also folds frequently. I dont think this is a "loose" player. It sounds like someone who is very selective with his hands, as well as someone who trys to get the most value for the hands he does play.
In addition to this, it sounds like he knows how to play against you in particular (you fold a better hand and call his raises with a worse hand). He figured your "game" out, and has control over you. David is right (of course), that you should get a way from the table.
Remember, a lot of bad players raise, but very few bad players fold often (that is why the are "bad" players). I think his raises caught your attention more than his folds did. As result, you saw him as a weak player, when, in fact, he sounds like a very strong player to me.
You do not want to sit next to this guy. you want some room between you and him. When he is on your right, you will be looking at a lot of raises. You willl also have players to act after you. This means you might also be looking at a re-raise. If he is on your left, every time you bet in to him, there is a good chance that he is going to raise. When you bet (or call) in to him, you have to ask yourself, "Can I call a raise with this hand?" If you can't, then you should either check or fold. Although, there is one benefit to this... If he is on your left, AND you have a hand that is worth a raise, AND you know he has a good hand (but is second best to yours), call a bet rather than raising. Let him "raise" for you. This will help hide the strength of your hand, while still getting the money into the pot. More players might call his raise than would call yours, since they have seen him raise often. If you raise into him, you might alert the other players to your strong hand. Also, you set up a possible call-re-raise.
Hope this helps
For those of you who play higher than 10/20 Holdem, I am curious to know if it has been your experience, that river card beats (opponent beating you by catching a helpful last card) are any less prevalent at limits higher than 10/20? Has there been any math/statistics compiled on that type beat, relative to the game limit level? I have recently been plagued by that type beat, and it occurs to me, I have seen players move to 20/40, and thereafter refuse to play 10/20. I wonder if their actions have anything to do with last card beats.
Generally speaking the smaller the game the more multi-way action you have and the more bad beats you will experience on the river.
I just thought I'd pass this along if anyone was interested. There is a trailer for the movie "Rounders" (the poker movie to be released in Sept.) It's posted on "http://www.hollywood.com/multimedia/index5.html", you'll have to navigate through the java mess to find it but it's not that hard. I read the screenplay earlier this year, and it does portray poker in a more realistic manner than some other poker movies. It mainly deals with the underground poker world, although there is some casino action.
There is a reprint of the script from the first scene in this mont's Esquire (with Garry Shandling on the cover). It ends with the young player (Matt Damon, I assume) getting in to a big confrontation with a Russian guy for about $50,000 in an NL hold'em ring game. Matt has Ac9c to a As 9s rag - 9 - Qs board. He puts the Russian on a Spade draw on the flop, induces a call by overbetting (representing a bluff), fills up and checks the turn, and then gets all-in with a raise after the Russian bets big when the spade draw gets there on the River, trying to buy a cal by taunting "I don't think you have spades." However, the Russian calls Matt's big raise and says "You're right, I don't have spades".
I guess we'll have to wait til September to watch young Matt get sawed off by the fat Russian cliche with his pocket Queens or pocket Aces. Actually, the screenplay seemed O.K., except I counted at least a half dozen Pokerisms that are rarely used outside of frat-boy quarter ante games in the first action scene. Groaners such as "Pasadena" for fold, "Check's Good" for check, "Brass Brazilians" for pocket Aces, "Ladies" for Queens, "Bear Trap" for a slow play, "Apple" for the big ring game, and "Burn and Turn" for a check were used by these PLAYERS. It sounds like the script writers are intent to use every entry from Dan's Poker Dictionary.
1. Are there any books about Omaha Hi-Lo which contain a point count?
2. Can a computer program improve your game?
Thanks in advance,
Cal
I was playing in a tournament last nite and an interesting situation came up. (By the way there were 459 entrants with an 82 thousand dollar prize pool.) I was on the button and the game was ten handed because of the large number of entrants. It was the third round with 25-50 blinds. One optional rebuy was allowed. The buyin was $115 and you got $500 in chips and a $100 rebuy got $800 in chips. Everybody limped in and I had a 10 3 offsuit. I had about $1100 in chips and I decided to play the hand. I can't ever remember voluntarily playing a piece of garbage like that before in my entire poker career. I felt because of the volume of the pot and the implied odds my play was correct. I flopped two pair against a straight and flush draw and then turned a full house. One player had a king ten. I won a monster pot. What do you think of this play? I am in this situation capable of throwing away top pair with a three kicker if the play seems to dictate this. The tournament was at the Crystal Park in L.A.
Since I'm not a tournament player, I'll just ask: Would you make this call in a live game? From what you said, I don't think so. And I hope not. There's no way it's justified. It's hard to imagine that its expectation could be *that* much different in a tournament. (Can the prospect of a rebuy make any two cards playable in this spot???) But I'll let the tournament people deal with that - if there's anything to deal with.
Of course I would not play that in a live game. However early in a tournament in an attempt to accumulate chips I think it is the correct play. When I first began playing tournaments I would never make that play either, but I think it is critical to get chips early and playing almost any two cards in a ten handed pot is one such way.
Bruce S. writes (in part): "...early in a tournament in an attempt to accumulate chips I think it is the correct play... I think it is critical to get chips early and playing almost any two cards in a ten handed pot is one such way."
I can't believe I'm addressing a tournament issue, but I'll go one more response: You may be right. It seems to me that the underlying logic has to be that early in a tournament plays which, in and of themselves, have a negative expectation can be warranted because those times that you do win the pot help enough in propelling you into the money to outweigh the losses incurred if you were just to look at those plays in isolation.
i.e., if you made this call 100 times, you'd lose chips on the call itself, but maybe you'd make money as a result of tournament money wins generated.
I don't know, maybe this is one reason I don't like tournaments. It just doesn't seem like poker to me.
In a no-limit or pot-limit game, the call would definitely be correct (i.e., less than 5% stack size) even if it appears fishy. In a limit game, the question is more debatable because the implied odds may not be there post-flop. Still, sitting last, with an entire field limping in, any two cards are speculatively playable.
I'll leave you with some recent thoughts on what they might say if you asked a whole table of limit hold-em players why they all played in the same hand:
(in order of action)
Seat 3: "I was trying to steal from up-front" Seat 4: "I had a pair" Seat 5: "I had 2 paints" Seat 6: "I was suited" Seat 7: "I had 2 connectors" Seat 8: "I had an Ace" Seat 9: "I was trying to cut off the button" Button: "I was on the button" S.Blind: "I had half a bet in" B.Blind: "It was my big blind"
Earl writes (in part): "...In a limit game, the question is more debatable because the implied odds may not be there post-flop. Still, sitting last, with an entire field limping in, any two cards are speculatively playable."
You're talking about a live game? If so I don't agree. This is something like the thread from a while back on playing Q5 offsuit in the big blind getting something like 15-1 on your call. As we all learn to look at pot odds and implied odds, these unsual situations with so many players coming in tend to look good, but I would contend that they are *not* good enough to justify the play of any two cards. My reasoning would be pretty much the same as what emerged in the above cited thread. So I won't go into detail here. I think that thread was around April?
"...what they might say if you asked a whole table of limit hold-em players why they all played in the same hand:...[a bunch of goofball comments provided]"
And I suppose a table full of "big bet" players would all give much more intelligent responses? Perhaps each would point to the player to his right and say, "I figured if I made a hand I could take that guy off for his whole stack."
Definition of a literalist: one who, upon seeing the 'handwriting on the wall,' stops to examine the penmanship. My post was a tongue-in-cheek shot at the "no-fold-em" games that seem to abound in limit HE.
Still, I'll take up for the folks who think they've got the right price to play a piece of cheese. This situation is at the opposite end of the spectrum where David Sklansky says that folding A-A "might" be correct in certain situations: in some situations, it might be correct NOT to fold any hand. In a tournament of course, there are many other variables that might make it correct to play any hand.
Simply put, a correct gambling decision is one where the money odds are less than the actual odds (both actual and implied). I suspect that those who play weak hands because the price looks right also look at the tilt factor, which is not necessarily quantifiable, but still profitable.
In a big-bet game, live or tournament, I'd dare to say that it never happens where a full table enters a raised pot. But yes, for the right price, a big-bet player *is* going to play a weird hand in order to try to take an opponent off for his whole stack.
As far as "goofball comments," these are the direct quotes heard in limit HE games, although not usually at the same time. Taken to its logical conclusion, I suppose limit HE players uttering same would be considered "goofballs?"
Earl writes (in Part): "...My post was a tongue-in-cheek shot..."
Hmmm, thought I took it that way. Perhaps my provision of "equal time" for "big bet" players was not taken in the same spirit? Didn't mean anything but a good natured riposte (so to speak), Earl. :-) Goofballish coments/logic know no bounds in poker. They are found in all games, limits, structures... Though I should add that even that observation is not to be taken too seriously, as a great many players who might not understand much poker theory, are nevertheless quite brilliant in their own areas of expertise... anything but "goofballs" really.
"In a big-bet game, live or tournament, I'd dare to say that it never happens where a full table enters a raised pot..."
Just want to clarify that my comments were about a limit game and, as per the original post in this thread, an unraised pot.
"...But yes, for the right price, a big-bet player *is* going to play a weird hand in order to try to take an opponent off for his whole stack."
Understood. But though pot/no limit is not my area, I'd bet that even here calling behind a bunch of limpers with T3o is debatable at best, and isn't going to make you much money in the long run. On any of the rare occasions when you make something like two pair, it's the kind of hand that can still get you into a lot trouble. e.g., flop comes T-3-9 and you run into T9...
"...in some situations, it might be correct NOT to fold any hand."
Sure, I agree. But I can think of more *heads-up* situations where I'd consider playing T3o, than multiway situations. Multiway in a limit game, even on the button behind a table full of limpers, I have zero doubt that a call is going to lose money - even with any "tilt factor" factored in. It just takes more than 9-1 odds plus whatever implied odds to throw hand selection completely out the window.
As for the tournament situation, I'd still like to hear what some of the tournament mavens say about the logic of this situation.
My aplogies to Bruce S. if this has gotten a bit far off topic from your original post.
John Feeney
In no-limit tournaments one should rarely call unless you are trying to set up a play on a opponent. People who play 10-3 early in a tourny don't tend to win much. It's a little different if one were to raise with it. Still 10-3 is a loser in the long run and it does not matter if 2000 people call! As far as a limit tourny I personally don't think it can be played. Just because one person played it and lucked out and won a big pot does not mean it's playable. So many people put so much emphasis on pot odds in tournaments just can't realize that they are not playing a ring game anymore. Pot odds do not play as important winning strategy as they do in a ring game. The big reason for this is because during a tourny if you get knocked out you are out except during a rebuy period of course. Here is a example. Say during a tourny you have a open-ended straight draw after the flop. However 4 people are in the pot with you. Notice that you have the correct pot odds. But wait a minute, for you to play the hand you will be all in! Many times it's a better play to fold. Of course if you are short-stacked then you can play. If you have a stack that is worth protecting I still rather fold then risk that stack on a draw hand unless it's during a rebuy period and you want to rebuy. To win a tourny you have to try to survive during survival periods and attack during attack periods. Playing draw hands because of pot odds during a survival period is not good strategy. Playing draw hands during attack periods is better if you have a chance to win without a flop. I will leave it up to you to figure out when a survival period is and when a attack period is.
7CSFAP it is ok to reraise a 10 whith somethink like (K,Q)8 suted. Is it mistake to raise if two 8 are out but no K's, Q's and flash is live or maybe one card dead.
If 10 raise what is a beter hand 88Q or 33K?
I call bring in whith (Ac3s)6h. Two more players. On forth stret up cards are 6h6d(me), KhTc, 8h9c, 2dKd. Is it corect to go on fitth street.
I'd come out betting. Your competition for low, 2d, just caught a big card and will probably drop, while the probable high hands will put you on trips or 2 pair and possibly drop also.
If everyone drops, you win a small pot. If someone stays, you have a diguised hand and a decent draw.
I think it is right. Your hand has improved. You could sweep or win either half-no one else improved a low. I think Ray Zee's definitive work on high low states same
I think bet is corect. I ask difrently. Is bet semi-bluf?
I would call it a semi-bluff. The pair of sixes is probably not the best high out there, but why let the other players know. I see many players limp in with a samll pair and small side card, a weak holding in my book, but a common starting hand. If they put you on that hand, they expect you now to have 2 pair or trips. You don't always need the best hand to win.
If everyone drops, great, if not, you have multiple draw possibilities. You have 3 draws to get 2 uncounterfeited low cards, the sixes are live and a third one will probably win the pot, and an ace in the hole is a powerfull holding in Hi-Lo. It's a powerfull low card, and pairing it later for aces over may take high.
I made this bet get ace on next card and win large pot wit 6's full against King high flush and 9 high straight. And gay which made straight say i made sucer bet if i will play like this in low limit i will loose all my money.
I won big pot whith T3o. I was in BB. Unraised pot. Nobody fold. Flop came TT8 rainbow. SB bet. I raise. UTG reraise. Rest of the field fold. SB cap it. We call. Turn 2. SB bet. I call. UTG raise. SB reraise. We call. River was 3. Shuold i fold on the flop or turn if yes when?
It sounds like this game might have been too loose to muck trips with a bad kicker at any point. More importantly, how do the UTG and SB perceive you and your playing skills? If they think you are a fish, they could easily be making these plays both holding pocket pairs. If they think you are an expert, then I'd have to be afraid of AT T8 or 88 particularly from the small blind. I'll assume that the player under the gun smooth called before the flop with AA or KK for deception purposes. You showed strength on the flop, then weakness when a blank hit the turn. If I were in the hand, I'd have to believe you had a ten with a kicker you didn't like. Did they slow down on the river?
SB bet on river and i only call. UTG call. SB had 88. UTG had ATs. I did not raise becase if SB had T8 he have nothink to lose by reraising and i can loose UTG. Shoold i raise. I did not post river action becase i thoght it was mistake. But after think some more calling maybe best play.
This is an example of why preflop hand selection is SO important. You were the benificiary of what is known as a "big blind special." Obviously, if you had been raised before the flop, you would have mucked.
But you got trips with a very bad kicker. You got lucky, there is no doubt about it. Your "rivering" of your opponents hopefully put them on tilt the rest of the night.
You MIGHT want to put in a raise to "test the water," or, more importantly, to build a pot if you sensed that your opponents would stay to the river, which seems to be what in fact happened.
But I think your first analysis was right; The play was incorrect. Don't make a habit of it.
But this is what makes Hold-'em the game that it is. If there were no blinds, if there was no "rivering," there'd be no hands like these, and hold-'em would be about as exciting and rewarding as watching grass grow.
I am in midele position whith KQs. One player before call. I call. Two more players call. BB raise. Flop come Q high. BB bet. Player betwen us fold. I raise. Was it mistake?
No mistake. Sometimes you have to raise on the flop even when you think the bettor may have you beat at the moment, especially if you think this may give you isolation.
You didn't say what the players behind you did. Did they call the raise before the flop? If not, a raise is called for in an attempt to get it "heads up." SLOW PLAYING IS VERY DANGEROUS!
The choices you have are:
Call Raise Fold
Obviously, you do not fold. (Well, maybe not OBVIOUSLY, but if you did, you might consider another pastime.)
But why just call? SLOW PLAYING IS VERY DANGEROUS! If you call, you are essentially giving your opponent (on the BB) a "free" card. Now is the time to raise, before the limits go up. If you get re-raised, you know where you are, and it didn't cost you very much. If you just get called, well, that means something else.
You've got position on your opponent, and that is easily worth an extra small bet in this case.
To be fair, you are asking a very good question. Since the BB raised before the flop, you probably have to put him on a very good hand, and AQ, AA, KK are certainly worth considering. (Although AQ MIGHT not be worth a preflop BB raise.) Also, if your opponent is on a powerhouse, e.g., set, AA, KK, he might have tried for a check-raise, but again, a set may be less likely, due to the preflop raise, e.g., would you raise before the flop on the BB with, say, 8-8?.
I suspect that you are asking this question because you got beat in that hand. What happened?
In his latest Card Player column, Sklansky writes:
"[Lawrence] Hill is the first to admit that his strictly mathematical results do not necessarily translate into good poker strategy. (For instance, if memory serves me right, he computes that Q-10 suited wins slightly more often than J-10 suited in multiway pots. But those with poker insight understand that J-10 is the better hand, since it will make more straights that usually will win bigger pots.)" End quote.
I think it's not so clear cut. Those with poker insight understand that QTs is the miracle hand. More seriously, it makes bigger pairs and bigger flushes than JTs. (The bigger flush factor may not seem important, but consider what happens when it turns a flush and a fourth suited card hits on the river versus several opponents.)
QTs shows a statistically significantly greater profit than JTs in a simulation I ran with the hand on the button versus 4 loose-aggressive players in the pot so far and 2 loose-aggressive opponents remaining in the blinds. However, it's only about a $2 difference in a $10-$20 game, and the exact difference depends intricately on the experimental set-up (e.g., what do they do versus 2/3 bets cold, and exactly what hands are the opponents raising and reraising with), so it's by no means a closed case.
I think in general S&M overrate JTs, ranking it in group 3 several notches above QTs in group 4. Here are the S&M rankings showing QTs and JTs in _Holdem For Advanced Players_:
Group 3: 99, JTs, QJs, KJs, ATs, AQ
Group 4: T9s, KQ, 88, QTs, 98s, J9s, AJ, KTs
Here's how I would rerank all these hands, based on simulation evidence:
Group 2: 99
Group 3: ATs, KJs, AQ, 88, QJs
Group 4: KTs, QTs, JTs, AJ
Group 5: KQ, T9s, J9s, 98s
However, I think having a single hand ranking is a bad idea. There's no way to come up with one ranking that works well in all situations. For example, you can defend with A2o on the big blind versus a semi-tight raise, and it ranks about average, but if there is also a cold caller, A2o becomes just about the worst possible hand to defend with, according to the simulations.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I haven't had the opportunity yet to run any sims. Still, I think S&M are covered in this case. In Hold'em Poker by David Sklansky, the hand rankings assume "an average of about four players staying for the flop" (unlike your 7) and allow for the eventuality that "certain hands change value if there are very many (or very few) opposing hands".
In this instance, S&M's hand rankings display logical consistency :
(1) The number of straight combinations determine the ranking, so QJs > KJs, JTs > QTs, T9s > J9s, 98s > T8s,....., 54s > 64s, 43s > 53s.
(2) Where the number of straight combinations are equal, the "higher" card determines the ranking, so 42s > 32s.
(3) The only exception to (1) above is AQs vs KQs - S&M rank AQs above KQs, probably due to the extra weight of the "nut" factor.
Your reranking is consistent in that you place KJs above QJs. Why though have you got J9s below T9s, and T8s below 98s?
Etienne
Etienne said:
>> Why though have you got J9s below T9s, and T8s below 98s? <<
It seems that you answered your own question before you asked it - T9 makes more straights (that use both hole cards) than J9, and the same holds when comparing T8 to 98. As you noted, J9s is below T9s, and T8s below 98s in the Sklansky rankings too.
In general, Abdul's rankings are determined by what his sims are telling him are occuring when the hands are actually played, so there may be some results which appear contrary to any "simple" rules of ranking.
Stephen,
In a post entitled "Another Hold'em Question" (4 May 1998), George Rice asked : "You're heads-up in a tournament and just posted the big blind all-in. Your opponent calls and shows the AK of spades. Except for any aces or kings, what other two cards would maximize your chances, and why?"
TsT, QsQ, 5s5 and 7s7 were some of the candidates that were put forward.
In the same thread (7 May), David Sklansky posed another question - what hand does best against a pair of kings other than AA or KK?
Here the 2 contenders were AKs and A5s.
Having done all the sims myself (for both problems) it was clear to me that I was not comfortable with even the 3rd significant figure, and hence Monte Carlo methods were of limited practical use in close call situations. Why have I mentioned all this? For 2 reasons :
(1) From a recent RGP thread, it has come to my attention that you have written a program which enables you to determine probabilistically the solution to questions like the aforementioned. Could you spare the time and please let us know the answers to these 2 questions?
(2) From what I understand, your next goal is to cater for n-way showdown situations (n=3 to 11), with the final stop being a computer player. When your model is ready, then this will most likely be the best way of determining solutions to questions like whether JTs is better than QTs in a multiway pot for any given set of parameters. Clearly the element of chance (and hence, alas, Monte Carlo) will still have to be represented to a certain degree (for bluffing etc.) but the brute force probabilistic component (not featured in any other present-day tool) will mean much more accurate results.
Etienne
Here are some numbers for the first two questions.
Etienne wrote (quoting George Rice):
>> "You're heads-up in a tournament and just posted the big blind all-in. Your opponent calls and shows the AK of spades. Except for any aces or kings, what other two cards would maximize your chances, and why?"
TsT, QsQ, 5s5 and 7s7 were some of the candidates that were put forward. <<
AsKs vs. TsTh
Evaluated 1712304 boards
AsKs wins: 779838 times (45.543197936815%)
Hands tie: 7703 times (0.449861706799727%)
TsTh wins: 924763 times (54.0069403563853%)
Pot Equity for AsKs: 45.7681287902148%
Pot Equity for TsTh: 54.2318712097852%
AsKs vs. QsQh
Evaluated 1712304 boards
AsKs wins: 781594 times (45.6457498201254%)
Hands tie: 8111 times (0.473689251441333%)
QsQh wins: 922599 times (53.8805609284333%)
Pot Equity for AsKs: 45.8825944458461%
Pot Equity for QsQh: 54.1174055541539%
AsKs vs. 7s7h
Evaluated 1712304 boards
AsKs wins: 809660 times (47.2848279277511%)
Hands tie: 7377 times (0.430823031424327%)
7s7h wins: 895267 times (52.2843490408245%)
Pot Equity for AsKs: 47.5002394434633%
Pot Equity for 7s7h: 52.4997605565367%
AsKs vs. 5s5h
Evaluated 1712304 boards
AsKs wins: 814867 times (47.5889211261552%)
Hands tie: 8893 times (0.51935871200441%)
5s5h wins: 888544 times (51.8917201618404%)
Pot Equity for AsKs: 47.8486004821574%
Pot Equity for 5s5h: 52.1513995178426%
I also threw in:
AsKs vs. JsJh
Evaluated 1712304 boards
AsKs wins: 780176 times (45.5629374223269%)
Hands tie: 7907 times (0.46177547912053%)
JsJh wins: 924221 times (53.9752870985526%)
Pot Equity for AsKs: 45.7938251618871%
Pot Equity for JsJh: 54.2061748381129%
which as expected falls between the TsTx and QsQx case.
Why does TsTx rate higher than QsQx? It makes more straights. It also loses when the board is QQJJX, X For the second question
Etienne wrote:
Here the 2 contenders were AKs and A5s. <<
KsKh vs. AcKc KsKh vs. Ac5c KsKh vs. As5s Removing a king from the deck is the major factor here.
As for the QTs vs. JTs debate goes, unfortunately what I have written up to now is not suitable for determining how hands play out. It's only use is for hot-and-cold analysis (where all possible boards and opposing cards are dealt), but without taking into consideration how opponents would play beyond the flop. Additionally, the extra precision that I'm getting from exact analysis of hot-and-cold situations as opposed to the Monte Carlo simulations is not generally useful, except for answering trivia questions on close calls.
However, in doing exhaustive analysis, I'm finding some techniques for greatly reducing search spaces, and hopefully some of that will also turn into insights about how to make a computer player aware of the possibilities of a situation without having to do exhaustive accounting of the possibilities.
Actual work on a computer player (even just preliminary stuff) is a ways off.
>> In the same thread (7 May), David Sklansky posed another question - what hand does best against a pair of kings other than AA or KK?
Evaluated 1712304 boards
KsKh wins: 1121238 times (65.4812463207468%)
Hands tie: 14122 times (0.824736728992048%)
AcKc wins: 576944 times (33.6940169502612%)
Pot Equity for KsKh: 65.8936146852428%
Pot Equity for AcKc: 34.1063853147572%
Evaluated 1712304 boards
KsKh wins: 1133251 times (66.1828156682458%)
Hands tie: 6780 times (0.395957727132565%)
Ac5c wins: 572273 times (33.4212266046216%)
Pot Equity for KsKh: 66.3807945318121%
Pot Equity for Ac5c: 33.6192054681879%
Evaluated 1712304 boards
KsKh wins: 1142171 times (66.7037512030574%)
Hands tie: 8186 times (0.478069314794569%)
As5s wins: 561947 times (32.818179482148%)
Pot Equity for KsKh: 66.9427858604547%
Pot Equity for As5s: 33.0572141395453%
Etienne writes:
--------------------------
I haven't had the opportunity yet to run any sims. Still, I think S&M are covered in this case. In Hold'em Poker by David Sklansky, the hand rankings assume "an average of about four players staying for the flop" (unlike your 7) and allow for the eventuality that "certain hands change value if there are very many (or very few) opposing hands".
--------------------------
I'm sure Abdul will clarify, but I don't think the average # seeing the flop in his sim was 7. I think it is somewhere between 5 and 7 (between 4 and 6 opponents).
Also, if Sklansky's reason for preferring JTs is valid (more straights), then Abdul's simulation should benefit JTs more than QTs since his average # seeing the flop is higher than Sklansky's 4. But it doesn't. Sklansky ranks JTs significantly higher than QTs (one full group) but Abdul's simulations indicate that the two hands are much closer, with QTs being a slight favorite.
I'd like to hear a detailed analysis from Sklansky on why JTs is better, since most evidence indicates otherwise.
Firstl, I wouldn't say that I rank J10s significantly higher than Q10s. But I am still sure that it is better, especially in loose passive games since it ought to win a bit more on average when it wins and lose a bit less when it loses. Since it wins about as often in a showdown it should make more momey overall. (In actual pllay it might eve win more often as you will often throw away a Q10 on the flop that would have paired queens later.)
An additional benefit to Q,10s and any "one gap" straight is that people are less leery of that straight than they would be with three consecutive cards to a straight. You get paid off better when it hits than you do with the no gapper. I think this makes the straight potential about a wash for both hands, so the higher rank makes the Q,10 superior. This "better" payoff would be hard to simulate. It's already the better hand in the simulations. Add this factor and it is clearly superior.
That's an excellent point, that QTs gets better action than JTs when they make straights, because JTs' straight cards are a scary consecutive 3. Unfortunately, one of the flaws in the Turbo simulations is when a player has a pair, he only considers whether there is a "3 card straight" on board, which includes the one gap 3 card straights like AKJ and QJ9. So QTs would be rated even more highly if the players did consider consecutive 3 card straights as more scary. (It could be that this is a feature, not a bug, of the program, as you also don't want to give any cheap cards with 3 consecutive cards on the board, since there are then two different one card open-ended straight draws that may be out there.) Of course, there could be some other subtle point that is unfairly bloating the rating of QTs in the sims. But if you start simplifying the sim, you wind up back to showdown poker, which isn't realistic either.
To clarify some things from other posts... the sim had between 4 and 6 opponents seeing the flop. While I sometimes try to explain the simulation results, they are what they are, and I just go with them without strong evidence to the contrary. While Monte Carlo simulations are subject to inaccuracies due to insufficient samples, the simulations I ran here were long enough to establish a statistically significant difference between QTs and JTs in the given scenario to a high degree of confidence.
I think what makes QTs stronger than David Sklansky gives it credit for is that it kicks the sh*t out of JT on a ten high flop. JTs kicks the sh*t out of T9s on a ten high flop, but beating one hand isn't enough, especially when ATs, KTs and QTs could easily be in the opponents' hands. And also it's not like having a pair of queens with a ten kicker is any worse than having a pair of jacks with a queen kicker.
In any case, I don't feel very strongly about it, and the debate can probably never be settled, since it depends so much on the details of the simulation. But the parting concept that I'd like to leave you with is that medium suited connectors are not as strong as they seem, because they are often dominated when they make a pair, including by the one gap and two gap suited connectors, which are themselves stronger than they may seem.
-Abdul
Abdul,
You write : "That's an excellent point, that QTs gets better action than JTs when they make straights, because JTs' straight cards are a scary consecutive 3. Unfortunately, one of the flaws in the Turbo simulations is when a player has a pair, he only considers whether there is a "3 card straight" on board, which includes the one gap 3 card straights like AKJ and QJ9. So QTs would be rated even more highly if the players did consider consecutive 3 card straights as more scary."
TTH2's post flop analysis seems to have some interesting quirks in it. A flop of 89T, for example, is not considered a 3-card straight while TJQ is. And while 9JQ is treated as a 3-card straight, 8TJ is ignored. So if you're holding T6s and 8TJ (rainbow) flops, it will be treated as "a pair other than top pair, with kicker lower than the board." If TJQ flops, it is considered as "a pair other than top pair, vs a 3-card straight or flush." The list goes goes on. 689 and 789 are recognized as 3-card straights, while 78T is not.
More specifically, for JTs and QTs we have :
JTs
789 - recognized
89Q - not recognized
9QK - recognized
QKA - recognized
QTs
89J - not recognized
9JK - recognized
JKA - recognized
This is just the flop. There are quite a few 4-card board situations, some of which may also behave selectively.
Before I notify Bob Wilson, perhaps you (and others) should take a look at it - maybe I'm doing something wrong.
Etienne
Abdul wrote:
However, I think having a single hand ranking is a bad idea. There's no way to come up with one ranking that works well in all situations. For example, ...
I agree one hundred percent.
I haven't read the article yet, but I tought Sklansky wasn't into Spliting hairs with Starting Hands. My view on both hands in a "Multiway Pot" is that they are so close to being equal I'd play them relatively the same.
CV
Millions of computer simulations have shown that with no other information, picking the following letters out of a Scrabble bag affect your point EV in the following way:
? = 24.5
S = 7.5
E = 4.0
X = 3.5
Z = 3.0
down to...
B = -3.5
W = -4.0
U = -4.5
V = -6.5
Q = -13.
Does that mean if you pick a Q and a U, your EV has now gone down 17.5 points? No, of course not. They have a synergy that wipes all that downside out. What does that have to do with poker?
Information without context can be a dangerous thing.
The continuum of starting hands offered by HPFAP and other authors as well may be a nice average, but without an understanding of what you want preflop, the information is not that useful. The answer to "should I play these two cards?" is a function of many factors, the makeup of the game being at least as significant as those two cards. HPFAP addresses this by saying, ".. and in looser games you can include groups X,YZ.," but in many cases, hands in the same group play radically different.
Under the gun and you have a pair of 8's, quick what do you do?
Anyone whose thought about poker or taken a standardized test knows the answer is obviously, "You need more information." In a tight 20-40 game with a couple of walkers, raise. There's a good chance you can pick up the blinds, and your "downside" of playing a heads up pot isn't so bad either. In a loose game, you would just limp this in. The last thing you want to do is play it 3 handed out of position.
Now, how do you know this from starting hand tables? You don't. Compare this to 88's neighbor KQ offsuit. This hand plays completely differently. Once again, it depends on the makeup of the game and your image and control.
A new player basing his starting hand selection on tabular information will be in the dark. The tables can illuminate someone that some hands aren't very playable, but whenever I've seen someone sit down with flashcards (and I have seen this recently at 20-40), I almost feel that dreaded poker emotion, pity. Here's someone who has made a commitment to playing well and improving, yet they start the hand with no understanding of what they want preflop. Additionally, they have been cheated of the experience of figuring out how to play, something they are ostensibly commited to achieving. Maybe I would've saved some money if ten years ago someone had pointed out to me the problem with limping in early with KJo, but I feel I understand poker so much the better for the path I took to enlightenment.
Obviously, the point of buying books is to assuage the financial cost of the learning curve, and I'm all for this. I just feel that starting hand tables for a game as complex as Hold 'em while valuable to a rank beginner are a bit of an intellectual caprice "for the Advanced Player." Mason, if you think there's a market for a 200 page book on "Hold'em, the First Two Cards," let me know...
JG
Jim,
Imo there is a market for such a book.
Tom Haley
I've been playing 20-40 hold 'em for about 2 1/2 years now and I seem to be in one of thoses bad runs. I play 3-4 times a week and this has lasted 1 1/2 months. I belive I'm playing my best game, but things just don't seem to work out. Should I take some time off, play a lower limit or just stick it out till things turn. Any help on this matter we be appreciated. Thanks
If there is someone else in your game who you can trust, and whose opinion you value, ask them if they think you're still playing your best game or not.
If there's no one like this to ask, them you can only ask yourself. Take some quiet time and really think back to your play over the last few sessions. Ask yourself if you've really been making the smartest (not always the correct) play or not. If, after careful introspection, you can't find any mistakes, then go back to it. However, take notes as you play of any questionable plays you make, and think about them some more after the game.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
How do you take notes while you play? Just take a break from the table and jot down a few thoughts, or do it right there? I would also like to know what you note about these plays that would help you later? Taking notes sounds like a good way to improve your game, but impractical until after you leave, when you would have forgotten things. As a newer student of poker, I would like to know.
Take notes any way that works for you. ;-)
I have a steno notebook that I use to record all of my results. It is spiral bound at the top, about 6x9 inches, and lined horizontally. I also use it to take notes on my play. I just set it on a drink table (California poker), which is next to me at about knee height. No one but the player on that side of me can see it at all, and I do it when I'm out of a hand.
I know a guy who carries a microtape recorder with him. When he has something to record, he stands up and moves a few feet away, and whispers into the microphone.
I'm sure that other folks can recommend other physical methods for achieving this. Just do what you can.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In Las Vegas casinos you can keep notes in a Nevada Sports Schedule or a Racing Form with out drawing any attention to yourself. I write just enough of a note so later in the parking garage I will remember the event and expand on it. Then when I get home I spend more time thinking about the hand or situation.
Your way of keeping notes is the best way I have read so far. I'm sure you are not that concerned what your opponents at your table think of you, (and your note taking), but in the casino I play at there have been a couple regulars who have tried the note system (one player jotted after almost every hand for 5-6 hrs). Needless to say, the jotters are the root (butt) of alot of jokes.
even better, if you are worried about looking "silly" to others (get over that quickly, by the way) If you are in a poker room that displays racing, you can make it look as if you are following the races, taking data down about horses, etc.... right after a hand.
I do that a lot when I'm taking notes on the players at a table, my buy-in, etc (mostly soon after I sit down).
J Gabsy,
I have used a small tape recorder in the past in much the same way that Greg described. This worked well. I don't bother taking a lot of notes now as the key hands I seem to remember well and there aren't that many of them.
Tom Haley
I'd probably move down, allowing myself to regain form and confidence.
You might be playing correctly, but if you have been running badly your confidence has been hit hard, and it will show at the table when you lose a hand or two. you should stop playing poker for a week or two just to clear your head. If you find that you can't do that... then maybe you have a gambling problem.
I was reading old posts on rec.gambling.poker and saw one by Ed Hill that talks about running bad.
"When you are running good, you just stack up your chips and sit like a king. You never bother to put a lot of thought into improving your play. Running bad is the only thing that makes anybody put a lot of thought into how they are playing, trust be on this one, I know." - Ed Hill
Play stud for awhile ... really.
I enjoy this forum for 1/2 year. After series of losing sesion i am in proces of reexamening my game plan. One of the dificultest area of hold'em is how to corectly play the blinds. This area of game plan have biger impact on win/lost rate than folding aces, playing T3 or simular hands in late position, it is more importmant than what hand is beter QJ, QT or JT. Is anybody on this forum redy to talk about this subject?
I tried to get some contrarian discussion going about playing out of the blinds awhile back, but there were only a few responses. I agree that this is a difficult subject for analysis.
How about a couple of simple observations? Lets see if anyone disagrees: 1) Typical players defend their blinds too much. 2) Typical players try to steal the blinds too much.
A thought on #1. I think that the way the games plays, it is easy to get the impression that you need to defend your blind a bit more than is really correct. (In some localities, I have wondered if there was a city ordinance requiring the unwavering defense of one's blind.) What typical players don't see, IMO, is that if you choose not to defend so much when you hold garbage cards, the bets you give up there are usually *more* than made up for by the bets you win on the occasions you do defend. This is provided that you play reasonably well after the flop.
Of course *because* so many players try to steal the blinds so often you do need to defend more than would be correct otherwise. And I do think it gets tricky knowing where to draw the line against the really chronic blind stealers. Reraising when you defend with better hands can sometimes slow them down.
I aggree, many players try to steal too much. You can win money from these players when heads up in the big blind. What I look for in these players is one of two patterns.
1) If they bluff all the way when they miss the flop, I can win money by checking and calling with very marginal hands.
2) If they bluff the flop and check the turn and will not call on the end with ace high, I can win money by calling the flop and bluffing on the end if they check the turn.
If they mix up their play where I can not see a pattern I have to just play based on the quality of my cards.
John Feeny wrote, "How about a couple of simple observations? Lets see if anyone disagrees: 1) Typical players defend their blinds too much. 2) Typical players try to steal the blinds too much."
I recently took some measurements of how often players defended their big blinds. I found that while they defended their big blinds a surprisingly large percentage of the time, they didn't defend their blinds nearly enough, compared to what simulations suggest. As for how often players steal the blinds, hmmm, I'd say they tend to do it close to correctly on the button, but probably should raise with a few more hands, even against opponents who defend properly. Players are probably much too tight in their open-raises one or two spots off the button, and are often too loose in their open-raises three or more off the button.
I need to run more simulations, but right now my best guess for the minimum hands needed to raise on the button is as follows: 22 A2s K2s 54s 53s 63s 92s A2 K4 87 97
For defending the big blind against even a fairly legitimate early middlish raise, here is where I draw the line: 22 A2s K2s 43s 74s 95s A2 K9 65 T8
Versus a button raise, I'd muck only the very very worst 20 hands or so, like Q4o, 72o, 93o, etc.
-Abdul
Abdul,
It's funny, when I wrote the above I thought, "I wonder if Abdul Jalib might respond with a very different point of view", because of something you posted a while back - off hand I can't recall the whole topic - in which you mentioned defending your big blind with a hand (something like 74o??) which surprised me. At the time I figured it may have involved an opponent of so little skill that, for you, defending with a very weak hand was justified. But now I'm seeing better where you're coming from.
Very interesting findings to say the least. And they raise a whole slew of questions. But before I can fully understand them I would like to ask: Are the standards the simulations suggest for, say, defending your big blind against a button raiser, derived in relation to players who are raising about as much a typical players do, or as much as the other simulations suggest one should, or about as recommended in HPFAP? (Same question for the other findings.)
Certainly I will defend *far* more frequently against a player who I know will try to steal with hands as weak as 92s, 87, or K4. Againt someone who's standards are more like what Bob Ciaffone has recommended (He sees JT as generally not strong enough for stealing the blinds.), I'm not going to defend nearly as much unless I feel this player plays quite weakly after the flop.
Perhaps most surprising of the standards you suggest is: "For defending the big blind against even a fairly legitimate early middlish raise, here is where I draw the line: 22 A2s K2s 43s 74s 95s A2 K9 65 T8"
Though my own standards have been tighter than the others you mention too, here is where I am typically muuuuuuch tigher. (With the exception of A2s and 22 with which I would frequently call as well) My standards have been closer to K9s 98s T8s AT QJ... with variations depending on number of players, who's doing the raising, etc. Are these standards your simulations are suggesting in this spot assuming that everyone else has folded between you and the raiser?
One concern I have is, how well does the newest TTH play head's up? I don't have it, but would think that head's up play would be an area where the simulated players might play less realistically or with less skill. Of course this would impact the findings.
You write: "Versus a button raise, I'd muck only the very very worst 20 hands or so, like Q4o, 72o, 93o, etc."
Perhaps a whole new can of worms but - in your article, "Short-Handed Texas Hold'em" (admittedly a different context) you write: "When your blind is being attacked, you have to assume your opponent is attempting to steal... However, remember that you will be out of position on every subsequent round, so folding is usually a good idea with marginal hands such as Q9 or 86s."
Those are tighter standards. Have the simulations changed your view here, or would you say that the psychology of short-handed play is different enough to dictate tighter defending standards?
I have tended to think that being a bit tighter in my blind stealing attempts has made me *successful* in picking them up without a fight much more often than I would be if my opponents just saw my raise as automatic. Do you think that despite that I could make more by trying to steal more, and accepting that I will see a higher percentage of flops?
Finally, would you say that these standards would be appropriate only for a *top* player? I would think that many merely good players might be well advised to tighten up a bit.
Lots of points to consider but I think many players should be intrigued by your findings.
John Feeney
John writes, ``It's funny, when I wrote the above I thought, "I wonder if Abdul Jalib might respond with a very different point of view", because of something you posted a while back - off hand I can't recall the whole topic - in which you mentioned defending your big blind with a hand (something like 74o??) which surprised me.''
I hope it wasn't 74o. Maybe 85s or 86o.
John writes ``But before I can fully understand them I would like to ask: Are the standards the simulations suggest for, say, defending your big blind against a button raiser, derived in relation to players who are raising about as much a typical players do, or as much as the other simulations suggest one should, or about as recommended in HPFAP?''
I ran a simulation versus a semi-legitimate raiser, which corresponds to an early position near optimal raise or middlish position for a S&M player or late middlish position for a timid player. And I ran simulations of the button raising all the time, or like he should (almost all the time.)
John writes, ``(Same question for the other findings.)''
What other findings? I usually try a range of opponents.
John writes, ``My standards have been closer to K9s 98s T8s AT QJ... with variations depending on number of players, who's doing the raising, etc. Are these standards your simulations are suggesting in this spot assuming that everyone else has folded between you and the raiser?''
Yes, those results were for when everyone else folded. Versus a semi-legitimate raise and a legitimate call, you should call with about the same number of hands, but it's a different set of hands. Multiway, offsuit baby aces are down there with 72o, and suited hands increase in value. Makes sense.
John writes ``One concern I have is, how well does the newest TTH play head's up?''
It plays very well in a game where check-raises are not allowed. In a game with check-raises, it doesn't check-raise enough. However, I know at least one professional player who doesn't often check-raise heads up anyway. Anyway, positional advantage is bloated in Texas Turbo Hold'em because of its lack of an effective amount of check-raising. This implies that any hand TTH thinks you can defend the blind with, you can, and probably a few more.
John writes ``Perhaps a whole new can of worms but - in your article, "Short-Handed Texas Hold'em" (admittedly a different context) you write: "When your blind is being attacked, you have to assume your opponent is attempting to steal... However, remember that you will be out of position on every subsequent round, so folding is usually a good idea with marginal hands such as Q9 or 86s." Those are tighter standards. Have the simulations changed your view here, or would you say that the psychology of short-handed play is different enough to dictate tighter defending standards? ''
I was wrong on that point in that article. (The rest of the article is not so misguided as far as I know.) However, Q9o and 84s should be folded versus a semi-legitimate raise, so my advice would not have been bad for defending versus a raise coming from 3 off the button. Still, versus a button raise, you need to defend with almost everything. Positional advantage amounts to a fraction of a big bet, and you're getting enough odds from the money in the pot to almost ignore it.
John writes, ``I have tended to think that being a bit tighter in my blind stealing attempts has made me *successful* in picking them up without a fight much more often than I would be if my opponents just saw my raise as automatic. Do you think that despite that I could make more by trying to steal more, and accepting that I will see a higher percentage of flops?''
Absolutely, if you play near optimally after the flop. (Hint: when heads up you need to contest the pot more than might seem correct.) You can still get a lot of the benefit you want by playing tight in other spots, like UTG or in multiway pots that include some tight players; then players will often respect you when you raise to steal the blinds.
The button's near automatic raise and the big blind's near automatic call imply that they are essentially colluding against the small blind to knock him out. The small blind is in bad position the rest of the hand and he's stuck in a tough spot between a raiser and a player left to act behind who already has a small bet invested in the pot. It's best to steal the small blind's money, rather than letting him see the flop for a bargain price. After the flop, it's a slugfest to fight for that $10 (in a $20-$40 game) of EV, with neither player usually having a real hand. The variance is quite high in this situation.
John writes, ``Finally, would you say that these standards would be appropriate only for a *top* player? I would think that many merely good players might be well advised to tighten up a bit.''
Heads up play takes time to get the hang of. Inexperienced players should probably stick to loose games, where they won't lose much if they decline to defend/steal the blind.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Thank you for your thorough response. Your comments have triggered a lot of thinking for me. Once I think things through a little more I hope to pursue this topic further with a number of additional questions/comments, some perhaps in a new thread relating to short-handed play. For now I'll just mention one thing that puzzles me:
In your first post in this thread you wrote, "For defending the big blind against even a fairly legitimate early middlish raise, here is where I draw the line: 22 A2s K2s 43s 74s 95s A2 K9 65 T8"
You clarified that this was with everyone else having folded. So you're getting about 3.5-1 on your call. Now compare this to having these hands on the button with just one early middle player having limped in. Here you're only assured of getting 2.5-1, and you don't know that one of the blinds won't raise. You will also have to beat one or two more players. Those are the negatives for this situation. On the other hand you have position, and the lack of a raise suggests a weaker hand for the early middle player. Those are the positives.
Once these pros and cons are factored in, I'm not sure which is the better situation. But *if* the pros and cons come close to cancelling each other out, then they lead to this consideration: Most of these hands, e.g., 74s, 95s, A2, and 65 are hands that most solid players would not call with on the button behind one early middle limper. So why is it worth it to play them in the blind situation? Do the pros and cons I listed fall out that strongly in favor of the blind situation versus on the button?
Bob Ciaffone wrote an article about 7 stud, and calling a raise, that relates to play out of the blinds in hldm, in that the posistion of the raiser or first one in should definately dictate how loose your calling requirements should be. Of course, pot odds fiqure, but again have to be adjusted to compensate from where the raise is coming from, and if there is a call behind the raise. Abdul's hands are probably close , but I suspect need to be tightened in some situations.
I tend to be somewhat more conservative with what I'll steal raise with on the button than from next to the button. I think it's too easy for other players to read a raise in an uncalled pot from the button as a steal rather than a real hand. Whereas there is just enough doubt when steal raising from one off the button. Unless game conditions are fairly tight, the opportunity for the average player to make a steal raise from either of these positions doesn't come up very often (almost non-existant at the lowest limits). This factor probably contributes to much of the overplaying in this situation. ADVISOR_T and ADVISOR_7 (TTH2) are far too liberal with steal situations in my opinion. Furthermore, both models overcompensate with reraises out of the blinds in defense. Check/calling or check/raising from the blinds with reasonable hands (any pair, ace and a good kicker) on the flop and beyond, defeats this strategy. Shorthanded (fewer than seven players) is when I would start to loosen up considerably, but then it is much more important that you can play better than the competition on the flop and turn.
If players are too timid in their open-raises one or two spots off the button, then aren't their opponents justified in not defending their big blinds as often?
If players are too timid in their open-raises one or two spots off the button, then opponents shouldn't defend their big blinds as often as they would versus optimal blind stealers, but they should still defend very often, more often than they do in my opinion. I listed the minimum hands that can be defended versus a fairly legitimate raise, one coming from 3-5 off the button from a timid player, 6-7 off the button from an aggressive player: 22 A2s K2s 43s 74s 95s A2 K9 65 T8. So even against a very timid player on the button, you can defend with quite a lot.
-Abdul
Abdul, perhaps you could clarify some points for me.
1. Would you ever open-raise from the button with a 2- or 3-gapped unsuited hand that doesn't include an A or a K (e.g., Q9o, J8o, Q8o)?
2. Is it safe to assume that you rarely (if ever) open from the button with just a call?
3. Your hands for defending the BB against a middle position raise doesn't include any 1-gapped suited hands (i.e., ...43s 74s...).
4. Would you ever defend your BB against a middle position raise with a 2- or 3-gapped unsuited hand that doesn't include an A or a K?
5. You consider Q4o to be among the 20 worst hands. In a short-handed situation, I would have guessed the Q gives this hand a bit of power. More so than something like 65o or 43s.
Thanks.
I haven't seen what I consider to be the most important considerations for playing the big blind against a possible steal raise, so I will contribute my $0.02.
IMO, the way most people err in the play of the BB against a possible steal raise (this doesn't apply to obvious legitimate raises, where say one player has already limped), is that they don't consider what they plan to do after the flop.
For example, very weak players call the raise ("defending against the obvious steal"), and then only continue with the hand if the flop hits them. These people may even follow an appropriate guideline for hands to call with, such as the one Abdul has given. [For example, playing this way with 22 is a complete disaster, but many people do exactly this. Somehow they decide they are a favorite preflop and call, but then when three overcards hit the board, they lose their nerve and muck on the flop to a bet. Even though these people are playing "acceptable" hands, they are literally throwing money away.] When they predicate how they plan to play the hand from that point on exclusively upon hitting at least a draw on the flop, they are giving way too much away. Some say that the best players to steal against are those who defend too few hands, but "hit the flop or give up" players may be just as good or even better to go after (especially if they don't mix up their play enough to disguise their draws from their made hands).
In fact, IMO this aspect of flop play is the main reason why occasionally reraising with a weakish hand on the BB may be correct. Many people claim you should do this to slow down your opponent's future steal frequency. Perhaps this will result, but the best reason is more immediate - you may turn him into a "hit the flop or muck" player from that point on, giving you control of the hand.
I'm not saying you should only call a possible steal raise with a weak hand like 86s if you intend to put a play on if you miss, nor am I saying that you should never call with the intention of continuing only when you improve, but I think most people do not have the proper mix of these two strategies. These people are exploitable either because they too rarely make plays for the pot, or because they try to steal after the flop too often. I'm also not saying anything specific about what kind of "move" you should occasionally make in this spot (e.g. it does not necessarily have to occur on the flop). The idea is that you should have some kind of plan in mind at the point when you decide to call (or reraise) a possible steal raise preflop.
Of course, this whole discussion can be turned around to the perspective of the blind stealer as well. I'll leave this discussion for another time.
Tom Weideman
Boris,
I've got a couple of other observations about playing in the blinds which is compatible with the discussions about stealing and defending:
1) Maximizing your expectation in the blinds is essential to playing a winning hold'em game.
2) Your variance goes way up in the blinds.
Tom Weideman's post I think is really good. A well thought out strategy (plan) for stealing and defending will put you way ahead of your opponents imo. A well thought out strategy for stealing and defending will also enhance your money making opportunities by allowing you to play in more short handed games.
Tom Haley
Situation: $ 5-$ 10 holdem with $ 2-$ 5 blind. Two people limp in from late position. I am in the small blind with AK. I raise $ 5. Big blind and both limpers call. $ 40 pot.
Flop A-8-5 rainbow. I bet $ 5 with top pair, top kicker. Big blind folds. A fairly conservative player calls and the other limper calls. Pot $ 55.
Turn a 3 suited with the 8. I bet $ 10 figuring that if I was beat by a set, two pair or a straight my opponent would raise. The conservative player called, the other limper folded. Pot $ 75.
The river was another 3. Board A-8-5-3-3 no possible flush. My opponent is the type of player who will call with any ace to the river if he flops a aces, but is unlikely to raise with anything other than a hand that is better than mine. He might also be in with an underpair. I didn't think he would fold a better hand than mine.
I analyze the situation as follows:
Hands that beat me Hands worse than mine AA 1 AQ 8 A8 6 AJ 8 A5 6 A10 8 A3 4 A9 8 88 3 A7 8 55 3 A6 8 33 1 A4 8 83 6 A2 8 53 6 KK 6 K3 8 QQ 6 Q3 8 JJ 6 J3 8 1010 6 10 3 8 99 6 9 3 8 7 3 8 6 3 8 4 3 8 2 3 8 2 4 16
__ ___ Total 130 94
I don't believe my opponent would call with J3 or K 3 off suit before the flop so after ruling out these hands there are about 50 hands he might have that are better than mine. In deciding whether to bet it appears there are 94 hands I can beat he may call with and 50 hands that beat me so I am almost a 2 to 1 shot to have the best hand if called. I decided to bet.
I bet $ 10. To my suprise my opponent raised $ 10. The pot is now $ 95. I have never seen my opponent bluff raise on the river.
Was I correct to bet? Should I call?
Your guidance, criticisms, suggestions and analysis is welcome.
Mike Baum
The bet on the river is fine. Your hand is very likely to be best, and you are likely to be called by a worse hand. This is an even better bet if you know you can safely fold to a raise. This brings us to the second question...
The hard part is deciding whether to call the raise. You said you never saw your opponent bluff raise on the river. Well, this may not be enough to rule out this possibility. There could be three reasons such a player might try a bluff here: 1. He's seen you bet the river and lay down to a raise before (i.e. he knows you are capable of making a laydown while others at the table are not, explaining why you have not seen him try it before), 2. He's a bad player who thinks the second trey is a scare card and is trying to represent trips, or 3. He missed his draw (maybe a 67), and is making a desperation move.
Assuming your characterization of him as a "conservative player" is correct, then #2 is unlikely (most conservative players don't get out of line like this). #1 is still possible, though again it is unlikely because you would expect such a player to either call or fold here, even after seeing you lay down to raises in the past (he knows you could have just been bluffing those times). #3 is also unlikely for such a player, who you would expect to be patient. Also, people who are in a desperate state of mind usually show some aggression earlier in the hand rather than patiently wait until the end.
You have clearly represented a very strong hand (you raised from the SB preflop instead of just calling, and then bet every street when the ace flopped), so he expects you to have something like a big ace, and he expects you to call with it, so his bluffing seems very unlikely. I'm guessing he either flopped a set and was playing it slowly to suck in the player behind him (as well as get you to keep betting in case you were bluffing), or he limped in late position with 34 suited, flopped a gut shot, took one off, hit a pair (allowing him to call again for his 9 outs), and got there on the end. I suppose aces-up and 3's-full-of-aces are also possible, though it seems more likely he would raise these vulnerable hands on the turn.
If you believe your assessment of this guy is on the mark, and he hasn't seen you bet and fold to a raise on a lot of rivers, I say you should dump the hand.
Tom Weideman
How much is knowing what he played (and how) worth? I might want to pay off this hand to see how he operates...thinking that I may very well have the best hand. He could be semi-bluffing with a lousy A, having convinced himself that you've got a pocket pair >8's. Of course, I would have raised you on the flop to see where I was at, though;)
As has been mentioned here and in RGP, laying down a solid hand to a raise heads-up on the river is dangerous with other solid players around...
I call the $10, show only is I win, file the results and make it back from him later.
Sklanksy adivses a check on the river if the only hand likely to call your bet is one that can beat you. So, following his advice, I would check and call . If I did bet, having picked up some bit of information suggesting the conservative player did not have A3, I would also call the raise. There is a difference between a one bet mistake and one that costs you the pot. Your agressive style will get the ten bucks back very quickly, but the effect on you of having laid down a winner and given up a decent sized pot, is likely to put you on tilt, and ruin the entire night. I have no problem with laying down hopeless hands, escpeically against consevative players, but sometimes you have to pay it off, if only to keep the agressive players at the talbe from taking aim at you..
I agree for the most part with Roger's post. Another way to think about it is that you have only one pair. Yes there is a pair of threes but that is community. You have to be very sure that your hand is the best in order to bet on the end, especially when the board pairs! It seems so ill-logical that someone would stay with a three in that hand, but I see situations like that all the time, when the improbable is what the player has. If you bet on the end, then you should call the raise.
You nailed his hand almost exactly. He had the 3h2h. I believe his limp before the flop and call of the raise before the flop were incorrect.
He flopped a gut shot on the flop so his call of my $ 5 bet on the flop with the pot laying 9 to 1 was correct. He had a good prospect of getting three big bets from me if he hits his hand.
On the turn he caught a 3. He had a pair of threes and a gut shot draw so his call of my $ 10 bet was correct. The pot was laying him 6.5 to 1. He has 9 outs. He was about a 4 to 1 shot. The three on the river gave him three threes, thus he raised me. My hand was an open book (probable AK, AQ, or AJ). The only hands I would likely reraise him with are Aces full, eights full or a bluff reraise. I don't think he would have thrown three threes away to a bluff reraise due to the size of the pot.
The strange thing to me was that I thought the three on the river was the safest card to come off for my hand. I am always suprised when someone catches runner runner to beat my hand. Since I bet a lot of moderate strength hands this costs me the double bet when they hit. Nevertheless, it often wins me that extra bet from the passive players who won't bet their fair hands, but will call with them.
I am still trying to learn how to play well. I am always looking for weaknesses in my game and trying to correct them. I appreciate everyone's suggestions and advice.
Thank you, Mike Baum
Tom,
The guy hasn't seen me make a lot of laydowns on the river. If I decide to make the laydown on the river, how should it be handled. I try to follow all the concepts in Mr. Sklansky and Mr. Malmuth's books. I believe I have the image of a tight, aggressive player. Mostly when I bet or raise the people in this game will typically either call or fold, but not try fancy raises.
Should I muck it quick and give the impression I was bluffing?
Or perhaps agonize over the decision for a while then reluctantly give it up?
There are two other players in the game that I don't have good control over. They confuse me with their play, so I don't want them taking shots at me with bluff raises.
I do bet quite a few fair hands, which was quite profitable when I first began playing with these people. Now however, these players aren't giving me near as much action with weak hands. When I first began playing with these people I was winning an average of two big bets an hour. Now, I am winning less than one big bet an hour, because when they call they often show me a better hand than the fair hand I was betting.
I have been considering a strategy adjustment, to bet fewer fair hands and bluff more. Does this make sense or does anyone have a better suggestion?
Thanks again to all for your thoughtful analysis.
Mike Baum
Mike,
First I'd like to say that judging from what you have written in this thread, I'm guessing that you are already a fine holdem player. You demonstrate an understanding of holdem that I rarely read in posts here or in rgp. Despite the fact that you are asking questions of all of us, I think you could actually teach us all a great deal. Furthermore I think that your unassuming attitude towards learning more about the game is going to turn you into nothing less than a great player. Now that I've pumped you up, I'll give you my opinions regarding your questions...
*****
The guy hasn't seen me make a lot of laydowns on the river. If I decide to make the laydown on the river, how should it be handled. I try to follow all the concepts in Mr. Sklansky and Mr. Malmuth's books. I believe I have the image of a tight, aggressive player. Mostly when I bet or raise the people in this game will typically either call or fold, but not try fancy raises.
Should I muck it quick and give the impression I was bluffing?
Or perhaps agonize over the decision for a while then reluctantly give it up?
*****
My opinion about this whole notion that "you shouldn't make an obvious tough laydown for fear of the possibility that the other players will start taking shots at you" is a load of crap. Not paying off when you are beat is another edge you have over lesser players, and to give it up is ludicrous and costly. If there are tough players in the game that may take shots at you later, then if & when the situation arises where they may be bluff raising the river your analysis of the situation changes, and you pay them off, plain and simple. The final result may be that you get two more bets from tough players you never would have gotten otherwise. [I know a very tough holdem player who bet second pair for value on the river into another strong player in an intentional attempt to induce a bluff raise from him. From the action, he knew that the other player would put him on a hand like second pair, and that a bluff raise from this player was a definite possibility. It worked, and he got two bets on the river that weaker players would never get.] As for lesser players taking shots at you, well it is my experience that they generally don't know when the time is right to take that shot. Either they bluff raise you when you have the nuts, or they try it when it just smells too "fishy". Again, you just make more money.
Don't give this nonsense about worrying about future play another thought - try to do the right thing at the right time, and don't worry about them trying to run over you until the situation actually arises, at which time you may simply have to adjust your strategy and make a looser call than usual. Note that against the tougher players you may have to use the "bet and fold if raised" option less often if you think they know that you are capable of bluff raising you. In some instances this will mean employing "bet and call a raise", and in others "check and call a bet". Mostly it depends upon what you think they put you on. Overall opponents adjust their strategy much less than people think, and if you balance your play properly, there's no need to be paranoid about other players zeroing in on how to beat you.
Lastly, judging from the large numbers of people on this forum who claim that you HAVE to call the raise in this situation, it seems very few people will believe that you folded AK in that spot (because they wouldn't), so your cover isn't really blown after all. As for HOW you muck it, I'd say take as much time as it takes to work out the correct play. If you plan from the start to "bet and fold to a raise", you can muck quickly, and this is probably the better option. I find I am not always able to do this (I often reevaluate my decision), however, but I don't think it is a huge problem.
*****
There are two other players in the game that I don't have good control over. They confuse me with their play, so I don't want them taking shots at me with bluff raises.
*****
Um, it seems to me that these are EXACTLY the players you want to take shots at you. If they are unpredictable, you need to pay them off more often, so they are throwing money away when they try to bluff you. It's the straightforward predictable players that you don't want to suddenly start taking shots. In my experience, such players rarely change their play, and as I said before, when they do it's obvious.
*****
I do bet quite a few fair hands, which was quite profitable when I first began playing with these people. Now however, these players aren't giving me near as much action with weak hands. When I first began playing with these people I was winning an average of two big bets an hour. Now, I am winning less than one big bet an hour, because when they call they often show me a better hand than the fair hand I was betting.
I have been considering a strategy adjustment, to bet fewer fair hands and bluff more. Does this make sense or does anyone have a better suggestion?
*****
Your willingness to bet fair hands for value is another example of strong play on your part. Most people take the "only bet hands which are likely to win if called" maxim to an extreme, and bet very few hands for value on the river. I love playing against these people. The reason is that on the river if they bet into me I know they either have a monster hand or they are bluffing. If a monster hand makes no sense, I often pick them off with a VERY weak hand. If there were no draws available, or every single possible draw got there on the end (so that ONLY a monster hand makes sense), then I am able to lay down some very strong hands.
There is only one problem. In your 5-10 game, there are not likely to be many people who will be able to exploit this kind of play in the way I describe above. So for this game, you may be well-advised to value bet a little bit less often. I don't know about increasing your bluffing frequency - these games tend to be filled with calling stations. If you are certain that they are indeed laying down more hands to you than you would like (making your mediocre value bets unprofitable) then of course you should crank up your bluffing frequency. Note that an increase in bluffing should accompany a LARGE number of weakish value bets, not a small one. Just keep in mind that if & when you start moving up in limits, the ability to make value bets with mediocre hands grows in importance.
Tom Weideman
Mike, altering your check/raising frequency is something to consider when your hourly rate drops like you say.
The only reason to call on the river is to stop a $10 $20 kibitzer from using this play on you when you move up.
At this limit, with this type of player, you have every right to be stunned if you win this hand.
When you take control of a hand from the small blind like you did, your opponents should put you on a big pocket pair or an ace with a good kicker. Assuming the conservative player is thinking about what you are representing, he should know that it is unlikely you'll fold for a bet or a raise on the river if you have the good ace. I expect that even a conservative player would bring it in for a raise with ace and a good kicker from late position uncalled before the flop. On the flop, a conservative player will probably fold hands like TT 99 98 87 77 or 66. When you are called on the flop you should be fairly sure that you are up against ace and a weak kicker (hoping you are betting a big pocket pair) or a slowplaying set. I would also expect to have gotten raised on the turn by a set, but not necessarily by A5s or A3s (could have been conservative enough not to have tried a semi-steal raise before the flop with any ace). I just think aces with the best kicker against a conservative player (known to play out AX), having shown strength from a blind position, should be checked on the river with the intention of calling. Unfortunately you were probably raised on the river by threes full of aces.
Whether you should bet on the end depends not only on whether you are the favorite to win if you are called but also on how many of those losing hands, that he would have called with, he will bet for you if you check, as well as how many of the hands he would have folded he would have bluffed with had you checked. It also depends on his raise bluff frequency. If he is close to game theory you should be more apt to check. I am surprised that no one else brought up these points. They are covered in my Theory of Poker book. In any case the above points mean that the proper play is not so clearcut. It may even be correct to check raise!
This opponent will limp in with a lot of hands, but is usually non aggressive unless he has a strong hand. He will occasionally bluff though usually not on the river. If he has top pair top kicker and has been betting all through the hand he will usually check on the river.
Chances of opponent betting worse hand
In this situation there were 64 AQ through A2 hands he could have that I could beat. There were also 30 hands KK through 99 he might call with. He rarely bets even moderate strenth hands such as top pair and top kicker on the river. I didn't think he would bet any of them if I checked, but would probably call if I bet. By betting I was trying to get a call from one of these hands.
Inducing a bluff
I haven't seen him bluff very often so I didn't think I could induce him to bluff.
Raise bluff frequency
I haven't seen him raise bluff (he may not have been caught) or I could have missed it. He has described to me his play in pot limit Omaha that if he flops the nut straight or the nut flush as follows. Wait until the river to bet in case the nut changes. I have never heard him mention Game Theory or discuss any related concept so I'm not sure he's familiar with it.
Trying for a check raise on the river
I did not consider a check raise because I don't think he would bet anything I could beat on the river. I don't think he would bet less than three threes on the river if I check. I also belive he would call my check raise with any hand he would bet given the size of the pot.
I appreciate everyone comments.
Mike Baum
David Sklansky introduces the possibility that your opponent might be playing close to game theoretically correct. If this is the case, Mike Baum needs to supply more information before the correction decision can be determined. The information required is: "what hands is (or should) my opponent be putting me on at this point?"
Paul,
I agree. When making the decision on how to play your hand on the river you have to consider your opponents thinking level. If your opponent doesn't get involved with reading hands (rare) that might dictate one way to play it. If your opponent only thinks about what you have, that may dictate another way to play the hand. If you opponent is thinking about what you have and thinking about what you think he has that could mean playing it another way. In this case your opponent is probably only thinking about what you have and one thing you have to do is consider what he has read you for. In this case he has most likely put you on a good hand so if he is bluffing he is trying to get you to lay down a good hand. How likely is that?
Tom Haley
This player is definitely the type to put me on a hand. I felt my hand was pretty obvious, ie AK, AQ, or AJ. I believe he put me on one of those three hands. Therefore, his raise means he felt he could beat the hand I was representng or that he thought I was bluffing. I don't think of him as being a tricky player who might try to put a play on me with a bluff raise. That's why I considered laying down my hand to his raise as my gut reaction was that I was beat. I also feel that if he thought I was bluffing he would simply call me down. I don't think he would risk bluff raising if he couldn't beat a bluff in this spot. It is possible that I have underestimated his level of sophistication.
I bet because there were a number of hands he could have been calling with that I could beat. If he has any Ace hand that I can beat, I feel he would have called on the river even though he felt he was probably beat. (AQ,AJ,A10,A9,A7,A6,A4, or A2)
This is the type of game where most of the players will play any hand with an Ace in. Since he limped in from a late position I didn't think he had a strong pre flop hand.
Mike Baum
Mike,
I believe that your bet on the end was correct by the way.
Tom Haley
I still need a bit more clarification. Is the fact that you bet on the river part of the reason why you think your hand was pretty obvious? Or should it already have been obvious to your opponent on the turn that you had AK, AQ or AJ? If, after the action on the turn (but before the bet on the river) your opponent would have put you on a wider range of hands, that is relevant for the game-theoretic optimal solution.
Paul,
My opponent plays weaker hands than I do pre flop, but he is very good at reading my hands. I'm confident he put me on (AK, AQ, AJ) when I raised before the flop from the small blind, bet the flop and the turn. He wouldn't have raised me on the end if he thought I had AA, 88, or 55. I don't think he put me on A8s or A5 suited since I raised pre flop from the small blind.
This game is not in a casino since I live in Texas. I play with mostly the same players over and over. My opponent is one of the better players in the group. When I join the game people often comment thinks like, "Oh no, here's that gar. Everyone better tighten up." When I enter a pot even when limping people say things like, "Uh oh, Mike's in the pot, better watch out." The best player in the game says, "I don't want to sit next to the gas chamber and the electric chair." These comments are made in jest; however, aren't made about other players in the game so I believe most of my opponents fear me, and are very cautious playing their hands against me. It is rare for anyone to raise me unless they hold a big hand or a monster.
Mike Baum
Based on what you've put him on, and what you believe he can put you on, the optimal play is for you to check AK on the river. If he bets after you check, then you should fold 7.4% of the time if your King is of the same suit as one of the 3's (otherwise call). If your King is of a different suit than the 3's, you should always call.
Paul, I don't follow your reasoning here or how you arrived at your conclusion. I can see how his chances of having K3s are reduced if my King is of the same suit as the threes. Nevertheless, he is the type of player who might limp in late position with Q3s, J3s or any other suited hand with a 3 in it.
The only hands he will bet on the river that I can beat are bluffs. I don't think he will try that even 10% of the time so how can checking and calling be correct?
There are a lot of hands he could have that are pretty good second best hands that I think he will call with. ie Ace anything that doen't make two pair. Also hands like KK, QQ, JJ, 10-10, 9-9 are possible. These hands are less likely since he probably would have raised with them pre flop, but not always. He may call with them all the way to the river. Why shouldn't I bet on the end if I am favored to have the best hand if called?
Mike Baum
Mike Baum wrote:
Why shouldn't I bet on the end if I am favored to have the best hand if called?
Not just the a favored hand "if you get called," but a healthy favorite if you get called, because of the overlay you must give for the times you are popped and now call the raise. The only way to avoid this is to dump on all raises, but as Paul would say, "that's not game-theoretic optimum."
There are reasons to bet on the end even if your opponents have busted draws and can not call. Constantly betting on the end may get you a loose call later in the session. If you keep forcing your opponents to fold on the end and not showing your hand they are more likely to call the next time, sometimes with a small pair after missing a draw, I’ve even had players call me with ace high. You can get this action when you have not shown down a hand in a while, if you show solid hand after solid hand because you keep checking on the end you’ll miss out on this.
If there's any chance in hell your opponent has used the phrase "game theory optimum..," you're probably in the wrong 5-10 game. Still, I'd pay him off. Sometimes bad players stumble into stuff, but they take shots too. I don't think it's 10.5 : 1 you're beat here. And even if it was, the marginal price you might pay (can't be much) is more than negated by your opponents seeing you lay a big hand down.
Jim makes a good point. Further there is a misconception that if you don't show your cards, then nobody knowsthat you laid down a good hand. WRONG! If you have been betting the whole time, and then bet the river, you don't have to show me your cards.... I know you have a hand. So if you lay it down here, I'm going to try to make a play at you later with a river check raise. That is why I feel that in this situation you need to be darn sure you are betting the river with the winner, .. not a one pair or two pair hand that uses a board pair,... or be prepared to call a raise.
Jim and Al,
People who think like you do are the ones that concern me. I don't want to lay down the best hand on the river to your bluff raise or check raise bluff and cost myself the expected profit from the whole session.
Mike Baum
Here is exampele. I am in cut-of seat had 75d. One caler in midele position. I call. Buton call. SB raise. Evrybody call.
Flop As,9d,7c. SB bet. Players betven us fold. I and buton call.
Turn 4d. SB bet. I call. Buton fold.
River 4c. SB bet. I raise. She fold. She flash AKc and say i was very lucy to catch runing 4's.
I had Tight image. She never see me bluff-raise on river. And i hear her sayng that i never bluff.
She stupid. What hand could you, a tight player possibly be playing for a raise and a call on the flop? A4 off, 74 suited? Even if you were playing these very marginal hands, she was beaten on the turn, so you didn't *catch* running fours to beat her. It was a weak bluff-raise since only a fish would see the river 4 as a acare card given the flo. Lucky for you, she made an even weaker fold. She also seems more concerned about impressing you with her tough laydown than she is about the negative expectation caused by this action. Losers like this are the EASIEST to manipulate and steal good pots from. But always remember to compliment her on her excellent card reading skills and never show her a bluff.
I would be extremely greatful to anyone that could tell me where I can find a good article about this subject. Many books mention it, but I've yet to see one that explains in detail how to properly change gears. Thanks
Doyle Brunson has an interesting story on changing gears in "According to Doyle" by same. There are lots of good stories in that book and it's good "bathroom reading".
I think Brunson also talks about this briefly in the no-limt HE section of the Super/System.
Regards,
Leigh Davis
Bob,
Mike Caro has a lesson on how to change gears in Poker Plan 3. I may not have the title exactly right. I bought my copy about twelve years ago. It has fifteen lessons on various topics.
Mike Baum
Hi,
In Alberta Canada there seems to be a lot
of 3-6-12 spread ( 3-6 with a 12 fixed
limit for the river ).
Are there any comments on strategy differences
compared to 3-6?
David
Drawing hands go up in value. Loose players will get punished less because long shot draws will now get better implied odds.
CV
I agree, assuming that drawing hands will get called down on the river. I also think this structure would give the expert player a lot of opportunities to profitably play marginal hands against weak/passive or overly tight players since there will be many opportunities to make strong bluffs as scare cards hit the river since your last bet will be meaningful in relation to heds-up or three way pots. Against this type of player my second pair or top pair/ weak kicker, or underpair will magically turn into a flush draw or straight draws on the river.
There will be "clever" players who will routinely slow play until the river, hehehe. Identify these players. Then adjust your play: call more on the flop since you are much more likely to get a free card on the turn. Semi-bluff more on the turn since you are unlikely to get raised (since they slow play). Bet for value marginal hands much less on the end.
Against typical players you may get the opportunity to bluff on the end after an unsuccesful semi-bluff on the turn. You can often tell a call with the intention of paying it off from a call with the intention of folding.
- Louie
Is it better to play in a tight or tough game, where you have quite a bit of experience playing with the players in the game, or is there more EV playing in game that seems to have less skilled players, but you have very little playing experience against them???
I think a weak game with unknown players is preferable. A good, observant player will have a line on everyone's play within an hour... or sooner.
You know how these players play. You say they are "tight". You also say that the game is "tough". Why would you want to play in this game? One of the advantages of knowing how others play is that you know how to adjust you play against them. In this instance, the best "adjustment" you could make to your game, is to move it to the other table.
I have always felt that the best situation to be in at the poker table is when you are an excellent player and are playing against people who are not familiar with your game. The reason for this is that as an excellent player you will adjust quickly to how they play, but they will adjust very slowly to you since they don't play that well.
On the other hand when you are playing against marginal players who are use to playing against you they will have made some of the proper adjustments. Perhaps it might have taken them a long time to make these adjustments but in time they should have made them. You will still have an edge but it won't be as large as if you were an unknown quantity.
In a truly tough game, your experience against your opponents will count for little since they will be mixing up their play.
just read the news in CardPlayer that Hall of Fame is cancelled and rumor is that Binion's is considering closing its poker room and discontinuing World Series. You L.V. players in the know, TELL ME IT AIN'T SO.
It ain't so (except the part about cancelling the Hall of Fame).
This discussion belongs in the Exchange forum, where I've posted a link to an article in the Las Vegas Sun giving the latest word from Binion's.
Better check with Jim Albretch directly, if you can still find him at the Horseshoe. I have heard he has already called it quits since Horseshoe management is moving the cardroom to the old bacarat area with only 6 tables, Jimmy Stephans is the cardroom manager. this could only be a rumor.
I am rereading 7CSfap. Book say to reraise possible biger pair uner this condition:
1 No cold callers,
2 Active players on my left,
3 Raiser upcard is duplicated elsewhere,
4 My kiker is higher than raiser upcard,
5 Few players call bring-in.
I belive condition 1 and 2 is nesesary and one of the condition 3-5 should be present.
But game in book is 15-30, is this play corect 1-5 or 5-10?
I don't think it's so much a matter of betting limits, but rather what type of game it is. One of the plays from 7CSFAP says if a Jack raises on 3rd and you have 3-A-3, the play is to reraise to knock out everyone but the probable pair of Jacks and play heads up. If you are in a game where your raise wouldn't knock anyone out (be it 1-5 or 10-20), I wouldn't make the play and might even fold (unless many of my oponents cards were duplicated and my hand was fully live.) Let's just say I wouldn't want to take a hand like 3-A-3 into battle against a pair of jacks and 3 or 4 drawing hands. If the raise will knock 'em out, then go with that. Otherwise your hand doesn't appear very strong in a multi way pot.
You also need to consider the ante. At $15-$30 and higher the ante is significant. At $1-$5 there is virtually no ante. Thus a hand that may only win a little more than 40 percent of the time is profitable in $15-$30 and higher (assuming that you are head-up) but will be a loser at $1-$5. Many of these aggressive plays are probably wrong at $1-$5 unless you can manipulate your opponent in other ways.
I was in a pretty good 20-40 game the other day and I made 600 dollars in a 3 hour session. The reason for my win was I was aggresive before the flop with reraises if I didn't use the rerase I think I would of had a loosing session. One example I had pocket eights in the small blind their were two limpers in early position the player in front of button raises so I reraise the two limpers folded the flop comes withe a couple of overcards I bet and the button throws away pocket 99s.please make any comments about this subject.
In most 20-40 games, limpers in early position call double bets back to them. If they are apt not to in your game, your play with the pair of eights is clearly correct.
Sounds to me like you got lucky. I think in your average 20-40 game that play is going to show a loss over time. You can't take the worst against the best and show a continous profit.
Heads up, a weak hand can consistently beat a stronger hand, if the weak hand has the lead and keeps betting. The real number that is important, is how often the stronger hand makes enough of a hand to call. When this is the case the value of your hand is less important, the number of re-draws you have is more important. For example when you are called, your 88 is as worthless as 22, only 2 outs. AK would be a better candidate for this kind of move.
Given that all the players are pretty good - all can make that kind of laydown. The success of the play depends on your current table image. If you had been playing agressive, I would check and call you down. If you had not tryed to buy pots, I would fold if I were your opponent.
all of the points made to my comments were very good points basically the play i made comes down to the image I had at that time in the game. I wont always raise with pocket eights in that situation but at the time I felt it was my best option.
I think that such reraises have the most value when playing against players who don't know you. Once they learn that you like to make this play they will more or less disregard your reraise.
Some of the above comments are how most players think. As long as you are selective with your starting hands re-raising is perfectly okay. One of the above comments was that if you do this too often the players will tend to disregard your re-raise. that would only be true if you re-raise with any two cards and play too many starting hands. Really,.. the reverse is true... If you do not re-raise with hands other than lrge pairs and large connectors your opponents will know what you have, when you do re-raise. I have seen several posts regarding playing medium pairs with a re-raise. There is nothing wrong with it. One comment above was that your hand is no good when your opponent calls your bet. but he has only a 32% of hitting the flop, so it's okay. With these pairs, the situation comes up over and over... either re-raise,raise or fold, calling just doesn't give you a chance at the pot if you don't flop trips, but the re-raise does. good luck!
If the value of re-raising with 88 comes from winning on the flop when your opponent misses his hand, then why wait for a pair, you could just as well re-raise with 62o.
bobby, The point is that 88 will be the best hand on the flop against ak 65% of the time. I t can also improve to a much better hand on the flop or turn if called. 62 is not the best hand on the flop, and would be silly to play as you well know. The re-raise implies a slightly stronger hand before the flop so someone who doesn't hit the flop, but has big overcards is less likely to continue against a pre-flop re-raiser. in the case mentioned it was a good play purely to try to get the two limpers out, let alone the hand image.
I have no disagreement with what you say here. My impression - perhaps mistaken - from the origianl post was that during that session he reraised not just with the 88, but with numerous hand with which one normally would not do so. I do think this can win you some pots by retaking the initiative and representing a big hand. But when done routinely (not selectively as you recommend) opponents will eventually catch on and play accordingly. For instance, I know a player who, whenever he is reraised, likes to make it four bets as long as it will cap the betting. He believes regaining the initiative is well worth the extra preflop expenditure. But he is a player who has travelled around a lot, often playing against players who don't know him. I'm pretty sure that is why he has developed the notion that such reraises are so often warranted. I know that a couple of times when we were in a game together and he reflexively capped it against me after I'd raised, I just played the flop as if *I'd* put in the last raise.
For the past few months I have been posting nothing but ideas on tournys. But right now I'm gonna go back to my roots. I was thinking about agressive play in ring games. Is there a such thing as being too agressive? Will that make you a loser? Suppose your play very tight, sound poker but are extremely agressive. Is that a winning strategy?. I know that it can make your fluctuations high but can it make you more money?. I earned my nickname "predator" because of the way I slow play many of my hands then pound my opponents. But I don't think this is the same thing. Being non-agressive is bad. That I know. But is super-agressive play just as bad? I'm not talking about a maniac however! Any ideas out there on this subject?
As the poker experts would say, "it depends." Against solid players, they would pick their spot to jump on you. Against weak passive players, you would probably make more money. If you can release your hand if you missed the flop, and not get married to the pot, super-agressive play can be positive. Why not just change gears as the game dicates?
OK, here's another Limit Hold'em Tournament situation. Down to two tables from nine. Prize structure is fairly normal (1st = 40%) paying 9 spots.
Total number of chips outstanding is 70,000, 18 players left, average stack size is about 3,800. I have 3,600. No real small stacks, just about everybody has 1000 or more, only one guy has more than 10,000....so pretty evenly spread out.
Blinds are 200-300, limit is 300-600. The tables just broke down into 2 tables, and I'm not familiar with half the players. I've been at the new table for about 10 hands, with few hands shown down, and no involvment from me.
I get AT of hearts in big blind. Under the Gun raises....he has not played a hand either since I've been there, but I can say that about 5 other players. Its generally been raise by late position, and fold by everybody else.
He gets 4 callers.
Question 1 : what should I do?
I call. (I think this one is easy, folding is ridiculous and raising when I know I have to act first on the flop and after does not seem worth it....especially since everyone will obviously call, unless UTG reraises, in which case, my hand is most likely dead).
The flop comes T82, three suits, including one heart.
I have top pair with A kicker.
Question 2 : action is to me, what should I do?
I check, waiting to check raise.
It happens. UTG bets, three callers, I raise, UTG reraises, only one other caller, I call. At this point I put UTG on big pair, higher than Tens.
Turn is 4 H.
Question 3 : what should I do?
I check, UTG bets, one other caller,
Question 4 : what shoud I do?
I call. Seems to me a bet or check-raise is bad. UTG probably has a big pair, and will call, and since I have to act ahead of him, I will probably not get a free card on the river.
River is 3 of clubs.
I check, UTG bets, other guy folds (now heads up).
Question 5 : what should I do?
I check and call. I figured by this time, the pot was too big...especially with the third guy making all those calls before. I have top pair, I can get beat by JJ, QQ, KK, AA or trips. He could be betting AT also, maybe even JT, QT or KT (although unlikely), or AK, AQ. I think I'm a pretty major underdog by this time, but with the pot odds so big, and the fact that if I call and don't win, I'm probably in as bad shape in the tourney as if I folded. (T1500 versus T900). There's still one table to get rid of before I can get in the money, so its not survival time yet.
Question 6 : whatever you think you would have done in the tourney, would you have done differently in a ring game?
I don't think I would have. I think I would have played it exactly the same.
Thank you.
Although you played the hand well, I think you could've saved some bets along the way. In a tournament, you're not necessarily looking to get full value out of a middling hand; the raise and check-raise could've been done without.
If you don't play the hand pre-flop you might as well go see a psychiatrist. Check raising on the flop accomplishes absolutely nothing. I think checking and calling is a better strategy. At this point chip preservation is more important. If I did not check raise on the flop I would be inclined to call on the river. However in your scenario I would fold on the river.
So,
What did he show you?
KK
You said that UTG has not played a hand since you have been there. Then he raises. It's 100 percent chance that he has better then AT suited or not! It's guaranteed! You can bet on it. Never mind that others called to give you pot odds to play. This is a tourny. You must survive. Many people don't like my strategy but all I can say is that my tourny sucess so far has been great although no WSOP rings but I'm working that. Had I been you AT is in the trash heap. Although had it been a no-limit tourny I might have went all in because your chip stack was very low compared to the currnt blind size. At that stage it would have been possibly correct to play depending on your read of the PLAYER not his cards. If he is the kind of player to raise with less then AT then hammer him with chips and hope for the best. If not then throw away the hand. But this was a limit tourny which changes things a bit. But remember that he raised in early position with several players still to act. Most normal players have AT beat under that situation. Also you had 3600 stack size. With 200-300 blinds you have a small stack! Thats one reason why small limit tournys with 20 minute increases in blinds are fun to play but totally suck!
Predator-
How can you say with 100% certainty that UTG has a better hand than ATs. He has only seen ten hands. UTG is also short-stacked. He is getting the blinds next and feeling the pressure. Maybe A medium/small pair or a medium Ace doesn't look so bad, particularly when everybody else is screwed down and wating for the button to steal. Doesn't T.L.C. advoctae a steal from early position once in a while?
I don't think the pre flop play was wrong, but have several issues with the post-flop play. I need t read the other threads first to see if I have any wisdom to add. However, I couldn't resist the opportunity to needly you.
You will never win the WSOP throwing away A10 suited with five way action in this particular situation. I guarantee it!
The reason why I won't win in this situation is that AT suited can't beat KK! If you have any card sense at all you would realize that in the situation described it's impossible for AT to be the best hand. So why play it? This is a tournament. You must survive to win. And you must attack when it's the right time to do so. Who cares if you have pot odds to draw to a flush. Remember my words of wisdom when you get knocked out and say to yourself I wish I would have turned or rivered a flush or I wish I has AA to beat kis KK,AK! I rather get knocked out with the best hand then getting knocked out with a hand That I'm sure is not.
Just make sure you don't "Go like Broomcorn's Uncle" and get anted to death on a series of worst" hands while you wait fo the "best" hand.
You left off one crucial piece of info: How many chips does UTG have? If <2000, he may have committed himself to the pot with his reraise on the flop with AK. Call him down.
If >2000, you played it wrong. Two reasonable strategies are:
1. Fold pre-flop. You are in bad position, you almost certainly are up against at least one A-Face, and you have to spend more than half your stack to see this one out. Would you call 10-7 suited here? It's a better hand in this position than A10. A10 is not much of a tournament hand. Especially not in the BB. You're going to get 50 more hands before you have to make a move. You've already told us you can steal from this table. Why fight?
2. Call pre-flop. Check, call the flop; Either you're the best, or you're going to get raised. If you're the best now, you don't stand too much risk of someone else hitting. You can bet out the turn. It takes UTG a lot more courage to raise you here than to reraise you on the flop. If he raises you, he has a great hand. Call and pray for a heart.
Maybe we could call Randy "predator 2"! However I still say fold no matter what unless you would be blinded out very quickly if you did'nt play AT.
It's 15-30 hold'em, the player next to the button is absent and you are next to that seat. As the dealer begins to pitch the cards this player (the shot taker) quickly returns, posts a green check and requests to be dealt in. While the cards are still being dealt the player UTG raises, everyone folds and you hold 72. The shot taker places a check from his large stack of reds on top of the green posted. The button calls and the blinds fold. The dealer then routinely spreads the flop, perhaps relieved that this is the last rotation of the early morning. Do you...
A. Say nothing because you're not involved in the pot?
B. Quietly mention to the shot taker that you are aware the pot is light the dead small blind; to see if this was an honest mistake?
C. Alert the dealer that the pot is short and risk antagonizing the shot taker on your immediate left?
D. Stop the action by calling for the floor manager when it is obvious the dealer is about to spread the flop?
E. Recant this episode later on without mentioning names to the floor manager, suggesting that all dealers be required to make change immediately and announce both late position posts?
F. None of the above?
3-6 players: Do you see how this could happen to you with red and white checks?
Andrew Wells asks what you'd do in a 15-30 game if a player angles to short the pot in a hand you're not playing.
I'd point it out immediately to the dealer. I always point out dealer errors whether or not I'm involved in the pot. Failing to catch an angle like this is the dealer's error, the dealer is supposed to make sure that the pot is right.
I find it rarely antagonizes anyone to point out dealer mistakes. If it antagonizes the shot taker, it's only because he meant to do it, and I'll call it out every time he shorts the pot.
I would remain silent because I often play in a room with frequent dealer errors and I sometimes benefit.
Andrew,
I vote with Stephen. I correct the dealer immediately.
Tom Haley
Unfortunately, shot taking seems to be on the rise, especially at limit hold 'em, and dealer incompetence is an industry wide problem. You should point the problem out both to the dealer and to the shot taker. Furthermore, if the shot taker is someone who you know does this sort of thing all the time, you should put him on notice that as long as you are in the game things will be done right.
Also, if the dealer missed the shot because he was talking, you should tell him to pay better attention to the game and that there should be no extraneous talking on his part.
I'm fairly new to poker (I've been studying it seriously for a few months), so these may be dumb questions. But here goes...
1.How come a good portion of Holdem tourneys are No Limit, but No limit games are almost non-existant?
2. How come Omaha is rarely played no limit and Stud is never played no limit in tourneys?
I can address the first question. In no-limit ring gamew, the expert players devour the less expeienced players so quickly and convincingly that they don't return for action. Tournaments, with the escalating blind structure increase the luck element enough to give players a fighting chance (or ast least give them that perception). Additionally, in a tournament the players aren't faced with the prospect of putting "real" money into the pot, since the buy-in is a sunk cost. Mason has written extensively on the topic of why no-limit doesn't have enough of a balance between luck and skill to survive.
As for the other two games, I don't play them that often, but I guess that a no limit stud or Omaha game would be *EXTREMELY* tight. In stud, since you have to draw one card at a time after third street, no drawing hands could ever be played profitably in no-limit and I think the entire ring would be sitting around wating for rolled-up trips or big pairs + big kickers.
In Omaha, you do get a flop, but with four starting cards, a no-limit structure would also encourage people to wait for the nuts (even more than they already do). I do beleive pot limit Omaha is spread regularly and certainly played in tournaments.
Heads up, most Omaha High hands are close to even pre-flop. No-limit would turn the game into a complete crapshoot, since the money would often go in before the hands were at all defined in value.
No-limit holdem works since the hands differ greatly in value pre-flop.
I don't know "why" they work, but PL stud and Omaha are played a lot in Europe. In fact, among PL players in general, I believe that Omaha is preferred over HE.
Now, Omaha8 is almost never played PL or NL. I would guess that the reason is that again weak players would get beaten up on as they go all-in with the "nuts", only to run into someone who has the same nuts, plus another good hand for the other half of the pot.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
From Vince Johnson:
"Heads up, most Omaha High hands are close to even pre-flop."
Sorry but I disagree with this entirely.
"No-limit would turn the game into a complete crapshoot, since the money would often go in before the hands were at all defined in value."
There WOULD be a lof of pre-flop all in raising, but whether or not this would make it a crapshoot is unclear. I have played this game no-limit and just seems to work out better playing it pot limit instead.
Against terrible players, much of the expectation comes from the fact that they will call you down with mediocre draws. While you get more money in the pot with a better hand by raising pre-flop, if people are knocked out pre-flop who would have drawn to bottom pair+weak kicker, low flushes, etc. to the river, the pre-flop raise may be costing expectation. When you have AA, you might want to give players a chance to draw dead with Ax off, rather than driving them out pre-flop. (Also, players would then be mistaken in drawing to pocket pairs which miss the flop.) The same would be true for the best starting hands in Omaha-8. If people will call to the river with flopped two pair, gutshots, or a dry A3 or 23 low draw, why force them out pre-flop? Even hands which HLSFAP recommends raising pre-flop might be better unraised unless the raise won't make anyone fold.
It depends on how you look at it. If you have a far superior starting hand, then additional money *before* the flop represents a transfer of value from the inferior hands to you. Even if you don't cause anyone to fold, this is a positive expectation bet. Think about it as if all of the losse players are paying an additional ante of a small bet each round, while you are only voluntarily paying that small bet when you have a premium hand.
A similar question is: Why should I raise to chase out a flush draw, when he will call me down anyway. The correct answer is becasue you are getting positiev equity on your additonal bet, while reducing the drawing odds for the callers. If you don't bet, a drawing hand gets *infinite* odds on his "bet" of $0. I think that this issue is addressed in one of the 2+2 Hold'em books.
What I meant was that you would rather have nine callers of one bet rather than five callers of two bets when that means four additional players who might pay you off to the river.
If people won't fold, it then pays to raise as much as possible pre-flop with premium hands, and with non-premium hands in specific situations.
Vince Johnson writes: "What I meant was that you would rather have nine callers of one bet rather than five callers of two bets when that means four additional players who might pay you off to the river."
But, with certain types of hands, as your number of opponents increases, making you more and more of an underdog to win the pot, the bigger pot size does not actually compensate for the reduced frequency of winning the pot. Your expectation will frequently be greater against fewer oponents with a smaller pot. See this topic in the essay, "Another Gambling Paradox" in David S's _Getting the Best of It_.
I'm not convinced of that. It seems to me that when 10 people take the flop, even if you have a pair of Aces, you are not much of a favorite. Why increase your investment in a situation where you are only a small favorite? Sure, if you play a million hands, that small increase in expectation will show up, but for most sessions, I'm not so sure that a pre-flop raise in a "no-fold-em" game accomplishes anything other than increasing your variance -- and your tilt factor. In particular, a pair of Aces are likely to be dead in the water when you probably have callers holding A-x (suited or not). In this scenario, the best hand to hold would probably be middle suited connectors. Finally, if the players are all that bad, why not simply try to take more flops and outplay them after the flop when the price really goes up -- when you become a much bigger favorite?
Earl said:
>> It seems to me that when 10 people take the flop, even if you have a pair of Aces, you are not much of a favorite. <<
And you'd be wrong. Aces are a big favorite, and get even more profitable with more callers. Most of the profitability from aces in a multi-way pot comes from the preflop action. AA wins better than 30% of the time in a 10 way pot even if everyone who has a draw stays around to the end. That's >$20 profit for every $10 you put in preflop. I'd take that any time it was offered. AA's win rate is also relatively insensitive to the quality of preflop hand selection used by the opponents.
Not having a 10-handed simulator, the range of winners I get for a pair of Aces staying all the way versus 6 players was from 21% to 35%. It seems obvious that 10-handed, these numbers drop off further (In several situations, 8-9 suited had nearly as many winners as a pair of Aces).
But that's not the biggest problem. A rational player will make a decision on how to proceed with those Aces from the flop on. At this point, with virtually any flop out there, even the 35% falls apart; with the 2 Aces in other hands, the majority of flops will make the 2 Aces a dog -- and virtually all flops will contain scare cards. My question would be: with a pair of Aces facing 9 players, what would be the ideal flop?
I'll concede one part: If a player will blindly dump their money into the pot all the way to the river every time they are dealt a pair of Aces, they'll win more than their share of hands. Whether that means they'll win greater than their share of the money is more problematical.
Earl said:
>> Not having a 10-handed simulator, the range of winners I get for a pair of Aces staying all the way versus 6 players was from 21% to 35%. <<
I don't know where you are getting your numbers from, but those are very low. Against 6 opponents, AA will hold up over 40% of the time.
The general idea of not raising bad players out is a good one. However using two aces to make this point is not. The argument would for instance work better for two kings.
As with all things, it depends.
What you will learn is that with some premium hands, it is best to almost always raise, with some it is best to almost always just call, and with many it is best to mix it up. Of course, all of these change depending upon the flavor of the game you're in.
With hands like big pairs, I'd much rather play against 4 opponents for 2 bets each, than against 8 opponents for 1 bet each. Unless I catch a set on the flop, I don't want them to hang around and draw, because as a group they're going to beat me too often. With a hand like AXs, suited connectors, or small pairs, I'd rather have more opponents. In fact, with any hand in a game where I MUST hit the flop to justify playing on, I'll generally prefer more opponents (this can include AKo, although this interesting hand does better against fewer opponents, IMHO).
However, don't think that this means to never raise with less than big pairs preflop. Even fish will eventually figure it out if you only raise preflop with AA, KK, and QQ. When you raise preflop with hands like AQs, 55, and 89s on occasion, you will insure that none of your observant opponents can absolutely define your hand by your preflop raise. And, it can be profitable to raise with these hands occasionally. If you're in late position and raise with 55 after there are many callers, you'll probably only lose 1, maybe 2, of the players that would otherwise have called. As such, you will still have a big field of potential chasers when you hit your hand, and you've also built a pot that's so big they're more likely to chase. While this may seem like a wasted bet on those many occasions when you must fold postflop, the extra bets you win when you hit may more than make up for the lost bets.
Of course, there are lots of other variables that should influence your decision. The most important (of the top of my head) are your opponents, and their likely reactions to your raise (or lack thereof), your position, your current reputation in the game, your ability to put them on a hand after the flop, and vice versa, etc., etc., etc.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I've often thought that a version of this argument applies, for a similar reason, in Omaha-8 (though I've never played in a Hold 'em game where I thought it was relevant). Happiness is a passive Omaha game, loaded with Hold 'em players who 1) do not know what a starting hand is, and 2) have no idea where they are after the flop. This is fairly common at 10-20 limits. The value in the game comes from hand selection and in the fact that many of these players take awful draws, many times at half the pot.
So how do you play your starting hands in a game like this, where 8 people are calling before the flop? One school of thought is that you raise with a lot of 'em for value. I've tried this with reasonable success, but the problem is that, after a few hours, the character of the game changes. When I'm on the button, I have people looking nervously over their shoulders and actually folding before the flop. The game goes from a cash cow, with 4 people showing down at the river, to a game with 4 people in before the flop. I don't know if my experience with this is common, but it seemed to me that raising before the flop aggressively caused the weaker opponents to tighten up their hand selection considerably and, hence, get into less trouble after the flop--or at least less often. This kind of general tightening seemed to me to be the bigger problem, as opposed to losing action on particular starters.
Finally.
I have no problem agreeing with that. In fact, there's a further problem with raising pre-flop in loose Omaha-8 games It seems to me that most pre-flop raises are done by players with either A-A, A-2, or A-3; what I don't understand in these games is why someone would expose their holdings.
Earl asked why would someone expose their holdings with a preflop raise.
Because they pay you off anyway.
Do you really think so? The general principle in bad Omaha certainly is that (with apologies to Kevin Costner): "If you bet it, they will call." Nevertheless, I think I'm in Earl's camp on this one, at least with respect to A-2. My guess is that at least 3/4 of the preflop raises in a bad Omaha game are done with A-2-x-x (when there are raises).
My feeling is that this is one of the few things that bad Omaha players know. When they see a raise, they assume it's A-2. And this is not irrational--this assumption, while it may not be accurate when applied to a raise from you, is perfectly reasonable for the table.
It seems to me that pre-flop raise with A-2 just alerts them to the fact that you have it, and they won't pull at 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc., nut low draws they hit on the flop, which is a SIGNIFICANT source of equity in a bad game. Yes, there is pre-flop equity in some A-2 hands, and it may help you to narrow the field in case you're (partially) counterfeited later in the hand. Do these advantages justify the loss of post-flop action in a bad game? In the games I play in, I think the answer is no, but I'd be curious to hear what others think. How much pre-flop equity is there in A-2 in a bad game?
Since I'm still a "bad Omaha player", I'm confident that Ray Zee can straighten us out on this one. In my hierarchy of poker skills, deception ranks #1, so it's simply unfathomable to me that many Omaha-8 players will raise pre-flop with A-small. As I see it, all hands need a lot of help to be playable after the flop, but particularly A-2 and A-3. And if I've got A-A, I'm not sure that I want to wake anyone up either.
So, Ray, in my quest to add your game to my repertoire, I've read your book, beat the 30-60 game a few times, split a few WSOP satellites, and got my head kicked in at the Mirage O-8 game a few times -- but still can't decide whether any O-8 hand is worth raising pre-flop. Thoughts?
Just some clarification-
My use of the words "bad Omaha" were intended to describe the games in which I play, not a comment on my skills or yours. A game in which a player of my caliber can win consistently is probably safe to call a bad one. More importantly, you mentioned 30-60 in your note, and I suspect that we're talking about much different games here.
Anyone who has read Ray Zee's book, or has any concept of a starting hand, does not fit my definition of "bad." The players I'm talking about swim in the low limit pools, sometimes waiting for Hold 'em games. They start any 4 cards and have no idea what it takes to win the high. They often get pummelled with hands like two pair on the river. Is any hand worth raising pre-flop? In a game where your opponents are starting 60 percent of their hands outside of the blinds, and you're starting 10 (or even 30) percent, the answer is obvious. If you're playing in a game such as Steve described, where these guys don't flinch at cold-calling 2 raises and then pay off A-2 (Where IS this game, Steve?), I don't think you can make an argument against pushing it as hard as you can when you have a starter. Unfortunately, though my game is bad, I don't think it's quite as bad as Steve's---but they are loose before the flop. I wouldn't be surprised if 30-60 were a lot different.
George asked "Do you really think so?" in response to my reply that players call you down anyway even though they know what you have.
I say "Yes," and it's my bankroll that's evidence of it. Here's a dialog that occurred at one game...
It's raised in front of me by a wild player - a guy who'll often raise after looking at one or two cards, and sometimes just because he "feels" like it. I reraise with something like AK32, suited ace. Then one of the players who had limped in calls, whining about having to call a double raise (yet again). The only aware player at the table says: "Then why do you keep paying Steve off? You know what he's got - you don't have to play this hand." Despite the "education", he pays off my nut low, top pair ace kicker for high with a weak low and nothing for high, and his friend says "See, what did I tell you?" Everyone else at the table was oblivious to the conversation, and the recipient of the advice continued to play the way he's played for years. In fact, he's probably happier when he's losing because he can share how bad he's running with the table.
Of course, your mileage may vary. No warranty expressed or implied. Offer void in Nebraska.
Steve I agree. My local O/8 game is best on Wednesday. This is due to the fact that the club also has a No-Limit Holdem game on that day. When the Holdem players are in the O/8 game waiting for a seat they think they can use their money like in the No Limit game. Profits go through the ceiling. Although 80% of my preflop raises are with strong high side hands with and A2 or A3.
OK, as long as we're sharing loose O8 stories. ;-)
Chicago charity games, about 3-4 years ago. 10-handed 3-6 O8 game, where it would literally go up to 2 hours at a time where any besides me folded preflop.
I raise preflop, one of the very few times I ever did so (I had the mythical AA23 double-suited). 2 players remark out loud, "He must have a monster, he never plays anything." Everyone calls.
Flop is an unbelievable A45, with the 45 suited to my A3. I have the uncounterfeitable (though not untyable) nut low, current nut high, nut flush draw, and top set. Checked to me, I bet, 7 callers.
Turn is a high card (T?) suited with the 45, now giving the untyable nut flush. Checked to me, I bet, 6 callers.
River is another 5, so I still have the nut low, and I have the top full house, with only quad 5s being a possible better hand. Checked to me, I bet, 4 callers. I scoope, with no one else having 23, or even a full house of any sort. One guy who called me down is whining about how I rivered him to beat out his J8 flush. When his neighbor points to my cards and tells him that I had a higher flush anyway, the whiner states "Well, he still got there on the river!"
I know this sounds like BS, but it really did happen (well, the whiner's flush might have been J7, I only know for a fact that it was J high).
Aah!, I miss those games.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
10-20 passive OE.
I'm one of the aggressive raisers in an OE game like George's game, I disagree slightly with his assessment.
The character of the ultra-passive OE game changes in one of two ways when an aggressive pre-flop raiser comes in. Either (1) everyone tightens up and the game deteriorates; or (2) everyone gets used to putting in 2 or 3 bets pre-flop. If this happens, the game just got much better. Now there are routinely $300+ pots. Gamblers love this, and they will start capping pre-flop for the excitement. Bad play is exaggerated, since many players will rationalize even worse than normal draws, since the pot size always seems to justify taking one more off. No one seems to notice that the big raiser is playing only 1/3 as many hands as everyone else.
If George is unlucky and the game goes route (1), then just back off for half an hour and the game gets back into passive mode.
Interesting. Follow-up question. Do you find that "stirring up the pot," so to speak, makes the game more difficult to play in after the flop? Being a relatively unimaginative O-8 player, I enjoy the ease of a nice bet-call-call-call-call game after the flop. Is there a lot of ramming and jamming on the flop or later? Do you just get a lot more action on your winners? Or do you find yourself getting squeezed off good draws? How do you adjust your play in such a game?
Assuming the players get used to the routine of calling two pre-flop bets instead of one, there is not much to adjust to: Calculate your odds and maximize your expectation. The only exception might be that it is slightly easier to steal on the river, since some of the players are staying to the river with thin draws. It is now more likely that a player with a busted draw is sitting behind the player with a weak calling hand. In that case, the would-be caller may fold, where in the no-raise passive game the same player calls. However, most of the profit in my game comes from turning over the nuts, same as in your game.
Situation: 10-20 hold-em.
Moderate action game. I limp on the button with 7s3s. (I think I was looking at the TV.) Flop is 5-5-6 offsuit. All check to me (3 other players) and I bet. Two call. Turn is a 10 and all check. River is a 4 and the second man bets (a reasonable player) and I raise. No possible flush. He thinks a long time and then re-raises. I think a long time and pass. What would you do and why?
Joe,
It sure looks like you were beat. When you folded you probably threw away the worst hand. There were about nine bets in the pot, and you were laying nine to one that you made the correct decision. You had better been right or it was a terrible mistake as it may have cost a whole days earnings on that one decision. You must be sure he wasnt bluffing, betting a smaller straight, or thinking three of a kind might be best. That is why I feel reading hands and people is more important than the other poker skills. Good Luck.
You should have folded on the flop. But on the river you gotta call unless he's very tight.
Good laydown. Although your opponent probably thought your hand was worse than it was, every indicator suggests you were beaten anyway. Although it's always possible that he held a 5 or a ten or a middling pocket pair, his play indiates that these hands were no more likely than him having a full house. You have to put him on a 78.
Actually, I think he put you on a 7-8. Thus a good fold.
What type of poker game should I learn and study first?
What book(s) would you recommend in learning that game?
bj kid,
I would study limit hold'em first and most definitely buy the 2+2 books on all the games.
Tom Haley
In GT&OT you provide some typical standard deviation figures for lowball and estimates of what similar figures might be for other games. I am curious about Omaha/8 since it is one of the games not mentioned in that section. I have recently been playing more Omaha/8 against some weak opposition (I'm average at best) and have experienced a good win rate and low S.D. (31 observations, 162 hours). Am I in for a rude awakening?
Probably not. In the type of game that you are describing it is probably correct to play very tightly, and as long as there is not too much raising you should have a very low standard deviation. Bad players in this game who are playing too many hands and going too far with their hands will have a much larger standard deviation than you will.
After 31 observations, the relative standard error of your hourly standard deviation estimate should be about 12%. So if, for example, you're current estimate is 8 big bets per hour, then you have a 95% confidence that the true value lies between 6 to 10 big bets per hour.
However, you have to watch out for playing patterns that can distort your estimate, especially in the short run. Specifically, if you hate to quit when you're stuck, and tend to continue to play until you get unstuck, then as long as you're successful, your standard deviation will seem surprisingly low. However, your standard deviation will skyrocket when the odds catch up with you and you finally have to quit a session after running out of money.
The best way to quickly get an unbiased estimate of your standard deviation is to observe your chip position at specified intervals (e.g., hourly). Also, the more observations you make, the faster you will obtain a reliable standard deviation estimate (unfortunately, making more frequent observations doesn't help you estimate your win rate any faster).
How should I play suited connectors and Ax suited in no-limit holdem? What about after the flop?
I don't think I can say it better than Bob Ciaffone and Stewart Reuben in their book, "Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker", but the general idea is as timeless as it is generic: you are looking for the right price to get involved before the flop, that is the correct implied odds. The general rule of thumb is 5% or less of stack size and a late position to get involved with the suited connectors (obviously a draw isn't worth playing if your opponent has little for you to win).
Due to the Ace and since there are a lot of A-x suited hands, there are also a lot more variables involved in how to play the hand pre-flop. Here, I prefer Cloutier's advice on how to play A-K suited, but there are myriad ways of playing other A-x suited hands depending upon position and opponents. Still, A-small should be treated similar to middle-suited connectors before the flop -- you want to get in cheaply, preferably in late position.
On the flop the number of outs and stack sizes are key elements in your decisions on how to play the draw (note that a 4-flush should be played differently in NL than it is in PL; also note that if you made the correct positional decision pre-flop that you now can exploit your draw to maximum benefit). This requires some study and practice; if you play a draw on the flop the same as you play it in a limit game, you will be making an expensive mistake.
The interesting aspect of NL poker is that now the computer simulations can give you some precise numbers to work with. Quite often we read mumbo-jumbo about a particular hand being X% winner when played to the river -- but these numbers have limited meaning in limit poker because no specific hand is ever played to the river every time and the number of bets and opponents changes on every card. However in NL, you can, in effect, "freeze" those odds -- when you are heads-up (which you will most often be), with "X" number of outs and cards to come, you can precisely determine your percentage of winners vis-a-vis pot-size and bet size. Thus the beauty of NL over limit.
When everyone has a lot of money onthe table compared to the opening bet, Ax suited becomes better than suited connectors sinc it is more likely to make the nuts and less likely to make a second best hand.
they say the rule of thumb is you want the raiser to have 20 times the amount of the raise in his stack to call. ie. he opens for 200- he needs 2000 in front of him (and of course so do you) to call. I disagree with david as far as ax suited over the connectors, with the connectors you are more likey to take him for his whole stack, that third of a suit is going to look pretty scary- unless he makes a second best flush with you. also i dont particulary care if the connectors are suited, I also dont want to make a second best flush. as a general answer to your question though- of course- that is what the game is about, i would druther play the connectors (suited or not) the A,A, K,K, or Q,Q. these hands have a nasty habit of winning a small pot or losing a great big one. with the connectors you always know where you stand. I refer you to Super System by Loyle Brunson, Championship no limit and pot limit hold em by T. J. Cloutier with Tom McEvoy, and Pot Limit and No Limit Poker by Strwart Reuben and Bob Ciaffone, all available at the Gamblers General Store in las vegas.
math error, if the raiser makes it 200 he needs 4000 in front of him. also as far as A,A- the time to put your money in is befor the flop, if you can get all in heads up your in great shape.
could someone tell me if that is on tonight at 1230 am or was that last night 1230?
It was on last night (this morning) at 12:30 AM EST.
The WSOP will be shown on ESPN again at 1 PM EST on July 21, according to the July 10, 1998 issue of "Card Player."
If you have a VCR, you're better off taping it, as there are a ZILLION commercials to be "zapped." But I thought they did a pretty good job.
What strategy modifications are appropriate for the 1-5 stud, no-ante game?
There is a lot of possible strategy changes but they sort of counterbalance each other. Compared to a 15-30 game, the ante is smaller, the rake is higher, the implied odds are greater and the players are worse. The first two factors would have you playing tighter while the last two should make you play looser (especially for a cheap opening bet). Actually the variable betting structure makes for a more skillful game. I wish they offered a 10-50 game somewhere.
Slight underdog hands like lower pair-ace kicker would go way down in value, since there is only $1 in the initial pot and the rake will also take a large fraction of the expectation. OTOH, a player might play more longshot draws to straights and flushes, due to the higher implied odds.
>There is a lot of possible strategy changes but
>they sort of counterbalance each other.
>Compared to a 15-30 game, the ante is smaller,
>the rake is higher, the implied odds are
>greater and the players are worse. The first
>two factors would have you playing tighter
>while the last two should make you play looser
>(especially for a cheap opening bet).
Greater implied odds: Then longshot draws to mega-hands would be played if there are multiple callers, the needed cards are completely live and there isn't much raising early? Starting hands like low 3-straights, one-gap 3-straights, 8h8d7d,even AcKh2c for the bring-in?
And on 4th street, play on for one bet in multiway pots with live 3-flushes and maybe live no-gap 3-straights or one-gap 4-straights?
(Straights might even have greater implied odds than flushes, since they have deception value. When you have three of a suit on your board, that kills the action in 1-5.)
Big pairs: You have to play the big pairs carefully to avoid only winning $1. As a result, (unless your pair is hidden) you can't raise more than $2 or $3 and still get callers, and often even a $2 raise by an ace makes everyone fold. (Even so, they may be right in not even calling $2 with a lower pair when there is only $1+ your $2 in the pot: putting up half the money for an expectation well below 50%.)
Once people are committed to draws, you can raise $5. However, while they are drawing early in the hand, you can't adequately penalize the draws without getting them out. Furthermore, multiple draws help each other (Morten's Theorem), and often, at least one of them will hit.
>Actually the variable betting structure makes for
>a more skillful game. I wish they offered a
>10-50 game somewhere.
At 1-5, it sometimes seems like there isn't enough ability to manipulate pot odds to give a better player a significant advantage. I think many 1-5 opponents don't even calculate pot odds, they just think "big raise" or "small raise." If the limit was 1-20 or 1-50, an expert could really control the game.
"Big pairs: You have to play the big pairs carefully to avoid only winning $1. As a result, (unless your pair is hidden) you can't raise more than $2 or $3 and still get callers, and often even a $2 raise by an ace makes everyone fold. (Even so, they may be right in not even calling $2 with a lower pair when there is only $1+ your $2 in the pot: putting up half the money for an expectation well below 50%.)"
I have played 1-5 from time to time and I have found that if you raise the max on third street with nothing two or three times they will eventually start calling your raises when you have big pairs. After all if they want to play against you they will have no choice. You are always raising. They want to play. Eventually they will come.
playing seven stud-seems difficult to be able to decide if it is woth playing a high pair slowly or aggressively on third street or better to wait for forth street, then to raise to get out the speculators or to be cautious?
A club I frequent just started having a bad beat jackpot. A discussion ensued among a few of us, including the owner, whether this would ultimately be good or bad for the players and/or club. The owner obviously feels this will be good. He feels that it will entice recreational players who play elsewhere to play in his club. He feels that the money raked from the pots is a wash, as all the money will be given out.
I feel that the jackpot will do more harm than good. It will slowly drain money from his regular players. This will cause his small winners to become losers, his small losers to become bigger losers, and his big losers to become even bigger losers. This will have a more negative effect on the players who lose the most, as they tend to play more hands. Also, as the jackpot grows in size, players will play longer hours than normal in an attempt to hit the jackpot, and will be paying more in time charges. When the jackpot does hit, and if it's big, the money will not necessary be put back into circulation. It may be invested, used to buy a large ticket item, or gambled away at some other location--especially if the winner is not a regular club player. Moreover, all of the above is compounded by the fact that the rake for the jackpot is very high, and it is very hard to hit. I feel that eventially, the increased time charges the club receives will be replaced by decreased time charges, except when the jackpot is large. Finally, at the location where this is happening, the jackpot may attract the eye of law enforcement and cause the club to be closed. Charging time at a club closed to the general public may be quasi-legal, but the jackpot, which is a form of lottery, is almost certainly illegal. At the very least, a large jackpot may attract the interest of the IRS, and that opens up another can of worms (for the club and players).
The specifics of the jackpot are: Aces full of Tens (or better) must be beaten by Four of a kind (or better). Both hole cards must play (the jackpot applies to hold'em games only), and the player must have a pair in his hand to qualify as quads. In the 4-8 hold'em game, a dollar is raked from the pot if it's $40 or over. In the 10-20 game, a dollar is raked if the pot is $100 or over. The usual rules about discussion of the hand, etc. apply. The raked monies are divided among a main jackpot and a secondary jackpot, similar to what is done in Vegas and California poker rooms.
I invite all to comment on the subject, especially Mason, who I belive has addressed the subject before.
Thank you.
It might not be that bad if all the money is truly given back (a big if) and if the whole table (maybe even everyone in the club at the time) shares to some degree in the jackpot.
The problem, unfortunately, with jackpots, is that if one casino DOESN'T have one the neighboring casino will, and as a result draw off most of the business. Therefore, to compete, management decides to install a jackpot of their own. The proof of this lies in the fact that if one casino has a HUGE jackpot and their competitor does not, the casino with the large jackpot will draw off a large percentage of their competitors business until the big jackpot is hit.
Is that generally true? In AC the Resorts just recently closed their poker room down, after at least a year of full operation with a jackpot setup (only one in AC). Resorts is right next to the Taj, with its' large poker room.
I'm not sure if Resorts drew off players or not (I haven't ever played there, and won't now....)
That's true, but casinos have been also known to charge an administrative cost to run the jackpot and thus don't return all the money collected.
George-
I guess we play in the same club in NYC. I don't think we have met and talked though. Do you play in the NL tourneys on Sunday? I was there last night and made about $850 in the tourney, but had a bad session in the $10/$20 game in the back. How would I recognize you, I would love to talk some Poker and find out more about potential action around New York.
By the way, I don't think the bad beat jackpot is going to have a real impact on the game. Most of the losing players are using their real jobs to provide a bankroll and won't have their loss rates increased materially. If some of the tough players who are actually smart enough to care choose to go elsewhere, I think that would improve the overall profitability of the games.
Michael,
It's probably a good idea to include your E-mail address with your post so that responses like this one I'm making don't take up space on the forum. You can include it automatically at the bottom of all your posts by filling in the proper blank.
I know who you are, you finished first in the deal we made. I finished third (I finished off the player who wouldn't make the deal ;-) ) and sat directly across from you at the final table. Now you know how I am.
IMHO, the impact on the lesser skilled players will be greater than the others, because they tend to play, and win, more pots than other players. Hence, they will be donating that dollar more often than the others and go broke sooner. A few nights won't make much of a difference. But after a few months, that will take it's toll. If they have a fixed bank-roll, those players will actually start paying less to the club in time charges, as their money will be finding its way into the jackpot. Of course, as the jackpot gets bigger, those players will allot more of their income to poker, and suffer the consequences in other aspects of their life.
Also, as the lesser skilled player donate more to the jackpot, that will be less for the others to win.
We discussed it again last night. Turns out J. also feels that he can win the jackpot, and has full intentions of taking the money if he suffers the bad beat (or any portion he would qualify for). That opens up a whole other can of worms I'll raise in another post on the Exchange forum.
If the club is holding off on taking the jackpot drop till the pot qualifies they are a step above 99% of other card rooms around the country offering player banked jackpots. Some rooms have been known to take the jackpot drop before a card even gets dealt. Most take it regardless of pot size once the flop comes.
Personally I'm against them. There's too much money coming out of the game for the rake as it is.
Mark
I'm working with the Hi/Low Count w/ -20 to +20 Strategy for the Single Deck. I want to become more advanced in my strategy adjustments. David Sklansky has gotten me very interested in the Key Card Theory. Unfortunately, I have had difficulty in trying to find more on the Subject. I have asked questions on Wong's page, but haven't gotten any feedback. I get the feeling that most serious Counters think that Advanced Strategy adjustments are a waste of time and brain utilization. Can someone point me in the right direction for further study?
Thanks, Chris Villalobos
Unless you are playing in a deeply dealt singl deck game then for most people these sophisticated adjustments are a waste of time.
This seems like an odd combination for single deck blackjack.
Hi-lo has a low playing efficiency, which means it's not all that great for strategy adjustments. You'd be better off in single deck learning a level 2 count like the Zen count or even using the Hi-Opt count with a side count of aces.
Second, forget learning the extreme count strategy adjustments. They draw too much heat (especially at single-deck, which is heavily scrutinized if you are betting large amounts), and they gain you very little EV because they come up so infrequently (this especially applies to the minus count strategy adjustments, since you have small bets out anyway).
Finally, using a complex system with lots of adjustments is a net losing strategy if it cuts into your ability to camouflage your play. You gain far more in EV by being able to spread your bets a little more than you'll ever gain from exotic counts and far-out strategy variations.
I use the Hi-Lo count, with the top 24 most important strategy variations, and I play mostly shoe games, where there is less heat and I can spread more money.
Dan
Ok, so we're having a bad session at 20-40 HE. No cards, no flops and bad beat after bad beat. The game is good, we're not tired and we're not on tilt. Do we continue to play our game and hope it turns around. If so how deep ($$$) should we get in. Or, do we play tighter and be more selective on our starting hands. Any comments on this are appreciated.
Bill,
1. If you are sure everything is honest 2. If you are sure you are really playing well 3. If you are sure you are not out of tune with reading your players 4. If you are sure the players are not playing in such a way that it crimps your style to the point you cant win.
Then play on till you have a need to quit. Any change of play from optimum only costs you money. Good Luck.
Sometimes the magic works; sometimes it doesn't. And when it doesn't we often become the bug and not the windshield. There will always be another time. The game isn't going away. Push the chair back, pick up the chips, say until we meet again, smile and walk away. I think you'll do better the next time.
Forgive me if this has already been asked and answered, I've had no time for cyber entertainment recently. I beleive that you once declared Synder's "Zen Count" to be the best of the "modern" counting systems. Does the changes Arnold made to the System in the recently issued 2nd edition of "Blackbelt in Blackjack" change that asssement? For someone (like myself) contemplating shifting to the "Zen" count would you reccomend on using the tecniques described in one editions over the other? Most importantly, if you now have a different nominee for "best count", naming it would be greatly appreciated.
A lot depends on what game you are going to play. If you plan to attack the six deck shoes than Wong's High-Low count is probably the best. Otherwise the Zen count is as good as any. I would use the latest version of Snyder's Zen count.
The other day in Florida I was playing hold'em and half the table was drunk. I mopped up however I had to listen to usual drunk arguments and put up with the slow, rude behavior that is associated with dtunks. However what I saw made me laugh so hard that I almost got tossed off the boat! Two players raising each other in $15-30 on every card played to the river. At the declaration the first player turned over his hand and showed 22 to go with a flop of 2T739. The other drunk player said to him "if you need some money for food I'll loan you $10. He said "cripple sevens" He then turned over his hand and showed A4! It was very histerical. He then said "what happened to my cripple sevens"! I think that your win rate should be adjusted skyward when half the table are drunk, don't you?
Posted by Joe"predator"Nardo, "The other day in Florida I was playing hold'em and half the table was drunk. I mopped up however I had to listen to usual drunk arguments and put up with the slow, rude behavior that is associated with dtunks. I think that your win rate should be adjusted skyward when half the table are drunk, don't you? No. Your win rate in most cases will go down because the drunks slow the game to such a point that your hourly rate decreases. Not to mention the aggravation factor.
I found that playing with one or two QUIET drunks at the table can be profitable. In that case they have to be on the ball enough to keep the game going at a reasonable pace. They tend to instigate wild betting, which can lead to big pots when you hold a monster. On the other hand, they can become calling stations which provides a slight increase on each pot.
I agree that loud and obnoxious drunks make the game unbearable for the reasons you've stated.
The following situation occured in the middle of a no-limit hold'em tourney. Average stack size is about T1500, blinds are T200/T100. We are a long way from the money with 18 or 19 players alive and four places paid. My table is 9-handed.
It is folded to a solid player two seats to my right who goes all-in for T500. It is then folded to me on the button. I have T2000 and am pleased to look down at AK. I have played many times with the raiser and know that with the blinds coming around that he is looking to make a move with any pair or a decent Ace. I figure that a fold is out of the question since still need to build my stack and this is is good a shot as any to get my money in good (assuming that the raiser doesn't have AA or KK) and still have a playable stack if I don't win the hand. The question is: do I need to reraise (maybe up to T1000) to shut out the blinds? Factors to consider: The small blind is a very good player, but he is short-stacked with about T700. The big blind is a decent player with the big stack at about T5000.
I decide to just call for the following reasons:
1) Both of the blinds are familiar enough with my play to know that I wouldn't even CALL in this situation against this particular raiser without a big hand. AA KK for sure QQ AK. AQ KQ probably not.
2) If the original raiser has a medium pair, I am going to need to hit an Ace or King to win anyway, so if the small blind sneaks in with a small or medium pair, I really don't lose much in terms of expectation given his satck size.
3) If I make a legitimate raise to T1000, and the big blind with the big stack comes over the top, I am now pot-committed against a likely AA or KK. And I DON'T like to get knocked-out from under a decent chip position with AK.
4) If the BB overcalls, I can take the flop and use my position against him to make a decision. I feel I have a good read on the big blind, and would still have enough chips to blow him out of the pot if he picks up a drawing hand and I hit a pair.
Anyway, I call and the SB thinks a long time before folding. The BB folds immediately; the original raiser asks if I have a pair and then turns over AQ off. I say "worse" and show him big slick. The best hand holds up when an Ace flops and he doesn't hit the Queen.
Afterward, the SB imparts his wisdom, which consists of the following: 1) the original raise was stupid. 2) I should have reraised. Any comments?
Definately re-raise the all-in player from the button with A-K. It gives you the best chance at Isolating the raiser. If the BB has a big hand you may loose alot either way. If you let him just call with a decent (but not great) hand, and he hits, you'll kick yourself. If he has a big hand like AA or KK even AK, with his chip advantage, he'll attack no matter what you do. The risk is letting him in with a good enough hand to call the T500, but not good enough to call T1000 or more.
C.J. Little
Well, I think that the SB is wrong and right, in that order.
The original raiser is down to 500. He can't afford to fold through the blinds, as this will cost him 60% of his stack. If I were in his spot, being so far from the money, I'm looking for the likely best hand between now and the button with which to make a stand or steal the blinds. AQ is better than the likely best hand he'll see if he passes on the AQ, so I would have played it just like him.
Although there is some merit to your analysis, I also would reraise here. If you just call and SB folds, there is 1300 in the pot, and it will cost the BB only 300 to call also. Then, if he hits the flop, he might win 1500 more from you. This gives him a chance at winning 2800 for a risk of 300. Many NL players would call here with almost anything, and even an optimal play would have him calling with any suited, connected, or paired hand.
After thinking about this, I feel that I have 2 options.
First, raise to 1000. This cuts down the odds for the BB by making him risk 800 for that 2800 (a change of 9.3:1 down to 3.5:1). He is going to fold a lot of hands that he would have called with if you just call, and you can narrown down his possible holdings. Additionally, if he is a tricky player, he might consider this to be a gutless raise on your part, and decide to reraise you all-in when he has an inferior hand. If so, your risk factor will go up dramatically (in trying to beat 2 players), but so will your reward.
Second, raise all-in. In doing this, you are trying to shut out the blinds completely. You know that they are unlikely to call with anything other than AA or KK. With you holding AK, this is possible but not a huge risk. This play actually cuts down your risk, because it makes it much less likely that you'll have to compete against the blinds, but it also cuts down on your chance of making money from the blinds playing with hands you'll beat.
Overall, which play I prefer will depend upon my particular opponents. Given your description of them, I would vote for the raise to 1000. They are described as a good player and a decent player, so they're not going to just give you their chips. This seems like as good an opportunity as any to win them.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree with your call. You (obviously) can't get any more from the all in player but I would be concerned with the BB player. At T5000 even a raise by you to T1000 is only going to cost him 20% of his stack to see the flop.( An all in raise by you still only costs him 40% of his stack.) If he's got a decent hand, given his stack size, he'd probably call the 1000 just as easily as the 500-- atleast I would-- looking to knock you all the way out.
He can survive on the 4000 a long time looking for another strong hand. You didn't say how fast the blinds were increasing but even if they double every 15 minutes he can play for awhile on the T4000.
On the other hand: The raise to T1000 puts half your stack on the line before you see the flop or the blinds action. Calling and letting the blinds act after you gives you the option of making a decision from their action. You could release the hand if one or both raise and still have T1500 left to work with. On the other hand, one or both might just call and you can hit them for more on the flop.
Regards,
Leigh Davis
The SB is clueless which game he is playing in. You played it well -- never forget that no matter how good it looks, A-K is not yet a completed hand.
This weekend I was in the best 15-30 game I have ever been in, an average pot was between $300-600 with one pot over $1400 (6 way multi-cap action). In the midst of this fantastic game a new player came in. He was 25 years old and his first words to the table were that he was a pro who plays 7 days a week. He immediately starts humiliating the 2 really bad players at the table by telling them how bad they are, calling out there hands when he was against them one on one and just basically insulting them. This lasted for about 2 hours and finally the two bad players had enough and left. Prior to this guys arrival the game was very cordial and frankly some people play the game to gamble as was the point with these 2 guys. Incidently the $1400 pot was won by one of the bad players who hit Kings full off of two pair on the River with a Queens full, Eights Full, a flush and two straights already made. I tried to nicely during this time tell the guy to shut-up but it was a catch-22 because most of the arrogance was not directed to me. I was trying to defend two guys who had not a clue what was going on in a card room. In the end the game turned to raise and fold and it was time to leave. Furthermore I nearly got into it with this guy because I personally had had enough of the BS.
The dealers and the floor of course did nothing during this whole time and allowed the insults to continue.
Everybody should be allowed to play how they want to play and with respect. Punks should not be allowed at the tables and the only good of this whole thing is that I know this punk will lose thousands in the long run because one can not behave like this and expect to win.
I don't think anyone reading this forum would disagree that this behavior is uncalled for and inappropriate. I sincerely doubt this is a real pro. This is an immature person trying to be somebody. Sad, but not our problem. If you can do it, I think saying something to the guy is right. Something like, "If these insults continue, I'm going to ask the floor to deal around you." If the floor doesn't cooperate, than that card room has a big problem.
Someday, someone, is simply going to get up from their chair, quietly walk over to this gentleman and hit him in the face so hard his hair turns blue. Then this very same person will go back to his seat and sit down. One by one all of the other remaining players will loudly proclaim, "I didn't see anything, did you?"
He may be good enough not to lose thousands but he will certainly not win thousands that he could have won. A real Pro wouldn't run off the people he is most likely to win lots of money from.
Leigh Davis
I have seen my share of bozos like the one you described. If he keeps coming back, relish his money, he is probably a loser (small dogs make the most noise). Don't be afraid to defend the less experience players from his insults. Short, curt responses work best, if the other players see that your not intimidated, they will not be intimidaterd and his behavior will lose its effect. Soon this player will find himself the object of cutting insults from the entire table. Finally, dont bother arguing with him on the play of a particular hand, that is a waste of time (and why should you teach him anything?).
If he gets completely out of control - complain to the pit. They dont want anyone there who will drive away business.
I have been going through one of the down cycles during the past few weeks. The cards have been running bad, or if I get a playable hand I miss the flop or draw, or I get drawn out a lot too. I understand they are part of the game and are the hook that brings weak players back.
I try to play my best game all the time. I watch the other players closely, try to pick up tells, or learn how they play their hands, look for patterns, etc. Neverthess, when I haven't won a single pot for three hours, I have gone through my buyin, I feel depressed. Meanwhile, I have watched a live one play poorly making mistake after mistake, but pile up a monster stack of chips.
At this point I should feel glad because if the money isn't in my stack, its right where I want it, in front of a live one who will most likely lose it all back as fast as he won it. Even though I should feel glad, I don't. I feel angry and frustrated, because I can't corral that weak players money.
After another hour or two of this, my brain starts to go numb. I don't read players as well, my mind starts drifting off the game, I start to make mistakes in hand selection and going too far with hands that don't justify it . Meanwhile, the weak player is a huge winner, continues to win with weak hands and bad play. I sometimes get overanxious and play too strongly against him and loose more chips than I should.
Does anyone else experience this? Is there anything I can do to jump start my mind again? Is this a time to quit even though the game is good, because I'm not playing my best game?
Mike Baum
Mike Baum writes:
"I have been going through one of the down cycles during the past few weeks...........Does anyone else experience this? Is there anything I can do to jump start my mind again? Is this a time to quit even though the game is good, because I'm not playing my best game?"
Try stepping down a notch. When you switch games the new players may not be quite as tough and don't know you are running bad. As far as they are concerned you are still the same ol tough player they always knew. Just make sure your attitude, demeanor and posture reflect that of a winning player. Don't go to your new surroundings with a chip on your shoulder, depressed and slouching in your chair. Your new "friends" will pick up on this rather quickly. Buy a rack of chips and set them in your new seat. Take a short break, splash some cold water on your face, walk around the block and then come back and sit down as if you owned the world. But don't get cocky. Don't try to run over the game. Play tighter than normal. Just try to eke out a win, any win. Don't try to recoup all of your previous losses. Get your mind back on track. Your new goal is just to win. To try and get out front. To make correct decisions. If you still find yourself at odds with the game and can't seem to win, remember what Scarlett O' Hara said in Gone with the Wind. "Tomorrow is another day."
In the archives see a September 12 post by Abdul Jalib titled "The physiology of fuzzy thinking". I think you'll find it interesting and relevant to what you're talking about.
My own view is that serious players should make it a goal to get to the point where unavoidable short term fluctuations do not upset them emotionally. Understanding the nature of the fluctuations in poker and knowing when you have or have not played correctly can help. But it's a complex problem, difficult for many players to deal with.
I found the post you referred to full of valuable ideas.
When I play I try to get enjoyment from playing each hand well, not from winning. I keep my chips in odd mismatching stacks so I’m not sure what I’m up or down. If I play well the money will take care of itself. Of course this is easy to talk about and hard to do after getting several hands beat on the end.
A club I play in just started a bad-beat jackpot. The jackpot is structured in such a way as to make it likely that it will be very large when it hits. The owner of the club hopes to encourage new players to play in his club. He will benefit by the increased drop from time charges. Also, as the jackpot gets big, all players will play longer sessions, adding to the drop even more.
The owner sometimes plays in the games as a player, and sometimes just to keep a game going. When he wins pots, he obviously must pay the drop for the jackpot, as must the dealers when they are playing. The owner feels that he, and any other employee, is entitled to their share if the jackpot hits, same as any player. After all, they are paying into it too.
My position is that if any employee, especially the owner, receives any money from the jackpot, it will appear to be underhanded, even if it's fair and square. This will be even more so if the lion's share goes to the owner, bad beat or not. Any players not there when the jackpot hits will be very suspicious. Especially the players who don't know the owner.
That will tend to make players distrust the club and stop playing there. That in turn will hurt the owner in the long run, as we will now recieve less in time charges than before.
I feel that the extra time charges the owners receives (and the tips the dealers will receive) more than compensates them for the dollars that go into the jackpot from their pots.
Many years ago I was wandering thorugh the Alladin in the wee hours of the morning. I stopped in the poker room and there was no game going. The brush asked me if I wanted to play and got a game going for me. Two dealers took turns dealing and playing, and there was three (I think) other players in the game. On one hand there was almost a jackpot hand, and neither hand was mine. The dealer informed me that if the jackpot had hit, I would have received all of the money. As it turned out, every one in the game except me was either a dealer or brush at that poker room. They were prohibited from sharing in the jackpot. My 8 1/3 % would have turned into 100%.
While that is an extreme case, the principal of the management being excluded is critical for the reputation of the card room. And the good reputation of a card room is important for its success.
What do other forum readers think? I invite your responses.
I was in the Exhange Forum when I posted this. I don't know why it ended up in the Theory and Strategy Fourm. I guess it'll have to fly here. Sorry Jessica.
And that is a typo. It should read "... as he will now receive less in time charges than before."
I agree that cardroom employees (and owners) should not be allowed to win any portion of the bad beat jackpot.
But I disagree that they should have to contribute to a jackpot that they cannot win. Some cardrooms allow players to opt out of bad beat jackpots; they don't get hit with the jackpot rake, and they don't share in the winnings. Even if this option isn't offered at your cardroom, I think an exception could be made for employees/owners (who would be forced to "opt" out).
You have wrote that the very top players in the medium limits average one and a half bets an hour.Could someone who plays well at small limits average 2 bets per hr?
I never wrote that the very top players can average one and a half big bets per hour. At the small limits an expert probably could make two bets an hour, but then he would play bigger.
Further to the subject of win rates, I have run simulations with a leading and well respected poker software program (no plugs here)that clearly indicate that unless there are at least three terrible players or perhaps five or more below average players that NO ONE gets anywhere close to even one big bet per hour.
The results underscore the supreme importance of table selection (and rake). Unfortunately for most of us, there are few locales where there's much choice in games, even in Atlantic City.
Being a lower limit player, I question just what the true results must be for higher limit players. It would seem to me that a 40-80 or higher game with several lives ones would be few and far between. I would guess that the more typical 40-80 game would be full of solid or better players, and if that's the case, who could hope to make anywhere near one big bet per hour?
Can you specify what simulations you ran?
I have logged approximately 1,000 hours of play at low limits and I have one won on average a little over one and a half big bets per hour.
I know that 1,000 hours may not be enough to get true results so maybe these are freakish.
However, I personally know at least two people who make their living playing only low limit poker in AC and other places. They are making a small but steady living. They play very solidly and rarely play above 15-30, mostly at 10-20.
One player plays at least 50 hours per week and has built his bankroll up from $500 to over $20,000. He started grinding it out at 2-4!
It seems it can be done but it is tough.
Lets have some observations from real life and some comments from those who have played professionally or logged results in the real world over a long time period.
Enough of the simulations already, lets hear about real people making real money at poker, if such a thing exists.
Ray Zee, I value your opinion here especially.
Thanks.
Last week Abdul Jalib presented some standards, derived from computer simulations, for what hands should be adequate for trying to steal the blinds and for defending from the big blind in hold'em. First let me say that I'm surprised his comments did not generate more responses. Some of the standards he suggested seem (to me anyway) to differ markedly from mainstream thinking. Did they not raise questions for anyone else? Though not in line with my own standards, I certainly could not write them off. Because Abdul is obviously a skilled player with a sophisticated knowledge of the game, it makes sense to take seriously what he has to say on this topic. But rather than unquestioningly accept his findings I'd like to submit some additional questions and observations. Comments from Abdul and everyone else are encouraged.
1) On stealing from the button: Here Abdul said, "I need to run more simulations, but right now my best guess for the minimum hands needed to raise on the button is as follows: 22 A2s K2s 54s 63s 92s A2 K4 87 97"
At first glance these standards are not actually all *that* different form those in HPFAP. David and Mason allow for stealing in late position with hands in "Groups 1-7, maybe those in Group 8, and even worse hands..." But this comes with a proviso. The rest of the sentence is, "...*if* you think your opponents are tight enough that you have a decent chance to steal the blinds." (emphasis added)(1994, p.23) They also point out that with hands like Ax and Kx you should try to steal only if the blinds are very tight or very weak players.
Now, it appeared to me that Abdul was suggesting raising *regardless* of whether or not the blinds were very likely to call, and also regardless of whether they were very weak players. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Abdul.
In _Sklansky, the Video_, in the section, "Pay Attention to Which Players are in the Blinds", David gives somewhat similar advice re not opening for a raise late, without very good hands, if the blinds are loose defenders. But his example was from two off the button so I don't know to what extent it would really apply here.
Mike Caro has said the same thing. e.g., in _12 Days to Hold'em Success_ , he writes, "Against blinds that always defend, do *not* raise in a late position with anything but a strong hand." (1987, p. 8)
So the question is what to make of this apparent difference between Abdul's findings and the opinions of other experts. I always thought the idea of not trying to steal with weak hands against chronic defenders seemed logical. It's really a semi-bluff, which is correct only if there's a reasonable chance to win the pot right there. But maybe there's another way to look at it. What do you all think?
2) On defending the big blind against a button raise: Abdul says, "Versus a button raise, I'd muck only the very worst 20 hands or so, like Q4o, 72o, 93o, etc."
Here again Abdul's standards appear at first just moderately looser than those in HPFAP. David and Mason suggest that you can defend with hands as weak as those in Group 8. So you might defend with stuff like 65, 74s, etc. But when you consider folding only the worst 20 or so hands, Abdul would really be dipping into some *really* weak stuff, such as Jxs, Txs, T6, 95, 84, 62...
Moreover, David and Mason again provide a qualification. They state that you can defend your big blind with hands as weak as those in Group 8 "against weak opponents who won't make use of their positional advantage on the flop..." (p. 31)
So again, how do we reconcile this difference? I would guess that a portion of the difference might have to do with David and Mason injecting a bit of caution into their advice so that less than expert players do not go out and push the limits beyond their own abilities. Bt I don't think this accounts for all of it.
3) On calling in the big blind against "even a fairly legitimate early middlish raise" Abdul draws the line at 22 A2s K2s 43s 74s 95s A2 K9 65 T8.
I covered my thoughts on this in the "Big Blind" thread below. I would only add that these too are much looser standards than what I *think* a majority of solid players use. I recall some years ago David S. suggesting to me standards for roughly this situation which were more in the zone of AT and QJ. However, I was a 3-6 player at the time, so he may have been injecting some of that same caution. Any comments?
4) Question on the simulations: Does Turbo Texas Holdem - 2 use any sort of artificial intelligence? i.e., I'm wondering if the simulated players "remember" each other's tendencies at all and adjust accordingly. It would seem that if they don't, then the results might have a problem. For example, if I were to play against someone who defends, say, only 25% of the time (ignoring the small blind for now), then I'd be right to try to steal his blind every time. And if he never remembered my stealing frequency I could go on making money at it forever. But in real life he is going to adjust, making my steal attempts less profitable, possibly wiping out all profit if I continue at the same frequency. I have a feeling there could be other problems with such a lack of "memory" on the part of the simulated players. That's just one that comes immediatley to mind.
Well, I'd like to hear everyone's views on this stuff. Hope I haven't abused my privileges with such a long post.
First , that was the most well written post I have ever seen. As to the question itself, the answer unqestionably has a lot to do with how, and how well, your opponent plays, and of course how well you play. These things make a very big difference as far as determining whether to play these very mediocre hands. It is inconceivable to me that the worst of the hands that Abdul suggested would show a profit against champion players. But they probaly would do okay against others IF you played them perfectly.
Thanks for the compliment, David. As I sat in a *very* wild 20-40 game tonight, stuck $1500, I thought, "How can this be? I can write such a good post!"
BTW I got back $900 in the last 45 minutes. And $240 of that came from defending my blind with A5o. Are you HAPPY Abdul? ;-)
What you are talking about applies to much more than just blind stealing. Comments like ‘you should raise with 99’ or comments like ‘you should fold with 72’ are starting from the wrong place. When playing poker with human beings the ideas to start with are ones like what is my position? how is my image? who is in? how do they play? how do I read them? Questions like what hands should I raise with in this unique situation against these unique individuals in their current state of mind. After you have a handle on these kinds of questions you look at your cards and decide just what is the value of 99 in this spot? Is it worth a raise, a call, or should I fold? It is the situation that has value, not the cards.
Well, I do think some rough starting standards have value, though I do agree with what you say. Starting hands change value as a result of many factors. I just wish I could find more games with enough *really* weak players to make some of the more squirrelly hands begin to look kind of good.
John,
You write :
< First let me say that I'm surprised his comments did not generate more responses. Some of the standards he suggested seem (to me anyway) to differ markedly from mainstream thinking. Did they not raise questions for anyone else? >
I think a lot of minds were/are mulling over these 2 threads, and the low response can only be viewed as an indication that people are still mulling.
< 1) On stealing from the button: Here Abdul said, "I need to run more simulations, but right now my best guess for the minimum hands needed to raise on the button is as follows: 22 A2s K2s 54s 63s 92s A2 K4 87 97" >
<..snip..>
< Now, it appeared to me that Abdul was suggesting raising *regardless* of whether or not the blinds were very likely to call, and also regardless of whether they were very weak players. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Abdul. >
IMHO, as you and David have already stated, Abdul's minimum hands needed to raise on the button are not to be blindly (excuse the pun) followed but rather serve as a set of guidelines only. I'm sure Abdul would agree that rigid adherence to these guidelines would result in the button (requoting Abdul from an earlier post) getting the sh*t kicked out of him.
< 2) On defending the big blind against a button raise: Abdul says, "Versus a button raise, I'd muck only the very worst 20 hands or so, like Q4o, 72o, 93o, etc." >
Assuming the button is religiously following Abdul's guidelines, then the BB will be probably getting sufficient pot odds to even play 72o and the other 20 very worst hands. If he does this, then the button will quickly realize that stealing is impossible and will readjust his strategy, which of course leads to the inevitable readjusting by BB etc., a process you've already mentioned in your post.
< 4) Question on the simulations: Does Turbo Texas Holdem - 2 use any sort of artificial intelligence? i.e., I'm wondering if the simulated players "remember" each other's tendencies at all and adjust accordingly. >
The players do not learn as such and will not "remember" each other's tendencies. However, an element of randomness has been added to their play in that they make "timely moves to steal pots."
< I have a feeling there could be other problems with such a lack of "memory" on the part of the simulated players. That's just one that comes immediatley to mind. >
I think the program developers would be the first to agree with you, but with its shortcomings it's still, IMHO, the best tool out there today and well worth investing in. A mature awareness of these strengths and weaknesses will go a long way in bridging the gap between the diehard dogmatics and the simulation skeptics.
< Hope I haven't abused my privileges with such a long post. >
On the contrary, 'twas a bloody good post. BTW, I also liked Bobby B.'s post and agree with your reply.
Etienne
Etienne clarified: "The players do not learn as such and will not "remember" each other's tendencies. However, an element of randomness has been added to their play in that they make "timely moves to steal pots."
Shortly after I wrote the above post, it occurred to me that the players' lack of "memory" and adjustment to one another's play may not be a problem in dealing with this particular question. I *think* you could get around it by running a series of simulations in which you incorporate adjustments and counter-adjustments into each successive sim. What do you think?
Now if we could just pry Abdul away from whatever unbelievably +EV gambling situation he must currently be absorbed in long enough to share his thoughts...
John,
You write :
< I *think* you could get around it by running a series of simulations in which you incorporate adjustments and counter-adjustments into each successive sim. What do you think? >
In Mike Gilbert's "Insider's Tips" for TTH2, the following is written in the section on "Big Blind vs. Small Blind". It is, however, applicable to other situations.
"TTH can help you analyze how to play blind vs. blind. Let's say that you want to know which hands the small blind should raise with after everyone folds, assuming you can estimate the big blind's strategy. A test can show which hands are profitable against that strategy, and the small blind can be programmed to play accordingly.
A second test can show which hands are profitable for the big blind, against the small blind's new strategy. After the big blind is programmed accordingly, a third test can be run to refine the small blind's strategy. And so on....
Live players constantly adjust to whatever strategies they think the opponents are using. With TTH, we can only check out one set of adjustments at a time, but we can do it thoroughly".
Etienne
Why don't you guys put away your computers and go get into a real game and play. There is no way a computer can simulate real life playing experiences. I think your "simulations" are leading you down the primrose path.
You know what? It's probably been six or seven years since I ran a computer simulation. That was with an early version of TTH. Before that I fooled around a bit with a more primitive hold'em program. I decided neither was doing much for me, and decided to focus soley on learning from live play, reading, consultations, and constant analysis of my play and that of others.
But now that TTH is said to be greatly improved I think it's wise to keep an open mind about what it can do. At least certain types of simulations it does may produce some valid insights. More importantly, it seems obvious that eventually there will be *very* sophisticated programs out there which will prove quite useful. In the mean time it only makes sense to keep up with what's going on in this area. Can't hurt, and you might learn something.
Martin,
You write :
< Why don't you guys put away your computers and go get into a real game and play. There is no way a computer can simulate real life playing experiences. I think your "simulations" are leading you down the primrose path. >
In case it escaped your notice, we happen to be in "The Gambling Theory and Strategy Forum". That's probably the main reason we're discussing simulations and not playing in a real game.
When I read a thread on Omaha, tournament play or some other topic I know little about, I find everyone benefits most when I stay on the sidelines.
Etienne
1) It's hard to nail down strategy for raising on the button to steal the big blind, as I fear TTH 2.0 may have a bloated positional advantage, due to its lack of check-raising. TTH suggests you should raise with quite a lot of hands, even if the big blind adopts a counterstrategy to that, but this does not necessarily mean this is true in reality, because TTH may unfairly handicap the out-of-position player. If I could estimate how much TTH warps the value of position, I could adjust the results for it.
It may be correct to limp quite a bit on the button if you're playing a heads up game and thus have the small blind on the button, but I haven't run sims on this. Not raising here is similar to Sklansky's notion in Theory of Poker that you should not bet into a big pot on the river without the best of it on your bet if he calls, since your opponent is getting such good odds that he will almost certainly call.
It may be that Mike Caro is correct that one should be conservative about steal-raising on the button 3+ handed, since you're laying odds while you're almost sure to get a caller. But with the small blind in the pot, limping allows the small blind in cheap, while raising has a high probability of knocking him out. It's probably a raise-or-fold situation. I suspect the value of knocking out the small blind turns many "fold" hands into "raise" hands.
2) I've known for some years that it's correct to defend the big blind with quite a lot of trashy hands; however, I was prevented from mentioning it since I was told by a very knowledgeable player who didn't want me repeating what she said. Years passed and I got TTH 2.0, and I was fairly impressed with it aside from its lack of check-raising and a few other shortcomings. I ran simulations to determine preflop strategy, starting with under the gun and working my way back to attacking and defending the big blind. (Actually, attacking and defending the blinds are where the money is at in tight games, so I should have started there.) Since I had independently arrived at the knowledge, and I had done it without even the goal of confirming the knowledge, I felt I could now speak the truth about defending the big blind. I plan to release the big blind defense strategy as a small part of another document, or else I still might not have mentioned it.
3) That you should be fairly loose in defending the big blind against a legitimate raise contradicts the unpublished writings of one poker researcher who found that defending with AQ was pretty borderline (whereas I put the borderline at A2). I strongly suspect that researcher was wrong. He was estimating a positional advantage equal to a big bet or so, which was even more bloated than TTH. Even in my more liberal view you should, however, avoid weak hands that tend to be dominated by a legitimate raise, so while you might be able to defend with 65o, you shouldn't defend with Q5o.
4) From talking to the developer of TTH, it sounds like the current version was supposed to adjust its play to the particular habits of its opponents, but a bug disabled this feature. With it on, it also check-raises much more often (once in eleven hands - do you think that's enough?) I may have this garbled, but I'm pretty sure TTH 3.0 will have these features.
Regarding what others said about why listen to simulations, just react to your opponents... well, I think if you have no clue about the basic theory, like that the odds you're getting in the big blind permit you to defend with a lot of hands, then you could easily play wrong (too tight in this case) against ALL opponents. This could cost you more than playing the game theoretic optimal solution without adjusting to particular opponents. In any case, you can take the best of both worlds, using game theory and simulations to learn how to best exploit particular types of opponents, and then going to the cardrooms and turning this knowledge into cash.
-Abdul
Abdul,
If you ever get around to doing some simulations with respect to defending your big blind in a tournament situation, I would love to hear about it. It is rare that I'm in a game where it's heads-up between me in the BB and a raiser. There's almost always someone(s) else around. But, it often plays out like this in tournaments (i.e., late position raise vs. BB alone).
Later, Greg Raymer
Abdul stated recently,
"Regarding what others said about why listen to simulations----In any case, you can take the best of both worlds, using game theory and simulations to learn how to best exploit particular types of opponents, and then going to the cardrooms and turning this knowledge into cash."
I only agree with this if you are a superior card reader. Otherwise I think you will be fooling yourself.
JimmyR,
Abdul stated recently,
"Regarding what others said about why listen to simulations----In any case, you can take the best of both worlds, using game theory and simulations to learn how to best exploit particular types of opponents, and then going to the cardrooms and turning this knowledge into cash."
You respond:
>>I only agree with this if you are a superior card reader. Otherwise I think you will be fooling yourself. <<
Utilization of game theory for making poker decisions is intended to be used when your judgement fails due to a superior or hard to read opponent. If you are a superior card reader then using game theory will probably cost you money. I say probably because you could read your opponents hand well and still make the wrong decision while using game theory to make the optimal decision would yield a more profitable decision. Optimal in the sense that you don't know what his hand is or can't narrow it down very much.
Tom Haley
Thanks for your contributions on this topic, Abdul. They have sparked a lot of thinking for me, and I think this part of my game will benefit as a result.
(p. 249) Early in the hand, even though hand values run fairly close, tight players tend to go out too much. That is, they sometimes won't take another card off even when it is correct to do so. In what situations do tight Omaha-8 players tend to pass on hands that they should play further? When those situations arise in a game that is very loose overall, should those hands still be played further?
Dan,
IMO the reason that it is incorrect to fold is that the odds of making your backdoor possibilities that give a you a chance to scoop when compared to the pot odds are favorable.
Tom Haley
A quick, and I think easy, question re: low limit hold em that I wanted to throw out there. The question deals with hands that have two cards (connectors, suited or not) in the mid value range, like 8,9 and 10. My question is, if you've got two of these cards, and one of them is the top pair on the flop, what should you do w/ it? In many ways, of course, this is a draw hand, since you're not going to retire early by constantly going to the river w/ a pair of nines, but there seems to be a good intuive argument for raising and hoping to eliminate other draw hands like straights, flushes, two overcards, etc. Or you can just fold the thing, which is usually what I do, since the game I play in (up in Central City here in Colorado) is fairly loose, with multi way pots more of the norm than an exception.
Any insights would be really appreciated.
if you are in early position those are tough hands to play. if your in late position and you make top pair 9 high with an eight kicker, if checked to you bet it, if it is bet to you either raise or throw your hand away. you need to play this hand very aggressive and it all depends who you are playing this hand against.
Just folding won't do because you will often have the best hand with a decent draw. The problem is that the rest of the time, it seems, you're outkicked and drawing dead. My preference is to try to raise or check raise (when I'm in early position) an opener to my immediate right. Making it ten to go will usually knock out the overcards and the gutshots, although it's very rare for anyone in a low limit game to fold a flush draw or open straight draw for a mere two bets on the flop. (This assumes, of course, that you don't suspect a high pocket pair). If this doesn't work, estimate the strength of whatever draw you have and play it as such. You can't take a lot of heat after the flop because because virtually any card on the turn that doesn't help you can cripple you. The most critical thing is to refrain from going aggressive when you pair your kicker; against a big field, you've just been outdrawn.
Beware of tens as a top pair with a mediocre kicker. Many players will see the flop with KT or QT who wouldn't with K9 or Q9. You are much more likely to get out kicked with top pair when that pair is a ten vs. a nine.
Why even play 9-10o if you are not going to protect it when you get top pair on the flop? What flop are you hoping for: trips, straight, or full-house? This is not likely. If you are going to muck top pair after the flop, I would not even play these cards to begin with, but instead wait for premium hands.
Why even play 9-10o if you are not going to protect it when you get top pair on the flop? What flop are you hoping for: trips, straight, or full-house? This is not likely. If you are going to muck top pair after the flop, I would not even play these cards to begin with, but instead wait for premium hands.
You primarily play T9o for the same reasons you play 65o. You hope to flop a straight draw, two pair, trips, or a made straight. No, this isn't very likely. That's why you shouldn't play these kinds of hands unless you are in late position and lots of players have limped in. With volume pots, your chances don't have to be likely, they just have to be "enough."
Usually, these kinds of hands are going to flop either nothing or a pair. Flopping a pair is what gets many players in trouble. Some will use second or third pair as justification to see one more card (hoping to turn trips or two pair). Even if they flop top pair with T9o, many will lose money unless they are good enough to know when to release this hand.
I think it's pretty safe to say that most players' EV would increase if they ALWAYS folded unsuited connectors (and gapped hands) that are T9o and below.
Generally, I wouldn't play small to medium connectors unless they are suited. Unsuited you know only have the straight draw versus straight and flush possibilities if they are suited.
As far as how to play, I would recommend watching the pre-flop action. Was there a pre-flop raise from somebody who only raises pre-flop with a premium hand? Were there no preflop raises so you can put everybody on a draw?
If I'm in early position I might put in one bet on the flop to see where I'm at. If I get two or more callers or a raise I'd be likely to drop the hand. Be careful of somebody who always plays Ax. You could be very likely out-kicked.
Regards,
Leigh Davis
would someone please respond and let me no how to find the results online for the orleans poker tournament? does anyone know of an online travel agent that finds pretty good rates to vegas?aan
You can try http://www.conjelco.com/orleans/
Mike Paulle has been posting the results to rec.gambling.poker . If you don't have a newsreader, you can use Dejanews to search the archives.
Chuck Weinstock has also been archiving Mike Paulle's reports on http://www.conjelco.com/orleans/ . I've also included a link to the conjelco archive below.
There is a lag between when Mike posts to r.g.p and when they get into the conjelco archive.
Travelocity (http://www.travelocity.com) is good for searching for airfares but on hotel room rates they seem to just have the standard price for some LV hotels.
I have had good success with the Las Vegas Reservation System for hotel rooms. They have an 800 number (I can't find it or I would include it here). I've called a few days before arriving in LV and found great deals. I'm speculating that the major hotels release unbooked blocks of rooms to them a few days before the dates they are available to see if they can move them at any price. If you are willing to book room accomodations only a day or two before you arrive you should be able to get good deals at the better Strip hotels.
Regards,
Leigh Davis
What is the best way to reduce your standard deviation when playing at the $15-30 level of hold'em. I know playing very tight will reduce it but that will reduce your winnings. So then what is the optimum way of reducing and still make a resonable profit that also would be a correct strategy? Is the answer simply playing more total hours? Another question I have is about the book "MORE HOLD'EM EXELLENCE". I know that 2+2's book is the very best but in your opinion is Lou's book worth buying? Does it contain solid advice? Still another thought is this: how about making a new edition of HPFAP containing added playing strategies developed over the last couple of years including concepts talked about on this forum. By the way suppose such a strategy exists to my above question. What then would your hourly rate be in $15-30?
"What is the best way to reduce your standard deviation when playing at the $15-30 level of hold'em. I know playing very tight will reduce it but that will reduce your winnings. So then what is the optimum way of reducing and still make a resonable profit that also would be a correct strategy? Is the answer simply playing more total hours?"
Work on your hand reading skills.
"Another question I have is about the book "MORE HOLD'EM EXELLENCE". I know that 2+2's book is the very best but in your opinion is Lou's book worth buying? Does it contain solid advice?"
I do not recommend it.
"Still another thought is this: how about making a new edition of HPFAP containing added playing strategies developed over the last couple of years including concepts talked about on this forum."
We are working on new material that pertains to both hold 'em and stud. We hope to have it released by the year 2,000. We are not sure as to exactly what form it will take.
"By the way suppose such a strategy exists to my above question. What then would your hourly rate be in $15-30?"
$35 per hour.
It seems to me that there may be an implication in the desire to reduce ones standard deviation. A short bankroll or a losing streak?
I suggest being more careful in game selection. Make sure that your game plays well in the game you are in. A passive game might be better than one with a few suckers and the remainder strong aggressive players.
Also it makes sense to move down in stakes if the game is better.
I'm trying to reduce chip fluctuation as much as possible. This makes me play my best game. You can't win every session and I know that. But there are ways to reduce your standard deviation. I'm trying to find out the best way. I personally don't like when the chips are acting like a rollar coaster. However by no means am I a passive player. Thats why I'm nicknamed the "predator"! That gives you a clue on my ring game style. I don't like raising, say with 78 suited on the button after 4 people have limped in even though It's correct to do so. But notice that it's not incorrect to do so! There are many plays that are correct but add greatly to your fluctuation. But I don't think that they are incorrect not to make. The ultimate matter is that the lower your standard deviation the more you profit.
Do you keep records of your S.D.? It's really not that hard if you have a spreadsheet of your results. Mason's "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" has the formula and I've found it to be insightful in my own stats.
Like you, I've been looking to reduce my S.D. and received the same advice from Mason - improve your hand reading skills. I've tried to put that advice to good use and I have reduced my S.D. from about $145 to $125 (5-10 HE). My win rate has gone down from almost 1 BB to 0.5 BB, but I don't know that these facts are necessarily related. My best win rate was at the 500 hour mark and I'm now at just the 1000 hour mark. As such, running good and/or bad over a relatively short time span could have altered the results significantly. I suspect that I will remain in that range, but if I can do it with a steadily decreasing S.D., then I have made an improvement in my game. It's just like any other investment choice - if you can get the same return with less risk, then it's obviously a better way to go.
I'm trying to reduce my S.D. in 15-30 because of the large chip fluctuations that my style goes through. I keep all records of every game I play in going back some 3 years.If you win rate went down I would sugest that you go back to the style that allowed you to win at $10 per hour. Also $5-10 is not really a good indication. You are better off trying $10-20.
Joe wrote, "The ultimate matter is that the lower your standard deviation the more you profit."
I don't understand your statement. Perhaps you have a different definition of "profit." Most of us would say, "The higher your expected value, the more you profit."
In general, moves that decrease your SD also decrease your EV. How much EV you are willing to sacrifice for a lower SD depends on how risk averse you are.
Almost all of us would agree that it is advantageous to lower your SD if you can maintain (or even increase) your EV. Improving your card-reading skills is nice because it usually increases your EV and decreases your SD.
If you found HOLD'EM EXCELLENCE worth reading, then I'd recommend reading MORE HOLD'EM EXCELLENCE (MHE) as well.
If you've read several good Hold'em books, you probably won't learn very much from MHE, especially if you are playing at the 15-30 level. But you'll probably read: (1) something new, (2) something that you might have forgotten, or (3) something that helps pound into your skull something you sort of knew already. And if this something saves you even one future big bet, then MHE already has paid for itself. And if it wins you a future pot, then you'll really be glad you bought the book.
Of course, this assumes you don't follow incorrect advice from the book that ends up costing you more money than the good advice saves you. And, IMHO, this book does offer some dubious advice. But most players with good common sense should be able to identify and ignore the flaws.
There are lots of good poker books that should more than pay for themselves. While I haven't read all the 2+2 books, the ones I have read fall into this category. Other books that I believe are more profitable than MHE include WINNING LOW-LIMIT HOLD'EM by Lee Jones, FOOLPROOF by Richard Allen, and IMPROVE YOUR POKER by Bob Ciaffone.
Does anyone know what the average poker dealer makes full-time and part-time at the Taj and Trop World?
The dealers claim that they end up making $12 to $13 per hour.
10-20 Omaha-8. A low card comes on the river, making a low possible. The high bets out (it is crystal clear that he's the high), two players drop, and an inexperienced player raises in front of me. I have the nut low, and it's pretty clear to me that he has the nut low as well. I call, grumbling about getting "quartered," but the inexperienced player doesn't pick up the hint and hits it again after the raise comes from the high, allowing the high to cap it at 4 raises. We get quartered, and the inexperienced player turns over a hand that had no prayer of being a high.
My question: This type of situation seems to occur fairly regularly in O-8, and is one of the few situations I've encountered in poker in which I wish my opponent knew my cards. Suppose I'd had time to do something before the pigeon raised for the second time. Does etiquette or the rules prevent me from:
1) Exposing my cards. 2) Saying directly: "I have A-2 as well. If you raise..."
I realize that an argument can be made for taking my medicine and collecting from this player later on when I'm on the high.
I think that this would violate the ethics of the game, given that there is a third player involved. In essence, you're taking money from the high player here, and redistributing it to you and the fish. While the goal is worthwhile, I think that exposing your cards or telling him what you've got is wrong. If I were the floorman, I would either warn you or bar you for taking either action.
I think that this violates the 1 player to a hand rule.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
To say anything would be cheating. The bright side is that although you took the worst of it this time, in the long run, you'll be on the other side half the time and your average net for all situations will be:
.5*((1/4 *(3*4)-4) +.5(1/2*(3*4)-4) = +.5 big bets per experience.
Even if you're a tight player who tends to favor playing the lows, as long as you're on the high end > 1/3 of the time, you come out +EV at the clueless player's expense.
In yor response to a question from the Predator,you did not recomend Lou's book more Hold'em Exellance.Just wondering if you could expand on that.I thought his book was very good espesially for beginners.
Mason's probably too polite to say so but didn't you think Krieger's table of starting hands was all too familiar? In any event, I felt it was the best part of the book for a beginner and was not much different from the table in HPFAP. Consequently, I returned it.
I think Krieger's articles in Card Player are excellent and he seems to be very helpful with Q&A from other players. He also seems knowledgable and is probably a solid player. Are you getting anything in his book that your not getting in HPFAP? IMHO I say NO!
Ian wrote: "Are you getting anything in his book that your not getting in HPFAP? IMHO I say NO!"
I hope he is very certain HPFAP covers everything that MORE HOLD'EM EXCELLENCE (MHE) covers.
Personally, I found several tidbits of new advice. Certainly nothing Earth-shattering. But, during the last six months, those tidbits have won me an extra pot or two and saved me a few bets. Already, the book has paid for itself several times over.
Is MHE the best hold'em book on the market today? No. Is MHE worth buying? Yes (at least for most hold'em players).
Where I play the most common game spread is 1-2 pot-limit hold'em. Most players start with a 200-500 buy-in and after a while some players hold several grand. The game is usually 6-10 handed. There's a lot of pre-flop action so usually it costs 5-10, or more, to see the flop. Most players play very loose, aggressive and tricky and some play very badly. I never buy in for more than 400 per night (200 + 200) and I do quite well. Since most players raise, or at least call, with hands like K3s they think I'm very tight.
Which startinghands should I play? When is it correct to raise pre-flop? I virtually never raise before the flop because I think this would give my hand away and there's always someone who raises for me, do I lose money from playing that way? In POKER ESSAYS (I do not own a copy but I will buy one, it seems to be an excellent book) Mason Malmuth writes that there's no punishment for being very tight in no-limit Hold'em - is the same true for pot-limit? Should I play hands like 76s and 44 just to throw my opponents off and should I sometimes raise with such holdings? I fear my bankroll is too small for this game, if so: is it wrong to play 1-2 times a month anyway (it is a good game)?
/David H
First, the issues related to bankroll aren't highly relevant unless you're a pro. If you work a regular job, then the real issue is how much can you afford to lose. If you lose all you can afford, you just have to quit playing until you've earned another bankroll.
As for strategy, it's really hard to generalize when it comes to PL and NL. It all depends so much upon the specific opponents for each hand, and how deep you and each of your opponents are.
For example, limping with AA isn't necessarily a bad play, as long as you can play it well postflop (i.e., you usually know when to jam and when to fold). However, if someone else has just made it $50. to go preflop, and you've got exactly your $200. buyin, you should probably reraise all-in. However, if you and the other guy are going to be heads-up, you both have a lot more than $200., and you can read him well, it's time to consider a smooth-call. The goal here is to take a bigger risk of getting outdrawn so as to greatly increase the reward when your hand does hold up. However, this play will depend upon your opponent and how well you each play against the other. Against a good player you're probably better off just reraising the max, and expecting him to fold now, or after the flop when you bet the pot again.
The only reason I agree with for raising preflop with speculative hands like 44 and 67s is as disguise, so that everyone won't automatically know you have AA or KK everytime you do raise preflop. By raising with speculative hands you disguise your monsters, and you don't cost yourself all that much, as you will often win with these hands anyway. That is, if you raise to $8 instead of limping in for $2, you've not cost yourself $6, because you will win some of these hands. You might have cost yourself only $1 or $2 with this play (an amount you hope to recoup later when someone gives you action when you do have AA).
Anyway, there's at least a few good books left to be written about these things, and I don't have time (and some would say ability) to do it.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I've seen a few posts here on different card counts to use for blackjack. My question is where can I find a game that I know is being dealt straight? I've seen so much dealing seconds in blackjack that I have no confidence that my slight theoretical "advantage" could possibly hold up in the long run. For example a female dealer at Binion's in Las Vegas was so proficient at giving herself a "10" card up top on the first hand after the shuffle (it was a full table, single deck, so it was every other hand), that she was able to do it 30 times in a row. I finally stopped counting but she was still going strong when I left. Four out of thirteen to the 30th power is a really big number for those that might think that she was just on a "lucky" streak. There have been many other incidents. Watching the top card not move in a shoe, witnessing a goofball dealer at the Mint nearly drop the deck several times while executing the old "I got another 10" trick. I finally found a safe haven at the Mirage when they came out with a Russian built machine that just dropped a card at a time. It was three decks and it continuously shuffled. The catch was that it only shuffled a reservoir of cards so you could do a running count of the last deck and a half played and get your count that way. I worked that for $4,000 in a couple of sessions with a betting spread of $10 - $50. However, I soon found myself at a table full of card counters who made my action look pretty weak. One guy was playing at the $500 per hand level and I heard the pit boss bitch about him being up $50 grand. Another guy even went to the old "signal your buddy" routine. He was playing $5 a hand and would get his friend to come over for a quick $200 bet. The next week the machines all disappeared. About 6 months later I noticed that they were back. I was very conservative expecting the worst from the "new and improved" machines. I played at the lowest limit possible but still got in the same size spread $2 - $10. I dropped almost a thousand bucks before concluding that they were no longer beatable. No sign of any other card counters playing them either. My overall thinking is this. It's so easy to count down a deck at blackjack that if the casinos didn't regularly cheat the game would be an overall loser for them. The cheating wins money from counters, keeps them away and also wins at a much nicer clip from the gamblers. And it's got to be nicer for the casinos than hearing counters whine when asked to leave. So I switched over to poker as I figured there would be less cheating (I have found some in my favor and have suspected some that hurt me, but overall not that big of a factor) and the game is inherently a lot more interesting to play. I would still be interested in playing some blackjack for a change of pace if I knew of a place where I wasn't going to be cheated. Anyone care to give up any trade secrets?
MOST PEOPLE PLAYING BLACKJACK ARE NOT CARD COUNTERS AND THE FEW COUNTERS OUT THERE ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO BEAT THE CASINO.THE CASINO LOVES CARD COUNTERS THEY ADD TO THERE BOTTOM LINE. I LIVED IN VEGAS AND THERE IS VERY LITTLE CHEATING GOING ON THESE DAYS.
MOST PEOPLE PLAYING BLACKJACK ARE NOT CARD COUNTERS AND THE FEW COUNTERS OUT THERE ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO BEAT THE CASINO.THE CASINO LOVES CARD COUNTERS THEY ADD TO THERE BOTTOM LINE. I LIVED IN VEGAS AND THERE IS VERY LITTLE CHEATING GOING ON THESE DAYS.
If you think a casino would risk cheating you are very naive.
There are very very few succussful card counters in the world and the casinos have limited fear of them. Most people playing BJ are gamblers and they lose. The cardroom is the only place in a casino where the potential for making a living exists.
I'll have to take exception to that. There is a large, thriving body of successful card counters, especially those that play lower limits and use it to supplement another income. As the limits get higher, it becomes harder to stay in action without the casinos spotting you, but there are still some pros around making six figure salaries card counting. A handful, maybe.
As for cheating, don't worry about it. It's pretty much nonexistant in casinos today. No casino is going to risk their gaming license to extract a little more money from the players.
Dan
What is the third best Omaha eight or better hand in a ring game? Clearly the best hand is A2sA3s. The second best is almost certainly A2sA4s. But what about the third best hand? Candidates are A2sA5s, A2sAKs, A2sA2s, A2sA3offsuit(or reverse), A3sA4s, AJsA10s, and maybe a few others. This doesn't have a clear cut answer and would probably depend on the type of game you're in. I thought it might make for an interesting debate. I'll tell you my opinion after I hear yours. But don't just vote. This is an essay question.
A2sAks
>A2sA5s The five is not much help except in a very tight game. A five will rarely make the nuts for low when your A2 gets counterfeited.
This comes close, but is probably not the next best. The nut flush draws are very valuable in a standard loose game, and the AA adds a lot of value. What does the king do though? You will only play the aces anyway for a full house. It would be better to have counterfeit insurance for low.
What good is the second deuce? A set of deuces is worthless.
This is among the best of this group. Versus A2sAKs, you're giving up a nut flush draw but gaining a protected low hand, which I would prefer. When there is an ace on the board, you have the potential to scoop a large multi-way pot. This hand can be played stronger early than A2sAKs, since the A2sAKs has to worry about being counterfeited and will usually be drawing to a FH or flush and have to just check along the way.
Lacking A2 makes this a weaker choice. This hand has the nut flush and nut FH potential, but will lose too often to a weak A2. When you do get an ace on the board, you lose to 23. Heads up, this might be the next best, but in a loose game, the A34 often won't be good enough. Heads up, the AA alone will win a lot of pots, and A34 is very powerful, since it makes a decent low in virtually all cases when one is possible.
You're playing for half the pot with this hand, and while you do have strong redraw potential, the two-way hands will probably be more profitable in a loose game. Even heads up, you want to make some low.
A2sK3s Missing the pair of aces, and taking the chance on having the second best flush, but you have the counterfeit insurance, the flush will often hold up, and you have a good chance to make a solid hand in most situations. A2s76s Nut low draw with redraws to top straight; one nut flush draw. This would be less profitable than the hands above, which have stronger, more probable draws. A2sKQs King-high flushes will hold up a fair amount of the time when you're drawing to the A2. I think the A2sA3o is the best of this group.
How about KQsKJs. Third best might be too high, but this is Group I, better than some of your candidates, and my vote for the most underrated hand in OE as well. There are two ways to take the entire pot. Wheels and nut-low, nut-flush are clearly great hands to show down. But for the 40% of the time that low doesn't show, a hand with four big cards is a monster. This hand makes nut high more often than A2sA3s and adds the K flush (60% winner when it's not the nuts) besides. When this hand hits, you often have a raising hand, as opposed to the drawing/calling hand you usually have with the low draws. The full houses and nut straights made with this hand will often be bet into by worse high hands. Finally, your play with this hand will look like A23 to some players, so you may win the whole pot when you raise and drive out the made lows.
This hand gains value relative to wheel cards if you have a reputation of playing very solid. If you very rarely show down anything but nut low, you eventually stop getting called by second and third low. This reduces the value of the A23, but increases the value of the high hands.
I think Randy makes a strong case for KKQJ. I'm gonna cast my vote for AKsK2s. My reasoning (based on quick "back of the envelope" calculations, so I apologize for any errors and would appreciate any corrections):
A2sA3o makes it a bit more than 10% more likely (than if you held just A-2) that you'll have the nut low on the river, assuming you're mucking runner runner draws. You'll also be getting quartered a sizeable percentage of the time, as most A-2xx and A-3xx hands are getting started in weak games. This seems to make A2sA3o about a wash with A2sAKs, as the flush comes in about 6.3% of the time, and will be worth the whole pot a fair fraction of the time. On the other hand, if we change the second ace to a king, we get an advantage.
The main value from the big pair comes when we hit the set on the flop, which happens 12.2% of the time. The problem with aces is that, assuming we take them to the river, we have to worry about splitting a whopping 3/4 of the time. The corresponding figure for kings is only 45%. If we eliminate runner runner lows, the figures are 70% and 30%, making an even stronger case for kings. (Note that the odds of us being notched by a higher set are minimal when we hold an ace with our kings). Multiplying this out (with the 70/30 figures) yields a 2.5% advantage for holding kings instead of aces. If we regard the set as a pure drawing hand, worthless unless we fill up, the advantage is a little less than 1%. In reality, it's somewhere in the middle--helped a bit by the fact that we hold two flush redraws. Call it 1.75%--split the difference.
Is this worth losing the nut flush draw? Probably. The king flush comes in more than 4.5% of the time (I didn't bother to adjust for the fact that the flush is less likely to come when we're drawing dead), < 1.8% less often than the ace flush. Some of those flushes only get us half, so the numbers support switching to a king.
How does it play? Well, the king flush draw plays worse, as we're going to pay off the ace flush sometimes. But, the kings play great; we'll probably get better action on a set of kings than aces, or any of the low draws that these majestic hands will likely reduce to.
A2sA2s?
A2sA3offsuit
I think it's a close call between the A2sA3o and A3sA4s, of the two low draws. Both have excellant low possibilities, with the obvious advantage to the A2sA3o. The A3sA4s has better high potential with flushes. The A3sA4s is probably better for straight potential, as it makes more nut straights. The four instead of the duece can make a higher full-house (but will it ever play?).The additional low possibilities of having that duece is very important, and would overshadow the A3sA4s better high potential, if a low hand was more common. It's probably a toss-up which is better.
AKsAKs might be better than both. When a king flops, you have top set with increased chances of scooping. You're giving up low possibilities, but you're already partially doing that with A3sA4s, with better high possibilities. It has better high possibilities than the A2sA3o, in both flush and set potential. It's straight is the nut straight. Finally, it's easier to miss the flop totally, and get away from. The low draws can suck you in, only to miss or be counterfeited. Another drawback is that if the set of kings is the nut for high, you almost always have a low on board, unless there is a pair.
AKsK2s also has potential. Two flush draws, albeit one is the second-nut. A set of kings is probably good, having an ace in your hand. You have A2 for a low, which is good but subject to being counterfeitted. You still have the nut straight draw.
AJsATs abandons the low for more straight potential, keeping the flush draws. Most of it's straights will be the nut straight. This is almost totally a drawing hand, usually even after the flop, so expect to be chasing. When you hit a straight, you will frequently be splitting the pot, or will have a pair on board, making your straight suspect.
AKsA2s renders the king to almost only a straight potential. I prefer AKsK2s.
My vote will go to AKsK2s.
I go with the A2sA3o. The extra way to make the nut low is more valuable than any of the other possible 4th cards.
I go with the A2sA3o. The extra way to make the nut low is more valuable than any of the other possible 4th cards.
As a related question, what hands would you prefer to play against a perceived powerhouse starting hand? Recently I limped in with AAxx and folded to a pre-flop raiser because I put him on some such starter. My original limp was probably wrong but it was a loose game, my read turned out to be wrong and my AA would have stood up (again rare for such a loose game), but I believe my laydown was correct.
I believed myself to be up against something like A2sA3s in which case I'm really going no where with AAxx! Again my related question is which hands should I feel most comfortable with against a better starter?
You called, and then laid down AAxx to a single pre-flop raise, because you thought you were up against AA23?!
AA79 may not be a starting hand in a loose game, but to throw it away to one raise after putting in one bet is crazy. xx makes trips or a straight often enough to call that. And sometimes the raiser doesn't have the best possible hand.
You must mean you mucked it on the flop after you missed your set?
Against someone who never raises without an Ace and two wheel cards (I know people like that), you want a high hand. If you hit, you'll know how to play the hand for maximum value, since you know one opponents cards.
David,
I haven't read any of the responses but I will after I post. I'm going to eliminate AJsATs because you will only scoop if it's a high board. Next I'll eliminate A2sAKs because I don't think that this hand provides as many scoop opportunities as A2sA3. I don't think that A2sA2s gives you enough high hands to scoop both ways because if a 2 or A comes your low possibilities are severly diminished and your not a lock to win high if you get a set of 2's. That leaves A2sA5s, A2sA3( or reverse), A3sA4s. The next hand I'll eliminate is A2sA5s because when an Ace comes your low possibilities are diminished a lot.
Two hands to go. With A3sA4s a 2 would have to fall in order to allow you to be drawing at the nuts for low therefore your chances for low aren't as good as with A2sA3. In other words an A3sA4s doesn't necessarily offer you counterfeit protection because you need a 2 to be drawing at the nuts for low. Therefore I will vote for the A2sA3 (or reverse).
Tom Haley
I think the answer might well be AKsK2s because of all the extra times your set scoops. This would be especially true for the looser games.
I'm surprised no one mentioned A2s-10Js (closely related A2s-KQs) These are two of my favorite hands. Plenty of high potential and the nut low draw.
I'm with you on A2KQ, but I think the value of the flush draw with a suited jack is pretty questionable. With 40 cards out before the flop, the chances are very high that someone was dealt a better flush draw in that suit than you were. That's a hand that can't take a lot of action on the flop when the jack flush/flush draw comes.
The problem with A2sJTs vs A2sKQs is not the flush. Ks and Qs is not being played that often, and is not going to be bet heavily when it is.
The real margin for AKQ vs AJT is in three areas:
1) AJTx straights come with low more often than AKQx straights.
2) Enough more trip aces and aces full are won with the AKQ vs AJT to make AKQ worth 3.5% of a big bet more than AJT. Big payoff differences in rare events can still have a detectable difference in the value of a hand. 3.5% is from the following assumptions: If you start AKQx or AJTx, you will end up with trip aces or aces full and facing someone with the case ace about 1 in 113 starts [if you both always see the river.] If your kickers make the difference 1 in 4, and the average pot in this situation is worth 16 big bets, then your better kickers are worth 3.5% of a big bet, or $.70 EV in a 10-20 game. That's a big margin between two good hands.
3) AKQ makes more two pair winners than AJT. While these pots aren't worth much, they do add up.
Randy H. writes:
This is true in terms of the percentage of straights made by the given hand which come with a low, but quite false with respect to the total number of straights which come with a low.
AKQ makes straights exactly when the board contains JT*, where * is one of AKQ9 (all nut straights).
AJT makes straights with boards KQ*, * one of AJT9 (all nuts), and with Q98 and 987 (nuts unless T or J is also present).
Obviously, the KQ* possibility accounts for the same number of straights with and without low as does JT*.
Now that point (1) has been slain, do the extra straights make enough difference to conquer points (2) and (3) as well? It seems like a close contest to me.
Good point, Tom.
In fact, given that flops like Q9x or KQx both offer straight draws with only backdoor lows possible, I might like AJT2 at least as well as AKQ2. I'd be happy to play either one.
Good luck, -Randy
David,
I didn't think AKsK2s was a candidate but I can understand the logic.
Tom Haley
AKsK2s does seem like the next best possible when the emphasis is on the high side. Yet with so many more players contesting for the low side, having counterfeit protection looks more valuable to me. A late vote here for A2sA3o. Being double suited is nice (maybe overrated?), but when the non-nut portion flops a draw there is often trouble ahead. Double-suited hands still want to flop at least a draw to the nuts, and this is much harder without the aces.
I don't know enough about Omaha eight or better to post a guess. But this is like many of the poker questions I see posted here. There is not enough information. "a ring game" does not describe the situation clearly enough.
The correct answer for a loose passive game probably is not the correct answer for a tight aggressive game is not the answer when a maniac is on your left is not the answer when a calling station is on your right.
I even like a,2,3,4, suited. It does great against alot of players and it is real hard to misplay it and in large action pots it is usually drawing at more than its fair share. Miracle cards on the end may not cost so much with multiple players.
The game is Hold'em played with a bunch of Idiots. You can't tell where these guys are coming from and the Multiway Pots get Very Large by the time Fifth Street comes around because a Couple Players like to stay in on the Long Shot.
Now say the Board made Runner Runner for Three to a possible Straight or Flush. You have Two pair or Trips. You Check Raised the Flop and then have been betting all the way from an Early position. Is is proper to Check the River card when this happens. Since the pot is now Very Large you might be Forced to call a Raise from an Idiot. But with many people Still in the Pot Should it be worth the Risk rather then having the River Checked Down? Which is what I usually see happen.
CV
I won the exact pot with two pair recently. I did check against four active and good players. Once they had stared at their cards for 2 or 3 secods I was pretty confident that I had won. Which I did.
It seems to me if I bet no one calls; as they didn't have anything, my betting pattern and the strong board. Even if someone had hit a high pair on the river they wouldn't call.( I was first to bet.)
So, it was unlikely that I had anything to gain by betting. If I bet and get raised then I might lay down incorrectly because of the board. The pot was big enough for a raise bluff.
If I check and call it only costs one bet and I can rationalize the call as someone trying to buy it on the end.
I say check. The additional value isn't worth the risk. Also the possibilty of going on tilt is very real.
I agree with checking the river in this case. We all must make good laydowns and I find it easier on my temperament to payoff a backdoor draw with a check-call than calling a raise. As David says, the biggest mistakes are those that cost you the whole pot. As such, it would be incorrect to laydown your semi-big hand if you checked and there was a bet or you bet and it was raised.
None of us likes to lead all the way and then check the river just because a scary backdoor board resulted. What I like to do to maintain my dominance is to check raise the river when I'm the one who backed into a hand. For instance, you might flop top-two and make a nut flush instead. If you check the river against a lot of opponents, virtually any other backdoor flush will bet, anyone with two pair or trips will correctly call as noted above. Now YOU put everyone else in that same situation of having to call just one more bet in such a large pot or risk making the catastrophic error of throwing away a winner.
If no one bets and they tease you about missing a bet, so what. Your mission is still accomplished since they know when you check the river, it doesn't necessarily mean you don't have the nuts!
If players are staying (justified or not) for backdoor chances, and there isn't much else to draw for on the flop, then check/calling when a scare card hits the river seems to be the best choice. What kind of a hand can call a bet from a player in early position that took control of the pot on the flop which still looses to two pairs? Maybe only two smaller pairs. This is a good example of reducing bankroll variance.
In my experience, most players check the river too often.
You'd be surprised how often they will call on the river versus the set you flopped when their flush draw became 1 middling pair on the turn or river. They will think things like "He might have AK (if there's no A or K on board)". If there is a K on board, they imagine AQ. While there are many times you should check on the river, don't do it the vast majority of the time, as I see so many players do. I believe that many otherwise good players lose an EV of 0.5-1.0 big bets per hour from this mistake alone.
You don't need the nuts to bet the river.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think that I Check the River too much. Thats one of the main reasons for this Post.
Head up on the end "TOP" says you need to think you have a 55% chance of winning before you make a bet in First Position. This is against a Typical Player.
Now against two or more Typical players should the % go up or down? I finaly sat down and did some math on this problem and it seems to me that the more Calling type players you have behind you the more you will want to bet your hand on the end. Eventhough the chance of a Raise also gos up. The potential payoff when you do have the Best hand more than makes up for the extra Big Bet you have to put in when you lose.
CV
Whoa Chris. That 55% rule is for last position play, *after* your opponent has checked to you. And it's a 55% chance of winning *when you are called*. Acting first you should frequently bet even as an underdog if you are called. The head up on the end stuff involves some of the trickiest thinking in poker IMO. Studying that chapter in TOP quite a lot is a necessity for anyone working at the game as seriously as you are. Keep it up!
Thanks for the Correction. I can't be wandering around with the wrong Ideas in my head.
CV
The fossilman has it correct here. Bet and call unless you are really sure you are beat. But if you are all awake most times when that weird card hits someone they do something to give themselves away. Good Luck.
I'm gonna go against the majority and agree with Greg Raymer. With top pair/top kicker and a lot of callers on the turn I'll check/call. With bottom/middle two pair I'll make the check/bet decision based on my read of the players. With top pair two pair or trips it's an easy bet unless the runner/runner hand is a flush. Then there has to be 4-5 callers before I'll slow down.
Mark
I am a relatively new player ( about 100 hrs. play) and am quite intent upon learning to play well. I have bought and am reading Sklansky's Theory of Poker and HPFAP, as well as Lee Jones' Winning Low Limit Hold'em. I've been playing mostly 3-6 (I tried 6-12 one night and lost $300 in 4 hours, -whimper-), and have the following questions:
1. By continuing to play 3-6, am I hurting myself in that I am seeing too much bad play and possibly not picking up (what I assume would be) more solid poker experience at higher limit games?
2. How do I gauge whether I have become solid enough to move up to a higher limit?
3. If I am making money at 3-6, how do I determine that going to a higher limit (but maybe tougher) game has a greater positive expectation than staying at 3-6?
JYC,
Get a hold of Mason Malmuth's Poker Essays books as they provide good material that addresses your questions.
Tom Haley
I have played 3-6 hold'em for about 18 months. What you want to see is bad play by others, but not you. Memorize the hand rankings in HPFAP. Also committ the starting hands and posistion to memory. When to call, when to raise, and reraise. Set a stop loss but not stop win limit. More often than not the pot will be family, with no raising before the flop. Big pairs do poorly, but must be played strongly. Top strailght, and top flush will make you serious money. Low straights may also against big card players. Low flushes will send you home early. Trips on the flop give you nearly a lock. Bet strongly if two to a strairght or flush show up on the flop. Slow play them slightly otherwise. You will occassionally be out drawn, and this will cost you. But if you play position well, and keep the pressure on your opponents, your average win will be 100 for a four hour session. You average loss will be what you tolerarte, but do not get down more than 100. Change tables, if you do. I have come back from 200 down, but it's tough. Usually you end up a few dollars short. If this happens, TAKE THE SMALL LOSS. You can easily drop the 200 again trying to get 30 back if the cards run against you.
I would advise you not to go to the bigger games until you have an iron grip on your emotions. I dropped my entire earinings for January, 600 , in an all night 4-8 game. Worse, the fact that I taken such a beating caused me to go on complete tilt for six weeks and destroyed my bankroll. I have since rebuilt it, but I nearly quit playing because of what happened. One other bit of advice: read this forum daily. Many of the posts are truly inspired.
Whatever limits you ultimately wind up playing, your "loose game" experience will prove invaluable. Sometimes the rocks at the higher limits have forgotten just what a 3-6 type of game calls for and they'll certainly be more prone to going on tilt than you will. Remember, they're not as used to seeing backdoor and gutshot draws as you are! As such, try to jump into a looser game when you move up limits. You'll feel more at home and hopefully you'll continue to spot the mistakes your opponents are making.
Good luck!
Here is an an example of loose talble play that illustrates how sweet these low limit games can be, and applies to other limits as well, especially 4-8 where I play.
Friday night playing 3-6 with a kill. I had just come back from 140 down. Kill pot. I drew 56s. I call as do several others. Flop 34Q. I call. Turn 2. Q's bet, I raise. Q's call. River 9. I bet. Q's ponder. I watch horse race on TV. Q's Call! Surprise! Even the dealer looked startled.
Now, most 3-6 players will not play drawing hands at kill level. Some will play high suited, but not as a draw. Most are looking for AX. I owe this play to the essay by Pudiate, The Fundamental Theory of Chasing, which may still be in the thread. Essay is brilliant. Also, there is a book by G. Elias, Awesome Profits, that every novice, or average player who is trying to improve, should read.
Wahoo!
Roger,
Not so long ago, John Feeney and myself tried to extinguish a brushfire which you lit. Stephen Landrum initially poured petrol over the flames, but upon realizing the extent of the blaze, was in the forefront of the firefighting effort.
Please email me if you don't understand this deliberately obscure post.
Etienne
My apologies. Either I displayed a further misunderstanding of the Fundamental Theory of Chasing, attributed it wrongly, or committed some other breech of etiquette...Please be specific. I won't wilt.
Roger,
There's no need to apologize - you have not committed any breach of etiquette. The Fundamental Theorem of Chasing was posted by Paul Pudaite on April 1st, 1998. Whilst it is presented in a supposedly rigid, typically 'Pudaite', mathematically logical style, it was meant to be nothing more than his April Fools' joke. You weren't the only one caught out.
Etienne
Well, it is a very good one since it fooled both Stephen and I, but I have to tell you that it does work. I have sat for hours wondering how to beat rocks-fairly easy-and solid players-not easy. The way to unnerve them is to play suited connectors out of position for multiple bets. The implied odds-as defined in Sklansky, Theory of Poker-are enormous. If you hit your hand, you will drag in a huge pot, and put a ""good" player on complete tilt. ( If you don't hit, you fold quietly.) Then you change gears and use a big pair to wipe out the other players, espcecially those still mumbling to themselves about what you did. It worked for me last night playing 4-8..
Also, in Elias's book Awesome Profits there is a discussion about position, hands, and the number of people in the pot. See p. 179. Elias advocates playing even unsuited connectors in family pots if you have position. Well, last night, kill pot 8-16, I am in the little blind with 7/8 offsuit. Family pot. I do not call the blind bet. Result. Flop 77Q, T8, R2. Too bad I didn't read p. 178 until this morning. Some hands beg to be played, but the key is knowing when!
This forum is wonderful. I am behind in reading posts. I see man interesting ones. Now, if I only did not have to sleep.
Roger,
I'll jump in for Etienne this time. Please try just to put the Fundamental Theorem of Chasing out of your head. What you've concluded from this April Fools post about playing "suited connectors out of position for multiple bets" is only going to cost you money. *Because* it costs you multiple bets to see the flop, your implied odds here are severely *reduced*.
Also, consider that any player you can put on tilt just by getting lucky with one of these hands in a raised pot can hardly be considered a "good" player.
Keep reading the old archived posts. There's much of value there. But check those dates! ;-)
I wasn't fooled by it. All I said originally was that the first poster (you Roger?) that asked about it didn't understand what it was saying.
The funny thing about the FToC is that it is correct, but in all practical sense it is completely inapplicable to most situations.
The game theory stated percentage that you should play some of the trash hands is extremely low, so low that it really doesn't affect your bottom line. It also requires that you be in a heads up situation (or one that can be maneuvered to be heads up), and that you and your opponent have very large stacks, and that your opponent is willing to go all-in by reraising one bet at a time without holding the nuts.
Don't confuse a lucky outcome or two with loose play as validation of the FToC - in fact it is extremely unlikely that you were in a situation where the FToC would apply.
Well, it is a very good one since it fooled both Stephen and I, but I have to tell you that it does work. I have sat for hours wondering how to beat rocks-fairly easy-and solid players-not easy. The way to unnerve them is to play suited connectors out of position for multiple bets. The implied odds-as defined in Sklansky, Theory of Poker-are enormous. If you hit your hand, you will drag in a huge pot, and put a ""good" player on complete tilt. ( If you don't hit, you fold quietly.) Then you change gears and use a big pair to wipe out the other players, espcecially those still mumbling to themselves about what you did. It worked for me last night playing 4-8..
Also, in Elias's book Awesome Profits there is a discussion about position, hands, and the number of people in the pot. See p. 179. Elias advocates playing even unsuited connectors in family pots if you have position. Well, last night, kill pot 8-16, I am in the little blind with 7/8 offsuit. Family pot. I do not call the blind bet. Result. Flop 77Q, T8, R2. Too bad I didn't read p. 178 until this morning. Some hands beg to be played, but the key is knowing when!
This forum is wonderful. I am behind in reading posts. I see man interesting ones. Now, if I only did not have to sleep.
Here's a problem that I'm sure many of you have suffered through. Any insights would be greatly appreciated.
The problem concerns hold 'em games where just about everyone always calls, and people rarely raise. While I'm unsure as to why this happens, I think it occurs for the following reason; that most of the players are either a) playing a weak or draw hand, but want to see the next card, or b) sitting on something good, like trips, but have decided to slowplay. Since these two scenerios sum up most hold 'em hands, most of the hands follow this pattern- which is fine, only it greatly reduces my ability to even hazard a guess at an opponents two down cards.
Two examples-
I was playing last Tuesday, and was dealt a KQ off suit in late position. Everyone called, I raised, then about half the table called again. Flop is Kc 5h 2s. I bet again, and the whole table folds except for one guy. The turn looks like a rag, as does the river, but he keeps calling. Turns out he's got an AQ offsuit. Now, what he was drawing at is beyond me, and if he was bluffing it seems like he should have given it up after my bet on the flop.
Second example. I'm in middle position with pocket nines. A late position player raises, six of us call, and the flop comes up 3c 8h 8c. Checked to me, I bet, and all but two guys fold. Turn is 8s. Again I bet, figuring that if another eight was out there I would have already found out about it, what with the flush draw. Both players call. River is a rag, the 4s, so I bet again. One guy folds, and other CALLS, then turns over 83d.
Go figure. If he had a higher pair, I figured I would have heard about it either pre flop or on the flop. Same with an eight. I put him on a flush draw, and he flips over the nuts.
So the question is- when you play in games where everyone simply calls, thereby reducing your chances of putting anyone on a hand, what's the best approach? Or, at the very least, what sort of strategy adjustments should you make?
Thanks,
Guy.
P.S- I want to thank everone who took the time to answer my last question. I'm not much of a player, and every bit of help I can get improves my playing skills exponentially.
I'll address GD's first example.
"I was playing last Tuesday, and was dealt a KQ off suit in late position. Everyone called, I raised, then about half the table called again."
You should only call.
"Flop is Kc 5h 2s. I bet again, and the whole table folds except for one guy. The turn looks like a rag, as does the river, but he keeps calling. Turns out he's got an AQ offsuit. Now, what he was drawing at is beyond me, and if he was bluffing it seems like he should have given it up after my bet on the flop."
You ran into a bad player who was just calling you down with a good ace. Notice on the flop he has a bad three straight as well as an overcard. The fourth street card might have given him a gut shot draw.
KQ is not a good hand with multiway action. Don't raise from late position since you will only be making the pot larger (there is no chance to get it shorthanded before the flop) and less incorrect for all of the wild draws to continue chasing. You can call (in some circumstances I have folded KQ on the button) primarily because you are in late position, see if the flop helps, and then maybe raise or reraise to get a player on your left out or set up a possible free card on the turn.
With 99 in middle position I would consider reraising if there are a couple of players on my left in front of the late position raiser. You could have also raised with 99 initialy if the game was somewhat tight.
1st example: The game you describe is loose passive before the flop and weak tight after. The only better game than that is one that stays loose till the turn. The way to play it is tight passive before the flop and super aggressive after.
Some things to expect: 1. If you confine your preflop raises to AA, KK, QQ, and AKs no one will notice. You could raise with only these hands 5 times in 30 minutes and the 6th time you do it you'll still get 6-7 callers. 2. Beware flopping top pair, top kicker and not improving. No matter how aggressive you play this hand you will still have 2-3 callers on the river and a good chance someone spiked their kicker on the end. Don't be afraid to check/call (overcall/double overcall/triple overcall!) the river if there are more than 2 cold callers on the turn. Not only do you save a bet by avoiding a check/raise but top pair weak kicker may think they have the best of it and bet out so you can often make more this way than if you go ahead and bet out. This is because smaller pairs that planned to drop if unimproved may decide to call if they suddenly think you missed a draw. 3. Check/Raise from early position after the flop often. Loose passive players take a raise without a blink but a check/raise will bring them up cold like a slap in the face. In fact, many of them consider a check/raise to be on a par with a slap in the face. 4. Respect aggression from a loose passive player but with a grain of salt. What they consider a good hand and what you know is a good hand aren't always the same thing.
2d example: Next time somebody pulls this on you just climb over the table and plant a big wet sloppy kiss on their forehead! Not only do they gladly donate their money to you with weak hands they politely refrain from taking your money on their strong ones! Do not worry about putting them on a hand. In the not so long run you will get more of their money than they will of yours. And as a bonus you'll find that these players are the best rock breakers in the business. Nothing tilts a rock faster than for someone to fail betting the nuts at them. This is because one of the reasons they are a rock is because they loathe betting someone elses hand. They think they've been made a fool of and the only thing for them to do is retaliate. All of a sudden they've gone from rock to loose aggressive and 10-12 BB pots turn into 15-20 BB pots.
Mark
I am a new poker player (in terms of club playing), but have been playing poker since high school. I am trying improve my Hold'em game, but I'm wondering whether I'm just not cut out to be a good player--no matter how hard I try to remain stoic, whenever I lift the corners of my cards and see something like KK or even AQs, my heart starts to pound and I feel like my face is becoming hot. Will I ever get used to playing enough such that I don't have such an emotional reaction to good cards? Does the thrill ever go away? Has this excitement/emotional aspect of play been addressed in anyone's writings?
JYC,
Yes the thrill goes away after time. The anger and frustration of getting your good hands cracked also goes away after time. Just play a lot of hold'em and you will eventually get control of your emotions.
Tom Haley
Let me add that the thrill can return.....well temporarily.
This past weekend in a 10-20 HE game, I made a staight flush on the turn when my opponent made an ace high flush. After putting in the first 12 bets, she looked at my last two hundred dollar bills and said, "Would you just like to go all in?" Needless to say I did! I can't believe how nervous and flustered I got. I think a lot of it was feeling embarassed for the woman. I left shortly after that, because I felt like my sharp edge was gone.
Jessica,
That is quite a good situation. It's always nice when people give a lot their money away to you. And yes I can understand the excitement but I believe that you'll take this kind of situation in stride after awhile.
Even now when I get a real monster like quads I don't get too excited. I'll admit I don't get a lot of straight flushes and they aren't always a cinch. A while back I flopped an Ace high flush with A,Js. The flop was 2s,4s, 9s. Turn was a 3s and river was a 5s. A 6s would have knocked me off but my straight flush wheel held up.
Tom Haley
Please don't think I am trying to make a judgement I certainly don't know much about your situation and even less about you personally. I know that every new gambler has those feelings of excitement, after all it is an exciting game. However I know that I will never ever be able to make it as a pro, despite the fact that I probably have the knowledge to do so. I can only play for recreation because of the feelings you are describing. JYC, I think you might want to examine the "why's" of what you are doing, as in "Why do I gamble?". In essence pro players don't look at what they are doing as gambling. They make a bet, raise or fold always based on which play has the highest positive expectation. Just another way to make a living in a way. For myself, I realized that I played poker because it provided a rush that I couldn't find anywhere else. I did a lot of reflecting on this and realized that while I might have the knowledge, I lacked the discipline to ever make any considerable ammount of money from the game. I'm not suggesting that you are the same, and I wouldn't be too worried about the "rush" if you are very new to the game. But I would suggest that you do examine the "why's" of your gambling.
Here is 4 resons fun, sport, money, kiling time. My list is 4-3-1-2
The rush never goes away. That's why we play poker. As far as I'm concerned it's the most exciting game on earth. I'f your going to play in clubs or casinos, you'll need to disguise your emotions. This will only come with experience. Good Luck and Have fun! Danny H
A college speech professor once explained that how we perceive what we are showing to others is rarely as pronounced as it is to ourselves. Yet in any situation where we stand to gain a tremendous amount by some stroke of fortune, it would be a dull person indeed who didn't get at least a little rise out of the occasion. Certainly I can relate to how Tom Haley feels about a big hand not necessarily being that big of deal, and over time, it will also be rare for you to get so excited.
Still, a few events from this years' World Series stand out in my mind that all of us are susceptible to excitement if the price is right. One of the final table players was at my second day table, and after he won a real big pot, I could tell he was super excited because he realized that he'd won enough to carry him into the money -- he was literally bouncing so much that the floor was moving. Also -- and I don't think many people noticed this -- but when Scotty Nguyen saw that 9-9-8-8 board, his lip trembled: even before the river, it hit him in that instant that he was going to win the WSOP with his buried 9 (obviously if Kevin had seen it, he would have possibly had second thoughts about "playing the board"). At my first day table, I looked down to find K-K, and after the flop, when Callahan mistakenly called my big bet and moved in with his A-Q, I can't say that I was "excited" in the sense that I exuded any outward emotion, but certainly "elated" because I knew that I had moved into a strong position.
The best advice I can give: tell yourself that no one can see how excited you are, regardless of what you think the external signs are. You MUST convince yourself of that, because once you do, the external signs will also begin to go away.
I feel i have made money with pocket 99s in early position since i have been playing poker. I feel i adjust to game situation very well. I would like to here some players opinions on playing pocket 99s upfront and the sucsess you have had with this tough pair? I think pocket eights are much tougher in early position to win with and 99s are borderline up front unless you really know what you are doing.
please post your comments about above material.
I fold if they difrent colors. Call if they black. And raise if they red and i first one in. I always fold if raise in front of me.
Well, I don't bother with Boris's sophisticated game theory approach. I just play 'em! Usually limp, occasionally raise, but play 'em. There are some decent players who play no pair lower than 99 in early position, but I think that's going a bit overboard on the tightness index. 88 or 77 is probably a better cutoff. But it's not too unusual to find yourself in a game where it's correct to play *small* pairs up front. Mason M. has written some good posts on this. Check the archives (around November???)
I should add that I of course agree with Boris on folding them for a raise - unless the raiser is a maniac. In that case I will often reraise.
I will raise first in with pocket nines almost always unless people are doing alot of two bet cold calling before the flop. I limp only when the game has a no-fold'em attitude going. I will often reraise an early position raiser in an average to tight game (trying to get it heads-up with position). Ideally I want that initial raiser check/calling to the river with two overcards and incorrect pot odds.
I often employ your strategy of reraising to get heads-up with the original raiser. If he is an agressive player, and doesn't pop me back, I usually figure him for AQ, or AJ, middle pair, high suited cards such as KQ or QJ possibly JJ or TT.
How do you proceed on the flop if you do get heads up? It seems to me that against most solid opponents, there is still the possibility that any face card on the flop could hit their hand and it is tough to know which ones you should fear, although an Ace or King is obviously most likely.
I will sometimes raise if an A or K flops and a solid opponent leads, but then lay down if reraised. If a Q, J, or T flops, I may also reraise, and then see what he does on the river. If two overcards flop, the hand is tough to play aggressively, and I may give it up against an out-of-position bet on the turn. Overall, this is a tough hand to play, even with position. I know most of the post flop action is very opponent-specific, but would be interested in any general comments .
I play on the flop and beyond in this situation just about as you described. I have no fear of one overcard to my pocket pair on the flop. It is often the presence of this big card on the flop which causes the initial raiser to slow down into a check/call scenario. I welcome the big card since I'll be betting behind any check (unless my opponent is talented enough to semibluff-checkraise). I'll also continue in the face of two overcards (maybe one came on the turn) if there is a flush draw possible on the flop, and my opponent is easy to read for that draw.
Andrew writes: "...I will often reraise an early position raiser in an average to tight game (trying to get it heads-up with position)..."
I think that this reraise may only really be profitable against a certain subset of players. I wrote that I'd do it against a maniac. Actually to be more thorough, I would also do it against some players who are not maniacs but do have somewhat low raising standards. And I'd want to feel there was a very good chance of getting it heads-up. But against players whose raising standards are close to "textbook" or just tight, when they open for a raise early, I *think* there may be too great a chance of running into a big pair. Then you're in that well known tough spot where you're either a small favorite or a big dog - with the chances of the latter being strong enough to give you a negative expectation. So while a reraise here may be better than a call, a fold may be the best option of all.
Bill,
Nines is a hand you will lose more times than you win with unless the game is real tight. When you win you win more than you put in the pot. How anyone can consider throwing away good hands just to ante away time and money is beyound me. When raised or reraised make a decision. If you hardly ever play in these positions you wont win many big pots unless the players are very weak and then you want to play with just these kind of hands. Good Luck.
I was in florida on monday. I had job test for csx transportation. I was playing poker on ship. I found very god 5-10 HOSE Only one player know how to play all 4 games well. He was local pro. Some pepole know flop games. Some know stud for high. One gay know stud wery well but was hopeless in flop games. I know hold'em, stud for high. I can play stud hi-lo beter then the field. But i have trobole whith omaha. Was it corect to seat in this game?
Deler ask me were i was from i told him. After i call on river with Ac3cKd3d and board 4d8sQsTd7d ind lost both ways pro start caling me russian jerk. He was making remarks like- russian jerk is in a hand, russian jerk afraid to call this idiot. He was insolting evrybody on the table. What is possible to do to stop this gay? I was not care about him insolting me i was afraid he will brake the game.
I found a way to punish him i won most of his money? He had about 900$ in front of him. In the end he had about 100$. I won 700$.
Here is few hands i want talk about:
Stud- I start with roled-up 3's. Pro had Q up and raise. One player betwen us. I reraise. Pro and woman call. On fifth stret woman had 3 daimonds. Pro had pair of 10's. I get two blanks. Pro check. Woman bet. I raise. Pro call. woman reraise. I and pro call. On river i get fourth 3. Pro bet woman call all in. I raise. When he made it 70$ i call. He had q's full of 10's. Woman had 9 high straigt-flush. He called me russian jerk. For raisng possible flush.
78- I start with (2,4)3 suted. Pro had 9 up and raise. 5 calers before me. I call. I get suted 5. Pro get suted 10. Evryboby check to raiser. He bet 3 players call. I raise. Pro reraise. I cap it. Fish kep caling. I get suted K. Pro get 9 and bet. Players betwen us fold. I raise. When he made it 50$ i call. I get of suit 8. He get of suit 8. Raising war strats. We made it 175 on 6's stret i was all in. My last was 6 suted whith first card. As always he called me russian jerk.
Hold'em- I start whith Qs5s in cut-of seat. 3 calers before me not couting BB. I call. Pro and SB call. Flop KsQc9h. Evryboby check to pro on buton. He bet. 4 players call before me. I call. Turn As. Buton bet and get 3 calers. River 3s. I bet. Pro raise. No callers betwen us. I reraise. He stop at 110$. His hand was JTs. He informed me that only jerk like me will play Q5s.
Omaha- I start whith 2c3s9c9s in SB. Nobody fold. Pro in BB raise. Evrybody call. Flop As6c9d. I bet. BB raise. 3 players call betwen us. I call. Turn 9h. Beting caped by pro whith one player betwen us. River is 8c. I bet pro raise. Gay in a midele fold. We keep raising for 5 minutes up to 523$. I was all in he had 14$ left. His hand was AhAd2h3d. After this he told me: only stupid jerk like you will call 9923. than he told me to go back in russia and play whit jerk like me.
Any coments welcome.
P.S I play whith this "pro" any time he want.
the best wat to beat 3-6 hold'em is to play "wrong" in some situations. tighten up in others. But the best way and the way to make the most is to play draw hands to the hilt every time. Kill the betting every time if you can on every draw hand on the flop. You will miss many hands but if the 3-6 game is typical the times you hit will bring many and I mean many chips to you. I personally in AC have won over $600 several times,$700 once,$400 many times,$150 I can't count. However once I won $940! Thats right almost $1000 by playing this way. But I have also lost $400 twice, $300 7 times, my original buy-in of $100 according to my records 18 times! Looking at my 3-6 records I have played a total of 2350 hours and have a hourly rate of about $9. Not bad for a small game. The strange thing is that as I moved up to higher limit's I could no longer stomach the chip fluctuation! Another strange thing is that I'm a marginal loser in 5-10 limit! However I'm a winner in 10-20 and so far 15-30! I have tried every way, read every book but cannot beat 5-10 no matter what! Go figure. One other thing about 3-6. If you have middle pair and the pot is over $100 I would go for it every time? After all it's only 3-6! But remember that if you do this in a higher limit you can expect to borrow money to go home!
Well, at least we now know why you're asking how to reduce your variance.
Joseph,
I don't think that $5-10 is a very good game to spread because the number of chips in the center makes the pots look kind of smallish. IMO this tends to promote a tighter game and this may be why you don't win at the $5-10 games. In a $6-12 game or $4-8 game the pots look bigger and thus I think these games are better. The bigger small blind helps the action in the $15-30 game IMO as well.
Tom Haley
It should be intuitively obvious to the forum that your tournament play is quite different. I find it hard to believe how someone who has won almost $1000 playing 3-6 holdem in a ram and jam style can rationalize how playing A10S in a tournament is an incorrect play.
Playing AT suited can be wrong depending on the situation. Also when your are knocked out during a tourny, you are gone,see ya, goodbye. That makes it extremely important that you maximize your survival skills when it's time to survive. In the AT post it should be folded giving the current situation. However if you are down to a small stack it then becomes no longer worth protecting giving the rapid bling increases which now makes AT suited worth playing even though it's most likely you are beaten. Having four callers in that situation makes it better. When I play 3-6 It seems dumb to play as tight as I do during a tourny or even 15-30 which is a limit that I have grown to like.
Joe,
You have really, really, really, really, come a long way in your thinking from using this forum. You went from a tight unimaginable player to a real powerhouse. You have learned and used the advance things all the posting players have said. Why you arent doing so well in 5&10 is that your old tight style does better in that limit and you have outgrown it. Welcome to the world of expert poker. Good Luck.
Yes I have changed my style of play. But the chip fluctuations are nerve racking. I have increased my win rate but also have increased my S.D. I wonder if this truly is the best way to play. However to have a compliment from you in incredible. By the way your split 8 book is excellent. When you play 15-30 I think you still have to play tight but a little more agressive with the hands that you do play. Do you agree with this? What are some tips from you on better 15-30 play including from the small blind?
Joe,
Much more aggressive-more big blind play especially headsup-more small blind play when tight player behind you- less with loose player behind you-more betting out with nothing after the flop-more raising the better as they bet without top pair after the flop unlike many smaller games Good Luck.
I expect everyone who uses this forum as seriously as they play their cards has seen an increase in their hourly rate attributable to this website. Thank-you 2+2 authors, ConJelCo, and all forum contributors for helping to make the past 12 months 40% better than average. I believe I've benefited far more from reading these open discussions than my occasional posts have given back.
Andrew,
Get to work and make it 50&50. Good Luck
if i play holdem excellent and stud excellent and I play 100 stud tournaments and 100 holdem tournaments would I win more holdem tournaments or stud tournaments?
I would say the expert holdem player will do better than the expert stud player in tournament action. I would appreciate some opinions out there.
I suspect, and I want to emphasize the word suspect, that you would do better in the stud tournaments. The reason for this is the idea of being able to take advantage of tight play. When players go into this mode, especially if the table is short handed, their boards help make their weakness transparent if indeed they have a weak hand. Thus your attempts to steal should be more accurate.
On the other hand, there seems to be a lot more hold'em tournaments than stud tournaments out there (limit, pot-limit and no-limit). Even if you do better per tournament at stud, you'll make most of your money at hold'em. Especially if you concentrate on the lower buy-in tourneys.
Having said that, hold'em tourneys may be better anyway. They draw more participants, many of whom are mediocre in talent. While stud tournaments draw mediocre players too, I think there's a higher percentage of medicore players at hold'em.
Also, I think that while stealing in stud may be based on more accurate information, there are drawbacks too. For one, it's not likely to work unless you have the highest up-card, or at least the second. In hold'em, you don't have this handicap. Position is the handicap in hold'em, but is somewhat also a handicap in stud. Also, when the antes are high with respect to the stack sizes, any pair will call in stud, suspecting a steal, as the players know that the steal attempt is almost automatic for the high card up.
However, I think that hold'em tournaments are more profitable for one very important reason. You will get more hands per level in hold'em than in stud. This will give the better players more opportunities to reduce the luck factor. I think that this will more than offset the fact that there are more betting rounds in stud (which gives the better player more opportunites to reduce the luck factor in a hand).
There's also the geographical factor. Stud tourneys will probably be tougher on the East coast than on the West coast. The opposite is probably true for hold'em tournaments. But these differences are not as great as they once were.
George,
I think it is close between the two tourney types. I agree with most of your points but excuse me for quibbling with one of them. You state:
>>However, I think that hold'em tournaments are more profitable for one very important reason. You will get more hands per level in hold'em than in stud. This will give the better players more opportunities to reduce the luck factor. I think that this will more than offset the fact that there are more betting rounds in stud (which gives the better player more opportunites to reduce the luck factor in a hand).<<
I think that the blinds doubling in hold'em tournaments makes them a crap shoot a lot when they get really high. It's a crap shoot in 7 stud a lot late but imo not to the extent that it is in hold'em. If you are in the big blind it's a killer when the limits get up there and you have a mediocre stack. In 7 stud the antes go up but imo you can see a lot more hands per tournament in 7 stud. I think the opportunities to steal are better in 7 stud tournaments as well. In hold'em when the blinds get high they are just about forced to play with any reasonable hand. Of course if you play well in the blinds in hold'em your chances of winning go up a lot. I also think that the positional advantage in hold'em precludes playing a lot of hands in early position where in 7 stud the positional advantages are not that great. The bottom line is that I believe you actually get to play more hands in 7 stud tourneys.
Tom Haley
I'd have to agree that I play more hands in a stud tourney than in a hold'em tourney. And perhaps that is enough for the better players to have more opportunities to use skill. Consequently, I must concede that a better player will do better in a stud tourney than a hold'em tourney.
I prefer blind structure to ante/forced bet structure because the forced bet is a matter of luck, and can be very frustrating late in a tournament when one has a small stack and gets more than his share of forced bets. At least in hold'em you know where you stand, and can make a better judgement when to take a risk with your stack.
However, I still think that the better players make more money from hold'em tourneys simply because there are more of them. If I had to specialize in only one of them, it would be limit hold'em.
Bill,
You would win more stud tour. because there are less entrants in stud tour. As far as making the most money, I believe the best players can exploit weakness the best in stud. One example is that even the bad holdem players know to make it 3 bets with many hands when a steal position raises. In stud not many players have the nerve to do it against a bigger upcard. Good Luck.
Ray and Mason are right. I knew there was a reason I picked them as coauthors.
What about tournaments in stud hi/lo or Omaha-8?
George made a lot of good points, particularly about having fewer hands to play and the forced bet, but I still believe that a good stud player would win a higher percentage. The reason: more pieces of a beginning hand to play combined with what Ray noted, the "nerve" factor late in the game (some stud players *can* steal from up-front with a piece of cheese). Over a short period of time, due to the exposed cards on every round, stud players can get a much more reliable read on their opponents.
In fact, although I've not played enough stud-8 tournaments to gauge it reliably, I suspect that stud-8 tournaments would give an even bigger winning percentage when played by equally high-skilled players.
Of course, you didn't specify whether limit, PL or NL in hold-em, in which case I would vote for NL and PL as having a higher win percentage for the better players than all other games (Chan's 1st, 1st, and 2nd three years in a row comes to mind as a great example).
I agree. Compare the WSOP finishes in both limit and no-limit events over the last five years. Even adjusting for the higher number of entrants in limit events, the top players do much better in no-limit. (Count repeat finishes.) This implies that the tournament expert advantage against the field is much higher in no-limit than in limit.
I suspect the rank of games in terms of tournament skill differential is:
No limit Stud Limit Pot limit
Question for Mason,David,Ray and Jessica. Do you think it helps or hurts your e.v. in ring game when you are recognized? And opposite question for the masses like myself: does it help (e.g. you try to play better/others are more tentative) or hurt your e.v. when a single bigname player is at your table? If there are two or more experts at a table I suspect only God could help most of us.
Best of luck, Gary
Gary,
In nolimit if I play against people that dont know me they are toast. In limit I can get called more often when they dont know me. When the players know me which is all the time nowadays I must play each player by the way he perceives me and make them play a style that they are uncomfortable with until they stay out of my pots and then I proceed to rob them in all the small pots. Good Luck.
Even though I wasn't asked, I'm always more than willing to put my two-cents worth in. ;-)
I suspect the answer will be that it helps both!
If an average player sits in a game with a name player (expert) because he wants to play with the name player, then even if he plays his best game, he is more desirable to play with than other tough players. That is, the name player will win more from the average player playing his best, than the tough player playing his normal game. This assumes that the name player is playing in a relatively tough game. Of course if the name player wasn't recognized, she would do better still.
On the other hand, if that average player sat in that same game without the name player being there, he might play his normal game instead of his best game. As the other players in the game will frequently be tough, the average player is really up against it. So it is better for the average player if he finds some reason to play his best game.
Talk about a tongue twister!
I love it when David, Mason or Ray is playing in my game. It keeps me on my toes. I've never played with Jessica that I know of. What amazes me most of all is the way they get paid off! Their check raises always seem to work! I was playing with Ray one time many years ago in a 50-100 game and I had just paid him off in a pot. (An ace came on the river. Ray checked raised me with A-10, and I had A-9. I knew it was close but I paid him.) A friend of his stopped by the table at that exact moment and asked him if he wanted to go to dinner. Ray responsed: "No! I'm getting callers!"
I just bought a brand new P II 266 mh Packard Bell. Compared to my old computer this one screams so now I will be able to use the forum far better and faster! Heres some situations that occur very often and somewhat make me unsure as to the proper play. I'll set up the parameters. You are in late position, lets say 8,9,or the button. There is one blind caller in lets say 5,6,7 positions. He limps in. Assume that you have no clue yet as to his style of play. You pick up a middle hand say from 88-KQ suited. You raise both blinds fold but the limper calls! The flop is a rainbow flop of 2,9,5. Lets say that you have completly missed that flop. However the limper bets! I hate this situation but it could make a big difference in your win rate. What are some plays that you can make? I need some help in this particular area!
Joe,
In bigger games you have to be prepared to go to the river in these spots. Paying him off in many cases and trying to run him off an ace if you cant beat it. Dont do it all the time but an awful lot as the 15&30 and up people will make your head spin if you are not scary to play against. I will always bet any pair in this spot at a player and call his raises if he is very aggressive or check raise if I believe he will bet with overcards and fold soon after. Good Luck.
Very thought provoking Posts lately Ray. I take it that when you say "Scary" you mean that you're trying to take control over the Pot, and put your opponents off balance.
CV
Chris,
Aggressive play is important to win in most higher stakes games. A scary player is one who does things that screw up your play in the pots. He raises and knocks out players and checks back at you and plays weird hands so he is hard to read. You hate playing in the pots with him and he has you thinking he is lucky and holds over you. Good Luck Chris.
Sklansky’s Stock Market Essay
It’s about time David! I really enjoyed reading your recent article in Card Player regarding the stock market and your analysis of small cap stocks. For all those who are interested and haven’t read it is available at the Card Player web site at http://www.cardplayer.com. Go to the articles section and you’ll find it there.
I think your analysis on the risk and reward for small cap stocks and the advantages of diversification is excellent. It should be pointed out though that most mutual funds underperform the individual stock market averages. Perhaps the key is to selecting the right fund. I also think that you hit the nail right on the head when with “horse racing syndrome” and amateur investors. This is also true in the options market too in my opinion. Many investment models that generate buy and sell signals that I have encountered attempt to take the “public” sentiment into account. The idea is that when the “public” is heavily involved one way you should want to go the other way. This is true for individual amateur “public” investors and not necessarily true for mutual funds. And again your statement about knowing your stuff and selecting individual small cap stocks is again right. I know because I’ve lived it. Also I think that if Milken wouldn’t have gotten so incredibly greedy and deluded with power he would be looked on a lot more favorably. I actually like a lot of his ideas and I think you can attribute a lot of the rise in stocks since the mid 80’s to Milken because the M&A activities that he accelerated have been very bullish for the stock market.
I would like to address the idea of gambling and the financial markets. I have long thought that the financial and commodities markets offer very fertile ground for the would be professional gambler. The “liquidity” offered is excellent and the opportunities are limitless. With the rise of the internet brokers you can trade from your terminal which means that a lot of trades are available. Even if you want to go through a broker it’s incredibly easy to make trades.
I have some questions on strategy in the financial markets. In general there are two theories that I am aware of regarding the financial markets
1) The first is the random-walk theory that states that all information about a stock that is knowable is known and thus reflected in the current price of the stock. Therefore trying to select under valued stocks is a waste of time because you would do just as well throwing darts at the stock index pages posted on a dart board.
2) Fear and greed drive the markets and one can predict future market activities or individual stock activities by analyzing the history of market behavior and seeing how the pattern is repeating itself.
For those more knowledgeable than myself I hope I stated these correctly. Number 2 involves a whole lot more than just analyzing charts. It involves analysis of previous interest rate conditions, historical valuations, etc. I think that number 2 is more valid but certainly there are a lot of stocks traded that are pegged very well so number 1) does have validity. What does “knowing your stuff” involve in being successful. I could recite individual personal experiences but I have some ideas. Mostly it is up to the individual trader and his discipline and risk management imo. You might be surprised at how many traders that I have read about who are interested in poker and who have played poker. It seems to me that the most successful traders are those that know how to measure their risk. Any comments appreciated.
Tom Haley
What books on the subject would be the First I should study?
CV
first, go to motleyfool.com and read their 13-part "school" series of essays. If that mystifies you, go to the library or scan the net for info. There's plenty of it out there.
As for point two, here are three quotes to consider:
"We don't have, never had had, and never will have an opinion about where the stock market, interest rates or business activity will be a year from now."
"I have no feeling for the direction of the market over the near term, or the next three to twelve months...and that has always been my position."
"Ignore fluctuations. Do not try to outguess the stock market. Buy a quality portfolio and invest for the long term."
The sources? Warren Buffet, Peter Lynch, John Templeton
As for the random walk theory, it would seem that it would apply much more to the large cap sector where the brokerage firms have much more resources allocated to research than in the small cap area. Consequently, one could argue that there is much more efficient pricing among the large caps. If we're making a gambling analogy, then you should be able to find the biggest edge in the small cap sector.
I'm only an occasional horse bettor and will take David's figures as being correct. To take his insights one step further, it would seem that the pro handicappers are sticking with the 2-1 and 3-1 shots and the suckers are overpricing the long shots. He contends that the same may be true in the small cap sector. Who knows if that's true, but a different way to look at things, whether we're talking about ponies or the market, is who are you competing against?
If short odds ponies and large cap stocks are most heavily covered by the best in either business and the long odds and small cap stocks are the domain of the unsophisticated, then where should better value exist? Looking at it another way, would you rather play the World Series against 300 Doyle Brunsons or 300 home town champs?
I'm in the business and would say that our biggest challenge is managing client expectations. If someone like John Templeton, who's been knighted for all that he's done, has averaged somewhere around 15% annually for 40+ years, then why should you (or your broker for that matter) expect to do any better?
If it were true that there were consistent inefficiencies in the small cap sector, then why shouldn't we be able to make money by shorting them? Now that's a gamble!!!
Ian,
There are plenty of people who trade in the short term that make a lot of money although they probably aren't as rich as Warren Buffet. That's the thing that I think is really good about the markets, there are a lot of ways to make money (and lose money). The success of Buffet, Lynch, and Templeton I believe somewhat validates point number 2 because I think they are looking at investments in companies they perceived as undervalued. I'm not sure about Templeton but I would say that Lynch and Buffet do not subscribe to the "random walk" theory.
Tom Haley
A possibly interesting tidbit. I read today that Warren Buffet, through his company Berkshire Hathaway, has bought up 1/5 of the available supply in Silver. Appartently he perceives Silver as an under-valued commodity. Silver has been in a long term bear market (as have most ommodities). Perhaps he is thinking that an "ineffeciency" has developed in the price of Silver and it's time to buy low. Perhaps he is thinking that the risk of losing a lot of money is very low and the potential rewards are very high. In other words he may be thinking that the risk-reward ratio is very favorable on the long side.
Tom Haley
After finishing my earlier post, it dawned on me that there is a better gambling analogy than the one David has written about. Sports betting would seem to be more similar to the stock market because of the fact that you can bet either way. In the market, you can also bet either way, making money on both rising and falling stocks.
Although I rarely bet sports, I am familiar with a concept that I think they call a "middle" or something like that. It's when you're able to bet one team at one line and the opposite team at a better line. For instance, you might get the Packers -6 1/2 at one book and the Cowboys +7 1/2 at another. If the Pack wins by a touchdown you win both bets and there is no outcome where you lose (except the vig).
This is known as "arbitrage" in the investment business and is usually the strict domain of the pros. That's because the market is so efficient that the opportunities are usually very small edges and you would have to invest a large sum to make it worth your while. For instance, during a proposed stock swap, you might be long one stock and short the other in such a way that you cannot lose, but can only win (albeit a small amount of say $0.25 on a $30 stock).
While most of us don't have the resources to make this deal worthwhile, we can sometimes create an attractive "middle" for ourselves. Getting back to the sports betting analogy, it would be similar to betting one team and waiting for the line to move so that the "middle" could be established. You still need the line (or the stock) to move in your favour, so there is risk involved. If it does, you can easily lock in a situation in which you can only win but cannot lose.
Anyways, enough of my rambling on this subject, but I do think this is a much better analogy, simply because of the similarity of being able to bet either way and take advantage of both under- and over-valued plays.
I do not believe normal sports betting is a better analogy because you are only getting even money on your bets. Risky stocks are bought because of the possibility that they might appreciate far more than twofold. However sports betting via PARLAY CARDS do make for a good analogy as the higher paying ones have a lower expected value.
Recap:
1. David made an analogy between the kinds of returns we should expect from different market caps and those we find in horse races.
2. But Ian is right to point out that the financial markets let us take either side of the wager, motivating bets against a point spread as a better analogy -- being able to bet either side on stocks allows us to exploit systematic over-pricing; similarly, our ability to take either side of the point spread motivates the bookmaker to adjust the point spread, which should tend to sharpen it.
3. David counters that bets against a point spread are generally even money, so Ian's analogy doesn't capture the long-shot characteristics of small cap stock investment; he then suggests parlay cards as an improved analogy.
(End of recap)
The problem with parlay cards is that we can't (easily) take either side of a parlay card wager. So we generally don't see much impact of arbitrage on parlay card odds.
I propose money-line sports bets as a way to better capture all of the relevant features of David's analogy between gambling and the stock market: (1) you get a wide range of payoffs, and (2) bettors can easily take either side of these propositions, creating a market that should sharpen the line.
The question is then: in one-on-one contests, do money-line bets on heavy underdogs tend to be sucker plays as they are in (multi-contestant) horse races? I don't know the answer, but if this is the case, then we have more reason to believe David's reasoning-by-analogy about large cap vs. small cap stock prospects.
Money line two way betting opportunities, are seldom seen where a big longshot is involved. Furthermore, when they are seen, there is usually a giant "spread", thus making both sides a bad bet. In any case I don't think it is necessary to stipulate two way betting to get a good analogy. That is because a bet "against" a stock, otherwise known as selling short, is not something often done in the case of low cost small cap stocks unless they are perceived to be highly overvalued. Since my theory postulates only small or moderate overvaluations, it will not likely capture the attention of short sellers (for many reasons such as risk, loss of interest, and transaction costs).In other words the downward pressure from the short sellers won't kick in at the price I postulate. (Of course there is also downward pressure possible from the actual owners of the stock, but it is reasonable to assume that these are the same people who originally paid a little too much for it and are therefore not likely to sell even if they knew that they could fetch a small premium on its theoretical value. So I still like my analogy best.
David,
Low cap stocks aren't shorted very often for a lot of reasons. The main one being that a lot of times liquidity is a problem.
Tom Haley
The whole analogy is strained (whether it is horse bets, sports bets, parlay cards, or money line wagers). The reason is that all of these are zero sum (actually negative sum) while the stock market is generally believed to be positive sum. Not only is it positive sum, but there is no way to know how much the "pie" is going to grow.
If you must draw an analogy between investment markets and gambling, stick to derivitives (options, futures, etc.) which are slightly to significaintly negative sum.
Here's an analogy that works, but it doesn't really match any real-life gambling situtation: Imagine a poker room where the manager constantly walked around the room and threw money into the pots. You never knew which pot he was going to throw money into nor how much. Still, assuming the amount of money being added is significant, you'd probably try to find a game to play in, even if you didn't think the game were all that good. One thing you could do would be to get together with a bunch of your friends, pool your money, and fill up one of the games. That's an index fund. Or you could pool your money and try play in the best games in the room. That's an actively managed fund. Imagine everyone in the room were part of one or more such funds. That's the stock market.
BTW, one thing David fails to consider in his essay is that it that many economics believe that much (though perhaps not all) of the "excess" return from small cap stocks (and especially small cap stock funds) is simply due to increased market risk. That is to say, a nearly equivalent risk-return profile would be achieved with a slightly leveraged portfolio of large cap stocks.
Jeffrey,
I really enjoyed reading your post. I agree with you about derivitive instruments. Certainly there is a very long term bias for price appreciation in the stock market. The analogy is good but not quite accurrate. There are companies that reach a maximum value, decline in value, and never return to their highest valuation, a few to the point where their stock becomes worthless (I've actually been long a few of these and now have some really good insights on short selling). This is also true of pooled money as well although I am not sure how often shares in a mutual fund become worthless.
Some professionals that do not subscibe to the "random walk" theory seem to do the following:
1) They assess the risk involved when you take a position. If you take a position in a stock part of your risk assessment will be determining the general trend of the market, be it bullish or bearish and the odds of that trend continuing. Another other part of the risk assessment is determining the outlook for the particular stock be it bullish or bearish and the chances that it will go in the direction of their position. Finally they determine what there downside potential is.
2) They assess the reward involved. After determining their downside risk they determine their upside potential for their prospective position.
3) They assess the odds of their position making money.
4) They view the risk-reward ratio of their prospective position in terms of "safer" investments like money market funds.
5) They assess the amount of money they want to risk in a position based on the odds of success and the risk-reward ratio involved. Even someone with a long term horizon like Peter Lynch has stated that the stocks you own that increase 10 fold will make up for a lot of losing stock investments on the long side. In other words if you use all of your money to take a position in a stock, your risk is very high. This is because you can allocate your money so that you can invest in many stocks with the same risk-reward ratio and same odds of success. If your assessments are correct you will significantly reduce your chances of losing money and increase your chance of making money. Kind like taking your whole bankroll into a poker game as opposed to playing at a limit that doesn't jeopordize it.
To me this represents an approach that sure seems like gambling in the traditional sense although it is a more complicated gambling problem. This approach may not be valid and be nothing more than a waste of time but I think it is a fair representation of the approach of some market players. Some of these market players claim to make a lot of money.
Most money managers underperform the averages. If they are taking a greater than "market risk" in their positions, and are underperforming on a long term basis (I know that it depends on the prospectus of the fund) then I really don't want to invest in their funds. So evaluating the risk involved is important for any investment in the stock market.
Due to all of this I'm voting on the gambling side.
Tom Haley
David,
Your contention that stocks can multiple several times while a standard sports bet is an even-money proposition is somewhat of an apples & oranges comparison. Is holding a stock for months and/or years the equivalent of betting a single game? I would suggest that a single game could be equivalent to a hold period of days, weeks or a few months at the most, depending on the volatility of the stock. As such, how many are likely to multiple more than twofold during this more comparable time frame? If we don't make an adjustment for what's equivalent to a single game, then one could argue that the annualized return on a sports bet is something like 2^2920 (doubling your money every three hours for a year).
Anyways, like most issues relating to financial markets, your comments have provided for an interesting debate!
in 'gambling theory & other topics" there is a lengthy discussion with lots of charts designed to help you find how many hours you need to play in order to assure a win at blackjack. (poker too, but its the bj i'm interested in)
what i am unclear on is what defines a 'win'? how large of a win am i assuring myself of having?
i was not able to glean this from the text. any help would be appreciated.
I'm not familiar with the article you're refering too, but I'll take a stab at the question you asked. Theoretically you can't really assure a "win". But what experts do in blackjack and poker is play in a manner in which the odds are minimal that you will lose "in the long run". In poker, everyone has had bad beats and been outdrawn on when their opponents have had worse hands then them. You might have a session in which this happens 8 times, you might have a session in which it doesn't happen at all. In Blackjack you might double your 11's vs. 5 with a high plus count. You are the favorite here, but you will still lose this hand "x" times in "y" opportunities. The odds are incredibly small you will lose this hand 10 times in a row, but as I said, it's possible.
i've read the text over again and done some thinking; now i think i'm ready to answer my own question. someone please correct me if i'm wrong.
i think what mason was trying to point out is that there is a specific number of hours where your ev = 3 std's. so that the 'win' you are 'assured' of just means you're not in the negative.
mason may even have said this in the text but if he did, i missed it.
do i pass today's statistics exam?
What does ev stand for?
ev = 'expected value' std = 'standard deviation'
You almost have it right. What the theory says is that the "lower limit equation" (at 3 standard deviations) is now above zero.
I haven't read the essay so I can't claim to be familiar with its contents but I'll offer my take on this.
What you've got to have is enough hours of play so that the results of your hours actually played approximates the results you would see without any random fluctuations. In statistics terms, you need a sample size large enough that it approximates the population.
In poker we all have a (hopefully) positive expected value. I.e. hourly earn rate. If your hourly ev is +1BB then over time you can expect to see that **BUT** you can't sit down for four hours and expect to leave with 4 BB's every time you play. Some days you might play 4 hours and leave up 10 or 20 BBs then the next day play four hours and be down everything you won the day before.
The same is true for BJ. If you are playing to a 1% advantage over the house, in the long run, you can expect to net $1 for every $100 you wager. But in any given session you might win or lose much more than that.
Casinos win large amounts of money because they have massive bankrolls and have many tables open with gamblers playing at them everyday. They have enough tables open with enough players that the house advantage manifests itself on a practically daily basis.
To answer your question, you need enough hours of play so that your ev, whatever it may be, actually manifests itself in your results.
I've been playing a lot of poker in A/C lately. Particularly the tourneys at the Trop. However there are no No Limit tourneys in A/C that I know of. I want to prepare myself for the bigger tournaments coming to the East Coast later this year. Can anyone recommend a good book or books that will prepare me for No Limit Play. Thanx in advance Danny
Doyle Brunson's "Super System" has extensive coverage of No Limit hold em.
Danny,
Read all the books you can as nolimit is a game of thinking properly. Even all our limit books and the others on concepts give you the foundation to build upon. I prefer books written by world class players rather than by people who may not be able to beat the games they write about. When Doyle talks listen. Bob Ciaffone and Stuart Rueben are two writers that can play my money anytime and I will stay home. Both are world class players who have outwitted me many times for many thousands of dollars.
T.J. Cloutier's book Championship No-Limit and Pot Limit Hold'em is the way to go. However there are some things "left out" that only logic and expierence will help you out. One key to no-limit play in tournys is that T.J believes that you must develop your senses well enough to get to know your opponents quickly because of the changing environment of tournys with people constantly getting knocked out and unfamiler people moving into your table. All in all I think that the book is great however you might not like T.J.'s recommended style.
to the above mentioned books add pot limit and no limit poker by stewart reuben and bob claffone, in my opion the best book on big bet. however you need to read all those that have been mentioned thus far, they are all execellent. if you compare doyle, t. j., and stewart and bob, you will have to come to your own conclusions but these authors-plus tournament poker by tom- are all excellent. good hunting in the worlds most challanging and fun form of poker.
Last night I made a gentleman's bet (if there is such a thing among hold'em players) about the play of AKs in the small blind. I was playing in a $4/$8 game that was made up of mainly players from a $10/$20 game that had broken plus some regular $4/$8 players. As such, the nine-handed game was playing like a looser $10/$20 game with a few solid players, a few tight-weak players, and a couple of calling stations.
I was in the small blind and picked up Ace-King suited. The two calling stations limped in from early position and two solid players limped from late position. I raised from the small blind and the big blind ( a tight player) and everyone else called.
I ended up showing the hand down with nothing and losing to a Q-Ten that paired the ten on the turn. A very good player then commented that I had made a "bad raise" from the small blind with AKs. He then went on to say that you should only raise with premium pairs in this circumstance since it was certain to be a five-handed flop with my "drawing" hand. Of course, I disagreed given these circumstances for a host of reasons. Does anybody want to help settle this bet or comment on when to raise from the small blind in general? I won't lay out my thought process since I don't want to bias the responses. One thing to note is that my image is sufficienlty strong that my raise from the SB would signal a powerhouse hand to the two solid players. As usual, the calling stations wouldn't give it a second thought and would continue to play their backdoor draws and bottom pairs since the pot would be so big.
I don't like to raise there, but will 3 bet it if the raiser is the sort of player that will raise something like KQ or A10.
Raise.
No one will fold except maybe the big blind and that is fine. You raise in this situation to get more money in the pot, not to narrow the field, not to buy the button. Your position sucks, if you miss the flop, check and fold.
I'd lean slightly towards not raising, with the intention of checkraising a flop with rags or one which gives me top pair.
From Michael:
"I was in the small blind and picked up Ace-King suited. The two calling stations limped in from early position and two solid players limped from late position. I raised from the small blind and the big blind ( a tight player) and everyone else called."
"A very good player then commented (after the hand) that I had made a "bad raise" from the small blind with AKs. He then went on to say that you should only raise with premium pairs in this circumstance since it was certain to be a five-handed flop with my "drawing" hand."
The only mistake made here was by the "professor" with the big mouth. How you played this hand is your business and there really is no right or wrong. But how on earth anyone could make a comment like that at the table is complete and total mystification. The weak players don't have any idea you should even consider things like that, let alone think about them. If you want to talk to your neighbor or friend sitting next to you "sotto voce" that is one thing, but to loudly proclaim your philosphy to the table is bad form. Keep your mouth shut and let people play their damn cards any way they want to.
Good point, Joe. You will be disappointed to know that I coumpounded *his* mistake by rationalzing my play within earshot of the bad players. I guess sometimes I get bored at the lower limit games and welcome the chance to learn something about how the "experts" think without having to spend any money. But what do you think about AKs play in the small blind?
The right play is to raise without the slightest doubt.
Could you please explain why a smooth call would be a mistake, or at least reference a page from one of your books?
Mike,
First this very good player is not a very good player because the hand should be raised and his talking out of turn. Second you must play way too tight if you are marked as ever having a powerhouse hand by just making an initial raise. No one should ever,ever beable to narrow down your hand that quickly. Ak suited is a big hand in any position when no players have shown early strengh. Good Luck.
The fact that the AK is suited means that it plays very well in multiway pots. I would raise everytime. The decision is not even close.
Ray-
Thanks for the response. To your point about excessivley tight play, I should have been more specific about the circumstances and the definition of a powerhouse hand. It was the fact that I raised from the small blind in a pot with two solid-aggressive players having position on me that I think would signal a big hand here. Other than the occasional decptive raise with small suited connectors, I generally wouldn't raise from the SB in a pot after four limpers with anything less than a group III hand. Is that too tight in the SB with two solid limpers and two weak players likely to be acting behind you on the flop?
Regarding the "very good" player, he is the classic "bully" that plays a lot of hands but has great card reading skills and the ability to really run over weak players. I agree with your points about his overall game, which should include the intangibles such as *NOT* giving free lessons or possiblying intimidating people into rockish play. Maybe it is part of his overall strategy to keep players acting docile in *HIS* pots. And in Phil Helmouth fashion, every pot he plays is by definition *HIS* pot since nobody else knows what they are doing.
Michael7,
You describe your opponent as the classic "bully" that plays a lot of hands, but has great card reading skills and the ability to really run over weak players.
Given the above analysis, what do you think his motivation was in making this comment? Do you think he was trying to help you by giving you lessons? Do you believe he is motivated to help you or the other players become better players or improve their game?
Mr. Brunson has stressed the importance of figuring out why an opponent does things. He suggests that you try to get into his head so you understand why he doing things as well as he does.
Could his motivation be to try to "bully" you into not making the correct play of raising with AKs in a multiway pot? You got $48 in the pot pre-flop with a great hand. Could he be trying to turn you and the others into weak, passive players? Do you think he wants to help you or does he want complete control over you and the other players? Could it be that he wants to make you and his other opponents predictable and docile?
Mr. Caro once wrote: "Figure out what your opponents want you to do and then disappoint them."
I have read many of your previous posts and I am filled with admiration for your knowledge and expertise. I appreciate you willingness to share your insights with all of us. I hope my post will give you food for thought.
Mike Baum
5-10 stud eight or better, .50 ante, $1 force, first raise to $5. A five to your immediate left brings it in, all fold to a king to your immediate right who raises. You have a completely live (A3)A. Is it better to reraise (and give away that you hold a better pair), or should you just call? (trapping the kings into playing an inferior high hand)
Same structure. With which starting hands would winning the antes not be sufficient (e.g. the hands are worth much more and it might be worth giving a free card if there might not be callers otherwise)?
As the starting pot increases relative to the bets in eight or better, what major changes should be made in play? What about in a no-ante game?
How do you figure pot-odds in Omaha-8? Not only are you often unsure whether you will win half or all of the pot, but often one or more players will have the same combination that you are depending on. This is especially difficult when drawing to a longshot like top two pair, which might have call value when the pot is very large.
Ofcourse you reraise the king as you do want to play headup with him even if he knows you have aces just like you would do it in 7 stud. If you are playing correctly some(many) times you reraise a kings raise with three small cards with an ace or similiar good holding especially if there may be doubt that he has 2 kings. Good luck.
Anyone have any comments, pro or con, on Championship Stud by Stern, McEvoy and Johnson, or on 8 or Bettor Hi Lo Split by Coddington?
My copy of Ray Zee's High Low Split for Advanced Players is becoming dog-earred, but I'm always looking for more material on High Low, provided it's not inaccurate
Contrasting the two, Ray Zee's book is more detailed and contains a lot more material on how to play specific hands. The Stern/McEvoy/Johnson book contains good material, but I suspect that if all a player read about Hi-Low Stud was that book, they'd come away feeling like they only had to play tight to win (which may be the case in *some* games). However, it does contain some good tournament advice, so if you are a tournament player, maybe you'll want to absorb what is good and throw the rest out.
Just as I like Zee's book for the crossover between the two types of Hi-Low games, I like the Stern/McEvoy/Johnson book for the crossover between the three types of stud games. Read 'em all.
I haven't seen the other book, but this does give me a chance to post something I've felt for a while.
Ray Zee's book on HLS is not just one of the best poker books I've ever seen, it is one of the best books on any game I've ever seen. There is just so much valuable information it's amazing.
Here are my five(among many) favorite books on games :
1) Zurich 1953 Candidates Tournament, Bronstein (in translation) The above list is of course personal and subjective and tailored to the fact that I don't have one hundred books on lawn bowling. Thanks for reading this little personal post; we now return you to your regular programming.
JG
I just recently completed reading Ray Zee's book (Hi-Low-Split Poker FAP), and took my first shot at Omaha 8 or better. I held my own in an 8hr $5-$10 session, coming in only a little ahead, but still a win. My first experience with the game demonstrated clearly the loose nature of most of the players as described in Ray's book. But I found myself in some dificult situations as far as knowing exactly what to do. It seemed that in every situation which apparently was worth a raise or bet, there also appeared to be to many ways to get beaten if one of several cards came out.
Exp 1. I call from early position with As3s2dKh. 6 call behind me including both blinds. Flop comes Ks3dKc, giving me a full house with no real low out for any one. Both blinds check, I bet,the rest -call-call-call-fold-fold-Raise! (BB check raised.) Now I had the current nuts, however my 3 is weak. The way I figured it, the check raiser had the other K, and another card that if it showed up on the turn or river would beat me. He may also have had K3, therefore tied , but the draw out factor may still be applied. Also in cosideration is the fact that this person was my only real threat, so letting the suckers continue may not be a bad idea, so reraising, thus driving them all out, will kill a potentialy monsterous pot. What did I do?... I just called. Only one of the original callers continued. I bet the turn, and was called by the two remaining players, and again on the river, getting called by only the check raiser. Ultimately, I won the pot. I'm normally a Texas Hold'em/ or stud player, and flopping a full house with top set in Texas...is awsome, and there are multiple ways of playing the hand from that point. But in Omaha, it seems, you can't count on anything for a cinch high.
Exp.2 This was even more difficult to decide what to do. I held Ah4hJdKd, called from late position after about 6 callers (no raise)and assumed the button. Flop came Ad5hKc. giving me top two pair, in last position and not much else, the bet was checked to me...what should I do...my instincts tell me to bet...but is top two pair really any good in a multiway pot in which most people probebly won't fold for one bet,even if they're going for low. Also not much raising goes on at all, especially not check-raising, so that fear is diminished. I did bet and got called by about half the table another low card (4c) came and again it was checked to me,...should I bet, check or what. I did bet and the last card was a 7s. The guy to my immediate right bet, now what do I do, He either made a nut low, or even worse he made a middle straight with a 63. I called and another person called after for a total of three for the showdown. I did have the high, while the other two were quartered. So I may have won half the pot but, did I make a correct call on te end, or just get lucky?...it's hard to tell.
Any comments would be appreciated. C.J. Little
Cool situations, I think you played them well. It's hard to argue with results. My two cents.
My only comment concerns the second scenario. Where do you put the guy on your right when he bets the river? To recap, the flop came A5K and the turn came 4. The river came 7. When the guy bets, you definitely have to worry about 3-6 or 6-8, but you also mentioned concern about the nut low (2-3). The nut low seems nearly impossible to me, as it seems almost certain that he either would have bet it or check-raised you on the turn. It's dangerous to try to apply logic to analyze the play of people in these games, but this is such an utterly moronic way to play a made wheel against opponents showing weakness that I think you can rule it out. What's he worried about? Maybe that you have a wheel with redraws, and he'll be heads up against you when you reraise? Perhaps, but then it just doesn't make sense for him to bet the river, as he'll want to get as many limpers as possible. Did he have a two-way hand, maybe aces up for high? If so, then a bet would be a good play to try to get you to drop, if he sensed you were on something like top two or a set.
C.J.,
In first ex. you have the nuts, why not push the pot? Its not the nuts that is easy to get drawn out on and by not bettin hard some fool with a 7,8 will make a low and steal half your pot. You got to take risks to get the rewards and this hand is hardly a risk plus you can make the nut low with two good ones.
ex. 2
Top two pair and not much else? There is no low draw yet.You have 2 back door nut flush draws, two nut back door straight draws, and a back door draw at the nut low. These are hands I wait for, I dont get the nuts every hand I play. If bad cards come just pay them off unless it is obvious you are beat.
Im not being hard on you as you are new to the game but you have to think about what you have and build pots with many players in them with your good hands. Good Luck.
Example 1: CJ has As3s2dKh. Flop is KsKc3d .
Ray Zee writes: "In first ex. you have the nuts, why not push the pot? "
You have 3 callers between you and the check-raiser. All but one of the callers folded to the check-raise, but you didn't know that would happen. It seems more likely that they would have called the raise unless you re-pop it. Don't you want to try to keep them in the pot?
"Its not the nuts that is easy to get drawn out on and by not bettin hard some fool with a 7,8 will make a low and steal half your pot. "
Wouldn't you want some fool with a 7,8 to pick up a low draw on the turn against your A-2?
Example 2: CJ has Ah4hKdJd. Board is Ad5hKc-4c-7s.
Ray Zee writes: "Top two pair and not much else? There is no low draw yet."
This looks like an oversight. The flop is Ad5hKc so there is a low draw.
"You have 2 back door nut flush draws, two nut back door straight draws, and a back door draw at the nut low. "
I only see one nut back door straight draw. You need a Q-T to make the nut straight. If 2-3 comes, it will also give you a backdoor straight, but its not the nut.
Fourth and Fifth Street: CJ says there's not much check-raising, but the 4c on the turn is about the scariest possible card, and I would still be afraid of a check-raise. If it is check raised, and if the check-raiser has a 2-3 or even 4-4, you have only 6 or 4 outs for half the pot. As George surmised, the check-raiser could have a two-way hand, and I'd probably call because of that possibility, but I wouldn't feel comfortable about it. In the scenario described, I'd be inclined to check the turn. I'd call the river but fold if it was raised. Is this wrong?
CJLittle wrote: Welcome to Omaha.
My takes on the two hands described:
Ex1: Just calling the raise isn't a sign of passivity. You're just trying to rope people in with a monster. The question is will any of the people who fold to a raise have any chance of beating you? no. Here I'd have no problem choosing the path that will create the largest pot. The method for doing this depends on how you expect your opponents to play. As for fearing the checkraiser, I wouldn't worry about it too much. The best he could have would be the current nuts and a 6-outer to a better boat. But even then you have a 3-outer for the nut kicker. What's more, there are some situations where you catch runner low low and at least quarter him. And there's a ton of scenarios where you're way ahead right now. You're sitting pretty sweet here.
Ex2: I'm a little confused about this hand. When the 4c came on the turn, wouldn't that give nut low the wheel? I just don't put anyone on that. Most of the games I play in, someone is gonna bet a nut low draw on the flop if no one else shows strength. As for you Aces and Kings on the flop, you'd be happier if that 5 were a 6, but it's one of the better top2 scenarios. Really no reason not to bet.
JG
In a earlier post I presented a sometimes difficult problem that arises very often during play. The decision on this play can make a positive or negative HR depending on what you do. Here's a typical situation. You are in late position. I define that as 8,9,button. There is one limper in middle position that I define as 5,6,7. You get dealt a range of hands from TJ-KQ suited. You raise and everyone folds except the middle position limper. Add this to the equation. You do not know how this limper plays at all. The flop comes 9,2,5 rainbow. Lets further assume that you comepletly miss the flop . All you have are two overcards. However the limper bets!. What is the proper play here? This is a situation that I truly despise. Lets analize this situation. If the limper were a solid player you would have to wonder why he just called. Maybe AA,AK,QQ,JJ,TT slowplay? Possible but very unlikely. If you knew that the limper was a solid player you could discount trip 2.Trip 5. But you would have to fear trip 9. But wait a minute! Wouldn't a solid player try a check raise against a pre-flop raiser. I know I would. Ths makes trip 9 not likely once again. Unless this solid player has AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT he is most likely making a move on you. Therefore a raise by you is correct. But lets say that this limper is a weak player. Notice now that you can't rule out trips or even A9,K9, A2,K2 suited as a weak player would play these hands head up even against a raise. So therefore a fold against a weak player is probably correct. However I said that you have no clue as to what type of player this limper is yet. But lets look at your options. You can call. You can fold. You can raise. You could call hoping that one of your high cards will hit the turn and give you a winning hand. You could raise hoping that the limper folds or at least will now check to the river with you. Or you could fold not really knowing what he has but knowing that you did miss the flop. Do you see how this one situation is very hard. And to boot, this situation occurs often enough to warrant a discussion on this forum. So therefore I ask what many posters will do in this situation and how sucessful they are in their decisions overall.
Cut to the chase: You miss the flop with 2 overcards and want to know if you should try to Bigfoot a player you don't know who called your flop bet. My question would be, assuming the unknown player also missed the flop, what are your chances of beating him? Are you going to dump 2 or more big bets in order to try to chase out a hand against which you are either a minuscule favorite or a big dog?
If it is a weak, or unknown player I would raise the flop and take the free card on the turn, or dump it if reraised or if the original raiser leads again on the turn. Even a weak player would probably lead her with an Ace or a pair like 77, 88, or 66, but would not bet the turn without top pair.
Against a solid player, I might also raise, but would probably just flat call and raise the turn if I thought he was on a move. Most solid players I know are pretty good against defending against a free-card play, so I don't think a raise on the flop is a very good investment.
By the way, if you were the original limper and hit a set of nines, wouldn't you really just check-call the flop and check-raise the turn into a solid-aggressive raiser? The flop has NO draws or overcards, and you will win a much bigger pot if the raiser picks up a pair or a draw on the turn, with very little risk of being hurt by a free card.
I agree with Michael 7 here. You can raise on the flop with position holding just about anything playable when heads-up against a player who will then usually check to you on the turn. Playing those pocket nines correctly is a whole lot easier if you have some kind of read (even if its just a *bad hand* *good hand* *powerhouse* type of read).
A solid player should be expected to sufficiently vary the way certain situations are handled so that a comment like "Wouldn't a solid player try a check raise against a pre-flop raiser?" is true only sometimes.
You write:
"You can raise on the flop with position holding just about anything playable when heads-up against a player who will then usually check to you on the turn."
What do you do against players who bet on the river every time you check on the turn?
I don't always take the free card on the turn, sometimes I'll semi-bluff again. Against a player who always bets into me on the river after we both checked the turn, there are options. If I notice any body language that I interpret as having made a bet without a decent hand, I'll often raise back with a busted draw. I probably call the bet on the river as much as 80% of the time holding anything from AJ high through top pair weak kicker. Obviously if the river improves my hand or completes a draw I'll usually raise back. Whether I fold to a bet on the river depends on how the board allows me to narrow down a single opponent's hand potential, and the size of the pot. I'm therefore inclined to wing-it, let the hand develop and expect to find the right play on the river if necessary. Your question doesn't have a specific answer; usually just call would be superficial because this is a player dependant situation.
If the game was young and my stack was solid, I would raise the bet to get information about the player. On a re-raise, I would fold. This play has a few advantages. It lets me know how agressive the player is and, in the event I fold on a reraise, the table may assume that I try to buy pots on a regular basis (not my usual style). There is also the obvious advantage of buying a free card on the turn.
Otherwise, I would fold - why risk more money for such a small pot.
You're right, this is a pretty common scenario. May I ask, what were you trying to do when you raised preflop with a mediocre hand? I don't mean to imply that a raise was wrong, but I want to know what your ulterior goals were.
For this question, you've said that we know nothing about our opponent. That implies that either we're new to the table, or he is. If I'm new to a table, one of the things that I'm thinking about a lot is what type of image I want this table to have of me. That desired image depends upon my current perception of the table and its individual players, as well as my judgment as to what kinds of mistakes I can more easily induce these players to make. Thus, if the table is tight, I might choose to make them think that I'm ultrarock, so that they'll tighten up even more against me (thus letting me steal lots of small pots). If the table is loose, I'll probably try to appear even looser, so that they'll call me even more often. Finally, I will do this while trying to still play perfect poker, to the greatest extent I know how. Often, the image you project will depend greatly upon whether you start out at that table with a series of good or bad hands dealt to you.
Back to your question. Since I don't know this player, I presumably raised in a situation where I was likely to get heads-up with him with a goal in mind besides just maximizing EV (I want to make the plays that maximize EV, but if there is a legitimate choice of alternatives, I will pick the alternative that best suits my secondary goal). If that goal was to impress him with my tight play, then play your hand like it was AA, and hope that he folds before showdown, or play like it was AKs and you're weak-tight (i.e., you fold on the flop). If the goal is to impress him that you're loose, then definitely raise the flop, and keep on jamming. If you win, show him your hand (because you want more action later when you're not bluffing); if you lose, he'll see the hand you overplayed at showdown. If you're real lucky, you'll hit a 3-outer on the river to snap him off, and obtain the desired loose image at the same time.
Of course, the best scenario is to know your opponent (or be holding a monster hand) before getting involved in a heads-up battle. These plays are a lot easier to make when you've got a read on the guy.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I am furious at all of you above me for not putting any numbers into your thoughts. For instance, if a raise will almost always get a free card and hitting an overcard will almost always win, then in a 10-20 game your raise risks 20 to win 70 plus maybe 20 or 40 more. With six outs that makes it worth doing and a better play than either calling or folding (although there is a possibility that a call followed by a raise semi bluff is better still.) This analysis doesnt even take into account the possibility that he will fold immediately or that you will win in a showdown without improving. Both factors make a raise better still. Of course it also doesn't adjust for the fact that you might get reraised, not get that free card or not win when you pair up. But the simple fact is that a raise basically gives you about 4-1 on a 3-1 shot (six outs is 3-1 if there are no backdoor straight or flush draws) and that should be the starting point for your analysis. The fact that it wasn't is unforgivable considering the knowledge of the guys who wrote those posts. I have said a hundred times that you don't make any decisions without considering the size of the pot. Don't make me say it again or I will have to resort to corporal punishment.
I mentioned that everyone folded except the middle position limper. If this was 15-3o which was what I was thinking about then the pot is $10 little blind. $15 big blind. $15 limp. $30 raise. $15 limp call. $15 on flop. This makes $100 in the pot. I wrote a unknown player because the decision is harder to make. A known playing style is far easier. I personally think that it's between either a fold or raise. But notice that folding leans toward "weak tight". If it was a solid player I would raise. But if it was a weak player E.G. calling station then I would have to make a decision on whether over cards would win if they hit on the turn or river. If it was against a unknown well thats why I wrote the post!. Notice that if you had a backdoor flush your hand is stronger, same with backdoor straight. But in this example thats not the case.
David - thank you for shaking us up with some good solid thinking. I was too busy trying to be fancy, when I should be thinking - basics, basics, basics.
You're welcome.
Gays this decision has to be made away from a table. Do yuo agree. For decision it self i fold unless i have specific reson not to. There is 19 dolars in a pot I will make top pair or beter 24.1% if my oponent has a split pair( i do not know if this termin is corect for pair witch is not poket pair) he has 20.3% chance to make two pair or beter. --Implied odds have little meaning when there is a decent chance that you can make your hand but still wind up second best. --David Sklansky - The Teory Of Poker. I do not think effective odds will indicate a call.
Joe Ray Zee told us that you beter player than me. Can I ask you what you will do on turn in situation like this? Yor oponent bet. Your hand is QdJd board is 9c5s2h-Js. Positions and previons action is like you descraibe in yor post.
I would either raise or fold. If I raised I would use a little body language. If I folded it would be because I thought that Queen's with a Jack kicker were beat. In my situation I would lean towards raising. If I was reraised I would then fold. If my raise was called and then the opponent checked the river I will also check behind him unless the river improved my hand.
Joe you write- If I folded it would be because I thought that Queen's with a Jack kicker were beat. But you have to think obout this posibilylty on the flop. If this god chance that turning one of your card stil will not give you pot than you shuold fold on the flop. Do you agree?
Unless I could run opponent off his hand otherwise I might fold.
If you raised before the flop, there are now either 6.5 or 6.75 small bets in the pot after the first player bets the flop. This is not something to just give away by folding when a ragged flop hits and someone bets. If the first player is solid, he might bet almost any holding into this flop heads-up. You may have the best hand, in which case folding is a reasonably large error. You may be able to push him off the best hand. And you may be able to draw out on the made hand.
I think an argument can be made for calling or raising on the flop. One play I like in this position is to call the flop, and then make a new decision based on the turn card and my opponent's reaction to the call. If I pick up a card on the turn that helps my hand (either hits an overcard, or gives me a straight draw with my two overcards), then I'll raise if the opponent bets again. If a scare card comes on the turn and the opponent bets, I might raise also. If a blank hits and my opponent checks, he's showing weakness and I'd have to bet again.
I don't really like the 'raise for a free card' play in this situation. Many people will bet the flop on a steal, and call a raise hoping to improve when they get shown strength. Then they'll check and fold the turn if they miss. By taking a free card, you're setting up your opponent to take another shot at you on the river.
Heads-up play like this becomes as much a matter of playing the player as your own hand. Watch carefully to see how he reacts to your call/raise, and watch him carefully when the turn card lands to see how he reacts. These factors become important in your decision making.
Dan
Notice that if you had a good read on this player you can make the correct decision. But if he/she is new to you then that decision is not as easy. However once the hand is played through then you will have info the next time you play him/her. As for what I would do, most likely I would raise on the flop. If I'm reraised then I would fold because now I know that I'm beat even if that opponent has something like AK off and didn't raise before the flop.If that opponent calls my raise then what hits the turn would now guide my action.
If you raise on the flop and he calls, you are now getting almost 5:1 on a bet on the turn. If this opponent would fold to a bet 20% of the time, you are freerolling on your draw by betting. In other words, it's a +EV play.
On the other hand, if he would fold 50% of the time, you are getting a huge overlay. If he would never fold, you don't have the odds to bet to improve your hand, even assuming it would be the best if you hit one of your overcards.
So, your read on the player and your experience really need to guide you here. Okay, so you've never played with this player before. What do you think the odds are that a random player would fold to a bet here? A lot depends on his position (so you can narrow down the range of hands that he might be playing), and the overall nature of the game.
That's why I said the read of the player is more important than the cards you hold - the difference between 6 outs and 9 outs is trivial compared to the knowledge that a player will fold in this situation half the time.
Incidentally, on a related note - one thing I look for when deciding whether to raise hands like KQ on the button is the character of the players who called before me. If the caller is a tough player, why raise? His call from middle position is likely with a hand at least as good and possibly better than yours, and you know he's going to give you trouble on the flop no matter what hits. Save your money and either call if you think you have the best hand or fold. If a weak player calls, you can raise with a much wider variety of hands to force the blinds out and try to get heads-up, or at least be in position to control the action after the flop if the blinds call.
As your skill grows, there will be fewer and fewer players with the same or better skill level, meaning the number of raises you make in late position might go up. I think a lot of inexperienced players see excellent players raising a lot and think, "That's the way to play good poker", then proceed to lose stacks of chips by trying to emulate them.
Dan
Those of you who knew Andy Morton have undoubtedly heard about his fatal motorcycle accident. The following is a copy of JP Massar's last post on RGP about Andy.
Andy Morton died early morning Friday, July 17th, 1998 in a head-on motorcycle crash with an automobile in Colorado. He was on an extended ride from Los Angeles with his motorcycle buddies.
Andy was a well known RGP and 2+2 Forum contributor, and many of us reading this knew him personally.
Of all Andy's interests, his two great loves were talking and playing poker, and motorcycle riding.
Many a time in the last year you might have found Andy and I walking on the pedestrian/bike path along Redondo, Hermosa and Manhattan Beaches, engrossed in discussions about the intricacies of game theory, check-raises, bankrolls, bluffs and Xena, Warrior Princess.
Andy graduated with a PhD in biochemistry, but becoming disenchanted with academic life, left to become an itinerant poker player. In his beat up car he toured the country, living off his bankroll, gaining experience and working his way up the Hold 'em stakes ladder.
When he arrived in Los Angeles in January 1997 he decided to stay in one place for a while, and settled in for a time as a professional poker player, playing the higher limit games mainly at Hollywood Park and the Normandie, where he was well known.
Andy may perhaps be remembered into the future as the author of "Morton's Theorem", a mathematical demonstration of the consequences of a counterintuitive multi-handed poker scenario, which he developed with Abdul Jalib. Perhaps Abdul could repost it in his memory.
Andy was the quintessential scientist: Always questioning, never willing to accept without reason accepted theories and advice; always exploring new and interesting avenues of poker theory and life.
Andy was a very good friend, and I will miss him muchly.
Andy was a close friend and I'll miss him dearly.
Before I knew Andy well, I let him start renting a room from me. I gave him what I felt was a significantly undermarket price, as I knew he was brilliant, and felt he would more than repay me in terms of poker knowledge. I considered him still a bit green in terms of experience, but his drive to discover more about poker strategy through logical and mathematical analyses was pure gold in my eyes.
It wasn't long before I was repaid with what has become known as Morton's Theorem. Andy, JP, a couple of others, and I had met to discuss poker strategy. Andy was trying to make the case that you should let all the fishy callers call along, rather than driving them out, since they are making mistakes by the fundamental theorem of poker. Although I couldn't do much more than wave my hands frantically, I replied that the fundamental theorem of poker usually doesn't apply in multiway pots, that you usually want your opponents to fold correctly from their perspective when you hold something like top pair top kicker versus a multiway field. (It would be safer to say "often" rather than "usually".)
The next day, a table in my apartment sprouted papers with mathematical scribbles, with Andy working furiously in the midst of them. After a while, he came to me and gave me guidance to do his calculations from scratch, for a double check. We worked on this and discussed it for some hours, and then Andy generously typed it up for rec.gambling.poker. His article follows at the end of this article...
Of course, while profit was my initial motivation for letting Andy move in for cheap, we quickly became good friends. We discussed philosophy over beers. I turned him onto the TV show "Xena", which became an obsession to him. (Later, one of his exgirlfriends from college then appeared on Xena's sister show Hercules as a half woman half horse, much to his delight, and in real life she is Kevin "Hercules" Sorbo's girlfriend.) He brought home a shiny new motorcycle from poker winnings and proudly showed it to me; if only he hadn't been such a good poker player or the cards had fallen differently or almost anything had been different...
Andy had a PhD in Chemistry, but went from grad school to the cardrooms.After he had been playing professionally for a couple of years, he applied for a job at a chemical research firm, got offered the job, and then got cold feet about the 9 to 5 thing and refused the offer! The company then offered him a position as a consultant, which he accepted. The company obviously felt it would be more than repaid by Andy's brilliance.
"Morton's Theorem" follows... (BTW, Sklansky says he understood this when he wrote _Theory of Poker_, but had simplified things for the average Joe.)
[Begin quote of Andy Morton]
Implicit Collusion and Going too Far
I usually enjoy reading Mike Caro's Card Player column. One from last June made a big impression on me. In it he says:
_The real low-limit secret for today_. The most important thing i can teach you about playing the lower limits is that you usually should *not* raise from early positions, no matter what you have... because all of those theories of thinning the field and driving out opponents who might draw out on you don't hold true in these smaller games [where] you're usually surrounded by players who often call with nearly hopeless hands.... Which is better, playing against a few strong and semistrong players with possibly a small advantage for double stakes, or playing against a whole herd of players, mostly weak, for single stakes? Clearly, when you're not likely to win the pot outright by chasing everyone out, you want to play against weak opponents, and the more the merrier. So, why raise? There, I've just described one of the costliest mistakes in low-limit poker. The mistake is raising when many potential callers remain behind you, thus chasing away your profit. Don't do that.
Until recently, this made a lot of sense to me. After all, the Fundamental Theorem of Poker states (roughly) that when your opponents make mistakes, you gain, and when they play correctly, you lose. In holdem, if all of those calling stations in the low-limit games want to chase me with their 5 out draws to make trips or 2 pair when I flop top pair best kicker, and they don't have the pot odds to correctly do so, that sounds like a good situation for me.
Yet, it seems like these players are drawing out so often that something must be wrong. Hang around the mid-limits, holdem or stud, for any length of time and you're sure to hear players complain that the lower limit games can't be beat. You can't fight the huge number of callers, they say. You can't protect your hand once the pot has grown so big, they say.
At first, I thought these players were wrong. They just don't understand the increased variance of playing in such situations, I told myself. In one sense, these players are right, of course. The large number of calling stations combined with a raise or two early in a hand make the pots in these games very large relative to the bet size. This has the effect of reducing the magnitude of the errors made by each individual caller at each individual decision. Heck, the pot might get so big from all that calling that the callers _ought_ to chase. For lack of a better term, I call this behavior on the fishes' part _schooling_. Still, tight-aggressive players are on average wading into these pots with better than average hands, and in holdem when they flop top pair best kicker, for example, they should be taking the best of it against each of these long-shot draws (like second pair random kicker). In holdem, the schooling phenomenon increases the variance of the player who flops top pair holding AK, but probably also _increases_ his expectation in the long run, I thought, relative to a game where these players are correctly folding their weak draws.
Thinking this way, I was delighted to follow Caro's advice, and not try to run players with weak draws out of the pots where I thought I held the best hand on the flop or turn. This is contrary to a lot of advice from other poker strategists, as Caro points out, and I found myself (successfully, I think) trying to convince some of my poker playing buddies of Caro's point of view in a discussion last week.
Well, some more thinking, rereading some old r.g.p. posts (thank you, dejanews), a long discussion with Abdul Jalib, and a little algebra have changed my mind: I think Caro's advice is dead wrong (at least in many situations) and I think I can convince you of this, if you'll follow me for a bit longer.
What I'm going to tell you is that if you bet the best hand with more cards to come against two or more opponents, you will often make more money if some of them fold, *even if they are folding correctly, and would be making a mistake to call your bet.* Put another way, *you want your opponents to fold correctly, because their mistaken chasing you will cost you money in the long run.* I found this result very surprising to say the least. I've never seen it described correctly in any book or article, although at least a few posts to this newsgroup have concerned closely related topics.
I'm no poker authority but I think this concept has got to lead to changes in strategy in situations where players are chasing too much (and yes, Virginia, this happens not only in the 3-6 games, but also in the higher limits from time to time. Curiously, I have several friends who play very well who often complain that they can't beat 20-40 games when they get loose like this, or at least don't do as well in these games as they do in tighter games. hmmm....). Let's look at a specific example.
Suppose in holdem you hold AdKc and the flop is Ks9h3h, giving you top pair best kicker. When the betting on the flop is complete you have two opponents remaining, one of whom you know has the nut flush draw (say AhTh, giving him 9 outs) and one of whom you believe holds second pair random kicker (say Qc9c, 4 outs), leaving you with all the remaining cards in the deck as your outs. The turn card is an apparent blank (say the 6d) and we1ll say the pot size at that point is P, expressed in big bets.
When you bet the turn player A, holding the flush draw, is sure to call and is almost certainly getting the correct pot odds to call your bet. Once player A calls, player B must decide whether to call or fold. To figure out which action player B should choose, calculate his expectation in each case. This depends on the number of cards among the remaining 46 that will give him the best hand, and the size of the pot when he is deciding:
E(player B|folding) = 0
E(player B|calling) = 4/46 * (P+2) - 42/46 * (1)
Player B doesn't win or lose anything by folding. When calling, he wins the pot 4/46 of the time, and loses one big bet the remainder of the time. Setting these two expectations equal to each other and solving for P lets us determine the potsize at which he is indifferent to calling or folding:
E(player B|folding) = E(player B|calling) => P'_B = 8.5 Big bets
When the pot is larger than this, player B should chase you; otherwise, it's in B's best interest to fold. This calculation is familiar to many rec.gamblers, of course.
To figure out which action on player B's part _you_ would prefer, calculate your expectation the same way:
E(you|B folds) = 37/46 * (P+2)
E(you|B calls) = 33/46 * (P+3)
Your expectation depends in each case on the size of the pot (ie, the pot odds B is getting when considering his call Setting these two equal lets us calculate the potsize P where you are indifferent whether B calls or folds:
E(you|B calls) = E(you|B folds) => P'_you = 6.25 Big bets.
When the pot is smaller than this, you profit when player B is chasing, but when the pot is larger than this, your expectation is higher when B folds instead of chasing.
This is very surprising. There's a range of pot sizes (in this case between 8.5 and 6.25 big bets when the turn card falls) where it's correct for B to fold, and you make more money when he does so than when he incorrectly chases. You can see this graphically below
[I don't know how to include ASCII graphics here, so I've put the chart at http://www.posev.com/poker/morton-chart.txt ]
The range of pot sizes marked with the X's is where you want your opponent to fold correctly, because you lose expectation when he calls incorrectly.
This is an apparent violation of the Fundamental Theorem of Poker, which results from the fact that the pot is not heads up but multiway. (While Sklansky states in Theory of Poker that the FToP does not apply in certain multiway situations, it would probably be better to say that it in general does not apply to multiway situations.) In essence what is happening is that by calling when P is in this middle region, player B is paying too high a price for his weak draw (he will win the pot too infrequently to pay for all his calls trying to suck out), but you are no longer the sole benefactor of that high price -- player A is now taking B's money those times that A makes his flush draw. Compared to the case where you are heads up with player B, you still stand the risk of losing the whole pot, but are no longer getting 100% of the compensation from B's loose calls. These sorts of situations come up all the time in Hold'em, both on the flop and on the turn. It1s the existence of this middle region of pot sizes, where you want at least some of your opponents to fold correctly, that explains the standard poker strategy of thinning the field as much as possible when you think you hold the best hand. Even players with incorrect draws cost you money when they call your bets, because part of their calls end up in the stacks of other players drawing against you. This is why Caro's advice now seems wrong to me, in general. Those weak calling stations are costing you money when they make the mistake of calling too much. In practice, when you flop a best but vulnerable hand, the pot size is rarely smaller than this middle region, where you actually want your opponents to call. Normally, the pot size is such that you want them to fold even if they would be wise to do so. In loose games, the pot size will often be at the high side of the scale, where you would love for them to fold, but they have odds to call and their fishy calls become correct.
This brings up another interesting point. In our three-handed example, both you and player B are losing money when B chases you incorrectly (both your and his expectations would be higher if he folded). This implies that player A is benefitting from his call, since poker is a zero-sum game (neglecting rake, etc). In fact, player A is benefitting _more_ from B's call than the magnitude of B's mistake in calling (since you are also losing expectation due to B's call).
Because you are losing expectation from B's call, it follows that the _aggregate_ of all other players (ie, A and B) must be gaining from B's call. In other words, if A and B were to meet in the parking lot after the game and split their profits, they would have been colluding against you.
I don't really know Roy Hashimoto or Lee Jones, but I suspect that this situation might be what Roy had in mind when he first described what he calls "implicit collusion" in games where there are many calling stations: one fish makes a play which reduces his overall expectation and all fish benefit by more than the magnitude of the first fish's mistake. That's collusion, just as if a player reraises with the worst hand to trap a third player for more bets when the first player's buddy has the nuts. Of course no one realizes there's collusion going on in these situations, so the collusion is implicit. (I'd sure like to hear from Roy or Lee on this point, because I think there's a significant difference between what I've called 'schooling' and what I've called 'implicit collusion', and that the two concepts are often confused with each other, but I'd hate to further confuse the issue by misappropriating someone else's label for this phenomenon.)
There was an interesting thread on this group last year started by Mason Malmuth called 'Going Too Far,' about the appropriate strategy changes in a game where many players are calling too loosely not only before the flop but also on the later streets. I suspect that the phenomenon described here (where both the leader and the chasers are giving up expectation to the player who is drawing to a very strong hand) lies behind the correct response to his discussion in that thread. One strategy change he mentions is that you'd like your starting hand to be suited in games like these. In light of what I've presented here I can not only understand this strategy change, but can see others as well. If this has made sense to anyone who can think of other strategy changes resulting from these ideas, let's hear them.
Finally, having criticized something by one of the famous poker authors, Abdul is encouraging me to go for broke You must ask yourself whether an opponent would be correct to take [the odds you are giving him] knowing what you had. If so, you would rather have that opponent fold. If not -- that is if the odds against your opponent1s making a winning hand are greater than the pot odds he1s getting -- then you would rather have him call. In this case, instead of winning the pot right away, you1re willing to take the tiny risk that your opponent will outdraw you and try to win at least one more bet. ...you would not want to put in a raise to drive people out. (p. 62)
Slowplaying is certainly correct in some cases, but your 'druthers' in a multiway pot can never be decided so simply as by asking whether each of your individual opponents has the right pot odds to chase you.
[End quote of Andy Morton]
On Sunday, 31 May 1998, I saw my first reference to "Morton's Theorem" in a post by Abdul : "Re: Question for Mason". Not knowing anything about the subject, I asked for further information, and Abdul's reply (1 June) contained both an appetite-whetting explanation together with references to the original thread on rgp. I replied to Abdul (1 June) : "Thanks for the vivid explanation. Sounds like very interesting stuff, which I could handle theoretically, but at this stage is a little bit above me for practical use."
I then proceeded to read Andy's post and the ensuing thread, and it quickly became apparent to me that Andy Morton had justifiably acquired himself a place in "The Poker Theory Hall of Fame."
In one of his subsequent posts (10 April 1997), Andy refers to Tom Weideman's post (concerning how many opponents you'd like to have when you hold AA) as providing one of the catalysts for his latest thoughts. I read Tom's post and, whilst I didn't agree with some points, also found it to be very high calibre stuff, certainly capable of inspiring others. I mention Tom Weideman because Andy Morton did - there are many other power posters out there. It is only a matter of time before one of them will come up with some innovative concept attributable to Andy Morton's prolific legacy.
Etienne wrote:
*** In one of his subsequent posts (10 April 1997), Andy refers to Tom Weideman's post (concerning how many opponents you'd like to have when you hold AA) as providing one of the catalysts for his latest thoughts. I read Tom's post and, whilst I didn't agree with some points, ***
WHAT?!? Why I outta...
*** also found it to be very high calibre stuff, certainly capable of inspiring others. ***
Oh... Never mind.
I unfortunately never knew Andy, though occasionally we corresponded via email during/after a particularly interesting rgp thread. Until now, I never knew that his now-popular work was inspired by mine (I guess I missed the rgp threads mentioned above). I had a suspicion this might be the case, however, since when I read the repost provided by Abdul, the material sounded familiar.
Though my post was ostensibly about the number of opponents you want to have when you hold pocket aces in holdem, in actuality it was more of a discussion about an interesting mathematical property associated with competing against multiple opponents (who all contribute equal amounts to a pot) when you have an edge against each one individually. Unfortunately, many of the subsequent posts in that thread were related to the specifics of the pocket aces scenario, and instead of coming away with an insight about the mathematics of multiple players, I think many rgp'ers just formed opinions about whether or not they want the whole table to call their preflop raise when they hold rockets. Apparently Andy sorted through the noise that ended up being produced in that thread, and was able to extend the underlying fundamental concept to Sklansky's "Fundamental Theorem of Poker". This synthesis of ideas is what has since become known as "Morton's Theorem". It was a nice piece of work, not only for the content, but for its clear exposition.
My condolences to Andy's family and friends. I wish I could have known him better.
Tom Weideman
I'm short on experience in casino environment Omaha play but we've recently been playing more in our private game and I have a question about the rake. If it's a small pot until the river, and then two heads up players jam the pot and wind up splitting the pot equally, what is raked? Is just the original small pot raked or would you also rake the multiple river bets that are simply taken back by the players anyway?
Ian,
All bets that are called are raked. That is a good reason to consider not playing when the pots are mostly headup. Good Luck.
When a sexy girls buys into my table I cringe. I start to concentrate on other things which will lower my win rate. I feel bad when I "sock it to her" which will lower my win rate because now I will tend to play meekly against her because I'm still concentrating on other things!. But notice that if she is a solid player my win rate will be lower because she is a solid player! And this is added to the fact that she is sexy. Why does Mike caro come to mind?!
You didn't say if she's seated next to you, or across the table; makes a big difference here.
IF YOUR A SOLID PLAYER IT WILL NOT LOWER YOUR WIN RATE,YOU MUST ONLY PLAY FOR RECRETION. I KNOW MYSELF I WILL PLAY A SEXY WOMEN JUST HAS WELL AS AN OLD GRUMPY MAN.
And enjoy it a lot more.
I have never had to play against a sexy woman. Seems like the only ones that play around here are old women. Now yesterday I was playing and this guys girlfriend/wife came up and she put all the waitresses to shame and she just sat next to the table for probably 15 minutes.
That's a positive situation if he starts showing her his cards!
When playing against sexy women, I just assume that she is not going to go home with me (I'm 100% accurate on that assumption to date). Therefore, playing tough will have no real effect on my love life.
Finally, the poker table is full of all kinds of distractions such as rude players, bad cards and bad dealers. Once the distractions effect your game, leave the table.
>When playing against sexy women, I just assume that she is not going to go home with me (I'm 100% accurate on that assumption to date).
Anyone out there have a different percentage to talk about? That would make a good story, if it is true.
something like 13%!
Are you claiming an 87% expectation? That's pretty good!
> But notice that if she is a solid player my
At the risk of exposing myself as an example of "neanderthal man", I've yet to find a "very distracting woman" who plays worth a darn.
But some of those cocktail waitresses can be damn distracting!
Check out Annie Duke and Cindy (sp?) Violette. Plus, I've never seen Nilly Primrajh in person, but she looks pretty cute in those CardPlayer pictures.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
.....And don't forget "our own" distracting female....the lovely Jessica.
Sorry Todd,....but I couldn't help myself!
Regards
Jim Mogal
I certainly didn't leave Jessica out intentionally. I've just never had the pleasure of meeting her (as far as I know). I'll just have to see if I can run into her while I'm in town for BARGE. What about it, Jessica? Will you say hi?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
After being stuck for about a month, I have a good night and recoup the month's losses. I come home at about 3 a.m. to discover my house was robbed and I was cleaned out (including my liquor - the heartless swine).
Nothing to do with poker - but I had to tell someone.
I had worst one two years ago i was going from casino whith nice win some drunk crash my car i was in hospital for two days.
It could have been a worse beat if you were home.
I want to comment on a dealer mistake that I saw last night that threw me off my game for just a second (my fault). I was playing at the Grand Victoria in Rising Sun Indiana(perhaps the worst run room in the country), playing 10-20 hold'em. A dealer didn't show up for work or whatever so they bring a craps dealer up to deal poker. The first hand he deals everyone their cards and then starts to put the flop out (before the betting has begun). THe players yell at him to stop and the betting begins. Now the players start yelling that he put the cards back on the deck in the wrong order. There was a raise at the end of the table and I looked down and saw A3h. I asked the dealer who raised since the bets at the otehr end of the table were in disarray I couldn't tell who raised. In the confusion I thought to myself "AX suited against a raise, no good" and I mucked my hand. I really believe if there hadn't been all the confusion about the deck I would have decided "8 way action, I better get in there" (I had the button). AS a side note the players agreed that the dealer replaced the cards onto the deck in reverse order so the floor man ruled that the 1st 2nd and 4th cards off the deck would be the board and the 3rd card would be the burn. I guess the only thing to learn from this is anytime there is a disturbance at the table don't try to ignore, wait for it to go away. BTW I would have flopped the nuts in a multi-way pot, but that isn't really important the important thing is I made a BAD DECISION because I didn't take the time to think about what was going on.
Whether or not you made a bad decision on that particular hand, it sounds like a bad idea to play when a craps dealer is dealing poker. That kind of bad dealing could cost you money in many ways. I would complain immediately to the management, and then not play in the game until a competent poker dealer is found.
I'm not arguing with what happened, but I disagree about the Grand Victoria poker room being run badly. I played there for a week and I thought that it was run very well. I don't think I saw even one dealer mistake at the holdem games the entire time I spent playing. I see at least a dozen dealer mistakes each time I play at Cripple Creek.
You need to play there more often if you didn't see the dealer errors. The dealers there are extremely slow. The dealers don't know basic rules such as when a player can ask to see a hand (when they try to muck after being called). One incident that shows how poorly it is run is I arrived and asked to be on the 15-30 and 20-40 lists and was told there wasn't one and later they started a list and when I saw the game starting I couldn't get in because there was a list with 4 people waiting to get in the game. When a seat opens up it often takes 45 minutes to fill it (they call from a list and wait 10 minutes on each person and often have to go 4or5 deep to find a player who is still on the boat). They offer the poker players nothing (well free non-alcoholic beverages, but no meals even for a full day's play). If there is a poker room that is run worse, I hope I never find it.
Jessica-- complaints to the management are usually met with "we'll see what we can do," I saw someone refuse to post their big blind until the floor came over and were told when the floor arrived that there was a list if they didn't want to play anymore (I don't even remeber what they wanted the floor for).
Oh, I just remebered there is another Grand Victoria. I want to clarify that I am talking about the Grand Victoria in Rising Sun, In not the one in Elgin, Il or wherever it is.
This situation is a good illustration of why the deck is required to be reshuffled in the situation described.
n/t
I have just recently (3 sessions) starting playing hold'em poker at casinos. My question is that I live in Austin,TX and there are not really any easily accessible places to play. I have been reading and absorbing as much as I can without playing real people. But, my question is what is my real expectation if I can only average maybe 15-30 poker sessions a year. I really enjoy the game and believe I would make at least a decent (meaning profitable) player, but I don't know if I could reasonably expect to be really good without spending more time in front of real opponents. Any comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
I believe that live experience is extremely important for a developing poker player. Can you find some home games to play in?
I second Jessica's advice. I have to travel 2 hours to get to A.C to play, so my playing time is limited also. It is also INVALUABLE and cannot be replaced by self-practice or computer games....
Home games, of REAL poker (not the wild-card "slot" poker that usually happens)
At this time, I do not know of any "home games" in my area. I wouldn't know where to start to look for one, especially since my friends/coworkers would most likely not be interested in a structured hold'em game. Would you have any advice in helping me locate a home game in my area?
I would suggest posting a request for games in your area on our Exchange forum. You should see a link to the Exchange on the left hand side of your screen, in the green border. I would also post the same request on Rec.Gambling.Poker. If you don't know how to get there, try our link to it on our Links page...also found on the left hand green column.
You say you get to play 15-30 times a year. Where is that? I would guess that maybe you're driving to Louisiana. Well, whereever it is, ask people in those games where they're from. When you find someone from Austin or its surroundings, ask them (away from the table) about home games. Whether you're in LA, Miss, or LV, you're bound to run into a few texans now and again. Don't be afraid to ask. If they say no, then you're no worse off than if you didn't ask anyway.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thanks for the idea. Never thought of "recruiting" at a casino. I generally play all over the place. I travel fairly frequently with my job so I have been to Colorado, Atlantic City, and Phoenix. The headquarters for my company is in Phoenix so that is where I will probably play most often. I haven't tried Louisiana or Mississipi yet, but probably will. So I will ask when I go down there. Thanks
I play netpoker. Although it's looser than the worst real game I've ever seen most of the time, the opponents are live and you will get dealt actual hands. I think it has practice value for loose passive games, and occasionally you will line up with a group that simulates a typical game. http://sockeye.fishnet.caltech.edu
I find that the Wilson Software group has good software for practice. They alow you to alter player profiles to suit the type of game you are used to and can be sped up to play a normal eight hour session in less that half an hour. I found it most useful for determining starting hands.
The problem is that computer players tend to be somewhat predictable.
Computer games are good for practicing starting hands, as Dan said, and also position. What they lack (even the most sophisticated) is the reading of players which is fundemental to skillful play. Sure, you can edit the players to play certain starting hands, to play aggressive, average or passive...bluffing...tight...loose etc. But you can never look them in the eye, or watch for tells or get the "pulse" of the table. So the real thing is the only good practice.
Another problem with computer simulations is that they may warp your sense of how to play. Because of the predictability of the players, as well as some of the really bad plays the computer players make (much worse than reality) you as the human player, tend to win most of the time. The pots are often huge, and there is alot of rediclous raising that you usually don't find in the lower limits when your just starting out (if you do get in a REAL game with ridiclous raising... wild/crazy stuff...IMO--get out).
I also live about two hours from any casino, and only get out there about once a month. I stay for the weekend and play about 8 hrs/ day ( more or less depending on my overall feel). It's not alot of time per year (about 288hr/yr avg) but I'm not ready to quit my job yet. However, it is much more valuable, than computer play.
Good Luck C.J. Little
What does EV and IMO stand for?
"Expected value" and "in my opinion." IMHO adds "humble."
IMHO EV and IMO are abbreviations, not acronyms. An acronmym is a pronounceable word formed from the initial letters of a name or phrase -- or was, until its meaning became corrupted, er, sorry, I meant expanded. An example of an acronym in the original sense is "RAM" (random access memory); an older example is "radar" (radio detecting and ranging).
Diction curmudgeonry is my forte (pronounced "fort," not "for-tay" [thanks, David]).
Thanks Steve, It's Daniel, not David. I know radar and ram all too well. I've been doing electronic work too many years, which is part of the reason I like playing poker.
I was thanking David Sklansky for educating me on the pronunciation of "forte."
Back to the question of pre-flop raising in loose passive Omaha-8. To recap, I claimed that sometimes aggressive raising preflop causes the game to tighten up unfavorably. Randy H. retorted that, while this may happen, other times the fish just get used to throwing in 2 or 3 bets preflop--then the game gets better. I've been thinking about this a bit more, and after reading The Theory of Poker and Mason's essay on "Detrimental is Good"--I'm wondering if Randy's scenario is a good one.
On the one hand, it's hard to argue with the basic idea that when your starting hand is better than your opponents' hands due to your superior hand selection, you have reason to raise. However, a point made in the literature above is that large antes make looser play optimal. And looser play certainly describes much O-8 at the lower limits; it also seems to me that the play of the weaker players is essentially independent of the size of the pot. So it seems to me that another unintended consequence of pushing the pot preflop is that you make your opponents' postflop play better than it would be if you didn't, as the pot odds will justify loose calls. Is it possible that this could outweigh the benefits of raising preflop, at a point when you clearly have the "best of it"?
I submit that increasing the size of the pot DOES affect weak player's play. Specifically, it gets even looser. We've all seen people make calls that they cannot possibly win, when they KNOW they are beat, because of the size of the pot.
It is true that in a rock 'n roll game, brain dead calling is not AS BAD as it is in a weak tight game. But the total amount wagered has increased, so it seems to me that your take will increase, even as the weak players' percentages improve from really terrible to merely awful.
Moreover, now those slim outs they are drawing to will occasionally bring in some monsterously large pots. They will remember those successes when they are taking 40-1 shots at 20-1 pots. From your point of view, this is good programming.
The 2AM poker engine allows players to creat their own game with Full Dealers choice. This is not a commercial plug but a way of letting those who love poker learn that our site exists with its "best of the net" software. http://www.2am.com
I look forward to seeing comments/reviews as to whether I am right about this.
I needed to know if people thought that the 2AM poker engine is what we think it is. After all, its free and you can win $100. Heck, the magazine "Players Edge" thinks its fantastic. www.2am.com
My hand is (9s3s)9d. 9's 3's and spades are live. 2c bet 2$. Five players fold. Qc raise to 5$. Quens are live one club is out. Is it corect to reraise or maybe beter to call and bet on fourth stret if raiser check (if he bet he probobly have a hand) but call live my oponents oportunity to catch scare cards? I do not think that fold is corect here but maybe becase there is only 11$ in a pot. I do not know how my oponents play becase game was hold'em and was changed to half holdem half stud.
Boris,
I would fold the hand if I had any reason at all to suspect this was a player that usually has what his raise says. Even if you have no information I would make a guess about how aggressive his play might be and fold unless he is very aggressive or you saw him steal alot in holdem. Now if you play the hand,the way to play it is to reraise and hope he folds and keep betting unless he starts getting scare cards. If you know from his prior play that he may take one shot at the pot then check and fold, call with any cards and play him off the pot. With 9s9h8s I would most likely play unless I was reasonably sure he had queens and he played well enough that I could not get to out play him. Good Luck.
I saw this gay beting very weak hand on river in holdem Board Jd9s2s-4c-Qc he bet Ad2d heads-up.
What would be the best explanation of dominated hands and in what position.
An open-raise in late position with AT would not be dominated, right?
However, with an early raiser, AT or A9s could then very well be a dominated hand in late position or in the blinds, right?
If 3 or 4 players limp in from early and middle position, AT or KQ in late position would still be dominated, right?
What type of hands would not be considered dominated? 33 - 65 - 74s.
If anyone can explain this better, I would be greatful. If you know of any good article or post on this, that would be appreciated also. Thanks for your help!
A dominated hand is one that is good enough to play but second best in reality with very thin odds of improving to the best (or flat drawing dead). Any hand can be dominated up to and including AA.
Examples:
1. You have AA and your opponent has KK. The flop brings a K. Your hand is dominated by the trip K's because without straight or flush draws you have only 2 outs.
2. You have QJ and your opponent has QQ. Your hand is dominated from the start. When the flop comes Q J x your only out is running J's and thems long odds indeed. But how likely are you to lay this down before paying off on the river?
3. You have AK and your opponent has AQ. Flop is A x x. You have your opponent dominated since they have only 3 outs (assuming no flush or straight draws) and they aren't likely to give this up until you show them the best hand.
It is a wonderful feeling when a hand you know you have dominated bets into you on the turn (or raises). Sucks when they spike that 3 outer on the river though!
Mark
A dominated hand, regardless of position, is one which will either let you scoop a small pot or entice you to play to the showdown with second best - usually out kicked. The primary examples are AX and KX. This is why you really want to flop a flush or flush draw instead of top pair if these cards are suited.
Mark does a good job of defining domination in his post. I'll just add that it is a significant among top players to recognize when they're likely to dominate or be dominated. The exact hands will vary depending upon the opponent and situation.
If I'm in the blinds with A9o and there is a raise that is clearly not a steal attempt (e.g., early position or a raise after others have limped in), I am pretty likely to fold. However, I might call with 89o in the same circumstances. This is the case when I feel that the raiser is quite likely to have AX, where X is a big card. In such a case, if I call and an A flops, I'll likely be drawing to 3 outs, although I may have just beaten KK, QQ, etc. If the flop is 9 high, I may be ahead, or I may be drawing to 5 outs against KK, QQ, etc. It's very difficult to know what you want. In the same hand, if I play the 89o, I am looking to catch a straight draw or 2-pair or better. I am very unlikely to get trapped when I flop 1-pair only. This makes it easier to play 89 correctly as compared to A9.
On the other hand, if the raise is a late position steal raise, I will be more inclined to play A9 than 89, as it is more likely that I am dominating rather than dominated, as a steal raise might be anything. Thus, I might fold 89 and reraise with A9 in those circumstances (depending upon my opponent).
Knowing what hands are dominated/dominating is just a subissue within the context of reading your opponents' hands. It takes practice, and a bit of confidence to push it a little more than you otherwise would when you feel that you're dominating (even though your hand isn't all that strong, in a vacuum).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I really enjoy all of these comments. I'm learning a lot from your folks. But for a bit of perspective, dominated hands seemed to be all of the ones I played yesterday! Been there?
In a recent post, Ray Zee talked about playing in a style that makes your opponent uncomfortable, and then stealing the small pots. I thought this was very interestingly worded and it made me think about what type of playing style makes me uncomfortable. Initially, I thought about players that constantly re-raise you and keep the pressure on... but also the type of player that really gives me the most difficulty, is the player that underplays their hand. For example I raise with AQ and get called .The player who calls, the nproceeds to call me down to the river, as I bet top pair. On the river the player calls me and turns over a set of jacks. This type of player who never raises, and only bets power house hands has a losing style, yet it is troublesome because it forces you to make large adjustments once you recognize it. This player would be able to bluff me much more often because of making previous underplays. If you are reading this Ray, I would love for you to elaborate more on those comments you made, as long as you don't feel you have to reveal any trade secrets... And I hopeto hear from other players as to what styles bother them, and how they adjust etc. Your comments would be appreciated.
In a recent post, Ray Zee talked about playing in a style that makes your opponent uncomfortable, and then stealing the small pots. I thought this was very interestingly worded and it made me think about what type of playing style makes me uncomfortable. Initially, I thought about players that constantly re-raise you and keep the pressure on... but also the type of player that really gives me the most difficulty, is the player that underplays their hand. For example I raise with AQ and get called .The player who calls, the nproceeds to call me down to the river, as I bet top pair. On the river the player calls me and turns over a set of jacks. This type of player who never raises, and only bets power house hands has a losing style, yet it is troublesome because it forces you to make large adjustments once you recognize it. This player would be able to bluff me much more often because of making previous underplays. If you are reading this Ray, I would love for you to elaborate more on those comments you made, as long as you don't feel you have to reveal any trade secrets... And I hopeto hear from other players as to what styles bother them, and how they adjust etc. Your comments would be appreciated.
If there is a constant raiser rasing every before-flop I will wait patiently. Thats why I'm called the "predator"! However I can't stand the style of player that mentioned as well. Against them I don't value bet near as much on the river. At times it seems that there are a lot of those type of players.
I fing that the most uncomfortable style is that of the player who plays almost every hand and never varies his betting. That is he calls or raises with both good and bad hands. Its hard to put him on a hand.
Sometime, I like to make the table a little uncomfortable. A few months ago I was playing in a very tight game. The pots were pitiful. I was able to steal a few pots, but they were incredibly small and the game was really boring. On one hand I was UTG and I immedeately raised the blinds. Everyone folded. I truned over a 7-2o and said "this table is way too tight". One player was furious that I raised him off of his JTs. After that, the table loosened up and a few players wasted some of their money keeping me honest. Unfortunately, the game reverted back to ultra tight after an hour or so.
Good idea. I've done this specifically with 72 under the same table conditions with dumbfounding results (flopped T22 - called through the river by one player). There's some value in putting opponents on tilt.
I'm posting this anonymously as I hate to reveal my favorite trade secret in conjunction with my identity. I am a regular poster who has made a significant contribution to this forum. A good style detective/software could probably unmask me.
You know, I think you had the right idea, but fumbled the execution. Everything made sense til you show em 72.
Say you're playing 10-20. Just stealing the blinds one time an hour is worth at least half of your hourly hopeful yield. If you can gel with the table and know when your opponents don't really want to play, this becomes an entirely reasonable objective. This is especially plausible with walkers and missed blind buttons (not an uncommon symptom of a "lame" game). Sometimes you get called and lose a couple of showdowns looking like a complete idiot, and sometimes you might blow a rack looking like the live one, but have faith. There is a lot of money to be made in tight games.
FRW - not really
Thanx for the advice. I gree that, normally, showing the hand is not the proper play and that a tight game can yield some money by stealing pots.
In this particular case, I was experimenting with the table. That is, I wanted to find out who I could shake up with such a goofy play. I got some good results, in the short term. By shaking up some of the players I was able to increase my win rate by playing solid hands for the next hour or so. It is not a trick I repeat very often.
I once played with a guy who raised before the flop with every single hand. He had been playing fairly tight until he won a couple of pots, then he started pumping it with whatever he had. His behavior put a table of good to very good players on complete tilt. He spoiled the game. I bided my time until I got KQs, and then reraised. He capped it, and flopped a flush. I missed completely and decided to quit. I still wonder what the guy thought he was doing with his play. The pots he stole were tiny, and the game just dried up.
I do not mind playing with maniacs. I just hope they have some money when I get a hand. I do suspect maniacs who fold at the flop or turn of being in collusion with another player at the table. So, I am mindful of the fact that I have to beat the table and not just the maniac.
As far as rocks, or solid players: The rocks you can bluff, but the solid players, you have to outwit. I agree with the poster who played the 72, and who also showed it. You have to find a way to put the solid players off their game. Raking in a pot, even a small one, with absolute trash will usually do it. Then, hopefully, you can take advantage of them with a legitimate hand before they recover. Mumbling, by a solid player, is always a good sign you have gotten to them.
The very worst person to play with, as far as I am concerned, is the self proclaimed expert who tries to tell the table how to play. Again, he spoils the game by pissing the other players off. No one likes to be lectured, especially after having done something dumb. Even if it did work.
For what it's worth, I don't mind playing against the type of clowns offer advice after every hand. For one, this type is usually an O.K, but not great, player, who's prone to making monumental gaffs on the turn and river. The liberal dispensing of advice is generally just a cover for average, or perhaps even inadequate, play. This, of course, is only my experience- I'm not saying this is the golden rule- but if I've learned one thing, it's that the guys/gals that tend to smoke me are the ones who almost never talk; they're too busy paying attention to the cards, their opponenents mannerisms, etc.
What I usually do, when I run across a player like this, is encourage them; or, at least I encourage them to 'help me out'. This accomplished two objectives. One, it puts them off their guard if you're playing with them heads up, since they figure they've got you pegged. Second, it gives the impression to both the nimrod in question AND the rest of the table that you're a total doofus, which can only help. Most players, if they figure you haven't got the first clue, don't put you on a bluff, so you get some quality chances for ante steals (again, just my experience), and often the other players will do your betting for you, as they figure you're a novice who can be easily scared off his cards.
This doofus approach works better for some than others. I've got no problem with it, since it comes pretty naturally.Still, though I'm not a great player by any stretch, I'm generally solid enough to hold my own against typical low limit action. The problem I see with most players, and I see it alot, is that they get caught up in what I call the 'Maverick complex'. Poker, to them, isn't about money, it's about status; their secret desire is to walk into a poker room with a bolo tie, pencil moustache and cowboy hat, and proceed to clean up while beautiful women swoon from as far away as the next county. I could give a damn if I 'look cool' when I'm playing; my only objective is too walk out with more dough then I came in with, and I'm willing to do whatever I have to (as long as it isn't cheating) to get the job done.
Players who go on tilt when they get bluffed off a hand need to take a good look in the mirror and figure out just why they're playing. Generally, a body goes on tilt in this situation because their ego's been bruised. They've been 'out foxed', when by their reckoning it is they who should pulling the cloak and dagger stuff. Hell, EVERYONE gets duped now and then. It's just part of playing. And while good players do it to bad players more often, the reverse certainly isn't unheard of.
In short, I don't see a poker table as the place to exert one's masculinity, or to establish oneself as the resident 'alpha male'. If this is a players approach, they ought to go into something else- like weightlifting. As the phrase goes, it's all about the benjamins (or, in my case, the Jacksons :) )
I agree with you thats why I shut my mouth when I play. However I am a competive powerlifter and it has nothing to do with alpha male syndrome. It's because I can bench 340, squat 500 and deadlift 430 at a weight of 148. I also can play a pretty good poker game. I wanted these things so I did what I had to do to get there. With me there is little ego involved.
May be not ego, but certainly, self esteem, huh?
I agree that it is possible to mislead a player who would be a teacher. Also, that the advice is problably a cover for average play--very shrewd comment, by the way. I also do my best to look like nothing special at the table--easy for me, since I would rather wear a tee shirt and a pair of levis a suit. I also agree that the people who play quietly are the ones you have to fear, and mislead if you can. Not easy, though.
Friday night a guy who had won big betting the ponies at Del Mar via satalite, and was proceeding to dump it at the table, told me that he did not understand the importance of position. This was after another player had made a remark about folding a hand because of bad....Six months ago I would have explained it to him. Not now. I will say that he did look distressed when I left with his money. Wahoo!
I'm an agressive player most of the time, and I find that certain players like to underplay there hands against me because they know I'll be betting for them. I have also found that I need to underplay my hands against certain agressive players because I can get them to Bluff their hand all the way. If I show any Strength they correctly Fold. Just some thoughts.
CV
Really? I LOVE that type of player. I don't think you should be worried about him bluffing you because he probably doesn't have that kind of imagination. You said it yourself--he only bets powerhouses. He'll let you take cheap or free draws at him, and he'll usually lay it down if he has nothing on the river. Run him over and take your lumps when he has something.
Al,
There are players that call alot and hardly ever raise unless they have a great hand or a bluff. It is hard to read them and you find yourself paying them off and betting their hands for them. On the other side they pay you off as well. Where they hurt you is that they always let other players in by never raising early on and it requires that you adjust your game. When playing against good players that give you trouble maybe play a little different in their pots and throw them off. Each person that plays in such a way that makes you uncomfortable needs to be studied and played properly against. There is alot to think about on this subject and the situations are so unique as to make it really hard to generalize what to do. Good Luck. Sorry I didnt really give you the answers you are looking for.
It seems to me that people who underplay their hands in low limit hold'em get beat much more than solid agressive players. Their style, or timidity, allows the drawing hands to come in cheaply, a mistake if ever one gets made. I do my very best to drive my opponents out of the game. I have gotten some nasty surprises tyring to be sly. More than I have gotten by having someone with quads trap me. I also have won more by being agressive than by my slowplay of the rarely seen straight flush. Anyone can win with a cinch. Only very good players know how to win with a hand just slightly better than his opponent's, or by a well timed bluff. Or how to win by simply intimidating, with his play, and not his mouth, his opponents. One of these days, I will be one of those--thanks to this forum.
Al,
It is frustrating when your opponent doesn't let you know that you are betting a second best hand all the way through the river. Nevertheless, it can be profitable. Something to think about is whether your opponent will do this consistently. Is he predictable? Will he call all the way through to the river with at set of jacks even if no flush or straigt is possible? If so, he must feel you have a set of aces or queens. If he is consistent in the pattern, then you can begin to develop a counter strategy.
First, you need to know:
1. Will he also call all the way to the river with second best hands, ie top pair worse kicker? Will he call to the river with an underpair? Will he call with a flush or straight draw, heads up?
2. If you check your top pair, will your opponent check his set on the flop, the turn, or the river? If he will bet after you check, then you haven't done any worse than you would have done by checking an calling when he has a set.
3. If you check your top pair, will your opponent check his underpair, flush or straight draw behind you?
4. Will your opponent bet his set if you check top pair? If you are good enough figure out your opponent is betting a set when you check top pair and you are able to fold, then you don't need any advice from me.
5. If he is the type to check after you on the river, with two pair or a set, but will sometimes bet an underpair or busted draw, then you should bet through fourth street and check on the river. You can gain a bet there picking off his bluffs.
Against the opponent described in 1, 2 and 3, your strategy of betting out all the way is correct unless you think a check raise will work. An opponent who plays as shown is one who I would call passive.
Even though you lost this pot, consider that you have really gained.
In 100 situations where your opponent flops a set and calls all the way when you are betting top pair you lose one bet every round.
In 100 situations where your opponent flops top pair and you correctly raise you gain an extra bet on him. If the bet is $20, you are $2,000 ahead after 200 situations. That is a nice edge.
If your opponent, flops top pair or a set is predictable and passive enough to check to you when you have a flush or straight draw you can check too. You get a free card to try to beat him. You also benefit when you have an underpair. You gain in these situations as well.
The TWO PLUS TWO authors, stress the importance of understanding how your opponent plays, how well he plays and how well he thinks you play. Once you do that, you can develop a counter strategy to use against him that will benefit you in the long run as long as you are playing heads up and he doesn't change his play. If he does, then you must be prepared to observe his changes, and adjust your play accordingly.
Therefore, passive, predictable opponents are easy and profitable to play against once you understand them. Especially if you play against them over a long period of time.
Unpredictable opponents are the ones that I have the most difficulty against. I would be grateful for anyone's guidance on playing against them.
Mike Baum
David Sklansky has asked me to let everyone know that he will be out of town for at least 5 days, and will not be able to answer posts until he gets back. He is aware that there are some interesting threads developing and is disappointed that he cannot participate in them at this time. But he does plan to catch up.
In addition, I am getting a new computer system and will soon be out of comission for about the same length of time. You should here from me again towards the end of the month. In the meantime, I want to thank everyone for participating in this forum. It has been successful beyond our expectations, and all of us at Two Plus Two are thrilled with not only the quantity of posts but with the quality as well.
If anyone needs to contact either David or I please email Jessica Vecchione. Also, I hope to see many of you at upcoming BARGE.
Mason
I saw David S. at the Padre's game Thursday afternoon. He sat in Section P, Row A, seat K. He bet the beer man a bag of peanuts against a 20 ouncer that exactly 2..5 peanuts in the bag would be bitter, and 1.6 would lack salt. I noticed guy in a sequined karate suit with him. He appeared to be a singer. He knew more than one verse of the national anthem. "Well, that's all right, momma," he said, to a girl who bumped him getting to her seat.
I have a poor record at this form of the game and would welcome advice on how to improve. Typical conditions are:-
£10 buy-in for 500 chips for each of 40 starters. Unlimited number of buy-ins for the first 90 minutes.Thereafter, blinds double in value every 15 minutes. Blinds are posted on the button and the player to the left of the button. Play is generally loose in the buy-in period; my approach is fairly tight but in 90 minutes you don't get many playable hands and obviously if some of those hands are unsuccessful, you are rebuying and have a low chip status. Live low limit Hold'em is my best game but perhaps this reflects the amount of literature and software on the game. Any comments appreciated.
Dave James
Dave,
It could just be bad luck or it could be bad play, the two main reasons a person does poorly at a particular game. Since you study its most likely that you have not yet got a feel for the game. You could be playing too tight since the blinds go up so quickly. It is imperative to accumulate chips early so that you can make skillfull plays later on. There is nothing wrong with picking a hand and going with it multiway to try and get chips. Good Luck.
Ray,
Thanks for your response. Can you expand on what type of hands you would play multiway to achieve a rapid accumulation of chips during the rebuy stage ?
Dave
My thought is suited connectors, but I look forward to Ray's response. (I also play tournaments where the limits rise rapidly, and you must accumulate chips early to survive the middle stage.)
Dave,
I would prefer to find pots where a few players are in for a bet or a small raise and try to move in and win the pot there or just play it out and see what happens. If I was getting low in chips I might pick a decent pair or two big cards and move in still hoping to win my pots without callers but if I get called just play on. Other ways like stealing the blinds might get chips quickly especially when you get called and then win on the flop with another bet. Good Luck.
Dave,
Sounds exactly like the games I play in - are you playing in the UK ? I am no Hold'Em expert but I would suggest playing more drawing hands (Ax suited is good) and pairs and fewer big cards like A-Q offsuit.
My other point would be to consider Stud as well if it is available. I've found Stud to be much easier to play to start with and despite starting with no idea what I was doing six months ago I am even over that time and now quite confident in what I am doing (whether that confidence is misplaced remains to be seen).
Finally, I would recommend Pot-Limit and No-Limit Poker by Reuben and Ciaffone (sorry 2+2 guys :-)) as being the best book available for this form of poker.
Andy
Yes, I do live and play in the UK. This is frustrating because I would much prefer to play low-limit Hold'Em (based on profitable trial runs in Las Vegas) but Pot-Limit is the predominant game here. I have studied the book you mention and wouldn't disagree with any of it.
Andy,
Actually Mason reviewed the book you mentioned and gave it a 10.
Tom Haley
I'm form Germany and we play Poker once a week. We play "Dealers Choice" but most of the time the game is 7 Card Stud. There are six players and all of them play very poor and loose poker. No one folds till the seventh street. (except some rarely games) My Question is now, how is the best way to play in such a game. Tight up?
Marco,
Yes you need to play tighter than your opponents do. Hands that have all live cards go up in value in games with "too" many players. You do need to read some good books on 7 stud. Good Luck.
Well... loosen up but play tighter than your opponents. Specifically bet for value more, draw more... albert
If they are really routinely go to the river then old computer analysis results have merit. In this case, if memory serves, the average WINNING hand for 7 players in show down 7stud is trip 9s. I deduce from this that it is silly to try to MAKE an inferior hand like trip 3s. Two big pair goes from a great hand in a normal game to a drawing hand in your game.
Play lots of 3-draws and big pairs if there is little early raising; a wounded hand is OK if you can expect frequent free cards. If you cannot expect free cards then you need to play the big LIVE 3-flushes and big LIVE overpairs. Paying a lot to make a small straight which will often be beat is chip-a-cide.
Expect to win few, but large pots. Be patient. Play straight-forwardly. Chat.
Early 4-draws and trips will be your bigest money makers in this game and should be routinely raised. Raising with LIVE draws is not only strategically sound (so long as they'll call the double bets), it also makes you look "lively" which has positive political advantages in home games where you want to get invited back.
- Louie
How many of you have played and won the WSOP computer game? For a while I could make it into the money and a few times to the final table but I could not win. Then I ordered T.J.'s book and read it. The very next time I played I beat the game. I thought that that was interesting. The game is fun to play.
The WSOP Game is really easy to beat. Simply raise every single hand you play, wait to see if the programm bets on fourth street. A check here almost always means it will fold to a bet. I won the bracelet a coupl of times and got bored with it. When playing a "serious" tight game the game is harder to beat. The programm is fun to play, but easy to bluff. It plays extremely tight. Simply raise every hand, and play till fourth street, a bet there indicates a hand, a check a fold. Also the programm will pay the nuts big time. I actually find the Satellites more challenging and fun to play.
Spielmacher
Is this the game in which you run an initial stake up to 10000 by playing slots, BJ, poker, etc. and then enter the WSOP? Just to amuse myself, I developed a stupid way to beat it every time. When there has not been a raise preflop, i raise double the previous bet. If i am called, i fold at next opportunity regardless of my hand. The former steals enuf $ to win the game, and the latter avoids being busted by a bad beat. Before anyone responds, remember that I said this is stupid. I did it only to see if the game was so poorly developed that it could be beaten by stupidity.
I want to get other points of view and insight into runner-runner draws. Usually you don't have pot odds but sometimes...
The other nite I was in a tightish 9/18 kill game (~3 preflop). Then this hand came up. I'm on the button with 67 of spades. Three limpers to me and I call. I like my implied odds here and also mixing it up. But... SB raises, BB calls, call, call, middle position player reraises, I call, and SB capitola... all call. 24 sb preflop No short stacks. SB is a solid player (you're welcome Greg). This already the biggest pot of the nite.
The flop: AJ5 rainbow, 1 spade (I think it was the ace)SB bets, BB raises (I smelled field thinning here), everybody calls to me. There are 34 sb in the pot counting SB's certain call or raise.
Do I call?... well i did. In the heat of the moment I knew it was very close, but including implied odds it probably had positive EV. SB reraises (almost certain a set of Aces), everybody calls. 42 Sb after the flop. What do I have? - runner-runner straight and flush draws. Should I have called two bets cold?
Well in hindsight (mine is about 20/50), my call still wasn't bad, in fact +EV, IMHO. I figure that it is about 14:1 that I make a straight or a non-pairing flush. I did have pot odds to call two bets cold (34/2) but a reraise would cut that down below current odds. Almost all my straights are the nuts, and I would only like no-pair flushes. Granted higher flushes may be out.
I have a chance here to set the whole table on tilt. It's about 21:1 that I make my straight. All except a runner-runner 3,4 or 8,9, I see a multiple raises on the river. That's 4 - 20+ SB of implied EV. I can also get into a raising war for value on the turn if at least three or four others are in and a miracle 4 or 8 of spades hits the turn (6 straight and 7 non-pairing flush outs). I guess I fear the QT and/or higher spades as dominating some of my outs.
What happened? A red 5 on the turn, the SB bets, BB calls, one other call(?), and with my hopes shattered, I fold. River is a blank. Only BB calls the river. SB turn over AA and BB turns AT.
I dream of the putting the whole table on tilt with this type of play. Is it dreaming or an +EV play?
The set won't probably go too many bets when a wheel or a straight to the QT is possible. Both would have been able to call gut shot straight draws.
I usually try to stay away from these high SD plays. But I am trying to improve on that and recognizing +EV. Or is this an example of a zero EV high SD play? I'm still dreaming of an offsuit runner-runner 8,4.
Whatdya think? (Check my math)
Comments please...
Hoping I'm never drawing dead, Albert
Albert,
I feel like you got lock in pre-flop when you shouldn't have. I'm not sure but I think you are figuring your EV incorrectly. In figuring your EV you have to factor in the cost of hitting a flush, straight, or straight flush card or 4th and missing on the river. Something referred to as effective odds. I'll admit I haven't checked all of the math but I think you missed this.
Tom Haley
Albert,
I agree with Tom Haley. In TOP by David Sklansky, "effective odds - the real odds you are getting from the pot when you call a bet with more than one card to come" is defined as "the ratio of the total amount you expect to win if you make your hand to the total amount of bets you will have to call to continue from the present round of betting to the end of the hand."
In your case, over 40% of the time you will make the turn but miss the river [(12/47)*(42/46)] + [(10/47)*37/46)]. If you factor this into your calculations, it should produce a negative EV.
Etienne
Tom and Etienne,
Thanx for your comments. I do routinely calculate “effective odds’ when I am drawing to a runner-runner nut flush. Rarely do I think I have odds to draw to runner straight and flushes when I suspect top set is out against me. Unfortunately, I lost TOP in moving. But, I believe effective odds include implied and reverse implied odds. I may be wrong. Also I think Etienne’s formula is slightly off, it is actually worse for me, neglecting all the straight non-flush draws (6 cards for open-ended, 6 cards for gut-shots) and counting too many flush cards (only non-pairing flush cards are good, 8 not 10). Actually, I only make a draw on the turn 14/47 = ~ 30% (or maybe 14/45= 31%). ( But I will agree that it is close enough, ~ <1sb.
I also agree that I will be calling an almost certain bet by the small blind on the turn. However, if I hit my draw on the turn then I will make my longshot hand an average of ~20% of the time, 1:4. Remember also, I do get value from other “implied calls” on the turn. If there are 3 or more callers then my call on the turn is a wash or has positive “effective odds’ As pointed out before, a 4 or 8 of spades allows me to raise if everyone calls on the turn. Remember the field called two bets cold on the flop.
I also have implied calls or even raises by the set of aces on the river. I think this offsets any reverse odds to getting there. IMHO, still overall + EV and huge SD.
Whether I should call 67s an additional 2or 3 more bets preflop with 5 others in and on the button? I think it’s still an OK call.
Oddly enough, I think I had the second best or at least the third best hand in terms of EV after the flop. I am also about even in EV with any gutshot straight draw. I certainly had a lot more outs than the AT who raised on the flop, drawing close to dead.
Hope I am never drawing dead,
Albert
Another book you might wish to consult is, Elias, G "Awesome Profits, p. 186. His advice would be to go for it, given that you have the straight draw also. Also, if you have overcards to the flop. He does not discuss the effective odds, probably because the book is for new or intermediate players. Your analysis of the situation is very good. The effective odds are close. Trips will not likley win. And, perhaps most importantly, if you do hit, you are likely to put the table on tilt. Which may result in bad play by your opponents. Hitting a long shot will do more to throw off knowledgable opponents than bluffing them.They expect to be bluffed. Not outrun.
I asked a similar question a few weeks ago. "Three to A..." The reply I got from Stephen Landrum may still be in the forum. Very useful and backed by the math. The math suggests this is not a play that will do much for your long term results--as a pure play. But in the short term, like when you are well ahead, or well behind, sigh, it may be worth the risk. I would have done exactly what you did.
Albert,
You write :
< Also I think Etienne’s formula is slightly off, >
You're right. I now make it :
6/47*42/46 + 6/47*38/46 + 8/47*39/46
or 36.6%.
< Actually, I only make a draw on the turn 14/47 = ~ 30% >
I make it 6 for open-ended, 6 for gut-shot and 8 for non-pairing flush, giving a total of 20 and not 14. Have you excluded the gut-shot draws for a particular reason?
< However, if I hit my draw on the turn then I will make my longshot hand an average of ~20% of the time, 1:4. >
Here my calculation is :
[6*4/46 + 6*8/46 + 8*7/46]/20
or 13.9% (~1:6)
---------------------------------------------------
Considering the post flop situation only :
Probability of making flush or straight =
6/47*4/46 + 6/47*8/46 + 8/47*7/46
= 0.0592 (or 15.9:1)
There is 24 sb in the pot. SB calls, BB raises, everyone calls to you.
(i) Assume the SB will reraise. There's no guarantee that the BB will not reraise, but assume she doesn't. Also assume that everyone calls SB's reraise. You're getting 39:3 or 13:1 pot odds for your 3 sb. Not enough.
(ii) Assume the SB will just call. Now you're getting 34:2 or 17:1 pot odds for your 2 sb. Pot is now 36 sb. Assume you win X sb on the last 2 rounds of betting if you make the draw, and also assume the turn will only cost you 1 bb (2 sb).
Then your expectation (in small bets) is :
0.0592*(36 + X) + ***making the draw***
27/47*(-2) + ***missing the turn***
0.366*(-2 - 2) ***hitting turn, missing river***
= 0.0592*X - 0.4817
For the expectation to be positive, X has to be greater than 8.14 sb or 4.07 big bets. This is certainly attainable in this situation - so it looks like you made a good call. (If, though, you were 100% certain that the SB would reraise, then you shouldn't have called.)
Etienne
Etienne, Thanx for the clear analysis! I needed help as I posted in a fog.
You are right I wrote 6+6+8 but added on my fingers to only 14, oops…
<= 0.0592*X - 0.4817 For the expectation to be positive, X has to be greater than 8.14 sb or 4.07 big bets. This is certainly attainable in this situation - so it looks like you made a good call.> I’m glad, I can sleep better now.
< (If, though, you were 100% certain that the SB would reraise, then you shouldn't have called.) >
I am not so sure about this. For 3 bets on the flop I get from your notation: 0.0592*(42 + X) + ***making the draw*** 27/47*(-3) + ***missing the turn*** 0.366*(-2 - 2) ***hitting turn, missing river*** or x>11.8 sb or six BB
I am almost guaranteed X>6 BB. The set of Aces bet on the turn and my call, x=2. The bet on the river and my raise and his call x=2+4. More likely at least 1or 2 callers caller add 2-6 BB maybe more Likely Reraise and my cap on the river, add 2-6 BB maybe more Likely X>12BB?!?!
It looks like I might be able to cold call 4 sb with every one in on the flop?!?!? Or certainly 2 bets cold on the turn. Boy , the tilt value I would get from this would be great (for months!).
Also, I think we have almost by definition X>=4BB. X=4BB would be: Set of aces bet on the turn, everyone folds, I call. The Set checks and calls my river bet!!!!!! (Although X=0 and removing the -EV term: we both check the turn and river!!!!!!!!!)
Of course we are neglecting: -EV: higher flush draws a QT another 67 Raises from a made wheel or Ace high straight on the turn
+EV Raising for value and deception when a miracle 4 or 8 spades on turn Putting the Aces all in and sending him home when it comes 8,4 offsuit!
Still it probably is too high of SD vs EV for my bankroll. Of course my first analysis took 2 seconds... Thanx, It’s been helpful for future runner-runners. Next time when there are 7 players in– watch out!!!!
Hope I’m never drawing dead, Albert
Albert,
I'm glad you can sleep better now! There is one thing to clear up about X though. It's the money won and not, as you took it, the total put into the pot (ie. deduct your bets). So the heads-up scenario you describe with the Set is X=2 big bets and not 4 big bets. And you write :
< For 3 bets on the flop I get from your notation: 0.0592*(42 + X) + ***making the draw*** 27/47*(-3) + ***missing the turn*** 0.366*(-2 - 2) ***hitting turn, missing river*** or x>11.8 sb or six BB >
The last subexpression should be 0.366*(-3-2). This gives X>18 sb or 9 big bets.
You've described how 9 big bets could be reached in your post - still you'd want to be sure it's the average scenario. So, I'd summarize it as 2 sb - go for it, 3 sb - question mark. Now if there were 7 players in ....;-)
Etienne
In general, a draw that includes both a back-door flush and a back-door straight is about the same as a draw to a gut-shot straight. So most of the time this type of call would have been an easy one to make. But not this time.
If you think that you are drawing against a set, or the board is paired, and there are still people to act behind you, then I believe you should have run away as quickly as possible. Also, the two overcards of A and J suggested that there may be raises and re-raises. After raising once the blinds have no reason to put on the breaks the second time that the betting gets to them.
Suppose that after wading through all of that, you manage to complete your flush on the river, only to have it also pair the board. You would have been the one to go on tilt. Finally, this is a great example of why high pocket pairs, 99 and above, are so valuable in games that are, or become, very loose.
Martin Maughan
Albert wrote: "Oddly enough, I think I had the second best or at least the third best hand in terms of EV after the flop."
Well, all I can say is thank heavens none of that EV came through this time. I had already had a flopped set of AAA cracked in the 20-40 game, I didn't need it to happen again.
Thankyou, thankyouverymuch.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
When trying to put people on tilt, I have found it is best to be working on one opponent at a time. You have correctly identified the double backdoor shot as a candidate hand for its tiltability though. Suppose you have one opponent, position, and are checked to on the flop. If you bluff bet, get called, and are lucky enough to turn a card which gives you a draw, then you have a transpositional free card play available if you are checked to again on the turn. Instead of having the draw on the flop, missing on the turn and taking the free river - you miss on the flop, pick-up the draw on the turn and get the free shot to complete it. From your opponent's perspective you have just hit runner-runner in a heads-up situation. You don't get to the showdown very often, but when you do against an aware opponent you have maximum tilt value.
In Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players on page 14, the authors suggest occasionally playing a hand like 7-6 suited in an early position, even in a tough game to keep your opponents from stealing against you when "rags" flop.
I am curious if the proper mix would be to decide to play a different suit each day. The hands I am considering are 10-9, 9-8, 8-7, 7-6, 6-5. On Mondays I would play them if they were diamonds, otherwise not. Tuesdays it would be spades, otherwise not. Wednesdays hearts, etc.
Based on the above, I believe I would be playing a small suited connector up front about once in every 265 deals. Is my math right?
Are there other hands that should be considered too? Is this too much, too little or about right?
Any comments, suggestions, criticisms are welcome.
Mike Baum
Mike,
You write :
< The hands I am considering are 10-9, 9-8, 8-7, 7-6, 6-5. On Mondays I would play them if they were diamonds, otherwise not. Tuesdays it would be spades, otherwise not. Wednesdays hearts, etc.
Based on the above, I believe I would be playing a small suited connector up front about once in every 265 deals. Is my math right? >
Let's say it's Monday. You will be getting dealt {T9d, 98d, 87d, 76d, 65d} at the rate of about 1 in 265 deals (5/1326). However you will be in early position 30% of the time only (using S&M's HPFAP early position definition for 10-handed game p.16), so you will not "be playing a small suited connector up front about once in every 265 deals." It's more like once in 884 deals.
< Is this too much, too little or about right? >
It would seem too little.
Etienne
Etienne,
Thanks for clearing that up. What hands should I add? Or would you suggest a different method?
Mike Baum
Mike,
If I understand you correctly you want to make it harder for opponents to read your hands by using the day of the week to randomize your play. I think that playing these hands is dependent on the type of game you are in. I think "randomizing" your play of these hands in the manner that you suggest has some merit against aware players. Against poor players they will not take note so the value of the unpredictable image you are seeking to project will not be worth a lot. I still think that your judgement is the key in determining when to play these types of hands in early position. I am not sure but I believe that David Sklansky covers this topic in his seminar video. Perhaps when he visits this forum again he will give some more information.
Tom Haley
Mike,
Tom has suggested,
"that playing these hands is dependent on the type of game you are in. Against poor players they will not take note so the value of the unpredictable image you are seeking to project will not be worth a lot. I still think that your judgement is the key in determining when to play these types of hands in early position."
I couldn't agree more with this assessment. I think that about sums up the correct method in determining whether or not to play hands of this type.
While varying your play is essential in any game-- it's even more important in a short-handed game with highly skilled players. If you play in a lower to middle limit ring game-- I see no reason to play cards in a "non-ABC" manner-- against all but the tougest opponents.
I tend to think that most typical, recreational players lose the most money in hold 'em by playing way too loose "up front"-- but that skilled players who could otherwise be significant winners-- lose a tremendous amount by playing way too tight and throwing away too many hands for one bet in late position-- and/or especially in the blinds where they may be getting 8 or 10-1 in a raised pot.
The computer sims I've run suggest that you do better if you never play these hands up front. I know that's not the point of the original post, but to say that playing just one suit is not enough may be going too far. How often would be enough? I think if this group is a loser if you played them all, then playing one-fourth of them for advertising and/or defending purposes would be enough for me.
Some words of encouragement...
I'm regarded as a tight player in my regular game who wouldn't normally play this group of hands in early position. The other day I raised (first-in) with 9dTd and it was capped back to me. The board came 6c7c8s, Ah, 4d and I was paid off big time by AcQc and another player(unknown). I was able to cap it again on the flop because no one would put me on anything close to the flop with my pre-flop raise+ my table image. Good luck!
Ian,
You write :
< The computer sims I've run suggest that you do better if you never play these hands up front. I know that's not the point of the original post, but to say that playing just one suit is not enough may be going too far. How often would be enough? I think if this group is a loser if you played them all, then playing one-fourth of them for advertising and/or defending purposes would be enough for me. >
Playing a hand that will occur once every 30 hours I agree is enough for your regular game. Everyone will remember what Ian did last week (or 3 weeks ago). When I said that playing 1 suit "would seem too little", what I had in mind was an 8 hour casino session with strangers - clearly you're not going to be doing much advertising at this frequency.
From what I can recall from Mike's previous posts, because of his locale he participates mainly in regular games. If that is the case, then I agree that his "suit a day" policy would be adequate.
Etienne
One more metod play if river card was 2-5-7-Q if it is to much than 4-8-K. You gays get idea?
I think I see a couple snags here. First, with hands like these, you're only going to get to the river once every- well, what, eighty, one hundred hours- frankly, I'm not sure, except that it won't be that often. So, in order to get the desired 'advertising value' out of these little gems, you'll have to fold them 'paint up' for the rest of the players to see your hand. The problem, then, at least if you're playing against solid bunch who are familiar with your playing style, is that they'll all 'know' that you're only doing this to throw a wrench in the table. Not because this is the general type of play you're prone to making. If the rest of the table knows this, and suspects that you're only going to make this play once in a coon's age, then they're unlikely to 'put you on' something this weird when the flop comes up rags. Advertising, I think, works best when the rest of the table doesn't know your advertising.
Secondly, there's the fact that you're chances of winning diminishes during the hands when you'd most like to play something like a 67s. When everyone's in for a raise or two, you can be fairly sure that a) there's a hell of a lot of come hands out there, and that b) a fair number of these are probably suited. Again, if it's a solid bunch, most everyone's mucking dominated hands, like K4, and there probably aren't five or six AA, KK, QQ out there (although, who knows, there may be). That leaves us with alot of hands like yours, namely stuff like T8s, 87s, 44,etc. The problem with this is that, with a lot of pre-flop 'rags' being played, you're chances of flopping a nut straight, a full house, a flush draw, etc. goes down, since there's a good chance that the cards you'd like to see are already in play. Further,since there's going to be some suited hands out there, you've got to worry about getting your flush, only to have it second best. Of course, a lot of this is offset by the fact that you're getting proper pot odds, but by playing this hand you're already swimming upstream, and this is another obstacle in your way.
One thing you may want to try is playing something shaky, like K9, and raising when it gets to you. You may pull top pair, and if the flop comes up Kxx, you have what is arguably the best flop to try and bluff everyone else off their hands. A stunt like this would also work best against only one or two other players, and since the game you describe sounds pretty tight, you'd probably run across this scenerio more often.
Good luck. And remember- drawing dead is a lot like high school; neither a time, nor a place, but a state of mind :)
Guy
Thanks to all who have responded to this post. I found everyone's discussion and contributions illuminating. Its fascinating to see other peoples viewpoints. It stimulates creative thinking.
As Etienne pointed out, I play in home games against the same people several times a week. Even though these are not superstar poker players, my style of play is very solid, but aggressive. I raise a lot with hands like AK, AQ, AJ whenever my judgement indicates its appropriate. I vary it by limping in sometimes with these same hands. Either way when "rags" flop my opponents don't expect me to be playing something like 6-7 up front. I am trying to strike the right balance so they won't be sure I'm bluffing if I bet into a rag flop. I want to keep them off balance.
Tom, I loaned my copy of Sklansky The Video to a friend, but I will review it as soon as its returned. The reason I chose the day of the week scenario it because of something Mr. Sklansky said in the video. He said, when an opponent asked why you raised with such a hand, you can respond... Well because its Tuesday!
I find tricky, unpredictable opponents are the most difficult to play against. I hope to achieve the best of both worlds. Creating some belief in the weak players mind that I'm one of the boys. Hopefully, they will give me more action with their weak hands. I also hope to give the sheriff's more hope that I'm bluffing when I raise before the flop and bet it through the river. I hope they call me all the way to the river when I'm betting AA or if I hit two pair, a straight or flush with 76s. I also hope to create some doubt in strong players mind that they can steal from me with impunity when I raised from an early position and "rags' flop. I also want to create confusion in strong players minds, that I must have a strong hand to raise up front so that they may misplay their hand accordingly.
I got lucky like that the other day in a situation similiar to what Ian did. I raised under the gun with 76d. A strong player raised me. (He prides himself on reading hands.) A couple of players called and I called. The flop came 6-6-3 rainbow. I knew the strong player probably had Aces, Kings, or Queens. I bet out, the strong player raised, I raised, he raised, I called. I checked the turn, he bet, I check raised, he thought about raising, but just called. I bet the river and he called again. He had Aces (just as I thought) and was stunned, that I had raised UTG with 76d. He asked why. I told him because it was Monday. He never would have given me this much action if he thought it was possible I had a 6. He was sure I had Kings or Queens and played accordingly.
I know this is a rare event, but it was sure fun when it happened. The strong player is much less aggressive and more predictable against me now. The weak players ate it up and now give me more action when I raise and bet all the way through with a big pair.
I agree with G.D. that it doesn't make much sense in a casino where the players don't know me.
In my regular game, if I raised before the flop with 76s UTG , missed the flop and bet all the way to the river and wasn't called, I wouldn't show it because I like picking up these pots. If called I would show it, but I would be very careful about bluffing again.
Thanks again to everyone for your comments and discussion.
Mike Baum
Mike,
There is a complementary video to the one that you mentioned regarding a seminar that he held. You are referring to the same passage that I was thinking about and it occurred during this seminar I believe. Therefore you may want to pick up the video for the seminar. I think it's about $30.
Tom Haley
Just a few points (some of which others also have made) for you to consider.
First, raising pre-flop in early position with hands like 87s makes the most sense in tight games. If you raise only with premium hands, a heads-up opponent (who is aware) might take a ragged flop as an invitation to steal the pot. But most home games aren't very tight. Indeed, they tend to be quite loose, usually requiring the winner to showdown the best hand to take the pot. In such games, the other players in the pot protect you from these ragged-flop steal attempts, because the would-be thieves know that even if they bluff you out of this pot, they are unlikely to get everyone to drop.
Second, most home game players are not very aware. Many of them are unlikely to realize that your tight pre-flop raising standards probably means the ragged flop didn't help you, so they are unlikely (or no more likely than usual) to attempt a steal. Furthermore, these types of players are unlikely to remember your 87s pre-flop raises. Afterall, 87s is a good hand to them! Raising with them isn't noteworthy, and it might be something they do themselves. So what if you were in early position; they don't understand the concept of position.
Third, the aware players often will recognize that your early-position pre-flop raises with 87s are for advertising purposes. If they are inclined to steal those ragged flops, raising pre-flop in early position with low cards once every 250 hands (and showing down once in a thousand) is unlikely to slow them down.
Fourth, why do you want to discourage players from bluffing at you when you raised pre-flop? If they are doing this too much, then you simply call them down more often with your AKo hands (which might hit on the turn or river or might be good enough unimproved) and trap them with your premium pocket pairs (check-raising on the turn or river). It's usually hard to win decent-sized pots when you raised pre-flop from early position and end up against a small field. Having someone frequently bluff at you is one way to build a good pot.
Fifth, there are better ways to get action if your early position pre-flop raises are folding everyone. If all your opponents know you have AA, KK, QQ, AKs, or AKo, then loosen your raising standards. But start by adding hands like JJ, TT, AQs, AQo, AJs, AJo, ATs, and KQs. Don't begin with 87s.
There is a better way to keep opponents from stealing against you when you have early position, it is called checkraising. If you're going to play 76s up front, then you must bring it in for a raise if the reason you're playing it is to keep opponents from stealing on raggedy flops. No one should respect a limp because that's what they expect hands like middle suited connectors to do. If you are a threat to checkraise on the flop, you won't need to be as concerned with keeping the competition off balance.
I just purchased Mike Caro's "Professional Hold'em Report", and I have been scanning over the starting hand charts. I have noticed some differences in starting hand strategy between Caro's report and Sklansky and Malmuth's advanced Hold'em book. Caro's charts are much more detailed, but are they accurate? Why do the differences exist, and which starting hand strategy should I use? Thanks in advance for answers to these questions.
Mike W.
Mike,
If I remember correctly Caro's hold'em report doesn't provide a lot of pre-flop scenarios with his starting hands chart. He categorizes the action before you in limit hold'em as:
1) Only the blinds active
2) Calling or routine raising.
3) Heavy raising.
Accoring to Caro, routine raising is one raise in limit hold'em. I'm not sure that playing against someone should be the same whether they are calling or routine raising but this is what he seems to advocate. I don't think it is right to play the same but I suppose it would depend on the raiser. Perhaps I interpreted his report incorrectly. It would be interesting to listen to other comments.
Hold'em for Advanced Players covers a lot more pre-flop scenarios and with the passage of time I've come to appreciate the chapters on pre-flop play a lot more. I think that the discussions of playing in the blinds is very good in this book.
Mike Caro is a frequent contributor to the USENET group, rec.gambling.poker. You may want to post your question there and see what kind of responses you get.
Tom Haley
I call your attention to the stated position that Caro's report is a COMPLETE strategy: follow it all or ignore it all. This means that the suggested play of, say, QTs applies only if you are following the entire chart completely. Do not quote excerpts from those charts.
The inflexibility of Caro's charts erases any advantage it MAY have over 2+2 in the really tough games. For typical games it is inferior; especially since you have to memorize the hole dang thing.
The best parts of Caro's Holdem Report was the supporting paragraphs.
- Louie
Stud eight or better, no-ante, 2-10 spread limit on all rounds, $2 bring-in Stealing is not worth the risk, so I should discard low pairs in most situations. I should also be more careful when limping in with a weak hand early, since I might have to fold to a large raise. The highest pair on board should go up in value, since it is easier to narrow the field with a large early raise. Also, you can really penalize a weak low draw right from the start. Without a real starting pot, there should be fewer chasers and many more heads-up pots. In such heads-up pots, unconnected low cards are very dangerous, since they can fail to qualify. The better lows, like three low cards to an ace or a low 3-straight or 3-flush should significantly increase in value, since scooping becomes the only way to make a real profit if most pots are heads up early. On 4th street when the pot is unraised on 3rd, I should fold most lows (to a large raise by a big pair) if I miss, since I will not have odds in the pot to keep drawing. Is the above correct? Which lows are strong enough to call a large raise by the high hand (when there is only the $2 bring-in in the pot)? With the high hand, when the pot was raised on third and there is now $12-6, when the only opponent is a low hand that catches a brick on fourth, is it right to bet the maximum or do I raise $4 or $5 to try keep the low in?
J.
Mostly very correct. When limping you do have to fold for the large raise but if you get by with it the betting later on is much larger than your original investment.
Calling the high hand works with all the better lows if you can outplay him on later streets.
When the low busts out you must bet the maximum to make him pay or let him go as there are too many ways for you to lose at least 1/2 the pot. Good Luck.
The real key to success in spread limit Hi-Lo:
do many of the players with big pairs bet well under the limit and allow marginal lows to develop into straights and flushes?
When playing $1 to $5 Hi-Lo, $10 on the end I often see players betting $1 for some reason. These clowns allow other players to draw out cheaply, then raise $10 on the end if they make a hand.
$2 to $10 spread limit with no ante sounds like a great structure if enough players underbet good hands in the early rounds.
Obviously putting your question in a table format does not work. Sorry - Calvin
In a game where eight or nine people see most flops, is Kx suited playable in an unraised pot in late position?
Dan,
Yes, but you needed to say that the players behind you are unlikely to raise. Good Luck.
I don't really like Kxs, even in "loose" games because I think the implied odds are much lower than for Axs: 1) If you flop a four-flush and have 3 or 4 callers, you can't build the pot by raising and reraising since you aren't drawing to the nuts; 2) You may miss bet(s) after making a flush since you have to fear a reraise from the possible Axs; 3) If you *FLOP* a flush or make one on the turn, even the unsuited Ace will be sticking around to chase you down; 4) Axs can also get hit pretty hard with some two-pair flops or pair + straight draws with the 2-3-4-5 kicker.
Because of the above, I will only play the Kxs if I am really bored or feel the need to play "something" so I look like less of a rock. It is also imperative to have a pretty good read on the players to know how far I can push the hand.
If it's loose/passive I'd even limp with the KXs up front.
I would too. But not where the pot is getting raised as mich as 40-50% of the time. Of course, you might define that as loose-agressive rather than loose-passive. If the raise was only going to happen 20% I'm in there. Do you have a dividing line for such a decision, in terms of pre-flop raising frequency? I use 20-25%.
If the game is loose, agressive but unlikely to be three bet before the flop, I would call the raise without hesitation. The implied odds are enormous.
It's just a feel for the table conditions that determine if the game conditions are right to play speculative hands like KXs up front. It is very hard to describe what makes a game no-fold'em, but most players can recognize such a condition when it exists.
In a loose 4-8 or 5-10 Omaha-8 game, how is it best to play in the SB? Should the calling standard be roughly the same as in late position, since hands either have multiway value or they don't, or can other hands be played when you are only calling half or 60% of a bet? Would a dry suited ace or a dry 23 or a dry pair of tens or queens be worth playing for a half-bet? The two situations in particular: Unraised pot, seven or eight people in Pot raised once, four or five people in
Dan,
Omaha is a four card game and hands with just two cards of real value need good reason to play. As more people are in the pot the greater the chances the nuts will be the winning hand. Please do some more reading as all the situations you suggest probably call for a fold. Good Luck.
Is 29s39s whorth a call in small blind in unraised pot?
Yes but you need an ace and another low card on the flop. You would fold if you weren't in the blind. Don't expect to win the high half with the 9 high flush draws either.
Ray et al,
I respectfully disagree. With 23xx, you flop made-nut-low (3.5%), trips or full house (3.2%) or nut-low-draw (3.5%). These are not big hands, considering that you can be counterfeited, quartered, or just plain beaten by better hands (with the trips). Even so, all of these hands have positive expectation after the flop in a loose game. If a whole pot is worth 30 bets (typical), the chance of flopping the nut low is worth your call almost by itself. In many such games, the player in the BB has never raised, and so you can count on a cheap call.
The same logic holds for TTxx, by the way. I calculated the pre-flop value of TTxx as .75 bets, using what I think are reasonable assumptions. You have pot odds to call 1/2 bet if you know you won't be raised.
Conclusion, call in the little blind with all those hands.
Ray, if I have made a mistake here, please correct me.
Randy,
Bad position must be counted in here. The times you make the nut low and split your half or get drawn out on the end by someone catching one of your two low cards really puts you at such a disadvantage in the play of your hand. If I felt no raises were coming and everyone plays where they dont squeeze you out and pay off with real bad hands maybe I could make a case for it. The high hands at least can scoop the whole pot but they are just too weak and you get punished when possible straights come and higher trips. Good Luck.
>Omaha is a four card game and hands with just two cards
My thinking was that maybe a hand with a small chance to make the nuts might be playable for a half-bet. Those combinations have lock potential, but are not worth a full bet. (and might not be worth a half-bet.) In normal situations, a hand with unconnected cards is unplayable, except for very late position or the strongest combinations (e.g. A23x, A2xx in a loose game, maybe A3sxx or AAxx on the button for one small bet)
When you call in the small blind for 1/2 a bet with a marginal hand, most of the time you will fold on the flop. These are long shot hands that you sometimes get to play cheaply, but you don't want to call a raise with them when you will be first to act in every betting round.
Mr. Sklansky writes in part, in The Theory of Poker on page 125:
"Depending on the size of the pot and your assesment of your own and your opponents hand, it may be correct to raise with what you believe may be the second best-hand if you can get the third, fourth and fifth best hands out."
I had a situation come up today playing at the Horseshoe in Shreveport, that I felt at the time was appropriate.
Situation: 10-20 hold'em, with $5-$10 blind. I am in the big blind with Jd-Js. This is the first time I have played here and the first time I have played with any of these players. I have been playing tight for the past six hours. I won three pots early with good hands, then stole two pots , shortly thereafter. I haven't won a pot since. I have had very few playable hands. When I did, I missed the flop. I bought in for $500, I was up $150 early, but have been dribbling away every since. I am now down to about $200 in front of me.
UTG, solid player limps in, an aggresive player in second position raises, next player calls, the rest of the table calls to me. There are eight players in the pot at this point. I reraise with JJ and all call. Pot $240.
The flop is beautiful. Jc-8h-5c. SB checked, I bet out with top set, UTG called, original raiser called, the next player raised, all others called to me, I reraised, UTG and original raiser folded, next player reraised me, all called, I reraised, he raised, all called, I capped it and all called. Pot is now $610.
I evaluate the possible hands I am up against in this seven way pot as follows:
Flush draws, straight draws J10, 67, or possibly Q9, 97, 96, 46, 24, 32, 43, a set of 8s or a set of 5s, overpair AA, KK, QQ, two pair or something like AJ or KJ.
The turn card is nasty, 3c completing the flush and/or the straight for someone playing 42.
If the flush or straight isn't completed, I could be up against AA with the Ac, KK with the Kc, or QQ with the Qc. There are still multiple straight draws possible and if the underset hits, I will have top full, but will be against quads. I decide this is the time to continue to try to thin out the field with my probable second best hand, especially since I have redraws. I would be happy for everyone to fold, but if I can get the straight draws, underset draws, or overpair draws out, I can improve my chances of winning a big pot especially if the flush or straight isn't currently completed and I still have the best hand.
I bet, the raiser raised, three people called, I reraised, he reraised all called, I capped it, the raiser and one other called. Pot $920.
The river was the 2c. I checked, he bet, the in between caller folded and I called. Given the size of the pot, I felt it was necessary to call with the pot laying about 47 to 1, even though I was almost certain I was beat.
I know I played the hand extremely aggressively. I bet or raised at every opportunity. At the time it seemed risky, but the best plan.
I would appreciate everyone's input, suggestions, comments and criticisms.
Mike Baum
From your description of the play, there were five (or six?) players in the game at the turn. You had nine outs for the full house and one out for quads with 46 cards left. If your raises did not drive any on of the players out, your odds are still good (i.e. one out of 4.6 to get five).
I am recognizing that the reraiser on the flop is betting like he had trips or two pair and that possiblity takes away two (or three) of your outs. That assumption does reduce your odds, but I beleive your play was still correct.
As for calling on the river - what else could you do?
First, where is this game where you get 7 callers on a capped flop? Put me on that list.
There are lots reasons to raise with probable second best. The first is to ask your opponent the question, "How good is your hand, really?" When a pre-flop caller helps you cap it on the flop, and raises you when the flush comes, against 7! callers you've got to know he has the flush. When he helps you cap it on the turn, you've got to know he has the ace-high. I think it was a mistake to reraise the turn, however, so you should not have known that he had the ace-high.
Another reason one might raise with second best is to make sure your hand is the best if your draw comes in. That is not an issue here. If your hand hits, it will be the best. (At least, you're not likely to drive out the lower sets, and only 1 card hurts you against them anyway.) On the other hand, you might get a couple of raises if someone hits their two pair for a lower full house, so you don't want to drive them out.
When the fourth club hits on the river, I don't think you can call. If you had not capped it on the turn, maybe there was a chance he was on something else. Then again, you were there. Maybe you knew the player could have been on tilt, or was simply nuts.
If you were planning on calling on the river, why didn't you bet it out? You represented the ace-high flush the whole hand. Your only hope of winning was that either raiser had the king-high flush or a straight, and that he would fold to the ace-high flush draw. At 47 to 1, he wasn't likely to lay down a winner (you're a tight player and you didn't lay down a loser, after all), but the chances of him folding a king-high flush were much better than the chances of him showing you a worse hand than yours after your call. If he reraises you, muck it.
If you are convinced that you have the second best hand and the raiser has made the flush or straight,then reraising on the turn trying to thin the field does not make sense to me. Field thinning works best when you can get out the hands that would beat you IF you made your hand. If you fill up, you are likely to have the best hand and would welcome all the extra draws on the turn and lower full houses on the river. Quads are a very remote possibility. Besides the lower set that fills up is likely to pay you off the most.
You may have a weak argument for raising the turn for VALUE. I don't like it tho. many of the callers would be conterfeiting your fullhouse or quad draws.
Bet the turn and just call the raise from the made flush.(From your post, I'm assuming you think the flush is out there and you have the second best hand.)
Save your field thinning plays for situations when you can get out the possible better hands when you both make your hand.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
First, I think it's a very good sign that you're thinking about situations meriting a raise with a second best hand. Many players never even get to the point of considering this kind of play, much less correctly recognizing opportunities for it.
My thoughts would be pretty much in line with the things Albert said. Just a couple of additional minor considerations.
You write, "I bet, the raiser raised, three people called, I reraised, he reraised all called, I capped it, the raiser and one other called. Pot $920."
Are you saying that two of these three callers stayed in for *four* big bets, but then *folded* for the fifth and final bet? Wow. Anyway, after they called the first two bets cold on the turn, I certainly don't think you could have expected this result from additional raises. And as others have pointed out, you didn't have to worry about others beating you if you improved. So a major reason for raising with the second best hand was absent.
But there just *might* be an unusual justification for thinning the field here. (Or for *wanting* to. Understand that, as I suggested above, there was little indication that you *could* thin the field after the first raise on the turn.) The pot was so big (over 900 in a 10-20 game) that I wonder if trying to thin the field could be worth it solely to insure that your hand remains best on the slim chance that no one yet has a flush and no club comes on the river. (i.e., you hope to drive out straight draws and overpairs.) I don't know...maybe. Anyone else have a thought on that? At any rate, given the action, it didn't seem realistic to expect to do so.
John Feeney
John,
You write:
>>But there just *might* be an unusual justification for thinning the field here. (Or for *wanting* to. Understand that, as I suggested above, there was little indication that you *could* thin the field after the first raise on the turn.) The pot was so big (over 900 in a 10-20 game) that I wonder if trying to thin the field could be worth it solely to insure that your hand remains best on the slim chance that no one yet has a flush and no club comes on the river. (i.e., you hope to drive out straight draws and overpairs.) I don't know...maybe. Anyone else have a thought on that? At any rate, given the action, it didn't seem realistic to expect to do so.<<
I believe that you could estimate your expectation for the various ways to play the hand. When estimating your expectation for trying to thin the field; you would have to estimate the probability of your play thinning the field, the chances that you have the best hand, etc. and calculating your expectation based on that. I was going to it myself but I didn't find the time last night. I would think that estimating your expectation with one card to go in this situation wouldn't be too complex but maybe I am underestimating this task. I wanted to respond before this thread got to far down on the totem pole so to speak.
Tom Haley
Tom,
You're right. I don't think it would be too tough to calculate a reasonable estimate, looking at the elements you mentioned as well as the chance of someone drawing out on you (assuming, say, that there is one straight draw and one overpair against you). I'm just too lazy to bother, especially because in this case the chance of thinning the field after the three players called the first two bets cold on the turn would have to be assumed to be negligible.
But after thinking a bit more about this hand, I concluded that if there *were* a reasonable chance to thin the field (and if you felt there was some reasonable chance that no one yet had a flush), then trying to do so would very likely be correct. I don't even think you have to do any math. That pot is just sooooooo big, that spending a couple of extra bets to reduce the chance that someone takes it away from you on the river would surely be a good investment.
John Feeney
If you couldn't calculate it last night then how in the hell are you going to do it in the heat of the battle at the poker table.
I think you miss the point. There are lots of poker situations too complex to calculate on the spur of the moment in a game. But working through the math away from the table can have benefits such as a) generating a better understanding of such situations in the future and b) helping to determine whether or not one's judgement in the heat of the moment was accurate - which also has benefits for future play.
JimmyR,
I didn't say I would.
John writes:
>>But there just *might* be an unusual justification for thinning the field here. (Or for *wanting* to. Understand that, as I suggested above, there was little indication that you *could* thin the field after the first raise on the turn.) The pot was so big (over 900 in a 10-20 game) that I wonder if trying to thin the field could be worth it solely to insure that your hand remains best on the slim chance that no one yet has a flush and no club comes on the river. (i.e., you hope to drive out straight draws and overpairs.) I don't know...maybe. Anyone else have a thought on that? At any rate, given the action, it didn't seem realistic to expect to do so.<<
If read this more carefully you may notice that John is posing a question that he is not sure of the answer to. The context that this question was asked in was away from the poker table, evaluating strategy options. Therefore it is very reasonable to assume that I was explaining how he could evaluate his strategy options away form the poker table. Apparently you got the mistaken impression that I was advocating estimating expectations for the various ways to play a difficult hand "during the heat of battle." In the context of John's question and my reply I think it is very obvious that I was not suggesting anything like that. All of us from time to time are careless and impulsive. Hope this helps clear things up for you. Perhaps you have an opinion on how to play the hand. Any suggestions and how to speed the decision process during the heat of battle is much appreciated.
Tom Haley
>>I believe that you could estimate your expectation for the various ways to play the hand. When estimating your expectation for trying to thin the field; you would have to estimate the probability of your play thinning the field, the chances that you have the best hand, etc. and calculating your expectation based on that. I was going to it myself but I didn't find the time last night. I would think that estimating your expectation with one card to go in this situation wouldn't be too complex but maybe I am underestimating this task. I wanted to respond before this thread got to far down on the totem pole so to speak. <<
I can't add anything to what the previous posters said about your play but would like to ask your opinion of the cardroom at the Horseshoe in Bossier. I'm from the Dallas area but haven't had the chance to play in this room yet. Can you give us an idea of what it's like? How are the games? Is it well run? Thanks.
Leigh Davis
Leigh,
This was my first visit to the Horseshoe at Bossier City. I heard about great action games there on the weekends, both at $ 4 - $ 8 hold'em and $ 10 - $ 20. All the table were full. I arrived about 1000AM and was seated within 15 minutes. I've been told if you arrive much later on Saturday or Sunday you can't get a seat for six hours. Most of the people on my table were good players. One rich lady sat in for a while. She was good for the game. There weren't any really bad players in the game. There was lots of action. The hand that prompted this post was unusually action packed. If you play regularly in Dallas games you'll probably see some people at the Horseshoe you know.
Good Luck, Mike Baum
Thanks for the info. I'm going to try and get over there in August. You're probably right about the wait. When the Isle of Capri had a poker room, the wait was that long on Saturday.
Regards,
Leigh Davis
God, Mike, what a hand. I hope you won it.
A couple things. First, I'm curious as to why you raised pre flop, since with all the prior calling action the pot odds now justify just about anyone calling with whatever weird draw they have. Doesn't seem like you've got a good shot here at significantly thinning the pre-flop field.
Secondly, I think you can put the raiser in question (that is, the fella (?) three seats to your left) one of of three hands, and probably on a nut flush draw.
First, let's examine the options. Given his postition (early middle position, I'd say, athough some may argue) I think we can eliminate the possibility of two offsuited connectors. Of course, I can't be sure of that, but it certainly doesn't feel right. This, I guess, is a possibility, although a slim one at the turn, since he/she
a) didn't pick up the straight on the turn, and
b) all the club flush draws ( I think we have to assume there's at least one out there) did make their hand. Further, if the raiser doesn't have the flush, he's got to assume that someone else does, which means he's drawing dead. So the possibility that he's drawing for a straight seems, at least by now, pretty slim.
Another possibility, and one that makes more sense, is a set of eights.But would he continue to raise on the turn with three clubs on the board, and with players still behind him? And would he bet on the river with a set of eights? If he's a solid player (and for arguments sake let's say he is) then he knows that you aren't going to call him on the river unless you can beat his set (particularly with four clubs on the board). I guess I just don't see why he'd get in a raising war without top set when a flush looks possible (and probable) after the turn.
Which brings us to the third possiblity, that being either a 9T of clubs or an Axc. Overall, I like this best. I makes sense for him to call pre-flop, since he's got a great draw hand, and when the flop brings two clubs he's still getting good pot odds for as many raises as he wants to make.Further, with the clubs he's got to be terrified that someone flopped a set and that the board might pair- hence, he tries to scare out all the full house draws. the 9T also needs to be considered, but I wonder if he'd be so eager to re-raise without the nuts.
I think we can eliminate the possibility of an overpair, since he would have probably reraised preflop with AA or KK. QQ may be it, but I can't think he'd stay in like that when he may be drawing dead. I say drawing dead, because he's got to consider that maybe you've got pocket A's or K's (since you raised in the BB) or that the guy to his right has the same, and if either of those big pairs includes a club he's basically doomed. All of which brings us to the next point, which is-
I think he probably had you for a set of jacks from the start. I disagree that you were representing the nut flush from the start, since you probably wouldn't be raising in that position without AKc or at the very least AQc.Plus, if HE had the nut flush draw (which I think is likely) then he obviously didn't put you on the same. The question, here, is whether or not he's got the nut draw or not- and if there's a greater than fifty percent chance that he does than you've got to figure he doesn't have you on it.
But what can you do? The pots so big by the turn that you've got to hope he's got a set of eights, and simply grit your teeth through the river. Whether or not you should have reraised on the turn I don't know, since that pretty much depends on what kind of players you're up against. If it's a bunch of yahoos that are hell bent on calling to the river with a pair of 5's (like the crowd I play with) then you're not going to thin them out. If they're solid, then there's probably a chance of at least getting rid of those pesky gutshot draws. However, since the pot odds by this point justify staying with just about any draw out there, maybe not. I guess it just depends on the table.
Hope this helps. And I hope you won it.
Guy
Guy,
"First, I'm curious why you raised pre-flop, since with all the prior calling action the pot odds now justify just about anyone calling here with whatever weird draw they have."
I raised pre-flop because there were two people in for single bets and five people in for double bets. If some fold, great that leaves some dead money in the pot. If they all call, I'm getting 7 to 1 on the bets and its about 7.5 to 1 against flopping a set. When you add the small possibility that the jacks may win unimproved played through the river or if there is only a single bet on the flop and I catch a Jack there, I think its a bet with the best of it.
With all the betting and raising on the flop, I put the raiser on either a smaller set or the flush draw. In Supersystem, page 572 the chances of being dealt any pair is 5.88% The chances of being dealt any two suited cards is 23.53%.
Pair of 8's 5.88% Pair of 3's 5.88% Total 11.76% for pair. 23.53% 2 flush makes my opponent a 2 to 1 favorite to be on the flush draw. I have the nuts on the flop; therefore, I didn't stop raising until the cap was reached.
When the 3c came on the turn I was a 2 to 1 underdog, but I have a 3.4 to 1 chance to make the full, if I don't have the best hand.
I have a 11.76% probablility of having the best hand and a 29% chance to draw the full house which I hope will be good if I hit it. There are four people beside myself calling the first four bets on the turn. Even if you eliminate the possiblity I have the best hand I am getting 4 to 1 on these bets and am a 3.4 to 1 underdog, so again these bets should have a positive expectation. With all the raising going on I was hoping that the raiser was in there with a smaller set, and that a small made flush might fold thinking he was drawing dead. (I belive some tight players would make this mistake). I have found that being hyperagressive with big draws as Mr. Wells and Mr. Nardo discuss can cause your opponents make mistakes on the hand you're in and possibly mistakes on future hands because they are confused. I think it also satisfies the craving for action that many players have. Its fun, but with a sense of danger. If the live ones never have any fun, why would they come back?
Upon reflection, my capping bet on fourth street with only two opponents was a mistake.
As far as if the yahoos were staying with underpairs or something like a pair of 5's against my top set, then its fine with me if they stay since they are drawing dead (unless they have one club in their hand completing the flush when the fourth club falls on the river).
I hope my math is right. Someone please point out the error(s)of my ways if I haven't calculated it properly. Perhaps Tom or John will post the correct method. I posted this hand to try to learn something from the experts and try to improve my game.
Thanks to all for your intersting discussion on this unusual hand.
Mike Baum
Mike,
Hey, I really am too lazy to do the math. And it's far from my forte in poker. But here's how I would set it up. (I may well overlook something here, but at least the method should be clear.)
Taking the situation on the turn after you've bet, been raised and three players have called:
First I'd stipulate some assumptions: 1)Assume a certain chance that the raiser has a flush. Since you've seen a lot of the action already I wouldn't just go with the chance he was dealt tw suited cards. His raise on the turn, IMO, makes him maybe 90% likely to have a flush. 2) Assume, say, that one other player has a straight draw, one an overpair, and one a hand like AJ.
Then I'd look at what you make if you play the hand out 100 times without raising, assuming you will call two bets (one on the turn, one on the river). e.g., you will fill up ~20% of the time (Here you'd assume 9 instead of 10 outs becuse the AJ takes away your quad possibility.), collecting whatever number of additional bets. So you win that amount 20 times. Then you figure that of the remaining 80 times, 90% of those times you pay off and lose because the guy has a flush. Of the remaining 10%, you figure the chance that either the straight draw or overpair is going to draw out on you. (I'd do it as David S. shows in _Getting the Best of It_, as a reverse parlay where you look at he chance that no one draws out then see what's left over... Then look at what you'd lose on those occasions and win on the occasions where they don't draw out.............Then do the same thing playing the hand out 100 times with a raise, making sure to account for the extra bets you collect (making whatever assumptions you want about their calling or not calling the raise) when you fill up, and the ones you lose when you don't etc.
See why I don't want to crank it out? Perhaps someone else can provide a more concise formula, but I think this is the basic underlying reasoning.
Mike,
The following is some of the math John was too lazy to do.
You write :
< With all the betting and raising on the flop, I put the raiser on either a smaller set or the flush draw. In Supersystem, page 572 the chances of being dealt any pair is 5.88% The chances of being dealt any two suited cards is 23.53%. >
Ignoring the flop for a moment, the probability the raiser has any pair is indeed 5.88%. However the probability that he has a specific pair (like 88) is only 0.45%. Similarly, the probability of him having any 2 suited cards is 23.53%, while the probability he has 2 clubs is 5.88%.
Your analysis, though, is postflop so we can't ignore the flop. In other words, the probability of getting 2 clubs preflop is 5.88%, but given that the flop is Jc 8h 5c, the probability of a particular player having 2 clubs is less than 5.88% and can be calculated using Bayes' Theorem to be 4.15%. In a similar vein, the probability of a particular player having a set of eights, given that J85 flopped, is not 0.45% but rather 0.23%.
< Pair of 8's 5.88% Pair of 3's 5.88% Total 11.76% for pair. 23.53% 2 flush makes my opponent a 2 to 1 favorite to be on the flush draw. >
That now becomes 0.46% pair, 4.15% 2 flush, and a 9 to 1 favourite to be on the flush draw.
< When the 3c came on the turn I was a 2 to 1 underdog, >
Does that make you a 9 to 1 underdog now? I don't think so. One should be careful when drawing conclusions regarding an opponent's hand based solely on the preflop relative frequency of (only) 2 different hand types. Add to this the fact that not all 2 flushes should be considered as suitable for inclusion - the raiser is more likely to be holding Axc, KcQc, JcTc and QcTc, and less likely to be holding Jc7c, 9c4c and 8c2c, just to give a few examples.
< but I have a 3.4 to 1 chance to make the full, if I don't have the best hand. >
The chance of a full (or quads) is 10/46 or 3.6 to 1.
< I have a 11.76% probablility of having the best hand >
See comments above.
< and a 29% chance to draw the full house which I hope will be good if I hit it. >
You apparently took the reciprocal of 3.4 (1/3.4) to get 29%. To convert odds to a percentage, add 1 first. So our 3.6 to 1 (instead of 3.4) becomes 1/4.6 or 21.7% chance of improving to full house or quads on the river.
< There are four people beside myself calling the first four bets on the turn. Even if you eliminate the possiblity I have the best hand I am getting 4 to 1 on these bets and am a 3.4 to 1 underdog, so again these bets should have a positive expectation. >
I have run into this "betting round odds" concept a few times on this forum. As a newcomer to the game, the only poker theory book I have read is Sklansky's "The Theory of Poker". I don't recollect any mention of this subject in the book, nor have I seen it in HP or HPFAP by S&M. Presumably the topic is covered in other books, but the fact that David Sklansky regularly reminds us not to make any decision without looking at the pot first, may be the reason for its (apparent) non-inclusion in his book(s).
It would be nice to spend some more time looking into this hand, as outlined by John Feeney, paying special attention to your betting strategy for different probable scenarios, and the resultant EV's. Of particular interest would be the application of The Fundamental Theory of Poker, and, in this case, Morton's Theorem.
Now, make everyone's day and tell us he was holding 8d8s.
Etienne
Etienne,
>> ..highly interesting mathematical analysis snipped ..<<
You write:
>>I have run into this "betting round odds" concept a few times on this forum. As a newcomer to the game, the only poker theory book I have read is Sklansky's "The Theory of Poker". I don't recollect any mention of this subject in the book, nor have I seen it in HP or HPFAP by S&M. Presumably the topic is covered in other books, but the fact that David Sklansky regularly reminds us not to make any decision without looking at the pot first, may be the reason for its (apparent) non-inclusion in his book(s). <<
You have brought up an interesting point here. By Mike's reasoning he was getting 4-1 on a 3.6-1 shot so the raise was +EV. However that doesn't mean that this was the right way to play it. Or does it? I agree one has to take into account the size of the pot when deciding on the right play. I also agree that this "betting rounds" odds concept does come up quite often as the determining criteria for making a play.
You write further:
What I get out of what you and John are saying is that because a play had +EV it doesn't mean it was right. This is because an alternative play could have a higher +EV. In this hand it probably wouldn't happen but I could envision a higher EV for some hands by check-calling on the turn and check raising on the river when you make your hand. Obviously how well you can read hands and the ability of your opponents must be factored in.
In this case it was almost a certainty that one of the opponents had a flush and it was just as certain at least one player got locked in and was drawing dead or close to it.
Tom Haley
Tom - Etienne - John
Thanks for the math. I appreciate your posts. The reraiser had AQc. I lost the pot, threw off a lot of bets needlessly and as you have pointed out incorrectly. Nevertheless, I have learned a lot from your comments. Tomorrow is another day. It's all one game. I expect to do better next time.
Best of luck to you all.
Mike Baum
I made a play a couple of nights ago that is bothering me.
I was in the big blind with A-3o. Five callers, no raisers, I check.
The flop is A-K-8 rainbow. I bet. All call. The turnbrings another A. I check, all check to button who bets, I raise. All fold to button.
The button then looks at me and show me the case A (he hides his kicker). He then asks me "can you beat this?". I reply "yes". He folds.
In that casino, commenting on the value of your hand is against the rules, but then so is showing one's cards - so we ere both violating the rules. Nobody cared.
I realize that I was not being honest, he probably had me beat so I guess I was angling - a practice I find distasteful. However, I also find it distasteful when players ask about or comment on the other players' hands during play (they are usually looking for tells).
Where do I fit on the moral continuum ?
PS - please don't comment on the actual playing of the cards. For this table, I believe it was the right play and I don't want to spend alot of time justifying the hand.
look at it as a good bluff using words instead of chips
Everywhere I've ever played the rule is that basically "anything goes" as far as table talk and exposing cards as long as it is a "head up" situation....And I agree that this is correct. (For ring games only of course...not tournaments where every player has an interest in the outcome of every hand)
I think you did nothing wrong...in fact I think your opponent had A2....he could not have folded otherwise.
Where is this casino where it is against the rules to comment on the value of your hand in a head up situation?
If the player was STUPID enough to fold on your say-so, he deserved it... Even if the player knew you VERY well, it was stupid to show his hand. He might as well have said " I don't want your money, and I'd like the chance to fold now". Was he expecting the truth? Did you do him a favor earlier? (I doubt it)..
I think his kicker could have been anything below an 8, by the way- not just the deuce. His kicker doesn't play with the turn Ace; if you hold 8 or better he's beaten.
If he folded a kicker any higher than 7, he IS a moron. Just be thankful, don't feel guility at all...
Dan,
I agree with Jim Mogal that the button probably had A2 (or A2s). He had already put you on Ax (x being higher than 2) and had, IMHO, decided to fold even before exposing his ace and asking his question. I think this latter action was more to show you (and the table) that he was capable of a tough laydown. This, coupled with the more obvious "ask a stupid question" principle, should make your conscience 100% clean.
The button, however, was getting 9 to 1 from the pot - he needed a K or 8 to share the pot (your preflop play eliminates your having AK) and a 2 to win, making it 6.7 to 1 (6/46) against his winning. (In fact, if I was the button I would also discard AQ and AJ as your possible hole cards, so both a queen and a jack on the river would also get me half the pot, thus making me only 3.6 to 1 (10/46) against). So it wasn't a tough call - it was a very bad one.
Etienne
In the last sentence it should read "tough fold" (and not "tough call").
I agree that the likely hand was A-2. I like your analysis of what it would take to win half the pot, but paying even money when the odds are 3.6 to 1 against is usually not good business; since he is shooting for a split pot, he's not getting 9-1, he's getting a 4.5-1 price, discounting implied odds.
Still, a call was correct, since the odds were not 3.6 to 1 against. He's got 3 deuces to win it, so 3/44 (6.8%). Using your analysis of what would split, he can hit K-Q-J-8, odds of 14/44 against (31.8%). At 38.6% win or split, he's only a little worse than 3-2 dog, so it's clearly a call when the pot is laying 4.5-1. Even better, he'll get paid off if he hits the longshot deuce.
[Note that if you "know" what your opponent holds, this lowers the number of cards out against you, thus my 44 instead of 46; I also count 4-Qs, 4-Js, 3-Ks, and 3-8s to give 14 outs]
On a more philosophical note, I've never understood why players want to show the table how tight they are playing. Good laydowns are tough decisions and the only ones that should be rewarded when doing so is the one playing the hand.
Earl,
You write :
< but paying even money when the odds are 3.6 to 1 against is usually not good business; >
I didn't understand what you meant by the above.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but our different results are due to different definitions. Precisely because I'm looking at full pot units, my outs are 3 (deuces) plus 7 (14, for QJK8, divided by 2 because only half a pot is won) giving my 10/46. I therefore have no need to convert to 4.5 to 1, as you did, and can still use 9 to 1. Put another way, for any given scenario, we'll both come up with the same decision.
Etienne
The quote above was an intro into a snipped comparison of situations in hi-low where you are shooting for half of the pot. While I lost my train of thought, the idea I was seeking to point out was that *generally* we don't pour full bets into a pot seeking only a split.
However, it's true we come up to the same decision; I was merely pointing out that your analysis appeared to put the A-2 at closer to a difficult decision than it really was. This is a personal issue: in a limit game, while I use "rough" math, I'm rarely interested in making a very fine-line mathematical decision, nor could I see criticizing someone who made a marginally bad call or fold. Small percentage situations -- even when a correct decision is made -- will increase your variance tremendously and your profits minimally. (Before I get flamed by the "+EV" crowd, let me note that unless you have the resources of a casino you cannot endure the swings generated when playing for a small percentage "win".)
The intriquing part of this particular hand is that he should commit to discard the hand on the river when he misses his outs, although I think a lot of players will pay it off on the river if they call on the turn. Apparently this was such a player, and he knew that if he called on the turn that he would stay committed to call on the end.
A possible reason for players showing the whole table their difficult lay-downs: They don't believe they play all that well, and are looking for positive feedback. "Gee Charlie, that's a tough fold, you must be pretty good to make a play like that." By all means reinforce this behavior with a similar comment each and every time this player shows the table his cards.
Great observation. These type of people are insecure and need positive reinforcement so that you can continue to steal their pots. Every time this guys lays down against my semi-bluff or weak value bet, I muck my hand and tell him "good fold, I had an overpair, or good fold, I flopped top two, or nuts, I din't think you would fold and I had the nuts."
The last thing I want a reputation for is the ability to make a tough laydown. I guess my hand reading skills are not so great that I want to encourage people to take shots. I think it was Crazy Mike Caro that said that you can't afford to have the image of a calling station, but it is a great image to have.
Showing your cards once in a while is no big deal. I do it on occasion and it has the effect of making people try to run over me. I think it can also irritate your opponents and sometimes put them on tilt when you dont pay off with a big hand. I get some free cards I am not otherwise entitled to when people know I am capable of laying down a big had because they want to try and trap me.
I have seen all kinds of players show their big laydowns on occasion. I saw Bobby Baldwin lay down two aces face up several years ago when the final WSOP tournament was down to three tables. He raised before the flop got one call and was check-raised big on the flop. He showed his hand and folded. Big deal. (I put him on aces by the way and was glad he showed it to confirm my read. I also would have folded in that paticular situation.) Sometimes a player will sit there and think about how he should have played the hand to make more money, often times causing an error to occur in the future in the form a of a free card or a smooth call.
There is a HUGE difference between showing a laydown in the final stages of a million$+ no limit tourney and a low limit game. In the tourney at theses stages, I'm sure even Bobby B. would be happy to win the blinds and antes uncontested with AA. You can show them to advertise "MY pre-flop raises should be respected, and even if you do hit the flop, I won't necessarily blindly pay you off." I think BB might have also been saying: "I don't just take a shot at the pot if you check to my AK on a ragged flop." But both of these "angles" send the message you want at this stage: I BET, YOU FOLD! (Unless you have a monster)
In the limit game, all you are saying is: "Take a shot at me and I'll only play back if I have the nuts." Since I make a lot more marginal hands than nut hands, I would rather be the one trying to run over people. Or getting to show down these hands with a moderate investment.
Earl,
You started a good discussion about showing your cards. When a player shows a laydown or shows a winning hand when no one called that player is trying to get the other players to believe something about their playing style that they themselves don’t think is true. A lot of situations where a player shows their hand have provided me with a lot of insight into how they play or confirmed some suspicions about them. All I have to do is figure out what they are trying to convey and realize that it isn’t true. The only exception to this is when somebody is doing it for ego reasons which always seems to be easy to distinguish. Personally I don’t think there is a lot of profit in showing your hand to fool people and showing your hand for ego reasons is negative EV imo.
Tom Haley
I love it when someone gets Aces cracked by an obvious flopped set/two-pair/straight, then proceed to lose four big bets on the turn, another two on the river, and then slams the Aces face up into the muck. They are practically screaming: "Look at my poker SKILL! I had ACES, damnit!"
The board on the turn is A K 8 A. Any kicker duece through a seven will play the board. A duece is no stronger or weaker than a seven or a three here. If one opponent spikes his or her kicker on the river, they win. Otherwise it is a split pot irregardless of the river.
Mike
Mike,
You write :
< The board on the turn is A K 8 A. Any kicker duece through a seven will play the board. A duece is no stronger or weaker than a seven or a three here. If one opponent spikes his or her kicker on the river, they win. Otherwise it is a split pot irregardless of the river. >
What you say is correct assuming the button knows that the big blind's kicker is a 3 (or less than 8). Lacking this information, and using my previous analysis, the button will be glad to see a Q or J on the river as it protects him against a possible A9 or AT.
But you raise an interesting point. Because the preflop betting was unraised, it would be reasonable to assume that the big blind was holding anything from A2 till AT, each with equal probability. 6 out of those 9 possibilities (A2 - A7) make the button an equal favourite. This would confirm Earl's statement that it wasn't such a difficult decision to make.
Etienne
Thanx for the comments. I want to be clear that I do not feel guilty about winning the pot. That was the point of the raise (or in the alternative, showing the table that I might check raise with mediocre hands).
I know that the player was asking for it when he showed his hand and that I didn't instigate the angling.
I prefer to play a good solid game rather than resort to trickery, but I suppose if someone wants to be tricked - what's a boy to do?
Why did you bother to answer his question? Did you know he was preparing to fold? Just let him call and bet out again on the river.
I'm assuming that he did it to guarantee his win. A runner river could beat him with a full, whether the moron held a A2 or 7 or less...
It's the same as betting or raising an obviously reluctant player. If you give me any chance to make you fold, I'll take it (without the nuts). I don't resort to some of the sleazy ploys that I've heard about, but if you're going to initiate an opportunity for me to lie to you and make you fold, you deserve what you get
What prevents the angler from actually having an ace with the best kicker instead of ace with the board? No action has been taken when the angler is still fishing. Suppose when Dan says he can beat an ace, the angler throws in a raise; where is Dan now? My point is that it is probably best to say something like "the bet's to you" instead of answering the question truthfully or not.
I agree with you ONLY in the case where you haven't considered already what you'd do if: a) there's a raise b) there's a call
"the bet's to you" could mean anything, probably forcing the moron to call. You'd rather have them fold with such a weak no-match kicker....
Poker Digest is shown as a 'favorite link' at this site. Is this mag legit? They don't even have an email address at the site, only a subsricption form to take your money. How can I get a sample of this mag in Chicago? Thank You!
Poker Digest is for real, and their first issue is out and available. They had it at a local cardroom, and I was going to pick up a copy, but I spaced and didn't that day. Next day all copies were gone.
Cover of the first issue has a shot of Thuan "Scotty" Nguyen at the WSOP, where he took first place in the main event this last May.
Sometimes in Hold'em when I limp in early or middle position with a hand like QT, KT, AT, AJ and there is a raise immediately to my right and 5 or 6 people stay to see the flop (including the blinds) and I flop top pair, is it usually a good idea to bet first and expect the preflop raiser to raise and thin out the field? you know that he might have a bigger pair or top pair higher kicker, but still you would like to keep the action heads up, right?
i was just wondering what other people thought about this, when I play in a 6-12 or 10-20 game I will do this every now and then. However, sometimes when I have flopped say top pair and have a backdoor straight or flush draw I wouldn't bet into the raiser but rather check raise. Is this a good idea to vary your play?
Any comments welcome,
carlos
From your description of the raiser being "immediately to your right" I am assuming you mean immediately to your left and he is acting directly after you.
I would bet on the flop in that situation. I agree that I would want to thin out the field. If he raises, I would raise - to see if he was serious.
If the pre-flop raiser was closer to the button, I would check-raise him.
I meant immediately to my left..
carlos
If I knew that the preflop raiser had, say, JJ, while I had QT with a ten-high flop, I would not bet into him. I've got 5 outs, and if I hit one of them I'm quite likely to win even against many opponents, so I'd much rather keep them in to support my draw.
On the other hand, if my opponent had AK (while I still have QT on a ten-high flop), and he would raise with it, it would be in both our interests, I think, for me to bet and him to raise in order to drive out the two pair draws and straight and flush draw-draws. (Draw-draws are draws to draws. You have little hope of getting rid of the 4-straights and 4-flushes that are already there.)
All in all, I would be inclined to check, hope that the preflop raiser checks and that someone in late position bluff bets (suicidal, but they do it) or weak value bets, and then I'd check-raise to hopefully drive out the preflop raiser and other overcards and draw-draws.
But the biggest piece of advice I can give you is to avoid the problem altogether! Don't play hands like QT and KT (offsuit) in early or middle position - they are losers. Also, offsuit aces like AJ play best with a raise, and AT is questionable in early position. You can play QTs and KTs in early position in loose games. IMHO.
-Abdul
First, Abdul's advice on not getting involved with trap hands should be completely understood and followed. You may see everyone else at the table play with KT, QT, and AT up front, but they are either long term losers or they are just screwing around. I am assuming that you were at a full (ten handed) table. These hands become playable from early position when the game gets shorthanded since they end up second best less often. Even shorthanded I would prefer to come in with a raise rather than limp. You are in a bad position, in front of a pre-flop raiser who is not likely to be raising in an attempt to steal the pot. If you were seated just after him and he bet the flop, then you could raise with a hand you don't figure to be the best at the moment. Just because someone raised before the flop is no guarantee they will raise when you bet into them on the flop. If you are able to checkraise a late position bettor on the flop and the player on your left makes it three bets, your top pair - mediocre kicker looks like garbage to me (must hit one of five outs right there on the turn). With trap hands, if you aren't able to reduce the field to two other players before the flop, you then do not have the semi-bluff bet as a strategic possibility on certain flops. This is very important since it may be your only way out of the hand. Therefore, when five or six players cold call a pre-flop raise and you catch top pair with QT, you've got to be prepared to check/fold.
Thanks for responding.
It seems to me that the best advise in that situation is, as Abdul said, avoid it all together. However, there are times when you get trapped with a hand and you just catch say top pair and you want to get rid of the draws, so maybe then even if you might be beat by the pre-flop raiser you can take a chance and bet..
carlos
Carlos said:"you know that he might have a bigger pair or top pair higher kicker, but still you would like to keep the action heads up, right?"
If this is the case your a big dog. With extra outs (flush draws straights etc.) You might play on...but it seems to me to be a losing proposition most of the time. If the cards are off suit, that means your only good draw would be a 3-card flush or straight on the flop, in this case if you don't have the ace, (with 5 or 6 callers) your probebly dead. I agree with Abdul: avoid playing these hands altogether from early position for exactly the reason you decribed above. They're not called trouble hands for nothing. Good Luck
C.J.
First, let me thank everyone in advance for their commments-- any and/or all which are deeply appreciated.
Situation:
High Limit Omaha 8/Better, Full Game
The pot is raised by an extremely aggressive player under the gun who has a tendency to tilt. He has just lost the previous pot and happens to be stuck.
Only one other person calls the two bets in middle position-- also an agressive, loose player.
I'm in the big blind with J-10-10-x single suited.
I call the pot-- and the flop comes J-J-rag and I check raise both of them on the flop and end up scooping a big pot.
The player who called in middle position-- criticized my call pre-flop.
Here's my rationale for calling.
I'm getting approx. 5-1 on my call.... slightly under what I'd need to call simply in terms of flopping a set.... I know that if I do make a hand against these two players in a raised pot-- Im gonna make a huge pot-- and Im gonna scoop. Not to mention-- it costs me one bet-- and I can VERY EASILY get away from the hand-- EVEN if I flop a hand, but am drawing to half the pot.
Thanks for taking the time to offer any opinions. I appreciate all comments.
Jimmy,
I think you made a good call. The pot was being played short handed, there was enough money in the pot to call from the big blind imo, you knew it was going to cost you only one small bet, the UTG has a good chance to be steaming, and you have a hand that you can get away from pretty easily if you don't hit it. I know I am repeating some of what you said but that's how I would be thinking about it here.
Tom Haley
"The player who called in middle position-- criticized my call pre-flop."
This is typical. You win the pot and someone criticizes your play. When will it ever end. If they couldn't beat jack-ten then what the hell are they BOTH paying off with in an Omaha 8 game!
Let's say you had 9-7-7-2 all offsuit. You flop three nines and still scoop the pot. Technically this is a bad call. BUT WHO CARES! In this case why on earth would anyone point out your mistake? Wouldn't they want to ENCOURAGE MORE of this type of behavior? Morons. Complete morons.
Jimmy,
Its most likely a fold unless the players are really bad. Even with 3 jacks you can be out kicked so easily and have to play from bad position. I dont think 5 to 1 is enough to play with such a poor hand against aggressive people. Good Luck.
My two cents:
I think you have sufficient implied odds to make the call. You'll hit the 10 twelve percent of the time, and this is probably gonna put you in the driver's seat against two opponents. You also have straight equity and a little flush equity, plus random flops such as the one you hit. Furthermore, most of the time, if you do hit the flop, you're going to have a good chance at scooping since high flops are the ones that are going to hit you. I don't see anything wrong with paying to see the flop with no threat of a reraise behind you.
I agree with George and disagree with Ray. I would go one step further than George, though. Treat on-tilt raiser as if he is in the blind and the caller limped: reraise preflop. UTG will probably raise it again, and you might lose the caller. You are probably will lose him when you bet out the flop (no matter what hits.) When he called 2 bets originally, he expected more callers behind him. He won't like his hand against a raiser unless he makes something.
JT2Ts is a favorite against the random hand that you put OTG on. Once you're heads up on the turn, either check it down or push, depending on whether or not you hit the flop. And trip Js constitutes a hit, heads up, no matter what else is out there.
Can i put in last raise? My hand is (4d,6d)3d,5d,Kd,8c. My oponent board is 7h,4c,7d,2s.
Well, I'm definitely traversing out of my forte on this one, but I'd also definitely say yes. You don't have the nuts in either direction, but you are a lock to win in one direction or the other, and free-rolling on the side where you don't have the lock (if your opponent has a full-house, you have the low; if your opponent does not have the full-house, but has the low, your flush is good; and excellent chances that you have the scoop).
Hello everyone. Just found this forum on the net.
As to the hand Boris explained, I am assuming that the game is 8 for low qualifier and I have one question. Are you heads up with your opponent or are their other players? If you are heads up, then you can literally bet your house and everything that you own because you know that the worst that can happen is that you will split the pot. The only theoretical hand that could scoop you would be an A high flush/7 for low, assuming that you hit a blank on the end.
Notice that is impossible for you opponent to have this hand or even a draw to this hand with his up cards. So if he shows any kind of betting strength he either has a full house or a seven low with a straigth draw. You have a flush made to beat his theoretical straight draw and a draw to a 6-5 low. If he has a full house he cannot have a low. You have a low made for a split pot and an open-end straight flush draw for a scoop.
If you can and are heads up, get into a raising war with your oppoment. You are free-rolling on him; ie. you have a sure split and cannot lose, however you have a small chance to win it all and he has NO CHANCE to win it all.
Earl is right as always and Ted our new poster is also there. Boris ofcourse knew the answer before he posted as he is working our minds again. Good Luck Guys.
In HLSFAP basic strategy section: ace-trey with nothing else should usually be discarded in early position, but is often playable in later position. Elsewhere in HLSFAP (I think "loose games"): a hand containing ace-trey, suited up if possible is a playable hand in a loose game. HLSFAP basic strategy section: generally fold an A3 low draw on the flop without redraws. With redraws, generally continue. Clearly an A3 with two high cards, or A34x is a playable hand, especially if the ace is suited to one of the other cards. With the weaker A3 hands, how do I rate the strength of the redraws to know if there is enough value to continue? With one-gap straights, backdoor flushes and top-two pair drawing to fill, it is difficult to get any idea about the value of those draws. In a very loose game, should the weaker A3 hands be discarded pre-flop, even in good position or for no raise?
J.
I would play ace,3 in weak loose games in spots where it is unlikely to get raised. Back door draws have a % value. You add up these values and get a rough idea of your extra chances of winning.Good Luck.
J.
I think that another point that is discussed in the book, that applies here, is the idea that even though your playing against poor players and the decisions tend to be easier than in hold'em there are situations where you must play poker well. To me this means that one of the really important skills is reading hands so that you know who is going low, who is going high, who is likely to have a really big hand etc.
You write:
If you play poker well in these spots by reading hands well you can better decide how to play your hand.
Tom Haley
Ray how powerful is the advice on no-limit hold'em in Supersystem towards no-limit tourny's? I ask this because I have just ordered it. Iwas gonna play in the World Poker Finals at Foxwoods but the Taj has scheduled the U.S. Poker Championship during the same time! I have decided to play at the Taj. I will be entering the $500 and the $1000 tournys. I do not have the time to be there for the whole thing, which means that I will miss the satellites. I can't wait to see how effective my new super agressive style will be.
Taj may blink first and reschedule though. Nothing is truly etched in stone with this battle between these two casinos.
Good Luck Joe. If you are referring to Doyle's book it was not written for modern tournament strategy. However anything he says is great food for thought as when you can get into Doyle's mind you will be rewarded with a goodie.
Joe-
Why the change from your super tight/aggressive style to just super aggressive? I have found that a gear-changing style works well, particularly in rebuy or long-format tournaments. If you play super tight in the early rounds you can establish some respect that allows you to push people around later when it really counts. Of course, this style can get spoiled by a table change and tends to work better in longer-format tourneys or if you are playing with the same people on a regular basis.
By the way, I think the most powerful no-limit concept from S/S is the play of medium suited connectors against predictable players with likely big pairs or big Aces. However, you have to be willing to really push the action if you do flop two-pair, a big draw, or a funny trips. As RZ mentioned, this style works better in a ring game than a tournament since you will leak alot of chips and may get busted out by a "BAD" call when you do flop something. Also, I think people play much more aggressively before the flop than when the book was written, so it is hard to get in cheaply enough against Aces or Kings. Maybe iI will see you at the Taj, I am still deciding which event to play. I will probably play the $300? and $500 NL H'E and possibly the $500 limit.
in the book- the biggest game in town- doyle is quoted as saying he use to not have to have any cards to run over a game because nobody ever called his rather large bets, but now that he wrote super-systems he gets called more because people figure he is bluffing- now he has to hold some cards to win. he further is quoted as saying that he wishes he had never written that book. that being said, it is still difficult to call a 10,000 bet when all you have is one pair, even if you thing your enemy might be on a draw- difficult but not impossible. if i had ak and flopped an ace or king, and stuey raised me id be inclined to move in on him because he is so aggressive id have a better then even chance of catching him out of line. however if someone i didnt know came overtop my play at the flop i would be more inclined to give it up.that being said the stuff in super-system is the bible that lays the groundwork for no limit hold em- dont forget to modify your game plan with the other fine materials published since- ie. t.j., bob, tom etc.
how often 4 low cards to open end straigt-flush will win against trips heads-up? exampele 2-3-4-5 suted against 3 Kings.
65%
Is it ethical to peek...if...a player next to you is constantly (though inadvertently)exposing his hand?
I think that taking steps to try to peek in unethical. If people do this, it will slow the game because players will have to take extraordinary steps to cover their hands.
In the case where a player is exposing his cards, and I can see them, I usually give the player a warning that he is doing so. I will also tell him that if he does it again, I won't tell him and use the information to my advantage.
I look, but I try to take a quick look at my cards first. If I have a hand I plan to fold I don't bother peeking since it won't help me.
I'll immediately tell the person to watch his hand. If he keeps it up, that's his problem
Actually it is not just "his problem" as loconti says but rather a problem for the other players as well. The issue comes down to whether you believe poker is an honorable game or an easy way to make money without being productive.
Usually a player who continually exposes their cards is new to poker and very careless in their approach to the game. This is exactly the type of new player we need more of in order for the serious players to succeed. Thus, for a seasoned player to take advantage of the exposed cards is not only unethical but counterproductive in the long run for all of us. Even the careless neophyte will eventually notice that they are making this mistake and that someone has been taking advantage of them. Unfortunately, this may often result in the player feeling that he or she is swimming among sharks. Their natural instinct will be to swim in safer waters (perhaps back to the slots) and be turned off by their initial experiences at the poker table, perhaps never the return.
The more enlightened approach is to wait for a subsequent shuffle and politely and diplomatically mention that the player is esposing their hand. If the player is receptive you can show them how to protect their hand without slowing down the game. They may feel a little embarrassed for a moment but they should get a positive impression of their fellow players. Hopefully they will become long time customers and spread their loses among the many at a sustainable rate.
A couple things should be mentioned. First, this is about the only lesson I will ever give at the table since I don't believe giving unsolicited advice at the table is good for the game. Secondly, I do confess to taking advantage of exposed cards when the player is the type of person who displays extremely abusive and/or nasty behavior. There just aren't too many opportunities in life where one can apply instant justice.
Two nights ago, I was playing in a relatively loose 5/10 holdem game. I was stuck, but not by much.
I was dealt AA in middle position and raised - two callers including the button.
The flop came, A-8-10 - no flushes. I check raise, the button raises me back - I cap - one follower.
To make a long story short, the turn and river cards came up as 3-5 no flushes. I was raising all the way on the turn - heads up with the button - til the river.
He exposed an unbelievable 4-2o for the straight.
That was tough enough but then he went into a very long and sarcastic comment on my playing ability while giggling in a very annoying matter.
After that, I believe that much of my playing was based on revenge - and I predicatbly lost more money.
A bad beat does not normally put me on tilt - but this particular player had an effect on me.
I would like to hear from others who have had similar things happen and what they did to keep their emotions from ruining their game.
I have always believed that the best way to achieve emotional control is to develop a deep understanding of the game. When you are unlucky but understand why it happened and how often you can expect those events to happen will go a long way towards calming you down.
Anytime a player has this kind of affect, I would recommend taking at least a half hour break. Who knows, he could be tapped and gone when you return?
When this happens to me I do what a lot of players do. I look at his hand and the board long and hard and try to understand then and there what happened. I think about it while it is on my mind and can see all of the cards. I will re-run the play of the hand in my mind while I am looking at things and can remember the turn and river cards. Then, when I have it all sorted out, I release my hand not saying a word. This may take a few moments. I have never been pressured to "hurry up" in this situation. People can see what happened and that you are thinking about it. I try not to show any emotion. If my opponents see that this gets to me then they win. However, if I can analyzed the situation, understand it, then forget about it, they will realize their bad play has no effect on me and they won't get their desired result. If you are still really stinging here is what I suggest. Play three or four more hands without looking at them. Just pretend to look. You are in no condition to play because you are probably tilted and will play badly anyway. You've actually quit playing but are still sitting there to let them know that you are not affected. This is better than storming out. If you make money playing poker then you want to ENCOURAGE this type of play, not discourage it. If you get pissed then you have defeated the purpose of the game. Act as if nothing is out of the ordinary. Then, get up and take a break and come back to the table AFTER you have FORGOTTEN about it. One way to forget about things is to call somebody up on the phone (family, friends) or to get into an off topic conversation with someone away from the table. This is one of the best ways to take your mind off of the game. If you CAN'T forget about it--quit. Letting something like this have an effect on you will only cost you money and reputation. Two things you can't afford to lose.
I didn't read the other responses, but this one is EXCELLENT.
You should review the play of the hand and determine what the other player was thinking/reacting. I suppose he thought your check was genuine but your re-raise a desperate gesture; so he re-raised trying to get you to lay down your pocket pair. So, it appears your check had the desired affect on your opponent. ....
I find this kind of excercise well worth it. It puts you back into analsys mode from emotional mode.
- Louie
At WSOP this year I ended up headup in a no-limit 3K satellite against a tournament regular (I never saw him in ring games). We had almost exactly equal stacks; I offered a deal, was refused, and on the very next hand, he took 4h-2h against my AsQs. We got it all-in before the flop, which was Ah Js 6s, and he hit a runner runner flush. Then he started giggling.
I pride myself on not going on major tilt after bad eats, but something about this guy and his attitude *really* pissed me off. Although I didn't say anything, I was strongly tempted to jerk him out of the seat and kick his ass right there.
Once I let that thought go, my next impulse was to jump right back in a pot limit holdem game that I'd left to play the satellite, and take out my frustration by hammering that game, by god. But fortunately for my bankroll, I caught myself, walked around outside until I cooled down (about 1/2 hour), and got back in the pot limit game in a more normal frame of mind.
I think that once you recognize that you have been affected by an ugly beat, walking it off (or quitting for the night) is the best way to deal with it - if you stay in the game and play on it's way too tempting to steam a little bit (or a lot) leading often to a big loss.
Jim-
I think you have offered some very wise advice about how to deal with the post-bad-beat blues. But to be a bit picky (and slightly philospohical), you did not take *THAT* bad a beat. Since you were both all-in before the flop, you were only a 2-to-1 favorite at the moment of truth. The order in which the the board played out is irrelevant. Would "the giggler" have taken a bad beat if the flop came Ah 5h 7h and then you hit runner-Queen runner-Ace to fill up? Would you feel better if the flop came ragged, and he simply spiked a deuce on the end to beat your second-nut-no-pair?
In the last tournament I played, I put a very weak player all-in before the flop with my AK against her KQ. She flopped two queens to completely thrash me! My take-away from this was that with only a 2-to-1 edge (mine was even better in this), you may be doing the weaker player a favor by going all-in with only a 2-1 edge when you have a bigger skill advantage. Of course, if your weak opponent comes over the top of your raise with their garbage, you have to defend your investment. But in this case, *I* initiated the action since I thought she would bow down to my power.
By the way, I also got knocked out of a tourney a while back after getting an all-in call from a KQ against my pocket Kings (board: A-T-T-2-J). Curse that KQ! Oh well, I thought I was dead when this Ace flopped anyway.
A 2to1 edge is big enough to put her all in. You can not control the flop. You must remember that before the flop you don't really have a hand except with the pocket pairs. AK is just AK until the flop. The only thing that you can do in a tourny is to make sure that you play your hands and position correctly. Let it go from there. By the way, the reason that I have changed my playing style to super-agressive is that now I'm trying to take advantage of my opponents minds. The average opponent when faced with a huge raise in no-limit will tend to become very timid. This has to be a big advantage for me. Once they become timid then I have several options to choose from. This is a overall strategy. When facing a fellow chip shooter, then I have to back off a bit.
One of the best things that you can do, is to mentally prepare yourself for situations like this before you sit down. The truth is, that you need this player in the game as his bad play will hopefully send you home with some extra cash. Remember, that some players will deliberately play a trash hand in order to try to put you on tilt. What you are talking about here is one of the most important aspects of the game,.. which is handling adversity and prosperity. We have all seen this type of player and situation at the tables. It is simply part of the game, and needs to be viewed as such. is it easy? NO! You need to stay detached enough emotionally, so as to make the best decisions possible at the table. This is difficult for all of us, but is in my opinion the difference between most long term winners and losers. You are going to meet many extreme personalities at the tables , and many who seem to lack any logical thinking at all. instead of letting it blow your mind when someone plays in a manner that defies logic, look at it as someone who is going to be giving you their money very soon. if you can actually believe that, then this type of player won't bug you when he or she sucks out on you once in a while. I'm not trying to preach here , but I feel this can make or brake you. Good Luck.
There have been some very, very good comments here. This is indeed a difficult situation to be in. But at some time or other, many of us have wanted to reach across the table and rip someone's lips off. It's real hard to hold back. But we must because most of the time we'll make money from this type of player. I'd play a hand or two then get up and take a break outside in the fresh air and work real hard to remind myself that sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug. And, oh yeah, didn't you say it was a "loose" game. Sometimes that's exactly what happpens in those games. What goes around, comes around wait for your opportunity with a clear mind and a cold heart.
Mike,
You are right about the limited severity of the beat, in that it wasn't like someone hitting runner runner quads to beat a flopped full house (that happened to a friend in the big tournament a few years ago). The action as I remember this hand was he made a small raise from the small blind and I set him in from the big blind, smelling a steal. While it is true that with my actual hand of AQ he was only about a 2-1 pre-flop dog, that is the *best* he could hope for when he called. If I have any pocket pair other than 3's he has no "one pair" outs, and has to make at least two pair to win. I could maybe see him betting his whole stack as a steal, but not calling it off like he did. I guess part of what threw me is that this guy is in fact a "name" tournment player with some fairly high finishes, so I wasn't expecting it from him. But, you're right, as beats go we've all had worse, and unfortunately similar things will happen again. In fact, let me tell you about my pocket kings last night..............
Solid players do not call all-in raises with 4-2s, knowing at best he is a 2-1 dog; especially since this player thought he could beat you in the long run.
If your raise was substancial then I suggest you were cheated.
- Louie
Mike,
You are right about the limited severity of the beat, in that it wasn't like someone hitting runner runner quads to beat a flopped full house (that happened to a friend in the big tournament a few years ago). The action as I remember this hand was he made a small raise from the small blind and I set him in from the big blind, smelling a steal. While it is true that with my actual hand of AQ he was only about a 2-1 pre-flop dog, that is the *best* he could hope for when he called. If I have any pocket pair other than 3's he has no "one pair" outs, and has to make at least two pair to win. I could maybe see him betting his whole stack as a steal, but not calling it off like he did. I guess part of what threw me is that this guy is in fact a "name" tournment player with some fairly high finishes, so I wasn't expecting it from him. But, you're right, as beats go we've all had worse, and unfortunately similar things will happen again. In fact, let me tell you about my pocket kings last night..............
I agree with most of what the other responders have said so far. Along the same lines as Mason's comments I would say that really understanding the nature of the fluctuations in poker, really appreciating what should be expected within their randomness will help reduce the emotional impact of such beats.
But I want to try to come at this from a different perspective as well. Because I think this will be a very unusual perspective to read on a poker forum, perhaps I should say that my background B.P. (before poker) was in clinical psychology. So here are a few thoughts from a psychologist's point of view.
We all have emotions. They influence a great deal of our behavior. Difficulties arise, however, when we are unaware of the true cause of an emotional reaction. For example, you can become anxious about something without really knowing why. Similarly, psychotherapists frequently see patients who are depressed, but don't know why. (Of course there's the experience versus chemistry debate, but let's just keep this simple.) Their task is, in large part, to help these patients come to a deep understanding and appreciation of the experiences that ultimately led to a depressive reaction.
In poker, when a player experiences a "bad beat", especially when his or her opponent giggles or in some other way acts obnoxious afterward, it is not surprising that this player might react with feelings of anger, a desire to seek revenge, even various palpable bodily feelings and a noticable interference by emotions with cognition. (For a nice description see Abdul Jalib's "The Physiology of Fuzzy Thinking" somewhere in the archives - October or November?)
But the real question is, why are you really angry? I think that it is very difficult for most players to have much real insight into this. You almost have to have spent a couple of years or so in one or another of a few kinds of psychotherapy to have repeatedly experienced the process of looking beneath the surface emotion to determine what *other* (deeper, if you will) emotions and cognitions are fueling the emotion of which you are aware (e.g., the anger and desire for revenge). But once you have gained an understanding of what's going on under the surface, the troublesome emotion tends to dissipate. You regain your objectivity.
I'm not really suggesting that all poker players enter psychotherapy in order to reduce their "tiltability". For those who have real difficulty with steaming, however, if they are serious about their poker, such a move could actually be suprisingly cost effective given all the money it would save them at the table. But for most players it might at least be food for thought to know that there are usually more complex emotional issues stirring under the surface when they get pissed off and feel that desire to get back at "that moron who made runner-runner against me and then sat there and giggled." To try to illstrate this here's a little fictitious interchange that could conceivably take place between a therapist and patient in a session in which the patient has complained of goig on tilt in a recent poker game. (Note that this would be a patient who's been in therapy for some time, and so is relatively efficient at getting in touch with feelings and verbalizing them. Nevertheless it is much more condensed than it would likely be in real life.)
Patient (P): Yeah, it was bad enough to lose that much in the hand, but when he sat there and giggled I just got so pissed.
Therapist (T): I can hear in your voice that you're still furious.
P: That sh*t-head; I could have k-...
T: You could have killed him.
P: Yeah. So I tried to really get him back a few hand later. But it just backfired. He had a real hand and I overplayed mine. I was just so pissed.
T: I think you felt more than just pissed. How did you feel when he started giggling?
P: Well, angry, but I guess I really felt sort of demeaned.
T: What did you hear him saying to you with his giggling?
P: I guess it was like he was saying, "You're nothing. Fool, I just kicked your ass in that hand."
T: Like he was belittling you.
P: Yeah. Like he was just spitting on me or on any ability I have as a poker player.
T: Your ability as a poker player is something you're proud of. You really have some of your self esteem invested in it. And it was like he was just laughing at it. Made you feel like a nothing.
P: Yes, and I felt like everyone else there had to be seeing me as a real chump.
T: How so?
P: Well, like they saw him really stick it to me and so they probably saw me as just this poor defeated victim or something.
T: Uh hu. (Had to put that in there somewhere didn't I ?) Well, if you saw one player draw out with such a longshot as that on another player, what would you be thinking?
P: Heh. Guess I'd be thinking about how badly the winner had played, what a clueless player he is. Okay, I see your point.
T: Tell me, when he giggled, and you felt as demeaned as you described, did that feel anything like the occasions you've described in here in the past of when your dad used to tease you in front of the rest of your family...
And so on. The idea is just that there is often more than appears on the surface. To the extent that we can observe in ourselves what is really fueling our intense surface reactions, we will have more of a handle on them, and they less of a handle on us. I'm not sure what anyone will get out of this. But I thought it might be of interest.
Dan,
A few more to add to all the excelent advice so far:
1. Focus on being a good player.
2. Quit trying to prove your a good player.
3. Enjoy playing the game and the competition.
4. Most players play much better when they are winning.
5. If you can play well when you are losing you will be far ahead of the field.
6. It's only money.
Tom Haley
Here's a small piece of practical advice that I use most of the time, but especially when I'm in danger of going on tilt. Because I have pre-set criteria for my hold 'em starting hands, I know that there is no hand containing a 2,3 or 4 that I will play in early position. I'll look at the first card dealt to me and if it's a 2,3 or 4, I won't even look at the second card. I actually scoop the two together and look at the first card a second time so as not to have a tell. I can then fold, not even knowing what it was I threw away. What I do know, however, is that under normal circumstances, I wouldn't have played the hand no matter what the second card was.
This helps me stay away from hands like K2s, A4, Q3s, etc. that might seem tempting when I'm steaming. You might even extend your criteria to anything under an eight - how many hands containing an eight are long term winners from early position anyway? It's also helpful because you rarely have to lament the fact that the garbage hands you threw away would have won the last four pots! That's because you never knew what you two cards were anyway. Folding winners can often magnify your steaming, so I don't even want to know that my T4s would have made the only flush.
It's just a small tactic, but at least it's something tangible to do at the table in addition to the traditional remedies of taking a break, etc.
Here's a small piece of practical advice that I use most of the time, but especially when I'm in danger of going on tilt. Because I have pre-set criteria for my hold 'em starting hands, I know that there is no hand containing a 2,3 or 4 that I will play in early position. I'll look at the first card dealt to me and if it's a 2,3 or 4, I won't even look at the second card. I actually scoop the two together and look at the first card a second time so as not to have a tell. I can then fold, not even knowing what it was I threw away. What I do know, however, is that under normal circumstances, I wouldn't have played the hand no matter what the second card was.
This helps me stay away from hands like K2s, A4, Q3s, etc. that might seem tempting when I'm steaming. You might even extend your criteria to anything under an eight - how many hands containing an eight are long term winners from early position anyway? It's also helpful because you rarely have to lament the fact that the garbage hands you threw away would have won the last four pots! That's because you never knew what you two cards were anyway. Folding winners can often magnify your steaming, so I don't even want to know that my T4s would have made the only flush.
It's just a small tactic, but at least it's something tangible to do at the table in addition to the traditional remedies of taking a break, etc.
Here's a small piece of practical advice that I use most of the time, but especially when I'm in danger of going on tilt. Because I have pre-set criteria for my hold 'em starting hands, I know that there is no hand containing a 2,3 or 4 that I will play in early position. I'll look at the first card dealt to me and if it's a 2,3 or 4, I won't even look at the second card. I actually scoop the two together and look at the first card a second time so as not to have a tell. I can then fold, not even knowing what it was I threw away. What I do know, however, is that under normal circumstances, I wouldn't have played the hand no matter what the second card was.
This helps me stay away from hands like K2s, A4, Q3s, etc. that might seem tempting when I'm steaming. You might even extend your criteria to anything under an eight - how many hands containing an eight are long term winners from early position anyway? It's also helpful because you rarely have to lament the fact that the garbage hands you threw away would have won the last four pots! That's because you never knew what you two cards were anyway. Folding winners can often magnify your steaming, so I don't even want to know that my T4s would have made the only flush.
It's just a small tactic, but at least it's something tangible to do at the table in addition to the traditional remedies of taking a break, etc.
89 hours at 10-20 is statistically insignificant. The lower limits shouldn't be combined with results from 10-20. However, you sound like you are doing well with a *hit and run* session style.
Based on your statistical results it is too early to tell. But if you take into account how you play versus other players, you may be able to conclude something. Specifically can you see obvious playing errors that others are making, but which you are not. If that is the case, you may truly be a winning player. Hope this helps,
I have approximately 600 hours under my belt at Hold em poker. The majority of which has occurred in Las Vegas. I started at the lower limits but for the past 89 hours all that I have played is 10/20 hold em(except for 4 hours at 20/40).
My results from the last 87 hours at 23 sessions are that I am up approximately $3,000.00 which is approximately 34.50 per hour. Of the last 23 sessions I have had 16 winning sessions and only 7 losing sessions.
I noticed that I started winning more when I began to understand the reason for getting involved with any particular hand in the relative position. I also significantly tightened up my starting hands and quit pushing marginal hands what I felt was too far.
Does it sound like I am having results consistent with what you pros experience on a daily basis or is it too early to tell?
Thanks for your opinions in advance!
Most people, from what I've read on this forum, seem to be interested only in Hold-em and 7 Card Stud; so I'm writing this post with a bit of hesitancy. However I would really like people's opinion on my play in the hand and to point out any mistakes I made since hands like this come up a few times a night where I play.
Anyway, the game is 10-20 Split Draw, qualifiers are Pair for high and No Pair for low with live blinds 5 and 10 for 1st and 2nd seated players. In this type of game, IMHO your hand and player reading skills become very very important in the play of most hands. I would describe the game as mostly loose agressive.
I am seated in BB and have a 2345 straight flush bike draw. To my immediate left a tight passive player practically screaming "I've got a made hand" by jumping up and down in his seat. I decide that I want a family pot in this situation, since bluffing isn't an option with a made hand in a pot, so I decide to check raise the UTG player. By the way UTG player has approximentally 80 dollars in front of him. UTG raises, Pass, Pass, cold call by a tight aggressive player who likes to advertise as a loose player, cold call by a loose player, cold call by a loose player, cold call by a loose player, cold call by a very tight passive player ??? on the button, SB passes, I reraise, UTG caps the betting, everybody calls.
Decision #1, was my play preflop justified for my intention to get a family pot?, would anybody not want a family pot in this situation? if not why? could I have played it a better way?
I draw one card and get an off suit 8 for an 8-5, UTG stays pat, Tight aggressive player draws one (with his high hands I have noticed that he usually hammers them but he could be worried about UTG (anyways I have put UTG on a probable high hand because there are more pat high hands that you would be willing to hammer it up than there are pat low hands), so I put him on a low. 1st loose player draws 2(??) (probably low), second loose player draws 3(???)(probably high), 3rd loose player draws 3(????)(probably high), Tight passive player draws 2 (I put him on trips, probably high ones).
After the draw, I see that UTG has 2 large bets left, I bet into him, hoping that he will raise all in so that tight aggressive player might lay down a bad 7 or a 8-4, if he has made these hands, to a double bet. However I probably won't get paid off if he has a bad 8-7 or a 9-5 hand.
Decision #2. Was the bet into UTG a good one, +EV or -EV? Would you have checked to under the gun to see how the betting went before it comes back to you?
Anyways, UTG raises all in, tight aggressive player reraises, everyone folds to the Button who calls all in. I fold.
Decision #3 Was my fold correct in EV terms, would you have called?
As you can probably tell, my mathematics in the game could use a little work, so I would appreciate any advice or constructive criticism given. For anyone interested, I'll include the results of the hand in a response to this thread.
Thanks in advance.
Hand results:
UTG player had a full house 9's full of J's. Tight aggressive player had a 6-4 low hand. Tight passive player had quad 10's.
By the way, when I folded, the tight agressive player almost jumped out of his seat. I guess he thought that I couldn't make a tough fold in a situation like this, as he had put me on low draw like I had put him on a low draw.
:)
2-10 eight or better stud, no ante, $2 force (Foxwoods) On third street, I found that most people call $5 with any decent low, but fold to a $10 raise. With high pairs, I would raise $10 in any position (when there were no aces showing), and usually wound up winning $2 from everyone who called the bring-in, or in other cases, just $2. When several players are in for just $2, I really need to narrow the field with a high hand. Especially when holding a pair of kings or queens, I thought it would be better to just raise $10 on third and claim the $6-12 in the pot, rather than risk having several callers. In a late position when only the bring-in was in, I also would raise $10 with a high pair, even if it meant only getting $2 from the hand. Were these large third street raises a mistake? In what situations should I make only a small raise with a high pair in a no-ante game?
I'm still looking for a FREE copy of this mag to see if it is worth the investment. What are the odds that it last a year subscription? Johnny Loconti from Chicago
Why don't you contact them and see if they'll send you a sample or tell you where you might find a copy. Here is their address:
POKER DIGEST, 1455 E. TROPICANA, LAS VEGAS, NV 89119 PHONE: 702-740-2273 FAX: 702-740-2257
Mason,
You have top notch writers on technical issues and already have a good number of advertisers. David Spanier's stuff is good too. Player's Poll is a great idea and should grow if the right issues are brought up. Finallly, It's nice to see a player on the cover rather than a major advertiser. Best of all, Mason gets to write to people who don't have a computer. My money is on it growing and attracting at least as large an audience as Card Player in a few years
I need to point out that I am just a writer. I have nothing to do with the operation or the ownership of the magazine.
No odds on it's success, Mason?
Yesterday I was reading something called BORG on the net. They were discussing a proper play in a no-limit hold'em tourny. The play went like this. 5 players left. 4 players get payed. You have AA. One player raises all in. Another player calls all in. They said that the proper play is to fold because it's most likely that one opponent will be eliminated putting you in the money. I think that that is the worst thing I have ever heard. I don't give a dam about the mathematics of percent payback tournys. AA is the best hand you can dealt. How could you not play in this situation. How could you not take the chance of dumping two players out giving you a huge chip lead over your remaining opponents who now are likely to talk deal. "NOT". To fold in this situation is like just calling with a royal to a opponent who has a king-high straight flush!. I think that many people have forgotten that most money is in the last 3 places. If that's the case why settle for just getting your money back. I would rather lose the buy-in if the risk increases my chance of winning or at least third place.
I am hardly an expert on tournament strategy, but it seems to me it would be a mandatory call if you had more chips than either of the others, and no one else is going to join the fray, because you will automatically place. But if your call puts you all in, you have two players who can beat you, reducing your odds. For example, if one has kings and the other queens you have about a 67% chance of winning the hand, which ain't bad, but you have to weigh that against the effect of being knocked out. I thought the objective was to make the money list first, worry about place when you get there.
The objective is to win first,worry about placing later.With AA the odds are so much in your favor that to fold should be a crime. If you had less chips then the other two players would you fold and wait "for a better hand" to go all in?
Joe writes, "The objective is to win first,worry about placing later."
Oh, and I thought all this time that the objective was to make money. :)
If your chips were miniscule in comparison to the other players (and the prize money at stake for one move up the prize ladder), it would obviously be correct to fold and accept you gift from the rest of the table. Otherwise not.
Unfortunately, I'm going to say that it does depend on all that math stuff.For an extreme example, if 5th paid nothing and 1-4 paid $1,000,000, then I would fold Aces even if both all-ins opened their hands to me and Both showed 27off. I don't like my EV. OTH, if we are all about even and short-stacked, and the winner gets $4,000,000 and 2-5 win $1, then I'm jumping right in there.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
If you are gonna qoute some examples please at least be close to the real thing! If both opponents show you 72 off and you fold I really doubt that you would fold AA!
Joe,
My point is payoffs (and all that math stuff) really do matter and can easily change your decision. I just used an extreme example to illustrate that point. Simply, If I also had to go all in with AA against two all-in players holding 27o & 3Jo AND 1-4 paid 1 million and 5th paid nothing - then I would definitely fold. Obviously, I would fold to two legitimate hands even though I am a big favorite. I'd sit on the sidlines and hope one would bust out. Remember, in my extreme example, 1-4 get paid the same. Folding AA is likely to net me 1 million. In some cases, tournament players have been known to fold AA late in the tournament.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
If your decision is based strictly on logic, then folding is clearly obvious and this should be the most logical thing you've ever read. By folding, you are getting infinite odds. You risk nothing and are guaranteed some monetary return.
If fact, even if you were certain the board would show AdAc6h3d after the turn, logic would suggest that you should still fold your pocket aces pre-flop. The odds that someone holds two small diamonds and will make their one-outer on the river is extremely slim. Even so, those odds are no where near infinity-to-one so folding pre-flop is the "logical" decision.
Getting even $1 for fourth place every single time would win you more money than parlaying this hand into a $1,000,000 first place finish 99.9% of the time. That's how big infinity is!
You say you don't give a damn about the mathematics, but this is no different than any other mathematical decision you might make during the play of any given hand. Don't we always want to make the play with the best EV?
99.9%*1000000=999000 and 999000>1
"By folding, you are getting infinite odds. You risk nothing and are guaranteed some monetary return. "
Very true. But truths have relative importance.
Which bet would you prefer?: <1> Risk nothing and get $1 ("infinte odds"). <2> Risk $100 as a 2-1 favorite ("2-1 odds").
I choose <2>. When played out many times <2> does MUCH better. I suggest you are confusing "odds" with "EV".
"Getting even $1 for fourth place every single time would in you more money than parlaying this hand into a $1,000,000 first place finish 99.9% of the time." Getting $1 1000 times is better than getting a million 999 times and losing $1 one time?
Well, it would be if you needed that $1 to save your life. But otherwise its not.
- Louie
I would like to know how many of us are playing in the U.S. Poker Championships at the Taj? I would also like to know what events you will be playing in. I also would like to meet everyone who will be there and maybe get some pictures taken. Secondly the Foxwoods tourny has only one no-limit tourny and just two limit hold-em tournys available. It seems mostly stud to me. That's according to the info I got from their website. I will be playing in the $500 and $1000 no-limit tourny. I won't be able to get there from Florida in time to play any satellites for the $5000 big one.
Joe-
I am going to the Taj. I am likely to play the $300 and $500 no-limit hold'em and possibly the $500? limit hold'em. Do you know where the exact schedule and times are posted? I would also like to play a couple of satellites for the championship event, but may have to make a separate trip from NYC. Hope to see you there.
Goto 2+2's favorite links then click on Card Player. Then click on Poker Rooms. You will see Taj Mahal. Click on that. Then click on Poker. I will be there for the $500 and the $1000. If I do well in one of the two, Meaning 3rd,2nd,or first I will then buy-in for the $5000! I can't get there for the satellites.
Recently we added a kill button to our 5-10 Omaha/8 home game. I have two questions so that we can duplicate casino rules as much as possible.
1. For the play of the kill hand, (we play with a full kill), do the regular small and big blinds stay at $2.50 and $5.00 (with the kill button posting $10.00) or do the small and big also post twice the normal blinds?
2. What would be a reasonable minimum pot size in a 5-10 game before a scooper would be issued the kill button? We tried $100 and it seemed to work well. What is the standard for casino play?
Many thanks...we're almost there!
Iam,
I have never seen the blinds raised on a kill in a casino which doesn't mean that it never happens but I doubt if they are raised. As far as issueing the kill button, it depends on the casino. I've seen it issued if there were any callers on the flop no matter what the size of the pot was. IMO the $100 pot size for a $5-10 home game is a good rule for a full kill. Which brings me to my next point. Most Omaha/8 games that I have seen have a half kill. For a $5-10 the full kill seems like a good idea.
Tom Haley
Another possibility for the kill size would be one big bet times the number of active players. At 5-10 with seven players that would enable the kill at $70. Blinds should remain the normal amount.
I'll be off line for the next week. But before I unplug here's a simple little hold'em scenario that I think provides an especially clear exercise in reading both the hand and thinking of an opponent:
**********************************************************
It's a nine or ten handed 20-40 game. You're in the big blind in holding T8. Everyone folds leaving just you and the small blind. (Assume you don't chop.) The small blind, a relatively solid player of good all around skills, raises. You call. (No you don't have much of a hand, but I can get Abdul to back me up on this call.;-)) The flop comes A-9-7 of mixed suits. The small blind checks. What is you're read of his hand and his thinking? How would you project playing out the rest of the hand? Try formulating more than one answer, varying according to the specifics of the opponent's playing style and how he or she views you.
*******************************************************
I was going to include my own answer right here but, no, now I think I'll wait and see what others have said when I get back on line.
BTW I thought of this scenario because I found myself in it a few days ago, and was very annoyed with myself for how I played it. I had written a note about it to myself a few *years* ago, but on this occasion ignored my own insight into what should be a fairly simple situation for an experienced player.
(This forum's activity may be light in the next week due to BARGE. Perhaps some lurkers would like to respond to take up the slack?)
Something like Kx?
Sounds like a college final exam. In 100 words or less, compare and contrast the American and French revolutions in terms of economic, political, and social factors.
Okay, first off, a huge warning flag goes up with his open-raise out of the small blind. S&M advocate being very conservative with such raises. On the other hand, many players are not so conservative. He may raise with a minimum of AK, or he may raise with a minimum of A2. So, right off the bat we're in a tough spot, not knowing where our opponent is, fearing that he is right where we don't want him. By default I would assume that his conditional probability of holding a pair, an ace, a big king, or a big suited queen would be humongous. He should therefore be somewhat concerned that I called. (Still, if there is no rake, then I would expect calling with T8o would be correct, if only barely so.)
Once the flop comes, I feel my decisions are simplified. I have flopped an open ender, a good one at that. That's like flopping an ace with AK against three opponents. Unless I figure out that my opponent has a hand that he's taking to the showdown, I'm going to play it hard, partially for value (as weird as it sounds), partially to hopefully avoid a showdown.
Yes, my opponent may have an ace. But he might not, in which case my chance of winning the pot before the showdown are quite good. And if he does have an ace, well, at least I've got outs.
But wait, my opponent's check on the flop is unusual, and may spell trouble. If he had something like QJs, he would have almost certainly bet here, in an attempt to take down the pot by representing an ace. Therefore, his check is a sign of strength. He likely has a pair or an ace. He doesn't have much information about my hand, but he likely intends to call me down.
Even so, my game plan is to bet.
If he has a hand like QQ, or K9s, he may be looking to check-raise the flop to find out if he is beat. Therefore, if he check-raises, and I judge him as overly tight, I'll likely reraise, trying to convince him that I have an ace or better. If I judge him as tenacious, someone who will not lay down second pair here even when it becomes third pair on the turn, or he judges me as a bluffaholic, then I'd likely call his check-raise instead, and hopefully take a free card on the turn; if he bets into me on the turn, I don't have odds to contest the pot, if I believe he is staying to the showdown.
If he has a hand like AT, or even AQ, he may be looking to rope-a-dope check-and-call the whole way, especially if his general style is to allow others to bet for him, or if he thinks I'm overaggressive, or if he thinks I'm very tight and hence would likely have a better ace than he. Therefore, if he flat calls on the flop, I would be fairly inclined to take a free card on the turn. This is a very weak play heads up, somewhat contradicting what I said about playing the hand strongly, but this is one circumstance in which I think it's the best play, as his actions suggest he plans to call me down. I would then fold on the river unless I hit my straight or make a pair. Again, this is a very weak heads up play, not normally correct, but it feels like the best I can do here, unless I'm missing some hands that he would check-and-call on the flop but then check-and-fold on the turn.
If there wasn't an ace on the flop or if my opponent did not raise from the small blind preflop, then I would play it much more strongly.
-Abdul
"S&M advocate being very conservative with such raises."
We also wrote in HPFAP "The exception is when the big blind throws away too many hands in this situation. For example, in a $10-$20 game, it costs you $15 to raise when you have the little blind. There is $15 in the pot already. Therefore, if the big blind folds more than 50 percent of the time, you would show an immediate profit with any two cards. Add this to the fact that you sometimes will win when you are called, and it becomes worthwhile to raise when your chances of stealing the ante are as little as 30 percent. Few players in the big blind will discard their hands this often in this situation, but when you find one who will, you should take advantage of him."
>>S&M advocate being very conservative with such raises... By default I would assume that his conditional probability of holding a pair, an ace, a big king, or a big suited queen would be humongous.<<
I see their advice as advocating being only semi-conservative, but I guess it depends how you interpret it. They leave it more open than much of their other preflop advice. This may be one reason why among players who play otherwise pretty much "by the book", there seems to be a good deal of variation in their raising standards in this spot (as you mention). Some are tight but many are generally quite loose. Because many *are* rather loose here, at least in the games I frequent, I'd be less inclined than you to put the player on a big hand if I didn't know much about his raising standards here (which was the case on the occasion I was thinking about).
>>But wait, my opponent's check on the flop is unusual, and may spell trouble. If he had something like QJs, he would have almost certainly bet here, in an attempt to take down the pot by representing an ace. Therefore, his check is a sign of strength. He likely has a pair or an ace. He doesn't have much information about my hand, but he likely intends to call me down.<<
Yes, I think this is the key to the hand. Very few decent players would ever check here if they *didn't* have anything.
>>...if he flat calls on the flop, I would be fairly inclined to take a free card on the turn.<<
Yup, as David mentioned, this should probably be the standard play. I didn't make it on this occasion (See my response to my own post below.), partly because of the way the board developed. But I think I still should have.
This looks like a trap to me, especially if your opponent perceives you as a fairly aggressive player. His check represents a hand that does not want to see an Ace, but this is extraordinarily weak play from a solid player who raised pre-flop out of position. It seems a bet here would be in order from the SB to attempt to claim the pot right there, since the BB has not shown any strength and will likely fold almost any hand that does not have an Ace. On the other hand, the board is sufficiently non-threatening to make the check raise a nice play. In this case, I disagree with Abdul. I think your play is to take your free card.
On the other hand, if he perceives you to be a tight player, his raise may just have been a bid for your blind. His check may represent him giving up on his charade, worried about you calling with a ragged ace. This seems unlikely to me, since a bet out has a good chance of buying the pot. And if he thought you were a call station, he probably wouldn't have tried to get your blind.
>>This looks like a trap to me... a bet here would be in order from the SB to attempt to claim the pot right there, since the BB has not shown any strength and will likely fold almost any hand that does not have an Ace. On the other hand, the board is sufficiently non-threatening to make the check raise a nice play... I think your play is to take your free card.<<
I agree with your reasoning. But I do think a bet can still makes sense on the flop as long as you think the opponent may be waiting to make his "move" on the turn. That way you can just take the free card.
I would check behind the check, and fold the turn if I didn't improve and the small blind bets. In my opinion this is not the situation to be too aggressive. The pot is barely enough to chase and you have a multi way type of hand. If you bet the flop and get raised, you are pretty much forcing yourself to chase from that point on. You need to pick your spots to be aggressive, and this just doesn't seem like one of them.
To me, his check means a big hand. Therefore I want to play my hand for maximum gain and minimum loss. If I can make my straight I may get superfluous action. Especially if he has three aces, which I now strongly suspect. Even if he has Ace-King and he is an aggressive player I may get in a few raises. But---it is important to TRY and make this hand as cheaply as possible. (Because the pot is so small.) So what I would do "most of the time" is to bet the flop hoping he will just call because he is waiting for the turn to try for a check raise, in which case I will disappoint him and check. If I check the flop behind him and he now bets the turn I must fold. (Pot is too small.) If he just calls my flop bet and I make the straight on the turn I should get the desired action. If he re-raises my flop bet I will follow through with a re-raise and then go for my free card, although it will have cost me a little bit more than I'd hoped for. That is unless of course I hit my straight on the turn in which case I will be glad I played it the way I did. Now he can go ahead and check raise and I will glady re-raise him. Who knows when it will stop. If after all of this he doesn't try for a check-raise and instead bets out on the turn, or re-raises me again on the flop and then bets out on the turn; then he will have played the hand perfectly and there is nothing I can do about it. If I make my straight on the turn this is fine because I will raise and hope that he goes crazy. If I don't make my hand on the turn, and because of all of those raises we put in on the flop, I will have to call his turn bet knowing full well that when I make this hand on the river he will pay off my raise.
I am always VERY suspicious of a good aggressive player checking after raising pre-flop in a short handed pot. In my experience he isn't afraid I out flopped him he is checking a monster because he is afraid he isn't going to get any action. That being the case very often they will just call your bet on the flop.
The simple play of betting on the flop and checking on the turn can never be that bad. Other altenatives are either slightly better or much worse if you have misread your opponents. So you better be awful sure of yourself before you try to get too fancy.
"Especially if he has three aces, which I now strongly suspect. Even if he has Ace-King ..."
Do you raise from the SB w/ AA or AK into the BB pre flop/ heads-up?
I think he has more like A9 or A7...I'd be inclined to take the free card. (Note: I'd need to know the opponant's style really well)
C.J.
The small blind's raise before the flop is an attempt to persuade the big blind not to contest the pot. The small blind's check on the flop against a loose/passive player most likely represents a hand which is drawing. Since this type of opponent would be expected to call one bet, there would be no reason for the small blind not to bet any ace or pocket tens. Against a loose/agressive player, the check on the flop could be either a set, two pairs, or a hand that missed completely like KJ. I don't think a checkraise with a hand like AK is going to slow down a maniac, so I would expect top pair to just bet out on the flop instead. If I am the big blind, my table image has been tight/agressive and my opponent is aware of this, I would be expecting a checkraise or fold (maybe a smooth call with a set) since my opponent should only have raised me as a semi-steal (A2 K9 Q9 or JT are possibilities). Since I have eight outs to what I figure will be the best hand (2:1 underdog to complete by the river) but there are only four small bets in the pot, I can check the flop and see if I get lucky on the turn. If bet into on the turn I'll have to fold since I'll be getting only 3:1 on a 4:1 proposition. I would play it this way if there was a significant chance my opponent would check again on the turn. Yet this is supposed to be a solid player in the small blind, not a tight/passive one. Therefore I will bet the flop as a semi-bluff, and just call if checkraised. It doesn't matter if the small blind calls or raises my bet on the flop since I'll have pot odds to call a double bet on the turn (4:1 for a 4.1:1 shot is close enough for me). I can win the pot immediately on the flop, or have correct odds to draw no matter what my opponent does. So, against a solid player in the small blind, I don't even have to rely on card reading - it's an automatic bet, and the hand plays itself.
Andrew,
I basically agree with your analysis. Checking the flop could be right imo but when it is correct to do so you would have to be very sure about the hand you are up against. If there is any chance that your opponent will give it up on the flop, I think a bet is mandatory.
Tom Haley
The occasional fold on the flop from the small blind has to be often enough to offset the difference between the pot odds of 4:1 and the odds of 4.1:1 to complete the straight when just called. So, if the small blind would fold even 3% of the time, clearly a bet (seems this wouldn't really be a semi-bluff now would it?) is correct. I guess John checked and took the *free card* but had to muck to a bet on the turn, otherwise we wouldn't have had this little quiz?
Solid player probably bet to try to take the pot away from you then shut down on the flop when he saw that he couldn't. A bet is automatic: a.) you could win outright, b.) if he calls or raises, you at least have a bit more knowledge about where you stand, and c.) if he has the Ace (or worse, 2-pair), you do have implied odds as you will get paid off if you hit. This is really a no-brainer at this stage (we're only talking about 1/2 bet here). If he raises, I'd even consider lifting him back out of his chair with a reraise (a "solid" player gets pretty antsy putting in extra bets with just a single pair).
Well, as I expected I returned to find some very good responses to this little quiz. If I had just let any one of you play my chips for me on this occasion... Oh well.
Anyway here's how the hand actually played out in this instance. And though I may just be "playing results", I do think I should have played it differently. But as you can see I was enticed (wrongly) by the board to play it the way I did. The hand:
This opponent was, as I mentioned, fairly solid. But I had played with him only about five or six times, so I was only semi-familiar with the details of his play. I knew little about his preflop raising standards in this situation. I certainly didn't like my hand but figured a call was probably barely warranted.
When he checked on the flop I bet (The major mistake came on the turn, Andrew ;)) - a bet that seemed *especially* worthwhile given the good draw. He just called. The turn brought another seven. He checked. Now I looked at that seven and saw it as giving me a bit more stealing leverage. The problem is that while this may be true against some weak, unsophisticated players who see the card pair and think, "Uh-oh, another way for me to lose", a better player is not going to be so easily deterred in a heads-up situation like this one. What's more, at this particular time I believe that this player was seeing me as something of a bluffer. So he was even more likely to call. Anyway, I bet again, and after a few moments thought he called again. So now I have no doubt that I have to make my straight to win. But on the river the board pairs the ace. (Board now = A-9-7-7-A) Yikes, *more* stealing leverage, too much to pass up! So I take a final shot at it. Again, however, a better player who is calling with an in-between pair or something like KQ knows that the ace pairing on the river does not make his hand any worse than it already may have been. In this case my opponent again deliberated for a few moments and called, winning the pot with KK.
Clearly, a bet on the flop, followed by a check on fourth street would have been the better play. I believe that I played this opponent as I would someone who might cave in to the "scare cards" when the board paired. Had I simply thought for an extra moment or two on the flop, I would have responded instead to the glaring fact that he would never check if he *didn't* have anything. Instead he would bet hoping to use the ace as his own scare card to pick up the pot.
I guess I have a different opinion. I would not call the preflop raise because:
(1) There is only $60 in the pot. (2) You have a terrible hand. (3) Warning flag goes up when LB raises. (4) You're *gambling* with poor odds and don't have a clue of what your opponent's hand is. (5) Consider the posted blind as an ante and deal another hand.
Well, it's obviously nowhere near an automatic call. Depending on what you know of the small blind's raising standards as well as how he plays and how well he plays after the flop, it could easily be best to fold. But let me respond to each of your points:
>>(1) There is only $60 in the pot.<<
I don't think that contraindicates a call. Consider all the hands one plays when playing short handed or heads-up. You don't tighten up because the pots are small; you loosen up because your hands have increased in relative strength (fewer opponents) and because you know opponents are trying to steal more often., etc.
>>(2) You have a terrible hand.<<
Well you got me there Bob. But, hey, it could be worse. I mean it's a lot better than T3 or something. I think that hands like T8 are not quite off the lower end of the spectrum of hands you can consider playing in such a sitation. But you could catch me on another day when I would disagree with myself on that ;-).
>>(3) Warning flag goes up when LB raises.<<
In this game, however, I knew that many players raised quite liberally in this spot (sometimes with a "pump it or dump it" philosophy - without often dumping it), and suspected that this was the case with this player. So it really wasn't such a warning flag to me. I saw his raise as meaning he had a playable hand, perhaps not much more, though of course I knew he could have something strong.
>>(4) You're *gambling* with poor odds and don't have a clue of what your opponent's hand is.<<
On the plus side, I knew that while he was a decent player, he was generally fairly straight forward. (The kind of opponent you want in a heads-up situation.) I felt that I probably played better than he heads-up. (Though obviously it didn't look that way in this case.) So I didn't see it as quite so much of a gamble. In retrospect, though, I think that my image with him as a bluffer may have been my biggest handicap in playing the hand. It reduced the likelyhood that I would be able to outplay him postflop by taking advantage of stealing opportunities.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 July 1998, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Smallie (joesmallie@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 9:38 a.m.
Posted by: Easy E (elammers@manu.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 12:58 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 10:55 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@planet.earthcom.net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 8:38 p.m.
Posted by: Mark (aamarkhays@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 6:00 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 July 1998, at 6:10 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 3:59 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 10:23 p.m.
Posted by: Bill W. (twoaces@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 12 July 1998, at 10:04 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 12:53 a.m.
Posted by: Bill (runrbill@inetworld.net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 11:36 a.m.
Posted by: LJCODE (ljcode@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 12:30 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 3:56 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 5:55 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Smallie (joesmallie@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 9:23 a.m.
\\
Posted by: Dan (DRedek4505@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 4:55 p.m.
Posted by: C.J. Little
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 July 1998, at 4:58 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 July 1998, at 7:01 p.m.
Posted by: Leigh W. Davis (lwdavisggl@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 July 1998, at 7:37 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 July 1998, at 10:04 p.m.
Posted by: Mike F. (Frejka@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 5:45 p.m.
Posted by: Jessica Vecchione - Two Plus Two Publishing (JessicaVecchione@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: Peter Franklin
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 7:29 p.m.
Posted by: Leigh W. Davis (lwdavisggl@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 8:03 p.m.
Posted by: Dan (DRedek4505@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Baum (dldodson@swbell.net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Smallie (joesmallie@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 7:17 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 10:54 p.m.
Posted by: Bobby B. (71061.573@compuserve.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 July 1998, at 10:41 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@planet.earthcom.net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 9:11 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@planet.earthcom.net)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 9:19 p.m.
Posted by: Mitch
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: DAVID KENDERIAN (JJAACCOO@WEBTV.NET)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 9:46 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 13 July 1998, at 10:42 p.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 July 1998, at 11:54 p.m.
Posted by: neil (neilm@pop.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 July 1998, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 July 1998, at 3:38 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 July 1998, at 4:20 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 July 1998, at 5:27 a.m.
Posted by: Bobby B. (71061.573@compuserve.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 July 1998, at 10:59 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 July 1998, at 5:47 a.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 July 1998, at 12:58 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 3:37 a.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 July 1998, at 8:27 a.m.
Posted by: Martin Willis
Posted on: Saturday, 18 July 1998, at 9:45 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 July 1998, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 6:21 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@posev.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 12:29 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: JimmyR
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 2:35 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 August 1998, at 5:50 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 7:09 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 July 1998, at 5:12 p.m.
(p. 253) If you are the kind of player who prefers to play tight and you pride yourself on making good laydowns, getting out of pots, and not getting squeezed in, ... when you are playing in a game where a lot of the pots get raised early, many of your laydowns will be wrong. Some of these laydowns not only will be costly, but also may turn you into a losing player.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 12:11 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 July 1998, at 8:36 p.m.
Posted by: Bill
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 July 1998, at 8:55 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 July 1998, at 1:46 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 July 1998, at 7:58 a.m.
Posted by: Russ Roberts (robertsr@hqasc.army.mil)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 July 1998, at 11:37 a.m.
Posted by: Russ Roberts (robertsr@hqasc.army.mil)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 July 1998, at 11:37 a.m.
Posted by: Mitch
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 2:32 p.m.
Posted by: Leigh W. Davis (lwdavisggl@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 July 1998, at 9:13 p.m.
Posted by: Bill
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 July 1998, at 9:14 p.m.
Posted by: Bobby B. (71061.573@compuserve.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 14 July 1998, at 10:29 p.m.
Posted by: Stephen H. Landrum (slandrum@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 July 1998, at 3:20 p.m.
Posted by: Leigh W. Davis (lwdavisggl@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 July 1998, at 9:03 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 July 1998, at 5:59 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 July 1998, at 5:29 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Marcklinger (Digger49@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 6:37 a.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 July 1998, at 2:31 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 5:46 a.m.
Posted by: Mitch
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 3:02 p.m.
Posted by: Mitch
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 2:22 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 July 1998, at 6:02 a.m.
Posted by: Mike F. (Frejka@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 July 1998, at 3:09 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Wednesday, 15 July 1998, at 11:20 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 5:29 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@primenet.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: DVD (dvd@dlcwest.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 3:35 a.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 1:31 a.m.
Posted by: Mitch
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 2:40 p.m.
Posted by: David H (hegesias@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 11:31 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 5:26 p.m.
Posted by: Ben A.
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 1:29 p.m.
Posted by: BILL
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: BILL
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@computelnet.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: Mike F. (Frejka@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 4:32 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: don caporicci (mclean@azmail.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 3:41 p.m.
Posted by: Centurion
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 4:25 p.m.
>A2sAKs
>A2sA2s
>A2sA3offsuit(or reverse)
>A3sA4s
>AJsA10s
>and maybe a few other
Posted by: Randy H. (r-heeb@uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 4:30 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 8:26 p.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPeenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 9:41 p.m.
Posted by: Leo
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 10:04 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@planet.earthcom.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 10:05 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 10:06 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 10:07 p.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 11:40 p.m.
Posted by: Randy H. (r-heeb@uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 12:30 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 1:11 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 2:42 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Smallie (joesmallie@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 7:42 a.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 12:48 p.m.
Posted by: Randy H. (r-heeb@uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 24 July 1998, at 1:26 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Hayes (hayest@math.uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 6:04 p.m.
>1) AJTx straights come with low more often than AKQx straights.
Posted by: Randy H. (r-heeb@uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 11:00 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 9:42 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 11:56 a.m.
Posted by: Bobby B. (71061.573@compuserve.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 10:35 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 12:26 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 6:04 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Marcklinger (Digger49@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 8:35 p.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 11:23 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 8:33 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 1:44 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 July 1998, at 6:19 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 July 1998, at 6:45 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 July 1998, at 7:19 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 12:37 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Hays (aamarkhays@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: JYC (jcha@compuserve.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 8:42 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 12:00 a.m.
Posted by: Roger (rkbrad@NoSPAM-1389.cts.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 12:05 a.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 1:59 a.m.
Posted by: Roger (rkbrad@NoSPAM-1389.cts.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 11:55 a.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 6:54 p.m.
Posted by: Roger (rkbrad@cts.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 8:03 a.m.
Posted by: Roger (rkbrad@cts.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 11:24 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 3:21 a.m.
Posted by: Stephen H. Landrum (slandrum@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: Roger (rkbrad@cts.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 11:24 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 8:50 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 10:09 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 8:57 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Hays (aamarkhays@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: JYC (jcha@compuserve.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 9:02 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 11:57 p.m.
Posted by: Jessica Vecchione - Two Plus Two Publishing (JessicaVecchione@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 8:30 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 July 1998, at 12:00 a.m.
Posted by: DrToast (DrToast@juno.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 4:30 p.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPeenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: Danny H
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 6:36 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 9:36 p.m.
Posted by: Bill
Posted on: Thursday, 16 July 1998, at 10:10 p.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPeenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 1:11 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 2:54 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 3:44 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 9:09 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 10:48 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 11:26 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 1:09 a.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPeenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 12:17 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 6:56 a.m.
Posted by: Stephen H. Landrum (slandrum@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 3:21 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: bruce s. (bru7ce@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 11:57 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Saturday, 18 July 1998, at 3:36 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 12:57 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 5:54 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 1:10 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 9:31 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 10:21 p.m.
Posted by: Bill
Posted on: Friday, 17 July 1998, at 11:26 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 July 1998, at 2:28 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@planet.earthcom.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 July 1998, at 10:46 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 12:08 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@planet.earthcom.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 11:27 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 3:50 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Johnson
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 9:44 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 4:31 p.m.
Posted by: Randy H. (r-heeb@uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 2:45 p.m.
Posted by: gary (creepshow@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 July 1998, at 10:24 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 1:44 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@planet.earthcom.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 18 July 1998, at 11:07 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 6:11 a.m.
Posted by: The Silencer
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 1:53 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 6:08 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 1:30 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 2:19 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 10:18 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 9:09 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 2:24 a.m.
Posted by: bob davis
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 2:38 p.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 12:15 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 12:58 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 10:56 a.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 12:36 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 3:03 a.m.
Posted by: Paul R. Pudaite (pudaite@pipeline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 10:52 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 12:43 a.m.
Posted by: Jeffrey B. Siegal (jbs@quiotix.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 July 1998, at 10:16 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 July 1998, at 2:00 p.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 2:00 a.m.
Posted by: StrayFrog
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: DrToast (DrToast@juno.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 9:34 p.m.
Posted by: StrayFrog
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 1:45 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel McGilvry (McGilvry-COLO@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 10:42 p.m.
Posted by: StrayFrog
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 11:24 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 2:07 a.m.
Posted by: Leigh W. Davis (lwdavisggl@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 1:24 a.m.
Posted by: Danny H
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Downs (jpd@talx.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 19 July 1998, at 7:32 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 2:07 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 7:06 a.m.
Posted by: D Poker (DPoker@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 9:53 a.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@computelnet.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 10:37 a.m.
Posted by: Bobby B. (71061.573@compuserve.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 11:38 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 12:49 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Smallie (Joesmallie@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 1:22 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 2:06 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 10:47 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 1:57 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 8:52 a.m.
Posted by: Mike Baum (dldodson@swbell.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 10:16 p.m.
Posted by: Centurion
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 10:09 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 10:09 p.m.
Posted by: Buggs Palooka (nafs@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 11:39 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@primenet.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 1:12 p.m.
2) Art of War, Sun Tzu (in translation)
3) HLSFAP, Zee
4) Getting the Best of It, Sklansky
5) Art of Chess Analysis, Timman
Posted by: C.J. Little
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 1:32 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 10:20 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 10:36 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Lilley (glilley.dcjs@state.va.us)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@primenet.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 12:19 p.m.
It seemed that in every situation which apparently was worth a raise or bet, there also appeared to be to many ways to get beaten if one of several cards came out.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 2:17 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 3:19 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Bobby B. (71061.573@compuserve.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 4:42 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 9:42 a.m.
Posted by: Dan (DRedek4505@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 4:10 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 8:44 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 2:53 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 6:35 a.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPeenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 11:18 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 6:32 a.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPeenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 9:51 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 1:09 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 3:54 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 6:38 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danh@planet.eon.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 10:06 p.m.
Posted by: Jessica Vecchione (JessicaVecchione@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 20 July 1998, at 2:32 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@posev.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 9:16 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 2:20 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Weideman (zugzwang@dcn.davis.ca.us)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 6:01 a.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 12:51 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 11:54 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 6:49 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 9:57 a.m.
Posted by: BILL
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 10:42 a.m.
Posted by: Roger (rkbrad@cts.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 July 1998, at 1:44 a.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@computelnet.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 11:52 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 2:23 p.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Bill
Posted on: Friday, 24 July 1998, at 11:13 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Friday, 24 July 1998, at 4:01 p.m.
Posted by: Bill
Posted on: Friday, 24 July 1998, at 9:25 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Downs (jpd@talx.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 11:05 p.m.
> win rate will be lower because she is a solid player!
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 3:02 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@candw.lc)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 9:41 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 July 1998, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 2:48 p.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPeenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 6:46 p.m.
Posted by: Russ Roberts (robertsr@hqasc.army.mil)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@computelnet.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: Jessica Vecchione - Two Plus Two Publishing (JessicaVecchione@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel McGilvry (McGilvry-COLO@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 10:14 p.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@computelnet.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@computelnet.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 3:54 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Ciaffone (coach999@concentric.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 4:32 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 3:54 a.m.
Posted by: Matt Kovacs (mkovacs@flash.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 5:16 p.m.
Posted by: Jessica Vecchione - Two Plus Two Publishing (JessicaVecchione@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 5:32 p.m.
Posted by: Easy E (elammers@manu.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 6:05 p.m.
Posted by: Matt Kovacs (mkovacs@flash.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 6:34 p.m.
Posted by: Jessica Vecchione - Two Plus Two Publishing (JessicaVecchione@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 7:47 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 5:46 p.m.
Posted by: Matt Kovacs (mkovacs@flash.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 8:21 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Davis
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 10:58 p.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 11:20 p.m.
Posted by: C.J. Little
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 12:43 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel McGilvry (McGilvry-COLO@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 21 July 1998, at 11:16 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Brecher (steve@brecher.reno.nv.us)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 12:09 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel McGilvry (McGilvry-COLO@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 12:45 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Brecher (steve@brecher.reno.nv.us)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 July 1998, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 1:18 a.m.
Posted by: Randy H. (r-heeb@uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 9:12 p.m.
Posted by: Aaron Bianco (DSA@2am.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 5:19 a.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPeenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 11:09 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 11:37 p.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPeenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@Nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 22 July 1998, at 11:36 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Hays (aamarkhays@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 12:57 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 8:40 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 2:57 p.m.
Posted by: Bill (runrbill@inetworld.net)
Posted on: Friday, 24 July 1998, at 11:48 a.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 12:29 a.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 12:32 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 7:42 a.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 12:33 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 2:27 p.m.
Posted by: Frank R Wallace (noone@nowhere.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 4:23 p.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 7:29 p.m.
Posted by: Roger (rkbrad@cts.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 July 1998, at 1:04 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 July 1998, at 12:54 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Saturday, 25 July 1998, at 6:24 a.m.
Posted by: Roger (rkbrad@cts.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 1:04 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 24 July 1998, at 12:13 a.m.
Posted by: Roger (rkbrad@cts.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 July 1998, at 1:30 a.m.
Posted by: Mike Baum (dldodson@swbell.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 July 1998, at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 23 July 1998, at 2:58 a.m.
Posted by: Roger (rkbrad@cts.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 July 1998, at 1:52 a.m.
Posted by: Dave James (101673,2331@compuserve.com)
Posted on: Friday, 24 July 1998, at 4:01 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 24 July 1998, at 8:07 p.m.
Posted by: Dave James (101673,2331@compuserve.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 July 1998, at 9:43 a.m.
Posted by: Roger (rkbrad@cts.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 12:48 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 10:42 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 11:13 a.m.
Posted by: Dave James (101673,2331@compuserve.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 3:04 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: Marco (DerGeneral@t-online.de)
Posted on: Friday, 24 July 1998, at 7:09 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 24 July 1998, at 8:11 p.m.
Posted by: Albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 July 1998, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 10:38 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Saturday, 25 July 1998, at 7:07 a.m.
Posted by: Spielmacher (keulon@dds.nl)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 July 1998, at 10:39 a.m.
Posted by: RPGross (RPGross@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 2 August 1998, at 12:31 p.m.
Posted by: Albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 July 1998, at 1:56 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 July 1998, at 2:33 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 July 1998, at 10:11 p.m.
Posted by: Albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 4:16 a.m.
Posted by: Roger (rkbrad@cts.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 12:26 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: Albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: Martin Maughan (mmaughan@xmission.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (graymer@gcwf.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 6:49 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Baum (dldodson@swbell.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 July 1998, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 25 July 1998, at 7:44 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Baum (dldodson@swbell.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 1:32 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: Jimmy
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 3:51 a.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 6:02 a.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPeenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 9:30 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 3:41 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Baum (dldodson@swbell.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 11:04 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 12:39 a.m.
Posted by: Mitch
Posted on: Thursday, 6 August 1998, at 3:40 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: Mike W. (watson@mail.utexas.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 4:11 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 1:22 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 10:05 p.m.
Posted by: J.
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 11:10 p.m.
Posted by: Buggs Palooka (nafs@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Calvin (Calvin1947@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 7:19 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 10:56 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 1:52 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 12:31 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Davis
Posted on: Monday, 3 August 1998, at 1:40 p.m.
Posted by: Roger (rkbrad@cts.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 August 1998, at 1:40 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 August 1998, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 7:27 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 10:53 p.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPeenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: Bill
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: Randy H. (r-heeb@uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 12:56 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 11:18 a.m.
>of real value need good reason to play. As more
>people are in the pot the greater the chances the
>nuts will be the winning hand.
Posted by: Bill
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 11:31 a.m.
Posted by: Mike Baum (dldodson@swbell.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 26 July 1998, at 11:57 p.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 4:45 a.m.
Posted by: Randy H. (r-heeb@uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 11:11 a.m.
Posted by: Albert (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 1:17 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 5:40 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 7:30 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Jimmy R
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 5:10 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 11:37 p.m.
Posted by: Leigh W. Davis (lwdavisggl@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 10:50 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Baum (dldodson@swbell.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 10:13 p.m.
Posted by: Leigh W. Davis (lwdavisggl@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 11:43 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 3:23 a.m.
Posted by: Mike Baum (dldodson@swbell.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 11:05 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 9:27 p.m.
>>It would be nice to spend some more time looking into this hand, as outlined by John Feeney, paying special attention to your betting strategy for different probable scenarios, and the resultant EV's. Of particular interest would be the application of The Fundamental Theory of Poker, and, in this case, Morton's Theorem. <<
Posted by: Mike Baum (dldodson@swbell.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 10:06 p.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 5:10 a.m.
Posted by: loconti
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 6:37 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@candw.lc)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 7:18 a.m.
Posted by: Easy E (elammers@manu.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 2:13 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 4:23 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 4:45 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 6:29 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 8:18 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 10:57 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 11:56 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 10:18 a.m.
Posted by: Jimmy R
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 4:50 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 1:10 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 5:55 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 6:30 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Lynch (lynch.michael@mcleodusa.net)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 10:30 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 7:36 a.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 5:53 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 11:05 a.m.
Posted by: Easy E (elammers@manu.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: Easy E (elammers@manu.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 5:55 p.m.
Posted by: loconti
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 6:47 a.m.
Posted by: Stephen H. Landrum (slandrum@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 10:35 a.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 10:58 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@posev.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 11:35 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 10:49 a.m.
Posted by: carlos (quintero@mit.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: C.J. Little
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 11:26 a.m.
Posted by: Jimmy
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 7:20 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Smallie (Joesmallie@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 5:29 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 12:43 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 5:39 p.m.
Posted by: Randy H. (r-heeb@uchicago.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 6:31 p.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPeenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 27 July 1998, at 9:06 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 1:16 a.m.
Posted by: Ted
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 8:31 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 12:36 p.m.
Posted by: J. (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 10:10 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 12:30 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 9:25 p.m.
>>Clearly an A3 with two high cards, or A34x is a playable hand, especially if the ace is suited to one of the other cards. With the weaker A3 hands, how do I rate the strength of the redraws to know if there is enough value to continue? With one-gap straights, backdoor flushes and top-two pair drawing to fill, it is difficult to get any idea about the value of those draws.<<
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 10:31 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 9:30 a.m.
Posted by: D Poker (DPoker@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 3 August 1998, at 11:45 a.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPeenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 7:27 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 28 July 1998, at 9:25 p.m.
Posted by: C.J. Little
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 11:48 a.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 1:53 p.m.
Posted by: Randy (refeld@computelnet.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 12:53 a.m.
Posted by: loconti
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 9:20 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 July 1998, at 1:04 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (RickNebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 August 1998, at 3:57 a.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 2:58 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Smallie (Joesmallie@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Sunday, 2 August 1998, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Rankin (rankin@mail.access.digex.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 4:51 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 8:20 p.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 11:41 p.m.
Posted by: Bill (runrbill@inetworld.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 11:37 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Rankin (rankin@mail.access.digex.net)
Posted on: Friday, 31 July 1998, at 5:27 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Sunday, 2 August 1998, at 5:48 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Rankin (rankin@mail.access.digex.net)
Posted on: Friday, 31 July 1998, at 5:28 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (JohnFeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 9:20 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 12:24 a.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 August 1998, at 5:12 a.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 August 1998, at 5:12 a.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 August 1998, at 5:12 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 3:02 p.m.
Posted by: jtf (jtf9@juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 29 July 1998, at 7:17 p.m.
Posted by: Ted
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 9:50 a.m.
Posted by: Ted
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 10:04 a.m.
Posted by: J. (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: loconti
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 9:14 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 July 1998, at 11:30 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (RickNebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 31 July 1998, at 5:12 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 July 1998, at 1:57 p.m.
Posted by: loconti
Posted on: Friday, 31 July 1998, at 6:31 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Friday, 31 July 1998, at 7:57 a.m.
Posted by: bob davis
Posted on: Friday, 31 July 1998, at 11:53 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Friday, 31 July 1998, at 12:26 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@posev.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 August 1998, at 7:46 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 31 July 1998, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: Albert Wang (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 31 July 1998, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Saturday, 1 August 1998, at 6:39 a.m.
Posted by: Albert Wang (albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 August 1998, at 11:15 a.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 August 1998, at 4:37 a.m.
Posted by: Boris (BoPeenson@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 August 1998, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Sunday, 2 August 1998, at 5:22 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Friday, 31 July 1998, at 8:03 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 August 1998, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Thursday, 6 August 1998, at 8:17 a.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Friday, 31 July 1998, at 8:17 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 August 1998, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 4 August 1998, at 1:13 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 August 1998, at 4:05 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Saturday, 1 August 1998, at 6:44 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@posev.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 August 1998, at 9:18 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 1 August 1998, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 August 1998, at 3:23 a.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Saturday, 1 August 1998, at 1:09 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 August 1998, at 3:31 a.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Sunday, 2 August 1998, at 12:09 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Smallie (Joesmallie@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 2 August 1998, at 4:44 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 2 August 1998, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: C.J. Little
Posted on: Monday, 3 August 1998, at 12:02 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 August 1998, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 August 1998, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 5 August 1998, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 6 August 1998, at 3:16 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 August 1998, at 4:30 a.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@Nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 August 1998, at 8:45 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 9 August 1998, at 11:54 p.m.
The Gambling Forum July 1998 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo