![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
You are playing in a fairly tough and tight 10-20 holdem game. There is one especially tight player in the game. Where do you want to be sitting in relation to him or her?
Having the "especially tight player" on your left has its advantages. For one, your raises will be more likely to keep him out of the hand. Having the tight dude close to you on the left will also give you some blind stealing possibilities when you are in late position.
While having the tight player on the right has all those "traditional advantages" of good position, I much prefer to have the most aggressive people on the right rather than the tightest.
I would prefer that the very tight player be positioned exactly three seats to my left. This would put him on the big blind when I am one off the button. I believe that one off the button is a better position to steal-raise from than the button itself.
As usual, "it depends". If the tight player won't attack the blinds nearly as often as he should, then I would like him to sit next to me on my right, so my small blind will often not be raised (the game is described as "tough and tight", so it should fold around to the button quite often.) If the tight player won't defend his big blind nearly as often as he should, then I would like to sit two seats to his right. If the tight player attacks and defends blinds properly, then I want him one seat to my left.
A couple of times Mason Malmuth has come into the table where I have been playing, and the open seat was next to me. Both times I saw him coming and had the choice of putting him one to my right or one to my left, since I could slide into the open seat. Both times I chose to put him in the seat to my left. This allowed me to be last to act in quite a lot of hands that I played. Also, I doubt Mason would be too tight in attacking or defending the blinds, and putting him one to my left puts him in the toughest spot (the small blind) to play back at me if I raise to steal the blinds from the button. I might have to be a bit careful about stealing from one or more to the right of the button, however.
-Abdul
I would rather be in position to steal his big blind, than for him to be in position where he wouldn't steal mine. There will be one or two other players thinking steal, so the value of having him on my right is 1/3. Whereas when I am in position to steal I just have to get by the button, a value of 1/2. So, I think it is 16.67% better to be stealing his big blind than for him not to be stealing mine.
I would want David Sklansky sitting on my left. I know if he calls my raise that I am probably screwed.
I would prefer the extremely tight player to my left. I want to know if he (or she) is in a hand before I invested any money.
"I would prefer the extremely tight player to my left. I want to know if he (or she) is in a hand before I invested any money."
By your reasoning, you would want the extremely tight player on your right.
Straight across from them. That way I can equally take advantage of foreknowledge when they raise and rely on their fold when I raise. Mark
One seat away from me. so she will not steal my blind and i can see what se doing
David,
I would rather have the tight player on my right in hold'em anyway. I can get a good idea of where I am at depending on how the tight player entered the pot. Also I believe I can steal after the tight player more often.
Tom Haley
You want the tight player on your right. You act after him so you make up your mind after you see what he does. This is a big advantage knowing when not to get involved with a marginal hand. This will save you a lot of bets, many more than you'll steal from him if he was in the big blind.
David Sklansky writes:
> You are playing in a fairly tough and tight 10-20 holdem game.
No I'm not (i.e. David is wrong). Heh.
Reasons:
1. I rarely play 10-20 holdem.
2. 10-20 holdem is rarely tight and virtually never tough.
3. Even if the extremely unlikely parlay of 1 and 2 were to occur, my length of time in this game would be very short - much too short to worry about my position relative to any particular player.
> There is one especially tight player in the game. Where do you want to be sitting in relation to him or her?
Oh, all right... I don't have a specific answer to give to this question - most (though not all, imho) of the considerations have been given already - instead I have some food for thought about such questions.
I'm always hearing these sorts of discussions, regarding tight players, loose players, aggressive players, etc. My answer is this:
You are playing against 8 or 9 other people. Position is very important in holdem, so you would like ALL of them to be seated on your right. But you can't get this wish. Therefore you have to decide an order of importance. Keep in mind that if you put the tight guy on your right (so you can get out of his way or whatever), you are putting other guys elsewhere (maybe someone who plays his blinds well is on your left, making it less likely that you can successfully steal them or outplay him if you see the flop). In other words, you have to consider the entire table's makeup. All-in-all, I don't think this decision is usually all that important, so long as you know how the other players play and you are able to adjust accordingly.
HOWEVER, there is one general consideration we can look at in this case which I don't think has been mentioned yet...
Because position is so important, your profit potential is greatest from the players that you have position against the most often. These are the players on your right. If you have a choice, you should position those players on your right who make the most position-related mistakes. Generally this is related to loose play. Since you don't stand to make a lot from a tight player even when you have position on him (partly because you will rarely be in a pot with him, and partly because he won't give you much action when you are up against him), you should reserve the precious seat on your right for someone who will get involved more often. But again I emphasize that it's a whole-table consideration - in the example given it sounds like no one in the game is particularly loose, so perhaps the above consideration is overwhelmed by the "tight-player-on-your-right" advantages described by other posters.
Tom Weideman
As long as the game is tight and the player is extremely tight your biggest profit from him should come from stealing his blinds. Thus you want to be two or three seats to his right.
David writes, "As long as the game is tight and the player is extremely tight your biggest profit from him should come from stealing his blinds. Thus you want to be two or three seats to his right."
So I should sit two or three seats to the right of Mason? :)
-Abdul
David Sklansky writes:
> As long as the game is tight and the player is extremely tight your biggest profit from him should come from stealing his blinds.
> Thus you want to be two or three seats to his right.
The key phrase in here is "from him". The main point I was trying to make in my post was that one should select a seat for maximum TOTAL profit. I suppose that from the wording of the question, one can assume that all of the other players are equally skilled, so the only profit consideration is based on the different, overly tight player. Fine, "The answer" seems reasonable to me. But I've never seen an evenly-matched game like this before (usually even "tough, tight" games have mixes of players who play differently - it's just that the proportions of tight, tough players is higher than usual), and there are often other considerations in seat selection like those that I have mentioned. Again, overall, I don't think it's all that important, except maybe in cases where there is one particularly live player and all the rest are very tight. Sitting on the live one's left will definitely be worth it in this case.
If I had to guess which seat had greater ev, the one described by David above relative to the tight player, or the one to the left of a loose player (even if he's not all that loose), I'd guess it was the latter. The reason is that you are only going to get the tight player with the blinds twice every round, and in those cases the pot cannot be protected by another player before you act (and the tight player also can't "accidentally" have a good hand on the blind). On the other hand, you are likely to have many more opportunities to take chips from the loose player (and you are likely to get more than just a single blind's worth of chips) if you sit on his left.
In other words, if you find yourself in a game with rocks like David, Mason, or Abdul ;-), don't automatically sit down in the blind steal spot - consider what is to be gained from other players at the table as well.
Tom Weideman
Tom, I don't think it's just the blinds we're talking about here. Wouldn't being to the right of the extremely tight person mean that you could count on dumping him/her from the mix of most hands with a raise (blinds or not), regardless of your strength, UNLESS he/she has a premium hand (with which he/she may re-raise, allowing you to dump)? That's a lot more than just the blinds...
Your point about total profit is a good one, but my limited AC experience is that you don't get that much opportunity to bounce around open seats until you find the proper "mix"...
The question assumed that everything else is equal. Of course it would be more important to be on the live one's left. The question also assumed that the tight player played a lot tighter than he should. You can be sure that Mason plays a lot of hands in the big blind when there is a late position raiser. In fact being to the right of an excellent fairly tight but aggressive player may be more disadvantageous than being on the live one's right. At least the latter case has the advantage of giving many opportunities for pot building check raises.
Some of the best nights I have ever had resulted from sitting to the immediate right of a maniac. Your variance can be extreme, however.
JW
It would seem to me that you would want any player who is playing "incorrectly" to play to your right. If they are real tight you'll know to stay out of there way when they are in and if they are too aggresive you'll be able to punish them when you've got the goods and not have to pay the extra bet(s) when they raise your drawing hands. The person you wouldn't want on your right is one who plays down the middle, i.e. has no particularly strong tendencies either way to exploit.
In such a game against such a player, you want him on your left. There can be no other answer.
I have seen many books and discussions that will refer players to find another table if the one they are on is particularly tough.
What I am wondering is if any of you have seen or been able to corrolate tough, easy or easier games with a certain time of day, day of week, etcetera.
For example: Are tables easier later in the evening because their are more people who have had a few drinks in them?
Are tables tougher later in the evening because the poor players have been emptied.
Are tables easier on the weekends because there are more casual players out having fun?
Are tables easier at the end of the month because the people who can't afford to be gambling (and shouldn't be) just got paid and are somewhat loose?
I would be interested in seeing what if there are any (many) common times and possible speculation on why.
Thank you,
Very good question. The answer will vary somewhat from place to place. And those who really know may not be willing to share the info.
My experience in Atlantic City is that, on average, there is a greater chance of finding good games on the weekends, than during the week. The games will tend to be better in the mid-afternoon till late evening (9-10 PM). The time the buses leave effect when the casual players go home.
Having said that, I've seen great games during the week and in the middle of the night. It all depends who's in town and playing poker with their gambling money. I've also seen the toughest games on weekends, from time to time.
One thing I've noticed is that the games are rarely very good in the morning (daylight) until noon time. I guess only the die hard poker players who've stayed up all night are left (and the only way I'd be in that game is if I was also up all night, finding it hard to play my best.). I've wondered if it would be worth it to go to bed early and get up to play early. But I would probably find no game most of the time at that hour.
The few times I've been in Nevada I've noticed that the regulars start coming in around 10AM-Noon, depending on the cardroom. Some come in to play in an early tournament. They tend to play pretty good, and fairly tight. However, some think all "tourists" are idiots, and if you're up to the task, you can take advantage of them.
By the way, if you do find a good game, better be in it or get on the list fast. The regulars will sniff it out and be ten deep on that list (or table change list). You may never get a seat.
Amen.
My own personal experience is relatively limited. However, I have had good luck finding loose games in Vegas during the morning and early afternoon.
At this time you may catch some regulars who have pulled an all-nighter. If the evening play didn't go their way, often they are right on the edge of tilting--and, my sunny morning disposition can often push them right over the edge.
At the same time, you can hope to catch some tourists trying to fit in a quick game before their vacation ends. Even tight playing tourists will tend to loosen their play at this time. Afterall, they are trying to squeeze more enjoyment out of their very limited time.
These are just some of my own personal experiences. I'd be interested to know if this correlates with the experiences of others.
Darren
I'll email you my next trip itinerary to LV.
The best time to play is definitely between 2 am - 10 am. You're more likely to be up against players who may be drunk, tired, or on tilt. Those who are playing in the afternoons or evenings are more likely to be more disciplined and focused. In Atlantic City or Mississippi, the best games are on Saturday and Sunday. In the west, any day is good for poker.
Phil Bass thinks, "The best time to play is definitely between 2 am - 10 am." This is debatable in higher limit games in California, where drinks dry up at 2 am and the props start becoming a large percentage of the players as the morning wears on. Some of the props are quite fearsome players, such as Jimmy, who some say is the best hold'em player in LA, and Chuck Thompson and Jessie, who are a couple of the best mid limit players in the Bay Area.
-Abdul
does anyone have the access codes for rebel poker?
Would apperciate any comment on sozobon poker by Conjelco...good for your game?....bad for your game..?...etc...thanks in advance....
I would also like to hear about Conjeco. I recently bought turbo stud-Wilson,has value but easier than a live game. Intrested in buying hold'em software-adive please? could2+2 either work with Wilson or develop some sophisicated software,where we could play against tough players such as David,Mason,Roy Cook ect-llove all there writings and would pay for 2+2 software as many other east coast players would,the demand would be there ,we bought many od the advanced player books! WHAT YOU SAY MASON. p.s. after I down load your demo I can,t use it computer mumbojumbo any sugestions-please be specific or can I call. Love your site
Wilson's TTH2 is really good. The Sim opponents adjust for the amount of players in the game, they try to Steal Blinds..ect. I never tried it before .2, but from what I've heard, its improved a lot. I E-mailed Wilson Software about trying the same thing with their Turbo Stud and they replied that they are working on a upgraded version as we Post. I have to admit that working with this software and studing has improved my game more than by just Studying and Playing Live games alone. I think the reason for that is you can see how your playing performs in the Long run more easily. I was losing alot of money on some of my Starting Hand choices for loose games (off suit High Cards), but I couldn't see it in the Short Run of a session. The one element that all these PC games lack is Psychology. You will have to take some lumps in the Live Games to get that, but for Low-Limit, if you do well with this software I bet you will have no problem defeating those games.
Conjelco's Software is good if you are just begining. It costs less than the Wilson Software, and its better than most programs on the market. But if you really want to learn to beat Poker quickly I'd have to go with TTH2.
CV
Do yourself a favor and buy the new Wilson Turbo Two Hold'em product. Costs a little more but is much better.
I have been keeping up on this issue. The return of PG county poker is stalled by the state gov, which stopped PG plans to open "card rooms." Does anyone know of games in or close to MD. For example, does anyone know of an American Legion hall with a game?
AT FOXWOODS,(CT) THE 10-20 HOLD EM GAME NOW INCLUDES A 1/2 KILL. IF A POT TOTALS $145 OR MORE, THE NEXT HAND IS A $15- $30 LIMIT. THE WINNER OF THE POT THAT WAS JUST $145 OR MORE MUST POST A $15 LIVE BLIND. THE BLINDS REMAIN AT $5 AND $10 FOR THE OTHER BLIND POSITIONS. THE POT NOW BEGINS WITH $30 INSTEAD OF $15. MY QUESTION IS, DOES THIS CHANGE IN POT ODDS DRASTICALLY AFFECT WHICH HAND GROUP YOU SHOULD SELECT TO PLAY? ANY SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO PLAY THESE "KILL POTS" WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
Since yuo only get 4 dolars worth of blinds in 5-10 game. You have to fold more hands.
Boris wrote:
"Since yuo only get 4 dolars worth of blinds in 5-10 game. You have to fold more hands."
1. The game under discussion is a 10-20 game.
2. Where I play, you get 7 dollars worth of blinds in a 5-10 game.
3. Everything else being equal, you should fold fewer hands in a 1/2 kill game.
I wouldn't use the word drastically, but it certainly does (should) change your hand selection and style of play. Look at it this way, in the 10-20 game, you start out with 1.5 bets in blind money. In a half-kill pot, you start out with 2 bets in blind money (don't forget, the size of the bets went up, not just the amount of money). Thus, for each kill hand, you are in both a higher-limit game, and a game that encourages looser play.
However, don't take this very far. Your hand selection is only going to increase a little bit. Additionally, the more important factor is, "how does a kill pot affect the other players?" I have seen kill games where players tighten up dramatically during a kill hand (they feel like they're over their heads, so they only play premium hands), and other games where most players loosen up dramatically (they see that extra money, and go after it aggressively). You must adjust to this much more than you'll adjust to the change blind money from 1.5 to 2 bets.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
There's another factor besides the blind money, in a kill game, the winner of the pot that's large enough is forced to post a blind on the next hand. If pots are regularly meeting this requirement, the kill pot "tax" on the winner is a heavier burden on a hand that started at the 10-20 level than one that started at the 15-30 level. This also should encourage looser play in killed pots.
Interesting threshold effects occur that can change your river betting strategy. For instance, the pot is $140 and it's 10-20. You are on the river with one opponent, you should not bet for value nearly as much as normally in this situation because if you are called and win, you have to immediately post $15 of the $20 you just won with that last bet.
There is some additional value to being in the small blind. If you do happen to get involved from the SB and the pot is killed, you'll be posting the kill on the button the next hand if you win. A possible raise on top of the kill from the button may be respected by experienced kill game players. The small blind is the worst position in hold'em - kill games help offset this just a little bit.
I have a question that perhaps the two+two authors or others will answer.
What is the total number of HFTAP books out in circulation?
Another related question is what is the total number of players who regularly play the game?
And finally then what would be a good estimate for the percentage of players ( perhaps divided by levels ) that have read the "required" reading.
Thanks!
David
What is a good kicker??
ACE!
Boris,
Whi dont yoe settel bakk in retirment and read moor book?
That is about what I'll make if my game Poker Challenge becomes a succesfful casino game. It is now available as part of the virtual casino computer game callled Beat The House 2 by Interplay. You can sample one version of it by going to our home page. All commments and suggestions are welcome.
Good for you David, I'm sure your mommy and poppy are proud of you.
Make it beatable for significant amounts of money, after a lot of hard work, and we'll help you make your 5 mil.
Your home page states that Windows 95 is needed. Will it run on 3.1? If not, do you plan on making available a version that will run on Windows 3.1?
On the 21st February, I downloaded the 3.5 megabyte file, BTH.ZIP (Beat the House program), with the intention of trying it out when I finally upgrade to Windows 95. It's still lying there (the file that is), and for the moment I'm still using Windows 3.1 (as are millions of other people). I consider myself as computer savvy as the next guy, but have decided to upgrade to Win95 only when I purchase my next system.
The decision to come out with only a Win95 version of the game and ignore the large base of Windows 3.1 users could indirectly cut into that $5 million.
I don't know about cutting in to his anticipated windfall. I assume the game is meant to be played in a casino. But it will certainly cut into the available feedback he's looking for.
George,
I don't know about cutting in to his anticipated windfall. I assume the game is meant to be played in a casino. But it will certainly cut into the available feedback he's looking for.
That's why I cautiously used the word "indirectly". Nevertheless, there are 2 groups of people a program of this sort is aimed at :
(1) Those who have heard about the game and would like to try it out before actually risking real money in a casino, and
(2) Those who stumble upon this program by chance, start playing the game and get 'addicted', and then naturally play the game whenever in a casino setting.
The existence of group (2) alone would be enough incentive to distribute the full game (not only a demo version) as freeware. (Needless to say, in Windows 3.1 as well).
It think I can eliminate the word "indirectly". I hope I'm wrong.
Etienne
The computer game is out of my hands. Sorry.
Sorry, missed your point. But I suspect that if this game is available in a casino, those who tried it on their computer will be a small percentage of those who play it in a casino. But I may be wrong.
George,
You are not wrong. My point is twofold -
(1) I've been dying to look at the game, and this week will take the file to a friend who has Win95. Others will not be that determined. To date, I don't think there's been one review of the game (available for download since February) by a forum member.
(2) Small percentages are what the casino industry live off. The game's success will be determined by a host of factors, one of them being advertising and promotion. I still think an aggressive marketing campaign of the computer game (or lack thereof) will have a direct effect on David's bottom line.
Etienne
20/40 Hold'em - UTG (solid player) Raises - # 5 calls # 77 Reraises I'm in the Big Blind with 5h4h (assuming the others just call, the pot has $210 in it now) it will cost me $40 to call now and I may be reraised. Question # 1 - Should I call?
(probably not, however if I did call and the flop comes 2h 4d 2c. Question # 2 - Should I check and call on the flop if I've gone this far?
i would fold and fold....i think a call before the flop is a big loser, and (assuming you did call on the flop), .probably one of the three players has overpair, if not, they can easily catch to beat you.
You should fold a small suited connector, but call with a small pair. One of the reasons for this is that you are describing a situation where a lot of money will go into the pot on the flop and fourth street and it will cost you much to try to complete your hand. But, this exactly what you want if you flop a set.
Would you really call preflop with a small pair, like threes? UTG raises, one caller, than another guy makes it three bets. I've been automatically throwing away pairs below 7s with that kind of action in a normal game. And seriously thinking about throwing away 8s and 9s if one of the raisers were rocks.
I only call whith grup 1. and see some players fold JJ in tornament
I toss small pairs in this spot. You need 7 1/2 to 1 for your $40 which is $300. With $210 already in, you need to win $90 more after the flop just to break even. No profit.
And that assumes the original raiser does not make it 4 bets.
And that assumes you never get a set cracked. I get sets cracked all the time.
I agree, toss it. The price is wrong, and you must factor in the times you get beat as well as set over set. Besides you want an OVERLAY, not the right price. Same goes for a small pair.
I used to never throw away pairs in this spot and since I started doing so I have done much better.
Sorry, but I really must disagree. I think that in a 20-40 game the implied odds you get in the pot are more then enough to call with a small pair, especially if there are a lot of players in the pot it should be easy to get another 90 from them in later betting rounds. If you flop trips however, be sure that none of the others draws out on you later on with perhaps a straight or a flush.
#1 - Generally, do not call in this spot. It sounds like there must be 3 other players (otherwise, I don't see where you get a total of $210). Small, suited connectors aren't typically going to hit often enough to justify putting in 3 bets preflop against only 3 opponents. Now, you do have 1 bet in already, so your situation is a little more like playing against 5 opponents for 2 bets. This is a play I might make if I had late position with this hand. However, having to be the first to act in all later rounds makes this a fold, IMHO.
#2 - Actually, I don't like this flop. I think that it hurts your hand, rather than helps. There's an excellent chance that you're up against an overpair. Normally, you would have 5 outs against an overpair when you flop 1 pair. However, here, hitting your 5 on the turn or river does no good, as the overpair also already has 2 pair. Thus, unless you can assign a high chance that both players have hands like AK, AQ, etc., then you're drawing very slim (i.e., you must hit a 2-outer, or runner-runner a straight or flush). Thus, despite the size of the pot, I would fold on this flop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I'll be the odd one out here, but I think the situation with 54h in the big blind, given an additional 2 bets to call, is not an automatic fold. The problem here is that there's a good chance that UTG will reraise, in which case I agree that this is a fold. If, however, I was fairly certain that UTG would call only, then this IMHO is a positive EV hand, and I would call.
I agree with Greg that it's a bad flop and would check-fold.
I was bring in whith (Ah5h)5d my hand is live. Qd next to me raise to $6. 4 players call. Whath should i do call or fold?
Raise.
I call on 3-street get Kh. What my play should be?
Are the hearts fairly live? 5's still live?
If so, I'd check and call.
I have been playing hold'em for about 3 months now, and have just recently found this page. I have a few questions i would like help on. I have read HPFAP, TOP, and all of the essays at this site. I feel that i have a good feel for the strategies of the game, but i cannot seem to beat the low limits (2-4, 3-6, and occassionaly 6-12) It seems that almost every hand goes to a showdown so many of the strategies don't seem to work. In case it makes a difference i play in the Los Angeles area.
#1) Should I be playing ultra tight, or go for drawing hands? #2) Should i try to save a larger bankroll and try a 10-20 table? If so, what is a good amt to bring to the table? I would imagine $300 - $400, but i don't know what these tables are like. #3) Are tournaments a good way to practice? I have played in about four and they usually start with about 9 tables and I usually get booted with about 4-5 tables left. #4) What does UTG mean?--it is in several of the posts
Any help/advice is greatly appreciated. If you don't want to post, you can send any responses to my email.
Thanks in advance JJ
Utg meean you are first to act after the blind. If you can not win at 3-6 you will lose at 10-20. try to win yor bankroll.
I haven't played LA, but I've heard the Rake is so bad there, that even Great Players would have a problem winning the Low Limit Games. You need to Post on what the rake is, and how many hours you have played so that the Forum can determine if you're playing is faulty or if the Rake is what is Killing you. At the Casino I play at (Cactus Petes) they Rake 10% or 3.00 which ever is less. Any more than that for a 3-6 game and I'd find an other place to play. If you like to play 2-4 why not set up a Home Game?
CV
JJ wrote:
>#1) Should I be playing ultra tight, or go for drawing >hands?
You should play hands that do well in a multiplayer pot. This includes all pairs, Ax suited, and suited connectors (depending upon position and how big they are). You still play, and raise with, hands like AK off, but you've got to know when to give them up after the flop.
And yes, you do play ultra-tight. In a game like you describe, I am typically playing about 15% of the hands dealt to me, including the blinds. I've heard other people say that it should only be about 10%. The fact that it's a rake (i.e., not a time charge), and a high rake relative to the betting limits, severely limits the number of hands you can play profitably (even if you're a very good player).
Wait a minute. Don't some rooms in LA charge a flat fee on the button? If you're in this type of game, it's really a time-charge game, not a rake game, in that the amount you pay to the house has nothing to do with how many pots you win, but only how many hands you're dealt. In this type of game, you can certainly play 20% or more of the hands dealt, the exact number depending upon how well you play them. As a beginner, you should probably still stick to 10% or so. As you become a top player, you can play 20%.
>#2) Should i try to save a larger bankroll and try a 10-20 >table? If so, what is a good amt to bring to the table? I >would imagine $300 - $400, but i don't know what these >tables are like.
This is a difficult question to answer. I can beat 10-20, so for me it's a better game (more profitable) than 3-6. However, I can also make a profit playing 3-6 (I just play a very different style in that game). You indicate that you're a new player, so I hesitate to recommend that you move up, where you may easily just lose money faster than in 3-6.
Try this. Keep playing 2-4 and 3-6. Everytime you pay a charge to the house (don't count dealer or waitress tokes), write it down. At the end of the session, total this amount, and mentally add it to your stack. Now, using your supplemented stack, count how many bets (i.e., big blinds) you've won or lost. Track this in a notebook or on a spreadsheet. After playing a few hundred hours, come up with an average of bets/hour you've won. If you're losing, don't even think about moving up. If you're ahead, convert your total to the bet size of a 10-20 game. Now, take out the house charges from this new total. If you're still on the plus side, then you MIGHT be able to beat a 10-20 game. Remember, your average opponent in 10-20 will play much better than in 2-4, so the number of bets you win (prior to paying house charges) should decline.
Here's a detailed example. You play 500 hours of 2-4, and average a loss of $1.50/hour. During each hour of play, you paid the house an average of $9.50/hour in button charges. Thus, after taking this into account, you beat your opponents out of $8.00/hour, or 4 bets/hour. Translating this into a 10-20 game, the same results would have you beating your opponents out of $40/hour. After paying the house $9.50/hour, you're still ahead by $30.50/hour in this hypothetical game. Of course, if you win 2 bets/hour less in this game (due to quality of opposition), you're still winning. However, you easily might be 5 bets/hour worse off in this game, in which case you will lose $19.50/hour in 10-20, as compared to $1.50/hour in 2-4.
>#3) Are tournaments a good way to practice? I have played >in about four and they usually start with about 9 tables >and I usually get booted with about 4-5 tables left.
Tournaments are a good way to practice tournaments, not live action. The strategy for beating a live game is MUCH different than that for beating a tournament. In fact, there are people who are top-notch at one type of game, and absolute suckers at the other.
The fact that you're typically getting busted in the middle of a tournament means that you're probably playing too tight (although your sample size is so small that no strong conclusions can be drawn). Sometimes you get involved in a tournament when the odds are wrong, simply because these odds are better than you're likely to get by waiting. Here's an example. You're down to 300 in a tournament, the blinds are 100,200, and you are still quite a ways away from the money. You post the BB, leaving you with only 100. No matter what happens, you will call any raise, reraise, or whatever. The pot you win now, even if you know you're a big underdog, is so much bigger than the pot you could win with your last 100, that it is worth going for. In a live game, if you're down to your last 3 bucks in a 2-4 game, you pick up and leave, or buy-in for more. You don't invest $2 on a random hand when you're about to go bust anyway. It's a bad investment.
>#4) What does UTG mean?--it is in several of the posts
Under The Gun, or the first person to act after the blinds in HE, or after the bring-in in stud.
Here's what I would recommend, if you can do it. Find a good player whom you know wins regularly. Ask him or her to watch you play for a while, and grade your play. Ask them if you should move up, or spend more time in the lower limits for practice. In the absence of this technique, the best judge of when to move up is when you find yourself always knowing exactly WHY you're making every fold, call, bet and raise you make, and you see the majority of your opponents making what you know to be mistakes.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think that there is a misconception here. Just because you play 15 percent of your hands doesn't mean you always play 15 percent of your hands. This is the average number of hands that you play. Specifically you play less hands in early position, more hands in a late position. You play less hands if the pot has already been raised, more hands if the pot is not raised.
I agree completely, and I don't think that I implied otherwise (although I was silent on this issue). Of course you play more often in late position than you do UTG. However, you will probably play more hands from the BB than any other single position.
Later, Greg Raymer
For further reading there are two enlightening essays about the kind of games you're in in David Sklansky's _Getting the Best of It_.
You're reading very good stuff, but much of it is about games that are a little different. So when "the strategies don't seem to work", it is probably because you've keyed in on strategies (such as semi-bluffing) which are very valuable in many games, but will only cost you in the very loose games you're in. Work to understand the underlying logic of the various strategies you read about, and it will become clearer when to use a certain tactic, when not to, and *why*.
I am only playing low-limit myself and not
for any longet then you but I have a suggestion.
Take a look at the Lee Jones book "Winning Low
limit holdem" as well. It is certainly more tailored
to these games you are in.
I also enjoy the MM and DS books, in fact
they are much more interesting to me, but I
find the Lee Jones book helps to clarify
and concentrate the ideas that need to be
applied in the common low-limit game situations
I have been seeing.
David
Situation: Super-satellite at the WSOP. 16 players left, final table (9 places gets paid, 6 of those get $10k seats). You have 800 left with the blinds at 300 and 600, sitting 4 spots downrange of the blinds and dealt Q-6 suited. UTG raises all-in; do you play this hand or wait for something better before getting devoured by the blinds?
I wait and if the hand BEFORE the big blind I am still in the same situation, I pretend to look and raise all in.
I prefer to play any Ace, King, pair, or "20" hand in this chip situation. Calculating whether I would’ve caught a preferred Ace or King hand in the next 5 deals: chances are 4-1 against catching a hand containing any Ace or a pair. Obviously the odds are even better to catch any Ace OR any King, or a pair. Thus, you are correct, I could’ve and should’ve waited; the Q-6 suited was a mistake, although under the gun, it has to be played (no matter how dubious the effect of a 200 raise at that stage)
[If required to play the Q-6 or other weak hand UTG, an interesting idea is to consider NOT raising UTG, since the 200 raise would have an effect no greater than throwing a wet papertowel at someone; it might be more valuable to wait and see if the 200 would be better spent in the big blind, i.e., when calling the 600 and missing the flop entirely.]
However, note that unless taking a smaller pair or 2 undercards against a bigger pair, very few hands are further behind than 2-1 against before the flop (this assumes one player all-in); even 7-2 unsuited versus Q-10 unsuited (my opponent's hand) is only a little worse than 2-1 against. My odds with Q-6 suited versus Q-10 unsuited were exactly 2-1 against (both going to the river). Where I perhaps got most unlucky was that the other player held one of the same cards I did – if she had held K-10 unsuited, my odds would’ve only been 3-2 against.
My thinking to go into the RAISED pot versus being the one MAKING the (albeit very small) raise was to get the added chips in the pot and let the raisers all-in bet drive the remainder of the field out (we're all on the edge at this stage, so there's no reason for me to believe that she has that great of a hand either). Raising 200 into the blinds seemed likely to induce a call without the effect of driving players out (which my opponents much larger all-in bet did). So, in the first situation, we get 1700 to my 800, in the second situation, we get 1100 to my 800 (assuming only big blind calls my all-in bet).
These are the kinds of hands and situations that must be anticipated in order to succeed in the late stages of all tournaments, but particularly the fast action events, including the supers. It is also the kind of analysis that we see so little of in the tournament books.
In actual practice I liked the way you played your hand. It took courage. You are of course correct, in that you must take a stand.
Apparently you must have played a hand and found yourself in the situation (chip count) described. It is unfortunate that you didn't have, say, 12 or 1400 so that a raise on your part could steal the antes. Your opponents fearing to double you up.
The situation you describe is one of the reasons I so dislike tournaments. You are forced to gamble with hands that make your stomach turn. Through no fault of your own, you more often than not find yourself in an untenable situation. Making the luck factor paramount.
My style is to play in a side game and simply buy more chips.
I fold in a heartbeat. You'll get to see, what, 3 more hands for free. Then, on the 4th hand, you'll be posting the BB. Your chances of getting a better hand than Q6 are excellent between now and then. Plus, you'll get to come in first, rather than facing a raise by a likely better hand. If you do get a good enough hand and raise in the next few deals, you're very likely to end up facing just the BB player, as everyone else is likely to fold unless they have a premium hand. This is especially true if the BB has a lot of chips, as everyone else will be afraid of a raise by the BB (or someone else behind them) if they come in after you, thus forcing them to fold and losing some important chips for nothing. Thus, if you wait for the K7, A3, or whatever on the next hand or 3, you'll likely end up being against a random hand in the blind, and you'll be a favorite rather than a 2:1, 3:2, or whatever level of underdog.
This is especially true, I think, in these supersatellites. This is due to the odd tournament situation of being paid the same for 6th place as for 1st. Thus, if someone has a big stack at this point, they are likely (if they're smart) to avoid confrontations, even with small stacks, as they have very little to gain, and could find themselves not making the last 6 spots if they try a few times, and fail, to take out short stacks at this stage of the game.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
About the odd tournament structure affecting strategy considerations, there is no doubt. Ask poor ole' Jim Walterburg ... 4 final table appearances in the supers -- several with a big stack -- and lost the seat every time (he did make it on the fifth time, however). I don't think I've ever seen a poker player look so shell-shocked.
I'm not sure of this (having not recently reread any of Mike Paulle's reports), but isn't he one of the 2 or 3 guys that Mike discussed, who (in Mike's opinion), should have just folded every hand dealt to them at the final table without looking? I.e., didn't Jim arrive at the final table at least once with such a chip lead that he would have won a seat before being blinded off?
I know someone arrived at the final table with a HUGE chip lead over every other player, and then proceeded to play every (or almost every) hand, and busted out 9th. Now there's someone who couldn't adjust away from the fast strategy that got them there. It's also a good lesson for those who think that you should always blast full speed ahead. The top tournament players have multiple speeds available to them, and they play at the appropriate speed for the current circumstances (usually).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Coincidentally, in the super that I believe you are referring to, when the final table was set, O'Neil was in 1st and Jim in 2nd -- Jim had 13,000 and all he had to do was sit on his hands .... As Mike described the final hand, it was one of the most bizarre seen in a super, with Jim playing nearly every hand, then losing his last 3 chips and giving up the seat to a man who DID sit on his hands with one chip. Obviously, Jim Walterburg is a very talented player to make that many final tables in such a short period of time, but his final table problems highlight the abrupt changes in strategy required at that stage. (When he DID win a seat the next night, I congratulated him -- he STILL looked shell-shocked, as if he couldn't believe that sitting on his hands was a good tactic at ANY stage.)
Of course it IS hard to change gears when a war is being fought. During the WSOP, on day 2, most of the players with big stacks seemed to be stuck in high gear. Of course, some of those still in high gear finished in the money, but repeatedly, I saw big stack go against big stack, with about half of those exiting out of the money when they were in excellent position. This phenomenen seems similar to the racing situation where two thoroughbreds hook up on the lead and neither will back down from a speed duel. Poker players would be better served to leave their ego parked at the door most of the time.
I disagree with going all in UTG for 200 more than the BB. By going all in, you passivate the table as the pot is now protected (e.g. a bluff is of little value as you can't be bluffed out). You've defined the action of the hand from the start. If you have a premium hand, go ahead and commit the chips. But I think it is better to wait for whatever trash you get on the BB.
As the BB, more players aside from you are now in the tricky spot of acting before you. You'll get an advantage in two ways...
A) Some players may fold despite the fact they have a hand they are willing to take up against your probable all in, but are concerned about getting raised by a bigger stack down the line. This means more opponents will fold. In the best case, it gets to the button, he has trash, folds, and you get to play head up with the SB. Given that he has equity to put you all in with almost anything, (assume he has a reasonable stack size), you really are 50/50 to win and survive.
B) Since you have not taken the first raise and defined the hand, someone else may enter the pot for a reasonable raise, and reduce the field. At this point, you are probably against a strong hand, but you are in far better shape in terms of survival against one reasonable hand than several random hands.
Additionally, should you double through from the BB, you have the option to fold the SB at a much smaller detriment to your stack size, as you have already posted the BB. If you go all in under the gun, you will still have to post the BB, and either make a bad fold or a bad call at that point, and if you get past that hand post the SB. Let's say both hands are raised and you dump your 2-4offsuit. You probably will be at or below the amount you had when UTG, as you will pay off the blinds you won on the previous hand. And you may find yourself wanting to make calls based on pot odds and end up playing your BB anyway, but you've now increased the number of hands you must win to get to the button from one to two.
Don't be afraid of the blinds.
Murph
I'm not sure that I agree with your ideas about coming into a raised pot. I would be happy to pick up the blinds in this spot, and hopefully buy a little time to get a better starting hand. When you raise all in you will probably get one caller anyway, but I would avoid coming in behind a raise.
This of course was also Susie Isaac's opinion. Yet what kind of hand was Q-10 for her to raise all-in with in an early position? Neither of our reasonings could be consider "correct", but that's the enjoyable part of trying a high-risk play that others would not.
Q-6s was wrong here, but trying to get enough chips using the same play (calling an all-in raise with the right odds) with, say, K-10 unsuited (or even Q-10!), is correct. Skillfully playing that fine line on the ragged edge usually is the difference between winning and losing in these events -- and being able to play a crippled stack is the toughest tournament skill to refine.
In several different articles, I believe that Mason has written (or implied) that a good (or was that very good?) player in 20-40 Hold'em should be able to make one big bet per hour, in this case, $40.
My question is what's the learning curve? In most walks of life, there's a learning curve, so one might expect that the one starts doing ok, but as one learns more about a particular subject, the rate of increase is great, but that rate of increase slows down until it plateaus as the person reaches his peak level of competence. The curve as I know and envision it looks somewhat like the natural logarithm curve....or something like the path of baseball thrown in the air, but it stays at the peak instead of falling back down to earth.
I've played 500 hours or so in the limits of 15-30 to 40-80. I believe that at this moment, I'm a better player than I was after my first 100 hours, and at least from Hour 100 to Hour 500, I was still on a learning curve, but now, I'm not so sure...maybe I've plateaued. Anyway, I don't think it is correct for me to look at all of my 500 hours of play as a measurement of my 'expectancy' or 'standard deviation' (even if I did believe that such a small sample was very meaningful)....but that I should weigh the last 100 hours more so than the previous 100 hours, and so on, to get a more accurate picture of my current status...and thus where I am on the learning curve. (maybe I've even gone dowhill, like that baseball). Obviously all these numbers are still very subject to small sample problems, but I thought it would be interesting to adjust for my personal information in that way.
So, the questions are :
1. How would you recommend how to compensate for time? (the last 100 hours versus the previous 100 and so on)
and more importantly,
2. Do you think this is a valid approach in a measurement of current expectancy and level of play?
Thank you.
Many say the learning curve of hold'em is fairly sharp at first (you learn quickly) and then you plateau out fairly quickly. I guess I would agree with that, though there is always more to learn for everyone. However, if you don't have a tutor, it could take you years to realize some things that can be taught in a few seconds.
I don't recommend getting too caught up on looking at the timeline progress of your results. There is a lot of noise, and you may have to look at one year's results compared to the previous year's results to come close to detecting a relatively small difference in EV. My results do seem to suggest a higher EV as time goes on, and even the statistics seem to support this, but the games I'm playing are not constant over time, so I can't necessarily point to me as the source of the improvement.
Keep in mind that a pro's standard deviation in poker is somewhere around 15 small bets per hour (and yours is probably a helluva lot more), and so to detect a difference of 1 small bet per hour in EV to 2 standard deviations confidence (~98%), "typically" a pro would need 900 hours of play. (Where "typically" means that if the +- on his EV estimate after 900 hours is 1 small bet per hour. I'm speaking loosely. Consult your stats book for proper procedures.)
I don't recommend compensating for time at all. If you are, or become, a winning player, you'll plateau out at a positive expected value, and your actual winnings per hour will slowly converge to your expected winnings per hour. At most, one of the dimensions you might want to break down your data along is time (on perhaps an annual basis.)
However, I view rather skeptically the 1-2 big bets per hour estimated EV for professionals. You don't have to steal many pots to turn 1 or 2 big bets per hour into more. And conversely, you don't have to have many pots stolen from you to go from a 1-2 big bets per hour winner to an overall loser. Poker does not produce a definite income, like a salary, nor does it have a fairly well defined expected value, like blackjack.
Be the best in your games, or don't be confident that you're a winning player. You should feel like the solo black belt master in a bad kung foo movie, deftly disposing of the hordes of incompetent opponents, preferably one at a time but often using them against each other.
My warnings are probably less appropriate in Las Vegas, where there are often dumb tourists donating lots of dead money to each pot, and if you play tight preflop you just have to play halfway competently postflop to get your share. On the other hand, the best players in Vegas are a lot better than the best players anywhere else at a given limit.
-Abdul
Abdul Jalib wrote:
>Be the best in your games, or don't be confident that
>you're a winning player.
I totally agree with this. If you do the math on anything smaller than 20-40 (at least in high rake zones like California, Las Vegas might be a a little different), it is pretty much impossible for more than 1 or 2 people in a game to be significant winners.
It is true that most of the money comes from the worst players, but unless you are one of the best, you shouldn't figure to get much of it. You might win some, but you'll lose most of it, or more, to the better players and the rake.
1. I compensate for time by computing my EV and SD as a series of moving averages. For example, I'll compute these statistics for sessions 1-100, for sessions 2-101, for sessions 3-102, ..., for sessions 101-200. I'll then plot these 101 EV averages and look at my progress over time. I'll do the same with the 101 SD averages. Obviously, a trade-off remains between including lots of sessions in each moving average (to increase your confidence in the results) and including fewer sessions in each moving average (to better reflect your "current" skill level at that point in time). I find that including 100 sessions produces a reasonably smooth curve when I plot my moving averages, so I feel reasonably confident that the numbers are meaningful. And since 100 sessions covers about a six-month playing period for me, I also feel that the results do an adaquate job of representing my "current" skills.
2. If you want to look at a single EV (or a single SD), then I think the number would more accurately estimate your current EV (or SD) if you indeed weighted your recent sessions more heavily than your early sessions. I just don't know how to do it and haven't bothered to see if my statistics books offer any good suggestions.
The rake at the mirage, and at the horseshoe, seems so fair that I sometimes feel that poker players should refuse to play anywhere else , and just let all the other poker rooms die a greedy death. They take one at thirty, one at fifty, 50 cents at one hundred, and 50 cents at one hundred thirty. Compare that to the nearest poker room to me where they take ten percent to 5 dollars max. I figure they are taking about one hundred twenty dollars an hour off the table. Who wants to play in a game where you know somebody is going to be twelve hundred ahead after ten hours. I currently play in 10-20 most of the time, but have done well- actually better- at 20-40 when ive taken those shots. It seems to me that at 20-40 I might be able to tolerate a 5 doller rake- I think it would put me in the neighborhood of 2,5% gross return-20% net won for rake. Any thoughts about if you can beat, and at what level you have to play to beat, a 5 dollar rake. sign me- i cant wait till i can move to las vegas.
It's known as lack of competition. I live in the midwest where the Indian tribes have a monopoly on casinos. They have high rakes, poor comps, lousy food service, dirty restrooms and full casinos.
But what can you do, stay home and watch the tube?
There is no question that many cardrooms over rake. Ironically because they do this they usually bankrupt too many players and in a year or two after opening they lose their games, or else they begin to hire props to fill them up. In the essay section of this web site I have an essay called optimal rake. You may want to look at it.
A lot of the home players I know in the Bay area don't even try to make it in the local cardrooms any more. The rake is too high. They either play home games or wait until they go up to Nevada. The five percent max rake at the Cal Neva in Reno pulls a lot of them up there.
I wonder if any of the cardroom managers in your area read this forum. If they do, they should read this post many times and get it through their heads that they are hurting their poker games and thus costing their clubs money in the long run.
I'm not so sure that's true in this specific case - SF Bay area cardrooms.
The clubs lose some players due to rake, but it's an economic issue of supply and demand, and I'm not sure that the clubs would make more in the short or long term with lower rakes. There is an abundance of loose cash in the bay area.
In addition, I don't see the rake in many places as really being that much higher than elsewhere. $3/hand is really about the same as 5% (max $3) in an action 10-20 or bigger game. $3/hand is not much more than 5% (max $3) in some of the action 3-6 games.
Some small clubs have found that low limits, high rake, but lots of promotions and a friendly atmosphere draws in a lot of casual players from the local area with money to burn. The pros can't really move in since the drop is so high, and the place is kept friendly and social. The rate at which some of the players in these games toke makes me blanch, but it's obvious that they're not there to make money, they're there to have a good time.
Home games are much more fun than most cardroom games. You play with people you like, you don't pay a rake, the game can be smoking or non-smoking at the choice of your group. You can play games that interest you if they are different than what's offered locally. Rake isn't the only thing that drives people to the home games.
Many of the bay area clubs make so much more money on the "California" games (Pai gow poker, weird blackjack variations, Pai Gow tiles) that they'd make the whole club into an Asian gaming palace if they could (and had the player base to support it). At least one bay area club seems to be actively pushing out it's poker as much as possible.
Steve wrote: "In addition, I don't see the rake in many places as really being that much higher than elsewhere. $3/hand is really about the same as 5% (max $3) in an action 10-20 or bigger game. $3/hand is not much more than 5% (max $3) in some of the action 3-6 games."
$3 max in a 5% $10-$20 game will usually take down about $60 per hour. $70 with a fast dealer. $3 per hand at the same game will usually take $20-$30 per hour more.
Note that I said "action games", meaning that the pot is very rarely if ever under $60 in the case of 10-20 or larger, and usually $60 or more in the case of 3-6.
Since these type of games that often found in the bay area, changing the rake to a 5% rake would make little difference (for those specific games).
Steve wrote: "Many of the bay area clubs make so much more money on the "California" games (Pai gow poker, weird blackjack variations, Pai Gow tiles) that they'd make the whole club into an Asian gaming palace if they could (and had the player base to support it). At least one bay area club seems to be actively pushing out it's poker as much as possible. "
Several years ago when we were organizing the ill fated POKER WORLD I met with one of the managers of one of the largest cardrooms in California. To my amazement he told me that even though they dropped more on their Asian games, they couldn't keep these people as regular customers, but once they became poker players they would sometimes become a customer for life. His conclusion was that he would rather have poker players than pai gow players even though they made more from the pai gow because he knew that the poker would be there for a long time.
This conversation was the inspiration of the essay called "Poker is Our Horse" which appears in the essay section of this web page.
Dear D Poker,
I play 3-6 holdem with a 10% rake, capped at $5. For 12 months I have beaten this game for about $7, $8 an hour. Players are often cleaned out very quickly in this cardroom; the value is drying up. $7 an hour is nice; but I'm actually beating the game for about $15 an hour, with the rake sucking most of that.
Many of the pros here have been saying for a while that we should set up a home game. But you know what people are like; they just talk, they don't do.
I agree with Mason that long-term, high rakes hurt the room. You see, I'm actually quite happy to play for $7 an hour. In fact, I find it quite a lot of fun to challenge the casino dealers on the learn-to-play table, using pretend chips, when the real game has broken up. It's not my personal profit which motivates me to despise the rake. It's the LONG TERM effects. Bad players lose twice as much as they should. A bad player would have to go on a tremendous run to win at all. To consistently beat a 10% rake, you must play a very solid game. People become disillusioned. The commission chute is a drain sucking the good spirit and the growth potential out of the game.
If someone tries 100 sessions of gambling $100 for 2 hours on roulette, they may win on about 30 or 40 occasions. If the same player tries gambling $100 for 2 hours on poker with a 10% rake, they may win 10 out of 100 times. The slight increase in house edge decreases their win ratio by a third. Most people would be intolerant of such a poor chance to win.
I'll tell you my solution. Last night I couldn't sleep, because I decided that it was time to do something about the rake.
I have moved into a new room above a shop. I have 'borrowed' ten chairs from an office where I work, and tomorrow I'm going to visit every second-hand store in Melbourne to find a large table. In the afternoon, I'll buy some Kem cards from the magic shop. And next Sunday, we'll keep that $150 an hour or so all to ourselves.
The pit bosses at our casino have been enraged to catch wind that we are setting up home games. Casino management hold perverse and indefensible moral values. Their attitude is that every patron deserves to have their money taken as fast as possible. Casinos make millions by exploiting the weakest of human frailties. They lie, misrepresent, and attempt to control. Stuff them.
I invite you to copy my solution.
Richard Cavell.
I just want to point out that the 10 percent isn't so bad, it's the $5 cap. You wouldn't mind pay a rake of 10 percent to $3 or less. But at this limit and $5 per hand it is just a matter of time before your poker room will be lacking enough games to stay in business.
Several people have responded to the unasked question of "how much rake should a cardroom charge?" Mr. Cavell finally addressed the question "how much rake should we put up with?"
Mr. Cavell wrote: "You see, I'm actually quite happy to play for $7 an hour." A player should compute how much s/he makes (or loses) per hour at the poker table (after subtracting rake, tokes, taxes, etc.). If the player determines that the net rate makes poker a worthwhile activity, then that player can tolerate the current rake. Mr. Cavell is happy winning $7/hr. at the tables. Others might enjoy poker's entertainment value enough that they are quite happy losing $7/hr.
If your net rate is just below the level needed to make poker a worthwhile activity for you, then a reduced rake might be enough to change you from a railbird to a player.
Others might find that their net poker rate makes the game worthwhile to them, but there are other activities (e.g., playing the financial markets) that are even more worthwhile. A poker rake reduction might cause these people to play poker more often.
Even if your personal calculations indicate the rake is tolerable, this doesn't necessarily mean you have to tolerate it. If you feel that lobbying your cardroom manager for a lower rake will not unreasonably harm your relationship with that cardroom, it might be profitable for you to do so. Or you might want to organize a home game, as Mr. Cavell is doing (although he is quite happy earning $7/hr).
ii see my question generated quite a response- all very interesting, with many interesting suggestions. i hope there are some card room managers out there who are reading these interesting ideas- get this card room managers- you dont have to be the only winner at the table to have a fun, happy, and profitable card room.
one final suggestion, in concern for the health and well being of your local cardroom ( if they are among the culprits), direct your cardroom manager to this internet site-im sure he (she) probably has a computer.of course do so with a sense of goodwill, and fairplay.
Many is the time I've sat all day in one of the Bay Area Cardrooms playing poker at a table with very little turnover in players and after hours of doing this I look around and see that everyone there is short-stacked. Where did the chips all go? See the little slot above the collection box? Spend some time watching that slot and all the money it gobbles. If some player was winning that much, that consistently, I'd probably decide he was a ringer and start looking for a new game.
I believe a serious problem in poker right now is excessive rake, especially in the smaller limit games. This is going to come back to haunt the cardrooms as very few small limit players will be able to win enough to move up (via their winnings) to bigger games, thus *creating and sustaining* bigger games - an important fraction of cardroom business. Moreover, many players who would continue playing in small games indefinitely if they could just break even or win a little over time will just quit playing as they come to realize that they simply can't win.
Recently, Mason wrote an interesting article for Conjelco's Intelligent Gambler newsletter (visit http://www.conjelco.com for more information) where he gave some stats that indicate which game, Hold'em or Stud, had the higher varience at mid and upper limits for both good and excellent players. It's an interesting article, and I recommend folks check it out.
I've been playing mostly lower and mid limit Hold'em games in California, which means that they're VERY loose, and have been frustrated by how rarely my good hands on the flop hold up by the river. The variance of these games has been extreme and I'm seeing standard deviations of 15-20 big bets per hour in many of these games.
Since in these Hold'em games, I've seen such a small correlation between starting hand quality and the eventual winners of pots, I've been playing more Stud. After playing for a while, an admittedly small number of hours, less than 100, it seems to me that my variance in Stud games of these types is much lower.
I've been trying to figure out why this might be so, and have come up with two possible explanations. (1) My sample set is too low and this is illusory. (2) This is a real effect, and it's cause most likely has to do with how people's starting hands intersect with later cards.
Explanation of (2): Given a large selection of starting hands, by the time all 5 cards are out, the nuts is almost certain to be at least a straight, and with everyone playing all their hands until they're drawing dead, the chance that someone can make a straight or baby flush even though they have few outs or need two cards on the flop is quite good. If one or two magic cards are needed to make a good hand for a given board, the odds that they're out there aren't too shabby.
On the other hand, in Stud everyone has a different board, so it's possible that nobody playing garbage makes a good hand, and it's also possible that multiple people starting with garbage make a good hand, but overall I believe it to be more likely that a good hand will hold up against multiple opponents than in Hold'em.
This may be illusory, but it seems to me to make sense that given a random selection of six or so garbage hands, one of them is quite likely to hit a given 5 card flop, while in Stud, since every hand is drawing independently, the odds are better that nobody hits, thus lowering varience.
Any thoughts on this?
In stud it is usaly less pepole see the river.
An upcoming business trip is taking me to Duluth MN. With no poker there or in northern Wisc., the UP looks like the best bet for a night out.
Anyone have any recommendations for UP. card rooms?
Buggs,
Here is a list of Michigan casinos only some of which have poker. Call the ones near where you will be. Good Luck.
Master Casino Gaming (Learn to play) 800-968-8841
2656 Eaton Rapids Road
Albion, MI 49224 Ojibwa Casino Resort 906-353-6333
797 Michigan
Baraga, MI 49908 Bay Mills Resort & Casino 906-248-3700
11386 W Lake Shore
Brimley, MI 49715 Kings Club Casino 906-248-3241
12140 W Lake Shore Drive
Brimley, MI 49715 Kewadin Slots 906-387-5475
105 Candy Cane Lane
Christmas, MI 49862 Chip-In-Casino 906-466-2941 800-682-6040
W399 Highway 2 & 41
Escanaba, MI Chip-In Bingo Hall 906-466-2941 800-682-6040
W399 Highway 2 & 41
Harris, MI 49845 Kewadin Slots 906-484-2767
Three Mile Road at M-134
Hessel, MI Kewadin Slots 906-341-5510
Route 1
Manistique, MI 49854 Ojibwa II Casino 906-249-4200
105 Acre Trail
Marquette, MI 49855 Soaring Eagle Casino 800-992-2306
2395 S Leaton Road
Mount Pleasant, MI 48858 Kewadin Shores Casinos 906-643-7071
3039 Machinac Trail
St Ignace, MI 49781 Kewadin Casino 906-632-0530
2186 Shunk Road
Sault Ste Marie, MI 49783 Leelanau Sands Casino 616-271-4104 800-922-2946
2521 NW Bayshore Drive
Suttons Bay, MI 49682 Leelanau Super Gaming Palace 616-271-6852 800-922-2946
2649 NW Bayshore Drive
Suttons Bay, MI 49682 Lac Vieux Desert Casino 906-358-4227
N5384 US -45
Watersmeet, MI 49969 Turtle Creek Casino 616-267-9574 888-777-8946
7741 M-72, E
Williamsburg, MI 49690
Buggs, I've vacationed and passed thru the UP at least a half-dozen times over the last 5 years...Here's what I know of the places on Ray's List...
Ojibwa Casino Resort 906-353-6333 797 Michigan Baraga, MI 49908 This place is supposed to have poker. As I have made most of my trips in the UP to Marquette to visit my sister-in-law in college there, I never drove over to Baraga. It will be the closest to Duluth, besides Watersmeet, where you don't want to go, as I will get into later. Be sure to call first, though.
Chip-In-Casino 906-466-2941 800-682-6040 W399 Highway 2 & 41 Escanaba, MI This is the nicest little casino, with the friendliest dealers and staff, and it keeps getting bigger. They only have four poker tables, but they seem to have action every time I pass through, and I always make it a point to stop there, for at least a little while. In the June 1998 edition of Midwest Gaming & Travel, they list Hold'em, Pineapple, Omaha, and 7-card stud as being spread, Limits 2-5 thru 15-30. Tourneys? Mon. 7:30 Hold'em double flop; Wed. 7:30 Crazy Pineapple; Thurs. 7:30 Omaha High; Fri. 7:30 Hold'em; Sat. 2 p.m. Hold'em elimination. I really like this place, although it is a bit of a drive from Duluth. It's not quite all the way to Escanaba, 12 miles west, actually, in Harris.
Ojibwa II Casino 906-249-4200 105 Acre Trail Marquette, MI 49855 Last time I was here there was no poker, but this place keeps getting bigger, too. Definitely call ahead. This one's east of town, actually just east of Harvey.
Lac Vieux Desert Casino 906-358-4227 N5384 US -45 Watersmeet, MI 49969 They just opened up the new casino 1 1/2 years ago. They have a poker room where they managed to get only one game going on a Saturday night in the middle of the tourist season. I waited over two hours to get into the game, played about an hour, was stuck a couple of hundred, and the game broke. A full game, everyone just left. I was not very happy. My wife played some of the table games, and even over there, the dealers and the staff were some of the rudest, most inhospitable people that I have ever met, and I've been in a few casinos in my 42 years. I can not possibly reccommend this place, under any circumstances, and can't imagine ever returning there. If you want to play poker bad, this is a bad place to play poker ;-).
Kewadin Casino 906-632-0530 2186 Shunk Road Sault Ste Marie, MI 49783 This is way on the east end of the UP, 309 miles from Ironwood, where you enter Michigan on the road from Duluth. The Magazine says they have poker, call them or e-mail me if you are thinking of making that long trip. Hope this helps Frank
Response to a similar inquiry on rec.gambling.com:
>
> There is a casino with a decent sized room in Mt Pleasant (middle of
> lower peninsula). There is also a small room at Sault Ste. Marie (upper
> peninsula, east end) and another near Escanaba (UP, west). There was
> poker across the river in Windsor, but not sure if they are still going
> or not. Been meaning to contact Bob and find out where he is playing.
> I think he has been wintering in FL.
>
> TBill
>
> ***Those who would be enslaved or exterminated must first be disarmed***
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently David said that most of your profit in hold-em comes from two aces. (Maybe he said two aces and two kings I can't remember.)
I have been thinking a lot about this. Although I have only disagreed with David one time, I think I am going to have to disagree with him again.
The 10-20 games I have been playing in are so loose and I get two aces (and kings) so seldom that they seem to lose more than their fare share.
Therefore my conclusion is that I derive most of my profit from many other hands, which in total, adds up to much more net win than what I receive from wired aces. (Or aces and kings).
If you can prove that I am wrong I will acept this but experience tells me that I am right. Any comments?
PocketKing writes : Recently David said that most of your profit in hold-em comes from two aces. (Maybe he said two aces and two kings I can't remember.)...........Therefore my conclusion is that I derive most of my profit from many other hands, which in total, adds up to much more net win than what I receive from wired aces. (Or aces and kings). If you can prove that I am wrong I will acept this but experience tells me that I am right. Any comments?
I cannot prove or disprove this statement. What I can say is that the TTH simulations I have run show that for most people (and most lineups) the amount won with 2 aces is greater than the net amount won by the total of all other hands.
Clearly, when there is a great disparity between the player and the rest of the lineup (eg. world class player, or 9 other idiots) and the win rate is well above 1 big bet per hour, then this does not hold true. After all, there is a limit with what you can do with less than half a percent of your hands.
Etienne
Etienne stated: "What I can say is that the TTH simulations I have run show that for most people (and most lineups) the amount won with 2 aces is greater than the net amount won by the total of all other hands."
This isn't a particularly useful statement. Most people lose money at poker. Therefore, any of their +EV hands will win more "than the net amount won by the total of all other hands." In the simulation I ran, a losing player (Buford Muldoon) had over 30 +EV hands. The tiny amount he won with A4s was greater "than the net amount won by the total of all other hands." What does this say about A4s? It says that it was a +EV hand for Buford. I think many of us already knew AA is a +EV hand for most players, even without the assistance of simulations.
If you meant to say that AA wins more than all the other +EV hands combined, then it would be nice if you supplied more information about your simulations. In my simulation, the most profitable hand (on profit per hand dealt basis) for each of the players was AA, followed by KK, then QQ. For each player, the combined profits of the KK and QQ hands exceeded the profits of AA.
My simulation was performed with TTH version 2.0. It used the default lineup ("LINEUP0.LUP") with the deal code number set to 100. Exactly 7,000,000 hands were dealt.
Mitch,
This isn't a particularly useful statement. Most people lose money at poker.
The statement about the aces, attributed to David Sklansky, applies to both winning and losing players.
If you meant to say that AA wins more than all the other +EV hands combined, then it would be nice if you supplied more information about your simulations.
No, I didn't mean to say that.
In my simulation, the most profitable hand (on profit per hand dealt basis) for each of the players was AA, followed by KK, then QQ. For each player, the combined profits of the KK and QQ hands exceeded the profits of AA.
Likewise.
My simulation was performed with TTH version 2.0. It used the default lineup ("LINEUP0.LUP") with the deal code number set to 100. Exactly 7,000,000 hands were dealt.
LINEUP0 contains 4 loose players (one of whom compulsively sees 75% of the flops and, like the others, is insensitive to pot odds) and 2 tight players. I've got one of the players (Harry the Horse) making $40 per hour in this 10-20 lineup, which according to S&M's 'Gambling for a Living' p.241, makes him a selective world class player. Try a more realistic lineup like LINEUP1 (7 tight, 3 average - a la Mirage) and you'll see that even for the winning players the amount won with 2 aces is greater than the net amount won by the total of all other hands.
Etienne
Etienne wrote: "Try a more realistic lineup like LINEUP1 (7 tight, 3 average - a la Mirage) and you'll see that even for the winning players the amount won with 2 aces is greater than the net amount won by the total of all other hands."
I agree that for most players (winning and losing), the amount won with AA exceeds the net amount won by the total of all other hands. My point is that for most players, there are lots of hands that also can make this claim.
It would be misleading of me to say that for Player X, A4s wins more money than AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs, and all the other hands combined. It would be a true statement but not a particularly useful one.
Similarly, your statement that AA wins more money than all the other hands combined isn't particularly useful in furthering our (or at least my) understanding of poker theory.
Mitch,
Similarly, your statement that AA wins more money than all the other hands combined isn't particularly useful in furthering our (or at least my) understanding of poker theory.
This is my interpretation of the remark attributed to David Sklansky. I don't claim to be a poker theoretician, so address your complaints to David. If you have your own interpretation of what he meant, then post it (like I did).
Etienne
Etienne, I'd also like to know more details about another simulation you ran in the earlier "Limping with Aces" thread. The sub-topic under discussion was whether AA or JTs was more profitable in the big blind against a large field.
In your 1 May 1998 post, you stated, "Without going into too much detail, the sim was for 8 average to tight players seeing the flop." I finally ordered TTH2 and am having trouble simulating this situation. Even against a very loose (but not auto-call) field, it is very rare for a pot to include 8 (or more) players. I'm sure it must occur even less frequently against a field of "average to tight players."
Etienne, could you please go into more detail? What players were included in your lineup? Did you use a deal code number? If so, what was it? How many dealt hands (with 8 or more players) were included in your analysis?
This sub-topic also included a discussion as to whether the average size of pots won by JTs would be larger than the average size of pots won by AA. Etienne, in your 24 April 1998 post, you stated, "Definately not true according to Turbo." In your 1 May 1998 reply, you said you understood that the "average size of pots won" is not simply "total winnings/total hands played."
Could you please tell me how you were able to determine the average size of pots won? So far, I've been unsuccessful in locating such a figure in TTH2's statistical reports.
Mitch,
Etienne, could you please go into more detail? What players were included in your lineup? Did you use a deal code number?
I can't remember the exact details now, but, as I then replied to Andrew Wells (7 May), it was an artificially contrived situation. I ended that post with : As I stated in my previous replies, you have every right to treat these results with more than a grain of salt.
As for average pot size, you'll find "Average $ won per pot - Net $" in "Pot, money and activity statistics".
Etienne
Etienne wrote: "I can't remember the exact details now, but, as I then replied to Andrew Wells (7 May), it was an artificially contrived situation."
Mr. Wells had asked: "Did these other simulated players see the flop with random hands, or was it possible to program for starting cards which would see the flop, if strong enough based on position?"
Etienne responded: "The latter. But no matter what you do, you have to comprimise somewhere. This artificial situation (strong holdings for 8 players) is unlikely to occur in real life, so perhaps the real test is one against random holdings being forced to see (just) the flop."
I agree that, in real life, you rarely will see eight average to tight players see the flop. My point is that it rarely happens in TTH simulations either. I tried it, and it never happened during a quarter million deals. So I tried it with nine very loose (but not auto-call) players. It happened twice during a quarter million deals.
So I was curious how you were able to accomplish your TTH simulation and analysis. Since you have forgotten the details, and since it seems unlikely that you'll be able to reproduce your earlier results (at least with an "average to tight" lineup), I guess I will remain curious.
Mitch,
I don't see why you're still curious. I told Andrew Wells that I "forced" strong starting cards for the 8 players - there's no other way, as you yourself know.
Familiarize yourself with the feature called "Stack the Deck" in the Turbo program. Pick suitable profiles that will stay in for all positions for these hands and then run your sim. You will have to modify some profiles (and use the modified versions) because you want the hand to stay in even after some raising for all positions. Be equitable in your selection of the hands - I tried minimizing the competition against both AA and JTs.
Well that's just some of the details that come to mind. Of course I've since forgotten the deal code number, which hands I used and the exact lineup.
Etienne
Etienne wrote: "Familiarize yourself with the feature called "Stack the Deck" in the Turbo program. Pick suitable profiles that will stay in for all positions for these hands and then run your sim. You will have to modify some profiles (and use the modified versions) because you want the hand to stay in even after some raising for all positions. Be equitable in your selection of the hands - I tried minimizing the competition against both AA and JTs."
This type of simulation will reveal how well AA and JTs perform in the BB against a specific set of opposing hands in a multi-way pot with random cards coming on the flop, turn, and river. This is fine if you are curious about which of these two hands fares better against this particular set of opposing hands. However, it's probably unwise to take the results of this specific situation and claim it answers the more general question of "Is it better to have AA or JTs in the BB in a multi-way pot?"
If you do choose to generalize, you probably should avoid doing so with comments like, "Most definitely not true according to Turbo." Perhaps much of this discussion could have been avoided if you initially had qualified your statement with something like "..., at least not against opponents holding the following hands: xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx."
By the way, there is another way to run this simulation other than pre-selecting all ten hands. It doesn't apply to an "average to tight" lineup, so it might not interest you. But I often find myself in loose games where it's not uncommon for eight or more players to see the flop. Except for Simple Simon (who always calls to a showdown), there is no TTH profile that is as loose as the typical player in these games.
I will take one of the TTH minor fish profiles, modify its preflop standards so it sees about 90 percent of the flops, and run the simulation. Hopefully, this will produce enough multi-way action for me to draw some rough conclusions about the semi-general question of AA vs. JTs in BB in multi-way pots in loose games.
Until I am also able to have confidence in creating simulations for TTH (this one may be too much for me), I stand by my original posts. It's going to take some serious convincing for me to change my opinion. There appear to be some significant weaknesses in all the TTH computer opponents. Specifically, I don't feel any of them check-raise often enough under appropriate circumstances.
Andrew,
Until I am also able to have confidence in creating simulations for TTH (this one may be too much for me), I stand by my original posts.
I constantly peppered my posts with disclaimers regarding the accuracy of the results obtained. I had several ways to react to the sub-thread that developed between you and Mitch :
(A) Not to bother.
(B) Offer an opinion based on experience.
(C) Make an effort to get a result with the limited tools that TTH offers for this particular situation.
I chose (C) because it represented a challenge for me. This is also an excellent way to learn about the finer points (and quirks) of the program. In the distant future, when the greatly enhanced TTH14 eventually comes out, we probably will be having the same discussion.
Etienne
I don't think the skill level is anyway near that of a typical 10-20 game. I'm averaging after rake and toke over 90.00/hr. against lineup1. Is this an aberration, I'm not making 1/5 this in live action?
Andrew,
I don't think the skill level is anyway near that of a typical 10-20 game.
Continuing Mitch's line of reasoning, this should only make you wary of absolute results (eg. win rates per hour), but conclusions based on relative performance (eg. which of 2 hands is better for player X in position Y) should be given careful consideration.
Etienne
I don't think anyone has ever claimed that TTH perfectly models (or even closely models) a real life poker game. On the other hand, there appears to be unanimous agreement that TTH does model real life better than the standard "no foldem" simulations.
Yes, you have to be careful about the conclusions you draw from TTH simulations. But if you completely ignore the TTH simulations (or the conclusions that other qualified individuals draw from them), then you do so at your own bankroll's peril.
TTH simulations are just another source of information that serious poker players should use to improve their understanding of poker. You are wise to be skeptical, however. Just as there are bad poker books, there are bad conclusions drawn from simulations (TTH and others).
Agreed.
I THINK YOUR TAKING DS OUT OF CONTEXT. YES AA MAKES THE MAJORITY OF PROFIT, BUT YOU HAVE TO PLAY THE OTHER HANDS IN ORDER FOR YOU TO MAKE ANY PROFIT. IF YOUR THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU MIGHT DO TO MAKE MORE PROFIT AT POKER, IWOULD OFFER 2 WORDS; GAME SELECTION. SEE YA
AL,
I'm not on an aces crusade by any means - I'm just giving my opinion on PocketKing's remark : Recently David said that most of your profit in hold-em comes from two aces.
I've still got plenty of things to work on before I can look at game selection - you should know that by now!
Etienne
Game selection should be the first thing you work on. There are still some places left with calling staion types even up to 15-30 (I have never seen the calling station types at 20-40 or higher, but they probably exist somewhere).
You won't get dealt aces very often, but the rate at which you are dealt them has nothing to do with whether or not they are beat more than their "fair share" of the time.
My personal records and Texas Turbo Hold'em simulations both show evidence that most of the profit in the game comes from those times when you hold AA and KK, even though you'll only be dealt these hands 2 out of 221 hands, and even though they don't always hold up. If you folded AA every time it was dealt to you, you'd seriously damage (if not completely eliminate) your profit potential in the game.
You say "The 10-20 games I have been playing in are so loose"
Where is that? The games I play in are so tight it's painful.
{{You say "The 10-20 games I have been playing in are so loose"
Where is that? The games I play in are so tight it's painful.}}
If I told you that they wouldn't be that loose anymore now would they?
Playing in a tight game with tight players with a extremely tight player on your left is the best solution. Having loose fish on your right can add to your profits immensely because of checkraising and other tactics. In this situation you have the best of both worlds. When that extremely tight player reraises you ,you can safely fold knowing you are beat.
I'm on the button with 10c 6s) in an average 15/30 game and 3 players call in front of me, I don't expect the players in the blind to raise.
I fold - The flop comes 6d 7d 10h Qd 10s.
One made a straight, another a flush, and the other seven's full.
If I had called only $15 I would have flopped two pair and stayed till the end and won a big pot with tens full.
The very next time I had the button, a similar situation happened. Four callers, no raise and I had 6d 4h and FOLD! The flop comes 5d 7h Js the turn was 8c. I would have won another nice pot.
According to HPFAP these two hands would't be playable.
However these two hands got me to thinking:
(1) Would it be wise to call just one small bet and see if the flop is helpful - if not fold.
(2) If the flop didn't help anyone and they check to me, I have an opportunity to steal the pot.
(3) Big pots are often won with screwball hands, they are deceptive.
(4) My other thought is I'm just asking for trouble! If I save all those small bets plus the extra bets I would lose when floping a draw and missing or getting caught in the middle of a raising war - I would be better off in the long run.
Please share your thoughts, thanks.
Bob Morgan wrote (in part): "My other thought is I'm just asking for trouble! If I save all those small bets plus the extra bets I would lose when floping a draw and missing or getting caught in the middle of a raising war - I would be better off in the long run."
That is the thought you need to go with. In hold'em you have the chance to see how you *would* have done had you played a hand. Naturally you will sometimes see that garbage cards would have turned into a strong hand and won a big pot. If this never happened it would mean there was no chance element in the game. But if it happened enough to make such hands playable, then you could throw out all that has ever been learned about hand selection. But you can't.
As you have correctly speculated, you would loose much more on all the calls you would throw away before the flop, and all the bets lost when your incorrect preflop calls compounded themselves, than you could ever hope to make on those occasions when the trash hands did turn into winners.
BTW, this opportunity to see how you would have done is probably a big factor in keeping the hold'em games good. Players see that, "If I had just played that T6s I would have won a monster pot. I won't make *that* mistake again."
I've read the other posts in response Bob Morgan's original question and pretty much agree with what has been said, but I'd like to add this thought: There are plenty of good hands that have deceptive value and the ability to make a strong hand that can be played without playing trash.
If you want to add an element of deception to your game, I think the key is to play those hands that most people don't usually expect to be played (and many don't even know can be played) but can be powerful. i.e lots of outs for a big hand. For example, small suited connectors.
They give you lots of outs to make a strong hand that many people won't expect. Last summer I was playing 3-6 at the Mirage and got 5s6s in middle position. Called one bet to see the flop. Flop was 5c6cXs. Great! Got three callers to my bet on the flop. Got 6d on the turn and got called by a club flush draw. Club hit on the river! Guy was not very happy when his Jack high flush got busted by my full house.
Hands like that one give you more outs. Think of it in terms of value. What am I buying with the bets to see the flop? With 5s6s I was "buying" lots of possible hands, pairs, trips, straights, flushes. With 106o you're buying a wing and a prayer.
LWD
Dear Bob,
I agree with John that you must only play good quality cards. At my cardroom, I see people frequently changing their style. You see previously tight players playing garbage, previously bad players now playing good cards, etc. Some lose, and some win. But there is a trend that the players who are consistent winners are the ones who have a reputation for playing good cards. It's simple mathematics. You bet with the percentages, you will win in the end.
There are a couple of circumstances where I would play trash hands, though.
- Once in a while for deception - When the people already in the pot are likely to have rubbish (because they play every hand or have posted a blind bet) - The players who are in are very weak, on tilt, etc. - When I have position - Where bluffing is a significant aspect of the game.
On that last point, there are a couple of players who always try to push it through me. They think that I'm weak-tight. (I probably am, a bit). But every now and then when they raise my big blind and I have trash, I'll defend and then mimic a slowplay, checkraising them on the end. They know that I never bluff :->, so they have to fold.
In all of those situations, the only excuse for playing the cards is so that I can get in on a pot which has good long term ev for me. It's not because trash cards themselves are any good. I would play trash hands despite them being trash, not because of it.
Richard Cavell.
Bob, My comments are added to your message. I believe the two hands are VERY different, if I'm reading what you wrote correctly:
1) "I'm on the button with 10c 6s) in an average 15/30 game and 3 players call in front of me, I don't expect the players in the blind to raise. I fold - The flop comes 6d 7d 10h Qd 10s. One made a straight, another a flush, and the other seven's full. "
So, there are 5 callers? (3 + 2 blinds). You're getting 5-1. However, 10,6 off doesn't have much outs- flopped straight makes a higher straight, no power on a 4-flush (espcially if it's the 6!) And look what happened- you flopped 2 pair, but you were chasing set7's, might have been chasing set 6/set 10. Qd gave overcard 2 pair (Q, 10 very likely holding for others) and a flush. To end it, that 10's full on the river could have easily been nailed by a 10/7 suited, Q's full, etc..
Lot of danger in that hand. You would have been lucky to win. Most times, you would have lost on the river. That's why that hand is so bad. Think how many times you would have been sucked in to the end and lost anyway...
2) "The very next time I had the button, a similar situation happened. Four callers, no raise and I had 6d 4h and FOLD! The flop comes 5d 7h Js the turn was 8c. I would have won another nice pot. "
This hand had a lot more potential from the get-go, even though it's weak. It seems as if you were facing 6 callers (4+ blinds), so it'd be worth taking the flop off with no raisers. Rainbow flop would have protected you better against flush draws. Notice the dangers, however- 8/6 is ahead of you, and that 8 on turn was potentially a killer. Your 8-high straight becomes a J-high straight for 10-9 holder (who certainly could stay to see the turn card, given the passive players you describe.)
I think this 6/4 hand would have been playable, given the callers and last position, plus the chances for nut straight and top 2 pair on flop (if that had happened). You wouldn't have been as comfortable, but initially I see that as much better than that ugly 10-6 off-suit.
Rich, I don't see much deception value in button plays of trash, however- unless the players are poor, they're gonna figure that you only played BECAUSE of position and callers...
i dont think you can go far wrong by following hand selection in advanced players. the only time i deviate- actually im a bit tighter then advanced players reccomends-is defending big blind when little blind folds against what looks like a steal raise. i often call with anything then bet out on flop and turn- moore often then not the steal raise folds because they dont hit so many flops themselves. but im obviously not betting on the value of my hand, actually i wouldnt even have to look at my hand- im just making a play for the pot. it works more then half the time because its 2 to one that the steal dosnt have a pair on the flop. of course if he actually does have a big pair or hits the flop then its back to the drawing board.
I'm a novice stud player. Not long ago, I was playing in a 5-10 game ($1 ante, $2 bring-in) when an interesting situation arose. I won the hand, but I'm not sure whether I played well.
On third street, I had a pair of fives in the pocket and a three showing. My three was the lowest, and the highest upcard was a ten. I decided to bluff, completing the bet to $5 right away, trying to represent a high pocket pair. One player folded; the others called. On fourth street, I got a third five. Another player had a pair of sixes on board, and bet $10. That guy is, I think, quite good; in any case he's a much better player than I am and always seems able to read my cards pretty well. Two players called the bet and one folded. I knew the bettor could have had trip sixes, but I raised. My thinking was I would try to eliminate the other players so I'd be heads up against the bettor. Even though I'd be the underdog if he did have the trip sixes, I figured the pot was large enough to make it worth a shot at beating him by improving to a full house or quads. And moreover, maybe he only had two pair. (The threes, fives, and sixes were all live.)
After I raised, two players folded (including one who had called the $10 bet). The others called. Now there were four players. On fifth street nobody drew anything threatening. The sixes bet, and I called (along with the other two players).
On sixth street I got an ace, which wasn't helpful to my hand but may have made it look like I completed a bicycle (though I only thought of this after the fact). The sixes checked, another player checked, I bet, the fourth player folded, and then the sixes folded. The remaining player called.
In the end my trip fives never improved, but I won against the remaining player, who had aces up with a flush draw. I still don't know what the player showing sixes actually had. Of course I'm happy to have won the large pot, but I'd like to know whether my play was smart or just lucky. (After the hand, another player, who had folded early, told me it was "courageous" to raise against the possible trip sixes -- which may have been a polite way of saying it was a stupid move.)
Nick,
Being a novice you have good card sense that will enable you to become a decent to a great player. You do need to study alot as some of your reasoning needs a better foundation to build upon. All of your bets were close to being the right play or were not far off. Good Luck.
Ray,
Thank you for your affirming comments. A couple more questions:
I sometimes have trouble estimating the size of the pot, especially when there are dollar chips and $5 chips all mixed together. Obviously I can see when it's large in a general sense, but I don't think I could accurately estimate whether a pot is, say, $70 or $100. Do you have any suggestions?
Also, the play "Buying the Free Card on Fourth Street" discussed in 7CS4AP: is this only for use in heads-up play, or does it work in multiway pots as well? Also, I don't quite understand how the "free card" is really free -- aren't you paying for it with your raise?
For pot estimation, I usually have kind of a running count of the betting - in terms of small bets, then cutting in half and switching to big bets on later streets. If I've lost track of the size, I can reconstruct the betting.
As for buying a free card, you are right, the card isn't "free", but it's not full price either. The bet size doubles next round, and if you get the opponents to check to you, you've paid 1/2 price for that card. Additionally, you can still bet if you like the card you get. You gain tempo on the hand. Future plays from the opponents during the same hand are likely to be more revealing about their holding than if you'd just called on 4th street.
Nick,
Steve's running count works as good as any. Also when you raise for a free card all scare cards you catch really give you a chance to win the pot right there. This is a major reason why very aggressive players do well as they win so many pots without the best hand when hands may run close. Good Luck.
Intimidation pays, even in 3-6 hold'em.
Thanks for your reply to my DEAD SEAT SYNDROME post a few months ago. I wish I could say that I had an immediate turn around. No so, but I did stop the bleeding by playing position and pot odds better. Recently I have done very well. Three winning sessions and two final table finsihes. So..hopefully this is skill, not just luck..
From a distance, it does seem clear that the player you were concerned about did not have trip-sixes (at the very least he wouldn't have folded on 6th Street to a possible wheel).
Unless I'm trying to vary my play for a specific reason or opponent, I would not usually complete the bet with the small pocket pair and no kicker. This is a hand I want to play cheaply in order to try to hit the set. While it is true that your opponents are likely to put you on a bigger pair than you have, the hand has limited "scare" value. In fact, although you got lucky and hit the set on 4th, you were even luckier you didn't get reraised at least once on 3rd Street. In a higher limit game, your completed bet with a small doorcard will normally get hammered by bigger pairs.
Can you use the book's method of hand selection for no-limit play or must you change your hand selection? This is a question I often find myself thinking about during a tournament. I have been pretty much relying on instinct for the preflop selection and I can't help wonder if that sometimes I'm making a mistake by altering from the book's advice. Does anyone have a answer to this question?
Everything is different in no-limit. Completely forget about limit poker and learn no-limit as if it were a different game.
No-limit tournament play depends a lot on the stage of the tournament, and the stack sizes relative to the blinds. Lots of no-limit tournaments (especially the small ones) play much like limit tournaments because the stacks are so short relative to the blinds so that most hands would be all-in if played through in a limit tournament anyway. Big no-limit tournaments where you are not short-stacked from the beginning are very different from tournaments where you start off with a small amount of chips and the blinds rise quickly.
read chanpionship pot limit and no limit hold em by T. J. clouter and Tom Mcevoy. also the section on no limit hold em in super system by doyle brunson.
forgot to mention perhaps the best book on big bet poker is called ''pot limit and no limit poker '' by stewart reuben and bob ciaffone. all these books are at the gamblers book store
Let me give one simple example how no limit differs from limit. In no limit you must be more conservative with the hands that you attempt to steal with if first in from a late position. The reason for this is that instead of being reraised for just one bet, you can be reraised for all your money and will now be forced to fold instead of call. Thus you won't have as many ways to win and marginal hands are not as good.
I have played some tournaments now but I don't know what a super satellite is. I know that they pay seats. Can you cash these seats in for money or are you forced to use them for the buy in? Do they also pay other then seats?
I'm not Mason, but I can answer your question.
Typically, super-satellites are "mini"-tournaments which pay seats to a large buy-in tournament, such as the World Series main event. They're usually only for the main event of any tournament. Even though I said "mini", they can be quite large in the number of players that participate. It's the buy-in that's comparatively small. After the seats have been paid out, any left over money (below the buy-in amount) is paid in cash to the next finisher in line. Tournament organizers usually require a player to use the first seat he/she wins in a super-satellite. After that, players are allowed to sell any extra seats won in later super-satellites.
As a twist in the 1997 WSOP, to encourage players to buy-in to the super-satellite on the last day, if a player was unable to sell his/her extra seat, they were allowed to carry it over to the following year.
Super-satellites usually are multiple re-buy events, to make it possible to pay out as many seats as possible.
I was wondering if this equation is correct? Stanford Wong says to Multiply the average ending bankrole by the square root of the number of contestants to find the average Goal to set to win the Tourney. Since the House vig takes 25% of all bets the avreage ending bankrole would be 75% of the original Bankrole.
So if 100 contestants enter a tournament with 1000.00 the goal would be to beat 7,500.00 since the average bankrole would be turned into 750.00 by the house vig. The square root of 100 contestants is 10 so 10*750.00= 7,500.00
Is this correct? Can someone with a degree tell me why.
So to win this tourney I would need to beat 7500.00 on average. Of course there could be a big variance in the actual Goal needed to beat the Tourney.
I quickly did some figuring on a Tourney Cactus Petes is offering. Contestants get 100% payback on entery fees. 1st place gets 40to1 payback. I'm not concerned with the rest of the places.
Lets say at the end of the Tourney the bankrole to beat is 7500.00 because 100 people entered. On the last games of the tourney I play:
1 $650.00 2spot with a Probability of 0.0601 Payoff = 7800
2 $150.00 3spot with a Probability of 0.0139 each Payoff = 7800
1 $50.00 4spot with a Probability of 0.00306 Payoff = 9000
Added together they = 0.09096 which makes me around a 10to1 dog, but the Payoff is 40to1 for winning the tourney. Am I correct?
Thanks, Chris
>Since the House vig takes 25% of all bets the avreage
>ending bankrole would be 75% of the original Bankrole.
The house takes 25% of the bet on an individual trial. If players repeatedly make negative expectation bets, the ending house take from those players would be higher. (Bet 10000, win 8600, bet that, win 6500, bet that, win 4100, etc.)
>Multiply the average ending bankrole by the square root of
>the number of contestants to find the average Goal to
>set to win the Tourney.
The above does not account for the variance of different games. In a blackjack tournament, this might be accurate, but in keno, most outcomes will be significantly lower than average, with a few very large positive results. At the end, every player other than the leaders will be betting their remaining stake. While most will lose everything, those who do hit will have a far greater multiple of the average stake than the formula would indicate. If just sixteen players played two-spots, the one (on average) who hit would have 12000. 7500 would probably not be enough to win in a high-variance game like keno.
If many players make large negative expectation bets throughout the tournament, they may be squandering their stake to a point where a player who waits until the end to bet would have a considerable advantage.
I played in a hold,em tournament Sunday at Foxwoods.approx 40 players. I never have finished in money in hold,em tournaments,but feel I am 3rd best player ,Ihave 1000 in chips+button Stakes are 1+2 thousand. Down to 7, (5 spots paid) 2 hands before I go all inn mid-late raise,I have A6s,should I call, player is agreessive?
Maybe I misunderstood your post. If ther are 7 players left and you have the button, why don't you have 5 hands before the T2000 Big blind. If you mean there is a T1000 ante, that seems like an odd structure.
Assuming a normal structure, I don't like the call for the following reasons.
A) Likely holdings for an aggressive better are: 1) weak ace (7, 8, 9 or 10 kicker), against which you are a huge dog. 2) Medium to High pair (7s through Kings), against which you are a slightly bigger dog. 3) Small pair, against which you are aslight dog, unless its the worse case sixes. Your best hope is that he is moving with two face cards, in which case you are only about a 55/45 favorite.
B) If other players are in a similar chip position, you have a decent chance that both the SB and the BB can be taken it in one play, letting you slip into the money.
c) Having suited cards at this stage as an almost irrelevant advantage.
You should fold. If two people have gone all in, one must lose placing you one spot from the money. From that point on you should hope that you get a better hand to play or perhaps somebody else busts out. This is where MM's book Poker Essays comes into play. You have to try to sneak into a higher finish. By the way you did't mention if this was limit or no-limit hold'em.
Joe Nardo wrote that if two people go all-in on a hand, one must bust.
In fact, this is not true unless their stacks are equal, and even then they can split the pot. I've seen hands in tournaments when 4 players were all-in and no-one busted.
Still, I'd expect one of the players to bust.
I'm assuming that the stacks are equal. It's very possible for a split and it does happen. However its less likely during a tournament.
I agree. At the second table, if two people want to fight, let them. For some reason I do not understand, I broke this rule last night and reraised a raiser. I spoiled a better than usual chance to get to the final table, because I did not get off my butt and go over to the other table to see how many were short stacked. If I had, I would have likely tossed my my pocket pair into the muck. Live and learn.
Maybe I misunderstood your post. If there are 7 players left and you have the button, why don't you have 5 hands before the T2000 Big blind. If you mean there is a T1000 ante, that seems like an odd structure.
Assuming a normal structure, I don't like the call for the following reasons.
A) Likely holdings for an aggressive better are: 1) weak ace (7, 8, 9 or 10 kicker), against which you are a huge dog. 2) Medium to High pair (7s through Kings), against which you are a slightly bigger dog. 3) Small pair, against which you are aslight dog, unless its the worse case sixes. 4) Your best hope is that he is moving with two big cards ar middle connectors, in which case you are only about a 55/45 favorite.
B) If other players are in a similar chip position, you have a decent chance that both the SB and the BB can be taken it in one play before your BB comes around (possibly even by this raise), letting you slip into the money.
c) Having suited cards at this stage as an almost irrelevant advantage.
I had to bring this over from Stanford Wong's BJ page. It seems so true to learning how to make money by Gambling. I'll have to remember this post the next time I have a losing session. -CV
Posted by Norm Wattenberger on 5 Jun 1998, 11:17 a.m.
I just read a book on playing the guitar. Then, I picked up a guitar and tried it. It didn't work!!! No record companies called me. No cheerleaders are screaming and ripping off my shirt. The models in the downtown clubs still ignore me. What you need is good luck, not guitars. Clearly, guitars don't work. The only people that make money with guitars are the people that write books about guitars. They are all losers. Why would they write books if they could make money with guitars? All book authors are losers. No one would write a book if they could make money any other way. I say we burn down all the libraries.
Sorry, must be a full moon.
It takes much talent to learn how to play the guitar and years of practice. For that imbecile to write the post that he did shows that he will remain a loser at both playing the guitar and playing cards. Before you can play music you must learn how to read music. It does not take talent or many years of practice to be a winner at poker. However it does take dedication to the game and reading good books on poker which I now call "instructional texts" Then you must apply that knowledge to the green felt. Mason has been saying that for years! I wonder why!. One thing is for sure, becoming a winning poker player is easier then becoming the next Slash of Gun's and Roses!
Um, I think it was intentionally absurd to make the point that you don't read one book and start beating the hell out of the strip from day one. Chris re-posted it to make the similar point here re poker.
Jim's post spells out exactly what I had in mind.
CV
Norm Wattenberger is the computer programmer and designer of the brilliant Casino Verite program, which has set the standard for the ultimate in blackjack game simulation and practice software. He's a recognized figure in the blackjack world and certainly not a loser. His posts are well received on all blackjack forums - this one was no exception.
This poast dosnt offend me any more then a player in middle position offends me when he calls my three bet then procedes to take the pot with j4 offsuit. He is not playing badly-just very unprofitably- and if i never saw that sort of thing, or things similar- id give up the game.
I pluged Mason's formulas into my Spread Sheet to see what type of Bankrole I'll need to keep and how long I can "Run Bad". So I guess I could be a winning player and still be losing for 196 Hours? CV
Win Rate= 11.00
Hourly STD= 51.35
Hours Needed for Chance to Win= 196
Bankrole Required= 539.00
I found the essay "Computing Your Standard Deviation" but not the one titled "How Much Do You Need?"
How did you determine your "Hours Needed for Chance to Win" and your "Bankroll Required" from your win rate and hourly STD?
Before I print this I should say that there are good Essays about these Equations in "Gambling Theory and Other Topics".
LL = Minimum Bankrole WR = Win rate N = Number of hours x = STD
Hours needed to assure a win:
N = [(3*x)/WR]^2
Minimum Bankrole Needed:
First solve: N = [(3*x)/(2*WR)]^2 to get the hours needed.
Then Solve: LL = WR*N-3*x*N^0.5
CV
You shouldn't take your actual average result to be your expected value. True, it's the best estimate you have of your expected value, but if it's too optimistic, and you back that false optimism with real money, you'll be in a lot worse shape than if you were too conservative. One way to be conservative is to take the 95% (or whatever you feel is safe) confidence interval lower bound on your expected value as your e.v. estimate. This is likely to have depressing consequences on your bankroll requirement, unless you have played a ton of hours. Of course, if you have other sources of income, you effectively have a huge bankroll and so you need not be so cautious.
Also, Mason Malmuth's bankroll formula has been repeatedly criticized on rec.gambling.poker and other newsgroups. Here is one article on the subject:
[Begin quote of William Chen]
Subject: Bankroll requirements, another look?
From: William Chen Date: 1997/10/17
Message-ID: <62755m$lj0@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
If it seems like I'm picking nits with S&M, let me say that I believe that they have pioneered the field of modern poker theory and that it's only natural when you talk a subject in this area, you will be talking about one of their theories or ideas. I'd also like to point out that I was wrong last time about the maximum likelyhood estimator, so I was more careful this time. Oh well here goes.
In _Gambling Theory_ Malmuth claims that if you have a game where your average win is w and your stadard deviation is s, to ensure a 95% confidence of not going broke (two sigmas on the normal distribution) you need a bankroll of s*s/w, and to be virtually guaranteed of not going broke (3 sigmas) you need (9/4) s*s/w.
The problem with the formulas is that what it calculates is just your chance of going broke at the most critical time t for each confidence level. For the first case (95% confidence), this t occurs when the function w*t - 2*s*sqrt(t) is at it's minimum. This occurs when t = s*s/w*w, and at this time the probability that you not broke if B=s*s/w is indeed 5%.
However even if you are still above water at this point, there is some probability that you go broke later. Also, you might have gone under -B at some time in the past and rose above it in the mathematical model but in real life you would be broke. Hence I claim this 95% confidence level is too high.
How about this for a model--let's say you are playing a game with a $1 bet and $1 return and you have a win rate of w per bet, and have a bankroll of B, which is a positive integer and you are broke when you have 0. Let R(w, B) be the risk of ruin (chance you will go broke) for a win rate of w and a bankroll of B. First, by intuition R(w, B) = R(w, 1)^B, since you must lose $1 if you are going to lose $B, and it's just as easy to lose the first dollar. Let R(w) = R(w,1). Note if your win rate is w, you probability of winning a bet is p = (1+w)/2. So we have another equation :
R(w) = p*R(w,2) + (1-p). If you are down to your last dollar, you either win with probility p, in which case you have to lose 2 dollars, or you lose in which case you lose.
so we have R = p*R^2 + (1-p). Discarding the solution R=1 for p>1/2 (it's the right answer for p<=1/2, since you'll always go broke eventually playing an unfavorable game), we get R = (1-p)/p = (1-w)/(1+w).
Ok, what's the variance per play of R? It's 1-w*w (work it out), or
Now let's assume w<<1, and B>>1. Then R(w,B) = R(w)^B ~= (1-2w)^B ~= (1-2w)^(2Bw/(2w)) ~= exp (-2Bw), where s ~= 1.
We can always normalize a game to standard deviation 1 by dividing B and w by s so we get R(w, B, s) ~= exp (-2Bw/s^2).
Yeas it's true that this "coin flip" game exhibits different short term behavior than a poker game but if you take a large number, N of plays by the law of large numbers it approaches the distribution of results you would find with a session of win rate wN and deviation sqrt(N). If B>>w this would seem to be the case if the player goes broke.
So let's see how this formula compares to the above. What's the confidence if B= s*s/w? well the chance of ruin is R = exp (-2) or 0.135, so the confidence level is only 86.5%, ot 95%. What if B=9/4 s*s/w? R = exp (-4.5) = 0.011. So it's 98.9%, but nowhere near three sigmas on the gaussian.
Comments? I ran a quick simulation and my results seem to check out.
[End quote of William Chen]
A $539 bankroll for 4-8 is like a $2695 for 20-40. That looks much too small.
My actual Win Rate is possibly less, and my STD is possibly more than posted since my sample size is small. So my Bankrole should be bigger than posted. I'll have to post again in an other couple months to see how big a difference more hours invested makes. CV
I really dont know much about Mason's formula. But I can tell you for sure that a $539 bankroll is *much* too small for a 4-8 game. It is not all that uncommon to go through 40 or 50 big bets in one session at low limit games.
Just my opninion.
-Rob
This depends on your playing style and the type of game you play in. I've found that the 4-8 game I play in is mostly Weak-Tight. So the STD of this game is smaller, than say, the 3-6 game I also play which is full of Calling Stations. The smaller your STD the smaller your needed bankrole. But like I said in my last post my actual STD may be larger. I need to take a larger sample size. CV
The other day I was watching The E channel when I saw a show called High Rollers. David Skalansky was in it for a tiny bit. I was wondering if anybody else saw it. At the end of the show a poker match was being held between the two above mentioned titans. It was a $100,000 freeze out no-limit hold'em match. The last hand was this: Russ had about $30,000 to Bob's $170,000. Russ went all in with TT.Bob called with AsJs. nothing unusual there. Bob flopped jacks. He then made a flush. He didn't need it. If the chips had been about even and Russ went all in with TT I wonder if it would have been correct for Bob to call all in with AsJs. Any way this show was fascinating but I wish that they would have shown some more play between the two players.
The underpair is marginally favored (about 55-45), so technically speaking, with even stacks heads-up it would be incorrect to go all-in with A-Js. For practical purposes, I'd guess that most people play the two hands as equals. Heads-up, any Ace hand is much stronger; Stupak surely would've went all-in not knowing what Hamilton had.
Why is Stupak considered a great poker player? (not a disparaging remark, just don't know what he's done in poker).
Just ask Russ and other world class no-limit players what kind of player Bob is. You don't have to win the WSOP to be a great player. Although that helps. Bob has a book about his life that you might find interesting if you can get a copy. Remember this:Russ and Bob were playing with real money not a tournament!
We've operated a cardroom with our bowling center for over 3 years. We had a fire and had to move. We were able to get the game again. In our small community of 65,000, the game has almost always been dealer's choice. We were able to introduce an Omaha night and a two card night were we had a double blind structure.
Two things are happening; one, we lost the game to another cardroom and are trying to get it back; two, we are going to get a mini-casino with blackjack and let-it-ride and we feel that a center dealt game would more fit in with the mini-casino atmosphere and intice more new players.
The problem is that the old players don't seem to be willing to try the center dealt game. We have very good dealers - are dealing $3 $6 Hold-em and Omaha and only collect $2 per half hour. Some don't try the game and some are annoyed at what they feel is an obligation to tip.
I would apreciate any ideas.
Signed, Stumped in Washington State
Try advertising for new players, who will come and try your new games with an open mind. Taking only $2 per half hour you should be able to attract players from other cardrooms as well. But don't try too hard to get into a price war either. In fact you might want to increase it to $3 or $4, depending on what your competitive situation looks like.
You're doing the right thing, since the games you want to spread are going to be far more sustainable and more profitable. Player dealt games are nearly dead everywhere, because of fears of cheating and also because many players simply are not good a dealing and/or do not like to do it.
To explain better I was on the button ,with a full table,at the point of A6S it was down to 7 players I did fold. Two hands later I went all in(big blind being 1000,Lost! My point is even though I was a dog probably with A6S wouldnt I be a bigger dog of catcing a better hand the next 2 hands therefore getting lucky is porobably essential! Is being a dog for 1 hand ,more important than being a dog for the big blind? Any ways I plan on beating everone including YOU! Thanks!P.S. limit holdem
Play on monday i will beat you. Boris. P.S.: joke
When you have a strong hand, is more deception required (for optimal e.v.) in heads up play or multiway action?
I'll give my opinion afterwards.
Are we talking about a Nut hand or a hand that could possibly be outdrawn. Also, are these players Agressive or Calling Stations?
CV
Sorry, let's define "strong" as a hand that you think is currently best but which does have some chance of being outdrawn. Something like top two pair with QJ on a board of QJ6 rainbow heads up versus the big blind, or middle set with 99 on a board of K96 rainbow versus 3 opponents. Or it could be weaker, like top pair with QJ on a board of J62 rainbow heads up versus the big blind, or top pair top kicker with AK on a board of K96 rainbow versus 3 opponents. Mostly, I was trying to exclude those cases when you have absolutely nothing or just a draw.
IN GENERAL IT WOULD SEEM THAT YOU SHOULD USE LESS DECEPTION MULTIWAY AS YOU WANT TO NARROW THE FIELD IF POSSIBLE EVEN WITH A SEMI NUT HAND. hEADS UP YOU HAVE LESS CHANCE OF BEING BEAT SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU CAN SLOW PLAY MORE ETC.
I would play less deceptive with more players. Reason is not that I want to limit the field or anything like that, the reason is that there's a good chance if many or all will call, because it'll look like the pot odds are good. For example, if you have 88 and the flop is K83, with a Q on the turn, you should keep betting and raising as much as possible with multi-players because once they are in, most will call with a K, and some will call with a Q due to what they perceive as a big pot (since there should be other callers). Just seems like a real good situation to make a lot of money when you are betting, versus just making a little bit.
Good responses. Most of you seem to be saying what David Sklansky says in _Theory of Poker_:
"With weak players, with a large pot, and with large early bets, you need not be so concerned about disguising your hand. A corollary is that the more players in the pot, the less you gain by disguising your hand. You cost yourself too much when you do. You won't be able to make everybody fold when you bet with a weak hand, and you cost yourself too many bets when you miss a raise with a strong hand. What's more, when you let many opponents in cheaply, you increase the chance of being outdrawn. Head-up situations require disguising your hand more than do multi-way pots." [End Sklansky quote.]
However, there are many cases in which less disguise is necessary in heads up pots, in particular when you have a strong hand. In a recent hand I played, an opponent 3 bet me from the small blind before the flop (I was 2 off the button), bet the JTx flop, called my raise on the turn when the board paired jacks, and then bet into me on the river when an ace hit. He would 3 bet me with quite a lot of hands - on closer analysis I put him on 38 possible hands before the flop. By the river, despite his aggressive betting, there were still 28 possible hands he could have in my estimation, and it was pretty clear that I should call (and just call) with my AQ (top pair over jacks, queen kicker) since I beat enough of those 28 hands to give me odds. As it turned out, he had AA. He later 3 bet preflop in a similar situation with JTo, so I wasn't completely insane to mess with him, though it turned out badly in this case.
In fact, this is a small example of deception by playing straightforwardly, which was mentioned by some of you and also Sklansky in _Theory of Poker_, as I actually thought it was slightly less likely that he had AA than say 99 or maybe KTs, because I thought he might be inclined to smooth call preflop with AA, in hopes of sucking in the big blind and disguising his hand (but it would have had the opposite effect with me.) This type of deception by playing straightfowardly is easier to pull off in a heads up pot, since you will be bluffing and semibluffing so much that your opponent can't afford to always believe you when you say you have him beat.
There are cases in which it's dangerous to play straightforwardly in a multiway pot. If you flop top pair with a weak kicker and play it totally straightforwardly, an observant opponent may deduce what you have and if he can also deduce that another player is betting on the come, then he can raise over that player to knock you out. This sort of play happens all the time in the Mirage 20-40, where you have a mixture of tourist maniacs and local top notch pros.
Another example of walking into danger by playing straightforwardly in a multiway pot might be raising with AQ preflop after several limpers; if you flop an ace or queen, you will get check-raised if and only if you are beaten, and this check-raise might drive out all the other players, who would have supported your redraw to catch another ace or queen.
Bets and raises in multiway pots give away much more information than heads up. Sometimes deception in multiway pots pays off. For example, if you flop top pair top kicker first to act, you might wait until the turn to check-raise and force out the other players in a multiway pot. If you had played it straightforwardly by betting out on the flop, then everybody might have flat called you there and on the turn, and then you'd find you got shmengied on the river.
It's a very complicated issue...
* If I have a hand like top pair top kicker, then in a multiway pot I'm going to be looking for the leverage of a raise on the turn to knock out the damn smaller pairs trying to hit their kickers or make trips and so I may slow play the flop, whereas in a heads up pot, I can put in the first raise on the flop without telling my opponent much about the strength of my hand and I'm not afraid to have him drawing to beat me. Both cases are also related to pot size manipulation.
* Playing a really strong hand like a set deceptively by playing it straightforwardly is often more effective heads up than multiway, or at least the deception won't work in a multiway pot because everyone knows you can't be too far out of line.
* Playing a made but weak hand deceptively by either playing it extremely passively or extremely aggressively, not in between, may help you avoid being pushed out of a multiway pot by an expert card reader.
* I rarely 4 bet on any round (other than the river with the nuts) when heads up, but there are often cases in a multiway pot where it's worth the extra bets or taking down a big pot right away to just completely give away your hand with a 4 bet.
But when you have nothing...
* Playing a draw or other nothing hand deceptively is often more effective heads up than multiway, as you have so much equity in stealing the pot, and it can be suicidal in a protected pot (except when you have enough people to support your draw.)
All in all, when I have a made hand, I'm likely to play it deceptively straightfowardly in a heads up pot, and I'm likely to play it deceptively in a tricky sense in a multiway pot to either extract extra bets or narrow the field.
I think it all boils down to how well you read your opponents in the heat of battle. You gave us alot to chew on in that post. It might have been better if you submitted it as an essay to 2+2. Alot of good posts I've seen on this forum are like "Castles made of Sand" to quote Jimi Hendrix. They end up slipping into the Archives never to be heard of again.
CV
The length of your post supports your point. It is very complicated. And the answer I think depends on the table. If a raise limits the field, then deception may enable you to take down the money. But, if it doesn't, then I think you have to club people off the table the moment it appears you have the winning hand. I got drawn out on three times last night, once by a guy I let in before the flop; twice by two players who would not raise my bet, but would not run. One guy raised my straight at the turn with his three of a kind. I reraised and he called. At the river... well, you can guess...The board pairs.
There are just so many variables to this simple question. I guess thats what make Poker such a fun game to play. My answer would probably look much like Sklansky's from The "Theory of Poker". So I'll spare everyone the time. Abdul, I take it you see an exception to Sklansky's answer to Deception in "TOP" since you are posting the question here.
CV
It depends. In a low-limit game where your opponents are clueless, you need little deception in a multi-way pot. In that case you probably need more deception in a heads-up pot, because your opponent probably doesn't have anything and will fold if you bet.
In a game against better opponents:
1. It is more likely that your head-up opponent will have something, because he wouldn't have entered the pot with junk. Plus, he is more likely to think you're making a play for the pot and call (or raise) you with very little.
2. It is necessary to use deception in a multi-way pot, because otherwise your actions give away too much information. When you bet into a protected pot, you are exposing the value of your hand in a way that doesn't apply in a game against idiots.
I would tend to agree with Al Raiseya (who's gone all capitals on us??). In general more players/bigger pot --> less deception; fewer players/smaller pot--> allows for more deception (in part because of less fear of free cards). (I'm assuming you're talking about a hand that has *become* heads-up in a ring game, though my answer would be similar for a game being played heads-up as well.)
Of course there are plenty of exceptions. e.g., heads-up against an aggressive player who you know will play back at you, you might bet right out with something like a set in order to reraise him. This is sort of using no deception *as* deception I suppose. Kind of zen-like. Very appropriate for the top black belt kung fu master at the table, eh Abdul?
The capitols weren't on purpose. After years of trying to be tricky, I have found that straight forward aggressive play works best, even though it seems obvious what your hand is. As far as situations when you might not be the favorite, then of course you might not bet out to see what is happening.
Deception works best against players who are making an effort to think about what their opponents are playing. Whether heads-up or multiway if this situation exists, then there will be some people playing deceptively. Given this condition, I would want to play a contrasting style to that of the tricky players. Therefore, I would tend to play more multi-way pots straightforwardly.
Lately a player has shown up at the 3/6 game where I play with three to four racks of chips, including one or two rows of 5 dollar chips. He sets two hundred or so in front of him , but keeps the racks. His chips look like a fortress. He turns his chair around and perches on it. He is young, thin, has short hair, with an m shaped hairline. His style is committ a lot of chips on flush or straight draws. Needless to say he intimidates the average player at this game. I have been running very good lately, so his style doesn't bother me, though I am very careful about my starting hands when he is around. I also notice that he does not stay in many pots when I do. Does anyone in Southern Cal know this player? I would really like to get a line on him, or just get general advice about with his style.
I have played against David S (not Sklansky) in Los Vegas. (He of the one thousand dollars in dollar chips at the 1-5 table) So I am not bothered by the style. But, I would really like to challenge this guy. Any suggestions?
Roger,
You say you "would really like to challenge this guy." That sounds like a kind of emotional investment in beating him that can only hurt your play. I have found (the hard way) that acting on competitive feelings in poker leads to errors in play (playing hands you shouldn't, overplaying hands...). Better to take a very dispassionate stance. Play him like any other player, according to how he is playing rather than trying to show him up. How would you play a simulated, computer player who played exactly like this guy? Play him the same way.
Good point,which I thought of after I posted the message. The sight of all those chips has me licking my chops, which is probably his intention. Greed is a destructiver force. And the guy does know the game.
As far as how I would play a simulated player, I would just try to play my hand and position well. If I caught a hand against him, I would do my best not to be run out by his reraises. I would definitely have a competitive hand, not necessarily a premium one, but one I thought would hold up, or give me the best chance to draw out given the odds and size of pot..
Also, in live play, if I sensed that he was attempting to get a line on my play, I would attempt to mislead him as to my style by randomizing it when the cost to me was low. You know, raise if the waitress is a C cup or better....
When the Taj poker room first opened up in AC the games were incredible for the first few years. The main reasons for this were that the excitement was high,the players were new and the flush of tourists entering to try their hand was great. In the past two years the action is not quite the same as it was then. There is some tourist flow but not as much. When I walk in I see so many of the same faces mixed in with a few tourists on which to prey on. That brings me to my point. It has been said by many people but for some reason most players forget this concept. Most of the money you shall make is from players worse then you. I guess that egos and other manly things prevent poker players from using the tourist predation concept. I never want to play against players just as good or better then me. I want to win as much as possible. If I feel like finding who is better then I will play gin rummy. I think that this is why I am converting to tournaments. The tourist flow is slowing. But who knows maybe it will increase once again. My advice is to stalk out weak playing tourists and prey on them. They are your food. Without them you might not survive. Remember, it is always better to be the predator then to be the prey.
people play poker for more then one reason, that is why there is no such thing as a dumb tourist, or a sucker, for all you know he is very good at what he does and if your having a heat attack and he is a doctor then you are the dummy.that aside game selection is the critical facter in a tough room like the mirage on day shift. i play poker for more then one reason which is why i dont mind bumping heads with people better then me and why i think big bet poker is more fun then limit, and it takes more skill too, regardless of what they say.and by the way pot limit and no limit should be allowed and encouraged in the card rooms-which it is. some one can go bust in 20 sessions of 3-6 hold em or in 20 sessions of no limit hold em with one >25 cent blind.
of courese i realize that some people think that because ive giving a lot of thought and have considerable experince at big bet poker that i might encourage ever bigger games, which i do, so what, everything is relative. the day im not allowed to relieve a lawyer of all his money in one hand is the day i quit, and of course i will do so with respect and in the spirit of good sportsmenship.
of course i might lose all my money in that very same hand. not to worry, there is more where that came from. sigh me ....dont ever judge your risk toleratabity my mine.
i think i mispelllllld tolerability- im not even sure if thats right so i just move all in.
If you are a pro poker player then there is only one reason to play. If you want some fun then thats where women come into play.Since my spelling post you don't realize the pressure that I have placed on my self! I have already spelled Sklansky's name wrong today! By the way in my opinion, Limit hold'em has certain skills and so does pot-limit hold'em. However it is easier to learn the big bet games because the strategy is so straight forward. If you are playing in a no-limit hold'em ring game with $5 blinds why would anyone ever play and weak hands. The price that you have to pay is the reason why no-limit ring games are not as prevalent as they used to be. You could argue are that then you would get no action but the fact is most people do not have the discipline to play that way. Why? Because they are playing for fun!
i play much looser in no limit then limit, becaues of the large implied odds. in no limit im not concerned about position because i will never be caught out of position, i can move in at any time.
In Amsterdam, Holland, the rake in the f.10-f.20 game is 5% and the maximum amount is set at f.50 This means there is no maximum as I have never seen a pot go over f.1000 in the 10-20 game. How would this rake compare to casino's in the U.S.? For those interested 1 dollar makes 2 guilders (f.), so I am talking about a 5-10 US$ game. This is the most played game here, with the 10-20 US$ game in second place.
Spielmacher
I think in the US there are both better and worse rake amounts. Do you often play in Amsterdam? How are the games over there?
The rake is too high but it is a very nice place. Just try like me this one: by day, resting on the beach (Zandvoort); by night, playing poker in the Lido casino (Amsterdam).
max 25 us dollars? in the us the max is 3-5dollars. worst rake ive seen 10% - 5dollar max. best rake ive seen- one dollar at 30, one dollar at 50, 50 cents at one hundred and 50 cents ant one hundred thirty. many casinoes use 10 percent with 3 dollar max.
to compare - average pot in a 10-20 us game might be somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 dollars. 5% of l50 is 7.50. on the average only 3 would have been raked in us. ive seen pots as big as 600 in a 10-20 game. 5% of 600 is 30 dollars, so that would have maxed out at 25 dollars. again on the average only 3 would have been raked in us.
So the rake in the US in better than in Amsterdam, but I think that the competition between pokerrooms and casino's in the US is much tougher than in the Netherlands. Isn't it?
i dont know, however i forgot about time charge since i have yet to be concerned with it. at the best poker room in the world, the mirage in lv, the time is 10 per hour,the rest seem to charge somewhere in the neighberhood-if they dont do it by rake- of 5-for 10-20 per one half hour, 6 for 15-30 for the same, and 7 for 20-40, i have yet to be blessed with the concern of what do about 1000-2000
as far as compition, i dont know- how bad or good are you over there. if you are an expert on what to do with two pair in a pot limit game, i suspect i really dont need you in my thursday night poker game.
i actually misread your post, the more compitition the better between poker rooms, it growing very fast over here
I played a hand the other night in a 3-6 hold'em game that went as follows.
Pre-flop I'm one to the right of the button and get pocket kings. I raise and so there are about 7 in for two bets now(including me). The flop comes and it is a 2, 7, and a 10. it gets checked to me, i bet and every one folds except the small blind, and a guy who is three to my right. Turn card is a 4 with no flush possible. I bet again and they both stay. River card is a Queen and the small blind bets. the player to my right calls and i raise. Both players call. i soon find out that my pocket kins lose to both players' Q,7
Did i play this correctly? I had just sat down a few hands before, and so i didn't know much about these players.
If you know the player who bet is solid and not overly tricky the right play is to fold.
If you are unsure about that player (the most likely case) the right play is to call.
Raising is out of the question.
No! I think they just got lucky and you just got drawn out, which is what happens to better players. They shouldn't have stayed in. Up until the last card you had the best hand. After the flop the there were still two cards to come so the chances of catching that Q or an additional 7 was about 20%, so they'd beat you one time and lose four times, while it would cost them another 15 dollars to stay in the pot till the end and that pot would grow to 66 which gives them only the effective odds of 4.4 to 1. So on the long run they would lose playing the way they did. So from their individual perspective they played wrong. This even more so considering that the Queens up might not even turn out to be the best hand
Personally I myself wouldn't even have bothered to see the flop with Q7. Perhaps in a loose game from the SB I would have stayed in, but in general I always fold with that particular hand.
But let's look at things from your perspective now. You tried to drive them out by betting right out, which turned out to be quite right, because even after the flop you probably had the best hand. Also, because the other two appear to me as loose players, they probably would have raised with trips on the flop which they did not.
So taking these things in consideration, it's you who played right and both of them who played wrong.
When the small blind leads out on the river after you have done all the betting with this type of board, it usually means two pair or better. I would have just overcalled on the river, and accepted the loss if I'm beat. A raise on the river would be worth it if I had QQ or QT here instead of KK.
Welcome to no fold'em hold'em. Not much you could have done differently up to the river. On the river, I would have probably saved the last bet (your raise), because it seemed likely that you were up against two calling stations, not someone likely to be on a move by betting the Q on the river. When the small blind bet out, there is a decent chance he has made a Q-rag two pair, since calling stations are not generally calling you down with simple overcards (the only hand the queen "hit" that you could beat. These type of players will play all sorts of other draws (3 flushes, gut-straights, bottom/middle/pair), regardless of pot odds. They also tend to think that any paint (regardless of kicker) is worth calling a raise before the flop, and would certainly play Q-T. Given this "profile" and the texture of the flop, it is highly likely that th Q hit the Sb, giving him Qs and 10s, Qs and 7s, or even (ugh!) qs and 2s. Couple that with the sudden action by the Sb, and I would call, not raise. I wouldn't even consider a fold on the end, however, since you just never know with 3-6 players.
You should remember that it's 3-6! Strangly, I don't do well with AA or KK in 3-6. However I have made a ton of money with flush draws and straight draws. You are playing in a typical 3-6 game. I am not saying throw away KK and AA but with seven callers every flop those hands will not win as often with fewer callers. Flush draws can and will make a ton because in 3-6 you can cap the betting and they still call. If this keeps happening all you need to do is make one flush to have made an enormous profit. One time in AC at the Taj I had over $960 on the table. I bought in with $60! I ended up winning $920. Besides the fact that I had a wide open ass or busted ass as us New Eglanders like to say I made most of this money with flushes because nobody ever went out.
I agree. The serious money in 3-6 gets made by hitting the nut straight and especially nut flush draws. AA and KK play best head up or with only a couple or three opponents. How many times have I seen pre-flop betting capped and half or more of table still in? Too many! I tend to play those hands in 3-6 by calling to see the flop if the game is no fold'em hold'em or I don't think I can get people out by raising aggressively.
LWD
Many of the generalizations about US cardrooms sound like they are making the assumption that the US is the size of Las Vegas.
The US is a very large place, and there are many locales with different situations. Some places have strong competition between nearby cardrooms, some don't. Rakes vary widely, sometimes even within a general locale.
There is more poker played in the state of California than in Nevada, and possibly more than in the whole rest of the US combined. Nevada is still the most visible "gambling mecca" in the US, though, and so many people see it as the standard.
In California, pots are not percentage raked (except at the Indian Casinos, which I just don't know about). Seats at 10-20 and above are often charged on a half-hourly basis, otherwise the button is usually charged a fixed fee for the hand. The fixed fee in California ranges from $3 to places where I've seen it as high as $6.
Nevada games are in general percentage raked, either 5% or 10%, with a max. rake of $3-5.
Games elsewhere in the country vary widely. I've not played in Connecticut or Atlantic City, but you may get some responses about what the rakes are like there.
Unless things have changed recently most rake 10% with a maximum of $4.00 in Atlantic City. They have an hourly charge at the higher limits. I do not know what it is.
Connecticut Hold'em: $1 at 10, $1 at 20, $1 at 30, then... 3-6 $1 max at 50, or 5-10 $1 max at 80, or 10-20 $1 max at 160. Middle (20-40 up) and high limits are time raked. Most games are played with some form of kill.
I just got done reading 7cds for Advanced Players (hell of a book, by the way). There was one topic that I didn't see (although maybe it was and I missed it). I guess roughly my question translated to: With a four flush (on 4th st) are you always gonna see the river? I know the book says in general "yes". But it seems there's always "exceptions to every rule". I guess I'm wondering what if you see an extremely high number of your suit while playing multi-way? Is there an exact number where you should pack it in? (besides seeing 9 hearts when you have 4 hearts). Or suppose you limp in with a three heart flush with two hearts on the board. I high card raises and makes it heads up with you. On fourth you catch a heart, but so does he. On fifth you draw blank and he catches a heart. On 6th you get a blank, he gets a heart. All this time he's still betting his top pair. Is this hand still worth playing? I'm sure a definitive answer has to include overcards, pot odds, or if you've paired etc. But I was wondering if there is a dummied down answer where if there is "x" number of your suit out (even if you have a four flush) -- Fold. Thanks in advance.
for a dummy answer id go with 4. with two out you generally need big cards to get involved, at least if its going to be for a full bet. So say you make 4 hearts on fourth. i would still draw untill i saw two more hit the board , that only gives you 5 outs, not much better then a gutshot (if you came in with two already out).thats a short rule of thumb i keep in mind-if i have 4 i only tolerate seeing three others, i pack it in if ive seen 4. of course if there is a ton of money involved-you go figure it out, but then again if a lot of money is being moved at the pot, my guess is your flush isnt going to be any good.
I suspect there is an odds book for seven card stud, given the popularity of the game. Try the Gamblers Book Club, or see page 37, in the Theory of Poker by David Sklanksy for his thoughts.
least i appear smarter then i am, i refer you to 7 stud in 42 lessons by roy west, the only book on the market that addresses this spicific question that i know of, without having to go get a calculater-you asked for a dummy answer. of course ive taken his advice, modified it to suit my risk toloratability, and use it as a rule of thumb. in the heat of battle pulling out a calculater would be a tremendous tell, and my opponents would check raise me with nothing.
I read his column in Card Player, and would invest in his book if 7s high were ever spread here. 7H/L is. The best book I have read is the one by Ray Zee.
I have seen players so silent and analytical that I would not have been surprised to see a calculator used. As you imply, an agressive player can avoid or run over them as the situation ditctates. Now if there were only some way to keep people from getting lucky...
Roger write--Now if there were only some way to keep people from getting lucky... i say it will be no poker.And bay 42 lesons bay roy west wery good book my first on stud.
there are many usefull odds of 7 card in brunsons book super syster
Duh, right.
All of these authers are very sucessful at poker and thats the reason why they can write books. Norm's post offends me and it should offend any one else who is serious about being a winner at poker. Good books are the foundation of a winning play. You can't have a house without a foundation. Tell any of the above mentioned authers that they are losers and only make money from selling books and you need to see a doctor! As I found out however, not all books are equal. Get the right books and you have at least a chance to become good. You must take it from there. By the way Slash from Gun's and Roses has not wriiten a book about guitars that I know about and yet he is a multi-millionare. I guess he is a loser. Go figure!
The original post was titled something like "Card counting - the big lie". Norm's hilarious followup post points out how ridiculous the arguments of the first post were.
EE
I've heard that a good ammount per session is 40 or 50 times the minimum bet. That seems to keep you in the game as long as you deserve to be. My question is -What is a comfortable ammount one should gather for a total bankroll?
Whatever amount you can comfortably lose.
MM has presented formulas for calculating minimum bankroll requirements in his books. However, to use these formulas, you must have a large database of past results so that you can determine your average win rate and standard deviation. With these 2 items, you can calculate a bankroll that is sufficiently large that you are likely to never go broke. However, this is only valid if you have a positive average win rate, and you have no other source of funds for your bankroll.
If you are an amateur, then these formulas are only helpful to a moderate degree (to explain your large losing streaks, primarily).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree. I recommend an infinite bankroll for the random unknown newbie.
very intelligent answer, while i would have no fear in bumping heads with you, i would probably be better off not to.
No one should fear bumping heads with me. I'm not an emotional player, I don't insult people, and I'm usually talkative and pleasant. Plus, on my latest trip to the Bay Area, I got scalped for about 25 big bets in 1.5 hours of 15-30. Very unlucky session. Fortunately, I got it back quickly here in SoCal.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Total bankroll questions have been well documented. I'd like to address the phrase, "a good amount per session is 40 or 50 times the minimum bet."
Before arbitrarily throwing this out, you need at least two more pieces of data:
1) Are you a documented winning player? &
2) Do you EVER steam?
If the answer to 1 is no, than not much else matters and the comments made by GregR apply to session bankroll as well.
If the answer to 1 is yes and 2 is no, bring as much money as you feel comfortable stuffing into your pocket.
If you're a strong player, 40 or 50 small bets isn't enough money. As a rule, I buy in for 50 times the minimum bet in a limit game, and am prepared to go much deeper than that. I like to bring enough for 15 buyins. So for a 20-40 game, that means $3000. Only twice in the last year have I had to dip into that third thousand, but both times the game was good, and my attitude was still positive, so it was a +EV play. One time, I scratched a couple of hundred back; the other I played in a great game for many more hours and posted a winner for the session.
If you're a winning player, you don't want to have to go home when the animals are taking all your money. Some games don't fit into the "life's-one-big-game" continuum. Certain games are discrete events in that they basically are formed around the very bad players losing all their money. Sometimes before they do that, they'll knock you down a peg in the process. That's when you want to make sure you have enough money to weather out the storm.
If you need protection from yourself, bring whatever you don't mind losing. If you don't need protection from yourself, bring plenty of money.
JG
I've heard that a good ammount per session is 40 or 50 times the minimum bet. That seems to keep you in the game as long as you deserve to be. My question is -What is a comfortable ammount one should gather for a total bankroll?
200-300 x the big bet. At least thats what is reccomended in the books. For the best advice in this area see POKER ESSAYS by masom malmuth, and GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS- by the same author. I think there are two ways to look at a bankroll- you may need 6 g's to ensure not going broke in a 10-20, or mabey up to 8 g's, but I wouldn't count on winning that much in your local card room at the 5 dollar game. The 5 dollar game is probably not a bad idea for your first poker experience- but I would suggest moving up as quickly as possible for two reasons. # 1 so the house dosnt get all the money due to the rake, and #2 because a 5 dollar game is meaningless as far as getting a feel for the stratageys that will be necessary to win at the 10-20 level and above-because they wont work. For instance I've been working on my bluffs at hold em, and im getting better. Im winning money at my bluffs. My advice for bluffing at a 5 dollar game-don't. Hand sellection, getting a feel for when a fair hand is good and when the second nuts is no good, implied odds, etc. the list goes on and the list can be titled playing well from flop to finish. Your going to lose pleanty tring out all the solid advise and tricky moves that are so well presented in the 2+2 publications and other fine material available- if you practice them on the wrong crowd. So whats the alternative - 40 small bets is a reasonable figure, 400 in a 10-20. You might double that in a day, mabey more. If you bust out so what, that dosnt mean your poker life is over, go get another 400 where that came from. Say youve turned into a winning player and now have 5 g's- you see a 20-40 that looks tempting- do you have to wait till you have 20,000 to sit down. Of course not. 40x20 is 800. Take a shot- if you lose the 800 so what, your still in business- go back to the 10-20. Anyway thats my thoughts on bankroll.
120$ in 3-6 may not keep you in the game as long as you deserve to be.
400 in a 10-20 will makke you more money
Look back into the archives of this forum: December 1997, in a thread called "Bankroll Requirements" for the answer to your question. As far as I know, this answer does not appear anywhere in print (at least not in readily accessible print).
Tom Weideman
The following four plays are all incorrect in a typical 10-20 holdem game. However one play is definitely a worse mistake than the others. Which is it? (In all cases you are on the button and four players have already limped in.) !. Folding A10 offsuit 2. Raising with A!0 offsuit 3. Not raising with A10 suited
4. Calling with 72 suited
Raising with A-10 offsuit.
Why? 1. 4 players have limped suggesting small pairs, suited connectors below ten, or big but not premium cards such as AQ, AJ, KQ or KJ. Presumably AK would have raised, and AA and KK would have also. 2. A-10 is marginal, even in this position. A raise by you is unlikely to limit the field. If it does, you will find yourself up against an Ace with a big kicker. 3. Your draw is uphill. You need a perfect flop with no two cards of the same suit. You will likely not get that. If you get two cards that help you, you will still have an inside draw for the straight. The seven duece suited may be still there , hoping for exactly one of his suit to come out. 4. The cards that help you are very likely to help others. You need the cards other people play, i.e, those above ten. If the board pairs after the flop, you are very likely to be facing trips, if not a full house.
If I played the A 10, and I might not even with position, depending on the other players, what I would hope for is a trash flop. A raise might fold out the big draws ; then if you could pair the ten at the turn, or better at the river, you might be able to outplay the remaining players.
so whats your answer
It's the first line.
Okay, maybe the first line didn't transmit.
Originally I thought that raising with A 10 x was the worst, but not now. So, in order of first worst to last. Not raising with A 10s. Raising with A 10x Folding A 10x Calling with 72s.
Interstingly, D says all of these are mistakes, begging the question...What is the correct play here. Folding them all?
My vote is for calling with 72s.
I think calling with the 72 suited is the biggest mistake.
There are four players in with better hands and the blinds still to act. If one of the blinds raises you get trapped for another bet five or six handed.
I can scarcely think of a flop that I would love other than a pair of 7's or a pair of 2's ...(maybe something like Q72)
If you flop a four flush you get trapped to the river and if you flop a made flush you can easily get beat.
Just a random opinion from a stud player.
2
#2
Number 3 - Not raising with A,Ts.
I can't really quantify it very well but I have found raising with this type of hand in the situation you describe to be very profitable. The fact that you can get a lot of flops that make this hand playable due to the bigger pot size must be part of it. Just my two cents.
Tom Haley
my mistake, i thought the a 10 was unsuited, well let me think about it, i cant imagine throwing in extra money with the worst hand in poker, or mabey i can.but not in this case, so i choose calling with 72,David?
I agree that *not raising suited A-10* is the most grevious error. Looks like the pot odds for a draw are going to be pretty good.
It is also often necessary to raise before the flop from last position to set up a possible free card play after the flop. Without the raise, it may not become checked or one-bet to you on the flop. This is why ATs can make money from a late position, but is marginal up front.
it is a,10 off suit, i stick with rasing this hand as the worst mistake. by the way david i saw you at the mirage the other week, im sorry that i didnt take the time-in the midst of being stuck- to come over and introduce myself. as meaningless as it would have been to you it would have been meaningful to me, thanks to you the job of thinking about this game is certainly like standing on the shoulders of giants.
I think raising with ATo is the worst play. Calling with 72s seems too obvious to be correct. The reasoning behind me thinking raising with ATo would be the worst play is that. a) You make the Pot so big on the Flop that some players may be correct in chasing long shots to outdraw you. b) Again you make the pot so big that you force yourself into sticking with a hand that may be second best. c) By showing strength before the Flop the action will possibly be checked to you so that Limiting the Field on the Flop becomes almost impossible.
The reason I think 72s isn't the worst hand is because its so easy to drop if the Flop doesn't come perfect.
Folding ATo is probably the best play of the Four hands, with Not Raising ATs being second.
Well said Chris... This is my vote also. Although all four may be incorrect preflop, ATo has the highest likelyhood of being played incorrectly on the turn and river. Being shown AJs on the river has me kicking myself for playing the hand and crying calls the whole way. Or worse, I'm betting flop and turn and AJo is calling the whole way. OOPS!!!
Never drawing dead, Albert
I am going to wait for some more answers before I give you mine. But I do want to make two points. One is that the definition of the badness of a mistake is how much it costs you in mathematical expectation. Two is that I assume that you do not compound any of these mistakes later on in the hand but in fact play well from that point on. By the way , I am sorry that I do not know how to physically format these posts. Maybe Jessica will teach me.
Not rasing with ATs has got to be the worst mistake. I have not read the other posts but I wonder how many people have said 72s. Calling is a mistake but not as great.
Upon mature reflection, after having some guy kick my ass last night with a 10 5 off suit full house on the river (No, he wasn't in the blind) I completely agree that the absolute worst play here is not raising with A 10 s.
There is no defense against being drawn out on except raising the price of admission with premium, or near preumium hands. If you got it, bet it, and pray.
I believe it's definitely #4; playing 72s. It is always a mistake to play 72, the suited part is just a camoflage in that being suited adds little to this hand.
A comment on Ace Ten. Many times in a 10 handed hold-em game, no one is dealt an ace, let alone a "group one or two hand". Ace ten suited figures to be the best starting hand at least 1/3 of the time. By raising with this hand, you can probably find out if anyone was slow-playing aces or kings upfront. If no one reraises, you probably are looking at TJs, KJ, KQ, 87s, Axs, and hands like that.
Therefore, I would rank the mistakes in order from worst to least; #4, #3, #1, #2; with #2 being the least, or not a mistake at all.
With that definfinition then, the worst mistake would be NOT raising with A 10 suited.
I guess I'd have to change my answer to Not Raising with ATs. I also suspect not raising with Medium Suited Connectors and Pocket Pairs, in this position, Costs me money also.
CV
David,
First, I agree with Etienne's answer, later in the thread, so I have nothing really new to add to that.
But, maybe I can help with your formatting. These forms can be confusing - there are 4 things to remember:
1) Your message will automatically wrap to the next line when it reaches the edge; you do not have to use [ENTER].
2) All extra spaces are discarded, so more than one consecutive space ends up being just a single space.
3) If you do use [ENTER], it just moves back to the start of the next line like the carriage return on a typewriter; it does not cause a line to be skipped.
4) Use two [ENTER][ENTER] to begin a new paragraph.
And if you start moving around with the arrow keys and backspace to edit your previous words, numbers 1) and 3) can cause you a lot of trouble.
Good luck.
you will have to forgive me im a little drunk, i stick with number 2
I thinck #2 here is no reson to raise?
I think that without a doubt it is number 1.
Folding Ace-Ten offsuit.
Especially if you play well.
Not raising with ATs. Assuming for a second that the other four players have good hands, and that you are 1 out of 5 to win (with blinds folidng). If you just call, then the small blind will undoubtedly call, and the big blind is in for free, so you have to sweat it out with two other guys.....with a raise, you'll likely knock out the small blind and maybe one other guy...this is worth it. Plus, even if everyone calls, it is more likely that you will be able to get a free card on the flop than if you had just called (since some people may be thinking about checkraising - or just afraid of your previous raise).
Calling with any two cards can't be that bad, as you don't lose much if the flop doesn't hit.
Folding with ATo is not that bad either with all the callers, just a small expectancy lose.
Raising with ATo is not that bad since even if you are a bit of a neg. expt against the other four players, knocking out the blinds makes up for some of that.
In S&M's HPFAP, p. 77 it says "On the other hand, when you hold big unsuited cards, your opponents are getting implied odds from you. Therefore, it is wrong to raise with unsuited high cards in multiway pots, and it may be right to fold hands like AT, KT, and even AJ and KJ." Continuing with a button scenario (KT) which has some similarities to our situation, S&M say that "even calling might be wrong for all but the best players." I conclude from all this that calling with ATo has a low positive EV, and the differences between raising, folding (zero EV) and calling are not all that great.
Similarly, because of the great implied odds 72s is getting for a good flop (assuming he otherwise folds), the difference between calling (negative EV) and folding is small and not by any means what S&M like to call a catastrophe.
ATs is a good multiway performer and, whilst calling on the button has a high EV, raising would probably nearly double it.
Therefore the worst mistake is #3, not raising with AT suited.
I'll try to answer this without reading everyone else's posts, so apologies if I contribute nothing new. If I'm completely wrong, well it'll be the first time.. :)
IMO, the worst play would be to raise with AT off. The reason is that this kind of hand is a hit top pair and win a small pot hand. By raising, you manipulate the pot odds against you so that the times the above rosy scenario occurs, you've made it correct for opponents to attempt to draw out on you.
In a multi-handed pot, I don't see the pre-flop aggression buying you any equity in getting people to dump. You'll probably have to show down the winner, so you probably don't want to make it correct to draw by popping here.
JG
Well I would probably dump all hands this game sounds very loose and would seem to pay tighter play in the long run. But in making a choice I would probably assume that the (4) callers have drawing hands such as small pairs up to nines The other obvious hand possibilities are suited connectors below K,Q, suited one gappers above 7,9 or connectors below K,Q again and Axs below A,9. Now calling 1,2,or4 is a mistake but not as big of a mistake as not raising the A,10s I would assume that no other player at this point has a better hand (better meaning A,J or above suited or not or Pairs bigger than nines). I would raise this hand for the reason that I would give the S,&B blind a reason to fold and not allow a free ride basically to the flop to set up a perfect overcall/outdraw catastrophe scenario. I feel that my cards are probably still out A, 10, flush and straight draws. and if I make any of these hands I probably make the nuts and can milk many over call bets from the original callers. Also because Iam in last position I can after seeing the flop review all action before making a decision on pumping or dumping before the turn.
I hereby disavow my previous post. I didn't read carefully enough and didn't see the mention of 72s. Playing that hand is clearly bad. Think about it. The difference in how you play AT suited or not is miniscule considering the EV you give up getting involved with just about the worst possible hand. Suited don't mean much.
JG
n/t
Here is my third response to this problem. I ran the problem on Turbo Texas Hold-em simulation using Advisor A as the other 9 players and profiled a player to make the appropriate play if the pot was not raised before the action got to him. In otherwords, if an earlier player picked up pocket aces and raised, our player just folded.
I ran AT offsuit in 3 simulations; one that folded, one that called, and one that raised. As the problem was stated, if it is a mistake to fold or raise, then it must be correct to call. I can measure the "mistake" by the difference in the long term profit/loss of the decision. The average win/loss per hand for #1.fold was zero, which makes sense. When the player called with AT the profit per hand was +$0.09. When the player made the "mistake" of raising, the profit was +$0.13. So folding was a mistake of -$.09, but raising was actually a 4 cent correct decision.
With AT suited, I ran one simulation where the player called and one where he raised. Results; call +.27, raise +.12. So, not raising is not a mistake, it actually shows a 15 cent per hand long term profit.
No profile will even call with a seven deuce! So I used six deuce instead. The long term loss of 6 2 suited was $.19. Clearly the worst mistake.
So, according to my results (only 10,000 trials per decision) the order from worst mistake to least "mistake" is 4 1 2 3.
This apears to be good evidence that Turbo Texas Hold'em is still inadequate as a research tool. If you choose to believe these simulation results concerning the play of AT and ATs, rather than David's statement that the plays he listed were all mistakes, I can just about guarantee you that you are making a costly error. In fact it doesn't take someone of David's knowledge to tell you that those plays are mistakes. Most solid players would agree on each one.
I think we can take Abdul Jalib's word for it that the new TTH *plays* better. But the more I hear about its simulation results as well as the advice of the advisor in the program, the more doubt I have about its usefulness.
For a post on this topic that is better informed than I, find (in Deja News) Stephen Landrum's RGP post of 6/5/98 in response to the post, "Turbo Texas Hold'em".
My thinking on the question David has posed is that the other posters are right in narrowing the worst mistake down to either not raising with ATs or playing 72s. It seems very tough, though, to come up with any kind of estimate for how much more you gain by raising (versus calling) with ATs. Beyond the fact that you probably have the best hand, the raise does increase the size of the pot, thereby tying on other players for future calls. So it could gain you quite a bit. But I really wouldn't know how much.
But I will give my vote to playing the 72s as the DUMBEST of all the errors. Somehow I see a difference there :-)
I'd just like to congratulate David for this very instructive and thought provoking thread.
Whatever his answer is I believe I learned a lot by following all the various responses.
Its this kind of discussion that makes this forum my favorite place on the Web
Jim Mogal
OK now what the answer????
1. In the starting hand rankings, how is a 3-flush with three low cards ranked? What about a one-gap 3-straight with all low cards?
2. On p.46, holding a premium hand is given as an exception to folding on a bad 4th street card. Which hands would qualify?
3. If there would be more than four callers, would it become correct to raise on the flop or turn with nut lows without redraws or counterfeit protection?
Thanks.
Vince, you asked
1. In the starting hand rankings, how is a 3-flush with three low cards ranked? Ans. about the best
What about a one-gap 3-straight with all low cards?
Ans. another great hand some loss because of the gap. Page 13&14 do explain the best starting hands.
2. On p.46, holding a premium hand is given as an exception to folding on a bad 4th street card. Which hands would qualify?
Ans. Probably up to catagory five depending on the strength of your opponents hand and which way you may believe he is going.
3. If there would be more than four callers, would it become correct to raise on the flop or turn with nut lows without redraws or counterfeit protection?
Ans. With nut lows you would want to build the pot with multiple players and take your chances that you may be counterfeited unless a tie for your end seemed likely. After you read the book a couple of times it will come together there is an awful lot to put to use. Good Luck.
What the rating of the of this hands in 78: (AcKc)2c,(Ac2d)2c,(Ac8d)2c, are they playble or plain trash? If the playble onder what condition. P.S if I catch well card with this hands can i represent draw to the well?
Boris,
All are good hands and can call at least one raise cold going in and if you catch real good with each of them you will go to the river unless you run into too big of a hand. If you are going to play split poker you need to learn hard information from some written material. Good Luck.
I was next to buton in 5-10 holdem game. My cards was KcTc. Flop was AcQcJc and i still lost. I anybody want to know how post here or e-mail me. Boris. P.S shoud i call whith KTs next to buton in unraised pot?
You must please tell us all how you could possibly get beat with this hand. Did I misunderstand that you did not flop a royal?
Turn was Jd,river was Jh. After i cap beting waitres bring sandwich. While i was geting the sandwich my oponents call. Deler call my hand K high flush and take it,becase other plaers hands was AA and J4. So before i can say word she take my hand. it was declared dead later. It was tereble. I am only player hwo loses whith A high straight-flush.
I think that maybe you should keep your hands on the cards. However I think that this post is phoney because no one who has a royal flush would ever take there hands off it.
I am always trying to be nice and turn my hand over first. So i was geting sandvich and i expect to get the pot. I did not know if deler take my hand but evrybody see it hand still dead.
At the place where I play if are a winner and you do expose your cards and the dealer mucks them it is the dealer's responsibility to make up to you what was in the pot. The casino management will review the play on the video cameras and determine if you indeed had a winner, you exposed your cards and the dealer mucked them.
carlos
So let me get this straight... You have a royal flush, and at the showdown, you stop to get a sandwich?!?
He had ordered the sandwich half an hour earlier. The easy solution to this kind of problem is to tell the food server to wait for their tip out of the pot.
Just out of interest:
If you had been the benifactor of hand. And had seen that the person in question did have the Royal and that the dealer mis-read the hand. Would you have accepted the pot.
I personaly have no problems accepting pots where the players hands are mucked if they aren't protecting their hands, mis-read their own hands and not noticed by the dealer. But if the circumstances were as described by the original poster I am unsure if I would accept the pot.
I would immediately push the pot to the royal flush.
I play against many of the same players every night. In my opinion, a good reputation is more valuable than any one pot.
Also, unless the dealer is consistantly poor, I do not like to get dealers into trouble. Their job is hard enough.
After I push the pot to the royal, I would expect him to buy me a coffee (I do have my petty side).
In the introduction to their book "Holdem Poker for Advanced players" Sklansky and Malmouth point out that the strategies outlined in the book are for a "Tight, but aggressive" game and not intended for a "Fast" game which some experts use to make slightly more money.
I have ran into a few fast players who seemed to know what they were doing, and I like the style. Not boring. I think I understand the basic principle of this aproach, but would like to read more about it from one of the experts. Would someome like to elaborate a bit?
I have some thoughts about *Fast* Holdem players. I have been playing the 10-20 and 20-40 holdem games in Las Vegas on and off for about 15 years. Over the years I have played with many tight players and many fast players. Only a handfull of players have survived over that amount of time and they are all tight. The fast players look good in the short run, they look like winners, but over time they all disapear. I have to assume they went broke, I can not believe they won so much that they all retired.
When we say fast we are really talking about playing only a few more hands than what we recommend in HPFAP. You do this mainly through superior hand reading skills which allow you to give small head starts to some of the weak players.
Here's one quick example. Normally if a player raises in early position and you are a couple of places to his left you should take a hand like AQ offsuit and throw it away. However, against the right person it can be a reraising hand.
I would call that type of play solid, not fast. You are playing the player, not the cards. You may not even be playing more hands, just selecting spots to play more aggressively than usual.
The type of fast player I see going broke are the ones who habitually raise with small pairs, raise with any suited ace from any position, try to steal the blinds with any two cards, love to cap it on the flop with any draw even non-nut draws even heads up.
When a fast player like this gets even a little lucky during a session he can post an impressive win. A beginning player who sees this may believe this is a style of play to emulate. My experience is that these players disappear after a month or so and are never seen again. Of course, a new one always seems to take his place, playing fast, losing money, needling the rocks.
I agree with both Mason and Bobby B.'s comments. The best players I have known, the ones who have survived, would not be seen by many as "fast" players. They would be seen as tight, solid, knowledgeable.
To add a bit on what I think avid and Mason are referring to in their book, there are some hands/plays that you can add to your repertoire once you have developed quite a lot of expertise in the game. As Mason mentioned, these often involve situations in which you are against particularly weak opponents.
One simple example from their book is that the play of a hand like KT (offsuit) behind a large number of limpers can be wrong "for all but the best players." Here they are suggestiong that you could add this hand to your play (in this spot) if you are expert enough, particularly (I think they would agree) when the opposition is especially weak.
One thing I have concluded about this topic is that it is also quite reasonable to choose *not* to make some of these plays even if you have the expertise to pull them off. In many cases being expert enough to make one of these plays or to play certain marginal hands involves knowing when to get away from them so that the play is not compounded if it turns out to be a losing one. Well, I think even the best player will not *always* be right, and will end up paying off incorrectly or in some other way compounding a play that perhaps he never should have made in the first place. This is a fluctuation booster. And some of these plays boost your fluctuations anyway. So I think it makes sense to pick and choose extremely carefully when you go beyond the bounds of "normal" correct play.
BTW a couple of years ago Roy Cooke had a pretty good article in Card Player on this topic titled "Playing Loose Correctly". Sorry I don't know the exact issue. In it you will see that the situation he described was a very select one involving very weak opponents. And even there he may have stretched the point a bit in his hand selection.
A majority of players seem to want to believe that it is possible to play lots of hands, and to play them fast and win. That people playing in this way do sometimes have some impressive winning streaks perpetuates the illusion that it is possible. But I am convinced that it's not.
Finally, the original poster stated that a fast style was "not boring". I always have a hard time with complaints that poker is boring. There is so much to observe between hands. How much better would you do in your current game if you knew the betting patterns, favorite plays, and tells, of your opponents in great detail. Watching for these things,as well as analyzing the quality of plays made by opponents, maybe even learning from them, is work, but it's not really boring.
Sometimes the style goes with the limits. The typical 4-8 game at Viejas is very fast, especially between 10 and 1 on the weekends. Consequently the fluctuations can be huge. You need more than 40-50 times the small bet to be competitive. Probably a 100, or four hundred bucks, to survive and prosper.
I find that for survival I need to re- raise quite a bit more often before the flop with hands that don't always justify it in order to try to keep players out of the pot. This is mainly because of the blind structure in holdem. I think this would be considered playing too fast at times but, as long as it is limited to pre-flop, I think it is a positive play. But anyone who raises and re-raises consistently with inferior hands is going bye-bye, as you mentioned.
I like to shift gears occasionally away from the standard Tight/Agressive game plan. Sometimes I shift down to a more Tight/Passive approach. This is usually in response to having two or more *FAST* players at the table. Other times I change up to Tight/Hyperagressive for a few playable hands, and continue with this approach as long as it remains profitable to do so. Suppose you're not getting the appropriate one or two player action on your premium starting hands? One way to combat this problem is through drastic change of table image. Hyperagressive strategy is not Maniac play. The difference is that the maniac while playing hyperagressive also plays way too many hands.
The hyperagressive approach rates position in relation to the button (and opponents) more important than ones starting cards. The technical adjustment is simple, but you have to monitor two session conditions carefully. Watch your bankroll, it's almost always necessary to shift back to Tight/Agressive, often very quickly. Watch how the other players react to your change of style (more on this later). Play your usual tight starting hand requirements, just bring all hands in for a raise if no one else has called the blinds. Any hand (facing a raise) with which you are going to see the flop, always reraises in an attempt to buy last position away from the remaining players yet to act.
When the rest of the table begins to key on your action you usually either start to get more callers before the flop, or some players begin to reraise/cap in response. If you get more callers, now you add hands like AXs or KXs up front. If you begin to get reraised more often, start limping up front with middle pairs or big suited cards and get ready to backraise with the best of these. Remember you're taking everyone with you on this rollercoaster ride, so be prepared to get off when you lose two or three consecutive pots. The action will often continue long after you've stopped being the primary generator.
Play all flopped draws (eight or more outs) as agressively as top pair. Generally play for the reraise instead of the checkraise. Always semi-bluff early in the hyperagressive mode (particularly hands like middle/bottom pair with backdoor or overcard chances), since once the action gets going you'll want less aware opponents hoping you're still doing this.
Finally, if you don't have a solid overall game or have trouble making correct starting card decisions, this style of play is not recommended. If you're afraid to bet/raise AK or AQ unimproved into a single opponent, then this style is probably going to be too uncomfortable to attempt. Otherwise it is very useful to have a *FAST* game to throw at the competition occasionally.
It occurs to me that the appropriate time to bring out your fast game, is when a couple of other players have done so as well. It creates a sort of "fast collusion" against the rest of the table. Very high variance, but it can lead to some large +EV situations.
JG
This is also o.k. but your starting hand requirements must be just a bit tighter than the other hyperagressives. I simply prefer the other suboptimal strategy of playing like a rock against this much action. I particularly like to shift into this gear when trying to maintain an existing rush.
If I understand what you have said, then the perfect place to employ this stategy is kill pots. You have just won two in a row, you double the kill to isolate. The downside would be that if you double the kill against four or more callers you have created pot odds for a big draw. The upside is that most players will not call a bet that amounts to a four bet of the first one at the origiinal limit. So it may sitll work, if you have a hand that plays well against a few opponents. Comments?
Alot depends on position of the kill button to the dealer button. You'll also need to follow through with the raise, often with a bluff bet on the flop against one or two players. This is more difficult to succeed with at the lower limits. Players get used to kill structure, or they get tapped much quicker. Players unfamiliar with kill games will sometimes tighten up too much, and can generally be moved off the pot with a kill raise, yet once they call in this situation it's often a big pair which they won't let go of.
Agreed. The farther from the dealer the more likely you are to have callers who won't be run off by a raise. And, agreed again, if you do run them off you are almost certainly facing a big pair. So, suited connectors, especially those above ten, may result in the hand we all look for. I can say that from recent experience, namely last night. I had just come back-via trip Q's- from being pounded by a full house one set higher than mine. I played J10s and turned my flush. Two players with big pairs went to war with each other despite three suited cards on the board. When it works, it really works. $$$
The strategy you describe doesn't sound hyper-aggressive. What tight and aggressive means is solid hand selection and aggressive betting. Re-raising to get posistion or get the blinds out in my opinion is solid play. Hyper aggressive to me is using the same tactics hand after hand with mediocre holdings, and just plain trying to force the action. That.. will get you action. when you re-raise with solid holdings that aren't narrowed down to just ak or aa or kk,qq, then you put FEAR in your fellow players little hearts.
There are quite a few hands/situations which I would ordinarily just call with before the flop (while still playing Tight/Agressive employing solid selection). The difference when hyperagressive is that everything gets raised pre-flop, eliminating opponents' inferrences as to hand strength from betting patterns. The idea is not to just come in raising with hands worth a raise, but all playable hands respecting position. Since you already consider much of this solid play, I expect you're an intimidating player for the competition to deal with. I completely agree that reraising solid hands (other than the usual four suspects) has significant extra intimidation value. When I play hyperagressive, I reraise with everything I would have cold called a raise with; plus resteal reraises from the small blind, button, and one-off the button. If I choose to maintain hyperagressive strategy or for as long as the table image lasts, I don't have to be concerned with many steal raises (for awhile) from players ahead of me. The downside of course is that alot of pots are contested by a hyperagressive player with less than appropriate odds for whatever draw or redraw a hand might require.
It would be interesting to see the results of some simuations on this. I play 3-6. Three bets have two completely opposite effects. 1.Everybody runs but the player with an A, or a premium hand they were too timid to raise with...2. Or, everybody with a draw comes to the party...So, it seems to me that the best hand to do this with is suited conectors that have maximum stretch, provided you have position. Comments?
Forget the simulations. Playing this way is a psychological ploy against opponents aware enough to try to put you on hands. The table image created when playing hyperagressive lasts for awhile after you have stopped doing it. This is not supposed to be optimal tactics, it is for intimidation purposes. Try doing this when you are losing, or have fewer chips than your opponents, and you'll just be on the road to tiltsville. There's no need to play this way against calling stations either, your normal game should be far superior strategy in this case.
I will occasionally (playing normally now) reraise with hands like 98s against a middle position raise from a tight/passive player even though I'm sure catching top pair on the flop is not going to be good enough. This type of player often raises only with a big pocket pair, and expects people to know that. My reraise could scare the rock into checking on the flop (unless holding AA or KK), and even on the turn. If this player never continues beyond the flop without at least top pair with a good kicker or an overpair (and something like A74 is checked to me), then most of the time the dealer won't be putting up a turn card.
Mason writes in Poker Essays that "you are probably better off reducing your standard deviation at the end of a tournament rather then the beginning" Now I both agree and disagree with this statement. I agree because it is logical. But I disagree because when you increase your standard deviation early you decrease your chances of placing in the tournament. I was recently viewing the WSOP tournament results for all limit and no-limit hold'em games which had a play by play review for the last two tables.One of the reviews showed that Doyle Brunson did not make it very far during one of the smaller tournaments. The reason was because in a few hours he did not get one flop to hit him combined with ratty cards. My point is that he never had a chance to use the above stratedgy. If however you decrease your standard deviation early you have a better chance to place. You hope people will bust out as much as possible combined with some situations where you can increase your chip total. Ken Buntjer uses this method in limit tournaments. However this method does not work as good in very small tournaments because of the rapid blind increases. Anyway here is my question:
The table is quite active. You are one position after the big blind. You have picked up AA. Which is your best play? P.S. this is a no-limit tournament. 1. Raise all in. 2. Call and hope another player raises after your call, then rasie all in 3. Place a small raise and hope somebody comes over the top. 4. Place a large raise but not a all in raise. Remember I said a quite active table during the tournament. By the way I'm sorry for imitating Sklansky's post with the question bit but I can't help it!
It depends upon how sophisticated your opponents are. Play #2 shouts AA or KK to knowledgeable players. I would raise for my normal amount. For example, in a NL game, I almost always come in for 3x the BB, or I limp in if I think that no one else will raise. If I do the same thing here, no one can put me on a specific hand (only one of my normal set of raising hands). Then, I hope that someone comes over the top. If they don't, I hope that they miss the flop, or hit it for 1 pair only. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Readers, please help me. Is computer software for tournament play valuable? What are the best programs available for hold-em and omaha tournament play? Thanks for your help.
What are some differences between ring play and tournament play with 7-card stud? Are 7-card stud tournaments worth playing? Are they as difficult to learn how to play correct strategy as hold/em?
Joe,
Since it seems Ray is off in the wilderness hunting for Moose (or whatever they do up there in the great outdoors) I try to give you a "less than expert" response from someone who has played a lot of stud and a lot of tournaments (all games) over the last 13 years.
I'll start with the last question first " is learning correct stud strategy as difficult as learning holdem strategy"
IMHO everything about stud is more difficult and more complex to learn than holdem. So whether it be live game or tournament I would say that the complexity of stud makes it more difficult to learn.
"Are seven card stud tournaments worth playing"....They certainly are for the good tournament players. Surely they're worth it for Artie Cobb and his ilk...for me no!-- I am a loser in my lifetime at tournaments and I'm getting ready to give up trying.
As to the differences between ring games and tournaments in seven card stud?...my answer here is the same as the difference between ring games and tournamants in holdem or any other game for that matter. In tournaments while you play your basic ring game strategy most of the time...you vary it according to the size of your stack and the size of your opponents stack. When you've got a huge stack of chips you will play more hands against the short stacks hoping to knock them out by drawing out on them. Always remember, the name of the game in tournaments is knocking out opponents.
I certainly value bet a lot less on the river in a tournament than in a live game...for example...If I started with a pair of Aces (split) and I bet on third, fourth, fifth and sixth street and get called by an opponent who I believe is playing one smaller pair...and I do not improve on the river I am less likely to bet the one pair for value on the river than in a ring game where I will usually bet into any opponent who I think is capable of calling me with one pair.
When you are short of chips and have to make a stand with a hand...any pair is a better shot that a drawing hand...I'd rather play 23/2 in this situation that QJ/T suited. To compare to holdem its the same as putting in your last bet before the flop with A6 offsuit rather than calling a raise with KQ suited...because there is a better chance that A6 could hold up as the best hand.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
Joe,
The biggest difference in 7 stud tournaments from ring games is that in tournaments less hands go to the river. Since most pots are won very early stealing antes and small pots are crucial to coming in the money. Tournaments are a great way to learn and are profitable due to the large number of bad players that enter tournaments trying for a shot at the big money for a small investment.
Does the same reasoning apply to 7 card stud H/L 8 or better? If so, do you just play for high in the early stages?
With so few chips in the early stages, it does not seem very wise to play for low at all unless you have scoop potential, but that would take a S or F, and a large chip outlay. Comments?
Roger,
In 7 hi/lo 8 or better, low hands win the most money as high hands too often fold incorrectly when scare cards come. All low hands have scoop potenial as two pair is the hand that scoops most often heads-up. In tournaments you win the most chips by running off your opponents as they tend to protect their chips way too much. Good Luck.
The Trop in AC, Fri night 100$ buy in. It's down to 10 people. 2 tables of 5. Blinds 300 and 150. I'm on the button with 600. 6 places paid. Blinds are eating me up. Final table is 9 players, one more out before final table. One stack at the other table has maybe 900, everybody else is in good shape. I decide to raise all in with K9u, big big stack calls with 10 9s obviously. He spikes a 10 on the river to beat me. Should I have waited or was this a reasonable hand to play?
Without knowing how the other players had played to that point my opinion would of been to wait. I belive that you had to expect that a big stack was going to call your raise since they had called the big blind. You couldn't hurt them even if you hit because you are all in. Your delima of course is that you have only eight hands left unless you double up your remaining chips. You also are in a mode of playing the game as a short handed game situation with only five players at your table. Both of these factors combined can easily raise our level of anxiety making us want to force the action to all or nothing. Basicaly destroying our patience and not allowing us to stay for a premium hand. But you must also wonder if in the next eight hands if you would of (1) picked up an excellent hand or (2) you might make it into the money by accident. Maybe I play from a little more conservative side but I dont feel that I could of made that raise with a Big blind caller in front of me.
Now that I look back on it. I should have waited The big stack had been playing connectors all night, and thats what I put him on. Thats why I raised. The trouble with the Trop tourneys is the blinds increase every 20 minutes, it's basically a satelitte tournament. You have to make a move sometime. Thanks for your input
Give me some details on the tournament like what is the initial stake for your $100 buy in. I'm interested in playing these regularly. I would have folded and hoped for the best after that. When the blinds increase every 20 you have to gamble it up early in hope to increase your chip total. By the way how many people bought in for this tournament? And how much money went toward the total prize stake?
You almost certainly won't make it to the money if you go into total tight play mode here. You will have to get through the blinds at least twice, more likely 3-5 times before you're in the money (especially since persons with medium stacks will want to wait for you to bust before they take a risk). Thus, you're goal here is NOT to try to survive the blinds, but to find the best hand to double through on. Here, you've got K9, and are going to play 1 of 2 random hands. If you fold, you'll only get 2 more free hands before posting the big blind. I say raising here is by far the best play.
BTW, if you're in a spot like this, and truly do get dealt crap hands that should be folded, make sure you call in the big blind no matter what. You'll be getting 3:1 or better on that call. If you fold here, you'll be putting up half your money the next hand anyway. If you fold the big blind, you'll have to win the next time you play just to get back to where you were (i.e., about T600). Then you'll have to win a second time to get where you'll be if you play the big blind hand and win it. Clearly, the odds favor you winning the first time, even if you're a dog that hand.
The difference would be if you're 1 spot out of the money. Then, it may be preferably to go silently to the lowest spot that pays, even if you're totally crippled with respect to winning.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I appreciate your response. The advice is sound. Look forward to seeing all twoplustwo forum posters at the Taj in November for the US Poker Championships. This will be my first chance at big time tourney play. I cant wait!!!! Later
This is a no brainer. Raise! What are you waiting for? Do you realy think you will find a better hand in the next four hands? You had your opponent drawing real slim before the flop and you got unlucky.
Dear folks,
I'm wondering how much one should bet, as a rule, in a half pot game. Let me give the scenario of a draw game, 5-10 blinds, six handed. The first raise can be to $25 (You call the ten, then raise half the $25 which is now in there, rounded up.)
Typically people either call or raise the max before the draw. After the draw you find people betting, say, $10. I think this is both to suck people into calling a monster hand, and to save them from losing too much with a marginal hand. But I'm not saying they're right. The pro players tend to always bet the max. I tend to either bet the max. or fold, only ever calling when I can close the raising and get in for a cheap draw.
How about holdem half-pot?
And how does this differ to no-limit? I'm sure that it does, because you're not so scared of a reraise behind you.
Richard.
how much too bet in big bet poker is an interesting question. one way to look at it is to bet the max at all times, that way no one can ever get a read on you by the amount you bet. the opposing viewpoint is to bet the max unless you have the nuts or are representing the nuts, especially on the end. you give up some by not getting full value out of your monsters, but you make your bluffs more credibable at less risk. let me give you some examples from hold em. the flop comes Q high or better in a unraised pot. bet the max, whether you have a Q or not, the pot is small and you are just trying to pick it up-if you get played with then decide what to do depending on who you are in the pot with and what you have. now suppose you have Ax suited in early position, the flop comes three of you suit, bet half the pot- if somebody has a flush he will likely raise, then you can come overtop.suppose the flop comes three of a suit- but not your suit- you decide to try to pick it up- bet half pot-if you get popped give it up, but they are not going to try to resteal if they know you routinely bet half pot with the nuts.these ideas are discussed in bob ciaffones books omaha holdem poker, and pot-limit and no limit poker. also i suggest using the ideas in hold em poker for advanced players by sklansky and malmuth for big bet, they work just as well, mabey better then in limit.also check out improve your poker by ciaffone. he has a section there called, how much to bet.
upon reviewing my message i need to clairify- use the ideas in hepfap on bluffing- ie when bluff
Read his essay " a few decisions" in the essay part of the forum. The situation Mason described is the reason that sometimes I hate Hold'em. When the flop came and the opponent bet out I might have thought about 99,TT,JJ,QQ. When Mason raised and then the opponent reraised I would have been very hard pressed to call with just AK in that spot. I would have thought that now the opponent has 99,TT,JJ,QQ or like mason said A8. Because Mason raised before the flop and was not reraised I would not put the opponent on trips. I would expect him to attempt a check rasie against Mason. I would have thought like this: If a A turns he could make two pair and now I'm sucking wind. If he has a overpair he is favored over my AK. I think that I would have folded. It's a very tough situation that occurs I think more often in flop games then stud games. At least for me.
I like you Joe read A few decisions pondered it and then printed it so I could reflect later. I dont see how in a $20-$40 game I can make that call on the flop especially after the middle player has smooth called twice. If I was heads up with the 1st raiser and had been watching him I would of course had more information to decide from and possibly would of called. Mason did state that the players were both live/very live. This combined with the fact that Mason must of seen these players bluff or show down some weak hands previously must of mustered his call. I obviously dont play the same game as Mason does but to have not bet on the turn? I probably get checked raised more than Mason because when they checked on the turn I would bet hoping for a lay down. I always belive in giving an opponent a good reason to lay their hand down especially if an Ace hits and they show weakness. This seems to work much more with an Ace than any other card of course. I would though have a tough time saying that Mason made a mistake since he did stack chips. He had more information on that particular game then we do here. but I do believe I will read this essay again before Iam satisfied with the actions.
Side Note: If the people running this forum consider this post inappropriate, you have my permission to cancel it.
I would just like to mention this card room to everyone, and recommend that they go there to play in its tournaments. Almost every month this room has a tournament weekend with an event every day starting on Wed or Thurs and running through Sun. These events are in the $75-$150 range, and (almost) always have prize guarantees. The events are run very well, give you plenty of chips to start, have long rounds (30, even 40 or 45 minutes), and don't necessarily double the limts every change (sometimes you go from 200-400 to 300-600, then 500-1000). While I've heard that the action at this room is slow when its NOT a tournament weekend, they usually have 10 or more tables going after a tournament, with limits from 3-6 to 15-30 or 20-40, sometimes PL.
Finally, they live up to their guarantee. I played in Saturday's event. Cost was $110 + 15. Guarantee was $12,000. Only 80 entrants (probably due to the big tournament at Commerce). They paid out the guarantee. I've seen other clubs "modify" the tournament once it became clear that they wouldn't meet their guarantee. One club changes an event from a $10,000. guarantee to $1,000. added after they came up this short.
Lake Elsinore is just off of highway 15 in Southern Riverside County. Phone # is (909) 674-3101. Also, they have a hotel associated with the card room, and they offer a VERY low rate during tournaments (something like $9?). Finally, I am not associated with this business, and I have an economic incentive in your NOT going there (how can I have an overlay if all of you show up and the guarantee is met?).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I have played there, and agree with your comments. I would have come Saturday if I had known rather than play where I live. Weekends are tournament deserts in San Diego. Do you know what is happening in July? All of the Card Player magazines seem to have been taken.
P.S. Howdjado?.
I can't find any information on July for them. They are having one of their "Little Big Bucks" tournaments on Friday and Saturday, June 26-27. These events are limit HE with a $30 + 5 entry, and 2 optional $20 rebuys. Also good events, with guarantees of $5,000 per event (which is usually exceeded). I would guess that these events have averaged 100-140 entrants and prize pools of 6,000 - 9,000 the few times I have played.
I won the event Saturday (finally, its been a dry spell, which happens when you only play once a week, and only about 30 tournaments a year). Split on chip count when we were heads-up, with me getting a few hundred more, for a profit of about 3K.
However, what motivated me to post wasn't the win, but the runner-ups constant praise for the event. I recognized him from some big tournaments I've played in LA, but this was his first trip to L.E. He was very impressed, and his comments really made me realize what a good job they do. So I decided that they deserved a plug on the internet.
Also, as I think about it more, they do a lot of other things right. For example, when they need to move a player to even up the tables, they move you into the same position you were at. In fact, one guy complained about this, because he was moved from the big blind at his table to the big blind at our table instead. He thought he was catching a break when he got moved, but, instead, he got no advantage or disadvantage. Also, they chip-up, rather than race off when they remove lower denomination chips. Although I understand the point people make about the integrity of the chip count being lost, I still prefer this method. Finally, when it comes to disputes about the play of specific hands, the outcome always seems quite fair.
Enjoy, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I like their policy of putting you at the same seat. It helps when you are short. I did call them and ask to be put on the mailing list. So, it is very likely I will play their Saturday night. 75 total is fairly cheap for the tournament considering the intervals. Much cheaper actually than the low buy in ones at Viejas where the intervals are 12 minutes.
Congratulations!
You can look up the tournament trail from Card Player magazine online at the link I've included below.
Thanks. I did call and get myself on their mailing list. But the reference you gave me is useful for myself and others who post here.
In casino were i play if take bus i will get 10$ cupon.I will have to bet 10$ dolars whit this cupon. If i won a hand i keep my 10$ and get 20$ more but, deler take cupon. So cupon worth 5$ and i can treat my bet as 15$. If i get doble down hand i can put 20$ more on this hand. My feling is i can doble more often then basic strategy indicate. Can somebody tell me on what other hands i can doble? (multiple decks)
Boris,
In casino were i play if take bus i will get 10$ cupon.... So cupon worth 5$ and i can treat my bet as 15$. If i get doble down hand i can put 20$ more on this hand. My feling is i can doble more often then basic strategy indicate. Can somebody tell me on what other hands i can doble? (multiple decks)
Your "doubling" is now in effect a bet of 2.333 units. A quick sim of some of the borderline cases (for 6 deck) reveals that doubling 8 vs. 6 and 9 vs. 2 is almost worthwhile. However, doubling soft 15 vs. 3 has a negative expectation, so you wouldn't want to bet more than 2 units.
Though I haven't done an exhaustive check, it seems there is no change in basic strategy as regards doubling by using the coupon. I would, however, strongly suggest utilizing the bus journey to eat your sandwich :-).
Etienne
Can you check this plays for me plese 8 vs 6,9 vs 2,11 vs A, A2 vs 4,A3 vs 4,A6 vs 2,A7 vs 2,A8 vs 5,A8 vs 6.
P.S I get beat whit royal in atlantic city and i usaly play in CT woods. Burger king dose not take my copmcard. I almost chock wiht royal phily.
Boris,
As this is not a blackjack forum, it would be unfair to the others if we continued this discussion here. I shall email you the answers to your questions together with some additional remarks. Please take into account my current preoccupation with the Mondial.
Etienne
Boris,
I'm posting this publicly rather than, as I stated previously, sending it to you privately, because of the off chance that some forum member may use these coupons (and my incomplete advice from the earlier post).
Out of the 9 plays you posted, there are 4 occasions to depart from basic strategy and to double down : 11 vs A, A7 vs 2, A8 vs 5, A8 vs 6.
Hope this helps. Now let's get back to poker.
Etienne
There is greater EV in my opinion to playing the match play coupon(s) on the Don't Pass line in craps.
As long as your oponents are mediocre , the worst mistake has to be not raising with A10 suited. In a ten twenty game I estimate that you are costing yourself about five dollars on average if you just call. Calling with 72 suited only costs a couple of bucks if you play it properly. Raisng with A10 offsuit would be the right play if you were all in but not otherwise. Still it is unlikely that raising is anywhere near a five dollar mistake. ( of course these comments only apply to the problem exactly as stated.) Chris was right when he suspected that he might be costing himself quite a bit by not raising in similar spots
David writes:
As long as your oponents are mediocre , the worst mistake has to be not raising with A10 suited. In a ten twenty game I estimate that you are costing yourself about five dollars on average if you just call.
*****
I'm not particularly thrilled by answers, only by methods (call me crazy). Can you give us some insight into how you came up with this $5 estimate, and what the uncertainty (i.e. $5 plus-or-minus how much) in this value is?
Tom Weideman
Tom,
I am also interested in how the $5 amount was determined because I believe it would be very insightful.
Tom Haley
I believe you will win about 1in 5 hands assuming that both blinds call. So, on the raise itself , it will cost you $10 80% and make you $60 about 20%. This gains $4. Furthermore your raise will make you more money later since it will entice extra calls because of the bigger pot. However this is not worth all that much extra because it is partially made up for by the fact that your raise increases the chances that you will be drawn out on. Still I think it adds a dollar or two. (Had I used QJ rather than A10 the result would have been even more pronounced.)
David:
Would you please tell me what you think it would cost you to throw away A-10 off before the flop in the situation you describe.
It seems to me you are giving up a lot when you miss out on some medium to large sized pots, or small to medium pots that you are able to steal, but you don't lose that much when you miss the flop or you are able to escape with the second best hand.
And how do escape from the "second best hand"? If the flop comes Ace high and someone bets, what do you do? About the only good flop (other than a miracle KQJ) for the hand is a 10 high one and then you have to hope for a bettor so you can raise.
There are also flops which miss everyone that you can pick up with a bet from last position on the flop or turn. Having an ace with even a mediocre kicker makes this a semi-bluffing hand with more value than just flopping a ten or miracle.
Yep. But with 4 callers (or more if the blinds call the raise, all the limpers will call the button raise) the odds of the flop hitting nobody is pretty remote.
Any non-sequenced rainbow type flop with a nine or lower as the top card is a candidate, since they could hit middle/bottom pair or have a pocket underpair and be conceivably moved off the pot with a bet from an agressive player.
Andrew Wells wrote: "Any non-sequenced rainbow type flop with a nine or lower as the top card is a candidate, since they could hit middle/bottom pair or have a pocket underpair and be conceivably moved off the pot with a bet from an agressive player."
I sure hope that you are not making this fold since you will be getting odds that are large enough to call with bottom pair.
I sure do make that fold when I don't have any position to use, and I have no backdoor or overcard outs with my small pair. When I am semi-bluff betting from last position with two overcards as opposed to taking the free turn card, I have already identified one or more players who are likely to fold (if not for the bet on the flop, then on the turn when they don't improve). I have no problem comparing odds from the pot and future action against the odds of completing a draw (and if completed whether it's likely to have made a better hand for someone else). However, I have difficulty determining if the pot is offering sufficient odds to checkraise/isolate when I don't know what the chances are that my small pair is or is not currently the best hand. Giving up on alot of these type of hands (against multiway action on the flop) may indicate a leak in my play. At the very least Mason, since I have a great deal of respect for your analysis and insight, I'll be thinking about this considerably before my next session.
Suppose the flop is As Jh 3s and you happen to hold 3c 2d, and for some reason you are in there with six other players and the pot was raised preflop. Notice that the pot is offering you approximately 15-to-1 right now. You should probably call most every time. The exception would be if you are pretty sure that there will be a raise behind you.
I couldn't play 32 raised even out of the big blind. I assume you mean check/call (unless I suspected a player on my left was going to checkraise) if somehow I happen to stay in for the flop. I figure to have effective outs of about 3-1/2 on the turn (I'm not going to see the river without improvment). Of the five potential outs, the spade deuce has flush danger, and any deuce can make a wheel for a loose player. Bottom two pair on the turn, if currently the best hand, I expect to remain best roughly half the time. Since none of the outs for 32 make the nuts, though the pot is offering 15:1 to call the button's bet on the flop, I don't like calling here without about 18:1 even against a table full of loose/passive players. I'm starting to think about my chances for isolating a late position bettor (who would usually bet two overcards) with a checkraise on certain types of flops when my big blind makes middle or bottom pair and has no overcard kicker. Since I'll do this with two overcards (six outs) against certain types of players, maybe I should be doing it with a small pair too. I really don't like check/calling the flop from the big blind with multiway action as in your example. However, if I haven't made a loose call in awhile and the rest of the field is passive, I can see I'm going to have to give it serious consideration. It could be true that I'm giving up too soon from the big blind because I'll play hands like low suited two-gappers for a late position raise multiway against typical players, and fold without six effective outs on the flop.
We're going to have to agree to disagree Who is going to fold? That preflop raise has made it right for anybody with an inside straight draw to call. Anybody with a pair will probably call.
At the games I'm involved in, many players do fold here. I also often fold an underpair without extra outs from early position to a bet from a late position player on the flop. You and Mason have suggested that the pot odds justify an action other than usually folding here. I think I need to reevaluate my game plan to see if raising the possible bluff bet from the late position player on the flop more often, with values less than I am normally comfortable with is superior strategy. When I do come in with a raise or call on the button in a multiway situation holding questionable cards like AT KJ KT QJ or QT, it is because I think I can outplay everyone who stays for the flop. I muck these hands multiway if any of the callers are strong solid players.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 June 1998, at 1:17 p.m.
Even if the raise nets $5 how much of that win is due to the fact that the A 10 was suited? Isn't it something like 3.65%? 3.65% of $5.00 is about $.18, which is perilously close to what the simulation showed. I think $5 is way out of line, and the answer is still #4.
Without going into the actual results, the profit/loss per hand figures in Max's simulation ($0.27, $0.12, $0.19 etc.) are way too low for a $10-$20 game, and definitely need adjusting.
If we assume that A10 suited wins 20% of the time and that A!0 offsuit wins about 3.5% less often we do not multiply this 3.5% by $5. Instead we multiply 16.5% times $60 gained by raisng and subtract 83.5% times $10 lost by raising. This comes out to a gain of $1.55 rather than $4.00 for A!0 suited. Furthermore A10 offsuit is not helped later on because of the bigger pot.
I sit corrected. A couple points. 1)Your own math indicates that a raise with ATo has a positive EV. 2)3.5% of $60 is $2.10, which is pretty close to the $2.45 you came up with by estimating a 20% win. 3)There will also be situations with ATs where calling a bet produces a negative EV for the bet but will be required because of the pot odds. This occurs when the flop produces a four-flush and the hand reduces to head-up, or on the turn when you still haven't hit and less than 5 opponents are in the hand (a rather frequent occurrence). Of course this assumes you need to hit the flush to win. I have no clue how you would factor this in, but it brings the EV of ATo and ATs closer together, IMO. I also recognize that a bet on the flop with a four-flush when at least 2 opponents will call has a positive EV (generally), but I don't think it outweighs the negative of the above.
Bob,
You wrote : 3)There will also be situations with ATs where calling a bet produces a negative EV for the bet but will be required because of the pot odds. This occurs when the flop produces a four-flush and the hand reduces to head-up, or on the turn when you still haven't hit and less than 5 opponents are in the hand (a rather frequent occurrence).
Generally, I find it hard to understand how, at a particular stage of a game, a bet required to be made by a hand can have both negative EV and sufficient pot odds at the same time.
Specifically, our situation has 4 limpers before the button, and whether the button raises or calls, there can be no post-flop, heads-up scenario with less than $75 in the pot when ATs has to call (with a four-flush) - more than enough to justify a call, and definitely positive EV.
Etienne
Yes, positive EV for the pot, but not for that particular round of betting. If the odds of hitting the nut flush are 1.85 to 1 post-flop, you are only getting 1 to 1 for that round of betting if you are heads up with another player. If you fail to hit the flush on the turn, and that player bets into you again, you almost always can justify a call based on the pot odds, but you are only getting 1 to 1 for a bet that is now 4.1 to 1 against. Hence, positive EV for the hand, negative EV for the current bet.
Bob,
I see your point, though this is the first time I've heard of a bet being disassociated from the pot, and being compared solely to the other bets in the round. I suppose it's an alternative way of looking at things, though I can't see what practical use it has in actual decision making.
Etienne
A simple example. One raise before the flop. 7 people in. You have Ah-Th on the button. The flop is Jh-6h-2s. Check to you. You bet because you can expect at least 2 callers on a 1.85 to 1 shot, and little likelihood of a reraise.
Bob,
You write : A simple example. One raise before the flop. 7 people in. You have Ah-Th on the button. The flop is Jh-6h-2s. Check to you. You bet because you can expect at least 2 callers on a 1.85 to 1 shot, and little likelihood of a reraise.
Till now, you've also said that it's the pot odds that ultimately determine your decision. Can you give a specific example where pot odds dictate one course of action (say A), with the "betting round" EV indicating another course (say B), where you would take action B.
Etienne
Same hand as above, but the SB bets on the flop and everybody folds to you. There are 8 bets in the pot. You are a 1.85 to 1 dog to make the nut flush. Pot odds would dictate a raise. Bet odds indicate a call. I call.
If there is chance small blind will fold now or later you shold raise and you may get free card.
True enough, but I'm only discussing the pure mathematics of the situation. It may well be that when you take into account the combined effects of a fold, free card and more money in the pot when you do hit, the raise is better than the call. Of course, you should consider that you will see many more re-raises than folds, and that is not so good. Most players in early position don't bet on hopes and dreams. I still believe calling is the percentage play, and save raising for those situations where I've got another piece of the flop, such as second or third pair.
Bob,
You write : Same hand as above, but the SB bets on the flop and everybody folds to you. There are 8 bets in the pot. You are a 1.85 to 1 dog to make the nut flush. Pot odds would dictate a raise. Bet odds indicate a call. I call.
Wouldn't bet odds indicate a fold?
Etienne
The point is that the return on the bet is negative. Pot odds still control whether or not to stay in the hand.
A local riverboat offers low stake freezeout Pineapple tournaments on a regular basis; one table, winner takes all. Any suggestions or comments?
Being a 7 stud and Ho-Lo player, Pineapple strikes me as a rather silly game, but tournaments are about betting and knocking opponents out, not so much about the particular game.
If the object is to win big or bust out, do you hold long shots like medium pairs to see the flop in the early rounds?
Medium pairs go down in value with any variation of pineapple hold'em, suited connectors in general go up; unless the game is very loose. Why bother with any marginal holding in an action tournament? Muck and save your money for late position moves before the flop.
IN many gambling tournaments the correct strategy is radically different from what would be normally correct. Thus a blackjack tourney player may find himself doubling down on hard 19, etc. Now, a good Omaha/8 player is generally very tight, but in a small tourney this can mean that he may literally be blinded away without playing a single hand. Perhaps in cases like these it is actually correct to be and raise extremely agressively before the flop, play any pair or other cards which might conceivably be the nuts, etc. Comments?
Broncosauras,
Nobody took a stab at this one so I'll give it a go.
You write:
>>IN many gambling tournaments the correct strategy is radically different from what would be normally correct. Thus a blackjack tourney player may find himself doubling down on hard 19, etc.<<
Yes I agree.
>>Now, a good Omaha/8 player is generally very tight, but in a small tourney this can mean that he may literally be blinded away without playing a single hand.<<
This happens in other poker tournaments as well especially limit hold'em tourneys. I agree though that this seems to be more likely in Omaha/8
>>Perhaps in cases like these it is actually correct to be and raise extremely agressively before the flop, play any pair or other cards which might conceivably be the nuts, etc. Comments?<<
I think this idea has merit if you can eliminate players pre-flop. What I have seen in Omaha/8 tournaments is decent players preserving their stacks in the early rounds by not gambling too much. Later in the tournament, when the blinds are much bigger and the players are playing tighter, these players will get involved in a lot of 3 handed and heads up pots with hands that aren't that great I have seen one player in particular use this strategy with a lot of success in Omaha/8 tournaments. Just my $0.02.
Tom Haley
The strategy you discribe, playing tight early and then getting aggressive, is how I currently play and seems intuitively correct. You are risking a lot early on to gain relatively little, and may have to rebuy (thus greatly increasing your investment). However, as you know winning tournaments are largely a matter of getting a big swing of variance to the right, so I'm not completely convinced that correct strategy might be to ram and jam unless the situation is completely hopeless, at least in the early rounds.
Broncosauras,
Actually I think playing fast is a good idea if you can narrow the field in an Omaha/8 tournament.
Tom Haley
I have noticed in my play that I usually have a few problems when I get trapped into a hand by an opponent who has flopped a set while holding a medium-low pair and I have high cards, such as AK, AQ or KQ. For example, I am on the button with AK and the flop comes A75 (rainbow). Then I get check raised on the turn by the small or big blind. I end up paying off just to be shown pocket 5's or pocket 7's.
The game I play I'm refering to is a typical 10-20 hold'em game with 4-5 good solid players, a couple of loose agressive players, and me (I consider myself a decent player who tries to read as much as possible and think as much as possible about the game).
My question is what to do when you get check raised on the turn and you hold something like top pair best kicker? Should you pay off? (Just to avoid those tricky players who might check raise you with top pair not so good kicker) Should you check more often on the turn, even if a non scary card comes? (This I think might cost me money in the long run, especially if more than 2 opponents are in the pot at that point) Or should I just work on my card reading skills? (any suggestions, besides paying attention to the cards people are showing relative to their position? This however does not really work on a 3-6 game or on a 6-12 game where people usually have poor starting hands)
I appreciate any comments,
Thank you, Carlos
What to do when you have a good but beatable hand and are checkraised on the turn is one of the most difficult situations to handle properly. I'll generally fold if the checkraiser plays a very tight solid game, or reraise if the turn gave me extra outs such as a flush draw in addition to top pair with an excellent kicker. If it is not four-bet back to me, and the raiser checks the river, I'll check and showdown. If the checkraiser tends to bluff (in situations where there is little chance everyone will fold) too much, call and call the probable bet on the river. Against deceptive players who would check/call the flop then check/raise the turn with a set, folding to the raise on the turn is easy. If they tend to bet the flop but just call your raise then check/raise the turn with a set, I'd be more inclined to continue playing.
How a player handles a set on the flop is one of several critical situations to remember when categorizing a player. How a nut flush draw or two raw overcards on the flop are played, are other examples. These are what I consider critical situations because many players who are not experts have definate tendencies with similar conditions. All you have to do is watch for repeating strategies and mentally file this information along with the general Loose/Tight/Passive/Agressive characterizations of your regular opponents. Recalling this information is a great help when deciding if catching two pair on the river would be enough to win the pot more than half the time. When otherwise good players make mistakes by slowplaying in less than ideal situations there is often a minimum value hand with which this is done. Many times this minimum value hand is incorrectly three-of-a-kind (ignoring pot size, and possible redraws). When faced with a revealed slowplay, knowing the opposition's minimum values will help save those extra calls on the turn and river.
If your opponent usually does not chase with inferior hands, then when you get a call on the flop from this player from early position you should be cautious. It's not so bad to check behind an opponent with top pair like aa or kk because there is not the threat of overcards. If he doesn't have trips but also top pair weak kicker you can get acall on the river. But if he comes out betting on the river you have probably saved a bet. Again, I think the key is knowing if your opponent is a chaser or not. If he isn't coming into many pots etc., then chances are that he has something. There is no 100% formula for these situations but knowing your player will tip the odds in your favor. good luck
Well Carlos we all meet this Holdem Witch from time to time . I had the mis-fortune of meeting it against a player by the name of David Sklansky. I was playing 20-40 Holdem aproximately 3 years ago at the Mirage when David joined the game at 06:30. to my suprise he seemingly was not paying attention to the game reading the morning paper. I belive that he was waiting for a standing 40-80 game that the Mirage ran then in place of the 50-100 they run now. I had been playing 20-40 for about 6 months and was begining to enjoy the game. I had also read HPFAP for about my third time that last evening. When David sat down, I was very interested in watching his game, this became very boring. David plays a very disciplined game which makes for poor viewing if your looking for moves. As you I was on the Button in a full game. The B Blind had no callers to me , I looked at my cards and held A,Ko. I raised and was called by David in the S Blind the B Blind folded. The fact he didn,t raise made me uneasy. I did notice he put his paper down and paid close attention now. I really could not put him on a hand I thought possibly med pair, but I felt that he had noticed that I had not played a hand for aprox, 30-35 hands so he must of put me on a strong hand and not a steal. The flop came A,K,6 rainbow wow not bad I think I ordered that flop. David checked I bet he called, I thought great Ive still got him. Turn card a rag I believe a three suited the A. I bet David raised my stomach sunk I knew set of sixes. Why would he of called the raise pre flop and called the flop without this hand. I did not fold I called the raise and called the river bet and mucked my hand. Time for a walk nice to meet you Mr Sklansky. I think I forgot to order one more A or K.
In the heat of action your first impluse is to call unless you have a compelling reason to fold.
You have to learn to control this emotion. The correct play is to fold unless you have a compelling reason to call. IMHO.
I have a lot of trouble in these spots too. You have to wait so long to get a hand and then get a good flop that you hate to let go when you are beaten.
Bobby B. wrote: "You have to learn to control this emotion. The correct play is to fold unless you have a compelling reason to call. IMHO."
In HPFAP we wrote on page 145: "However, folding is not necessarily correct on fourth street. Tough players will raise on the turn if they hold a mediocre hand that has some potential to become a very strong hand. An example is middle pair on the flop that has now picked up a flush draw. Those of you who automatically fold when raised in these situations are giving up too much. This is especially true at the larger limits, where the games are usually tougher."
You are right and I generalized too much. I play mostly 10-20 where folding is usually the best option. The times I have played 20-40 I probably gave up too much.
What I try to do in these situations is I decide to fold, then I search for reasons to call. Have I seen the raiser make a play like this before? If I have never seen him make this play I must give him credit for a hand. Did I pick up a tell that indicates weakness? Did I notice some inconsistency in the way the hand was played? Did I see any thing suspicious at all about the hand? I can not just call every time I am raised out of fear of being bluffed. That is what calling stations do.
If I am familiar enough with my opponents I can even divide the table into those players who I will never call and those players who I must consider calling. Deciding this before a hand comes up saves me bets against predictable non tricky players when I may be tempted to call because of the strength of my hand or the size of the pot.
You are missing the point completely. It doesn't matter what the limit is, but if there are a lot of bets in the pot you are suppose to call with weak hands that have a chance to improve to the best hand on the next card. Of course, you need a much larger pot to call with a two outer than a five outer, but the your main consideration should be the pot side and what you think your implied odds are for your call.
If you fold top pair everytime you get check-raised in a 4-8 game, you're probably making the right decision. If you fold top pair everytime you get check-raised in a 20-40 game, you're gonna get killed.
I've thought about this hand a few weeks now, so my thoughts are pretty well gelled. I thought I should post the situation here so you could shake up my jelly (if it needs it).
Limit HE tournament (first event of the Normandie Masters of Poker Tournament series). We started with 314 players, 27 places paid, 13 players remaining. Bets are 4K/8K, with blinds of 2K/4K. I start the hand with 17K. There is about 450K in total chips, so I have almost exactly half of an average stack. 13th place pays $505, 10-12th pay ~$615, 9th is ~$825, and on up to almost $20K for first. Thus, I can increase my payout a little bit by mere survival, but if I can move up into chip leader status, then I can make some real money.
There are 6 players at my table, and I am in the 5th spot this hand. I have not been able to play many hands at this table, and have a tight image. Blinds are posted, I am dealt ATo. Players 3 and 4 fold. I raise. Question #1 - Any disagreement with this play? Button glares at me a little while, then calls. He is the current chip leader at our table, and plays many hands (including before he became chip leader). Blinds both fold, so it is heads-up. Flop is K74 rainbow. I bet out. Question #2 - Any disagreement? Button glares at me again, and calls. Turn is 7, same suit as 4. While it's not likely, this could have hit the button for trips. Also, he might have a K, and doesn't like his kicker. He could have crap as well. At this point, you really can't pinpoint his hand very well, as it could be anything that somewhat reasonable (i.e., no 25o, but certainly K4s, QTo, 89s, etc., are possible). Thus, there is still a good chance that I have the best hand, although there is at least some chance that I am now drawing dead. I check the turn. Question #3 - would you have bet out again? Button thinks for a little while, and bets into me. I call all-in. Question #4 - would you have folded?
For those who are curious, the button had JJ, and I didn't catch an A on the river. 13th out of 314 isn't bad at all, though obviously I was hoping for a much better payday by the time we got down to 2 tables.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
ROOKIE HOLDEM PLAYER-Says,raise good,betting out is good,on the turn if you bet,good,since yoy checked,now you should fold because even though he was playing manny hands,he would only call with a quality hand. the way he was starring at you he was saying do you have a really big hand or arre my JACKS the best hand at this point,he decided he would only call you down+not raise! OF COURSE THIS IS EASY TO SAY NOW- I AGREE TOTALLY THAT YOU HAD TO GAMBLE TO TRY TO GET SOME SIGNIFICANT CHIPS1
I have played some tournaments but they have all been no-limit. Soon I shall become a pot-limit specialist. You did'nt say how many chips JJ had. Was he trying to bust you or was he playing you on a bluff. If that tournament was no-limit or pot-limit the correct play for JJ was to come over the top with a raise, then you can fold AT. Do you see the difference? Thats why I don't like limit tournaments. However, when you bet after the flop and was called you should have checked. If you were playing no-limit or pot-limit you should absolutely check. You have to think about it this way:would the opponent call a preflop raise and then a flop bet with less then AT? Any good player won't. Was this guy a good player or fair or a rank sucker? If I had JJ in that position with a chip lead over you I would have raised you trying to get you all in. This guy played the JJ hand wrong even in a limit tourament.
I have no doubt that he played JJ wrong. And don't take that as a bad-beat whine. If he had 3-bet me before the flop, I would've called, and then, being down to 1 small bet, I would have been pot-stuck on the flop.
Personally, I don't think I'm going to be able to get away from this hand. While the player had a lot of chips, his style of play did not alter with his chip count, which was a loose, aggressive, ring-game style. There was every chance that I had him beat all the way.
As an aside, the main reason this guy was wrong not to reraise me preflop is that the BB player also had a lot of chips, and the button player should have reraised just to make sure that the BB folded preflop. Then he's heads up with a top hand against someone who doesn't have enough chips to hurt him.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If and I know it's a big if, you are playing no-limit you can't call a reraise with AT offsuit. the problem with being short-stacked is that it alters your thinking making people make a incorrect decision. Sometime BEFORE you get shortstacked you have to take a stand. If you get busted, you get busted. When you play a tournament your goal should be to get to the final 3 players. Thats where the money is. Contrary to some people's belief AKA Mason, just trying to finish in the money is not a correct stratedgy. Mason and Sklansky do not make good tournament players because they never change their play according to the current correct tournament stratedgy. In no-limit tournaments it is far more important to play your opponent then to play their cards. That is a fact. Limit tournaments are played a bit different of course but no-limit has a much, much higher skill factor. There is no way around that. You must develop your skills if you want to be a winner at such games
Greg, Here are my opinions, and any comments you have about them would be great because i am relatively new. I haven't read the other posts on this yet. FYI-I have only played in about 4 tourneys (all small buy in) so i have limited tourney experience.
"There are 6 players at my table, and I am in the 5th spot this hand. I have not been able to play many hands at this table, and have a tight image. Blinds are posted, I am dealt ATo. Players 3 and 4 fold. I raise."
Question #1 - Any disagreement with this play?
No, i think this is smart, because you will gain great knowledge of their hand they raise for a cheap price. This is because you are perceived as tight so if they raised they must be very strong and you could probably fold right there.
"Button glares at me a little while, then calls. He is the current chip leader at our table, and plays many hands (including before he became chip leader). Blinds both fold, so it is heads-up. Flop is K74 rainbow. I bet out."
Question #2 - Any disagreement?
This is good as well, because if he raises you can certainly fold. With his call i would have read him as Kings with low kicker.
"Button glares at me again, and calls. Turn is 7, same suit as 4. While it's not likely, this could have hit the button for trips. Also, he might have a K, and doesn't like his kicker. He could have crap as well. At this point, you really can't pinpoint his hand very well, as it could be anything that somewhat reasonable (i.e., no 25o, but certainly K4s, QTo, 89s, etc., are possible). Thus, there is still a good chance that I have the best hand, although there is at least some chance that I am now drawing dead. I check the turn. Button thinks for a little while, and bets into me. I call all-in."
Question #3 - would you have bet out again? No, i would have check and folded. I highly doubt that he would have stayed with you this long with nothing and the fact that he was willing to bet right out with no worry of a check raise implied that he had either Kings w/low kicker or a high pair. In addition, it showed that he didn't seem to think that you had kings.
Question #4 - would you have folded? Yes, there was no way you would bluff him out of the hand because he was chip leader so the little amount he might lose would not hurt as much as him being able to win the pot and knock you out of the tourney.
Thanks JJ
Here's my thoughts, relevant to this situation and many similar tournament situations.
I started the hand with X in chips. If I fold after the flop bet, I am down to 0.5X chips. That means that I'm going to have to play, and win, a hand, just to get back up to X. Additionally, I'll have to win twice to get my stack up to 2X. While I'm hoping that these two hands will occur when I'm the favorite, at this stage of the tournament I might be forced to take a stand with crap. Thus, my chances of winning each hand are likely to average about 50:50, or 1 chance in 4 of winning both times.
If I continue with the hand that I'm in now, I'll risk going bust now, but if I win, I'll finish the hand with 2X in chips. Thus, there is reason to think that I should stay with this hand if I think that I have better than a 1 in 4 chance of winning.
With the particular hand that prompted this post, I thought that my chances were at least 1 in 3, and probably closer to 2 in 5. Thus, I decided that my best chance of winning the tournament was to call my opponent's all-in bet on the turn.
I'm sure that many people disagree with my philosophy here. However, when I decide to play a hand at a point where I'm severely short-stacked, I usually take the mindset that I'm going all-in (unless there is extremely strong evidence to cause me to rethink during the hand). I've learned that many chip leaders are capable of bluffing with nothing when they are against a short-stack, simply because they know that you're afraid of busting out (it's a good strategy, I use it myself when appropriate).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think one relevant question is how much you value the prize difference between 13th and 12th place versus the higher expected value you gain if you do win the pot. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but if the difference between 13 and 12 is $100, and it looks like you have a good shot at it (maybe 50% or higher), its worth $50 to you....however, if you risk all your chips and win the pot, how much added ev is that to you? I'm not sure...in monetary value, it may not even be worth $50 to take that risk, but if you are like Mike Caro, and value winning more than expected value, then that's a different story.
So - if you only care about monetary e.v., then you have to ask yourself what going all-in gives you, versus what checking and folding (on the turn) gives you. Instinctively, I say that checking and folding probably gives you a higher e.v., but I don't know, its so situation sensative (actually, even if you gave me everybody's chip count and talent, I don't think I can come up with a good number, just a very round estimate). What do you think?
Well, let's do a little math.
It turns out that the prize difference between 13th and 12th was almost exactly $100. To move up again, you've got to make it to 9th place. Survival tactics alone won't get me there, I'll have to win a pot or 3.
If we were to assume that folding my AT either after the flop or turn would GUARANTEE me 12th place, then that fold is worth $100.
At the beginning of the hand, I had about 3% of the total chips in play. If I folded to button's bet on the turn, I'm down to 1.5%. If I call and win, I'm up to about 7% (because of the blinds that folded preflop). Thus, the difference in stack size is about 5.5% of the total chips in play.
If we were to only look at first prize of $20,000, here's some numbers.
Folding yields $100. plus 1.5% chance of winning equals a total value of $400.
Calling yields 7.0% chance of winning equals $1400. Thus, I would only have to win 2/7th of the time to break even, and any wins over that favor calling. Additionally, with a short stack of only 1.5%, it is going to be difficult to do anything more than creep up a few spots, whereas 7% is almost an average stack at this point. Thus, when we factor in my increased chances to place 2nd, 3rd, etc., I probably have to win only about 1 in 5 to favor calling here. Since I thought there was a better chance than that that I had him beat on the turn, I still think my call was correct. However, we wouldn't have to change the numbers much to make folding the correct play.
Interestingly, I faced a very similar situation in the tournament I won at Lake Elsinore. I had gone from big chip leader to chip dog at the 3-handed stage (in the course of just 2 really bad hands). I started a hand with 27 chips (out of 135) and the button. Bets were 3 chips - 6 chips. I was dealt A5s and raised preflop. The loosest player at the final table had become the chip leader, and he called from the SB, BB folded. Flop was 223, two cards in my suit. I bet out. The SB Hollywooded about whether the flop could have hit me, etc., and eventually called. Turn was a Q, and I bet out again. He again Hollywooded about the situation, and again eventually called. I admit to being confused. The river was an innocuous looking 9. I checked, he got a funny look on his face, and then bet. This bet was 6 chips, and I had only 12 chips left. After his bet, there were 39 chips in the pot (almost 1/3 of the total). I thought for a long time, and decided it was too much of an act for him to be holding a 2. However, there was a very real chance that he had a 3, 9, or Q, or even a small pocket pair. Eventually, I decided that 12 chips wouldn't be enough, but that calling and winning would worth the risk, as my new chip count of 51 would approximately tie me for the chip lead. I called, and was shown a J5o bluff! A few hands later this guy was eliminated, and I carved up the money with the other guy.
Anyway, I think that the same principles apply. When I called, I thought that I was less than 50% likely to win, but decided that it was a worthwhile risk, as the difference in chip counts was so significant (12 vs. 51, in this case).
Later, Greg Raymer
Greg, if your numbers are correct, there's absolutely no doubt that staying in is the best way to go....however, what about the theory that each chip is worth more if you have less chips and each chip is worth less if you have more chips?
Let's see, if you add $100 to 3% of 20,000 (instead of 1.5%, to increase the 'each chip is worth more' theory), you get e.v. of $700.
Then if you say you only have 4% chance of winning (great exaggeration on downside, but let's use it for illustration purposes), your e.v. is $800.
WOW....its clear, even when I manipulate the numbers heavily against staying in that staying in is best to go for it! I guess that means when it gets down to a few chips, once you are in for the flop, you should almost always be in all the way (assuming it is heads up). The $100 in this case meant absolutey nothing, just a small increased chance of winning $20,000 overweighs the $100 so much, that one can ignore the $100.
You guys still don't see the point. You talk about e.v. and percentages. You are not playing in a ring game. In tournaments you have to throw away e.v. and all the other advanced math that you could use in ring games. Here's a question: I want you to post back a answer to this: You are playing a no-limit tournament. There is a small raise up front. You have a medium stack. Two opponents call the raise. You have A3s. The flop comes 7J4 with two of your suit. The preflop raiser bets what would put you all in. One of the other callers calls and is all in. You are getting 3 to 1 on your money. What do you do? There is only one answer to this question. If you can't answer it correctly then you have a lot of learning to do before playing any $1000 or higher tournaments. I learned the hard way but I did learn!
With this hand you would fold. Your only out is to draw to the flush since there is a good chance someone else has an Ace or a pair of Jack's, and you kicker is only a 3 so Ace high won't win either. Fold since you still have a medium stack and can wait for another hand to go all in.. With a hand like this you want to be the one to raise first and go all in and have your opponents fold.
J.N. said : E.V.. is important all the time. The e.v. in tournaments is the e.v. of the enitre tourney for you. The e.v. in ring games is focused on the e.v. of the hand in particular (usually).
E.V. ,I feel , is not important in tournaments and I'm not the only one who feels this way. Ask Stu Ungar and T.J. Cloutier and Scott Nyugin(i'm not sure that's spelled right) about E.V. When you play a tournament your only goal is to win it not just place in it. However I must admit that it is always better to bet. I still don't like limit tournaments.
When you play a tourney, there are two goals, some people focus on both, some on one or the other. One goal is to win the tourney, the other is to maximize profit. These are two separate goals. Many people confuse them and think that winning is maximizing.
Joe wrote: "In tournaments you have to throw away e.v. and all the other advanced math that you could use in ring games."
I disagree completely. You can't use the same math that you use in a ring game, but you will be a better player if you are capable of estimating EV for help in making your decisions.
Let's turn to the problem you provided. You are getting 3:1 payoff on a 1.85:1 proposition (if we assume that hitting a flush is the only way you can win). Now, if we are getting close to the money, then folding is almost certainly the correct play. Let someone else get eliminated, and we can back into a payoff. However, if it is still fairly early in the tournament, and there are many, many people to be eliminated before reaching the money, then you should probably take this risk. When you are still far from the money, building your stack should be your goal, not survival at all costs. You've got to ask yourself, if I fold and survive, will I get a better opportunity (i.e., a lower risk opportunity) before the blinds start eating me up. If you're playing in a large buy-in tournament, the field is generally not full of weak players, so why should you believe that a better opportunity than this is going to present itself in the next few orbits?
In summary, I think that the ultimate question is "Will I have a higher total EV in this tournament if I make play A or play B? Although there are many questions you must answer before you can reach this one (and many of those answers are very rough estimates), this is the question that sums it all up.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
When you play in large no-limit tournaments with large starting stacks compared to the starting blinds you must play conservative. Your goal is to survive and pick up some chips. When you reach the later stages many opponents will now start to play tight. This clearly is wrong. You now have a good chance to pick up some serious chips. When you have a medium stack or a large stack you must protect it. A small stack is when you could gamble on a hand like my sample question. However , I personally try to stay away from draws as much as possible unless it also gives me top pair. In no-limit you play the person more so then the cards. This is the most powerful advantage you can have not E.V. Remember this,if you get knocked out that's it, your out. Unless there is a rebuy period. I don't really like rebuy tournaments that much. If I knock someone out I want THEM OUT!
Posted by: Joe Nardo (Bunnyphil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 June 1998, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: T.P.
Posted on: Thursday, 18 June 1998, at 10:21 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 June 1998, at 1:25 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Nardo (Bunnyphil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 18 June 1998, at 5:08 p.m.
Who was the chip leader you were facing at your table?
He's not a "name" player. I think his first name is David, but I'm not 100% sure. He's a regular player in these smaller events in Lake Elsi and down in San Diego County (where I live), but he's not a strong player. He does well occasionally because he's pretty aggressive, and plays a lot of hands (thus giving him a chance to get lucky).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Anyway Greg I much enjoyed your original post because it made me think. When I look at myself I have found out that I'm by far a much better no-limit tourny player then I can ever be a ring player. I have not found out the reason for this. I still have much to learn, but that is what makes me a dangerous player. One day maybe we will meet at a final table at Foxwoods or AC! When that happens and you play AT off and I have JJ and you are short stacked, I will gladly raise you all in. Ha Ha just a joke. By the way what does FossilMan mean?
Go ahead and raise me all-in preflop, I'll just spike on A on you!
FossilMan - A few years ago, my wife took me to a rock and gem show here in SoCal. I picked up an Orthoceras fossil to use as a card protector. People were always very interested in it. So, next time we went to the rock show, I bought a few more items, and offered them for sale in the cardroom. Now, I usually play with at least 3 or 4 fossils on the table, and attempt to make a little more money by selling them.
Thus, if any of you ever see a big, white guy playing poker with a bunch of rocks in front of him, there's an excellent chance that it's me, so say hi.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You are forgetting one thing. It is incorrect to wait for a miracle hand like AA.KK,QQ or such when you are very short stacked. All that is required when you are low on chips and heads up is that your opponent does not have a pocket pair. Two random cards in your hand Vs. two cards that ARE NOT a pocket pair in your opponent's hands means that you are at EVEN ODDS against the opponent! What that means is that it dosen't matter if you went all in with AT or 78 or 72 for that matter. If your opponent has a pocket pair he then becomes a favorite. Thats not to say that a lone Ax is not good. In fact a lone Ax hand head up is a good hand to go all in again hoping that your opponent dosen't have a pocket pair. So is Kx.
Well,if you're gonna call him on the turn, you shoulda bet.
I'm not sure yet if I agree with that or not. I certainly consider it to be the most questionable decision of mine during the hand. I decided to check because I thought that there was some chance that he would check it down, and this would have given me a chance for survival. I didn't think he'd lay down anything to a bet by me on the turn, unless it was total junk (8T, J9, etc.) that had missed the board. I thought that the risk of a free card was less than the risk of going bust to a hand like 34 that was ahead of me, but with which he might check it down. It is VERY possible that I made a mistake, although admittedly it is difficult for anyone who wasn't there to judge, because so much of this decision depended upon my opponent.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If you bet on the flop you have to either call or bet on the turn. I probably would have checked on the flop and thrown my hand in the muck if my opponent bets. It is virtually impossible to get the chip leader to throw his hand away in this situation and rightfully so. If you have a short stack of chips and flop nothing against a monster stack the correct play is to check and fold. I most definetely would have playwd the hand to begin with.
Whatever happened to Sklansky's Key Card Concept? Why don't I hear about anyone using it?
CV
The actual gain is very small, on the order of less than .1...something a single deck specialist might undertake, but really a lot of work for little gain.
Over the past year, this forum has enjoyed a steady increase in participation. We are all profiting from the sophisticated strategy discussions. We also get great information concerning gambling venues. Mason, David, Chuck and I thought it would be helpful to split up these two types of information for more continuity. We have created a second forum called EXCHANGE. We'd like posts of a non-strategy nature to go into the EXCHANGE forum. Here are some suggested topics for the EXCHANGE forum:
1) trip reports
2) evaluation of games in specific venues
3) search for transportation or accommodations for gambling trips
I hope everyone will use and read the new forum. Please e-mail me if you have any further suggestions. Thanks to all for making these forums such a great success.
Jessica Vecchione
I think its a great idea.
As an occassional stud/holdem player I enjoy reading the strategy information; but will also like to read more information about trips to LV, upcoming poker events, and maybe some better travel deals other poker players may know about. Good luck.
Tom L
How about a link from this page to the new forum, so we don't have to pass thruoght the main page.
You should see that link on the left hand (green) column. The heading is Forum, and there are three links under it; Theory and Strategy, Exchange, Archives. Let me know if this is not appearing on your page. Jessica
I just read in RGP that the Horseshoe cardroom is closing on July 1st. Can anyone confirm that, as I am booked into the Horseshoe 1/2-1/8.
Tom L
Are you the same "travelingtom" who, three hours before posting this message, wrote "I think it's a great idea" in response to Jessica Vecchione's request that posts of a non-strategy nature go into the EXCHANGE forum? :-) I guess it's going to take a little time to get used to the concept of split forums.
you have got to be kidding-why dont you just call the poker room
Please use the link at the left (in the green column) to the EXCHANGE forum for a further discussion of the Binion saga.
Jessica, these are the only links that I see in my green area. I haven't found this Exchange forum that you are referring to... tried Essays and Favorite links and Home. Am I just blind?
• Books • Authors • Essays • Calendar • Order Form • Favorite Links • Feedback • Home
When I first read that the forum had been split up, I had no way to access the Exchange or the Archives.
To solve this problem, click on Home. That will take you to the top (or root) page for this site. Then click on Forum. You should now see the "new" version of the forum page that includes options to access the Exchange and Archives.
Check and see if you are accessing the forum with this address: http://www.twoplustwo.com/forum.html
If not, try it and you should see the new links on the left hand side.
If you still have trouble, e-mail me.
Thanks, Jessica
Thanks- I had tried that already, Derek- just tried again, still not working. In fact, I see I can't get to the Archives either- this is my home page top:
[ Post a New Message | Digest | Search / Personalize Display ] I'll send you a note, jessica- the address is correct, as far as I can see.
Jessica My email to you was rejected (through the 'Feedback' connection on the left). Any further info?
I found the landmark poker book "POKER: A GUARANTEED INCOME FOR LIFE" by Frank Wallace on the web at
http://www.neo-tech.com/poker/
For anyone serious about poker this is a must read.
Can anyone tell me why would someone go to the tremendous effort of publishing this manuscript on a web page? I can not see how anyone profits by it. Do the publishers think exposure (even total exposure) will generate sales? Is the book still in print? I don't understand.
I think the book is garbage. I guess it has some value if you want to know how to take advantage of your friends. Are you affliated with the people who are producing this book?
I am not affiliated with the book in any way. I found a copy in the early 70's and thought it was way ahead of its time. I'd rather not debate the quality of the poker theory or the morality of the author, although I found value in it.
What I found most interesting was the fact that it was on the web in its entirety. Why would someone do that? What is the catch? If you published one of your books completely on the web would the extra sales from impressed readers make up for the ones who would not buy the book after reading it. Having a book in hard copy form is handier than trying to read it from your browser. But the web version is free. At what price is it worth getting a paper version? For $1 I would get the book and for $100 I’d read it off the web, I wonder what the break even price is.
If you enjoy the book and think that it has value, that's great. But in my opinion it has very little value in today's world of casino poker. Typical players do not behave like those described in the book nor can they be manipulated in the manner as the book describes.
As for why they put it on the web, your guess is as good as mine. I don't believe that it would sell very well if it was not on the web.
Dear Mason and Bobby,
Just out of interest, some publishers of popular books are producing the entire text of their books online - mostly rubbishy novels. You can search for them yourself. They have repeatedly stated that publishing the books online enables people to get interested, and makes them want to have a permanent copy of the text. Just like the way decent bookshops expect their customers to stand there reading their books for a while without actually buying anything - if they didn't allow that, they might miss a sale.
From the publisher's point of view, the information in the book has no value other than the potential to sell books. They don't really lose anything by publishing it.
I've read the text myself many times. It's very cynical. But the whole perspective is something that I think any serious player ought to at least understand. You might not mimic John Finn's attitude towards your opponents, but you need to realise that that kind of attitude exists for some people, it is in many ways legitimate, and you need to be prepared to think that way yourself at times. Heaven knows when I've copped the hundredth bad beat for the day I start to channel some of John Finn's thoughts, and in some ways that's good for me.
Richard
Earlier, Bobby B. wrote: "For anyone serious about poker this is a must read."
Now, Bobby B. writes: "I'd rather not debate the quality of the poker theory . . ."
Instead, he prefers to discuss: "What I found most interesting was the fact that it was on the web in its entirety."
I guess on-line publishing is a topic worth exploring, but I don't think it's particularly relevant to a gambling "theory and strategy" forum. Are you suggesting serious poker players "must read" this book simply because it's published on-line? Or do you think it would further our understanding of poker?
I thought a free book about poker theory and strategy would be of interest to a forum on poker theory and strategy. I think the ideas in the book are of value to serious poker players. I wanted to let readers know where they could find it. It is the first book I have seen on the Internet in its entirety and I thought that was interesting too.
The book was published in 1968 when public poker had nothing but snatch games in Las Vegas and draw poker in Gardena. It was written for playing in private games. Mason is right when he says most of the book does not apply to modern casino poker. But comparing public poker and private poker is like comparing apples to oranges and I did not want to debate that.
Enough of the poker concepts apply to both private and public games that you may find it helpful. If you read a section that is good, wonderful, if you read something that you think is wrong, skip it. Of course, that is what you should do with any book, even one written by the authors at 2+2.
The most valuable portion of this book is the section on record keeping. The author advises keeping incredibly detailed records of results, specific hands, patterns, tells etc. While I think it is impossible for a working professional player to keep records this detailed, it ideal for someone who plays in one weekly private game with a small set of players. As Plato said, "The unexamined game is not worth playing in."
Does anybody have Wilson's Software for Tournament Omaha and Holdem? Is it any good? Comments are greatly appreciated. Thanks
Tuesday night I watched a player employ a stategy that I associate with beginners or drunks. The hand I describe below is my attempt to cope with the situation, and I would be interested in comments by members of the forum.
The game is 4-8. The players are knowledgeable, but not imaginative. I am behind, after having had pocket pairs cracked several times at a loose(what else is there)3-6 game. I move to 4-8 hoping to rebuild by outplaying my opponents. Which I do, using a selective, but very agressive approach. I catch glimmer of a winning session, but then a player who is slightly ahead begins to throw his chips at the table. He bets whatever he is dealt, and also reraises any bet. He is not drunk or a beginner, and his approach completely buffaloes the table. Almost no one sees any flop, and the few times someone does, the speeder has a hand, not necessarily premium one, but one that holds up. I am not receiving any cards that I can play, and do not have the chips to three bet 10-4 offsuit, so I just watch while the speeder builds a commanding stack. I reason that my best chance for taking him down lie with bigs, suited cards, escpecially AKs, since we will most certainly be heads up before the flop. Finally I catch AKd. I call the blind, and wait for him to raise. (He is one position to my left) He raises, I reraise; the table folds. I catch the top two pair, but not diamonds. Two clubs hit the flop. I bet, he calls. No diamond or club hits the turn, neither does an ace or king. I bet, he calls. A club hits the river. I check, he bets, I call, and he has the flush...Okay, a bad beat, but oh well. Was my choice of hands correct? If not, what else might I have done besides leave the table when the speeder began?
I assume there was no opportunity (maybe a shortstack behind the speeder) to move into a seat to his left? I can't find fault with your play of AKs here. A flush draw on the flop is not enough of an underdog vs. top two pair to make it incorrect for him to call your bets on the flop and turn. Therefore I wouldn't call this a *bad beat*. I'll be glad to take two big cards and bet them against a hyperagressive player on my left, each and every time. One other thing, if you do get into an open seat on his immediate left, be prepared to three bet medium pocket pairs before the flop if he makes the initial raise. It is an ideal situation to get heads-up with the speeder on the flop or before (when you have big cards). So you lost this pot, in the long run you'll come out ahead in these situations since you obviously have patience.
Thanks. I had no opportunity to move. The short stacks were frozen in place. But, yes, if I could have, I should have, and the tip about three betting medium pairs is very helpful.
I just had this same problem last night, but worse. 2-4, was doing okay (had made a few dollars profit after getting blinded for a while, waiting to take advantage of weak table), when this woman sat down after getting knocked from the Tropicana (AC) women's tournament.
She screwed up the whole table for me (and I ended up losing my entire stake). She was raising on any two cards, playing poorly but getting lucky. At one point, she bet on the river, I called with my A (one on board), and she immediately mucked her hand without even seeing if I won!
You're probably thinking "GREAT! A good fish!"....well, didn't work that way. The whole table went on tilt, calling multiple raises with nothing, etc. I loosened up a bit, to try to take advantage, but it rarely worked out- two pair, trips, etc getting cracked. My second to last hand was:
AKd, raised 8 callers, 7 stayed. Flop was XcKc6h. I raised the idiot, several others stayed. Turn is Ah. I bet, all but 2 dropped (idiot and another weak player, who'd dropped 300+ before she left for the tournament and came back). As I'm betting, I'm praying for a diamond or a spade... so, of course the 8h drops, giving weak player runner runner flush and idiot a straight.
Here's my question- How do you deal with a table that is now playing anything, several people raising anything, and getting miracle river cards when they had no business? Is there any way to appease the poker gods and get them off your back, before you try to ram someone off the road on the way home afterwards in frustration?
In short, is there any way to tell that the poker gods are NOT going to be rational that evening, and leave early? The weakies were just begging to get slaughtered, but it was not to be.... I keep trying to remember David S.'s quote from the 2+2 books, along the lines of gaining even when you lose when others play badly, but it's tough to swallow when you're going broke....
I'm thinking I should jump up a few levels (5-10?) rather than keep trying to earn my way up. My method doesn't seem to be working very well...
Any help?
The type of game you're describing is just about the only type of game that is beatable at the 2-4 level (if the game isn't so loose, then the rake will probably eat up all of your profits). You've just got to remember that these games are extremely high variance. You can easily drop 20-40 big bets before winning a pot, even if you are playing quite tight. However, when you do win a pot, you are likely to profit by as much as 20 big bets. Thus, you should find your stack slowly dwindling in these games, then jumping up significantly with one winning hand.
Just continue to be patient, and almost never play hands like 2 unsuited big cards that aren't premium (no KJ, only AK and AQ in position). Add hands like all pocket pairs and all suited Aces to your list of hands to play, as these are the hands that are most likely to hold up in a big multiway pot. Plus, they're easy to release properly when you miss the flop.
Finally, that's the big key. You've got to release when you don't flop a good hand or draw. If you are playing A8s, the flop is QT4, you DON'T call because you've got an overcard, even if the pot is giving you odds to hit 3 outs. Often, you'll lose to KJ, AQ, AT, or A4 when you do hit this overcard, so just don't bother.
PATIENCE!
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
AQ can be trouble here too. I'd also add KXs to your recommendation of AXs, playable from any position.
If it's likely to be capped 5-way preflop, then it's relatively easy to play - just play rock tight: AA, KK, QQ, AKs, and not a whole lot more. With more players, Axs is certainly correct and with fewer bets Kxs is marginally correct.
When you're up against a speeder but the rest of the table is tight, then you do a lot of 3 betting with hands better than what you figure your opponent holds, but you still have to be conservative if there are many opponents left to act behind you. I'm basically assuming you've put the speeder on your right, though if he always raises/reraises then you'd want him on your left. In early position, you should be throwing away a lot of hands, even though they're much better than the speeder's, but in late position you should be 3 betting with big cards or any pair. Suitedness makes some difference, but its value is much less heads up, which is what you're trying to achieve with your 3 bet. Basically, what you want are hands that will beat the speeder in no fold'em hold'em heads up, because that's what you're about to play when you 3 bet him.
Exactly how you play from that point on depends a lot on the particulars of the opponent, but if he will keep betting unless you raise, then you should often just let him keep betting into you when you have a made hand, and raise when you don't have a hand if it will buy you a free card or make him fold. Even king high can be a hand worth showing down against such an opponent.
-Abdul
What we have here is a discussion of two types of responses to a speeder. In the first, the table runs; in the second the table comes. If I understand these posts, the advice is:
1. Put the speeder on your right if you can. Then raise to isolate with medium pairs and above; big cards, not necessarily suited. Object is to play the speeder head's up and show down a better hand. If you can't change position, fold and fold until you get a hand that plays well head's up. Let him raise, then reraise to isolate.
2. Whatever your position, play the maniac like a rock. Come only when you have the top pairs, or a nut flush draw. Object is to crush the table with a premium hand, since no one will fold. Avoid medium strength hands, suchs as medium pairs and --my thought--straights, maybe even the nut. If the flop doesn't fit, consider the likelihood that it does fit someone. Check and fold, unless the odds warrant continuing, such as your trips or nut flush draw against against a flop with two suited, or two to a straight.
I also lost my bankroll, so am back to playing 1-3 HL stud to rebuild. In the meantime... I read this forum daily.
Make some of the adjustments suggested in Greg's post, and give the loose/passive 2-4 table another go around before jumping up to 5-10. Get used to strategy changes for different table conditions at the lowest limits first (regardless of excessive rake); if you don't recognize when and what changes from basic strategy are necessary, how will you apply this to 5-10? 5-10 table conditions don't remain constant just because the limit is higher.
When you are playing for profit instead of entertainment, there are NO idiot opponents. There ARE folks having a good time without much more than some knowledge of the rules, (or perhaps some kitchen table experience) who simply like to ram and jam against more seasoned competition. They are gambling with the worst of it, and often are well aware that they have little chance in the long run. This said, if I were going to jack around in a 2-4 game for an hour or so and didn't care if I won or lost a c-note, I'd play just like the tournament lady did.
I'm sure of only one way to appease the *poker gods*. From any winning session, give 10% of that profit to charities. If that doesn't get them on your side, I don't know what will!
Please post when ESPN OR ANY OTHER T.V. WILL SHOW WORLD SERIES OF POKER. iFEEL THIS IS A CLASSIC TO SEE'BECAUSE THE LAST 3 PKLAYERS EXPERIENCE+STYLE1 Thank you!
nm
The game is eleven handed $ 5-$ 10 holdem, with $ 2 small blind, $ 5 large blind. I was in the big blind with 10h9h. UTG loose agressive player raised, loose goose calls double bet, next loose player called double bet, next strong player reraised, next player called triple bet, next player called triple bet, next fold, next calls triple bet, rest fold to me. Its two bets to me to call and a good possibility that UTG will cap it. There's $ 82 in the pot with a good possibility of $ 45 more going in. With this much action and the number of players in, I suspect lots of big cards are already out. I called and as expected it was capped with everyone calling. Is this a reasonable gamble or a leak in my game?
The flop came K-8-5 rainbow with one heart. I checked and everyone check to the third player who bet $ 3 all in. Everyone called to me. I have a bad hand. I'm thinking the man who bet probably has a King. All I have is a back door flush draw, a back door straight draw, or something like runner runer 10 or 9. Nevertheless, I'm drawn in by the pot odds of nearly 50 to one for my longshot hand. Everyone else called the $ 3. Is this a reasonable gamble or a leak in my game?
It seems to me everyone was weak. The turn was a blank. I thought there was no point in bluffing because of the all in man. I checked and everyone else checked too.
The river was an Ace. I checked and everyone checked to the strong player who bet. Everyone folded to me. I decided against a check raise bluff, because of the combined chances of the bettor (who reraised originally hitting his A-Q, A-J or whatever) having me beat, or the original raiser being in with a pocket pair of jacks or queens, and of course the all in man couldn't be bluffed. I folded.
The original raiser called with a pair of queens and the strong player had A-Q. The all in man never showed his hand.
I'm trying to determine if my thinking was correct or should I muck these long shots early.
All suggestions, criticisms and analysis is welcomed.
Mike Baum
Your original call of the raises preflop was marginal, and probably a mistake. However, you were going to be 1 of 8 players in the hand, so playing medium suited connectors isn't so bad with 7 players there to pay you off.
Calling the $3 on the flop was a no-brainer. There is $162 in the pot preflop, plus about $20 more now, giving you pot odds of 60:1. You're calling here hoping to catch a J, 7, or heart on the turn, where you'll again have pot odds to call for the river card.
Finally, you're right to have not bluffed. The all-in player almost has to have a better hand than you, and the other players are going to call with any pair, just because the pot is so big. Save your bluffs for a tight game. I suspect that this game is too loose to ever merit a bluff.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If you have the bankroll with that many callers you can play the hand. In a tournament the hand goes into the muck.
i agree- take your chances with that many callers-take your dollars and place your bet. the only leak i see in your game is playing in such a small game- with as much thought as you put into the game take your 400 and take a shot at 10-20.
I live in Texas. Its not so easy to find a game here. I played 6 months in a $ 2 limit, dealer's choice, with the joker game before finding this game. The game was easy. I averaged winning 5 big bets an hour and won 5 times out of 6, but its a long grind at $ 2 limit. Hopefully, I will be able to move up, but the choice is not good as it is for those who live in Vegas, California, Atlantic City, etc.
Mike Baum
As long as I'm going to play T9s here I would have done the capping myself, otherwise I'd have made all the same decisions you did.
Thanks to all for your advice. Later, I wondered if capping wasn't a better option than calling, since I was pretty sure the original raiser was going to cap anyway.
If you are in late position or the button and seven or eight people are already in, do you sometimes raise with medium suited connectors? If so, how often 10%? More? Less?
I play with mostly the same players and feel my play is too predictable.
Mike Baum
Thanks to all for your advice. Later, I wondered if capping wasn't a better option than calling, since I was pretty sure the original raiser was going to cap anyway.
If you are in late position or the button and seven or eight people are already in, do you sometimes raise with medium suited connectors? If so, how often 10%? More? Less?
I play with mostly the same players and feel my play is too predictable.
Mike Baum
It all depends on who the other players are. Against a table full of loose/passive players I'd make the initial raise often (80% or more). With one or two tight/agressive players who had somehow decided to just call I'd be more selective (about 60%). Raising before the flop from late position when seven players are staying in, usually gives you enough implied odds on the flop to cold call a raise with a gut shot straight draw. When you do build the pot early, it's much more likely that there will be enough help from the flop to continue. The downside is that it is also easier to get trapped with a second best hand. One of the nice things about low limit is that you'll often find the game devolve into a no-fold'em contest where these kinds of value raises show long term profit potential.
The game changes according to the opponents and the moods they are in. Sometimes it is a loose passive table, so I'll try that 80% raise you suggest. Usually it has two strong players in it. In that event I'll try the 60% raise you recommend.
The two strong players are frequent raisers. One of them trapped me the other day in a kill pot when he raised from middle position several people came in for the raise. I was in the big blind with AQd and called. The flop came with three spades. I checked and so did everyone else including the strong player. The turn came an off suit 5. I checked and so did everyone else including the strong player. The river card was the Qh. I bet out, but only $ 10, momentarily forgetting that it was a kill pot. The strong player pointed to my bet and said, "Its a $ 20 bet." Without thinking it through I bet $ 20 with my top pair top kicker. The strong player immediately raised me to $ 40. I called and he showed me K3s for a flush. The other strong player laughed at my stupidity at betting in that situation.
Ouch! It still stings, but hopefully I learned a lesson that will stick.
Mike Baum
This doesn't sound like a very strong player to me... First, he raised a suited King in middle position, then he checked TWICE and gave the ace of spades two free shots at beating him? Plus, a bet on the turn may easily have elicited calls from the queen or even jack of spades, if there are several weak players in the game. He may also have gotten calls from straight draws, two pairs, top pair, etc. Not everyone will abandon a flop just because there are 3 spades on it.
I can understand it being checked on the flop... He may have been going for a check-raise and missed it, or he might have had a read on a player in early position that told him that if the flop was checked out someone would bet and he could raise the turn. But checking it out twice? Unless he was certain someone would bet behind him on the turn so he could check-raise and missed it again, this is just bad play.
Dan
In rec.gambling.poker, at the dejanews achives, there is a serious of posts on the theorems--Morten's, Bayes, and one from a northern California player titiled the Fundamental Theory of Chasing. The point, as I understand it, is that in a typical 3-6 game, any drawing hand has a better chance of winning than pocket pairs or big unsuited cards, unless the flop fits. The player is reacting to the no fold'em nature and loooooooseness of the game. He goes on to make a suggestion that gets abuse heaped on his head by a contributor to this forum, mainly, that you should fold pocket A's to keep from scaring the other players with agressive play. I presume the object is to keep them believeing that you are just lucky, while you use implied odds to build and hopefully take large pots. Comments from anyone who has read these post?
Huh? I suggest you reread the FToC - it sounds like you didn't understand it at all.
(For those insterested, I've placed a link to it below)
Okay, I reread it. I also reread the 35 other posts about Theorems. I understand the concept.as explained.. How much bankroll is required to use it successfully at 3-6 or 4-8?
Also, in the first paragraph after the What's sloppy question...Why is 3s2s less of a hand than 3c2c? Is this a typo? Should it read 3s2c?
becase of backdoor flush
Roger,
I read the FToC article. At first I'm thinking, "Hmmm, pretty dense stuff. Wait, this is ridiculous, probably just some nut's silly notion. But no, I see it's written by Paul Pudaite. Despite being relatively new to the internet, I've seen his posts and know he's no nut and is, I believe, in fact a respected mathematician." So I figure, "Better give it some more attention. Well, this is pretty bizzare, but it does seem to relate to plays like drawing to a draw, which can sometimes make sense in a very short handed game in setting up a semi-bluff... But still, this is weird." So to try to gain some clarity, I look at the other posts in the thread, as well as certain key introductory details in the article in question. This proved *very* illuminating.
Hit the "view thread" option, Roger. That should help.
John,
You write : So to try to gain some clarity, I look at the other posts in the thread, as well as certain key introductory details in the article in question. This proved *very* illuminating.
By "key introductory details" you aren't by any chance referring to the date?
Etienne
Etienne,
You ask: "By "key introductory details" you aren't by any chance referring to the date?"
Uhm, well, yes. ;-)
And I see this thing had to be headed off at the pass in the thread above.
John
I've been in California for 10 days (my first trip here in about 10 years). I'm convinced someone out here published a book called "Poker for Dummies" (I'm sure it includes the "Fundamental Theorem of Chasing"). They never fold anything -- any two cards are playable for the slimmest of rationales: "I was protecting my blind", "I was on the button", "I had an Ace", "I was suited", etc. The high-limit stud players are just about as wild; most of them will try to steal from any position with the high card on board -- even in a full game. And do watch out for the limit HE players in the NL games -- you will constantly be surprised by the strange ducks they turn up with. But don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining -- compared to Vegas, this is a gold mine.
If you come south try the 4-8 and/or 9-18 game at Viejas in San Diego. Also, Ocean's 11 in Oceanside, and the Village Club in Chula Vista.
I found this onthe web-- Colloquial rendering: If you are drawing to the nuts, then no matter how long the odds are, you should sometimes play your hand.
Precise formulation: Assume that you and and your opponents have sufficiently large stacks. Let N* be the condition that you hold the nuts on the river. Let S = {s} be the set of all possible sequences of actions by you and your opponents prior to the river. Let X characterize the sequences in which you wind up contesting the river heads up with the possibility of N*, i.e., if you make it to the river with one opponent and it is logically possible that you hold a hand that your opponent cannot beat, then X(s) = 1 ; otherwise X(s) = 0.
Then if you play with a strategy such that there exists s*, a sequence of actions such that Prob[s*] > 0 and X(s*) = 1, but Prob[N*|s*] = 0, your strategy is sub-optimal. In words, if your strategy is responsible for eliminating the possibility that you hold the nuts heads up on the river, then you are not employing an optimal strategy.
Illustration.
Suppose you hold 3c2c in the big blind. Everyone folds to the small blind, who raises. You call. The flop comes AdTd9c. You have the lowest ranking hand in this situation, but you can make the nuts if a 4 and 5 hit without making a flush possible. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Chasing, if your opponent bets, you shouldn't always fold.
In fact, the Fundamental Theorem of Chasing says more than this. If in this situation there are some hands with which you'd raise, and other hands with which you'd call, then you should play a mixed strategy with 3c2c -- sometimes call, sometimes raise. Also, if your opponent checks and there are hands you would bet, you should sometimes bet 3c2c. If you get check-raised, and there are hands with which you would then re-raise, you should sometimes reraise with 3c2c. Etc.
Now suppose a 5h falls on the turn. You may have only 3 or 4 outs and the pot contains just 3 big bets. Yet if your opponent bets, then according to the Fundamental Theorem of Chasing, you should sometimes call and sometimes raise with 3c2c, since there are other hands you'd play that way in this situation.
Motivation for the Fundamental Theorem of Chasing.
In order to play optimally, you must maintain the threat of holding the nuts on the river. You need this threat in order to make your bluffs, raise-bluffs, re-raise bluffs, etc., credible.
Proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Chasing.
If your opponent doesn't find these threats credible, you will be able to achieve an aggregate expected profit from playing the potential nuts because on those rare occasions you hit your hand, your opponent won't stop raising with what he believes must be the best hand.
Here we see the necessity for the assumptions of sufficiently large stacks and heads up play on the river: with a short stack, your opponent will stop raising when he runs out of chips; with multi-way play, there is a limit to the number of raises. In either case, you may not get paid off enough to make a long shot draw to the nuts profitable.
What's sloppy about the "colloquial rendering" of the Fundamental Theorem of Chasing?
The proof demonstrates that optimal play never eliminates the probability that you will hold the nuts on the river. This is not the same thing as saying that any time you have a draw to the nuts, you should (at least sometimes) play the hand. This is because there can be more than one hand you could hold that can draw to the same nuts. For example, if we substitute 3s2s for 3c2c in the illustration above, it may be correct to always fold 3s2s, since it's dominated in expectation by 3c2c (which also has a back door flush draw).
Also, the colloquial rendering doesn't mention the assumptions of heads up play and sufficiently large stacks. And it lacks the full scope of the precise formulation -- as noted in the illustration, not only should you play the hand, you should mix your play with the hand so that it appears in every possible sequence of actions arising from optimal play on your part.
Finally, consider five card stud. Because the river is dealt face up, it's possible no matter what your hole card is, you can't beat your opponent! But the precise formulation of the Fundamental Theorem of Chasing is careful to exclude this type of situation.
Implication for different poker games.
The Fundamental Theorem of Chasing reveals some essential differences between different poker games.
In Hold'em, it means that before the flop, you should play any suited hand that can make a nut straight, no matter how expensive it might be, with positive (but perhaps exceedingly small) probability. For example, suppose under the gun raises, the next player re-raises and you hold 52s. Since you wouldn't fold AA or AKs in this situation, you shouldn't always fold 52s. If, for example, you call with AKs and re-re-raise with AA, then you should sometimes call and sometimes re-re-raise with 52s. Thus it is correct to make some very peculiar plays in Hold'em, at least occasionally.
Contrast this with Omaha. In Omaha, there's no need to play any really bad starting hands, because no matter what the nuts might be on the river, you can have those cards plus AA, giving you a hand with plenty of pre-flop equity.
In both Hold'em and Omaha, it's always possible that you might be drawing to the nuts. So, as a corollary to the Fundamental Theorem of Chasing, it's always possible for you to have sufficient implied odds to continue playing no matter how ugly your draw. Unless your opponent holds the nuts, if you play optimally, he has to fear even the most apparently insane bad beats. Restating the corollary: there are no true bad beats in flop games.
But in stud games, there are situations before the river where no hand you might hold could outdraw the best hand your opponent might hold. (This demonstrates the importance of paying attention to up cards.) Thus there are situations where your opponent can reasonably expect you to fold a hand that could draw out on his strong but not best possible hand. And thus there are situations where you can truly put a bad beat on your opponent, in the sense that without question, you had to be playing incorrectly in order to get there.
Is this corect? if yes how to aplay it in may game?
Boris reposts the "Fundamental Theorem of Chasing", but leaves out important information, like the fact that it was posted on April 1, by Paul Pudaite. Please, if you are going to repost someone elses work, give it an attribution.
Boris asks "Is this correct? If yes, how to apply it in my game?"
Well, suppose I told you that game theory said that if you played optimally you should raise UTG with 52s 1 time in 2,147,839. How much do you think it would affect your bottom line if you chose not to do this?
Saturday night in a short handed game a player stuck did exactly this. He won the hand with a low straight that he made on the turn. Needless to day his play startled the other players, whom I would describe as knowledgable but not imaginative. He then got timid, and dropped out of the next hand-a kill pot-when I raised with two medium pair on the flop.
Anyone know of a decent Hi-Lo 8 or better Stud software package? The game is a standby here in the midwest, but neither Gambler's Book Club or Conjelco sell any software for this game.
Is there such a game?
You are playing in a no-limit tournament. You have played for 35 minutes. No one yet has been eliminated. You are on the button. You pick up kings. A man in middle position raises all in. This is the information that you have available to you. Your opponent has played very tight. Twice you you have watched him raise the preflop and twice no one called. Both times he has flashed a single A. You are in good chip position for this part of the tourny. If you call his raise you would be all in. Would you A. Call. B. Reraise to find out where he is. C. fold
"A man in middle position raises all in"......"If you call his raise you would be all in".....
I'm confused... option B is to "reraise to find out where he is" ....where do you get the chips to reraise with?
First I spelled David's name wrong. Second I screwed up the chip thing.
You have not mentioned the relation between your chip position and the blind structure!
why is this a challange and why is it directed to david, number one its not a challange, to lay down two kings with very little reason would get you the award of whimp in my book, which is not yet published. number two, what does this have to do with david?
Your post makes true my point for my original post. When you are playing a no-limit tournament you have to think a lot. Most players when they pick up KK will call any raise and go all in. There are situations where this is correct but to do it automatically is a mistake. When I first started playing in these tournies I tried playing the opponents cards as well as as other not important strategies. Then I started talking to T.J Cloutier by e-mail and he told me some incredible ideas on the game. Since I started talking to him my game has gone up considerably in skill. His number one idea? You must play the player. I challenged David because I wanted to see how he reasoned through my example. Some important people in the tournament stage feel that the reason why Mason and David don't do good in tournies is that they do not change their stratedgy as the tournament changes. By the way there are times when you should be a wimp in tournies and there are times when you should be the bully. All KK's are just a pair of KK's.
In almost any context, I will go over the top with Kings against the first raiser, regardless of his position. Unless your tournament structure is similar to WSOP where you will get to play hundreds of hands before blinding out, you will never get to build a "fighting" stack if you don't play the second pre-flop nuts. I don't like a smooth call here, because it gives the guy a "free" flop to catch an Ace with some hands he might have laid down (AQ, AJ or Axs). If he's playing AK, he may call, in which case you are a still a big favorite. By the way, I would consider this a bad call if he has any respect for your game since you would be strongly representing AA or KK. If he calls you with QQ, you are an even bigger favorite. If he has the Aces (both of them this time), you hope for a set or take an early seat at the side game
The only circumstance I would lay down Kings pre-flop: 1) Tight player raises up front; 2) Strong player puts large (50%+ of stack) reraise; and 3) It is early enough in the tournament to rule out "desperation" moves. Get your chips in first, fast, and best of luck.
P.S. The last two times I was all-in preflop in a tourney with Kings, I got taken down. First time by 66 who hit a set on the turn and the second time by KQ who made broadway on the river. Both times these guys called my all-in reraise. In tourneys, its often times better to be lucky.
Early in a no-limit tournament the only hand that you should risk all your chips early is AA. KK is strong but I would not call that opponent because he went all in. In the situation that I described all he could have is AA.
How do you define "early"? 35 minutes is not early if the tournament has a blind structure that is designed to produce a final table in 3 - 4 hours, as most "small" tournaments are. If it is so early (based on stack size compared to blind size), why is the middle position guy putting in such a large raise with Aces just to win the blinds? Based on your limited description, I have assume this guy is no-limit rookie who is afraid to play a hand unless he is all-in and eliminates any further decision making, or the fear of getting bluffed off of a hand. Unless of course, he has AA, in which case the typical guy always gets too cute and tries to get somebody else all in on the flop. I put him on a big Ace or pocket tnes, at best. Go over the top, and make him flash *both* Aces this time!
Joe Sorry I didn't get back to your question on the tourneys. I've been away for a week. I received 500 in chips for my 100$ buy in plus 15$. We had 53 entries. 1st place 50% for a prize of 2,650$, 6th place payed something like 150$. Usually there are more entries. The 100$ hold em is Fri at the Tropicanna. Wed night is 50$ plus 10$. You receive 300 in chips on Wed. I left my e-mail address if you need more info. Or you could call the Trop direct at 1-888-POKERAC. The tournaments are a blast! Later
In my usual 5/10 holdem game, I have witnessed many players raising (in early posisition) on drawing hands. This practice confuses me. I unsderstand the why one may raise in late position to buy a free card after the flop. I also understand that a raise may be warranted when the implied odds are high.
When I play drawing hands, I generally want to spend as little as possible and I want palyers in not out so I can maximize my return should I hit my hand. Yet I see many experienced players raising and re-raising with four card flushes and straights after the turn, in early or middle possition, with four or five players left in the hand.
Am I missing something?
The play can be right if you have high cards with your drawing hand that now have a better chance of holding up if they pair up and you have knocked others out. On the other hand if you do not knock anybody out you are getting good odds on your raise.
Would this include something like AKs where you have flopped 4 to the nut flush but are likely up against a couple of players you suspect may have a mid-high pair and 3 or 4 opponents?
Thanks,
LWD
Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
10-20 game with a kill. 2 loose players, 4 good solid players, the remaining 3 are decent players. The kill is on. I am at the cutoff seat (1 right of the button). Pick up AcKc. UTG player raises. The player to his left calls, The next player had posted $20 because of the kill and he calls. I call (Was this a mistake?? I figured that if someone raised UTG and 2 callers after him, a big pair was out there and I still had good odds in case I flopped a draw or top pair). Flop comes Jc4c7d. I liked the flop. But I still had to get there. UTG checks. Player to his left bets. Player who had posted on the kill button calls. I call (This is what I meant to raise on a draw, having 2 overcards, draw to the nut flush and the possibility of buying a free card). The turn came the Qd. UTG checks. Player to his left checks. Next player bets. I call (This is where I should've raised. At least in hindsight. Because of all my draws and the possibility that the other players had only 1 pair or no pair at all). UTG folds. Player to his left folds. River came the 2s. Player with the kill button shows JdTd and wins the pot.
I was wondering if I raised the turn and bet the river if he put me on AQ, KK, AA and decided to slowplay the flop and maybe fold to my bet. But at that point the pot was of a considerable size that it was worthwhile to call. I know I played this passively but I didn't think that if I pushed my draw I was going to be able to steal the pot.
Any comments welcome,
Carlos
Carlos writes (in part):
1. "...I am at the cutoff seat (1 right of the button). Pick up AcKc. UTG player raises. The player to his left calls, The next player had posted $20 because of the kill and he calls. I call (Was this a mistake??"
I'd say you should have reraised here. It may feel like a high variance play, but it is correct.
2. "I figured that if someone raised UTG and 2 callers after him, a big pair was out there..."
An incidental point, but it's not clear to me why you would suspect a big pair with this action.
3. "Flop comes Jc4c7d. I liked the flop. But I still had to get there. UTG checks. Player to his left bets. Player who had posted on the kill button calls. I call (This is what I meant to raise on a draw, having 2 overcards, draw to the nut flush and the possibility of buying a free card)."
Yes, here again a raise was in order. As David mentioned, it may allow you to win if you only hit one of your overcards, *and* may allow you to take a free card.
4. "The turn came the Qd. UTG checks. Player to his left checks. Next player bets. I call (This is where I should've raised. At least in hindsight. Because of all my draws and the possibility that the other players had only 1 pair or no pair at all)...."
I think a raise here is probably correct. If you had raised on the flop, however, the action might have been different. You might have been faced instead with the options of betting or taking a free card.
5. "I was wondering if I raised the turn and bet the river if he put me on AQ, KK, AA and decided to slowplay the flop and maybe fold to my bet. But at that point the pot was of a considerable size that it was worthwhile to call...."
I agree. He almost certainly would have called.
John Feeney
Also, I thought part of the reason to raise 4-flushes and such was the confusion factor. Next time, when you're raising two pair or trips, the drawing hands may assume you're drawing too... paying a higher fee than they should to draw.
Especially if you OCCASSIONALLY raise the non-nut draw- that'll REALLY drive 'em crazy later!
Also, you didn't mention whether most of the trailers saw the raises on a regular basis or not. If people are hanging along, becomes VERY lucrative when you hit....
I've played in some very loose-passive 5/10 games. Many of these players will "donate" a small bet to see the turn card if the flop gives them a three-flush, a three-straight, or a single overcard. (Hey, they're here to play poker, not to watch.) If someone bets, there is little chance of a raise.
In these games, I'll bet from early position with a nut (or even second-nut) flush draw or an open-ended nut straight draw, as long as I expect at least three callers from behind. It's a bet for value.
Even from early position, my flop bet often will freeze the action and buy me a free card on the turn.
But I'm guessing your 5/10 game isn't so loose-passive.
What are some rough guidelines on when to raise your own bring-in bet on third street? I did not see this aspect of stud in Dave and Mason's book, nor was the rule even mentioned. I learned it for the first time at the tables...a most egregious omission.
Phillip,
At none of the card rooms I have ever played in do they allow the bring in bet to raise himself. It would be bad for the action and would lend itself to some bad collusion situations. Good Luck.
do you mean raise rather then just bring it in? ie make the bring in 15 rather then 5 in a 15-20? if so the topic did not need to be addressed, bring it in for a raise anytime you want to narrow the field, ie big pair in the hole. possibly rolled up if there are several large cards out. high three flush.
Yes, I am talking about making it $15 in a $15-$30 game, as opposed to only bringing it in for $5. This is permissible in Atlantic City. And yes, this topic does sorely need to be addressed. It would be a good article for the Card Player, anyway.
Some responses to this mesage was separated. URL are http://www.twoplustwo.com/cgi-bin/jan98.pl?read=1745 http://www.twoplustwo.com/cgi-bin/jan98.pl?read=1747
Ray,
They do allow it at the Holiday Inn in Aruba. It is usually a 5-10 game sometimes 10-20. In addition to raising your bring in, its 5 or 10 a spread limit.
Both make a big difference.
Joe
Joe,
Thanks for finding a place. No major cardroom allows it. I played in Aruba about 10 years ago and they raked so much i quit playing and just windsurfed the rest of my trip. We played holdem and they raked 5% all the way tru and when they could get away with it the dealer took more. If you didnt toke about $5 a hand the dealer really robbed you. The game was great but unbeatable as it went short handed often. Things may have changed but mindsets often do not. Good Luck.
Other than a few home games, I've never seen a public game in which the bring in can raise himself. Unlike Ray, I don't worry about collusion any more than I would in a hold'em game when the blind can raise himself. I think it is not a bad variation, but it makes for less limping by late position players, therefore less action and for that reason I dislike it.
The more common situation is when to bring it in for a full bet rather than the minimum. First, let me state that I think allowing this option (and every public club seems to do so) is terrible. It really becomes a 'free-shot' rule in short handed games. For example, 4 handed - low card stalls, next 2 players fold, now low with AQ in hole or small pair brings it in for maximum. To prevent this, player after low must wait till low acts before acting, and this slows the game up quite a bit. Anything that slows up the game is bad for good players and for the House in rake games. The low shouldn't have the option to bet anything except the minimum.
Since the choice of bring in exists everywhere, I'd advise casino players never to act until it is clear what low is bringing it in for, and to stall as low if your opponents are impatient and often act out of turn.
I disagree with the arguement given for the idea that the bring-in should not be allowed to bring-in for a full bet. If there's some more basic philosophical reason that the bring-in should be only for a fixed amount, I'm certainly willing to listen.
The argument given is that he can stall and check out reactions behind him before deciding how much to bring in for. However, that same arguments applies any time a player is to act, and has an option on their action.
Players should always act in turn. Saying that players having to act in turn slows up the game, and therefore is bad for the game I just don't buy.
The suggestion to stall when there are impatient players behind you that will tip their actions would apply as much any time when it's your turn to act, not just your turn to bring it in (except that the bring-in has the most players still to act).
What percentage does 2nd and 3rd place pay? Where is your email address at? Do the blinds increase every 20 minutes? And finally do they use 10 or 9 players per table at the start?
Joe Second place pays about 25%, 3rd is approximately 18%. These numbers will vary with the amount of players, but I think 1st place is always 50%. They will start with either 9 or 10 players, depending on the number of entries. We had 53 the other night which worked out to 9 per table. The blinds increase every 20 minutes. You start out at 5-10 limit, 10-20, 15-30, 25-50, 50-100ect. My email address is dhouseworth@njwri.ang.af.mil Later
While as HLSFAP writes, it is generally wrong in a loose Omaha-8 game to draw to sub-nut hands, is there an exception when the lock hand is unlikely to be attained? For instance, A2JT appears playable when the board is A9T5T, since the chance of any opponent having TT or AA is very small. (unless the betting indicates otherwise)
What hands other than the best possible hand A2sA3s are raised for value pre-flop?
Your statement about drawing to non-nut hands in a loose Omaha8 game is very correct. Generally, don't draw to non-nut straights or flushes, nor to small sets. However, the example you give isn't a draw, it's a made hand on the river. In that case, it's merely a question of whether to bet or call or fold, and future bets aren't possible.
Try this example. A board of A5T on the flop, and you're still holding A2JT (no 4-flush). Whether you should play on here is more pertinent to your basic question. Here, I would definitely stay in a loose, multiway pot with AA or TT in my hand, definitely fold if A5 or 5T was my best current hand, and AT and 55 would be the borderline hands to decide. These hands would be decided by consideration of how loose the players are who are still in the hand, how many of them there are, the action before the flop, the action on the flop, and whether or not I had a backdoor flush draw to the A. If there's any doubt, then folding these hands on the flop is OK, as this play, if wrong for your circumstances, is unlikely to be wrong by very much money. Now, if this is an unraised short-handed pot, it's a very different story.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Vince,
In any game you only draw to hands that you believe will be the best hand if you make it. We are talking about on the flop and 4th street. In Omaha hi-lo 8 with many players in the pot the nut hand for low tends to win and nut straight and nut flushes win high. As for when the board pairs the nut full is not usually out there so smaller full houses usually will win the high part, although it may be hard to stand the heat and draw to a smaller set. Many times the pot is huge and you must draw to a hand that is not the lock and take your chances such as a jack or queen high flush when the ace is out there. Some one doesnt have to have the king and have it suited.
As far as raising with starting hands there are many to raise for value. Any ace, duece, with another low card is way ahead of the field and an ace duece with 2 other face cards has much more value than the hands you are playing against. If you dont raise much players learn to play carefully against you. Good Luck.
Being a lousy Omaha-8 player myself, and having muddled through learning the game, the one piece of advice I've never forgotten is where you explained that a lot of raising pre-flop adds minimally to your expectation yet significantly to your deviation. I like that. (If I've misunderstood that, please explain.)
It also seems to me that a player who raises every time he has an Ace in his hand gives away too much in deception in contrast to what he receives in "value."
On a lighter note: At the Commerce tournament, I entered several $40 satellites for games that I really wasn't qualified to play, including a lowball satellite and an Omaha-8 satellite. I won the lowball satellite (first one out of that particular tournament, however), and lost the Omaha-8. But it sure was fun in the Omaha-8, jacking the rocks up out of their chairs with liberal raises on hands with limited chances. Down to four-handed, I was chip leader, and as I was gathering up the chips from some cheesy hand that had just hit a miracle flop, one guy looked at me and said, "we used to pray for guys like that to join us in our game ...."
i generally play either 10-20 or big bet, with the blinds makeing the game about like a 10-20 as far as risk. ive played some 20-40 but not enough to know the answer to my question, which is, how do they compare. my experience at 10-20 has been that although the games can be very tough, as a rule, and especially if you you play all the games fairly well, its unusual if you cannot find a very good game. im using las vegas as a guide, ie if you play both hold em and stud, and you are willing to switch tables, it wont be long befor you are in a game where a lot of the players are making fundimental mistakes. can the same be said for 20-40? also it seems to be common knowledge that at the mirage it the 40-80 and above that there is a lot of team play going on. at least that is what they say at the smaller games- true?
Good question, although what would be considered "high stakes" depends on the player and the location. In Las Vegas, it is generally considered that 15-30, 20-40, 30-60, and 40-80 are "middle-limit" games. In Los Angeles, I'd include the 60-120 and 80-160 as "middle-limit" games, and the white chip games as "high-limit".
The possibility of collusion is never far off when a decent amount of money is at stake. But I wouldn't say it is routine. However, just being sliced up in one decent 3-way pot (the most likely scenario where you will get beat by colluders) is very costly. This seems to happen to me about once a year in mid-limit games, once last year in Vegas in a 15-30 game and once this year in Los Angeles in a 40-80 game.
thanks for your responce. common guys tell and ageing poker player the truth- any more thoughts on collusion?
one way ive thought of to beat a partnership, and i realize that this may only invite more danger, is to play big bet poker, especially if you think you are better at big bet then both the enemy combined, why fight with your fists when you can use knives and guns?
of course the question remains- if the enemy is afraid to let his game stand on its own merite-how are you going to convence the punk to play big bet poker?
Solid play will get the money from colluders generally ... just be very leery of making a big laydown on the end regardless of the action -- particularly 3-handed.
As to the first half of your original question, in Vegas, the 20-40 and 40-80 game is light years ahead of the 10-20 game, especially in stud. Tough, precise play is generally required. In California, from my limited experience there, it appears that the majority of the players are uniformly inept up to the 80-160 limit. (One dealer, whose boyfriend plays regularly in the higher mid-limit games, asked me if reading the books was important.)
Of course, at all higher-limit games, there will be *some* good players. And the nature of the play will require a different approach than what you read in the books. Without more, knowing what Sklansky, Malmuth, Brunson, et.al., have written will not make you a winner in the big-limit games. If you sit waiting for a "Category-X" hand before you get involved, you will ante off a thousand dollars before you ever win the blinds or antes.
Re the original q, in Cailiforia, there is a huge difference between 10-20 HE and 20-40, at least in LA where I play. 10 is much more passive, esp b4 the flop,and will have about 4.2 players seeing the ave flop vs 3.7 in 20. 10 is dying in LA and has been hurt alot by 9-18. There are no 10 games at the Bike, one at Commerce vs 3 20s, and about same at Hollywood.
While playing in a tournament last night, the player in the #1 seat played the first two hands and then left the table. He returned after the limits had been changed three times and several contestants had busted out.
My question is doesn't this type of play give the player an unfair advantage over the other players who have been playing and losing or winning chips?
Is this a standard practice and if so, why is it done. Thanks for any help you can offer.
Ken,
He is anted off while gone, so it cant be an advantage. You could just sit there for the same amount of time and not play a hand with the same result, would this be an advantage? Some people dont want to play thru the small stages of play and they just come back as the limits get up there. They sacrifice part of their chances of winning by doing this. It is a mistake unless they need some sleep or something and then they probably should have just stayed home. Good Luck.
There are two situations where it may be correct to stay away from the table. One is where there is a big side game, which is well worth playing in, vs relatively small tournament equity increase. Chip Reese, Doyle, Johnnie Chan and other top limit players frequently do this, especially in rebuy tournaments.
The other situation is when you know yourself well enough to know that something has just put you on tilt, and that you negative equity playing exceeds your negative equity by wandering. The only top player I've ever seen do this on a regular basis is Phil Helmuth, and he seldom skips more than a round.
There's another tournament situation where leaving the table can be an OK strategy. It's still slightly better to be at the table, but if ANY decent games are going, you're better off playing one of them for at least the first half-hour of the tournament.
A local cardroom has a tournament with rebuys. The blinds double every 12 minutes. The tournament is a total crapshoot, structured to be over in less than 2 hours.
However, at the end of the rebuy period, you can make an add-on of 5 times the normal rebuy (for the standard rebuy price).
There's almost no equity in playing early and risking having to make rebuys when you can just wait and take the add-on.
This tournament has a fixed payout schedule. Buy-ins, add-ons and rebuys do NOT add to the prize pool. Sometimes there's a huge overlay if there's some other event elsewhere that's drawn away most of the players so only a handful are playing for the payout.
In "progressive stack rebuy tournaments" many players follow this strategy because early rebuys are relatively expensive compared to later rebuys. In POKER TOURNAMENT STRATEGIES by Sylvester Suzuki the author has the following to say on the subject.
"To avoid being forced to make an early rebuy, many tournament players do not take their seat until well after the tournament has started. Although this strategy is probably superior to the strategy (or lack thereof) of players who come out swinging on the first hand that has been dealt, this strategy is also deficient because:
1. They are giving away antes or blinds; 2. With many empty seats at the table, they are missing opportunities to steal antes and/or blinds from other absent players; 3. They are missing an opportunity to observe the other players at their table and identify patterns and tendencies in some of their opponents.
A non stop talker at the table was rattling on as usual the other night when he mentioned that he has thrown AA away before the flop in pot limit hold'em. I usually try to tune him out, but this stuck in my mind. Other than a special situation in a tournament or a short bankroll situation, I can't imagine throwing AA away before the flop.
I'm interested in your thoughts on the subject.
Mike Baum
You're right, other than certain specific tournament situations, you should never fold AA preflop in HE. If you're unwilling to play this hand in any preflop situation in HE, whether it's limit, PL, or NL, you shouldn't be playing.
BTW, a short bankroll situation is the BEST time to get AA. With a shortstack, it's much easier to get it all in the middle preflop, which is the best way to play AA (if your opponents will comply). Admittedly, AA is an easy hand to misplay in big bet poker, especially when the stacks are deep relative to the blinds, but if you won't play it at all, then you should quit the game.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
i agree, if your not willing to play the nuts for all your money in hold em then just quit and go home. thats pre flop that is. also if you get half your money in befor the flop just put the rest in on the flop, there is too many ways you can outguess yourself.
He's trying to put you on tilt thinking about it. I suspect I've met this same guy in a NL satellite at the WSOP (he said he folded Aces when a third opponent raised with K-Q suited and I reraised with Tens). Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see ....
This guy claims someone brought it in for a raise and there were 6 callers for $ 300. He stated he had a nice win already and threw AA away to protect it. In his shoes I would have reraised the max and hoped some would fold. Even if they called and I got busted I would have felt it was a good gamble. He said they would have all called. I agree with Greg, that if I won't play AA before the flop I should quit playing poker.
Mike Baum
However it could only possibly be right if you absolutely knew that someone else held the other two aces, thus not only eliminating any chance for a set but also relegating you to almost always hoping for no more than half the pot. Even then the situation would have to come up strangely for the fold to be correct.
how are your going to absolutly know that someone holds the other too bullets, do you know something the rest of us earthlings dont? david i dont mean to sound disrespectful but how are you going to know that? ever heard of edgar cayce?
i think we are all in agreement and can lay this question to rest. the guy that layed down the bullets, my big bet poker game is on tuesdays, and we will send the cab for you, no expence to you. the rest of you, my big bet poker game is still on tuesdays but you will have to arrange your own trans.
i think we can lay this question to rest. the guy that layed down the bullets, my big bet poker game is on tuesdays and we will be more then happy to send the cab for you, at no expence to you,the rest of you my big bet game is still on tuesdays but you will have to arrange your own transportation.
I will fold AA.Send me plane tiket from Russia to US and I fold anything even 4 aces after the flop.
Haven't you ever been seated next to someone who continuously exposes hole cards?
D. Poker you see poker is more a mind game than anything else. You would know if the other two Aces are in play if you had played with the other players before or are good at picking up tells. It is quite remarkable how easy it becomes if you work at it. Where do you play and I what limits? Please respond ASAP, my gut feeling is you won't be playing long.
David writes : ....but also relegating you to almost always hoping for no more than half the pot.
In David's interesting scenario,
(1) you will be flopping a 4-flush about 2.5% of the time.
(2) there will be other playable flops which present additional back-door flush opportunities.
(3) the fact that you know your opponent has AA doesn't mean he knows what you're holding. There will therefore be hands in a heads-up (or even 3-way) situation where he will fold against you.
The combination of (1), (2) and (3) above seems sufficient grounds for changing David's "almost always" to something a little less forceful (like "a high percentage of the time").
Etienne
Etienne-
You raise a very astute point about the double nut-flushability of AA. It would provide some very profitable free roll possibilities in extreme cases. Coiencidentally, your concept came up in a very interesting no-limit hand that I played in a tourney this weekend.
I have T700 in chips, early in the tourney with average stack size of about T600. Blinds are only 10/20. Solid UTG player directly to my right brings it in for T100. I look down at AA and decide to make it T300 to go, happy to take down the T130, go heads up with the original raiser, or possibly a three-handed flop if one of the loosies behind me makes a bad call. Surprisingly, extra-bad player to my left raises my reraise and makes it T600 to go. (This guy plays any 2 big cards as if they are the nuts, but I don't think he's dumb enough to Rereraise two tight players unless he has AK or QQ.) Solid player in late position then cold calls! (The other two Aces, Kings or Queens for sure). It gets worse- Idiot on the button calls with her last 500, induced by all the chips and willing to gamble since we are still in the rebuy period. Buttons then fold, original raiser (the only guy who knows me well enough to put me on AA or KK since I came over the top of *his* raise) folds. I wing in my last T400, and the other two who still have chips call the T100 raise, which is allowed since I am all-in. Here is the field on the flop:
Idiot Button: All-in for T500 of equity
Idiot Rereraiser: In for T700 with another T700 to lose
Solid Player: In for T700 with another T1000 to play.
Me: All-in for T700, praying that I don't see a Q or K.
The flop is a beauty for me: 9 7 5 , with two hearts only giving me minor concern since I have the Ace of hearts.
The first guy to act checks (probably AK or AQ) and the solid player raises all-in, confirming my suspicion of his big pair. The other guy calls., looking for a suck out, but not realizing that he is drawing dead.
I don't even notice what the turn is, since it isn't an Ace or face card. River comes a Queen of hearts. Solid player shows his pocket Queens, but doesn't look that confident. Other two players hands go into the muck. I immediately turn over my Aces (no slow-roller am I) and decide to check the turn card before griping about this beat. Wait a minute- it is the 2 of *hearts*, and I have the nut flush!- taking down T2600 and leaving the set of queens with only the side pot for his efforts. He should have known better than to jam my early position reraisew with only Queens anyway.
p.s. Despite this stroke of luck and my formidable stack, I then proceeded to make an early exit by making and atrocious play with AQs. I guess I thought it was just my lucky day.
Two other scenarios are worth considering.
1. In the WSOP a few years ago it got down to three players. Two with huge stacks and one with a microstack. The payout for first place was $ 1,000,000, second was $ 400,000, and third paid $ 200,000. Both huge stacks went for big raises before the flop. (They were both fearless, excellent players determined to win the tournament.) The player with the microstack was not a name player. His chances to win the tournament were slim even if he tripled through both big stacks on the hand. He elected to throw his hand away. One of the huge stacks got busted and the microstack player got $ 400,000 rather than $ 200,000. For a non-professional that is a big win. I thought he would have been correct to throw AA in that spot since he was such a dog to win it all. For a great player, the same decision would be incorrect.
2. Mr. Sklansky has written you should never risk going broke. Mr. Brunson told a story about a time when he kept raising a drunk until he was all in as a small favorite. Naturally, the drunk made the flush and Mr. Brunson was broke. He stressed you shouldn't risk going broke as a small favorite, when if you just play solid, against bad players you can risk it when you are a big favorite. The situation I had in mind was when you are playing against bad players you know you can beat by patiently waiting for the right situation. You shouldn't risk all your money as a small favorite, if it will mean going broke. In that situation it might be right to toss AA before the flop.
I think that to throw AA away pre-flop to protect a nice win is wrong as long as I have the bankroll to rebuy.
Mike Baum
Yet, the even better answer is to never play a game that requires you to put your entire bankroll on the table, and thus you can't go broke on any one hand no matter what it is. Probably the greatest weakness (judging by the stories you hear) of the great old road players, and many other current pros, is playing in too big of a game for their bankroll. If your bankroll is down to $1,000, you shouldn't be in the PL or NL game, and even 3-6 is a risk. In other words, don't play over your head, and then always play AA preflop (unless, as David mentioned, you are in that 1 in a million spot of facing a multiway pot and you've seen someone else holding the other 2 aces).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You of course are correct, that you should never put your whole bankroll on the table in a pot limit or no limit hold'em game. Nevertheless, there once was a small pot limit game in this area that I never lost at. The players were all weak tight that I could read easliy.
If seven of these players were at the table with $ 1,000 in front of them and all I had was $ 1,000 I would still sit down because I would think I could outplay them and have better than 90% chance of winning $ 10,000. In that situation I wouldn't want to risk it all on AA before the flop with 6 or 7 already in for $ 300, because I know an even better situation is going to come up.
The game didn't last long because I broke everyone in it.
Mike Baum
Mike,
You write : If seven of these players were at the table with $ 1,000 in front of them and all I had was $ 1,000 I would still sit down because I would think I could outplay them and have better than 90% chance of winning $ 10,000.
I suppose it all boils down to our definitions of "going broke" and bankroll. We have to distinguish between short-term, or trip, risk of ruin and long-term risk of ruin.
To me, going broke means losing my entire bankroll, an amount of money that I will not be able to regenerate in just a couple of weeks, and thereby totally eliminating gambling and risk taking as a viable income option for the foreseeable future, together with all the hardship that this entails. Losing a session or trip bankroll is, by definition, not going to put me out of action, and, like you, I would be prepared to take on those 7 guys knowing that I have a 10% chance of losing my $1,000. If, however, the buy-in was, say, $100,000 then I'd let the 7 guys fight it out amongst themselves.
In short, you would sit down with them with your only $1,000 , because losing that $1,000 would not usher in a 2 year drought.
Etienne
i havnt read the other responses but here is mine, youve lost your mind, move in all your money or just go home and quit playing poker. this is befor the flop we are talking about right?
mabey i should clairfy my answer a bit. i realize that if 5 or more people are in the pot your a bit of a dog with your bullets, but if you lay down the best hand in hold em befor the flop i dont think you have the heart that it takes to play big bet poker, i think that they are going to walk all over you, at least that is what i would do if i knew what you did.
Ive been wanting to ask this question for a long time. I played a 20-40 HE game 18 months ago and almost folded AA pre flop because. Game is very loose 7-8 players see every flop big pairs have little value and are not holding up, this game had a very big deviation on bankrolls. Iam up 1200 down 300 up 1500 down 400. Finally I change my play to suited connectors, connectors and small pairs. Now 3 hours later Iam up a solid 1800 very little deviation. I would still of played AA KK QQ ect. but I wanted position and only QQ with 2 raises max and with only 5 other players or I would of folded. I had not personelly seen AA or KK all night though, but I did notice that I had not seen them win but maybe 4 big hands all night. Here is the hand in question, all but 1 player calls or raises to me Iam on the button its 100 to go no more raises. I look down and have AA my very 1st instinct was actually to fold. I assesed that because of the game, the players and the raises that my hand was dead. Thats right the absolute best hand before the flop I was sure could not win a contesed pot. Because I was sure that all players yet to act would call the 100. I called LB and BB called there was 1000, pre flop and I felt I had no chance to win. Flop came out 3 small rags two suited and 1 and 2 gapped no suites matched my AA. Only two players dropped before me again and it was 80 to go I folded. I truly believe if I was faced with that decision again I would fold pre flop and save my 100 and take a walk. Please comment on my play and decision. Also Iam thinking about that cab ride.
Again, the fold could only be correct if you were almost positve that someone else held the other two aces. It is not enough to know that the other two aces are out.
In his essay MM states at one point that he didn't think that one of his opponents was holding AA KK or QQ because that player didn't four-bet his hand preflop. With AA and KK I can understand this argument. With QQ though I disagree. If you bet early, are raised and there is a reraise you must take into account the possibility that someone is betting KK, AK or AA. You're a big dog or small favorite. Any A or K on the flop and you will have to perform a fold to any bet. I would definitely NOT reraise the reraiser with QQ.
Similarly MM in a recent post stated that he regularly three-bets TT. I wonder about this play. With TT you either want very few opponents if you hope your pocket pair will survive to the river, or as many as possible if you hope to make a set, in which case you want to get in as cheaply as possible. Three betting in late position is unlikely to limit the field if a couple of players have already called. Reraising in early position with TT will only make sure that you're called by either a very superior hand (AA, KK, QQ, JJ) or a hand not too far behind. (AQs, AK...) If there was an early raise, your hand is vulnerable to both overcards on the flop and the possible early bet overpair. TT is actually a hand I don't like very much, unless against a big field. Then applying the -NO SET NO BET- scenario is pretty comforting. So I guess the question is: Any disagreements?
Re-raising with 10-10 is a good play as well as many other hands. If there is a premium hand behind you when you are in early posistion, it is coming in any way. With only 1 or 2 players against you, many times you can win the hand on the flop. In late posistion re-raisng against one or at the most two players is okay. You would also of course want to raise in late posistion with several players. Pairs are interesting hands, from 55-up to99 .
In his essay "Detrimental is Good," Mason writes that high-limit stud can often be more profitable for an expert than high-limit holdem. Among other reasons, the ante in stud increases relative to the bets as the limits rise, handicapping the better players and making the bad players win a sufficient percentage of the time to keep them playing at that level. In holdem, the proportions are constant at the higher limits, and the better players dominate the games, the worse players rarely win, and the game becomes excessively tight. As such, good high-limit holdem is rarer than good high-limit stud.
Couldn't the blind structure in holdem be changed at the highest levels to keep the games playable? What if there were three blinds for a total of 2 or 2.5 small bets? What non-obvious effects would that have on the play of the game?
What would be so wrong with an ante? It would punish the rocks and unimaginative players that are bringing the game down. Hold'em is always a great game when it's new to an area. Lot's of people playing lots of hands. The loose players can get lucky and win huge pots. There is plenty of easy money for the percentage players. Basically it's all good. Fun game and the rake doesn't hurt you very much. But then sooner or later people start figuring out that you win more just sitting on your ass, waiting for AK or a pocket pair. Maybe every once in a while you bet on a 79 just to mix it up, but you still don't play many hands. The game slows down. The rake seems very painful. No more $200 pots in $5 games. Party over. I think an obvious solution would be to structure the game so that it pays to see the flop and play well after it. How about a $2 ante in a $5 spread game? There's a minimum of $20 to shoot for and you could get some huge pots going even before the flop with all 10 people having some stake in the game. Hell, why not extend it to the high limit games? It's not high stakes poker to play in $20 - $40 when only three people see the flop. Good players just beat each other up an the house squeaks out the only profit. How about a $10 ante spread limit up to $40. Already $100 in there. People will take shots at that with a lot of hands. You could easily see three raises before the flop and 7 or 8 callers. $1000 before the flop! Now who would begrudge $3 to the house in that situation! Don't most people consider poker to be gambling? Why are the games structured intentionally to minimize the gambling aspect? Now in the above scenario some would say that well, it's nothing but pure gambling. I disagree. Your judgement about what people would bet, raise, or call with on both pre and post flop would be crucial to your survival in this game. It's one thing to kiss off $10, quite another to be drawing dead for 3 bets a card. If you heard of such a game (the $1000 pre flop version) how many of you would like to play it? Or do some people actually enjoy throwing away hand after hand just waiting and hoping to fleece some moron tourist who doesn't know any better when he gets raised?
If such things as you mentioned existed then you are better off rolling dice to see who wins the pot. Forget about using cards.
While changing the betting structutre and adding an ante might help a little, hold 'em is still a community card game. And, as long as this is the case, tight play will prevail.
why not go for the gusto. no limit hold em. middle limits. everybody has about 2 grand in front of them. just make the blinds 2000, 2000. everybody goes all in befor the flop then just put five cards out on the board. everybody pulls out another 2 grand then its on to the next hand.
Let me try to state this clearly. Problem 1. Tight play is boring. Problem 2. Recreational poker players need entertainment value or they stop playing. They are paying to play. Problem 3. No recreational players = negative EV for the serious players as a whole. I disagree with the premise that tight play must prevail in a community card game. It would not be that hard to size the antes such that correct pre flop play would be to play say 60% of the hands. The winners in this game would still be the ones who played the correct number of hands pre flop and played well post flop. The difference is that there would be much larger pots and bigger deviations in expected return. The good players would still win in the long run, but the bad ones would get lucky often enough to keep coming back.
by the way, when will poker players ever get such terms as -moron tourests- out of their vocabulary, and more importantly, out of their thinking. last time i was playing at the mirage, bill gates was playing 3-6 hold em. i dont know, because 3-6 dosnt intrest me, but i suspect that he made several moves that i would consider less then skillfull. (im not saying that im the best judge of what is skillfull). my point is does that make bill gates a moron, and by the way for all i know bill made not one mistake by anybodies book, i wasnt in his game.but the point is do you think bill plays for money- in a 3-6? i dont think so. bill was gambling, and no doubt having a good time. does that make him a moron tourist? people play poker for different reasons and those of us that play to make money and take pride in our game had better smarten up and stop thinking of recreational poker players as suckers.especially dont insult them or try to smartin them up with your expertice, and dont make them feel uncomfortable at the table.
I love what you talk about here so much! A perfect example is Atlantic City! the Taj started with a .50 cent ante in 1-5 seven card stud.The game was so wonderful,you could use semi-bluffs,steals,mix your game up,THINK!isn't this what makes the games fun! Yes we all have to wait,but when we have rolled up deuces ect,we want the big pots-yes! After the Taj took out the antes,who can wait the longest? NOt who could play the best. What about dealers,would they not make more tips with larger pots? Don't forget that after 4 is taken out of the pot Hello no more Tax! thank you for the Conn. games for the .50 ante! You are totally correct a larger ante structure is much more intresting and will bring players back.WAKE UP ATLANTIC CITY! I HONESTLY THINK THIS IS THE MOST IMPOTANT ISSUE IN CREATING A LARGER POKER MARKET!
$1-$5 games, which always have a high rake, are just traps for tourists. I believe that many poker rooms would be better off to just get rid of all these games and bot spread anything smaller than $5-$10. But that's another story that I will address sometime in the future.
I also found Centurian's idea an interesting one.
Perhaps his suggested antes were too large and might make the game too much of a crap shoot. But it's certainly possible that the traditional 1x-2x hold'em betting structure rewards skill too much (at least at certain limits and certain locations).
Mr. Malmuth discourages cardrooms from routinely spreading pot-limit and no-limit games, in part because unskillful players are so unlikely to win. They become discouraged (or broke) and might quit playing poker.
I've seen the same thing happen in tight medium-limit games. If most of the players are solid, the loose players don't win often enough to keep coming back to the game. Some of the loose players become discouraged and either quit playing poker or drop down to lower limits (where there is more action), causing the medium-limit games to be even tighter. Then, the semi-loose players don't win often enough and drop down. Eventually, the medium-limit games fail to get enough players, and they die.
If a cardroom sees this happening, it might be a wise move on their part to change the hold'em betting structure so somewhat more luck is involved in the medium- and high-limit games (as they generally do with the stud games).
I posted this on the exchange board, but I forgot that nobody reads that board. Hopefully someone can help me here:
I'm currently thinking of purchasing the Turbo 7CS program. But I was just wonderin' if if was worth it. I'm sure there are people on this board who use the programs, so I was wonderin' what you think. I downloaded the demos and must say I wasn't too impressed. It was the old DOS version, so maybe the new Windows version is better. Is it worth nearly $100?
RE: your essay "A Few Decisions" 5/19/98
The hand was played "brilliantly" but you were lucky the card on the end did'nt improve one of your opponents. The check on the turn did induce an overcall and a bluff but you had THE overpair to the board and I would've bet the ace protecting your hand from the rivercard. Also getting a checkraise from a set hiding in the weeds would let you know better where you stand. whaddyu think?
If you ignore B. reraise to find out where he is at then the correct answer is to fold. I gave limited info on purpose because I wanted to see what Sklansky would say. But for some reason he refused to take the challenge. Oh well. The reason I wrote B. reraise to find where he is at is because reraising to find out info in a no-limit tourny is NEVER CORRECT. However when I wrote the challenge I forgot to say that you have a little more chips the the all-in better. For this guy to raise all in during a early part of a tourny in middle position and be a TIGHT PLAYER he has to have AA. Nothing else. This is true regardless of him flashing a A during other hands. The reason he has to have AA is that most no-limit players know that it is correct to play very tight early in a tourny REGARDLESS WHETHER IT IS A QUICK BLIND RAISE TOURNY OR A TOURNY THAT IS STRUCTURED LIKE THE WSOP. Anyhow I shall be playing in the Foxwoods World Poker Finals this year. I'll let you know how I do.
I still have to disagree:
1. Sklansky probably didn't respond because I don't think no-limit hold'em is his game. And tournanments are certainly not his specialty.
2. I agree that you should never raise to find out where he is at.
3. How come you get to decide the definition of a *tight* tournament player. Maybe you had a read on this guy that *he* would never raise all-in with less than Aces at this point in the tournament, but you can not make that general comment. I also highly doubt that you could have that good a read on anybody, unless you played hundreds of rounds with him and he never varied his play.
4. I consider myself a tight tourney player, and my image at my weekly game is even tighter than I really play. Here is a simple example of a *correct* all-in raise on the first round of a tourney, with actual blind structures:
T300 for $40 to start with T300 $30 rebuys for the first hour. Blinds start at 5/10 and double every 20 minutes. For the first round after the rebuy period, the blinds are 50/100, and go to 100/200 after 20 minutes. So, you better have a decent stack (T1000 or better) at the end of the rebuy period or you will need to make some desparation plays, and everybody knows that. Anyway, given that background, what would you do here:
First round of the tourney with T15 of blinds in the pot. Loose UTG player makes it T100 to go. Every regular at the table knows that this guy makes this play with any pair, AK through AJ, or suited Ace down to 8. (I don't endorse this, but it is *his* agressive blind-steal strategy.) It is folded to me, a "tight" player in middle position. I have Kings, or even Queens for that matter. Generally solid players (who respect me) are left to act behind me. Since I want to win and it will take some stack-building to do so, I have to go all-in with my KK, which will shut out everybody with less than AA, KK, QQ, or possibly AK. If I just call, I may get an overcall from AK or AQ, which I don't want! I would like to get heads up with the proabable underpair. If he has a big Ace, its a 3-outer. If he has Aces, so be it, I'll use another $30 and hope I get heads up with him with pocket Kings the rest of the night.
What would you do? Call and have a crippled hand if an Ace flops? Fold and wait for Aces? Get a cup of coffeee and wait for the late rounds of the tourney, when the blinds are 25%+ of stack size so that you can start playing looser, aloing with every other short stack?
You are forgetting one thing. My example DOES NOT have blind increases every 20 minutes which would impact your stratedgy. I stated that it is set like a WSOP tourny that has blind increases with a greater amount of time between them. That means that during the early rounds of the tourny you have absolutly no risk because your chip stack is far bigger in proportion to the blinds. By the way this stratedgy is part of the stratedgy that T. J. Cloutier uses to become one of the most respected and feared no-limit players around. People can play many ways but in my example it had to be AA hoping for a call but happy to win it right there. Other players will slow play the AA which is what I would try to do. What I tried to show and what nobody understood is that in early rounds of a major tourny few people take risks because THERE IS NO REBUY!. The player went all in with people still ahead of him. Think about that for a moment. He was not scared. He had to have AA. My answer to your example. If I have QQ I fold. If I have KK and the rebuy period is not over I go all in. If the rebuy period is up then I have to play the player to decide what to do with KK. P.S. why would someone go all in UTG with $15 in the pot very early in a tourny knowing that there are 8 or 9 players still to act after him with anything but AA? To me thats a losing proposition if done regulary.
I used the example because you wrote "REGARDLESS WHETHER IT IS A QUICK BLIND RAISE TOURNEY..." I guess I misunderstood your example, which I though you were portraying as an absolute. In a longer tourney with no re-buy period I would 100% agree to lay down the Kings if this guy was a decent player. I might even do it if he is a poor player, because he could have an AK or AQ or even AJ), and I could get spiked.
To answer your last question about the aggressive T15 ante- stealer. It is becasue he is a *BAD* player who once read that you have to be aggressive to win in no-limit. I love to have him at my starting table beacuse he has provided me many opportunities to go over the top of him. I have shown him JJ QQ and KK to his small pair and facecards so many times that he is finally starting to learn and I can usually pick up his raise uncontested.
I will also be at the Foxwoods finals. If you or T.J. Cloutier go all in before the flop in the early stages, I am outta there. You had better do the same. (But I may only have Kings if I am feeling lucky). Good Luck.
What events will you be entering Mike 7?
What is the general line-up of games? Is there something like the $2,000 NL event at the WSOP? (I'm saving my 10 grand for next year's big one) What about satellites?
I have played limit hold-em since my days growing up in Montana and only recently began playing no-limit hold'em (mainly satellite-style tourneys) I have been noticably improving my game and my results. I would like to play a *real* no-limit hold-em tourney with a reasonable blind/stack size structure at Foxwoods and possibly a limit event.
They will have several no-limit events including pot-limit events but I'm waiting for Foxwoods to post the event on their web site which they should during the fall.
Situation: $ 5-$ 10 hold'em game with $ 2 SB and $ 5 BB. The person on the button had a $ 10 kill on it, which raised the limits to $ 10 -$ 20 and gives him last action before the flop. Four people limp in for $ 10. I have Ac4d in the BB. There is $ 55 in the pot. I limped in for the $ 5 counting 11 to 1 money odds on my call. Is this a bad call?
The man in the kill spot hesitated and checked. I thought he was considering raising.
The flop came Ad10d4h. I checked my two pair with the intention of raising. The player just to the left of me bet $ 10. Everyone else folded to the kill player who called, I raised $ 10, both called. Both these players play an Ace with a bad kicker suited. They both play most suited hands. I felt I was probably upgainst an Ace and a flush or straight draw. The pot is now $ 120.
The turn card was the 8h. I bet $ 20 and both called. The pot is now $ 180.
The river card was the 6h making both a back door straigt and back door flush possible. I bet because I thought the chances of my opponents having hands they could call with that I could beat were greater than hands they would bet. The player to my left folded but, the kill man raised it to $ 40. I have never seen this man bluff raise so I was pretty sure I was beat. There was $ 240 in the pot, so I was getting 12 to 1 to call. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of a single hand he would do that with that I could beat. Should I have checked on the river?
I analyze the situation as follows:
Probable hands that beat me: KQh, KJh, QJh, and A6s (He considered raising pre flop) 4
Unlikely hands that beat me:
A6u. (He wouldn't have considered a raise pre flop) 5
Unlikely hands that beat me:
A10 (6), 1010 (3), 88 (3), A8 (6). 22 (I thought he would have raised on the flop or turn.)
Unlikely hands that beat me:
A6 (5) (I thought he would have raised on the turn) 5
Tie: A4 (4) 4 My bet here may cause him the fold 20% of the time.
Unlikely hands I could beat and he might call: AK (8), AQ (8), AJ (8), A7 (8), A5 (8), A3 (8), A2 (8), KK (6), QQ (6), JJ (6). Total 82
The odds against him having me beat looked like 2 to 1 but, I haven't ever seen him raise bluff on the river. The only hands he will raise with have me beat; therefore, I should fold.
Your suggestions, comments, opinions, criticisms are welcome.
Mike Baum
If you have never seen this player bluff raise on the end, I think you are correct, you should fold. If you had seen him bluff like this, even once before, you should call. Lie about your hand and say you missed a draw and had no pair. Never let them know you will fold a hand in this spot.
I know a lot of players will respond that you have to call for the size of the pot. I'll make you a wager, always call in spots like this for the next month, track how much you win when you hand is good and how much you lost when you were beaten. I'll wager you lost enough money by making those reflex calls on the end to hurt your hourly wage.
No percentage to bet on the river. You had nothing to gain. I would have checked and reluctantly called (everbody bluffs now and then).
I was betting in the chance he had one of the 82 hands he might have that I could beat and the small chance that if he had the same hand A4 he might fold because of the possible flush. I didn't think he would bet any of these hands if I check, but might call with these losers.
Mike Baum
When I play with a kill, the kill button does not have last action unless also the big blind. I have never played the variation you describe. Maybe I'm too tight in multiway pots from the blind positions, but calling with A4 offsuit seems to be just a way to get in trouble. You really need a 20+:1 miracle flop (which you got). Pairing the ace on the flop puts you under the gun in a difficult situation. I would be tempted to try for a checkraise after flopping top and bottom pair, but there are two big cards plus a diamond draw possible. I doubt I would risk the possibility of everyone checking behind me on the flop, particularly when there was no raise before the flop - kill limit not withstanding. I might risk giving a free card to a hand like KQ, but not to both big cards and a flush draw. So, I'd bet the flop with the intention of three betting any raiser. If everyone just calls the bet on the flop, I'll be giving serious consideration to checkraising a blank on the turn. Checking the turn would imply enough weakness that I think I would get a bet from another ace, maybe JJ, JT, or T9. Since your checkraise on the flop made it three handed, I don't think you can do anything else except bet out when the blank hits the turn. You don't fear a stronger hand at this point (just lots of draw potential), so checking up front in an attempt to induce a bet from a weaker hand on the river would be wrong. When the river brings a semi-scare card, I don't like giving anyone the chance to make me have to put in two bets to showdown. This is an easy check/call, but a very difficult situation to have to call a raise. If you thought the button would raise on the turn with a hand like Ah9h (fits the hesitation pre-flop) or Jh9h, then you probably do have to call the raise on the river. See how you found a tough pot to contest even though you had a very good flop, when you made a loose call from a blind position with AX?
I think 11-1 is plenty to fill in a partial blind with A4, but I would be interested in an Author's opinion, considering the likelihood of players playing any Ace.
The gut draws (KJ) and one pairs are NOT getting the right odds to call even one bet in this spot if you bet your top and bottom pair, so check-raising is very risky. Also, you can very realstically get three bets in on the flop or you may set you up for a call, then check-raise on the turn if you feel sporty against predictable opponents if you bet out, and betting may disquise your hand, since opponents will rightfully suspect you of having a draw with AsTs4h flop.
Bet on the flop into this 6bet pot. If there were a raise pre-flop, tend to check-raise, since a bet is likely and you need to make the gut draws face a double bet. With more opponents and a bigger pot, also consider check-raising.
Bet on the turn is correct, unless you think a check-raise will work. Notice that a free card is not so bad in this spot, since any lagitimate draw is going to call anyway and you are against only 2 opponents. Against more opponents, the check raise is more appealing.
Surely someone will pay this off, so bet on the end.
Raised on the end? Routinely call this raise. The exception is if you KNOW this player will never bluff, AND will never raise with say TsUp. But then, that's the situation you were in. Oh well, ...
- Louie
I have seen both players I was up against play Ace anything suited or unsuited in an unraised pot. Both play lots of suited hands. The player on my left will usually bet a flush draw, but the man in last position won't bet anything other than what he thinks is the best hand. Both might also call to the end with something like K10, Q10 etc. This situation set up my bet on the end. I bet with the good likelihood of being called by either or both players with second best hands. I didn't think either of them would bet if I checked unless they had backdoored the flush.
When the man on the end raised, I knew I was in trouble.
Mike Baum
HI guys--
I just found this forum and I haven't really played much at a casino. Could someone please define a "kill" for me. Is it the same thing as a straddle?
Thanks--
Ralebird
From the rec.gambling.poker FAQ (which can be found at the link I've included at the bottom):
Q:P18 What is a kill pot? What is a game with a kill? What is a half kill? A:P18 [Stephen Landrum]
Big bet (no-limit or pot-limit) poker frequently allows a player to "kill the pot", by posting an amount equal to current to-go amount, and the amount to-go (to come into the hand, or call preflop) is now double the kill amount. In no-limit games, players are frequently allowed to kill for more than the to-go amount, but for no more than 1/2 of their stack. Some games allow overkills - after someone has killed the pot, someone else can kill it again, raising the amount to-go to double the new kill amount. There may be a limit to the number of kills allowed on a hand, even though the game is "no-limit". Killing the pot alters the order of action preflop/predraw. The killers act after the blinds in the order in which they killed the pot. After the flop or draw, action returns to its normal order.
To kill the pot in Hold'em or other flop games, the kill must be announced (either verbally or by placing the amount of the kill in the pot) before any cards are dealt. Draw lowball games frequently allow players to kill the pot after seeing two cards - and some places even allow a kill in lowball after the 3rd card is dealt. No-limit draw lowball also frequently allows the player with the big blind to place a blind which is larger than the normal amount, but still smaller than the to-go amount, and the new to-go amount is twice the big blind.
Example: In a 1-2-2, 5-to-go Hold'em game, the player on the button (who also has the $1 blind) decides to kill it for $5, rebuying his right to act last before the flop. The blinds now look like 5-2-2, and the game is now 10-to-go. After the player to the right of the button acts, the two $2 blinds act, then the killer acts.
Example: In a draw-lowball game, 1-1-2 blinds, 4-to-go, the player with the big blind puts out $3 before cards are dealt and it is now 6-to-go. After two cards are dealt, the player to the right of the button kills the pot for $10, and it is now 20-to-go. The player after the blinds is first to act. After the player in front of the killer acts, the button and other blinds must act, and then the killer acts.
Limit lowball games also frequently allow a player to kill the pot from any position. In this case, the killer makes a blind of the current limit, and the limit is doubled for that hand. As in no-limit games, the player who kills the pot acts last after the blinds before the draw, and action resumes to the normal order after the draw.
In addition, some limit games are played with a kill or a half kill. In these games, there is some condition which if met, raises the stakes of the game - doubling them in the case of a kill game, or increasing them by 50% in the case of a half kill. In addition to the normal blinds posted for the game, the player who met the kill condition must post a blind equal to the new small bet size. This blind is instead of the small or big blind if the player would have been in position to have one of those. In some clubs the killer gets to act last after the blinds; but in others the killer acts in normal turn order.
In a high only game, the condition is typically that someone wins two pots in a row. In a high-low split game, the condition is usually that someone takes the whole pot, and that the pot is some minimum size.
For example: in a 10-20 Omaha-8 game with a half kill that I've played in, if someone scoops a pot with $100 in it, then they must post a $15 blind and the next hand the game is 15-30.
Here is basic strategy for holdem before flop.
Gear 1
Early position
1-2 bets
AA,KK,QQ,JJ,AKs,AQs
Middle position
2 bets
AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AKs,AQs,AKo
1 bet
AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AKs,AQs,AJs,ATs,KQs,QJs,JTs,AKo
Late position
2 bets
AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,AKs,AQs,AJs,ATs,KQs,QJs,JTs,AKo
1 bet
AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT,99,88,77,66,55,44,33,22,AKs,AQs,AJs,ATs,A9s,A8s,A7s,A6s,A5s,A4s,A3s,A2s,KQs,KJs,KTs,QJs,QTs,JTs,J9s,T9s,98s,87s,76s,65s,54s,AKo,AQo,AJo
If this is basic only when you whant to change your style for tight.
Any coments welcome?
What about playing from the blind positions? What about reraising from early position when you just called with a hand like TT? What about playing against a raise from an opponent who you know would only do this with a super-premium type hand? What about making use of any player tells? And so on, and so on... I would think that sticking to an invariable *basic strategy* would leave you playing no better than a computer opponent, and they're still easy to beat (Wilson's TTH2 included).
What about playing against a raise from an opponent who you know would only do this with a super-premium type hand? Andrew this is counter strategy it is way poker so interesting. I will give you railroad example spesial workers spend 2 months creating scedgule for next year but when one train for some reson not ready for scedgelu run then you have to think About using counter strategy. What about reraising from early position when you just called with a hand like TT? This is deception. Whath i want to tolk about is basic. When scedgule created you can run the line math beter.
Then let's get even more basic than starting hand requirements: the players. Poker is a game of psychology played with cards which uses money to keep score. You can have a perfect starting hand strategy percentage wise, and do no better than break even if you don't apply psychology. Why do you suppose that raising with 75 offsuit is a winning play for some people, when this is such an obvious mathematical mistake? I'm not berating your starting hand chart at all, in fact it is quite good. Sticking to a fixed starting hand chart when I'm playing from behind or as a rationalization for not getting upset when I fold J3 and the flop comes J33, is what I find most useful about them.
What are the major strategy differences between no-limit holdem and pot-limit holdem?
What about between pot-limit holdem and pot-limit Omaha?
In no-limit you try to shut opponents out of the pot. In pot-limit you try to build the pot. There is more then this but these things are a basic strategy to go by. Also in pot-limit you cant't alter pot odds quite as much as no-limit but more so then limit. This will impact your strategy greatly. As for omaha you will have to ask Ray Zee about that.
i think the best advice on this question can be found by comparing pot-limit and no- limit poker by bob ciaffone and stewart reuben to the section on no limit hold em in the super system by d. brunson. then take what you have learned and compare it with championship no limit and pot limit hold em by t.j. cloutier. with hold em i think position is the main thing. in pot limit you dont want to get out of postition with a draw. lets start with an example. you play 4,5 in early position in pot limit. player raises behind you and everyone else folds, you call. flop comes k , 3, 6. say the raiser has bullets. in no limit you might want to checkraise. for all or most of your money. he would have a lot of thinking to do. you would checkraise in order to give him a chance to bet at it so you can win some money with your semibluff. if he calls you its not that bad, you have some outs, and there is an excellent chance you will win when you raise your whole stack. thats the problem of being caught out of position in pot limit, you cant raise him your whole stack. say there is 40 in the pot , you check , he bets 40- you call, then raise 80, he calls- the money is deep, now what are you going to do if the turn is a blank- bet again? check and fold? bet? cant play draws out of position in pot limit without getting into some sticky situations. in no limit you can blast em out of the pot unless your enemy is looking at the nuts. cant do that in pot limit.got to play pot limit more like limit. no limit you can call a raise with drawing hands from any position if the raiser is deep because of the implied odds. pot limit you really need position and more then just the two or you in the pot to justify calling a raise. anyway those books ive pointed out, plus a lot of guts should get you on the right track. have fun. omaha you can flop such a big draw you might be willing to play for all your money either on the flop or the turn, much like no limit hold em, where as in pot limit hold em you might need to put on the brakes, or even give it up if you make a play for the pot and then get played with. have fun- they are great games, you will have to do a lot of guessing- so will the enemy.
Centurion,
You need to be more selective with starting hands as raises behind you can be so large as to preclude you from seeing the flop. In no-limit weaker hands that improve can win much more money later on, so that it means that in pots where a player can expect no raise behind him a weaker hand can be played in no-limit, and if possible raises are likely a much stronger hand is needed. This is why I try much harder to have the passive players to my left and the raising players to my right in no-limit. Small stacks are more powerfull in no-limit as they can put maximum heat to the pot early and can actually control the game in the hands of an aggressive player. In omaha with 4 cards, drawing hands are frequently the favorite over a made hand. This makes the play of your hand more important than the starting value. A missed bet or an incorrect check can have a much larger effect on the outcome of the pot in omaha than in holdem. Postion has more value in omaha. The list goes on and on but these are somethings to think about. Good luck.
My wife and I are heading to Vegas soon. I'm a new 7-stud player who really enjoys a loose small limit game. I prefer 3-6, or 4-8 stud but am right at home in a 1-4, or 1-5 game since thats all I can find back home. I've sat in a grind game before but got bored to death because of the little action and small pots. This is my first trip to nevada since I took up poker and I have no idea where to find my type of game. So please--- even though you people play higher stakes than me, help me out. After all , as I get better I may move into your games, so you better be nice to me now or I'll make sure I get your money later.
Brad i play 1-5 and 3-6 somitimes 5-10. I love this forum. But i will not be scared bay yor words,raises or anythinck else. About games in vegas i play in shara once game was lose pasive with a lot of caling stantion, but you beter ask someboby on exchange forum.
IMHO the 3 best poker rooms for lower limits are Binions, Mirage and Orleans. For higher limits Binions and Mirage are the only rooms available that I know of, with only the Mirage having very high limit games.
Sams Town and the Stations Casinos (Palace, Boulder, Texas and Sunset) are also worth a try for low limit 7 Stud.
I also recommend that you try one of the small stud tournaments around town. Orleans has a good $20 buy in stud tourney on Tuesdays at 7 pm. Find a copy of Cardplayer Magazine and look under Nevada Tournament Trail for complete list of weekly tournaments. Finally, if you want to be sure to always find good poker action in L.V., learn to play holdem and omaha.
Harrah's, right across the street from the Mirage has 3-4 $1-5 Stud games always going on. They also have a bad-beat jackpot and provide food comps.
Last night i come to Foxwood to play hold'em, but there was no holdem seat but i was ready for some action. I ask if I can play somethink else.Is it rihgt choise or if i was prepering to play hold'em i should wait for hold'em seat? Anyway i take seat in 5-10 7 card stud. Game have: 4 loose and not agresive,but resonable playres. One gay was bad player he always go to fifth stret. He always call on fifth street with three flash,three straigt.With any pair,straigt or flush draw he will call on sixth stret. He almost never bet or raise without nuts. He will call on river if he can beat you on board. One player was resanobly tight and not very agresive. One player was resonably tight and agresive, but he bluff to match.After 80 minutes i was wining 104$ and was called for hold'em game. but i choise to stay in this game as long as bad player was here. Is it rihgt choise or if i was prepering to play hold'em i should take for hold'em seat? After 270 more minutes i was wining 537$ more. I establish tigth image.
Game structure is 0.5$ ante; 2$ bring-in; 5$ on third and fourth street; 10$ on fifth, sixth, seventh stret or whit pair door card on fourth stret. Rake is 4$ max.
I want to talk about one hand. Up cards are: 2c, Jc, 4c, 9s, 8c 7h, 9c, 5d. My hand (4d,7d)5d. I have last position. 2c bring-in. Jc raise. Evryboby call. I raise. (To bild pot or get free card if miss. I going to call on four streth, unless i miss and somedoby catch something scary. And i think i beter put money in here.) What you thing maybe i shold only call? 2c fold. Evrybody else call. On fourth streth up cards: are Jc-9h, 4c-Ts, 9s-Qs, 8c-Tc, 7h-Ah, 9c-2h. My hand is (4d,7d)5d,Kd. 7A (player hwo bluff to match) bet. 92 (bad player) call. I raise. (same resons.) What you thing maybe i shold only call? J9,9Q,8T call. A7 reraise. 92 call. I call.(A7 maybe on flash draw to.) What you thing maybe i shold raise? Evrybody else call. On fifht stret up cars are: Jc-9h-4s, 9s-Qs-Qc, 8c-Th-6s, 7h-Ah-Jd, 9c-2h-3d. My hand is (4d,7d)5d,Kd,5c. 9QQ (tight player) bet. 7AJ, 923 call. I raise (to get free card and represent trips.) What you thing maybe i shold only call? J94 fold. Three players call. On sixth stret up cards are 9s-Qs-Qc-Qd, 7h-Ah-Jd-6c, 9c-2h-3d-8d. My hand is (4d,7d)5d,Kd,5c,Kc. Check round. What you think maybe i shoud bet represeting a boat?
On last card my hand is (4d,7d)5d,Kd,5c,Kc(6h). 7AJ6 bet. Bad player fold. I call??? 9QQQ fold. 7AJ6 had pair of aces and 4 flush.
Your suggestions, comments, opinions, criticisms are welcome
The loose player MAY be getting the right odds to call with his 3-flush/3-straight "whipsaw" on 5th, but IS usually getting the right odds to call with just one pair on 6th; the pot usually being pretty big by then. Its the nuts when the loose players routinely call until 6th, then fold their one pair.
There are no "loose passive reasonable players".
Yes, stay in this game instead of going to holdem. Except that you should aleady have scouted out the holdem since you knew this decision was coming.
ReRaise with your small 3-str/flush.
Raise with your 4-flush. You will make this flush more than half the time since its so live. If the opponent has a bigger flush draw, then about half the time you make it you lose, but you seem to be getting 5-1 for your 3-1 shot draw; and you have some straight potential as well.
If they call raises with other people improve then this IS a great game.
On 5th street I believe your hand got worse, and "representing trips" seems to be a waste of time. Tight players who get big open pairs should be taken seriously.
On 6th, be glad you got the free card, but be conserned about quad queens. "Representing" a boat will stop them from raising with a flush, but NOT from calling. The pot is way too big to be folding made hands for only one bet.
Gutsy call on the end when you were beat in sight behind you. If this pot is worth one bet to beat the possible A high flush draw then it is worth another bet to insure NOT getting an over call; especially from the QQQ or someone with a straight.
Raise on the end to protect this big pot.
Babble playfully and incoherently in Russian after showing this hand. Be SURE they remember that you built a HUGE pot, and never got any money in with the best hand. ;)
- Louie
Caveat: I haven't got a lot of stud (high only) experience. On the other hand, I reread the stud chapter of Brunson's Super/System this morning.
I agree with your decision to stay at this table. Judging from the play of this hand, it was very live!
3rd street: Brunson recommends not raising with come hands on third street, in order to save bets when you miss, and add deception when you hit. This applies particularly to low upcards, which are more easily put on draws. With so many players, if you make a low flush or straight, you could be in trouble. On the other hand, I think the pairs are donating a lot of money here. It's a hard call, but I'm going along with the raise. What decides it for me is the probability that, if seven players call a raise, they're not going to have the discipline to fold when you improve.
4th street: I like this raise too. It should look to your opponents like you have 2 pair or a 4-flush, but obviously they are "action players." I would have raised again here too. Even if you are chasing a bigger flush draw, I like your odds. All your cards are live, so you stand to hit 70% of the time. Even if the 7h Ah is also on a flush draw, yours should hit and hold up at least 25% of the time. Besides, it may set up a bluff or free card later.
5th street: This is a classic play. With three 9's dead, you have to put 9QQ on a pocket pair or a flush draw, or possibly a straight draw (perhaps broken such as TQ in the hole.) Since he didn't raise on third street, the pocket pair seems less likely. Raising now seems likely to buy you checks on the next two cards, if you want them.
6th street: I wouldn't recommend a steal attempt in this spot. The QQQ is forced to call even if you show him a 5, and he may be trying a check-raise. Also, you're sure to chase everyone else out, although that is a smaller issue.
7th street: Well, this play is discussed in Super/System. I must say, it was a bad lay-down by the set. Like several of the plays in this hand, the best evidence that they were right is how well they worked. Obviously, this player did not have enough imagination to fear that both of you were bluffing him. It's also possible that he would have seen through a raise, but didn't think you would be "crazy" enough to try a "call bluff." Considering that this bluff risks one to two bets less than the raise would have, I think it was definitely a good play. I hope you didn't try to bluff this guy again though.
So, I go along with all of it, except you missed a bet on fourth street. What do you think of my analysis?
By the way Boris, do you deliberately type with a Russian accent? If not, you might want to start using a spell- checker.
-Tom Hayes
6th street: I wouldn't recommend a steal attempt in this spot. The QQQ is forced to call even if you show him a 5, and he may be trying a check-raise. If show him a K he may fold?
I would be interested in any comments, escpecially from the mathematically inclined, about the play of low to medium suited connectors when you flop either one suited card or, more commonly and better, one to a straight. I rarely go to the turn unless I have a pair to give my self an out if I do not catch perfectly. I pursue open ended draws; sometimes inside ones, if the pot is large, but not three cards to.. Friday night I watched as several three cards to draws became low, nut straights. Taking those pots would have resulted in a winning night instead of a losing one. Am I giving up too early? Is chasing these a winning play? In a loose game or a tight one? Should I chase in either game if I have pot odds?
I would caution about questioning your strategy because on one you see a series of hands where something unusual happens. This thinking leads to undisciplined play. I've been through sessions where it seemed that every rag I folded would have sucked out to win a huge pot, and all the good starters I did play turned into losers.
Flopping one to your flush or straight is generally not enough to continue on unless you have other things going for the hand, or the pot is huge.
A three flush will make the runner-runner flush 90/2162 (4.16%) of the time. You'll pay 1 small bet + 10/47 big bets to get there (assuming no-one's raising), and you'll need a pot that's more than 17 big bets when you get there to make it worth it, and that's assuming that your flush is always good when you make it. A three straight is even worse.
There are some combinations of weak draws that are more often playable - combos like 3 straight + 3 flush, gutshot + 3 flush, gutshot + possibility of double gutshot or open-ender draw on turn. The extra equity from a backdoor draw can often tip a hand from a fold to a call on the flop.
I have occassionally played the three straight-three flush combo; but I do not recall playing gutshot plus three flush, or a double gut. I will be more alert to these possibilities.
The hands I got, or didn't get, because I folded them sent me out of a rebuy tournament early. I then rode a roller coaster the rest of the evening, but very late turned two low straights by tagging along as three other players went to war with big, unsuited cards. It did not occur to them that any one would play such puny flops, but I had open ended straight draws. In both cases the low end dropped on the turn. No flush came on the river. So I won, much to the consternation of the other players. Then, however, I failed to take advantage of the image I had created by not raising when I picked up a gutshot on the turn a few hands later. I still had a openended draw. If I had gotten agressive, it is possible the two players left in the hand would have folded. A queen came on the river. A player made trips, and I missed. The two hands I made had nearly caught me up, and I got timid. Earlier I would have bluff raised. A combination of relief and fatique destroyed the edge that I had. Not a big losing night, but one misplay cost me enough to have left a winner. Maybe...
In POKER, GAMING, & Life David Sklansky has a discussion as to when it is correct to play a backdoor flush draw on the flop.
Gee Mason, so we all have to go buy Davids book to get an answer from you. People will buy your books if you are open and responsive. If you answered the question with a comment that this answer and other similar topics could be found in DAVIDS BOOK, YOU WOULD SELL MORE BOOKS! Remember that some of the topics in that book are now outdated, or David has changed philosophies on a few topics.
i will try to defend Mason. I am loking at this forum to find smething new, interesting, to improve my game. If Mason responde olredy in David book and I am still iterested i will reread the book. If Mason jast repit wath in David book he will waste his my and other reders time.
And i want to qusten Mason: Do you recomend loking in David book to save time or you want to sell more book by doing it?
I know Mason can speak for himself, but I feel I can respond to your question. Mason is quite a busy guy. He was lamenting the other night at the Mirage that this year he would probably only be a "social" poker player. On the other hand, he finds his publishing business very interesting and exciting. Mason just got through several months of co-writing and editing one book, and editing another. Right now Mason is reviewing a new manuscript that we will publish, beginning updates of several books, and discussing new projects with our primary writers. On top of that, he coordinates marketing projects with me, writes articles for gaming magazines, gives speeches at industry functions......and fits in time to be with his girlfriend. On top of that, he tries to keep up with this forum on a daily basis. That's not easy. I find that I get behind very easily.
I believe that when Mason responded as he did with a reference to David's essay, it was for the sake of economy of words. Mason tries to respond as much as possible. When he's got a busy week, I notice that his posts become infrequent, and shorter. When he as a little more time on his hands, he posts more.
As far as selling books, of course we want to sell books. That's what publishers do. Frankly, we believe that most of our regular posters and readers on the forum have most of our books. We hope that this forum accomplishes many things. One of which is to indirectly sell books, and another is to disseminate good gambling theory information. This web site does generates a few direct sales, (which all go to Chuck at Conjelco.) But, I have mentioned before on this forum, that the majority of our sales are in the national book chains. I would guess that the majority of our new readers don't know about this forum. All new books printed will have the web address included in them.
I hope this helps explain his short post.
If anyone would like to discuss this further, post here, or send me a private e-mail
Jessica
Jesica Mason my favorite poker writer. I am sure his respode was sort becose he is bisy. But being fan of this forum and 2+2=4 books i want to here more from Mason, Ray, David, and you
In live games the opportunity to play gut draws for one bet on the flop are common. If you plan to take one card only (12-1) you need to win about 15 small bets by the river (3 or more bets to cover made straights that lose). If two opponents are likely to pay if off that's 8 bets right there.
Most LOOSE holdem hands are plenty big enough to draw one card to nut gut shots on the flop.
Worse: 2-flush on flop, vrs a set. Likely exacty one player going to show down.
MUCH worse: pair on flop, low end gut shot, against a raise.
Better: raise B4 flop, likely raise if you hit it, likely overcalls when you hit it.
MUCH better: two over cards, 3-flush, possible double gut or straight draw on turn, likely free card on turn.
- Louie
Roger,
It's almost never worth calling a bet on the flop with nothing but a backdoor flush or straight draw. You'll make such a draw only about 4 percent of the time. See David S's book, _Poker, Gaming, and Life_ where he has an essay analyzing the pot odds needed to call a bet with just a backdoor flush draw. He concludes that you generally need to be getting at least about 30-1. You won't get that very often.
You write: "I rarely go to the turn unless I have a pair to give my self an out if I do not catch perfectly."
It sounds like you may be thinking of the backdoor draw as your primary draw and want some other outs to back it up. I guess you could look at it this way, but it seems kind of backwards. The backdoor draw is a pretty tiny thing by itself, but can be an important *supplement* to any other outs you have. Usually you would look at something like bottom pair, for example, and perhaps decide to call if you *also* have an extra out such as a backdoor flush draw. It can sometimes increase your chance of winning enough to turn a fold into a call. Again, David S. has covered this. I think it's in _Sklansky on Poker_.
You write: "Friday night I watched as several three cards to draws became low, nut straights. Taking those pots would have resulted in a winning night instead of a losing one. Am I giving up too early?"
In line with what I said above, no you're probably not often giving up too early if a backdoor draw is all you have. One of the *very* most important things you can do in poker is to learn not to concern yourself with short term results - yours or other's. Whether or not someone won the pot, whether a pot would turn your night into a winning one is unimportant. What is important is whether or not you play correctly. If you do then, in time, you'll make money.
If those players were calling with only a backdoor draw, they were making a mistake unless the pot was *really* big. But when you see this you should observe to see if such a draw is in fact all they have. Do they have something like a gutshot straight draw or overcards, but happen to make the backdoor draw that they had *as well*? If so then they might not be making a mistake at all.
BTW though I think if you just deal the cards out a backdoor straight draw will get there a tiny bit more often than a backdoor flush draw, I'm not sure it's the better draw to have. Some of the times it gets there it does so by turning into a gut shot draw on the turn. So you're stuck with another pretty thin draw and usually won't have a big enough pot to call. Maybe someone else can confirm or correct my thinking on this.
Oops, sorry if my post seemed like a bit of a repetition of Stephen Landrum's. I was working on it over the course of about a half hour while I simultaneously attended to some other matters. When I finished, there was his post. Had I seen it first, I'm not sure I would have bothered... Oh well.
I am in the intemediate stage of learning this game, so I appreciate advice from experienced players. And, you're right, I should ask myself if I have over cards to the flop, the strength of a pair, and then the draw. No post is wasted. Thanks.
I played at a limit hold-em tournament at the Commerce Casino Friday night. The prize pool was $175,000 with 265 players entering. The buy-in was $300 with unlimited rebuys the first two hours.
There were 50 players left. I was in the small blind and had roughly $5000 in chips left. The blinds were 200 and 400 with 27 places being played. The total amount of chips in play was $285,000. A player in middle position raised. He had roughly the same amount of chips left as I had. I never played with him before. The button made it three bets to go all in. I looked at my hole cards and had pocket tens. What should I do?
We are now playing with 300 and 600 blinds. I have $8600 in chips left. I am under the gun and have AQ offsuit. There are now 38 players left. What is the correct play in this situation?
I will relate the final outcome later.
First situation, short-stacked against an even shorter stack is automatic call with the tens (sounds like it cost you 1000 to call his all-in). The second situation depends on more variables than you've given, but I'd be inclined to raise and see what happens.
1. Call. Try for top set. Opponents likely have cards above ten, usually an Ace, possibly a bigger pair. 2.Raise. No one may call.
I decided not to play the pocket tens after a long deliberation. With $5000 in chips I did not feel desperate. To make a long story short the flop came 7 high. The original raiser turned over pocket kings and the all in player had AK. A 10 fell on the river.
I played the AQ and the button made it three bets. He had roughly the same amount of chips I had. The flop came K 10 6. I checked and he bet and I called. An A came on the turn and I called on the turn and the river and failed to improve my hand. The button turned over pocket 6's. Looking back in retrospect I think it was a mistake to play AQ in this situation. I had more than the average chip amount at this point and AQ is a very vulnerable hand in this situation. In an UTG situation in a 9 handed table I think group 1 hands are the only playable hands under most conditions.
aq AQ
The proof of the play, whatever it is, is whether it helped you to get into the money. AQ is not a premium hand, but may allow you to steal if the sight of the final table is causing some players to sit on their chips. Tens may be group 2, but I would have a tough time laying them down, considering that the next hand might be trash.
I would have played both hands the same way. Any overcard to your pocket tens on the flop will paralyze your play. Betting your pocket tens with overcards on the flop basically comes down to a pure bluff. I think you will want to avoid any confrontation with a shaky holding. Your chip position is only slightly under average. No reason to shift in high gear yet.
Raising the AQ in early position is the right thing to do. The alternative is folding. Not an attractive choice. AQ is an excellent hand to win a short handed pot. Your raise should limit the field to two or three players. I think you were just unlucky. You may have bet on the flop though and abandon the hand if your opponent bets into you on the turn after you check.
Spielmacher
Bruce S.,
With hand 1 it's a judgement call. Keep in mind that if the flop looks unfavorable to you and your opponent it will probably be checked to the river which hurts the all in player. In this situation it was probably best for the all in player if you folded. Notice that if you would have called it would be best if you checked all the way to the river if the opponent who initially raised would fold to a bet on the flop.
With hand 2 it's a clear raising hand imo. You can't judge the value of this play by the result of one hand. Against a pair of 6's you are a slight dog but if the 6's don't improve on the flop and the flop has 1or 2 high cards and you don't pair, the 6's will fold frequently if you bet. You will also win pre-flop when no player calls often enough as well as pairing up often enough that your hand is most definitely worth playing for a raise imo.
Tom Haley
You are about average in chips, you have enough to play a a few hands through, and you are far from the money. This is a time for solid conservative play since squeaky-tight survival mode will get you to the money with few chips left, and you haven't enough chips to routinely attack the small stacks.
With the TT you are surely up against the raiser with two overcards or an overpair, as probably does the all in blind. Pocket pairs vrs two players with over-cards is not a good situation (certainly at least a small dog, good chance a big dog, and don't know which), since they have the initiative and they know whether or not they have or make a pair.
TT looks like a clear fold in a tournament, and maybe a crying call in a ring game, assuming you have some advantage over the raiser.
With the AQ under the gun: if we assume the opponents are worthy then you shant be called with a lesser hand if you raise (who would call a tight UTG raise heads up with AJ?), excepting the big blind. A raise is intended to win the pot now, or go to the flop with the lesser hand out of position yourself.
Raising under the gun with AQ in a tournament is STEALING; and works when nobody has a premium hand (just like betting nothing on the flop is stealing, and works when nobody has a pair). If stealing is a valid option then consider doing it with smaller drawing hands like 87s or 66. Stealing would be an option if the BB is in survival mode AND has enough chips to play another round.
- Louie
In the recent issue of Card Player magazine, some notable tourney player (I forget the name) was grousing about how he got knocked out of the big one at the WSOP by a guy (another big name), who misplayed his hand. Here is what the pocket Aces said, paraphrased:
"I got knocked out with Pocket Aces by [this guy] who flopped a set of Jacks becasue he misplayed his hand. With a pair of Jacks, he should have raised me before the flop to find out where he was at. Then I could have moved in on him and there was no way he could have called an all-in raise with Jacks."
Does anybosy else find this statement as ridiculous as I do? Is there a hard-and-fast rule that you have to raise or reraise with Jacks in no-limit? Even if this was the *right* play, wouldn't a superior player mix it up in the big tourney in hopes of breaking an overpair if he hits a set, which oh-by-the-way, he did.
Also in general, how do you like to play Jacks in a no-limit tourney, assuming that you are at a reasonable stack/blind position. Using the example from Card PLayer, if a good player brought it in for a reasonable raise up front, it is folded around to me, and I had Jacks in late position, I would probably also just call, if the bet was 10% of my stack or less. Here is my reasoning:
1) The original raise will probably knock out the blinds, making it heads-up anyway.
2) I have a decent chance that no overcards flop, in which case I can use my position over the original raiser to decide whether I should try to take the pot down with a big bet on the flop.
3) If I hit top set, or even a set with overcards, I have a chance to win a huge pot from an overpair or an AK.
4) If I reraise before the flop and get called, I am not sure I have learned anything. The guy could have AK, QQ, or a medium pair, or even Super/System-style small suited connectors trying to set *me* up.
5) If I reraise before the flop, and the original raiser moves in, he is right, I have to release the hand and have wasted a lot of chips. Best case for me is that the guy is trying to push me around with AK, and I still don't like those odds for all my chips.
Based on this, I don't understand how a world class player can claim that it was a bad beat because the Jacks didn't reraise and allow him to win an uncontested pot before the flop. It sounds to me more like he got too cute with the Aces, let the guy sneak into a flop, and then compounded his error by failing to recognize that he was beaten with his overpair. Any thoughts on this situation, or how to play small pairs in general in no-limit?
I think the guy was Eskimo Clark. I guess he was probably just complaining as people always do when they lose with AA, right or wrong.
I like the way you treat JJ. It is a difficult hand to play. Any overcard on the flop just leaves you guessing as to where you stand. The aces got unlucky in the sense that the pocket jacks flopped a set. Had it not been the case, the aces would have been able to win a big pot. Sitting upfront with aces though you like to win more money than just the blinds so there some merit in trying to trap an opponent. You just got to be careful not to go broke in an unraised pot, as has been pointed out by both Brunson and Cloutier in their respective books. It happened to this Clarke dude. Bad luck! No reason to tell bad beat-stories.
Spielmacher
Sounds like whining to me.... if raising is "THE LAW", was there an original raise by him to drive out cards? Just because the JJ waited and then took advantage, jacks played it "wrong"?
How did this supposed "better" player fail to recognize the danger his AA was in after the flop? I don't know the scenario (haven't seen article yet), so don't know what kind of betting the JJ did, or what the flop was. However, who got their butt beat- the "pro" or the JJ 'mistake'???
As I said, whining....
your are right on the money, with small pairs or any pair but aces or kings, if the raiser is deep enough to justify playing with, just call and try to take him down for everything he has got. no bad beat here, just good old supersystem logic.
I do not play no limit often only once twice a year. way it is wrong to call wiyh aces and try to flop a set on tuesday i was playing in no limit turnameant on tuesday. I had two aces on buton. There was one gay hwo like to bet 10$ with poket pair and make 2-3 times the pot bet whit set (or on bluf when flop have only small cards). Flop came A93. He bet 60 i raise him al-in he call. Turn 9. River Q. When he was complaining obut bad beat. I tell him theat 3's full is not very strong hand when two 9's on board.
It is a major mistake during a no-limit tournament to raise before the flop to find out where a opponent is. The AA player should have made a before the flop raise large enough where JJ player has to make a serious decision about playing JJ. However a weak player WILL GIVE NO REGARDS TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE COULD HAVE AA BECAUSE IN THEIR MIND THEY HAVE JJ AND THAT JJ COULD STAND A VERY LARGE RAISE WHEN IT CAN'T. you have to keep that in mind. As for JJ if there is raise before the flop then I would see it. If there is a small raise it would depend on my chip position and my standings in the tournament on whether I would call such a raise. If someone went all in JJ hits the garbage pile. If I called a raise then how I would play JJ depends on the flop AND THE PLAYER! By the way I would never play JJ in early position at a full table where as in a small field say 4-5 players I would make a considerable raise in early position. It is possible to play JJ in a early position at a full table . You would call the big blind. But if there is any heat after you call you should throw them away. I don't like to do this because it eats away a lot of chips that could be useful later during the tournament if the hand does not win. The same goes for pocket pairs TT-22. T.J. Cloutier plays this way and I have been E-mailing him a lot and have picked up some incredible advice from him.
I read T.J's new book, which has some helpful advice, but could use somne serious editing. My main question is: what hands does he play? If I played as tight as he purports to, I would get blinded ou on the 95% occassions that I don't get AA *much* more than my fair share.
If you really study the book you'll see that during certain tournament stages you have to play very tight but at other stages you can now open up. The reason you do this is because many opponents play loose too soon and tighten up which now allows you to loosen up. Just don't call when someone before you bets when they are playing tight. This type of play makes sense and it beats the option of "playing for the wind". Also you have to learn how to play the player which is something that I am putting a lot of attention to.
Pocket Rockets are great but they are not a lock. I just returned from a long weekend in Vegas and had AA's cracked twice in two hours by the same player who was all in on both hands with pocket kings and flopped or turned the third king to make a set both times. In both cases he was all in before the third king hit. Now what's the probability of that happening? I'd guess VERY small; nevertheless it did happen.
Flip side of that is I won a large pot with AA's that I had to get some help on the board to win. The above happened in 6-12. After that game broke up I moved to an empty seat in a 3-6 game. I'm in late position with one bet and fiver callers ahead of me. I raise, get one cold caller and the first six call one more bet. Oops. That didn't thin the field too much. But the flop was pretty nice: AJ7 rainbow. There's a bet, a caller, a raise, I call, first bettor folds. Turn was (I think) a 2. Check, bet, I raise, fold, call. River is a 7. Bet, I raise, he only calls. I win a very nice pot.
The point I'm trying to make is on any one hand just about anything can happen-- no matter how improbable it seems. In the first example I "should" have won both times. In the second, with that many players I needed to be careful. Many flops and betting actions would have caused me to be very cautious and/or release my rockets.
Thanks to everyone whose posts have contributed to my game.
LWD
NL tactics can add a lot to your appreciation of poker and will hone your skill to an even higher level. What is missing is a public game that let's you develop those skills at reasonable stakes.
I posted to RGP some time back (see http://www.universe.digex.net/~kimberg/borg/borg.html) about a NL (no limit) game that has been going since 1902! A NL game that really does let players enjoy NL without the problems that David Sklansky properly suggests in his latest essay. David states that NL games are bad for casinos since they tend to more definitely favor those that are the most skillful, and to drive out losing players too quickly. However, based upon our experience, I think some slight modifications to the structure of the current public games NL buy-in formula could result in a game of much more lasting duration, and one that has much to offer the players in terms of developing NL and PL skill, and experiencing a different strategy and playing style.
In the NL game in which I play every week, we can all bet any amount that is in front of us at any time--standard NL rules. What is restricted is the amount that we can buy-in for, and how much each rebuy amount may be. For example, we might have an initial buy of $20 and rebuys of $10. We restrict the rebuys, only allowing rebuys when under the rebuy amount--in this example case the player can only rebuy when the total of the chips in front of him(her), after anteing, is less than $10. This rather simple sounding rule has the effect of stopping the plungers from totally annihilating themselves while on tilt, but still provides sufficiently large betting incentive to allow players to bluff on a frequent basis, and to protect their hand under normal circumstances. In even a $10 rebuy game bets of $35, and occasionally more, are common as two winners knock heads, but the stakes are much lower than one might think.
In a normal two hour session the big loser in such a game frequently loses about 10-12 rebuy amounts per session, and the big winner frequently wins about that amount. So in the example above the big winner over a two hour period would win $100+- or the big loser would lose that amount. We play these buying rules for much larger rebuy amounts, and the 10X to 12X formula seems to hold for both NL and PL. However, we play all games with an ante, never a blind or forced bring in, so this may tone down the nature of the game as well. We play HOSD (hold 'em, omaha, 7stud, and double draw lowball), normally PL, but sometimes NL. We also have another game where we play NL 5 card draw and 5stud (believe it or not! (c:), and the format works extremely well there as well.
We keep track of buys on a score sheet, marking two marks for the inital buy-in, and one for each rebuy, and settle up at game end. For a public game some other scheme than a paper scorecard would undoubtedly make sense, perhaps an initial buy of non-playing chips for say 10 rebuy amounts in order to enter the game. These non-playing chips could only be exchanged for playing chips based upon the rebuy rules. The dealer could exchange the chips on rebuys pretty conveniently, I would think, but a qualifying level of rebuys before entering a game sounds like a rational thing to do.
We are convinced that this control over rebuys is essential to controlling the game and leveling the playing field. The stakes are low to mid-limit, and yet, because of the format, the game plays tactically as NL or PL, not at all as a limit game would be played. It could very easily, I would think, fit into a public room format. I suspect it would become very popular quite quickly, since it offers new tactics and strategies that add spice to routine games.
Consider adding a rule limiting the winners stack to some amoung, perhaps 5 rebuys: player must "rat hole" the extra chips.
I've read about this sort of structure somewhere recently, either Card Player or Malmuth's essays.
Its Bob Ciaffone's article about Spicing up the game (Volume 11/No. 10 Card Player). I had sent a question to Bob about how a Low Stakes Home game could play No-Limit or Pot Limit without having to get alot of money on the Table. He got so involved with the answer that he ended up writing a Column about it. If anybody wants, I can send them the corispondance and final draft of the article. Just E-mail me.
CV
whenever i allow the casinoes to beat me out of a few hundred playing craps ive noticed something, they never get mad when i win, then never insult my intelligence, they are always courtious, and they make me feel welcome. they know i came to gamble and to have a good time, win or lose. on the other hand let the same intelligent tourist who just came to gamble and have a good time, and who by the way, really cant be considered an expert, - get a good run of cards and start beating the crap out of the pros and there is no end of the stupid reactions by the pros. insults, free lesons on how to play poker- given in the spirit of anger, etc. etc. smartin up. bill gates really does play 3-6 hold em. does that make him stupid. (for all i know he is a good player, i never play 3-6) . those of you who are trying to be the best players you can be, never, never, never, insult a tourist, never, never, let them know what you are thinking, and never give free lesons at the table, unless its with the spirit of compasion. smartin up.
I couldn't agree more with your post. It is so aggravating to see a "pro" insult a tourist. First and foremost, it is such bad manners. Why should someone coming to have a good time at the table get belittled.
Sometimes I feel the urge to do it, because the frustration gets to a high level. Once or twice I've said things that I have really regretted.
There are a couple of regular 10-20 players at the Mirage (winning players) who are really bad for the games overall. One has taken the last year off, and probably won't come back for a couple of years (if ever.) I think he just played too long and became unglued. Another that I am thinking of actually reprimanded me once for asking a live one to change a bill for me. In front of the live one!
Regular players should feel a responsibility to make the games comfortable for everyone. I don't mean going out of your way to be nice, but certainly to not create an unpleasant atmosphere. It's no fun for the other regulars either.
Jessica
I don't mean going out of your way to be nice, but certainly to not create an unpleasant atmosphere. I think you shuold be nice wining player or not.This weekend i was playing with one girl i had K's up she was on draw i fil up she make straigtht she call me "scomebag" or somethink simular.
These are not pros, they're wannabes. Professional players react by taking a short break. Who is the true moron here? It is the one who causes the live player to leave the game.
I disagree somewhat with never giving free lessons, and I've taken some heat over this issue before. I would much rather have a poor player lose slowly and steadily while remaining at the table than one who goes broke in under an hour. Therefore, if I can give a player honest advice which will keep him/her from getting steamrolled, I'll usually do it.
Andrew wells writes: "I disagree somewhat with never giving free lessons, and I've taken some heat over this issue before. I would much rather have a poor player lose slowly and steadily while remaining at the table than one who goes broke in under an hour. Therefore, if I can give a player honest advice which will keep him/her from getting steamrolled, I'll usually do it."
I agree that this is one time when educating a player at the table is warranted. I was once playing in a game with a friend who is one of the best hold'em players in my area. A very weak player lost a pot, showing down Ax (offsuit). My friend made a good natured comment like, "You know those naked aces aren't exactly powerhouse hands." I quietly tried to suggest that he not educate this player who was bound to lose a lot. He said, "Well I try to help out players who I don't think will be able to survive the game." As a way of nurturing the game, I think that makes a lot of sense. BTW I don't think that player ever did "survive the game". But if he could have become at least a mediocre player, middle limit hold'em in this area would have been better off for it.
D Poker,
I agree with all of the responses here. Andrew's is interesting as there is a way to give a lesson and a way to give a lecture. It's the lecture that rubs other players the wrong way. The other thing regarding this is a lot of times the it's the "pro" who is making the bad play. I seen many players (including myself) be chastised by some "pro" for a foolish call as the player being chastised is dragging in the pot. Go figure. Berating other players simply hurts poker games.
Tom Haley
you can give advice, it simply creates intrest, but it must be done with compassion- and it must be done with good will and you had better hope the receiver of you good will donst take it the wrong way, and it better be good advice. pretty complicated, mabey better off staying silent. mabey not. the real point of my post is dont get angry at the table, or if you do, dont bite the hand that feeds you. i also agree with the responces, dosnt take a rocket scientist. hope i no longer see referseces to stupid tourists on this chat foroam-forom- y ou tell me - spelling has always been my nemisis-nememis , i give up.
I’m a 10-20 Holdem player who would like to become a 20-40 player and maybe someday a 40-80 player.
I’ve kept close track of my play based on the type of game I’m in, good bad or average. In good games, loose passive, I win $35 per hour. In average games, tight passive, I win $20 per hour. In bad games, tight aggressive, I lose $20 per hour. I have always concentrated on good game selection. This has helped my bankroll to grow and kept my swings down. But now I’m thinking it has had a bad effect on the quality of my play.
My problem is that the 20-40 games are usually tight aggressive, just the style of game I have trouble with and have avoided. What should I do? Intentionally play in bad 10-20 games until I can beat them? Only play in good 20-40 games even though this greatly limits the hours I can play? Give it up and he happy with my 10-20 income?
Any ideas, advice, techniques, or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
I think that a good overall hourly rate should be the deciding factor in moving up. I really think you need to be beating the games overall, under all conditions before going to a new level. Concepts change with the make-up of a game. The make-up of a game may change several times over one session. The best players make correct adjustments immediately.
Bobby,
Clearly we'd all like to be able to play in good games all the time, but cannot always do so, especially as we get into higher limits. So I think you are right that if you want to keep moving up you need somehow to learn to beat the tougher games (while still probably avoiding the super tough ones).
Something you might try is to play in the tougher games (either the tough 10-20 games or in 20-40 if your bankroll allows) with a limited frequency for some period of time. e.g., if you play four days a week, then maybe play in one of these games once a week. Then, after each session, spend some concentrated time at home analyzing your play - especially your errors. Also analyze your opponents' play.
I think that second item is key. What has helped me a lot in playing against tougher players is to take each individual player, identify his/her patterns of play, and figure out how I can best play against that person. e.g., if he habitually check-raises on the turn, I plan to take more free cards. If she is an aggressive bluffer I conclude that I can check and call more often with mediocre hands. How does he tend to respond to raises on the flop? On the turn?... You get the idea.
Just develop well thought out strategies against these tight aggressive players ahead of time. As you keep tinkering with your game, you should start beating these tougher players. If you don't, then I'd suggest collecting a bunch of questions and hands played and consulting with someone capable of looking at what you're doing and helping you make the proper adjustments.
Thanks for the suggestions.
In thinking about your comments about analyzing my opponents' play, it occurred to me that this will have greater benefits as I move up. There is a smaller number of regular players at higher limits. I could keep track of all of them, maybe even keep a notebook as many poker writers suggest doing. At 10-20 there is a huge number of players, many of whom I only play against once or twice. Of course the tougher ones are the ones I see the most often.
Today a friend gave me an idea how to decide when to play a bigger game. Often there is a live player in your game that is just waiting for a seat in the next higher limit. When that happens, put your name on the list and follow him over. The bigger game may still be tough, but at least it will not be terrible.
I think a lot has to do if you are professionally playing. If you aspire to be a professional then you need to show a profit, even a small profit in a tough game. There are going to be situations where no matter how selective you are a game is going to turn tough.
I don't play professionally. To me the most important aspect is game selection. I will sit down and play 15-30 holdem and 20 minutes later if the 40-80 game looks soft play in it. I would rather read a book or watch tv than play in a lousy game.
"I don't play professionally. To me the most important aspect is game selection. I will sit down and play 15-30 holdem and 20 minutes later if the 40-80 game looks soft play in it. I would rather read a book or watch tv than play in a lousy game."
I will only add two things that I think are very important. I believe that learning to beat a tough game is a prerequisite skill that must be achieved. This of course takes practice. You achieve this skill by playing in tough games. It will also help your tournament play.
That being said, my main objection these days is with players that will sit in a tough game (or so it seems) and then loudly proclaim their are quitting because the game is no good. It is too tough. Or it stinks. Comments such as "Only an idiot would play in this game” are common. "Look at the players in this game." "What a line-up this is!" "Nothing but a bunch of nut players in this game." "This game SUCKS." Or, you will hear players in an adjacent game loudly discussing the game next door. Usually, one know it all will be telling everyone in his game not to go to THAT game because it is a piece of shit. Etc.,etc. Hypocrites one and all. If you don't like the game quit, but keep your big mouth shut because nobody wants to hear it. After all you are bringing nothing to the game and are just making it tougher with your presence. Do you really expect somebody to give you something? Either learn to live with it and try to understand how to beat it or go QUIETLY away. This is obnoxious behavior and should be re-thought. So what if the game is tough? If there are people playing in the game, then that is up to them and they don't need you bad mouthing their business.
JimmyR,
I agree with the points you made as I would like to add one more. Instead of complaining about the quality of the game there is a lot you can do to make the tight game better. Try playing fast and make plays to take advantage of overly tight play. Out.
Tom Haley
My dad is wery good chess player. It is not interesting for him to play whith somebody hwo play much worse. He lerning poker now once he lern he will be playing in toughest game he can aford.
You put it strongly, but I agree with you in principle. If a player wants to become the best, the only way is to play against tough competition. Those lessons are burned into memory.
Card reading skills are what separates a winning 10-20 player from a winning 20-40 player. Putting players on hands correctly is possibly the strongest aspect of my game. Because of this, I find the tight/agressive games *good*, and the tight/passive games frustrating. There is plenty of time to practice reading cards at the table, as there is no book I've read that really teaches this discipline. I don't always play with full concentration, sometimes when I'm on a run of bad starting cards for hours I'd rather just play on autopilot. But when I am concentrating and not involved in the pot, I am still very much involved in the hand. I find it enjoyable and intellectually rewarding to often know exactly what people will be showing-down. My advice would be to honestly assess this part of your game, and to move up only if you're confident and experienced in this area. I agree with Jessica's post though, get comfortable with all the prevailing table conditions and be willing to continuously make adjustments.
Yes, I do find card reading difficult. You are right, I have not found a book yet that can teach the art of it.
The weak players are tough to read because they may show you anything and often make illogical plays that I’ll never understand. Tough players are more logical, but more likely to use deception and make tricky plays that I misread.
I'm glad there is no substitute for experience on this subject. Otherwise every yokel and their brother might become hold'em experts just by reading books. One trick I'll pass along; that it is usually not necessary to try to put a weak player on a range of hands until that player makes a raise. At that point I'll review the action leading up to the raise, but not waste energy on a weak player before then since the illogical play is generally calling for no good reason. The very live ones who are capable of showing you any two cards aren't worth thinking about at all because you'll have the best hand most of the time unless you're forced to check/call.
Try to take quick shots at the higher limit game until you know the players. This way you won't be at as much of a disadvantage as you might be if you played a regular six hour session. Also, there's nothing wrong with making a decent living playing the lower limits. Remember that fewer than one out of a thousand casino patrons can make money there on a permanent basis. Now if we could just bottle some of that rookie tourist luck...
In my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II there is an essay entitled "Moving Up." The five criteria that I mention are:
1: Your bankroll should be relatively larger.
2: You should be a proven winner for a reasonable length of time.
3: You should have a distinct reason for making virtually every play that you make.
4: You should be able to observe numerous errors in the play of some of your opponents.
5: You should be willing to move back down if your initial run is unsuccessful or if the bigger game is currently very tough.
More details and discussion are available in the book.
All good think have end.I won 800$ in loose 5-10 7 card stud game in 7 hours on thursday. I take my shot in 10-20 holdem and win 500$ in 9 hours on saturday. but whith my low bankroll i have to go back to low limit or i loose it all.
On sunday my Moter went to her sister birthday, my Fater go play chess, so i can play without my paretns knowing it. I take 300$. At 11:12 i am in foxwood there is again no holdem seat. luck and skill did it again i am 200$ up oponents confused they gasing wrong almost evry time they raing my strong hands giving me free cards whith a draw. One regular hwo was there all night went all in and lost whith AK high flush to my 2's full. How come bad news. My starting hand (5d,5h)5s so far so god i can not see face of a player hwo make force bet i only see he's cards. in is 2c. I do not remember dead cards. 2 limpers. Somebody raise to 3$. he got 3 calers. I am in very agresive mood make it 8$. 6 calers. my atempt to limit the field does not work. They stobern and do not fold when i pair my door card and bet 5$. I bet again on fifth stret. Bad news player hwo i can not see raise to 10$ and drop all my customers.(His cards 2c,3c,Tc) So i have to carge him for this. 15$-20$-25$. He call. 9c blank for me. i bet. He raise. I reraise. He call. I bet on river he raise. He stop rasing on 25$. He's hole cards KQJ of clubs. I have to look at his face,(beat my four 5's i do not get hands like this in a week). Worst think it is my Father. Now he know so i went to casino wisout his permition. One of is chess partner teach him how play poker and take him to casino. I ask my holdem seat is ready it is not. I play until for 20 more minutes, win 3 huge pots with two pair,and go play hi-low split. Players here play to many hands,but play beter than me.One hand for poker i want to talk about. My hand is (5c,5d)Ad. 3c bring-in. 5 players with high cards fold. I raise. 8d call. He get 7s.I get 5h and bet. He call. He get 4d. I get 3d and bet. He call. He get 2c. I get 6d and bet. He call. Last card i get 5s and bet. He call. He had 7's up and 8 for low. I won two huge pots on this table bay making flash and god low. Finaly i get my holdem seat. You will not belive mom and her sisters desade to have diner in foxwood and play some slots. I will erase hold'em program from my computer it were she lern to play. She play loose and do not raise before the turn. If i can convince my dad not to tell her were i was,how she see it her self i will probobly not go to casino for next mouths or so. It was not an essy table but have 2 or 3 bad players. I did not get any cards to see flop. and only win 3 average pots about 70$ each. I was in big blind and won 250$ with 93o when flop come 993, few pepole make flash on turn, one gay had 33. I post kill. UTG raise.Evryboby drop. I call. SB fold. BB (My Moter) call. Flop come 557 rainbow. UTG bet. I raise. BB call. UTG reraise. I cap it. Turn A of suit. BB bet. UTG raise. I reraise. BB call. UTG cap it. River 7. BB bet. UTG raise. I reraise. BB blind cup it. UTG had AA. BB had 77. I went play blackjack and lost all money i had whith me.
Any coments welcome. mostly i want to here about hi-low hand.
+
The following situation seems to happen a couple times a session. As a relatively new player I'm never sure how to handle it. The game I'm in is $4-10. Typically 5 to 8 players see the flop for $14 each.
I start out with an excellent low hand - say A235. Typical loose betting pre-flop. The flop comes HHL where the low doesn't counterfeit my hand. Under what conditions should I take another card? Pot odds? Number of callers? Position, etc? What if you only have three cards to a low, say A23? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
Mary,
Take this advice with a "grain of salt." All of the things that you mentioned are relevant plus a few more like flush draws, back door flush draws, back door straight draws, what the other players are drawing at, the chances that you will get quartered, whether the board is paired, how much it will cost you to see it through to the river if you catch good on the turn, etc. I think Ray Zee discusses this situation in his excellent book on High-Low Split poker that is published by 2+2. Hope I helped. Also David Sklansky wrote an essay that you can read regarding Omaha/8 odds. This essay is located on this web site in the essays section. I think these sources would be good to reference if you haven't already done so.
Tom Haley
We need your help on the EXCHANGE forum. It has gotten off to a good start. There are over 50 messages on the board. If you have any experience playing in any of the clubs people are asking about...please share your information. You can reach the EXCHANGE by clicking on the hyperlink which should appear on the left-hand "green" portion of your screen.
Thanks to all,
Jessica
And if you CAN'T see that link??? We never did get this straightened out.... Netscape Communicator, Win95
What I had to do to see the link:
- remove my old bookmark - go to front page (www.twoplustwo.com) - follow theory and strategy link - save new bookmark
Following these steps both the links appear.
Link
Usually I visit from work using Netscape and T3 links. Sometimes, when I'm home alone and no one is watching, I like to browse with lynx. I cannot see exchange (or archives) in those cases. Any hints appreciated.
Thanks to everyone who suggested help. Unfortunately (?), only Boris' solution worked. Jim, you might try removing links and establishing one for main page, one for exchange..
Buggs- there was no theory thread link on my page. I still only see these under "Directory" on left side:
. Books • Authors • Essays • Calendar • Order Form • Favorite Links • Feedback • Home
Jessica, I'm not sure if this is connected, but my email to you last month was rejected also....
Oh well, at least I'm there now! Boris, i owe you a small blind if I ever run into you...
Jessica-
Have you considered adding a page to site that makes us choose which forum to go to? When I click on the forum link on the main page it takes you to this forum. I find myself not looking at the Exchange forum because I spend so much time here. If the link on the main page took you to a page with links to both forums then some of us might remember that the other forum is there and go to it also.
Regards,
Leigh Davis
One of the most frequently mentioned keys to successful poker in the TPT books and from luminaries here and on RGP is good table selection.
I'm travelling to LV for a week at end of July (rarely get to play casino poker) and would like people's opinions on how to identify 'good' games from 'bad' ones quickly... without the benefit of knowing the players.
Also, how much freedom do you have in selecting games? The one time I'd been in LV before (playing at MGM), you signed up for a limit and got dropped in the first game that opened up.
Any comments on this are appreciated.
Chuck,
Look for games where players have a lot of chips relative to the size of the game and there are a lot of loose calls. Just my $0.02.
Tom Haley
This information is in the S&M books. I have a busy schedule like Mason so I don't have time to give my opinion, but just read the books.............................................................................................................. Just kidding,.. I'd look for games with little raising and where people are staying in the hands with inferior hands to begin with. From 10-20 on up you will either find yourself in a decent game or the toughest game you've ever played in. If there is quite abit of re-raising I'd look for another game.
I have. I guess the key point for me in the post is 'quickly'. Slansky's ToP says the two main considerations are structure (which is not usually a factor in 4/8, 5/10, 10/20 games in LV...assuming standard rakes and blinds) and players. I just can't evaluate the players (i.e., too tight, too loose, too fancy) that fast.
I find it difficult to get a feel for the game strolling by a table and watching a few hands waiting for my name to get called. Rarely do you see more than two hands at the showdown and often only one. Hard to get a read on how badly players are playing with such a limited sample of information.
Appreciate the point re: raising and re-raising though. Will make a point to look for that.
If you are having trouble reading the players you are not ready to move up, in fact I believe that is a sign you need to move down.
My theory is that most of the money is to be made in two types of games, the two extremes of the spectrum. The first type of very profitable game is a very loose-wild game with lots of preflop capped pots. The second type of very profitable game is a tight game where you are a superior heads up player. The games I absolutely detest are the ones that Al Raiseya recommended: little preflop raising, lots of players in to see the flop with any two suited cards, lots of (smart) postflop action. This sort of game is very slow without much compensation in EV per hand. You'll find yourself playing much like the fish, as you'll be playing lots of suited hands and calling all the way to the river with any chance in hell of winning. The mistakes that the fish would make in a tight game become correct plays in a loose game where the fish are schooling. And you'll be making mistakes by laying down hands when you should not. For sure the variance is through the roof in that sort of game. A game that is wilder preflop will actually have lower variance, as you can play AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AKs, AK, AQs, and not much more.
-Abdul
All players may have different opinions on which game is in there best interest to play. Some like it wild...some like it tight (weak)... and some like it loose(weak) or even loose aggressive, with capped pre-flops, check-raising all over the place etc. etc. It all depends on your skill, experience and ability (or execution). For the game described by the previous (RE:)...your going to need a heck of a bankroll just to make sure you stay the whole week. A few pre flop capped pot calls during a bad run, followed by some deadfull flops and a bad beat or two, and you may be SOL.
Those "awful" NO FOLD'EM HOLD'EM games with an average of seven callers to the flop, and very few raises are really very profitable. Think about it, these games are full of live-ones. On the east coast it's easy to find a game like that(I'm sure with the bigger tourist draw in Vegas, this is even more true), where 9 out of ten are truly bad-players. These games can be easily dominated by solid Poker play and understanding that many hands have to be evaluated differently...ie. suited connectors are very valuable while something like A-J off, is trouble. Also knowing that these people only raise when they really have it helps alot. Don't expect much bluffing (however, take a note on those who do), and don't even think about doing it your self...bluffs don't work when suckers don't fold. Play Solid!...no tricks...just solid. These games are usually found at the small limits though (2-4) (3-6) and some times 5-10...though not as extreme here. Bigger games require more discretion.
So, get on the list...sit in the game, if you don't like it ask to move...if you don't like that one.. ask to move again..until you find the right one. Good luck.
C.J. Little
Abdul, I'm not reccommending a no foldem game, but one where you are doing the ras=ising and re-raising more than the other players. also, if you are saying that these players play smart after the flop, then it is not a no-foldem type of game. Funny, but in hfap, S&M say that loose passive is the best game to be in. In Vegas, I have never played in a game at 10-20 and above where there was alot of re-raising and the players were weak. My experience has been that when there is alot of re-raising at these levels the players are excellent. Since there is a very high deviation in poker, I like to stay away from games that make the variance even higher as you mention. In these games you have to make a hand all the time, where-as in less aggressive games you can many times win on the flop without improving, as well as being able to steal the blinds once in a while. Hand reading becomes much more difficult in the games you mention as well. Seeya
I'm still pretty new to casino poker, but a decent rule of thumb I've used is look for people cold calling 2 or more bets. You usually don't need to watch many hands...
Once you sit down, if the pots are small and you've seen a better table, request a table change...
The Gambling Forum June 1998 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo