![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
No limit tournament - freezeout. Early round. We get T1000. I have A Ts in middle position. There are 2 or 3 players who have already limped in so I Call also. Flop comes A T 7. UTG checks - novice bets T50 - I raise T100. A couple of players fold and I'm just about to count my pot when UTG takes some time and raises T300! Now UTG is a fairly loose, agressive dealer from Spokane named Pang, but he is also a good player - that's just his style. When he just limped in UTG, I took notice because he usually raises. I made a mental note that perhaps he was holding Aces or Kings and now just remembered my impression. Novice folded so I had to decide, "He had more chips than me so if he had a set, I would be out of the tournament if I continued - another T300 would all but commit me to the hand. He might have A T or A 7. He might also be on a pure bluff. But a check-raise over raise is a powerful bet - not usually a bluff. Did I want to go out with an Ace Ten two pair? What should you do?
You should have raised all-in or folded instead of making the 100 bet. The guy with the bigger stack is now making you guess and you do not want to guess. He could just have top pair, but you let him put the pressure on you.
Who sees the Illogic in mahs response?
I do. He wants to risk his entire stack of T1000 to win what is already in the pot (maybe T150-T250? depending on the blinds). By making such a large bet, he is aonly going to get called if he's beat, or win a small pot if he is way ahead. If he's way ahead and the guy has something like AK or even A7, he should want the call. An all-in bet here is sort of like applying the Fundanmental Theorem of Poker in Reverse and NOT giving your opponent the opportunity to make a mistake.
Nobody with a worse hand is getting the right odds to call the original reasonable T300 raise.
A better strategy than raising all in is to raise as hero did and automatically call all raises. You lose the same amount when you are against a set but you encourage a welcome bluff; the threat that would otherwise cause you to "guess".
- Louie
I'm thinking along your lines Louie.
But I would add that if you are so sure enough to go all-in initially, why are you afraid to call? The hand is good enough to call in my opinion. If your opponent does have a set, your outs will usually win (except against AA, although he probably has bottom set if he has one (3:2 in favor)).
Also, you might pick up a tell which could give you more information.
Finally, only a set is likely to call an all-in bet, so as you pointed out, if you're called you're in trouble. Whereas, many other hands might come over the top.
And I would like to add that it's generally a good idea to bet about the same amout in no-limit, no matter what you hold. Varying the size of your bets gives away information about your hand. Typically, people bet about the size of the pot. Although there are times to bet more, or even less.
Mr, Sklansky,
That's the problem with you mathematicians. You think that because poker is a logical game that the best way to play is by using logic. Bull! Human beings do things for a REASON! Whether or not their actions are logical are a side effect. If logic was the best method to use when playing poker then computers would be able to beat anyone at poker. They can't!
Also if poker was best played using logic you would find a lot more mathy's and computer pro's at the final tables in major poker tourney's. You don't. Something you should think about, oh! Poker Guru you!
ARF
There logical and illogical reasons. Better to use logical reasons.
> If logic was the best method to use when playing poker
> computers would be able to beat anyone at poker.
Haven't played against Lokibot on IRC lately, have you? His (Its?) monster stack is no accident, it was earned. When image-processing technology moves forward a bit to where it can read facial expressions better, no doubt a computer player will start moving up the ranks in live tournaments as well, a la Deep Blue. Reading other people's emotions can be done logically too. Contrary to Star-Trek inspired misconception, logic is not opposed to emotion--it's opposed to superstition, and any player who thinks superstition is useful is welcome at my table. Bring a good bankroll.
So you think that image processing will improve a computer's ability to play poker? Get serious! The only thing that will improve a computer's ability to beat a human is a man in the loop. Please do not compare Chess (Big Blue) with poker. They are not even close! As far as Lokibot goes. Don't know anything about it. But anyone that plays poker on line needs some serious counseling! BTW, what makes you believe this Lokibot (I assume it's a computer from your post) isn't assisted by a human. You believe thosr guys on the other end of the wire, huh. Ok my friend Logic is a formal method (scientific) of deriving conlusions. Human beings use reasoning which is not always formal nor methodical. That's why human's play better poker than computers.
That's all folks! PBBF
Arf!Arf?
Assuming your observation of an opponent is: He makes 2 irrational moves for every rational move. What does logic tell you?
Tells me that you probably are a better chess player than poker player!
PBBF (Also known as ARF)
The illogic is "or folded." From the description of Wenatchee's opponent I would have played it differently.
First, UTG checks and novice bets 50. If UTG checks he probably does not have a set, if he had, he would have overbet the pot if he was a good player. An experienced player should know that whenever you get a flop with an Ace in it there is always the possiblility of a straight being made on the next card. Futhermore, the next card could possibly pair your opponents kicker. So, I would put UTG on an Ace with a kicker that was not paired, or a straight draw at this point. The novice makes a small non-threatening bet. He could be on a straight draw or even have an Ace with a weak kicker.
Now, Wenatchee bets 100. The UTG probably does not see this bet as a threat. The 100 bet is probably less than 10% of his stack. But, he knows that if you get another card cheaply, you may get lucky and get a miracle card on the turn. So, UTG bets 300. He makes the bet big enough, so it now becomes a threat to Wenatchee. UTG probably has an Ace with a big kicker. At this point, Wenatchee should fold.
Wenatchee mistake was only betting 100. I would have made a big bet or moved in depending on how much of a bet I thought would be threatening to UTG. Then, UTG would have a lot of things to think about. If UTG was a good player, he would have to give you credit for a good hand. This is what I refer to as making your opponent guess. In this situation, the person that makes the first threatening bet wins the pot(not all the time).
Some of you are probably thinking, why does this fool, that's me, want to risk all of his chips for a measly $120 in tourney chips? If you show weakness, you will have everyone nawing at your chips until they're gone. It's really a good phycological play to keep opponents off your back.
Wenatchee mistake was only betting 100. I would have made a big bet or moved in depending on how much of a bet I thought would be threatening to UTG.
This is a possible, I say, possible solution. I now wish I would have waited longer and thought about it some more and raised T200 or T250. This probably would have shut out anything but a set.
In general though, your advice leans a little more towards limit hold-em strategy rather than no-limit. We started with T1000 and it was either the first or second round. If I call the T300 raise I would have had about T450 left. If I call, I'm pretty well commited and facing elimination.
Thanks, Wenatchee Max
Let's say you bet 300 instead of 100. The reason? What does your opponent think. If you were the one to put the first big bet in he would have to wonder if you had a set of 7s or maybe 10s since there was no pre-flop raise by you. By putting in the bigger bet first, your opponents would have to wonder if you had a set. Because, if you had a set you would make a big bet? You could have made him think about what you could have.
Since, you were holding A 10 and the flop had an A 10 the odds would be greater for someone to be holding a set of As or 10s. He could have had a set of 7s. But, a big bet from you could have made him fold it.
I made a mistake. It is less likely for your opponents even to have a pair of As or 10s. If anyone had a set they would have 7s since you had the A and 10 and the flop had an A and 10.
Choosing between folding and raising all-in is the same guess the hero is now faced with. Making the 100 bet allowed him to gain info before making this decision. Having more info is always good.
I see it happen pretty frequently in NL tournaments, but I've always thought it wrong to overbet the pot by a lot of money. When you do that, you are very likely to win what is out there. However, when you do get called, it's always by a great hand. Thus, you will frequently win the small pot, but when you lose, you lose it all.
Now, if you've got the nuts yourself, you want callers. However, since you will not get them a lot, you'd rather bet less and hope to get called so you'll win more money when you flop the nuts. So, unless your read of a player indicates that he's actually MORE likely to call an all-in bet (it makes him suspicious), don't overbet when you have the nuts.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Here is my question ... why would you play ATs in NL to begin with if you are scared of an AT7 flop? It is the best non-miracle flop you could hope for. You can't usually get odds to draw for the flush, you will almost never flop the flush, you have real kicker problems if you just flop the A or even AA7. Basically, life doesn't get much better for AT than an AT7 flop in no-limit. So if you are going to play ATs in NL, then you might as well play it to the hilt. Raise back at him and live or die with the choice you made preflop.
I guess my real point is that it is not a very good starting hand, especially without position. NL is a game of traps, and ATs, especially from a middle position, is a great way to trap yourself.
A Poker Guy!
Last night I played in a pretty weak 20/40 Hold´em game. I´d like to hear any comments to one hand I won, but I think that I played it rather poor.
I was first to act afert the blinds (it was a rather loose game). I had AQo and raised, player left to me (the only weak tight player in this game) called, and I knew he wouldn´t call my raise without a medium pair or AK. Next three players folded, next player (loose aggressive) cold called, other players folded (including the blinds, which was a miracle in this game). So three of us saw the flop which coame 9 5 2 rainbow. I check, tight player checks (at this time I put him on AK, 88, 77, or worse for me 99), aggressive player bets (which he always does in last position). I wasn´t sure, wheather I had the better hand than the aggressive player, but I knew that in best case I was second best. Nevertheless I raised, because I wanted to get the tight player to fold (I think, the proper decission for me would have been to fold). To my surprise both of them called. At this time I was pretty sure, that non of them flopped trips (because nobody reraised). Turn was a 2. I thougt, that at least the player to my left, would call a single bet again, so I hoped for a free card (most wanted a Q). Player to my left checks again, but the third player bets again. I knew this player pretty well, an I was sure, that he would bet any pair and any hand including 2 overcards (if he held high cards only, I was sure to have the better hand, because he would have reraised preflop with AK). I decided to raise again to get the player to my left to fold. This time it worked (he had a pair of Tens, he told me afterwards and his neighbour, who saw the hand, agreed), but the other player called again. River card was a Q. I bet, other player called and showed me a pair of 4. I wondered, how he could call me all the way to the river (including 2 checkraises), but he obviously put me on a bluff.
Any comments appreciated.
M.A.
M.A.,
The player on your left was beyond weak tight and it shows just how lost these types are against tough opponents.
I would tend to lead out on the flop since it was an unconnected rainbow and you may have gotten the weak tight player to lay down even an AK right there (of course he should have raised with his tens).
Once you chose the path you did on the flop, I like your thinking. You were able to get into the heads of your opponents. If you were correct in your assesment, you really didn't get that lucky since you said the last player could have any overcards, and he would have played them the same way. So you were probably only a small dog (to a pair) or a big favorite relative to him (if you both had overcards which is more likely). The second check raise put a lot of dead money (from the tight player) in the pot. Had he called, the river would have played itself (fold unless you snag an ace or queen).
By the way, it is great when you can keep the weak tight types on your left like you did. This makes the game much easier to play.
Regards,
Rick
No. This player put you on exactly what you were doing: two Paraniod checks to the WT followed by two raises of the aggressive player. Good call on his part. Good suck-out on your part.
Would you play KK this way? I don't think so, and I suspect neither did he.
As Mr. Nebiolo pointed out bad play by the WT. Notice that against these two aggressive players he is EXTREMELY unlikely to win with a weak pair like TT. Its relatively high hand value is worthless unless he can expect to get to the show-down with it. If he is going to play this way after the flop he should have FOLDED it before the flop.
- Louie
"good suckout on your part"
I thought you wrote that 6 outs(A,Q) was'nt a badbeat(suckout=badbeat) Louie. I guess you like to challenge poeple and choose the opposite route.:))))
"kill em with kindness" Your nemesis C.M.
Well, I'd "Kill 'em with silence" but you probably wouldn't notice. :)
You're absolutely wrong, I NEVER take the contrary view.
"Suck Out" means outdrawing the opponent with few outs. "Bad Beat" means getting sucked out when the opponent didn't have the outs to justify the attempt.
Besides, this WAS a "bad beat" since when you raised on the turn you can expect 8BB from the opponents (when the TT folds), not counting a call on the end, and it costs you 2 to raise; that's only 4:1. Your 6 outs and 38 bad cards is 6+:1; not justifying the attempt.
Nemesis; Shnemeis.
- Louie :)
:)
David think Mason should be rank in top 50 in the world for limit 30-60 and 40-80, I wonder why not in top 10. Mason knows the game more than most people, he don't steam, no superstition( I heard Mark Weitzman said he can't play poker wear jacket)
There's no way to know whose best at these limits. There are no measurements, no records, no standings, etc. There are also many good players at 30-60/40-80. I would guess there's not a helluva lot that separates the 10th best and 50th best player in the world in any case. Maybe a small fraction of a bet per hour in EV.
Where can I find these rankings?
Mason stated in a recent post that his writing is limiting the amount of poker he can play.
This probably has a lot to do with it, because like any game you won't be playing your best after a long layoff.
Saturday, my typical loose 6-12 hold'em game became incredibly loose and extremely aggressive. This caused me to tighted up considerably, giving me an extremely tight image ( I know this because everybody at the table was calling me Ace-player, and laughing at me because they figured I could never win playing so tight). In reality I was only playing slightly tighter than the books recommend, I just wasn't getting any hands. After losing 200 dollars earlier, I was playing with my last 80 dollars.
Finally I'm dealt J,J right next to a live straddle. I raise the straddle to make it 24 dollars. The person to my left calls and so does the straddler. Flop comes 10 high, with nothing scary. I bet, the person to my left calls and the straddler folds. To be honest I don't remember the next two cards but they were not overcards. I bet the whole way and my opponent calls the whole way and shows down K,K. Im busted again.
Should I have raised the straddle? I think so, even though anybody who calls me is likely going to have a really good hand given my image. What do you think?
In this LOOSE game I suspect this hand has more EV by trying to flop top set against the field than there is in limiting the field and winning with an over pair.
In all other games you should Raise as you did.
- Louie
i would raise the straddle. the better question is when are the kings going to raise, after the hand is over?
I am at the button with 89o.
Four call and I call and the small blind calls.
Flop: Ts 7s 4c: sb bets, UTG raises, two call and I call, sb calls.
Turn: Jh: sb checks, UTG bets, two call and I raise, sb calls.
River: 8s! flush is completed and straight is "easy".
All check to me and I check. Did I miss a value bet?
BTW was the flop call incorrect?
Maria
Good call on the flop. With so many players, you easily have correct odds to continue.
On the end, it depends on the players you were up against. If they were as loose as the action on this hand makes it look like, you missed a bet. If they were strong players who don't cold call lightly on the flop, your check is good.
William
Since you ask the question you must have won the hand! I am guessing your opponent (SB) has two pair. Of course his action during the play of the hand was closer to someone on a draw hand. I believe that I would have checked this hand on the river. Although it was a good bet that you were going to get a call with a lesser hand the play of the hand and the most likely flush (most likely IMO) makes a value bet incorrect.
ARF
I probably would have bet.
It's unlikely that a Q,9 is out against you and it is likely that a made flush would have bet on the River particularly because the last card makes an "easy" straight. Anyone with a flush would be hesitant to try for a checkraise on the river (even if the river had been the 2s) but would be particularly hesitant to do so when the last card can make an easy straight because he has to figure that the last card may cause you to check down a set or top two pair (both of which are clearly possible holdings for you the way the hand was played out).
Of course, if you are up against players who are unlikely to call you unless you are beat, then a bet would be incorrect but given the size of the pot it is unlikely that a player with 2 pair will lay down here at the end. Accordingly, under the scenario you describe, I would bet again. Notice that even if one of the players checked with a flush (fearing that someone else has made a bigger flush), it is unlikely that this player will now raise after you bet. This is a further reason to make a value bet at the end.
BTW, your call on the flop was fine (IMO) but I do question the preflop call.
I like that skp. But somewhat disagree with the river bet unless I know the guy n the sb.
ARF
The opponent's need to be loose brain-dead types to call; but there are lots of them. Against reasonable opponents, usually check. If someone else bet you would have a crying call.
I like skp's response. To it I add: if you are known to be quite assertive then they very well MIGHT check a flush that they think is disguised, hehehe. If you are known to be reasonably conservative then they are unlikely to check their flush and your chances of winning are very high and should bet for value.
So, what is your image?
Marginal but bad call B4 flop; routine call on the flop; Roy West be darned.
- Louie
Thank you Louie and skp and all.
Maria
The flop call was fine. Checking the river was probably the best play too. It was, at best, a very marginal value bet and will lessen the chances of people trying to checkraise you on the river in the future. If they realize they can't count on you to predictably bet the river, then you will gain a lot more than the one bet you *might* have made on that hand.
A Poker Guy!
Valid points. But the flip side is that making such thin value bets for value leads to a lot of good things on future hands. I can readily think of two plusses:
1. The thin bets help disguise your river bluffs; and
2. They make players leery of calling your bet on the turn because they know they ain't gonna get a free ride from you on the river. In other words, your opponent will have it in the back of his mind that he is going to have to throw in 2 big bets anytime he decides to call you with a marginal hand on the turn.
I agree with your points, I think aggressive play and making people realize it is going to be expensive if they want to be in a hand with you are all fundamental parts of winning poker. But sometimes you have to bet on the river and sometimes just check it so they can't count on being able to checkraise on the river. This hand felt kind of marginal as a value bet so it would be one of the hands that I would probably check. But I agree with your points, and I could easily be convinced to bet this (of course I like aggressive play and am always looking for reasons to bet :).
A Poker Guy!
Need a recommendation for a hotel/casino in Reno -- I will be staying there on a Friday night in a couple weeks, and I play mostly 10-20 or 15-30 hold 'em. Good poker is more important than luxurious rooms..... Thanks.
Button As3s. Four call and I call. Small blind calls.
Flop: Js 5s 7h: UTG bets one call and I call and small blind calls. I was thinking to raise for the free card but .... As it will turn out raising on the flop besides the free card would have given me more action too :(.
Turn: 4s: Nut flush for me and very difficult to loose given the action so far. UTG bets one fold and I raise. As a result all fold. My image was tight at the moment. (I have a varying image depending on the day and sometimes the hour).
Comments?
Maria
nothing wrong with raising with the nut flush on the turn. regardless of image if someone else has a flush or draw to second nut, youll probably get action, regardless of image.
not to mention two pair, a set, or top pair for that matter. i really dont understand what you are looking for in a response. you are trying to get extra money in when you have the best of it and the only time to do that is befor all the cards are out.
I think I know the kind of table you mention: anyone will call a bet with any pair/any draw, but a raise they take seriously. Yes, sometimes a flat call will get more bets in the pot, and set up a possible call-raise if you get played back at by K-high. But I'm inclined to wimp out and just raise. The odds of one suckout against you are slim, but one of 5 or 6 is not, so I'd just as soon let those two small pair fold now.
Maria,
I think you should raise the flop often in this position.
Reason? You've got almost 50% chance to get there, so with a couple of callers you're getting good odds on your raise. There's also a chance that everyone folds to your raise, and you take the money right there. It's possible that everyone now checks to you on the turn giving you the option to take your "free" card, or make a bluff bet at the pot (depending on your read of the players). It's also more likely if you raise the flop that the small flush will bet at you, or, better still, check raise you if the flush come on the turn. The small flush is more likely to put you on a made hand when you raise the flop.
Good luck!
I would say raise most of the time.
Interesting question, Maria.
The way I would handle this is: start making semibluff raises in this spot! If a 3 flush hits the board on the turn, and you have the ace of that suit but no flush, raise!
If opponents are all folding for your raises, and correctly perceive you as tight, the answer is not to become even tighter by making trap calls. It's to steal some pots!
William
Maria writes." I was thinking to raise for the free card but .... "
But WHAT?
The raise here serves two purposes..it not only gets you a free card when you miss on the turn but it gets the other players involved in the pot...it ties them to the pot and makes it more difficult for them to release their hands when you DO hit the flush.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
I agree. In terms of creating volume in the pot for your flush, a raise on the flop is MUCH better than calling the turn and hoping to draw people in.
From reading your previous posts, I am quite sure you are aware of the pros/cons of raising the flop with the nut flush draw :).
If late position player raises after more than 1 caller in this position, one of the primary hands I am thinking is flush draw. If they check and the flush gets there, I may actually be less likely to put them on a flush as I would have expected them to raise the flop!
I think the key decision here is whether to call or raise the turn...and I think the primary factor that you should consider is the card that falls on the turn. I think we both agree that your hand is going to win this pot...now the trick is to extract maximum value.
I think you should generally raise the turn when a big flush card hits, as it can show that you hit the overcard. Raising when the four hits looks a little flushy :).
Thanks for your posts! By calling the turn bet, you may get call a from the SB with something like overcards and there will be numerous cards that will improve either his or the early bettor's hand.
The only way you can be beaten is if someone has 2-pair, trips or two little spades that are drawing to the str8 flush...and catches. Obviously, these guys are not going anywhere and if SB has one of these hands, he is betting or reraising you and original bettor anyway.
If original bettor has one of these hands, your raise when the flush hits may slow him down and limit you to a single bet on the river, whereas he may actually go three bets on the end if you checked the flush on the turn.
I think it all comes down to how often you raise. Many people raise far less than they should, and so when they raise its much easier to put them on a hand. I would have generally raised on the flop, but I am an aggressive player so there are lots of hands I would raise in that situation It wouldn't be unusual and it wouldn't scream "free card ploy".
If you just called on the flop, you really still have to raise on the turn. I don't mind taking it down right there and not showing my cards. Let them wonder if I was really there, or was bluffing. If they have a hand, they will call and draw anyway, and if they don't you probably wont get any money out of them on the river unless they catch up. Just don't show your cards if they all fold.
A Poker Guy!
a raise on the flop may be more important than most think. what about knocking out a player so your ace may win if it hits or even your hand may win without improvement and getting odds when you may be about even money usually isnt a mistake. heads up against a flush draw or a better hand you are the favorite or slight dog. against a larger field you may be playing with seven or less outs and not getting good enough odds to suck in people.
Thank you.
I should have raised the flop.
No question about it.
Have a nice day.
Maria
Need a recommendation for a hotel/casino in Reno -- I will be staying there on a Friday night in a couple weeks, and I play mostly 10-20 or 15-30 hold 'em. Good poker is more important than luxurious rooms..... Thanks.
Peppermill is most likely to have a 10-20 game.
thanks -- and I see down below in a Ray Zee post that you're not supposed to post on this kind of stuff so i apologize....
It's harder than you think to find "red chip" games in Reno. Peppermill has a regular 10-20 game. It can be fairly tough, as there is a healthy stock of skilled locals who show up regularly. Sometimes they play 15-30 or 20-40 if everyone agrees. The Airport Hilton might have some red chip action. I've never found that much downtown, although there is (was?) a no-limit HE game at either the El Dorado or the Flamingo Hilton. Buyin was only one or two hundred with 5-10 blinds, but some nights that game was rocking.
Above posts are correct, the only other 10-20 games in the area is Harvey's at Lake Tahoe on weekend evenings and the Hyatt at Incline Village.
im just over from england. my favorite game is pot limit omaha. im having some difficulty adjusting to a limit form of poker. what does it take to get a raise from some of the players ive encountered? its difficult to get a read on some of the players ive played with. that said (and any advice is appreciated), within a three state radious is seems that the higher limit (for these games-meaning 15-30 or 20-40) games are more stable. they last longer, the lists are longer, and there seems no difference in the play then the 10-20. of course the 3-6 or 4-8 are much more popular but im not interested in playing so low. (got to try to beat the rake, besides everyone else). whats with 10-20. are all the 10-20 players do good that they immediatly want mostly 20-40? im in the missippi river basin. any thoughts on this? in case this seemed a little confusing, the question is why are the 20-40 games more stable and more interesting then the 10-20 ? seems the reverse should be true. are all you americans just very wealthy?
Well the higher limit games are bound to have more pro level players and from what I hear, the rake down there is terrible so I would imagine the 20-40 games will attract the solid players along with the live ones since the live ones often want to play in a big game for its prestige. Frankly 10-20 Omaha anywhere is a pretty dead game as it doesn't have the action of the 4-8 or 5-10 games you find and it attracts many players who play pretty good, but not well enough to be pro level players. Truth is that the rake is really easy to beat in the lower level games, its just that you might not care much to make $15/hour.
I've been playing hold-em about 140 hours. One of the toughest things I've tried to learn is when to lay down a strong hand. I've finally concluded that 90% of players will not bluff-raise into a possible straight or flush on the board, or when the board is paired, for fear that they'll be reraised. So if I'm raised under these conditions, I've been laying down some great hands which appear to be beat. So far, I've not regretted the move, but I fear some of the regulars will begin to pick up on the consistency of my play. Any suggestions for mazimizing profit in this situation would be appreciated.
In draw poker, making good laydowns is a critical part of the game and a necessary skill. In limit hold'em, I don't think it's that important. Especially on the river, when the pot has something like 10-20 BB, you can be right 90% of the time and still be losing money, because making that laydown risks the whole pot to gain 1 bet.
And it's probably true that many players don't raise-bluff most of the time, but some do--in fact, I prefer it to an ordinary bluff bet because players take it more seriously.
Obviously, in PL/NL hold'em, this argument doesn't apply.
You write, "risks the whole pot to gain one bet"...
But, ONTOH, if you can logically and correctly save just one bet a hand and if you were to go on to lose on the average, say, eight hands out of ten during a one hundred, fifty plus hand session, that comes to 120 "saved" big bets that you held on to and which would remain in your stack.
In a 10/20 game, that would be $2,400 of losses your winning hands would not have to overcome (or roughly 8 three-way-pot wins less)..That comes to real money...
You know you will have losing hands, but the shallower the hole you dig for yourself, the quicker you'll climb out when your legitimate wins come...The old "less is more" concept.
Of course, on those nights where you were only able to win your fair share of one hand in ten or even less than your fair share, this logic is even more correct.
At least, this is my opinion. out of 150 hands
Theoretically you should be calling MOST of the time. I for one RARELY lay down a strong hand; its gotta be REAL OBVIOUS such as when Gibraltar Raises.
Consider Routinely calling the regulars who have seen you make these lay downs and are capable of the spectacular raise, and routinely fold against the non-maniac tourists.
DO NOT let them know you made a great lay down. If you have the stomach for it, mutter something about "just one more 6..."
- Louie
I would be thankful for some thoughtful insights on the defintion of a "weak tight" player. Hate to admit it but I'm probably qualified to say "been there,done that,have the t-shirt."And, I'm real tired of it so ideas,steps to change.
A useful definition would be someone who plays tight but refuses to take advanatage of situations with less than solid hands. While such a player may raise with AK, they can't stand to bet or call if they flop no pair; that'd be "playing against the book" and that's some sort of sin.
It turns out there are LOTS of hands where nobody has top pair or better. Weak-tight players rarely win these hands since they cannot stand a bet. Aggressive players routinely win these hands since they routinely bet when the opponents show weakness.
WT players who play weak hands like QT will not win since this hand will rarely be top pair by the showdown. They must play very selectively and hope the aggressive players continue to bet or call even when they are in.
Those who play like WT players can do MUCH better when they bet assertively in those situations where it looks like nobody has much; usually in late position when the few opponents check.
- Louie
It's wise that you came to me, son. Your weak tight malady, while serious, can be cured. First, when you wake up in the morning, say to yourself, and make the commitment, "Today, I will not call." "Today, I will not call."
Second, if raised on the flop, then you must three-bet. Come see me in three months.
Wenatchee Max
If he follows this blanket advice he'll be coming to see you in three months for a loan.
There a many scenarios in holdem where you can only call a bet or a raise. Beware of overly simplistic solutions.
Here's a perfect example of weak-tight play:
W-T player has AJ. No one calls, he calls in late position. Button calls.
The flop is QJ5. Checked to him, he checks (only second pair, after all). Button checks.
King comes on the turn. Checked to him, he checks again. He was going to bet, but this scary overcard makes him check.
Now the button bets, and our hero folds, congratulating himself that he got off the hand cheaply. In the meantime, the button stacks the chips with a pair of 3's in the hole.
That's pretty extreme, but it's the kind of thinking weak-tight players engage in all the time. Another example would be flopping top pair, betting the flop and turn, then checking the river when an overcard lands and folding to a bet.
Less extreme would be failure to value bet top pair with a good kicker on the river when a loose passive player calls all the way to the end.
There are myriad other examples.
Louie and Dan have given a good definition and examples. There's also anessay on this topic in Mason's _Poker Essays_, and some comments on it in HPFAP.
My two cents: A weak-tight player is predictable, easy to read, easy to bluff off a hand, doesn't bluff much himself (a big part of what makes him easy to read), rarely plays in a very deceptive or unconventional way, and is under-aggressive. You tend to know about where he's at, and thus where you're at, in a hand. BTW, very weak-tight players are my favorite opponents to play against.
Notice that most of this can be fixed by adding some aggression and deception to your game. But do so in a considered way. Don't go so far with either that you cross the line into losing play.
This leads to the question of image. Your image is going to vary, but having a generally weak-tight *image*, while in reality *not* being weak-tight, can at times be quite profitable. It can certainly win you some pots that would not be yours with another image. In many games, however, it will lead opps to take a lot of shots at you -- which you may or may not be able to deal with. Probably better is a very tight, yet aggressive and somewhat unpredictable image. This retains much of the benefits of the tight image while adding an element of confusion and intimidation to your game which effectively counteracts the aggressive players and shot takers you encounter as you get into the middle limits.
It would be well worth seeing comments from Mason and Ray. Ray has talked here about the importance of being a little scary to your opps (And as "John Tyler" points out, Ray he be very good win-a-lot poker man!;), and Mason has of course written key essays about the tight image.
John Feeney
I recently made what I think was an advertising mistake in a 10-20 HE game, and I'm hoping to hear what other people think about advertising and how they use it in their games. Here's the situation.
I had been playing very tight all night, but I mixed it up suddenly by raising with 2-4 suited in middle position. To make a long story short, I continued with this outrageous bluff the whole way, capping it by driving three people out of a large pot on the river with a $20 bet. I showed it, thinking that this type of hand might earn me unlimited action in the future. Things worked out well in this case; I went on a rush after that and had no problem getting callers. However, I think this may have been a mistake for the following reasons.
Being thought of as the guy who always has the goods is more valuable to me, given my playing style, than being perceived as a loose cannon. The nuts show up fairly rarely in HE. And even though I practice tight hand selection (present example excepted) up front, more often than not, I'm in there pushing with vulnerable hands, and sometimes with draws. Having people lay it down to me complements my game well. The last thing I want is for people to remember that hand on some future night.
My question: What do other people think of advertising? Is it a part of anyone's game plan? Should I consider showing an occasional strong hand that wasn't called? Or maybe a tough laydown that might make me appear to be a pushover to an untrained eye? It seems to me that the arguments against advertising (you help people identify tells or something) are exaggerated. Most players aren't paying any attention to that---but they do remember the guy who bluffed 'em a month ago with trash.
I think you have to be very careful about projecting a loose image in hold 'em. Mason has written about this. It's more advantageous, I believe, to have an image of a tight player. Unlike draw, for example, where you are trying to get the bad players to make too many calls, in hold 'em, since you miss so many flops, you are trying to get the bad players to lay down hands they wouldn't lay down if they knew what you actually had.
Your thoughts, by what you say in your post, are similar. Personally, I think it's wrong to ever show your cards when your're not called. There will be opportunity for "advertising" those times when you are called on the river and you soup, or those times when you raise on the flop with a draw and get to show your hand at the end, or those times when you raise with 2nd pair, etc.
The consensus seems to be that you have more to gain by being perceived as a rock player than a bluffer.
As I've said before on this forum, I believe if you bluff the right amount of times, opponents gain little or nothing by knowing what you did in any given instance. You will be able to buy fewer pots showing bluffs, but will get more action with your real hands. I think it's a wash. What you gain by showing a bluff is that you keep your opponents always second guessing themselves. You get them angry, confused and on tilt. You invite future mistakes. People remember bluffs and overestimate their frequency.
This is my opinion only, and against conventional wisdom. Like anything else in poker, pick your spots carefully and don't overuse this ploy.
WOW! I really are stunned and grateful for the quantity and quality of the responses. I've posted some on RGP and once or twice here but never got such a good response. Thank you.
Probably not too important when talking pot odds in a no-limit tournament, but there was about T70 in pot before flop, plus Novices T50 and my T150 = T270. Pang called the T150 and raised T300 more. A call would leave me with about T400. I didn't consider AK, I didn't think Pang would limp in with that, but maybe AK suited (probability 2-5%). 89s is more likely than AK (probability 4 - 8%). Again Tens not as likely because he probably would have raised pre-flop. A7s or ATs are possibilities as are my fears of AA or 77. KK also a possibility as is a pure bluff. In all honesty, I'd say there was a 55 to 65% possibility that my top two pair was the best at that point.
Wenatchee Max
I deal poker on one of the midwest riverboats. The other evening in a 4-8 hold'em game I put out a flop of 3 queens. On the very next hand I flopped the same 3 queens. After some understandable comments about my washing and shuffling there was a discussion of the odds against the identical flop occuring. I said I thought it was roughly 52 cubed to one. A couple of the players said it had to be a lot higher than that. I didn't pursue it any more. Upon reflection, it seems to me the probability (assuming random order which will rarely occur in a live game) of the same flop in the same order is 52*51*50 and of the same cards in any order is 52/3*51/2*50. Can someone verify or correct this analysis of this useless bit of trivia.
That's right.
Same cards, same order: One in 132,600
Since there's six ways to order the 3 cards, random sequence would be one in 22,100.
This fluke is common compared to one that happened to a friend of mine last month. He flopped 2 consecutive Royal Flushes.
Anyone care to give me the odds on this?
I should have specified in holdem, not omaha. I'm pretty sure this has got to be a world record.
The probability that you get two cards needed for royal straight flush is C(5,2)*4/C(52,2), which is about 3%. Now, assuming a 10-player hand, our player must flopped the other 3 cards out of the 32-card deck. The probability of this happening is 1/C(32,3), which is 0.02%. Combining, any player can flop a royal straight flush with a whopping 0.0006%. Assuming that the two consecutive hands are independent, the probability of flopping two consecutive royal straight flush is 0.0000000036988%. This happens once in every 27035251776 poker hands dealt. Oh, yeah, I should mention that C(m,n) means the binomial coefficient {m\choose n}.
422,162,067,599 to 1. (40/1326 * 1/19600)**2.
wgb,
Bob Davis is correct. 1 to 422,162,067,599. I'm not sure how he arrived at his numbers, but here are mine:
1 in (52*51*50*49*48/(120*4))^2, which corresponds to the expression {52!/[(5!*(52-5)!)/4]}^2. Five specific cards in any order divided by four suits, twice in a row. Man, I sure hope there was some kind of jackpot for that.
Bill G.
I beleive an easier way to figure this is that there are 4 royal flushes in a 52 card deck. There are ~2,100,000 (the exact number escapes me) 5 card poker hands. Divide 4 into the 2M and square. That 's if you figure the odds before the first flop. After the first royal there is no need to square.
ARF
there are 2598960 poker hands and your method is correct and much more elegant. At least I demonstrated that I know the hard way.
ARF,
What you described was exactly what I calculated. The expression n!/r!(n-r)! was what I used to determine the number of possible 5 card hands, and divided by 4 because there are 4 possible royal flushes.
Bill G.
ive just got to share this one. i play in a 7 stud 8 or better $10 limit game in NC for a living. last night i started a hand with A-3-5 offsuit...2 other players see the turn...one has a 10 up and the other an 8. i catch another 3 (my 1st one was concealed) on 4th street and the other players catch blanks. on 5th street i catch another 3, the player with the 10 catches another 10 and the player with the 8 catches another 8. the pair of 10s bet and we both call. on 6th street i catch the last 3 to make me 4 of a kind and both other players appear to catch blanks. so i bet out and they both flat call. on the river i bet again and get raised by both players and i take a raise myself. i show down four 3s....the player with the 8s shows down four 8s...and the player with the 10s shows down four 10s. they both caught quads on 7th street to beat mine. anyone with anything as bizarre as this to tell about?
hold'em hand.board is 10,$4,K,A,$4 holdings are pocket 10's-K's-A's and pocket$4's
Bellagio, $6-12 stud, full table. After the turn, it's 4 handed and capped each round with a monster pot at the river. Showdown is Player 2: A-high flush in hearts, Player 4: A-high flush in spades, Player 5: Q-high flush in diamonds and you guessed it, Player 8: K-high flush in clubs.
I folded 2 small pair on 4th street, and find myself wishing I'd have chased the boat!
Aces, Scottro
Hand 1:
Home game, 5 card draw, hi-lo declare no qualifier, roll your own. I am dealt 3 Jacks. Betting is pretty active before the draw. 6 people draw in an 8-handed game. I don't improve my Jacks. After the 2nd card has been rolled and the betting got active we're down to 4 players. After 4 cards has been rolled the board looks like:
x444 xAAA xTTT xxJJ
Betting gets capped. We declare. I am the only one going low. Betting round after the declare gets capped again (I am free-rolling). Final boards:
x4444 xAAAA xTTTT xxJJJ
The 4's, T's, and myself were all dealt trips. The 4's and T's improved. Unfortunately for them as the Aces were dealt quad Aces. Finally pot had 70 big bets in it.
Hand 2:
$15-$30, 7-stud, I make a 7-card flush in Hearts (King high) and lose heads-up (after 5th street) to an Ace high flush in Heart
So long as we're on the story of interesting bad-beats, here's a heck of a flip-flop for ya...
Playing $1-$3 hi-lo stud, and with four to an outside straight flush on fifth street, I bet. It was a relatively tight game, so I was concerned when four other players called. By sixth street, I still faced three players. I looked around - one showed a pair of eights, and one showed a pair of Aces with a Queen. Here's where it got interesting...
The pair of eights had been dealt eights wired, and he now held four eights. The Aces on the board hid an Ace and a Queen in the hole to make it Aces full. It was already a bad-beat Jackpot. Unfortunately, the river brought the Aces a *fourth* Ace, and he flipped from being the loser to the winner - with a $900 jackpot, that fourth Ace cost him $225.
(Incidentally, I ended up all-in, and never even made a flush. My $45 share of the jackpot allowed me to come back up to $80 before I left. Fate's a funny lady...)
Are you the Chico that plays at the Soaring Eagle in Michigan?
Negative. Iam a Chico State alumnist.
This may be a controversial posting. It is not intended to be so.
I usually play an EIGHT handed game. The game is rather loose. It seems to me that sufficiently (relatively) tight preflop play would be to play about 25% of the time when not in the blinds.
Here is my "intuitive" reasoning.
In most cases four or more people see the flop. Say that in all those cases two of those are the blinds. This means that out of 6 players 2 participate. This means that the table overall plays 33% of the time. Subsequently I guess that playing 25% of the time would be sufficiently tight so that you will have enough participation so that you will be given enough action and they will not be able to steal from you when rags flop and you will be given various opportunities to profit from your opponent's mistakes.
In comparison with the ten handed game: we have now 6 "free will" positions v.s. 8. Hence, 15% "should" become 20%. The additional 5% is the adjustment to the loose game.
Comments?
Maria
Maria,
IMO, analysis of this question or issue will be of academic interest only; I doubt that the analysis will make any of us play any better.
Let me also say that although I find many of your posts to be thought-provoking, if I have a nit it is that you may be guilty of being overly conscious of how to play with your first two cards. IMO, once you have some experience with the game (and judging by your posts you are obviously an accomplished poker player), play before the flop should be the easiest aspect of the game.
Having said that, who knows...I could be off my rocker and perhaps there is a lot to be gained from a practical viewpoint in analyzing the question you have posed.
The reasoning is too simplistic. For instance suppose players played 100% of the time. Playing 95% would not be optimal. I will let others expound on this.
Dear David:
I will be frank. I have a problem that I play about 25% of the time and I find myself experiencing high variance. I see players that are consistent winners playing about that much and I wonder if this is ok. At the same time it seems that there are two major problems if you play that many hands. A. it is tiring B. it is hard to maintain a tight image and it is hard to maintain a loose image.
However, the fact remains that I see the same players over and over collecting the chips by playing way more hands than the 15%. I respect your writings a lot but can it be the case that, as skp suggests above, and as you and Mason have suggested recently, that expert play after the flop would make profitable more hands than the 15%?
Also note the 8-handed assumption. I believe that we both understand that in a three handed game the 15% rule would be suicidal. Hence, we would expect that in an 8-handed game a 20% may be more reasonable. Or more? I suspect that in a two handed game one should play more than 50% of the time otherwise he/she would be giving away too much.
Thank you very much.
Maria
Everything you said may be true. I was simply arguing with your method of deduction.
It seems to me that it's not a matter of percentages of hands to play but rather an adjustment of the threshhold of playable hands accounting for position, the number of players, and the type of play.
This is an interesting and inventive "solution" to a very old problem but, to my mind, it simply omits the really essential factors in an attempt to make a general rule of thumb.
Perhaps a better question might be: What should be my minimum position requirements given the characteristics of the particular game?
That's a question I'd like to see some answers to.
J.
One question that can be *easily* stated and *clearly* answered is:
in an n-handed game (with such and such characteristics) with what hands should you open in the m-th position?
as many have argued it should make very little difference if you play in a 10 handed game and UTG and #4 have passed and you are #5 v.s. you are UTG in an 8 handed game.
I believe that in the game that I play it is ok to open with as bad a hand as KQoff and KJsuited and I wonder how wrong can this be?
Maria
I would also open UTG in that game with ATs. You're also right in thinking that KQ and KJs have now become marginal hands.
An oft-used ploy by many players is to backraise with small pairs. That is, they call in early position with small pairs...then, if several players also call and if there's a raise from a late position player, these kamikazes then make it 3 bets. Presumably, their reasoning is that the flop is probably going to be seen by all of the limpers and it doesn't matter to them that they will have to put in 3 bets because what the hell, everyone else also has to put in 3 bets.
Anyone have any comments on this move. Please go over the pros and cons of the play even if some of them seem obvious.
Hey skp good question. When family pot or near it why not? Lots of players, lots of money go in pot and you might get to play fast and win big one. Wouldn't do this a lot but not to bad. With 3,4,5 players do once in a while for sake of variety but not great play. Not win pot enough but it could depend on players in game and what they play. If other players tight maybe they counterfeit each other. If other players bad why bother with play.
its one of many things that makes you a scary player and people make mistakes against scary players. i know i do.
Ray Zee posted on this subject about 16 months ago. At that time he wrote that this is done primarily for deception so that when you backraise with your bigger pairs, it will be harder for your opponents to read. Since I rarely limp up front with AA KK or QQ, I just include enough hands like JTs to occasionally backraise with along with hands like 77. There are two basic ways to provide deception. 1) Playing a hand in an unusual manner. 2) Playing more than one type of hand in the same manner. In the case of backraising the medium pocket pairs, just don't mark yourself with such a specific holding pre-flop. Be willing to make this play with enough other hands so that an alert player cannot put you on a set when you play the flop fast.
Andrew, good points and thanks for pointing me to the Archives. I went in and had a look at the earlier discussion.
OK, I'll do it.
Having never made this play before without AA, I'm now gonna do it EVERY time ALL this month. Home games and casinos too. I'll track the results and post them here in early July.
skp----you are a real bad influence on me.
Abe "the kamikaze"
I am no expert, but this is my thinking: Players who do this think they are building the pot when they are a favorite, because the late position raiser probably does not have a preimum pair. The problem is that now that you have 4 to 6 players in the pot for 3 SB each, if you hit your trips on the flop, the pot will be large enough you will not get any straight or flush draws out with a raise. This increases your chances of being sucked out on the turn or river.
Probably a +EV play in a loose game, but will also increase your variance. May be of some deceptive value too, depending on the game. What image are you trying to project? If I sit down at a table and on the first hand I see a player do this, I would immediately classify him as a "gambler" who likes to get as much money in the pot as possible any time he thinks he is slightly ahead.
Now all the experts can tell me I am all wrong.
I don't know if I agree with your first paragraph. A large part of the logic of the play is that if you do hit your set, other players (even those who are drawing stone cold dead) will find it hard to release their hands i.e. you tie them on to the pot. True, big draws will not fold but they wouldn't fold even if there were not a 3-bet preflop. Still, I wonder about the soundness of that logic because your implied odds actually go down the more money you put into the pot before the flop.
I guess as Ray and you point out, a big plus of the play is that you add some deception to your game (and perhaps make the game a little less humdrum without giving up too much). Like Abe, I am going to try this play a little more often than I have in the past. BTW, let's hope that Abe's experiment goes well!
I double checked the odds on flopping trips. They are 7.5 to 1, which is a little worse than I remembered. So 4 to 6 players trapped into the pot for 1 extra bet is not good straight forward pot odds. To make this +EV, the larger pot must cause some of those players to put more money into the pot after the flop when you make trips then they would do with a smaller pot, and at the same time not cause you to put more money into the pot after the flop if you miss.
Given the extra suckouts the larger pot will cause, it may still be +EV in a loose game, where 4 to 6 players seeing the flop is not unusual, but it seems marginal. In a tight game, I would be worried what kind of hands those 4 to 6 players had.
The set on the flop also has nine potential ways to improve, and I'll take *best hand best draw* over the rest of the field in any size pot. There simply isn't any flop when you catch a set that is immediately just marginal +EV.
When you make your trips, you are going to like the extra bets in the pot, but your odds of making trips on the flop are 7.5 to 1, so I do not see where 4 to 6 extra bets in the pot is a great return on my extra bet. I would rather try to knock out long shot draws with a raise after the flop when I make trips. With the bigger pot, they are probably getting the odds to hang in there for their 4 out draws. While I may have 9 outs, how many outs do all my opponents have collectively to beat me?
I'm not sure of the answer to this question myself so It is a good one for discussion. I missed my blind and thus post a big blind and a dead small blind to the right of the button. Someone limps in in middle position and I, having been dealt the Queen of hearts and the deuce of clubs check along. The small blind calls and the big blind checks. The flop comes Jh10h4c. The small blind (a typical player) comes right out betting and the other players fold. So the question is whether that queen of hearts, by herself, is enough to make me happy or do I need more. Should I discard her or play on? And if so what do I do with her?
You can only win a poker hand by having the best cards or by getting the better cards to fold. I think the odds, given the flop and given your hand, are slim for either to happen. Fold and wait for a better hand. Maybe David is a good enough player to make this hand a winner, but I'm certainly not and continuing with such a hand is just what you see the pigeons doing.
I would tend to agree with Andy that on the face of it, the Queen of Hearts alone would not tend to look like much of a hand under the circumstances --- but you have not given us all of the facts. This might turn out to be an opportunity to pick up a nice little pot --- if you're the right man to play the Queen strongly. All you've told us is that the small blind is a "typical player" --- would he be betting a draw?? bottom pair??? More significantly, would he regard a raise from you, David Sklansky, with respect sufficient to compel him to dump his hand??? While I tend to agree with Andy --- I think that in a head-up situation, which this now is, you might make a move on the pot with some degree of success. The bottom line is are you the right man to make a move with the Queen of Hearts???
If David is the right man to make a move on the flop with this piece of cheese, then surely he is the right man to also raise preflop instead of rapping. In fact, I believe that in HPFAP, David and Mason have stated that in such cases, it may in fact be better to raise preflop with a hand like Q2 off (on a forced late position blind post); the reasoning here being that with such hands, the best plays in order are folding, raising, and calling. Given that folding is not an option, a raise is said to be the better play.
Frankly, I don't get the question but I am sure I'll learn from David (and the others) after he has posted his answer (or his thinking if as I suspect there is no definitive answer).
skp -- Note that that advice to raise when you post a late position blind is primarily for times when everyone has folded to you. Otherwise you lose the possibility of picking up the blinds without a fight.
BTW, (as I continue to avoid trying to answer David's question... Hey, he's up there fooling around with the seven of diamonds anyway.) I've noticed that especially since David wrote a collumn on that same raise about a year ago, I get reraised more often when I try it. I think there are players who know the play, and know that I must know it, and so put me on garbage. Guess I'll have to start four-betting that junk. ;)
John Feeney
If the blinds are strong players, it may in fact be better that you raise after someone (preferrably a weak player) has limped in. The strong players may now figure that you indeed have a hand and are not simply trying to steal the blinds.
I often use this concept with marginal hands in late position if the blinds are formidable players. For example, let's say I get dealt a hand like 33 or A6 off on the button. If the action gets checked to me, I am likely to pass against strong blind players who are apt to get aggressive with zilch on the flop (BTW, this is one time where I don't mind showing my cards before I muck it). However, if a player who I have good control over limps in before the action gets to me, I will raise with the 33 or the K5 figuring that the presence of the limper will lead the blinds to believe that I do indeed have a hand and am not just stealing.
Overall, I would say that my steal ratio from late position is way higher when I raise after one (and exactly one) weak player has limped in.
I would agree with that idea when you do have a weak player ahead of you. But personally I'd restrict it to times when I have at least some kind of hand. That Q2 is pretty terrible. I think I'd usually just rap the table and hope I get to see the flop.
David,
I'm going to forget it was you asking the question (and your comment that you are not sure) and just go with my instincts.
Since the small blind bet into three potential callers he either has a good hand or a good draw. You can't be that happy when you make your queen and your own draws require runner runner and they are not to the nuts. In additon, the pot is small. I would throw it away every time.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
If I were you, I'd post this problem over on RGP...leaving out David's name! Who knows...maybe you'll generate another 200 plus response monster thread!!
JUST KIDDING
Jim
I think you should call the flop bet. The pot is laying you 5:1 and there are 21 of 47 unseen cards that can win it for you with a semi-bluff on the turn. If one of these outs hits, your bet or raise on the turn will make it look like you already made your hand (the flop call sets this up). If you don't improve on the turn it's probably all over for you, but it only costs one small bet to find out. I should add, however, that since I don't play at your limits I don't know what a "typical" player is in this case. This play would have a positive EV in 6-12 though.
I think that David Sklansky has finally lost his toast. Only 3.5 to one against improving? Uh, I flunked math, care to explain this one to me? I'm really quite shocked he posted BOTH blinds and didn't wait for them to come around to him. This question comes from a man that never, ever plays a hand! (He played a 6-4 early in his career! Man! When you do something like that ONCE you're BOUND to remember it!) The only reason he wins in the first place is because inferior players are always trying to beat him! (A really good thing to have going for you.) Plus he only plays in weak games. Once the game gets tough he runs like a monkey on a stick. (Not a bad thing either.) I can guarantee you that this hand would hit the muck so fast that the "hypothetical" question must be pure hyperbole. It must be the "Polish" april fools day.
The Pot odds are> than the Card Odds; T4 the ans. lies in ur Judgement of this typPlyr. This being true Raise or Fold are ur only choices. If I had ur image David (if known to the TypPlyr) I would raise for info/free card(s)/win on flop. Three possiblities that could result in a win?
the hand can be played especially for david. he gets lots of respect and people play tough against him. this enables him to smooth call here and win on 4th if any scare card comes and possibly win it if no scare card comes if he sees a weak player afraid of his hand. the most likely hand the small blind has that bet out is top pair no real good kicker or 2nd pair decent kicker both of which will dump on 4th with some pressure unless he is a very good player. if you play this type of hand with only the intention(like bad players do) of being able to win only with the best hand and having to check when you hit it then it doesnt make it a playable hand. as to whether it is dumb to post behind the button you need to rethink that as in many games it is better to wait and in some games it is better to post in back. but all things equal who wants to wait 15 minutes just to save a small fraction of a bet. you may have spent some of your life there on that time out.
I'm not suggesting it's a wise idea to generally call that bet on the flop, however there is another issue to consider. When you have a flop which allows BOTH runner-runner flush and straight draws, there is some tilt making equity in putting in a loose call on the flop those times when you make your hand and showdown. This is because the *typical* player will see only that you caught that specific draw, and overlook the fact that you had a double runner-runner hand. There are also some real creative ways to play the hand from the turn on, should you pick up Max Senior on the next card (Kh or 9h). Therefore, my answer would depend on the current temperament of the player in the small blind. If this player is close to going on tilt, I would be inclined to take a card off.
My instinct was to lay down this hand right away.
Better situations would come later.
But let's see its value.
The pot has 5.5 sbs. The small blind has MINIMUM: a good draw or a pair. So let's see if we would like to play this hand against a draw and then see if we would like to play this hand against a pair.
Against a pair we are a big dog. Notice that our opponent will bet the turn with a pair (possibly we may steal by raising there but how large is our equity due to a bluf raise?) and most likely we have to pass unless we pick a draw which would make a call correct. Another issue is: a draw may complete on the turn and we may be able to steal.
Against a draw we have various outs. We may have the best hand and we may steal. Especially if the staight is completed and our opponent was drawing for a flush or vice versa. Yet, again I would say that this makes our call just marginal.
I tend to think that we are behind against a pair and almost even against a draw hence better to fold especially since our opponent may have a legitimate big hand as a bet out of position may suggest.
Maria
"Those expert in attack ... fire according to the situation. They make it impossible for an enemy to know where to prepare. They release the attack like a lighting bolt from above the nine-layered heavens" Tu Yu: The Art of War.
"Vulnerability lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack." Sun Tzu: The Art of War.
"Don't put all your eggs in one basket, especially if that basket has a hole in it." Andy Fox
"Live to fight another day, especially when you've gotten a free look with Q-2 and flopped nothing." Andy Fox
"He who hesitates is lost" vs "Look before you leap" Therefore; The higher the fewer!
In poker we (I) try to maximize my chances of winning the hand or maximize the amount of money I win on a hand with consideration given to the amount of money I may lose on a hand. Whew! With that said. If I were playing this hand on the flop I would certainly consider the sb's style of play. Raising here is appropriate against an opponent that is quick to fold second best hands. Folding here is correct against bluffers and solid players. Calling may (and I mean may) be appropriate against players that will pay you off if you make your hand (this includes bluffers, contradicts folding I know but it's a close decision against these guys). If I were going to raise to win right there or set up a steal I would also consider my own image. A strong image helps. Especailly if you have won two or three of the last few pots. Of course if I were on a steal it wouldn't matter if I had Q,2 or 3,2 so the hand it self is not much of a consideration in a pure steal. The Qh just gives you a few outs if you get called. When stealing here with a raise one must consider the opponents tendency to play back at you. If someone raised me with a board of Jh,Th,x I would immediately think they were on a draw and most likey reraise with any pair. I believe most solid players would also do this.
Those of you that think this hand shoud ALWAYS be folded are giving away a lot. Those of you that think this hand should be played based solely on pot odds don't fully understand the GAME of poker. As with most poker situations even this ("piece of cheese", someone else's term) has opportunity. "It depends", sounds like a good response to this highly interesting hand Qh,2x God I love a shot at a Straight Flush. Think that should be considerd when playing this hand!
PBBF
"Those of you that think this hand should be played based solely on pot odds don't fully understand the GAME of poker"
I certainly take no issue with that statement.
However, there is no doubt that Q2 is a weak hand in this instance. David's initial question had a "typical" player betting out from the samll blind on a Jh10h4c flop. Against the typical player, I am going to muck my hand. Against players whom I can control or those who are easy to read on the turn, I may play on. However, if I really had that much control over my opponents in a game, surely there will be plenty of better opportunities where I can take advantage of my superior play. Why toy with this piece of cheese?
Personally, I think that trying to outplay a "typical" bettor with the single Queen of Hearts falls under the rubric of the dreaded Fancy Play Syndrome.
skp,
I agree although I wonder what David meant by a "typical player". Was it one that "thinks" he or she knows David Sklansky and David will only raise or play a strong hand. If so I guess there are some bluffing opportunities (especially since it is now head up). But is sure seems to me to be pretty weak hand to play.
I still think the fact that the small blind bet into three opponents with a suited and connected flop containing two upper middle cards (the jack and ten) is a probable indicator of at least reasonable strength. Wouldn't most typical players percieve that this flop is the type that will hit a small field of limpers quite often? I sure would (although I hope I'm at least a little better than typical). Unless David has a LOT of control over the player, I can't imagine any "moves" working enough to make it profitable.
Once again, I wonder if someone not so well known had made this post would we be getting the same answers (don't worry, I won't be doing any cross-posting on rgp for a while).
Regards,
Rick
I hear ya...if I posted this, I would be laughed out of town. Given that most of my poker knowledge comes from the works of Sklansky and Malmuth, I am really quite interested in what David's thinking on this one is.
Ray Zee basically said what needs to be said about this hand.
I'm concerned that my pre-flop play has become too predictable and it has occurred to me to introduce a random variable --- for example, every time I am dealt the seven of diamonds, I will raise before the flop. Now sometimes, I will have a somewhat legitimate hand, say pocket sevens or Ad-7d, and sometimes, I will have a borderline hand, say 7d-8c, and sometimes, I will have garbage. But this would make my pre-flop raises less easy to read --- now, when I raise, I know my opponents quite accurately can usually put me on A-K or A-Q or something similar. Is this idea totally crazy or can I go ahead and fool around with the seven of diamonds???
In spite of the fact that many people will tell you otherwise, fooling around with the seven of diamonds is actually a great idea. But I wouldn't do it in quite as willy-nilly a manner as you suggest. That card works well in many situations. In fact at times this fooling around will work better than your wildest dreams.( I am reminded of the time I raised eary in my career with 6-4 suited and was called by A-4 suited. The flop came 532 followed by a king. I got seven bets on fourth st. from a normally tight player. Playing around with the 7d will surely give you many similar oppurtunities for unexpected pleasure.) However you can't expect that card to always work for you in this way. So if you can get away from it those obvious times when you should (e.g 7-2 offsuit or even Jd 7d when ther is a raise in front of you) and you play it right, this seemingly strange idea may open a whole new world for you.
I agree with Mr S on this. Fooling around will cost you little and give you experience in mixing things up. However you must be particularly aware of hands like 5x,7d or 7d,9. The big problem with these hands believe it or not is when you flop two pair. That's right 2 pair. Flops like 5,7,8, or 7,9,J especially in an unraised pot are extremely dangerous. That fellow that has T,8 or 6,8 is also waiting like you for the turn to raise so don't be too quick on the trigger when fooling around with that 7d and situations like this arise.
BTW I played a hand a Bellagio the other night 15-30 Holdem. Had A,7o in the bb. Early & late limpers and sb in for the flop. Flop A,T,7. My first concern was that the early limper might have A,T. But he bet right out! I just called. On the turn came a blank. I checked Early bet I raised He reraised!. I know thought he may have a set or A big kicker (not my first choice) or maybe he indeed had AT. I called. River came the magic 7d. I bet and he raised. I could now only call. I was conviced I was beat but made a crying call anyway. He had AT! Whew! Don't you know that I would then go on to kick myself in the rear for not trusting my first instinct and reraise the river. Oh well loved that 7d. Who said diamonds are a girls best friend. We guys like em too!
Vince
I am not as good a player as David is, nor, I suspect, are very many of us. Playing around with a 7 of diamonds, for the vast majority of us, is a sure way to lose. You're just going to have inferior cards compared to what your opponents have. The hand David relates anecdotally illusrates the up side. Much more often, you'll see the down side. GIGO: garbage in, garbage out. If you play too many hands, you're going to lose. Any hand with the 7 of diamonds in it is probably a longterm loser.
Brenda,
I would also take into account the game you are in. I "play around" with hands, both raising and calling, in positions that wouldn't be considered optimal for the situation in a somewhat different manner but along the same lines as you do in that I try to make these plays randomly by using certain two card combinations. I found these plays to be not very effective against players are not very aware, etc. so I would still use discretion and judgement. However, it does seem from your post that "playing around" is necessary for you at this point in the games you are playing in.
Tom Haley
Rather than fooling around with the sole 7d, how about fooling around with a few representative hands like 86s, black pairs of deuces through fives or something. You can work out the number of representative hands you need that will equal the probability of getting dealt the 7d.
skp, You, my friend, are one of the truly readable posters on this forum. However just what in the hell are you talking about? Just what is the significance/meaning of a "representative hand". Also can't you see that the lady likes diamonds, especially the 7!
IKY
I'm more in agreement with picking a two card combination like you skp. I prefer to *fool around* by making those dreaded *fancy plays* with some hand of substance (semibluffing opportunities after the flop are key). The hand I'm presently doing this with is JTs.
Hi Andrew, JTs?? When you sit at the table i usually play nobody will know you fooling with JTs. Last night i mucked 87s for a reraise and the cards turned over by accident. The hole table was speechless and wondered why i dont play such a great hand.My neighbor showed me two hands with them he capped before the flop one was K4s the other 89u (by the way one of the more selective players at the table). I raise evrytime i get 69h or 69c. i think thats enough fooling and has the idea of being easy remembered. Bye Midge
I'd prefer to fool around with 69s early in the morning, midge.
I don't mind 69o early in the morning but I would never consider (nor often have the opportunity) for a 69s.
However, each to their own. 8-)
Ouch, got me there!
There is no question that one should raise after posting with many hands that you wouldn't even call with. But I' am not sure that q2 offsuit is one of them. Furthermore this play is less likely to be right with one call in front of you and virtually never right with more than one call. But as to the hand itself you are getting 5.5 odds at this point and your chances of making queens or better is about 3.5-1. An all in call is almost certainly right. But what about with betting.?
I question the 3.5-1 against improving. I suspect that some of that comes from Qx in the next two cards but if the x falls on the turn, you certainly can't call a turn bet based on odds. That puts the odds at more like 5-1 against Q's or better, which seems enough to call except that you have to factor in the chance of completing and losing anyway, such as when your opponent holds KhJs and 2 hearts fall or he already has two pair or a set. So if you are going to play for this pot, it seems to me you will have to do it playing the player and not the cards.
Everybody,
Here is two questions somewhat related. How do you develope the skill to play those middle hands in live games? Nolan Dalla ( I am sure I butchered his name) had an article last year in card player that raised the same question. He suggested that losing and winning in the long run had less to do with completely maximising the amount you got on monsters and the amount you saved by throwing junk hands away. After a little time at the tables, most learn to deal with these issues fairly well.
On the other hand, dealing with two medium pair in a seven stud game or middle pair in a holdem game can represent a hand that smart players make money on and others do not. How does one learn to be in that group that makes the right decisions in these close call situations?
Second question, I am a decent no limit tournament player, but I seem to suffer tramendously in short handed situations either in tourneys or not. Most of the books out their seem to suggest that you have to defend blinds more and play with a few more holdings. Besides that though what should a player do to develope those short handed skills?
Playing short-handed, in a tournament or live game, is more about playing the player than it is about playing your cards. You have to be able to recognize what kind of hand he has, and play accordingly. If you cannot learn how to read the players well, you cannot play well short-handed.
Unfortunately, learning to do this is not easy, nor is it easily taught. What you primarily need to do is to really study your opponents, and learn their patterns. This can be as much an intuitive process as a deductive one. It is certainly a part of the game where I wish to improve more than any other area.
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
One of the keys to playing short handed is that you must follow through with your preflop calls and defend on the flop. You don't want to be folding too much where you are getting something like 5-to-1 (on the flop). (In no limit this number would probably be less.) Players who play reasonably well in ring games but who are not experienced short handed tend to make this mistake. Thus someone who bets every time will have an edge on you.
Thanks for the advise guys
Both playing the player and defending on the flop I can understand.
I was there on the button. This story has a lesson. "Don't try to bluff just to GET the player!" The cash game was 7 handed full pot, Omaha (hi). The blinds were $5-$5 with a $150 buyin. The game had been going 4 hours, now there was $12K on the table (chips). Five of us called $130 (with several small raises, preflop) making the pot $650, both blinds played and myself, on the button (dealer) with 5.K.5.A (double suited,black). The flop came A(d)3(d)5(d), both blinds checked, the "Milo" UTG barked out.." full pot", he pushed out $650. Seat #6 folded and I called "time!" I did a little quick thinking and apart from set I felt like I was beat, I even suspected a set of Aces from someone. I mucked, so did the small blind and the BB called the $650. The turn came a J(c), the BB "The Dentist" checked and Milo went off like a rocket "All-in...the pot..what ever!!" He pushed out a rack with $780 in it. The dentist called. The pot hit $3510 as the river came a blank and the Dentist said he was "pleased Milo bet on the turn". Milo rolled over K(d)Q(s)Q(h)J(c).The Dentist had flopped the small straight flush. Rebuy for Milo! An excellent bluff if the Dentist had a small flush, but.
The hand AK55 double suited is very marginal. Other than the ace-high flush draw, you have virtually no nut potential, and the flush can be hard to get paid off with. I don't think I would play it at all in most situations. Small pairs become bottom set, which leads to trouble when the money is deep.
Good fold on the flop. With five people seeing the flop, some flush is almost definitely out there. With all the action preflop, aces may be likely depending on how aggressive your game normally is. Your having one ace reduces the chance of facing two in another hand considerably, but it's still something to consider. Also, your FH is unlikely to get paid if you hit.
Bluffing the king of diamonds is not a bad bluff against the right player. Milo holding QQ and a jack makes it less likely that the "Dentist" even had the queen-high flush. (If the Dentist is a good player, there's no way he's calling here with anything like a ten-high flush though. Maybe aces and a small flush.) A loose player who would call on the flop with a set would be unlikely to fold to Milo's half-pot bet on the turn.
> Milo holding QQ and a jack makes it less likely that
> "Dentist" even had the queen-high flush.
Actually, that makes no difference. It makes it less likely that he has "a queen or jack", but does not at all affect the odds of him having one particular card, such as the queen of diamonds.
If he's a good or tight player, it does. He won't enter the pot with Q-8-5-2 rainbow. Most hands that he would play with a queen would either have QQ or else a straight run presumably including a jack. When you have two queens and a jack (and a king), both of these become much less likely.
Of course, if he will play any four cards, then your holding would not affect the chance of him having the Qd.
True; having QQ does not affect the odds of him having been dealt the Qd, but it affects the odds of him having entered the pot with it because he is less likely to have it paired.
Last night in a home $1-$2 7-stud, 5-stud game (no check raises) I was up $100 in the first 2 hours. Over the course of the next 3 hours I got beat and only won $33 for the night. Last week I found myself in a similar same situation. Should I have left the table after being up $100? The game is very loose and my playing has been improving. I am averaging about $18 a session over 32 sessions and more like $25 over the latter half of those. I ask this question because even though $100 is no a lot of money, with such small stakes it is a good win.
Thanks, Mike
when to leave a game:
1. the game gets bad 2.personal reasons-( you are tired- you are playing bad-unhappy-feel the money you are ahead or behind is affecting your play) 3. something better comes along(fishing or the x-files) 4.?
good luck.
You gotta know when to hold em! Know when to fold'em! Know when to walk away! Know when to run!
Never count your money! While sitting at the table!
If you follow this advice you won't let whether you are ahead or behind influence your play! You will then walk away for the right reasons. Maybe those listed by Ray Zee.
TGA
4.) Ray Zee takes a seat in your game.
Michael
Your questions is complicated by the fact that this is a home game. So the answer is tied to "what kind of home game is this?"
If you don't know the other players and the players change then I guess you could feel ok about leaving (although everyone will rightfully argue that there is no benefit from getting up from a positive EV game)
If this is a regular group of friends/acquaintances - if you get up after 2 hrs up $100, don't expect to be invited back.
Maybe a questions you should be asking yourself is "Does my playing style and decisions change after I'm ahead?" Do you play too loose after you have gained some chips?
Just a thought.
-another Michael
That's a brilliant question. I have the same problem. I keep records on my games and found that after I reached a certain point of winning (usually about 60-80% of my buy in) I start to lose and end up losing for the night. I realized that I had a weakness for winning and actually felt bad for the losers. I would play poorly. I would also play loose.
If you quit every time you were up $100. what would the the other players in the home game think about you. Do any of the players know you win most of the time. If you only played for two or three hours and not entire five hours would anybody care, do other players leave after only two or three hours play. Is there anyone to take your place if you leave early. Since $100 is a good win your only option is to play a little tighter. Just my thoughts.
Here's the situation---
The game is a friendly neighborhood get together of Jacks or Better to Open/ Trips to Win. It's essentially Five Card Draw with a pair of Jacks or better required to open the betting. If no one has the trips or better after the draw, the game continues with another round. Five players are in the game.
After 12 rounds or so and a progressively larger pot, player A is dealt 3-3's right off the bat. He opens the betting, draws two cards and remains with 3-3's. Player B draws three cards, Player C one card, Player D three cards and Player E three cards.
As player B is drawing his cards up, he realizes that he already has three cards in his hand, meaning he has been dealt an extra card. All other players have picked up their cards.
Question 1
If player B asked for the incorrect cards, how should the hand be handled.
Question 2
If player B was dealt the cards incorrectly by player E, how should the hand be handled.
We would to know the book rules (if any) plus any suggestions so everyone remains friends.
In any casino I've ever played in, it would make no difference whether it was the player's mistake or the dealer's. The hand is dead; next case. If this is a truly among-friends nickel-ante home game, you're free to make up your own rules on the spot, of course.
Lee is correct here....The underlying principal is that a player must "protect" his own hand.
Player B is responsible for making sure that he get's the right number of cards on his draw...even if the dealer gives him an extra card...He is responsible to notice this and correct the error before accepting the cards into his hand.
Good Luck,
Jim Mogal
...fold his hand only or does the whole hand get a redeal?
Other suggestions?
Punish the dealer ... make him fold?
if the player asked for too many cards his hand is dead. if he got four cards instead of three if he sees it before picking them up he should beable to get rid of one he has not seen. a card is a card until its looked at. punish player E by cutting off a finger and that will stop such mistakes in the future. my opinion only(:|).
Since a misdeal to one player is a misdeal to every player after that, the entire hand should be redealt. This is the only way to keep it fair to every player.
I'm planning a Vegas trip in the coming weeks, and I figured I'd play in a certain spread limit game (hold'em), with the spread the same for all betting rounds. I play in a home game regularly, with structured limits, and use the 'free card' play regularly (but not too regularly) with great success. My question is, would it be an effective tactic to try for a free card where the limits don't change? I would initially say no, but I think it might still have value becuase my hand would be well disguised.
Ideas? Comments? Suggestions?
Thanks,
Mike
sure, a free card can be a gain even if the bet doesnt double. you gain the betting if it helps you and not if it doesnt. it also lets your opponents know that every bet you make doesnt mean you have the best hand(important in a home game) and some in vegas unless you can bluff at will. good luck.
I don't play spread limit but it seems to me that if you put in a bet/raise large enough (in relation to the spread, possibly even the max) in most instances it will have the same effect as in a limit game with doubling stakes. The key is understanding your opponents and how they react in specific situations. I play 15-30 Holdem at the bellagio in Vegas. >90% of the players in those games understand the concept of "Free Card" yet the play still works well and should also work in spread limit.
PT
Don't forget, in hold'em, if you have a good straight or flush draw (let's say it is to the nuts) on the flop, if there are more than 2 callers, it is to your pot-odds advantage to bet, raise, and re-raise. Then on the turn you need more than 4 callers for the same thing to be true, and that doesn't happen nearly as often.
So, the "free card" play is also to your ultimate profit advantage if there are more than 2 callers on the flop, AND it disguises your hand as well. Go for it.
Dick
5-10 limit holdem, standard structure. I'm in middle position {J,J}. I am first in, so I raise. I get 4 callers. Flop: Q-8-8. It's checked to me, I bet, everybody calls. I'm likin' my hand. Turn: J. I check along, player to my left bets, everyone calls , I raise; initial bettor reraises, everyone folds-I call. River is a blank. I bet, she raises, I reraise. We continue for a few more reraises. Then I get a funny feeling in the pit of my stomach, so I call her last reraise. She shows me pocket Queens. Bummer. Any suggestions on how I can limit my losses in these types of situations? I was at the table about 10 minutes when this happened, and knew no one. Thanks Jeff
"It's checked to me, I bet, everybody calls. I'm likin' my hand."
IMO, that is a mistake. With 4 callers, you can't be liking your hand. Surely, you have to believe that one of them has got a Queen or an 8. In fact, the absence of a raise on the flop should probably tell you that someone (usually the first player to call) is waiting to smoke you on the turn with a raise. If a blank fell on the turn, I would be hard- pressed to bet again against 4 players (I definitely would against one player and probably even two. In the same situation, I would check with AA against 1 player and maybe even two particularly if they are aggresive players).
Further, if you thought that you were the best on the flop, then surely, you must have thought that at least one of them has a gut shot. When the Jack hit on the turn, you ought to be thinking that this card may have made someone a straight. You should bet and hope that someone raises.
As for the River betting, I probably would have lost 4 big bets in this situation against most players (against a rock, I may have lost just 2). You can't raise here until the cows come home just because you have a tight because given your preflop raise, your opponent will put you on a tight at least by the time you have got the third bet in on the round. So, if he puts in the 4th bet, you have to give him credit for a big hand.
Don't know why you would like your hand with four callers and a borad with a Q and a pair. Oh well. You gotta love the turn. Unless you can see your opponents cards there is no way to minimize your loss on this hand. In fact capping the River would not have been unreasonable! You gotsta da bada beata datsa alla! Well not really a bad beat, you started with second best and ended there, just a bad development/situation, so forget it!
9thM
Jeff,
each time you are raised say to yourself hes got this hand or better to raise. then decide what you need to reraise or call his bet. hes doing the same so if he had q,8 in the hole he would be thinking why is he raising me when its obvious i must have at least a full house. so since he may be afraid of his small full you must realize that he may have a better hand than a small full. and so on till you get to the final hands. probably you bet she raised then you reraise thats about all the raises you can logically put in unless she is a maniac. also the slow play early on may give a clue that she might have a big hand because she may have raised early on with just trips.
Thanks all,
Yes, with 4 players I gotta be thinkin' a Q or 8 is out there. And I didn't properly evaluate her slow play until much too late. Perhaps with more playing experience, that wierd feeling in the pit of my stomach will activate much sooner in similar situations, thus avoiding greater losses.( this reminds me of a passage in Doyle's book about there being too much information out there and too little time to properly analyze it, so you must develop an instinct/6th sense for much of the game).
Thanks
I can't remember what position you said you were in, but if you're in early position in a very loose game, where players will come in for two bets as easily as they'd come in for one, strongly consider just calling here. You're out of position, your hand is highly flop sensitive, and you'll probably end up getting the dreaded three or four callers-- exactly what you don't want when you're holding pocket J, T's. or 9's
I think the wierd feeling, was when you realized that there was a queen on the board. You should have been thinking about that queen much sooner. The pit in the stomach comes from realizing that you made a mistake. You should have assumed that someone had at least 1 queen.
To Mr. Sklansky and everyone,
In his very good article, Sklansky states that all mistakes fall into eight catagories.
1. Checking when you should bet.(Critical)
2. Betting when you should check.
3. Calling when you should fold.(Critical if early in hand)
4. calling when you should raise.(Critical)
5. Folding when you should call.(Critical)
6. Folding when you should raise.(Critical)
7. Raising when you should call.
8. Raising when you should fold.
In evaluating the article, I thought of there being two catagories of mistakes. One, those mistakes where the player makes a more aggressive move than the correct play. Two, where the player makes a more passive move than the correct play. Of the five possible critical mistakes, four of them come when a player makes the more conservative or passive decision.
What I drew from the article- among other things- is that once you develop the skill of being selective about witch hands to play, your bigger mistakes will come from playing to passive or conservative.
So, as a player who plays tight, maybe even "weak tight" at times, I need to make more decisions that give my opponents a chance to make a mistake. The decisions I can make that do that are betting, raising, and sometimes calling(allows an opponent to make poor decision on future rounds)
Am I on the right track? or Am I loosing the battle to "Fuzzy Thinking"?
Give me some feedback?
PS Hope this posting has less typos than the late night posting I did last night.
Controlled aggresion gets the money. Which is why I can't understand why some players don't bet or raise with say a set when the board has a 3 flush showing on the turn. As I have said several times in my posts here, an error in betting (or raising) in this situation can cost you one or two big bets at most. An error in checking (or calling) will usually cost you more. I will take the former error every time.
Sklansky's eight mistakes of poker are worth studying and understanding. You most certainly are on the right track although maybe not in the way you may think. You are on the right track because you are thinking about these mistakes and how to avoid them or counter them or watch for them in yourself and others. The thinking about them part is the right track. BTW Mr S left out the most important mistake, The 9th Mistake of Poker. That is:
9) Playing in my Holdem game! Or as Mr S may say playing when you should find another game.
9thMistake.
" That which depends on me, I can do; that which which depends on the enemy cannot be certain" : Mei Yao-ch'en.
It is said "vulnerability lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack"
"Those expert in attack consider it fundamental to rely on...the advantages of the ground" Sun Tzu 'The Art of War'; 800 B.C.
Therefore: Study and self analysis is the road to victory!
Robert,
Sorry I didn't post under you also. When I saw Tom Haley's post above I thought it was the one you wrote which is very good. I've got to go but maybe I'll get to later.
Regards,
Rick
How do you guys play a set with a three flush on board on the turn. My instincts tell me that if there are 4 or more opponents to just check and call, but if there are 3 or fewer opponents, to bet and maybe even raise. I see this as a situation similar to a hand with outs which is discussed in HEFAP. In the chapter discussing turn play, the authors state that when a hand has outs you would rather check and call so if you dont make your hand you don't waste any extra bets, but if you make your hand you can possibly go for a raise or checkraise on the river.
Is my analogy at all correct? How does the number of opponents in the pot affect how this is played?
its about 3.4 to 1 against you filling up on the river with your set. if you are getting 4 callers you dont really care whether its jammed or not as long as you have the best set. when there is a three flush on board i play a set hard if i havent seen an indication someone might be playing it. this is where card reading comes in. even with many people in you are still the favorite unless there has been a play that may indicate a flush. good luck.
Hell, I'll go a step further -- I will often play a set hard on the turn with a *4 flush* on the board. This is a classic semibluff. You may get an opponent to fold a small flush, and you might fill on the end.
William
I am UTG. The game has some tight and some lose players. I open with 89s. No comments on this please.
#4 a rather conservative player raises
#5 and #6 fold and #7 a rather loose aggresive makes it 3 bets
#8, #9, the button and the small blind fold.
The big blind, I and #4 call and we see the flop four handed.
Flop: T T 7 rainbow; BB checks, I bet, #4 calls and #7 makes it 2 bets. BB calls and I just call (?) and #4 calls.
Turn: 9 rainbow; BB checks and now I decide to bet (?) #4 calls, #7 folds and BB calls.
River: 7. All check the river. BB has AK. #4 has JJ.
My question is: if I believe that the BB has AKs or JJ or QQ how should I play the hand. Is it better to check the turn and then if none bets bet the river if a blank hits so that he may fold since he has two players behind him? Should I wait for #7 to bet and then raise on the turn?
Maria
as i see it Maria, #4 is a conservative player and has called in spots that says he must have an overpair. unless you are better than most i know you cant win this pot without the winning hand. so play it accordingly.
Maria --
You can try all sorts of stuff on the flop and the turn here. Last night I picked up a pair flop pot by checkraising the flop, then betting the turn. For whatever reason, in the games I play in, checkraising in this spot seems to pick up the pot a lot more often than just betting. It probably wound have failed in your particular instance, but that does not make it a bad play.
On the end, your hand is too good to bluff. You have a pair. I would say the same of ace high. Save your bluffs for when you really don't have anything at all. I mean, if you bet your pair and everybody folds ace high, you haven't gained anything. If you bet your nothing and everybody folds ace high, you have gained the pot.
William
Marginal 1st call B4 flop. Bad call of the double bet.
Would you bet 3-Ts on the flop? If not, do NOT bet your straight draw since the opponents are likely to see through it.
Lousey turn bet UNLESS you intend to bet the river. The chances of stealing on the turn is very bad; much better on the river. What hand are you representing when you bet the turn after "just" calling the flop?
A check-raise on the turn (if you can stomach it) followed by a river bet would be very believable and I believe better EV than betting turn and river. But I suspect everybody would have checked which the JJ would use as encouraging a bet.
- Louie
The dealer's choice game spread at the casino I play spreads 10$-20$ 7-card stud with 10$ and 20$ blinds, no ante, just like a Hold'em game. I haven't played much Stud and wonder what changes in strategy should be adopted in this game compared to an ante + low card bring in bet.
I think the blinds amount to more per round than an ante + bring in game would cost you. More money in the middle, two players with random hands forced to play, more expensive rounds... Sounds to me as there should be more aggressive play against the blind money and high boards gain importance due to the 'intimidation factor.' Does anyone have experience with this structure?
Spielmacher
Avoid routine 3-draws since they are only good when you can get a chance at a 4-draw for only a fraction of a bet. Rarely play unless committed.
The blind structure will encourage more late steals, but the fact that the blinds may have a card higher than yours will discourage it; unlike normal when the bring-in always has the lowest card.
- Louie
n the big blind with K 3 offsuit.
sb, UTG, #5 and button see the flop.
flop: K T 7 small blind checks and the question is: how often should one bet in this position.
Last night I did not bet and UTG had AT and bet and #5 had 89 and raised and button had JT and called and small blind dropped and I dropped too. Thinking backwards if I had bet then they could not shun me out from the pot.
BTW the river was an Ace so my pain was mild but again what if I had 3 betted the flop?
Maria
Yes what if you had 3 bet the flop! Yes what if you had bet out instead of checked! What if you bet out and UTG raised and #5 reraised? What if you reraised the reraiser! We'll never know now will we! What you must do, is what your good judgement tells you to do! You must believe in yourself. You made the right play. Something told you to try for a check raise or to check for whatever reason! When it was two bet to you with a caller you decided that the best play was to lay down the weak K! You will be correct in a situation like this a great majority (don't know the exact percentage) of the time. You must consider your experience and level of play when making poker plays. If you are inexperienced with situations like this the next time it arises try a different tactic, like betting out. Remember the results.
Learn to trust you good judgement!
NOM
With such a lousy kicker and a bet, a raise, and a cold-caller I'd muck without doubting myself. I have to have a really good read on my opponents to continue with that hand (in which case I'd 3-bet). True that the flop has several straight draws such as QJ and 89, and maybe no one has a King, but in that situation I think most of the time you'll get shown down at least a KQ or KJ and your kicker loses you the pot.
One of my mantra's is avoiding looking at the result when evaluating a decision. In this light you have done us a slight dis-service by telling about the players hands and the river card.
You have a weak hand in bad position against aggressives but not maniacs when the board is reasonably dangerous and most every body is drawing to beat you even if you DO have the better hand. Three of them represent a hand better than yours, even though each is a favorite to have a hand worse. This is an easy fold. Especially easy if you checked out of consern rather than for a routine check-raise.
- Louie
if the flop was K 8 6 against 2 or less players you bet. in this situation you definately check and fold.
I didn't mean to suggest that you should routinely check-and-fold in the original scenario. But once bet, called, and raised you should fold. I would tend to check-raise for a single bet against these aggressive players, who definately do NOT need a King to bet and are very likely to bet regardless.
- Louie
The recent post regarding David Sklansky's essay, The Eight Mistakes in Poker, and some threads on 2+2 and RGP regarding pre-flop play prompted me to do some thinking about deceiving your opponents. First of all Sklansky's essay IMO is one of, if not the most, elegant and brilliant essays I have ever read about poker. It is a must reading for all players. A question I have is what mistakes by your opponents are the most profitable for you in order. Here is mine:
The next point involves deceiving your opponents and the mistake you are trying to get them to make. Say you're known as a tight player and you raise with a hand something like 8,7s in order to vary your play. Let's say the flop comes out something like As, 4, 2. Also say that you end up in a heads up situation after the flop with a weak somewhat loose player that you can read well enough to know that he is most likely drawing at something to beat a pair of Aces with a good kicker like you are representing. Viewed another way you are trying to make your opponent fold when they should have raised or fold when they should have called. Now say the turn and river come 6s, 3s giving you a flush. You bet and get raised. You bet because you want your opponent to call when they should fold. Since your opponent has most likely read you for an Ace, big kicker it seems like you must consider that your opponent thinks their straight is good and isn't that concerned about a flush. Where if you were actually playing A, big kicker you have a pretty easy laydown worst case. What I'm getting at is that deceiving your opponents, especially weak ones, has some drawbacks in that it makes it harder for you to read their hands. Comments?
The number one, unquestionably, mistake a poker player can make is calling when you should fold. This is the most costly and is what makes winners out of the better players.
Why would you want to fool around and try and decieve a weak player? Weak players will make enough mistakes without your help so just play them straight up. Deception in poker is done to keep your better playing opponent guessing. BTW- The only way to get an opponent to fold when they should call or raise is to bet/raise yourself and give them the opportunity to make the mistake. This play, though, is sometimes costly so use it in situations that make sense.
Besides this question coming from Tom Haley seems rhetoric and MisQuote the Raven: "Nothingmore"!
NOM
Mistake that cost whole pot lot worse EV mistake than calling when poor odds right? Ah maybe not, maybe on end if you think opponent bluff 20% of time but pot laying you 7/2 but really opponent bluff 25% of time folding not as bad. But usually pot pretty big at river.
Trust me, the opponent that makes the mistake of calling when he should fold is the opponent you want to play against!
NOM
You are so wrong, I'd love to play against players with your thinking. When getting 10 to one or over you don't need to win too many of these calls to show a profit. As long as the return is stonger then the risk you will profit.
"So wrong" am I! Love to play against players with my way of thinking would you! Tell you what, I play 6 nights a week at the Bellagio in Las Vegas. Usually 15-30 Holdem, sometimes 15-30 Stud. I try never to change tables because of the competition. Come on down and we will play! I love to play against good poker players. Improves my game! Mason Malmuth is sometimes in these games. You may have a real treat and play against him at the same time. Imagime a whipping boy like me and Mason Malmuth to play against at the same time. Doesn't get any better than that! BTW I've been playing in Vegas now for 5 months and have won in ~ %95 of my sessions! Be careful!
SP (alias Vince Lepore, in case you come looking to play, just have me paged and I'll show you where my game is)
I'll see you at the Oreans, July 9th to July 27th, I played against what some feel are the best, Ray Zee, Slanansky, Tuna, Chip Reese, The late Stu Ungar, ect. They have nothing over me, I just recently returned to playing and won 5 of the last 11 taurnaments I've entered. Can we play heads up?
Unfortunately I won't be in Vegas in July. But if you reread my post you will know where I play and what limit. Ill be back after the summer. If Bellgio or anywhere else wants to deal 15-30 Holdem/Stud Heads up I'll play you anytime. Part of playing poker is playing at a level that you can afford. I play at that level. The only way I would get to play against those you mentioned (except Ungar of course) would be if they played at my level or in a tournament (where btw you really don't test a poker players mettle, soul, if you will, one always knows how much one will lose, How convienient.)
Since your such a prominent a figure in the poker world must be the reason you don't use your real name when you put yourself in the category of those you mentioned. Wouldn't want them to know how you really feel now would we!
BTW who is Slanansky?
Vince Lepore
You will recognize me, I'll be the guy that wins 3 tournaments in the Orleans in July
Tom - This is a nice thoughtful post. I have a comment, almost a facetious one, about your last question.
Against weak players (and I play against a bunch of them - Calling when they should Fold is their 90%-of-the-time error) don't worry about your deception making their hands harder to read. The reason: you can't read them for anything anyway !! In my game, if there are 1 or 2 raises pre-flop and the flop comes 6-4-3 rainbow, watch out for the straight from someone!
As one of the other posters said, when you get a group like this, you simply have to wait to get a hand of value, and then keep betting it while they all make the mistake of calling.
Dick
Dick,
So doing fancy things such as "fooling around" by raising with normally non-raising hands at random, trying for a limp re-raise with big pairs, balancing your strategy by sacrificing EV to make you harder to read, etc. probably costs you money against weaker players. If these fancy things were done to excess against better competition I would imagine that they would also cost you money. Which would support NumberOneMistake's point that calling when they should fold is the most profitable mistake for you that your opponents make. To me it is highly likely that the cumulative effect of your opponents making the mistake of calling when they should fold accounts for most of your profits. However, I still am not convinced that I am wrong about the mistake of your opponents folding when they should call or raise as being the most profitable mistake when it happens.
Tom Haley
Tom,
You said: "I still am not convinced that I am wrong about the mistake of your opponents folding when they should call or raise as being the most profitable mistake when it happens."
When it happens the above are the most profitable; these mistakes just don't happen nearly as much as the more common mistake of calling when they should fold.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Yes you are right. I wasn't equivocating when I used the word "cumulative" as was implied by another poster. I have no problem with a $5 mistake being made 5 times an hour by an opponent being more valuable than a $100 mistake being made once every 5 hours by an opponent. Still a $100 mistake is more profitable than a $5 mistake per mistake which apparently I didn't make clear in my post. As usual Mason clarified things a great deal with his post. It might be interesting to consider these mistakes on each betting round in limit hold'em for example. And yes I did have some problems posting yesterday.
Tom Haley
Hey Dick, Listen to this guy NumberOneMistake! After all he's the guy that gave you that wonderful stud lesson at Bellagio's. BTW - He won $180 in that game. Right after you left! Hmm wonder if there is some connection!
Tom Haley just won't accept the fact that wrongful "callers" are a poker players best friend! I like the way he circumvents the issue "cumulative effect". Oh well I guess I'll never get the hang o dis here language!
GW
There's no question that wrongful callers are your best friend. But that's early in a hand. When playing stud and hold 'em, the pots often get very large when compared to the bet. Now getting someone to fold when they shouldn't can be immensly profitable, and in many situations it is almost impossible to call too much.
Here's an example from seven-card stud. Let's say you have a big pair and are called on fifth street by an opponent with only a small pair and nothing else. Now this call is probably wrong by your opponent, and you welcome it. But if you do not improve (or there is no reason for your opponent to think that you have improved), since he made the call on fifth street, he should call automatically on sixth street. If he now folds, he has made a very large error. An error that is much worse than his fifth street call.
A similar error occurs by many players in hold 'em. Let's say they flop something like middle pair in a multiway pot. They will frequently reason out that they must be beat and fold. Well, it makes a big difference if the pot was raised or not before the flop. The raise will have put twice as many bets into the center of the table and make it frequently correct to go to fourth street. If you fold automatically in this spot (an intermediate player mistake) because you must be beat you are probably making a larger mistake than if you call automatically (a bad player mistake) without paying any attention to the size of the pot.
Of course you are correct! Mistakes are costly! Folding when you should call is a costly mistake. Your examples I believe are on the money. I could give a few myself. I especially make note of players that are quick to fold! Lots of profit from them. However, as you stated the player that calls when he should fold is your best friend. And not alway just early on! I also will play hands based on the probability I will get paid off through the river. Last night at Bellagio. 15-30 Holdem. Had a player that called (raises also) with anything all the way to the river. I played almost anything before the flop, from any position, that worked well together because I knew he would pay me off (and draw other players into the foray as well). (Do not misunderstand, I am not recommending playing anything against a player like this, only if the situation is favorable). Also my point was not not meant to argue just an added thought.
FPP
Tom,
It appears you are ranking is in order of how valuable the mistake is to you when it occurs without regard for frequency. If you factor in frequency (e.g., a frequent small mistake may come out ahead of a not so frequent big mistake), I would change the list to the following:
1. Calling when they should have folded. 2. Checking when they should have bet. 3. Calling when they should have raised 4. Betting when they should have checked 5. Folding when they should have called. 6. Folding when they should have raised. 7. Raising when they should have folded 8. Raising when they should have called
I do not have time for a lot of analysis here but maybe it will be food for thought.
Regards,
Rick
By the way, has anyone else had trouble posting today?
My god Rick, do you have a degree in creative thinking, speech writing or something like that! "It appears your ranking... without regards to frequency." Eloquence, Oh Eloquence. You must be hanging with Caro out there at HP. Of course, as others have also stated, you are correct: 1) Calling when you should fold. The Rest are to be discussed later!
SP
I hold pocket 8s on the button. smooth call in a semi tight 10/20 game. One caller, an older fellow who plays very tight. flop is 8,2 Q rainbow. check and i check not seeing any danger knowing that if he had a hand he would bet. turn is a ten. he bets i raise he re raises. i immediatley think i made a mistake and he bought a belly straight holding J9. river pairs the two and we go to 4 bets as i feel condident that i have him beat WRONG. he turned a set of tens. ighn. could i have avoided this? what mistakes did i make? thanks
when you hope a guy makes his hand so you can get action make sure you know what you are looking for. we have discussed before about giving away free cards look back for it. you say he plays tight yet you go to 4 bets with the board paired and there isnt a hand you can beat that a tight player can have for that kind of action. sorry to be so hard on you but you asked and you need to do some more thinking. good luck.
you being hard is easier than losing 4 big bets again. thanks.
The only mistake you made was putting him on A Hand and not a number of potential hands. You made up your mind that he had a straight and that was all there was to it! Ask yourself, as the 2+2 fellows keep telling you, what HANDS can he possibly have. In this case one of them has to be pocked Ts or even Qs (Slow playing or "smooth calling" , as you refer to it, is not your own unique tactic). When he bets the river you have to think to yourself what is he putting me on? Hell you raised the turn and then the board pairs. Most semi tight players won't bet a straight in this situation. Put him on a number of hands! It will help! BTW- Tell Ray Zee I said hello!
SP
There are very few hands big enough to check on the flop, middle set (generally speaking) isn't one of them. You want to give the player in early position who may have flopped top pair with a mediocre kicker (Q,J or Q,T) a chance to play back at you. That's the hand you want to play against.
I really don't understand your response. I believe the question was how to avoid making the mistake of 4 betting the river in situations like the one described. I believe my post addresses that issue. Nowhere do I mention checking anything!
BTW Middles set is certainly big enough to check the flop. Betting or checking should be determined by a number of factors such as number of opponents, how you rate them, and board composition. Giving someone that may have two pairs ( a less likely hand if you flopped a set a chance to play back at you is not one of them. You would be more correct to check and allow someone to make two pair on the turn.
FPP
There are very few bone heads that will bet a straight on the end, and reraise even though the board is paired. Tight players do NOT do this. When he does so, you have ONLY a crying call, and should fold against the very tight.
The player is likely to call a flop bet, so you had no way to win this hand.
- Louie
thanks. the better i get and the more i play the more i have to learn.
Are there any guidelines about the quality of the players in a game vs. the size of the game? How much tougher is a 10-20 game compared to a 4-8 game? The rake is a lot less as a percentage of the pot in a 10-20 game so that is one consideration.
I just moved up from 4-8 to 10-20 two weeks ago, and I'm not going back. True, there are many more good players at this level, and in heads up confrontations, I'm often unsure of where I stand, or what to do. But I'm learning from these pros. In the meantime, there always seems to be three or four less-than-excellent players at the table. In my short window of observation, the bad players at 4-8 seem to be loose-passive, and the bad players at 10-20 seem to be weak/tight -- lots of calling stations. It's fairly easy to get their money. Overall, the game seems to have a lower variance, with fewer giant pots and bad beats. It's more fun to play because you can use some more sophisticated strategies. Iit's definitely easier to read hands (except for the real pros). And the rake is lower. What more could you want?
Spike has it right. its good to move up and water seeks its own level. move up until you find the highest level that you can beat and like to play in. the rake is less, the players are more fun, and you may make maximum money for your hours. good luck.
Here's what I think is reasonably accurate. Below $10-$20 the bad players are just way too loose, are completely unaware, and go much too far with their hands. At $10-$20 and $15-$30 many of these players tighten up some but they tend to be very weak. That is they call when they should raise. At $20-$40 and higher, you start to run into players who are still much too loose but who are also very agrressive.
Of course, the specific game that you are in does not have to be as I describe. You can have a totally unaware player at the higher limits, or a very loose, aggressive player at the lower limits. No matter what limit, you should recognize this and make the appropriate adjustments.
I also believe that if you play really well, rake is not an issue. I have always done better in California where the games tend to be better than here in Las Vegas, but the rake is higher. Being able to play against bad players is much more important that fading a little higher rake.
I think Spike, Ray and Mason have it exactly right. I just moved up to 10-20-40 and 15-30 from 3-6-12 and 4-8 last month.I have been trying to put my finger on the differences as well. After reading your responses it occurred to me that the low limit bad players are very loose and they tend to overplay their bad hands. While the 10-20 players who are bad tend to underplay their good or semi-good hands.I have found it much easier to read other players at the higher limit and the suckouts while they still happen dont happen as often. An example might be you have an over pair to the flop in early position and bet with an habitual raiser in late position. A few calling stations limp in with second or third pair. When the late player raises and you 3 bet it, the limpers are more likely to lay their hands down to a 20$ bet then a 4-8 player may be. This cuts down on the possible turn and river cards that can beat you. So far I feel much more comfortable at these limits and have posted some good short term results..+2530.00 in 40 hours with 8 consecutive winning sessions. I hope it keeps up but I am enjoying the roll while it lasts.
Randy Collack
I must be missing something. In your example your 3 bet forces players holding say middle pair to correctly fold in the higher limit, but they keep playing, incorrectly at the lower limit. And you would rather be playing where they correctly fold? True the fluctuations are smaller, but isn't it better in the long run to play where the players are making more mistakes?
Danny S
You are missing something IMHO. The point I was making was that even though it is incorrect for the low limit players to call with middle pair, if enough of them call it increases the chances that one of them will hit their 2 pair or trips. I keep hearing that you want these bad players in the hand but it just seems that real life experience tells me that I would like to get them out as soon as possible. You are right that over the long run any particular bad low limit player will lose his money, but if there is an endless supply of these suckout artists when does the long run actually get there?
Of course as usual I could be wrong.
Randy
Maybe you just notice the tough losses more.
In a 4-8 game, I raised pre flop with AK o in late position and got a couple of callers including the guy 2 off the button. Flop is k, 10, 7 rainbow. One bet, I raise and all that stay are the guy 2 off the button and myself. 4th street is a blank, he checks, I bet he calls. River is a 7. He checks, I bet and he calls. I lose to 2-7 off suit.
I thought I might lose to a 10-7, but certainly not to a 2-7.
I dont think its that I notice the bad plays more. I think its that there are more bad plays to notice. Bad plays seem to happen once or twice a lap in low limit and once or twice a night at mid limit. I know its just anecdotal evidence but the following hands happened tonight at a 4-8 game I played at.
1) I raise UTG with AK and get a late caller and the SB.Flop is 742 rainbow. I bet, get raised by late caller and the SB calls 2 bets cold. I fold because I have seen this stuff before and I wasnt going to chase for one pair when I was convinced that one of them had 2 pair already. On the river a Queen hits and the SB wins with 2 pair Queens and dueces(s00ted of course) against the other guys sevens and deuces(s00ted of course).
2) I raise UTG with AA and get one late position caller. Flop is K87 rainbow, I bet he raises, I reraise he calls. Turn is blank I bet he calls, River is a 4 I check because I am totally confused. He bets, I call and he turns over 56(s00ted of course).
These are only 2 examples that happened to me. There were countless others happening to other players and they were being done by half the table. I used to think that low limit was beatable but now I think its just not worth the effort to eek out 5 bucks an hour or even 10.
Oh well, thats the end of my rant for the night.
Of course as usual, I could be wrong.
Randy
IMHO I think that you are wrong. Unfortunately a lot of poker players have trouble changing their style of play. A player that plays well at the low limits gets pushed around a little higher up and a player at the higher limits doesn't adjust to the different style of play in a 3-6 game. The same thing happens to no limit and tournament players who do well untill they get into a ring game (see Mason's post above). If this is true of you it is best to find a level where your style is profitable and to stay at that level. All things being equal however, more profit (in units if not in dollars) lies where the most mistakes are being made. This is usually at the bottom of the ladder.
The best thing about this forum is that an exchange of ideas can take place in a civil and constructive atmosphere.I never said I had all the answers. I have been playing poker for only 3.5 years. All of that time has been at low limit. I have read a few books and spend a lot of time reading RGP and 2+2. I have a poker buddy who spends as much time on poker as I do. We discuss strategy and each others playing styles and mistakes as well as the things we do right. I have been an overall winner since I started playing but it is frustrating at the low limits. Last month I finally felt I was prepared for the mid limit games(10-20 and 15-30).After I have played this limit for a few years maybe I will a clearer picture of the differences between the games.Until then I will stick with my gut which tells me it is better overall to get the second best hand on the flop out before it becomes the best hand on the river.
Thanks for your response.
Randy Collack
Randy,
What you're talking about is a complex topic, but you're on the right track in your thinking when it comes to multiway pots. As I mentioned in my other post, there are good references on the topic of thinning the field vs letting players stay in (whether or not they would be making a minor error to call your bet). Try David's essay "Another Gambling Paradox" in _Getting the Best of It_, and a post by Andy Morton. (A bright young player who unfortunately died last year, he put some serious thought into this topic and wrote an insightful, mathematically supported essay on it in a post to RGP.) Do a "power search" on deja.com, and look for his post, "Going Too Far & Implicit Collusion", dated 4/3/97.
John Feeney
I don't have time to go into detail, but it can be shown that most of the time in multiway pots you really do want to knock out those players in the middle when you hold a semi-vulnerable hand like an overpair. Maybe someone else can cover some of the points made about this in places like David's essay "Another Gambling Paradox", and the related "Morton's Theorem".
John Feeney
Take it from someone that played 10-20 or 15-30 and then moved down to 4-8 due to a depleted bankroll. 4-8 was killing me...I forced myself to stop playing poker for a month until I had enough from work to get back into 10-20, which is a much easier game to beat.
What a great question. Once you get above 6-12, there seems to be a dramatic improvement in overall ability of players. The next limits, 10-20, 15-30, and 20-40, are compromised, for the most part, of good players. You will see more "gambling" in 20-40 compared to the other two limits, which is primarly due to bigger bankrolls. Anything above 20-40 are usually the "best" players. But, you can find any type of player at almost any limit.
As a new comer to hold'em (low limit), I'd like to know about what some of the statistical measures mean. I have a copy of "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" and have a spreadsheet where I keep my session results. Here are some numbers: Standard deviation = 66, and for some reason the number falls somewhat each time I enter a new session. Most important is that I'm stuck for $1080.00 after 164 hours , for a loss rate of $6.20/hr. Does anyone have any input on what these numbers mean for a new comer? Mason's book has great examples for more advanced players, but of course that description does not fit me :) Other questions are , is the "sample" large enough to get a handle on my play?, second what does a falling standard deviation mean? and third, does a starting stadard deviation of 80 mean anything? The games are of course 3-6-6-12 hold'em and a few 4-8 sessions. Thanks in advance for answers.
Cliff "The Checkraise Meister".
I'm not sure what units you have attached to the standard deviation of 80 (i'll assume its dollars). Your standard deviation basically measures the variablility of your data set (session wins or loss). Here's an example: If your average is say a $60 loss for a 10 hour session with a standard deviation of $80, you would expect your results for the next session to be between +$20 and -$140. In fact around 70% or your sessions will be in this range. two standard deviations would be between +$100 and -$220. Around 95% of your seesions are in this range. With that explained here is my interpretation of your data. A falling standard deviation means that your results are becoming more consistent with your average. Your play is probably improving. After say another 100 hours of play, I'd delete the first 100 hours of play you recorded and see what your average and deviation is then. Hopefully you will notice a big differnce. As for now, I would definately say that 164 hours of play is not enough to say your a $6.20 an hour loser, but are pretty conclusive that you are not beating the game. One resean I suspect is that you've been playing the 3-6-6-12 games. If you've been playing by the books, you could be playing well for a normal 6-12 or 3-6 game but not making the necessary adjustments to this game. It regularly punishes solid hands at the start and rewards big draws. If you don't know what I'm talking about, its probably part of your problem.
Actually, the unit for Cliff's standard deviation is dollars per hour--not simply dollars.
If I remember my statistics correctly, his standard deviation for a 10-hour session (applying the numbers you use) would be 80 x 3.16 (i.e., the square root of 10 hours) or about 250.
With a win rate of -$6 per hour (or -60 for a 10-hour session), he could expect to walk away from the table with a profit between -310 and +190 about 65 percent of the time.
Mr. Meister:
This is not my alley; but I suspect the spread sheet is set up to reflect the CONFIDENCE in your hourly rate. The more sessions you play the higher the confidence and the lower the SD you can expect.
I think if you posted more detailed information about WHAT statistics you are keeping and the equations behind the "totals" lines in your spread sheet, someone else may be inclined to give an enlightened comment. Do you keep track of HOURs played or just "sessions"?
- Louie
Louie,
Thanks for the post. Hopefully this will get my prior post squared away. First, the number of hours is 164, the number of sessions is 22. The standard deviation and loss (yuck) rate are in dollars. Mark Weitzman's formula is what I'm using in the spreadsheet. Luckily, the formula I'm using is also posted here at 2+2 under the Essays section. The name of the essay is "Computing Your Standard Deviation". So, for this formula, N (number of sessions ) =22 sum(X)(results) = $-1080.0 sum(T)(playing time) = 164 U (average result) = $-6.2 variance = 66 almost forgot, the time units are in hours.
Thanks ... Mr. Meister. (Marc I hope you don't see this :) I don't want you to get any ideas
Mason, do you recommend book by roy cooke?
It's is probably worth reading, but I haven't read it as yet and won't get to it for a while. This is someone who does know how to play hold 'em very well.
If you routinely believe everything you read then stick to 2+2 as they present the most rational advise.
If you routinely DOUBT everything you read then read EVERYTHING since there is benefit in dispelling the most retched advise. Even "Stud Poker Blue Book" improved my 5-stud game, even though in had only one applicable sentence ("fold if you can't beat the guys board").
Judging only by Mr. Cook's columns I would venture to suspect that his book would be worthwhile so long as you evaluated everything in it. There will be some diamonds amongst the roughage.
The main benefit of non-premium advise is the notion of looking at situations from different perspectives; not necissarily the conclusions THEY draw from these perspectives.
- Louie
Life is too short to read every thing.
I'm a new HE player and I'm not sure if I played this hand correctly: I had 99 in the big blind and called a raise from next to the button along with 3 others. The flop came QQ9 and I checked and called the raiser's bet. The turn card was 3 (no flush); I bet and was called by the raiser. The river was a K; I bet again and was called by KK. Was this a bad beat or did I make a mistake along the way?
In the first place, it's hard for me to belive that the player with KK just called you on the river instead of raising. That was his mistake. Secondly, I would have raised on the turn, and possibly on the flop depending on how loose the game was. I think you were too passive with this hand, since you will make more money by being aggressive with it than you will lose in the long run. Good Luck! Black Jack
Kate,
he was either flirting with you by not raising on the river or you bet so infrequently into scary boards that you made him quake in his boots ( or he overlooked the board). every time you bet, check, call or raise do so for a reason you thought about. on each street you could have made any one of those decisions and only you could know which was right because you were there. good luck.
The only reason you should have check called on the flop was to check raise the turn. I can't imagine why you led out betting on the turn. I think the better play in low limit games is to check raise the flop. You will get more callers with this play on the flop, and it will be cheaper. This play sets you up to bet the turn, and if you are gonna shake hands like 10's JJ KK AA it will be now (but probably not; at least you give them something to think about) any Qx hand will most likely show down. I also think that a check raise on the flop in a low limit game is much more profitable than popping it on the turn because you will get more callers on the flop and the smaller bet decreases your variance when you loose, but you get about the same money as a raise on the turn when you win. I believe that this is due to the fact when you get a few callers with your check raise on the turn, you will get sucked out on more often. I think in this situation a check raise on the flop is mandatory, if you want to mix up your play in this situation and check raise the turn, I'd do it when the pair on board is smaller than your nines. In these low limit games you will have to show down the best hand most of the time, so if you want to make the most money while decreasing your variance (which can be done) will be by discriminating on the large bets.
From what I have of 3-6 and 4-8 hold 'em, it's pretty much play good starting hands, fire away when you have the best and hope you don't get rivered. It's very tough to move anyone in these games. Although you will get hit by the miracle 4th and 5th street cards, it seems you should make enough when these people call and don't hit. I think if you have the temprement to survive someone calling a raise before and after the flop and then hitting 3-3 with hit 7-3 holding, you can make money at this game.
It is my experience that "players" at this level routinely slow-play big hands, such as you have done. There is a strong tendancy for them to be suspicious of bets on the flop when there is a pair, and rightfully so. If he would slow play 3 Queens, what could he have when he bets when there is a pair of Queens on the board?
This is the main reason I routinely fire at scary boards when I have a monster. I'm likely to get a play AND disguise my hand. HeHeHA!
Since there are two callers between you and the likely better, check-raising will have the negative affect of causing them to fold. If UTG had raised, I would check-raise after giving the callers a chance to call again.
Slow-playing in early position often risks 3sb to win 1: raising and betting the turn is 4sb. Calling the flop and having the player check the turn yields 1sb. The benefits, IMO, rarely justify the risk. I slow play USUALLY for affect and NOT for this hand's EV.
What a bone-head "just" calling with top full.
- Louie
So this hand illustrates: ==1== Betting/Checking considering the likely callers position vis-a-vis the likely better. ==2== Possibly disguising your hand by playing it aggressively. ==3== The difficulties of playing in early position.
Low level players may slow play big hands, but there are usually a few players who will call anyway.
I had K-5 in the BB. I forgot I was BB and started to throw my hand away. The dealer told me I had already posted so I kept my cards. Flop was Q-5-5. I bet out and had 5 callers. Next card is a J, I bet and have 3 callers. Next card is the case 5, I bet and get 3 callers.
I don't know if they thought I was trying some trickery by tossing my hand or not. 2 of the callers even said (after they called) He must have the 5.
Hurry! Please tell me where you play with opponents like that---I'll be on my way! Black Jack
I'd never heard of a traveling 3-6 pro until now! Aren't most 3-6 games populated with these type of opponents anyway? What I'd really like to know about is a low-limit game where I wouldn't need the best hand on the river to win. I want to rob whatever game I'm in, move players off the pot, and seldom see the river whatever the stakes.
Soaring Eagle in Mt. Pleasant MI, about 150 NW of Detroit. I think the rake is $4 max, 10%. Highest game I saw was 10 - 20 although they do have 20 - 40 on occassions.
I'll settle for a 5% finders fee.
Thanks to you all for your responses, they gave me a lot to think about. I slow-played because I thought if I bet or check-raised everyone would assume I had trip Q's and fold (as has happened to me several times) and I thought my hand was strong enough to allow a free card. I agree my opponent was an idiot not to raise on the river; I guess I should have taken his overcalls more seriously and checked. (Next time I post I won't give away the ending prematurely.)
Lately, I have begun reading and posting on RGP, and think that both sites have something to learn from each other. First of all, I like the fact that everything poker related (whether it's a trip report, advice for hand play, an opinion on a casino, etc.) is all posted on the same page. You don't have to go to an Exchange Forum, or request to post essays, etc...it's all right there. I think that is something this site can learn from RGP. Now, this site (2+2)is much more focused on actual game play, and does not have all the flame wars that take place on RGP and that's a plus, but I think it would be nice if this site was a little more free-wheeling. Thoughts?
I don't think it is too much trouble to click the little exchange link. Its not segregation or apartheid that exchange posts are seperate from strategy posts. It makes organization better, and even searching the archives easier. I also see the same names on both pages, so your posts aren't going to miss anyone either. When I don't get online for a few days there are like 946 new posts on RGP and 879 of them are worthless adds, bickereing, make money schemes and unanswered posts. I rarely if ever see these things on this forum and am grateful for it. Oh yeah, and I believe this post goes on the exchange forum.
This site will be more free-wheeling when hell freezes over or Mason Malmuth removes the threat and execution of censorship. This was posted at 9:46 pm pdt and it'll be one by tomorrow if not sooner. Remember 2+2 is for selling oks and RGP is for exchanging ideals freely.
We are a commercial site, and we must enforce our posting guidelines. With this being the case, and despite what you may have heard, we have only deleted a very small number of posts. If you search through our archives, you will see plenty of posts highly critical of both David and myself.
Mason as usual you are right. After reviewing what you wrote and looking back in the archives you have been amazingly tolerant of criticism and if that isn't allowing a free exchange of ideas I don't know what is. Since this is a commericial site I understand your policy totally after thinking about it some. It is good to know that you have only deleted a few posts.
Thanks.
I think that this forum has worked amazingly well. It has certainly done better than we ever thought it would. Furthermore, I think that everyone who participates has benefited. This includes myself as well as David and Ray and all the regular posters.
i want to check it out
RGP is rec.gambling.poker which is a newsgroup as opposed to a web site. It can be accessed using most email programs such as MS Outlook or Outlook Express or Netscape Messenger.
RGP can also be accessed via the web using the usenet search engine portals www.deja.com (use power search) or www.remarq.com.
Regards,
Rick
Mark,
There is no need to be yet another toady suck up. Two Plus Two Forum has dozens of them. Fell free to express yourself and offer any contrary view points
The reason we have an Exchange Forum is that we were getting so many posts it was taking too long for the forum to load. Thus we decided to split it up.
As for being free wheeling, well be my guest. Just remember to stay within our posting guidelines -- we are a commercial site.
Mason,
I come to this site to learn how to improve my poker game. If I want to exchange ideas, I'll do it over beer with my friends. Please continue to exercise strong control over the content of this site. The focus is what makes it valuable. Most of us who don't have the time to wade through a bunch of irrelevent ramblings.
Ditto. This site is hard enough for working folks to keep up with. RGP is great but marred by all kinds of pointless junk and more than it's fair share of creepy types and petty feuds.
I like the separation of the forums quite a bit. It saves me time sifting.
Shouldn't this Post (and my reply) be on the Exchange Forum? ;^)
CV
Both sites are worth visiting. For news rgp is great and you can find the better technical threads with a good newsreader and knowledge of the better posters. It is also quite a bit faster to zip through posts (sometimes I can play Jellyfish Light a whole game of backgammon while the message index loads on 2+2).
For in depth analysis of poker, you can't beat this site. Many posters obviously put a lot of effort and thought into what they write and to some extent it derives from the serious nature of the forum and the fact that it is hosted by poker's best writers (assuming grammar doesn't count :-)
Regards,
Rick
P.S. BTW, I’ve had problems posting lately (since the banner ads came up). If I preview my post and then try to post it I get a “NO MESSAGE” response from 2+2. When I go back to the index and post directly without preview, it goes up OK.
I don't have enough time to read all the noise on RPG. Here, you can get right to the stuff that matters, at least to me.
Here's another hand that I played in the same $15-$30 hold 'em game.
Before the flop, the first three players passed, two players then limped, I called with Kc2c one off the button, the button folded and both blinds played. (I want to note that the players in the blind were both weak, loose players.)
The flop was 9c 4c 2d. The first player bet, the second player folded, the third player raised, the fourth player reraised, I called, the first player folded, the third player called.
A 2h came on fourth street. The first player (remaining) checked, the player in the middle bet, I called, the first player called.
A 4s came on the river. It was checked to me, I bet, both players called, and my deuces full won the pot.
All comments are welcome.
Mason,
Don’t worry, this one won’t be posted on rgp (at least by me).
I’m a little tighter before the flop with this hand but the fact the blinds are loose and weak makes your call better. I generally like to steal very late with this hand or get about one more caller.
You wrote, “the flop was 9c 4c 2d. The first player bet, the second player folded, the third player raised, the fourth player reraised, I called, the first player folded, the third player called. “
With this ragged flop and no raise before the flop (i.e., small pot) I think a set would slowplay here so I think you are most likely against medium quality hands at this point. I might reraise in California (cap is three raises) but like your call in Las Vegas (cap is four raises). In California the reraise may get you the initiative for fourth street and it would cost you only one bet.
Next you wrote: “A 2h came on fourth street. The first player (remaining) checked, the player in the middle bet, I called, the first player called.”
The first player may be on a draw and there is a good chance it is an ace high flush draw. I might put the pressure on by raising here. The weaker flush draw will still call (something like QcJc). If reraised by the original better you have to figure you’re up against a set (assuming a typical player) and need to hit your flush. (BTW, I would still call the river bet in most cases even if reraised here due to the pot size.)
You concluded: “A 4s came on the river. It was checked to me, I bet, both players called, and my deuces full won the pot.”
Betting is mandatory. No one is trying to trap you after the action indicated in previous rounds.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, in speaking about the turn card, you said:
"If reraised by the original better you have to figure you’re up against a set (assuming a typical player) and need to hit your flush. (BTW, I would still call the river bet in most cases even if reraised here due to the pot size.)"
Obviously, this was an innocent error on your part as the bettor would have to have a full house. This may be another reason for Mason to raise. Notice that the original bettor would be hard-pressed to reraise Mason even if he had 44. Mason's play on the flop and raise on the turn would sure get me thinking (had I held the 44) that Mason may have 99. After all, Mason has a very well disguised hand here. There's no way the original bettor can put Mason on a deuce given all the action on the flop.
If the original bettor did make it three bets, Mason would have to give some serious consideration to mucking his hand.
skp,
I think I'm staying up a little too late when I write these so I missed the obvious that the board was paired on the turn. I still like the turn raise for the reasons you mentioned below in your first post and I agree you might have to lay down if it comes back to you reraised.
Regards,
Rick
Unless your play is close to optimal postflop, this hand should probably be thrown away preflop when it appears that you will compete against only 3-4 opponents. MM, you can probably play this one for a small +EV, but it will likely be a somewhat -EV for the majority.
I certainly agree with your bet on the river. Rick's comment is correct, that I would be VERY surprised if someone checked here looking for a check-raise.
The calls on the flop and turn seem a little less obvious to me. On the flop, the pot was small, and now everyone is jamming, so effectively you're not getting great odds here. Clearly, if you know that the flush will be good, you can call. However, given this action, I would certainly be concerned that I'm up against Ax in my suit, and also a set. If that's the case, I'm drawing dead. If only 1 of these two are out, I'm still drawing slim. This is a marginal call at best, and maybe a fold, given the opponents.
Once you catch the 2 on the turn, why not raise? I'd guess you decided that you're better off going for the overcall, and making an extra bet that way. Were you concerned that the overcaller would fold if you raised? If so, then I see much more merit in just calling (because you still should be concerned that the bettor just filled up).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I'm with greg on this one. Fold preflop. call on flop. raise on turn. bet on river. Call reraises on turn and river.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Mason writes:
>>Here's another hand that I played in the same $15-$30 hold 'em game.
Before the flop, the first three players passed, two players then limped, I called with Kc2c one off the button, the button folded and both blinds played. (I want to note that the players in the blind were both weak, loose players.) <<
What Greg wrote is along the lines of my thinking. Raising would be wrong and folding if it was a mistake wouldn't be a huge one. Likewise with calling, if it was a mistake it was small.
>>The flop was 9c 4c 2d. The first player bet, the second player folded, the third player raised, the fourth player reraised, I called, the first player folded, the third player called. <<
Options:
Raising - I think that this would be a mistake here. You don't have the best hand and you may be drawing thinner than you woud like to if you are drawing dead to the flush draw although you probably aren't. You would like to have more customers as well if you make you hand and raising might lose some.
Folding - I think that this would also be a mistake because your hand is simply too good. You've got a piece of the board with an overcard and a flush draw.
Calling - Since raising is a mistake and folding is a mistake the only thing left is to call.
>>A 2h came on fourth street. The first player (remaining) checked, the player in the middle bet, I called, the first player called.<<
Options.
Raising - There are two things about raising that would make it a mistake IMO. One reason is that you may not have the best hand in that your opponent may have a full. The second reason is that if you do have the best hand your opponents may find it very easy to fold at this point which you don't want if you do have the best hand. Also if you don't have the best hand you have a chance to draw out albeit very small. If you raise you will probably knock out one player and collect a bet at best from the aggressor. If the aggressor has a full you probably will get re-raised and there may be enough doubt combined with the pot size that you may have to go ahead and pay him off.
Folding - Out of the question.
Calling - You encourage a call from the player who checked. Since raising is out and folding is out, you call.
>>A 4s came on the river. It was checked to me, I bet, both players called, and my deuces full won the pot.<<
Options.
Checking - I believe it would be a mistake to check here. You are very apt to get at least one call from a worse hand and possibly two. This time it was bingo and you got two.
Betting - Only option left.
.
i hope in masons reply he tells us how much he liked his hand on each street then we can better judge his play here. i like everything and the outcome. i might have raised on 4th street if i really liked my hand because in my life ive seen too many people make hands like a wheel here. with the big pot already i might want even the long shot hands gone or calling two bets cold.
Boo! Mason. Boo!
Call with a K2s with the button yet to call. Well the weak loose blinds make up for that unless they were weak loose and Aggressive and had a tendency to raise from the blinds then I'm not sure. Anyway how come you say "two players limped" and "I called". Are you a little sensitive about using the word "limp" in association with Mason Malmuth.
Alwright maybe the preflop isn't that bad a call. But only because of the skill level of the caller (Or is that limper.) Notice I said skill level, not ego. Mustn't over rate ones ability, could get us in trouble.
Your flop play is mmm... O.K. I tried to put myself in your place and I don't know if a call is correct but I probably make it anyway! The problem with the two raises is the first one. He very may well be raising a flush draw. This is a double problem First he may have the ace and second ifeven if he has small clubs it relly knocks down your chances. But what the hell let's gamble. Call!
Boo on your turn play!
You got the right guy to bet! Middle guy that reraised. He either has a set of nines (BTW you know these players %90 of them raise with pocket nines so unlikey here), an over pair (again not likely but possible) a set of fours or most lileky x,9 suited. I'm going with x,9 suited. I'm putting pressure on the first raiser. I want this guy out of my pot, I say My pot because I think I have the best hand now. Raise! If he doesn't fold then the pot gets bigger and that's o.k too. Sure, if I get reraised I'm in trouble. So what! As far as not wanting to lose someone forget it. That's a big mistake when there is a lot of money in the pot.
River play! Duh! If these two are the type that will try for a check raise with this board then I want them in my game!
Vince
I would have played the same, except to raise the turn. There are two many bets in the pot; I am a favorite to have the best hand and I want extra money from those drawing to the flush.
Danny S
I would have raised on the turn. The middle player was the one you had to worry about. He was the aggressor, but had he flopped a set, I believe he would have checked on the turn, hoping to suck out a check-raise since he was now full. He probably had TT or JJ, and was trying to eliminate the overcards with his raise. The first player had maybe an A 9s, and was stuck along for the ride. Had you raised here, even if the first player folded, the original bettor would have still called, so you don’t lose a bet. Although you may lose 1 big bet on the river from the first player, by the way he was passively calling, I would have put him on a draw, and wouldn’t have minded at all if he folded on the turn.
Pre-flop:
I would play the hand only if I were playing in a "good game" where I can expect to be paid off if I hit. Once I have made the decision to play it, I would likely raise with it in your position in an effort to "buy the button" and perhaps a free card at some point during the play of the hand. If both blinds fold...fine...the action is 3 way with me driving the betting...I don't mind that. If both blinds call...fine...I don't mind a multiway pot with my second nut flush draw (BTW, I am never too concerned about running into a higher flush in Hold 'em. Of course, different story if there are 4 hearts or something out there).
Flop
I would probably have played it the same way you did. No use raising again because you are unlikely to get Ax in clubs to fold. A raise may get two small clubs to fold but this is exactly what you don't want.
While you have got a very good flop, the fact is you are still drawing and there is a possibility that your two pair and trip outs may be no good. A further benefit of just calling is that one or both of the raisers may put you on a set thinking that if you had a flush draw, you may well make it 4 bets trying to slow them down on the turn (I am not saying that this is logical thinking necessarily but some players do think this way). Thus, by just calling, you may get a free card (if you choose to take it) on the turn.
Turn
I have not yet read the other responses but I suspect that this is one aspect of the hand where there may be great differences in opinions. Here's mine:
The middle player bets. He in all likelihood has a hand less than a set (while he could have 44 or 99, I am going to discount that possibility because he likely would have just smooth-called the initial raise on the flop with a view to popping it on the turn. Also, some players would raise pre-flop with 99 so I make 99 an even more remote possibility. 99 is particularly unlikely given that there is a bet and a raise ahead of the three-bettor indicating that surely one of the earlier players has a 9).
In any event, if the middle player flopped a set, you are of course dead meat on the turn. Thus, a raise on the turn would not be a good thing for you. If the middle player has a hand other than a full house (as I suspect) you may want to just call because he would be drawing thin. However, given the size of the pot, you would be pleased if he folded even say a hand like 10,10. Accordingly, taking into account just the middle player, I likely would have raised.
As for the first player, he may well have a flush draw (heck, in my games, he could have an open-ended straight draw or a hand like A,3). Once again, even though this player is drawing slim to your hand, I would likely raise given the size of the pot.
Now, I am not saying that the first player will fold a hand like Ax in clubs but he just might if you raise on the turn. If he is a good player, he will likely reason that Mason wouldn't have taken all that heat on the flop with a measly deuce and Mason likely wouldn't raise on the turn with a draw therefore Mason must have slowplayed a set on the flop and now has a full house. Getting a player with Ax in clubs to fold here would of course be huge.
In short, I would have raised the turn.
River
I agree with the bet. No one is trying for a checkraise here and given the size of the pot, they will call you with anything.
p.s. Sorry for the long response. Obviously, I was thinking it ot aloud as I wrote it and I don't have time now to edit my post.
Hey Skp, read my response. We think along the same lines on this one except.. Always an exception. Would you really raise preflop with this hand? I can't imagine why? Buy the button? Nah. Not good enough. Also what happens if the button three bets it and drives everyone else out! Would you like to be in that situation with a K,2s. I don't think so! Trying to buy the button has merits but not here.
Just a thought!
Your Posting buddy. Vince.
Vince, welcome back...you were missed around here.
My suggestion to raise preflop may have been expressed in stronger language than what I really intended. I probably should have phrased it as just something to consider but of course everyone knows that.
I'd like to know how you remember exactly what happened in that specific hand. I'd like to remember every single play I make so I can study it later, but that doesn't seem possible.
1) Pre-flop: calling with Kc2c: very few players can turn this garbage into a winning hand. Certainly Mason is a better player than I am, probably in the top 1% of all players in limit hold 'em. For those of us in the other 99%, throw this hand away all the time.
2) Calling 3 bets on the flop with bottom pair and the 2nd nut flush draw: same comment.
3) Calling on the turn with a set: I think it's important to raise. Why let some one luck into a bigger hand on the river? There are a lot of cards that could come on the river that you wouldn't like to see. If no one calls, that's OK with me.
4) Betting on the river: Agree; unlikely anyone can beat your hand after they've checked after all the previous action.
you got a lucky card ,, nice catch mason!!
Upon first reflection, I was confused by your call on the Turn. After pondering it some, though, I realize that it was gutsy but still made sense.
Normally when someone three-bets on the Flop after an initial bet and a raise, I give them credit for two pair or a set. Since two pair is unlikely with that flop, a set is possible, although it is also quite possible that the reraiser would three-bet it with an overpair - say, 10s or such - especially since the players in the blinds were loose, weak players. The call on the Flop was a no-brainer.
On the Turn, it was now impossible for the three-better to hold pocket deuces. And, it is twice as likely for him to have been dealt a pair of Aces, Queens, Jacks, or Tens than for him to have been dealt pocket Nines or Fours. Therefore it was probable that you had the best hand.
If you did have the best hand, however, a raise may have caused the other two players to fold, thus costing you three bets in retrospect. If you didn't have the best hand, a raise would simply invite a reraise from the second player, and it would cost you another two bets to see whether or not he had a full house. Thus, perhaps going for the overcall on the Turn was probably the correct action.
The bet on the River was also a no-brainer. Now, you knew you had the best hand.
In the heat of battle, I probably would have given the player who made it three bets on the Flop credit for a set (without any prior knowledge of his strategy) and folded on the Turn when the board paired.
I guess that's why I'm currently playing $3-$6. :)
Q
You got lucky. Calling three bets cold with bottom pair and a possible non-nut flush draw is questionable if not just plain wrong.
Let's see, there were five small bets before the flop. After the flop, a bet and two raises puts 6 more small bets into the pot, making it eleven small bets in the pot. Calling three bets cold gives you slightly better than 4-1 odds. Pairing the deuce probably made your call worth it, but still questionable in my opinion since you're not even drawing to the nut flush. In addition, you may end up just heads up for the turn bet, and you will almost definitely be bet into, if not raised into.
natedogg
Chico,
You wrote: "Is JJ7c3c a big enough hand to call a button raise from a known theif in the big blind?"
This is an easy call but you must play well short handed post flop to make much money. No hand is that much better heads up that you can't take 3.5 to one on your call.
Then you wrote: "Early position raiser. I am two seats to his left holding A24K. I call. The big blind calls. The flop is 27J unsuited. Do you take one off?
I would against most opponents three handed. Your not playing for the nuts short handed.
Against a large field I would fold as I probably need to catch a three to get at most half the pot and don't have much of a shot at the high.
Regards,
Rick
I have received the same error message trying to post here over the last few days. When I preview my post then confirm, I get a message saying the original post is not valid. When I try again I am told its a duplicate. I wonder if anyone else is having this trouble. Sorry if this is more of an Exchange type post, but the problems have occurred here and not there.
Randy Collack
A temporary solution is to not preview your message. I am not sure what is wrong.
Chuck
Ok. I think I found and fixed the problem. If this shows up, I have.
Chuck
This is something that I posted on our Exchange Forum that I thought I would expand on here.
When I observe the most successful tournament players I notice that many of them seem to have tremendous success for a limited time. Is this because they were just extremely lucky, could it be that others learn to call them down more and thus their edge evaporates, or is it a combination of both?
Because of the fact that once you get past the early stages of a tournament you can't rebuy, many players begin to play very tightly. This means that there are more opportunities to steal, especially if you have accumulated some chips early on. If your style is extremely loose and aggressive, you will frequently bust out early, but sometimes be in a comanding position to take advantage of the short stacks. I believe that many of the most successful tournament players fit this mode for a short period of time -- perhaps a year or two.
Then they seem to lose their edge. Could it be that more players have learned to pay them off where when they first show up they would have folded? A sure sign of this style is poor preformance in standard ring games. Sometimes I think that most tournaments are won "defacto" by the high limit players who simply chew up the new tournamet stars.
By the way, not all successful tournament players fit this mode. Players like Dan Harrington and Eric Seidel have been very successful in both areas. In addition, I don't believe that either one would qualify as extremely loose and aggressive.
I think you have it about right. Many who enjoy some success in tournaments do so because they are very agressive. And when an experienced tournament player recognizes one of these players they simply call their bets more often. Of course these aggressive players frequently have some outs, such as going all-in (in no-limit) with a flush draw or a small pair. But they frequently have the worse of it when called.
I've also observed that many tournament successful players are not as good in ring games. In fact, I'm guilty of that myself. I do much better than average in tournaments, but not in ring games. But it's not that I'm over-agressive in tournaments, I just play better in them. But then again, I play mostly no-limit tournaments and limit ring games--perhaps suggesting different skills. But, I think the main difference is that my opponents are better in ring games than in tournaments. In fact, even in the major tournaments, many enter who have limited experience in tournaments, or just don't appreciate the differences between them and ring games. And I suspect that this helps many do better than average in tournaments, but not in ring games.
By the way, I think that many of the very good tournament players are not high limit ring game players. That is, many can be found at the 20/40 limit and lower.
The question then is, what is the fundemental difference between ring games and tournament play? Your comment is..
"...many enter who have limited experience in tournaments, or just don't appreciate the differences between them and ring games"
I would be very interested in your opinions on these differences, and how one should approach tournament play.
Thanks.
Probably the biggest difference is that you are not playing for the value of the chips. The value of the chips change depending on your relative stack size, and the prize structure. The most drastic example of this can be illustrated in a tourney which pays, say, 40% for first place. The winner will have all the chips yet only get 40% of the pool. Second place may get second place (possibly around 20%) with only one chip left when third place is eliminated (perhaps 10%). So second place's one chip is worth 10% of the prize pool, where all of first place's chips (let's say 500 chips) are only worth only .08% each.
One way that could effect play is that when you have a short stack and have an opportunity to double up, you need more than a 50% chance to win in order to play the hand. That's because the "20 chips" you win are worth less than the "20 chips" you have. Another way of putting it is that you may have increased your equity if you won (say by 75% to pick a number), but you have zero equity if you lose. Of course you must also consider your chances if you don't play--there is now one less opportunity to get a hand. So if the blinds are about to eat you up, a 50/50 chance is pretty good.
In a ring game if you had a 55/45 chance of doubling up you would take it (unless you're low on money and playing opponents much worse than you and figure to get even better opportunities in the future).
I guess you could say that you usually should play the same hand the same way in a ring game--except when mixing up your play for deceptive reasons. In a tournament the play of a hand is determined by your situation at the time.
Another area that is different is that many players play tight because they're afraid of being eliminated. So being agressive can be an advantage at certain times. And as Mason pointed out, you can take advantage of agression by calling agressive players with weaker than normal hands, because these players will frequently be betting lesser values.
Geo.; Another factor, I have noticed is that small local T'mts have short time limits and plyrs are given a poor chip to limits ratio (ie as low as 10 lg blinds to start T') especially in rebuy T's. Therefore; they play marginal hands very aggressively and do not adjust their speed & hand selection properly when they come to bigger T's (ie Big ego's from domination of a small pond),if they get lucky and pick-up a large stack early with very limited show downs they can fool some of the players all the time but not pro's like T.J. for very many T's.
So you mean Dan Harrington and Eric Seidel were just extremely lucky in tournament,don't expect them to win another one in near future right? I think to win anything you have to play well and very lucky too.
JJ73s. To what "big enough" strength are you refering? Can you name three different worse hands?
A24K. ReRaise. The chances that you have a better low AND a better high than then raiser is much greater than he having better than you.
- Louie
I was in the final stage of a NL tourney w/ 41 enrtrants about 38,000 in chips, w/ me holding 9K w/ two tables left. i called w/7s (blinds were about 200/400) the flop came 10,9, x . i bet 1500 and was raised all in. i folded. my last hand i looked down and had 4s and was in middle position. i pushed all in. what a huge brain dead action. i was calle by AK (who actually came over the top) and he spiked a A on the turn. i needed to make neither of theses plays and could have sat on my chips for much longer or waited for better hands in better position. Dummy. there now i feel better. thanks for listening.
Mike,
you only think they are bad plays because you lost on them. to win a tourn. you need to get chips and the best way is to win them on hands that are not called. you are right that you do need to be more selective but that means to me more selective on the spot to play as to the waiting on a good hand at the cost of losing a large portion of your stack to the blinds. good luck
The original call with the 7s was good (about 5% of stack size, a decent price when looking to hit a set), but the bet on the flop was terrble.
You didn't say what your stack size was on your final hand, but it's entirely possible that you made a good play with your 4s. You were about 6-5 favorite over the A-K, so nothing to be too terribly upset about.
Dribbling your chips away with truly lousy or middling hands such as J-10 off is a more egregious sin.
thanks. something just occured to me. duhhhh if i make the same call w/ Queens there would be no criticism. and the odds on my hitting/not hitting and my opponent beating me w/ AK are THE SAME. No one could really callme w/ say midling pairs which means i am moving people off of better hands by using my chips. i still am not sur that this is anywhere near an optimal play but in late stages of a tourney it might be only so so.
Mike-
I saw both of these hands. The first call was not a bad play, but I probably would have checked the flop as the T9 on the board was likely to hit someone or give them a draw given the action before the flop.
The all-in bet was brain-dead given your chip position and the big aggressive larger stacks (Laird and that Australian guy) that could knock you out or hurt you. I HATE the all-in move with a small to medium pair (even from the button) unless you are very short stacked. You are essentially risking your entire tournament for the chance to pick up the 600 in the pot, which is not worth much to you as a large stack.
Usually if you get any action, you will be taking much the worse of it than you were from Laird as most solid players would only reraise or call with at least Kings unless they are short stacked. For what its worth, I think Laird's play was even worse, as the best he could hope for was an AK vs. underpair race. At least you had the "equity" that you might win the 600 blind uncontesetd. His play was was particulalry bad since he was the big stack and could have probably guaranteed himself at least third place money just by using his stack to attack the short stacks (like me). Why he would chose to risk half his stack for a coin flip (at best) is beyond me.
as usual you are succinct and correct. my big failing as you know are those moments of brain seizure amid moments of lucidity and intelligence. tonight??
One of the questions you should ask yourself, is how would you have felt about it if a 4 came up? Somewhere in between is the correct answer.
lucky....hitting a two outer takes no skill, just luck i dont make the bet with the hope that a 4 shows. that was my mistake.. thanks
Last night I steamed 80 small bets in exactly 2 hours.
I lost about 40 of them against good opponents and about 40 of them against loose opponents. The composition of our table was 2 good players, 1 fairly good loose aggressive, 1 tight weak, 4 loose weak and Maria.
There are two issues that I would like to discuss publicly.
1. The major reason for my steaming (after I steamed the first 20 bets) was my strong desire to get even and "get over it". I was trying to cover up my steaming from me and my bookkeeping and the whole world. Playing this way my steaming rate was I would say 15 small bets an hour.
2. The reasons that I steamed the first 20 small bets were many and complex. A sequence of bad cards, and losing bets (like missing 3 justified draws in 5 hands and having opponents outdraw you with their legitimate draws 2 twice within half an hour (withing 15 hands)) was just the fuse. But deep inside I can see that I was outplayed or worried way too much for being outplayed and pushed around by the two good players (worried if I could stand my own in that game), being upset seeing the loose players dumping money to the tight weak player (that is, comparing my style to his), and finally having various hard moments with two loose players (probably because I was desiring their respect). Letting myself being affected by those reasons led to a steaming rate of about 30 or more small bets an hour. In essense seeing about half the flops, trying to steal too much, and seeing the river once I decided to call the flop.
For me the second steaming rate is not as scary as the first one. The reason is that once I find myself in the second I realize it and I snap out of it. I would say that I will realize it if it occurs two or three times within 20 minutes (if I see myself playing way too many hands in a lose manner regardless if I lost them or won them). But then if I am 20 small bets behind majorly due to bad play sometimes (not always) I start steaming in the 15 small bets an hour way.
BTW this could have been in the exchange forum too. Dear Mason if you think so please email me and I will remove it and post it in the exchange forum. However, it seems that most players read only the poker forum and I think that the subject affects at least 1/3 of players who could otherwise be anywhere from ok to good.
BTW I believe that besides talent, to be a good poker player one needs: good advice, hard work and playing always his/her best. Today the best public advice is given by the 2+2 books and this forum. In addition a good player needs a playing buddy or buddies and possibly some non-playing coaches.
Oh, and I forgot to explain how did I lose 80 small bets even though I think that my steaming rate was at worst 30 small bets an hour that is 60 small bets in two hours. But as we know poker is a game of very high variance. Most of the two hours my steaming rate was 15 small bets an hour and in combination with somewhat bad cards I lost twice as many plus the original 20 small bets that triggered the second steaming period.
Please respond in any way you think appropriate.
Have a nice day.
Maria
Maria,
this is the place for this post. i quit or move tables if i dont feel my play is right for the future. everyone needs a system to stop themselves from steaming. although from your posts i think you play way too many hands and if you dont stop it we will lose you. good luck.
ill go with half way both Rick and Louie on the jj hand. its a gargage hand but you are getting odds to play. if you are a weak player and must make the best hand to win a pot think again. with Louie id raise back before the flop with the a2 hand. but id most likely fold after the flop if the original raiser bets as its not headup and a player is behind you and hasnt spoken. if i did play it would be with a raise to give me some muscle and position. good luck.
If I flop a set, what are my chances of finishing up with a full house or quads? Here's what I got, 36.6% (1.73:1). Is this right? I don't trust my public school math skills so any help would be greatly appreciated.
Andy
I get 1440/2162, which is 33.395%, or almost exactly 2:1.
You messed up somewhere in your math { (7*46)/(47*46)+(10*47)/(47*46) }. It should be 792/2162 = .366
No, you can't add probabilities of events from different sets like that. You have to calculate the odds of missing both the turn and river, then subtract from 1. I.e., 1 - ((40/47) * (36/46)) = .334.
I was wondering if you could explain your methodology for getting 33.39%. I've tried it a couple of different ways, and I always get 27.8%. Here a quick rundown of what I did- maybe you can point out the errors:
Hand : DD Flop : DEF
Possible turn and river combinations to make a full house or quads:
x is a card that's not D or E or F Dx (40*1 ways) xD (40*1 ways) Ex (40*3) xE (40*3) Fx (40*3) xF (40*3) DF (3) FD (3) DE (9) ED (9) EF (9) FE (9) EE (6) FF (6)
add all these combinations up and put over 47*46, and I get 602/2162, or 27.8%.
I realize this is mostly an academic effort, but I'm still curious. Any help would be great.
Thanks,
Another Mike
My bad- I forgot about running pair. 33.395% is correct.
Sorry,
Mike
Hmm...maybe I'm wrong on this, but I'll give it a shot: 47 unseen cards, 1 out to make quads, 6 outs to pair the other two flop cards and 3 outs to pair the turn card. This come to 10 outs out of 47 or a 21% chance with a tiny amount of error due to the fact that there are only 46 unseen cards which can pair the turn card and I wouldn't know how to adjust for that.
Ans. (7/47) + (10/46) =.366 --> .634:.366 = 1.73:1
the chance of not making it is : (40/47)*(36/46), so the chance of making it is 1 - (40/47)*(36/46) = .33395 as the first response said. 40 cards won't do it on the turn. 36 won't do it on the river.
gator answered "what is the probability of making a full house or quads on the turn OR the river OR both?"
mth.
MTH and Lee Danier are correct - the reason Gator's method of calculation was incorrect is that he tried to use the addition rule of probability, which doesn't work here (or in most hold-em odds situations).
To see why, change the scenario to the probability of drawing a red card on either the turn or river after an all black-card flop, with all black cards in your hand. Using the addition rule of Gator's, you would get 26/47 + 26/46, which is over 100%!
For any situation in which you are trying to calculate the probability of something occurring on either the turn or river, you always need to calculate the probability of its not happening on the turn, not happening on the river, multiply these two probabilities and subtract from 1 (as did MTH and Lee Daniel).
Thus, you get 1 - (40/47 * 36/46) = .33395, or almost exactly 2 to 1 odds.
if you want to see it explicitly, 3 things can happen, you can pair on the turn and not the river in 7*40 = 280 ways. you can pair the turn and river in 7*6 = 42 ways, or you can pair on the river and not the turn in 40*10 ways. this is 280 + 42 + 400 = 722. there are 47*46 possible two-card combos, for a probability of 722/(47*46) = .3340, which brings you back to 2:1 odds against.
The adders didn't go far enough. You can add 7/47 + 10/46, but then you subtract (7/47 * 10/46) to cover the case where the river is unnecessary. Viola! .33395!
i guess we all steam to some extent. it would be nice to hear what our posters do to limit their steaming. other than lack of knowledge of what to do, it might be the main reason players go broke.
Ray,
Funny you should mention steaming! One of my reasons for not posting here in recent weeks was that I have been on a "no tilt" campaign. I had been winning regurarly at 15-30 holdem and built my bank roll up slowly but nicely. However, whenever I ran into a bad session I would steam and jump up to 30-60. The first two times it went well. Even had a big win that nullified a big loss at 15-30. I then returned to my limit of 15-30 and continued steadily winning. Then the bad session raised it's head again and bang I jumped up to 30-60 again. Well after I had lost half my bank roll. (Good thing I didn't have more with me) I knew I had to do something about steaming (tilt) or I was a gone goos from poker. Fortunately my son was visiting at that time. He convinced me to religiously record my results. I had not been doing that as I should have. This single act has forced me to look at each session as a piece of the whole. I play each session with the understanding that I am tryiong to establish a win rate. I am very conscious of my psychological state and monitor it constantly.
This has worked to some extent for me for the past two months. Have not "taken a shot" or steamed to a higher level since. However, I have steamed during a session. Frustration is very difficult to overcome especially for someone with a big ego. I still need work on steaming but I'm sure I'll one day become immune to it! I believe that the answer is: Practice! Consciously practice not steaming! Monitor you psychological state. When mad get up and walk around! Force yourself to do that! Affirmations are no good. One must take action! BTW another thing that helps is to just take enough money with you for a session. No ATM cards or credit cards either!
Vince
Hey Vince you are right. It takes practice to handle frustration. Frustration happen have to deal with it. One thing about limit hold'em you make all the right plays, play aggressive, and can still go off on a very big number. My opinion is tilting in 2 forms, start playing too many hands and/or not being aggressive enough when odds in your favor. A lot of times get gun shy after bad beats. If you do just the opposite when you losing, tighten up and play good situations to hilt it often times bring you back. Like you say Mr. Vince it all one big game and keeping records will help.
What interests me about my own steaming is that it seems very subtle, its almost so subtle that I sometimes believe I can play through it. As we all know, it doesn't take too many mistakes to turn a winner into a loser, and thats what seems to happen.
I usually only steam once I get tired and take some beatings. So quitting the game and getting some rest would be my recomendation. Easier said than done.
CV
Amen!
Vince
CV - Amen from me too.
I see a lot of posts here by pro and semi-pro players who play very long sessions. (There was even a post by a new poster a while back who drove several hours to get to the casino and then played 36-48 hour sessions!) I am not a pro and not yet a semi-pro, but I am good at sitting - I have a classic desk job. But if I play poker for more than about four hours, I definitely start to tire out and get distracted.
Get rest and take breaks ! Each player has his/her own limits of sleep, sitting, and concentration. Know thyself. For me, I often quit after about 4 hours just because it is my limit of really paying attention. (PS - I am usually in the same game with the same regulars, and I will continue with my book-making on my opponents next time.)
I think many players stay way too long, great game or not.
Dick
One of the best ways for me is preventative maintainance.Make sure you are both mentally and physically prepared to play.It goes a long way toward preventing steaming.
==1== I admit that I am prone to tilting and commit to dealing with it: "Hi, I'm Louie, and I've been tilt free for 3 sessions." ==2== I set an artificial "Stop Limit"; rational anti-"Money Management" arguments be darned. It "shouldn't" work, but it does. I am confident this has saved ME $1000s.
==3== I set up some low priority chores that I can do, since its easier to leave if I can do SOMETHING productive.
==4== When in doubt about tilting, I force myself to do the following: tell a joke ("Hear about the Canary that did it for a Lark?"); flirt ("You're not often around low testosterone levels, are you?"); recall the mechanics of the last two hands I played, and analyze those hands (the act of analysis helps ME a lot). If I don't think of it or can't force myself, see ==2== above. If I am successful I figure I'm not on tilt. If I fail, I take a break.
On a break I wash my face; watch some Carribean Stud or Roulette to remind me what a "sucker" is; go out and stare at the water; snack; breath real air. Then I try ==3== again. If I fail, see ya tomarrow.
The key here is ==1==. One of the few .. err .. couple serenity advantages I have is that I use my Ego; it doesn't use me.
For those who believe they have no tilt problem, I suggest you pretend you do.
- Louie
Louie: ur #3 is what I refer to as "My Get a Life Program for tilt". I make a list each Sunday AM of non-pkr projects that I need to do during the next week ro so, I Prioritize them and when I can not analyze a lost hand I leave and do the first project on the list before I start another session. The project could be as simple as "wash/wax the car". Any thing that requires disiplin and has a positive out come.
an incredibly well mannered, very knowledgable gentleman who is a great 15-30 player where i play often takes the time to hear my questions, and gives me advice as i continue my poker career and learn more.
i just imagine him standing behind me watching my play, and what he would think if i showed down a "tilted" hand, regardless if it won or not.
although there is much i'm still working on, especially as i try to move up limits. i have no problem playing tighter when i'm losing. i actually prefer to play less because i know my opponents may try to run over me, and i don't mind waiting for the good cards.
now, for my advice question:
i often play too long when losing - because i hate to see the whole day "wasted" and no money made, even on a table with two or three live players and i can't even get the cards to play against them. other players reap in the money as they call and call with bottom pair to the river, but if i can't make a hand, and can't bluff in this loose game, so my only option is to fold, fold, fold, see flop, fold, fold. this to me is more draining and frustrating than a couple bad beats, which i have no problem with if i review the hand and played it well.
this situation happend to me at the mirage over mem. day weekend. i lost $150 in 4-8 rock tight Bellagio game, and everyone knew i played solid, (all folded on my pre-flop raises 3 different times), stayed too long here too. i went to the mirage and sat at a 6-12 perfect table. half good players and half fish. i was down $100 after a few hours. I didn't loosen up at first being knew to the table, didn't win any pots so i kept playing tight, watching the money go back and forth.
i didn't "tilt" the entire time, my starting hands, folding judgement, etc. stayed solid. But days like these, a "two pots" day, bug me more than being drawn out on. do you guys just go home? i don't believe in the loss-limit, "bad luck day" quitting strategies. i was at a GREAT table and got frustrated i couldn't turn a profit against a table with such poor players.
comments??
james.......
Do not expect to win! Play to win! Become a situation player. A situation player looks for the good playing situation not just good starting hands. Measure your success over the long run. Accept the fact that long dry spells will occur. Need I go on. Oh, one other thing, stop referring to other human beings as "fish". That alone may help your game.
Opinnion by Vince.
A little technique I use when I feel off my game and tilt-prone is to "award" myself 1 chip for every correct fold I make at any point in a hand (including pre flop 7-2o lay downs). These accumulated chips are available for use only when I'm in the small blind. This works as sort of a contract between my rational side and the steaming side (its basically a steaming allowance). Once ten or so chips have accumulated and the small blind comes to me I have the option to steam away if I want, but for some reason I'm usually no longer in the mood. If the urge to steam is still there I play very aggressively from the small blind if the board looks good and try to steal the pot (huge variance play I know, but I don't have to win the pot every time I do this to show a profit). So far this technique has worked fairly well, certainly not as good as just leaving the game but no where near as a bad as playing every borderline and/or bad hand.
With one chip per good fold, you should be getting about 8 chips per round. Don't forget to take away a chip for a "bad" call or other bad play.
Weak hands are cheaper on the button then the sb, even at that discount.
- Louie
Steaming is emotional. Try meditating on a daily basis, this helps to keep the more intense emotional fluctuations of life is check.
I also wear a baseball cap when I play, and by tilting the brim I can avoid looking at my opponents faces whenever I am feeling bad or embarassed about something at the table. Then I take a few deep breaths and move on to the next hand.
going on tilt starts with internal dialog. When things aren't going your way, you need to keep your focus external any way you can. I disagree with the reccomendation to take a walk when you are getting killed. It forces you stay inside yourself, unless you can go talk with someone or find something that keeps you from going inward. If you can recognize this simple idea, that you need to keep your focus external then you will quickly let go of the bad beats etc.seeeyaaa
Are you saying a walk without purpose is harmful (since one would tend to internally pensate), but a walk to actually do something (since one would tend to exernaly do or observe) may be OK?
- Louie
yes, this is what I'm saying louie. And you know as well as I that 99.9 % of those walks are not going to be to do something. You see these guys walking around clubs talking too themselves etc., it's detrimental.
Raisemeister,
I really liked your response. It was something different. Goes against the flow or "conventional wisdom" if you will. Don't get up and walk because of internalization when what one needs is externalization. Hmm I am not arguing your point just discussing. When I am steaming and quit playing and go home and come back the next day I am over my steaming. Now I still internalize during my time away from the table. If one does some external activity to counter steaming may be an answer.
I like the "let it out aspect" of your response but I know poker players or at least some of them. They have pretty big ego's. Most of them would prefer to internalize over breathing. They pride themselves in themselves. So I don't think that externalizing is the whole answer but it just may be! Hmmm... think I'll wait for some more points of view on this one!
Vince
Always do what seems counter-intuitive i.e. feels WRONG ! Your instincts say what you should not do. Get up and walk around wait out a whole round (button) if it's hard to do YOU ARE ALREADY STEAMING and want to pound back (through your money away) - thats good - force yourself. In extreme cases quit for the day (especially if there is and asshole present who will just annoy you and the game is so-so)
I'd like to draw a distinction between "steaming" and being "on tilt" even though I understand that most people equate the two. I would define steaming as flawed play caused by recent results. Since poker is an information game and much information is recent, and since playing flawlessly is very hard, I think it is very difficult to never steam. There seems to be a thin but enormously important line between experts and good players, or experts and world class players, that relates to their relative degree of consistency (not predictability). To reduce steaming, (1) I just try to concentrate more, (2) I set a (loose) stop loss limit and play within my bankroll, and (3) I try to recognize "misleading" recent results and putting them completely out of my mind, which is easier if you're trying to concentrate on something useful.
Going on tilt might be defined as severe steaming, when you're losing emotional control, it's noticeable to others and you can't shake it off. I think you can avoid going on tilt by understanding that it relates to a misguided ego's dissappointment with inevitable short term results and is about as rational as contemplating suicide every time it starts to rain when you want to go out. It happens with poker more of than other endeavors because poker by its nature fosters illusionary short-term hopes and expectations. To avoid going on tilt, you first have a threshhold level of emotional maturity. After that it's a question of perspective and understanding the range of situations that can occur in a short period of time. If you don't play all the time, playing on computers and reading can be helpful.
I have very specific memories of being on tilt (kindly players suggesting that I take a walk, dealers subtly reacting to my raises, losing big), and they have faded with time. But I still steam.
Who let this "genius" on the forum! Of course you all know he is absolutely (even though I don't like absolutes) %100 correct. I think the distinctions made between steaming and tilting are right on the money! I know I've done both and recently.
I won't quote him but the paragraph on tilt should be read and reread. In fact an essay with Tilt as the subject by this poster may be in order.
As for the paragraph on steaming, I liked it, but believe that what may be the most important point to derive from it is that relieving "steaming" as he describes may require a personal preference/developed response to counter it's effects. More like find what works for you and do it!
"...misguided ego's disappointment" Gotta love it!
Opinion by Vince
I would be willing to bet that David Sklansky has never steamed. I have no real way of knowing but I just think it's so. David?
When I stopped steaming I started winning. In order to accomplish this, I completely changed my goals for each session. I don't go trying to win money. I go trying to play perfectly, and evaluate my success or failure based on how well I accomplish that task. Yesterday this strategy faced a severe test, when I flopped the nut straight on my first hand and lost to a full-house on the river card, then had KK's cracked twice within a half hour. I was down over $400 right out of the box. In the past, I would have been focusing on trying to win it back. Instead, I evaluated the three hands based on my play, concluded I had played them well (maybe could have saved a bet on the end one time, but nothing terrible)and went on. I kept my emotions under control, and considered the session a success, even though I was still down over $200 when I went home.
Yesterday I was playing a very loose 15-30 . I was down $1800 within the first 2hours. I usually don't steam or go on tilt. I started the day with pocket KK's cracked against drunk player who called all the raises to make a straight draw on the turn and catched an inside straight draw on the river without flopping anything. The next hand he outplayed me by check raising on the turn with a J6o, a complete bluff. I had flopped the top pair and the turn was an ace. He showed his hands with a big laugh and I laughed with him and said you are the best. I lost my first 7 hands. Then got pocket AA's on the BB and had to chop the blinds with the SB. That I like it or not I was starting to go on tilt. Because nothing was working for me, I was playing very tight but still managed to loose hands after hands. So, I went to play in a 5cent slot machine. Of course it digested my $20 dollars in a time record. Took a walk and deep breath to clear my mind off and try forgeting what had happened. I called my wife and told her I was down by $1800. She replied: "Get back there, be discipline and called me back in 2 hours". I did and left the game because I was really tired with a $200 dollars lost and was very happy. More than once I came back from big loss after taking a good break, clear my mind and rebuild my confidence. I will change seat at the first opportunity and win a few hands and tell everyone it most be the seat. Rebuild my agressive image and collect. If I loose one hand go back to tight again. It seems to work for me.
I hope you gave your wife a big kiss when you got home, because she gave you back the confidence you needed to get out of your negative thinking. Your wife was your partner in this situation, not the 5 cent slots or the walk. She took you out of yourself, so you could go back with the conifidence that you started the game, before you lost 7 in a row. Thank you for sharing this because it furthers my opinion of having someone else in the casino to share the good as well as the bad during a long day at the tables.
Paul
I just get up from the table and go outside the casino (not just the card-room). The street, the parking lot, whatever will do. Then I have a good mutter to myself for while, until I feel completely calm. I then wait another ten minutes until I get bored and want to return to the game.
If I lose my session bankroll, or if I find myself going on tilt again soon after that, then its the end of the session for me. But quite a few times I've gone back calm and clear and very determined, and have managed to do fairly well.
Steaming or going on tilt are experiences we create inside our heads. They have nothing to do with external stuff like bad beats and long losing streaks. I control steaming by automatically doing the "soldier response" (you can learn more about this by reading The New Toughness Training for Sports by James Loehr). Another way I control steaming is to trigger pre-programmed stimulus/response "anchors" (you can learn about this technique in NLP:The New Technology of Achievement by Steve Andreas and Charles Faulkner). Another technique that I use is "dissociation" (you can learn this by reading Using Your Brain For A Change by Richard Bandler). These techniques will help you control tilt and steaming by programming your mind to automatically perceive bad beats and losing streaks calmly and positively. I highly recommend these books to serious poker players. The world's top athletes and commodity traders do. So why don't you give them a try?
Posted by: WwPlyr
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 June 1999, at 11:41 a.m.
Posted by: Tuneman (tune2525@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 June 1999, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Monday, 7 June 1999, at 9:22 p.m.
Posted by: Gus
Posted on: Monday, 7 June 1999, at 8:05 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 June 1999, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: jeff (laostu@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 June 1999, at 10:22 p.m.
Posted by: RAISEMEISTER
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 June 1999, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 June 1999, at 6:44 p.m.
Posted by: RAISEMEISTER
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 June 1999, at 6:58 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 June 1999, at 9:55 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 June 1999, at 3:41 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 June 1999, at 9:19 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 June 1999, at 10:14 p.m.
Posted by: Klondike
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 June 1999, at 11:57 p.m.
Posted by: Spike (ckokich@seanet.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 June 1999, at 1:33 a.m.
Posted by: Navy
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 June 1999, at 2:48 a.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (pfeeney@draper.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 June 1999, at 9:50 a.m.
Posted by: roGER (Roger_Kirkham@Datawatch.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 June 1999, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: jaws
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 June 1999, at 3:43 p.m.
Conventional wisdom among good poker players seems to be that in middle position on the end, you shouldn't raise with a hand which is strong but not very strong.
I would like to challenge this. I have been raising somewhat aggressively in these types of situations of late, with mixed results. Sometimes I get cold called by a weaker hand, the initial better calls, and I win two big bets I would not have won by calling. Yes, occasionally the bettor has a monster and I get reraised. But all this is dwarfed by a hand Saturday night, when the following situation developed in an 8-16 game:
I had pocket eights. The board was 764/Q/7. The pot was huge (around $300). We were three handed. A loose, wild player bet into me, and I raised. The player behind me was a strong player who knew I would play strong hands aggressively in this sort of situation -- he'd seen me do it plenty. He thought for a very long time, then folded. The loose, wild player also folded.
I am absolutely convinced that if I had called, the strong player would have overcalled, and I would not have won the pot. In other words, this raise, combined with the fact that my opponent knew I would raise a lot of strong but beatable hands (78, for instance) in this spot, won me approximately twenty big bets.
All comments, flames, etc. are welcome.
William
I think the play you made was a very good one but it falls under a different category: raising with the second best hand to make the best hand behind you fold. Conventional wisdom tells you to do this.
The other piece of conventional wisdom which you wish to challenge is also valid. Thus, in your example, if you held AQ or KK and were fairly sure that the player behind you would overcall, you would just call rather than raise.
I guess what I am trying to say is that in your example, 88 is not as "strong" a hand as what is contemplated by the conventional wisdom you wish to challenge.
skp, I don't think you quite followed what I was saying. I know 88 was not a "strong" hand. What I am saying is, if I had not been aggressive in similar situations with strong hands, my opponent, who knew me, would not have folded, because he would have figured that the pot odds made a cold call worthwhile. But he knew I would raise with hands like 78 (trips, no kicker) in this spot, even though they could easily be beat. From his viewpoint, there was a good chance that by calling, he would get beat by such a hand. Hence his fold.
William
skp wrote:
"I think the play you made was a very good one but it falls under a different category: raising with the second best hand to make the best hand behind you fold. Conventional wisdom tells you to do this."
I gotta agree with skp here. Only it should be "...possible second best hand..."
Isolation raise...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Yes, I did misunderstand your initial post.
I gather that what you are saying is that if you follow conventional wisdom and call when you have a hand like KQ, your raise when you have a hand like 88 will be less likely to bring about its desired result.
While that may be true, I still say that the proper play is to call with KQ and either raise or fold with 88. It is still a tough call for the player who has not yet acted to call with a pair of Queens. Not only does he have to worry about you, he also has to worry about the initial bettor making it 3 bets. To use Mason's terminology, he has to hope for a parlay i.e. that the first player and you are betting and raising respectively with less than a Queen.
In sum, I would follow the conventional wisdom in both instances.
It looks like you knew your opponents rather well.
Bob Ciaffone recommends in his book "Improve Your Poker" a more aggresive strategy on the river than you will find in the 2+2 books.
skp is right. The book clearly advises raising to stop a winning overcall.
You have also touched on one of my mantra's: == aggression with marginal hands greatly assists your steals ==
If I had KQ board 764Q7, and aggressive player bet, and a "book" player who would only raise with a full house raised, I would be very likely to call since the chance for a counter-steal is high. But if this player WILL raise with say AQ or better, then I would have to fold.
If you wish to disquise your steals, then you need to be aggressive on the end with marginal hands: when in DOUBT about raising or going for the overcall, choose raising since by definition its worth about the same as calling.
The key word is MARGINAL. Note that since your hand is worth a call, the raise only costs ONE bet, not two.
- Louie
A lot of this depends on what happened on the turn. If the strong player behind you just called the turn then I think you can make a strong argument for just calling here, since it's unlikely that he would have simply called the turn in a pot that big if he'd spiked a queen. And he's going to call two bets with a seven anyway ( I think, at least I know I would).
In short, if the strong player just called the turn, you'll only get called anyway by hands that can beat you.
However, if he RAISED the turn, then the raise on the end was a VERY savvy move (in fact, I'm sure I wouldn't have thought of it).
I am looking for suggestions as where to stay in Tunica, maybe some good comps for my wife and I in July. Also, where to find a good 10-20 holdem or 10-20 dealer's choice(Omaha/holdem)
sorry this was to have been on the exchange
Last night I was sitting in the 10-20 HE game. It was a game full of rocks and I was being very careful with my starting hands. Out of nowhere, the guy to my right yells ‘WHOA!’. I look at him and see that he is staring at the table to my left. Next thing you know, there is mayhem in the poker room (Casino Arizona, a very large poker room if you haven’t been there). Needless to say that one of the players at the 75-150 HE had hit one of the other players in the mouth and laid him out flat. Everyone for the next 10 minutes was talking about the incident (what could have caused the punch, had anyone seen these players before, would a lawsuit have to go through tribal court, etc.). To me this seemed like the perfect opportunity to strike. Right when the punch occurred, I immediately raised with A6o, and was called by only one player, who folded on the turn. For those next 10 minutes I bought the blinds 5 times! Any similar experiences of when you may have taken advantage of distractions in the poker room? Has any poker author shared ideas on how to maximize these situations for a profitable edge?
I had a guy pull a gun on me during a 5-10 game in a dive bar with a single table outside of Missoula, Montana. Needless to say, it was a distraction; but it was unprofitable for me since I took the opportunity to back out of the bar while leaving my $250 stack behind.
I started playing hold-em last year. In December I moved up to 10-20. I have played off and on due to work. I started playing 1-2 time a week about a month ago after 3 months off. My first couple of sessions were in 5-10 to get back into the swing of the game.
Since restarting my results have been horrible. I write down the result and length of each session, and calculate my hourly mean and variance.
Right now, my overall 10-20 results are .85 standard deviations below BREAKEVEN! based on 77 hours of play. However, my standard deviation estimate based on my results is 151 per square root hour, which is probably lower than the true standard deviation.
At what point should a player who is playing to win give up hope and admit that he is a losing player based on results?
I've read books, thought about my and others' play away from the table, and discussed the game with a friend. I could give lots of reasons why I am a better player than several of the players usually in my game. But results don't lie. If you play enough hours and are down, then you are a losing player, period.
Your goals are all messed up. You're spending time trying to evaluate whether your a losing player when you should be focusing on how to become a winning player again. The best way that I know to become a winning player again is to go back to that 10-20 game, and play the tightest game of your life. Be ready to spend the session throwing away 95% of your starting hands. When you get a hand that you like, see the flop with it, and if you don't like the flop and are facing a bet, fold, it's that simple. Don't run any bluffs unless your absolutely positive it will work. Several people at the game probably know that you're donating right now, and won't know that you've tightened up until you've made a modest profit. Any time I feel my game slipping, I use this method AND IT WORKS EVERY TIME!!! Yes, I have had tremendous success doing this so try it. If you're convinced you're a losing player, than please come sit in my game. ;)
This is a very good post! Just want to add. Never give up hope! Give up Holdem first! If you want to be a winning player then continiue to think about the game! Play your best game at all times. Monitor your play. Correct any mistakes you make away from the table. Playing tight while you iron out any problems with your game as Big A suggest helps in many ways. Most of all it limits the amount of analysis you must do to correct mistakes. Also, you sound like a technical guy with all that standard deviation talk. Sometimes it's better to leave that to the nerds like Malmuth and Sklansky. Playing poker is not just about math. Ask Ray Zee!
Just an opinion.
Vince
If you suspect its time to give up hope then do so.
Play lower levels until your bankroll and hope return.
Having said that, a 77 hour losing streak is inevitable.
- Louie
I appreciate the suggestions. I always try to play my best game. Recently I've been tossing out more of my marginal hands to decrease my variance, without giving up much EV.
In any case, my question is more general, or theoretical. Given that a player does his best to deal with bad results, at what point should the results tell him that he should quit poker? I am thinking of this in terms of number of hours played, and number of standard deviations below break-even play.
A friend of mine told me about a player he knew (a no-limit player from Texas I believe) who had been basically a live one. He lost something like a million dollars over a period of years at poker. Well, for whatever reason, he decided not to accept his live one status and to make a change. So he started on a program of serious study of the game, reading, consulting with experts, etc. Over a subsequent period of time he recouped *all* of his losses, and continued on as a winning player. Sorry I don't recall much detail from the story, but my point is that when, and whether or not, to give up hope is completely up to you.
Unless, perhaps, you have concluded that your mind just deals terribly with poker logic, then you can always take steps to improve your game. You might do some brainstorming about ways of studying and developing your skill more effectively. Post some hands you're not sure about on the forum. Consult with an expert. But -- and this is very important too -- you should also lighten up on yourself for having lost over just 77 hours. That's almost no time at all in the poker scheme of things, less than two weeks of play for a full time player. It is impossible not to have some losing streaks that long and considerably longer.
As for your question about number of hours played, number of SDs below break even, etc., I don't have the time to dig out my notes on the math, but it's not too complex. For sure it will show you that you have to go way beyond 77 hours before you results stand out clearly enough from the variance to mean anything. Once you get to about 500 hours you at least have something to look at. If you're way below break even at that point you'll at least know you've probably not been playing at a winning level. At 1,000 hours you'll have something more solid to go on, though if you are very close to break even at that point, you still won't know whether your hourly rate should actually be slightly positive or slightly negative. (You can get an appreciation for much of this in Mason's _Gambling Theory and other Topics_ and David's essay "Is Your Wallet Fat Enough?" in _Poker, Gaming, and Life_.) Good luck with your next 500 hours!
John Feeney
the player john mentions may have been J.D. Harrison. he lost alot for a long time and then decided to win. his method was to get expert players in each field to tudor him. i was one of those people. he paid me handsomely for lessons on headup play. he wanted to beat a certain high stakes player that ran a game he lost alot in. after the lessons he told me who it was. it was a player that was much better than him and also ran a game he couldnt win in anyway. so i convinced him he must play only in ring games where his style could get the money. he listened and taped the lessons and spent days on end going over everything he heard. soon he started doing better. on a follow up he asked me what he should do. my answer was to play in smaller nolimit games and use the skills he learned and quit when he was tired or couldnt follow what he knew was correct. he did win for years there after. many players didnt like him but i always thought he was a wonderful person. i think hes gone now but will be remembered by many.
I checked with my friend and he gave me a different name, but I don't want to use the name here as he said he heard the story from someone else and couldn't be sure it was true. Maybe it was actually the same guy, but someone got the characters confused by the time the story made it to my friend's ear. Anyway, the idea is the same, and your story, Ray, is fascinating as Harrison really took the direct route, going right to the people who could give him the most potent and accurate information available. I'm just sitting here thinking what hourly fee I'd be willing to pay Ray Zee to plays heads-up "no keepsies" with discussion/critique after every hand. Hmmm...
Loser,
Please post some of the things you've done to focus yourself on winning. Maybe we can all review your steps and offer helpfull advice.
Big A
"In any case, my question is more general, or theoretical. Given that a player does his best to deal with bad results, at what point should the results tell him that he should quit poker?"
When you've had enough. I've quit sports betting, horse racing, blackjack and the stock market because I just couldn't STAND losing anymore and besides I lost my desire to try and win at these games. With poker I just never gave up because I loved it so. Desire is the key. When you've had enough losing you will know it in your heart.
This advice is probably not what you are looking to hear on this forum, but you asked for it.
Gamble up! Quit burying yourself with mind-numbing statistics, won/lost ratios, EV calculations and other such minutiae. Play to win and have fun, but not always necessarily in that order. Take some chances; play over your head, make big bets on horseraces, try to see if you can hit a hot streak at a crap table. Learn what it really feels like to bag a big winner -- or a big loser. In essence, GAMBLE!
Then, if you wish, and when you are ready, settle back down to a grind-o-matic lifestyle and figure out if you have the temperament to continue.
As a wise man once said, "I'm convinced of the inevitability of failure when attempting to secure a small safe return."
All right here is a different question. Do you feel you play better than the people in your game(s)? When you sit down do you routinely see players that make mistakes? If not, then maybe its not you, maybe the game is too tough. It has been said 1000000 times, but if you can tell who the sucker is......
Danny S
Learning 7stud via Wilson Software "Turbo 7Card Stud". This was recommended by Howard at GBC and it seems fine. Any suggestions re software? Also studying Sklansky/Malmuth/Zee "7Card Stud for Advanced Players" (also recommended by Howard)and finding it excellent -- I already had a shelf of Malmuth and Sklansky. I'm a pro card counter looking for another way to earn a buck. Any help would be appreciated. I'm located in SoCal close to Bicycle, Commerce and Hollywood Park Casinos -- any suggestions as to which would be best place to practice. thanks gk
Your on the right track as far as software and books. You might also want to Check out Roy West's Stud book. It might be even better for you to become familar with that book before 7CS4AP as 7CS4AP is geared toward the 15-30+ levels. Other good sources are Chip Reese's Stud Section in Super System. Konstantine Othmer (sp?) also wrote a stud book that has mixed reviews. You might want to check it out.
As far as where to play. You'll find more games of any limit/type at Commerce. I couldn't recommend playing at The Bike unless you live next door or something. They rarely have stud games over 4-8 (that is when they do in fact have a 4-8).
I prefer to play at Hollywood Park myself. There are almost as many games as Commerce and it's cheaper to play there. The service is terrible (IMO), but we can't have everything now can we. Best of Luck.
Thanks for the advice DrToast, will look into it all. Why is Commerce cheaper to play than HPark? gk
In reference to the Wilson 7-Stud software,I would stay away from the feature which allows you to peek at opponents down cards(something you cant do in a real game).Also,take maximum advantage of the statistics features.They will show you where you are strong and where you may need work.Praticularly in the area of types of hands you've been dealt.Good playing.
thanks for advice. gk
Played in the Orleans Monday night NLH $20 tournament. Didn't get very far. 4 tables left. This is a little exercise in that wonderful thing called luck!
Hand 1 - Good Luck for me. Bad luck for the Big Blind.
Blinds 100-200 Stack $475
Position one of the button. Hand Ac,Qc.
Positon 3 moves all in with $225 I make a move to go all in. Stop, think and just call.
Big blind calls.
Flop 4d,Qs,4h. Big blind checks. I think of betting but decide to check.
Turn Qh.
Big blind bets 100! I put him on a Q but just in case raise all in. He calls.
River blank.
BB: J,4o.
A number of comments could be made on the play of this hand especially preflop and flop. But I'll leave them to you. Remember the J,4o. I did!
Hand 2. Bad Luck for me! Good luck for the Big Blind.
Blinds. 200-400 Stact $675. Waited patiently after my sb. Finally UTG - Hand A9o.
My play: Raise all in! Pass to BB. Call!
Turn my hand over. His Hand. J,4o.
Flop J,4,7 Rainbow. Knocked out of tourney.
Mason, I believe, once wrote about luck. I believe I criticised his comments. Well, enough said!
Vince Lepore.
I am interested in finding out when the hi-lo split games (both 7 card and omatha) changed to having the 8 qualifier, and why. Understand that in the 70s they were played straight hi-lo. When was the 8 qualifier added, and why, why not 7 or 9? Please excuse ignorance if answer obvious.
I'm not sure of all of this info (since I wasn't playing in the 70's), so take with grain of salt, but...
1) Why qualifier? Because, without 8-low, high hands become WAY too weak. Too many drawouts from low hands (straights, flushes, etc) which can scoop the pot away from the high hands. High hands could only scoop much lower pots (since low draws wouldn't be as aggressive)
2) Why not 7 or 9? 8 is the dividing card between low (A-7) and high (9-K). Plus, I think the odds of qualifying are closest to "fair" for high hands with 8-high as the linchpin.
3) When? No clue- Ray Zee and 2+2 might know....
Sorry, forgot to add the Ace to high
No qualifyer 7stud hi/low was too unbalanced, much like Jasks-or-Better, and unknowledgeable players who had no routine 3rd and 4th street standards rarely won.
- Louie
once the people that played for high dried up the game was over. it also only takes a few times for someone to show kkk wired and fold for the bring in to convince everyone but those that want to just play tight that its no longer a game. any game that allows players to sit and only play giant hands is doomed. when the qualifier was put in (late 70's) a whole new world of action developed. i dont know the exact reason why it was 8 and not 7or9 but ive played all three and 8 gave the best mix. seven was too hard to make a low and 9 was too easy and made it harder to read hands.
3-6 Holdem at Foxwoods over the weekend. I'm in the small blind, three limpers call to see the flop, I look down and see pocket aces, raise, big blind folds, all the limpers call.
Flop comes KKx. My first decision- bet or check? I decide to bet and see if someone else will represent trip kings. Fold, call, call. One or two people are probably smooth calling and planning to whack me if I bet on the turn, so my thinking is that I will check and call on the turn assuming nobody raises.
Lo and behold, an ace falls on the turn giving me Aces full of Kings. Now what do I do? Bet or set up for a check-raise? Since I bet the flop, my opponents are probably thinking I have a king with a decent kicker (because of my preflop raise) - therefore, they are thinking that an ace shouldn't scare me so if I check here nobody will bet out of fear of a check raise. My thinking here is reinforced by the fact that the table has seen me take a couple pots earlier in the night where I check-raised on the turn. So I bet out and get two callers. River is a rag - no str8 or flush possiblities. I bet again, get one caller who shows me Kx suited and I take the pot.
Given a flop with two kings, I think betting from early position was a mistake. I'm either going to get one of my two cards to fill up and have a monster hand that warrants a check-raise, or I'm going to be stuck with cracked AA. If I had checked and called on the flop, I would have set myself up for a bigger payoff should my miracle card hit. As it so happens, my miracle card hit and I think my bet on the flop forced me into a position where there were a few less big bets in the pot than there should have been.
Thoughts?
-FF
I would generally bet the flop.
If I have several callers and a blank comes on the turn, I might check. Against one or two callers, I would bet again (particularly if the flop had a two flush) and usually muck if raised. Notice that this costs less than checking and calling twice.
Note #1: Certain players would never lead out on the flop if they held a King. I am not one of those players. Accordingly, opponents are not likely to raise me on the turn without a King because my bets on the flop and the turn can't be taken as a sign that I likely do not have a King. Thus, if I am raised by a rational player, I can be fairly certain that he has me beat.
Note #2: If I were on the button and the action were checked to me, I would likely check with AA if the board was KKxx given that free cards are less of a concern. I would bet if I had 10,10 or something.
You hit your miracle card on the turn. I would almost always bet on the turn and hope that I am raised by someone holding a King. A check looks too damn fishy. Also, if you are up against a flush draw, he will likely just be happy to take the free card. Even if you check and a King bets, your raise may cause him to lay down. Thus, betting twice may gain you more than check-raising once.
Man, Skp, you still know what your talking about! Who says memory fades with age.
Just want to add a little. Skp would bet with T,T on de button not the A,A. Correctomundo! Anyone care to offer reasons for this?
On note 1. How many players at the 3-6 level show this kind of sophistication when playing Holdem?
Question: What should the A,A do if he bets the flop and is raised?
Question: What should the A,A do if he checks the flop and someone bets the flop?
Again Good response SKP.
Vince.
"What should the A,A do if he bets the flop and is raised?"
Assuming I know nothing about the raiser and assuming no one else cold-called the raise on the flop, I would call the raise on the flop and bet again on the turn i.e. Rick's stop 'n go play. If raised again, I would muck.
"What should the A,A do if he checks the flop and someone bets the flop?"
AA is in a real pickle because he can't know if the bettor is betting a hand or is just taking advantage of AA's weak check on the flop (This is one reason why I would never check the flop. Checking gives you very little info as to the true nature of the bettor's hand). However, having checked, I would call and once again bet on the turn. If raised, I would muck. Here, I would be quicker to muck than in scenario #1 because in scenario #2, the check on the flop and the bet on the turn mimics a slowplay which has to make the other player fear that I have AK. Thus, if he raises, I have to give him credit for at least a King.
I would have played the hand the same way as you did. The funny thing is that I am a regular 3-6/5-10 hold em player at Foxwoods. I was there tuesday afternoon playing in the 3-6 game. E-mail me if you wanna shoot the shit.
I think on the flop I might have checked. This way, if someone has the king, they are leading the betting, but you still have the aces. In 3-6 I don't think the players are all that sophisticated, and with the preflop raise, they probably put you on a high pair or AXs. On the flop, you can use your check raise, using your check raise history to deceive the opponents. If you are sharp, then you should know if the bettor really has the king. But on the other hand, would you have decided to fold if you thought he had the trip kings? But of course, only you knew the tone of the table and the proper move. Let me know if I'm full of it.
I would have played the hand the same way as you did. The funny thing is that I am a regular at 3-6/5-10 hold em at Foxwoods. You sound like a very good player. E-mail me if you want to chat.
I have AsJs one position off the button and raise UTG who limped. Button cold calls and the blinds fold. We take the flop three handed with UTG and the Button as my opponents.
Flop: Qh9s7s
UTG bets. I raise. Button cold-calls and UTG calls.
Turn: Ad
UTG bets. I raise. Button cold-calls and UTG calls.
River: 5s
UTG checks. I check.
Looking forward to your analysis.
At this point I would bet the river hoping to maybe get an additional bet from the button if he was in a flush draw. It seems to me that he was on a straight draw with JT. The only flush draw that he could have are KTs and KQs. And KQs seems more likely. If I had this hand I would've probably 3-bet the flop. UTG most likely has AK, AT, or KJ, KQ is also possible.
It seems to me that you played the flop and turn correctly.
carlos
Seems to me that the check on the river is taking a big chance--even if the button was on the flush draw (which seems likely), he may still not bet for fear that UTG has the ace, even though he probably puts you on AA/QQ/AQ. And if you bet, it looks like a natural value bet for one of the above, and he'll certainly pay it off, and might even raise. So why risk an almost certain 3 bets for a chance at 5 or 6, when you might get 6 anyway? Unless you know this player really well, I'd just bet.
What are you paranoid? You put the guy on 6s,8s? That certainly can't be the reason for not betting the river. Come on this is limit poker you can stand a bad beat and a couple of bets. Bet the river fer cyin out loud. Oh I get it. You were playing against your wife and you were afraid of getting sent to the couch that night. Makes sense. I keep going back and reading the hand to see if I missed something. I've done that before. Maybe you missed typed the 5s. Should be the 5h, huh. I say bet anyway. UTG has A,9 or A,7 or two spades (unlikely unless 6,8 because of the turn bet). If it was a miss print then I say check the river. So you think that the only way he can bet the turn with two spades are the 6,8. O.k. I guess that is what he had or you wouldn't have posted this hand. You must be feeling pretty smug now that you checked the river and the guy turned up a straight flush on you. So what! Bet de river in limit poker! He also could have had the Ks,Js and possibly played the same way but I doubt it.
Have a nice day
Vince.
No misprint and no...I was not scared of the straight flush nor did anyone show me a straight flush. I won the hand.
I should add that the button was a good player who understood the game well.
BTW, I should say that the check on the end may well have been wrong and that's why I posted the hand but I will wait for further responses before posting my thought process.
if you have the nuts in limit poker bet it
Pardon me I did miss read this hand. I thought the button folded the turn. But I guess you know your players. Either you know for sure the button will bet or you made a bad play on the river. Don't come back here with some silly reason like worried about a straight flush.
Vince
You'd better be sure he'll bet -- but even if you are pretty sure, why risk it? If he has a flush or another betting hand, he might raise, and UTG will probably call anyway. Now you get 9 bets in there! I think you try to look concerned about the flush card but bet "anyway" and hope you get popped.
I had 7-7 once -- the flop came 6-7-3. Turn was a 6. UTG had raised pre-flop. I was next. The button had A-6. I raised the turn, the button three bet it, and UTG called (K-K). I just called, hoping to get 6 or 9 bets in on the river. River was a rag. UTG checked, I checked, and Mr. 3-bet CHECKED! I vowed never to make that mistake (actually, those TWO mistakes -- should have capped the turn and bet out) again....
Very rarely should you try for a check-raise on the end. Too many people check medium strength hands on the end rather than value betting. Usually, to try a check-raise on the river, it would have to be someone who is way out of line, that you're trying to slow down for the purpose of later play. In that case, even if he doesn't bet, your point is made, that you may check a big hand at any time!
" If you meet the Buddha at the poker table,
sit to his right." Wenatchee Max
Assuming utg is a good player who puts skp on the nut flush draw. He is probably not going to call if skp bets. Button is on a draw, in which case he might call if skp bets. Certainly his call will cause utg to fold, so the most skp can win is one more bet by betting.
But if the button is aggressive and will bet a weak hand if the others show weakness and utg knows this and so might call him, (assuming that skp must have been drawing to the str8 and missed) skp might hit the jackpot if he lets button bet and then raises him.
SKP: I'm guessing utg is Seno and button is Cesare. If so I would play it the same way.
--Bob
There are many hands UTG players will CALL that feature a Q or J. Few UTGs will bet without a pair like that on the flop. Unless this player is too aggressive, you are unlikely to have the better hand AND unlikely to win without outdrawing him. Usually call in this case. NOTE: If HE was the raiser and you the caller, now you can raise since he is much less likely to have a pair.
I don't much like the raise on the turn for the same reasons as the flop. UTG needs to be some kind of player to justify that.
So, after the turn it really LOOKS like you have QQ, AA, or AQ. You will call a bet on the river with these hands, and that's obvious. So checking to induce a bluff is very unlikely to work. Consider these cases:
==1== Button has a flush. If you check-raise UTG will likely call once but not your raise, for a 3-bet net. If you bet, button will likely raise and call your reraise for a 3-bet net (UTG folds). If he just calls you likely net 2-bets.
==2== Button has a small set. He'll like bet if you check for 3-bets net or call if you bet for 2-bets net.
==3== Button is weak. Checking nets nothing. Betting nets probably 2 bets but certainly 1 bet; especially since this bet looks suspicious based on your earlier raises.
------- ==1==: checking is better by a fraction of 1-bet. ==2==: checking is better by 1-bet. ==3==: betting is better by 1-2 bets.
I would say he's more likely to have little than a small set, so I would bet.
I would routinely bet as part of my overall straight-forward in-your-face strategy; and because I got no "fancy" genes from Mom.
- Louie
I think this sums it up. While it's hard to say for sure, I think I'd bet on the river, since you have a fairly good chance of making it three bets, while a check raise (if, indeed, the button doesn't smell something fishy and bets away with a set/ two pair etc.) will probably only yield two bets (or three, depending on whether or not UTG decides to call the button's bet on the river). Also, I think I would have just called the turn, since a guy who lead bets into a pre-flop raiser twice usually has the goods (at least in my games).
However, I do see your reasoning. If the UTG player does, in fact, have a monster (which his betting would indicate) and the button has a hand he likes as well (again, fairly likely), you could net three bets from each of them with this little move. It may be a bit of a stretch, but I can envision a scenerio whereby the button bets his flush (or two pair, small set, whatever), the UTG finally decided to pop it with HIS hand, and you come back over the top with the coconuts and leave 'em all scratching their heads.
OK, you've mystified me. Unless you can put the button on 6s8s (how?), I don't see how the play makes sense. I assume you're trying to either check-raise or induce a bluff. I don't like the check raise because there are very few hands with which he'd bet and call your raise but not raise you with, and there are a lot of hands that he can't bet either because the 5s missed him or the 5s looks too scary.
As for inducing a bluff, I think you're almost as likely -- perhaps more likely -- to induce a bluff-raise in this situation, although both possibilities are long shots
So what am I missing here?
Although there's a ton going on here, I think the trick is that the UTG has played this like a monster made hand, while the button has played it like a flush draw. IF everything works out right (a big if, but it could happen here) the button will bet his flush, UTG (if he's not a very aware player, which seems possible) raises with his set/ two pair/ whatever, and skp then either a) bangs it again, or b) smooth calls the two, thinking the button will hit it again, since the button 'knows' that the UTG doesn't have a flush (or, at least he certainly hasn't played it like one).
Another, more likely scenerio, is that the button bets what looks to be a flush, UTG makes a crying call, then our hero hits it again. True, this later move only nets 4 bb's, but IF things work out right our hero can net somewhere between 4-8 bb's in the first scenerio.
I can't buy the first scenario but I'm warming to the second.
Assuming the button has a flush, the probability that UTG has a made hand that he thinks is good enough to raise with on the river is equal to the probability that, on the turn, he'll take the heat off the obvious draw and walk away from somewhere between 2 and 12 BB. That's realy unaware and, IMO, not likely.
I think this comes down to the likelihood that the button could be playing JTo or some other straight draw. If he will, and won't call two cold before the flop with Kxs, the probability of a flush versus a busted straight draw is less than 20%, so that even the prospect of 4BB on the river doesn't justify risking an almost certain BB from UTG. On the other hand, if the button won't play JTo, then the likelihood of a flush draw seems high enough for skp to go for it.
The basic problem I have with the play is this: as the likelihood of a spade draw by the button goes up, so does the likelihood of an even greater number of busted straight draws that the button, on the river, all eyes on him now, will probably just turn over.
I don't see where the UTG's play indicates a "monster". He bets the flop and gets raised by an aggressive preflop raiser. There is a flush draw and less likely straight draw on board. The Ace comes on the turn and he correctly bets out again. He gets raised and cold called again. There is now 20 small bets in the pot. If he has a monster like a set or even AQ, don't you think the turn is the time to let it all hang out. Instead, he just calls. This smells a lot more like Q9 or even KQ to me. The chances that he check-raises the river are slim and none, unless he's an idiot.
And what does the button have that he could be sucking up all these raises? It must be the KQ top-pair/flush draw or even less likely KT or KJ flush draw/gut shot. With both of these holdings, he is sure to call at least one bet and possibly even raise and call a reraise for three bets. So skp is risking a likely 1-3 big bets (bet-call-call, bet-call-fold, bet-fold-call, or bet-raise-fold-raise-call) for the slim prospect of getting at most a couple of extra bets in the fantasy four-bet scenario of check-bet-call-raise-call-call.
Seems like a negative EV play (not to mention a little greedy) to me.
Certaintly not a bad play, except for first scenario:
-button checks, you miss all bets-0 bets -button bets (as bluff) UTG calls, you raise, all probably fold.-2 bets -button bets (with flush) UTG calls, you raise, button calls, UTG folds.-3(UTG could overcall for 4 bets) -You bet, button raises, UTG folds, you make it 3 bets, button calls.-3 bets
Several good responses. Lots to think about. In the end, I am still not too sure what's the proper play in the long run. I guess a lot depends on the nature of the players and in particular the button in my scenario.
In any event, the reason I checked was that I was sure that the button would bet. The way in which the hand played out led me to believe that the button had either a flush or a strong hand such as a small set or AQ which he would bet after I checked. About the only hand that he could have with which he would likely not bet is something like J,10 (in which case he would not have called my bet on the end in any event).
Notice that if he made his flush, I still only net 3 bets by betting while check-raising will likely net 3 and possibly 4 bets. Also, even if he makes his flush, he may just call my bet and look for an overcall from UTG. Button was a solid player who probably would think that I must realize that he could well have been on a flush draw and yet I bet. My bet may not necessarily elicit a raise from him.
It strikes me that this play probably has a greater chance of success when you check with the nuts if you have not been driving the action before the River. For example, if you cold-call two bets on the flop with the nut flush draw and a solid player to your left does likewise, it may be a great move to slip it on the turn or river and let him bet his likely flush. Just musing. I am sure everyone can think of examples where the play may be beneficial.
SKP,
My good buddy! That said: What is possessing you! How many times do I have to tell you! Don't play "Cute Poker"! Man we have discussed this and discussed this and... Still it doos no good!
Cute poker, you know :Checking the nuts on the River because you believe the guy behind you will bet and you can pick up some extra bets. That is a great strategy for tough games with tough players that don't have big egos and know how to play Holdem but not for typical Holdem games with typical Holdem players. Why? You know why! Anyone else know why?
Shame on you good buddy!
Good Buddy! Vince!
You are probably right. But, don't get me wrong...it's not like I am always grinding for an extra bet. As you may know from my previous posts, this is not what I advocate doing on a regular basis particularly against weak players. The button here was a strong player and a regular winner. I don't mind showing him that I can play "cute" if need be. Further, a checkraise with the nuts now and then can have the effect of discouraging thin bets for value from your opponents on future hands.
SKP,
My point, my friend, you missed! I've seen it time and time again. A good game gets broken by a "cute" play. Sure you may win the battle (a few bets) but lose the war. In this case since it was a good player on the button he probably would have kicked himself for being suckered. But he certainly would have become more alert and therefore harder to beat. Were it a "live one" you pulled this "cute" play on he would have been "GONE" and you may never again have the pleasure of playing against him. I call it "cute" poker but it really is playing too good for your own good! I know you are a good player, you know you are a good player, your opponents, for the most part, know your a good player. So don't go proving it at every chance you get! Ergo, Cool the Ego!
Vince.
Perhaps the play has some merit with the second nut flush. I just can't bear to risk check/showdown with the nut flush.
You didn't have to raise the flop. I would raise some of the time on the flop.
Once you've raised the flop however, I would just call the turn when UTG comes out betting. He has you beat, he will call you down no matter what, and you are now the underdog. What do you accomplish by raising here?
The check on the river is not good. There is only one guy behind you who has not shown any strength throughout. He's already convinced that UTG has him beat but has checked to the possible flush. The only way you can expect the button to bet is if he has spades. Since you've represented a made hand all along, he probably raises you if you bet if he's got the flush. If this were no limit you might try your play once in a blue moon to go for the huge score, but in limit HE the best long run play is to bet your hand!
seems like many players believe if they play tight and don't make any starting hand mistakes, that they are playing better than someone who plays too many starting hands. Not neccesarliy.
Did you ever sit there all night just throwing your blinds and antes away, pot after pot never getting any cards. If so, you are probably playing toooo tight. Playing solid starting hands is basic,... but when they aren't coming and there are players in the game who don't play well after the flop , and /or you feel you have a great read on the players in the game, then it's time too start playing poker. Think about it. if you read these players so well, why aren't you in there once in a while trying too make a move when the situation looks right. going after the dead money or isolating a player you can control, and getting it heads up. That's playing poker.
we tend to let ourselves take the easy way out, but a little imagination can keep you at least even, when the cards aren't running. ...They aren't running most of the time, this is why most solid players are just break even in the long run. Something to think about. seeya
I agree with the content of your post. I only quibble with the use of the word "solid" to describe the type of player you speak of in your last sentence. Solid players are the ones that adjust to game conditions and are willing to enter the fray under the right circumstances with substandard hands. Tight and weak-tight players don't.
Raisemeister,
I feel that this post may have been in response to my post below called "when to give up hope?". I agree completely that you cannot only play tight poker for the rest of your life. I described that people can and should use this method when their losses seem to be mounting. It's a good way to put focus back in your game. In a private e-mail to someone that asked for more information in relation to that post, I wrote:
"and just when the players started pegging me as a tight player, I changed my game back to my old ways. I started seeing the flop with group 1 to 5 and sometimes even group 6 hands. I started buying blinds and running bluffs that worked, and the other players were confused about my style, which is exactly what I wanted."
I then said:
"I admit that you cannot play extremely tight forever, as the other players will stop paying off your winners"
I hope this clears things up. Somewhere between extremely tight and too loose is a very good poker player.
Big A
Raismeister,
I agree that tight doesn't mean a great player but I think most of us know that.
You wrote: "... but when they aren't coming and there are players in the game who don't play well after the flop , and /or you feel you have a great read on the players in the game, then it's time too start playing poker. Think about it. if you read these players so well, why aren't you in there once in a while trying too make a move when the situation looks right."
Good point. I think I have a similar approach. In situations where I;ve been doing well earlier but now am sitting on my stack for a few rounds, I will definitely put on a few moves with substandard hands (against attentive opponents). It just seems they figure you to be pretty strong when you do come in since you "are due" for a big hand. So an UTG raise with AT looks like an AK to your opponents.
Once again, I do believe this works best when you are doing well for the session and are just in a slow period. If you have a short stack or are perceived as unlucky by your opponents it seems you get played with a lot more.
I also like to raise with a hand like 87s UTG in this situation. If it comes high cards you can often steal and if it comes middle cards you got it covered.
The above is pretty simplistic but I think we are on the same page.
Regards,
Rick
I agree completely, but with a huge warning attached - This is exactly the same logic often used by weak players to justify their loose play. The difference between a good player and a bad one in this context is that the good player is right, and the bad player is wrong. Knowing the difference is the tough part.
All you are describing is doing a little "speeding". When you start making the rounds of various games, on a 10/20 limit, and up, you will get "chewed-up".
Lately I have seen written the following argument for limp-raising with AA or KK in certain kinds of tighter games.
1) Based on simulations AA and KK are worth more then the blinds in EV ( on average ).
2) If you accidently raise out the blinds then you are getting less EV then average.
3) Therefor limp-raise with them in games where that "accident" is more likely.
I am thinking this argument is too simplistic. There are many times in poker where, for a specific hand, you end up with less then average but also avoid losing extra. In reality I think the decision about limp-raising is much more complex to calculate exactly if it is right. Just because sometimes you get less EV then average doesn't make raising incorrect, it could turn out that the times you get some action make up for the blinds-only deficit.
It is only the argument I disagree with and do think it is the right play in many game situations and make the play myself at times.
Comments and ideas?
David
I'd guess you got this from Abdul's recent postings to RGP. You should add to your list that this is a suggestion for OPENING thus the argument that you don't want to only steal the blinds. Personally I think "calculating exactly" what is correct is "exactly" what you shouldn't be trying to do.
Since the author of that comment doesn't post here if you want his opinion you might want to post to RGP. The original article is at http://www.posev.com/poker/holdem/strategy/preflop-abdul.html
On the other hand, you might have seen it in my own attempt on RGP to summarize Abdul's rationale for limp-reraising. I tend to agree with your comments about this argument being a bit simplistic. I tried to show that to some degree in my post. I also agree that there are certainly places for the tactic, though I don't think I would agree with it as a *baseline* tactic in tight games as Abdul suggests. It gets fairly complicated when you look at all the variables involved, but tonight or tomorrow I expect to make a few additional comments in response to Abdul's response to my post. Maybe we can carry on the discussion both here and on RGP. Here, of course I will totally slander Abdul, as I am known so often to do. ;) But not to worry; "Jeff Nelson" may come to his rescue. ;);)
John Feeney
Tight, is the wrong criterion. The play in my experience is most effective when table conditions are either loose agressive or tight agressive. I need to believe that someone will raise pre-flop more so than when I need to believe someone will raise on the flop if I'm intending to checkraise. Unless I'm absolutely convinced (no one is allowing the big blind a free ride) there's going to be a raise, I'd rather raise myself with AA or KK. From the button (first to act - everyone's folded) I'll sometimes limp with AA against players in the blinds who will react to my representing weakness, but not against aware opponents. I did this once against a player who knew that I *always* bring it in with a raise (or else fold) from late position with any hand I'm going to play. That player announced that I had just limped from the button against his small blind, and that he was folding since I obviously must have a powerhouse. What a horse's butt for alerting the big blind, yet I should have known better and represented a semisteal raise instead.
If the small blind was able to read you that well then you are too predictable. Part of the Abdul's post deals with mixing up hands you act with in such a way that your opponents don't have that good a read on your. Sometimes limping (-[re]reaising) with your best opening hands is one way of doing this.
Went back and found the RGP thread and I think you are making a more detailed version of the point I was trying to make here.
Thanks
David
Before we start, this post is not going to be filled with bad beat stories or whining. I am mearly looking to get feedback from the group.
I'm in the midst of a pretty bad run. I play 10, 15, and 20 HE in NJ and NY. In may I played 150 hrs and lost $2700. So far in June, I've played 35 hrs and lost $370. I honestly believe I'm the victim of "bad luck". I have had an expert player watching me play, and giving me advice ( I believe he, and several other players we respect, would rate me as solid). I don't have any major leaks, and I honestly don't make many mistakes per session. I write down hands I recieve during lossing sessions, and, as an example of the type of sessions I've been having, I have not recieved a pair bigger than 99 in my last 11hrs of play. (Most of the 5 weeks have seemed like this--no starting cards; if I do get them they go down, or don't make the hand). I've even had objective people watch my hands, so I could get more "proof" that I'm not entering pots with garbage etc. So, my question is this: Have any of you had bad runs this long? Even with my protective measures, do you think I'm being subjective, and perhaps not unlucky, but just bad? Did undergoing such a run change your game in any way? How did you get out of it?
Let's see, losing $18/hour one month, $10/hour the next month ... hmmmmm, picking strawberries might pay better. Seriously though, I'd take some time off, go do something that's fun without the stress -- a relaxed mind works better.
In any event, without knowing the session losses, it's hard to say if you're in a losing streak or just blowing off big chunks in single sessions. $2700 at 10-20 wouldn't be that hard to win or lose in even a few days -- and $370 is less than one session.
Contrary to what you may have read, it isn't always just "one big game," where making the best play is correct even if you lose. When you're mired in a losing streak, quitting after bagging a nice win or several wins in a row DOES help the gambling psyche. Try that as some poker therapy.
You might be happier learning a new game too, giving you a different variety of hands to look at and a fresh perspective on your game.
If, on the other hand, you're losing every day, you must be playing bad -- or a bad player. Being "solid" isn't much help if the other players are reading your mail.
"Contrary to what you may have read, it isn't always just "one big game," where making the best play is correct even if you lose. When you're mired in a losing streak, quitting after bagging a nice win or several wins in a row DOES help the gambling psyche."
The author's assertion of "its one big game" attitude is correct for players who can genuinely play unemotionally. I know no one with that kind of serenity.
You are correct for the rest of us. But it is also important to STRIVE for the "perfect" attitude, so if one quits for the reason you have outlined one should recognize and acknowledge WHY its correct THIS time.
This will help reduce one's need to do it next time. Naaaaa, but it sounds good.
- Louie
Recently went 32 consecutive (multi-session) hours without flopping a set. When I am running badly, I just go sit in the loose 3-6 game without expectations or bankroll pressure. Then I get to play all those drawing hands I wouldn't be getting appropriate pre-flop implied odds for in my regular game. Now I start to complete some of those draws, and win pots I wouldn't usually be involved with. Voila! Hold'em has become fun again, and my attitude is properly reoriented for higher limits.
If it's really "bad luck", there's obviously nothing you can do. When the wrong (so to speak) cards are dealt, there's nothing short of cheating that you can do about it. All you can do is play a good game, and expect the results to come back to the norm.
If it's not bad luck, then it's either bad play on your part, or great (I hate to suggest it, but cheating?) play by your opponents. It sounds like you're already doing the right things to make sure it isn't bad playing by you. If your opponents are too good, you need to find another game.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Be sure that you are playing the same game. Very few players play as well when losing as when winning. The differences may be subtle, but they are there. Also, when you are losing your opponents tend to play better against you, making it harder to climb out of the hole.
I like to look for the positive in everything. I think losing sessions are valuable because they force you to re-evaluate your play. Sometimes extended winning streaks can turn you into a bad player. You make the odd stupid decision and get lucky, and the stupid decision is reinforced. It takes some of these bad runs to re-calibrate yourself as a player. Think of it that way, and resolve to play every hand to your best ability next time.
The losing sessions are an education, and the amount you lose is your tuition in poker school.
Sounds like you are doing the right things i.e. having a trusted friend monitor your play etc. One thing though: I am not sure why you are writing down hands you receive. I mean, is there any benefit to be derived from that? I suspect that this is energy you could redirect to something more useful i.e., reading hands, identifying playing tendencies etc.
Dan's right: There may be subtle changes in your play (for the worse) that may be obvious to everyone except you when you are running bad.
To me, the key thing that I am concerned about when running bad is not whether I am entering pots with substandard hands or the like. The key thing is whether I am playing "scared" and missing key raises or bets and thereby allowing my opponents to get there cheap or free. Let's face it...almost all of us lose confidence when running bad. When that happens, the first thing that goes out the window is your ability to apply the right amount of aggression that the situation calls for. When running bad, most good players err by playing more timidly than they otherwise would (ironically, bad players seem to play over-aggressively when running bad). I would self-monitor my play for this more than anything else.
Thanks to everyone for their advice and commentary.
All comments appreciated concerning why we should or should not draw to overcards.
Reasons why you should not go any further with overcards if you miss the flop:
When the flop is a complete miss and all you have is a couple of over cards you are deluded if you think playing further is profitable. You won't leave much on the table if you decide to virtually never get involved with overcards.
(1) Odds are 7 to 1 that you will not hit either of the two overcards on the turn.
(2) In the rare instance that you hit the overcard more than likely it gives someone else two pair. Individual bets saved are as good as individual bets won.
(3) Now if you have (KQs vs Js 9c 5d) two overcards with 3 to a second nut flush draw and maybe a gut-shot that's a different story. With all these things going sure it's worth seeing the turn.
(4) If you don't have a draw, a made hand, or an ace, you don't have much of a right to stay in after the flop; if you raised before the flop, you might take a swing, but otherwise check and fold. Two overcards is a very weak hand without an ace.
(5) If someone bets on the flop and a player in front of you calls, the value of your overcards has gone way down - Be prepared to fold here!
(6) The most important considerations are:
(a) How many players are with you on the flop?
(b) Are you in first betting position?
(c) Has someone called a bet in front of you?
(d) Are there any draws on board?
Reasons why you should play overcards:
(1) Sometimes you hit your overcard on the turn and win a huge pot.
(2) Sometimes you may win by betting against one or two players (bluff).
(3) You may hit runner-runner for a straight or backdoor flush if you have suited overcards.
(4) You may be getting good odds to take just one cheap card.
(5) Many times I have KK or QQ with a flop like 7d 5h 2c and an opponent with Ad 6d will take a card off and catch an ace on the turn.
I've lost a lot of money with overcards. Typically, its fairly normal for most props in Central City, Colo,is to bet out against just a few callers. Usually everyone calls to the river of course. In late position, a raise with AsKs is reccomended by hpfap. Lee Jones suggests dropping overcards after the flop in his book. I've come to believe that dropping them is best. The problem with just say 2 callers is that pot odds make it a bad bet. I.E. $19.00 in pot for 2 callers after raise and rake. Odds with $5.00 bet are 4.8 to 1. This would indicate at a low limit that it is incorrect unless there are 4 callers pre-flop.
Bob, good post and I generally agree with your message.
One quibble: You said
"If you don't have a draw, a made hand, or an ace, you don't have much of a right to stay in after the flop. Two overcards is a very weak hand without an ace."
Personally, I feel that calling with say A,10 on say a 853 flop is much worse than calling with J,10. An Ace on the turn may well make another hand even better On the other hand, if you hit a Jack, your hand will probably be good.
For me, the 3 most important factors as to whether to call the flop with just overcards are these:
1. Pot size
2. The raggedness of the flop.
For example, I am much more likely to call (or raise) with say KQ on a flop of 10,7,3 rainbow as compared to 10,8,7 with 2 hearts. Obviously, in the latter case, not only do I have to hit a King or Queen on the turn, I also have to hope that the handful of drawing hands that are out there miss on the River.
3. Where is the bet coming from.
I am much more likely to peel off a card if the bet comes from my left as that then reduces or eliminates the chance of a raise behind me.
I think this depends on the game and the opponents. If you are in a low limit game with lots of players who believe that "any two cards can win", forget it. Muck your overcards unless you have a good straight or flush draw.
If you are in a tight game with only a few people seeing the flop and you have good reason to think everyone else missed this flop too, then I would be inclined to play them. Having an ace or being in late position would make me more likely to play them.
as i struggle to really learn this most marvelous form of holdem.....
this is the tuesday night baby nl game . 2/5 blinds 300 buy in only rerb buy when below 150
last night i did ok i have decided to not really pay attention to 15 dollar raises. pre flop. i will play the same hands with or without them./ it sems that in NL you have to be sooo careful on the flop w/ one par and no redraws that if the flop comes very textured you have to be extreeemly careful even w/ and over pair. and if the flop is unconnected you can steal ... i also was able to steal a hand or two by raisinng a small amount pre flop from the button with small suited connectors or one gappers and betting out a smnall amount on the flop (30.00). in all these siuations i immediatley concede to a solid raise./ thus i am choosoinbg to invest small bets to hit some one for several hundred dollars./ and have them not put me on hands. comments if you willl. thanks
You are not going to trap any good players based on playing small cards on the button for only a $15 bet if the money is deep. They will get a read on the strength of your hand based on your post flop action related to the texture of the board.
Beware of these falling in love with these weak little button steals. They are hazardous to your table image if you constantly swing at the pot and then fold to a raise. Players won't fear you putting their stacks at risk when you have something like top-pair/top-kicker and will put the pressure back on you with good draws, their medium-strength hands, and STRONG resteals. If I view you as being a "nuts-or-bluffing" player, I will use it against YOU and the rest of the field.
The nuts don't come up that often and the margin of victory in this small blind ame will come from your ability to extract value from your marginal hands while avoiding the big hits.
yes but we have enuf mediocore players. i was generalizing. i was looking for a flop that is textured that would give me an edge. and i only stoile twice just looking to do it enough topay for the 15 dollar calls i also bluffed w/ 15 dollar bets and got some significant raies that got me some dough. and against you or the other very skilled players this does not happen. because i do have a weak table image people really pay me off, mike. i just need to eliminate the brain dead calls(mostly) and still keep my crummy image. i loose my money on very few bad plays. thanks for the comment pot limit on saturday???
I have a concept that I'd like some comment on. We all know that low limit players have a hard time beating the rake. What if a low bankroll player started in let's say 3-6 hold em with $100 and tried to get 50% more ($150 total). Then he moves up to 4-8 and tries to get 75% more (262.50), then moves to 6-12 and tries to get 100% more ($525), then quits. The numbers can be moved around, but the idea is, what of the concept of low budget player playing above his limits with other people's money? Your comments are appreciated.
Spadebrain,
the concept os nice, but I´m afraid, it won´t work in the long run. You might win at 3/6 and move up to 4/8 and after that to 6/12. But it´s easy possible, that you´re gonna have a loosing session, too. And than you might loose all the money you´ve won before AND your own money.
I think, it´s simply better to try to beat the game (it´s possible even in low limit), and build up a bankroll, which is big enough to move up to a higher limit.
Regards
M.A.
there once was a post on rgp about treating a session a s a tournament, moving up limits if you won. It seems like a fun experiment.
The fallacy in your reasoning is that when you gamble, you are NEVER gambling with "other people's money". That is your money. It is just as valuable as if you had taken it from your 401k. You cannot treat money you have previously won with any less respect than money you've obtained from any other source.
good point.
Assume 10 handed limit holdem game. You're on the button with T9 offsuit. Everyone limps in including yourself. Flop comes A76 rainbow. You have an inside straight draw. The small blind bets, everyone folds to you, the button.
There're 11 small bets in the pot now. With two cards to come, the odds to make your gutshot are 5-1. But you expect that the bettor will also bet on the turn and river, which means you will have to put in one small bet now and 2 small bets on the turn in order to see the river card. Since you're going to have to put in 3 small bets, and the odds are 5-1, you're going to need at least 15 small bets in the pot at the end in order to make calling correct, right? Since the bettor will bet the turn and river, putting 4 more small bets in the pot for a total of 15, is it correct to call?
Assume you don't make the straight on the turn. The odds now to make your gutshot are 11-1 since there's only one card to come. The bettor bets the turn so there're 14 small bets in the pot and you have to put 2 small bets in order to call. You are getting 7-1 odds on your call, but the odds to make your gutshot are 11-1. Is it still correct to call the turn and see the river card?
This is confusing me. It seems correct to call on the flop based on expected odds, but incorrect to call on the turn. Are you supposed to decide right from the flop that you're going to go all the way to the river or are you supposed to reconsider and fold on the turn?
What's the correct way to play?
Thanks.
You have to reconsider each and every time the action's on you. Yes, it is often correct to draw on the flop and fold on the turn. The small blind may not have an ace however, since playing for a checkraise on the flop becomes nearly manditory against that many opponents. If the small blind knows enough to try to thin the field with ace and a good kicker in this spot, what does the lead bet mean? Can you try to represent aces after everyone else folds, by making a semibluff raise on the flop? Can you take away the small blind's initiative and try to get checked to on the turn? My point is that you should be more concerned with correct odds when there is multiway action, rather than heads-up.
He makes a good point though--I've seen recommendations for peeling one off on the flop that use the "two cards to come" assumption to calculate pot odds, where they might get a different result with the "fold if missed turn" assumption. For example, flop is K67; you have 89; UTG bets into you and you have good reason to believe he has a good King and will bet a rag turn. With the "two cards to come" assumption, you only need about 3-to-1 in the pot to call, but if you assume that you will have to fold if you miss the turn, you really need more like 5-to-1 since you have no overcards or other outs. Of course, this is one more reason why a semi-bluff raise may be even better, since it may either buy you a free card or increase your odds to call the turn.
=== Flame Protection: there are more criteria to consider (such as you may win without the straight) but we'll stick to the ones you did consider.===
Your first analysis showed that planning to make two calls was marginal compared to folding. Your second analysis showed that making the turn call would be bad compared to folding. Good enough analysis.
But your forgot to consider the 3rd possiblity, which is calling the flop and folding the turn. Keeping with your assumptions you would gain 15sb by the river for your investment of one, when you are only a 11:1 dog to hit it. Good call.
Combine a good call on the flop with a bad call on the turn would result in a marginal two calls, which is consistent with your first analysis.
The problem is putting importance on the value of the first analysis. As Mr. Wells said you should reconsider each call on each round. The first anaylsis has relevance when you KNOW you will make the second call. Now if you can expect 6 callers on the flop you should RAISE for value, since you are a 5:1 dog to make the hand.
- Louie
I am interested in other peoples opinions of how common cheating is at poker in public cardrooms. If cheating does occur you can throw your odds and strategies out the window.
My own opinion is that it is reasonbly common, usually in the form of locals taking advantage of non-locals. This is reinforced by reading books such as "Gambling Scams" by Darwin Ortiz and "Burning the tables of Las Vegas" by Ian Anderson.
I also believe that deal making in poker tournaments tarnishes the reputation of poker in mine and the public's eye. Imagine if Tiger Woods and David Duval were even after 71 holes of the US Open and agreed to split up the 1st and 2nd prizemoney and to play the 72nd hole for the jacket and trophy only. Even worse imagine Woods saying to Duval,"Dave I'll hit it out of bounds,you have the jacket,just give me the 1st prizemoney."
i wouldnt doubt it stills goes on somewhat in golf. i remember years ago it was common to do the splits. they did stop it and i believe it should be stopped for poker tournaments but i dont think it has any real effect as long as people know its ok. poker is a game where no money is added and so the players have no obligation to the spectators at all (inmo). as for as cheating in public rooms it is a small worry from the inside and a small thorn from players. the little collusion from teams is usually done poorly as it comes from losing players. i wish when an incident happened the clubs would own up and not hide it and let the people just go to the next place to start all over again.
Freddy;
You are right about small local card rooms. However; Stud is more of a danger than Hold'em.
Ray; If I could contact you off forum I might beable to improve your insights about local games.
How's this for dangerous, a game spread at my local card room
Pot limit 5 card stud with reduced 32 card deck(2-6 removed) The value of knowing any unexposed cards is astronomical.
Freddy, Sure...my -email address is ra_springfield@msn.com. Send me e-mail and I'll give you my number. I must admit that my experience in Central City has been bad. My attitude should improve and it will. I do well in various games in Denver. Omaha has treated me well. Holdem in Denver has too. Central City,however, pounds me everytime. I do study, and play. I want to improve.
sorry, its ray_springfield@msn.com,Thanks Freddy
Why do you think 7 Stud is more of a danger from cheatingt than Hold'Em? Aside from the obvious potential problem of players sliding or rolling their door cards, what kinds of cheating have you seen in 7 stud? Personally, I have always believed it is much easier for players to cheat in Hold'Em because there are more players at the table, the community cards make it easier for partners to know how strong their hands are and, unlike 7 stud, players always know what the absolute nut hand is before they make the final bet on the river.
Irish Mike
Mike: 1. The whip-saw 2. Stacking by dealer
I understand bucko but, again, why would this be more common in 7 Stud than in Hold'em? I still believe it is much easier to cheat in Hold'eM than in Stud, for the reasons explained in my earlier post.
Irish Mike
Correct me if I'm wrong. I thought cheating all but killed high stake razz games. Although I agree it is not a serious problem in todays cardrooms.
A player at the MGM grand warned me about collaboration between players at the Mirage. She made a vague reference to a raising war. So when I stayed at the Mirage during the week the Bellagio opened I was not totally unprepared.
I knew I was exactly what the pros were looking for, a home town hero tourist. To my amusement I found myself acting like a home town hero tourist, talking too loud about how we did it back home. I paid very close attention to the players in and around the 10-20 limits to identify the likely pros so as to avoid tight games.
On the last day, two who I had identified as likely hard noses came into my game at different times and without recognition of each other. I caught jacks and raised preflop. Three people called including the hard noses. The flop came with a pair of fours, I bet and the two hard noses took off on a raising war. I was about to throw away my jacks when the warning of the MGM player rang a bell. I called all their raises. The turn came, I checked and to my amazement so did they. I checked the river and so did they. I won the pot and also experienced a classic attempt at putting me in a swing. Later, I decided to check out my suspicions about them and announced loadly to the dealer that I was leaving. My two suspects immediately exchanged disgusted glances. The sucker was getting away. So I said the most annoying thing that I could think of, "Thank god for Sklansky and Malmuth, I've only played poker for eight months!". I also rubbed my eight hundred dollar win in for good measure.
But hey, you have to love two people laying you two to one on your money with bad cards. As a result, I have begun to research cheating as it applies to modern poker, in hopes of identifing other exploitable situations.
watch out when two dealers at the card room sit down at your table. you will see that when they are in a hand together the "check check". but when they have one or two weak opponets with them they often get in a "raising war". dont think they both dont have hands one of them usually will have a big hand and the other is helping him keep from getting check called by the weak players.
So, two players working together might do some like this: I signal my partner I have ace-king. A player raises preflop, so we now have someone ready to invest. The flop comes ace, rag, rag. I bet, the sucker calls. My partner raises. The sucker calls. Now we probably have him trapped and off we go with the raising war.
Same thing happens on the internet versions of live poker rooms. In these you can have two or more in cahoots..talking on the phone or via instant-messaging. You could even have one person playing two hands.
But back to live. Is there a strategy that can trap the trappers?
It seems to me that the key to 'trapping the trappers' is to identify them, at the Mirage I annouced my intention to leave the game, specifically looking for a response, which I got. I remember them very well and I left them without a clue. Next time I see them at a table maybe I'll sit down and wait for a big pair, then play it like a drawing hand. Maybe they'll give me two to one on my money again.
Freddy,
I've come across lots of cheaters in my years of playing poker. Most of them play in private games where it's easier to manipulate the cards. I don't think it's a huge problem in public rooms.
Like Mr. Zee points out, most attempts at cheating are fairly transparent and perpetrated by losing players. I don't mind a guy cheating me if I leave with all his money. One of my fondest poker memories happened ten years ago. I cleaned out a cheater over a period of weeks who was too dumb to realize I was on to him after the first 15 minutes. He's probably still stuck.
That was a rare situation however. Usally the best course of action is to politely excuse yourself with only a small portion of the cheater's cash.
Take some time to read many of the excellent resources on card cheating and manipulation.
Cheating is very uncommon in modern casinos. I would say that most allegations of cheating come from less experienced players who have never played with someone who is capable of raising and then folding. As far as digusted looks at the Mirage when someone announces they are leaving with a sizabel win; I think we are all a little disgusted when someone we perceive as a weak player is leaving without giving away money. Also I might add that we should be forever vigilant to detect cheaters that might sit down.
Randy
Randy; I spent over twenty years in the rafters looking at pkr tables and colusion was our biggest problem! This why I asked for Zee's personal e-mail.
I am sure collusion does occur, but I would say that it is very uncommon. I will add my name to the list of people on-line who have played a lot of poker that say they have never been cheated at the poker. Actually I was cheated once in a private game, but the cheater had to go to the hospital afterwards, so I don't count that time.
Randy
Here a hand I play in 15-30 holdem. I have big blind pick up AA there was raise and reraise to me so I made it 4 bets only three people in...flop come 976 no flush draw I bet and they both call...turn come 5 I bet the original raiser fold the other guy raise I call...river come 2 he bet I call He show me pocket 22 made set of 2 . any commend is welcome.
There's really isn't much to comment on here. Since you made it four bets your opponent realized that you had to have an over pair and made a desperation bluff raise on the turn trying to represent a straight. Since you called, I'll assume that you recognized that he either could have made this play or might be raising with an over pair himself (but one smaller than aces). You just got very unlucky on the river.
The one and only comment this hand really deserves is: Alway try to play in the same game as the opponent with the 2,2!
Vince.
Should I just called before the flop and try check raise after the flop? If the hand is head up before the flop should I just called? May be it different way to play AA.
No. It would be different if you were UTG and had already made the initial raise however. Heads-up with a reraiser, make that player pay another bet pre-flop.
Rivered again!
This player might've called you with his 22 all the way putting you on big cards, like AK or AQ and maybe raised on the turn with his pair to make you fold the overcards. I don't know if the right play here is to reraise the turn with AA to avoid those type of river 'bad beats'. But a lot would depend on what you think your opponent has.
carlos
If I reraised on the turn he can have 8 or set and it will cost me more money.
it these players routinely raise with hands that contain an 8, like A8, 89, T8, 88, etc. then yes, you probably cannot reraise the turn and just have to live with the 'bad beat'. But now, wouldn't you raise with 88, 89 in that position? open ended straight draw with a pair against what I think is AK would always get a raise from me. So i don't put him on an 8. Maybe 99 or an overpair seems likely, but you have AA and the likelihood of 99 over any other pair seems small such that reraising on the turn might be the appropriate move.
carlos
Depending on the player, I would also be very tempted to reraise the turn. Since he was the original raiser, the only thing that he should have that beats you is 88 or 99 (maybe 77). But he will likely play 1010, JJ, QQ, KK, or AA the same way. If he doesn't have any of the above, he knows the only chance to win is to throw a raise at you. I'd be very sceptical of his raise here, and would consider the reraise for value (he likely will call with a high pair), or to try to block any miracle draw he may have.
If this is a weak player who likes to bluff too much I will reraise the turn.
P.S. A check raise on the flop was probably your best play, and in this instance would have earned you the pot.
As you suggested just calling-then-check-raising the flop has considerable merit when its 3-bet to you, unless you can drive more players out (such as if there were 2 calls before the first raise). 4-betting it in early position gives away FAR TOO MUCH information about your hand and should be done for reasons other than getting an extra bet in. When you call-check-raise, they don't know what you have.
The information you gave away encouraged this player to bluff which is usually unwelcome (in other situations). Since this player played 22 he could reasonably have any hand, and you obviously knew it, so 3-betting the turn would be a bit obscene, and denighs the opponent a welcome river-bluff.
Note the bluff call the player made on the flop. This has some merit since there are lots of turn scare cards (any card >5) that would support his bluff. Perhaps this guy considered that.
Sadly, you don't read much about bluff-calls.
- Louie
Alot depends on how the bluffer perceives the player making the cap from up front. Many would-be good players somehow cannot resist showing their neighbor a tough laydown. If I know someone is willing to fold unimproved pocket aces due to the betting after the flop or the texture of the board, then they are always going to be succeptable to a raise on the turn if I happened to be calling. I disagree with not capping AA from the big blind. If I see a solid player calling two bets cold from the big blind, it looks just as dangerous as a cap. I can't put someone on 22 here either, but I would suspect a semibluff raise on the turn. If I do think someone is semibluffing I wonder if reraising with the big pocket pair (which is obvious to everyone else) on the turn is not such a bad idea after all.
Hold 'em tourney at Foxwoods. $20 entry ($15/$5); one optional $10 rebuy first 2 rounds. At one point I was table leader (or very close to that); a couple moderately bad decisions (pocket 10's lost to a guy who made a set of deuces when a pair of deuces were flopped up, etc.) caused me to lose most of my stack. About 30 people left out of 60.
Final hand (for me): I have approx. $1,800 in chips (average stack at this point approximately $3,000). I hold A-Q spades. $300-$600 round; I am on big blind. Three callers to me, I raise. Two callers drop. Flop is J-4-7, two low cards are spades. Other player bets, I raise. He calls. Turn card a rag. He checks, I go all in. He calls. River card also a rag. He turns over J-x. See ya.
Was it a bad decision was it to play this hand like it was the Second Coming? The levels were about to go up (to $400-$800 or $500-$1000, not sure which) and I figured I needed to make a move soon to stay "even" with the rest of the table. Was this the right move with just a terrible turn and river, or should I have folded after the flop (despite the nut flush draw) & taken my $1,000+ into the next hand?
Sorry to take up so much room with a "chicken feed" question. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
I like your play up until the turn. You should have taken the free card instead of putting in your last precious chips when the guy will clearly not fold. You may have even been able to show down your Ace for free if you missed, which is always a bonus.
On the flop you were probably a slight favorite. A flush draw with two "live" overcards is a is actually a 1.2 to 1 favorite against top pair. (Unless he has QJ or AJ). On the turn, your situation erodes and you are a 2 to 1 dog. Therefore, take the free card, bet and get paid off if you hit, and think hard before folding if you miss as the guy could be bluffing with something a smaller flush draw.
Always remeber that your LAST chip is the most valuable chip at the table, especially as you get closer to the money.
With the blinds that high, raising before the flop with 3 cold-callers already in is simply trapping yourself. But I agree that the bet on the flop was correct and the turn bet was not. If this had been a no-limit tourney, the best play would've been to move all-in on the flop. Alas, the outcome would've been the same.
You are correct. I was focused on post-plop play. He should have just called before the flop given his position in the hand and his stack.
You had three big bets left. Your hand is very good in this situation, but I wouldn't have raised in the big blind before the flop. You don't want to commit too many chips until you've actually have a hand. I think this was a minor mistake, but it worked out okay as two players folded--leaving you only one to beat.
You "missed" the flop but picked up a draw. I would have just called here. Again, why commit your stack until you have a chance of winning? Since the small blind bet, he probably wasn't going to fold (If he had checked, then betting would be okay.). Trying for the free card on the turn makes sense in a ring game, but when you leave yourself only 1 bet in a tournament situation, you're giving up too much for what you figure to gain. I think you made a definite mistake here. Keep that 1/2 bet and just call the flop.
On the turn you should have definitely checked. Big mistake here. If the small blind had any kind of stack, he should call with almost anything, if only for the sake of knocking you out. If you had just called the flop, you probably could call a bet here with all your outs. But with Jx, you might have gotten a check from the small blind, fearing you might have him out kicked.
When the limits went up (probably to 500/1000 or 600/1200, not 400/800), you could have gotten there with 1200, enough for almost three rounds (you just played your blinds). There was no need to sound the alarms just yet. You need to win a hand soon, but you don't need to double or triple your stack just yet.
Hey, read my previous post. Tournament Good/Bad luck. You'll be amazed. Gotta love J,4o
Vince.
But it was correct to call pre-flop with J4o in both hands.
Not that that eases the pain very much. ;-)
semi tight 15-30 game
1. UTG and player to your right limp in you raise on the button with black kings, blinds fold. flop comes AhJh2d . UTG checks player to your right bets you raise UTG reraises next player calls 2 bets cold.
2. 2 middle position players limp you raise on the button with AsQs BB calls. Flop is QcTc7h 2 suited. BB bets, next raises, 3rd reraises.
Note: people in this game plays draws VERY strongly in an attempt to diguise their hand, build pots, semi bluff.
thanks
1. Fold
2. Reraise
Sounds like time to find a better game. This is tough, if they're playing both tight and aggressive, you'll need to be pretty close to world-class to beat them enough to overcome any rake.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
eighb,
Situation 1: Fold. You only have one out, the Kd, and the aces and the flush draw are already represented. You've got to have some incredible pot odds to go for a 1 in 20 or so shot.
Situation 2: Difficult choice. Either cap it, which I would be inclined to do, or fold. You've got top pair with the best overcard, and it's unlikely that someone has a better hand than you at this point. Assuming that at least one player is on the heart draw and another the straight draw, though I haven't calculated the odds, I'd say you have about a 50-50 chance of winning a monster pot if none of the hands make, or folding if you have to on the turn.
Bill G.
i folded in both situations and in both situations i was beat on the flop but the turn card would have made me the winner. I almost never second guess myself but these hands left me questioning my play because the pots were huge.
I see folding the first one as pretty easy thing to do.
Why does everybody here think raising or folding are the only options in second scenario though? I don't see whats wrong with calling. Seems like you are either a little bit ahead or way behind (against the table as whole), and any draws have already been charged a decent price of admission. You are the button, so you can make sure no free cards happen, but by calling you increase the probability (maybe insignifantly) that any bet into you is BS.
If the table is "tricky" you've got to eventually take a stand, and if you cant do it with top pair Ace kicker when the hell are you going to do it? Even if you end up loosing the pot, you've made you calls a little scarier in the future haven't you? (Thats an argument against folding, not raising).
Straighten me out here if I'm wrong.
I think you're right Chance. I would either call or fold. I think it is more likely you are behind, but plausable that you are in the lead or will catch up on the turn. A lot of bogus betting and raising comes to an abrupt end on the turn, and with the button you are in position to see if they like their hand as much once the turn card falls.
Also, by not capping it you get to see if someone else does it. This could be a valuable clue.
I just found this forum and am impressed with the analyses. This is probably the best place to ask about an issue that has been on my mind. (I've played low limit for 10 years and have only won a modest amount, probably due to this question). Namely: HE books and videos advise you to apply more-or-less fixed responses to real life poker. Preflop, raise high pairs, throw away "suicide" hands like 2-4o, etc. If you don't, you're "live" or a "fish". Yet the nature of cards is you don't know what's coming; that's why they call it gambling! And that's why I see hands routinely won on garbage, players keep junk not because they're bad players but because in real life, they know the flop can help the junk as often as it helps the high cards and pairs. If it were true that the high cards and pairs are always the best to play, why do we see winning hands built on the junk? Set me straight, I'm eager to get this settled...thx
you wrote: "they know the flop can help the junk as often as it helps the high cards and pairs."
This is your mistake. The flop WON'T help the junk as often.
However, the difference is not huge. The difference is big enough to make money from if there are players in your game doing this.
Another reason. In low limits, you often see a table where 50-90% of the players see the flop. This means that most of them are playing junk. Thus, even though most of them miss the flop, only one of them has to hit to reinforce your belief (because that is the hand you will see at the showdown). In the real world, there might be 2 quality hands and 5 junk hands seeing the flop. If you see the junk hands win half the time, you might think that junk hands are just as good. Clearly, in this scenario, the junk hands are much worse, they're just outnumbering the good hands.
Play good, and your (long-term) results will be good.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I have to agree with Fossilman here. You are playing low limits so many of the players will play junk hands because either they are inexperienced or can afford to lose. In the long run the odds will favor the high cards. Why? because they are higher! Some lucky loser will always win with garbage, that's part of the game.
I mostly play low limits and I agree with what Greg said above. Some starting hands have a slightly better chance of winning than other hands. If you only bet when you have that slight edge, in the long run you will win more than the players who belive "any two cards can win."
If you imagine a game where everyone always sees the flop and no one raises, then winning long term will depend on your skill playing after the flop. Some low limit holdem games approach this, with most players seeing the flop. A player who is skillful after the flop can make money in this game against poor players, even though he sees almost every flop. But in the same game, a player who is selective in which flops he sees and skillful after the flop, can make more money.
Now take the same player who sees every flop and put him at a table with nine good players who only see the flop with good cards. The player who sees every flop will still win his share of pots, but they will be smaller pots, and he will probably lose money quickly even if he plays well after the flop.
In poker you are a long term winner because you put your money in the pot when you have better odds of winning than your opponents do when they put their money in the pot. Playing tight before the flop is part of this, but only part of it. You also have to play well after the flop and you have to find opponents that play poorly.
I had AA last week, flopped trips and was beat by a guy playing 52o when he made a straight on the river. You got to love a game where somebody playing 52o will keep putting money in the pot when a player who has folded his last 10 hands preflop suddenly starts raising. Its not a bad beat, its a good beat. You want those kind of players in your game. (At least that's what I keep telling myself.)
At least your guy had a straight possibility. I lost with KK when 7-2 o in 2nd position called a raise two different times to catch a 7 on the river and beat with 2 pair, twos and sevens.
You guys have to understand that these garbage players get their thrills from catching a draw on the turn and then completing it on the river. It's what they came down to the card room for in the first place since they should already know they have no shot long term anyway. If they don't recognize this, then thay are problem gamblers. For this type of player, runner-runner may be more satisfying than sex. At 3-6 the price of their *fix* is least costly, therefore this is where you will find them. Remember, it's not the size of the pot that matters to these players, just the rush of having it happen. There's a more insidious type of player though, who it seems takes pleasure in dishing out bad beats, and that's their main reason for being in the game to begin with. You know, cold call from early position with 65s behind a solid player's pre-flop raise...
Like usual Greg's right on.
You remember all those times you lost with pocket aces because you had an unrealistic expectation of how often they should win. Remember, casinos make billions with just a small edge played out over and over again.
Garbage will never win more money than quality hands. You have the same chance flopping trips with 22 as with AA. True enough. But eventually that flop will come A,2,x.
It is mathematically impossible to win more with worse cards. Until you appreciate this fact of nature you will not consistently win at poker. The only reason you haven't lost money is because you are playing opponents who are playing even worse junk than you.
Thanks for all your good comments....I have not been playing many of the junk hands myself, which is why I see others using it. I'm still wondering though: If most or all players at the table have read the books, and they know that high cards have the edge, then wouldn't all hands below AA KK QQ etc be automatically mucked, so every game would be theoretically over in 15 seconds?? Just wondering what the dynamics are when everyone has similar poker education.
Knowing what you should do, and having the disipline to do it are quite different things.
Good Luck,
Steve
The problem is if everybody mucked all hands other than AA, KK, and QQ, it would give somebody the option to raise non-stop with any 2 cards and take the blinds pretty much at will.
carlos
If you are at a table where everyone is mucking everything but the best hands, find another game.
At least at low limits there seems to be an infinite supply of people who believe "any two cards can win", and, of course, they are right! They just win slightly less.
I think that you are a little confused. In my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II there is an essay called playing 15 percent. It quickly says that while an expert may only play 15 percent of his hands overall, it can vary from maybe 2 percent to 40 percent depending on the exact situation. For example, if someone raises in early position, you should generally play very few hands. If you are first in late, you can play a lot of hands. There are many other factors that also influence when a hand is profitable to play.
Do not assume that everyone who plays the game needs to win.
There is a chapter in "Hold em Poker" by David Sklansky where he explains the factors that were used to create his hand rankings. I think that reading this chapter would really clear up this question for you. Here are some of the things that I got from it.
It's true that any two cards can be helped by the flop, but it's not true that any two cards have the same chance of being helped by the flop. QJs and 82o both have an equal chance of floping 4 of a kind, a full house, three of a kind, two pair, and one pair. However, QJs has some probability of flopping a straight flush, flush, straight, or a good draw to one of these hands. This is not possible with 82o, so clearly QJs is a much better starting hand than 82o.
Higher cards are better. Compare KQ to 87. With both you have an equal probability of making two pair, but Kings up will win many more pots than eights up.
Also, with some hands you will make more money when you hit your hand. For instance, if you play QJ and flop A K 10 you are likely to get action from anyone who holds an Ace or a King. However, if you flop a straight with 4 5 you will probably not make much money with the hand.
David explains all this and more in the book and he does a much better job than I can.
I've found that in the low limit games that I play in you need to do more than play quality hands in order to win money. When I first started, I played well before the flop but poorly after. Now that I have improved my post flop play I am doing much better.
You also have to be disciplined enough to play well and not copy the way other people at the table are playing. For instance, the majority of low limit players will check and call when they flop a set. After I saw this happen many times I started to copy this play, but I soon realized that it was the wrong thing to do and now I almost always bet the flop when I flop a set.
While each solid hand is more of a favorite to win the pot then a bad hand, there are MANY more bad hands.
If you play AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AK, AQ, AJ, or KQ; that's only 78 hands out of 1326. That's only 6% of the hands. Without calculating, that means that MOST hands NOBODY has a solid hand, and the show-down is a since weak hand winner. And even if someone DOES have such a hand they will win less than half the time. If it is half the time, then the winning hand is 3:1 to be weak. (No calc flames please).
Also, these weak winners make a bigger psycological impression and so it SEEMS like even more.
It is this phenomenon that encourages bad players to play weak hands. Without this (and other traps) there would be no games since bad players would never win and quit. Discipline is therefore a required attribute of a winning player.
- Louie
Secondary question: I am brand new, been playing 7-card stud for about 1.5 yrs but only about 3 times a month. Won-lost till I decided to check and call with only the absolute best starting hands (no junk hands, no betting, no raising). I realize this is not good for the future but what about while I am learning. I get frazzled easily.
Read the cover off of Roy Wests 42 lessons 7-stud book for winning at middle and lower limits. Study the 4th-7th street strategy section from SCSFAP and be prepared to adjust for tight or loose conditions. Read theory of Poker by Sklansky and understand why you call, bet, raise, fold. You will hate stud very quickly if you just check and call.
cytokine
Cytokine, thanks for the advice, I have been thinking about reading Roy West. Sklansky is too deep for me at this point, unless he is talking about something that is not too technical. Have read everyone else though! Just takes me longer to absorb stuff than most people or so it seems.
I don't believe playing weak-tight is in your best interest.
A better strategy is to be very selective, but then bet the heck out of it. Getting a lot of money in while you have the better hand will overcome weak late round play, expected of beginers.
- Louie
Thanks Louie...I know what you say is true...what scares me is that I will make these big bets and people will CALL me and then draw out on me and I will be broke. Because I only have a little money to play with and I wanted to build it up VERY slowly and THEN play the way you say. Dumb?
Weak-Tight will likely preserve your bankroll.
This is a good idea in a "high" game (compared to your bankroll) so long as a smaller game isn't significantly the better game.
Consider changing "VERY slowly" to "VERY reliably".
- Louie
Gotcha...thanks again!
Candy - cytokine gave the best answer. Memorize Roy West's book, and do what it says.
One of the things you will learn is that certain hands must be bet hard and/or raised. If you start with a pair of Aces, you must raise to narrow the field, and if later in the hand one or more players are drawing against you trying to make straights or flushes, you again must bet to make them pay for their cards. (Theory of Poker has a chapter "The Free Card" which says this as well.)
So, be selective about which hands to start with. If, as I assume, you are playing in a lowest-limit 7 stud game which has no ante, you can play very tight and not lose too much to the antes and the forced bring-in. But I encourage you, whenever you have elected to play a hand, to play it _properly_ . And you will win more or lose less.
Dick
Ordering Roy West today! Thanks...
AZ Bob, You got a lot of good responses here. I would also like to remind you that, in low limit poker in the casinos, it is not good enough to just beat your opponents by a little bit; you have to beat them by more than the house rake takes away from you. The lowest limit games are almost always "rake" games, where a rake is taken out of each pot. (Time charge games: this post does not apply to you.)
Part of my strategy to play in a loose low-limit game (I am playing mostly 3-6 hold'em) is to be pretty selective as to which hands I invest in, and hope to win fewer pots, with a higher probability of winning and larger pot sizes. If this works, by winning fewer pots I pay less rake.
Every once in a while, I look around the table and think, Wow, each player here loses (to the house) an average of $15 per hour. Figure this out for your own game sometime; just count what goes down the slot plus the tips that go to the dealer.
The only way to avoid joining the club of average players who are losing the $15 per hour is to play much tighter, and let the rest of them push money around the table and down the slot for most of the hands; and trust me, they will be there to throw money in the pot when you have a good hand against them.
PS - I play tighter than anyone else in my games just by playing the hands more or less exactly as recommended in HPFAP. Don't get the idea that I only play AA and KK. In fact, addressing the "bigger pots" goal, I actually try to play more drawing-type hands against this game.
Dick
Dick,
Thanks for your comments (and thanks to everyone else also). I always wondered how advice given in a book based on static examples of table hands, can be truly beneficial if they can never be recreated in the real world (because of the entire nature of the game). It's like driving in traffic - you see some of the same cars all the time but the overall pattern around you never repeats itself. I'm not trying to play 'naive' here - I am good at hand selection and cash management - but it's those unexpected surprises that make this game addictive.
Recently I was in a 9/18 holdem game at a card club I was visiting for the first time. Most of the players didn’t know me nor me them. The game was moderately tight but not very aggressive and I was starting to run over the game a bit with good cards and some opportune bluffs.
About an hour in I was dealt a TsTc UTG and I raised. A seemingly tight player on my left called, one of the two loose players in the middle called as did the button who appeared to be an average (i.e., not tough but not “giving it away”) sort of player.
The flop came Th Td 9h. I have the near immortal nuts. How do I play the hand for maximum profit?
It seems the advantages to betting are 1) checking may appear suspicious; 2) the flop could hit someone anyway (primarily straight draw, flush draw), and the pot was already fairly big (for that game).
The advantages of checking seem to be: 1) you have a monster; 2) maybe it is not so suspicious to check as I would generally check high offsuit raising hands against such a scary board; and 3) there are some cards that could come on fourth street that could give others a chance to bet.
Anyway, I checked and it was checked around. The turn came an offsuit queen. I checked thinking that this may hit someone. Luck smiled on me as the tight player on my left bet, the middle player called him, the button folds and I check raise, which is called by both opponents. A baby came on the river and I bet and both opponents folded.
Question 1: Did I play this correctly?
Question 2: If the flop were Th Td 2c, what would be your basic plan?
Question 3: If the flop were Th Td Kh, what would be your basic plan?
BTW, I know this question isn’t really that important (how often do you flop quads?) but I need to post an easy one after I misread the board on one of my recent replies.
Regards,
Rick
BTW, Has anyone else had problems with their connection to the web tonight? I thought I caught some news that there is another virus out there with email replicating.
Rick,
I´d probably bet out the flop, because:
a)IMO it really seems suspicious to check, eypecially when you are known as an aggressive player b)with 4 callers, there probably are some medium pairs out there, which probably won´t fold with this kind of flop. (maybe you got extremly lucky and play against 99) c) there are lots of draws out there, which will pay you off.
If the flop was TT2 I´d probably bet, too. Because with this flop, not betting would look even more suspivious. Sure, if it´s a rainbow flop, nobody´s got a draw, but maybe sombody with a 3flush and two overcards might play back at you.
Supposing the flop is KTT, I´d bet again, hoping for somebody having AK (not very likely),KQ or KJ. But if nobody´s got a King, you probably won´t win very much with your monster (isn´t this a typical problem with monsters). But with 4 callers, I´d be pretty sure, that there is at least 1 King out there.
Regards
M.A.
P.S.: I haven´t had any problems with my computer.
Rick,
I think checking the flop, and just calling if someone bets (and there are no raises) is correct here. The flush and straight draws are possible, but if they are out, they will be bet anyway, plus it's not terribly suspicious to check here. Check-calling the turn might be a viable option, with the hope that someone makes their hand on the river, but it depends on the players in the game. If you feel confident that the original bettor and caller on the turn will call your raise, then now may be the time to pop it, while they still may have some outs, before their hand misses. Just something to consider. After check-raising the turn, betting out is mandatory on the river.
If the flop were Th Td 2c, it's still not TOO suspicious if you check, so I think the same basic strategy of check-call the flop, check-call the turn, and check-raise the river, will work (unless you are known not to be a check-caller). The problem here is that though you have a powerhouse, the flop is terrible (no straight or flush) for anyone else, so it's almost impossible to build a pot without a good bit of luck. That's not the case for Th Td Kh, where there's a good chance that someone else got a piece of it. Betting out on this flop is I think the proper play because it screams "monster" when you check it after raising UTG. Just bet and call any raises until the river.
Of course, it sure would have been nice to have someone try to pick off your "bluff" since they've seen you do it a couple of times :)
Bill G.
Don´t you think it´s suspicious to check and call with a flop TT9 (two of one suite) after raising UTG? You probably wouldn´t call with AK, would you? With AK, the K probably won´t help you (making JQ a straight), the A or K, which can make a flush can´t make you happy neither. And if somebody´s got a T or 99, you´re almost drawing dead.
If I was on the button an bet with something like 88 and UTG just calls, an alarm bell would ring in my head.
Regards
M.A.
M.A.,
I thought about what you said, and I agree with you completely. In fact, in all situations it now seems to me that after raising pre-flop with any pocket pair, one would have to bet a flop like this. AK, AQ should fold unless you've got a 4-flush. I guess this makes me ask what good it is to raise preflop with medium pocket pairs when the main profit from them is to flop a set. I can see limp-raising as a viable strategy (as mentioned in a previous post). I'd like to hear yours and others' views on the subject. The topic may be discussed in HPFAP, which I have not read.
Sincerely,
Bill
In HEFAP Sklansky und Malmouth suggest to just call preflop with medium high hand, and reraise, when somebody to your left raised after you and there are lots of callers. Also medium suited conecctors should be playd this way sometimes to mix up your play. This way you get fine odds for you draw.
Regards
M.A.
I agree. Perhaps the most profitable situation occurs when you lead bet the flop and hope to get raised so you can then just call. I would be happy though if the turn card looks like it completed someone's draw, since I'm likely to have that player make it three bets on the turn to my checkraise if my read is accurate.
Bill,
Your thinking is pretty close to mine here. These players don't know me well but and I dress more like a yuppie having fun that a serious player. So they probably think I'm a "typical" player at this point. Such a player might check a pre-flop raising offsuit hand with such a scary board and three opponents (by the way, checking to three opponents on this flop with AK/AQ offsuit is not so bad).
I think the check is less correct with the deuce as the side card and I would definitely bet out if the king were the side card. Checking when a king hits the flop after an early position raise is just to fishy plus it should be out there in one of the calling hands.
I almost never show my bluffs so they did not know I was stealing so much up to then.
Regards,
Rick
If I raised pre-flop I would bet all the time in this spot. It's something I do if I have AA, KK, QQ, JJ, or even AK. Especially if the game is loose, even a lone 9 will pay you off, not to mention the straight draws and the flush draws. I wouldn't raise if there was a bet in front of me, but if it was checked I would definitely bet. Someone mentioned in a previous response that even if you have a monster and nobody has a hand they might not pay you off. So the possible draws and even overcards might take one off.
Now on the turn if you think someone made their hand. I would try to go for the check raise. Or even bet and hope a loose and clueless opponent might make it 2-bets.
Here's an example from the other day. Sitting in a fairly loose 6-12 HE, I limp in middle position with 55. Flop comes 855 with 2 clubs and I bet the flop. I get raised by the button. I go ahead and call. Turn was a club. And I bet, figuring that the button made a flush. I get raised. We had a player trapped in the middle that most likely had a straight draw. I went ahead and made it 3-bet on the turn. River blank. I bet and get my quads paid off!
carlos
Carlos,
I would also bet all overpairs in this spot. However, with AKo or AQo I may check AK and fold to a bet - call - call and check raise a late position better that I thought might be stealing. Of course if I'm overcalled I got to worry about the ten being out there.
As a rule of thumb I have to hit the flop (or have an overpair) to bet into three or more opponents with a board this scary. And with some overpairs against a super scary board (e.g., Ac Ad versus a board like 9s Ts Jh and three or more cold callers).
Regards,
Rick
Bet the flop. Check raise the turn.
Do what looks natural. If there are many hands you would check on the flop then go ahead and check your monster. If there are few or no hands (AQ) that you would check the flop, then go ahead and bet.
Routinely bet if the opponents routinely call the flop.
I routinely bet the flop and check-raise the turn with monsters. Looks natural and encourages weak bets.
- Louie
The key word is "looks".
I agree here. Just do what looks natural so your opponents don't suspect you have a monster.
A good example of playing monsters strong is when you have rolled up aces in 7 card stud. You just have to raise with the A showing even if you have 2 aces in the hole. It looks natural and especially if the game is loose and you have been raising before with an ace showing. The same goes for rolled up kings, queens, jacks and even tens. Depending on the other upcards, sometimes with nines and eights.
carlos
you definately 100% should have bet the flop. Nobody will fold for 3 chips in that game and you earn some extra bets. After you bet the flop you should check call the turn. After the bet on the flop and the check on the turn commerce 9-18 players (who are always on step behind)will bet into you thinking you were trying to steal on the flop. Just call, if you raise here you will forfeit any river action. Commerce players are very leery of check raises on the turn (as you found out). Check raise on the river they will all pay you off.
eighb,
I still might check even at the Commerce but at least at the Commerce I know the players a little better.
I'll be there tonight but I may play 15/30 or 20/40 instead. One bad thing about the dead drop (as opposed to time collection) is that it encourages too much walking.
I've also always prided myself in game selection but it actually seems harder to select the best game when there are six to eight games going (9/18) as opposed to two or three (15/30 or 20/40). In the 9/18 there is just too much movment between games and too many tables to keep track of. What was a great game may quickly change to only a fair game (the game must be very good with a $4 dead drop!).
Another problem is the floormen are harried and shorthanded on a busy night and you don't always get your changes without looking after yourself. This negates one of my biggest edges which is game selection.
Regards,
Rick
Both last night in an 8-16 game:
(1) Two off the button, I had AT. All folded to me. I raised. The player behind me and the big blind were both strong players. The button played too many hands and overplayed them. The action went reraise, raise to four bets (the cap), small blind folded, big blind called four bets cold. I folded.
(2) In the big blind, I held Q9. Flop came seven handed: QT7, with two clubs. No clubs in my hand. Strong player one off the button bet, live player called. I folded.
Comments?
#1 seems like a good laydown against solid players.
#2 -- I assume you checked then folded. Why not bet and find out where you are?
I think they are in general good folds. But I think the opponents are being overly agressive and if they notice that you raise and when it comes back 2 raises to you and you fold, they might start doing it more often. At that point you might even be tempted to fold JJ or a bigger pair. The first hand I would definitely would've folded. You don't really want to play AT against 2 raisers, since most likely you are against an overpair to your Ten and against a better kicker to your Ace.
In the second example I would've either raised or folded. Notice that also have a backdoor straight draw and the strong player might just be betting second pair against the live one or even a draw. The live one could have anything ranging from a straight draw to a flush draw or even second or bottom pair.
carlos
I like both folds because of the considerable danger of AT making second- or third-best hand and the absence of solid outs for your Q9, together with the threat that if you'll improve to second best, but only becaase there are so many people in the pot.
If the Q9 pot were 3-, 4- or even 5- handed, however, I think the fold would have been clearly wrong because (1) you can dismiss the likelihood of an overpair, AQ and perhaps KQ (especially KQs), 2) one and quite possibly both of your betting opponents are on a draw, (3) your check on the flop shows weakness and might have induced a marginal bet. A check-raise here might be in order. IMO, the presence of a weak player that will pay off your likely better hand outweighs the threat posed by the strong player.
I don't think folding AT was correct. It will cost you 2 bets to see the flop, and there will be 14 bets in the pot. This is too much to give up before seeing the flop. Admittedly, you should expect to be up against at least 1 better hand (you said the button overplayed too many hands, so he might not have a significantly better hand, i.e., an underpair to your T). However, as long as you have the ability to lay down on the flop when you hit, but don't hit enough (e.g., A high flop, they're still betting, and you have no draws other than catching a T), then this hand is more profitable to call the rereraise preflop than to fold preflop.
Q9. This fold, if not correct, can't be wrong by much. In this case, with 7 opponents, you probably can't catch your 9 kicker without making someone a straight. The problem here, given this flop, is that even if you have the best hand, against 7 opponents almost every card in the deck will easily beat you on the turn or river. Plus, when you're behind, you are probably drawing slim or dead. If, for some strange reason, you were in this pot 7-handed and it had been 3 bets preflop, then the pot is so big that maybe you need to call (or raise) here, as a high variance but +EV play. However, given that the pot is medium-small, a fold here is probably correct.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Both were good laydowns. If you wanted to see the flop with the AT go ahead, but now you're gambling a little more. Put one of the players on JJ, QQ, KK, or AA, and understand that you are probably a dog to see the flop. Suppose that an A hit on the flop and an opponent comes out betting, you've got to fold because you've now got a horrible kicker.
Although there is nothing wrong with your fold here, I may have called with the second hand. You have top pair with double belly-buster straight draw. Peel one card while it's cheep.
Big A
in the 2nd case you have a better hand than you think. with all checking to one off the button there is some weakness saying you may have a decent shot at it already. if there are going to be just 3 of you in there you got to play. even if all seven people came for the flop you would win this pot almost one third of the time if they had random hands and thats very likely with so many players coming in. a real life senario here is that you have the best pair and are up against a draw and second pair if three of you play. if all the players were playing fairly well and you believed they all started with some type of good connected hole cards then ignore all of what i said above and fold.
Don't fold either hand. Hand 2 go for check raise.
Ray as usual is correct. The bettor had AJ, the caller had J9, no one had a club draw, the rest of the field folded, and my hand would have been good unless an A, K, or 8 came.
The first fold looks real good in retrospect -- the reraiser, button, and big blind had AK, TT, and QQ, respectively, and I was drawing almost dead, needing to catch four cards suited with my ace, AAT, or KQJ to win the whole pot -- the latter being good only if the board did not pair!
For new holdem book I recommend use 44 as Mason hand,83 for David and flop come 983 turn 3 river 4. 44 should be new Mason name hand.
I would like to comment on Game Quality.
Like many of the concepts and strategies presented here and in the 2+2 books quite often it take more than just reading before the value really takes hold.
I have been reading/studying, playing, reading/studying playing more and so on. I must confess though quite often I read something, understand its concept, even agree with it, but it just doesn't quite get entrenched until I actually experience it at the table.
At that point it becomes a true lifelong lesson that I clearly can see the value of what I have previously read.
This was the case recently when it came to "game selection". I have read on numerous occasions the importance of game selection but never really practised it.
I was at a tough table leaking my chips away and elected to change tables. I couldn't believe the difference in quality of the players. At the new table there must have been 4 or 5 terrible players. Two good players and the remaining average to poor.
The difference was astonishing. In no time at all I had tripled the money I had previously lost and was running through the table with the other two players. Casual eye contact and hardly noticible grins between myself and the two other strong players every time one of the poor players reached for his/her wallet confirmed that they too knew they were in one of the juiciest games of their lives.
Anyway a couple lessons were learned.
Practise good game selection, and don't just read/study this forum and the 2+2 books, but LOOK for the ideas and concepts presented and apply them when they arise.
S. Doyle
Your point about learning new concepts is well taken. I read HPFAP and Theory of Poker several times over a three week period, and saw some quick improvement in my game (I was a novice at the time), but was still missing many opportunities to improve performance at the tables. Then I started on a more disciplined approach, where I would study one idea in detail from both books (ex. check-raising) then for the next three sessions, I focused on proper check-raising. After each session, I reviewed my play, re-read the books on the subject of check-raising, then focused on that aspect of my game at the next session again. I've found that it often takes three or four sessions focusing on ONE IDEA before it really becomes an automatic part of my play, and I don't read a new subject area until I've mastered the one I'm on. I've also discovered that this approach gives you the opportunity to learn some of the more subtle ideas that pass by quickly in the text. Sometimes, there is ONE SENTENCE which contains a gem of an idea. In a casual reading, it just doesn't sink in. By reading-playing-thinking-reading-playing-thinking etc., eventually you learn to use these more expert-level plays with confidence. BTW I don't think I'm particularly thick headed. I think most people learn in this fashion.
interesting comment about the tight tables - i experienced the same thing at a Bellagio 4-8 game. full of good quality players, i was known as a tight player too. had some great starters, AA, KK - but when i raised everyone at the table folded! draws not worth playing,etc.
i realize now i should have left, or adjusted to the game better by stealing more blinds, maybe a semi-bluff raise with a draw. things that i don't do often playing in california.
looking back, the only reason i stayed is because "i was playing poker at the Bellagio". I thing the price to post at a new table is nothing compared to the money you'll make/save by leaving a table full of rocks or wild maniacs.
j.......
I had the same realization at Bally's Atlantic City this past Saturday. The game was perfect: $1 to $5, weak loose. Same players providing cash to the table. I never though I could find a game like that. Next time I go I am looking for the right table.
Mike
It 15-30 holdem game,two people called before me I called one off button with 7s7d button raised big blind called. flop came Js9s5h they all checked button bet big blind called ( I saw her hand looked like she wanted to raise )one called I folded, I would call if I did't see hand movement from big blind and no one behind me to raise,I had 7s and think about Mason hand 44. Turn came 5d no one bet,river 3d.Big blind show KsQh(two over card and gut shot draw) button won with AcTc. Should I start to call with two over card to my pairs when no A or K show in a raise pot?All comment are welcome.
Against most opponents, I would rather bet the flop than over call. It has been checked to you in late position. A fold is certainly a good choice.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
"Should I start to call with two over cards to my pairs when no A or K shows in a raised pot?"
Generally no, unless you have a special situation. When you've got a medium pair, two overcards on board but no ace or king and several opponents, the board is probably "bunched up" (like this one) and there's a good chance that you're up against one or more straight draws, overcards and higher pairs already there. A two-flush is an additional threat. Furthermore, your miracle card could make someone's straight, and the likely draws shut down your ability to win on the turn. Finally, if your hand is still good on the river, who's going to pay you off? As I (vaguely) recall, Mason was getting better odds for his 44, and I doubt he had a straight threat.
On the other hand, in a heads-up or three-handed situation, you're better off betting. In this particular case, you were about even money to win after the flop against just the button and the big blind. The third opponent, however, holding some kind of draw and/or overcards and/or overpair (like A9s), drastically cuts down on the equity of your hand and your ability to maneuver.
There are three callers in front of you. You hold AKQ9 with the ace suited and limp on the button. The flop is JT2 rainbow, giving you a 16-out straight draw. You don't have a backdoor flush draw. Both blinds check. A tight, solid player UTG bets the pot. Everyone in between UTG and you folds. The money is very deep.
The case for raising: Many of your outs are obvious, and won't get paid off if you hit them. If you can get all-in, you're about even money against a set. If there's still a lot of money left to bet on the turn, you have to call a pot bet as a significant underdog. If he just has bottom set or top two pair, he might fold. The bettor could have a partial version of your draw and then you would have a freeroll.
The case for calling: A player with a made hand can't fold to every possible scare card, and will call sometimes when you make your hand. You get to fold if the board pairs. If a possible flush comes out by the river, that may create a bluff opportunity against the right player (and a seven on the turn also would allow a bluff).
When would it be correct to raise here, and when would you want to call?
If the original better is truly "tight, solid" player, I would put the heat on him with a raise about 75% of the time. Unless he has top set, it will be difficult to take the heat as he is either a small favorite to a major straight draw hand such as yours (or even a big pair combo like AAQ9, KKQ9 or AKQQ) or a big dog to top set unless HE has straight redraws.
I don't like a call here except against the weakest players since I think your outs (except possibly a suited 8, which may "look" like you picked up a flush draw to go along with a decent made hand) are too obvious to decent players.
A fold is apreferable option to a call in my minds, and I would raise or fold against a solid player depending upn intangible factors such as current table image, desired table image, session bankroll, and the quality of the game.
In general, I am willing to gamble in these marginal situations against the better players because I think the advertising effect as a solid player who is willing to give selective action yields long term benefits in big bet poker.
I had AAJ8 double suited on the button. Five people limped in front of me and I raised. The flop came seven-handed: Q96, with two backdoor flush draws for me. All checked to me, and I bet. We went to the turn five handed: an offsuit 4. All checked to me and I checked. The river was another 4. The player in front of me, who was capable of bluffing, bet, and I called.
Comments?
William
William,
When you raise in back before the flop you are raising for value. You won't drive anyone out of the pot. AAJ8 double suited has only moderate value (two nut flush draws, few wrap straight chances, an atrocious low against a large field, and flopping a set of aces is not as good as you think. I would only call before the flop (change the eight to a three or deuce and I raise every time.
In Omaha take the free card on your bckdoor draws (against a large field) when given the chance. This is not a flop you love with just an overpair.
I agree with your turn check. It is you that may be trailing in several places.
I would call a bluffer here but you need to be afraid of the overcall with a four if the bluffer didn't have it. Maybe the better play is to raise because it is not inconceivable that you could have a four. This might stop the weak four overcall.
I'd add a few more thoughts but Saturday Night Live is about to start.
Regards,
Rick
I think raising before the flop is a losing play with this hand. You have no low draw and the only high hand you have (realistically) is two aces.
After the flop you bet. I would have put you on
a) a high board (maybe K Q J T)
b) or three Q's
c) or two aces.
d) A low draw if I think your a fish or on tilt.
Most likely two aces because many players like to raise before the flop with two aces.
Your Check on the turn tells me that you
a) Probobly don't have the nut low draw - or you would have bet it. Many players like to push low draws.
b) Don't have 3 Q's
c) Maybe have a big wrap (straight draw)
d) Just have two aces
My guess is that you have two bare aces. A check would be logical here given that hand, although since you bet the flop probobly the better choice here would be to push the aces again. You might get more of the field to fold on the turn than on the flop.
On the river you check and call. You stated that the player was capable of bluffing. I would not bluff in this situation if I was your opponnet. Your play practically screams "I have two aces, and made aces up." Raising on the end to represent a four is also bad. If I'm betting three 4's for value I'm not worried about you having a full house. I mean what could you have, a 4 6 ? If you do I just call and say that's the breaks. In addition since you checked the turn, and there are 5 people in the pot, it is said to be a "protected pot" ala David Sklansky. (There are too many people to run a bluff against.)
Summarizing
1) Raising before the flop was a mistake. This hand is a piece of cheese in O-8
2) Betting on the flop is ok, especially since everyone checked to you. You have to get some of the hands out that are competing against you. You could actually have a high hand here and need to represent that.
3) Checking the turn was probobly a mistake. I would have bet again, just to try to get more people to fold. Many o-8 players will fold the turn when facing a bet, but will "take one off on the flop."
4) Calling on the river is debatable given the way you played your hand. I would have put you on aces-up and would not have bluffed in this situation. However if your opponnet is dumb enough to think that Queen's up is a winner and would bet it you would have to call. In addition the pot is "protected" so why waste your money ? Another thing your check on the turn did was allow 4 people to see the river. I could easily put someone on a lone four, I mean it was free wasn't it?
Good luck, Tom B.
I think the main value of this raise with no low draw is to disquise the times you routinely raise with A2+. It gains more merit if the bone heads will "check to the raiser" on the flop, often giving you free back-door draws.
You have a non-nut gut shot and two back-door flush draws. I would take THIS free card rather than pay for a "cheap" card on the turn. Don't even THINK of betting unless all opponents would bet their own hands in this situation, which is common in Omahaha since most everybody knows that "checking-to-the-raiser" is much more silly then in Holdem.
Looks like a good call, but raising has some merit as previously posted.
- Louie
Does any one on 2+2 know any more about the cold deck a dealer put into a "Bad Beat" Jackpot game at Sam's Town. Two players and a dealer were arrested after the cold deck was caught on video.The BBJ was worth $44,000. I will be surprised if Card Player or Poker Digest report this story!
Great Article! One question. What are the odds for first and third vs. second and third i.e AQ vs. KQ? I would guess that this would also be just under 3 : 1, but does this qualify as the 12th grouping? Thanks.
This is really the same situation as # 11 with three wins and three redraws but I did mislabel it sort of in the article.
This hand occured last night in the local card club. Michael 7, a frequent 2+2 poster, versus Pete, an RGP poster (not sure of his RGP name). The game was $2/$5 pot-limit hold'em. Pre-flop, there was $1100 (I might be a little off here) in the pot, including some dead money. Both players put $600 in the pot on the flop, Michael being all-in, making the pot $2300 (+/-).
The flop was Ad,Kd,rag.
Pete held KK.
Michael 7 held Qd,Jd
Both players were looking to make a deal without playing out the hand--both being regular mid-limit players.
What should the deal be?
Both players took some money out and the hand was played out. I'll give you the settlement specifics, as well as the proper settlement, after giving you an opportunity to solve this yourselves. [Yes yes, obviously the 2+2 poster got the best of it. ;-) ]
An 11-outer against a set is about a 2-1 dog after the flop so if they wanted to avoid gambling the proportionate split should be $1,540 for Pete and $760 for Michael, meaning that every dollar either received over these amounts would represent a "win" at negotiations. Or, if they wanted to remove some chips and play the hand out, Pete should be able to take two for every one Michael gets.
Now, after looking doing a quick sim, it seems that a more precise breakdown is $1,525 to Pete and $775 for Michael.
George-
You got the situation pretty much right for calculating the post-flop odds, but I must defend my betting actions a bit. I did NOT put that much money in the pot pre flop. There were two $5 limpers from middle position and I called on the button with QdJd.
Pete raised from the SB and made it $60 to go. One of the initial limpers called and so did I given my position and my chance to trap a third player between me and Pete. I also thought it was a good chance to possibly play a big pot against Pete if I got a great flop since we both had big stacks (about a grand each) and the call of his raise represented less than 5% of my stack. So here is the action:
Preflop pot is $190. (Three players in for $60 plus $10 dead money from the BB and the limp/fold.)
Flop AdKd2s. Pete bets out $150, the middle guy folds and I raise it to $300. I make this raise in an attempt to take the pot down since he could easily have something like AQ AJ, or or an underpair here. (He is VERY aggressive until someone plays back at him.) Worst case, I thought I could "buy" a free card and build a monster pot if I hit.
Alas, my read proved wrong and Pete raised again to $600 total. I figured him for at least top two pair, but decided I was getting proper odds to draw out if I got the rest of my stack (about $525) in there. I was comparing my last $525 action to my "win" potential of $1315. The $1315 consists of the $190 pre flop money + my $300 post flop call/raise + Pete's $600 post flop action + his $225 required call of my all-in bet.
I was therefor getting 2.5 to one odds for my last action, which I thought would be justified even if he had a set. Additionally, I think it is important in this game to let players know that their entire stack is a risk if they hook up with you in a big pot.
Of course, if I had put him such a monster, my proper play would have been to simply fold to his flop bet before becoming committed, since I would surely face an all-in bet if a blank hit on the turn and might not get paid off if I made the flush.
No need to defend your betting, as I didn't question or even mention it.
Based on what I thought you said you both took out, the pot would be much bigger pre-flop. But I'll trust your memory over my hearing. ;-)
Either way, the proper settlement is the question, percentage wise. If the pot was smaller it doesn't really effect that.
No problem. I just wanted to make sure noboby thought I advocated getting over one-third your stack in before the flop with a cheesy QJs.
I sort of recreated the play in my head after the session last night, so I think my post here represents a better version of the actual action than what I tried to hurriedly describe last night in the aftermath of the battle.
In any event, even after my "sweet" deal, Pete ended up with nearly 60% of the pot, which was close to his true equity (after taking into account my typical 10% insurance "premium".)
In his defense, I think Pete felt he would have better opportunities to win money from a couple of softer players in the game and didn't want to take a chance on dropping his session bankroll with only a 1.8 to 1 edge.
The two Kings will hold up 62.83% of the time, and will lose to the QdJd 37.17% of the time. Out of 990 combinations of any two remaining cards 622 will keep the kk a winner and 368 combinations will make the QdJd a winner. KK can take 63% of the pot and give QdJd 37%. KK would have a .17% edge.
I only came up with 335 combinations that win for QdJd. How'd you get 368? Here's my list, assuming the rag was a 2: Tdx=44 Tx =3*34=102 (no A, no K, no T, no 2) 9dx=30 (no A, no K, no T(already counted), no 9, no 2) 8dx=29 7dx=28 6dx=27 5dx=26 4dx=25 3dx=24 Total = 335
Chris' simulation was close, and Bob Davis' calculations were exact. Pete will win 655/990 times, making him a 1.96:1 favorite over Michael 7.
I thought Michael told me they both took their $600 post flop money back, then Pete took $250 & Michael took $200, and finally they both took $100 each. That would be $950 for Pete, and $900 for Michael. Wow!
Perhaps it was $250/$200 and then $100/$100. That's pretty good for Michael too--$350/$300 when he was a 1.96:1 dog. Michael should have received about $178 for Pete's $350.
They played the hand out for the rest and Micheal didn't improve (Pete filled up actually), so Pete got the remainder.
Michael can correct any errors in the amounts of the deal.
The important thing here is knowing what your chances are in advance if you want to make a deal. Under the pressure of the moment, Pete couldn't, or at least didn't, make a good deal. It would certainly be to one's advantage to know the correct odds of certain common situations. Or at least a ball park way of figuring the odds on the spot. You never know when someone will offer you a great deal!
That is close. I probably confused you when I explained this. Here is what we did:
1) Pete offered to deal 5 separate turns and rivers to distribute the outcomes.
2) I sensed that he didn't want to gamble and would be prepared to give up a little EV, so I propsed that we take some money off the table and just deal it out for the rest. I offered to take back $300 and let Pete take off $350. I wasn't trying to be too greedy, but I incorrectly thought I had 40% equity and was charging a 10% "premium" since he was more inclined to deal than was I.
3) Pete said, "Let's first take back our last action" (NOt our preflop bet), which was the last $525 we bet, but hadn't been pulled into the pot yet. Of course, I jumped at this since it was a bargain for me.
4) Then we took back the $300/$350 as I proposed from the center pot and prepared to deal it out for the rest. Before the burn, Pete said, "Let's take back another $100." Of course I agreed. Cards were dealt and he won the rest of the pot, which I think was about $130. So he got $1100, or 60% of the pot, despite negotiating a poor deal.
Greg H:
A Book (Now Out of print) called Computer Hold'em written in the early '70's contained the same information. However; the author Zebronski (Spelling?) was unable to summerize his data as well as the DS artical.
I've noticed that in certain games where I sit next to immediate left or right of the dealer I can ascertain the location of certain cards when they are riffled too high. I won, and continue to win, a lot of money with this trick at baccarat, where I consider it is legitimate since the house is banking the game.
However, at poker, it seems unfair that I should use this information to the detriment of other players. The problem is that I have become so used to tracing the blur densities of particular clusters of cards through the shuffle that I now do it unconsciously if the shuffle is vulnerable.
What is the received wisdom here. If it is not acceptable to use this information, what do you do? Tell the dealer? How do you handle this diplomatically. Any advice appreciated.
Personally, if the dealer is giving something away with their shuffle I don't have any problem taking advantage of it if I can. Good players look to see if any cards are being exposed in the shuffle. Of course, it's clearly "more ethical" to alert the dealer to his or her shuffle problem.
But I must say that I am skeptical that "tracing the blur densities of particular clusters" is going to give you an appreciable edge. Short of knowing the near precise location of a card, I tend to think that you will delude yourself into making bad calls.
Maybe we'll play someday and you'll prove me wrong.
here i go ,, in my 3rd hr at the 20/40 table in stuck $400. i have$100 left,, in the bb i look to find pocket Qs ,, its raised in middled reraised on the button i make it 3 bets the middle player capped it ,, 6 players see the flopp!! the prettiest thing i ever seen in my life hit the table Q J 3 rainbow,,i checked middle bet 2 call button raises, i called middle reraises,, 1 folds button makes it 4 bets and im stuck holding just enough $ to call 1/2 bet on the turn,, the turn was just as pretty,, 2 putting 4suite on the board and me still holding the nuts,, i checked middle bets 1 folds button raises and i called for what i could ,, the river oops what am i so excited about,, u geussed it K ,,,,,, well the heads up match went back and forth for 6 bets and show down was this middle,,, KQ,, button AA,, AND me just my lovely tripletts to save my day,,,,
Just goes to show you are giving something away when you don't have enough money in front of you.
you should leave the table anytime you dont have enough chips to play out a hand.
I learned that lesson a few years ago playing in a 5-card draw high-low split game. I was dealt an A-to-5 straight flush in hearts. I had $7 in front of me. I just sat quietly while a 7-5 low and 3 Kings built up a good side pot to split, then I took the leftover $24.
I agree with what you are saying but there are times when I may wait a couple of hands to buy more chips. For example, if I am in the big blind and I have only 5 small bets or so left, I may wait for the button before I buy more chips.
In a recent 6-12 Hold'em game at the Mirage I made what I think was probably a bad fold. I had never played with this man before, and I had only been in the game for about 45 minutes, so I didn't really have a line on his play when this hand occurred. Here is how the hand went: I held in pocket Kings in fourth position to the left of the big blind, the first 3 players folded, I raised, everyone else folded to the big blind, who called. The flop came Q Q J with no flush draw. The big blind checked, I bet, he raised, and I called. The turn was a blank, and the bb bet into me. I thought for a few seconds and, feeling I was beaten, mucked my hand in disgust. Unfortunately, when I tossed my cards toward the dealer, they hit her hand and flipped face up on the table. Upon seeing my pocket Kings, my opponent said: "Boy did I put a beat on you, I had a Jack." However, he did not show his hand. Should I have folded my pocket Kings?
Thanks, Mike Watson
Mike,
2 things to consider here. Since you didn't reraise on the flop a player with a jack can assume that they probably have the best hand and can bet the turn if an undercard falls. Also, if he had a queen why would he check-raise the flop? Most 6-12 players will try to 2 bet it on the turn. By the way, that wasn't a bad beat, he outplayed you (although I'm sure he put you on 10-10 or AK and thought he had the best of it). When in doubt consider unknown players to be average, until you know more.
You should have played the hand to/through the river. No question!
The problem though is judgement. Do you trust yourself to make the correct decision in situations of this type? If you are a good player and feel you read other players extremely well then your play was not that bad. However, if you folded out of fear of losing a bet or two and for no other reason then .. Well, you know the answer to that!
Vince.
I think the standard play would be to re-raise on the flop and hope for the best. If he caps it and comes out betting on the turn then you've got some thinking to do, but I would say unless you have a really good read on this guy (which you say you didn't) you have to call him down all the way. I think you're smart to be suspicious of the check-raise. Why would he risk you laying down when you're betting for him?? A check-raise here is a standard buy attempt.
Don't forget to show those kings if you lose. It shows the table that you won't be bullied into a laydown.
With QQ J on the board, you have to be extremely wary of throwing away 4 or 5 bets to some guy with a queen, dont you? Why play this all the way to the end if you know you might be beaten already?
barry wrote: "Why play this all the way to the end if you know you might be beaten already?"
MIGHT is the key word. You can't release just because you might be beaten. You have to be confident you're beaten by a large enough margin of certainty that folding is a better play than calling. If it will cost you 4 small bets to call him down, and you'll win 12 small bets when you're not beat, then you have to be at least 75% sure you're beaten to make a fold correct. If you think that you're beaten less than this, then calling down is a winner. Plus, even if you think you're beaten 28% of the time, calling is still good, because you have 2 live cards to hit on the river.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
No. The vast majority of players (particularly at this limit) would wait until fourth street to raise if they really had a queen. When he raises on the flop, an unknown opponent will frequently have a hand of value, but also has a hand in which he wants you to fold. You should go to the river and pay off virtually every time or reraise the flop.
I had a similar hand the other day in a $30-$60 game. A weak player limped in, a strong and very aggressive player raised, I reraised with two queens, and the big blind called. The flop came 992, three different suits. It was checked to me and I bet. The player in the blind folded, the weak player called, the strong player raised, I reraised, and both players called. A king came on the turn. It was checked to me, I bet and both players folded.
Pot got $63 you get 63-12 or 75-24 if he bet river i.e. if not take rake into account. If he play jack he could spike on turn or river. If you call on 4th got to call on river. If he check on river bet behind him. Enough money in pot to see showdown.
You need to be confident this player IS very tight and predictable before you can even think of laying this one down. Certainly call-down (at least) unkown players.
The lay down didn't cost you as much as laying it down "in disgust" and sloppily hitting the dealer's hand. This indicates a bad attitude in you AND encourages otherwise predictable opponents in giving you an extra raise or two now and then. Be prepared to call the next couple-three hands you play.
- Louie
I agree that it was stupid of me to sloppily toss my cards and hit the dealer's hand, thereby exposing my kings. I was immediately aware of what this indiscretion would do to my table image, and I was not the least bit happy about it. However, I think that this bad fold actually allowed me to steal a good size pot a few hands later. Still, I know that the overall effect of such a fold and the subsequent exposure of my hand was negative, as it probably encouraged my opponents to play more aggressively and more deceptively against me.
Thanks, Mike
Mmmmmm .... An obvious lay-down helped you steal one later... The opponents associated "tight-folder" with "tight-better" ... That sounds reasonable, but I had not actually thought of it.
... its natural to assume that other good players play like you ... you lay it down since you would not have bet the other hand unless you had the goods ... So by laying it down you are broadcasting that YOU would not bet in that situation unless you had it ... the opponents make this assumption, and you take advanatage of it.
The more I think about it the more I like it. Good play. Nothing quite like finding the silver lining, eh?
- Louie
Actually, I don't quite buy it. There are three types of hands that "tight bettors" bet: 1) Very strong or nut hands; 2) Moderate hands (such as the overpair to a apired board as in this case); and 3) Bluffs or semi-bluffs. Let's assume for arguments sake that for every ten bets coming from a typical solid player, his true holding is as follows:
Moderate hands: 6 (iI'm sure you would agree that we make more moderate hands than very strong hands, so the actual percentage of bets coming from a moderate hand may even be higher)
Very strong hands: 2
Bluffs or semi-bluffs: 2
If a player convinces the table that he only bets very strong hands (or is bluffing), there is a 50% chance he is bluffing, and solid players will call him down frequently with their own moderate hands.
But if he also bets moderate hands, the chance he is bluffing is only 20% and the call becomes less automatic.
Sorry to overcomplicate a simple concept, but I think this should help clarify my thought process for the original poster, who seems to believe that if you only bet the nuts, you will be able to steal more frequently.
I think this is very well said and an argument in support of making some "thin" value bets at the end...such bets can definitely make it easier for you to successfully pull off bluffs.
Sklansky discussed the concept you are referring to in an article entitled "Catching Bluffers" in his book Poker, Gaming, and Life. I agree with the concept that it is a mistake to confuse frequent bettors with frequent bluffers, as "a tight player who rarely bets marginal hands for value but does sometimes bluff may find a higher proportion of his bets are bluffs than the aggressive player who bets many more legitimate hands and bluffs as well" (p.74). First of all, let me say that I usually play more like the aggressive player described above, I just played very poorly on the hand in question. However, even Sklansky notes that there is a natural tendency, mistaken as it may be, to call against the aggressive player and fold against the tight player when each bets on the end. In stealing a pot a few hands after my bad fold had given me the image of a weak-tight player, I merely took advantage of this natural tendency. I am sure that this tendency is more common among low-limit players, who are likely unaware that it is a mistake to confuse frequent bluffers with frequent bettors.
Regards, Mike Watson
Yes. Well said and I agree. When I suggested it was "natural" and "reasonable" for players to make this association, I should have pointed out that it was incorrect. (Its "natural" to fight back when someone is violently wrestling you to the ground, but it is "incorrect" if it is the police).
So being known as a tight value better on the end SHOULDN'T help you bluff more successfully, but it DOES against routine low and medium limit players.
- Louie
I agree that you should have reraised on the flop or at least called all the way to the river. However, if your opponent had a chance to show you his hand and instead only announced that he was playing jacks, I would presume he was lying. (My suspicion, however, is that his hand was even worse that jacks.)
There are some terms I have been wondering why they are named as such and was wondering if anyone could answer
Why do some players (dealer and authors) call threes treys (pronounced trays).
Why is an a 2 3 4 5 straight called a "wheel"
What is an wrap around straight draw (is it one in which one has 12 or more out to make a straight in ohmaha h/l).
Any answers appreciated! Thanks!
I got a "beyond the fire wall" error message while trying to read the first post in the Oct. 1998 Archive. Is this a known problem? (I was unable to post this on the Exchange forum due to an error message. )
are you trying to access this site from work? many companies have security "walls" up to prevent outsiders from gaining access to their info stored on servers, also restricting certain activities used on the web.
if you are using netscape, click the "help" screen above, click on "help contents". when the new screen pops up click "index", and the subjects are alphabetized. Click on "firewall" and will tell you how to go around them or reconfigure your server (kind of tricky).
you might just try from a different computer, or it may just be something on the twoplustwo server that's limiting you.
i'm not a computer techie - so if i'm wrong someone correct me! hope this helps
james........
Dear friends:
I have heard many times that I should call less often than I call and I will try to respect it and I will play only 15% of the time off the blinds.
However, I have no idea how to play when in the blinds.
The structure of my game is: sb posts 1/3 of a small bet.
Question 1: say that we have 4 or 5 limpers: what are possible calling hands?
Question 2: say that we have one or two limpers, a raise and a call: what are possible calling hands? a) in the small blind b) in the big blind
Question 3: say that we have an early raise and two cold calls: what are possible calling hands? a) in the small blind b) in the big blind
I do know that it depends a lot on who is the raiser and who the caller. But let's assume that all players are loose weak.
Thank you and I am sorry for the annoyance.
I have seen that calling a raise with KJs or AQ offsuit is not a good idea and also just calling in the small blind with something like 89s again is not a good idea.
Thank you.
Maria
Maria,
Let's go to HFAP for some guidance here:
Question 1: say that we have 4 or 5 limpers: what are possible calling hands?
HFAP discusses playing for a ½ a bet and 1/3 of a bet in the little blind when the pot is not raised. For a half a bet the book recommends playing any two suited cards, something like 86o, or any hand with an Ace is allright to call with. If it only costs 1/3 of a bet then it recommends playing all hands unless the big blind is a frequent raiser. Of course tighten up if the big blind is a frequent raiser for ½ bet in the small blind. So you can play pretty loose in this spot. If your getting good implied odds because your opponents will pay you off by all means call loose here, probably just a little tighter than the book recommends for ½ of a bet.
Question 2: say that we have one or two limpers, a raise and a call: what are possible calling hands? a) in the small blind b) in the big blind
In this situation HFAP recommends calling only with your better hands in the big blind since you can be re-raised. The guideline for calling a legitimate raise from the big blind is to call with the same hands that you would cold call with in late position. In the situation that you depict you are not describing a steal raise or a situation where a lot of players are in. The book discusses these two situations separately.
In the small blind, HFAP states that many of the same comments about big blind play apply to small blind play. It states that you must keep in mind that the small blind is usually ½ bet more (in your case 2/3 of a bet more) and the big blind could raise again. I interpret this as play a little more cautiously in the small blind against a legitimate raise.
Question 3: say that we have an early raise and two cold calls: what are possible calling hands? a) in the small blind b) in the big blind
The book states that in the big blind you can call a little looser than the situation described in 2. I would guess that this applies to the small blind as well.
I would recommend reading the chapter in HFAP about playing in the blinds since I am more or less at least attempting to repeat it here.
Tom Haley
Thank you very much Tom.
Maria
I would recommend that you reread that chapter in HFAP.
> HFAP discusses playing for a ½ a bet and 1/3 of a bet in
> the little blind when the pot is not raised.
In the edition I own, they discuss playing when the little blind is 1/2 of a bet and ***2/3*** of a bet.
> For a half a bet the book recommends playing any two
> suited cards, something like 86o, or any hand with an Ace
> is allright to call with. If it only costs 1/3 of a bet
> then it recommends playing all hands unless the big blind
> is a frequent raiser.
In my edition, they wrote, "However, if it costs only one-third of a bet to enter the pot, every hand should be played." While they certainly could have worded this sentence better, I took it to mean "...if it costs only 1/3 of a bet to complete the bet and enter the pot..."
It makes sense to loosen up your playing requirements as the little blind becomes proportionately greater--not when the little blind becomes proportionately lesser. In Maria's case (where the little blind really does costs 1/3 of a bet), she would be well advised to play ***fewer*** hands than she would if the price of the little blind was 1/2 of a bet.
I live in the Chicago area and the riverboats here all have $5 rakes at their poker rooms.
I was wondering if it is possible to win at these games. If it is, what is the minimum stakes that one needs to play. I won a ton in Vegas at 1-4-8-8 with a $3 rake and a $1 jackpot (in my eyes, essentially a $4 rake), and also at $4-$8 with a $3 rake). There were a couple guys at the 1-4-8-8 game that seemed to being trying to make their living at it, so I guess they were long term winners. From what I saw of the $2-$5 spread limit games in Colorado, there $3 + $1 raked games can probably be beaten.
Unfortunately, these games all seemed beatable because there were some truly awful plays made on a regular basis. In the Colorado case, it was terrifying. And the spread limit games, as Mason writes, are tilted too much in favor of the mildly skilled (as opposed to the unskilled).
So in a fixed limit game, can this type of rake be overcome? Is it much of a factor at $10 - $20? Does it require several poor players to make it worthwhile, especially if you are not terribly experienced?
Thanks and good luck.
In a reasonably loose game a reasonably selective player will average winning about 2 pots an hour, I think a little less (at 30 hands/hour, thats 2/3rds of the "average"). That means a $5 rake only costs you $4/hour compared to a $3 rake.
Most good players make more than $4/hour, so are still making money in these games.
- Louie
Hi all, long time no post...
Being in WI, I also am forced to play with the $5 rake on the Chicago riverboats. And since I'm up to a whopping 13 hours experience at 5-10HE I thought I'd give my two cents.
Ok, the rake is a tax on the winners pot, right? Lets be generous and say that they deal 30 hands an hour. As a tight-agressive WLLH newbie player, I probably see 20-25% of the flops, say 7 of em. I'll maybe see the turn on 3 or 4 and the river on 2 of which I'll win 1... or 2....or none.. :). On which I'll pay an extra buck (like I have another choice, 4hrs to Iowa.. give me a break).
This is a problem?
As I see it, the higher rake would be a problem for all of the equally mediocre players that pass money back and forth to each other as they play 75% of their hands. Remeber, you're there to win money.. not pots.
IMHO, if you're having a tough time beating low-limit it's not because of the rake. It's because your having a tough time beating the other low limit players at the table. So....
1. Realize the unique challenges of beating low limit players and adjust accordingly, the words "nothing fancy" come to mind.
2. Move up.... I can't wait till I have the bankroll for 10-20. Wow, the opportunity to actually be able to put someone on a hand! No more (yeah right) getting sucked out on by a freak two pair while my Pocket A's get cracked (again)
Of course at the rate of 10 hours experience a month, I'll have that bankroll in about 18 years. :)
I'm convinced it can be beat, I'm pretty darn confidnet that my game can't be that strong to be +$130 (E,+20,+110 in three sessions). I know, I know it's not a great sample yet. But I also don't feel I've gotten any real cards either.
Thats enough from me... Thanks for the time..
-Michael
I agree with Chico. The important thing is not how much the rake costs you, its how much it cost the losing and marginally winning players.
The problem with a $5 rake is that too much money is dissappearing off the table. Once that money is gone, its gone. What a high rake does is make small losers into big losers and marginal winners into losers. No one likes to play poker and lose all the time. What happens is that the aforementioned players quit. Craps and Blackjack are much more exciting, and you stand a decent chance of having a winning session so the marginal players leave for the more colorfully felted tables and never return.
Eventually all you have is a predator-prey relationship that is out of balance. (Too many predators left). Eventually the games will dry up or be populated my the desparate and hardcore poker addicts.
I played one summer in Atlantic City. I was casino hopping and walked into a small poker room that hand about 8 tables. Only one game was going, a $1-$5 stud. I decided to sit down since I felt like playing stud. I played two hands and watched the dealer drop $5 into the slot. I asked what the rake was and was told it was up to $5. I excused myself and left.
By the way don't try talking to anyone about the rake. It won't do any good.
I predict that within 3 years there will be no poker in the Chicago area due to the rake.
Don't go tilting at windmills.
Good Luck, Tom B.
For me the cost of play includes the blinds, the rake, the tip and any jackpot. Based upon information gleened from the experience of others, a decent player in a good four to eight game might win twelve dollars per hour. In the four to eight hold'em that I used to play, the blinds came around at a full table at least three times per hour for a total of 6x3=$18. The rake was a maximum of three dollars. The jackpot was one dollar. The tip was always a dollar. The cost of play per hour was at least eighteen dollars plus the three dollar rake, tip and jackpot taken from every pot. Mathmatically, it appears to be impossible to make a profit.
The hard core players that I always saw could only be gambling for the trill. Especially since it was next to impossible to steal the blinds or a pot.
The blinds should not be figured into your cost of playing because they have real value to you. For example, in an unraised pot you get to play automatically if you are in the big blind and you will win some of these hands. What did the blind cost you then? What if it was a hand that you would not have normally played?
In a recent bout with cold cards, I lost $4800, at ten-twenty, almost without pause. When I looked at the numbers, it turned out that over $2000 had gone strictly to the blinds. I play tight so it took awhile to lose that much. Attempting to adjust to this situation, if the game was short handed, tight and I was not getting the cards; I would leave the game saying, "I just can't beat the blinds tonight.". Was I wrong?
The odds finally corrected this storm, and of course, the blinds didn't hurt a bit; but when they did, they really did.
Perhaps you are playing short handed poorly. If you play your usual tight style and are against players who constantly bet, you won't do very well.
The house is making ALL of the money in the NW Indiana area, so are the two joints in Illinois. Do some math, and think long term. 10/20 with a $5.00 rake is barely beatable, for about $5.00 and hour. All lower limits are recreational,past times. When you play 10/20 in Indiana, which has a $5.00 rake, all over the state (gee, is there some price fixing among the joints?), watch for this: There will be one and only one winner, most of the time. There will be on average six to seven players always stuck. That is because the house represents two players, winning at a never ending rate of $75.00 and hour. Now, if you observe closely, in 15/30, and 20/40 games, with the same rake, you will see multiple winners, without the entire table being stuck. AT those limits, the rake, becomes less severe, because of the size of the big bets. This is just a personal thing, of no consequence really. However, did you notice that that poker tables in that region, were built so that the drop box, is never emptied during business hours? As if we cannot figure-out they are taking huge amounts of money, out of the games everyday. Harrah's, formerly the Showboat, is making $400,000 plus, every month, from about 13 tables, most of which are down, except for the weekends. Divide the 4K, by 30, and you'll see the average amount they are taking from the games, on a daily basis. The Indiana gaming commission, which is in bed, with the casinos, has recently stopped posting, how much the individual sections of the casinos are making. But you can see some old figures at the gaming commission's web site.
An expert player can easily beat a typical $4-$8 game with a $5 rake. The problem is that those players who are good enough to do this usually move up. Thus the cardroom is left with players who generally all lose. This means that they do not develop the core of regular players who will be there to start the games and keep the games going. In a couple of years these rooms are usually closed.
The five dollar rake isn't the problem, the entire structure of the game is: considering the blinds, the mind set of the players and the rapid flux of players in and out of the game. The only thing I seemed to have going for me was that they were gambling and I was not.
Here's a hand not unlike the post by Mike Watson, with a slightly different outcome. Have KK two off the blind in a 2-6 game filled with rocks. I call with 3 others. Flop comes 88x, I bet, and two callers. Turn is a J, I bet again, called by another, then raised by the player in late position. I called. River is still another under card with no straights or flushed possible, and I bet again. I am called, then raised by the late position player. I fold the kings, and the other player calls. He had AA, and the late position player flopped quads. I think I folded correctly, but was the river bet correct? In retrospect, the raise on the turn indicated he may have had trip 8's or even a full house. I would have saved myself money if I just checked the river (I think). Was my play wrong, or just a bad beat?
Thanks,
Mike
Your play was wrong. If these guys truly are rocks, you could have safely released on the turn and surely shouldn't have bet the river for value.
If they were truly rocks, I may have even checked the turn since the only free card that could beat you (if you weren't already beat) was an Ace. And rocks don't call post flop bets in small pots with only overcards.
Beware of the paired board in an unraised pot!
Great response Michael 7...I would add that you need to have a completely different game for rocks. If you mentioned that this was a 20-40 game, I might have said everything you did was fine (players at this level will raise this board, hoping you put them on trips). But this is a hand you should have checked and released when bet into on the river.
Don't know how I could have played this hand any other way, but open to comments.
Playing pot limit in the Omaha (high only) round with 5/10 blinds. I bought in for the minimum of $500. This was the first hand I played after mucking first several hands.
My cards were AA97 with one ace suited. Mid position after a couple of limpers, I raise pot and got two callers, both later position than me. Flop comes A24 (one of my suite). With top set, I bet pot, next player folds, last player raised to put me all in. I called.
I didn't improve and he had flopped a wheel.
Questions: Isn't it correct to raise preflop with this hand? What about after the flop with top set? I had to call his reraise, didn't I?
JohnnyD
In pot limit, I don't know if I would automatically raise with AA uless you had something a little better than one flush draw and two dubious straight cards to go with it. It is nearly impossible to flop te nuts with this hand (as you found out), and even if you do, you won't have many redraws.
But given that you DID raise preflop, your pot bet on the flop was correct as it is difficult to beleive someone cold called a preflop raise with a 3 and 5 in his hand in hi-only.
Assuming that your pre-flop bet was $90 (you could raise the pot, which would have been $45 after two limpers and your call), then there was $305 in the pot before the flop. If you bet $305, then you only had $105 left to call his reraise. This is an easy call, even if you knew he had a wheel since you will fill up or make quads about 1 in 3 times by the river. You were a 2 to 1 dog and the pot was laying almost 10 to 1 for the call with your case $105.
($305 pot + your $305 bet + his $305 "call" + his $105 raise)= $1020 pot for a $105 call. This would even have been a worthwile call with only one card to come since you will fill up or make nearly about on in five times.
Who the hell would have called pre-flop with 35? The answer to the first and 3rd question is yes, but I may have slowed down on the betting after the flop. It appeared as though you flopped the perfect cards (the end results are unimportant), and I would have probably tried to set a check-raise trap with this hand.
If i dont play queen jack in mid to late position am i loosing any profits if im a good player. also 89s and 78s type hands if i eliminate them in loose passive games am i loosing much? please respnd.
If you're not playing QJ in late postition, you're probably playing too tight (IMHO). I recommend reading Hold Em Poker For Advanced Players, and use their chapter on starting hands as a rough outline for your game, and adjust accordingly. By the way, what hands DO you start with in late position? If you're starting hand standards are too tight, other players will notice, and you're not going to get any play when you get in the game.
I'll limp with QJ on the button in multiway situations, but tend to avoid playing it four or five handed unless the players already in are passive. If no one has called (or raised), I'll raise from the button or cutoff seat against anyone's blinds no matter how agressive they are with a reasonable semisteal hand like QJ. I don't like QJ from middle positions except under special circumstances even if I know my opponent's post-flop play is not solid. If I have to post a kill blind from middle position and my option to raise is in turn (not defered to last), then I will try to buy the button through tight or average players on my left.
With middle suited connectors and one-gappers in a truly loose/passive game, I'll raise from late position as much as 90% of the time when I have the *requisite* four or more callers in front (not including the blinds). 98s and 87s are also semisteal hands when the blinds are weak, or don't tend to play back with a reraise before the flop. Otherwise, unless a good player calls ahead of me from early position, I'll at least see the flop with the 98s no matter how few players are in. I will occasionally call a raise cold from the button with these sort of holdings, particularly if the raiser is a loose player.
Never playing QJ, (assuming your play after the flop is ahead of the rest of the field) is much less of a strategic error than refusing the opportunities that suited connectors bring to a player with a tight/agressive table image under borderline no-fold'em conditions. The *free card* play alone may be enough justification to get involved here, even if your game needs serious improvement on the flop and turn.
QJ late is good unless there is a couple tight early callers (who therefore have you dominated).
Loose passive games are the best for suited connectors, since you can get in for one bet, get several callers, and often get a free card to pick up a draw on the turn. In the most predictable of passive games, I play them from every position.
- Louie
would you treat jack ten the same as qj
IMO, there is a huge difference between QJo and JTo in an unraised pot in weak games, because when the Q comes on the flop, you are likely to have top kicker. They tend to raise pre-flop with KQ and AQ.
The JTo provides 1 more straight opportunity. I do like this thought about the best kicker. It would then depend on the type of game. You could not be so sure in a passive game that your kicker is good. Of course top pair Jack kicker is always better than top pair Ten kicker.
Here's a hand I observed today when playing $30-$60 hold 'em. I was not involved in the pot at all.
Three players limped in. The small blind called and the big blind checked. Thus five players saw the flop which was 6d 4c 2h. The player in the small blind checked. The player in the big blind bet. The first two limpers called and the third limper and small blind folded.
The turn was the 10s. The player in the blind bet, the first (flop) caller folded and the second (flop) caller called.
The river was the 4h. The player in the blind bet and was called. He turned over Ah6h for sixes-up with an ace kicker, and the other player turned over Kc10c for tens-up with a king kicker (and he won the pot).
All comments are welcome.
if i was holding the Kc 10c i would fold the flop. too much the BB could be holding. straight, overpair, even trips.
but if he was the kind of player who bet frequently from 1st pos. with marginal cards, and if the caller between us folded, then i would consider raising, given my back door flush and overcards potential, if reraised then fold.
Still think it's too much going against you. Hard to read the BB's hand, plus caller in between. Could be drawing dead in many ways.
i would also base my decision on my knowledge of the player, good, bad, wild, etc.
Is this a proper line of reasoning? Please correct or suggest other possibilities.
james.....................
(ok, now that i've just finished typing all this, if he had a superior hand why wouldn't he try for a check raise, with that many callers there's a good chance of a bet)
- sorry, i'm don't post often when it comes to the "how would you play" posts, so i hope this makes sense.
looking forward to opinions...
There used to be a feature in one of the poker publications that had a panel of experts rate each action during the hand, ten being the best play, zero being the worst. I am far from an expert, but here's how I would rank each action by the two players who went to the river:
Big Blind:
1) Checked before the flop with Ah-6h: 9
-might consider raising to manipulate size of pot to induce calls if there's a good flop, but hand is clearly an "on the come" hand, so check is better against 4 opponents.
2) Bet on the flop of 6-4-2 rainbow: 10
-once the small blind checked, it's unlikely this flop hit any of the limpers; their most likely hands are 2 overcards, so a bet is in order. Yes, there might be a better hand out there, but you can't risk a free card here.
3) Bet on the turn of 6-4-2-T rainbow: 10
-again, you can't risk a free card. Try to get the opponent out; if he raises you should probably fold.
4) Bet on the river of 6-4-2-T-4: 2
-what hand can the opponent have with which he would call and lose? He's not raised for 3 rounds; it's unlikely he'd still call with two overcards or other hand worse than A-6.
The Other Player:
1) Limped with Kc-Tc: 8
-a call is OK, but a raise might be better here, depending on the nature of the other players, your table image, etc.
2) Called the flop of 6-4-2 rainbow: 3
-the flop has been of no help, there's been a call, and there are still other players involved who might come in. The backdoor flush is of some value.
3) Call the turn of 6-4-2-T rainbow: 4
-you've caught perfect, there are no other players in the pot, and you just call when there are overcards that could come and hurt you on the river? It's time to find out where you are. There is some value in calling, as the ultimate play on the river shows.
4) Call the river of 6-4-2-T-4: 10
-you've got top pair with a good kicker, but you can't rule out the blind having a better hand. You certainly can't fold and a raise would be too risky.
I think that's a pretty good analysis. The only things I would add would be:
>>Big Blind:
2) Bet on the flop of 6-4-2 rainbow: 10
-once the small blind checked, it's unlikely this flop hit any of the limpers; their most likely hands are 2 overcards, so a bet is in order. Yes, there might be a better hand out there, but you can't risk a free card here.<<
I'd rate this bet closer to a 5. I'd give strong consideration to a check raise to try to knock some players out. However, you can only knock out two at best so it's not as big a deal as it is in some hands.
>>The Other Player:
3) Call the turn of 6-4-2-T rainbow: 4
-you've caught perfect, there are no other players in the pot, and you just call when there are overcards that could come and hurt you on the river? It's time to find out where you are. There is some value in calling, as the ultimate play on the river shows.<<
I'd agree, but would add that what you know about the bettor could be a big factor. If you know he's a frequent bluffer, for example, then the call could be a good choice. But generally a raise would seem to make sense as there's a good chance the bettor has some sort of wheel cards (e.g., drawing to a hand like A3 or 52) and will call your raise on the turn while he may check and fold on the river (depriving you of any more money there) if he misses. Also, he's unlikey to reraise on the turn with any hand you can draw out on (like one or two pair). So you can safely fold if he does. Also, raising makes you "more scary to play against" (copyright Ray Zee, 1998). :)
John Feeney
Good points. On the flop, with so many overcards that can hurt, I'm not sure I'd try for a check-raise though; a bet might just as easily eliminate some players, without the risk of the dreaded free card.
I think the player in the big blind should go for a check raise on the flop; assuming the players after him are the type that would try to pick up the pot with two over-cards rather check around.
Interestingly enough the before the flop play is correct for hands described but the flop play is questionable. The problem with the 6 high (rainbow) flop and the bet by the blind is that it invites over cards to call and as can be seen two (obvious) hands with overcards called. I'm not saying that a bet was incorrect just that it presents problems for the bettor. His Ace kicker is certainly a consideration. When the T comes on the turn the blind should check! As a matter of fact he should check any T,J,Q or K unless they are hearts. He was very fortunate that the K,T didn't raise. An aggressive player may have! don't get me wrong I don't necessarily think the KT should raise but it was certainly an option given the play of the hand. I would have put the big blind on one pair on the flop because he bet out. I may have decided to raise and try and take the pot right there! It would depend on my opinion of the big blinds style of play. The bet by the big blind on the river is ridiculous! An extremely bad play given that the opponent called the turn. His play is to check and try to induce a bluff or hope that the opponent is timid and will not bet the T if he has it! BTW - Once the K,T calls the turn there is no way he can do anything esle but call the river.
Opinion by Vince.
I agree with Randy, against agressive opponents often check-raise with this hand. There is no reason to suspect the T hit anybody.
The 4 on the end is about as bad a card as you can get (along with a 8/7/3/5) as that's one of the cards you HOPE(d) the caller has. But I would still be tempted to bet for value. Except against the type of conservative better who would NOT raise when they hit the Ten.
Thus, I'd either check-raise and bet it all the way against one-bet agressive types, or bet the flop and check on the river against timid types.
NOTE: If the river was a card bigger than 8 I would still bet for value: it looks suspitious. Unless I could CONFIDENTLY either check-and-call or check-and-fold.
- Louie
Too me , there isn't any glaring mistakes or brilliant plays here. Maybe the K-10 might have raised pre-flop,.. maybe not.
Since there were no pre flop raises the big blind could have had anything. I don't see the K-10 raising on either street unless he had an ace, which he didn't.
Maybe...just maybe the big blind might have checked on the end here, but he certainly should have bet both the flop and turn imo. both players played it fine here.
The decision to bet on the flop would often be dictated by how aggressive the last two players to act are. If I can count on one of these players to bet with overcards simply because everyone else checked, I would try for the checkraise in an effort to limit the play to a heads-up contest. Otherwise, the flop bet was fine.
I disagree with Vince when he says that a check is in order on the turn. Having bet the flop, the BB must bet the turn. If he checks, 3 things can happen all of which are bad:
1. If a player has a 10, he will bet; 2. If a player does not have a 10, he may bluff and you will be hard-pressed to call; 3. If a player does not have a 10, he may take the free card and get a chance to outdraw the BB on the River. Further, since there are 2 opponents who may take the free card, there are just way too many bad cards that could come on the River.
The bet on the River is a pretty shaky one. There are not very many weaker hands that could call your bet and there are not many better hands that would fold to your bet. It is unlikely that your opponent has a hand like 99,88, or 77 which he would fold for a bet because if he had any of these hands, he would have raised on the flop. It is unlikely that the player has a 6/weak kicker because he likely would have raised on the flop to see where he is at. If the player has a hand like A4, the River cooks the BB. About the only conceivable hand that the BB can beat is something like A2. All indications are that the limper has a 10 which he likely will not fold.
Having said that, your decision will be dictated by what you would do if you checked and the other fellow bet. If you would call in any event (there will be 14 small bets in the pot after your opponent bet), a bet may be better (after all, just maybe he will throw away a 10). A check may be in order against opponents who would call with a better hand but would not bet a better hand (i.e., a 10) if checked to. A check would also be better if the flop was 2-suited giving some reason for you to induce a bluff.
The player with KT definitely should have raised on either the turn or the river. By not raising, he is saying that he thinks there is a fair chance he is beat. But if he thought there was a fair chance the big blind could beat a pair of tens, he never should have called on the flop.
So, either the flop call was wrong, or the turn/river calls were wrong. There is no way they are both correct.
William
Mason; The show down between LB and L2 would indiacte:
A. Hand selection for both was good
B. 1)On the flop LB had top pair + A= 5 4/5th. St. (v)alue (o)uts Plus 16 "imaginary 4th. st. running draws" = [i].
-Therefore(T4); A Flop bet would be discretionary.
2) On the flop L2 had 6 4/5th. st. vo's Plus 10 i.
He also was getting a marginal 7 for 1 > on 6.8 card odds.
-T4; discressionary call.
The point being after I have seen the show down. They had good hand selection and had judged their pot odds correctly.
-T4; In lou of more info about the players involved (LB &L2) from you the experience and agressiveness/conservatism of the person analyzing your hand reflected in their answers.
-T4; Since you are a good analyst and could have provided this info.; This could be TgWar vs players you encounter at the table.
I'm having a little difficulty understanding this; T4 forgive me if I stick my foot in my mouth. "LB" means "Limper Blind" and L2 means "Limper 3rd"? "Imaginary outs" means?
A: BB didn't select the hand. You mean pre-flop play was good: no raises just calls?
B1: The notion of "outs" doesn't mean much for the person with the better hand. This player's outs are all the cards that do not help the opponents. "Discretionary" bet? No, since we know his hand was best he "should" bet. If you have 86 and I have 75 you should bet, even though you "only" have 8-high.
B2: This is perhaps a "discretionary" call if we know the BB has a pair. In "real" life we must combine the chances he has no pair with the chances we are drawing slim.
The Point: Obviously A6 didn't judge correctly since he bet the lesser hand, and KT didn't judge correctly since he only called with the better hand.
At the end, are you suggesting that Mason may be trying to get a lead on us responders in case he meets us at the table? Mmmmmm. I doubt he'll recognize my writing style at the table. I'll be sure to say "...err..." once or twice to see if he notices.
- Louie
On the surface it looks as though the k10 should have raised the turn , and the big blind should have checked the river, but it could be considerably different under the actual conditions.
First, the k10 might not have raised, thinking that the bb was on a bluff, or he read him for the pair , and wanted him to keep beting in too him, to get the last bet on the river. If he raises, the bb folds, right.
So the k10 just keeps calling, doesn't raise on the end because that would be suicide if he is wrong, since he only has a pair of tens.Also the board paired, which adds to the [possibility of trips .
I really think the big mistake here is that the k10, if he was going to play the hand, should raise it pre flop.
Also, on the flop the pot is offering k10 6-1, and he is 6.8-1 to hit a k or ten. with 2 more people to act behind him, and a rag flop, I think his call on the flop was not out of line as he looked to profit about 6 small bets if his cards come and he is best. With the back door flush I think he is justified calling on the flop.
The river is the big question mark for me in this hand. Should the big blind check or bet? A while ago, I would have said check for sure, no question. Now I'm not so sure, because:
If the other player has a ten, he will probably bet anyway, and you will call, and
If the other player has anything at all (i.e, a deuce, or ace-queen), there is a lot of pressure to call, since you could be betting a missed draw.
I would be very interested to hear what others have to say about this.
William
At first I thought that no errors were made in this hand, but if an error was made it was by the Big Blind. Could he have possably saved this pot on the end? I think the Play of Check Raising on the End would be a Profitable move for the BB. Since the Board paired 4's on the end the player in last postion will probably only bet for Value if the BB Checks. I don't think a typical player will be inclined to Bluff if checked to in this situation. The BB would be risking 2 to win 7 if his Check Raise could convince the Tc,Kc to lay down his hand. He would only need this play to work 23% of the Time to show a Profit.
CV
The flop bet depends on the players involved and the river bet is a classic error.
In the case of the flop bet if you know your players then you can try for a check raise.
In the case of the river bet the only possibility to be a correct bet is if your opponent could call you all the way to the river with overcards which does not seem possible unless he/she is one of those guys who would not raise preflop with AK, AQ. There is no way that he/she will fold anything that beats you. IMHO how it can he/she will never fold 77, 88, 99 or a Ten or better.
So the difficult question is the turn bet.
Assuming that your opponents play "by the book" their hands could be: AJ, AT, KQ, KJ, KT, QJ, QT, JT and some suited hands. See that it is very likely that one of the two would have a Ten. Actually it is very unlikely that none of the two would have a Ten. However, you cannot afford to give a free card. IF a ten is NOT outthere then you will be giving a free card and any K, Q, J on the river will cost you a pot which otherwise would be yours if you bet the turn. In addition if you plan to call the second player's possible turn bet (if you and the first (flop) caller check) then you be better off by betting yourself.
The only reason that I can see a problem here is: if the first (flop) caller drops and the second raises then you will be hard pressed to pay this bet and the river bet in order to "keep him/her honest". If you can read the second player then definitely you should bet the turn.
All these IMHO.
Maria
So do you bet the turn, and fold if raised? or would you check and fold?
I think betting is the better option. I would think that a pair of 10's will usually raise, since it needs to make anyone waiting for overcards to pay the maximum price for them (if the original bettor has a small pair and an overcard, then he needs to be chased out). So if someone bluff-raises, then you let them steal the pot, but they are risking $120 to make the steal instead of $60. Put another way the stealer is getting 5:2 instead of 2:1 on his stealing attempt, and the BB betting makes it less certain that the steal will work.
The player with KT should have raised on the turn, since he could not rely on the BB to make the mistake of betting on the end. Given that the KT player should expect that he is done getting money into the pot from opponents playing correctly, then he needs to give them the chance to play incorrectly by raising.
correction: "the stealer is getting 5:2 instead of 2:1" was mistated. It should say 4:1 where it says 2:1.
loser
If the bb thinks through the hand before he makes a bet on the flop, he realizes that this hand will not play well out of position. He doesn't have position and he can't play this like the traditional top pair, so he is really drawing to 5 outs on the turn (A or 6), and maybe 11 outs if he believes he is ahead and nobody already has a 2 or a 4. Every other card will either be an overcard to his pair or make an easy straight. So he has to play this like a drawing hand and check the flop (there are too many people to act after him to believe a raise will win it for him right there). He can probably get odds to call a single bet (especially if he is good at rationalizing implied odds :) or even hope that it is checked around because of the nature of the low cards on the board.
A Poker Guy!
Lets see how bad I can misquote authors...:
Even if a bet on the river has -EV when called, it can still be the correct play. If the BB's pair 66s is worth a (crying) call on the river (to catch a rare bluff) AND the opponent will pay off with more hands then he would bluff, you should BET since this 1 bet loses less money than the single 1-bet call you intend to make anyway (you lose a lot on the call, but gain it back with pot equity). This works so long as you do not fear a bluff-raise and so any play does NOT affect your chances of actually showing down a winner.
The 2+2 authors have said this somewhere (<-- invitation for a plug for a book), as has Caro. I doubt this situation is actually identified and applied correctly very often in real play. I've never (deliberately) done it.
- Louie
2nd time ever playing hold-em, game is $3-6, I'm the BB with a full table 6 players in with a raise 2 to my left I had 3,5 offsuit and was sure there was not going to be a raise from my left. should I play $3 to see the flop or fold. there was 6 big bets in the pot so I played to see the flop. After I got home I got to thinking what was I expecting to see for a flop? would it hold up, what if I caught part of the flop , do I stay of fold ?????? Is it a bad play to see the flop and hope for the perfect cards or do the odds make it playable?????
If you play this, you're hoping to flop 2 pair or better, or a straight draw. This hand can be played profitably if there are players in the game who will pay you off when you hit, and if you play well after the flop. Since you are new to the game, you probably don't yet play well after the flop, and you will probably make more money if you avoid these hands for now.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree, but you should be also aware of flopping two pair since they are gonna be bottom two most of the times. Don´t fall in love with bottom two, against several players, they loose a lot of value. A straight (-draw) or trips is what you are looking for.
Regards
M.A.
I agree with Greg, although I suspect that in most games it hardly makes any difference whether or not you play this hand against a big field for 2/3'ds of a SB.
35o and similar hands are often difficult to play after the flop even when you hit something. So while starting hands are important, your focus should be in figuring out how to outplay your opponents after the flop, which basically means knowing when and against whom to show aggression, passivity or a white flag. Your edge over your opponents (or lack thereof) is far more important than the exact pot odds in deciding whether to play these hands. And after you're correctly convinced that you can outplay your opponents, it still won't make *much* difference whether you play this hand or not (in this situation).
One thing that will make a difference, however, is your ability to avoid agonizing over decisions like these and focus on the hard stuff. There is a lot more in hold'em with which you can legitimately torture your brain.
I mostly play low limit and I would normally never play this hand in low limit, unless I could check it in the BB.
What you're hopping to flop is a straight draw, two pair or trips. The problem with this hand is when you do hit your flop, your win frequency will not be that high. For an expert player, this might be a break even play, but for a beginner this hand will be trouble.
Hands that hit the flop, but don't win the pot are what cost you a lot of money. You want to see the flop with hands that have a better chance of winning, if they do hit.
The Scene: Bellagio, Las Vegas - Wednesday Morning- 15-30 Holdem.
Me (The Hero) sitting to right of 3 bet Brett - The protagonist.
3 bet Brett: "Are you the Vince, that posts on RGP?" Me (The Hero): "No I'm Vince (Lepore) that posts on 2+2."
3 bet Brett: "Huh! You post with Malmuth and Sklansky and all those other blankety blank blanks (don't remember his exact words, but they were unkind). Why, I led the vote on RGP to keep Malmuth out of the poker Hall of fame! He doesn't know what he's talking about!"
Me (The Hero): "We are talking about Mason Malmuth? Aren't we?"
3 bet Brett: "Yeh, that's him ! Do you know that the other night he ran down my pocket Aces with an A,4o. Caught a straight on the river! Let him show me that in his books! He even checked to me!"
Player to my right: " Yeh, I saw that hand. He didn't bet because he's a wimp (or similar word). He was afraid to bet!"
Me (the hero): "We are talking about Mason Malmuth? Aren't we?"
Cards are now dealt.
Me (the Hero) - UTG - Raise! Hand: Does it matter! 3 Bet Brett: - Next to Act - Reraise! Hand:- We'll get to that.
Small Blind (eventual winner of the hand) and I call.
Flop: Ks,7s,6h.
Sb: Check.
Me (the hero): Bet! Yes I had two spades.
3 Bet Brett: Call
Sb: Call.
Turn: Blank -Check to me, I bet. 3 Bet Brett: fold! Blank on the river I lose to J,J. Not the point of this hand.
3 bet Brett: "I he had As,Qx! I called the flop because I had the As."
Me (the .. forget it): " How could you reraise me a solid player that raised UTG eith a hand like AQo!"
3 bet: "I thought I had the best hand? I don't listen to that Sklansky amd Malmuth propaganda."
Now I ask you all; Is this the kind of play that gets the money? Is this the kind of player that we all should listen to? Is this the kind of player that should sit in judgement of Mason Malmuth!
Comments, please!
Vince Lepore
Well, neglecting the small blind (who hadn't acted yet), 3-bet Brett appears to be correct in his assumption that he had a better hand than you, since the best possible hand you could have been raising with was QJs. By getting you heads-up, he's almost certainly the favorite.
Perhaps you believe that your "cover" raises or your raises to "mix it up" are so unnoticeable that you can still raise with worse hands, but how do you know that 3-bet Brett didn't pick up some sort of tell?
It seems 3-Bet Brett doesn't have much respect for YOUR game, and is telling you so in at least three different ways. He is also trying to provoke YOU (while he has position) with disparaging remarks about players he know's you respect. I'm curious how you handled this situation, since I'm sure we've all faced a loudmouth at sometime or another.
So you raise UTG with no better than QJs KNOWING 3-BB will 3-Bet it. Unwise. 3-BB was correct to 3-Bet it, since you raise with weak hands UTG. So you bet into 3-BB with your draw HOPING he'll raise and let you get heads up, when he probably has you beat? Questionable.
While this story was interesting and well said, I think it would be more interesting if told from the SB's perspective: "Why do 'Any-2-will-do Vince' and '3-Bet Brett' continue to show their collective ignorance in the guise of teaching the other how to play? How can they keep betting their pieces of cheese when I, the solid Hero, just called 3-bets cold in the SB? Didn't they notice? Are they brain-dead? Do they ever win? Should I listen to their blathering?". :)
OK, so I get carried away. But seriously .... back to your question ....
3-BB's intentions are NOT to poo-poo Mr. Malmuth, he's doing that to accomplish something else: If he poo-poo's the messenger he can ignore the message (since its an "self evident truth" that dumb people never say anything intellegent), thus justifying continuing playing any way he likes.
Its kinda of like justifying cutting someone off on the highway by refering to them as a jerk who deserves it.
- Louie :)
You should reraise a loose raiser with an AQ-off. A loose raiser may be due to his position, or to the particular player.
Hey Mason,
You got the wrong player. I'm anything but a loose raiser. As a matter of fact I avoid raising if at all possible!
Wasn't the point of the post anyway. I just used old 3 bet Brett for my own purposes. BTW- to all of you that read this and to those that made disparaging remarks about 3 bet Brett. 3 Bet Brett is one of the friendliest guys you'll find in this town. He certainly is not a loud mouth as one poster described him. I may have misquoted him a little about Mason, except he really doesn't beilieve Mason belongs in the Poker HOF. I kindly explained that Poker Essays II alone would influence my vote to put Mason in the HOF. Mason, my point for the post was raising/calling with A,Qo against an early position raiser. Uh! Page... of HPFAP Uh Oh! Ask David Sklansky, he knows the page.
Vince.
The "raising/calling with AQo against an early position raiser" point only applies to a typical early position raiser. A raise with QJs or worse in early position is anything but typical, and is in fact classified as a "loose raise." 3-betting here is almost certainly correct. Perhaps you don't normally make loose raises, but in this case, you did. Why do you assume 3-bet Brett didn't know you were making a loose raise?
Thanks holding me up to ridicule, Vince. But I'm still not sure if I'm a brilliant player or an ignorant loudmouth who should get a job. At least Mason agrees with me. Maybe he isn't so bad after all.
Brett
I agree with Mason that I too would likely have made it 3 bets with AQ in an effort to get it heads-up and with me in position and driving the action.
BTW, did you bet the River?
"Minor league baseball players can't hit home runs"
I challenge anyone to show me a minor leaguer that hit 500+ home runs in the minors..
Chico,I think your logic is flawed... after a couple hundred hours at LLHE one of two things happen.
1) you move up (partially because of the rake
2) You're bust and complain about how the rake makes the game impossible to beat.
I'm not saying the rake is fair or justified or anything, I'm just saying it doesn't determine a winning player vs. a losing player.
-Michael
Bellagio. 15-30 Holdem.
Position. 3 from button.
Pass to me.
Hand: As,Ah
Action: Raise!
Button cold calls and big blind calls.
Flop: J,T,6 rainbow.
Blind: Check - ME: Bet - Button: Raise.
Blind: Call - Me: Call (intended to check raise turn)!
Turn: J (rainbow board)
Blind: Check. - Me: Check! Button: Bet.
Blind: Call. - Me: Call!
River: 9.
Blind: Bet. Me: Fold! Button: Fold!!!
Comments.
Vince.
Vince,
I think your play of that hand sounds quite reasonanble. I might have reraised on the flop to make the blind pay for his draw (if he´s a kind of player who calles the flop with something like a gut-shut-straight-draw or bottom pair AND folds regulary when not improving on the turn). But if you knew that the he had a better draw and would call the turn anyway, calling on the flop (and checkraising the turn)seems the even better way.
Turn was a bad card, but the call was IMO OK.
River: There were more than 9 BB in the pot. I think, wheather calling or not might depend on what you knew about the bettor. Is he tricky enough to bet out one time out of nine against two opponents with 98? Of course there was still a player behind you who pretended having at least trips, but the pot was allready pretty big. I think, I might have called (and probably thought after the showdown, that I fell stupidly in love with aces one more time)
Regards
M.A.
Vince:
Good fold, it looks like you were probably beat and could've been whipsawed. At least you picked up some useful information about the button.
My only criticism is not reraising the flop and deciding to go for a check-raise on the turn. First, there's a likely draw out there to whom you may be giving a free card. Second, you might be making it more difficult to make a good decision on the turn.
I might be absolutely wrong, but in this kind of situation I think the value of deception goes down, and the inherent penalty you suffer by using deception goes up. With this board, I think you want maximum information about your opponents' hands, even if you have to give up a little deception. If you continue to push your hand on the flop, you make it a little easier to define your opponents' hands -- they stand out, so to speak, in sharper relief. You also convey the fact that you have a strong hand and force them to act accordingly. When you surrender the lead, however, things get murky and your display of weakness might inspire someone to take a shot at you on the turn when a scare card falls, or more importanly, making you think they might be taking a shot at you when a scare card falls, as you evidently thought (justifiably, IMO).
I like this post.
With a flop like this, there are just 2 many scare cards that could come on the turn which might inhibit the button from betting (eg. A,K,Q or even a Jack if the button had raised on the flop with a hand like A,10 and now put the bb on a Jack because he called 2 bets cold). Also, who knows, the button may have raised on the flop just to get a free card to his K,Q draw and had no intention of betting the turn.
In most cases, I would reraise the flop. If I just smooth call, in most cases, I would bet the turn instead of going for the checkraise. A bet on the turn particularly when a blank hits may cause the button to raise again which would be a good thing if the BB happens to have an open-ended straight draw.
Here, a Jack fell on the turn which makes betting a little suspect. Accordingly, I too may have just checked. However, once again, betting may be the better play as if you are raised, you can throw away and this costs you less than check-calling twice.
The River is probably a good fold. In all likelihhod, the BB is not betting a hand worse than AA. As well, you have to play tighter given that there is a potential raise behind you.
Vince,
It would appear that the blind caught a strait (Looks like KQ). Seems like one of those hands where you can save a bet on the end despite it's size. With two people to act behind him/her the blind has to be expecting at least one call. A check raise on the turn with the Jack hitting still would have been ok but I don't think manditory.
Robet Bisogno
Vince,
I believe you made a crucial mistake on the flop. You MUST MUST MUST reraise after the blind called. A reraise would accomplish tonnes in this situation:
1. If the button caps: he has trips, 2 pair or AJ, KJ,
89 or KQ and searching for a free card. If the button
caps then the blind is under tremendous pressure to fold
and both you and the button have accomplished what you
want... getting rid of the blind and making it heads-up.
2. If the button calls, then he probably has AJ, KJ, or QJ.
In either case you win by eliminating the blind and/or getting more information on the button.
On the turn come out firing... if he raises you are in trouble and you should muck or call and pray for miracle river. Keep them under relentless pressure whenever you have AA... never slow play... the pot is big enough for them to call your bets... do not check raise, keep betting and never let them breath.
Simply my thoughts, Mark
Preflop: What hand did the button have that he could cold-call 2 bets, but not want to raise to knock out the bb? Probably just a weak play on his part.
Flop: There is no guarantee that you can check-raise on the turn. Just because he did a button raise on the flop is no guarantee that he will bet the turn if checked to him. AA is a good hand, especially with that flop, but not strong enough to get too fancy with.
Turn: Weak play, imho. Afraid to bet, virtually no chance of improving on the river, but willing to call a bet. Why?
River: You've probably convinced the bb that you have AK or some middle pair by this point, since the button raise on the flop appeared to stop you dead in your tracks (you only checked and called the rest of the way). The button demonstrated a weak play preflop and only positional moves after that, so nothing scary there. No matter what the bb had, he would be smart to come out firing on a 9. Neither you or the button was going to bet it, so he couldn't get any extra money by checking it. If he had a lesser hand, he would still have to bet it, figuring you have to fold and he is getting good odds on a button fold with that scare card.
A Poker Guy!
In my experience, it is extremely rare that the BB would bluff on the River in this spot. When Vince called the turn, the BB can no longer just automatically put Vince on AK. Also, he has the button to worry about.
It is unlikely that BB missed a draw with Q9 as he wouldn't have called two bets cold preflop with that hand. It is unlikely that he called the flop and turn with a 10. There are only 2 conceivable holdings for the BB - KQ or a hand like QJ suited which he was not too proud of on the flop and turn but figured was worth a bet on the River given that he was going to call in any event.
In most cases, I would lay down my AA on the River here. I may call if the flop has a two flush.
You forgot one more reasonable holding: 98 (s) is also very likely.
Regards
M.A.
9 bb's in the pot Possible hands raiser can have:K-Qs A,A K,K Q,Q or a lower pocket pair.Can this player have a jack?If he is a reasonable player the only jack he can have is an ace jack (if he had pocket jacks he would never raise the flop)
So we are looking at two hands that are deadly K,Q and A,J and atleast 6 hands that are good for you(A,A K,K Q,Q and three possible pairs under 10).You raised from close to late position possibbly telling the button that you could be on a raise only to get it heads up with the one limper in the pot because you are holding high cards or a (small) pocket pair. He could have easily raised on the flop with the pocket pairs I mentioned to test the waters and see where you are at in the hand .He probably put you on high cards like A,k K,Q or an under pair and not a jack.So his raise could have been a stone cold (semi)bluff raise trying to bully face cards and give him the pot right then and there or atleast a free card(a reraise would let him know you had a higher pair and give him the oppertunity to release his hand on the flop and get out cheaply instead of just calling you all the way to the river. 9 bb in the pot and given the possible holdings he could have I would call on the river 100% my friend.
The only benefit you had in folding your hand is to teach yourself discipline.I hope you did'nt expose your pocket aces on the end without calling.That would tell everyone at the table that you just dropped the soap and are bending over to pick it up. If you had folded your hand in the games I play and anyone had seen it they would K.G.B you all day and night.
Do you still against limit stucture for 15-30,30-60 holdem?I see you in these game every day now,any reason ?
I have advised cardrooms not to spread this structure because it gives too large an edge to the best players. (The reasons for this would take too long to explain here.) Thus in the short run you should do better, assuming that you are an expert, but the games tend to burn out.
Right now we are still in the short run in Las Vegas. Part of the reason for this is that Bellagio has a world wide clientel.
Mason,
I've read some of your analysis on this and I'm not sure I would dispute this. This is a minor point regarding the situation where I am that you may find of interest.
Note that it Los Angeles (primarily Hollywood Park and the Commerce) they spread both 15/30 and 20/40 holdem. A typical evening might include three 15/30s and two 20/40s or visa versa. At Hollywood the next game down is 10/20 (one or two tables) and the next up is 40/80. At the Commerce the next down is 9/18 (as many as seven tables) ant the next up is 30/60. The Commerce also spreads 40/80.
I and most of my friends play between 15/30 and 20/40. One thing we have found is that we all seem to average just about as much at 15/30 as we do at 20/40. It seems the tough 20/40 players are tougher than those at 15/30 but they both attract the same number of live players.
For us, the ability to stay on the alternate list and move to a good game relatively freely is a major attraction of playing at these two casinos. Both games are about the same size and seem to have about the same EV and SD. Of course, the card rooms are larger than the typical Las Vegas room so this is possible.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Does the 9/18 play like 10/20 or is it no-fold'em?
Bill,
There was a period a while back at the Commerce when they still had the 10/20 while they were building the 9/18. The 10/20 was the bottom end of "top section" in that there was a time collection rather than a dead $4 drop on the button as in the 9/18.
The difference between the two games was dramatic. The 10/20 was typically composed of a couple of loose players, a few weak/tight players and maybe a solid, tough player or two. It was not uncommon for the blinds to be chopped as the players could stand a game to be a little tight in that the next hand would quickly come.
That lineup would not play the 9/18 game. Who among them could stand $4 being dropped even on a steal of the blinds. Accordingly, the 9/18 tends to drive away many of the tighter players and the games are usually full of action. However, if the action players get up (to smoke or whatever), the game can come to a standstill as the Commerce will drop the full $4 on a seven handed game and take the drop every time (as do all the Los Angeles clubs).
One of my strong points is game selection but I am finding that having too many (usually six to eight on a Friday night) games to chose from can be a little difficult to navigate. There are many players changing tables (mostly to find the lucky seat) and the games can change dramatically from one hour to the next. This isn't true in the 15/30 and 20/40 where there is just one or two other games to evaluate and you can easily figure out who is giving the action (i.e., you don't want to change tables by replacing the "action player" in the other game).
That's probably more than you wanted to know but I haven't had a chance to write in a while and my fingers needed the exercise.
Regards,
Rick
The 15-30 games at hollywood have been strong for some time , and I don't see them dying. many players there, play 10-20 up too 20-40. There are certainly many weak players in all those games. I haven't played much 20-40 there, but IO see some of the same poor players from 15-30 in those games.
I don't understand why Mason thinks they'll bust. they have been there for several years. Is this the " playing too many hands in the small blind theory" ?
Mason,
There was a mini-debate as to why the skilled player has a bigger edge in these games on the exchange forum. One of the things that the 2/3 small blind game does is encourage faster play and bigger pots. I would guess that one very big reason is that the skilled player is much better at knocking players out of these big pot games by raising and re-raising correctly or as Ray would put it jamming when it is correct to do so. Is this one of the reasons that you believe the balance is upset? For instance in a $10-20 game if an unskilled player consistently makes the mistakes of calling when they should raise, betting when they should go for the check raise, checking and calling when they should be checking and raising, checking when they should be betting, ctc. they don't hurt themselves as badly (although they do hurt themselves) as they do in a $15-30 game. Generally speaking skilled players don't make these mistakes as often and these plays are more crucial to winning in $15-30 than they are in $10-20 or $20-40 because of the relatively bigger pot sizes.
Tom Haley
There are two ways this structure upsets the balance of skill and luck. First, some players call too many raises out of the small blind and they wouldn't in the $10-$20 structure. This has the effect of speeding up the whole game.
The second, is that when weak plyers limp in in spots where they should raise they are more penalized for it since both blinds will now automatically play instead of just one. For example, when a player limps first in in late position, he will (almost) automatically be against two blinds while in the $10-$20 structure the small blind will frequently fold.
If a player exhibits both of these characteristics he will lose his money much faster than normal.
Perhaps Mr. Malmuth would be good enough to explain why 15-30 and 30-60 will burn out the players more quickly whereas 20-40 and 40-80 in the same room will not? Quite frankly I fail to see, and perhaps naively so, just why higher limits WON'T burn out players and lower limits with a slightly higher blind structure will?
I've played 30-60 and 40-80 and I can tell you from first hand experience that 40-80 is a MUCH bigger game. The same is true in my opinion of 20-40 vs. 15-30.
Mitch,
Since I brought this up I'll try to answer this question. Hope it makes some sense. Yes what you say is true but I believe what the important thing to consider is the magnitude of the mistakes that the unskilled player tends to make in the different structure games. In the 2/3 blind structure games these errors have a greater impact than in a game where the small blind is ½ the bet. Also do you compare a $15-30 game to a $10-20 game or a $20-40 game? Do you compare a $30-60 game to a $20-40 game or a $40-80 game? It isn't really about the size of the game, it is about the impact the mistakes have in the different structured games..
Tom Haley
Games tend to burn out if bad players have very few winning sessions. This is why we don't see very small no-limit games such as a no-limit game with a $1 and $2 blind. A bad player will just about never win even though he may lose much more at a higher structure limit game in the long run. The difference is that he will have some nice wins mixed in with all his losses.
It's not necessarily how much a bad player may lose in the long run. But it's whether he can look back and see himself as a winner frequently enough to keep him playing. In games that burn out, he is unable to do this.
I have read a lot about bankroll requirements for a particular limit but havent seen much discussion about how much to risk at any one session. I have always set an arbitrary 2-2.5 buy ins as my limit. I dont usually go over this limit unless I feel that the game conditions are still good for me. For example when I played 4-8 with a buyin of 100.00 I would risk up to 250.00. Playing 10-20-40 with buyin of 300.00 I risk ~600-750. I do not play poker for a living but I play up to 3-4 times per week whenever possible. I bring up this question because I learned a valuable lesson in how not to sit down at poker table. I was at Shreveport Horseshoe this weekend. I usually play 10-20 there and 10-20-40 here in Houston. While waiting for 10-20 table to open up Saturday morning I took a seat in new 20-40 game being started. My thinking going into the game was flawed. I figured I would buy in for 500.00, try to get ahead and play for a while but that if I lost I wasnt going to rebuy. This was pretty stupid thinking on my part and 4 years of playing poker should have told me that. But I was pretty full of myself at this time. I had won my previous 12 sessions at 10-20 and 10-20-40 and was up 3900 in the last 39 hours so there was no way I was going to lose at 20-40. Well lose I did, 500.00 gone in around 1 hour. I got up and took my seat at the 10-20 game and managed to make back the 500 I lost plus an additional 400.00 before calling it a day. I went back Sunday morning and again there was no 10-20 seat so I figured what the heck I will buy in for the 400.00 profit from Saturday and take another 1 buyin shot. Boy does it take me time to learn my lessons. 400.00 and 3 hours later I am driving home even for the weekend but certain in the knowledge that I will never sit down at any limit game without the full intention of rebuying my usual amount of times. What do you folks think of my self imposed buy-in limitations? What do you use as a guideline? I already know how stupid I was this weekend but if you feel the need to confirm that feel free.
Thanks in advance for the replies.
Randy Collack
Take no more than will cause you to make bad decisions ("I've gotta get even") or cause you considerable stress ("I'll never play again") afterwards or the next session.
This is about you, not some formula.
Your experience in the 20/40 was, I strongly suspect, caused by the fact that this limit is behond your psycological ability to handle that limit, rather than your skill level. (4/8 to 20/40 seems like a wide comfort zone to me).
Some people are not affected by the limit. I am, as is most everybody else.
- Louie
Sweating a solid player/friend's middle position holding of AsAc while waiting for an open seat, made some interesting dinner conversation possible later. He raised three tight/passive customers, and the button made it three bets. The button who's game I'm very familiar with, plays too many hands but makes up for this somewhat with agressiveness after the flop. This player is also comfortable with an assortment of situationaly appropriate semibluff moves, induces river bluffs occasionally, and often makes some excellent reads which result in rather bizzare showdowns - to the uninitiated. The button has at least as much on the table as everyone else combined, and I'm sure most of it wasn't buy-in.
Both blinds fold, as do all three original limpers. This is unusual, as I'd have expected at least one of them to call two bets cold. My friend said that he decided not to define his hand further at this point, preparing to play for a checkraise instead of an odd number of bets on the flop. The flop is Qc6d5c, and my friend makes it four bets over the button's reraise. There is about nine big bets in the pot before the turn, accounting for rake. The dinner conversation was whether a third club on the turn hurts or helps the pocket aces with the right ace. I'd like some different points of view on that question from the regular forum posters, please. I can argue either side for the sake of intellectual discussion.
IMO, there is very little question that a third club will help your friend's hand. The button made it 3 bets preflop. Unless he is a bit of a lunatic, he likely doesn't have a hand like KcJc...why would he three-bet that hand particularly when there are 3 limpers already in before the initail raise. Thus, I don't put the button on a flush draw. I put him on either Kings or Queens. If he has pocket Queens, the third club is a huge card for your friend.
I suppose an argument could be made that if the third club comes and your friend bets, button may not make a raise with say KK which he might otherwise make and thus your friend now makes less money on the turn. However, on balance, the important thing at this stage is to win the hand; making extra bets are of secondary importance. Your primary goal will be advanced if a third club falls on the turn.
If you knew your opponent had only one card left in the deck which would win a medium sized pot, surely you would rather get called since you'd gain a bet 45 times and lose the pot once. I'm not convinced that "...the important thing at this stage is to win the hand..." provided that you have the best hand and you're way ahead. Is the risk of losing this size pot worth two more big bets out of the button? That's certainly the question here. You gave the button credit for KK or QQ whereas my friend and I included AQs as being in character with this agressive player. Now AQ which can't include the right ace is probably going to fold in the face of a club and a bet on the turn. Does that make enough difference? I agree that the button doesn't have a flush draw or something stupid like 87s since it was three-bet before the flop (button is by no means a borderline maniac). However, this player is on a monster winning session so I can't rule out altogether some weird hand like I would otherwise.
Yes, AQs is of course a possibility. But if he has this hand, it is unlikely that he will fold on the turn merely because a club appears. With all the bets he has already put in, most players would call on the turn and the river.
Turn was Tc, and the button folded to my friend's bet. Knowing this, what do you think is the most likely hand for the button to have had?
It sure looks like AQ, doesn't it?
However, I am still surprised that he would fold AQ on the turn.
The other possibilty is that the man could have just been playing overly aggressive with a hand like JJ or something given that he perceived himself to be on a rush. I mean, we have all seen guys with position get irritated by a heads-up check raise and unwisely flex their muscles by 3 betting it.
I didn't think the button would have made it three bets pre-flop with JJ or lesser pocket pair since it's hard to know how many of the early position limpers would re-call for two more bets (didn't mention that the big blind was somewhat of a loose cannon). This button does get much more predictable when playing from behind though - your comment about players on a rush duly noted.
I think KK is a good possibility as well.
AQ suited "looks right" according to the betting patterns, but we can eliminate the As, Ac, and Qc from being in the button's hand, leaving only two combinations: AhQh and AdQd. Compared to 6 combinations of KK. But if the button plays loose enough preflop to 3-bet with AQ offsuit, then there are 6 combinations each of AQ and KK making it an even possibility.
Either one would be consistent with his betting pattern, although I think AQ offsuit is less likely because of the 3-bets preflop, so I would favor KK 60% possibility and AQ 40% possibility.
-Key
It's harder to see the button mucking KK on the turn since he still wouldn't be sure my friend doesn't have top pair with the ace of clubs. AQ would be a much easier laydown since anything it has beaten at this point, my friend would have to have been overplaying for four bets on the flop (if my friend had AcKc, the Tc on the turn wipes that out too). I don't think the button would have folded pocket kings with the right king on the turn when the club ten arrived, without putting my friend specifically on an overplayed AcJc. This is why I put the button on AdQd first, not saying KK isn't another good possibility.
I vote hurts, but primarily because it will slow the button down; not because he has a flush. I doubt he has a flush. For one, they're rare. Second, before the flop, it appears that he's more interested in thinning the field, which tips against small/medium suited connectors or Kxs. He also can't have KsQs or QsJs, two hands with which he might 3-bet it. So if he doesn't have the flush or the As, he's going to be less likley to push second pair or bluff on the turn and river. Plus, he just *might* have a flush. I might be wrong if this guy likes to bluff hard at a suited board.
I recognize how the spade can help, such as by (1) giving the AA a spade draw (which, although, if it hits, might cost the aces a bet), (2) allowing the AA to lose less money if it's already beaten and, (3) if the button holds two cards of another suit, preventing him from picking up a flush draw on the turn, the equivalent of the AA losing 1/4 of a pot on which it previously might have had a lock. But the "scare factor" of the three spades that could stifle the betting weighs, IMO, in the other direction. (But I'll probably end up agreeing with skp ;-)).
.
Hitting a club on the turn may in fact generate more action if the button has say KcKd particularly given Andrew's characterization of the button as an aggressive player.
While I agree with what you are saying, I still think that winning the pot is now the chief consideration. The fact that a club may slow the button down is in my mind just a minor negative (and as indicated above it may actually cause him to step on the gas).
I think the answer would be closer if:
1. Andrew's friend held KK with the right King instead of Aces;
2. the button had just called the raise pre-flop (instead of three betting it); or
3. if one of the lower cards on the flop was a club instead of the Queen.
IMO, the answer to the scenario as outlined by Andrew is not very close: I would invite a third club on the turn every time.
I knew I'd end up agreeing with you. The pot would have to be much small for me to be right.
Ok, then what size pot would that be? I think nine big bets is right on the middle of the road so to speak.
Nine big bets on the flop heads-up is a pretty big pot. If the AA can hook the button for 3 more BB by the river, then the 9 represent 75% of the AA's total win from that point forward.
I doubt that one can reliably estimate the size of the pot where a club would be hurt the AA because dubious assumptions would control the result. My guess? 4-5 BB could justify the AA hoping for more and longer betting rounds.
My first post was wrong because I thought there was more profit in squeezing out a few more bets when the flush threat doesn't materialize, and that a 3-flush would kill the action for the AA. I failed to remember, however, that you're almost always better off if your opponent folds when the pot is big because if the play proceeds, it places the entire pot at risk and tends to nullify the advantage of winning 1 or 2 more bets.
(This whole thread must seem awfully confusing because I suggested that a card that ostensibly reduces your chance of winning actually hurts you more by increasing your chance of winning too soon, and am now admitting that you really want to win "too soon.")
I'll accept 4-5 BB as a threshold pot size one would prefer to milk for more bets, as I'm admitedly weak at this sort of estimation. I do think if someone really trusts their card reading skills (must believe you currently have the best hand), that there exists some relationship between pot size, opponents outs, and extra bets which could be expressed algebraicly that could help answer this question. Would this forum's mathematicians look at this please?
Consider what the button is doing by putting in the reraise on the flop. I can tell you that my friend's checkraise would not be a surprise, indeed it could be considered fairly routine. Suppose this is a probe type reraise from the button, which then gets answered by the fourth bet on the flop. It is now very clear to the button whether my friend has the best hand before the turn. If the button is going to slow down, it will probably be with a fold facing a bet on the turn (instead of call/call). I doubt after four bets on the flop that the button would raise a club on the turn with KcKh since my friend would know it didn't represent a flush.
============ AAAAAAAAAA ============ This is an aggressive player has you said.
These players will 3-bet it on the button with a wide variety of hands. They will also bet and re-raise on the flop with a draw (trying to pay the maximum for their "free" card).
This player appears to have AQ, QQ, KK, AA, or a flush draw. Lets say the draw is as likely as KK. On the flop you tie against AA, are a SIGNIFICANT favorite against KK (6) or AQ(6), a comfortable favorite against the draw (6), and a SIGNIFICANT dog against QQ (3). When the flush gets there, you are still a big favorite against KK and AQ, a callable dog against QQ and the made flush. So you gain against the set(3) but lose ground to the flush draw(6). The ground you gain against KK or AQ since they missed is small.
Its worse, since in my experience these aggressive players are also "tricky" and would slow play the set, hehehe, and are very likely to have the draw when they 4-bet it.
Against this aggressive player, I'd say you lost ground when the flush got there.
========== BBBBBBBBBBBB ========== This is a conservative player.
These players rarely 3-bet it with big suited hands, never with small suited hands, and will rarely raise much less 4-bet it with a draw heads up. They will also rarely 4-bet it with KK.
So the flush actually give you significant outs against the probably set.
- Louie
Button called for four bets and did not make it five. If the button had QQ against most players I think it would have been five bets. However, the button could also be waiting to raise on the turn with top set. My friend also agrees with me that the button was unlikely to have two clubs and make it three bets before the flop without the ace. With KcJc the button would have just cold called, letting the big blind and early limpers stay involved. With KK the button has to be concerned that my friend may have top set, so he probably only goes to the river (should a third club fall on the turn) with the Kc expecting to put two more big bets in the pot. However, from the button's perspective, it is also possible (if not more likely) that my friend has a hand like AcQh which the betting action supports. Therefore my friend can not expect to gain more than two additional bets if the turn and river are clubs, and a good laydown on the river by the button is not out of the question.
The turn card was Tc, and the button folded to my friend's bet. We both put the button on AdQd, way ahead of anything else. If we expect the button will fold top pair with the three flush board and pay off blanks, then the odds against my friend getting drawn out on must be less than 11:2 (nine big bets in the pot and two more implied) for a club on the turn to help. If my friend has the best hand on the flop, the button would have to have six or more outs in order to make it better to win the pot immediately rather than gain two more big bets. Before the turn, we don't think the button had that many.
While AdQd is a possible holding, I think it is unlikely for several reasons:
1. I think it would be an error for the button to 3 bet it preflop with this hand. Why not cold-call and entice the blinds and the limpers to call thereby creating a 7 way pot.
2. On the flop, it is heads-up and I presume that your friend check-raised. Most players would not 3 bet it here with AQ.
3. Having gone to 4 bets on the flop, most players would not fold for a bet on the turn even if a club hit. If they would fold, they would likely have folded even if a blank hit because they wouldn't put your friend on a flush draw. In other words, the fact that the turn card is a club would matter very little to the button's decision.
Accordingly, on balance, I would maintain that the third club helps you immensely if you are up against a set and doesn't hurt you much if you are up against a lesser hand (i.e., in the sense of lost bets).
The player on the button can and does make mistakes, they may not be the same mistakes you or I might make though. I think it's a close decision to reraise here with AQs. These are rocks you'd be letting in, and that tends to discount the high card value of AQs more than it would against all other types of players. That said, I probably would have cold called on the button too. This is mostly because I wouldn't like my chances of making AQ hold up unimproved without being able to use the free card play at the one or two bet level.
Since the checkraise on the flop is very routine with both players, and I know it wasn't unexpected by the button, it has less weight than if it came from a less experienced player. I would make it three bets here with AQ, in an additional attempt to slow my friend down on the turn should a scare card fall. I think there's better than a 50% chance that AQ is currently the best hand (it wasn't taken to four bets pre-flop which implies more possible holdings by the initial raiser).
We believe the button had top pair with the nut backdoor flush draw, was forced by four bets on the flop to conclude that queens were no good, and took off the turn card to pick up enough additional outs to justify going to the river. The button could easily be thinking fold unless a diamond hits the turn without putting my friend on a club flush draw.
For what it's worth: my friend thinks the club cost him extra bets as a substantial favorite, while I think it helps him induce a bluff from the button on the river - those times the button decides to stay in, and a fourth club doesn't fall.
Part of the answer depends on his characterization of you. If he sees you as a strong player, I doubt he re-raises preflop without a pair. Probably KK or QQ. I'd say there's up to a 30% chance your opponent has flopped trips. If he's on clubs I'd have to see it to believe it. Thus of course you want to see a club on the turn! You've now got 11 outs instead of 2.
My friend is a solid full-time pro, the button has played with him hundreds of sessions. The button could have AK or AQs (KQs and JTs are also understandable in the middle of a big rush) to make it three bets pre-flop in that spot. Other than JcTc, there's no concern over the button completing a flush draw on the turn. It's whether the third club on the board is going to cause the button to muck, and if that's a good or bad result considering runner-runner blanks are going to gain two more big bets into a nine big bet pot.
I'm going to try a statement here:
"Any card that potentially makes (completes) an opponents hand but does not make (complete) yours is a bad card for you".
Remember you heard it here first!
Regardless of how good a "reader" you are this just adds an additional unknown to the hand.
Opinion by Vince.
Vince, somehow I knew you'd be in the *hurts* camp on this one. As to your statement, that wouldn't seem to apply if someone was CORRECTLY slow playing according to HPFAP criteria.
I think, Andrew, you can see that my statement applies to any non made hand. If you are correctly slow playing a complete hand that could not be beat then the hand would not be in the category of unmade hands. My statement only considers incomplete hands. Thus, I beilieve it is correct.
BTW am I that obvious? Such a NEGATIVE (*hurts*) guy, am I?
Vince.
I misunderstood the condition of both hands imcomplete, and read the statement as being broader. I did think about which way a few of the regular posters might favor, based on what I know about their game from earlier threads. I'm just trying to *push the envelope* here, and continue to improve like everyone else. Has anyone who contributes seriously to this forum failed to improve their game?
Well, if the Button does not have a flush then a routine flush card is good for you, unless it accidentally makes the opponent's hand (2-pair or straight). This will reduce the opponent's outs by a couple cards (he hits the river while you make the Ace 4-flush).
As you suggested in a reply the 3-flush may induce the opponent to fold the hand; I hadn't considered that. That's bad if he has a 2-card out (pocket pair or pair+ace) since you welcome the slim call; but that's good if he has a 5/6 card out (straight draw or slit pair without an Ace) since he's getting the odds to outdraw you.
Our apparent dissagreement is whether the opponent can realistically have a flush draw. I believe there are lots of aggressive players who can (in fact, probably have) a draw in this spot, but your knowledge of this opponent is that he does not.
- Louie
We don't really disagree. I think one to five outs for the button makes a club hurt, while six or more helps. Because the button was on a major rush does make a flush more likely, but not a whole lot.
xxx
I was playing in a 4-8 game today, and called 2 raises with Q-10. Six players in the pot. The flop comes up J-9-7, and 4 people including myself call the re-raiser. To make a long story short, a king comes on the river, and the gentleman that led the whole way bets. With no flush draw, I raise and he calls with trips. This bet by the kind gentleman on the end seemed a little silly, considering the amount of action generated by the hand. In my opinion, a bet on the end without the nuts in a large multiway pot will cost you money in the long run, especially at the lower limits. Comments welcome.
I think we may need a little more info to make an informed judgement here. How many people called the turn and what was the turn card. How many people were left when you raised him on the river. Even without this info I will give you my opinion. There are only 2 hands that beat him here,QT and T8. In most 4-8 games I have played in either of these hands would have raised on the flop(QT) or the turn(T8). Since it doesnt appear either of these things happened, why shouldnt he think he is way ahead and bet here. Lots of times in these games the hands he is against are KJ,AJ,J9,JT, and even 86.
Of course as usual I could be wrong.
Randy Collack
This is Bill from Grass Valley,Ca. I have posted on 2+2 before,but did not post the above message! Is someone playing games on the forum? In any event,I would rarely call 2 bets cold with Q-10,regardless of position or limit. Play good people!
No. If you put your cursor over the highlighted "Bill" you will find that the original posters E-Mail address is bklatta@AOL.Com.
Bill, sorry if you thought I was playing a game, but my name is Bill also, although I live in St. Louis. Also, what we sometimes call in this silly game is based on the experience of who we are up against. I still contend I made a good call for the situation I was in. Good luck!
Hello Bill in ST. Louis,
In the future I will post as Bill L to avoid any confusion. Tell us how the games are around St.Louis and how your game is going. This kind of post would go on the exchange page. Regards and good luck, Bill L
This is limit poker right? If so, then I cannot think of any game where you should cold-call 2 raises (3 bets) with QT. It was not a good call, and I'm sure that if you could keep track of every dollar won and lost with these bad calls, you'd find that out. However, when you win a monster like this with an inferior hand, it tends to stick in your memory, and deludes you into thinking you should play it again next time. How many times have you had to fold after the flop, and have lost 3 bets? Keep track, and you'll soon learn not to play like this.
As Ray and others have said, play after the flop is more important than play preflop, but if you are investing multiple bets with cheese hands, then no amount of great playing post flop will make up for it.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I forgot to mention that IMHO the weakest move described here is calling 3 bets cold with QTo. This will cost more money in the long run then betting with 3 kings.
Randy Collack
Although the board is scary, the bet on the river was probably correct, depending on the prior action. To be blunt, most players that will call three cold with medium one-gappers will usually pay off with a variety of hands. (If you had hit a queen on the river instead of a king, would you have surrendered that big pot to a possible AJ?) Also, the myth that you need the nuts at low limit to bet on the end is a money loser.
If I flop a set and you're in there with a straight draw, you're going to win a bunch of my chips every time you hit. Although your raise on the end indicated that the set was probably beat, there was more than enough money in the pot for him to call the raise, especially since you could have spiked a second pair.
Since KK got the last bet on the turn he has NO reason to suspect a small straight. When he makes trips, the ONLY hand that can beat him is someone calling raises with QT.
How often would you say someone has QT in that spot? Much less than half the time I would guess. Since he's a cinch to get paid off once or twice in a big pot, betting for value is correct. If he gets 3 calls for every time he "has" to call the raise then he's ahead. "Especially at the lower limits" encourages betting since they will make hopeless over-over-calls with 3rd pair.
I suspect you would be shocked at how often I have bet ONE PAIR only for value in big multi-way pots.
"When in doubt bet it out" is much better in holdem then "Without the nuts hide in the huts".
- Louie
I would bet my trip kings without a moment's hesitation.
P.S. If you call 3 bets cold with Q10 you are going to get pounded in the long run. I don't care what kind of game you're playing in.
10-20 game. I'm first in with 66 in middle position. One caller and big blind stay in. Flop comes 6-3-2. Big blind checks, I bet, there's a raise, big blind calls two bets, I re-raise, raiser calls, and big blind calls. Turn card is a 3. I bet, and the other two call. River card is a 9. I bet, player to my left raises! and big blind folds. I reason that the raiser (a very strong player) wouldn't raise into my indicated strength without having a monster hand (either 33 or 99) so I call. He shows the 99 and takes down the pot with the bigger full house. Everybody gives me a hard time because I didn't reraise on the end. Comments?
Good play. Generally, you have to be more than a 2-1 favourite to raise heads-up on the river. I am not saying that you can never make it 3 bets on the River without the nuts (far from it), but the way the hand played out, you can't possibly make it three bets here.
Couple of comments Spike:
First off, I would consider folding 66 before the flop in the scenario you describe. It's a poor hand for early position and you will probably not get the correct odds for flopping trips. But that's just me. Maybe I play too tight.
Second, I have my doubts about the winner being the "very strong player" you describe. Most tough players would have raised pre-flop with 99 (unless perhaps if he was immediately to your left). Then he goes all the way with 99 when he's clearly beaten on the flop. I would put you on 45s or trips on the flop. What else could you have to reraise? So when he calls your turn bet he's maybe drawing stone dead, or, at best, a 23-1 dog. How can he make this call? He must be hoping you have 77 or 88.
When he raises you on the river, you were right to just call. He has to have 33 or 99 to raise you (unless it's a cold bluff, in which case he folds to your re-raise anyway).
Sounds to me like you're over-estimating his ability, and under-estimating yours!
Good luck!
Spike,
I just want to comment on one aspect of the hand (I agree with skp above regarding the river call).
A hand like 66 is a problem hand in the middle position. It may be best to fold since if you call you will often end up with just two or three opponents which is just the wrong number for a small to middle pair. If the players behind you and the blinds play weakly after the flop then calling may be OK.
If the blind doesn't defend much then you might want to raise with this hand in middle position (I would assume you have two or three opponents left to act). Here you want the blinds or to get one on one after showing strength.
In any case it is a tough hand to play once several have folded before the flop.
Regards,
Rick
Consider leaving off the part where the opponent had 99. Try "I called, and the everyone gave me a hard time for not reraising". I think you'll get better responses.
You have touched on one of my mantra's (actually someone else's that I stole): Players often do NOT ask "What actual hand can he have?"
They suggest a reraise since you have the 3rd nuts which is a full house. They do not consider what the opponent could have. He does not have 93 or 63, didn't play it like a straight, and PROBABLY would have played 22-full differently. That leaves 99 or 33 that have you beat.
You are clearly correct to just call a sensible player.
Sheepishly smile and agree with these bafoons, and say you got lucky by just calling since he had you beat THIS time. Or say you thought you only had trips.
- Louie
fold 66 in middle position you got to be kidding. only if you play so bad that you never win a pot without making the best hand. am i out of touch and good players are throwing away these pairs and not opening in middle position? the times you win the blinds or get headup with a blind make so much profit that playing is a must.
the reraise on the end would be justified if you knew the player and he would raise with more hands you could beat and get called with and still win.
I'm not kidding.
I hate the way 66 plays from this position. Unless you're playing in a super tight game, it's unlikely that you'll take the blinds or go heads up with one of them. More typically you'll get 2 limpers after you (hopefully no raise) and the blinds will play.
If someone raises after you then it really sucks. You'll probably be up against 2-3 opponents.
Then the flop comes with 3 overcards. Great! What's the great play that will save you now? I can bet all the way and hope the top pair or overpair doesn't call me down. I can check-raise the flop with the hopes that everyone folds on the next round. Either way I'm gambling a little too much for my liking. Against weaker players I will come across much better opportunities to steal a couple of bets.
I almost suggested bringing in with a raise (like Rick did) to greatly increase your chance of winning outright, getting heads up, or stealing on a later round. But these type of plays should be used sparingly because they often backfire, and when they do you kick yourself because by the end of the hand you've put up several bets in the hopes of stealing a very small pot.
I guess what I'm saying is that depending on the table and the players I would play sometimes, fold sometimes, and raise once in a while.
I hate small pairs!
i would raise with the 66 coming in most of the time from middle postition unless i knew i would get almost exactly 2 players behind me but then im not that good at guessing or reading minds. those times the flop is 3 overcards or most times 2 and you get no help and cant bluff you lose. many other times you win. you only have to win a fraction of the time to make money with the hand. the fraction is determined by # of callers and how far thewy will go. i hate small and medium pairs too because they are so hard to play well. good luck.
Ray,
Isn't that sort of what we said?
Regards,
Rick
All these responses I have read from the regulars posters are very confusing to me.Is it so that you guys are all rocks and when someone puts in a little raise you put them on the stonecold nuts or close to it ?What kinda games do you guys play over there? Don't players raise with overpairs on the end that they limped in with in late position preflop not wanting to raise the blinds only to get it heads up on the flop. I say on principal alone you have to reraise the river(no nuts no glory).Give me the same hand 100 times and i'll reraise that mother every frikken time and make atleast 95 bigones.
For obvious reasons, a raise on the River commands much more respect than a raise at any other stage of the hand.
As a new player (150 hours), I've been starting to work hard on reading players. Based on my knowledge of this player, I was sure he wouldn't re-raise on the river without 33 or 99. What good is learing to read players if you're not going to use it?
No good. You'd be surprised how many people do NOT do what they have figured out they should do.
Maybe you would in YOUR game. Clearly, Spike had a very good read on this player, and used it properly. I can only say "good job" to him for this. Now, it is true that many players wouldn't need to have only 99 or 33 to raise in this spot, so he shouldn't make this his standard play. If he finds himself losing bets with his winning hands, he should reevaluate his reading skills. Otherwise, he should keep up the good work.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
These guys aren't wannabes. They ALL have more hold-em experience than me, so it's good to hear some unbiased, clear-headed commentary.
Bellagio.
Wednesday Morning (I think).
Me: SB
Early Limper. Pass to me.
My Hand: AsJs - Raise.
BB and Limper Call.
Flop: Ad,Ah,3s
Me: Bet! BB: Fold. Limper: Fold.
Later that morning.
Me: SB.
Early limper. Pass to me.
My hand: AcJc - Raise.
BB and early limper call.
Flop: As,Ah,Tc.
Me: Bet!
BB: Call. Early limper: Call.
Turn: 6d.
Me: Check.
BB: Bet. Early: Fold. Me: Raise. BB: Fold.
Comments?
God, I'm glad I'm taking Ginko Bilboa or I probably would forget these gems.
Vince.
I can't see where you misplayed anything. Was there any aspect you're unsure of?
I was a Roy Cooke reader but I think I will not bother any more. First because of that ridiculous article on Assumptions. He made an ass of me alright because I should have known better to read anymore of his articles after that one. Since this is a poker forum and he is a poker writer that a lot of us read I decided to post this here rather than the exchange. His latest article is not about poker it's about the Mirage Poker situation. He spent a lot of my time detailing the juiciness of the games at the Mirage. Maybe it's me but whenever I go to the Mirage these days I see an almost empty poker room! I also believe that they have reduced the number of Poker Zone tournaments, something he points to as a success, because of the lack of participation. I guess it's just me or maybe it's just a Mirage after all! Anyone got any smoke and mirrors?
Vince.
Did you contact Ray, as to when he wrote and submitted his artical, B4 making this post. As the first step in conflict resolution?
I am looking forward to reading this latest article, but its not on the CPM Articles page yet and the mail is real slow getting to the midwest.
I appreciate hearing a "local flavor" or "poker scene" story from time to time. Vince, this includes your Bellagio stories.
Btw, this thread does belong on the Exchange. What are you, a new poster to this forum?
Game is no-limit hold'em with $5 blinds. I have one of the shorter stacks with about $600.
Two limpers in from middle position and an aggressive player makes his token $5 raise on the button. SB folds and I call in the big blind with AcTs. Both limpers call and we take the flop four-handed.
Flop: AhJcTc
I bet $50, one of early guys and the button call.
Turn: Td
I think for split second about checking my filly, but decide decide to bet out $125.
Both other players fold.
I'm certainly no expert on no limit hold 'em, but one comment is that you are risking a somewhat significant portion of your small stack, which may indicate a very solid hand. You've got no worries about being beaten here, but a check seems fishy, so why not bet $50 again? Seems to disguise the hand a little better. Let them see another card, and then drop the big bet.
Just a thought.
Bill G.
Do what it would seem natural under the circumstances is one philosophy.
Try to guess which play has the highest expectation is another.
You called a raise and you overbet the pot on the flop. Likely you have: AK, AQ, AJ, AT, KK, (most likely not KQ), QQ, KJ, Q9. Your opponent will call you on the turn with what? An Ace? A Jack? Do you want to give a free card to an Ace (little damage) or to a Jack? This is the crucial question. Notice that if your opponent has a Ten or better it makes no difference how you play. Hence, you need concentrate on the possibility that your opponent has exactly an Ace, KK, QQ, or KJ, QJ. I would say that in those cases it is better to check the turn and bet the river unless a Jack falls.
Maria
Micheal 7,
I think you played the hand right on the flop. After the flop, you bet a little over the pot total of $45.00. With 4 players and two face cards hitting the board, I think your likely to get action on your flop bet. Additionally, your hand is goood but it could get beat by a third club or could already be beat by a strait. you have to cut the odds down on possible draw hands.
On the other hand, the bet on the turn I think was not so good. You have no risk of being drawn out on and a check or another small bet maybe even smaller than the original may enduce a bluff representing the ten, especially from the agressive player on the button. Also you want to give someone a chance to hit there flush. I would have bet the flop like you did and been happy with one call or two. Then, if I had suffisticated competition, I would bet 25 or fifty again. Against medium type players I would have checked. Give' em a chance to catch up a little. Robert Bisogno
Micheal,
Forgot to ask, where is this game? No limit with such small blinds is not easy to find and usualy dries up quick. In my humble experience, players with a little more cash an a willingness to mix it up a little try to chase away the tight players with three blinds and or a five dollar ante. Also, limping in and seeing a flop for five or ten sounds nice. Robert B.
(I've only played NL in tournaments). I think your optimum move is to slowplay by checking or betting $50 again. These moves will make you the most money, and I don't see a serious possibility of you losing. I prefer the idea of checking because your bet on the river might induce a call from a weak ace. The play you made, however, was probably a close second because you're giving the straight and flush draws an immediate 2.5-1 to call, which might tempt them to make the terrible mistake of calling or even raising.
Dangerous bet on the flop. You've probably got the best hand, but I hope you were planning to release if you got raised. If not, you'd better know that player pretty well.
I would check the turn. I prefer to play NL as a trapping game, and like to slowplay a lot more than most players. Here, you should have been concerned by getting called in 2 places, and you caught the perfect card (I think it's much better than an A, because it moves you ahead of AJ, and means AK and AQ are drawing to a tie at best). There is about 200 in the pot, and you have 500 in your stack. I'd want to do my best to get at least 1 person to double me through here. I think if you check, someone with any A, and maybe just a J, K, Q, or flush draw may bet the pot. If they do, you can go all-in if you think they'll call, or just call and bet the river, or just call and check the river to induce another bluff. Overall, the best play is whichever one gets all your money in the middle, and will depend upon these specific opponents.
BTW, here's why I like trapping. Early, players usually don't suspect I'm trapping with every hand I'm willing to go all the way with, and they will get trapped. This has a lot to do with the fact that many NL players know the power of aggression, and push it too far. Later, as they learn I like to trap, it lets me get a lot more free cards than anyone else at the table. Finally, once I see that they're convinced I'm trapping everytime I even call their flop bet, I can then (and only then) try to steal some pots. Of course, I'll always mix it up a little, if for no other reason than to not lose to you (now that I've revealed the above).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
What a silly $5 raise. Aren't you tempted to isolate the aggressive player who would surely raise more if he had a better hand? Aren't you tempted to fold since the early callers surely know the button will raise, and may very well be trying to trap YOU? Aren't you tempted to check-raise the aggressive player who is likely to bet the flop? Aren't you tempted to see the flop cheap and make money when you get there? <-- Oh wait, that's what you did ...
Depends. Are there other hands that you would bet the flop and check the turn with that board, such as AQ? QJ? If not, bet about 2/3 the pot on the turn.
Doesn't look like anybody has a Ten (QT would be a very weak call on the flop) so routinely betting the turn when you are "just" called looks natural, even if you have a small draw.
- Louie
what are you supposed to do with it?
Examples: 15-30 wild tournament side games
UTG (wild player) opens for a raise. you call in the BB heads up w/ AcTc. Flop Axx no clubs. you check UTG bets you raise he re-raises you call. Now you figure there is a very good chance your beat, but you've seen him play this way when overcards hit in the past. What do you do when a blank hits on the turn?
you hold Kc8c on the button 3 people limp including UTG who is very tight and you call, blinds call. Flop KKA rainbow it gets checked around BB (bad player) and UTG call. Blank hits checked to you, you bet BB folds UTG raises. You reraise not fearing a full and knowing he might try to make a move with an ace he makes it 4 bets. What now? you have 6 outs 3 aces for a chop 3 8's for a win.
If the cards were face up you would almost definately fold but they're face down, do you pay off?
Against these "wild, loose, and aggressive" players who do NOT back down when you raise, you are usually better off calling and encouraging them to bluff all the way. You win less when you win and lose less when you lose, but you always get to win your fair share of show-downs (you never get bluffed out), which is to your advantage since you are more sensibly selective and usually have the better hand.
Your 'AT' is a great example: you raised not knowing how to handle a likely reraise.
Rarely, if ever, fold big pairs against wild players.
Your 3-bet of the tight player who slow played and check-raised the turn was utterly hopeless; unless you have seen his hand. This tight player has AT LEAST KQ; but may not have even called with that bad a hand before the flop. "Very Tight" players do not 4-bet paired boards with a stiff AcesUp. A "Very Selective/Very Aggressive" player might, however, but unlikely when the tight player (you) 3-bet the turn.
This player has AK. You had only a crying call of his 2-bet, and should fold to his 4-bet.
You counted outs incompletely. If he has KQ you have 3 aces to tie and 3-eights to win. But if he has AA or AK you're dead. He does not have Blank's-Full nor Kings-full-of-Blanks.
== The mistake: Just because you correctly suspected the opponent is LIKELY betting or raising with a weaker hand than you, does NOT mean you should routinely reraise. Encouraging the continuation bluff by just calling is a top option. ==
== The other mistake: Assertive bets or raises with (relatively) weak hands lose considerable power when they will not cause the opponent to react predictably. These moves are a function of the OPPONENT and much less of your HAND. ==
== The other other mistake: Give considerable respect for very tight UTG players; they have premium or solid hands ==
- Louie
In example two he did have KQ it was obvious. He would definately raise with AK or AA he always does. I knew he had KQ but I had 3wins, 3 ties and the pot was big, math says fold but how can I? would you? are these calls too loose?
Ooops. We both forgot you have 3-"blank" outs to tie.
When he 4-bets it, I count you getting 11:1 to call counting rake ignoring a river bet. There are 8 seen cards and 44 unseen, of which 6 give you a tie, 3 give you a win, and 35 give you a loss. If you tie you win 5.5 BB that's in the pot; if you win you win 11; if you lose you lose 1.
6*(5.5) + 3*11 - 35*1 = 33+33-35 = +31bb out of 44 attempts or each call is worth 9/44 = .71 of a bb. Is a Good call or a bad fold.
However, if you know he has KQ when he 2-bets it, there is only 7bb in the pot:
6*(3.5) + 3*7 - 35*1 = 21+21-35 = 7bb, very marginally good call.
== drawing slim in a big pot is as good as drawing strong in a small pot ==
I can't calculate at the table; but if I had done a similar problem at home and KNEW I should fold, then I would fold. I threw away the AKs flush (no pair) once since I knew the old man must surely have the straight flush after I bet the river, got called, got raised, got called, and he 3-bet it. How could I call?
Having said that, making such "good" but tight folds will encourage others to take shots at YOU; and that makes for a great rashionalization to make the call.
Pay off the big pots is correct the vast majority of the time.
- Louie
That was a very well theorized and articulated post, sir.
I'm wondering when it is correct to bet or raise after the flop or turn with a draw. It seems that by betting or raising you are always lowering your pot odds. Assuming that you don't expect value from a semi-bluff bet or raise (i.e. a loose game where you will have to show down to win) and assuming that no one pays attention enough to notice a pattern in your play (thus gaining you no deception value) does it ever make sense to bet?
Any help appreciated.
Pot odds aren't everything. Total expected return is more important. Would you rather get paid 1 bet each by 6 players when you're 2:1 to make your draw, or 2 bets each by 5 players? The latter has lower pot odds, but a much higher return, so I'll take the latter.
You imply a valid point. Don't semibluff if they're always going to call. It's not a semibluff, it's a value bet (like above, where enough players are calling that you're making money by getting called).
With respect to deception, there is usually some value to deception, and it is a rare game where the players don't eventually notice if you only bet a strong hand. However, if you're playing lower limits for a short period at a new casino/cardroom, then deception has little to no value, so there is some reason to apply your hypothetical.
Given the terms of your question, only the first paragraph above applies. Don't bet or raise a draw unless you'll get paid off sufficiently that it's better than checking or calling.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree with fossilman on all points with a few more things to add. Since expected return is the more important calc, you may make value bets, raises or even check raises with the whole field calling.
Then there is also the "free card" if you miss the turn.
You may sometimes value bet the turn if you expect to have enough callers or if it may cause some bad bets and calls on the river when you make your draw. Sometimes small neg pot odd bets on the turn produce +EV on the river. It's also very aggressive which usually doesn't hurt.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
The table image you get from showing down drawing hands that you bet instead of check/called is useful if you haven't been getting customers for your stronger hands.
If you have a big straight or flush draw after the flop and there are three or more callers in front of you, or just one bettor and calling stations behind you, you're giving up value if you don't raise. The bigger the draw (such as one with a pair or overcards), the bigger the mistake you make by just calling. The value comes not only from your immediate pot odds, but also because the larger pot will make your opponents more reluctant to release inferior hands, compared to their greater willnigness to release when the pot is small and a scare card -- such as the third flush card -- lands.
Also, I know you said you'll have to show down the hand, but remember that, against only one or two opponents, you're also giving up value in proportion to their willingness to muck at some point (discounted by their willingness to re-raise). One good situation is when an unaware type in front of you bets automatically because he hit the flop (say he paired his 9), and there's an apparant big pocket pair -- now overpair -- behind you, or a maniac behind you. In this situation you can call with the intention of re-raising, or perhaps raise with the intention of making it four bets if you think another player will get caught in the crossfire.
The correct way to play HE, 7 stud (all poker games?), the experts agree, is aggressively. But I have noticed in a few posts players described as "over-aggressive". What determines if a player is too agressive? What types of hands or situations does an over aggressive player overplay? Is being over aggressive as bad as being weak-tight, or passive or a calling station? Who will lose their money quicker and more certainly? Any tips on monitoring one's own play to assess if one is stepping over the line and playing too aggressively?
Experts always recommend "tight aggressive" play. Meaning play very few hands but play them aggressively. "Over aggressive" play could be defined as betting or raising with a hand in a situation that calls for checking, calling or even folding. An example from Holdem could be capping a heads up pot before the flop with any hand other than A,A (very few exceptions noted). Another could be raising/reraising, etc.. a raiser on the flop with an over pair to a strong board. In seven stud an example might be raising with a pair of Aces on fourth street against a solid player that paired his door card (not the bring in) (Very few exceptions noted).
An over aggressive player is dangerous. He will lose money on his "over aggressive" plays in the long run.
Rating the relative poor play of "over aggressive", weak tight, passive or calling station is not really important. What's important is to recognize each style and learn from them. Learn not to emulate any of these losing styles.
The "over aggressive" player will lose his money quickest. But will also show some big wins.
The calling station will lose his money with the most certainty. Next the passive player (who most likely is a calling station also). I want these guys at my table.
Interestingly enough the "weak tight" player may actually be a winner. But, I also like one or two of him in my game.
To monitor your play I suggest that you buy a copy of Mason Malmuth's Poker Essay II. In that book is a list of skills one needs to play a particular game of poker. Learn and practice those skills until they are second nature. Then when you are at a table monitor your actions versus those skills. Oh! There is one other thing.. But that will have to wait!
Vince
Vince,
Just wanted you to elaborate on one of your premises in your posting on the subject of overagressive player characteristics. You were talking about various types at a table and mentioned "weak tight" players. You indicated they may be winners. Do you think a "weak tight" player can be a net winner over the years- all be it a less than optimal winner? Please elaborate!
Do you think that a "weak tight" player can incramentally add a few tools slowly and get most of the money they leave on the table compared to their more solid all around counter parts? Also, what is the difference between a "weak tight" player who can eek out a profit and those who can not? Very curious about your thoughts, Robert Bisogno
I prefer to play tight/passive (weak-tight) under most loose/agressive ram-and-jam conditions. This style of play beats this type of game in the long run primarily because there are many players who'll be pushing weaker hands and going too far with them. If you don't mind waiting long stretches between hands that you go beyond the flop with (top pair with a good kicker, draws to the nuts, and otherwise very good hands) you should be able to cash out a winner. If you play in an area where there are multiple games going at a comfortable limit for you, tend to prefer the wild ones.
Robert,
"Weak Tight".
I will confine my comments to limit Holdem. 7 Stud is an entirely different subject.
From the description "weak tight" one gets the impression that a player in this category is a poor poker player. Just the opposite may be true. After all, we know that most experts recommend a tight playing strategy. The tight portion of "weak tight" indicates that a player has a good fundamental understanding of, at least, what constitutes correct starting hands and plays only the best hands. The "weak" part of "weak tight" indicates only that the player is predictable. He bets/calls/raises/folds according to his hand strength only.
Can a weak tight player be a winner over the years? If a "weak tight" player is an an area where there is a lot of turn over (steady flow of different players) in his game he most certainly can be a winner with this style. If, however, he plays with the same folks day in and day out his winning will depend on the skill level of the others. Most players after a while will certainly figure out a players style and adapt to it.
A "weak tight" player has the best chance of slowly improving his game than any other type of player. Unpredictability (vary ones game) is the easiest poker skill to master (boy that should get some comments).
Hope that helps!
Opinion by Vunce.
One strong indicator of overagressive play would be how someone handles the nine out flush draw on the flop. Consistent reraising or capping in this spot is almost always characteristic. This is one of those key situations to watch for (if the hand is showndown) when applying stereotypes to your opponents.
OA players raise alot before the flop and will always raise you if you bet into them on the flop or re-raise if you check raise. They always consider their overcards "good" if they hit and will cap it with flush draws routinely. They also pay off because they think everone else is bluffing at them.
The definition that you give here is more in tune to that of a "maniac" than an over aggressive player. There are some players that have a good fundamental understanding about poker but will, in frequent instances, over play hands. Taking a beating on some of these hands may drive the over aggressive player to becoming a "maniac" (tilt). His regular game, however, is normally good. For some reason over aggressive players seem to lose control in certain situations even thogh they may know that their actions are detrimental. The "maniac" isn't over aggressive because he just doesn't know any better. A good player that tends to over play some hands can with practice easily correct that tendancy. I'm not sure the same is true of the "maniac".
Opinion by Vince.
Tad,
This is a great question. My answer would be that a very aggressive player crosses the line when their play is too predictable and consistent. Another way to state this is their strategy becomes too self-weighting. The concept of self-weighting strategies is discussed in Gambling Theory and Other Topics.
Tom Haley
Ten handed hold'em. I am one off the button with two black 9's.
#4 a solid aggressive preflop and pushes when he has it on turn and river and often checkraiser on flop and turn opens with a raise.
All fold to me and I three bet and we see the flop heads up.
Flop is: As 8s 7c. He checks and I check (Comments?).
Turn is: 9h. He checks and I bet. He raises and I reraise. He reraises. I think and I call (Comments?).
River is a blank. He bets and I make a crying call.
When he puts the third raise I put him on AA. He could have had 88 too but ... Anyway just in case I called and I was determined to call the river when I decided to call the turn. It turns out that he had JhTh for the nut straight. So my turn call was correct after all but not my river call.
I wonder: is there a psycological ploy to make your opponent not to bet the nuts on the river? Can you fold when you face a third raise on the turn? How about if the turn was a 3 and he was still four betting me? Can I fold the river? I can see that if I fold the river in this spot then my opponents can bluf me out in a less expensive way and they may start trying it raising the turn and betting the river. However, I feel uncomfortably to routinely call the river after I called the turn to keep someone honest.
All comments are welcome.
Maria
I would bet the flop. If your opponent checkraises with a wide variety of hands, you might need to consider reraising in response. You don't know if you're ahead or behind with that pocket underpair yet, so I'd try to get some more information before the big bets. Against a predictable player who selectively checkraises, you may be able to laydown. When I have a hand (heads-up on the flop) that doesn't have enough outs for pot odds available and which could already be second best, betting out from either position is the right play. Don't fear the ace, just ask your opponent if you're up against a hand that beats pocket nines by making that bet on the flop. Remember that you made it three bets to isolate, and by representing ace with a good kicker there are many hands which you are a serious underdog to that will fold here.
Since you didn't pick up any information on the flop, it took five bets to convince you that you might be drawing going into the river. If I took a free turn card and caught my set, I'd have put in just as many bets as you did. Your opponent however, saw you three-bet before the flop, and play *stop and go* afterwards. What do you think he thinks you have? I'd say set. Now he bets the river into what he's reading for a set, meaning you should be able to release the hand against all but the bluffing stations.
The player you call "solid" opened with a raise in fourth position while holding Jh 10h. Doesn't sound "solid" to me. His hand mandates a call, at best. Were I you, I would have bet the flop. He then should have folded because the pot is not giving him the right price to draw to an inside straight--especially with the overcard out there. When he check-raised you on the turn, I would not have re-raised him. Depending on how you read him, I would have just called(most likely) or folded. I agree with your call on the River. Black Jack
Not to nit pick, but in this situation, he was probably getting correct pot odds to call with JT (unless he knew you had nines). He's getting 7-1 now (more with the SB and any "dead" money from before the flop), and can probably expect more if it hits on the turn. So I don't think betting the nines on the flop would have saved the pot. Not betting them is probably bad, because you could get pairs T, J , Q to fold (maybe) and/or get KQs, QJs out of the pot. But I doubt it would save the pot.
The bet on the flop also gets AX to back off or possibly fold, particularly after Maria three-bet to isolate.
Maria,
When you 3-bet pre-flop you have to put yourself "inside your opponents head" and think about what they think you have. You have to at least entertain the possibility that one of the hands your opponent put you on was AA pre-flop. You now get a lot of action on the turn meaning that there is very good possibility that your opponent is playing fast because they think they are a significant favorite against a set at this point. The other thing to consider here from your opponents perspective is would you check a set or A,good kicker on the turn with 2 flush cards on the turn even in a heads up situation? The simple (maybe not so simple ) technique of thinking about what your opponent thinks you have will help you a great deal in reading hands. Also practice this when you are not involved in a hand. I would practice this as part of your normal exercise of reading other players hands when you are not involved in a pot and focusing on the game to learn as much as you can about the other players. Take it to the bank.
Tom Haley
I agree with everything you've posted. One thing that level three thinking helps alot with is good laydowns. There are few situations where I would let go of a set, but Maria has provided a nice example of when it could be done. I found it easier to go from level two (putting opponents on hands) to level three thinking (putting opponents on reads), than from level one (reading the board with respect to one's hand) to level two. Even if someone is not yet proficient at card reading, it's sound advice to practice asking internally: What does that player think I have?
Maria, here are my thoughts --
preflop: If you think your opponent is a strong player, you should fold 99 for his raise about 60% of the time. If you do this, reraising the other 40% is fine.
flop: Against most opponents, I would have bet. But you said your opponent likes to checkraise, so I agree with your check.
Turn: Again, the key factor is that you said your opponent checkraises the turn a lot. This means that when he checkraises, he is unlikely to have a straight. Therefore, I like your reraise. One reason it is especially good is that if you are ahead (i.e, he has two pair, or AK, or a straight draw), he is either drawing dead or drawing slim, while if he is ahead with a straight, you have ten outs. Hence your reraise is either slightly wrong (if he has the straight) or very good (in the more likely case that he does not.)
Incidentally, I would not be too concerned about AA. He didn't four-bet it preflop.
River: Of course you call. I wouldn't dream of folding here. If you fold hands of this strength with any sort of frequency at all, you will become an easy mark for people who read your play and increase their bluffing frequency accordingly, which will cost you big money.
William
TWIMC,
The problem I have is air conditioning and noise level. My hands are so cold, that I have to be rubbing them constantly to stay barely comfortable. The noise level is much too loud, for the area that players are in. I play at Foxwoods Casino in Conn. My best day was when I brought cotton in for my ears and the AC was broken. The two aren't related I'm sure, but being happy and warm at the table is alot better than being cold and deaf.
Thank You Paul
It's worse on the night owls when there are fewer gamblers with warm bodies to offset the ac. I would not keep the temperature as low as they do in the middle of the night if I ran the joint. I do understand they're just trying to keep the gamblers awake a little longer when they crank up the air. It's a problem I think because they can't control the temperature in the poker section by itself without affecting their pit business, so I guess we'll just have to wear a sweater or light jacket. My hands get clammy too, and I don't like opponents improperly thinking it's because I'm nervous (especially when I'm the big blind). The noise level doesn't bother me, I can still focus my attention on the game.
But seriously, it seems most casinos/cardrooms are too cold. Take as warm a jacket as necessary. I've seen players in down parkas. And the cotton sounds like a good idea if the noise level is that high. (But ear plugs might block out any verbal tells.)
John FEENEY
The reason some cardrooms are cold is because they abut rows of slot machines - which generate a fair amount of heat - and the casino has to keep the A/C at full blast to keep them cool. The coldest I ever experienced was at the Isle of Capri in Shreveport (room has since shut down).
The poker *room* at Foxwoods abuts the race book and casino table games. Management must believe that it is in their best financial interests to keep the air as cold as they do.
4-8 game with half kill. Kill is part of this hand.
I am in big blind with Ad8h.
Solid player two to my left throws out $10 to raise, not realizing it was a kill pot and has to call the $6 instead. Loose aggressive player on a rush calls behind him...timid button player calls...I call.
Flop comes AQ3 of hearts.
I check, solid player checks, agressive player bets, button folds, I raise, both players call.
Turn is 9s. I bet out and am called by both.
River is 4d. I bet out...solid player calls...aggressive player folds.
Solid player turns over AKo.
I was quite surprised...should I have been?
Does seem a little odd that "solid" didn't bet the flop. Also, I don't see how your bet on the river here makes any sense; "solid" wouldn't have cold-called your check- raise on the flop with KK, and if he did call it with a better ace, he won't lay it down here. He might have called with second pair or a good draw, but again, I don't think he'll call the river if he can't beat the ace.
Yes...I think it was VERY odd that he did not bet the flop and that was the part of the play that was so interesting to me. Knowing he had a strong hand pre-flop and did not bet his AK...I put him on KK (no heart). The other player I put on a big heart (K or J).
I felt the bet on the end would be called by KK.
Bottom line is that I was surprised that AKo never bet or raised and it induced me to overplay my hand.
How could he possibly be solid and have KK (no heart)? He cold called 2 bets on the flop after checking it, even risking a re-raise by the aggressive player when he called. He wouldn't go all the way to the river on KK without the K of hearts, especially after he was given an easy, face saving exit with the bet and checkraise behind him on the flop.
As someone else pointed out, it was the checkraise that confused the situation. He certainly was planning a checkraise and when you did it first, it stopped him dead in his tracks (probably because of the flush potential on the board), which then caused you to misinterpret his hand.
For what it's worth, I don't think a check-raise was the best choice there. Were you trying to build a pot, or narrow the field with that checkraise? You certainly don't have a strong enough hand to try an build a pot (weak kicker, weak heart flush if another heart came in). The mostly likely bettor was the solid guy to your left (who indicated a strong hand during his misplay preflop). That being the case, you were unlikely to narrow the field with a checkraise.
A Poker Guy!
not at all. what hand that beats him does he get to fold by betting . who is going to call w/ under pairs here.. he could be looking at sets or made flushes. and he probably has no respect for the weak player. and he has position on you. and why are you raisnig w .a weak ace. that also seems to me a mistake in a low limit game.
I might repop in the BB with something as weak as Q8 if I thought that two checks would induce a weak aggressive player to bet with anything, provided he's not a complete calling station. Some of these guys have about as much self-control as Pavlov's dog.
Sounds like a weird hand created by a dumb string bet rule. (If he needs 12 to raise, why shouldn't he be allowed to complete when he throws in $10? In most places subsequent action would force him to complete).
Anyway, when the AK realized he couldn't raise, he's irked because he's announced a strong, early-position hand but has to let everyone see the flop cheaply. So he decides to compensate by going for deception, perhaps intending to check-raise the maniac. You then stole his thunder and confused him, so he's thinking: "Great. Because I couldn't raise, the big blind probably flopped queens and threes. On the other hand the blind might just be trying to isolate the maniac and bet my hand for me. I'll just call." Not very logical, but he might have been rattled.
Is there any possibility that he could have completed the raise but chose not to, and that this guy is more weak-tight than solid? The hand makes more sense this way.
Take heart, he saved you bets. (BTW, but does it sometimes bother you more to be surprised when you "lose" a little to an bad passive player who grossly underplayed his hand than to lose a lot to a bad aggressive who overplayed his hand but sucked out, even though in the former case you physically have more chips in front of you because of someone's bad play, and, in other words, realize one of your primary goals? It bothers me sometimes.)
Nothing should surprise you at a poker table! ;-)
I don't think that he played his hand that poorly. He has flopped top pair, top kicker. This is normally a good hand. However, here the board has made his hand suspect.
The aggressive player (AP) doesn't have to have AK beat to bet. In fact, AK may be a favorite over a significant portion of the hands AP would bet here. You also don't necessarily have a big hand. If you had flopped the flush, would you check-raise and risk shutting out half the opponents, and slowing down the AP? If he thinks you would only call with a made flush, then he shouldn't fold. He should be more afraid of AQ or A3 than anything else. But, maybe you do have the flush. So, he decides to just call you down, thereby maintaining his chance of winning, while investing as little as possible. Not necessarily a bad play. How bad (or good) it is depends upon you and AP, and how well he knows you both.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Trapping is done when the money is deep, relative to the blinds, which definitely includes the WSOP. If the average stack is only 2-5 times the big blind, then you can't trap, because what you win isn't a lot more than what you'd win by just raising first in and stealing the blinds.
Basically, unless I'm last to act, I am almost always going to check the flop. If I've got nothing, a bet is only good as a steal. If I've got a medium hand, a bet will still only win when it's not called (it takes a much stronger to hand to call than it does to bet, generally). If I've got a strong hand, then I want to win more than what's in the pot now, so I'll check and take the risk of a free card giving someone a better hand, in order to get them to put up more money than they would if I bet out.
It takes a very good hand to trap. Holding AsKd to a flop of AdTd4h is not a good trapping hand. Even if you're sure you have the best hand, almost every card in the deck might change that on the turn. Preferably, you trap with hands that are not afraid of the turn card. A made flush, a set, a straight, and top two pair are better hands, because you have little fear of the turn card making someone else a better hand (with many exceptions for coordinated boards, as in the above example).
However, it takes much less of a hand if you've seen the flop heads-up or against only 2 opponents. You need almost the nuts to trap against a slew of opponents, but top pair, top kicker can be enough against just one. You need to weigh the chances of them catching up if behind against the chances of them putting too much money in the pot later if you feign weakness now. In the above example, some people would not stand much action holding AQ on a flop of AT4. However, if you check the flop, they'll put all or a lot of money in. In that case, you can even slowplay AK, and certainly should slowplay two-pair or better.
There is another reason to NOT slowplay. Some opponents are afraid of it, and you will actually get more action from them by betting out or raising the flop then by checking the flop and betting/raising the turn. As soon as they see you speed up, they fear the slowplay, or that the turn card helped you a lot. Know your opponents (if you can, some are very hard to read).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Ciaffone recommends almost always leading out with a set in NL and PL when the money is deep. Since you want to steal a lot of pots, your opponents can't tell if you have (1) a bluff, (2) a vulnerable made hand, or (3) a monster. He also says that the later cards will tend to kill action that you could have had on the flop. Should I be checking most of the time?
The best play varies greatly depending upon how deep the money is. If the pot is 100 on the flop, and everyone has 3,000-10,000 in their stack, you need to bet or raise the flop to build up the pot. If you check it until the river, and then bet any meaningful amount, you can only be called by the nuts.
However, if you and your opponents each have 200-500 in your stack, now you can trap them for ALL their chips, as you are only 1 or 2 bets/raises away from all-in. Again, in the earlier hypo, where you all have many thou, you are instead 3-6 bets/raises away from all-in, and need to do some of that betting on the flop to reach the all-in state.
I have never played in a game where I had thousands in my stack, so I have not had to learn that adjustment yet.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
One thing I don't quite understand Greg, would you check the flop with the example you stated, As Kd with a flop Ad Td 4h, let's say in first position against 3 opponents ? What do you plan to do on the turn if all check ? What do you plan to do if a later opponent bets the flop ?
Thanks,
Andy.
As I stated, AK with a flop of AT4 with a possible flush draw out there is NOT a good time to trap. Reason is because if they do all check, then no matter what the turn card is, even if it's a K, you can't be too sure it didn't make someone a better hand. Therefore, I would most often bet out the size of the pot and figure on winning immediately. If called or raised, everything depends upon my knowledge and read of that player. There is no set play for these situations in NL, because so much depends upon whom you're against.
If I did check this flop against 3 opponents, it would probably be because I saw that someone else intended to bet, yet I was confident that they would fold when I came over the top with a check-raise. This would be pretty rare.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
No limit hold'em with $2/$5 blinds. I have about $500 and call on the button after two early position limpers are in for the nickel. I have 9d7d. SB folds abd big blind checks for afour-handed flop.
Flop is AJ3, all diamonds.
BB checks, first early position player (inexperienced at no-limit) bets $20 and solid-aggressive player behind her raises to $60. They both have more chips than me. I cold call and the BB folds.
Turn is the King of diamonds.
Both players check to me.
I check.
River is the six of Diamonds.
Checked again to me. I think I might need to bet to win, but instead turn over my nine-high flush.
First player mucks and the other guy turns over his Td8d. The surprised look on his face as he drags the pot tells me that I missed a chance to steal on the turn or the river.
He later told me that my cold call on the flop "terrified" him.
I guess he gave me too much respect.
I thought that the fact that the diamond on the turn was a King ruined any chances of my getting him to lay down a better hand. If it had been a small diamond, I might have been able to represent AxKd with a bet on the river.
If the turn had been a blank, I might have lost my stack, since I put HIM on AxKd or AxQd.
you need to make people pay at least half their stack to stay with you.
M7,
i might have bet about 100 on 4th street as only the q or t can beat you and its not likely you will get raised out on a bluff. most of the time you will find you have the best hand here. i would then check on the river if called by the good player and maybe make a small bet if left with the bad player. the first players bet means almost nothing and the 2nd players raise doesnt look like a q would be in his hand unless its an accident. i dont think a steal would work in this pot and there is no indication that you are beat. why turn over your hand before its your turn and show how you play. if you waited you would have seen the first players hand and then the flush and you could have mucked. now they all know you will not bet in this spot and you dont know what the first player had and cant use that for the future.
"Stealing with a Made Hand?"...
You're decision here has nothing to do with the absolute value of your hand; the fact that it is a "flush" is irrelevant. A few months ago Mr. Sklanski gave a problem, the solution was to BLUFF with deuces-full in draw poker.
You have the 3rd nuts and are contemplating representing the nuts to make a possible 2nd nuts fold. Looked at it that way, you probably had no chance at all; especially since there are very few hands you could have that feature the Qd (would you call a big bet with the 2nd nut draw?).
- Louie
PS. You must be aware that others WILL consider the absolute value of their hand; rather than just the relative value.
Another reason you can't bet on the end is that by not betting on the turn, your opponents knew you didn't have the nut flush. Why would the nut flush check the turn in last position and give a hand like two pair a chance to fill up. And the first player may very well have had two-pair.
Also consider that the second player will only call your bet on the end with the second-nuts. If he had less than that, he would fold, because it's possible you had Td9d. And if he had the Td (which he did) he would probably call you, knowing it was unlikely you held the Qd. So you would be betting with a hand that will only be called if beaten. You win aginst a weaker hand anyway in a show-down. So what's the point of betting?
Your only chance was to check it and hope your flush held up.
If the opponent will only call with the 2nd nut 1-card flush after you CHECK the turn, the opponent is folding FAR TOO OFTEN. This is especially true for betters who won't bet worse than the 3rd nuts; since the number of bluffs will be high.
Bluff this player often but not obviously so.
- Louie
What an emotional subject. I quit chopping the blinds as a result of an intense cold card streak. There is an axiom of evolution: change occurs through crisis. I had a crisis, I changed. As a result, I have come to see the blinds as far more interesting.
On one side of the big blind, a raise will often result in a protest, "What are you doing raising my big blind?". The big blind wanted to play. But let it fold around to the small blind, who decides not to chop but to call or, god forbid, raise; again, the big blind becomes upset. On one side the big blind wants to play and on the other, chop.
Since I quit chopping the blinds, the whole game has become more interesting. The subject came up recently and a player said to me; "If they don't chop, I raise!". I hope to spend the rest of my life sitting on the right side of that player.
It is just heads up. Some of the fastest and most interesting fights I've had came after I quit chopping the blinds.
Chopping the blinds is the worst thing to ever happen to the game of hold-em. They even chop in 30-60 time games at the Bellagio. The whole point of chopping (I thought) was to keep from giving up the rake. But when you are paying time this point is moot. I'm sorry it ever got started in the first place.
I rarely chop, only when I'm encouraging a buddy-buddy mood at the table- and I'll usually try to do that by just calling the BB and not saying anything.
If they bring it up, I say my hand is too good to fold... usually don't experience backlash...
But mostly I attack- Give me that money with your (probably) crummy hand!
TWIMC,
Please help me with remembering the players who fold their cards on third street. Anyone who has any tricks or system that works for them I would appreciate it if you shared it with me, because it's bothering my play, on later streets.
Thank You
Paul
Paul,
I assume in your question you mean remembering what cards are folded on third street as opposed to who folded which should be obvious. This is very important since stud is a tiring game compared to holdem because of the need to keep track of discards. It is best to develop a system that allows you to prioritize based on what is most important.
I'll throw in a few tricks I use in order to save energy and at the same time track what is essential. I would like to see how they compare to what the experts do.
First, it is always important to track your cards to see if they are live but that goes almost without saying. Next, when the cards are dealt on third street make a quick assesment of the suits. For example, four clubs, only one spade, two diamonds and one heart. Then make sure you track all big cards and cards relavent to hands already in play (e.g. if a ten calls look for tens in other hands).
Let's say you raise with an open king of diamonds with the suits listed above and get called by a decent player with a ten of clubs who had already limped. By fifth street the player now has three clubs showing and raises or bets representing a flush. It would be unlikely he has a flush because few good players would play a three flush with three missing clubs on third street. So here I may call the guy down unless his board got even more scary and I didn't improve.
Other's may have some better ideas but those may help.
Regards,
Rick
I try to remember them long enough only to see how they affect my hand, and then how they affect the players that are in. If I raise with Jacks and a Kh and a 7s calls, I am likely to remember that the Ks was folded but unlikely to remember the Tc. This is NOT a disaster since it will rarely matter and when it does matter, it will rarely matter much.
My short term memory is like a siv, so I usually play, ... err ... what's the name of that other game?
- Louie
This may be rudimentary but I notice that most players don't look at their down cards until third street is dealt. I use this precious time to look at and memorize my two cards as they are dealt so that as third street is making it's way around the table, I am keeping a running count of suits I am holding as well as any rank that helps me. While the other players are just checking out their cards, I am scanning their door cards and making decisions.
Hope this helps, Keith
I have Kh9h in late position and limp in after 5 others have limped in. Button calls, small blind calls. Big blind raises and everyone calls. We take the flop 9 handed.
Flop: Ks7h8d
Big Blind checks. UTG bets. 3 players call before me. I call. Button calls and both blinds call. We take the turn 8 handed.
Turn: 6h
UTG bets. 2 players fold and the man to my right raises.
What is my best play and why?
BTW, feel free to comment on my play pre-flop and flop as well.
Just call.
You have correct pot odds to call and there is a small chance that you are drawind dead. Your outs probably are: a non-pairing heart and a ten (you may have to split) and maybe a five.
When you called on the flop instead of raising so that you can take the free card on the turn I think that you erred but not much. Incidentally, by raising on the flop you may end up surrendering your hand if UTG makes it three bets to protect his say KQ or such.
Maria
you have got a mountain of outs but since you are probably up against a made straight already I would probably just call.
You can't fold on the turn but I don't like raising here. The likelihood that the raiser has nothing is slim, and if he's got anything its probably better than your king and he'll call you down with this big pot. My guess is that you need a heart on the river to win, and UTG might drop if you raise. So I'd call. If I missed on the river, I'd call one bet if I thought my hand could hold up more than 5% of the time.
What is: "hand holds up."
I should have said "win" instead of "hold up."
skp,
Pre flop I can't see any other play but calling both times. On the flop with that many players I would take one off but what I am really looking for is the draw rather than to pair my nine or king with so many opponents.
On the turn you have the draw but are now facing two bets and a probable made hand. I am almost sure you need a flush to win and making your straight will probably only get you half the pot. If the straight is not already there maybe there is some value to reraising on the turn to drive out other hands with a nine in it (except of course the T9 which is the nuts).
That is the action play and I'm not sure I would make it in the heat of battle. On the other hand, it may get capped anyway and you might want to narrow the field yourself to make your straight more likely to be good if it comes.
There is one more case to be make for reraising. If you are now only against two pair or pair kicker then if you can eliminate players you might gain the additional outs of hitting your nine on the river and having it hold up.
I don't have time for any fancy math and I got to go. Comments are of course welcome.
Regards,
Rick
I think this pretty well covers it. By reraising, your basically hoping to get rid of a better K (very likely) AND hoping that the raiser on the turn is semi-bluffing. Somehow I doubt that both of these things could happen, so your best bet is probably to call, hoping that you either pick up the straight or flush or that a scare card hits that'll slow things down.
Rick, good analysis as usual.
Routinely Call. 3-Bet it if the raiser is very aggressive, as you may have him beat and will get UTG to lay down the better king. You may also protect the straight or 2-pair you may make. That doesn't have to happen often for it to be the right play.
If you ever go out on a limb, Pairs+draws are the hands you want and big pots are the ones you want to do it in.
- Louie
The call on the flop is marginal at best even with a fairly loose field. The best play on the turn is to three-bet with the hopes of moving the lead bettor and improving your outs, if:
1. The raiser on the turn is capable of raising with less than the nut straight2. The lead bettor is capable of laying down his hand (that is, he isn't necessarily betting a set or better and he will lay down a solo king or two-pair)
I believe a raise on the Flop would be optimal, with the intention of shutting out the player(s) to your left and gathering information on the other players' hands.
A reraise from the UTG player on the Flop may eliminate the players between and increase the probability of you winning the pot. With the potential for a backdoor flush or top two pair, I believe a call of such a reraise would be appropriate, as long as the reraise was from the UTG player.
Without the information gathered from a raise on the Flop, I would be hesitant to put either the raiser on your right or the button on a hand. A straight, two pair, and a set are all likely candidates from the raiser. Either way, with a draw to the second-nut flush and with such a large pot a call is most certainly in order on the Turn. Your immediate pot odds are 16:1 (18 small bets before the Flop, 8 on the Flop, plus the large bet and raise on the Turn), compared to your odds of making the flush (37:9 against). Notice also that a raise on the Flop would have provided greater incentive for the Ace-high backdoor flush to fold on the Flop, thus increasing your probability of winning the pot if your flush hits.
Finally, if your flush hits with the board pairing, I believe a call would still be appropriate.
Q
"A reraise from the UTG player on the Flop may eliminate the players between and increase the probability of you winning the pot."
I don't necessarily agree with this statement. A lot depends on what you put the UTG on. If he is betting a better King, this statement is inapplicable. Further, if I raise and he reraises, I may get tied on to the pot and find it hard to release my hand. Notice that my call on the flop is based on the strength of my backdoor draws rather than on the strength of the K,9. In that instance, a raise on the flop might weel be counterproductive unless I was up against a passive field that might just call my raise and check to me on the turn.
"A lot depends on what you put the UTG on."
I wouldn't put UTG on ANYTHING until I had raised.
Obviously, there is no substitute for knowledge of your opponents, and I have never played with this player (or likely any of the other players at that table). So what counts more than anything is your specific analysis of that player's strategy.
If UTG re-raises, it is likely that you are beaten by his hand (a better King, two pair, or a set). However, your backdoor draws still make it worthwhile to call the re-raise and see the Turn. BTW, anytime a player drops, it increases your probability of winning the pot. That does not, however, mean that it is correct to call to the River.
If no-one re-raises you, you are more likely to have the best hand.
However, without raising the Flop you won't know; other players are betting your hand for you, and you're just calling and hoping for the best.
Q
The preflop call is ok with this many opponents. I am not a big fan of Kxs in wild low limit games, but K9s is certainly playable, if you are careful after the flop. The call on the flop seems ok too, given the extra outs that you have.
On the turn, what you do depends on what you think of the UTG player and the raiser. The UTG player limped preflop and bet out the flop and turn. If this guy is a tight player, I would figure he has me beat right now or is on a good draw. The raiser is acting like the 6h made his hand or gave him a good draw. I would put him on a made straight, although a flush draw is certainly possible. In the games I play in guys will also do this with two pair (K6, 86, 76) and if he wouldn’t have raised preflop with it, 66 is a possiblity too. I see lots of guys bluff at the pot when a 3 card straight or flush falls, so is this guy a bluffer?
I would expect you are beat right now, probably by both UTG and the raiser. This may be giving these players too much credit, but lacking any other information, that is what I would have to assume. You still have a flush draw, which should be good unless the raiser has AXh. Given the outs you have, a fold is out of the question. A call looks reasonable. A raise here would only be good, if the raiser is a bluffer or very lose player and UTG will laydown a better hand than yours to two raises. In the games I play in, no one who leads out on the turn is going to fold like this, so I would just call.
I'd have to find a reason not to raise on the flop. If I did, it would probably be that I didn't think I could knock anyone out of this big, multiway pot. So I'd be calling with a reasonable likelyhood of raising on the turn to knock people out (so that my secondary outs might be good) barring unforseen circumstances. You got unforseen circumstances -- two bets to you. Still, I'd seriously consider a reraise for the reasons mentioned by some other posters (e.g., Rick N. mentioned the same reasons I'd give). I'd lean toward it more strongly if I felt the raiser could be betting something other than the nuts, so that he'd just call and check on the river. Then I could just check along if I missed and hope for the best.
John Feeney
"I'd have to find a reason not to raise on the flop"
John, maybe I have got this all wrong, but I would think that in this instance where I am likely to win only if I make a backdoor draw, I ought to see the turn as cheaply as possible and with as many opponents as possible.
When I called the flop, I was intending on folding on the turn unless I hit a 6,9,10 or a Heart. I would have played on had I hit a King but I wouldn't have liked it.
One advantage of raising on the flop and being reraised is that you may get a hand like J,10 to drop out but even that is unlikely with raises on the flop in loose games where the pots get big early. In these loose games, flop raises very rarely have the intended effect of limiting the field and increasing the probability of your hand holding up. Only raises on the turn have a chance of doing this.
skp -- Well, I guess it may depend on how likely you think it is that you're beat already. My thought was that if you feel the bettor is reasonably capable of betting a draw or something like As8s, and the callers ahead of you would usually raise with any hand that currently beats yours, then (since they didn't raise) you do have a decent chance of being best at that point. So, with all those players in there I'd be thinking about how to thin the field. But like you, I would think that a raise on the flop would be very unlikely to knock out anyone with any hope of a hand. That's why I'd think about calling with the (tentative) intention of raising on the turn when the bigger bet could actually get out people behind me.
This plan could easily change though depending on action behind me on the flop and action ahead of me on the turn. Also, whether or not I improved on the turn would be important, as it was for you. If I didn't improve I'd certainly have to fold on the turn if I faced a raise as you did. But if I faced only one bet, then even without improvement I think a raise could be considered. I wouldn't like the situation, mind you, as that one pair would be a very fragile holding with several players still in there. But if the turn were something like a 3c, I would still think that the chance I had the best hand was enough, given the size of the pot, to make it worth going for whatever chance I had to win that pot.
But the decisions feel sort of borderline. I definitely don't feel super-strongly about it. I'd be interested in your further thoughts as I could be missing something.
John Feeney
Yes, I think that about sums it up. The reason why you may want to raise it on the turn even if a blank hits is that the initial bettor would be hard-presed to make it 3 bets even if he had a better King because he may well think that the blank hit your hand AND you have the added benefit of knocking out hands behind you. Of course, if he calls, you would just check down on the River if another blank hit.
Your observation about only a raise on the turn being able to limit the field in loose games rings true. However, if the player UTG is agressive and does have AK you should be able to count on a flop reraise. Decline to raise on the flop for all of the other reasons posted, and because you would risk making the pot large enough for anyone who catches a lesser straight (one that you may end up splitting the pot with) to call raises cold.
skp - You didn't mention any information about your opponents. The action sounds like it came from my no-fold'em game!
If the players are loose, I would go for the call. In my game, a King better than K9 is not going to fold here. I tend to agree with a previous poster that you very possibly need the flush to win this pot. The pot odds are better than adequate, and I would treat this one as a drawing hand.
Dick
I made it 3 bets on the turn. Several of you touched upon the reasons for doing so.
A fold is definitely out of the question. Thus, I am going to put in $40 no matter what. If I reraise, the worst that can happen is that the man to the right makes it 4 bets which would mean that my error in reraising costs me an extra 40.
I believe that the advantages I MIGHT gain with the extra $40 makes it a worth-while investment. I know that UTG and the raiser likely have me beat but if I can get UTG to lay down a better King, I can increase by outs by an extra 4 cards if the raiser has just 2 pair. What's more, the indications are that the raiser does have only 2 pair. If he had 10,9 he likely would have raised on the flop given that there were already a couple of callers ahead of him. He would do this to either build the pot should he go on to hit or take the free card if he misses. In a loose game (which this was), he could have 5,4 but it is unlikely. As well, with 5,4, he probably would just call my reraise fearing that I have 10,9. As John Feeney points out, I would just check down on the River if a blank hit. Similarly, if he had a set, he likely would have raised on the flop. In most instances, the man to my right will have raised with 2 pair.
skp write:
>>I believe that the advantages I MIGHT gain with the extra $40 makes it a worth-while investment. I know that UTG and the raiser likely have me beat but if I can get UTG to lay down a better King, I can increase by outs by an extra 4 cards if the raiser has just 2 pair. <<
Don't agree skp if UTG have AK, KQ, KJ you don't increase outs by 4 only 1 case K. If you spike 9 you got better hand but 4 straight on board make it tought to win extra cash. Only when he got KT and he lay it down your extra outs MIGHT be 4 extra. If raiser have real good hand like set or straight a 9 or K won't do you bit of good. Also UTG could have real good hand like straigh, 2 pair or set. If turn raiser got 2 pair and UTG have KT when action get back to KT after you reraise, pot odds 38-4 to hit a card and if turn raiser got only 2 pair he got some outs. If you hit your kicker he like it and if he hit his kicker you like it. If UTG has set he got at least an easy call and if he got straight it cost you a lot. All in all I think you should call on turn and see what the action brings on river.
>>What's more, the indications are that the raiser does have only 2 pair. If he had 10,9 he likely would have raised on the flop given that there were already a couple of callers ahead of him. He would do this to either build the pot should he go on to hit or take the free card if he misses.<<
Not sure I agree with this. Many players would call while drawing for straight. You know player better. Pot is already big so raiser could have a lot more hands than 2 pair.
>> In a loose game (which this was), he could have 5,4 but it is unlikely. As well, with 5,4, he probably would just call my reraise fearing that I have 10,9. As John Feeney points out, I would just check down on the River if a blank hit. Similarly, if he had a set, he likely would have raised on the flop. In most instances, the man to my right will have raised with 2 pair.<<
My opinion be that re-raise on turn only increase chance of winning pot significantly if UTG has best hand at this point, you in second, and re-raise cause him to fold.
Re: do I increase my outs by 4 cards by reraising?
If say the raiser had made a two pair hand like 7,6, then if my reraise knocks out UTG's better King, then I have 4 extra outs to beat the raiser that I otherwise would not have i.e. three 8's and a King.
In the above example, I would only garner 3 extra outs...I double counted the 8 of Hearts. On the other hand, if the raiser had 86 as his two pair hand, I would garner 4 extra outs (i.e., 1 King and three Sevens)
My opinion: Stop!
Stop playing low limit holdem and you won't have to make these type of decisions!
Vince.
This was 10-20. And by all accounts that I have heard many of these types of decisions routinely come up in some of the looser 15-30 games in L.A.
Of course you know that X,Yo is considered a Monster! In L.A. (Cap(acihino) Land)
Vince.
Right Vince. This sort of thing would never happen in 15-30 or 30-60 at Bellagio.
Like hell it wouldn't.
Hey 3 Bet! Did I say Low Limit! I meant low limit and any LIMIT game that you play in! (Just half kidding!)
Thanks for reminding me of some of the Bellagio games that we play in! BTW - I didn't realize that they played L.A. poker in Colorado!
Vince.
skp: I think you should definitely reraise on the turn. The reason is simple. The pot is huge, and there is a good chance that someone has a king with a better kicker. There is also a good chance that a reraise will get rid of them. Furthermore, with your draws, you don't mind putting in those extra bets even if you are currently beat. Yeah, you could be drawing almost dead to the nut flush draw and T9 . . . but this is unlikely . . . if it is the case, then c'est la vie.
There are also plenty of other hands that will fold for your reraise that you are delighted to get rid of, such as A9, Q9, J9, and JT. Someone might even throw away two little pair.
I would not consider any other play.
William
William,
This debate is starting to get interesting. With one card to come and 3 players in the pot, estimating EV shouldn't be too difficult. Let's agree on a few things to simplify the analysis a little:
I count 32 small bets in the flop after the player to skp's right raises. Pre-flop 18 small bets. On the flop 8 small bets were added. Thus far on the turn 6 small bets were added on the turn to this point. Let's assume the UTG has KQ and the player to skp's right has 76. Therefore if skp re-raises and knocks out the UTG player he will have the following outs:
9 - hearts.
3 - Tens (1 ten is a heart).
3 - Nines.
2 - Eights (1 eight is a heart).
3 - Fives ( 1 five is a heart).
1 - King .
If skp calls he will not have the 2-Eights as outs or the K as outs. Therefore is skp raises he will have 21 outs and if he calls he will have 18 outs. There are 6 known cards in the players hands and 4 on the board. Therefore there are 42 unknown cards. If skp raises his EV is:
(21/42 * 36) - (21/42 * 4) = 16
If skp calls only his EV is
(18/42 * 36) - ( 18/42 * 2) = 14.57. Please check my analysis for errors. So indeed if skp only needs to beat 2 pair, re-raising is better. Now the question becomes how often will skp need the flush to win so maybe dispensing with the EV calculation when he needs the flush to win isn't such a great idea. Taking into consideration a re-raise by one of skp's opponents on the turn is also necessary which skp does.
Tom Haley
Hey TH I suprised you make mistake like this. EV for raise
(21/42 * 36) - (21/42 * 6) = 15
and EV for call
(18/42 * 36) - (18/42 * 4) = 13.71. Still think I'm right about play since UTG and turn raiser could have lots of different hands.
I don't think you can calculate this one out. You can assume one set of circumstances and calculate what to do there, but there are too many different possibilities. I work by intuition here. Skp has a hand which could be anything from a monster to a mediocre hand, with many possibilities in between. With one card to come, he could end up with one pair, two pair, trips, flush, or straight. I believe this is exactly the sort of hand you want to push the action with.
Also note that it is very likely that reducing the number of opponents will greatly increase skp's chances of winning. Here are some of the hands he would love to get rid of:
King, better kicker any 9 any ten any two pair
And all of these hands have a chance of beating him, or making him split a pot he would otherwise win alone. And all of them might fold rather than calling 3 bets cold.
Lastly, note that his reraise could well get action from a smaller four flush, which is drawing dead.
William
Here's a thought . . . what if the bettor has 89, the raiser has JdTd, these players both stay in, and a player behind has AK, and folds for the reraise? Now what is the EV on the action?
William
I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS BOARD FOR A FEW WEEKS AND REALIZE THAT MOST (ALL) OF YOU HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE THAN I. I HOPE THE FOLLOWING QUESTON IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS BOARD (I'M SURE I'LL HERE IT IF NOT).
I HAVE BEEN PLAYING 2-10 7C STUD FOR A WHILE, BUT HAVE NEVER PLAYED IN A TOURNAMENT. NEXT WEEK IS MY FIRST. ARE THERE ANY BOOKS OR ACTICLES ON TOURNAMENTS STATEGY & BASICS. ALSO, I WOULD APPRECIATE AND WELCOME ANY ADVICE YOU ALL MAY HAVE. THANKS
One suggestion: try small letters.... lowercase is a wonderful, eye-saving invention.
There are a number of books out there. 2+2 has one, Conjelco (see Favorite Links) has others.
Jack,
If time is short go to local cardroom and pick up back isues of Card Player Mag. Thier are always articles on tournament play. Good luck, Bill L
In the early going, when everyone has plenty of chips, just play your normal ring game. That is, just try to win chips, don't worry about the fact that it's a tournament.
In the later stages, keep in mind how many bets you and all of your opponents have in their stack, and use this info to adjust your play. Simple things, like don't try to bully out someone when the pot is big and they have few chips left, as they'll likely call for the size of the pot if they think they have ANY hope of winning. Don't play drawing hands on third street when you only have a few bets left yourself. Most of the time you'll bust out by 4th or 5th, and you may have sunk a big chunk of your stack by that time. Finally, if someone is almost all-in, and you have plenty of chips, be sure to put them all-in, even if your hand isn't that great. Every time you bust someone out, you're one step closer to the money.
There's a ton more, of course, but just do your best and have fun.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
OK here we go ...me and a friend had a little discussion regarding a nl holdem hand in a tourney yesterday..
OK let me put you in the picture ...there were 7 players left i had about 8000 in chips...chip leader had 25000 in chis..i was in early middle postition and was dealt 99 and the blinds were 300-600 all fold to me and I rasie 600 and a player raise me another 500 his stack is about 4000 i call veryone else fold the flop is Q23 and he checks..I bet about 2500 all of his remaining chips... he thinks for awhile and the calls...he shows A7 s an iv`ve got the two red 9 :s ....what about all of this my friend thinks i shoulda raised motre before the flop or only called or raised a greater amount...what do you thinks?
Stealing the blinds is almost always worthwhile at the final stages of a tournament. By just stealing the blinds here, you increase your stack by over 10%.
A standard raise in NL or PL poker is about 3x the big blind. You only doubled the big blind, a limit sized raise. Basically, you are asking the big blind to play with you, as he is getting at least 3.5:1 on his call. Now, what do you do if the big blind calls your small raise, and then bets the flop of Q23?
Whatever size of raise you pick, I recommend keeping with that same raise all the time. That way, the amount you bet isn't a clue as to the strength of your hand. Some players have a bad habit of betting more with a strong hand, and less with a medium hand. Many players have the opposite habit (because they want you to call their strong hands, and want you to fold when they're not strong). If you have either habit, a good opponent will pick up on it.
As to how you played after the flop, that all depends upon what you think your opponent has, and what you think he'll do if you bet big, bet small, or check. In any event, you don't want to give him a free card here, as potentially every card higher than T might hit him and beat you.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
It is very dangerous to let someone see the flop when you are holding 99. If an overcard comes, and they bet, you are in a bad position. You underbet preflop. There was 900 in the pot when it came to you and the bet was 600. I would go for a potsize bet here and make it 2100 to go. You really don't want any callers, but can still get away from the hand if you need to.
Interesting note: This was the situation that Phil Helmuth won the WSOP with when he was heads up with Johnny Chan. There was 19000 in the pot, and the bet to Phil was 5000. Phil, on the button, opened for 35000 (a pot sized bet would have been 29000) with his 99. When Chan raised 130,000, Phil instantly moved all-in, forcing Chan (who has A7s) to make the tough decision without the benefit of seeing the flop. The details can be found at http://www.philhellmuth.com/ They were heads up, which is different than 7 handed, but thats how he played it.
A Poker Guy!
His raise over your preflop raise was insufficient. Given that, I'm not sure what else is correct in your post.
As to what is correct to do here, there is a lot of really important information missing. How has this player been playing? How has the rest of the table been playing? How has this player and the table in general been reacting to your plays? Without a lot more information about the situation, a correct course of action cannot be given.
There is a big difference in how you play no-limit hold'em when there are blinds only, and when there are antes and blinds. With antes it is a good idea to open with about a pot-sized raise if you are going to play. With blinds you have a more flexible situation. However, in the later stages of a tournament when the blinds constitute ten percent of your stack or more, limping is not recommended. How much should you raise when there are blinds? The most common mistake is to raise so much you get married to your hand. In the situation given, the blinds were 300-600 and the player had 8000. Here to open for 3000 or more I think would be a mistake. Is it also an error to open for only double the big blind? is that too little? Although I would prefer to have opened for a little more, such as 1500-1800, I do not regard opening for only 1200 as a bad play. This is not limit poker, and the big blind is no lock to call just because he is halfway in. Although I vary the size of my opening raise, coming in for triple the big blind would be a reasonable amount if one were afraid of varying.
OK Mason, was there anything you'll like to say about that hand? I'm still wondering why you posted it since it seemed pretty average.
I actually think that the meek play that Kc,Tc made on the Turn was more expert than it looked, especially if A,6 was an Aggressive player. Of course, if there was still a player to act behind KT, the correct play would be to Raise.
One last thing. Is A6's play of betting the Flop incorrect or just debatable? With 5 to 1 odds, I would guess that as long as A6's opponents all Folded around 10% of the time the play would be profitable. That's supposing that he shut down if called but didn't Improve on the Turn.
All comments welcome.
CV
I posted this hand because it contained several playing errors.
The KcTc should fold on the flop. Even though he has a three flush, which makes his hand a little better, there is not enough money in the pot, coupled with the fact that he might be drawing (close to) dead for his call to be correct.
When the 10 comes, the player with the A6 is suppose to bet again since he can't afford to give a free card if he still has the best hand. The player with the KT should now probably raise unless he thinks the bettor is very prone to bluff. By calling he is in a sense giving a free card.
On the river, the A6 should check. There is very little that he can be called with that he can beat given the way the hand has been played and the cards that have come. On the other hand, by checking, he will encourage his opponent to bluff two overcards. He has an ideal bluff catching hand, but a very poot value betting hand.
Is Kc, Tc wrong to call on the Flop?
First I'd like to say that with this low of a Flop I think that Kc, Tc can't be Drawing all that Dead because if a K or T comes on the Turn there is no more Straight opportunities since most straight draws are Gut Shots. Maybe this is where I get myself in trouble.
Given: 7 to 1 odds. Possible Raise behind from 2 players 10% Chance?
Pot is 5 Handed with a Board of: 6, 4, 2c
Kc, Tc doesn’t catch a thing on the Turn: 66%
Kc, Tc catches a Flush card on the Turn: 21%
If a Flush card on the Turn chances that:
Flush card on the River 4% B) K or T on the River 3%
C) A Blank Hits 14%
Kc, Tc catches a K or T on the Turn: 13%
Its Good 10% (guessing) Its Bad 3%
KT Misses: No Raise 64 x 1= -64
With Raise: 2 x 2= -4
KT Makes Flush: No Raise (Flop): 3.5 x 13 = +45.5
With Raise: .5 x 16 = +8
KT Hits Kor T on River: Its good: 2 x 11 = + 22
Its bad: 1 x 5 = - 5
KT Hits on Turn: Its Good: 10 x 11= +110
Its Bad: 3 x 6 = - 18
Blank Hits on End and the Flop was Raised: 14 x 4 = -56
I calculate that Kc, Tc makes +38.5 units per 100 Hands if he plays the Flop.
What am I doing wrong? Comments welcome. Thanks, Chris Villalobos
The KT is about a 24 to 1 dog to have the best hand by the River vs four opps with typical calling hands.
I'll remember that. Glad you could set me straight.
CV
What I ment about the "No more Straight opportunities" is that any gut shot will likely fold on the turn unless the hand has more value, like a Straight and Pair.
CV
Is it possible that the KT never has a Call no matter what the Pot size?
If the pot's bigger, wouldn't a Raise be much better?
Disagree with mason's view of that hand. It is not really a clear cut fold decision to fold on the flop.
Even though there are players behind the k10, the nature of the flop allows him too call without a huge fear of a raise.I believe there is enough money here too warrant the call. I wouldn't draw too anything lower than a King high flush, but come-on,even though its back door it can't be very wrong here too call.
I think this player should have raised pre flop.... the whole situation might have been different.
Two plays from last night's game: 1, capped pot, 9-way, 4-8 HE, I'm two off the button with A3c. Flop comes 2c,3c,Js. BB bet, two calls, I raise, five see the turn. Qs, BB checks, UTG bets, fold,fold, I call, BB calls. None of us three seeing the river were amoung the pre-flop raisers. 4s on river. BB bets, UTG raises, I fold. UTG is a very weak player who will call down the river with anything but will only raise when he thinks he's very strong. A pro I'm friendly with is sitting on my right. I showed him my hand before the flop. He said my laydown was weak. "The difference between a pro and an A player is the A player tries to maximise his earnings every session, a pro tries to maximise his earnings for the year". I said I was concerned that the BB would three bet and the showdown would cost me $32. He said, "If you lay down like a bitch every time someone raises the river the others are going to walk all over you." So you'd have called? "No, I probably would have raised."
2. A few hands later I'm in the small blind with 6,8 off, no raises, seven handed, I call. Flop is 4,7,10, one heart. Check around to the pro on the button, he bets, I call, four more callers. Turn is the 5h. I check, check around, pro bets, I raise, fold around, he calls. As on river, I bet, raise, re-raise, re-raise, re-raise, call, we split. Again he's on my case, "That was a terrible raise on the turn. You totally killed our action. You should have bet the turn and then when I raise everyone's trapped." My thinking; I don't know we're splitting and we're not partners. I want to get heads up with the pro, and drive out the 89's and 9 10's. If any one's slow playing two pair or a set I've trapped them too. I thought I played both hands correctly (my read on UTG in hand one was correct, he hit runner runner k-high spades) but the pro is a very good player and I don't think he's trying to steer me wrong. Opinions?
I'm not sure I follow the first hand, so I won't comment on that. As far as the second hand goes, I don't see why this 'pro' didn't three bet the turn, since if you're semi bluffing he won't get a bet out of you on the river (unless, of course, you continue the bluff). As a rule, however, I don't see where it pays to smooth call the turn with the nuts when someone check raises you (which he did), since in low limit games a player is rarely lying when he check raises in this situation. Hence, he'd do well to get his money from you now.
Clarification...typo, I had A5c in #1, not A3c. sorry.
Is there a typo in your first hand? Is one of those 3's suppose to be a 5? If you had a 5 high straight, then you should have at least called them down. There are hands can beat, like two pair or trips, that could cause this action. If all you had was a pair of 3's, fold.
On the second hand, you have the nut straight on the turn, but there are lots of cards that could fall on the river that would make a hand that beats you, like any heart and a lot of cards could make a higher straight for someone. Are the few extra big bets worth the suck outs this might cost you? Would someone playing two hearts or 89 lay it down to a check raise? In the low limit games I play, the draws you want to get out, will call a check raise, so I would just bet this out and try to build the pot for when I don't get sucked out.
Mike:
Second hand: I think the check raise is his best bet. That's because it will most likely be checked to the button who will bet, and the raise makes it 2 bb cold to the other players. This may make it incorrect for some of the other draws to call.
I agree that if a check raise will get out draws that a simple bet will not, then it is worth a try, but you risk a free card. With all the draws out there, giving a free card would be a big mistake. You have to be sure the button will bet. I guess with this agressive "pro" on the button, you can be sure of that, but with many passive low limit players, I would be worried that if the turn card had missed them, they would take the free card.
Spitball:
With a huge pot like the one in your first scenario I would say you have to call. I know you thought you had a read on the raiser, but he could have anything from trips to a busted club draw. You can never be sure and you've got a strong hand. As far as the "pro's" advice to raise, it's nonsense. With a new bettor and a raise, the likelihood is the spades are there. You are the underdog, but the odds are there to look. But you want to see as cheaply as possible.
As for the second scenario, you played it right. Your "pro" friend is just a little bitter. It kills me when people make comments like this. He expected you to put him on the same hand???? There are dozens of more likely holdings, and you want to make those other draws pay the max to come. Logic question: If you were supposed to know he had 68, then HE should have known YOU had 68. Why then did he waste time and rake money raising and capping on the river???
You would be well served to take advice offered by opponents with a grain of salt (especially during the game, and double especially when it relates to hands they were involved in).
Keep playing good.
wgb
2nd Hand: Well, that checkraise accomplished your objective. You limited the field on a hand where you held the nuts. So the only real question is should you be trying to limit the field in that situation? The flop had only one heart, so the chances of a heart giving someone a flush on the river (runner runner) are low. The action was so passive, that there was no indication that anyone had 2 pair or a set. The only hand that would be drawing to a better straight is 89 (assuming people don't regularly draw to inside straights in that game). So there are realistically 7 outs that might hurt you. Pretty good odds to try and get everyone else to throw as many bets into the pot as you can.
So, I would have tried to build a pot rather than limit the field in that situation. Since the most likely bettor was the button, then betting out and hoping he raised, after you had everyone trapped, would have been a better move to build a pot. So I would agree with his advice in that situation.
A Poker Guy!
So you made the wheel when someone may have a bigger straight or a flush.
UTG does not have a flush since he bet the turn and is as you say passive. BB probably doesn't have one since runner-runner flushes make for a disguised hand and players usually (and rightfully) check-raise with them.
This hand is well worth a call.
Its a horse of a different color had BB bet the turn and UTG and you called. BB could realistically have bet the draw, and the 4s hit UTG and he won't raise with just 2-pair ...
- Louie
Thanks for responding Louie,
a, I said UTG was a terrible player, he chases any possibility, will call with any pair, and ONLY raises with a huge catch. He caught the flush (K7??!) which I assumed when he raised. That's what made the pro's comment so disturbing. I assume he has the same read on this regular that I do. The implication then is that the pro is willing to three-bet - and more often than not - lose, in order to promote his image and to give this losing player ( a huge contributer to the game) some action. I tend to play cautiously on the river and my reads are very good, he plays aggressively throughout the hand and his reads are near perfect. I make a small profit at 4-8, betwwen three and five dollars an hour. He makes quite a bit more when he plays at that level, though usually he plays 10-20.
Your fist hand is written incorrectly. No way you can have A,3c and flop 3c.
Second hand was played correctly unless the pro "bitch" showed you his hand before you made your play. That's the only way you would know for sure what he had.
Tell him to stop smoking whatever he is smoking.
Vince.
Wife wanted to play some poker, so we went to the Saturday morning limit HE tourney at Foxwoods. $15 + 5 buyin for T1000, with 1 rebuy $10 for T1000.
Betting has entered the 200-400 level. No where near the money yet. I'm down to T475 (yeah, I know, you should never get that low, but it happens sometimes). I'm waiting for the best hand to go all-in with, and get nothing. Therefore, I have to put up T200 in the big blind. My hand is Th8h. Middle position limps, SB limps, I check. Flop is Qd5s6h. SB checks, I check, MP bets, SB calls, I fold. Only runner-runner outs, so it seems clear I should fold. However, once I call here, I'm going to win T1425 if I luck out, and by folding I've only got T275, over 5-fold less.
Next hand, put up T100 in the SB. All fold to me, and I call with QTo. I considered raising, but the BB was one of the few decent players, he had about T1400 in chips, and I knew he would call with anything. Therefore, why raise when he might check it down for free. Turns out he did check it all the way with me, and his AJo won with the board showing 889-9-K. Can't believe I just went through the blinds and ended up with T75! This lasted quite a few more hands, as I again picked up garbage so bad I had to play the big blind all-in. Middle position caller sucked out on me, adios.
Anyway, if you would have played either of those hands more aggressively, please explain why.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg, The only thing I would have done differently is not get into that situation in the first place!
You said," I'm waiting for the best hand to go all-in with, and get nothing. Therefore, I have to put up T200 in the big blind"
I think you waited too long. I'm going to raise it to 400 once I see I'm in danger of having to put in my $200 big blind. What I mean is, if I'm in, say, 4th position or 5th position and no one has entered the pot yet, I'd rather raise with a garbage hand in the hope or stealing the blinds or at least being head's up against a single opponent. I will choose the best spot I can ..looking for opponents who don't automatically defend their blinds to raise against.
Once you wait until you have put in your $200 blind, you no longer can win a pot on a steal...you'll be called automatically and have given up half your chance of winning a pot!
I'm surprised as good a player as you are let yourself get into that position.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
Yes and no. If you're sure that the big blind is going to call your raise no matter what, then you need to have a better than average hand. I mean, what's the point of raising with 85o unless you think there's a decent chance of winning uncontested? Since everyone else had many more chips than I, and none of them were tight, I felt the chances of getting the big blind to fold were no better than 10%. The best hand I saw prior to posting my big blind was K8o, but it was raised and called before getting to me. I don't think this hand was good enough to play in that spot, when I had 4 more free hands coming.
Anyway, I certainly agree with your philosophy. I just think it didn't apply to my facts.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg
I hope I'm not splitting hairs here...we seem to agree more than not...BUT
My mindset when I have that $475. stack is to be heads up at any cost. even if the chance to steal the blinds is small.
You were right not to play the K8 because you would have had AT LEAST two opponents...as you said you had "four more free hands coming"....My point is that if ANY ONE of those next four hands allows me to be "first in" the pot I am raising with ANYTHING and taking my chance to steal...or be heads up.
Waiting to be blinded off is not an option for me if I can avoid it! When they see you put your case money in the blind (or near case money) good tournament players flock to call you to gang up and get rid of you...and they are right!
In fact,, when I am short stacked I will fold good hands if there are already many people in the pot. I won a tournament once by folding AA at the final table. I had the smallest or second smallest stack...It was the final table...nine handed limit holdem. I hand $1200... blinds were 300 and 600... UTG calls and three people call in front of me...I knew that even if I raised I would be facing four or more opponents so and I mucked the AA.
I later stole the blinds a couple of times and won the next hand I played (heads up of course) and went on to win the tournament and I would muck AA in that situation every time.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
It appears that we've had different experiences. Even in my spot, I have almost never had to play against more than 1 player when I put all or half my chips up in the big blind. Usually, everyone is folding at this stage, and most of them continue to do so. Someone will raise, and you'll be forced to call with anything. Often (and I really mean to use this word), everyone will fold to the small blind, because unless they have a good hand they are worried about who's behind them. Then, the SB will usually put you all-in. Very rarely the SB will fold or just call. Thus, when you go all-in here, you are usually only a slight dog.
I don't see why I would want to raise all-in to get it heads-up with the BB when I'm holding something like 84s, T3o, and the like. If I thought there was some reasonable chance (maybe 20% or more) that everyone would fold, then I agree. However, with players behind who might have big hands, and a BB who I feel is going to call at least 95% of the time if left to him, then I need a good hand to raise with.
BTW, I do agree with your principle. When low on chips, you want to come in as the aggressor. If you manage to steal the blinds, you've made a big chunk of the profit you'd make if you'd gone all-in and won, and done it without risking elimination at all. As such, it's important to not let yourself get as short-stacked as I had gotten. Unfortunately, sometimes it can't be avoided.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
greg, I probably would have put in my last $75 on the turn for what I assume is a gut shot draw. You didn't describe how the board came. $75 isn't enuf to cover the BB giving you at least one or two opponents when you make your stand.
In the SB on the turn the board was probably something like 889K? Do you expect a trap here? Since the flop was checked, I would have gambled and semibluffed the turn. He is the BB and you did come in voluntarily with your last few chips.
i say go for it on the turn and risk your last $75 for $400 You still have anywhere from ~4-10 outs if called.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Well played.
What a ding-bat the AJ was for not putting you all in.
- Louie
Well played. Any 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, J, or spade can make someone a better hand. That's 29 cards, or over 60% of the deck. If you slowplay, and if any of these cards come out, and anyone bets big, what do you do then?
Bet out now just like you did, and if called, hope they didn't flop a bigger set, or hope they don't draw out.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I mean that it's a mistake to get so low on chips that you can't effectively raise anymore. I have seen players do things like call preflop (admittedly with the kinds of hands you normally call with), miss the flop, fold to a bet, and continue this pattern until they're so low on chips they have no room to maneuver. This is a mistake. When you're down to 4 or 5 bets or less, you don't limp in with a drawing hand. You wait for a pair or 2 big cards and come in with a raise.
Anyway, I had a small but workable stack, got into a confrontation, and lost all but T475. From that point on, I was looking for a raising hand to get heads-up with the big blind, and didn't find one.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would like to know what the blinds are when it gets to heads up play at the final table in the main no-limit hold'em event. I know that when the final table is full, there is a $2k ante with $5 and $10k blinds. My guess is that heads up, it would just be button and little blind. With 3 players remaining, I presume it would be button, little, big.
Thanks in advance for clarifying this for me!
Bones
Damnit Bones, I'm a doctor, not a WSOP tournament player.
When heads up in a limit or no limit tournament, typically the button has the small blind, and acts first preflop. The other play has the big blind, and acts first after the flop and on later rounds. I have seen some tournaments that handle it differently, but this is how the WSOP events are handled.
With 3 players, there are small blind, big blind, and button. Button acts first preflop, and small blind acts first first after the flop and on the later rounds.
The WSOP no-limit events also have antes in the later rounds, and the antes continue when heads up. As to how big the antes and blinds are, that's completely dependent on when they get to the final table.
We are the 4 remaining of a triple blind HE no limit tournament. Blinds are 4000-4000-8000 and I am the chip leader in the 1rst blind with about 75K. The big blind has about 55K and the 2 others about 40K.
Since I have been attacked by the big blind (very agressive) in this position every time the opener has folded and I have called, I have decided 10 minutes before to trap him in this situation when a good hand comes.
I look at my cards and find two kings. The opener folds, I just call, the 2nd blind folds and as previous the big blind raises 25K. I immediately move all in and he calls showing AD offsuit, much better than I thought.
The flop comes something like 7539A (I just remember well the last card) and I loose a key hand. (I eventually am out 5 minutes later when I call with my remaining chips and A7 against the same opponent and his two 10, but this time no ace shows but a 10).
One hour later, still on tilt, I wonder wether a better play would have been to just call after he raises and then move in on the flop if no ace comes. Playing like this, I miss 30K if he has a pair (he will call my reraise with at least two 9), save 30K if he has a big ace and the flop comes with ace (I will check and fold if he bets) and win his 25K plus the other blind if he has the same big ace and the flop comes with no ace (he will probably fold my bet on the flop). I think he would have folded with a big suited connector anyway.
Any comments ?
You're playing 4-handed. You can't fold everytime you have a pair, a single overcard hits the flop, and you're bet into. If you're this easy to push out of the hand, you'll get run over in a short-handed game like this. There's nothing wrong with getting all-in preflop with KK when you are highly certain you're not against AA. Since that was the case here, you played the hand well.
Again, what I'm saying is, what if he only had QT, the flop was AT3, and he bets into you? Here, you're folding in a big pot at a time when you're something like a 4:1 favorite.
Now, you can make the play you described IF (big if) you can read this player well enough to know with a high level of confidence what he has when he bets the flop. If you have a line on this guy, then you can play more safely preflop because of this ability to significantly outplay him postflop. However, unless you're great and he's very weak, this scenario is unlikely.
Don't second-guess yourself on this one. You just got unlucky at a particularly bad time.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
how can i argue with you... but ignorance is bliss i would play it the way our hero did However why not a raise to let him know you have a pair push in an aceless flop. This close to the money it looks like a disaster. i hope i learn to have the discipline to do this kind of variance in my play. thanks mm
Yes. This is a similar play to being raised when someone flops a 4-flush. You don't gain as much by setting them all-in on the flop as you would when they don't get there on the turn. You also give them a chance to make a bigger mistake.
In your case, you're a 2-1 favorite before the flop, but if an Ace doesn't hit, you're better than 4-1 favorite after the flop and the A-10 suited has to lay the hand down. Clearly, if he is going to call an all-in bet anyway pre-flop, the better play is to wait until the flop and let him make a bigger mistake -- the obvious hazard being that an Ace hits and you have to throw the hand away.
One other factor not considered here is that you are short-handed. A pair of Kings is a monster of a hand in that situation, and a slowplay against one opponent has a lot of merit.
Good play on the flop. With the suited board, it is good to move in as some players may "put you on" a flush draw and call you with an overpair, top two, or top pair/good kicker. These are the types of hands you want to get called by (given your bet and the pot size) since they are drawing pretty slim.
On the other hand, you put the pressure on potential flush draws since you make it difficult for something like QJs to call, since they might be drawing dead to a higher flush draw. And given that flush draws are getting reasonable odds here (I think just over 2 to 1 for a flush draw vs. set) , I would prefer that flush draws fold and let me take down the pot uncontested.
A big mistake that I see people make is to check raise the flop and then get called (and drawn out on) by a late position guy who semi-bluffed with a flush draw and then had to see the hand through because the pot was laying beter odds after their bet and your raise.
They say "bad beat", and I say you got the match up you asked for.
mike this is a a tourney. why not trap from first position and then move all in
Exactly my point. In a tournament, the chips you already have are more valuable than the chips you might gain. In this cae, I would rather have a 100% chance to win the $900 in the pot by getting everyone to fold than have a 65% chance to double through, with a 35% chance to get broke by a flush draw. Of course, if you can "trap" someone who is drawing (nearly) dead to top pair, that is a different story.
In a money game, I wouldn't really care if I got called by a flush draw since my expected value on the opponent's call would be positive given the size of his stack in relation to the pot. (Although I will have to do the math to confirm this). The key difference is that in a tourney, you can't buy more chips, so I am less willing to gamble with a modest edge, particularly when it is with my case chips.
There had been some discussion conserning Good player's advantage in big pots. This discussion ignores the obvious truth that it is definately to the good player's advanatage if the pot GOT big because of very loose play. But once the pot IS big...
Given the same good-enough hand, does the good player's advantage over the bad player Increase or Decrease when the pot is big?
"No" was suggested in literature when discussing the affect of large blinds and bring-ins in Stud. The pots quickly got big enough that good players played like the bad players (calling). The advantage got less and the bad players won often enough to keep them hooked; thus "less" of an advantage "is more" in the long run.
"Yes" was suggested a couple months ago when discussing a large Holdem pot; where expert play was "crucial in big pots". Presumably, the expert can steal a big pot now and then by betting or raising with hands that drive out the better or about-to-be-better hands.
Didn't the larger structured Holdem games replace the small ante/blind structure of 12 years-ago for this same reason? Can't the 7Stud expert steal a big pot now and then?
Did I read incorrectly? Am I a lunatic? (<-- stop! that's a rhetorical question!) Is there that much of a strategic difference between Holdem and Stud? Is it because there are more large Holdem Pots when nobody has much? Is it because a good read is more valuable in Holdem?
- Louie
It seems that you ask two questions (both assuming that you are an expert player):
A. would we rather have a great amount in the blinds
B. would we rather have a few or many loose opponents
It seems to me that there are different strategies to deal with A and B.
With respect to A: if the amount in the blinds is rather big then our opponents are less vulnerable to preflop errors.
With respect to B: if we have many loose players then they are less vulnerable to postflop errors and especially errors on the flop.
If we have both A and B then just tight, unimaginative play will get us the money.
Maria
Louie:
(This answer applies to limit games as I doubt that you want to rehash the debate over which structure "requires more skill.")
You ask: "does the good player's advantage over the bad player Increase or Decrease when the pot is big?"
The answer depends on whether the pots is big because of the structure of the game or the mistakes of the players. In big pot games (i.e., ones with a disproportionately large blind/ante structure), the good player's advantage decreases but his need for expertise increases. An excellent player has less of an advantage in terms of bets/hour and suffers from a higher variance because he cannot use his skills to punish his opponents as severely as he can in lower games where opponents can make bigger mistakes. In terms of dollars per hour, however, it may be worthwhile. The overall effect of the structure in terms of expertise is to make it more important yet less effective: you need greater expertise to make razor-thin judgments in the recurrent big pot situations than you do when your opponents can be beaten out of more bets with lesser skills.
If the game has big pots but a relatively smaller blind/ante structure in proportion to subsequent bets, the good player's advantage increases while his need and ability to use all his skills diminshes. In these games, your opponents more commonly will be making many more mistakes. In extreme examples, an average discliplined player can wait around for great cards and clean up. An expert can occasionally make an inspired play, but he won't stand that far above a patient player that waits for hands with maximum potential and who knows when to play a long-shot draw. The expert will do better than the average patient player in the long run, however, because these games aren't sustainable. The action eventually burns out and predictable play won't get the money when the game becomes more manageable.
But let's say the game structure falls in between these two paradigms and the pot has simply become large because an unusually high number of people are there with unusually good hands. Then you need all the skill you can muster because there are so many variables to take into account.
P.S. There are limits to how extreme a game is structured for an expert to retain any advantage at all. There comes a point where the antes/blinds become so large compared to subsequent bets that expertise becomes irrelevant. In Colorado and elsewhere, they spread $3-5 holdem: one $3 blind, one $5 blind, a $5 maximum bet on all rounds and a 5-raise limit on all rounds. A typical good night means between 100 and 200 bets. Although it attracts maniacs, the structure makes it almost idiot proof. I know guys that beat this game (or say they do, and I believe them), but the fluctuations are incredible and, I guess, occasionally ruinous.
Stud players pay off more. Even the good ones.
When a pot is very big, mistakes in play can have devastating effects. So from that standpoint, expert play is more valuable in a big pot.
However, there are times when the weak players may actually play better in the big pots than some of the 'good players'. A typical weak players calls too much and goes too far with his hand. In a very big pot, this becomes correct. A good player often wins money because of his solid defense. He doesn't play a lot of hands, and he's capable of reading his opponent and making a good fold where another player would lose another bet or two. But when the pot is big, the good player may make folding errors.
A really expert player, on the other hand, will know when to make the correct agressive play to win a pot that he otherwise wouldn't win. For example, you suspect that the tight player behind you has made a set. The board is AKJ, and you have AT. The pot is very large, and there is a two-flush on the board. The river brings in the flush, and an agressive player bets into you. The expert play here might be to raise. A tight player with a set will often fold it facing a bet and a raise with a flush on the board. So, you have given yourself a chance to win a pot that a lesser player would have lost. If the agressive player was taking a shot at the pot, you can win with your pair of aces. Even if there's only a 20% chance of that, it's a big money-making play if the pot is large.
The 'good' players will label you a maniac for making this play, because it will only work one time in five. Those other four times will make you look pretty wild when you show down the pair that you raised with against a flush. And as a result, when you make REAL raises on the river, they'll call you incorrectly. This is how expert players give even the good players fits.
Of course, the real maniacs make the same play, but they do it without correctly interpreting the situation. The player they raise may obviously have the flush, or they may not need to raise and take the risk because they have the best hand anyway, or the pot may be too small. But these distinctions are lost on the average observer.
Dan
I made this play the other night twice. I won once and lost in a showdown the other. the time I lost I still got the set to fold and he wanted to kill me. my AJ lost to AK a set of 8s folded.
I must not have expressed myself well. Lets make it even more confusing...
On the second to last betting round, the pot is $P and hero's hand is H. A good player's EV in this situation is $EG, a bad player's is $EB; the difference in expectation is expressed as $S = $EG-$EB; given the size of the pot, the particular hand, and their relative skills. $S is how much skill matters in this situation.
Now double the size of the pot; $Pd = 2$P; Hand H is the same; $EGd and $EBd measure their expectations, and $Sd = $EGd - $EBd is the difference in their expectations or how much skill matter in THIS situation.
Which is larger: $S or $Sd. I.E. in which situation does skill matter MORE? Is there such a large strategic difference in specific games that the answer changes depending on the game?
- Louie
It is understood that since the pot is larger their individual expectations are of course larger: $EGd > $EG and $EBd > $EB.
Notice that if Hero is drawing to a flush against a made all-in straight then skill does not matter; there is no difference in their expectations no matter the pot size.
This has nothing to do with how the pot GOT big.
Mmmmm... do I need to "normalize" $S and $Sd....?
How long was your respective run of no hands at all ? I had played 1 1/2 rack or $2 chips (in 6-12) HE and had made NO HAND at all. I wonder what is customary bad run of one session. I just left the room shaking my head and had no intention of playing anymore. The time it took was not that long however I had run into 3 2-pair flopps which were losers and one A 9 that flopped and A and lost to a flush draw (river of course). I am sure I am no record but like to know what others are *regulary* run into.
I once played a 9 hour session and went home without winning a pot. The hand that put me all-in was a hand in Omaha high. I had AsAdKhQs. The flop was AJT rainbow. I lost that pot heads-up to a person drawing dead to a runner-runner 5-high flush.
My worst streak was 13 sessions without a win (this came after I had gone about 6 months without even a losing week).
It gets better. One of these days you will go on a rush of magnificent proportions.
Dan
Hey Andras,
Losing makes a man of you! I'm the best man I know! Hang in there with solid (tight) play. Monitor your play. Beginning with game selection, then hand selection (by position). Monitor your calling, betting, raising, check-raising, folding frequencies. Monitor your hand reading and player profiles (your opinnion of your opponents). You get the idea. Oh, yeh! Make sure you: "Don't count Your money while you're sitting at the table". Not because of what the song implies but because of the effect it has on your game! Well old buddy, gotta go!
Vince
Is everyone else like this too? Maybe I'm alone, but I'm CONSTANTLY counting my money at the table. In fact, at any given time I can tell you, down to the dollar, just how much I'm up (or, uh, behind).
yup, I keep my chips is stacks of 10 (any higher and I'm liable to knock'em over). Knowing where I stand helps me feel comfortable. I don't believe it affects my play either way.
call me clumsy & anal retentive
Very weird. I keep 'em in stacks of ten as well, and stack them in a wedge, the point of which points towards the middle of the table.
As far as I know, you and I are the only people who keep them in stacks of ten.
My long lost twin brother!
I do the wedge thing too.
Wish I had the opportunity to play as often as you do.
It will swing, and maybe sooner then you think. The weekend of June 12 I got smoked for $735 in an 8 hour session of 5-10 spread limit; last Thursday nite I was fortunate enough to win a NL HE tournament in which I played (best recollection) about 14 hands to showdown and won them ALL. So keep your chin up, by next week (or tomorrow) you'll be firing chips again
L
I am curious to know what people consider an appropriate fluctuation in a normal HE game, not wild, not extremely tight, just normal passive players. Is it the standard 12 BB per hour?
I have been playing 6-12 for a few months now, and have had two big losses, $520 and $450. This month has tortured me by giving me several wins, i.e. $150, $290, then taking it all back in one session. I constantly monitor my play, and tighten up when I am losing.
This happened the other night again, down $400, but after a few more hours I left with only a $70 loss.
I'm only down $315 for the month, and I can accept the fact that some days are losing or even, but I'm curious to know if anyone else has days where they just "plummet"?
I play where there are many tables, and usually look for one with no maniacs and lots of callers of course. I don't see a point in going home just because you've lost a big chunk in the first hour, after all I'm still alert and playing well. I am sometimes tempted to leave early after booking a small win, but realize this is silly for the same reasons is quitting just because you've lost a bit. (except for image factor)
comments?
j...........
This is the normal pace of the game in my experience. I'm certainly accustomed to sitting for two hours at a time without taking a pot. Dropping 1.5 racks without getting a pot is totally unremarkable in my experience. For instance, yesterday I sat down at the 3-6 and 2.5 hours later I won a pot. That was a bit frustrating to be sure, but not the worst run of cards I've ever had.
Normally, the cards run bad. Your odds are pretty slim to get a good run of cards. The key, I believe, is to survive the dry spells without losing everything like most inexperienced players will do, and then capitalize on the upswings. Of course, to be honest, I'm still waiting or ANY kind of upswing.
Read the discussion above about the LUCK factor. It's true. Luck is everything.
Natedogg
I've gone three entire sessions (8 hrs. avg. each) without winning a pot other than a few blind steals (guess they must have had REAL garbage then). Can you change games, maybe play some Omaha-8, Stud-H/L, or something else completely different where expectations from past experience don't affect your table demeanor?
Oh yes, I almost changed to 9-18 which was available next table but I am forcing myself not to move up when losing only move down. I can't move much down from 6-12. Omaha or stud would have been something but frankly I did not steam - down 1.5 rack just ran out of money. My experience is days like that may last all day and can cost a lot !!! I know od a guy who once dropped 13 hundred in 6-12. There is no reason for that next day/week you make it back and more !
I leave my ego in the parking garage. I'm not embarrased to go play no-fold'em 3-6 until I feel better, when I'm running as badly as you describe.
I hear you and ego has nothing to do with it. 3-6 WITH the rake and the cheap/bum assholes worst than work for me !!!! I rather do ANYTHING than play 3-6 with California rake ! This is not ego it's my prerogotive. Cheers
I didn't mean to imply YOU have an ego problem, just saying I used to. I do see players who appear to prefer going broke to being seen at the lowest limits. Sometimes, I just need to complete a few straight draws and/or crack someone's big pocket pair too. Since there are fewer correct opportunities to do this in tougher games, I get it out of my system by playing low. You have a point about the demeanor of the individuals that populate these limits in your locale. Fortunately, that's not as severe a problem where I play. Playing 3-6 without the hard core degenerates beats asking people if they want fries with their order, as far as I'm concerned. Seriously, it's not about consistantly eeking out a few dollars from the clueless. It's a matter of getting my head screwed on properly again, and 3-6 east coast style accomplishes that objective nicely.
There is a Guest essay on this web site that discusses fluctuations. Mike Caro talks of, 'Losing tell it doesn't hurt anymore.'. David Sklansky refers, with complete composure to the 'Endless Game'. Mason Malmuth spreads equations across the page for the loser to look at, scratch their heads and say, "Huh?". He also says that a good player, even a great player, can have extended losing streaks; but just because you're on an extended losing streak doesn't make you a great player (page 53, POKER ESSAYS). Damn! My only out.
It got so bad that I finally decided to take the pot with a gun. When I pulled it out they all started to laugh and one person even raised.
This losing streak ended with a bang. I won it all back, including the respect. It dawned on me that it had not been a losing streak but rather a very tough Drill Instructor.
We wish to announce the 21st Century Editions of our books HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS and SEVEN-CARD STUD FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS. Here is some information on each book. (The price remains unchanged at $29.95)
Hold 'em Poker for Advanced Players; 21st Century Edition
by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth
Texas Hold 'em is not an easy game to play well. To become an expert you need to be able to balance many concepts, some of which occasionally contradict each other.
In 1988, the first edition of this text appeared. Many ideas, which were only known to a small select group of players were now made available to anyone who was striving to achieve expert status, and the hold 'em explosion had begun.
It is now a "new century," and the authors have again moved the state of the art forward by adding over 100 pages of new material, including an extensive section on "loose games," and an extensive section on "short-handed games." Anyone who studies this text, is well disciplined, and gets the proper experience should become a significant winner. Some of the other ideas discussed in this 21st century edition include play on the first two cards, semi-bluffing, the free card, inducing bluffs, staying with a draw, playing when a pair flops, playing trash hands, desperation bets, playing in wild games, reading hands, psychology, and much more. (332 pages; ISBN: 1-880685-22-1; $29.95)
Seven-Card Stud for Advanced Players; 21st Century Edition
by David Sklansky, Mason Malmuth, and Ray Zee
Seven-card stud is an extremely complex game. Deciding exactly what the right strategy should be in any particular situation can be very difficult. Perhaps this is why very few authors have attempted to analyze this game even though it is widely played.
In 1989, the first edition of this text appeared. Many ideas, which were only known to a small select group of players were now made available to anyone who was striving to achieve expert status, and a major gap in the poker literature was closed.
It is now a "new century," and the authors have again moved the state of the art forward by adding over 100 pages of new material, including an extensive section on "loose games." Anyone who studies this text, is well disciplined, and gets the proper experience should become a significant winner. Some of the other ideas discussed in this 21st century edition include the cards that are out, the number of players in the pot, ante stealing, playing big pairs, playing little and medium pairs, playing three-flushes, playing three-straights, randomizing your play, fourth street, pairing your door card on fourth street, fifth street, sixth street, seventh street, defending against the possible ante steal, playing against a paired door card, scare card strategy, buying the free card on fourth street, playing in tightly structured games, and much more. (326 pages; ISBN: 1-880685-23-X; $29.95)
Esteemed Mr. Malmuth, doesn't this belong in the Exchange Forum?
Mr Malmuth runs this forum, he can do anything he wants. And besides if we didn't buy his books there would be no forum.
Question, were you not writing a book on low-limit?
And to David S. I have a $2. copy of Holdem Poker, Do you know how much its worth?
Dear Mason, David and 2+2 Folks (Yes you to Ray),
I own HPFAP and 7STFAP. I paid $29.95 (or there about) each for them. Was it worth it to me. "Soitinly". All joking aside it was well worth it! But I'm not convinced that 100 additional pages on each game is worth another $29.95 (x2). Even if they are from you fellows. Convince me please. Or maybe offer a discount to us that already own the first editions. We could send in the cover(s) and get the book(s) for, say $15.00.
Whadda ya think!
Follower of the Sklansky-Malmuth (or is that Malmuth-Sklansky, I get so confused) poker philosophy.
Vince.
on the other hand...
100 pages @ $30 = $0.30 a page. Hard to believe one couldn't get at least $0.30 value from each page.
If just one idea gets you just one extra big bet you otherwise wouldn't have in your 15-30 game, the book is paid for.
Still like your idea though...
Vince beat me to this point...I bought both books the year they came out and would appreciate a discount to "upgrade"
Note to Mason...You might talk to Dan Paymer about how this marketing ploy works. He has done several updates on his book on Video Poker and always offers a substantial discount to persons who own earlier editions to encourage them buy the new edition.
best regards
Jim Mogal
".30 per page = 1 big bet in 15-30 will pay for it" logic is very twisted !!!! I get paid $75 / hour so I am losing money if not working (or playing on good days). I have computer books I bought and I have not read yet. I like Vince's idea also !!!!!! BTW are the books Y2K compliant ????????
You won't find *that* quote in my message.
Though my message wasn't to be taken too seriously. My point is that I think the information is relatively cheap.
Re: 1 big bet @ 15-30.
What I said (or tried to say) was that if, after having read the new edition, Vince won one extra big bet that he wouldn't have had he not read it, than the book has paid for itself.
I don't think that's twisted logic.
Are these texts immediately available?
Bill
Yes. Both books are immediately available.
The order form on your web page lists only the original titles. Is it correct to assume that if you place your order there, you will receive the 21st century edition?
- Greg
To 2+2,
Greg beat me to the punch on my first question, do you get the 21st century version when you order the orginal from your webpage? Also, if you went directly to conjelco do you get the 21st century version when you use their web order form? And, do you get the 23.95 discount when ordering the new version?
Just for constructive critisism, if you were going to get back on and post a response to the availability of the new versions of your books than you should have addressed the very lagitamite questions about discounted upgrades. Also, the original response identifying that your post belongs on the exchange is absolutly correct. The forum provides the 2+2 publishing with needed exposure and helps build the desire for more strategy writing, but if Mason is unwilling to hold himself to the same expectations he has of the other posters it sets a very poor example.
Robert B
1. You get the new version if you order from this web site.
2. ConJelCo has the new books.
3. I believe that you get the $23.95 price.
4. We have no plans to do upgrades. We consider these to be completely new books.
5. Normally, posts such as this one do belong on the Exchange. But we consider the introduction of these books to be of major importance to serious poker players so we put it here.
Mason, Is your binding new i.e. 21st century ? I guess what I am trying to gauge if the book itself will last 6 more months ??
The quality of the printing and binding is top notch. Our binding problem was corrected several years ago.
NT
Mason, I think everyone would like you to give us a bit more than the blurb off the cover here. Can you respond to the queries above ? I have an additional question - have the existing sections been left untouched, altered here and there or rewritten in parts to account for changes in the games or changes in your thinking since original publication ?
Respectfully,
Andy.
Much new material has been added into the body of the original text as well as the new sections.
Mason,
This is more of a suggestion than a question as I can understand why you would want to complete publication and printing before announcing a new product (unlike a certain other poker writer).
I always thought Ray's H/L book should be split up into two books. On a couple of occasions I have suggested it to someone who has asked about the best poker books and they were reluctant to buy it (usually because they were just interested in Omaha H/L). If a beefed up 21st century edition is planned, you may want to consider this if you haven't already.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. So I don't tick off the other posters too much, perhaps each H/L split book could be sold at a slightly reduced price.
There are no plans to update Ray Zee's High-Low-Split book.
Hey,
Any chance of downloading your books, old and new? Just the updates? For a fee of course...:)
Jeff
One thing I miss in 2+2=4 books are indexes. Are the new editions indexed?
Yes. There are indexes in both books.
Does anyone know of a decent PC simulator for Omaha H/L that will allow me to analyze my play? Futhermore, are there any good books, besides Bob Ciaffone's Omaha Holdem Poker, that are worth reading? Note that, the games offered where I live are at the 10-20 and 20-40 levels, so I want to learn it without blowing a lot of dough.
Louie is gonn'a hate me for saying this, but the Turbo Omaha High Low is super tough if you put it on the right (tight/aggressive) settings. I forget which Line-up I got it on right now, but I'm having a hell of a time trying to beat it. I beat all the other Willson games set on the toughest settings, but for some reason the Omaha/8 game is kicking my butt. I tell you, Ray's book has been getting a work-out since I bought that game.
One other thing I noticed about the Willson games is that the community card games are tougher to beat than the Stud games.
CV
I think Zee's book is much more better than ciaffone's.
Ciaffone only adresses H/L for a small section. I havne'T seen any other books on omaha h/l other than those two though...
You could do a lot worse than play some IRC, the Hi-Lo channel is often quite busy.
Andy.
This is just a suggestion. In talking about the different poker games (which I have not played all of) I do not know what all the abbreviations mean. I know in time I will probably learn them, but for the newcomer, or the average player it may be helpful to have an abbreviation definition list, in the Directory section, so anyone could go to and see what (bb) means. It also might help everyone by having set abbreviations for everyone to use.
Thank You
Paul
BB can either mean "Big Blind" or "Big Bet". It depends on how its used in the Sentence.
CV
Paul The ones I've generally seen:
GAMES O8 or O/8- Omaha Eight or better OH- Omaha, high only 7/8- Seven Stud, 8 or better 7HiLO- Again, 7-Stud high/low (usually 8 or better)
POSITIONS Chris did the blinds
UTG - Under the gun, usually indicating seat 3 (just left of BB- big blind- and 3 seats to left of button). Sometimes used for person just left of first raiser
CARDS I assume you know that AS KH 7D 3C stands for Ace of spades, King of Hearts, 7 of diamonds, 3 of clubs
Axs K7s- Suited cards (both of same suit, suit usually not important until explained later.)
I'm not sure if that is all you are looking for- hope it's a start!
HE = hold 'em PL = pot limit NL = no limit HFAP = Hold 'em For Advanced Players"
The game was 8-16, with 12-24 overs. I had KK in latish position. A player called. A loose player raised, and I reraised. The blinds and the limper folded, and the raiser called. We were now in overs.
The flop came KJ7 with two hearts. My opponent checked, I bet, he raised, I reraised, and he called.
The turn was an offsuit 5. My opponent checked, I bet, and he folded.
All comments are welcome.
William,
I like the bet on the flop and maybe I'm just second guessing the reraise after he check-raised because it obviously slowed him down in a situation where you probably wanted more action (especially at the escalating limits).
If you smooth call the flop check raise you can expect him to lead into you on the turn almost every time. Then you can raise there or wait unitl the river depending on the board. Note that your hand is vulnerable to some draws like AQ but I would think that he would lead the flop with this hand rather than check raise. Of course, you would never get rid of the flush draw. I'm guessing he had a hand like QQ to play the way he did. But you didn't know that at the time.
I would be interested in some information on playing overs. There is a nearby card club with a 20/40 and full overs with about half the table playing overs. I'm not sure how to adjust my strategy yet. Any comments or advice are welcome.
Regards,
Rick
Three obvious tips:
1. Try and get a seat to the left of the other "Over button players.
2. Small pocket pairs are great in this game. You know that you either flop a set or get out on the flop (notwithstanding the odd 44 hand that can win unimproved) If you hit, you have greater implied odds particularly if you think that by the time the turn arrives, the "overs" betting would be in effect.
3. Many raises that you would normally make on the flop in an effort to limit the field or to charge a premium on drawing hands should now be made on the turn where there is a greater chance that the betting would be based on the Overs.
We used to play a 10-20 game with overs of 20-40. 9 of us would take the over button and one consistently wouldn't. The one fellow who did not take the Over button was virtually in every hand to the bitter end rendering all of thge above tips worthless in that game. The guy used to drive us nuts. I hated having that fellow in the game even though he literally gave his money away every time he played.
so if i have AK i UTG which is a most of the time raise perhaps the classic utg raise i should not (or mostly noy ) raise in this situation.??
With a hand like AK, I wouldn't let the "overs" game dictate whether or not I make a pre-flop raise i.e. I would sometimes raise UTG and sometimes not raise UTG just as I would in a normal game. The difference is that in an overs game, I would be more inclined to wait until the turn to raise i.e. rather than the flop. For example, if I have AK and limp in UTG and we take the flop say 5 handed and the flop comes A78 with a 2-flush and the BB bets, I might just call and smoke him on the turn assuming a not so scary hard hits.
BTW, there's a section on playing loose games in S&M's 21st Century Edition where they have a great explanation of why it often pays to wait until the turn to put in a raise even in conventional games. Great advice and it is a strategy that I have employed over the years in my loose games. Perhaps, I will start a thread on this above.
skp,
Actually about 60% of the table appears to play the overs. I wasn't planning to as 40/80 is too big for me right now. Now I'm wondering if I am giving up too much if this is my plan. Would you agree?
BTW, there are very good 9/18 games at this club that I have doing well at so I have an alternative if you think I should stay away from the 20/40.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, given your poker knowledge, perhaps the only thing stopping you from playing regularly in a 40-80 game is your bankroll. If so, the Overs game sounds like the solution for you. Obviously, you want to properly gauge the ability of the 60% who take the Over button. If they constitute the best players in the game, it is probably not the right time to take a button yourself.
Just to add two more strategy tips: There will be times when you can peel off just one card for your flush draw or something but can't call on the turn. For example, if the flop includes a non-overs player and the turn doesn't. As a corollary to the above, it MAY now pay to call a raise cold on the flop with a gut shot or something because the rewards of hitting are greater.
Slowplaying also has a greater appeal in this game for obvious reasons.
Rick -- Here's a link to a few tips on playing "overs" that I posted a while back. I agree with the things skp has said as well. I would just add that I would not stay out of an overs game just because you don't want to play overs. In fact, it can be to your advantage to be that one non-overs player that annoys all the overs folks. :) (But as a tight player, you won't annoy them anyway as you won't be in most pots.) Some of them will be loosening up preflop to take advantage of the implied odds of the overs structure, giving you the opportunity to punish them preflop as you continue to play normally.
Also, I've never found not playing overs in an overs game to create any other significant problems. There may be the occasional attempt to raise you out of a pot so that others can play overs, but in my experience these are much rarer than one would expect. And as long as you can detect what's going on you can respond appropriately.
John Feeney
I couldn't get it to work as an active link. Just go to the July archives and find my post of Wednesday, July 1, titled "Thoughts on "overs" for Carlos". HTH
The pot is very small compared to the over's limits. Your hand is NOT vulnerable to anybody who can use a "free" card; assuming a gut-shot will call your 3-bet. Your loose opponent likes to bet. You have position.
If you are ever tempted to slow-play, this is the time. Just call his raise and raise him on the turn.
- Louie
The main game going locally is a 5-10 SPREAD limit holdem, with some of the players playing overs. If the game does not get to "overs" format virtually all bets and raises are in $10 increments. Blinds are $2 and $5.
Once all of the remaining players in the pot are "overs" players, the game switches to 10-20 STRUCTURED limit.
What strategy adjustments are required here?
Larry
1. sit so that other over players are to your right or have the blinds when you are near last. 2. you could play tighter with some hands because the blinds are for a smaller limit if overs come into play regularly. 2a. you could play looser with some hands because when you hit you may win more with your hand than if the limit were smaller. 3. think about when and how you can isolate the over players when you have a hand you want to bet more with. 4. when you want to keep the bets smaller dont bet out the under player.
Last night i was having a discussion with a couple of holdem players about luck in this difficult game. I was amazed at how many of them felt the luck factor was as high as 85% ! Normally i wouldn't post something like this but i was the only person who felt there was a luck factor but nowhere near this percentage. As a matter of fact the more we talked about it the more people who came over and agreed with the 85%. My argument was if the luck factor is that high why are there consistent winners. In unison the whole group shot back they were lucky players including me! Am i missing something ? Any comments appreciated. Ice
The luck factor depends on the length of play. If you're only playing 3 hands, the luck factor could be much greater than 85%. But if you're playing over the long term (1000's of hours) then luck becomes a non-factor. You are right- if the luck factor was that high, consistent winners would not really happen. Luck is a layman's term for 'variance'.
Mike
Your comments about 1000s of hours is misleading. The long term in Poker is the VERY long term-- much more than thousands of hours.
The winners win over the long term mainly by capitalizing (disproportionatel) on the significant mistakes made by poor players. If you played a 10-year session where ever player was even modestly skilled, there would only be losers due to rakes, tokes, etc. If you eliminated these, there would still be significant winners and losers, and I posit that the difference MIGHT be attributable to luck.
There is an interesting experiment that I read about. A poker author took Turbo Texas Hold'em program and entered identical playing profiles for all ten players. He then let the program simulate something like a million hands (which would be nearly 20 years of playing at 40 hours a week). The game was played without rakes and tokes.
From the lineup of ten, there were at least two significant winners and a couple of big losers. This demonstrated that a lifetime of playing is insufficient to overcome the "luck" factor. All of these players should have had an EV of 0 since they played identically; yet some still were lifetime losers.
He then replaced one player by a mistake-prone, loose-passive type. Of course, the results shifted dramatically and all of the other players became winners at his expense. However, some still won a lot more than others.
The takeaway from this, in my humble opinion, is that having the "expert" edge over other decent players is much less important than proper game selection. And if you are playing against similarly-skilled opponents, Lady Luck (and the rake box) will carry the day.
I assure you that PLENTY of people can beat tables of moderately skilled players; and for lots of money to boot. While I agree that significant mistakes by the opponents are very lucrative, expert plays account for lots as well.
There is a wide variety of sharks in the pecking order.
Be careful when determining whether someone was a "significant" winner at these simulations. Someone who wins a "wopping" $35,000 in a 10/20 against clones for 1mil hands has only 3.5c (or .35% of a bet) per hand. However, you are correct in that 1mil hands isn't all that much. I wouldn't bother making a simulation with anything less.
- Louie
If you consider 'The Long Run' to be 2 standard deviations, then the long run doesn't take very long at all. For a player winning 1 BB/hr with a std of 12 bb/hr, he will be assured of a win to within two standard deviations after 288 hours. Only 2.5% of all players should have results worse than this.
Maybe 85% of hold'em players are losing players. So of course they think they lose because other players are luckier than they are. The other possibility is too humbling.
I suspect the main part of your disagreement lies in the fact that none of you knows (or at least agrees upon) what you're measuring. What does 85% luck mean, or 58%, or 20%, or whatever?
I think we can all understand that something like flipping a fair coin is 100% luck. We can probably also agree that something like chess is 100% skill (maybe not, however). But I really don't know the difference between 85% luck and 15% luck. How do you measure it? If you answer that, you can probably at least come closer to agreeing with the people at your cardroom.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The short-run luck factor is considerable, while the long-run luck factor is much smaller. In the short-run, terrible players go on rushes, and expert players can run bad. Depending on how aggressive the game is, how well they read hands, and many other variables, the standard deviation of a holdem player ranges from 6 BB/hr to 10 BB/hr or more (while their advantage in most games is rarely higher than 1 BB/hr). So the chance of a solid player winning money in a 4-hour session in a loose game might be only slightly more than 50%. After 2500 hours in games of that type, the chance of that expert being ahead would be over 99%.
Unless you're going to argue that one player is inherently *luckier* than another for some metaphysical reason, I would have to say there isn't anything but skill involved in an infinitely long poker game. What they see as luck, is just the normal fluctuations of the short run. You have more positive variance simply due to better skills.
Million hand tests with software like TTH2 have built in biases that affect identical players such that there would be a clearcut winner. When the computer player *detects* on-tilt behavior for example, it modifies (sub-optimal within its own algorithm) its play to compensate. Now in a million hands, there will be some sequences of properly played cards that mimic the on-tilt behavior that the algorithm is watching for.
The long run for identical players is obviously infinity. You're luckier when you make fewer mistakes than your opponents, and that sure does show up in the short run!
poker,along with games like bridge,hearts,pinochle,gin and blackjack are a combination of luck and skill.games of skill such as golf,tennis,basketball,chess,pool etc. when played for money usually involve a spot or laying of odds to make the weaker players competitive,you will never see that in poker because no one has enough skill to overcome a spot.I don't consider myself a world class poker player like alot of people who post here,but I would annihilate any player in the world who would spot me in poker,such as stud giving 1 player an extra card,or imagine giving odds, 1 player putting in $2 for another players $1,or letting a player take back any bets,raises or calls on the river after the hand is over.You'll never see that because no one can overcome a spot like they can in games of pure skill.Anytime you are holding cards in your hand at any game there is a large amount of luck involved.
I live and play poker in Las Vegas, and it absolutely amazes me to see poker players (including some so-called "professionals" I know) even mention the word "luck". There's simply no such thing. Luck is a "0%" factor, since that which doesn't exist cannot be a factor in anything.
Forget what they say (they're likely to say just about anything) - If you *could read the minds* of the world's greatest poker players to see if they *really* thought they were "just lucky", I doubt you'd find one who would, in all honesty, believe that.
There's variance - short term runs, long-term runs. There's skill. There's education. There's money management. There's the presence a player gives off at the table. But there's no luck. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Oh, and there's no "tooth-fairy" either. :-)
p0wer
Hey man, I also know a guy who lives in vegas and plays poker he just lives at the bus depo.. come on !! Luck is there, if you are afraid of the word you are in for the surprise !
This is a typical response from a lucky player. You know exactly what these people mean by the word luck. Luck does exist in that when you get good cards, the odds are falling in your favor, and thus you are lucky.
Since on any given hand, it is possible for the odds to abondon you and leave you broken and destroyed for that hand, it is also clearly possible that this could happen for a majority of the hands, and thus you would be unlucky. Despite what all these experts claim, it isn't an inevitability that the "cards will even out in the long run". The very nature of the game which plays with fluctuating cards means that the cards can fluctuate badly for you, for an extended period of time, and never reverse significantly.
It is typical of "good" players who know what they are doing and are ALSO quite lucky to smugly condescend to those who have suffered extended bad luck.
Try not to act so superior and smug just because you've been lucky at poker. Without getting good cards, you will never win at poker. That's the bottom line.
Natedogg
p0wer, i live and play poker in vegas also.why dont we play heads up 100-200 and you put in $6 for every $5 i put in,since poker is all skill like you say you should have no problem giving me this spot.
Thats some mighty fine logic there Joey. (sarcasm... in case it escapes you).
Hi there. First time I ever made myself heard here.
The lot of u would probably "kill me" if I joined u in a homegame.
Amazingly it took alot of responses to finally put it right.
pOwer is in my (not so) humble opinion....ofcourse.. absoloutely right.
Strange....that u even discuss it.
Well, Sweden say tx for listening (u probably already noticed that english aint my native tongue)
I have had a pretty good read of S&M's 21st Century edition. As expected, good stuff. Particularly good are the new sections on shorthanded play and playing in loose games.
Here's a piece of advice given on loose games that I think is bang on and which has been part of my loose game strategy for quite some time.
Scenario
You raise with AdKh and get several callers. Perhaps it even gets 3-betted with several players taking the flop.
The flop comes A87 with 2 spades. On the flop, the player to your right bets into you. The natural reaction of most players is to raise immediately in an effort to limit the field. Well, it ain't gonna work. All hands and draws including the dubious 72 will call that raise. Not only that, given that your raise on the flop has made the pot that much bigger, several players will also call your bet on the turn. Essentially, unless you improve on the River, it is likely that someone else will. In other words, the River is unlikely to be a blank.
On the other hand, consider what happens if you were to just call the flop. To be sure, all hands including the dubious 72 will still call. However, the bettor to your right is likley to bet again on the turn. Now, you smoke him. This raise has a much greater chance of thinning the field and has a much greater chance of ensuring that your hand holds up after the River card.
In other words, waiting to raise on the turn has the advantage of ensuring that your opponents get only one chance to draw out on you i.e. the turn card. If you raise on the flop and take away the opportunity to get in a raise on the turn (because the flop bettor will now check to you), you allow your opponents two chances to draw out on you i.e, the turn and the river.
S&M correctly point out that there are some disadvantages to this strategy:
1. Firstly, you lose several flop bets should your hand go on to survive the turn and River.
2. Not raising on the flop may allow someone to pick up a draw with the turn card which they go on to complete on the river.
However, they point out (and I fully agree) that the pros of waiting to raise outweigh the cons.
Great advice. I guess the whole thing really goes to the issue of manipulating pot odds for you certainly wouldn't make this play if for example you have 5 players in an unraised pot. Now, a raise on the flop should have its desired effect of limiting the field. Also, you may want to wait until the turn to raise in a 3 way pot because you don't mind giving a cheap card to 2 opponents i.e. let them hit something so they pay off your raise on the turn.
Bottom Line (from my viewpoint): In loose games, make better use of the turn raise particularly in large pots.
I'm not sure about this. It's my experience that a lot of people will bet the flop, then check the turn if they get a lot of callers.
Waiting to the turn has a number of disadvantages:
1) The original bettor may check, depriving you of the ability to raise at all. For instance, it's very common for people to bet out with a flush draw on the flop, then check on the turn after a bunch of people call because they are scared of a raise.
2) A scare card may come that causes everyone to check to you.
3) A scare card may come that inhibits YOU from raising when the lead bettor bets again.
4) You may be walking into a bigger hand, and it's better to find this out on the flop (i.e. I'd rather be re-raised on the flop and bet into than re-raised on the turn).
5) By waiting for the turn to raise, you're giving up some protection on the flop. Even weak players will generally fold something like bottom pair or a 3-flush when facing a bet and a raise, but they'll call for one bet. If the pot is large, they may be correct to call one bet, but not two.
In short, if I were to wait until the turn to raise, I'd need to believe that the lead bettor will bet again, AND I wouldn't want a major draw on the board that wasn't mine, since it could come in on the turn and remove my opportunity to raise. And, I'd want my hand to be very strong, so minor suckouts like bottom pair hitting is undercard kicker won't kill my hand.
IMO i would raise every time IF the better was to my immeadit right. HOWEVER if there was a couple of callers inbetween i might try this stragety. Mainly because it might be checked to me on the turn.
Dan wrote: "And, I'd want my hand to be very strong, so minor suckouts like bottom pair hitting is undercard kicker won't kill my hand."
But Dan, the point here is to thin the field because your hand ISN'T that strong. I'm not arguing about who I agree with, just pointing out that this qualifier of yours takes the hand entirely out of the realm of this hypothetical.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Right. That's why I don't really like the raise on the turn that much for semi-strong hands like top pair.
One other problem with waiting for the turn - by not raising the flop, you are playing your hand deceptively. When you play deceptively, it's harder to read your opponents, because they are reacting to the hand they think you have.
For example, a tough player may decide that you couldn't have had top pair on the flop, because you would have raised. So now it's checked to you on the turn, and you bet. He may decide that you might have been on a draw, and raise you with a worse hand. This gives you all sorts of trouble you don't need.
Another factor: Raising on the flop helps to define the nature of everyone else's hand, allowing you to play better afterwards. For example, if a running flush comes in on the river, I'm more likely to be able to value bet my semi-strong hand since the chance of a 3-flush having gotten through my raise is much smaller.
Dan
Yes, that is a problem.
In my example of A98 with 2 spades, what might happen is that I just call the bet from my right, a late position player jacks it up with a flush draw and the original bettor now makes it 3 bets with a weak Ace.
My mere call on the flop may lead to me throwing away the best hand (if not on the flop perhaps on the turn if the other 2 players continue to try and outmuscle each other).
That may explain why S&M use a A94 rainbow flop in their example rather than A98 with 2 spades.
Dan: I think you may have missed the point of this play. It begins to make sense in a game where you know that if you raise on the flop the other players will come anyway. Notice that in this situation you are not defining anyone's hand.
Well, I've played in a lot of very loose games, and it's the rare player who will call a raise cold with nothing but a 3-flush or a 3-straight. There are some players like this, but I can't ever remember being able to categorize the whole field I was up against in this way. So you can't reduce the probably of someone calling with a weak hand to zero, but you can reduce it. And if the pot is big, they might be correct to call for one bet, and incorrect to call for two. By not raising on the flop, you give them the chance to improve to a significant chunk of pot equity without long-term cost.
I'm not saying that there are never applications for waiting until the turn to raise, but I think it's -generally- a bad idea to give up the opportunity to raise on the flop in lieu of waiting for the turn.
All of your points are valid ones.
I think the play is recommended only in instances where the pot is so big that people will call your raise on the flop even with bottom pair. That's the point of the play. The raise for protection on the flop will be a futile effort so why even try it.
As you say, there is a chance that the bettor on the flop may not bet again on the turn. However, in most instances, the bettor on the flop will follow through with a bet on the turn where the flop is Ace high and a blank hits on the turn.
Also, just calling on the flop can disguise your hand. For example, if the turn card now makes the flush and the flop bettor checks to me, I would bet representing the flush. If raised, I am gone. I lose less money that way than were I to raise on the flop and then bet again on the turn if the flush card comes (which I would do rather than check-calling someone twice which in itself I may be forced to do given the size of the pot).
You said:
"In short, if I were to wait until the turn to raise, I'd need to believe that the lead bettor will bet again, AND I wouldn't want a major draw on the board that wasn't mine, since it could come in on the turn and remove my opportunity to raise."
In fairness to S&M, I think the example they had in the book (I am just going by memory here) had an unconnected flop...something like A94 rainbow and not a draw-infested one like the A98 with two spades that I used.
The points you make are even more valid vis a vis my example than the one in the book.
The play is not bullet-proof but I have found that its advantages outweigh its drawbacks in BIG POTS.
MM has written, more than once on these pages, that it's a good idea to call one bet on the flop with bottom pair, bad kicker, in a multi way pot that was raised preflop.
But, he sees players folding this hand.
So, if most are going to fold for a single bet, wouldn't you get rid of the few holdouts with a raise?
Especially, when they could worry about a reraise behind them.
Even one out of five players, who folds instead of calls, could turn you from a 6/5 dog to a 6/5 fav in your example.
I think the size of the pot is the governing factor. In loose games, most players will call two bets cold on the flop with bottom pair if the pot had been raised preflop and there is multiway action.
Yes. It's a pot range though. When pots get enormous (multiway pre-flop capped) it should be a better play to raise on the flop again. Then there's the *aware player factor*, can you count on a reraise close behind you making it pot:3 odds for the weak draws?
It's reassuring to hear that something I'm always cognizant of, and practice is now *endorsed*. It always seemed to me that specifically the four and five out type hands must be prevented from having correct odds to play for a raise. If they choose to cold call anyway they're making a mistake, and if they fold it increases the legitimate hands chances of winning a showdown. Why the four and five out hands? They are the most succeptable to a loose game's average pot size (16 to 20 small bets) manipulations (raise or delay) on the flop. Curiously, in tighter games you wouldn't want to delay raising since the drawbacks should outweigh the benefits as you'd be trying to get hands with more intrinsic outs to fold or make a mistake in calling. With more than about six outs, you'd be letting good draws play too cheaply.
I can see where this advice might be valid, but..... the actual times that it can be used are very very very few. The board is going to have some kind of draw most of the time # 1. #2, if you were one of the pre flop raisers and it was capped etc., posistion is going to be a large factor as too making this type of play. Most typical players are going to be checking to the raiser unless they were one. What if you are in early posistion? You check ? And on the turn, check, in the hope of check raising? This advice might be okay, but it is almost irrelevant , because it will actually come into play an insiqnificant amount of time, and not work a fair amount of the time. I haven't read the new book yet. I'm hoping there is better an more viable advice in it, but to be honest i'm a litle skeptical since neither of the authors has much actual playing time in these types of games.
The middle limits can have some loose players, but most of the loose games are below 10-20. I'd trust a book written by someone who has played 6-12 at Hollywood Park for 3-4 years more in this particular case. Sorry guys, just being honest.
Don't have the new material yet either. I'm expecting to see it by Monday perhaps. I was thinking about situations where my right hand opponent doesn't reflexively *check to the raiser*, I have position on everyone (sometimes except one), and there are two to four players to act after the bettor. I agree that everything needs to be just right, and that this doesn't happen that often.
Say that you raise preflop UTG with AhKd and you get six callers including both blinds. sb,bb,UTG,5,7,8,button
Say that the flop is As7s8d and the small blind checks and the big blind bets.
Can someone make a good argument that it is better to just call the flop? As a matter of fact I was thinking if it is possible to answer this question in a quantitative way. For example: do you want a JT or J9 to call the flop? What will happen if a player has A5? how about the flush draws?
I have tried to reason and find an answer but simply I cannot. The problem is way too difficult. Now suggesting that a raise on the turn will thin the field AND that this is desirable I am affraid that we may associate apples and oranges. For example: if a guy has KK and he is willing to call a raise on the flop and a turn bet why do we want him out?
Maria
Maria writes: "Say that you raise preflop UTG with AhKd and you get six callers including both blinds. sb,bb,UTG,5,7,8,button
Say that the flop is As7s8d and the small blind checks and the big blind bets."
My comments are actually going to apply to all that I have read so far in this thread, but I will ride in on Maria's coattails.
I think we all can agree that one should not make this play (or any play) all the time, and certainly not blindly. However, a lot of players feel that they are giving up too much by not raising on the flop.
Maria asks: "Can someone make a good argument that it is better to just call the flop? As a matter of fact I was thinking if it is possible to answer this question in a quantitative way. For example: do you want a JT or J9 to call the flop? What will happen if a player has A5? how about the flush draws?"
Remember the scenario we have proposed: that the pot size and player count is such that many longshot draws can be played, even for two bets on the flop. The pot/implied odds are such that it will be a small mistake at best for somebody with even a small part of the flop to see the turn, even for a raise. JT, J9, A5 and the flush and straight draws are coming no matter what; as are 98, 86, or even two diamonds. Raising will hurt them ev-wise, but they might still be +ev.
"I have tried to reason and find an answer but simply I cannot. The problem is way too difficult. Now suggesting that a raise on the turn will thin the field AND that this is desirable I am affraid that we may associate apples and oranges. For example: if a guy has KK and he is willing to call a raise on the flop and a turn bet why do we want him out?"
We cannot shake KK on the flop, so we shouldn't be too concerned about not trying. For a single big bet on the turn, it could be correct for KK (and many other draws) to see the river as well. However, two big bets to see the river should make most of the thin draws fold. This is good because the pot is already big so that you won't miss their contributions if you win, but it will really hurt if they stay and hit.
The best way for you to make sure the turn gets raised when you still figure to have the best hand is to lay low on the flop.
To sum up my points:
1. You can't get out any draw on the flop, even for a raise so that there is little incentive to raise at that time. Calling the raise on the flop and a bet on the turn will be +ev, or only minimally -ev for a lot of hands with a piece of the flop. You don't really profit if they aren't making a mistake.
2. Raising on the turn should eliminate the weaker draws so now you should raise if you figure that you have the best hand. You might not be able to do this if you raised on the flop.
3. I almost hate to do this but I think this is a proper place to invoke Morton's Theorem. Raising on the flop and not driving people out is really just putting the money in the hands of the BIG draws, like nut-flush. So you cannot even "raise for value". If players make small ev errors on the flop, it's not even you who benefits. This should be different on the turn, since you will see more folds, and the mistakes will be bigger, so that you will get some share of their lost ev, even if the big draws benefit most from the callers.
Time for bed. Bye.
Eric
For many threads there was disscussion about raising pre-flop with aces. Some were saying that in these loose games raising pre-flop had no effect at all since these loose players saw a raise as a gambling opportunity and came in anyway. So , many people felt that it would be better to not raise in loose games since it didn't have thwe effect of geting these players out.
But, Mason and others like myself advocated raising in order to build the pot.
Although there is a chance that you might not be able to raise on the turn, in most cases I would be raising even though I know most of them are coming. Regardless of the size of the bet it is an act of strength and puts money in the pot. If they are giving you enough respect that you are checked too on the turn then if they haven't picked up a draw they will be gone. if they are loose, they will call a raise if they have a 4 outer. That combined with the fact that the times you could actually use this play( which is seldom) make raising 95% of the time correct.
You would want to try to checkraise a late position bettor in your example with AK UTG on the flop. The play under discussion would begin to apply if the big blind had made it three bets pre-flop and you have the same number of callers. Now there would be 18 small bets in the pot. If the big blind lead bets the flop and you choose to raise, you are offering 10.5:1 pot odds to the four and five out hands which would not be making a mistake to cold call (alright, assuming they don't expect a reraise). If the big blind lead bets the flop and you choose to delay, the four and five out hands will correctly call. If there is no raise and the big blind bets again on the turn, your raise now offers 6:1 pot odds (assuming there were no folds on the flop) to the four and five out hands. You've now given them an opportunity to make a mistake if they chase, whereas they would not have been making a mistake otherwise. You are risking the possibility that the turn card will substantially help (improve by six or more outs) or complete someone's longshot draw or that a player on your left will raise the flop instead, but you probably weren't going to move them off the flop anyway.
Suppose after the big blind raises, everyone calls except the obnoxious button who decides with JTs to cap it. Playing for this *delayed thin the field raise* on the turn would be wrong since you would be offering 9:1 pot odds (again assuming everyone calls on the flop) when you raise on the turn. In this case you need the cooperation of a reraise behind you on the flop - to have any chance of getting those pesky gut shots to drop out.
A player with A5 is making a mistake no matter what you decide to do on the flop and turn. A player with a good draw (eight or more outs) isn't going to be pushed off the pot anyway. Concentrate your efforts to thin the field on the vulnerable hands like bottom and middle pair or inside straight draws, just raise in loose games when they would be making a mistake by cold calling. You don't have any leverage on the player with KK (or any other pocket pair that missed the flop), since you can't give them any more ways to make a mistake in continuing on - no matter what you do.
skp - I think your choice of example hand makes a difference. (caveat: I haven't read the new book yet.) In your example hand with a 2-straight and a 2-flush on board, I would raise on the flop in my loose passive game.
Reasoning: In my game, pretty much taking S&M's advice, most opponents will call one or two bets on the flop and at least one bet on the turn holding bottom pair / low kicker. I am not sure if I can get rid of them with a raise on the turn either. And the reason I want to raise on the flop is to get out the inside straights and backdoor straights and flushes. Some of these opponents WILL drop to a flop raise if that is all they have.
In the book example with no 2-straight or 2-flush on the flop, it is much more reasonable to take the book's recommendation to wait until the turn to raise. The bottom pair 5-outer will either fold or make a pot-odds mistake to call the double big bet.
One last thought - in my loose passive 3-6 game, the players can't even spell "pot odds." (Once, a long long time ago ... one player sitting at my table said those 2 words together, and I thought, wow, here is a knowledgeable player. Then he immediately jumped up and moved to the 10-20 game he had been waiting for.) So my final thought is that you have to be aware if the opponents in your loose game will make a distinction between a raised and unraised pot, and fold or stay accordingly. In my game they ignore that information.
Dick
In your game then, the more situations you can get opponents to make mistakes by cold calling in, the better off you will be in the long run. If you understand the nature of the *bad* beat and aren't too emotional about it, you win.
Does anyone know where to find a listing of the finishers at the recent Pot of Gold Tournament in Reno? Can't seem to find the results anywhere.
Thanks,
Doc
I was the killer in a $3-$6 kill pot (stakes are now $6-$12, with a $6 forced bet from me). The game is nine-handed, and I am next to the button. I am dealt AH AC 5H 5S. The pot is raised before the Flop by a player in middle position. I call the raise, and a total of six players see the Flop.
The flop comes JH 9C 9H. It is checked to the player in middle position, who bets. The player to his right folds, and the bet is now to me.
Assuming I know very little or nothing about these players, what would you recommend as the correct action?
Q
1. The player who bet on the Flop was the same player who raised before the Flop.
2. The player to his left folded, not the player to his right.
Q
Raise.
I think this flop missed the pre flop raiser completely. There are just a few raising hands that this flop helps. Yours is one of them (A,AH,5H) . Hands he could have: Ax,Ax: K,K,x,x: Maybe something like: Q,J,T,9 ? not likely. Not likely he has a 9 in his hand nor a pair of Jacks. I would raise to try and play him heads up.
I also believe that a preflop reraise is warranted in this situation.
Vince
I'm not too worried about the raiser, but the 4 other players bother me a lot in Omaha. It is pretty likely that someone has a 9, so you are almost certainly not the best hand right now. Also, someone holding JJ is pretty likely to slowplay here. You're probably drawing, and may be drawing only for the A (which the raiser might hold 2 of himself, thus making you drawing dead). There might be some equity in calling for the flush draw IF you can read your opponents well and recognize when the hand is no good. Overall, I would typically fold.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
if you have a little feel that you can get it head up with a raise try it. if you think you will get callers which is most likely as you are probably beat at this point id just call and see what happens. fold if its raised and hope you catch an ace or heart which still figures to lose a high % of the time. you are basically calling for the pot odds and hoping everyone is weak or if trips is out it wont fill up. dont play in the face of any strong plays. notice that if there was one low card out there your hand could be much stronger or much weaker depending on whether you had a player that may have a better low draw possibility. headup jj8 would be a much better flop for you. as you now have many more cards to keep you in for 4th street and give you value if you are already facing a full house. things that look simple get so compicated. good luck.
This was a message posted today on RGP. I was curious about what the readers of this forum thought about it:
In the current issue of Poker Digest magazine, David Sklansky has an article, "11 Heads-up Matchups Before the Flop," in which he states, "there are, in fact, only 11 categories [*****] of heads-up matchups that can occur"... He then listed those categories as quoted below:
1. Pair versus pair...about...4 1/2-to-1...
2. Pair versus two overcards...about even money.
3. Pair versus one overcard and one undercard...about...2 1/2-to-1...
4. Pair versus two undercards...typically more than...5-to-1...
5. Pair versus one overcard and one of the pair cards...about...2 1/3-to-1...
6. Pair versus one undercard and one of the pair cards...10-to-1 or more...
7. First and second highest versus third and fourth...usually about...9-to-5...
8. First and fourth highest versus second and third...usually below 7-to-5.
9. First and third highest versus second and fourth...about 8-to-5.
10. First and second highest versus duplicate of first plus third highest -- Example...K-Q versus K-J. ...usually slightly below 3-to-1.
11. First and second highest versus duplicate of second plus third highest -- Example: K-Q versus Q-J. ...usually between 2 3/4-to-1 and 3-to-1.
Of his category #6, Sklansky says, "10-to-1 or more" -- but a pair of 5s is only 4.28-to-1 over 5-4-suited. And of his categories #8 ("usually below 7-to-5") and #10 ("usually slightly below 3-to-1"), in some cases, the second hand actually is the FAVORITE.
***** But worst of all, Sklansky seems to have lost his 'fight' with 'fuzzy thinking' in this, completely MISSING ONE such match-up "category"...
-Barbara Yoon
___________________________
Reply:
Of course your talking about duplicate pair vs. pair right?
Like two red Aces vs. two black Aces. Where the Red Aces are slightly favored 50.1% to the Black Aces 49.9%. [Red is lighter then Black so it slightly gravitates upwards]
-Chris K.
___________________________
Reply: (Titled Let's get reeeaaaaddy to rrrruuummmmmmbbbblllllleeee!)
In this corner Barbara "the Yooner" Yoon and in this corner David "2+2" Sklansky.
This should be interesting.
-DrToast
I haven't looked on r.g.p. but guess she means the same two ranks with one hand suited (e.g. AsTs vs. AhTd), consistently 52.5% - 47.5%.
I also haven't seen David's article, but her quote regarding category 6 seems to have a word missing, such as "usually" or "on average." Although 54s might be only a 5.3-1 underdog to 55, with the bigger cards (AA v. AK or A9) the domination can exceed 14-1, so suggesting that 10-1 is the mean (the median?) could be right.
David probably should have offered a caveat on number 10, although technically Barbara's not disagreeing with him.
Survey Says..............................Boring!!!!!! Both the article and responses.
I missed a category involving non pair hands with a duplicate but it is still the same situation as two others i.e. three wins and three redraws or about a 3-1 dog. My 10-1 reference was in a few cases too high. Actually this is not my usual type article since I like to pride myself on writing about and analyzing things that others can't.. In this case the unique idea was thinking of the subject of the article. The actual working out of the details is something rather menial that anyone could do and is not my cup of tea. The poster who called this thread boring is of course right. More importantly we again have an example of people who focus on the wrong things and thus cannot win big money playing poker.
Lucky for us they are around.
How humble you remain David. "...writing about and analyzing things OTHERS CAN'T (my caps)".
Can you see any possible "Fuzzy Thinking" in this line of reasoning?
Faithfully (and bowing)!
Vince.
BTW - Is it possible for OTHERS to understand that which they cannot analyze? Just a question.
And I used to think tournament Bridge players were the true pasteboard egomaniacs ...
David I'm proud of you !! You were actually able to write more than one sentence. And (off) course you are right, I don't make big money playing poker. And I don't focus much on the math anymore either. I focus on assessing players and how I can exploit weakness in their games, but I don't think that would be of much interest to you. There is another author published in Card Player who for years has been writing math based articles on heads up match-ups and so on. been there done that..........Boring. Being right doesn't always mean being interesting. sorry
The three earthly dimensions can scarcely contain egos of this size. The full expanse of cyber-space is needed to contain the Deities and their Sycophants.
My dimensions are truly inoculus to the juxtaposition of the cyber infatic reminesance.Conform and obey conform and obey conform and obey
DOE MAI
Hey thanks! I always wondered why "red" came out whenever I bet "black" on the roulette table. I had foretohere believed that the weight of my chips on "black" would counter the inordinate weight of "red" but, I know now that I was wrong. The opposite must to be true . My chips on black must have given "red" that much more gravitational relativization to decrementalize my bankroll! If only Blaise were alive to here this! Kind of in the same category as "Fermat's Last Theorem". Ah! Life is good!
Thanks again to the "Fuzzy Tinking Guy".
Vince.
From the introduction to the short handed section in the new Hold'em For Advanced Players - 21st Century edition:
>>Many players who become reasonably good at hold'em have trouble when playing short handed. They discover that their tight but aggressive style doesn't seem to be successful anymore. Furthermore, the "live" players who play too many hands and go too far with their hands all of a sudden seem to become much tougher opponents. Even though they play the same, instead of being easy prey, these live players now seem to be taking down the money.<<
This section reminds me of two players that I have played against. The first player is a real live one. He plays a lot of craps and other -EV games. Sometimes he plays Omaha/8 and sometimes hold'em. He seems to get a check of some sort at the beginning of the month and of course isn't around much by the end of the month. Everybody loves to see him play in the $10-20 ring games. But when he plays in the short handed games he is a plenty tough player and wins more than his share. It seems that his style is almost perfect for short handed play. There is another player who also plays Omaha/8 and hold'em. He could be a good ring game player if he didn't call nearly as much. However, when he plays in short handed games he is devastating. Especially against players who don't adjust their play in short handed games. In fact I'm sure both players would be overall winners if they only played short handed hold'em games. I know because I have played short handed against both of these guys several times.
I still have my share to learn about playing short handed in hold'em. Too bad this short handed section wasn't available sometime ago as it would have saved me a lot of money. Of course experience will be required to become at least a competent short handed hold'em player, but I can see that this section gives players the right concepts to work with. It has definitely given me some real good ideas on improving my short handed play.
Tom Haley
Tom -- The short-handed section of the new edition was the part I was most interested in seeing. I think that the authors do a good job of approaching it, as they do the rest of the book, with an emphasis on the conceptual level but with enough examples to allow you to start applying the material immediately.
I've always liked short-handed play. I think it may go back to some chance circumstances which gave me a reasonable amount of short-handed experience when I was first learning to play. I have to admit I kind of liked that there were only a few essays and articles out there on the topic. I felt that my willingness to think about the subject and work on my short-handed game gave me an edge on most of the opps I'd face in short-handed play. Oh well, now I guess I'll be forced to do some more thinking if I want to keep that edge. ;-)
Some of the things David and Mason touch on explain a lot about those players you refer to who just happen to do things right in a short game. For instance, the authors provide an analysis to show the kinds of hands you need to call or reraise with in the big blind in a head-up game (when the small blind raises preflop). Against an aggressive opp, it turns out to be at least 40% of the hands dealt to you. Some good ring game players might not play this many hands in this spot. But players like the ones you mention probably defend their big blind this much or more under all game conditions anyway. So for them it just comes "naturally".
But the player who not only plays the right percentage of hands, but truly understands *why* those are the hands to play, will always be at least a small step ahead of the one who just hit on it by chance. Similarly, as long as he gains the experience necessary to develop a feel for it, the player who really *understands* short handed play should (IMO) do better than the one who just happens to be aggressive anyway, and so does better in short-handed games.
John Feeney
Its down to two six -handed tables in a no-limit hold-em tourney. I went on a small rus and now have about T5000 in chips, which is about 40% of the chips at my table. Most of the players are in "screw-down" mode trying to get to the final table. The blinds are at 100/200 and I am taking advantage and stealing the blinds almost with any decent hand.
The rush continues and I pick up AcAh on the button. I raise it to T400, which has been my standard bring-in. The SB (stack = T2500) and the BB (stack = T1500) both call.
Flop is 2h3h4h.
SB checks and BB moves all-in for his remaining T1100.
The SB is a very solid and aggressive no-limit tourney player. The BB is tight, but somewhat weak.
I call, thinking that he may have flopped a lucky flush, but more likely has a medium overpair or a straight draw/pair combo. I also think a simple call might allow me to trap the SB if he was planning to check-raise with something like QQ or JJ (with a heart).
The SB folds.
The turn is the Ace of spades. I figure I can't lose and don't even pay attention to the river, which I think was a ten (no heart).
I turn over my three Aces and start to reach for the pot when the BB shows his 5c7h and says "I have a straight."
And a straight he did have. I avoided going on tilt, but never recovered from this beat and only managed to finish 6th, just out of the money.
A few questions:
1. Do you like the raise before the flop or should I have raised less/more?
2. How about the SB's play on the flop? How about my call vs. a raise?
3. How slim was this guy drawing? I had two of his "outs" in my hand, AND had about 17 redraws once the Ace turned. My back-of-the-envelope puts him at about a 10 to 1 dog.
Boy, this is a tight table if you can consistently steal with 2x the big blind. I think you generally want to raise more, but if 2x is your standard, then AA isn't the place to start to deviate. Slowplaying would have looked strange as hell given your lead and behavior.
I think he either overrated or underrated his hand. Overrated: he looked at his hand, thought he had 21 outs (which he pretty much does if you're playing two big unpaired cards without a heart), and thought this was a good place to double through. But if you had had no pair and missed that flop, how could you call a big bet like that? So he's risking his whole stack to win a small pot. Underrated: he might have though you had some sort of medium pair and/or that he can't afford to let you draw to a possible bigger heart. So he thinks he needs to blow you off the pot. I would have made or called a modest bet and waited to see what devleoped. (But then I don't play NL much.)
With the Ah, I think your call on the flop was mandatory. With two black aces I might have let him have the little pot.
He was only a 5.4-1 dog on the flop (5 solid outs vs. a bunch of redraws).
Chris' post drew my attention to a mistake in my post above. The blinds were 50/100, and I brought it in for 400, or 4x the big blind.
One wonders how the BB got this far if he is willing to risk 20% of his stack on 75o.
Two words: Kevin McBride
I must be having a bad day too. I was multiplying everything except the prelfop bets by 10, and though the BB was putting $11K into tiny pot. So I'd call the flop bet with any big pair.
Just for fun(?), I took a crack at calculating just how bad a beat this was. This was all done by hand, so while I'm pretty sure it's accurate, I could have missed something.
After the Flop, there were a total of 990 possible outcomes (45 choose 2) for the Board. Out of these, 5c-7h would win in 154 of them, tie in 4, and lose in 837 of them.
The possible ways for 5c-7h to win were:
1. For an Ace to hit, but without any Heart, without the board pairing, and without a Five (48 outcomes). Both an Ace and a Five would result in a tie as long as no additional Heart was on the Board (4 outcomes).
2. For a Six to hit, but without any Heart (102 outcomes).
3. For two running Sevens to hit (3 outcomes).
4. For a running 5h 6h to come, giving him a 7-high Straight Flush (1 outcome).
Thus, your opponent's odds of winning after the Flop were 841:154 against, or approximately 5.46:1 against.
OK, OK, so I was bored... :)
Q
Hi Mike: 1.400 against stacks of 2500 and 1500 is right. heavy enough to make themn fold bad hands (wellnoooo>) but encourages an aggressive reraise thus you might get to trap pre flp which i would think is your goal.
but how can you figure anything logically when you get an out of position call in the late stages of a tourney w/5-7o
does anyone know when espn or espn2 is going to televise this years world series of poker thank you scott
I heard mid-July from a post on RGP. I'd check RGP for more current information.
Also, this post should be on the Exchange Forum.
I am new to this group but am really benefiting from the discussions of strategy posted. I hope this qualifies for what this group is intended for. I am undertaking my annual review of may results and skills. As a part of this, I spent last night creating an excel spreadsheet that has the result by won/loss, game/limit and hours played of every poker session I have ever played except the first three. It yielded some valuable info but also raised some questions. One I would appreciate any opinions the group has is as follows: For low limit poker players who eventually want to move up, how many hous of live play do you need to accurately guage your skills? Another way to ask it might be how many hours of live play do you need to work thorugh the expected fluctuations of low limit poker? Any thoughts would be appreciated. .
i have been playing hold em for eight months, which also qualifies me as a newbie. i have been keeping track of play since december, same as you described, as well as a notes field, for style of games, players, and mistakes or good strategies used.
i started off in 3-6, and now play regularly in 4-8, 6-12, and 8-16. still do 3-6 but prefer a location where there is not a button collection.
i have devoted much time to reading, practicing, and studying all aspects of the game
my results have been modest, around one small bet per hour, but for less than a year's work i am not complaining. however as i look back i notice that i have drastically improved in recent months. i look at comments from january and think, "how could i have done that?" if i gauge my play since april it has been above 1 BB. i don't think that is enough time for an average, but i certainly know i play better now than i was in early 99. - kind of like when your 30, and look back on when you were 25, and think about all the stupid stuff you did. i wonder if this occurs well into old age.
anyway, i gauge myself by the ability to evaluate a situation, i know now WHY i make the call, raise, etc., after reading low limit hold'em i was playing MUCH better. that combined with the S&M strategies helped me out a ton, knowing which move to "pick off the shelf" and use, combined with my own knowledge of the player.
i have no idea how much time is needed to judge ones result, which doesn't really answer your question. but i believe part of the answer is in how well you judge yourself. results flucuate daily and monthly, but after a session try to remember where you could have SAVED or MADE money. i do this every time, tonight i lost about 4 big bets (maybe more) due to mistakes i made. i could have made 2 big bets by value betting. i care more about that than being drawn out on or leaving down a rack, because i agree it's the borderline decisions and small edges that will make you a winner.
just my humble thoughts.
-- the relatively new hold 'em guy --
Depending on your game(stud,hold-em,etc.),Iwould recommend that you pick up the Wilson Software.The analysis features of these programs are most helpful.
At least 1,000 hours, probably closer to 2,000. I don't know if it was in Gambling Theory or where I read that you need 4,000 hours. But this only refers to the time needed to get a good picture of your long-term hourly rate and standard deviation in a particular game, not whether whether or how well you'll succeed at a higher limit. If you're a pretty good player, play as high as your bankroll will allow.
Remember that winning at low limit game won't necessarily prepare you for playing higher. The players and skills are different. The play is often so loose/bad at low limit that much of your time is spent waiting for a big hand and getting paid off or figuring if you're getting the right price for a draw. There's some skill to that but not a lot. At the middle limits the players are more logical and more readable. There's more of a premium on situational analysis and selective aggression, whereas at low limit you can just be a rock and win. These are overgeneralizations but I think I'm right.
Something that you can master at low limit that is critical to all levels of play is emotional consistency. This is more of a frame of mind than a skill, but most people require a fair amount of experience to get it right. The ones that can't control themselves lose regardless of their level of experience or knowledge. On the other hand, if you already have a mental immunity from the slings and arrows then you're well on your way and just need to focus on how to gather information and use it.
Tuneman and Chris both have really good answers. What id add although they said it by what they wrote is that the more you learn the faster you get better. if you study hard and have the capability to play well a few months and youre on a good winning track. without study it may take a couple of years to iron out the good plays from the bad and it may never happen. as to the number of hours that is not important. if you are losing its most likely you are a losing player and the reverse. anytime after a few plays your results are going in one direction its probably that you are playing in that direction. it may take 2000 hours to determine within 99% that you are a winner but you can see for yourself after each hand if you are playing better than the competition. the game conditions are always changing and what happened last year may not fortell the results from the games you are currently in. anytime i lose two times in a row i feel i played bad or the game was not fit to my style or i was out of touch with what the players were doing. good luck.
John - Why not let your winnings determine when you move up. I am also trying to work my way up the poker chain. The method that I chose was to set a target bankroll which I must achieve before I can play at the next higher level of game. If I lose, I must then play at the previous level until I have earned enough to try the next higher level game again.
My own bankroll requirements are given below. I would welcome any comments as to whether they are reasonable. I am currently playing at in 6/12 & 8/16 Holdem games and I am getting very close to being able to move up to 10/20 Holdem games, but I did start at 3/6.
3/6: $500 - $1000 (first $500 supplied by mysel)f 6/12: $1000 - $2500 10/20: $2500 - $4000 15/30 - $4000 - $6000
they will work as long as you will drop down when you fall below the threshold which may happen quite a few times so dont be discouraged. the big mistake that almost all players make moving up is that they dont drop down and lose all their money when they find a level that they cant yet beat or just go broke from fluctuations from a samll bankroll. good luck.
Are low hands worth playing in Omaha-8 H/L split tournaments when the table becomes shorthanded or a player becomes short stacked?
My experiance has been that low hands without much of a sweeper potential do just terrible in tournaments. They are drawing heads waiting to be mucked after the flop, and unless they are protected with an additional low card they often get counterfeited at the expense of scarce tournament chips.
Do most of you tournament players avoid low hands without nut flush potential and additional low cards as protection?
if you are talking about hands like 249j thats a low hand thats junk at all games you cant steal in. a29j will do fine shorthanded in a tournament. when it gets shorthanded in tournaments or ring games you play the players more than you play your cards.
Here's a second example in S&M's new book on how to play in loose games. I must say that I have my reservations about this one. Once again, I am going by memory here, so if I've got some details wrong or have provided incomplete information, I am sure Mason will correct me.
You are on the button with AA. The pot is very big and several players see the flop.
Flop: J,8,7 rainbow
Everyone checks to you.
S&M ask you to consider checking!
On the turn, if a 10 or 9 shows up, presumably you would fold if there is any substantial action. Otherwise, the recommendation is that you raise on the turn.
Other considerations: Assume that anyone with a Jack, 10, 9, 8 or 7 in their hand would have called your bet on the flop. As well, hands like 54 would also call.
Comments?
The general principle here is that plays like this will sometimes prevent you from getting drawn out on the river since you can cost someone a double bet (and make him worry about a reraise) along with the fact that you have kept the pot a bit smaller cutting down his odds. When the initial pot is large, it is almost impossible to keep from being drawn out on fourth st (with the exception of certain back door hands) so it my be right to give up a few bucks to eliminate some of the fifth st outdraws.
David,
I have the new book, have read most of it, and believe it sets a new standard. My time had been limited lately so in this and future posts I’ll just comment on some of the areas that have me the most confused or areas that I may take issue with.
The preceding example in the text (big pot, many opponents, flop is Ac 9d 4, you have AKd, UTG bets, you’re next and wait until the turn to raise) seems to be a much better example of the above principle. This hand seems to be more than just “another variation of the same play”.
With the button aces and the flop a J87 rainbow (BTW, good recall skp) it may be right to check but I’m having trouble picturing it. Because you are last, it is unlikely you can count on a bet from a position to your right on the turn. Your check may tend to induce aggressive play on the turn with hands that you are better than or still have +EV redraws to. So checking could put you in a tough spot.
In addition, the aces must have put in at least some of the pre-flop raises on this hand so most opponents probably expect a bet from you. If a hand like a good jack or 87 is up front, they may go for the check raise on the flop. With a big pot, this isn’t so bad for the aces. Let them drive out some of the long shots and give you a chance at the redraw if you are against two pair (or even a set). Of course if you are still leading, you love it (e.g., a good jack check-raises).
I was going to write a little more but my best friend (20/40 Commerce player) just stopped by. I hope this subject gets a few more comments.
Regards.
Rick
I can see where it makes sense to wait till the turn in a big pot, but it intuitively seems incorrcet in a pot w/ many players; i.e., I'd be more inclined to make a play like this in a four way hand that was capped pre-flop than an eight way pot that was only two bet. With eight players in a hand, in what has been a loose game, it's possible that they can hold ANYTHING; 93s, T7o, etc., making it virtually impossible to tell if that seemingly harmless deuce on the turn helped someone or not. Further, you run into situations (this in the eight way pots) where the same turn card, if given for free, can help more than one player. For example, if the flop is an 89Q rainbow (or something similar), a 7 on the turn can make an open ender for the clown with ATo, two pair for the guy with Q7o, maybe even a set for the guy with pocket corn cutters, ad nauseum. This puts you in the precarious position of having to sneak through the river against a number of opponents who, collectively, may have picked up a gaudy number of outs-- maybe fifteen or more-- IN ADDITION to praying that the legitimate drawing hands out there don't make their hands either. However, if it's four way action, you don't have to worry about the turn card helping out the entire gaggle, which makes a 'slowplay' on the flop a bit more understandable.
Still, I think it's a questionable practice. As Rick points out, by checking here you may be missing as many 10 or 15 small bets, assuming that an early position player has a good Q (very likely) and decides to go for a check raise. And you get rid of some of the more exotic draws by making them pay dearly on the flop.
In sum, I doubt I'd make this play against seven or more opponents, but with five (maybe) or four, I can see the logic behind it. Still, as others have pointed out, everything has to be just right...
GD said: "For example, if the flop is an 89Q rainbow (or something similar), a 7 on the turn can make an open ender for the clown with ATo, two pair for the guy with Q7o, maybe even a set for the guy with pocket corn cutters, ad nauseum. This puts you in the precarious position of having to sneak through the river against a number of opponents who, collectively, may have picked up a gaudy number of outs..."
I think Mason said this in the related thread, but it bears repeating. When the pot is quite big, these kinds of hands are coming anyway. You can't stop them with a bet or even a raise on the flop. So this kind of play, which I see as really a sort of "desperate measure" for extreme (*big* multiway pot) circumstances, may become a viable option. If you just bet the flop, they will all call, then call again for one bet on the turn. But if you can confront them with two bets on the turn, they may fold. So you at least stop them from drawing twice. Even just making them *pay* two bets on the turn (e.g. early position player bets out, some players call, you raise, and they all call.) works out better for you. To me the sense of the play stands out most clearly if I think about the hand as a *whole*, from flop to river (which, when the pot is really big, is where you *are* going to be meeting your opps before the hand is over).
BTW, I have an aquaintance named George Z. (I'll leave him a little anonymity.). He's played mostly low limit hold'em, but is quite bright, and would definitely win if he played in bigger games. A few years ago we were discussing the problem of thinning the field in multiway pots. He told me how he had even started checking along on the flop in late position with AA so he could raise on the turn and really knock some players out. At the time I said something like, "Hmmm, interesting idea, but I can't say I've resorted to anything *that* extreme." After that I called this play the "George Z. play".
But, wouldn't you know, a couple of years later I dug out a tape I had recorded of a talk David gave, along with Mike Caro, around 1988 at the L.V. Hilton. In that talk David described this same play. Being a beginning player at the time, it just hadn't sunk in for me. I'd forgotten it. So I had to quit calling it the "George Z. play". It became just one more play from Mr. Sklansky (and/or maybe Mr. Malmuth? -- David didn't say at the time who originated the idea).
John Feeney
John-
Thanks for your response; just a couple things here that I wanted to hash out.
1) ARE they coming anyway? In the example I gave the Q7 and (probably) the pocket 7's are coming anyway, so in this sense my example wasn't very good, but the ATo? Or the 54s, which has now picked up a gutshot to the idiot end? The myraid 93s's out there that now have four to a flush? I agree completely that every semi-legitimate draw is coming, but how but the REAL exotic ones? And how about the fact that these wacky draws-- again, as a composite-- can pick up a ton of outs collectively on the turn, if the 'right' card hits?
If were talking about a monster pot (i.e., something with 25+ sb's in it pre-flop), I have to really wonder if these guys will dump their hands on the turn if they've managed to pick up ANYTHING at all; I, for one, know I'm going nowhere, particularly if I've picked up a pair, since I'm now going to figure the turn/ pre-flop raiser for an unimproved AK (or something similar). I'm not going to put him on a pocket pair, and sure as heck not an overpair, since I, like everyone else, will figure he would have bet the flop. If I'm part of the gaggle, this raise on the turn is going to reek of a semi bluff, and I'm calling (or three betting) and probably showing down with damn near anything.
This thread reminds me of Mason's now-legendary pocket 4's thread, where he mentioned that the real 'point' of the post was the turn bet, which eliminated three players and therefore at least 18 outs on the river. I can't be sure, but it seems to me that the inverse is true here-- by checking the turn, you're allowing the gaggle (again, collectively) the chance to PICK UP 18 outs (or, if this is too high, something equally disturbing). Figure in the 8 outs that the real straight draw has, the nine outs that the guy who picked up a four flush has, plus god knows how many outs 2nd and 3rd pair have, and suddenly you're looking at a mere handful of cards that can save your hand. In fact, one could say that you (me) are now drawing, just like the rest of the field. Also figure in the 7-15 (likely) sb's that your losing by not getting in a pissing war with a good Q in early pos. on the flop--- that is, 7-15 sb's your losing when the rest of them don't get there-- and I have to wonder if you're not losing more than your gaining.
Obviously, it all comes down to whether or not they'll call 2 bb's cold on the turn. Logic says they won't, but then again, the reason this pot got so big is because the rest of the field is comprised of incorrigible optimists, which would indicate that they're going to the river anyway.
Of course, maybe they're not. And it is on this one point that the argument rests. Nevertheless, while I can see the merits in this play, let me briefly reiterate what I see as the cons:
1) You lose a bunch of sb's on the flop by not betting when the field doesn't get there.
2) The turn card can conceivably help more than one player, thereby giving the field a ton more outs on the river.
3) Your raise on the turn has all the trappings of a semi-bluff (i.e., two overcards), so there's a good chance that the field, who's looking for an excuse to call anyway, will 'put you on' a slick and see the river regardless.
4) Because of three, you have no idea where you are on the turn if (when?) you run into a plethora of fancy raises.
5) Unless you're a real stud, you can forget about value betting the river, since God only knows if the river (whatever it is) made someone's hand.
This, in a nutshell, is my argument against. Also, like I said, I'd be more inclined to try this against a limited field, since the odds of giving a lethal free card are a ton smaller.
Looking forward to hearing your response.
GD -- You make some good points. There's probably a lot more that could be said about how to decide when to make this kind of play given various flop textures and lineups. I'll leave that to the authors. But I'll add these quick thoughts:
First (with the flop of Q98) I do think the AT is going to call one bet almost all the time. He's thinking, "BIG pot, gut shot, overcard, even if I hit the gut shot and there's a chance it's no good, this pot's too big to let it slip by." Even the 65 is going to call quite often, just hoping that no one has a JT.
The players with only backdoor flushes and the like will be less consistent. I'm sure you've seen the kind of player who will routinely "draw to a draw", while others never will. So you certainly have to know your players. But I think there's also a sort of "mood of the game" factor. Sometimes everyone gets swept up in calling, going for the big pot. If the game seems to get into this kind of "mood", then I would think that could be a time to consider such a play.
I wouldn't really think people being suspicious of a semi-bluff and calling with very little on the turn should be a major concern. I think most players are habituated to taking that double turn bet very seriously. They might even grumble about your raise seeming questionable, but I think most will feel they have to respect it anyway.
Your point about all the draws that can be picked up among your many opps is well taken. I guess it gets down to that same question -- will they all call on the flop anyway? I think assessing that possibility must be key in considering this play.
John Feeney
I count at least 28 cards that should scare you when you have several players , and a board like this. If there was a late posisition bet next to me on the flop, then I would try to raise, otherwise , if the bet came from early posistion and several players already have called, i would probably just call. The problem I have here is that if any of those 28 cards comes on the turn and there is a bet, I would be thinking more about folding than raising. I have to agree with GD that you are drawing here.
Here's an example of this play that I made the other day in a $30-$60 game at The Bellagio. A good, aggressive player raised early. Another good and even more aggressive player reraised from the middle. I made it four bets on the button with a pair of kings. The player in the big blind called and both other (active) players called.
The flop came Jack, eight, four. It was checked to me and I checked. A blank hit on the turn. The first two players checked, the good (and even more aggressive player) who had made it three bets before the flop bet. I raised, both other players folded, and the bettor called. An ace hit on the river. We both checked and my pair of kings beat his pair of tens. (Notice that there is a good chance that my check, then raise on the turn saved the pot for me.)
I have been using this play successfully for the last five years. It does occasionally put you in tough spots, but I believe that in the right situations it is clearly the way to go.
Mason,
An hour ago I double posted a message similar to this and they both got deleted when I tried to delete one. So I'll try again.
This is a great example. Now I see the value of the play and I probably wouldn't have considered it before. Too bad an example good as this didn't make in into the book.
Anyway, you guys did a great job on the book. I hope to post more when I get time.
Reagrds,
Rick
Rick:
Part of the reason why this is a good example is that it is very clear because of the hands that are out and the cards that came down. But the play can also be right in other situations where the cards/hands aren't as clear. If you hold two aces and the flop comes J87 you are going to get beat more than if the flop comes J72. But it's not necessarily how often your hand wins, but how much more often your hand wins because of the play.
Let me try to be specific. Suppose you somehow knew that if you make this play it would lift your chances of winning from 60 to 70 percent with the second flop. Well, you may or may not want to make it. The size of the pot and exactly how you think the hand would play out are the deciding factors.
But now suppose you also knew that your chances of winning would go from 30 to 50 percent with the first flop when you make this play. Well, even though the situation is not as good, you should be more inclined to make the play because it does you more relative good.
Hope this helps.
what "new book" are you guys taking about?
Larry F.,
In this case, a substantially revised and expanded version of "Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players" often abbreviated in the forum as HPFAP.
Regards,
Rick
The argument that this play increases the chances of winning the pot would be a lot more persuasive if there were some rough numeric estimates to back it up.
The two main factors I see could offset each other, or not: (-) giving a free turn card to hands like a 3-flush or small pair decrease the chances of winning the pot, while (+) getting to raise the turn more often increases the chances of winning the pot.
Which factor dominates in which situations and what pot sizes? Have I missed any important factors?
One other factor I just thought of is that if the turn card is free the pot is going to be smaller so if a bad card comes on the turn you may fold whereas if you had bet the flop you might have kept going on the bad turn card because of the larger pot. This would decrease the chances of winning the pot, but I think it is a small factor compared to the 2 I mentioned above.
Erik,
I believe that you have enumerated all of the important factors and I agree with you that some rough numeric estimates would be more persuasive. The $30-60 hand that Mason described might be worth analyzing further. I will try to post something at a later time about this specific hand. I had a situation somewhat similar to this in $10-20 game about a month ago. I had Q-Q pre-flop in the cutoff seat. A couple of very loose and somewhat aggressive limpers called. I raised, the little blind called all in so four of us saw the flop. The flop was something like T, 7, 3 rainbow. The first limper bet, the second guy called and I called. The turn card was a blank. Again the first limper bet, the second limper called and I raised. The two limpers then folded! The river was a K and the all in guy had nothing and I won the pot. The first limper exclaimed that he had a KT and would have won if he just called a bet. The reason I waited to raise on the turn was that I knew that these guys perceived me as a "nut peddler" and a raise on the turn would be very scary to them even though any hand that I would raise with pre-flop as a "nut peddler" would still give a KT or AT among others enough outs to call. Of course I didn't shut anybody out of winning the pot but another way could be that your opponents will fold hands that they shouldn't fold.
Tom Haley
This is an entirely different scenerio than the one we've been discussing, as it deals with a limited field that put a ton of bets in pre flop, as opposed to a whole gaggle that only put in two bets or so. I made a post on this thread earlier dealing with this very subject (that is, why I think this is a legitimate play in the situation you just described, but dubious in a 'family pot'); if you get a chance, give it the once over and tell me what you think.
Guy
Now, would the probable AK, or AQ would've called your bet on the turn even if you had bet the flop?
carlos
Mason:
I don't understand how the check on the flop saved you the pot. Certainly your raise on the turn, regardless of whether or not there had been a bet on the flop, is what got out the other players who might have hit their Ace on the river.
An Ace is just a likely to come on the turn as on the river. Why not bet the flop so that your bet, or a possible (though unlikely) check-raise by another player, would get out the A-? hand(s) right away instead of risking the free card on the turn in what is already a large pot?
Thanks in advance for your response.
The check on the flop saved the pot because it got the player on my right to bet into me on the turn which allowed me to eliminate the other players.
If I bet the flop it will probably be checked to me on the turn so that my opponents will only have to call one double size bet instead of two double size bets.
Yes, I see. With all that action before the flop, it is unlikely anyone would fold with just a $30 bet (or even a raise to $60) on the flop if they had an Ace. But your play is much more likely to get players out on the turn. Indeed, at that level, you are likely to have a player bet into you when you check the flop, suspecting you have either A-K or a smaller pocket pair than his. Since it is indeed just a likely for an ace to come on the turn or on the river, your play is much better than betting the flop.
What about if you had held Queens instead of Kings? Would you have made it 4 bets before the flop and would you have played it the same on the flop?
Thanks, again, in advance, for your response.
This play sounds very wise to me. David's explanation in the above is enough for me to justify a rebuy of HPFAP. In loose games all these hands will be coming. The manipulation of the pot odds, and the slight deception involved confirm: These guys are good!
Hello, David. I understand the concept. I play at Commerce and Hollywood Park. You may be able to get some people to fold on the turn, provided someone bets the turn so you can raise, at the HPark 15-30 hold'em. This implies they know odds in general. At Commerce you will often not be able to get anyone out with a draw to 5 or 4 outs with a double bet on the turn, in fact, overcards drawing dead will call (I'm not saying this is bad). They just cannot give the pot up. They will frequently bet a 5 or 4 outer on the come on the flop, just to make the pot larger, and if there are 5 people in the pot calling all the way , they are not that incorrect. In fact, they are probably making the right play, provided they play well, which few do. They are about even money, provided two pair will win if they hit it. A raise on the flop will mean nothing to them. It may make you some money, or one can wait to raise the turn as you suggest.
If you re-raise on the flop they will call, and come out betting on the come again on the turn. GAMBLE. They get tired of pai gow so they come to the poker table. Of course they are now putting in their money worse, especially if you raise. And one must consider the guy or gal who has flopped a set and is "slowplaying" it to see what happens on the river. Sneaky-stupid? Stupid at all?
The problem with these games is that you don't know if they are betting and calling with draws, or hands that have you beat by a mile. They aren't raising a lot, maybe once on the flop, but they are betting and calling a lot in front of you. Sometimes a draw will raise a draw on the turn, not to get you out, but just to GAMBLE. Sometimes, flop permitting, I mentally cuss and three bet them on the turn. I'm not stupid either (or am I?).
Now David, you have discussed wild capped games and I see your AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs, AQs, possibly AJs strategy as being very defendable. These are generally the 20-40 games, if they are going to be like that. I avoid these games. However, the games which give me problems are not the weak, loose-passive no fold'em hold'em, but the loose-aggressive, or semi-aggressive no fold'em hold'em. Here, players will come in for someone elses raise, you might have, say, KK or QQ with 5 people in already and if you three bet it it might get called all around just for the pot size. Don't laugh, but sometimes if you three bet it the rest of the field will fold. They all must have two cards that are white! More likely, they don't feel lucky. Well, OK, I guess their cards weren't close enough. So let's assume they fold and you get heads up with QQ vs. the five other players ahead of you. I'm just writing about a generic situation. Naturally a KING flops, and they bet, call, call, call, ad nauseam. I wouldn't even consider the other two cards since they are all capable of calling to catch runner, runner, and if the flop is AKQ, runner, runner to them might be a hand like 67o. They stay in to catch 66 or 77 and hope they win. I've seen this in "capped" games twice (and they won!!!). But most are not that brain-dead.
Now sometimes, it seems like they are calling, with the hope that no one has a king, with undercards like a J or 10, or worse, my queen (one dead). So it's bet, call all the way to me on the flop. Frankly, I mentally curse them, remember the trash they play, then raise. They all look up, then call, call, call, ad nauseam. Ok, I think. There's a K5 out there and I'm not going to get him out. The turn is bet (obviously), call, call, call, maybe one person folds (missed runner, runner). I fold since there has to be a King out there and I didn't turn a Queen. The river is bet!, raise!!, re-raise, fold, call!!!, and probably all call, a pair of threes wins it, specifically A3o, pairing his 3 on the flop, and the lowest card on the board. Now I'm ready to whip out the shotgun, blast these dolts, and just pick up their chips, including their wallets, explaining to the floorperson that they were crazy and I put them out of their misery. I know you've been to California so you know this senario is very plausable--perhaps not exactly like this (though sometimes, yes), but often quite similar. What I don't understand is what the other players called with!!?? A couple of Ace highs? Queen high? Dueces in the hole? What gives? GAMBLE?
Every hand isn't played like that. Every third is. The problem here is that not only can these semi-aggressive players win by drawing out on you, but they inadvertantly drive your winning hand out many times. (And some may be smart enough to know you will fold queens or worse to the King showing--though how in the world do "they" know someone else doesn't have it?) I mean, there are five or four people betting and calling up front and if you have KK or QQ and an Ace flops, it's very hard to call. I suppose I should call more often. When I do they have a set, or the A4o (for Aces). Whatever. Agreed that I'm antsy now, but it's not that far from the truth.
My question is, how does one play in such games? Position doesn't matter where position means nothing. That is, I get no information when they bet and call because they almost always bet and call. So that tells me nothing. Am I to play showdown? Of course when I flop or turn a set I will get paid off well... when the straight or flush doesn't come in. I really believe that your expectation in these games is lower than if you played against good, not too tough, but reasonable opponents (actually I don't mind tough players, since they can be trapped, or out toughed--the toughest do give me problems, I must conceed). Like in HPark (sometimes). Then you will have only one loose player or two calling you and it's possible to out maneuver a good player or two. I would rather have one, hopefully two loose players, with the rest of the field being fairly good but not great, than play with 5 or 6 live ones who bet and call into you a lot when you show strength. I may be wrong, but I am of the opinion that your expectation is higher in the somewhat tighter game. Winning 22% from 10 players (well, nine is the max here) is about the same as winning 45% from five players, but I'd rather be with the five players because ten players will have a much, much easier chance to knock my winning hand out than 5 players will. And 5 players do it often enough. How many times have you flopped a really big set, but the flop is all suited, and you naturally don't have the right high one?
Well, now I'm starting to digress and moan and whine. David, if you would, or Mason, Moses, Jesus. What is the story with these loose but semi-aggressive games? I've read the updated hold'em book, and it doesn't seem to cover these particular games at any length, if at all, but I may be missing something.
I do commend you on your no fold'em hold'em section. I think you've surprised many players. I would have liked the short-handed game section to include a few more concepts for 3 and 4 way short handed games, but must admit that I learned a great deal from the heads-up play material, and I haven't even digested it properly. I also noticed that you guys rewrote much of the earlier material, though I haven't yet read the whole book. Thank you for your effort and your book. Walt R the ocassionally melancholy
Obviously I've given you a very lousy scenario. It's not always that bad but it is often enough.
Walt R.,
You have definitively identified the loose aggressive problem with your post. True or not, exaggerated or understated this post tells it all! You have captured the frustration that a good-to-great Holdem player feels in a game of this type. Rather than muddle on I think that I will let your post speak for itself! I certainly hope that S&M respond to this treasure.
Vince
#1, with the type of flop shown, you would want to be careful on the turn regardless of the type of players.
#2 If the turn card is an apparant blank, and a player from early posistion bets, then your raise probably isn't going to get any of the players out who call between the bettor and you.
#3 if you bet the flop when it's been checked too you , you might get check raised by a player with a good draw and narrow the field since the threat of reraise is imminent.
As qwith your first example the situation has too be very very specific. Although you might be manipulating the pot odds, most of these players are coming in anyway. If you were able to make it inncorrect everytime for a draw to call on the turn, they would still come and draw out on you just as much because of the number of players involved. I have to be fair and say agin, I haven't read the book yet but the adjustments to be made in these games are , bankroll, and tilt mgmt.
By no means do we recommend this as an automatic play. Rather we point it out as a viable alternative in certain situations, an alternative that until now, never even entered most player's minds.
While the rationale behind the play has some merit, I think that this play has several drawbacks to it as many of you (notably GD) have pointed out.
The type of loose game you are in also matters. I would just about never make this play in a loose aggressive game. In such games, I would bet and hope that the player to my left raises and the player to his left reraises. The problem with checking on the flop in a loose aggressive game is that even if a deuce hits the felt on the turn, the betting could be 3 bets by the time the action gets back to you. For example, the guy in the small blind may now figure that since no one apparently has a Jack, his K,8 must be best and bets. The gut UTG with the monstrous J5 says "I can beat that" and raises and a guy who now hit a pair and a gut shot draw with his 10,2 says "what the hell, I have to call anyway so why not raise" and proceeds to 3 bet it. How do you like your Aces (still the best hand) now?
The danger of others incorrectly perceiving you as weak may cause them to muscle you out on the turn. This problem is much more likely to surface in this example as opposed to the AK semi-slowplay in the previous example and it is definitely much more likely to surface in a loose aggressive or wild game. In such games, if I were to check the flop with AA, I would prefer to be in middle position so that I may be one of the early ones to show muscle on the turn i.e. have people put me on JJ.
I'm worried that you're giving up a lot of value with this play. For instance, if you bet in late position with your Aces, you might get check-raised by someone who believes you are betting your AK. This will get you quite a bit of protection on the flop. Then you can smooth call, and when the player bets on the turn you can still raise. This gives the hand maximum protection along with maximum profit. I make this play all the time in these situations.
Also, if you check the flop you have not defined any of the opposing hands against you. Now if a running straight or a running flush comes in you are forced into a difficult decision on the river.
That's how I've been handling it most of the time too. Bet the flop - get checkraised, and now expect a blank on the turn to be just that, a real blank.
Anyone who played a few hours of NL will do exactly the same - a set up for check-raise - out of habit. Only it works better in NL....
An early position raise is respected more than a later position raise. If you're opponents think one way, you go the opposite direction. Most HE players seem to believe that the best place to steal is from the button or the small blind. In a NL hand, it's often the first to fire who takes down the blinds. While I won't often steal-raise from an early position with a short-stack, it's a very viable play when you are dominating the table and can't get hurt. In any event, unless you're pair over pair, very few hands are much worse than 2-1 against, so considering the blinds and the antes, the early position raise will often be getting that price regardless of their holdings (particularly short-handed). Raising from the button or the small blind will get you calls from guys wearing bracelets, holding nothing bigger than Q-J offsuit. All things in moderation.
In low limit hold-em (6-12 or lower); it is my believe that it is almost NEVER correct to raise PREFLOP from the big blind if no one else has raised. The one exception being if only 1 or 2 players have limped in and you are holding AK or a big pocket pair (tens or better). I usually do not even look at my cards before the flop, if I'm in the big blind and no one else has raised.
The reasoning is that (1) a raise will rarely get anyone who has already called the blind bet to fold, (2) with 3 or more callers, no 2 cards are really a favorite without help, and (3) you will make more money by disguising the strength of your hand until later (assuming the flop is favorable). Comments please.
In a loose game with many preflop callers it would be terrible NOT to raise with any two suited cards above a nine.
Does this include KTs and ATs?
David, thanks for your comment --- however --- (1) My primary reason to raise preflop to eliminate players when I have cards that play well short handed
(2) Since I dislike large fluctuations in my stack, I prefer to see a favorable flop (aka a 4 flush) prior to pushing in a lot of chips with a drawing hand such as 10-9s. Once I have a favorable flop, I'm not reluctant to raise "on the come".
Your style may be more profitable long term, but seems like it requires a larger bankroll to withstand the inevitable bad streaks.
David, thanks for your comment --- however --- (1) My primary reason to raise preflop to eliminate players when I have cards that play well short handed
(2) Since I dislike large fluctuations in my stack, I prefer to see a favorable flop (aka a 4 flush) prior to pushing in a lot of chips with a drawing hand such as 10-9s. Once I have a favorable flop, I'm not reluctant to raise "on the come".
Your style may be more profitable long term, but seems like it requires a larger bankroll to withstand the inevitable bad streaks.
You give up way too much by misssing these raises. Better to play smaller if you can't afford the volatility of this play.
I agree that raising in the big blind with a drawing hand is necessary in a loose game. You standard deviation goes up, as i know, but one of these high SD plays recently payed off for me big time, more than making up for the times when I have to drop out on the flop or turn.
I sometimes smooth call from the small blind in multiway unraised pots holding AKs with the intention of playing for a checkraise with most flops. Now I'm sure I'd want a player who follows that advice to be on my left, because this little multiway pot is going to get capped when the big blind raises, everyone calls, and I backraise.
It is my contention that your 'goal', with hands like AA, KK, AKs and to an extent QQ, should be to get as much money as you can in the pot, even pre-flop, since these hands will win more than there share anyway.
David, as you see, has much more liberal raising requirements, but I think you have to play pretty damn good cards to bang it with an ATs in the BB. But his point, namely that you should consider how well the hand plays mulit-way, should be of paramount concern when your thinking about making ANY raise that has no chance of narrowing the field.
Perusing HFAP today, and stumbled into something that got me thinking..
For the first time in a month of Sundays I reviewed the pre-flop section, and found something that send me reeling. In the middle position section, our beloved Knights of the Green Felt advocate raising with hands as weak as group 6 from mid position IF you think there's as little as a 25% chance that you'll steal the blind.
Now, I'm not adverse to popping it here with something like an AJo, or a similar hand, but I know I've never raised in this situation with a group 6 hand- hands like 75s, KTo, etc. While it may be a bit shaky, my reasoning has to do with the fact that any cold caller behind me is going to terrify me, and that even the worst players, while not exactly world-class hand readers, can generally figure out if someone has, uh, liberal pre-flop raising requirements, and will make roughly the right adjustments. As an example, I know plenty of guys who will play weak-tight on the flop against a 'legitimate' raiser, but if the raiser comes off as maniacle, will call 'em down with just about anything-- like pocket 9's with a AJ732 board.
In short, I simply don't have the talent, or know how, to successfully play a 75s if I raised pre-flop and got cold callers behind me. I'll get a little (O.K., a lot) creative ON THE BUTTON, but in mid position I'm still playing with my athletic supporter strapped on, even if I'm the first guy to bring it in.
This, apparently, is not optimum play. However, in my eternal quest to improve, I thought I'd send out this little feeler to see how those of you who ARE comfortable bringing it in for a raise in mid-position with verrrrrrryyyy marginal hands generally play these hands on the flop and beyond.
Please respond,
Guy
Guy,
That part of the book has escaped my full attention for years. I could only raise with the best of those hands when conditions are optimum and they almost never are.
I guess the raise with an AT against a blind that doesn't defend much and two or three weak tights on your left woould be OK. I would also want to have an intimidating table immage (e.g., I've been winning and showing good hands but have been sitting on my chips for a while and my opponents are semi-aware.
Regards,
Rick
" ... and my opponents are semi-aware." This is an important statement! A semi-aware requirement in the average ring game would probably eliminate half of the players. Keep this in mind the next time you are about to pull a "move." It is most likely to be wasted on players who won't notice and/or understand. Of course, the beauty is, most of the half would notice (are semi-aware) have learned just enough to convince themselves that they actually know what they are doing. Just look at the posts on this exchange. Thank you Mason, Ray, David, et al.
Maybe you're like me, and you've almost never been in a game where you can raise in middle position and actually win the blinds 25% of the time. If I'm in a game that tight, I either quit, or it's a tournament.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Rick has it right.
This play seems to work twice as well when you've got two to three extra stacks in front of you.
Even if the blinds don't fold.
Guy,
If there are 5 players to act after you including the blinds and the button, I believe that the right way to evaluate this situation is to look at the chances of each player folding individually. The 5th root of .25 is approximately .75785. So if each opponent will fold individually this frequently you will steal 25 percent of the time. If the big blind folds this often to a raise from middle position I would classify this player as very tight. IMO the bottom line is that the players behind you would have to be tight, especially the blinds. If they are tight and aggressive perhaps you'll get 3 bet too often to make this play profitable. If they are tight and passive you should be able to tell where you are at after the flop often.
Tom Haley
A couple quick points. HFAP is written for structured limit. In Colorado sytle poker, $2 to $5 spread-limit, you're risking $7 to win a $2 blind or 4.5 to 1 versus 1.3 to 1 in structured. You need to win much more than 25% of the time to make the raise worth it's while in spread-limit.
As I recall (I used my HFAP book years ago when I ran out of toilet paper), the raise comes under the heading (paraphrased) "Mixing Up Your Play." This works well against tight, but not particularly good opponents. The combined chances of taking advantage of their weakness via your selective aggression in position plus the chances of flopping a big hand when they make a hand and the benefit of expected future action from legitimate hands (the product of mixing up your play) makes the raise an effectively diabolical one when utilized in the right situations.
The type of players left to act behind you is the key here. If the players left to act are at all tricky or aggressive on the flop, I would be much more leery of raising pre-flop. Against calling stations or rocks, I would often raise with such hands.
The key here is if you really do have a 25% chance of stealing the blinds. If you do, then in a 10-20 game the EV from that alone is $3.75, making the play profitable overall.
The other factor is that if you do this occasionally, you're going to get more action on your real raises in the future. Once you start getting that action, you can back off on the steal attempts, because they will be less likely to work. It's a dynamic process.
Dan,
I agreee that finding that 25% is crucial. The best time for me is when I have been winning but sitting on my chips for a while, the blind is a folder, and the players behind me at least semi-aware and tight. Then I will raise a lot more.
Regards,
Rick
Rick: This is a case where game theory meets reality, and table judgement/logic is the key not optimized solutions.
In general it could be modeled: nXb+a
Where: n= The number of opponents to your left.
X= Your Action
b= Blinds
a= the Known actions between the blinds and your self. If you assign the best case, that benifits you, to each unknown you could get a favorable game theory solution. THE JUDGEMENT OF UNKNOWNS IN THE REAL WORLD IS YOUR PROBLEM.
Remember one of David basic tenents of the ideal situation is that you can see all hands and therefore can play correctly.
WrPlyr,
Finding the right spot is the key and I'm not sure how I would put that in an equation.
You wrote above: "Remember one of David basic tenents of the ideal situation is that you can see all hands and therefore can play correctly."
Has anyone ever been is a situation this ideal?
Regards,
Rick
its about the average type of hands you would need if you felt 25% of the time you would win the blinds. suppose you felt that in this spot %100 of the time everyone was going to fold. what would be the minimum hand you would now raise with. could you bring yourself to fold 2,3. suppose it was now 50% chance everyone would fold. half the time you would be given $15 for your $20 investment with no contest and the other half you must compete being less than 2 to 1 dog and first chance to bluff on the flop. could you still fold a bad hand. now its 25% see all the hands that can be played. it has nothing to do with image or players or anything else mostly. just my bad way of expaining things but i hope you all get the point. good luck.
Ray,
I just don't play many ring games where I am going to get even close to a 25% chance to steal the blinds from that postion. The bigger problem is that you will get rereaised at least 25% of the time or cold called and called by at least one blind another 40% of the time. Even worse is double cold called with or without the blinds.
In most of these cases it seems to me you are not going to do very well with these (group 6) hands. But if you do have that 25% I can see the logic.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
you are just lucky to be playing in maniac heaven. plus the players are much more aggressive than anywhere else except certain L.V. games. the 25% game is real in some other places and serves to give an idea how to adjust your opening requirements to the game. a player needs to understand this as when he may play elsewhere or move up in limits the play of the opening rounds changes.
GD,
"If you think there is as little as %25 chance that you'll steal the blind."
What does that mean/imply?
Doesn't that mean/imply that you must THINK before acting!
Doesn't that mean/imply that you must be able to evalute the SITUATION correctly before acting!
Doen't that mean/imply that you must be PLAYING POKER when you make this move!
Doesn't that mean/imply that the 75% of the time you are called or reraised that you know how to play correctly from there on!
Doesn't that mean/imply that in our "ETERNAL QUEST" to improve we test our judgement by looking for situations like those described, applying prethought out tactics and evaluating the results!
When I read HPFAP that's what I thought the authors meant/implied!
I have found that at various TIMES in the same game that the dynamics of the game will create situations where the likelyhood that everyone behind you (from mid position) will fold is sometimes much greater than 25%. Being focused and alert is the key to making this play. And, as someone has previously said, table image does help. But reading the situation is the most important factor.
Have a nice day!
Vince
P.S. Because I am now "running (so) bad", you may want to disregard all that I have said here. I am currently with Andras, I really stink! At first I thought it was just my play but I had a buddy watch my game and he was amazed at the negative way things were going for me. In all honesty I must admit that because I am "running bad" I have compounded my problems by also playing bad. The only smart thing I have done is moved down to a lower limit to evaluate my game before I go broke. I hope it helps. That said, I think I'll have another go at it!
I save this sort of maneuver for those times I have to post a blind on the kill button from middle position. It's a more powerful situation which enables me to have confidence when I raise my 97s.
I'm finding my way in small Pot-Limit Hold'Em tournaments and would like to ask a question of experienced players. I think I know what I'm trying to do when I have a large stack and when I have a small stack but I have trouble when I have a medium-small stack.
Example : blinds are 200-200 (one of these is on the button, bizarrely) and I have 1500-2000. A pot-size raise would be 600 in total, + 200 for anyone who has called already. What would your raising requirements be at this stage ? Are you only raising or folding, or would you call a few hands in late position to have a look at the flop ? What do you tend to do, say, if you raise for 600 with AK off and then miss the flop with about 1000 left ? What's your basic game plan in this spot ?
I think I'm playing too tight in these situations and getting blinded away too quickly.
Thanks in advance for any help,
Andy.
Unless there are already a couple of callers, you usually should fold or come in for a raise. In a tournament, you will be able to steal the blinds a lot (if not, then only raise with good cards, and play on knowing you've got the best of it).
How to play AK when you miss the flop is tough. It all depends upon your opponent. If there is a good enough chance he'll fold, then you need to make a big bet. If you know he's going to call, then don't bet. Whether to call his bet is even tougher. You've got 6 outs. You may be drawing dead, or you may actually be in the lead. These factors are even more important than the 24% chance that you'll hit your A or K on the next 2 cards.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
with 400 in blinds i think 2000 is a small stack. a pot sized raise may be more like 800 than 600( your 200 plus the 600 thats now in there). the blinds are a large portion of your stack and a small raise tends to bring in customers which in this case id rather win the blinds most of the time until i got a larget position. with ak and only 1000 left and getting almost 2 to one and against one opponent who is the favorite to have missed the flop an all in bet is in order every time (probably with any hand you hold here) unless you have other information. with 2000 id mostly go all in with ak to try to win the 400 out there or play headup against whatever calls even if i was near the money as i dont go for the idea of lasting and anteing away my money when i can bet it away with a real chance of getting the lead for the whole enchilada. remember that as scared you may be of getting knocked out think about how the others worried and will make bad laydowns just to try to get some money.
This might not be much of a problem but it's been bothering me.
$2-5 HE, one $2 blind, typical loose passive.
I pick up AdJd UTG, limp for $2, get two callers and the blind. Flop comes 7d, 9d, blank. I open for $5 (the max) and am called in two places: a weakish player in the middle who plays quality hands but calls too much, and an extremely passive player a few seats to her left. The passive guy calls a fair amount before the flop but then typically folds. When he hits he underbets his hand. The only time I've seen him raise is with a set, which he checked down on the river even though it was almost certainly good. He shows no sign of steaming. I notice that he looks at his cards carefully before calling my bet on the flop.
The 6d lands on the turn. I check with the intention of raising, the middle player checks, and the passive guy bets $5. I call because I don't want to lose the middle player yet.
The river is the 2d, putting four diamonds but no pair on board. I bet, the middle player calls, the passive guy raises, I reraise, and the middle player folds while the passive guy reviews his cards. To my considerable astonishment he makes it four bets. I'm getting about 14 1/2-1 so I know I have to be sure, but I think: "why would he need to look at his cards to see if he's still got the king?" I ponder for about 3 seconds and fold. The middle position player later told me she had the Qd. Comments?
YOU GOTTA CALL. (But you don' have to like it.)
Good laydown on the river and great self-control if your analysis of Mr. Nut Flush's style of play is indeed correct. But given your astute observation, why three bet the river? It's as likely he has the nut flush when he two bets as when he keeps going, given your description of his play.
By the way, you didn't lay down the nut flush. You layed down the second nut flush.
A "Straight Flush" is neither a flush nor a straight any more than a full-house is two-pair or trips.
A straight flush is a flush which also makes a straight and otherwise is known as the nut flush. Two pair or a fullhouse speak for themselves. But if you'd like to nitpick, we can.
But I get paid to be a nit-picking nit-wit .... :)
As long as you're not a lawyer (to which many nit-picking nitwit folks aspire), I can tolerate you.
Unfortunately, the analysis all occurred after his last raise. I reraised him because I thought my check-raise on the turn might have induced him to overplay a lesser flush; I stupidly forgot to shift my thinking after the 2d hit. (I really shouldn't play after work). When the board didn't pair, I just assumed I was huge.
i would have raised on 4th street to get the extra bet if he had a draw to beat you and you figure to get the call from the other hand with what looks like a flush. on the end i would bet and just call when raised from this player. with 3 to a suit on board its likely one would raise with a less than nut flush but with 4 to a flush on board very few will raise against a possible ace unless bluffing or can beat it. if bluffing you get no more and if beat you pay 2 bets.
Thanks for the comments.
I agree that not raising on the turn was a mistake. But if he's got the nuts, he's got them on the turn, and we're probably going to 3-bet it. (I'm not going to slowdown with the nut flush just because there's three middle diamonds on board). But when he 4-bets I check and call to the end. This way, I save a bet and still get to see his hand.
Chris-
Something to consider. With most players, I'd say there's a strong argument for laying down. But in your case specifically I'd say you have to call.
You probably already know this, but you've got a fairly wild image at the table. This isn't bad, but after enough guys have seen you raise on the button with what THEY would consider passing hands, they're going to stop taking your bets seriously on the river. This is generally good, of course, since you can value bet damn near anything, but it does lead to some dicey confrontations on the river.
If there's one thing our little friends at Bullwhackers CAN do, it's adjust to a player that they see as maniacle; I see it all the time. In fact, on the night I hit the bad beat (Tuesday), we had a TOTAL maniac at the table (three betting 93o pre flop, etc), and after about forty five minutes the guy simply couldn't buy a pot. George the prop, of all people, was calling him down with unimproved pocket threes, and the rest of the table would look him up with hands as weak as K high. While these players generally couldn't adjust their jockey shorts, much less their game, they seem to have a knack for making more or less the right adjustments against what they see as a 'loose cannon'.
Anyway, since it's you with the second nuts, I'd say a call is definitely in order, if only for this reason. For anyone else, though (and I'm probably the only person who will say this, since I know EXACTLY what kind of game your talking about, and what kind of opponent), I believe you can construct a serious argument for folding.
Nah, there's little if any chance the guy was bluffing when a lone Ace of diamonds can easily take it down. Even with Chris' messed up image, he made the right decision.
Good point but n/a here. I don't recall having ever played with this player, we hadn't been playing long and I had been pretty quiet, having played only one big hand, and it passively.
I've found that $4 bets into these small pots works quite well. Bad check on the turn; you could have gotton 3-bets in. Bad re-raise on the end, obviously go for the over call.
Have you EVER seen this player bluff-raise twice? Have you ever seen ANYBODY bluff-raise twice on the river? Have you seen more than 14 opportunities for this player to bluff raise?
These players do NOT bluff more often than one in 14 TWICE on the same round when it is obvious someone has fools' nuts. Easy fold against THIS player. Say "Ooops, I thought that Ace was a diamond". Do NOT let them know you made this lay-down.
- Louie
Ooops. I forgot to mention that if the player has thick glasses he MAY have mis-read his hand. Now you need to sweat it again. Someone who can misread a hand and looks a few times often HAS misread it, over and over.
Louie:
Thanks for the feedback.
I think the check on the turn was OK but that I should have followed through with my plan to raise. But I thought if I raised, I'll lose the middle and might even lose the bettor, but if I bet when the anticipated blank lands on the river I'll get two calls and even a raise from a lower flush.
It was this last gem of a thought that led me to pop him on the river. I absently put him on the sort of thought that a lot of LL players think: I've got a set/straight/flush, which is a good hand, a good hand is worth a raise, nobody else has raised, I raise. Also, as you point out, people misread their hands or do things that just make no sense. And I can think of numerous times when I've called with a big hand only to be shown some marginal holding raised not as a bluff but for value by a LL limit player without a clue.
But not this guy; not with this board. My reraise on the river was a mistake.
In all honesty, although I could see it on the board I didn't even consider the possibility of a straight flush until he 4-bet it. And then, watching him stare at his cards, rechecking the sequence, making sure everything lines up right, cutting out his checks without hesitation but to what seemed like me to be slow motion, and with everything I've observed about him finally flooding into my brain, it hit me with a kind of diamond clarity: I'm screwed.
4-bet bluff raise against a possible nut flush? Nope.
BTW, I quietly mucked (bad enough image by itself) and didn't reveal my hand (until now). But since your point on showing the hand is well-taken, for everyone out there I HEREBY SWEAR THAT IF YOU CAN BEAT MY NUT FLUSH YOU ARE GOING TO BE PAID OFF. SO DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT. ;-)
I've lost to a straight flush before with the nut flush, and believe me, i didn't see it coming. it never even crossed my mind that he could have had it. But after saying 'wow' a couple of times, i spent a long time after the hand thinking about whether i should have folded or not. I finally decided that i get paid off too often to fold, but it did bother me for a while too.
Lars
P.S. Call me a pessimist, but i always call with the notion that i'm beat if a straight flush is possible, even though i haven't been beat by one since.
First let me say, I'm new to this forum. Please excuse me if I seem like a bonehead. I've been playing in the bay area mostly at Lucky Chances. I'm a low limit player...don't have the BR to play 20-40 very often. Usually I play 3-6, 6-12, & 9-18 hold'em. The players here are almost as loose as a home game with players that never played before. while my play seems to be more along "book" play as far as starting hands go and reading the flop. I rarely raise pre-flop with worse then JJ. Mostly cuz A8os or k9os will almost always call. Most pots have at least 5 players, up to 7. Recently however I had occasion to play in vegas. The quality of player was MUCH better....I was a little intimidated even. But I played the solid game I normally play, made a pre-flop 52h raise and bet it all the way to "set-up" the table for later action, and provided a small win for myself. But I rarely take "shots" or make "moves". Am I playing too tight as a whole?
Raising "too" conservatively before the flop increases the value of a very tight post-flop strategy. Specifically, your post-flop strategy results in winning LESS than your share of the pots, so too often your pre-flop raise (even with a hand that's "worth" it) often goes to the other guy. Once you gain confidence in your post flop play (e.g. there are times you can confidently bet/call with 2nd pair on the river) you should raise more liberally before the flop.
If we define "stealing" as bluffing when nobody else has shown strength, such as when they check it around on the flop, you should be "stealing" a fair amount of the time. This is because OFTEN nobody flops a pair. Consider becoming Mr. Hide when you are on the button, and routinely (but not always) bet if they check it to you on the flop, so long as you have ANYTHING as good as two-overcards. Obviously don't do this in a real live game.
52 is ONLY a good "advertising" hand against completely brain dead types. Anybody with experience who sees you fold the next 10 hands in a row will KNOW you were advertising. Much better to do it when you flop a draw. Double gut-shot draws are the best for this. (87s board T64).
- Louie
recently in a 20-40 in the bay area I was middle pos when the player to my rt raised pre-flop. He's aggressive, but will raise with suited connectors. I had 99. I 3-bet to try to drive out the others. To my suprise it ended up 7 way action capped @ 4 bets. I dont like my hand....flop-Q98. LB&BB chk..pl to my rt bets, I 3-bet, he caps we have 6 way action. I never filled up and and flat called to the river...but it was 5 way action with 3 callers on the river! player to my rt had flopped strt as i thought. but all the others only had pairs....Not 2-pair just pairs....should I have folded on the flop when I tought the staright was alraedy made? Should I have not 3-bet the flop? Was I wrong to 3-bet preflop to try to get'em out?
Why did you not like your hand pre-flop? This is a great hand in a multi-way, jammed pot, because you can turn a big hand, but usually have little chance of making a close second best hand, so it tends to be very profitable. You just got unlucky this time.
Larry
You really can't fold a set here, since you're only about a 2-1 dog to fill up by the river. If he's got a set of Q's, well, you lose, but this doesn't happen very often.
As far as the three bet pre-flop is concerned, it's largely a function of how the players behind you play. If they're tight, it makes sense. If not, you should probably consider folding.
The ONLY time you should fold a set is if you are up against a sure higher set (but not a straight). Well, also if you suspect you are being cheated and want to gauge their reaction. Well, also in no-limit. Well, also in a tournament. Well, also in Omahaha but I digress. Anyone who has done this correctly in limit holdem 10 times in their life without a mistake, is probably a liar.
A set against a straight is similar to having a flush draw against a made straight; a hand you will routinely draw.
If you KNOW he has a straight and KNOW the other bone-heads will call, your 2nd-best hand is WELL worth capping it on the flop. This is because you are less than a 3:1 dog to win the pot (just over a 2:1 underdog to make a full house, not counting the few times you make it and still lose), but are getting a whopping 7:1 for your money. So for every $20 you invest you average a return win of more than $28!
That's a lot.
But even heads up there is almost always plenty of money to try to outdraw the straight.
You're only real consern is whether the player has a set of Queens; then you have only a one-card out (the case 9) and should fold.
While there are times this isn't true, with a set you should routinely WANT them to call all raises. In fact, sets or better is when you cash in on loose games. Cha-Ching!
I assure you that ALWAYS capping it with a set is better than RARELY capping it.
- Louie
Hi! I am a young poker player. So far, throughout my summer vacation, i have been playing poker with my friends. My whole life, ive been playing for about a year. In the last week, ive made about $50. If anyone would like to give me a URL for a good poker stategy site, or a name of a god book, i would greatly appreciate it. Thankyou
You did not mention your poker preference (stud, hold-em, etc).
For Hold-Em try David Sklansky's "Hold-Em Poker" gives all the basics in a condensed version. Great place to start. Available at this web site ( no --- I don't have an interest in 2+2)
good luck
For a great "general" book I would recommend "Theory of poker" (two+two) publishing. I am a relatively new player and that was the first book I bought. It was helpful for a beginner.
If you're a stud I would recommend 7-Card Stud:42 Lessons by Roy West($25.00 GBC).
http://www.twoplustwo.com/
News group Rec.Gambling.Poker.
take the 50 bucks buy a us savings bond and never gamble again. you will come out ahead of 98% of the poker players and gamblers in the usa. and the majority of guys in this group. and this includes some of the brightest lights in the poker world.
I'm in the big blind with Q-7 suited.
Player to my left (calling station, never raises won't lay-down quality hand) limps in.
Player two seats two his left raises (Agressive quality player) Two more callers, I call.
I flop three Queens for Quads. WOW.
I check hoping for lotsa callers and so players can catch up.
Calling station checks, Agressive bets, two others fold.
Turn is a K, I check, calling station checks, Agressive bets.
River is a 9, No potential flush.
Now the dilema. If I bet I feel calling station will call and agresive will lay down. == 1 Big Bet (Possibly 2 Big bets if he doesn't laydown).
If I check I believe Agressive will bet I can then raise and am confident the calling station will call. == 4 Big Bets.
I elect to check it again and a catastrophy happens it got checked around. == 0 big bets. I honestly thought that agressive would bet.
Turned out agreesive had K 9 suited and calling station mucked.
Would appreciate comments on my checking quads all the way as well as the play of the agressive player.
Thank you,
S. Doyle.
If
S. Doyle,
Did you consider the alternative of betting the flop? No one will put you on the queen and you should get action from all pairs, AK and hands like KJ from the weaker players.
Regards,
Riok
Sat. night tourney at The Orleans. 2 tables left w/ 7 players each. 100 ante, 200 bring-in, 500-1000. I've got around 5000; there's 40,400 in play. Everyone folds to me. I'm looking at a 10 and J up for the two players btwn me and the bring-in (who I can tell doesn't have much). I've got a J up and two 8s in the hole, so I make it 500. The J reraises 500 more all-in. I call; he's got As in the hole. On 6th he's got the As, four to a flush, and four to a low. I've got the 8s & dreams. So, of course, he blanks on 7th and I catch another 3, and windup taking second overall. One for the cover of Hi-Lo 2000. Comments?
I've played ~80 small tourneys; 75% Orleans dailies (and nightlies)size, the rest a bit smaller. I've got three 1sts, two 2nds, three 3rds, four 5ths, two 6ths. I've never finished fourth or one out of the money. Out of four stud hi-los, I've got a first and second. After tokes, I'm up ~$200. Don't quit my day job, huh?
Five years ago I played in a 2-5, 2-10 on the end stud hi-lo game, $2 bring-in no ante. I didn't play a hand past 3rd for the first three hours, and didn't win a hand (the third one I played) until the 7th hour. After 16 hours I had played 7 hands, won 3, and quit $300 winner. Too bad that game's not there anymore and that they never wanted to play higher......
Kid comes home from playing baseball and his dad asks him how he did. "We were winning till the big kids got out of school ..."
There's a nice set of Orleans tourneys you might try next month that will help you get a fix on where your expected return might be -- for better or worse.
"Five years ago I played in a 2-5, 2-10 on the end stud hi-lo game, $2 bring-in no ante. I didn't play a hand past 3rd for the first three hours, and didn't win a hand (the third one I played) until the 7th hour. After 16 hours I had played 7 hands, won 3, and quit $300 winner. Too bad that game's not there anymore and that they never wanted to play higher...... "
That structure leads to overly tight play and will tend to burn out the game. Loose players' extra calls really cost them in this game, and without an ante to increase the luck factor and induce early action, they quickly go broke. When there is no raise on third, many people might take one card off for $2, but then a bet on 4th will almost always lead to a heads-up pot. As a result, the rake is brutal, with mostly small pots, many if not most of which are split. This game is dying in Foxwoods, and I think the 2-10 no-ante structure is the main reason. If the game was 6-12, with a $1 ante and $2 force, I think it would do much better.
Dans got a good point here and too bad it will fall on the deaf ears of the cardroom managers. its important to structure a game so the chips fluctuate. this way most losers at the end of the night can say "if i only quit earlier when i was up". unless the game is in a club with unlimited live ones this type of game goes under. the bad part of raising the ante is that if the game is raked at a fixed % up to a high number the increased antes may just make the house more money rather than helping the game and it also burns out the game. this is what happens in the 10% rake games as the old 5% rake to 2 or 3 dollars gave the good players a chance to win if they controled themselves. these are the players that come in early and start games and play late as they are winning and having fun. i always advocate players push to pay time. enough said. good luck.
What do you mean by "players push to pay time"?
Players pay for time spent at the table instead of the house taking a per pot rake.
In AC the house rake is 10% (max $4) for games $5-$10 and lower. For games $10-$20 (the next increment) and higher players pay time. In $10-$20 games time is $5 per player, payable at the beginning of each dealer shift (every 1/2 hour). For $15-$30 it's $6, for $20-$40 it's $7, etc.
When you hear the phrase "time pot" it refers to when one player at a table pays time for the entire table and is then reimburesd by the winners of the first two reasonable sized pots (amount pre-determined). For example, at $10-$20 hold'em the time is $50 ($5 for 10 players). One player posts the $50 and then the first two pots of $120 or more reimburse him $25. Winners pay time.
Dan - I agree with you that the structure will cause good players to be too tight, as you say. But if they are not good players and want action, it can be advantageous until the losers switch to another game. I am seriously considering adding hi-lo stud or Omaha-8 to my repertoire pretty soon.
I would like to ask the panel my favorite question again. I do not have a strategy to beat the other players AND the rake in the 3-6 stud game (high only) as spread in all the rooms in Phoenix. CAN YOU TELL ME HOW YOU WOULD BEAT THE FOLLOWING GAME: (just add 1 or 2 zeros to the numbers if that makes the game more interesting to you.)
3-6 stud, .50 ante. Out of the antes, $1 jackpot drop is taken immediately. Forced bring-in of $1. Rake is $2 at pot 20 and $1 more at pot 30 ($3 max). Customary dealer toke for a decent pot is $1.
My personal opinion is that there are no long-term winners in this game, and that is bad for Phoenix poker.
Thanks, Dick
i dont know what the dreams(i surmise threes) are but it looks like he is about 3 to 2 favorite with 1 to come. if someone wants to find out how far off i am go ahead and make my day sometimes im way off when i guess. its a hand that was destined to be played out. maybe hi-lo 2010. good luck.
I caught a SECOND three on the river. I had the eights and trash. He's gotta be bigger than 3-2. Doesn't he?
On third street I routinley fold my small pocket pairs (9s through to duces) if #1: one of the same pocket pair is up elsewere #2: my door car is small and is out eslewere #3: there is a raise and my door card is not the highest card on the board. My thought is why get started on the wrong foot when you can let go so cheaply and wait for a better hand to invest my money! Question #1: Is my play far to tight? question #2: If my play is to tight what is the correct strategy ? I realize this post may be far to elementary for most but any responses will be greatfully appreciated. Thank you.
With some reservations, I could, in general, agree with #1 and #2 (example, pocket 9s, one showing, but the whole field just calls the bring-in or opening bet, I'm not going to fold).
But #3 is too tight. The only reason to play a small pocket pair is for the same reason you play a small pair in hold-em -- to hit a set. Since the bets are 1/2 price on 3rd and 4th street, the raiser has made it more profitable when you hit that set. Playing small pocket pairs doesn't require the same number of opponents to make it profitable as flushes and straights do, but your thought processes should be along those same lines -- trying to get a good price.
Of course, there's certainly no reason to believe that you will always be against a bigger pair, as some of your opponents may be semi-bluffing a big draw, and you may in fact be holding top hand.
In any event, if you've come to stud from hold-em, it's important to appreciate that your chances of drawing out against a bigger pair are much better than they are in a hold-em hand. Typically in a hold-em hand, you are about a 4-1 dog to outrun a bigger pocket pair, but in stud, the price is about 2-1 -- if you're sidecard is bigger, so much the better. The beauty of a pocket pair is that when you hit the set, it's well-disguised; the hazard of a small pocket pair is when you try to play with the small sidecard and make two small pair. Two small pair and a small straight are the two hands you are most likely to bleed chips on.
This is very good advice.
I would add that the opponents and there style of play must influence your decision. If there are a number (even one) of calling staions in the pot you may want to loosen up. If there is a very good player (expert) in the pot you may want to play more often when one of your cards is out. You can see why. Also, if there are a lot of women in the game you may want to play more often. (Just kidding girls!)
Vince
I have a few thoughts about the new Holdem structures currently spread at the Bellagio poker room in Las Vegas.
The three chip, two chip blinds seems to have a great effect on the play of the games (in the 15-30 and 30-60). The extra ½ small blind chip encourages action in raised pots. Most players incorrectly call raises in the small blind, treating it as if it were a big blind. This causes some strategy changes which have the effect of reducing the importance of poker skills that are important in shorthanded pots. The new structure creates more multiway pots. Winning or losing these big pots can have a big impact on short to medium term results. In other words they increase fluctuations. This will result in more marginal players or players with small bankrolls going broke. Most bad players will go broke quicker, while some will do very well for a long while before going broke. This will limit the players pool, and burn out the middle limit games. Poker needs marginal players and small bankroll players to survive the long run.
If this reasoning is accurate, what will be the fate of the middle limit games in Las Vegas?
I can't comment regarding the impact of the structure at the Bellagio. However I your query regarding the fate of the middle limit games did strike a nerve with me.
I am a firm believer that the fate of the middle limit games is very dependant on the success of the low limit games. It is the low limit games that virttually all middle and high limit players first cut their teeth on.
The future middle and high limit players are currently playing on the low limit tables or are just about to. Having said this; I have two comments regarding the low limit tables.
Point 1: Card rooms should do more to respect the low limit players and value them as current customers and future better customers. Yes you probably don't earn as much per square foot at these tables however think of it as future earnings.
Point 2: Middle and High Limit players. The low limit tables are NOT the place to skin a few fish while waiting for your regular table. Remember that the low limit players are also YOUR future customers and bilking them early in their careers can turn them away forever.
With regard to earnings per square foot in the poker room:
1)I thought the rake was the same up to 20-40 or 30-60 where you start paying session fees.
2) From what I see of low limit poker, most hands go above the maximum rake amount. There is very little blind stealing, where the house gets nothing. A raise on the button generally doesn't move the blinds off even bad hands. 7 - 10 o in the small or big blind will call a raise 80% of the time.
3) From what I have heard, the lower limit games tip better as well.
Seems to me the card rooms would rather have the lower limit games.
By the way, the only time I played 4 - 8 hold 'em at Bellagio, I was made to feel most welcome. That's where I'll play over 4th of July weekend.
I just posted a huge loss. $3000 in 30-60. Seems everything I played was no good. 3 Kings beat by 89o on the turn, KK beat by J2o( he was in the blind, and it only cost him 3 more chips to see the flop), several AK's and AQ's which missed the flop. The list goes on and on. To add to my misery, this isn't the first time this year that I have been trounced like this. It isn't even the first time this month. I'm still ahead for the year, but not nearly as much as I should be. Does losing this much indicate a problem in my play? Do other players have such huge losses? I welcome all comments.
We've all been there, I got trounced last night in a game I have a High Expectation from. Good players getting beat bad has to happen sometimes. Once this happens, I believe its always a good time to look at our game. I try to set my Ego aside an look at how I played. If I can confirm that I played well, I just go on to the next session. I usually find some mistakes though.
Later, CV
i was down about 70 big bets the first part of the month, however the past week has shown a great correction and i made 60 BB in a 12 hour session yesterday, which definetely reaffirms my belief in the averages. i know i can't get excited over that tho, because it's just part of the ride.
funny non-played hand in yesterday's game which i just have to share- i get 55 in early / mid position, frequent raiser behind me so i fold and go get a drink. i come back to the table, the board is Js 5s ? 5 ?s. Hands are up - one guy the J J, and the other the A-hi flush of that suit. The table was buried so high in chips i couln't even see the felt. i just started laughing, i couldn't tell anyone, cuz i didn't want them to know i played that tight. the dealer, who knows me just chuckled and rolled his eyes.
i'll keep folding it tho.
j..................
I've never played as high as $30-60, but am curious about the variance there. Do you think an expert player would be more likely to lose $300 in $3-6 HE, or $3000 in $30-60 HE (ignoring the loss to the rake)? My hunch is that at the lower level, one is more likely to see premium cards get run down more often, due to more people seeing the flop with garbage.
Friday night. 30-60 at Bellagio. I'm 2 off the button. Everyone calls up to me, except one player. I have 98o. I call. The next player calls, as does the button. The flop is 6-10-K with one Diamond. Everyone checks, the button bets. All call up to me except one. I think for longer than usual, and then raise. The next player folds, everyone else calls. The turn is 4d. Everyone Checks. The river is 7d( the third diamond). Everyone checks up to me, I bet, the button calls, everyone else folds. I win. John, the player on my right who folded pre-flop, says I must have blown a fuse to raise on the flop. What do you think?
Brett
Curious hand.
You mimic a checkraise hand,---- to buy a free card,--- to draw to an inside straight.
Was this an application of "all the big cards are out there"? You thought everyone else had all the KJ, QJ, AT type hands, thus making your 7 a little more likely?
When Vince first told us about you, I didn't think you were a real person. Now I know,_______.
Well, it is an inside straight, but it's a double inside straight. Any 7 or J would have filled him up.
would betting the turn in this hand be a good play?
You made the correct decision on the flop. It was the button that played bad. I'm guessing that you wanted to isolate the action between you and the button. He should have reraised so anyone that stayed would have had to call two bets cold. The only thing I would have done differently, would have been to bet out on the turn, since you probably would not get raised.
Does anyone see a connection between this post and the post entitled "Why Me?" Maybe just a coincidence.
Bill
Almost forgot I posted this. I hate to admit it, but John(and Bill G.) was right. I had been playing about 9 hours, it was about 3am, and I screwed up. Since I was too tired, it took me longer than usual to decide if the call was worthwhile, and then, I raised by mistake. I meant to just call. When John confronted me on it, I mumbled something about trying to get a free card on the turn, but of course all I really did was change my pot odds by raising. I sat there for another round without playing and then left.
"..30-60 ... 2 off the button. EVERYONE (my caps) calls... 98o I call...
That just about says it all!
Oh, Yeah! "30-60" Those are DOLLARS aren't they. Hey David and Mason, notice how the games get tougher as you move up in limits!
What do I think? 3 Bet, let's GAMBLE!!!!
Vince.
Last night 10/20 HE im in mid position, look to find KsKd i 2 bet it its called by 3 players behind me and SB & BB call rest fold,,6 of us see the flop,,, J 10 4 rainbow,, SB checked BB bets i raised ,, all call SB folds and BB reraises,, we all call ,, the turn is a Kh BB checked I bet 2 fold button calls BB raises ,, i thought for a min and called,, so does all,, the river blank BB bets out, I thought for a min ,, looked at him and and flipped my hand face up on table with out calling,, he shook is head and siad wow,, then laid down QAs for the nuts ,, a player sitting next to me said i was crazy for laying that hand down,, for some reason i knew i was beat ,, would any of u had laid down such a monster!! all and all when his reraises onthe turn i knew i could not win unless the board paired on river,, did i play it correct?
Allan,
You do not describe the style of the BB but it seems clear from his flop betting that he is very aggressive and somewhat reckless. He leads out on the flop (J T 4 rainbow), gets raised by you (who raised pre-flop), then reraises with two overcards and a king as his only safe out. He should figure you for the overpair, set, top pair/kicker (such as AJ), better overcards such as AK, or even a better draw such as KQ. Plus he has to worry about the other cold callers beating him even if he pairs his ace or queen.
On the turn you spike a king and then get checkraised by this guy. I would reraise here with the board now K J T 4 to put pressure on the button and the BB (he will not always have the nuts, a player this aggressive could easily have two pair, a smaller set, or a pair/draw such as QJ). The fact that you would get reraised here might make your river laydown easier and more correct (although I would still call this type of player).
You then wrote: "...i thought for a min and called,, so does all,, the river blank BB bets out, I thought for a min ,, looked at him and and flipped my hand face up on table with out calling,, he shook is head and siad wow..."
I may be wrong in my analysis, but I'm sure about the following: In just about any game (especially an action game with aggressive players), it is a HUGE mistake to show your "expert" laydowns. It is like giving them an invitation to take shots at you later and wises up the table to a concept they would never think of themselves. So if you do fold a big hand in the future, do it without emotion and don't show the hand (BTW, wasn't the button yet to act per your narrative?).
One more thing. Try not to "think for a minute" in these situations. The reasoning is covered in the loose game section of the newly revised and expanded HPFAP.
Regards,
Rick
Allan,
the best thing you can do is reread Ricks post a few times. ive never seen a person that shows his hand like you do last very long in the poker world. most go broke as the opponents soon learn to outplay you. plus its very bad for the game. i hope you see the problem and adjust, best of luck.
I want to bring up another point. When you make the type of lay down that you did, you don't have to be wrong very often for it to be a mistake. This is because there are a bunch of bets already in the pot. (This is a very common error by intermediate level players. They correctly rationalize that they are probably beat, so they fold. They fail to consider the size of the pot.)
It is also my experience that many players, especially at the limit that you are playing, will get out of line in ways you don't expect. I know that over the years I have won many pots by calling on the end where the situation appeared hopeless only to find my opponent bluffing ot betting something that he shouldn't.
Put another way, there are many players who are tooo loose early in the hand, but too tight late in the hand. Make sure that you are not one of them.
Mason,
A poker friend of mine had the bad habit of taking too much pride in his "smart" laydowns on the river. All too often he would lay down the winner in a big pot in situations you descibe above.
We would discuss poker over coffee quite a bit. One night he said "Rick, I think my problem is when I try to get into my opponents heads I make the mistake of putting my mind into their heads."
Anyway, this seems like the right thread to mention my friends problem.
Regards,
Rick
I have to agree with Mason on this one. However, I do believe that I call too frequently on the river in Holdem. When I began playing poker I started with 7 stud. I learned to call the river unless I knew for sure that I was beat or the pot was so insignificant that a call just doesn't make sense. I now have the tendency to do the same in Holdem. The problem is that in 7 stud a lot of times you can tell for sure when you are beat and just lay your hand down. In Holdem this is never true. You must always make a decision. For example: your big blind,you have 2c,9c. The board is 3h,4c,5s,Qd,Kd. Betting til the river. Huge pot. One opponent on the river. He's small blind. He bets. There is no way to know for sure that you do not have the best hand. Your opponent could have 2d,8d. In stud your opponents board will sometimes beat your hand and you can safely fold. In holdem you must always make a decision. I have a calling mentality/tendency. But I am aware of this and am now factoring in other considerations before acting. I still agree with Malmuth on this subject: Consider pot size before making your decision.
Vince.
I agree completely with Mason.
An old golfing buddy of mine had a great expression. He called it "paralysis by analysis." If you are so wrapped up with what is happening with your golf swing that you have to analyze what every muscle is doing, you will screw yourself up completely and hopelessly. (He was a 2 and I was/am a 20, so I tended to listen to him.)
I think that applies to this hand. You should be thinking, "I have top set. It might just win. So call."
Dick
Frankly, when the pot is big and I have a real hand I just about go into 'auto-call' mode. Show me a better hand.
There are several factors at play here:
you get my post of the week award for echoing my thoughts here. as we know your opponents decide how to play against you by your actions.
Ditto!
Vince.
Ray,
I'll assume your week ends on Sunday because I was hoping my post earlier in the thread was your "post of the week" last week!
Regards :-)
Rick
Dan,
Good post.
I liked the following comment:
"If you don't call, the mental second-guessing that you do afterwards can affect your play"
BTW, how did you get the bullets. When I copy things down from MS Word (for my longer posts) the bullets disappear (I think).
Regards,
Rick
You can incorporate any amount of HTML into a messsage on these boards. Normally, I hate the use of HTML in text messaging, but these types of boards often won't let you format your text any other way, so...
Against this aggressive tricky player you should figure you KK to be good on the flop (these guys like to slow play). ReRaise, or clevery call figuring to raise the turn, hehehe.
He does not figure you for trips and can reasonably have lots of hands like Rick said. Pay it off eagerly; going for the over calls.
This thread has the highest concentration of excellent advise I've seen in a long time.
- Louie.
My quick figuring is that there is 380 dollars in the pot. You are getting 19-1 (a guess) how can that be a good fold
Wouldn't this be a perfect situation to just call the flop and raise the turn, as in the knew book?(regardless of the outcome)
How is it that you were so sure BB didn't have JJ?
Hi,
Given the following assumptions:
1) The player can win an average of .75 large bets per hour (i.e. $30/hour in 20-40)
2) The bankroll money is only used for playing poker
What Bankroll is needed to play the following games:
10-20 hold-em
20-40 Hold-em
40-80 Hold-em
$10 buy-in tournaments with avg. buy-in of $55 per tournament
$330 buy-in tournaments with no intended re-buys
$1000 buy-in tournaments with no intended re-buys
Thanks for your comments!
If the bankroll will theoretically always be used only for playing poker, isn't this merely a deviation question, i.e., what bankroll will prevent you from going broke at each of these levels, given the predicted win rate?
Okay, I have often told myself that one of the flaws in my game is that when I am locked in a big hand, I don't feel that I take enough time to reconstruct the betting action to try to put my oppponent on a hand. I am guilty of running by gut instinct and using intuition to decide whether I fold or call or raise. Now, I have recently read a message by Rick Nebiolo under "Re: Laying Down A Monster!!!" in which he sais that you should not be caught 'thinking too much' according to the revised HPFAP. I enjoy all the books by S & M and will buy this latest revision when I make my next Vegas trip, so please don't think I'm trying to get out of buying the book, but maybe someone could enlighten me briefly on what Rick was talking about. It would be appreciated.
The rationale behind the S&M advice is that by stopping to think about your decisions, you may unwittingly teach the live ones that there's more to this game than just pure luck. The idea is to promote an atmosphere where everyone is there to have some fun and enjoy themselves. The message you ought to be conveying is that you are there just to have some fun by playing a "game of chance". If you stop and mull over your decisions, you may give out an impression that you view the game of poker as intellectual warfare. This will only serve to raise the awareness of your opponents and cause them to play better against you.
Although the advice is given in the "playing loose games" section of the book, IMO it's good advice in all games. In tough games, if you stop to ponder about your decisions, you will give away a lot about the nature of your hand. Ideally, you should spend an equal number of time for all of your poker decisions i.e less than 2 seconds. Good practice is to view poker as a game of chess and think about your future moves while making your current move. For example, while calling on the flop, you should have a pretty good already as to what you will be doing on the turn no matter what card may come off. Notice that I said "ideally". Obviously, this is taxing work and I sure can't do it everytime I play poker but I find that when I am playing at my best, I am thinking several steps in advance (or is it when I am thinking several steps in advance, I play at my best). It is one of the reasons that I rarely play more than 6 to 8 hours per session. Poker is a mentally draining game.
Bravo SKP, good response.
Just one question?
Do you also use "thinking" as one of your tactics? Let's say that you have a made hand and want an opponent to call a bet on the river. Wouldn't thinking a little before calling a turn bet "tell" a good player that you are most likey on a draw and possiby entice him to call a river bet with a mediocre hand?
Vince.
Vince,
A classic "acting" tell.
Tom Haley
not if you only thought when you had a made hand. sometimes when i have an automatic folder (total dogs 7/2 etc i stop to think. randomize baby
I guess that is why you are always slowing the game up- deciding whether to call my $200 reraise with your 72o in the small blind. Now I'm on to you.
72o is a monster made hand for me and your 200 reraises always mean weakness except when you have a good hand
Hey Vince, In the games we all play in, a little acting job can often work and probably won't hurt anything in any case. In my weak game, I have successfully used a pause (I think once I even called "time out" with a sure winner, but I don't want to use that more often than about once a century!) to induce a call.
Mike Caro's "do something - anything - to help induce a call" also seems to work for me, along with "stone face" to help induce a fold. I have knocked over chips, re-stacked chips, and re-looked at my cards, to help get a call, and it seems to work.
Tom H. IS right - If & when I play against Ray Zee, this is not only going to fail, it is going to backfire. Save this for the weak opponents.
Dick
You didn't elaborate on what a good player is going to perceive when someone pauses for more than a few seconds to *think*. I first look at what pot odds the pondering player currently has. I next convert this to the number of outs (assuming some sort of draw) which would make calling a borderline decision. Now I review the betting action to see if the *tough decision* hand being represented by the pause is unlikely, whenever this differs from any of the possible hands I've put that player on already. If that player is representing a hand which would have to have been played abnormally to get this far, I believe the subsequent call is an acting job and that I'm probably up against a strong made hand. This technique does not always work against level three thinking players who give consideration to what I'm reading them for. Also, I wouldn't even make the effort to read anything into a very weak player's pause.
Big A,
skp has things pretty well covered above but I'll add a few more thoughts.
After the flop I try to use a fairly even pace (about one to two seconds) in all my decisions when the action is on me, but this doesn't mean don't think things through. Just do most of your thinking before the action gets to you and don't give away your intentions by the way you hold your chips or cards.
Before the flop it is a little different. You should always act quickly for two primary reasons. First, you want to keep the game moving. Second, these decisions should be fairly automatic. Note that I will do quite a bit of thinking during the shuffle as to what I might do with borderline hands. For example, in a fairly tight game where I have a good chance to steal in mid to late position I pay close attention to who is in the blinds. If they don't defend as much as they should I am ready to attack with less if there is nobody in when it gets to me. So my decision is quick when the action is on me but I've already done most of the necessary thinking.
Here's another pre-flop example: UTG I tend to raise with less of a hand when I've been running well in the session (meaning I have a psychological edge), my opponents are at least semi-aware, and I've been sitting on my stack(s) for a while. My normal minimum raise might be AQo but here I might go as low as AJo or KQo. Once again, I've thought this through during the shuffle.
When the flop comes and I'm first I need a little more time. Here I consistently use about two to three seconds but this is OK as this is in line with what most people need. But once again I've already done some thinking. For example, let's say I get a free play with a hand like Ks 2d in the big blind and there are about three opponents who limped in middle to late position. I'm already thinking that these players would tend to raise with a decent king and I figure I might get three kinds of flops for this where I may make a move. First is a king with rags. If the last guy steals too much I might go for the check raise. Otherwise, I'll probably come out betting. If it comes a king with with middle suited cards (e.g., Kh Jd 9d) I'm probably going to check and fold any early bettor but I still will consider a check raise against a late bettor. If I flop two pair I might plan on betting (hoping I get raised) if the other card is a suited middle card (e.g., Kh Jh 2c) since this can hit someone but I might slowplay two pair with a rag (e.g., Kh 7d 2c). Most of this thinking has taken place during the burn and turn. But no matter what I flop, I take about two seconds.
Most other decisions should only take about one to two seconds as others have already acted giving you time to think. If you need a little more time, try to hide the fact you are thinking.
If you are last to act and missed your draw on the river (let's say the action indicates you have no chance of success with a raise bluff), take the one to two seconds you normally need before you through your hand away. This will disguise the fact you were on a draw. As S&M mention in this chapter, there is no need to overdue this but one or two seconds won't get anyone upset (especially when you act quickly before the flop).
My final point is this. Do a lot of thinking and studying away from the table. Then in the heat of battle you will be able to play with confidence and style and be welcome at the table.
Regards,
Rick
BigA,
Here is a situation I pause but not too long just long enough to make my opponent think I had a decision to make when I didn't. This goes counter to the book. Against certain players where I have to lay it down (usually with a decent hand but sometimes when I'm semi-bluffing) I pause for a few extra seconds even though I have arrived at my decision very quickly. I do this to hopefully convince my opponent I was thinking of calling but had no intention to and that I might call the next time even though I have no intention of calling ever. I wonder if it works. OK Vince is this another classic acting tell?
Tom Haley
Big A,
I was just over on rgp and read a post by Abdul Jalib concerning "Precomputing Hands" that applies to this post. You may want to go over there and read it.
Regards,
Rick
Came across an old Caro article,that discussed the dangers of team play. He mentioned how dangerous two players signaling each other as to who had the best hand could be. The article also said that the industry does'nt like to talk about it. This morning in a session at the Orleans,a situation came up that demonstrates his point. Two Asian players sitting next to each carrying on a conversation in native tonque,as cards are dealt conversation slow down as each look at cards, and conludes with a word or two after seeing cards. Noticed this twice in 20 minute period,both times one mucked the other raised. This seems suspicious but obviously not conclusive. The dealer did nothing. I left the game,and asked floorman on way out if there was a rule,said allowed to talk non-English between hands only. Told him what was going on he looked over at table and left it alone. How should I have handled this? Plan on playing a lot in Calif. is this a problem?
When observed ask the dealer what the rule is. If he hasn't/dosen't enforc(ed) the rules take economic action on his tips and tell him why. If you take the leadership here many times other players will follow your economic actions. If these players have been giving the dealers double the double tips. This is uaully a sign that they are off shift dealers and the dealer is extending them professional courtesy.
To Ms,
As for the California game, there are about 113 languages spoke in Southern California and I think players are qiuck to jump on players who speak in native tounge. The floor people are pretty good at comming over and giving verbal warning for the infraction which works for the most part.
On the other hand, I am not sure to what extent this protects us from team play. Talking in the native tounge is probably one of the least suffisticated ways to team play.
Also, I think that team play is a more serious issue in tournamets. I believe there is a lot of soft play and dumping chips in tournaments. A lot of times this is done on the basis of people buying 5-10 people in a tournament and some times on basis of racial backround team play. I dont know much about Northern California.
Robert Bisogno
I agree. I live in No Cal and while listenning(and objecting) to mandarin or Hmong or whatever the hell they are talking has no basis on Poker alone, Americans, general has some aversion of native tounge yakking. I took my GF to a NL game and she and I speak Hungarian she was just sitting patiently and quietly (occasionally) saying something in hungarian (her english is way too self-conciencious) I got some looks from the other players. No-one said anything but at anytime if you lose a big NL pot - I could forsee language objections !!
How about using sign language at the table?
I have not faired very well the last few times playing 7CS (the only game I play). Most of the books I have read concentrate on "Third Street" decision making. Having taken this advise, I have been playing only medium & high pairs, as well as 3 flushes. If I feel I have the best after 3 cards (ie. Aces or Kings) I raise to drive out people from drawing. After today's beating, I fine older player pulled me aside when I was done and told me "You gotta be patient in this game. You only play real rood hands". I guess it was opinion that I play loose.
My question is: Are there any benchmarks that I could use to gauge how loose or tight I am playing. For example, should I be playing 1/4 hands at 3rd street. What percentage of hands thatgo to the river should I win 1/3?, 1/2 ?
Thank you
its the spot you play the hands in, as opposed to the hands you play. you would throw two queens away if a king raised and an ace reraised for sure. medium pairs without an overcard are not worth much in the face of danger. you would also play two deuces with a high card if not raised and your cards are live. i suggest better books or understanding whats in them better and free advise is worth exactly what it costs(unless from those on this forum:)
Playing reasonably conservativly (rarely stealing) I'd guess you'd end up playing no more than 1 hand in 6, not counting the bringing it in. 1 in 10 would be "very tight" but not be "too tight" for a routine $1-4 game.
In a normal game you will win well more than half the show downs you are involved in; since normally its heads-up. That's too high for a very loose game with lots of opponents getting all 7 cards.
- Louie
The most common confrontation is two-pair vrs two-pair. So your pair hands need to be able to make two BIG pair; this means a big pair or a medium or small pair with a big kicker. Small 3-straights are hopeless. Small 3-flushes are only good if very live and there are a few opponents. Most of your 3-flushes need an Ace or two face cards, since you need to be able to win every now and then when you make a pair. And, of course, Live.
Louie,
Thanks for the input. I do find myself playing only 1 out of every 5 or 6 hands, but I am NOT winning half the pots. I guess the games are looser than I thought. Early raises to drive out players haven't driven enough out. Too many players drawing for their hand on last card. Thanks for your input. also, thanks to Ray Zee.
Jack
I thought you wanted the % wins of hands you get to the showdown with. Yes, you will NOT win half the hands you play as you will often fold along the way.
in the games around the world that the posters here play in- how often do you find the first person to bet in general has top pair or better?
My guess, 95%.
Ray,
I think, it´s about 80% in austria.
Regards
M.A.
Multiway pot...early position bettor...80 to 90% Multiway pot...late position bettor...70 to 80% Shorthanded pot...60 to 70%
Obviously, all numbers are just educated guesstimates.
skp-
I trust your numbers, but I have to say that they sound a little high. Don't you have guys lead betting four flushes/ open enders, etc.?
Actually, looking at the other responses, I wonder about my own numbers. You could well be right - my guesstimates may be too high.
BTW, my estimates were essentially for unraised pots. We all know there are numerous occasions where the pot gets raised and is contested heads-up or 3 way and the preflop raiser bets with nothing but overcards on the flop.
skp,
In all honesty, I was surprised by your numbers and thought you may have been including draws as being better than top pair.
Regards,
Rick
Ray,
I'll just stick to holdem with my answer as that game is so dominant here in California.
First, let's assume typical players which means not maniacs but those that are somewhat weaker, looser, and more predictable than a tough or solid player.
The number of opponents matters a lot so I'll catagorize my answers that way. I'll also limit my answer to a lead bet or nearly a lead bet as this is more likely to represent a hand than a situation where several players have checked to a late position player.
Four or more players: about 75%
Three players: about 60%
Two players: about 40%
Head Up: about 25% (Note: This assumes the hand started as a full table - it would be even less short handed; however, note that typical players avoid short handed games).
Here is something I wonder if you agree with or find interesting. In an unraised pot (this mostly applies to the hands with three or more players), I would adjust the percentages upward a little. If the lead better raised pre flop, his hand is stronger than average but less likely to be top pair or better since most players have a tendency to follow through with a flop bet when they showed strength pre flop.
Regards,
Rick
Hey Ray,
Whattsah "toppah" pairah? I playah witsah a womens lassah nightsah shesah gottsa da realah TOPPAH pairs, aaah! Sameah ting?
Vinceah
p.s. 70-80% first better.
Ray;
What are you fishing for here?
Assuming a big draw is LESS than top pair; I'd say 40%-45% of first betters after the flop have top pair or better.
Its about the same in Stud, assuming "top pair" means at least as high as every live hand's high card and "first better" means first to make a complete bet, such as a 3rd street raise.
If I am the first to bet its about 30%-35%.
- Louie
Superb question; the answers contain lots of information...
Louie,
I also didn't count any drawing hands as being better than top pair. After I posted my answer, I was surprised at how high a percentage some of the other estimates were. Maybe they were counting quality draws or California really is on a different planet.
Regards,
Rick
Hold'em, Atlantic City, $10-$20 to $30-$60 (my levels of most experience) about 75%. And by the way, the last paragraph of Rick Nebiolo's post is right on the money.
Where did you find the 30-60 being spread in A.C at least semi-regularly? As far as top pair goes i think Rick did hit right on the head
You are right, $30-$60 is spread infrequently (at the Taj). A more common game there around this increment is $25-$50.
one of the reasons i asked the question is that i may be a little out of touch with some of the games. most of the games i play in have very aggressive players who will bet almost anytime they hit any piece of the flop shorthanded and will bet 2nd pair in multiway pots and all draws. actually they tend to bet the weaker hands more and checkraise with top pair. years ago few people bet less than top pair and made it an easy fold if you had less. as i see from some of the posts in many places or games i dont frequent the bet on the flop means almost always the player likes his hand. this affects your strategy alot in many ways a player needs to consider. for instance if true what is said you have little to fear from a draw if the player bet out. if you are used to playing in this type of game and go to california or the like it would be tough to win in the begining as you may be folding way too much. if you go to a place where they always have top pair when they bet you will never win unless you can adjust to the play. there are a zillion other things to think about just over this one point.
Hey Ray baby, Good thread!
BTW - How much is a zillion in U.S. dollars?
Vince
Ray - My game is weaker than most of the posters' - 3-6 hold'em in Phoenix. It is usually a very loose-passive game, and pots are NEVER shorthanded pre-flop. My short answer is 50-75%, depending on who is in the game.
One thing nobody mentioned is the pattern of individual opponents. I have some conservative opponents for whom the answer would be 100% and other very aggressive ones who would be more in the 30-40% range. This is one pattern you can put into your "book" on someone fairly soon after you start watching his or her play.
What you said in your post above, Ray, is right on. This is something you have to adjust for in the game you are sitting in.
Dick
I limp in early position with 9s8s. Button raises and we take the flop 8 handed. Both blinds and UTG are also in. I am to the left of UTG.
Flop: Ad5s6c
Both blinds and UTG check. I bet and get 5 callers including the button and the blinds. UTG is one of the players to fold.
Assuming you know nothing about the players, would you bet or check if the turn produces one of these cards:
1. Ah
2. Kh
3. Ks
4. Any 5 or 6
5. Any 7
6. The 9h or 8h.
7. The 9c or 8c
skp,
I'll do the best I can on this one with a firteen minute time limit as I've got to turn in. BTW, can you save me a seat in this game!
OK, you have 9s8s. There are sixteen bets pre flop with the button raise. Flop is Ad 5s 6c.
You make the gutsy flop bet and get 5 callers including the button and the blinds. So you are in the middle with a big pot to contest for.
Would I bet or check when the turn produces one of these cards:
1. Ah - Bet since I represented the ace on the flop and now another ace is less likely to be out there and there is no two flush.
2. Kh - Bet again but it is close. The rainbow board helps here.
3. Ks - Check since this is more likely to hit someone than the king above (because of the two flush) and I have outs.
4. Any 5 or 6 - Bet. This is actually one of the best turns other than a duece, ace, or seven.
5. Any 7 - Check and hope someone else bets (likely). I might bet the 7h since it is more likely to be checked through.
6. The 9h or 8h - Bet, the lack of a flush draw is good for you.
7. The 9c or 8c - Bet, but it is not as good as the offusit bet in 6. above.
Regards,
Rick
This would be a better question against 3 opponents. Against 5 who called on the flop in spite of an ace being out there you should usually check on fourth st.
I hate to aggree with Sklansky but I don't like the five opponents. Call me passive but I check on fourth street. Looking for a check raise on the straight.
Vince.
I predict a short and unprofitable poker career for people who call in early position with 9-8 suited, or try to bluff seven other people out with no hand. However, all is not lost, as Evil Knevil is looking for a sidekick, and stuntmen are still wanted by Hollywood. You have a lot of heart.
Bob,
You are probably right. However, I wouldn't be surprised if skp (if he actually played the hand as opposed to posting a hypothetical) only played this in the most loose and passive game imaginable where the call is at worse debatable. If you read most of skp's posts, I think you would agree he is a very solid and thoughtful player.
I myself almost never play that hand early nor would I have bet it out on the flop against a large field (let's say I had the hand in the BB and called the raise with multiple opponents which just has to be right). But given the setup, those were my answers and maybe they were a little aggressive but that is why I write on the forum. I want to "Improve My Poker". Anyway, in this case I had just a few minutes and wanted to test my instincts without spending a lot of time on analysis. I believe I noted this in my post.
Regards,
Rick
Mr. Ciaffone,
Sklansky and Malmuth recommend calling with hands in groups 1 through 4 in early position. 98s is a group 4 hand. Obviously you do not agree completely with Sklansky and Malmuth's recommendations for the play of the starting hands. I would be very interested in hearing your guidelines for which starting hands to play and how to play them in early, middle, and late positions before the flop.
Thanks, Mike Watson
First, I dp play 98s upfront if first in in almost all the games that I play. The time I fold it is if I think there are some very aggressive players behind me.
Second, we discuss almost the identical situation in the 21st Century Edition of HPFAP. On page 168 we state:
"It's so important to increase your chance to win the pot that it can be right to bet a hand that you know is beat. For instance, if you have
Ts 9s
the flop comes
Ad 7c 6h
and the pot is pretty big, it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position. You do this not only because you might make a straight, but because it is important to get hands like
Kd Jh
out."
There is more discussion in the book and all comments are welcome.
I haven't read the new book yet, but this concept makes sense. What bothers me about the example here, is that it seems to be a litle extreme. You have a raise and almost the whole table calling. There is too much money in the pot for many players with gut shots etc to fold here, and they might risk being squeezed between the bettor and pre-flop raiser with posistion. I wouldn't bet here. I would check and call.I would have to hit the turn to continue. But I think the concept of raising or betting in order to give your self a better shot at winning the pot is very valid, but it was also covered in brief in the original text.
I must be missing something here. First, why would KdJh call the flop in the first place? Second, why do you want to get rid of that hand? If you make your straight, KJ is drawing dead. If you don't, who cares? Unless you are trying to protect your hand from hitting a ten and then losing to a gutshot straight on the river, but that assumes a ten would be good if you hit it, AND that the gutshot comes in. That sounds like a pretty big longshot.
Dan,
I don't know either. Perhaps a more realistic example (instead of KJ offsuit) would be two high cards suited with one of the board cards. The calling stations would tend to call here (and perhaps not be wrong by much if the pot is a little bigger and no one can raise behind them).
Regards,
Rick
I think you grossly underestimate smaller suited cards in loose-passive games. (I've noticed this in your Card Player articles as well.) With 8 people seeing the flop, 98s becomes a very playable hand. While you're out of position, you're fairly certain to get the right price for your draw.
I suspect Bob Ciaffone properly estimates the value of the suited connectors out of position. SKP played a very marginal hand up front and was raised behind him. It could also have gone cap (four bets) after he calls. How do you like it then?
Playing hands up front when you expect a large field is very dangerous but what the heck, it's your money.
Ben, Carlos writes in part: >>I think you grossly underestimate smaller suited cards in loose-passive games.<< You respond in part: >>It could also have gone cap (four bets) after he calls. How do you like it then?<< There seems to be a conflict here. If there is a lot of raising pre-flop, the PASSIVE requirement stipulated by Carlos does not apply. A game where there is a lot of pre-flop raising is an AGGRESSIVE game. Yes in a passive game there can be pots that are capped and it would certainly not be a great thing to have 98s UTG, but this is a relatively rare occurrance in a passive game by definition. Best of Luck, Tom Haley
Bob - It makes a great deal of difference what kind of game you are playing in. I am still down in the 3-6 game, and it is almost always very loose and very passive. If I stay with 45 suited, to take a more extreme example, I rarely get raised preflop, and even if I do, there are usually 5+ callers, so my implied odds for my drawing hand are not bad even then.
When a known maniac or semi-maniac sits down, I am forced to back off on these early limps, and only call when the maniac has already acted.
Does this sound right to you?
Dick
Hey is this Bob Ciaffone? The man that has trouble with the words "amazing" and "unbelievable" being used to describe poker play. Well let me tell you a thing or two Mr. Ciaffone. If you don't understand how poker can be "unbelievable" and "amazing" you most certainly have never played in the Monday Night NLH tournament at The Orleans (Las Vegas). Try it sometime. It's "amazing", even "unbelievable".
BTW - The great majority of players that post on this forum play in games where 9,8 suited is a playble (calling) hand upfront. Or don't you agree that one should tie his starting hand requirements to the type of game one is in! Or at least the situation one finds oneself in. If you don't, then, I find that "amazing", no "unbelievable".
Hey, please don't get mad. After all I'm an Italian too!
Vince
Vince-
It is another Italian, VINCE BURGIO, who wrote the recent Card Player column about the overuse of "amazing" and unbelievable. Bob Ciaffone writes "Poker with the Coach." IMO, he gives great, real-world poker advice in this column and has also written several must-read books. He actually has a style that makes reading about poker almost as enjoyable as playing it.
And he finished 3rd to Johnny Chan and Dan Harrington in the WSOP final once. He is a great asset to the poker community and I think a little respect is in order as we would all benefit greatly from his participation.
As for his disdain for 98s in early position, I think it is a matter of style. You would be hard-pressed to find any knowledgable participant in this forum to convince me you are giving up very much (if anything) by mucking this hand up front in EVERY game.
Cheers.
for me 97 is not a drawing i think i got the pot won right there
I agree. Bob Ciaffone knows a lot about poker and his comments are always worth listening too. Assuming he is wrong about the 98s up front how much does it hurt you to never play these hands from early position? Very little in most games.
Part of the reason for playing a hand like 98s early is that you play so few hands early you don't want to be in a position where your more observant opponents can zero in too easily on what your hands are. So they can become correct to play even if they are slightly unprofitable because it can help your other hands (that you play early) be a little more profitable.
I also play 98s UTG in very tough games, but I will raise with it. Simply put, an UTG raise from me often results in my winning the blinds. This is a problem when I get hands like AA and KK, because I really don't want to just win the blinds. So, to compensate for the loss of action on those hands, I gain equity back by raising with hands like 98s, since winning the blinds with them is a victory.
Once I start getting called more often by the observant opponents, I back off on the 98s raises, and get more action on my AA and KK raises. Then they stop giving me action on those, and around and around we go...
Actually, Mr hanson makes an excellent point about adapting your game too the playing situation. the tighter the image the more liberties you can take.
Mason,
I agree with you and Dan above concerning the reasons for raising in a solid game on occasion with these hands. Once the game is loose I believe it has to be extremely loose and passive in order to play it up front. I'm not in these games that often anymore (the games just are not that passive although they are often loose) so my standard play up front is to throw it away.
Of course if it it is close it doesn't matter much. What I wonder about is an article in Card Player by Bob Ciaffone where he advocates throughing away these hands on the button against multiple apponents (I believe even for a single bet!).
Does anyone remember which Card Player issue this was in (I have almost all the old issues)? I believe it is about a year or two ago. I'm guessing it was discussed on the forum (before I ventured into cyberspace) and is in the archives. My ISP is so slooooow in loading the archives so it would help if someone could get me close to the right month.
Regards,
Rick
>>
>Does anyone remember which Card Player issue this was in (I have almost all the old issues)? I believe it is about a year or two ago. I'm guessing it was discussed on the forum (before I ventured into cyberspace) and is in the archives.
>>
I remember that article being in CardPlayer, but can't recall the issue. However, there is a similiar article by Bob Ciaffone about NOT playing hands like 55 or 89s on the button. That article is in Issue #9 of Intelligent Gambler from the Conjelco web site. You can download it there and read it..You need Acrobat Reader to read the PDF file. But you can download that too for free..
Save the archive DIGESTS to your local hard drive. Then you can view them off-line. I think it was one of the first three months.
Search for "QXs" or "JXs" (Ctrl+F Netscape) since these *key words* are relevant to Mr. Ciaffone's analysis of the situation.
God I owe him an apology although I really didn't say anything negative about him. Phew! Thanks for setting the record straight. Besides I would never comment about another Italian named Vince. So I may as well claim it was Ciaffone. BTW- I read his column and believe it is one of the Better ones in CP.
Vince.
To all posters.In the future if we get a poker authority that is a new poster on the forum.I would (and I think I speak for most of the posters)appreciate a little respect shown to them and not to take out your daily frustrations(losses) out on the golden geese. Thankyou in advance to no one in particular!!!Phew!!
Diplomacy, If you will read my post on this subject you will find there was no disrespect shown to Mr. Ciaffone. I appologized for confusing him with another columnist, Vince Burgio. I also did not show Mr Burgio any disrespect. I respond to all posters in the same manner whether they are AUTHORITIES or not. I have had posts deleted in the past and I suspect that should I step out of bounds again 2+2 will rightfully delete my posts. Unlike you I use my real name and speak only for myself. I do not need you to tell me how to post or what to say in my responses. Nor do I need you to imply that I would take out my personal frustrations on another human being. Maybe you should look into your own character and see if that small type individual is lurking there!
Phew! Too You!
Vince.
Yes, playing 98s in early position in a loose game is marginal. But it's incorrect to imply that one will go broke by playing such hands. In a loose-passive game where I can play well after the flop compared to my opponents, I'll play 76s under the gun.
Man, talk about getting shot down. Bob, I wish I could say "you're crazy" but I can't cause I KNOW that you know what you are talking about. Keep up the great work in Card Player and I sure hope you share your wisdom with us more often on the Forum.
David can you break down the math in lay terms here. or point to a page in one of your books thanks
Bet when you have nothing, check if you made your hand. Nope, no fancy play syndrome here.
I have to admit that I would not have bet the flop. A gutshot and a 3-flush just isn't enough for me to semi-bluff into 8 opponents. Your worst case scenario here is that someone has an ace and either check-raises you or raises behind you, choking off the action for the gutshot and putting you in the non-enviable position of having cut your draw odds way down on the flop.
If I had bet, and got 5 callers, I would only bet again if I made the straight. If five people call a flop with an ace on it and no flush draw, I have to assume that someone has a real hand, and my chance of pulling off a bluff is close to zero.
Since you got 8 callers before the flop, it would seem that calling with 98s in early position was a good decision, if this is the usual number of callers that you're seeing.
Dan
skp:
I wouldn't want to bet anything except the 7, which I'd probably never check because (1) my nut hand is improbable, (2) my opponents may be drawing dead, (3) I don't want to give a free card if a two-flush appears, and (4) the only way I'd get to open under your scenario is if two people have already checked to me.
The Ah, Kh, Kd, 6 and 5 are scary. There's a reasonable chance they hit a 5-out hand, or inspire someone to represent one, resulting in a raise or check-raise. Now I'll have to spend (at least) two big bets on a gutshot draw that I'd really rather take for just one bet or, better yet, for free.
The 9 and 8 could leave me with three outs to take half the pot, almost as bad as drawing dead.
In fact, I don't know how I can bet anything except a 7 on the turn. If anyone raises I've lost control of the hand and will call and fold when my lousy draw doesn't get there. My alternative is to make the pot bigger with a nothing hand in order to improve my chances of getting called on the end by a next to nothing hand, whereas I can't pick off a bluff.
I would think: I semi-bluffed a gutshot draw and got called five times. I'm done.
skp - I think I am with Bob and Chris here - do you think you are going to bulldoze 5 callers on the flop with a bluff, and get all 5 of them to fold on or before the river?
You said, "assume you know nothing about the players." From the 8 players calling 2 bets each pre-flop, and 5 calling the flop bet, I have to assume that this is a very loose group. Therefore I don't like the prospect of bluffing or semi-bluffing very much.
I would not bet the flop. In MY very loose game, the only thing I want to get here is my inside straight or backdoor flush to win the pot, and although the pot odds are fine on the flop for that draw, I would not enjoy calling a raise.
On the turn: obviously from my comments, I will check anything but a 7, and if there is a turn bet, I will break out my calculator and decide on a call solely on the basis of my pot odds. If I GET a 7 on the turn, I would consider check-raising if there were a flush draw other than my spades; otherwise, bet it.
Dick
1. Bet 2. Check 3. Bet 4. Check 5. Check 6. Bet 7. Bet
If any of these actions seem incredibly wrong to anyone, I'll explain my decisions. This would all be hypothetical since I couldn't be persuaded to bluff bet the flop. If I'm thinking semibluff (as opposed to check/fold) then the button is going to have to bet (everyone checks around), and the players between me and the button are going to have to fold. Now I have some real possibility that everyone will fold for a turn bet with a scare card since I checkraised the flop.
I, for one, would be interested in seeing your justification for betting under scenarios 1, 3, 6 and 7.
1. This is a follow through on the flop bet. Having bet the flop and no one raised, suggests there isn't an ace with a good kicker out there. It should look to everyone else like I have a small set or ace-rag suited. I consider this a flat out steal attempt with about a 30% chance no one has an ace, and I have no intention of going any further if I'm raised on the turn. I'm also not going to bluff bet (or checkraise bluff) the river against the probable AX if I'm called in even one spot on the turn. I think it's better to try to steal the pot immediately rather than having it checked around, and making the *obvious* bluff at the river.
3. Having picked up eight additional potential outs (backdoor spade draw with the gut shot), this is a value bet against five opponents. Here, I'm not even going to get pushed off the pot by a reraise. I would consider playing for a checkraise, except there's no indication a bet is forthcoming from a middle or late position. I do not want the turn checked around because I'm probably only going to get paid off by one player if I complete the draw on the river.
6&7. This is a bet with second pair, unafraid of a higher pocket pair. I have nine potential outs, any one of which may be no good or just split the pot. Here I'd really benefit if someone with pocket sevens or a gut shot for the nut straight could be persuaded to fold. This can only happen if such a hand faces a decision to call two bets cold. I bet out hoping someone on my left will try to isolate me with what they think is the best hand, benefiting both of us.
Interesting responses. Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond fully as I have to be in court in 30 minutes. I will post a more detailed response tonight.
One point: I don't know how anyone can not bet if the Ace hits the turn.
About court: I hope you're acquitted. (-:
Regarding an ace falling: With this many callers, it's likely that someone is in there with a straight draw, and maybe a couple of people. So, you're really committing yourself to betting on the river if you bet the turn. I just don't like these low-percentage semi-bluffs. If your straight was open-ended it makes more sense, because if you get a lot of callers it's not an EV disaster anyway. So the main risk is taken on the river bet. Gutshots just don't fall into the kind of category for me that inspires a lot of semi-bluffs into a large field.
To me, this flop is just one that missed my hand, unless I get the draw odds to continue (you probably have that here, unless there are two or three raises behind you).
I guess I would have to ask myself what my opponents could possibly have. There is no flush draw, and no one can have overcards. So, they are calling with made hands with maybe a couple of exceptions. I would half expect someone to be trapping here with either a big ace or a set, and I don't want to be in a situation where I bet the flop, get five callers, then bet the turn and get raised. Now your bluff has been snapped off, and you have paid the max for your gutshot draw.
Dan
...got a conditional sentence in court.
...got your points too (as usual, valid ones that make a strong argument for checking but I'd be interested in your comments on my argument below for betting)
skp,
I was first to jump in the water and I would have bet the ace on the turn. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your post tonight.
Regarding what Dan said above, it is likely that you will be walking into a trap on the turn and perhaps five opppnents is too many to continue with the semi-bluff. However, the pot is big and the increased chance you can win it still may justify a bet with some of the cards listed in your original post. At least if you get raised you can be pretty sure that the seven is your only out (unless the board paired on the turn).
I'd love to add more but I've got to go.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Dan, I hope you don't think I'm "stalking" you as I think I've followed you on three straight posts but I'm online and you generally have a lot to say of value.
SKP,
Don't use the "sleep walking" defense. It doesn't work!
Vince.
I count 10 combinations of Axs with backdoor straight and flush draws, at least one of which (1) may very well be out there in an 8-handed pot and (2) may very well have not raised on the flop (6+ outs, 6 of which can make someone a better hand). If so, whether he raises on the turn or the river, you'll lose two big bets unless a seven comes, except when against A7c and A7s, in which case you'll lose four.
I figure there's about a 30% chance nobody has AXs, and you've already represented it with the flop bet. That's good enough for me to fire a second shot hoping to steal it all. I'm assuming these are at least 10-20 or better caliber players.
Andrew,
That was my thinking allthough I wrote my first post very fast. I may have been a bit agressive on some of the other hands but I did think all the board pairs were worth a bet. At least if you get raised you probably don't have to pay off the river if a nine or eight hits.
Regards,
Rick
In a game as loose as this it is common to find weak players who will call preflop with Ax offsuit, then meekly call to the river with top pair no kicker, never raiseing nor even betting it if in early position.
With 5 callers of your early position flop bet, and no flush draws out, you need to hit your gutshot to win this pot.
L
Interesting responses. Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond fully as I have to be in court in 30 minutes. I will post a more detailed response tonight.
One point: I don't know how anyone can not bet if the Ace hits the turn.
Well, here's my two cents:
Pre-flop
Many of you have said that playing 98s particularly in early position is not very advisable and I wouldn't be giving up much if I decided never to play them again. I don't necessarily see it as a mistake particularly if your game post-flop is better than average. I was in a fairly loose passive game when the hand came up and I really had no reservations at all of entering the pot. The fact that UTG had already limped is also a key factor. UTG's limp coupled with my limp can often create a "calling frenzy" and result in a multiway pot. Yes, this pot got raised but hey, everything can't be ideal.
The Flop
The first thing I should note is that when I post hands on the Forum, I post what I think are the interesting ones. I don't post about the 3 hour stretch where I never entered a pot. If one were to characterize my play just by looking at my posts over time, one may well conclude that I am some kind of maniacal bluffer. Well, that just isn't the case. At least, I don't believe that is the image that I portray to my opponents. I may be regarded as aggressive but not a maniacal bluffer.
When I initially posed the question about the turn bet, I wasn't really looking for comments on the flop play and as such did not include all of the necessary info that would assist in analyzing that play. Firstly, I hadn't had a playable hand in a long long time and it looked to everyone like I was waiting for the nuts. Secondly, I knew the button's play quite well and figured he likely wouldn't be raising a large field without a big pair i.e. I discounted AK, AQ etc. Thirdly, and most importantly, the pot already has $160 and I was going to call two bets cold on the flop with my guts shot/backdoor flush draw if necessary...so, why not bet and add some deception to my hand while at the same time seize some control of the hand in the event that the majority of the players fold (which didn't happen here of course)?
(A good reason not to bet might be if I were to be raised by a player to my immediate left and he caused everyone else to fold leaving me in bad shape. Thankfully, that didn't happen here either).
The bet also has other advantages. How often do you see everyone check to the button-raiser who then just smugly checks it down as well. Well, your chances of now winning the pot (which is sizeable already) if you hit a 9 or 8 has gone down considerably because of the fact that hands like KJ etc. which would have folded on the flop are still alive eg. Turn card is a King and the River card is a 9. Had you bet on the flop, the 9 that you hit on the River may be enough to take the pot (this is explained much better in S&M's new book).
The turn
I agree with David that bluffing against 5 opponents is probably not a wise thing to do but I would (and indeed did) bet when the Ace hit on the turn. In fact after my bet was called in 5 places on the flop, I was saying to myself "give me the 7 or the Ace".
I don't understand how one can not bet if the Ace hits the turn. Firstly, it is unlikely that you are up against an Ace given the lack of a raise on the flop. Secondly, if there is an Ace out there, it's probably one of the two blinds with Ace/weak kicker in which case they likely wouldn't raise anyway on the turn.
A bet on the turn should surely cause all but the worst calling stations to at least consider mucking their 5 or 6.
When the Ace hit the turn, about the only man I was worried about was the button who with a hand like KK may just say "well, the pot is too big" and call me down (BTW, had he done that and if I missed on the river, I am not sure whether I would have thrown another $20 down the toilet although an argument can be made for bluffing at the end). On the other hand, had the button mucked on the turn and one of the blinds called my bet, I certainly would bet again on the river in case they too were on a draw and missed (although when you think about it, the only real draw they might have would be something like 87 or 74 or 32 all of which I could beat without betting if say a King hit on the River. But I wouldn't take that chance. I would bluff).
I agree with the pre-flop call. I, like you, have heard plenty of reputable players say that this hand may not be worth playing early, but in these loose passive games I just can't see how that's the case. Consider:
1) You've got about a twenty five percent chance of flopping some kind of pair w/ a three flush, thereby making it correct (IMO) to press on and see the river.
2) You're chances of flopping a legitimate draw (either an open ender or a three flush) are about 15%, which means you'll get some kind of flop about forty percent of the time. Even discarding the times you flop a pair, you'll flop a great draw about one time in seven, and there's a damn good chance in a game like this that you'll pick up seven callers pre-flop.
3) If a raise comes from late position you're in a perfect position to manipulate the size of the pot. If you flop a draw you bet, the gaggle calls, the button raises (you said he almost assuredly had a big pair), and you build a monster that you've got a 25-30% chance of winning. If you flop a pair you (duh) check raise the flop, etc. etc. In short, I don't know how you can pass these hands up in this kind of game, since the ONLY way you make money here is by flopping big draws, building huge pots on the flop, and praying like hell that you get there. You're SURE as hell not going to make a fortune with big paints in this game (unless they're paired), so you've got to maximize your chances of flopping a monster draw.
Le (Masc. or Fem.?) Flop:
I doubt I'd bet here, since IMExperience your chances of getting guys to drop is somewhere just to the left of nil. I can't rembember now if the board was two suited-- if it wasn't, then I guess you can make an argument for betting, although I've generally found that in games like this most boys get married to their big pairs in the hole and won't fold them for anything. I don't know how many times I've bet here, picked up a nine on the turn, bet, then checked down the river, only to be shown pocket T's or J's from one of the original limpers... However, there's no doubt in my mind that I'd peel at least one card, and probably check raise the flop if I could get the button off of pocket K's or worse.
Le (again, Masc. or Fem.) Turn-
This is almost entirely a function of the kind of game your in, and the kind of players you're up against. In my game guys routinely check and call to the river with an A weak kicker, so I'd be less inclined to bet again. Further, as Dan pointed out, by betting the turn you're almost committed to betting the river. If I'm already prepared to committ two BB's with a bluff, I think I'd rather take a chance with a check-raise on the turn, as opposed to betting out twice. This may sound a little exotic, but at least you get rid of the pocket J's and T's (and 8's) that are probably lurking around out there, which may give you six more outs on the river. And, you've suddenly improved your chances of getting rid of the button's big pair.
Our experiences here may vary, but I've found that when the pot's get like this it's virtually impossible to get rid of anybody by just betting out, no matter how scary the board gets. With a check raise, however, they start to wonder, since most of them have come to the ole card club NOT to win money, but to lose as little as possible. I know it's a marginal decision, but if I'm going to fire twice anyway, I'd just as soon do it all on the turn. (Bear in mind that this is where I stand if the flop isn't two suited (sorry I can't remember). If it is, I'm probably getting A LOT more passive on the flop and turn).
I've found that it's usually the third caller who's most able to trigger the no-fold'em effect (calling frenzy). No, I wouldn't call a bet even from one player on the river if the steal attempt on the turn failed, and that includes the blinds.
Andrew, sorry if I misstated it in my initial post. What I meant was that I would definitely bluff on the River against one of the blinds but may or may not not bluff against the button. I certainly wouldn't CALL a bet from anyone on the River if I missed.
Your comments about the third caller triggering the calling frenzy are duly noted.
I mistated my reply. I wouldn't make a third attempt to steal the pot against just one of the blinds that has been check/calling the whole way. If a bet on the turn doesn't get it done, I'm simply burnt toast. You already realize that your nine-eight high is going to beat the busted draw in a showdown. There may be some merit in betting after BOTH blinds check, (if that's the case) since the small blind (holding something like TT) might expect the big blind to assume the role of sheriff. I don't know, guess I'd have to have been there.
Well, I thought your play was fine all the way through, though David's comment makes me think twice about betting the turn, even when it's an ace.
Preflop, if the game is loose *enough* and passive *enough* (and hasn't temprorarily entered an aggressive phase), clearly suited connectors can become playable early. Even when it's just moderately loose/passive, a hand like 98s can be playable sometimes for the reasons Mason gave in one of his posts, as well as in the scenario Dan Hanson described (for more on that loosen/tighten cycle than anyone should ever want to read, go to deja.com and find my long interchange with Abdul on RGP concerning the "The limp-reraise, pro and con".)
On the flop you were just making the cutting edge, "21st Century" play. ;) I think you're reasons were correct.
As I said, the turn is more problematic. Maybe a check would be best, even when the second ace comes. But if any card other than a 7 makes a bet at least close, it's the ace. Using the rule of thumb that David has written about: 'If a call would be correct or almost correct if you were to check, and someone else bet, then it's better to bet yourself', you can make a good case for betting. But the reasonable chance of a raise (if someone with Ax, decides that they now have a "big hand"), combined with the 5-caller-indication that you may have little chance of winning right there with a bet, may be enough here to make the bet incorrect. I think it may be close, and what you knew about the players could be the deciding factor.
John Feeney
I believe that the rule of betting if a call is close to being correct doesn't apply to all situations, this one included. With so many players and so much money in the pot, and a raise pre-flop, it's difficult to imagine anyone with a 4 outer getting out. The 21st cent. concept is good, but this situation is too extreme. Even one of the authors implied this.
I more or less agreed with you in my post when I said the chance of being raised combined with the low chance of stealing on the turn may make the turn bet wrong. But I was referring to the flop in my mention of the "21st century" concept. There, on the flop, I do think skp's bet was correct as per that concept (p. 168-169 of the book). I don't think either author disagreed with the flop bet. Or am I wrong? There have been a lot of posts.
John Feeney
Even if there is no chance that you will get raised an exception to that rule of thumb occurs if there is almost no chance of winning the pot right there and there is some chance that no one else will bet if you don't. In that case a check simply saves you money.
Ah, yes, so there are at least these three variables to consider with regard to that rule of thumb:
1. Chance of being raised
2. Chance of winning right there with a bet
3. Chance that it could get checked through.
I was thinking only of the first two. In skp's example, the situation suggested that #2 had to be a concern. I suppose the other two would have depended on what he knew of the players and his feel for the situation as it played out.
I should note to "Buck" again that this is with regard to the turn in skp's hand.
I am a relatively new player, been playing one or two weekends a month for about 8 months. I've read virtually all 2+2 books, and spend a great deal of time thinking about and studying the game. But, I don't understand the reply Rick gave to the mis-played quads post. Assuming the player described as an aggressive quality player is indeed a quality player, why would you bet after the flop has crippled the deck? Unless someone is holding AA or KK, how could they call? The only time I can see betting in this spot is if I know the 'aggressive' player has me pegged as being a loose player. If he sees me as tight, doesn't he have to put me on at least a full house? Also, wasn't it a mistake for the aggressive player to bet the turn? He's holding K9 suited, I assume the turn made a 4 flush, but shouldn't he be looking to check this one all the way? Playing after these big flops is a very weak part of my game and I would appreciate someone explaining Ricks idea to me. I am assuming this game to be low or middle stakes, at high stakes (above 30-60) there may well be reasons beyond the scope of anything I've read, studied, or experienced.
Mike,
I think I responded to the post because it looked a little lonely at the time as no one else had.
My thoughts on the hand were not really that deep but I do think there is a tendency of most players to automatically slowplay this type of flop. This may be wrong. I am pretty sure that most opponents won't figure you for the queen and will give action with all types of hands.
This definitely goes under the catagory of something that is not very important since your hardly ever going to be in this situation.
Perhaps a more fruitful thread would be when to slowplay trips (e.g. flop is 4c 4d X and you have a four). This happens all the time and playing correctly makes a big difference in your bottom line.
Anyway, I'm finally tired enough to go to sleep so I'll leave this one to someone else for now.
Regards,
Rick the Insomniac
He tried to induce a bluff and failed. The aggesive player probaly smeld a trap when he got called in 2 places so he checked the river. Last week I had quads 2 times check the flop and the turn but bet the river, 1 they folded the other i got raised so i reraised and got paid off.
Mike writes that, with a QQQ flop and a bet, "unless someone is holding AA or KK, how could they call?"
This is actually a better flop for JJ or TT than AKQ because (1) with both you're pretty much dead if you're behind but (2) fewer card combinations kill you with the QQQ flop. You might also be way ahead with the QQQ flop, but this is virtually never the case with the AKQ flop. I don't want to overstate this: the AKQ flop makes your hand unplayable while the QQQ flop makes playing difficult but potentially profitable, depending on how well you know your opponents and their likely current holdings. In most cases, unless I thought there was a higher pocket pair or the queen out there, I'd at least call with these hands. With AA or KK I'd often raise. It is not likely that the case queen is around.
And that, BTW, is why Rick advised the case queen holder to bet out. Expecting a slowplay, you can often tie a dead hand on to the river by showing aggression early, whereas jumping out of the trees on the turn or river just announces your hand.
I played $1-4 stud years ago regularly with a little-old-lady who absolutely NEVER bluffed. If she raised with a Queen she definately had a face-card or Aces pair higher than everybody's door card. She would not raise with TT or worse, even if it was high. I, of course, wouldn't call her when she raised.
Actually, she was twins. Her twin played EXACTLY the same way; except that the twin had trouble seeing and would often mis-read face cards; about 10% of the time. So if she raised with a Queen, she BELIEVED it was with a big pair. I still couldn't call, but she would accidentally steal one every now and then.
Against me, which played better?
- Louie
Tweedle Dum, at the risk that this is a trick question.
If the twin could really see, she played better. You cannot call her bluff, especially with a low bluffing frequency, unless you have the cards she needs.
This problem seems simple enough. If you never called when Dum Raised (I'm assuming you're the Low Card)she would win more often, but she could do better if her Eye Sight was a little worse.
CV
Dum is bluffing more realistically and so appears to be playing better. However, she is also FOLDING pairs that she believes is No-Pair.
Of 12 face cards there are 12*11/2 or 66 combinations of which 18 are pairs; or 3 out of 11.
Of the times Dee has two face cards, she will raise 3 out of 11 that are actually pairs; 3/11 = 27.3% of the time.
When a face card is mis-read Dum will presume a pair 3 times out of 11 and no-pair 8 times out of 11. So the chances of her mis-reading the face card and raising is 10%*3/11.
Of the times Dum has two face cards and assuming "10%" means she will misread ONE face card that often, she will raise 3*90% <(correct raises)> + 3*10%*3/11 <(misread it correctly as a pair>) + 8*10%*3/11 <(misread it incorrectly as a pair>) = 2.7 + (3+8)*10%*3/11 = 2.7 + 11*3/(10*11) = 2.7 + .3 = 3 out of 11 times.
So Dum raises just often as Dee; which makes no difference to me so long as she still doesn't bluff often.
Dum is playing much worse against the idiots as she will not get to play all her pairs against their trash, but WILL play no-pair now-and-then against them.
- Louie
Louie, if I tried to imagine the worst possible table of hold'em players for me to play against, comprised of just regular forum posters, you'd be in that line-up!
No doubt partly due to my European philosophy on showering...
Naw, your brain is wired differently. I just don't believe I could get inside your head.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 June 1999, at 1:26 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 June 1999, at 6:19 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 1 July 1999, at 9:18 a.m.
I am going to Reno for the 4th of July's week-end !!!! Can you please tell me in which casino is the NL HE game ?? Also please forgive me for the post here !!
Reno Hilton
It moved from the Hilton to the El Dorado to get more traffic. I'd be surprised if it's moved back. Hope not.
I'll be there for a week starting the night of Monday the 5th. And, oh yeah, this kinda post belongs over on the exchange section. :)
Andras, Buddy! Is this really you! Last week you were complaining about "stinking" at the 6-12 level and now you are going to play NL (that does stand for No Limit doesn't it).
O.K. Maybe I'm "off" again. Does it make sense for a limit holdem player to play NL when he is "running bad" (whatever that means). Come on you out there answer the question.
Vince
Hello Vince, In a small NL I can at least protect my hands! This game is quite small as far as that goes. Same(similar) bankroll than 6-12.
You might also call and see if the Eldorado still has their $100 buy in NL hold'em game. (maybe with one $2 blind) TomSki
ABBREVIATION LIST FOR THE UNADVANCED
Abbreviation Full Definition
BB Big Blind or Big Bet depending on how it is used in sentence. HE Hold'em. PL Pot Limit. NL No Limit. HFAP Hold'em For Advanced Players. UTG Under The Gun. AS, KH Ace of Spades, King of Hearts. K7s Suited cards. LB Limper Blind L2 Limper 3rd IMO In My Opinion EV OPP Opponent
I realize this is just a start. Some of these may be wrong and feel free to add or tell me to get a life. I used capitals except on suited to make it uniform for me. I don't know what EV means. Thank you to the people that helped me on this.
Gitz
What does lol mean?
lots of laughts
laugh out loud
little old lady
lemmings on line :)
LOL means laughing out loud in most online chat (for instance chat during Planet Poker) but sometimes I think it means "lots of luck" on this forum.
Paul,
EV means expected value or expectaion. +EV means something has a positive expectation. -EV means something has a negative expectation. SD means standard deviation.
Regards,
Rick
Even if i tell you to get life were you going to find life one this time of the year?
There were four players, including myself, waiting for ten-twenty hold'em. From the people in the game, it was obviously going to be awhile. I wanted to suggest a four handed ten-twenty game but was unsure as to the best way to structure the game. I thought of two ways:
A single five dollar blind, with the first person to bet making it ten; plus a rake reduction.
A single ten dollar blind, with a rake reduction.
Or perhaps another structure would have been best?
In a four handed game, use the normal blinds of 5 and 10, and insist on a rake reduction (or preferably no rake) until more players join. With full blinds, the non-blind players are in "steal position" every hand, and aggressive play becomes very important. Overly tight play before or on the flop will be severely penalized at $15 every four hands.
I'm new to poker and I would like to become a good player and play serious. However I'm confused as to which game I should set my sights on. Hold'em or stud. Maybe people on this forum can help me out.
Set your sights on Hold 'Em as it has the brightest future and if you want to play tournaments, you will have more opportunities with Hold Em. This is actually a very old debate, and you may want to search the archives for more info on this tired subject.
Poker is poker is poker is poker! Poker by any other name is still poker. Holdem is poker. Stud is poker. Holdem is most certainly not Stud! Stud is 180 degrees out of phase with Holdem. Holdem is better than stud! Stud is better than Holdem. Draw is better than either. Draw is poker. Draw is not holdem. Holdem is poker. Holdem is not stud and stud is not draw. Poker is poker is poker! So which one do you think is BETTER! Before you answer consider that deuces wild is poker too!
Vince
If you want to be a serious player, you should learn both games, and Omaha as well. In any given cardroom, the Holdem game might be full of tough pros while the Stud game is all fish, or vice-versa. If your goal is to win money, you need to be able to play whichever game is most profitable at the time.
Brett
Dan,
Let me start off by saying that I suck at poker.
Now, in my humble opinion: start with hold'em, with the intention of learning stud soon. maybe even simultaneously if your bankroll can handle it (simu. like this can increase learning).
Over and out, Jeff
I agree with others that poker is poker is poker. So the question is what do you practice at first. I depends on where you live. If you live down I understand HE isn't as popular. You might find more opportunities playing Manila or some such. If you live on the east coast stud seems to be on at least even footing with poker so stud might be a reasonable first choice. On the west coast holdem is going to be the easiest game to find. The last thing you want to do is pick a game that only the last few diehard rocks in the area are playing (example: lowball in most of california).
I'd suggest you wonder around your local casino at different times during the week and find out what is most common.
As a diehard seven card stud player, let me recommend that you learn Hold 'em first. Seriously. I play both games, but I am much better at stud and I enjoy it more. However if I could magically switch my skill level from stud to hold 'em, I would do it in a second. Game selection is one of the most underdiscussed/underated topics in poker. On the west coast Hold 'em is more popular, thus there are more games to choose from. Sometimes I wish I had more of an option when my usual stud games are filled with rocks.
As someone else mentioned you should learn all forms of poker, but I would recommend to most new poker players to learn Hold 'em.
Oh well, back to my hold 'em books.
I think that the reason this portion of the game is so underdiscussed is because there is not much to say about it. Through experience, you will find your best game. I could tell you that HE is the better game until I am blue in the face, but until you play both, you'll never know what you are better at. For the sake of availability, I suggest HE to anyone that is interested in playing poker. Usually the discussion on game selection is related to finding the best game within the genre of poker that you choose. For example, do you want to play in a game with 9 loose passive players, or a game with 9 loose aggressive players? By the way, this is an old subject as well and has been discussed at length on this site.
Big A
This is a subject about which I wrote about in POKER DIGEST a few months ago.
In a nutshell, if you are playing small limits you should play hold 'em. This is because you use the same concepts to be successful in small limit hold 'em as you do in middle and high limit. (However, these concepts may lead you to different conclusions based on the quality of your opposition.)
Small limit stud, because of the relatively small ante, is a "trapping game." While middle and high limit stud are games where knocking out opponents becomes important. Thus you are using different concepts to be successful.
At the middle limits, both games are good. The cardroom that you are playing in may decide the answer.
At the high limits, stud is almost always the answer because high limit hold 'em just doesn't go to the extent that high limit stud does.
Mason,
"... in a nutshell..."
That is just so much bull...! People play stud rather than holdem because they like stud better than they like holdem and vice a versa. Tell the kid to learn them both and stick with the one he likes to play. After all if you don't have fun when you play poker you shouldn't play. You probably should write books instead like.....
Vince
Although I'm personally more given to 7-stud,I can't recommend enough that you learn both games.Each one has it's own unique approach which I find most intriguing.
Mason, If the kid is asking such a question - he most likely 1) does not know much about poker. 2) does not have the knowhow AND the funds to play high limit anything (holdem or stud) !!!!!!!!!!!! 3) should learn both - and *rightly* you suggest the cardroom i.e. where he lives will determine that ;-) 4) He will develop a preference to either holdem or stud...
I play both games. In the past I have also played a lot of draw - jacks or better to open, ace-to-five lowball, and razz. I have also played a little Omamha eight-or-better. So I agree that you should learn to play all games. However, if you are starting out and are going to start in the small limit games, (which is what most people do), I recommend hold 'em for the reasons that I gave. Once you move up a little, you should start to look at stud as well. After a couple of years, you can then decide which game you like better.
Another reason to learn both - Game selection is very important. If you can't find a hold 'em game, look at the stud tables and vice versa
Sorry but I didn't read the other responses.
Tend towards stud if: ==== If you can keep track of discards that are related to your hand AND discards that are related to an opponent's hand. ==== Definately of you can remember all discards ==== You can simulateously deal with multiple objective nuances ==== You play the cards more than you play the people ==== The cards play you MORE than you play the cards ==== You can concentrate for long periods of time. ==== There is some reason you expect to often be gone from the table for just a couple hands at a time, such as a bad prostate, or a mate who will often tag a long.
Tend towards holdem if: ==== You are not brain dead ==== You are good at subjective nuances ==== You play the people more than you play the cards ==== You play the cards more than the cards play YOU ==== You can prioritize your attention. ==== You wish or need to excerpt more control over your bankroll. ==== There are lots of holdem games in nearby casinos. ==== You can and do mix up your play. ==== You tend to take fewer but longer breaks. ==== You put a lot of emphasis on table and seat selection.
- Louie
Some of that makes sense to me. Especially the bit about playing the people or the cards more. But I don't understand about the length or frequency of breaks? ? ? ?
Holdem has blinds and no ante. Taking a quick break means missing those "free" hands. Taking a long break should be done starting right before your blinds. When you get back, you will often want to wait a few hands before you can come back in on the blinds.
Stud has antes and bring in. Missing a few hands means nothing in this regard.
- Louie
I think holdem is better for two reasons - the action is faster and it's easier to read the board. Stud is cool, but since I'm pretty tight, I have to wait longer to get a good hand in stud. Also, stud takes more mental energy because you have to read the boards of all your opponents. Since there is only one board at holdem, you can spend more time watching your opponents instead of looking at their boards.
Stud games are usali beter. but holdem have a lot live ones like me. Folding 99 i 2nd position, not caling 2 dolars in smal blind whith k8o and simular mistakes can ofen be observed in my play.
First of all, thank you to those of you that responded to my post below. You all had some excellent insight, and your advice is greatly appreciated. Like all good topics of interest, though, each answer brings with it another question...
When do you want to stop and think, whether as an act or for the actual purpose of thinking? The Declaration Of Independence was written in less time than it takes some WSOP players to make a call. The primary example is when What's His Face thought for about 2 minutes at the final table of the main event and made a call and won with higher muck. That was an awesome call, and surely his dramatic thinking process intimidated his opponents on future plays.
Is thinking for long periods of time okay at this level because most players are 'aware'?
I heard a quote that you want to be feared in HE and loved in Omaha. If this is true, don't you want to intimidate your opponents with the thinking 'move'? Wouldn't a pause for dramatic effect and then a call with a winning hand scare your opponents?
Could you take your time and think when you are traveling to other casinos under the reasoning that they will not learn too much about your play because you will be leaving soon?
Finally, is it okay to stop and think when you are the last to act, under the reasoning that you will not be giving away too much about your hand since no one is after you?
Thanks again
Big A
NLH - LH: Two different animals. Two different "Thinking" strategies.
Vince
bet and played at a feverish pace that threw his opponents off and kept them on their heels, or so i've heard.
Well just to ad my two cents worth, many times during WSOP the champ appears to be thinking but what he is really doing IMHO is seeing if his actions are based on anything other than solid reasons. He mey have been outdrawn erarlier or he/she just does not like his opponent (he may be Mr. Helmouth). He can't be thinking on things like "is he looking at me (or away from me because he is bluffing)" Stuey did the same at times I saw him on the Video many times - pondering. There are many factors unknown and a bit of time just gives perspective to the player.
Figure this one out. I've got the BB, three callers, and the SB folds. The flop is Jh 7s 3c. I check and the middle position player bets. The two others fold. First, I was thinking of check-raising, but when the other two players folded I decided to get greedy and wait for the turn. If a blank came, I would go ahead and check-raise. I figured I had a good chance of winning heads-up. Note that, the game was mostly tight and passive. Furthermore, my opponent who had bet out on the flop just sat down at the table and this was the first hand he played. Since there was no preflop raise, I put my opponent on a JK, JQ, JT, or J9.
What do you think my opponent thought when I just called his bet on the flop?
Was I an idiot or a genius for calling instead of check-raising on the flop?
Did you have a 7,3? Depending on your opponent both answers may be correct in my opinion. There really isn't any Draws on the Board so this makes the Analysis a lot simpler.
A)Some players I know mostly play aggressive on the Flop if they have a hand that isn't that strong and has little chance to improve, like Jack Weak Kicker. They wait until the Turn to spring in the Raise if they have a Big Hand.
B)Other players will Raise on the Flop just because they figure to have you beat right now, and they don't think much about the future rounds.
C)Still others like to mix it up a bit.
Since you already have a Line on what he has, does he think your A, B, or C? If he thinks your in the A department than putting in a Check Raise on the Flop would be Right with A,J or better IMO. Of course, if he thinks your B then a Check Raise on the Turn might be right. And if he thinks your C, well I try to act like C when I can. I basicly go back to which play he would put me on if I didn't play C style.
Chris V.
I don't think your opponent thought you were a genius!
BTW- What the hell did you have? Or is this a trick question from a genius? Or maybe a mistake from an... Oh you know.
Vince
... Am I a mind reader?
What did you have.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Your opponent thought his hand was good if he had top pair. If he had a pocket underpair or second pair he probably thought he's up against a jack with a weak kicker. Unless you had two pairs or a set, my vote is: idiot.
A Genius would have titled the thread "Am I an Idiot or a Genius?"
No, it is correct form to phrase a question with the subject first instead of the predicate. Next player, please.
Of course, I never said that mah was incorrect, just not a Genius.
Brutal responses so far, eh?
Assuming you can beat KJ....
On the raise-it-later side: The pot is small so giving "free" cards is not so bad. You are in the BB and can reasonably have any hand, including A3. There are few dangerous looking possible turn cards. The pot is heads up so reasonable opponents are likely to bet again on the turn.
On the raise-it-now side: The opponent is tight passive and is a favorite to check unless he has a good Jack or higher. No one is going to call trying to make an over pair whether you make it two bets or not.
On the bet-it-out side: You often steal at these raggedy flops from the blind in this tight-passive game; supporting these steals with bets from big hands has more EV then trying to scratch out one more bet on THIS hand.
I think you are better off if you presume that a player that just sat down plays WEAKLY until proven otherwise.
None of these actions are compelling nor disasters, so this situation cannot qualify you as either an idiot or genius. But Geeeeeeezzz, asking the question is just BEGGING for abuse!
- Louie
You are an idiot. I say this not based on what you wrote in your post, but simply on the question you asked. A genius would never credit himself as an idiot, nor would he have the ego to presume he is a genious. Simply asking the question in the hopes of gaining acceptance by your peers makes it acceptable to lay odds that you're an idiot. Throughout history, rarely has a 'true' genius fought for acceptance from society. Generally it is the 'very intelligent' that look for acceptance and inclusion with geniuses.
You wrote "Throughout history, rarely has a 'true' genius fought for acceptance from society. Generally it is the 'very intelligent' that look for acceptance and inclusion with geniuses."
I am curious. Which geniuses have fought for acceptance from society? Which haven't? How do you know?
This has nothing to do with poker, but for the record your statement is completely incorrect. There are A TON of geniuses who have 'fought for acceptance'-- James Joyce springs to mind, for example, and William Faulkner was STUNNED by the fact that he never made the kind of money he so richly deserved.
"A genius would never credit himself... nor would he have the ego to presume himself as a genius"
Speak for yourself Big A.
Let's just, for the sake of argument, say that Mr Caro is a genius as he claims. Many others also think he is a poker genius. Doesn't he advertise as the "Mad Genius"? Such a humble guy! Of course he may not be presumptuos. He may have convinced himself that he is a genuine genius and therefore the little matter of ego matters little!
Vince.
Ever hear of Bobby Fisher? I think he had the ego to "presume he was a genius". The list is long.
Of course, I received some responses I did not expect. I did not tell you what I was holding, because I wanted to get an opponents point of view.
My hole cards were an unsuited J-3. Since, the middle position player bet out and the other players folded, I figured I could trap him for a bigger bet on the turn. Note that, I would have check-raised on the flop if any of the other players called. My oppenent had a 6.4% (3 out of 47) chance of pairing his kicker on the turn. I figured if I check-raise him on the flop he might not call a bigger bet on the turn.
Was it worth the risk? How would you have played this hand?
I would have bet out on the flop and mucked if someone raised AND anyone cold called. If I was raised and it was folded back to me, I'd call the flop and lead bet the turn. If raised here I'd definitely muck.
If someone only called the flop, I'd bet the turn and probably bet the river.
Assuming the player had a Jack and a big card, he can also outdraw you if the 7 pairs; thus "counterfeiting" your two (small) pair. On the river he can hit his kicker, pair the 7, or pair the turn card (unless its a duece).
But this is only relevant if you believe you MAY be able to get the player to fold. Since top-pair big-kicker is likely to see the river heads-up, his chances of outdrawing you don't really matter much.
- Louie
No problem with the way you played the hand.
I think 7 stud is harder when you have to keep track all card but short hand 7 stud (3-4 hand)is OK for me( hold'em player ). Years ago,I know some top hold'em player challenge world class stud player( Danny Robison ) to play head up 7 stud and hold'em but he didn't take it.If someone know poker concept, I mean read theory of poker book should not have problem with short hand 7 stud.
If you like to draw but a good solid player with deep pockets and very good memory (ex card counter a+) stud is easier. If you are just a very tight/agressive asshole type like me (actually I am not tight enough...) holdem is easier. I like NL kind with some rich gamblers.. Also I gather stud at one point was played NL here and there but not any more !!!! According to Mason's calculations stud takes more money to play (at the same level) 'cause of the drawing feature.
I don't see the connection between counting cards and stud. I am a very proficient card counter, but at best an average stud player. Is there a way to use card counting techniques in stud? If so someone please point me in that direction. As far as I'm concerned card counting has little to do with having a great memory. The only thing you have to memorize are the playing indices, and with these you can take whatever time is necessary to memorize them, and truth be known you really only need about 18 of them. In stud you need to remember a much larger set of data, which is going to change every 5 minutes or so. As far as card counting helping to remember which cards have been out in a hand of stud, I don't see how it's possible, at least not with any card counting system I am aware of. I could tell you the ratio of ten-valued cards to small cards, but thats about it, I have no idea about specific denominations or suits, which are the things I would be most concerned with in stud.
I am no card counter but here is my take. On some BJ tables the cards are dealt out face up (fewer and fewer) so you count a simple or more devious count and try to be on the last seat. In 7Stud you are counting all the door cards to be alive or dead depending on what you put your opponent so if 8 players and their doorcards are A K Q 10 3 4 9 you have many drop out on 3rd st. some on 4th in high limit but you need to remember who had what so if someone is (in your opinion drawing for a straight (with Q door - you will determine that later stage) you know that 10 and 9 have folded - and if you see those drop later you know that card may or may not be alive... you get the picture ????? Same with flush draws etc. if you are playing 500-1000 stud you better learn this (I am not implying that I have ;-) My contention is that fewer folks talk about stud cause it's (as you see) bloody difficult task due to the lack of common cards on the board.
I'm really not trying to upset you, but, no actually I don't get the picture. I understand the importance of keeping track of the cards in a stud game. What I don't understand is how my card counting skills aid me in doing this. For instance, with the cards you used in your example, a card counter would instantly know (using a simple hi-lo count) his running count is -2. He could tally this up in a split second, but if you then turn the cards face down, I don't think any BJ card counter could rename the specific cards, most might recall the ace, but no one pays any real attention to the specific denominations or suits while card counting, in BJ there is no difference between K Q J or 10 they are all exactly the same, and there is only minimal differences in cards like 2 3 4 5 or 6, suffice it to say each is bad for the player and good for the dealer. I am not saying you are wrong, just that if there is a way to use these skills, I sure would like to be made aware so I could apply them.
ok i get you point - 7stud is not really counting just keeping a very accurate track of all *important* door cards and cards falling on 4st and beyond. this has to be kept in reference of what you think your opponent is holding or betting on. since in 7stud many will drop out on 3st or next round and seldom you have more than 3-4 players at this point you may say this is not that hard (or important) my understanding that the big gunns in stud all think it's the cornerstone of stud aside of other poker skills i.e. tight agressive self control etc etc. I know a few high limit stud players from my days in nyc and chicago who were all excellent bj counters before it was open season on them. this whole thought process is in 7stud for advanced players by 2+2. it's tough to look at the cards and the players looking at their cards and their faces (reactions) for each round and keep track of you own hand at the same time. It's my opinion only !!!!!
Andras, you do not need to keep track of all cards in 7 srud. It helps but is not necessary. The key is to make a mental note of the cards that most affect your hand first and then your opponents. You want to be playing "live" cards in stud. Noting those cards that affect your hand will help you with your decisions. Noting those cards that affect your opponents hand will help you when reading his hand.
Vince.
You know I've seen this response from expert and novice alike. 7 Stud is harder because you have to keep track of the cards. Forget it! Think about it! Which game is discussed more? Why? Because it's easier. Mason has made a statement that should convince everyone that the tougher game is by far TEXAS HOLDEM! To paraphrase Mr. Malmuth: In stud once you figure out the situation there is usually only one way too play your hand. The same is not true in Holdem. (Is that close to what you profess Mr. Malmuth or maybe it was Sklansky). There are many more mistakes made in Holdem than stud because of this concept. There are also many more opportunities to make mistakes in Holdem than in Stud. Mistakes separate the poor from the good from the great player.
Vince.
Vince, I always thought high limit stud players don't only keep track of 'live' cards for themselves but for all or most doorcards at the table !!!!! Hence they know if the opponent made a mistake often when he/she does NOT !! Keeping this kind' of score = to card counting and takes a certain memory ! (Which sadky I don't profess....) Cheers Andras
Which leads to the logical conclusion........for some stud is harder (or easier) and for some hold 'em is harder (or easier). Different people think in different ways.
Vince-
An excellent post. However, I'd say that learning third street play in 7 stud is harder than learning how to play pre-flop in HE. In other words, 7stud (and Omaha) require that the player have a more sophisticated understanding of their games' starting hand requirements. This may not sound like much, but for 'some' players (read: me) I think this counts for a lot, since I'm notso hotso at knowing which hands to play, but tend to do a fairly good job once I've decided to throw my hat in the ring.
I agree that learning certain aspects of stud is difficult. But the question: which one is harder implies overall which one is the most difficult to play. Once you "learn" to play stud you will be faced with a lot of situations in which there is usually one correct play. Your expereince will guide you in making that play. But even after learning holdem you will find yourself in many similiar situations in which there may be a number of seemingly correct plays. Your experience, though the key factor in determining how to proceed, is still not enough to ensure that you will make the correct play. I'm sure that as a holdem player you have "second guessed" yourself on numerous occaisions. Although second guessing occurs in Stud it certainly does not occur with anywhere near the frequency that it does in holdem. Because there is normally more than one way to play a holdem hand but usually just one way that will produce the desired result there are more mistakes that are made in holdem than stud. This should be obvious from a probabilistic point of view. Another extremely important difference is that in stud, at times, you can "see" for certain that you are beat. There is no way to know this for sure in holdem unless you show down your hand. This fact alone causes numerous betting/calling/folding mistakes. I could go on, but I'm tired.
Bye for now pal.
Vince.
"To paraphrase Mr. Malmuth: In stud once you figure out the situation there is usually only one way too play your hand"
Paraphrase? Well, here's a direct quote from Poker Essays II written by Mason Malmuth. "Even though it is very difficult to become an expert at both games, I have come to the conclusion that stud is a little bit tougher."
My paraphrase was of a different quote. From my post you should be able to determine that I do not agree with Malmuth. I believe holdem is (much) more difficult to play than 7 stud.
Vince.
What about opinion from 2+2 gang?
This was a hand I played in a lower limit game with 5 very loose weak players and a few stronger ones. I have QsJs in 5th position. There is a raise under the gun by a weak player, and everyone calls up to me, so I call. The strong player after me reraises and two more call, then the button caps it and everyone up to me calls, so I call expecting more callers. There are 8 players capped before the flop. The flop is 9s10s10d. 1st bets, 2nd raises, next calls, I call, six callers total. the next card is 4s, so I check-raise, with 5 total callers (there was little doubt someone would bet). the river is a beautiful Ks! 1st bets, 2nd raises, call, I reraise, 4 callers (if you can believe it) total! Turns out 1st has AsJh, second has 9c10c, who knows what the other weak player had (he should have folded long ago...). So I was against an ace high flush and a flopped full house! I know I got lucky, but I was so proud of the hand (and won a giant pot) that it was worth repeating. Any comments welcome, criticism accepted, etc....
I don't know if I would have seen the flop with all the raising taking place, but after the flop you did fine. I don't know if anything you did was a great play, but it appears to be solid play, and when you nutted up on the river, you reaped the rewards. Great hand! They don't hit like that very often.
Big A,
When Dave made his first call of the raise he was already figuring to get multi-way action pre-flop. I think it was a good initial call. Once it was capped and going to be an eight way pot (if memory serves me, my connection is to slow to check his post again) the call of the cap is automatic.
BTW, with this sort of multi-way action, I would rather have the suited QJ than an offsuit AK. Of course, you better have the stomach and/or bankroll to make it through the swings but the hand has a very positve EV.
The description of the action post flop confused me a little but I hope Dave has fun spending the money.
Regards,
Rick
Thank you for the correction. I went back and re-read his post and you are completely correct. I was under the assumption that he was facing 3 raises before he called (and yes, he mat still be correct in calling).
good hand but it couldnt have gone as you said on 4th street. thats not the important thing though it is that you need to understand how hands play out and how the betting must go. as you get better at visualizing where your hand stands in the betting your game will improve and so will your bankroll. good luck.
Any hand that wins a "big pot" is a great hand.
If you get into the same situation again you may be much better off reraising before the flop than calling a raise cold with QJs. Especially, in a loose aggressive game. I believe that Raise/fold/call is the most correct sequence to follow here. You may also want to raise the flop with your hand. I would.
How could anyone with a full house not reraise the turn when you check raised?
".... I was proud of the hand". You won a 2 outer with a hand that was randomly dealt to you from a group of "weak players". Where is the pride in that?
Vince.
Congrats on that hand!!!
Is it me or did the full house play this hand bad Vince. And without the reraise on the turn as you stated what do you have him holding trips, flush?? I'm fuzzy on the way the hand went according to the post which was already stated by Ray Zee. I look at these hands as a great learning tool to see how my thinking is in comparison to the players I'm up against. To ignore the other weak hand that called is a mistake even if he had crabs. I don't ever put another player down for not dropping, because it usually comes back to haunt me.
Paul
Two reasons come to mind to focus more on what a strong selective player has and less on the loose caller: ==1== The selective player is more likely to have beat ==2== He has less possible hands so its easier to put him on one.
Thus you get a more accurate picture of his hand AND that picture matters more than one of the loose player.
- Louie
Mr. Zee is right, I may have gotten the betting sequence a little wrong, but the full house did not reraise, that I remember clearly. I did my best to remember it as close as possible. As I said it was a game of mostly weak players (Very weak).
One thing to remember is that game selection is key to winning. I do better in loose aggressive games because that is what I have mostly played in all my life. It is also true that large bankroll swings will occur in this type of game. I would not play in such an agressive game if all the players were skilled and sober. Historically I have done best in these games, especially when several people are drunken tourists. I waited 2 1/2 hours for a seat to open up in that game (everyone also had a fairly large stack of chips, plenty for me to try and win)! I certainly would have played differently against tight aggressive players, and probably would have never been in before the flop.
I certainly did not read the one player to have a full house, and I will play an inside straight flush draw against trips in a multway pot any day, even with the obvious danger of a full house! (I know that one ought to get some comments)!
The pot had become so big (on the flop) there was no way I was going to fold anyway (too many outs). Had the full house played better, he may have wound up with the pot. those river kings don't come along very often! ! all comments were appreciated, even the critical ones!
I agree with the pre-flop call. I, like you, have heard plenty of reputable players say that this hand may not be worth playing early, but in these loose passive games I just can't see how that's the case. Consider:
1) You've got about a twenty five percent chance of flopping some kind of pair w/ a three flush, thereby making it correct (IMO) to press on and see the river.
2) You're chances of flopping a legitimate draw (either an open ender or a three flush) are about 15%, which means you'll get some kind of flop about forty percent of the time. Even discarding the times you flop a pair, you'll flop a great draw about one time in seven, and there's a damn good chance in a game like this that you'll pick up seven callers pre-flop.
3) If a raise comes from late position you're in a perfect position to manipulate the size of the pot. If you flop a draw you bet, the gaggle calls, the button raises (you said he almost assuredly had a big pair), and you build a monster that you've got a 25-30% chance of winning. If you flop a pair you (duh) check raise the flop, etc. etc. In short, I don't know how you can pass these hands up in this kind of game, since the ONLY way you make money here is by flopping big draws, building huge pots on the flop, and praying like hell that you get there. You're SURE as hell not going to make a fortune with big paints in this game (unless they're paired), so you've got to maximize your chances of flopping a monster draw.
Le (Masc. or Fem.?) Flop:
I doubt I'd bet here, since IMExperience your chances of getting guys to drop is somewhere just to the left of nil. I can't rembember now if the board was two suited-- if it wasn't, then I guess you can make an argument for betting, although I've generally found that in games like this most boys get married to their big pairs in the hole and won't fold them for anything. I don't know how many times I've bet here, picked up a nine on the turn, bet, then checked down the river, only to be shown pocket T's or J's from one of the original limpers... However, there's no doubt in my mind that I'd peel at least one card, and probably check raise the flop if I could get the button off of pocket K's or worse.
Le (again, Masc. or Fem.) Turn-
This is almost entirely a function of the kind of game your in, and the kind of players you're up against. In my game guys routinely check and call to the river with an A weak kicker, so I'd be less inclined to bet again. Further, as Dan pointed out, by betting the turn you're almost committed to betting the river. If I'm already prepared to
Hey Gang,
I have a question about putting people on hands and making the best plays. As I read posts on the play of hands folks have encountered, I try slowly to figure out what I would have done. Then, I check that against what others say about the hands. I have noticed there is a considerable gap between how clear my thinking is when I'm on this forum as oppossed to in game situations. A poster this week mentioned that he feels like he is just reacting instincually more than figuring out the hand completelly. This rang true with me. I want to get top the point where I am figuring out the decisions I encounter as strong or better than I can right now when I am sitting relaxed in front of the computer with unlimited time to examine the hand. Any thoughts about how to continue to develop in that regard? Any way to practice or prepare for the "on the fly" analysis? Lastly, is there any complete treatment of proffesional thought process while a player is in a hand? Robert Bisogno
I'm a new player and struggling to learn how to read hands. One approach that seems to work: Start by figuring out what hands could beat you, then decide if your opponent could have those hands based on their play. This is relatively easy, because if you hit the flop or have a good draw, there are usually only two or three hands that could hurt you, so you can figure the odds of facing those hands pretty quickly. This approach seems to work for me. I'm rarely surprised when an opponent turns over their cards. (I'm playing with solid -- not world class -- players who are fairly predictable). Any comments on this approach? Improvements, variations, possible problems/traps?
Bob Ciaffone presents the thought process through example hands in his Improve Your Poker book, but I'd better not plug it on 2+2's site.
Experience will put you at ease with figuring out what YOU have. Then you will have the energy to figure out what THEY have.
One good start is to consider what you WOULD have if you were in their position. E.G. UTG calls and calls the raise 4 handed. The flop is K85. UTG bets. What's he got? Well, if it was me it'd be a practical synch to be KQs, 88, or 55.
- Louie
i've read and reread S&Ms reading hands chapters in advanced hold 'em and theory of poker. they analyze opponents hands by looking backward at their entire play throughout the hand.
an example of this is a recent game where i had AJ - flopped the nut straight. The queen paired, and i lost bets by not raising, fearing a full house. he didn't have a full, because if he did i would have had a lot more action on the flop from his two pair after my flop raise. of course after the hand i realized that i could have gotton about 3 more bets.
also, and i don't know all the math on this, if an ace flops after opponent raises, u have an ace, there is only one way your opponent can have AA, more ways to have AK KK, etc. odds are lower your against AA. anyone have more info on these numbers?
also keep an eye on opponents not in the hand. if i have a king low kicker, a king or two flops, and i see the guy not in a hand nudge his neighbor and point at the board, odds are less my opponent has the king. comments?
james..........
>>>he didn't have a full, because if he did i would have had a lot more action on the flop from his two pair after my flop raise. of course after the hand i realized that i could have gotton about 3 more bets<<<
Yes, an important part of reading hands is this thinking, "Would this player have played it that way on that round if he did have XYZ hand?"
>>>also, and i don't know all the math on this, if an ace flops after opponent raises, u have an ace, there is only one way your opponent can have AA, more ways to have AK KK, etc. odds are lower your against AA. anyone have more info on these numbers?<<<
See Sklansky's _Poker, Gaming, and Life_ where he has two or three essays on counting combinations. e.g., in the example you give you can account for two aces so your opp can have only one combination of AA. But you've seen no kings, leaving six possible combinations of KK (six if you've seen none, three if you've seen one...), and eight of AK (2 aces * 4 kings).
John Feeney
Thanks for the comments so far, those are very good. I was really interested though in how to get quicker at this hand analysis and being 99% + as accurate while in the battle as while your monday morning quarterbacking your play later. Thanks again Robert Bisogno
A very useful tool is to do a lot of thinking away from the table about how you would play various types of hands against various types of opponents. You might take hands that confronted you with tough decisions during play, and analyze those at home. That way you can come up with more or less "standard" strategies for various hands under particular circumstances. e.g., you may decide that against certain very aggresive players you will tend to check and call with top pair hands, or against certain kinds of players who are capable of laying a hand down you will semi-bluff raise on the turn with certain kinds of hands... Mason has comments about this in one or both of his "Essays" books. The idea is to have done much of your thinking for routine situations *away* from the table. That will speed up your decision making process *at* the table.
John Feeney
Another thought I had is to practice reviewing the entire hand in such a way that you can post all the action here; without any mistakes. This forces you to see the entire hand and not just the current betting round; and this will lead to doing it in the heat of battle when it matters.
- Louie
Similar to a post i made above, you first have to know your opponents tendencies. Does he/she play close to correct starting hand play according to popular wisdom,(based on his posistion), or does this player play hands out of posistion etc.
once you have a rough idea about this players tendencies then you can start to narrow the hand down based on his actions. I think it is important to realize that some hands you can narrow the hand down to one hand, but many hands you need to think more in terms of a few possibles. Then you need to weigh your hand against these possibles.
I would stress though that if you concentrate more on reading your opponents tendencies, rather than try to read hands you will probably be better off in the long run. we all do this naturally to a certain extent, but if you take it too the next level, then you will not be the person doing the guessing nearly as much, since you will be looking for opportunities to exploit your opponents tendencies to your advantage,(putting them into the quessing game) and staying away from marginal situations.
Simple question Flop As 3d 4d Player1 holds 2s 5c Player2 holds 5d 6d
It is apparent that player 2 has 14 outs. I know the answer but am trying to settle a bet with a friend and the exact mathmatical formula would be greatly appreciated.
I think there may even be some players that are unaware of the true answer to this simple example.
Thanx, Brad
Probability that player two will make a straight flush, flush or straight by the river (taking into account player the cards in player one's hand) = 1 - [(31/45) X (30/44)] = .4697
I think your formula is correct, but you forgot to subtract the fraction from 1 when you did the calculation.[(31/45) X (30/44)] = .4697, so 1 - [(31/45) X (30/44)] = .5303
There are 45 unseen cards. There are 45*44/2 = 990 possible outcomes.
There are 9 hearts, 3 7's, and 2 2's =14 cards that help the draw hand; and 31 that do not.
The straight WINS if both cards are NOT a 2,7,or heart. There are 31*30/2 = 465 such winning outcomes.
The straight LOSES if either a 2, 7, or heart comes which is 990-465=535. BUT WAIT! The straight TIES if both a 2 AND 6 come that are not hearts. There are 2 such 2's left and 3 such 6's left, or 2*6/2 = 6 such outcomes; leaving 521 losing outcomes.
Comparing losses to wins (ignoring ties), I conclude that the straight is a 521:465 = 1.12:1 underdog.
- Louie
Assuming both players see the opponents hand, the situation is a little better for the straight since he can fold if the draw makes it on the turn but the draw has to pay to draw the river card at a noticable disadvantage.
Lets say the strategy of players is as follows: the draw bets the flop; bets the turn if he makes it, and calls the turn if not. Flop and turn bets are the same. The straight will call the flop, and will bet the turn if the draw missed and will fold if the draw made it. The straight loses 1-bet 14/45 of the time. 31/45 of the time the straight will lose 2-bets 14/44 of the time. The draw will lose 2-bets 31/45*30/44 of the time.
Straight loses 1*14/45 + 2*31/45*14/44 = .311 + .438 = .749 bets.
The draw loses 2*31/45*30/44 = .939 bets.
So even being the "favorite" to win the pot, the draw should FOLD if the straight bets into an empty pot. How about that.
And you guys thought this was a silly problem ... No, just a silly response.
This sure sounds like a Sklanski problem many moons ago; for thus of us that were fans before it was fashionable.
Hey, denizens of the forum, I need some suggestions.
For some time now I have been specifically trying to improve my ability to keep a "book" on opponents, by observing what they show down, etc. But after several sessions recently, I got home and after some thought I realized that I did NOT have a good handle on the play of most of the opponents. Apparently I am half-blanking-out and not really following things when I am out of the hand.
Obviously this does not prevent me from ovserving very obvious things, like what the guy shows up with after raising or re-raising throughout.
Do any of you have mental exercises, tricks, or thought processes to help focus on the other players better?
Thanx, Dick
i picture eight or nine empty vaults, my job is to fill them up with information. my rule is when im sitting down i MUST be watching the play and of course the showdown, it's just as important to watch folded cards, (when they show their neigbor, me, or they flip up. if i'm standing up stretching then it doesn't matter, that's my "rest" time.
i know i'm doing poorly when i hear raise, look up and see a new face, and realize he's been there for a while. i'm sure everyone's done this.
i don't have any tricks, i start by categorizing into frequent bluffers, easy folders, etc., then when i have to make a decision look back into my "vault"
i took ginkoba for a while, a memory enhancing drug which is supposed to make you think quicker. i didn't notice any noticable difference in my mental reflex, and i really think if you know you're taking it, you subconsciencly convince yourself to perform better, but i'm a cynic.
i'll bet the best person to learn this style of thinking from would be an air traffic controller , when they are sitting down they MUST pay attention to EVERYTHING on their screen. if they aren't constantly focused and alert and aware they lose. big time.
thoughts?
I generally try to see how many pots a player is entering, and from what posistions. I am usually looking to the players behind me first and then work to the players in front of me. One thing i wouldn't do is to categorize a player too quickly. Just be looking for tendencies. You don't need to see their cards too get an idea as too their general tendencies. if a player is sitting out a lot of hands, then if he comes in and raises, i don't need to have seen any previous hands to realize that he probably has a good to strong starting hand. The same goes with someone who is playing alot of hands. if he isn't winning alot of pots then chances are he is coming in with less than optimal cards. you can start there, and then start watching them on the later streets. What might be happeming, is that you are looking to hard for something, when really, if you know the players general tendencies, you can add quite a bit to your arsenal. Bob Ciaffone, who has been posting here lately, has written about this . You might want to check some of his writings out as well as the 2+2 guys. good luck
I am former tower operator. When I worked I remember all trains approaching my station, slow speed orders and other warnings, occupied and empty tracks. But when I am playing poker I am playing cards not opponents. When I play cards I win when I try play opponents and my image I loose.
Keep a notebook. For EVERY hand write down what you had, whether you played, who won the showdown, with (probably) what hand, against how many others. Perhaps also log something else.
- Louie
For motivation, pretend I'm leering over your shoulder and will call you brain-dead every time you fail to log the hand.
If you get razzled by the other players tell them you work for the IRS and would like their Social Security numbers. Or tell them you're doing field research for you Masters in Anthropology on "The Interaction of Indiginous Lower Life Forms".
Better yet, write down the things that you are thinking about at the table. Then address these issues.
I don't play enough low limit in AC to worry about my opponents other than if they play too many hands.
Since most people don't have a photographic mind I believe what you would need to do would be to take a break every so often and write down the information you try to memorize until you get home. And when you get home go over what you wrote down.
This is a simple problem if you're talking about a home game scenario where you have a total pool of maybe 10 to 20 players who frequent the game. Narrow the bulk of your observational efforts on one player each night. Concentrate your efforts for the entire session on observing their play. By the end of the night you will have many valuable impressions. Write them down and think about them.
Next session, do this with someone else, and so on until everyone is categorized. Then, start the whole process again, because players change with the passage of time.
Start with the most dangerous players first.
Good luck!
-Marc
Dick-
I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but personally I don't think this kind of effort is worth it at the lower limits. While some (most) may argue, it's my experience that the average low limit player has a WIDE spectrum of hands with which they will call but not raise; for instance, tonight I had a yahoo check/ call with a slick (no, he didn't raise pre-flop) with an AQ9 rainbow flop. About fifteen minutes later the same guy overcalls on the river with a pair of pocket 8's when the board's holding three overcards. In other words, this guy will check/call with anything from a monster to an utterly hopeless hand.
IMExperience this is the rule more than the exception, and as a consequence I've given up on trying to figure out what kinds of hands someone's calling with. If I've got the goods, they're going to pay to see it. If not, well...
Anyway, the situation changes dramatically when you're discussing what kinds of hands a guy will RAISE with. But as the spectrum of hands they'll call with is fairly, uh, broad, the kinds of hands they'll raise with is correspondingly small. I don't know how you sun gods down in AZ. play, but up here it's one guy in twenty who will three bet top pair/ top kicker, so when they go to fifteen (my 2-5 game) I know they've got some kind of powerhouse, and I can adjust accordingly.
In fact, the only thing I'd look for is whether or not a player will aggressively bet a draw. Once you've got a handle on this part of their play, the rest pretty much falls into place.
Very important point about how players handle their draws. If you pay attention to this, and one other situation - how they handle their sets on the flop, then I agree with you that the missing pieces in this jigsaw puzzle fall into place.
Your completely right. I forgot to mention how players play their sets.
i see your point -
i played recently with an opponent who flopped two lower pair against my pair of Aces ,hi kicker three times in a row.
Simply check and called, or bet and called my raises all the way. Got beat the first time but was lucky enough to have the board pair (non full house for him) the second two times, giving me higher two pair.
It's annoying because you know a raise from a passive player usually equals "i beat top pair"
That said I have used this same strategy with a good holding, against one or two players when thinning the field wasn't greatly needed,
james...............
Hi Dick,
I just read through the various responses to your question and I also found them somewhat helpful, but I didn't see anyone who posted that you should become the *Marv Albert* of the poker table... (No biting comments please. :)
I become the play by play man, *Internally*, I comment on everything that I'm seeing on the table, from start to finish as it happens, whether I am in the hand or not.
These comments include players positions, who raised, who cold called the raise, what is on the flop and how the betting sequence went, size of the pot at various stages etc, etc, etc... It is a never ending cycle. I even comment on such things as "Flop came AJ4 rainbow, and again Moz bets out, but he takes a subtle gulp when Tommy called, can that gulp actually mean anything. Tommy was getting 3-1 odds on his call of the turn card"
Don't know if this will help you, but it keeps me focusing on the game, which is what I suspect that you're after anyhow.
As mentioned by other people who responded, I also keep a little notebook, and write down what player "A" holds when he is raising pre-flop and what his hands are (in comparison to the board) as he bets the turn and river. Once I've monitored player "A" for a week or so, I move onto player "B". btw.... This is a house game with a pool of say 30 people.
Later
Larry
I thank everyone for some good suggestions. Here is my plan.
I didn't mention it, but I already keep a loose-leaf notebook with my collected notes on regulars in my regular game. I have a book on about 30 people. I don't start a page until I have seen a player at least 2-3 times. (Like I said when I started out the thread, I HAVE been trying.)
I am going to combine Louie's notebook with Tuneman's "filling up info vaults" - I plan to keep a small notebook with a page for each seat position, and write down everything I see at showdown. Louie, I am electing not to take your full suggestion of writing down MY every hand and the outcome of every hand. In keeping with Marc's suggestion, I will make extra effort to watch regulars who are in my book.
I like Larry's "play by play" suggestion. By talking to myself, I think I will go a long way toward paying more attention, which is the whole idea here.
GD raised a point which actually helps me understand why I have this problem. There are so many players who simply limp with anything and check-call all the way to the river with almost anything. Then they frequently fold the river so I don't see their cards. Watching this blur go by, it IS easy to relax my observation. So I will concentrate on: What they raise pre-flop with (GD), how they bet draws (GD), how they play sets (Andrew), and an additional one: what they cold-call with (from Mason in a previous thread about categorizing opponents).
One additional thing I will try to do is put opponents into a "category" - e.g. "loose passive calling station" - where I can extrapolate behavior that fits the category. I fully recognize that I have to be willing to change my mind about someone, similar to putting someone on a hand.
Thanks again, guys. Any further comments?
Dick
Dick,
Are you serious? Do you have a day job? Do you really want to keep all those copious notes on all the players in your game? I gotta ask if it's really worth it? Do you enjoy poker more or less while taking notes? Are you having fun when you play? Vince Lombardi said "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing" He later clarified that to mean playing to win is everything. Doing your best. It seems to me that you would do better by ensuring that ALL your poker skills are working in sync while sitrting at the table. Reading your opponent is just one aspect (skill) of the game. And in my humble opinion not one of the most important aspects (skills). Dick my boy don't get so uptight about reading opponents. Don't worry! Be Happy!
Vince.
Vince - Thank you for adding some perspective! I want to introduce you to my other advisor Louie L, and you guys can go 15 rounds!
Seriously, your point is correct if you picture me as putting my head down and furiously writing instead of playing my hand or otherwise paying attention to other more important things (Like the cocktail waitress??). I tried this in practice today, and it turned out that I often was doing something else, but much of the time, after I had folded a hand, I had plenty of time to jot notes without giving up anything. So I did.
I have learned a lot from this forum, and often it expands my viewpoint to trying something I never thought of. Counting out the pot is a good example. There was a thread a while back about how different posters kept track of the pot. In hold'em, I set out to keep track of the pot. In almost no time, it became another automatic part of my routine. It really clarifies your thought process in a "drawing" situation when you can say "Let's see, here we are on the turn, and I think I have a 5-outer to win, that means about 8-to-1 against, and I need to call 1 big bet, and there are currently 6 big bets in the pot ... how are my pot odds and my implied odds ?"
Anyway, this falls in that category. If it turns out to be a real pain in the ass, I won't do it. But if it turns out to be another skill that I can learn and add to my routine, then it has improved my game by that much.
BTW, in my previous life I was a tournament bridge player. The amount of things you have to concentrate on and keep track of is outrageous. If YOU would like to attempt bridge for a while, learning to keep track of all 4 suits and therefore being able to count out the unseen 2 hands, you will gladly go back to 7 stud and remembering folded cards as an elementary exercise. (PS - my example, keeping track of all 4 suits and counting out hands, is an upper-intermediate-to-expert skill, not something you would start out with.)
Dick
I am in a 10/20 Holdem game, in SB with KQo 8 callers no raise I call. Flop comes 975 rainbow, it is checked to the rock in late pos who bets I call 2 others call. The turn is a Q I bet there is a fold a call and the ROCK raises I know this player well and know he would only be raiseing with 2 pair a set or the strait, he would have played with a 68s in late pos with no raise and that many callers. He did have one of those hands I folded and the river was a K. 975QK no flush was possible.
What would you have done
You have no call when the rock comes out betting on the flop or for that matter if anybody comes out betting on the flop
Fold on the flop.
There aren't enough two-pair combinations compared to sets and straights to justify attempting to outdraw this opponent (I count 9 sets, 4 straights, and 4 2-pairs). Fold to the raise on the turn.
- Louie
Against 8 opponents you must fold on the flop especially against a late position bettor with many opponents to act after you. You were fortunate to not be sandwhiched between two raisers. You were correct in betting the turn but incorrecct in folding especailly if you thought 2 pair or trips would win the pot. Count your bets, you will find enough in this pot to warrant a call.
Vince
I called the flop because the table had alot of weak players, and I thought there was a reasable chance that my K OR Q might stand up if I hit. There is also 9 bets in the pot and i need only 8 to call with only 2 over cards. Untill the rock raised on the turn he could have been betting a hand like A9, so i feel my call was decent not great.
Just because there are 9 bets in the pot does not make the call on the flop correct. The "situation" in which you find yourself dictates your play. You were against 8 opponents. There is quite a difference between an 8 bet pot with 1,2 or even 3 opponents and 8 opponents. You were in an extremely vulnerable, poorly defensible position. The bet came from a late position player openning you up to the increased likelyhood of being raised by someone that acted after you. A9 sounds like one of the worse hands he could be betting. Even if that were the case you must consider those that will act after you in addition to the bettor. The flop call, in my opinion, in this situation was incorrect.
Vince.
With 6 outs out of 47 unseen cards you indeed are about a 8:1 dog to catch a K or Q. Pot odds comparison with "hand odds" is valid ONLY if "hand odds" means your "chances to win the pot"; it is invalid and detrimental if it means "chances to make the hand". A pair of Ks or Qs is going to win less than half the time against all these people. If it will win half the time, you will need $16:1 to call (actually more, since your weakish hand and bad position put you at a disadvantage for future bets).
Confusing chances to make the hand with chances to win the pot appears to be a common mistake among well read but inexperienced players.
- Louie
Louie;
I do own 6 poker books and have read them many times, but I am not to inexpiernced I have played over 2000 hrs in 3 years, with good records. this year I have been playing mostly 3-6 and a little 6-12, I am up 4040$ for 230 hrs of play. Most of this is in home games because I play in Fl., if you play on the boats it 10% rake to 5 max tough to beat rake. I do have over 700 hrs casino play.
Ps. I do appraite all comments ( I do not post very often because I type to slow but I do read the board every day , keep up the good work I got to go deal poker now bye.
6 outs out of 47 unseen cards means 41 bad cards vs 6 good ones, or about 7:1.
6*8 is not 40? Good quible. Gotta be more careful.
Vince-
I don't think he's got the pot odds to call the turn. If my calculations are correct (a big if), he's getting 10:1 odds on an 8:1 longshot. And he's opened up a whole can of whup ass if the queen drops and this guy's got a set.
I disagree. I think that if there is a fair chance that 2 pair can win the hand then he should call. If a queen is a bad card it only costs him one additional bet (he bets and gets raised, o.k. 2 bets). Sure he may be drawing dead (something Albert detests) but, oh well, that's poker! The problem is that he is not drawing to the nuts, something a situation I would rather be in when playing this type of turn situation. But it seems to me that the pot is large enough at this point to go for it. There is a possibility (small) that the rock has A,Q,K,K or AA (AA most likely of the three). I may play the hand the way he did with those hands. Also, I count possibly 8 outs. 3:K,2:Q,3:5 or 9 (there are no rocks I know of that would play 9,5 even if there suited). I am hoping he played something like 97s,75s or Q9s at this point. Reasonable playing hands for a rock in late position with 8 callers.
But then again I never get past the flop with this hand so go figure!
Vince.
Vince.
Vince
You were correct the rock was holding 79s and the river would have made me a winner. However this rock almost never bluffs in this sitation and I really thought he had a set or the strait when he raised me, because he gives ME a lot of relpect when I bet. I would have called anybody elses ralise on the table but his.
Poker PL,
Raising with 2 pair on the turn is not a bluff (The best hand at the time I might add)! The mistake you made, in my opinion, was putting this fellow on one or two hands instead of a number of possible hands given the board. I said earlier that I would have folded the flop. But once you made your pair (top) on the turn and bet you were more or less committed to playing this hand unless multiple raises followed your bet. At the most it should now cost you only two bets unless you bet the river and are raised again. I have also said in the past that calling when you should fold is the most costly mistake one can make. Although this seems to contradict that statement it in fact doesn't. You made the opposite costly mistake of folding when you should call. BTW- There are no poker players that deserve an inordiante amount of respect. Poker players, including our illustrious 2+2 authors, are, first and foremost, GAMBLER's!
Vince.
An easy fold on the flop. If I see the turn I probably would try for a checkraise with this many opponents or a fold if the action gets heavy. It is an easier fold if I am reraised.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
I would have also called for half a bet- KQ is not a bad hand to play with, even though you had bad position. The probability of someone having a strong hand was slim since there would have been a raise before the flop to try and eliminate some of the field. You had top pair with an over card kicker- check raise would have been my move- let the bettor make the move. If reraised, then you know you were probably beat on the flop -call to see if you hand improves on the river, check to the raiser. I think it's worth seeing if you opponent was playing 68, an unlikey holding, but you never can know until they show..
You have to fold. The pot's laying you 10:1 when he raises, you're 'about' 9:1 to improve, and there's no guarantee that you'll be good if you hit. Plus, you've got worry about the (admittedly slight) chance that the other caller is slowplaying a set or something, and is going to three bet the turn. Then you're really screwed.
IMO this isn't a tough laydown; it's simply a wise play. And reconsider the flop call- with a board this coordinated, calling here is pretty marginal.
Why put any money in on the flop? You don't have position, you have a ROCK betting, your best reasonable hope is top pair decent kicker and, if it hits, you have to hope it holds up against potentially 8 other people.
If you were certain that nobody had 2 pair yet, nobody had a set, nobody had the straight, nobody drawing to a straight or flush would make it, nobody had a pair with a K or Q kicker, nobody had AK or AQ, nobody else had KQ, nobody had a K or Q at all in their hand, that an A wouldn't fall, and that nobody would raise behind you, etc., etc., then you (barely) have odds to draw to your overcards. Since you can't be certain of any of those things then, if you are really hell-bent on continuing, you have to raise on the flop and limit the field as best you can. Calling with this hand would not be an example of poker at its best.
Btw ... I'm not saying that overcards are not viable on the flop, but rather they don't play well without position, and don't play well against a large field.
A Poker Guy!
I'd have let go of two overcards with or without backdoor possibilities right away when the rock bet the flop. Rocks don't bet just to get free cards, they have something super solid (top two or better) to invest with. You knew this, yet you took off a card anyway.
The debate on Holdem vs. Stud will never end, but here’s my two cents worth anyway. I started as a Stud player, and moved on to Holdem several years ago. The main reason I started playing Holdem was because there weren’t any middle or upper limit Stud games where I lived. I started playing Holdem at low limits.
I enjoyed the faster pace of Holdem, and found the game to be simpler to play. No more memorizing doorcards, counting suits and rank, etc. And the players seemed to be a different breed. They would call with almost anything, as if they had no idea what a good hand was. I thought I had struck gold.
Of course, reality set in as soon as I started playing at higher limits. The more experienced players showed me that Holdem was not nearly as simple as I thought. They were the ones who struck gold. I had a lot to learn.
Now that I have become successful at both games, I think they are about equally difficult. It is more difficult to put a player on a hand in Holdem, since you can’t see his cards. It is also very difficult to consider the range of hands your opponent might have and all of the outs he has against you in Stud. I use more psychology in Holdem, more basic theory in Stud.
But there is one reason I think it may be more valuable to play Stud instead of Holdem. I have discussed this with some of the high limit players in Vegas, and they agree with me. As you progress through the higher limits of Holdem, the players get tougher and tougher. Not so with stud. It’s not unusual for the lineup in 80-160 to be weaker than 15-30. For whatever reason, a lot of bad players prefer Stud to Holdem.
Now, with all seriousness aside, here are my top 5 reasons to play Stud instead of Holdem:
5. Each player gets his or her own personal flop.
4. Free hand analysis. Stud players will always analyze the hand after it has been played; they will tell you how they played it or why they called.
3. Free Lessons. Stud players will always tell you why you should never have played the hand the way you did.
2. Guilty pleasure. When you beat them on the river, Stud players squeal like pigs.
1. From the stud tables, Roy Cooke’s laugh is almost inaudible.
Boat Drinks,
Brett
Reason number 6 (or 1 ?)
A mind is a terrible thing to waste ;-)
good hand but it cant happen as you say so its hard to comment when you give an example and the action cant go as you lay it out.
Okay, maybe I missed it, but what was wrong with the original posters message?
Big A
They can't check to you on the river when you're the blind
The aggressive loose playeer doesn't seem so loose to me. What are you supposed to do with pocket rockets? I suppose he could fold at the end, but It's difficult.
You're not being specific about how many handed the game is. If it's shorthanded I would definitely fold. However, if it's fullhanded (10 players) I would definitely call. The risk/reward (as indicated by the pot odds) would just be too appetizing.
The Gambling Forum June 1999 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo