![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
What can be done to prevent or limit collusion in poker tournaments? I was out in California in February for a major poker tournament and saw blatant cheating at one final table that my friend made. It was four-handed and the action would go X raises, Y re-raises, and X mucking his hand before the flop in limit holdem. This happened time and time again. Of course, X and Y are known friends and Y is low on chips. How can this behavior be tolerated at a final table in a major poker tournament? This is not just an isolated incident either. I realize some plays may just look wierd or funny and not be cheating but situations like the one I pointed out are flat out illegal. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there is collusion in all poker tournaments and I'm not venting frustration because someone bet me off the winning hand. There is a fine line between what is a great play and what is cheating. I mean the point of betting and raising IS to try and lock people out of a pot. But sometimes it's just plain obvious that the only reason a hand played out the way it did was to give a pot to a friend who was low on chips.
I saw something similar happen at the Bike about two years ago out in the open and officials did nothing about it. Two players agreed and even told the third that they had a strategy on how to play the hands until the third with a short stack went broke, and that is what happened! Another of many reasons why almost all players have negative expectations in tournaments. See my post on this subject.
I'm a 29 year old who's been playing poker nationwide for the last eight years. Rarely have I seen many fellow generation X'ers at the poker tables, although they're everywhere else in the casinos playing the slots, blackjack, and craps. Legalized poker will eventually become extinct because it's failing to attract new blood like the other games. I don't see a solution. I'll simply enjoy poker as long as it's available until it goes the way of Chemin de Fer and horse stud.
Where do you play mostly? Do you see a difference in different regions?
I see quite a few younger players these days myself although, I admit, not as common as at other games. There's more public poker than ever before so the growth must be coming from somewhere.
I've been playing in Atlantic City for the last three years, although I play one month each year in California. Also, I've played in Mississippi and Las Vegas several times. Hold'em is the dominant game everywhere except the east coast, where stud is more popular. Many poker rooms/casinos have closed in the past few years (Resorts, Bell Jackpot, Eldorado) and others are much less crowded that they used to be (Taj Majal, Bicycle Club). Besides, any so-called "growth" in poker in the 1990's has come from the older age groups and not from generation X.
I have many generation X friends who play poker, although majority of them do not play in the casino. I think the reason is that they find casino poker too expensive. Home games usually have stakes under $1. I don't have any popularity comparison to the past. But it seems that poker is quite popular among college kids. Most are just weekend home games played on campus with low stakes. Maybe when these players have a bigger bankroll, they'll begin playing in the casino more.
Kathy
you could have it both ways with a game in the same vein as Carib. Stud but that's a lot more challenging to play. that way you could bet the min. and if you run good you can increase your bets. best of both worlds ,21 and Poker.
< Anyone can make such a statement. Do you have hard evidence to back it up?
I am willing to admit that the growth may be from an increase in baby boomers rather than generation-X players. That could be simply the economics that comes with aging. The older you get the more expendable income you have. That means that in a another 15-20 years, the generation-Xers will start showing up if they aren't here already. Then we'll start wondering, "Where are all the generation-Yers?"
Aside from those clubs which have closed poker rooms which you mentioned, there's no question that there is far more live poker action in many more venues than when I started playing 10 years ago. Sure, some are less busy but that's more likely to be from increased competition than from any falloff in patronage.
On the other hand, the United States Chess Federation finds its membership role growing each year.
Chess is far less frustrating than poker...no bad beats
I disagree. Because of our publishing business I just happen to have one of the best benchmarks for measuring the growth of poker. It is our book sales and they have remained strong from year to year.
The reason why this is such a good indicator is that the vast majority of our sales go to new players. If you have been playing for a while, you have either already bought our books or you will probably never buy them.
So why have so many poker rooms closed. I believe that it is because of two resons. First, is poor management. Even though it is slowly getting better, poker room management, even at some of the major rooms has been just awful at times. I won't get into any details here, but in my book POKER ESSAYS I have an essay called the collapse of two cardrooms. Both of those managers have held numerous jobs since these debacles.
The other reason has to do with increased competition. I remember when the old Bell Club was the place to play. But then a few years later it found itself sandwiched between the Bike and Commerce. It couldn't survive once that happened.
Yes, I have all your books, and am looking foreward to your next one.
Nothing has really changed in the last 20-30 years; college kids have no dough -- the growth of the game will always be at the middle ages. The growth we are seeing now is just the game coming out of the backrooms into the casinos, what with the more liberalized laws nationwide.
The Taj Mahal is a little less busy because of competition from the Tropicana. The Trop a has tournament every night. Even so, the Taj is still a busy cardroom, with plenty of action day and night. I hope the Taj institutes tourneys soon. I'm 31 and also have been playing in A/C for about 3 years.
Posted by: Dan Radosevich (nospam@here.com)
Posted on: Monday, 2 March 1998, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: Philip
Posted on: Tuesday, 3 March 1998, at 8:30 a.m.
Posted by: MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 2 March 1998, at 4:48 p.m.
Posted by: Philip
Posted on: Tuesday, 3 March 1998, at 8:34 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 2 March 1998, at 11:19 p.m.
Posted by: Danny (dhouseworth@njwri.ang.af.mil)
Posted on: Wednesday, 4 March 1998, at 5:05 p.m.
You pose an interesting question. I believe there's a simple reason why you see so many of the so-called Generation X'ers playing casino games such as craps, blackjack and slots:
It's instant gratification. Poker is a game of patience. For the true winner it's geared toward the long haul.
Reading novels requires patience. Watching MTV, an icon of Gen X'ers, requires about 3 to 4 minutes of concentration at a time. Similar analogies could be made between poker and other "instant gratification" casino games.
you hit the nail on the head.
In response: I am 19 years old have been playing poker for about 6 mounths along with 2 sometimes 3 of my very close friends who are also 19. We are all plaining a trip to vegas in two years when we are 21.
So the future of poker is being kept alive be us few generation "Xers" who are intelligent to learn how to take peoples money playing poker.
I am 22 and I play poker and blackjack
We have made some changes in the way the forum operates. Most of you should notice improved performance, especially if you are using a reasonably new web browser. There should be no other noticable changes.
To take advantage of these improvements you must access the forum through the URL http://www.twoplustwo.com/forum.html instead of the old http://www.twoplustwo.com/cgi-bin/forum.pl. You will probably want to update your bookmarks.
For those with older browsers the old link will continue to work, but you won't be able to take advantage of any performance improvements.
As usual, if you encounter any problems please let me know.
Chuck
Navigating through threads is now less cumbersome and more faster. Well done, Chuck !
I have had no luck accessing the forum in this new fashion . Any suggestions, Chuck?
Very nice job Mr. Weinstock. All of my concerns have been addressed.
Chuck,
found the problem: An extra period after 'pl' as per your messsage is in fact not there.
Problem solved.
Neil
How long does it take a very good player to be ahead with a probability of say 95% if he plays full time at the 20-40 limit games? I once heared that the long run may be longer than human life span. Is this true? Thanks for your help!
I think it depends on the type of players you are up against. If you are playing in games where the players are basically equal in ability, then over your life span you might just break even, or lose some because of the deviation. If you are playing in games where you have at least 2-3 players playing significantly worse than the rest of the table, then I would guess 2000 hours.
An excellent 20-40 player ought to averag e about $40 per hour. His standard deviation per hour ought to be about $400. Thus in 400 hours his results are more than 95% to be $16,000 winner plus or minus 400x the squareroot of 400 x2. That is your answer. great players need 400 hours to be almost asured of winning. If however your win rate was half that you would need 1600 hours to have the same certainty of being ahead. In any case the long run is normally much much less than a lifetime.
MM has written in this Forum that a great player would have only $300 std dev with great card reading.
I think he's right if opps play almost like him, but don't read cards quite as well as he does.
I think you're right if opps are loose aggressive or loose passive no matter what their card reading skill?
What do you think?
I think that many typical players have a much higher standard deviation than $400 per hour at $20-40 hold 'em, and some bad ones may have as much as double the typical player.
Before announcing a winner I would like to ask a further question. Suppose a less than all in raise will always elicit an all in reraise . Thus your only options are to just call or be all in. Which ar the best choices for $500, $1000, and $5000.?
I'ma stilla folding, but I'ma probably nota gonna wina booka.
Using same formula is beter to call
Well, then
For the $500 bankroll I'm going to just call and see the flop. Then move all in on the flop if I'm still ahead.
For the $1000 bankroll I'll call, then bet $100 against his pair draw then move all in on the turn, bet $300 against his gutshot straight, then move all in on the turn. If he flops a flush draw -- I'm in trouble cause he has 13 outs. I don't want to put anymoney in on the flop ... He'll probably try and put me all in anyway, but I want to get to the turn for free. Then I can move all in on him -- making his call incorrect.
If he flops a gutshot straight draw -- thats gotta involve my queens so I either flopped a set and thus have redraw potential or I've got two of his outs tied up and can still end up with a redraw potential. So I can bet his gutshot straight and will probably like to move all in on the flop. I just don't know if its correct or not.
The worst flop would be a flush draw straight draw with two overcards. He will have around 15-17 outs depending upon if I flopped a set or not.
I suppose the trick is not to get yourself all in on the flop when he has the mamouth draws with two cards to come. Because he'll be correct or so slight a dog in calling and will happily put you all-in.
You want to go all in with at least a 2-1 advantage. That means going all in on the turn rather than the flop against those big draws.
With the $5000 bankroll I just call. Then bet 1/4 against his pair draw, a pot size bet against the gutshot and still check the flop lest he try and put me all in with the bigger draws.
And remember, when they bust you -- ask for "cab fare".
Chris K.
It is best to just call in all three cases.
For the fraction of hands that will go all the way to the river with you all-in, it doesn't matter whether you were all-in before the flop or after. Thus, the difference in EV lies in those hands that will NOT go all the way to the river with you all-in if you decide to just call pre-flop (this is about 7/9 of the hands if you play as I suggest).
Here is the heart of it: When you keep enough money to make AK fold if the flop misses both of you, you retain the ability to win the pot outright when AK is a (somewhat) small dog. At the same time, when an A or a K flops, you retain the ability to save your money when you are a BIG BIG dog. The relative size of the dogs outweighs the fact that you will be a big dog less often than your opponent will be a small dog.
Dennis
Just looking at the cases that involve overcards, not the draws, this will roughly cancel out the times you flop a set.
37% of the time He will out flop you. 13% of the times you outflop him, he'll beat you on the turn.
13% of the times he'll beat you on the river.
Out of 100 tries ...
You will invest 7400 and get beat on the flop.
You will invest 2400 and get beat on the turn.
You will invest 3600 and get beat on the river.
This adds up to 13400 lost vs. the 21150 won. That comes to about 1.6 - 1 on your money vs. 1.2 - 1 if you go all in before the flop, and if your opponent will pay off a 1/4 size bet on the river with AK .... you get even better odds for you money.
The side benefits are the fact that you are not risking your entire bankroll and can live to fight another hand.
Chris K.
I get a different answer here. My calcultions show it is better to call if your BR is 500 but go all-in in the case of 1000 or 5000.
The A-K will only call a bet of up to 25% of the pot. So the problem in the 1000 and 5000 cases is that you just can't get enough subsequent money in, even though the odds are much more in your favor after a non A or K flop. You're better off taking your 10% edge on the other guy's whole bankroll and ensuring 100 or 500 EV win (calc. below)
In the 500 case it is different. If you just call the 200, you can bet 100 on the flop, and if he'll still call 25% of the pot (not specified in the instructions), another $150. So you can get in 450 of your 500 chips, including 250 of them when he's a big dog. (calc. below)
My calculations were as follows:
-Assume 36% chance it's a favorable flop for the AK, 64% chance it's no help.
In the 1000 case, if you go all in, your EV is 100. If you call, there's a 36% chance he improves and you lose $200. The other 64% of the time you bet another 100 and he calls. 6/45 of the time he hits the A or K and you're done, losing $300. 39/45 of the time he misses, you bet 150, and he calls. 6/44 of the time on 5th street he hits, and you're done losing 450. The other 38/44 of the time you win the 450. (For this calculation, I'm obviously ignoring cases like hitting a Q on 4th st, then he hits an A or K but is drawing dead. I wanted to see if the EV was close, and if so, go back and adjust.) When I "folded back" this decision tree I got an expected value of only about $83 to calling.
Clearly, the $5000 case would be even more extreme.
In the $500 case, however, using the same math, the EV of calling of +83 is BETTER than getting the 10% edge on the 500. You do better waiting and seeing.
This is correct.
So long as the opponent will take 5:1 on the turn; but we have to assume something. If he will only call if a favorite then you bet more than that; if he will call as a dog you bet the max he will call.
BUT WAIT!!!!
Ignore previous post. I had that much figured out before I read Mr. S's post.
The calculations forget the times you flop a set and he makes a pair on flop or turn. Your EV in those cases is higher than $83 since you lose less often. There appears to be about a 3.9% chance of that happening. Let's call your EV when he doesn't make a pair $87 by playing cool and sucking him in.
Now if you are a 5:1 favorite when you flop a set, then you can get all the rest of your money in if he makes a pair.
For BR=5000 you win 4700 83% of time (5/6ths) and lose an additional 4700 17% of time; for a gross win of 3102, but only 3.9% of the time for a net win of +121; added to the $87 = $208; nowhere near the $500 you make going all in now.
For BR=1000 you win an additional 700 ... for net additional win of +18. Added to the $87 its $105, MORE than $100 you get by moving all in now.
So...
Do not fold.
Play cool with only 500. Go all in with 5000. Play cool with 1000 hoping to flop a set against his pair.
- Louie.
You giving away TWO books?
BTW. I liked that problem of yours years ago with the low-ball pat hand against the slight underdog draw in pot limit; both hands face up. The draw wants ... DOH!! Don't want to give that one away...
It seems to me that the right answer has to be much simpler than all of that. I'll bet when Sklansky explains it he can do it in one small paragraph.
Hmm, It becomes an `open-ended` contest problem. I basically agree with Dan's calculation and strategy. The 500 and 5000 cases are quite clear. But the 1000 case is quite close if one carries out all the detailed calculation--depending on what AK does on the flop and/or on the turn in the cases of hitting a straight draw and/or flush draw, or pair Aces/Kings or better against a set Q. For example, The prob. for a set Q against pairs of Aces and /or Kings is roughly 3%. Assume that AK will call an all-in bet in this case, then this case along offers QQ EV roughly 30. Suppose the flop is TJx not all of the same suit, and that AK will call an all-in bet in this case. The prob. for this to happen is roughly 2.9%. And this case offers QQ EV roughly 25. The case that the flop does not give AK high pair or good draw and no Q offers QQ EV roughly 45. So it is a very close choice between calling 200 before the flop and do the right moves accordingly afterwards, and move all-in before the flop. Since I know exactly what the opponent has in this case and I cannot make any mistake afterwards, I personally prefer calling 200 before the flop and make the right move as discussed above afterwards, giving the opponent some chance to make mistakes.
I'd call with all three stack sizes. Since I can see the guy's hand, know he will set me all in if I raise, and am only a little better than even money before the flop if we see all seven cards, why risk getting busted before seeing the flop?
My solution to the Contest Problem Update is as follows:
For a $500 stack you should call for $200 and see what develops on the flop. You gain about $24 in equity this way ($74 instead of $50).
For a $1000 stack you should call pre-flop. Your equity is about $120 as compared to $100 going all-in.
For a $5,000 stack you do better to go all-in pre-flop ($500 instead of approximately $490 in equity).
This is really interesting. I don't know if David meant it to work out this way (we must assume he probably did), but Mr. Rice's answer is also valid because of the wording ambiguity of the original question. I referenced this point in my answer to the original contest question--that is, will the A-K call a BET that is 1/4 of the pot, or will his CALL be 1/4 of the pot? It's not clear, but it matters in this problem.
When I calculated my answer to the Update Q, I was assuming you could only bet 1/4 of the pot--i.e 100 on the flop and 150 on the turn. This produced the EV of 83 meaning you should call in the 500 case but go all-in if your BR is 1000 or 5000.
If you assume he will call 1/4 of the pot, you can bet 133 on the flop and 222 on the turn (in the 1000 case). When you calculate that EV it is indeed over 120, so you are better off calling. Under this interpretation, you can get just enough additional money in with better odds that it flips the decision.
In the update question, I believe all the money goes in on the flop if you bet ("less than an all in raise will always elicit an all in raise"). While David is referring to the pre-flop action, I assume "always" means a bet at any point. So either all the money goes in pre-flop, you call pre-flop and the rest of the money goes in on the flop, or you call pre-flop and fold on your opponent's bet on the flop.
Even if David meant raise pre-flop and not "bet" on the flop, an expectation over $100 ($1000 stack) calling pre-flop and going all-in/folding on the flop, means that calling pre-flop is the correct answer. If betting and not going all-in on the flop was possible, it would only be correct if it raised expectation. This wouldn't change the fact that you should call pre-flop. Since David stated that our only option was to just call or be all in, calling pre-flop has to be correct regardless of what you plan to do on the flop (Unless my calculations were wrong. I know they're off a little. I think the $1,000 stack is closer to +$117, $500=+$72, and $5,000=+$480 [if you only call, +$500 if you go all in]). Consequenly, whether he meant 1/4 the pot inclusive or exclusive the bet in the first problem is irrelevant in this problem, AT THESE STACK SIZES. He only wants to know what you will do pre-flop.
For the second question, I would fold my hand. This is too close a decision for me. When your looking at a 200 raise you are generally putting that person on a number of possibles. But since I can see the hand , I don't want to put my money in on such a close decision. If I didn't know his hole cards I would probably just call the 200, and see what the flop brings.
I am interested in propping in CA. I could play stud up to 40-80, and am just starting to play hold'em. Would anyone have any comments/suggestions about being a prop? I'd like to learn about hourly earn as a prop, lifestyle, who to contact, etc.
Thanks for any advice you might give.
Larry
ps. I am open to different geographic possibilities
CA is the one place I don't know too much about, however, just about anywhere else, props are limited to low level games to such an extent that, if you're good enough to play higher limits you're always better off just being a player rather than propping.
Jim wrote: "CA is the one place I don't know too much about, however, just about anywhere else, props are limited to low level games to such an extent that, if you're good enough to play higher limits you're always better off just being a player rather than propping."
This isn't true at some of the big clubs in California. Yes, there is something known as a high limit prop and they get paid pretty well.
In the Bay Area, I have seen props readily in the 15-30 and 20-40 games. Sometimes I see them almost exclusively there, an rarely playing the lower limits. Good luck.
When I was at the the Oaks Card Room (Emeryville, California) about a month ago, I noticed a sign posted that said they were taking applications for prop players. You might give them a call.
AK
Food for thought: Can you play really well shorthanded? Do you have a pleasant table personality? Can you leave the game down a few bets when management asks you to? If you answer no to any of the above, being a prop player might be too frustrating to be worthwhile. If you are already good enough to beat 40-80 stud, why would you need a casino job?
The reason that I want to consider propping is that I don't have the bankroll to consistantly play the games that I can beat such as 40-80. While I play these games and beat them, I am always having to be extremely careful with my limited bankroll and this is hurting my earn. I have only been playing two years and I started with no bankroll and my playing has outpaced my bankroll growth. Therefore, becoming a prop with the consistant income seems like a good idea while I build a bankroll. Larry
Have you ever seen a prop player who doesn't tend to play in a tight-passive style? Anyway, if you can handle being bounced around from table to table, you'll probably enjoy it.
I'm very much a beginning poker player, and this is probably a lame question, but I'll ask it anyway and hope nobody minds.
In a 10/20 stud game at the Taj, on 5th street, I am open ended with 7,8,9,10, and a pair of 9's (8,9 in the hole). A pair of aces which hasn't improved (I know this from hindsight, but at the time I was pretty sure it hadn't) has been leading the betting. I call, and a player who has made a straight to the 6 raises, and the aces call the raise. There is one 6 and one jack on board, so I am drawing to the best hand with live cards. I know that with three way action the pot odds are correct, but I am still drawing, while he has ALREADY made his hand. I did call the raise and go to the river, without catching. Did I make the right play? Thanks in advance.
Scott
Yes, you have an easy call.
I'm sure you'll probably get an answer here from one of the experts, but I'm not sure if the pot is offering you enough here. You have 6 cards that will make you, with two cards to come ,so your roughly 3.15-1 dog. if it was just you three that started out the pot, and I'm guessing the Ace raised so let's say there is roughly 66 dollars in there before 5th street.
It seems to me that it is borderline at best against a made hand.I don't think there is much in the way of implied odds here because the smaller straight might just check and call on seventh.
Anyway, unless there was alot more money in there, or if I made trip nines, they had a chance to be good, I would be out of there. If I'm drawing against a made hand I want to make a good profit if I hit.
There is a good chance that you may get both players for a double size bet on the river, and you should certainly get one of them for that.
Mason: Would it not be better for the AA to release the hand after he bets on fifth st., Scott calls with a straight draw, and a smaller straight raises? Assuming no flush draws, the Aces would be drawing dead if it does not help on 6th st. Actually it seems to me that somebody screwed up for that hand to have gotten to fifth st. at all. Respectfully, Fred M.
I was busy retracting my answer when this website disappeared. Any way, I re-read your post,and realized you were in the middle on 5th called and then was raised, there was plenty of money. Sorry bout that.
Here is my boring opinion.How do you know he made straight? Maybe he has 6,5,4,3,4 and maybe three flash?Then if your fold is corect aginst straight whish i think is not,it is terbly wrong aginst hand like this.But if you almost shore he got sraihgt what you going to do when you get third 9.
Last night I went on total screaming tilt and took the biggest loss I have ever had playing 10-20. $1500. This is way too much money to lose in a 10-20 hold-em game. I knew it was time to leave after being very badly stuck and getting within $50 of even. I was tired and the game was bad and getting short. I got pocket queens beat and was stuck about $150~ Time to go. But go I did not. I stayed and stayed and stayed. I lost control and could feel myself slipping into the abyss. I have done this twice now in two months. I lost half of what I made in Febuary in one day. The first day of the month! I was out of control and I knew it but I couldn't quit. What happened to me? Why did I do that? What can I do to prevent it in the future. I have been playing poker for a very long time and am usually very adept at not letting silly things like this happen to me. This is very demoralizing to say the least. I get very down on myself when things like this happen. What should I do? Why couldn't I quit? It was like I was glued to my chair. Any and all suggestions welcome.
There have been times in the past when I could have written those words myself. It's like being an alcoholic, you can never say you're cured. I would guess that no one here is going to tell you anything you don't already know. All I can say is keep trying.
Try playing stud. Such things never happen to stud players.
Yes it does!!! It hapenend whit me when i was playng stud. But it will never hapenend to turnament player.
Augey,
Every player that does what you do gets broke and stays that way. Your only hope is that you can change it. Since that is not likely to happen quickly all you can do is have a preset amount that you may not lose more than. Another way may be to have a time limit on your play when stuck. Good Luck.
Ray, you pointed out what may be one of the best unexplained secrets of poker -- we all have an optimum amount of time that we play well. I've found that I start losing concentration after about 4 hours. I have played beyond that when stuck, but as soon as I get close to out, I leave -- nothing mentally tougher than getting close to out of the hole and going back in it. Trying to get that last couple hundred dollars back can be pretty expensive -- and hard on the psyche.
Earl,
That is why you have survived over the years and can play high stakes poker and win. You play with your head instead of your emotions. Good Luck.
Augey,
Hold'em can be cruel and unusual. It sounds like any or all of three things could have happened.
1) The game got short and playing in short games is not your strength. Even if you play o.k. in short games perhaps the other players were just better at short games. I don't know if anybody else has ever encountered this but I know of one player who is terrible in a 10 handed game but when it gets down to 4 or 5 handed he's tough.
2) The players that stuck around were winning and when they are winning they are much better players. This is pretty typical of most players.
3) You steamed and played a lot of hands you shouldn't have.
If you played well and got beat so be it.
It seems that if 1-3 contributed to the problem then 1 and 2 should be pretty easy to recognize and fix. Number 3 may not be and I'm not sure how you do it. Mason Malmuth has advised that the best way to prevent steaming is to have a total knowledge of the game you are playing. Sounds like damn good advice to me.
Tom Haley
I like Mr. Zee's advise alot. ONLY BRING say $600 TOPS. Make serious commitments for your time AFTER the game, say 8 hours after it starts. Or identify FUN things you CAN do when you leave the game.
Caro's essays on the "Threshold of Pain" may have some bearing here; except that you stayed playing when you were "almost" even. Perhaps once you get stuck past your threshold it still FEELS as bad unless you get even.
You don't want to hear: "Its all one game. Getting even isn't .. Yaddy Ya". But its true and useful.
I suggest Psyciatry and an Anti-Depressant. My symptoms were similar to yours (crawling into a hole while at the game) but fortunately I would routinely leave. I went through 9 before I found one that worked. Blue sky is better than gravel. Psyciatry is about $140 initial plus $50/month +$120/month medication. $170/month (tops) is much less than you are losing over this. Very Positive EV; especially with insurance.
I also suggest reviewing your thoughts around those 100 decisions when you considered leaving.
You have faced your well defined problem here. Now accept it, attack it, and you will prevail.
- Louie
Sorry to bring this over here from RPG, but I need clarification.
Lets Make a Deal (Sorry Boris, its an American ICON TV show...), there are three doors A,B,C. One has a great prize the other two have zonks. You pick A. Monty then shows you door C and it contains a Zonk; and he offers you to switch. What to do....
1) If Monty will ALWAYS show a zonk behind one of the other doors and ALWAYS offer you to switch, then you should switch as you gain no information about your door (still 1/3) so door B must be 2/3 to have the prize. Obvious.
2) You are Boris and you have no idea what I'm talking about, and know nothing about this show or Monty. Specifically you do NOT know what's going on with Monty when he opened the door. Maybe he'll only open one of the doors when you have already picked the prize. Maybe he doesn't know where the prize is ...
If you don't know have the chances of A gone up to 50%, B is 50%, so switching is irrelevant?
- Louie
Go back to R.G.P.
I vote for more sensorship.
- Louie
louie.landale@internetMCI.com <--- for those who figure out the difference between a forum and a news group.
louie.landale@internetMCI.com <--- for those who CAN'T figure out the difference between a forum and a news group.
Louie-
Let me rephrase your question slightly to see if I understand it correctly--suppose a stranger arrives on the stage right after Monty has opened one booby prize door. If Monty asks the stranger at that point to choose one of the two remianing doors, it's a 50-50 proposition--there is no advantage to switching.
In this case the stranger doesn't benefit from Monty's help as in the original.
It depends on your definition of "don't know". IfI Monty only opens a door when you pick the winner, you have 0 chance by switching. If he opens randomly, you have 50% chance the two thirds of the time you remain alive. If he uses the accepted strategy your chances are 2/3.Iif the three strategies are equally likely your chances by switching are 1/3x0 + (1/3 x 2/3 x 1/2) + (1/3 x 2/3) which is only one out of three, making switching a bad play . But this is not really knowing nothing at all. For instance other stategies may be used to open the door. With absolutely no knowledge the answer has to be 50%.
Boris may not know about American TV game shows, but the rest of you should:
1) The show is about giving people the opportunity to make choices -- the more choices, the more excitement. 2) The show (and thus Monty) doesn't mind if you win the biggie -- actually it's the slightly better advertising.
Thus Monty will always show a door (see #1), unless time prohibits, and I can't remember ever seeing that.
So, at your first choice you're a 2-1 dog; if you switch, you're a 2-1 favorite. Simple.
I just returned from playing poker at the Grand Victoria in Rising Sun Indiana and was very disapointed. ALL the dealers clearly had in adaquate training (we counted between 11 and 14 hands per hour for 9 hours playing 6-12 hold'em). The floor personel had trouble dealing with even simple problems (there was a 5 minute conference after I asked to see a called hand that was thrown down on the table). I was just wondering if this is normal when a casino adds a poker room and how long it takes to get the room up to speed. BTW the room itself there is very nice.
Randy,
It depends on the card room manager as to how things will proceed. It may take some time to get more experienced dealers and some of the novice dealers will improve and some won't. The ones that don't will soon be gone. If the drop isn't sufficient either they will replace the management or close the room. With that few hands per hour the drop won't be sufficient most likely. It sounds like the card room may be managed poorly in the casino you are describing. Too bad, good management is the key to the new cardroom's success imo. Too answer your question, no this isn't necessarily normal. You may find some bad dealers when a new room opens but my experience has been that a well managed card room that is brand new does put at least some good people on the floor.
Tom Haley
The game is 10-20 Hldm, there is a early raise and three people call it! I've got 77 on the button and decide to call. I decide right there that if there is no raise on the flop I'm going to call if I don't hit the set. Flop QJ5 rainbow. There is a bet and a call in front so I call. The pot as I was about to call was $125.00 and I added at least another $80. of implied odds if I hit the set on the turn. My question is of course, is my call correct in this situation? Thanks for your comments.
I would most certainly dump in this position. You can't call. If you choose to pursue you should raise on the button and try to steal or freeze the bets on the turn and river thus reducing your 22-1 odds significantly, but this is dangerous. I probably would have dumped preflop.
This is a very marginal situation and I would fold. You're 22.5-to-1 to hit a 7 on the turn. Yes, it's possible you could hit your seven and with the implied odds win a pot of more than the required $225. However, other circumstances make this a better fold:
1. You could be raised on the flop. Now you'd have to invest $20 so the required pot size doubles to $450. Pretty unlikely, even with the extra raise action. You said there were at least four players in front of you, and this is the kind of hand where good players are always raising and check-raising to eliminate hands like yours.
2. You could be drawing dead if someone has QQ or JJ
3. Worst of all, you could hit your 7 and lose a really big pot if someone redraws on you. The flop was rainbow so that is safe, and hitting your 7 can't help anyone else, but an A,K,10,9,or 8 on the river could make the straight for a lot of typical callers.
Perry,
Its a clear cut fold. The bad thing is not the call on the flop which is wrong, but the idea that you were going to call no matter what came. Dont play your cards, play your cards as they relate to the situation at hand. The decision to play after the flop is made after the flop not before the flop. Its good you are thinking and asking questions as that is how you will improve. Good Luck.
Thankyou for your answers. I do have a further question. First, I was not planning to call on the flop if the board paired or if there was flush possibilities, and if there was a raise. I just said a raise in my initial posting. But my question is this, if it is okay for someone with decent pot odds and implied odds to call bets after the flop when they have a four flush, since they are a 2-1 dog but with 2 cards to come, then why can't I say before the flop that if I'm getting close to five to one odds, I'm going to see 4 cards, as long as my hand stands to win if I hit? With a four flush, you might be getting good pot odds but if on the turn a scare card pairs the board you might not continue. like wise, if the flop was more scary or there was raising etc. then I would fold my pair, but with little betting I call. The point I'm making here is when you are drawing to a flush or straight with two cards to come you don't look at the odds at each betting interval, unless something significant happens, such as I mentioned above. So why should it be any different from the flop to the turn, especially when these are the cheaper streets. Okay Mr. Zee, thanks for your input so far, let me have it.
That's a long question and I hate to answer all of it and be part wrong, but I would like to say that given you called 20 on the button with a pair of sevens, a flop with a pair is one of your better boards. If the flop came JJ6 rather than QJ6, I'd probably be popping it from the button and stepping off if I smelt trouble. (Of course, the only way I would've gotten that far was if I'd made it 30 to go ante.) For the actual flop, you now have it down to but one possible hand you're ahead of. It is unlikely all of your opponents have AK, tho I'm not sure how many people are left now. The way you worded it makes it seem like someone other than the pre-flop raiser fired at the flop, tho perhaps you just didn't mention the in between folds. In any event, the bottom line is you're not getting 22-1 on your money.
Perry,
You do base your calling on the pot odds against you on each individual street. There are many times in holdem where you may call for an inside straight draw on the flop but not on the turn. All sorts of possiblities occur, but each one the decision is based on the position you are in now. With straight and flush draws when they say its 2 to 1 so play it, it is really figured out on each street. It only goes for 2 cards when all in. Your call is correct before the flop. After the flop it is another separate decision based on current pot odds and future bets. Good Luck.
The reason the "2:1" figure is useful for Flush draws is that you are very likely to call on the turn. So you WILL be getting 2:1. Just be sure to figure it costing another BB to draw. In no-limit you may very well HAVE to fold on the turn vrs. a big bet, so "2:1" is much less useful for flush draws on the flop.
Yes, B4 the flop you COULD calculate odds based on 4 cards, but remember it will cost you a minimum of 3 bets. The odds for 2 bets and 3 cards is better .. err .. less worse than 3 bets and 4 cards.
== Calculate EV on ALL your options, then pick the best one ==
Do NOT stop when you find one that is good; the next option may be better. Likely future decisions may affect the current one, but past decisions do not .. err .. should not.
One face card is too many for small pairs to continue against 4 players; someone will surely have hit or already have it in a raised pot. You do NOT have the best hand with that 2 face card board. And even if 77 is the "best" hand it is unlikely to stay that way.
You are not getting anywhere near the right odds to call with your 77. I count $130 in the pot when you decide to call on the flop; you need at least $220; and as pointed out you may very well lose if you DO hit.
BTW, you would be MUCH more likely to play when the board is paired and the other card is low. In your case there are 6 cards and draws out to beat you, in this case there are only 2 and few draws. And if you DO hit your 7 you have a full house which will win a lot more often than trips; especially with two high cards giving people straight draws.
- Louie
Discussing preflop odds is a waste of time. However, you could assign a value to Sklansky's hand rankings using the limit game your in. For example, invert hand rankings 1-8 to 8-1 multiply by 1/2 small bet,i.e $40 (cap) for AA, KK in 10-20 and use this value to estimate the maximum amount of money you would be willing to risk (minimizing your maximum loss) for your starting two cards. Of course, this doesn't account for position or players or lighting or the hundred other factors your brain is using to calculate your decision. David, ' have you ever attempted a valuation of the starting cards' or are the other variables too overpowering?'
If Boris the rock raise under the gun.By yuor formula you can call whit KTs.See you in Foxwood.
There is a place for pre flop odds. That is why I called a raise on the button with 77. If three other people hadn't put money in the pot, I never would have called. Although there was overcards on the flop ,there was basically little action on the flop, so I called. Yes, I know it is 22-1 to make a set on the turn. There was 130 in the pot, and I was looking at making from 60-80 more if I hit, as well as I had previously decided, as I said before, If there wasn't anything too scary on the flop, to look at the turn card. That was my main question, that was answered for me, although I think my play was not correct I don't think it was not correct by that much. I hit the seven on the turn, and as far as a straight was concerned I had a better chance of filling up on the last card than anyone catching a straight. But I promise not to do it again.(tee-Hee) Strange enough, that $30 investment netted me $160, a little over 5-1.
The true nature of poker
When California regulators legalized poker on the basis that it was a game of skill rather than chance, they got one step closer to the truth. Current knowledge of poker theory allows to go one step further : ultimately, poker is a game of cooperation and skill rather than just skill.
The sole true form of poker : heads-up
Poker played between two players is the sole form where the skill of the players is the only factor that determines who has the best of it. Poker in general falls into the category of games of imperfect information. The two person form of any game of poker can be represented as a matrix game, each line or column of a big matrix representing a "pure" strategy, i.e. a strategy where a player always does the same thing after each given sequence of cards and actions. The values in the matrix correspond to the EV of the strategy corresponding to a given row against the strategy corresponding to a given column. Mixed strategies cover all possible strategies, including those where players do one thing in 60 % of the cases where a sequence occurs and another in the remaining 40 %. Tells are not taken into account in this theoretical view . Mixed strategies are linear combinations of pure strategies. Here, a linear algebra theorem known as "Minimax" provides a powerful result : optimal strategies exist for both players, and the EV of player1, which is -EV of player2, when both players apply optimal strategies is called the value of the game. If position is randomized into the model, then from symmetry, then value of the game is zero.
More players
Game theory provides much less valuable tools (that I know of) for the analysis of games involving at least three players. We can just note that very few "serious" games involve more than two players. One exception is Diplomacy, another is Bridge, but Bridge is actually a game opposing two coalitions using coordinated strategies, even if partners in a coalition don't have access to the same information. Other areas that spur research on such games are Economics, Political science of Stock market dynamics. One much simpler example is provided by lotteries, which can be seen as games between n players, and of which the theory is not too complex.
Nash Equilibriums
The situation that is analogous to an equilibrium between optimal strategies in the two player case with more players is a Nash Equilibrium. Under such an equilibrium, no subset of the players involved can alter their strategies to increase their EV at the expense of the other players, whatever the other player's strategies are. In some cases, side payments between players belonging to the above mentioned subset are permitted.
Ideally, there should be such an equilibrium hidden somewhere in each game of poker, involving as many strategies as players. The skill challenge for all players would be to get as close as possible to these strategies to become unbeatable at poker.
However, I think if a Nash Equilibrium is to be found at a poker table, it should involve two opposing coalitions.
Coalitions
A coalition is a group of players that use coordinated strategies in order to increase their individual or collective EV. I am not talking of signaling techniques as in the movie Casino, that are clearly cheating. Actually, it is not necessary to use signaling techniques to gain an edge when several players are colluding : coordinating strategies is enough. Just imagine that instead of having each player considering his own EV when making decisions, the colluding players are considering the team’s EV, which is the sum of all the team member’s EVs.
Example
I’ll borrow it from the book Pot limit & No limit poker, with slight modifications. The game is London Lowball, where one must make the lowest possible hands, with straights counting as high.
Bob has A 2 3 7 T J Ed has A 4 2 9 Q 6 Gerry has 3 6 A 8 8 K No player has flush potential.
The pot is $10K. Ed has only 500$ left, Bob and Gerry both have $10K. Bob is first to speak.
Case 1 : no collusion. Bob bets $10K, Ed calls 500$ all in.
Here, if Gerry calls, his winning probability is about 17% for the main pot and 31% of the side pot, which is not enough, so he folds.
After that, Ed is the favorite with 74 % chances of winning the pot.
Bob’s EV : $2490 (11000 * 0.74 - 500 * 0.26) Ed’s EV : $8010 (11000 * 0.26 - 500 * 0.74) Gerry’s EV : $0
(percentages approximated using Poker Probe with Razz instead of London Lowball and 50000 deals)
Case 2 : Bob and Gerry are colluding. (Of course, Bob is a nice guy and would never do that, but it’s just an example)
Since Bob and Gerry are pooling their money, Gerry can call Bob’s $10K raise, even if it looks irrational. Alternatively, Bob can just raise $500, and be called by both players. In both cases, Ed now only has a 58 % chance of winning the main pot, and his EV is $6460 (11500 * 0.58 - 500 * 0.42).
Since poker is a zero sum game, Bob and Gerry’s aggregate EV has increased of $1550.
What does this show ? If this sequence occurs with a probability strictly greater than zero, then London Lowball with the bankrolls that the players had at the start of the hand admits no three player Nash Equilibrium. This can sound quite specific, but I believe similar examples could be constructed for any variety of poker game and starting bankrolls.
Additional comments
All poker games are not created equal in their exposure to collusion. Above all are place paying tournaments where players sharing their action or backing each other can be considered colluding.
Then come all big bet poker forms, because of the increased likelihood of all-in players affecting the outcome of hand.
Then, the limit games are probably those for the collusion bonus is the least, but I would not say it does not exist. The fact that these games prosper in the US might be the result of some evolutionary process on game forms and player populations.
Mike Caro has asserted in this forum that the optimal size of a coalition in a typical game is three players. I think three player coalitions might be the maximally exploitive way to go, but in a nine player game with three 3 player coalitions, I think but can not prove that two teams uniting would receive an extra bonus. So I would tend to believe that the bigger the team, the better off it is.
Mike Caro’s proposed three player coalition might make the most money out of a game as played in real conditions, which is what I mean by maximally exploitive.
So what ?
Of course, this should not affect too much players playing low limit for fun. However, I would at least consider that this kind of stuff is going on or will be going on at some point in the future before tackling big games are turning pro. Also, some games like chess and others are nice because you can play them for a lifetime and always keep imroving, approaching optimal play more and more. What I say above means that this might not be true for poker : after a while a player might reach a level where what can be gained through strategical improvements is neglectible compared with what can potentially gained through collusion.
Enjoy,
Alix Martin
I didn't understand this fully, but I think collusion is live and rampant in tournaments.
This is a 10-20 stud game.
A of heart calls in early position (weak player), 8 of spades calls, I raise in late position to take control of the game with pocket 8's and a 9 up (2 diamonds). They both call.
Then A catches 2 of heart, 8 catches blank, and I catch J of diamond. A checks, 8 checks, I bet. They both call. Then A catches another 2 (now showing A22), 8 catches another spade(now showing 8(s)XX(s)), and I catch Q off (88(d)9(d)J(d)Q) . A22 checks again, and so does 8. I bet one more time. They both call again. At this point, I put them both on flush draws.
Then A catches another A (now A(h)2(h)2A), and 8 catches nothing. I catch a 10 diamond to make a straight(88(d)9(d)J(d)QT(d)), and 4 flush. AA22 bets, 8 folds, I raise, not believing that he has the full house. Otherwise, if he was on his way to making the full house, why did he check the whole time? (I haven't played with him long enough to know if he would slow play 222 or AA from the go, but his play doesn't indicate these as unlikely holdings) AA22 calls my raise. At this point, I decide to bet on the river if AA22 checks to me. My reasoning is that since I think AA22 is on a flush draw, he has 20% of drawing to a flush, and another 10% of making a full house. But I am getting him to put in half of the money of the last bet, and I was sure he would call with just AA22.
Was my assessment of a flush draw correct? Did I make the right raise on 6th street, and the right bet on 7th street in light of the play?
Thanks, Kathy
Kathy way you play dead hand?I probobly will call third street and check all way if I did not get Qd on river.
First of all, I don't really like the 3rd street raise. I probably would have folded this starting hand since an 8 is already gone and you don't have high flush cards to go with it. But then again, I'm pretty tight that way.
You didn't say how live the diamonds and hearts were or whether there were any other As or 2s shown. I'll assume they were live.
Weak players worry me in situations like this since they frequently think its correct to slowplay aces to keep folks in.
Given that you've made your straight on 6th, I think a raise is in order here regardless of whether you put him on the flush draw or two pair or whatever. You have to make him pay to draw out on you. You also have a straight flush draw and a draw to a possibly higher flush if you catch Ad. Of course, you do have to balance this against the fact that you have what it looks like you have so what does his bet into you mean? Unfortunately, both a strong and a weak player would probably bet into you in this situation.
If he re-raises on 6th then you have to decide if you think he's full or not but you probably have to call and check/call the river.
If he checks into you on 7th street then you must bet and call if he raises unless you're really sure he's got you beat and you can make a tough laydown of the straight.
So, what happened?
My problem with the hand, which is already mentioned, is that one of your eights is out. You should only have called with it on third street.
Mason...I'd probably fold it. How much worse is that than a call?
I always worry that I play to tight.
Mason,
This seems like another of the many poker situations where folding or raising might be the best play, but calling is clearly the worst play. Why call against an A, with a draw to only 4 cards to improve your hand? Even though her 8 and 9 were suited, three more correct cards are needed to complete the straight or flush, this is unlikely, and even worse a lot of bets might go into the pot drawing for this type of improvement. Thus, the most likely form of improvement is an 8 or 9, of which there are only 4 left in the deck.
Seems like a clear fold to me, with raising a poor second choice (basically as a steal against 2 weak opponents). I just don't see how calling is +EV. Can you explain why you'd call?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Because if you get in very cheaply and catch good your implied odds make it worthwhile. See THE THEORY OF POKER by Sklansky.
By the way, even though I think that calling is the right play, if you always folded in a game like $10-$20 where the ante is relatively small, it can't be wrong by much.
Sorry Kathy, I probably fold or call on 3rd. st. It just depends. (Is there another ace showing? Then I probably call).
Ignoring that and assuming I did play it the way you did the rest of the way I have one question. Are you single, and would you like to get married? ;-)
No, I'm not single. I've been very happily married for a while now. My husband also plays poker and he's a great guy.
Kathy
You guys all play too carefully, I like the way Kathy played it and thats just the way I would do it all the time. One 8 out is bad but not the end of the world. Remember the 8 out is against you in the hand. He is worse off than you are. I like the raise to get out the low card and any other tag-a-longs. This is just what you want. Weak players with bad hands against you. Good Luck.
Splutter...Cough...Gag!!!
OK, OK, maybe against weak opponents and for a higher ante structure. But otherwise? I just can't bring myself to do it.
I'm such a wuss.
Yes raise on 6th. You must be a big favorite.
On the river you estimate 30% chance to lose and that looks like his MAX chance. Assuming this player "checked blind" then for your bet to make a little he must call half of the other 70% of time, or 35%.
Against this player you can lay it down for a raise, and this profile will certainly call more than half the time he misses. He's got Aces Up, Dang it! Nobody throws away a hand that good! Especially ...snip... !
Your chances are even better if he looked and checked. And he may not even have a flush draw; perhaps still a gut wheel draw or 3 pair.
Bet on the end against THIS player.
- Louie
After reading the replies, I see all the pro's and con's about my third street raise.
I still think that my 3rd street raise was good. It's been my experience that if I call with a medium pair in this kind of situation, I've lost a lot of leverage of winning with it later without improving. The chances of making two pairs or trips in the next two cards are not that great. And if I am not the leading bettor in a hand, I am very reluctant to be a calling station all the way. But with a raise, I am representing 99 or a pocket pair. So if I catch a scary high card, or catch an open pair later on, my opponents are more likely to fold because I already showed strength earlier on. If I take control of the betting, I also will have the best position on later rounds, and can always slow down if I want to.
Plus, I probably do have the best hand right now. If the situation had been different, and I held JJ or TT with one Jack or one Ten out, I think there would be little disagreement over my raise. But considering my opponents' boards, 88 vs. JJ or TT is not that different. If I get reraised by A, then I could lay down my hand immediately with a clear conscience.
If I just called, I run the risk of having small cards tag along behind me (like Ray Zee said), and have the dilemma of being stuck in a passive position on a later street. Imagine what the Ace would do on 4th street. More likely than not, he'll bet with just about anything on 4th street, seeing that nobody showed any strength on 3rd. Am I going to lay down my hand now and believe that he was slow playing AA or should I continue to call him? If he's on a steal now, I would be making a pretty big mistake folding since my 988X is a significant favorite to AXXX on 4th street.
I just think calling is too passive and leaves too much room for confusing possibilities and complicated dilemmas later on. I don't think this is a hand to be played like a draw hand. It's my experience that it's best to either fold or raise with a small or medium pair in this type of situation. Calling to hope for trips or two pairs in the next two cards is just not happening most of the time.
As it turned out, I did get raised on the river after betting. The guy had 222aa, but I don't know if he got it on the river. I was too weak to fold my straight. There was too much money in there. But I should have folded. I think it is my only mistake.
Kathy
Kathy,
Interesting and enlightening comments. Well thought out and well written imo. Situations like you described on third street come up on the flop in Hold'em as well. It's hard to lay down a good hand on the river but as previous discussions have mentioned your opponent probably had a pretty good idea of the quality of your hand (flush or straight). Although your third street raise may have confused your opponents. It also depends on the player doing the raising and his thinking levels and how he perceives you.
Tom Haley
Congratulations Kathy you passed the test! Raise or fold and take charge of the hand. Calling only occasionally depending on the situation.
You didn't think I would only call in this spot did you!
Never! I was testing you and you passed with flying colors.
Stick to your guns and you wil end up becoming the female Ray Zee!
P.S. If you ever get divorced my number is 555-get-brok.
Forgive curtness . I can't type. Going all in expectations are 50, 100, and 500. True figure is a bit more. If you just call 200 you should bet 100 on the flop if no ace king or draw shows. Check and fold if ace or king appears without queen. Move in against straight draw or if queen comes along with ace or king. If betting 100 on the flop (which he will call) , fourth street bet must be enough to make it wrong for him to call. Betting 101 on the raggedy flops would prevent you from being drawn out on fourth st. but it is worth the risk as long as you have enough money left to make it wrong to call the next bet. Keep in mind that you almost always bust him if you flop a queen while an ace or king shows on the flop or fourth st . This fact is the reason that it is better to just call with 1000 if the only alternative is to move all in. Louie Landale said that best. You also just call with 500. But you move in with $5000 as long as we are talking straight theory. But louie screwed up on the quetion where a medium raise would not be moved in on. He wanted to leave himself enough money to suck him in on the flop and blow him out on fourth st. In the 1000 cas e that would raise be something like raise to 440, bet 220 on the flop, and 340 on fourth st. Jason and others suggested making it about 660 and betting 340 on the flop to make him fold. This turns out to be mathematically better. The reason is basically because he is making a mistake by folding BECAUSE YOU ARE ALL IN. What you gain by this mistake makes up for the missed opportunity to suck him in as well as the opportunity to save money when an ace or king flops. Put another way, Louie's strategy would save 220 when an ace or king comes on the flop without a queen but it does $1320 worse when a raggedy flop is followed by an ace or king on fourth st. He saves 22
I got cut off. Louie saves 220 about a third of the time but he costs himself 1320 about 8% of the time. So Jason's answer was better for the original question even though he neglected to say he would suck him in when he was drawing dead. My answer does not take into account the nuances of things like QJ10 flops or flush draws but I am almost sure that doesn't change things. Sorry but I didn't have time to closely scrutinize all answers. Anyone who thinks they deserve a book besides Jason and Louie will get one as long as their answer basically matched mine. Contact Jessica, if that's you There will be more contests to come and I'll try to be less ambiguous. I congratulate everyone who thought about this problem . Obviously you did not simply to win a book. This says a lot about your future success regardless wherther you were right or wrong. I especially congratulate Jason who as a professor of gaming was taking the extra risk of being shown wrong in front of his students. But he was right boys and girls. You obviosly have a good man up there in Ottawa, the unlikely probable best place to learn gambling at the present time. But don't rest on your laurels Jason. A NEW QUESTION IS COMING SOON.
Thanks for the prize, David. Since I do not have all your books yet, I will certaintly ask for a book. Here is a question for you: (you do not have to answer if you do not feel like to) Other than the books `The Theory of Poker`, and `Holdem Poker for Advanced Players`, which of your books you think is the best ?
An afterthought about the contest problem. In the 1000 dollars case, calling 200 and moving all-in before the flop give roughly the same expectation (difference is within 1%). But the standard deviations for two strategies are quite different. The former has much lower standard deviation. We all know in any gambling, EV is not the only measure, std dev is almost as equally important. From this point of view, calling 200 is a better strategy in this case. Of course, how to balance between EV and std dev depends much on each individual, and it is not easy to quantify. But in the case of very close positive expected values, the strategy with much lower standard deviation is clearly superior.
Mr. Sklansky:
I agree I did not consider what you pointed out, that the opponent SHOULD call an all-in bet getting less than 5:1 since he's getting two cards and the pot is large. AK is making a mistake when he doesn't call; which makes betting just MORE than 25% of pot on the flop is good.
But I am only risking $880 not $1320. For the first problem, with calculations including Jason's ability to get AK all in when he flops a Q, it looks like Jason's answer beats mine by $25.
Anyway thanks a lot, I look forward to the next one.
- Louie
--------- Calculations ---------
Against me AK wins 30% of the time on the flop, 9% of the total time on turn, and 8% on the river. Against Jason the AK wins 30% on the flop. However, a Queen will flop 12% of the time and Jason can bet less and get the AK all in on the turn. If he'll win 90% of those encounters (10.8% total) he'll lose 10% (1.2%):
Louie: , Result , % , Stake ,Net
Flop. , Loss , 30% , 444 , -133
Turn. , Loss , 09% , 666 , -060
River , Loss , 08% , 999 , -080
River , Win. , 53% , 999 , +529
Net. Louie: +256
Jason:
Flop. , Loss , 30.0% , 0660 , -198
FlopQ , Win. , 10.8% , 1000 , +108
FlopQ , Lose , 01.2% , 1000 , -012
Flop , Win. , 58.0% , 0660 , +383
Jason: +281
Well its a lot closer than I thought.
I think I should be winning less than 53% on the river since I'm often giving up my chance to snag a winning Q on turn or river. Slight changes in the numbers yields different results.
- Louie
You ARE risking 1320. It is similar to the fact that doubling down on a blackjack is risking 3 1/2 bets to win 1/2 a bet. You must count what you would have won but now don't. Playing Jason's way will cost 220 when an ace or king flops without a queen. But it saves 1320 if rags flop followed by an ace or king on fourth st. since he already picked up 660 and you now lose 660.
Sorry. I was determining my risk based on the way I said I would play it, and was not comparing it to any other particular option, of which there are many, including Jason's. With this line of thinking you "risk nothing" if you fold the QQ. I thought comparing the EVs of the various options was a solid way to evaluate this situation.
I understand this comparison method and use it when confincing friends that slow playing in early position is risking 3 bets to win 1: You just call and check-raise on the bigger turn bet, compared to raising now and betting on turn.
- Louie
Thanks for finally posting the answer. I have to confess that several things about the problem were unclear to me (especially that we could make any assumptions whatsoever about AK's turn and river play), but the intellectual stimulation would have been the same either way. I very much like your contest idea, and I hope that there are more in the future.
Thanks for the fun!
Dennis
Hold'em question. I have 55 on buton.I call preflop.Flop 5,3,2.I raise.Turn 4.Check to me.Should I bet or check?
Boris,
It depends on what you think they may have and whether they are likely to check a straight. Most of the time you want to bet so they dont get a free shot at hitting the straight for a split or higher straight and most times they call anyway so why give up that money. If you run into a straight it is 3.4 to 1 against you filling up, not that high so you will be able to call a raise and draw. Good Luck.
Thahks Ray I made mistake.Gay in second seat after blind had A9.
***One time when you should fold is when you are sure that you are against a big pair in the hole, and your opponent has caught all possible cards that could give him three of a kind. For example, suppose on third street you raise with (4dQh)Qs and are reraised by someone holding a small card, and you know you must be against a bigger pair. If this opponent now catches an ace and a king,you should throw your hand away, unless you have picked up a draw.***-SEVEN CARD STUD For Advanced Players page 92. How big a hand you shold fold(pair,2 pairs,lower three of a kind)?
I am trying to figure out who Boris really is.
Either Steve Z. or Mason Malmuth......any guesses?
I guess Boris is my first name.
I think he means to fold if you have not improved. P.S., it can't be either. Neither has a sense of humor
I would only call with trips, just in case the original raiser raised with a small pair and a high kicker, and has now made only two pairs.
Kathy
I am a student at NAU, in Flagstaff AZ. I am an addicted poker player, but have been able to find enough people to get any games together.
SO IF ANYONE KNOWS ANY PEOPLE IN FLAGSTAFF, AZ WHO HAVE HOUSE GAMES ARE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HOUSE GAMES PLEASE GIVE MY A WAY TO CONTACT THEM AND IF THE WANT TO CONTACT ME I AM AVAIABLE AT 520-523-3603 OR djz@dana.ucc.nau.edu
THANKS FOR ANY HELP
David Zart "the addict",
I have been on your campus many times. Beautiful school and beautiful campus. I know one guy that is an alumnus of your fine school. Unfortunately I don't know of any players nearby. New Mexico used to allow 18 year olds into their Casinos but that changed a while back. Good luck.
Tom Haley
We see people from other countries on our gambling newsgroups; does anyone know of newsgroups in England, Australia, Canada, etc. that we can access? URL's appreciated! Thanx, Bob
Here is a Hold'em variation I've just thought up in a attempt to more evenly spread out the luck factor in the game. What does the Forum's members think.
Basicly everything is the same except we now split the Flop and the Turn to Two cards each. Instead of Three and One. The river would stay at one card.
I'm trying to figure out what sort of Stratagy changes I would make, and if my variation would be worth presenting to a group of people. I guess if I had figured out the different stratagies before hand I would get a nice Layover. Other than calculating the Odds differently what else should I be thinking about? Any takers?
Thanks, Chris
Here is my variation to increse luck factor.Evryboby get own flop.Is it sound crazy?
The first thing that comes to mind is that the implied odds of a drawing hand (small pairs, connectors, and suited cards that aren't both big) will go way down preflop, because you are now much less likely to get a quality draw for only 1 bet (or 1 round of betting, at least). Conversely, big pairs and big cards have just gone up in value. Thus, you may be right that this game will decrease the luck factor. Unfortunately, it also probably makes it much more profitable to tighten up on your starting requirements, so this change will favor weak-tight strategies, which are the easiest to master, and hurt loose players. This might have a tendency to kill the good games.
Just random thoughts, so don't give them much weight.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Well, it seems that all forms of Poker value big cards and big pairs, but I see your point. I've got a better idea anyway.
I'm constantly amazed at the garbage that players raise with in Hold'em especially in the Lower limits. This turns the game into more of a game of chance than skill (when everyone sees the Flop). Now look at Seven Card Stud. I never seem to find people raising with garbage up front, though it does probably happen. But only 8 people can play. Also, keeping track of the dead cards can be tedious. Can you see what I'm about to do.
How about combining the best of both. All players would start with Two Hole Cards and a Door Card. But instead of each person being delt a separate hand, the Dealer would Flop Two cards,then have a Turn, and River Card. I might have to give this a try at my home game sometime. I wonder what I'll call it, though its probably been done before.
Chris
Chris have yuo read Poker esaey?Structure might ruin the game.
Structure might ruin the game in a casino...but it seems it rarely ruins it in a home game. Home games have a nack for the people to get bored with hold'em and stud and diverge. I think this Hold'emStud game (or whatever you're going to call it) is a great idea in a home game...it looks fun, stimulating, and will keep the boys coming to play.
Good luck.
Well, this one is definitely new to me, and I like it. It sounds like a good "compromise" between HE and stud, and seems like it would be both difficult to play well, and yet provide enough "luck factor" to keep the fish swimming against the sharks.
I think that this is the most important issue with respect to the survival and growth of a poker form. There must be a proper balance of the luck factor in the game. If there's too much luck, no one but the house can make a profit. These games can survive just fine, because the gamblers are drawn to them, but they don't grow as much, because the core of regulars don't play. If there's not enough luck, then the gamblers get busted too regularly, and either quit playing or go permanently broke. This is supposedly why no-limit and pot-limit games are so rare, and why 7-stud hi/lo no qualifier, Razz, and draw games have become unpopular.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
After seeing the contest I ran a simulation with two players. This was a limit game simulation, but the results were interesting. Each player programmed, plays exactly the same . I switched posistions etc. and ran a total of 300,000 hands stopping at 50,000 intervals.At the 10-20 level the QQs won over 1.6 million while the AK lost over 200,000. The AK would see the turn with overcards etc., and would see the river with overcards if no large threats were hitting the board. I thought the results might be closer, but I guess that shows you what a 5%-10% advantage can do.
Now I see why the casinos can make so much money off 1% at craps. Anyway, I thought this might be interesting to some of you.
I don't get it, shouldn't QQ's Profits be equal to AK's losses?
No, AK doesn't lose every time, and there are blinds. Also the amount that is won and lost each hand is different. That's the difference between a simulation between two hands, and a simulation between two players. I think with the players you get a realistic , or more realistic idea of what will occur in real life. I'm going to run 300,000 mor ehands and I'll post it.
the first simulation I did with the button frozen, I did 150,000 more hands and QQ won 2.6 million, and AK lost 250,000. The button rotating so 9 players taking turns taking the blinds. I'm curious why the big difference myself.
In David's problem the QQ was the big blind and the blinds were irrelevantly small. You ran a simulation which resulted in QQ winning $1.6M and AK losing $200K. You sampled 300,000 hands. So you're telling us that in 300,000 hands QQ and AK won $1.4 Million in blinds to account for the difference? It's true that QQ will win more than AK loses (assuming AK isn't the small blind), but that much of a difference has to be wrong.
Since QQ wins 55% of the hands, then QQ won $770,000 in blinds and AK wins $630,000 in blinds. Therefore, QQ won $830,000 directly from AK, or about $2.77 per hand.
However, QQ won $4.67 per hand in blinds when he won. One thing is for sure, in your simulation the blinds were not irrelevantly small!
Obviously, you rounded your numbers, so I'll assume that you set the dead money blinds at $5.00. If that was the small blind only, then the limit must have been 10/20 (how else can you have $5 in dead money). $2.58 per hand at 10/20 seems too low. The pot must wind up at about $51 ignoring the blind. One raise pre-flop will account for $40 of that. Can't be.
If the dead money blinds were set at $4, then I can't figue what limit would leave $4 in dead blinds? 8/16? One raise would account for $32 of the $62 you need to accumulate if the dead blind money was $4. That leaves about 1 full bet for the flop turn and river. Can't be.
I suspect that something was seriously wrong with your simulation.
Okay I ran another. The previous was heads up so $15 in blinds went in the pot. I just ran 150,000 more hands with no blinds and the button rotating, and the other 7 players getting random playing hands. the queens won slightly less at aprox 2.5 million, and even stranger AK lost more. 1.8 million. It's correct
>Since QQ wins 55% of the hands, then QQ won $770,000 in >blinds and AK wins $630,000 in blinds. Therefore, QQ won >$830,000 directly from AK, or about $2.77 per hand.
I think we're talking apples and oranges here. David specified hot and cold, rather than a simulation. Depending on how the AK player is set up to play, it will fold a lot more on the flop than QQ, given no help.
There are 1,712,304 possible boards, of those QQ will win 975,909 and AK 730,541 with 5854 ties. I would guess that the simulation didn't get past the flop in a lot of cases, so the 55% number doesn't hold true.
The AK went past the flop on most occasions. I'm not suggesting anything from this simulation other than how much a 10% advantage can add up over the long hall. The pots are capped basically every hand. The interesting part for me is that the AK lost so much more without those blinds and with other players playing instead of heads up. It tells me to keep trying to attack those blinds whenever I think there is a chance I can take them.
I got the same thing out of it. The blinds was the big prize in your simulation. It demonstrates the importance of winning them. Although it shouldn't be that big of a surprize. A win rate of 1 1/2 big bets is considered excellent. The blinds amount to just that. Stealing one set of blinds per hour more than your supposed to is huge.
Also, having other hands in there does make a big difference.
I'm making a trip to Albuquerque, NM. Can anyone tell me if $20-$40 Holdem is spread at any of the casinos? If not, what limits? And, which casino is better than the other? Thanks.
Casino Sandia, I-25 & Tramway Rd. NW, 505-897-2173.
There is an early position play which some tough middle limit players use occasionally that I need to understand better. I would like to know what they think they are accomplishing so I can decide if the play belongs in my bag of tricks as well. Game conditions are such that five to seven players are seeing the flop for usually two bets. Tough player calls the big blind with a small pocket pair from early position. One or two players over-call. An agressive player raises from late-middle position. Button or both late position players cold-call. Big blind calls, and the tough player makes it three bets. My understanding is that small pocket pairs are volume hands which want to see the flop as cheaply as possible since one generally needs to flop a set to continue. The reraise here makes long shot draws correct on the flop; the type of hands that the set does not want to have out draw them. Of course it is easy to fold the small pocket pair on a flop with no help regardless of how many bets it cost to get there. Are these plays capable of trapping a raiser with AK on a flop of AK5 for an extra bet or two when you have the set of fives? Is there enough extra value in disguising the hand to make up for the loose reraise? Do you need to be up against certain types of players to consider this move? Any insight as to what is going on here would be most welcome.
Andrew,
It has some advantages such as tying one pair hands on when you hit and giving deception when you have a big pair in those spots. Whether you raise again or not will not make too much difference except that it is always good to mix up your play. Good Luck.
But you're going to hit so seldom, why put in the extra bet where you're only getting 5 to 1 (or so)? Your only going to hit about 11.5% of the time, thus needing about 9 to 1 to make it fair value. And when you do hit, there's a small chance of set over set.
I don't like the re-raise, I think its a poor play in this case.
Am I missing something?
I agree with TP for the reason stated. A raise by the small pair is being charged to his advertising budget and it may in fact cost him another raise.....Not worth it.
I'm well aware of all that. I was wondering if I'm missing something here too. I see this play exclusively from successful players, so I'm naturally curious.
You said it was a middle limit game (15-30 to 30-60? ) where 5 to 7 people are seeing the flop...this seems highly unusual and generally a great game to be in. In my opinion, the reraise by the 'tough' player is a bad play...he should want to see the flop as cheap as possible. The extra added benefit of trapping AK when AK5 flopps (and he has a set of 5s) is small since it happens so seldom, and how many bets is AK going to put in after the 'tough' guy has made it three bets before the flop (since he should be thinking the 'tough' guy has AA or KK). ? Probably not that many that it's worthwhile for a small possiblility.
I would be happy to play in this game.. Where is it?
I said middle limit PLAYER. They sometimes play 10-20 while waiting for a seat in their main game. Seeing the flop as cheaply as possible is how I would play the small pair also. I was just giving one example of a hand that might be trapped for one more bet against a set that reraised pre-flop, and you're certainly right to say this situation occurs very infrequently. I expect the tough player would raise immediately with AA or KK about 90% of the time, I would be more likely to include JJ, TT, and JTs in his possible holdings. This type of play is found in East Coast poker games. This may be more subtle than it appears, see Ray Zee's post where he suggests it can be played either way.
One of the bigest pots I win was whith back-raise.I have 99 on the buton.Evrybody call.Big blind raise.Evryboby call again.I raise to bild the pot and discuise my hand.Big blind cap it.Evrybody call. Flop 5,5,10 big blind bet 4 callers I call for the sise of the pot.Turn 9!!!Big blind bet.Midele player raise.Others fold.I raise big blind call.Midele player call.River is 4.Big blind had KK.Midele player had A5.
I will be visiting Melbourne, Australia for 3 months, I would like to know whether there are poker rooms there. I could not get any help from elsewhere, so I am trying this forum. Any information will be much appreciated.
Jason,
The Crown Casino in Melbourne has a large poker room. They spread many small and medium stake games. The aussie players are wonderful people and the games are good. You will find the rake is about twice what you are used to but they pay their help very well and there is no toking allowed. I would expect you to make fairly good money during your trip. Look for Richard Cavell over there or maybe he will post something to help you. If you need and address or phone # I can supply it. Good Luck.
Thanks for the information, Ray ! The poker room there must be quite recent, since it was not there when I visited the Casino two years ago. Although I will be spending most of my time doing research at Melbourne Univ., playing poker will certainly make my trip much more enjoyable. By the way, I really enjoyed your book (with David and Mason) on 7 card stud.
Dear Jason,
As Ray said, Crown has a great poker room. Unfortunately it has been radically downsized in the past two weeks. There are only twelve tables now. Usually you will find one 3-6 Holdem game (rake 10% capped at $5, very loose/passive, 2 or 3 semi-professionals per game) and one 6-12 Holdem (5% capped at $10, tough, 5 professionals). I have beaten the 3-6 Holdem for 2 BB/hr over the past 400 hours. The monstrous rake is alleviated by the very bad players you get here.
The other games are mostly played with a reduced deck. 5-card stud half-pot is the biggest game here. If you have the bankroll, this is THE game to make money at. Draw and Manila (a community card game like holdem) are also played. Draw (half-pot, reduced deck, 5 players) is a superb game, with one pro making $35 per hour at this.
Usually there will be fewer than 10 people out of the hundred or more in the room at any given time who would be consciously aware, for example, that you should play more hands in late position. The betting is very timid and passive. Which also means that you can have trouble protecting your hand.
They have excellent Holdem tournaments every Sunday. $55 buy-in, about forty players, the final eight places or so are paid.
Canberra Casino has a modest poker section which is populated by sophisticated players and worth a look. Adelaide casino's poker room is worth seeing. Sydney has a cardroom called Peanuts. Darryl "Dazzler" Lanyon has a cardroom in Brisbane.
Crown is by far the best place to play, in terms of its professionalism and the weak games. You should enjoy it. Say hello when you get here.
Yours,
Richard Cavell
Richard, thanks for your information about the poker room in Australia. I will certaintly say hello to you if I meet you at the poker table there.
We at Two Plus Two are pleased with the growth and overall quality of the Forum. On any given day, numerous sophisticated and engaging discussions are evolving on a wide variety of gambling-related topics. However, as many of you have expressed publicly and privately, the Forum's growth necessitates its moderation. In plainer terms, irrelevant or blatantly offensive posts will now be deleted. Our main objectives are to:
1) Keep the Forum vibrant by not wasting anyone's time.
2) Encourage the exchange of viewpoints by not tolerating foul language or flagrant discourtesy.
In this vein, we ask all contributors to make their posts:
1) Gambling-related,
2) Strategic in nature,
3) Possess a minimum of courtesy.
I want to add that the vast majority of posts have been well within these guidelines. Intelligent contribution has been the lifeblood of this forum. I welcome any feedback concerning this policy to my private e-mail.
Again the first one with the right answer will get a free book. I published this question about ten years ago so you are on the honor system not to reply if you allready saw the answer. The game is draw poker high. Jacks or better to open. Ther is no joker in the deck. There are five players in the game . They ante one dollar each. The stakes are five dollars before the draw and ten dollars after the draw. A player opens for $5. He is now all in. You call with a pair of aces. Aplayer behind you also calls. He and you still have plenty of money left to bet on the side. But at his point there is not yet a side pot. The opener stands pat! Having no three flush to draw to you are forced to draw three cards. The player behind you draws one. You know that it is about equally likely that he has two pairs or a flush draw. All players are good players who fully understand logic and math. Furthermore eveyone knows that eveyone else is a good player. There is now $20 in the pot. The bet is $10. You look down and see that you have caught three cold deuces. Your options are to bet, to check with the intention of calling, or with the intention of raisng ,or with the intention of folding. Which of these four options is the right one and WHY???
If you bet, the other player will know that you can beat two pair, thus he will think you have a full house, so he will fold two pair and a flush, but knowing this, he will think that you may bluff and win the $20 pot...however, he also knows it is worthless for you to bluff unless you can beat the other guy's pat hand (at least a straight), thus you cannot bluff unless you have made at least a full house (quads being the other hand)...thus if you bet, he will fold two pair or a flush, and call or raise with a full house. So, you can not bet, since you can't beat a call or a raise, and all you win is the main pot, nothing more...nothing to be gained for you to bet.
If you check, the other player, thinking that you have at least a high pair will know that the only way you can call is if
a. you think he is bluffing. b. you have him beat, thus have a full house or quads.
alternative a is not possible, since you know that the other player is logical and that his logic tells him that the pat hand player must have at least a straight, so bluffing is worthless, because he will either lose to a raise or a call by you (because you must be able to beat a straight in order for you to call since you know that he's bluff is worthless because if you fold to his bluff, he will not gain anything since the pat handed guy will win the main pot...which is the only pot). so, the other player cannot bet if he does not have at least a flush. however, he also knows that if he has a flush, the only way you can call is if you have a full house, thus he will not bet his flush either, so he must have a full house in order for him to bet.
If he has a full house, he may bet hoping his full house can beat your full house (because that's the only thing you can call with). Thus if he bets, he must have a full house, and that full house is going to beat your deuces full. And his full house must be pretty high, since he knows you will only call with a full house or quads, and he thinks you started off with a high pair...thus his full house is most likely going to be Jacks full or higher.
So, if he bets, you must fold....if you check-raise, he may still call with his full house, in which case, the pot odds may be right for him to call...since there is now $50 in the pot, and only 10 to call. And there's a good chance that he may call now, thinking that you are bluffing...or maybe he has such a high full house that even if he thinks you are filled up, he may out trump your boat. So he will call your reraise, most likely, and thus it is not worthwhile to raise. However, since you are a logical person as well as he is, you know that the only way he can bet is if he has a fairly high full house, and there's a good chance he will not relinquish a hand that high, with pot odds favoring him now to a raise. So you cannot check-raise
thus, the only strategy is to check and fold if the opponent bets. Because when he bets, you know he has a full house, otherwise he would not bet, since if he had a flush, he knows he can't win by betting because you will only call/raise if you have a full house. So you must fold to his full house.
Unbelievable...if you catch a great hand, not the best possible, but a great hand, you must still check and then fold to a bet.
TP, Your answer is probably the correct one. I should have read it before answering,but I played it straight.
I'd call his bet,I wouldn't be thrilled about it but I'd call and I think you might call to,because there is still that chance he has a high straight or a flush.
well, the assumption DS made was that he either had two pair or a flush draw, so he can't have a straight....and if he had a flush, he can't bet, because he knows I can't call unless I have a full house (and he's not winning anything more than he would if i fold). He knows i can only call if I can beat the pat hand, which is at least a straight, and the only way I can beat that hand is with a full house (since I started off with a pair). Also he knows that i know that he knows this. Thus he knows that I know that it is not worthwhile for him to bluff, so therefore he cannot be bluffing, so that means he can not bet with a flush, thus if he bets, I can not call.
Remember, this is all assuming that the three players are very logical (as DS assumed), and that all three know each other is logical as well.
In reality, if this happened to me, I do not think I would be able to think quickly enough to fold...I would almost assuredly put some money in there (i'd actually probably bet)...but I do not act nearly as logical as I would like to....especially when I have little time to think about it....a lot of poker, unfortunately, turns into auto-pilot for me...a part of my game to work on.
The flaw in your otherwise well thought out answer is that once the third player has reasoned that you must fold if he bets, then he must bet with anything! He reasons that you would call him if he has a flush, but not a full house, but you don't know what he has. You can't have it both ways. Therefore it must be right for him to bet a flush sometimes and for you to call (at least) his bet sometimes. Once we have this realization, the whole house of cards falls down. As with the hanging prisoner's paradox we cannot rely wholly on deductive logical reasoning based on the perceived common knowledge. We need also assess the playing style of the opponent as well as how we think he sees us. How likely is he to bet a flush, knowing that you must call sometimes with your full house? I think that he will bet his flush most of the time and his full house almost all the time (since he doesn't know how big yours may be if you have one). Since it is easier for him to make a flush than fill two pair, I would call most of the time and fold sometimes.
Eric
Well, let's see. If he has a flush, and he bets, what has he gained? If you do not have a full house, you must fold...he has gained nothing. If you do have a full house, you will probably call (he does not know you will fold a full house, because he thinks you started off with a high pair, so if you caught a full house, it's probably a fairly high full house...he does not know you caught a baby full house)....thus the logical guy here would not bet....he gains little from bluffing a small boat out of the pot for a chance to win the main pot (which he may not win either)....so its only worthwhile for him to bet a flush if he assumes you hit a small boat, which he cannot....it is much more likely for you to either not get a boat, or get a fairly high boat.
So, I think its still correct for him not to bet a flush, thus if he bets, he has a boat...thus you must fold....remember, these guys are logical guys, who know the other guys are logical also....there not your typical human being.
Heyyyyy, wait a second TP, I think Eric is right.He gains the pot by betting his flush,because he knows you will dump a small full house.He knows that you know that he knows that you know etc. LOL
Send me the book. LOL
But you will call with a big full house, and its more likely for you to have a big one than a small one, thus it is incorrect for him to bet with a flush. His expectancy is seems clearly negative to me.
If you bet, he knows you are not bluffing, since you must beat the all-in player. So, he only calls you if he completes his hand. You win a big bet if he calls with his flush and lose a big bet if he calls with a bigger full house. If he completes his hand...I believe the odds are about 2-1 that he has the flush and not the full house. So you are showing a profit on this play. If he raises, you must fold because he expects you to call ( he knows you weren't bluffing when you bet ).
If you check, he will only bet if he gets the boat. You drew 3 cards indicating a pair so he won't put you on a flush draw. If you didn't get a boat, you won't call, so why bet? So, if he bets, you fold. The only thing you can win this way is the $20 already in the pot. He won't bet with a flush because you will only call him if you have him beaten.
So, checking and calling and check-raising are out. If you check, you can't lose any more than you already have in the pot but you can't win any more either. But if you bet, you have a good possibility of winning an extra bet if the active player caught the flush.
It seems you should bet.
I've just reread my post and it sounds like a bunch of hogwash now. The more I think about this hand, the more my head spins.
If I come out betting after taking 3 cards I am in essence saying I have a full house. The allin player is pat and only a fool would bet without a pat hand himself in first position. Now if my opponent is an aware player he knows this so he really can't call my bet unless he has a fullhouse himself. So a bet by me has no expectation of winning anything aznd will infact cost me money if called.
So I check.If he bets I make a crying call,hoping he made a straight or a flush and was dumb enough to bet it.
Assumptions:
1) Limping in, you have AA. This may be in question given it's only 5 handed, but it seems the most likely pair.
2) Your opponent realizes this.
3) All-in player is pat and not bluffing.
4) Everyone realizes this.
5) Other live player knows you're drawing to boat.
6) Betting when you miss your boat is pointless as first player is already all-in, and you will only be called if you are beat.
7) Other live player knows this, and will not call with just a flush.
8) Thus, any cases where he is drawing to less than a boat are irrelevant to this analysis.
9) Therefor, the only cases that matter are when you make a boat, and he makes a boat. 10) You're drawing to the bigger boat. (As predicated by the AA assumption. We could also just say your pair will be bigger than his two pair. The lower your pair the hairier this computation becomes...)
In the cases where you improve to a boat or better:
If you only bet overboats and quads, opponent will not call with medium boats. You will probably only be called if he makes a straight flush. Therefor, betting like this has only negative EV.
If you bet all boats and quads, you're opponent will be getting 3:1 on all calls. As he is likely to win 40% of the time, it is correct for him to always call. This has EV +2.
If you check all underboats, for the same reason opponent should always bet his boats. This has EV -2.
The best thing to do is after seeing your deuces full, announce that you are going to check your overboats 40% of the time. If he then bets everytime you check, it is 50/50 you have the better hand, therefor from his standpoint his bet has at best zero expectation (if you never check-raise the nuts; if you do, it goes negative, as he has to occasionally keep you honest.) He is therefor frozen from betting in to you, on this occasion when you are beat, and you still get paid off 60% of the time you make your overboats.
I'm off to Reno for the weekend, so I won't have time to amend this when all the weaknesses are pointed out, so I hope this is close to being a good answer.
Regards
Jim Geary
Jim,
I believe your boat-or-better calculations are off. From AA, drawing 3 and counting 3-card combinations, there are 48 ways to get quads, 144 ways to get aces full, and only 48 ways to get x's full. (Actually, the numbers are a little different because we could make some assumptions about your opponents hands, but the ratios are more or less correct.)
Dennis
I'm fairly new to poker, but I guess I'll give it a shot anyway.
First, disregard player 1's pat hand. If he has you beat, your money in the pot is going to him regardless, and he can't get any more from the side-pot.
Seems to me, you check-raise.
You've decided he must not be drawing to a flush, because he would be a 4.2:1 dog, and pot odds were only 3:1 when he called the $5 bet. He must have started with 2-pair, an OK hand even if he doesn't make his draw.
If you were to bet, you would force player 3 to fold unless he made his draw. He'll think you made trips at least if you're betting into him.
Check-call seems like a pretty weak play if you're holding a full house. Besides, I have difficulty imagining Sklansky recommending check-call.
Check-raise is the right play. When you check, he'll bet because either 1) he didn't make a full house, but thinks 2-pair beats you anyway, or 2) he actually made a full house and does beat you. Then you raise, and weep softly if he in fact has a full house. Odds were 10.75:1 against his full house so what could you do? You're getting 100% on your money most of the time. It's true he could check behind you and you lose a bet, but I think he'd be crazy to do that--why would he think you'd check-raise after drawing 3.
Like I said, I'm new to the game, so please be kind! I hope I did the odds correctly. -JM
JM,
I believe that player 3 cannot bet the 2-pair, because, since player 1 is all-in, there is no pot to bluff at, and there is no way that you can call with less than his 2-pair. Sound right? The idea here is one that I have only learned within the past year myself: On the very end, if you are heads-up, do not bet unless you are the favorite WHEN YOUR OPPONENT CALLS or you have a chance to make him fold the better hand. In this case, having you fold the better hand would do him no good, as he would still lose to player 1. If player 3 has two-pair, he is certainly not the favorite when you call.
Dennis
Since it is silly for either player to bet in all but one situation, the answer is to check with the intention of folding. This is essentially a heads-up pot with no money in it. So the only question is how to extract a bet from your live opponent if possible. Its not. Bluffing is out for either player because it can't win anything. If you bet, the only logical hand you could have is aces full or quads, and the other player will fold (unless he has a straight flush). He shouldn't bet even with kings full because the only hand you would call (or raise) with is aces full. Therefore, if he bets, he has a straight flush.
As an addendum, some odds. Let's assume that your live opponent has K's and Q's, opener a straight to the jack. This means there are 133 ways for you to make aces full or quad aces, 25 ways to make an underhouse. If opener has J's full of T's, 135 ways to make the big hand, 32 ways to make the underhouse. So you are at least 4 times as likely to make the big hand as the smaller one. Of course, if opener has an ace, your odds are cut to about 12 to 7, but you are always a favorite to hold the bigger hand.
This question was very difficult for me to answer. It seems to me the answer depends on how good "good" is, and how many levels of thinking about what the other person thinks you are thinking (*) usually take place among "good" players. But anyway, here goes. Let's look at betting versus checking.
1. Bet
Since player one is all-in, it seems that there are only two reasons to bet: a) in the hope that player 3 will call with a worse hand than mine or b) to make player 3 fold a better hand. If player 3 is good, a) seems impossible, since he will realize that I will only be betting if I think there is a chance that he will call with a worse hand, so he will know that I must have at least a full house, and thus he would fold any hand worse than mine. So is b) possible? Here is where (*) really comes into play. At the so called "level 0", b) will not happen, since player 3 will call or raise with any hand better than mine. At one level higher, b) should certainly happen, since player 3 will think "he drew 3 against an all-in pat hand and is now betting into me; he must have a full house or quads, and if so, since he called the $5 with a pair, it is most likely (by a 5 to 1 margin) a very high full house or quads, so I'll lay this hand down unless it's a straight flush, quads or aces full." At one level above that, player 3 would think "He must know that I know that his bet represents at least a full house, so he can only be making it if he wants me to lay down any better full house that I may have. Otherwise, he would try to check-raise. He must have miraculously caught a low full house, so I'll call with any decent full house or better ["b)" doesn't happen]. Of course, at a higher level, player 3 may realize that I realize this last realization of his, and thus think I'm thinking "I'll bet with my strong full house, hoping that he will think that I must be trying to get him to lay down a better full house and thus he will call," and thus player 3 folds to avoid my trap, and b) does happen.
So which is it? It depends on the player. For the sake of giving an answer, I'll go with b) being a strong possibility if player 3 has a full house, again since he will think "he drew 3 against an all-in pat hand and is now betting into me; he must have a full house (or quads), and if so, since he called the $5 with a pair, it is most likely (by a 5 to 1 margin) a very high full house or quads, so I'll lay this hand down unless it's a straight flush, quads or aces full."
2. Check
Suppose player 3 bets. The question now is, "why would player 3 bet?" If player 3 is good, I can't imagine that he would bet with less than aces full, since he knows that your most likely NON-FOLDING hands are aces full, or kings full, given you called the $5 and then drew 3. He will be aware that the only reason for him bet is if you will call with a worse hand more often than with a better hand (after factoring in the extra weight of your check-raise with a better hand). This seems to be not even close to the case here unless he holds quads or a straight flush (since he can't have aces full). Thus, if he bets, you should fold.
So, what are the EV's of these two plays given that the suppositions I have made about player 3 are true? The only difference in the EV's comes from hands where player 3 has a full house or better, so we'll just look at those. In fact, given that player 3 has a full house or better, the probability of anything other than a full house are negligible for this problem, so we only need to consider the case in which PLAYER 3 HAS A FULL HOUSE. So, if I bet, player 3 lays down the better hand, and if I beat player 1, I win the $20. If I check, player 3 should also check, and I lose the $20. Well, that was easy.
My answer: Bet, if player 3 is at the level of "goodness" I've described, the vast majority of the times you are beat, player 3 will fold, never dreaming that your full house could be so low, and yet your chances of beating player 1 are strong.
Great Question!!!
Dennis
>> Bluff your Deuces Full and fold for the raise.<<
-------------------------------------------
The opener has no reason not to draw and surely has a pat hand which is most likely a straight. Neither of you should put in any money without a flush or better. The only times it matters is when both you and the opponent improve. You both know he has either two pair or flush draw and can improve to a flush or full, and you both know that YOU have AA and can improve only to a full or quads.
The chances of the opponent making a straight flush is trivial when compared to pot odds or compared to chances of either of you improving. It has no affect on your bets or his calls.
Except for the EXTREMELY RARE straight flush, the opponent cannot beat Aces Full or quads.
You both know that when you improve you are a 4.4:1 favorite to make Aces Full or quads vrs making a small full house. If he makes KsFull and if he knows you will bet all full houses then he is getting only 2:1 odds for a 4.4:1 dog hand. An easy fold. His odds are worse for all lesser hands; down to zero for flushes.
You should BET all full houses or quads. The opponent will never call. Checking is much worse since he will check, and get risidual equity with his full houses which he loses when you bet.
But does he raise?
Him raising for value any full house is out of the question.
He's only getting 3:2 for a bluff ($30 pot after you bet, for his $20 raise) vrs the 4.4:1 chance you have AcesFull, so bluffing with a flush is out of the question when counting on the threat of his high full houses.
BUT the opponent MIGHT make a straight flush, a hand you cannot beat. So his bluffing threat is with this hand, and to either of you it only matters if he made a straight flush or not.
He will raise with the straight flush. He should also therefore bluff with some of the other hands. You assume he will bluff randomly and optimally; how ever often that is.
Since he has an optimal bluffing frequency you should adopt the standard anti-bluffing calling rate of Call the raise with quads and 71% of your Aces Full. Fold all lesser full houses and 29% of your Aces Full.
>> Bet your Deuces Full and fold for the raise.<<
- Louie
I was playing in good 3-6 game yesterday and a hand came up leaving me feeling as if I had played like a fish. Any comments or advice would be most welcome. First, the table: I and a friend are easily the best players at the table and we have reputations as fairly tough players. In general the table was quite loose (5-6 in preflop, 2-4 see the turn) and not too aggressive. The important players in our narrative are Jerry (a fairly aggressive 5-10 and 10-20 player who is reputed to have lost over $1 million playing poker), possibly the next best player there, and Noel, a fairly quiet fellow who is mostly passive but is not afraid to put his money in the pot when the situation warrants it (and sometimes when it doesn't).
Jerry raises in early position, meaning that he has two cards which work together - most pairs, face cards, suited aces, etc.. There are a couple of callers and Noel makes it three bets. My first reaction was that he has a pocket pair, eights or better, or Big Slick or better. I look down and see AKo. Question 1: should I play? While thinking that I ought to fold, I put my chips in (fishy play #1?). Against tougher opponents I would fold, but I may well have the best hand or close to it, here. Jerry caps it, which means nothing, but the unimportant people fold.
Flop is rainbow AAJ. I am both excited and a little scared (fish evidence). Either player could have AJ or JJ. Jerry bets out. He has JJ or Ax (suited if x is 10 or lower). Noel calls. I can't put him on a hand here, he could have KQ or another draw, or he could be slowplaying trips or better. Question 2: What should I do now? I rule out folding and I know that I will play it to the river (this mindset might be fishy). I think that I am either way in front or way behind. Since either way I would just call, that's what I do here.
Turn is a blank. Same betting as on the flop.
River is a Q. Uh-oh. Now I am almost sure that I am not the best. Jerry bets again and Noel calls (!). Question 3: What do I do now? My gut tells me to fold, figuring that there must be a house out there. However, I eventually call, figuring that if I don't call and would have won I would feel a lot worse than if I call and lose (another fishy trait).
How badly did I play? I still feel awkward thinking about this hand. How would you have played this hand, if at all?
Eric
Your AKo is better than most of the hands that your opponents are likely to hold before the flop. I'd probably raise myself before the flop, but a call is probably in order.
If you're really sure of your customers, you might divine that the only reasonable hands that someone could have to bet or call on that flop are JJ and Ax. If you buy that logic, then someone _must_ hold JJ, and you should fold. If you think that Noel would call with something other than Ax or JJ, you might consider raising. If someone raises you back, and this convinces you that you're beaten, you can save the big bets on the turn and river. If Jerry would raise and reraise before the flop on any Axs, you're a big favorite against him. The more selective he is, the less of a favorite you are.
I would almost certainly raise on the flop, but that's just because of the people I play with. The opener probably has Ax, which I can beat unless x = J. The caller can't bear to part with any decent starting hand after having thrown in four bets before the flop, so I probably have him beaten as well.
The only ways that the Queen on the river can hurt you are (a) someone raised and then either reraised or called the reraise before the flop on KT (unlikely) (b) someone bet or called with QQ on the AAJ flop (also unlikely, I think) (c) someone had AQ (a distinct possibility). Your pot odds at this point are something like 15:1, more than enough to warrant a call. Also, your call closes the betting.
I certainly don't think you played the hand badly. I gather that you lost the hand. Life's like that. I'd like to know what the other fellows held, especially Noel.
Cheers,
Andy B
Thanks for your (and others) reply. As it happens, I won the hand, but it was my discomfort the whole way through which made me doubt my play. Jerry had A7h and I didn't see Noel's cards, though he did mutter something about a stupid call on his part.
Eric
I would certainly play AK for three bets pre-flop. Jerry's cap did not mean nothing, he got a couple of cold-callers after him to fold for two more bets (most players having already committed two bets will unhesitatingly put in the two more). This is highly unusual, so Jerry must get alot of respect despite the adverse reputation of losing big. I see you give him too much respect when he bets into the strong board on the flop. I would raise on the flop, and if reraised could consider myself beat at that point, but would call the reraise and see if I improved on the turn otherwise get out. If not reraised on the flop, I assume until proven otherwise that I have the best hand. The raise on the flop might slow Jerry down if he has Ax. Now you take control of the hand on the turn and bet out so as not to give Noel a free draw. If Jerry bets on the turn you can just call. Don't be afraid of Q on the river, only QQ and KT are any concern. If you lost the hand to Jerry's pocket jacks, playing it this way would save 1.5 big bets assuming you aren't check-raised on the turn - or half a big bet if you fold when you are check-raised.
Unless you are against players whose raising sandards are way too loose you should probably fold AKo for three bets but make it four bets with AKS.
Eric,
Think of scenarios where you would not be beat on the river. If you can think of one think of how likely these scenarios are. Compare your pot odds with the odds that you still have the best hand and call accordingly. Noels call is a real problem. If he is any kind of reasonable player you are probably beat by one or the other imo.
Tom Haley
Eric writes: The important players in our narrative are Jerry (a fairly aggressive 5-10 and 10-20 player who is reputed to have lost over $1 million playing poker), possibly the next best player there.... ------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm, third best player at the table is a million dollar loser. Fifth best must have lost a few million and the worst player, well he's stuck quite a bit huh?
Worst player will never lost 1000000$ playng 3-6 he is a gay hwo in casino 1 time in 3 yers.Good swimers droun more often then bad ones.
Pay these suckers off and play the next hand!
In an effort to improve my game, I have recently begun to keep notes on every Hold'Em hand I play. I'm doing it the old-fashioned way: pen and paper. Even though I try to be discreet by keeping the notepad on my lap rather than up at table level, after a while the other players will ask what I'm writing down. I do find it mildly embarassing. No one has seriously objected, though.
I would like to hear from anyone else who records their hands. Do you use pen and paper? Has anyone tried one of those tiny voice recorders? Any ideas would be appreciated.
AK
I have gone through the notekeeping phase myself. What are you keeping track of yourself, game statistics, other players?
Nowadays I play as a regular with either a bunch of other regulars that I know so well that notes don't help or with tourists that I see once and then they're gone. There are a few semi-regular players around but I've found that they're just so bad that that's mainly what I need to know.
I probably could benefit from keeping notes about myself, at least tracking obvious errors that I make, but I don't.
You can get into a trap of trying to track too much data. Just concentrate on important factors. Maybe track different things at different sessions.
As far as other player's reactions are concerned, I've run the gamut of philosophies from "who cares what they think" to "boy this is embarrassing". What I settled on when I was into note taking was trying to identify only the most meaningful data and to step away from the table to make those notes. This way you don't give away the fact that you're a thinking player.
Thanks for the response. To answer your question, I record my cards, number of players who see the flop, all board cards, and a brief description of my post-flop play. Later I review my notes to think about which hands I could have played better.
Stepping away from the table to make notes is an interesting idea. The disadvantage to that would be missing the next hand.
I'm still curious about those little voice recorders. Looks like they would easily fit in a shirt pocket. I think some can record up to an hour.
AK
Most casinos that I have been in or worked in do not allow electronic recording devices.
Pen and paper were tedius for me. I never tried a voice recorder but if you can get away with it (security!) that seems to me to be MUCH better.
When asked what you are doing, answer: "I work for the IRS and am keeping track of all wins and losses. What is your social security number?". That'll be good for a laugh.
- Louie
In your book ",Gambling for a Living", you talk about someone you know who is still making money playing Blackjack although he is not the best counter.
I'm curious to know the stakes he plays and how many decks he plays against. or does he play any amounts of decks if they are dealing deep into them ?
Is it still possible to regularly find casinos that deal deep into a two deck game etc. ?
How would you compare Blackjack with poker as far as actually being able to make money.
Anyone who knows could certainly respond to the last two questions. Thankyou in advance.
He plays shoes.
For a good discussion comparing poker to blackjack see my article in the Fall issue of Arnold Snyder's BLACKJACK FORUM. (It's the issue titled "Gambling for a Living.")
The game is $20-40 Holdem and the button raises first in. He's a good player who will steal in this situation with a reasonable first-in hand like any Ace, K8, pairs, JT, 98s, etc. You have A7 in the big blind and you call against the possible steal with what may be the best hand at the moment. Since he's a good player and *not* robbing your blind excessively, you rule out the option of reraising with your A7 as a semi-bluff preflop play.
Now the flop comes 2s-7c-Ts. Against most players, I will usually check and call against the button player. Some good players argue that you as the big blind should merely bet into the button raiser in this situation. They feel that you probably have the best hand with this flop and don't want a "free card" for your opponent.
I think on this flop you should not let your opponent "know" that you have a pair by betting into him. Almost all opponents in this situation will bet 99% of the time when they have raised preflop against the big blind only so the free card is not an issue. It's true that since the flop is two suited, your opponent might put you on a flush draw by your bet on the flop. Also, I don't see the merits of check-raising on the flop in this situation.
If an overcard comes on the Turn, I find this situation very difficult to play. In practice, I probably call about 60% if the overcard is not an Ace. I usually check and fold if the turn is an Ace.
For example, if the Turn is a Queen. What do you think is the best play? Check and fold or call? If you call here on the turn, do you commit yourself to a call on the river card if it's a blank? What if you decided to call on the Turn with that Queen on the Turn and a King comes on the River? Do you just have to check and fold the river now?
Thanks for any advice...
Check raising IS probably thew best play as there are many hands that he could have that could easily draw out on you that he would instantly fold.
After check-raising on the flop, do you still continue to bet the turn if overcards (to the flop) come on the turn? How about if an Ace comes on the Turn?
I am concerned that if you check-raise on the flop, you will find it difficult to continue betting on the turn when overcards come. Also, there is a possibility (since you are out of position) that you could be "outplayed" or moves put on you with a semi-bluff raise on the turn when you are "obligated" to bet the turn after check-raising him on the flop.
My feeling in this situation is that check and calling on the flop causes the preflop raise to lead the betting with a bluff if he has no pair. And losing the minimum if you have the worst pair at the moment. Hopefully, the turn card will provide you the flexibility to bet, check and call, or check raise if it's good for you. If the turn is bad, you can consider checking and folding. But if you check raise the flop...don't you "stick your neck out" out of position with the Turn card to come? What am I missing here?
I have to dis-agree with David here. I would bet right into him. First off it's a semi-bluff type of hand, it's heads-up, so you should be more aggressive. If he has a hand you'll know very quickly. You said you had A7 right? If he raises on the flop you can let it go. If he just calls I'd bet the turn no matter what comes. A check raise in this spot with a semi bluff hand doesn't make sense to me. I think David wants to see if anybody is awake out there.
Since as was stated your opponent will bet 99 percent of the time no matter what he has, it means that you are a big favorite to have the best hand, thus check raising is the correct play.
I would then lead on the turn no matter what hits. Since he is in a steal position, you do not need to fear the big cards as much since he could have anything.
It is very probable with that flop that the writer has the best hand. To me a check raise is almost automatic.If reraised the hand is well defined and a laydown is easy here. If he calls Iwould still bet the turn regardless of what card comes.I would really expect him to fold when I reraised however.
He says that the player bets 99% of the time, not that he bluffs99%. he also says that this player doesn't raise often pre-flop as a steal. I still bet into him. Anytime a player say 99% of the time probably means a lot less a percentage of the time than the statement. Again why try to get the extra bet into the pot. he could easily have AT, or a pair of nines. If he has over cards he still might call a check raise and win. Every time someone raises on the button, there is an automatic sense that, that person is stealing. Most of the time it is not true.
If i have 99 i am in terble situation.I bet it and get check raised what the big blind have:TT, 77, 22, T7, T2, 72, AA-JJ, Tx, 7x, 2x, flash draww, bluff? If it 7x or lower will he bet again? If it Tx or higer will he check raise again? Two ower cards fee-two flash on board.
Should you represent top pair with a bet on the turn if an overcard falls, having decided not to check-raise the flop? This semi-bluff still gives you five outs.
I think that there is a misunderstanding here. Since you probably have the best hand, you are not semi-bluffing.
There are enough hands better than a pair of sevens which would fold for a bet-out on the turn. The queen looks just as scary to your opponent if he's not holding one.
"You have A7 in the big blind and you call against the possible steal with what may be the best hand at the moment. Now the flop comes 2s-7c-Ts. I usually check and fold if the turn is an Ace."-FredAces.You going to fold aces up in this spot?
OOPS!!! I created this hand situation in my head for discussion to clarify some points on how to defend a type of hand in the blind against a possible steal raise. Of course, I would not fold Aces Up on the Turn!!
I meant you have a hand like K7 in the big blind and the flop is like 2-7-T and an Ace (some high card that you suspect may hit your opponents with his late position possible steal raise) falls on the turn.
Or you could have A7 in the big blind and same flop but a Queen or King falls on the turn (i.e. a high card). Sorry about the confusion...
Fred thank you. 10-20 tonihgt I get As8s in small blind. All fold to the buton.Buton-very agresive, selective, higer limit player raise. I call. Big blind call.Flop 9h,8d,3h. Almost like your post but three playrs pot.I check (if big blind bet and buton cal i'll call,if big blind bet and buton raise i'll fold,if big blind bet and buton fold or big blind check and buton bet i'll raise). Big blind check. Buton bet. I raise. Big blind call. Turn is an Ac(scare card have to help some body). I check. Big blind check. Buton bet(I put him on ace). I raise. Big blind call(I put him on flash draw).River 8h.I check. Big blind check? Buton bet.I raise. Big blind raise(ful house how big? 99, 33, AA?, 83, 98. flash?).Buton call. I raise. Big blind and buton call. Showdown As8s-me, 3s3c-big blind, AhQh-buton. Anybody see my, big blind or buton mistakes? Any coments welcome!!
Its a flUsh, not a flAsh! :)
Against the possible steal you should have re-raised to knock out the BB. Otherwise, well played, and you know it.
The BB was taking an awful chance checking the full house into someone who looks like they have just Aces Up. And slow playing all the way to the end is, well, ....
YOU surely do not have a flush after raising twice out of position, so the BB's re-raise and the button's double-call on the end were pretty hopeless.
You DID catagorize the BB as habitually "tricky", didn't you?
- Louie
You DID catagorize the BB as habitually "tricky", didn't you? She is not tricky she afraid to bet anything les than straigt. And will call whit any pair.
Where are the guys who answered the other problem? If you are disqualifying yourself because you read the answer ten years ago, I would be curious to know. Meanwhile at this point there is at least one answer posted that has beutiful reasoning but then somehow blows the solution. There is at least one other post with the right answer that has a small glitch in the reasoning. Combine them and you have your short and sweet perfect answer.
I don't have the time to think this through, and I don't remember seeing this question in print, but here goes:
The solution is to check and fold if your opponent bets. The reason is as follows:
The first player has a pat hand and is all-in, and betting to narrow the field serves no purpose. Both other players know this. Therefore, anyone who bets must be able to beat a pat hand, and should only bet if there is positive expectation.
Since the second player drew three cards, the third player knows he has a high pair, (why else did he call?). The only pat hand the second player could get is a small full house, a big full house, or quads.
The third player can not call a bet unless he can beat at least a small full house. Therefore, if the second player bets and is called, he loses. So the second player can't bet.
The mathamatically most likely pat hand for the second player to catch was a big full house, matching his big pair. Therefore, player 3 can not bet into player 2 unless he can beat a big full house. Player 2 would have called only with Aces, maybe Kings. Both players know this. Since player 2 has Aces, player 3 can't make Aces full. The only way player 3 can bet is if he has quads or a straight flush. Therefore player 2 must fold if player 3 bets.
It's possible that player 3 might consider bluffing a small full house, flush or big straight to make player 2 fold a small full house. However, player 2's most likely pat hand is a big full house and player 3 would be making a bad bet. Player 2 knows this and does not fear being bluffed off his small full house. Player 2 simply folds if bet into.
How'd I do?
I was out of town during the duration of the sesond contest problem, so I did not have the opportunity to participate.
However, it looked like great fun reading the threads when I got back.
By the way, David, how would you rate these first two problems on a scale of 1-10, where 1 is so easy that 90% of the people would get it right almost immediately, and 10 would be a candidate for a poker final exam problem.
Though I have two tiny bones to pick with the two winners, which I will explain shortly, there is little reason to go on. First realize that your opponent knows you have two aces. Second realize that there is nothing to be gained by betting less than a pat hand. Third is the fact that when aces improve to a pat hand or quads it is more than 80% to be at least aces full. Thus if you check, the one card draw should show down everything short of a straight flush. But if you bet he should fold everything but a straight flush since he is only getting three to one odds and is a bigger dog than that if you bet all your full houses. Thus you might as well bet your hand to bluff him out those times he makes a full. I think Jim Geary would have gotten this answer had he not blown the math on full house prices. Bob Davis should have gotten it based on his own logic but instead he just made it easier for those that followed him. Dennis did get it. I only wish he hadn't tried to get so deep which led him to a wrong statement regarding check raising with aces full. Louie's answer was almost perfect though he did have the benefit of reading the previous answers. His only flaw was when he said Hand 3 should raise randomly when representing a straight flush. In actuality those extremely rare raise bluffs should be randomly selected from among those times that he makes a decent sized full house in order to have th best chance to beat the all in man. (Actually, I really did not want the straight flush to be considered at all in this problem as it muddys the water somewhat.) Anyway quibbles aside I congratulate Dennis and once again Louie. Please contact Jessica for your books (and offer to let Bob borrow them.)
Not to quibble or anything, but could you explain why my answer was incorrect. Where does the logic fall apart?
If the correct and logical strategy is to bet even with a low full house, then the other player must know this also, so if he filled up, he's getting 3-1 odds to call. I haven't figured out the odds (and I don't even know if I know how), but I would think that the odds of you gettng a low full house given that he as gotten his full house is probably close to 3-1...thus a call would be marginal. Thus, you should not bet with deuces full.
Actually, my rough calculations show that it is only about .25% of the time getting an under-full, while 3.8% of the time getting aces full...if this is right, then your right....you gotta bet, and he can't expect that you have less than aces full, so he must fold.
You are right about the under full but wrong abbout aces full. Thats about .8%. Quads are about .3%. So its over 4-1 that he has at least aces full.
Wait a second...what about this:
If I get aces full, how can I bet? I know he can't call, so its worthless to bet, isn't it? (I know you would like to rule out the straight flush scenario, but it seems like the only way he will call is if he does have a straight flush...he can't call with a flush or a boat).
So, if I bet, it seems he must think I want to get him to fold a full house. If that's the case, shouldn't he call if I bet? As you said, its over 4-1 (but i assume not better than 3-1) that I have aces full, and a call is getting 4-1, and it seems likely that I'm betting an underfull, given that I have bet...because I would not bet aces full.
However, if its worth a call for him, then I must bet every time I get a full house, to entice him to call thinking I'm bluffing (because why else would I bet?). But, given that I have a higher prob. of getting aces full than an underfull, though, he will know that I know that he will call thinking that I'm bluffing, thus he will fold.
But then, if you know he must fold whenever you bet (unless he has a straight flush), then you might as well check, because it does you no good to bet aces full.
Knowing this, he will have to call. But if you know he must call, then you must bet aces full. But if he knows you must bet aces full, he will only call with a straight flush. So then you can't bet..... etc... etc... etc..
Seems like a viscious cylce of 'i know that he knows that i know that he knows that i know that he knows....etc.'.
It seems then that betting or checking and folding is pretty close since he will call you sometimes, and fold othertimes with a full house.
My brain is now mush.
If this situation came up 100 times you would bet all full houses just to keep him folding when you do have underfulls. A straight flush is so rare its pssibility can be ignored.
I would think that since Aces Full, Kings Full and quad Aces have a negative expectation if you bet--you're only going to be called (raised) by a better hand. The only value in betting these hands is to protect your under-fulls when you get them. Therefore, I would bet enough of the big hands so that my opponent is getting less than 3/1 on his calls.
There are 11 x 4 under fulls (kings full is just a strong as aces full of kings) =44 - 9 (three discards, assuming you didn't discard a king) = 35 under-fulls. You must therefor bet more than 105 of your big hands.
Aces Full accounts for 126 hands (144-(6x3)). Aces full of the value of your discards = 18 hands. 126-18=108 hands.
Therefore, you should bet Aces full, unless the pair is the same value as one of your discards, as well as all under-fulls. You should check all other pat hands. This seems to be the best strategy to follow, as you save a bet in the instances when he does have a straight flush.
Obviously, you can substitute for the hands you bet, so long as you bet over 105 hands to protect your under-fulls.
If you discard a king, 108 hands is the magic number.
You might even get away with betting a few less hands, as you will usually win with Queens-Full and Jacks-Full if he calls your bet.
Of course, checking these big hands only saves you a small fraction of a bet in the long run, as a straight flush is indeed rare.
If you always check he has no reason to bet his high full house, since he is a 4-1 dog whenever you are tempted to put any money in. If you tend to check Aces-Full then he certainly has no reason to bet.
While it appears betting Aces Full has no value, checking them also has none. BUT, Routinely betting them defines the equity for your bluffs with small full houses, and that's worth it. That's the only money to be made in this hand; besides his st8flash.
BTW, I occured to me that the opponent has a different situation when he makes xxxAA, since he knows, but you do not, that you cannot make Aces Full. Guessing: he should call with if x>4, and raise if x>7. This may affect the straight flush situation, but is too rare to affect the general solution to the problem.
- Louie
I see, so the reason to bet is to steal the pot when you have an underfull, and then you must also bet aces full. Since your opponent knows this, he knows you must bet if you have any boat, so he must fold since it is more likely for you to have aces full.
Maybe I did not comprehend the postings earlier, but it wasn't until the last Sklansky and Landale's postings that made it clear.
Thank you.
So in other words the clueless would make the correct play but for the wrong reasons, and the reasonably aware solid player(me) would make the worst play by calling the bet on the river. Ahh well no one ever said life had to fair. LOL
Oh I'm not implying that the winners were clueless,far from it, you took it two steps further than I should have. :)
Thanks!
I'm glad you liked my answer. In retrospect, my aces-full remark doesn't seem to make any sense, but I think that everything else is still OK, and I guess you do to.
Thanks for the interesting question, and I look forward to the next one!!
Dennis
(P.S. I asked Jessica for 7SFAP so I'll have something to do while I'm waiting to play holdem, since I already have TOP and HFAP.)
Hi,
I just got back from the Reno tournament, and as I said, was unable to amend my answer. While on the plane out less than an hour after I posted, as I was drifting into a nap, I realized that I had blown the math. Rather than try and explain the 2+2 forum to the pilot, I allowed the plane to continue forth.
As Steve Brecher is my witness, I mentioned this to him in Reno, and discussed having him amend my post, but I reconsidered because I didn't want to burden him just because he was the only person in Reno whom I knew that had web access, tho he was more than willing to do so. I know he'll be gone at the Four Queens tournament for a week or so and probably won't be able to attest to my veracity immediately, but even just name-dropping such a standup guy should put me all in for the book. :)
I hate whiners at the table as much as the next guy, so I'm not asking for anything. I just wanted to say I knew the right answer, but was unable to post it in time. Thanks.
I was playing in a no-limit hold'em game...only five handed...two seemingly solid players, one solid prop...and one guy that I thought was below par. I am the big blind...i get dealt J9 diamonds. (the blind is 2 on the button, 3 for small, and 5 for big...10 to get into the pot).
There is a raise to 20, 2 callers, I call.
Flop comes Q 10 8 rainbow, I have flopped the current nuts. The small blind (the prop) checks. I bet $100 into $80 pot. Guy to my left (solid player) calls, all else folds.
Turn is a 3 of spades, matching the Q of spades. I check....thinking that solid player, who is aggressive, will bet. At this point I have about $750, solid player has more. He bets $280.
What would you do? Call or raise all in? If you raise all in, what would you do if a spade or a pair came on the river?
For the record, I raised all in and he thought about it for a long time and folded. He claimed that he had a set, and put me on a straight. (I had played only 1 other hand in about 40 minutes...combination of playing tight and bad cards).
I think you made the right play. With your raise all in the pot was $1310 and he had to call $470 more. He was getting less than 3 to 1 odds and if he had a set and put you on a straight he had 10 outs or 4.6 to 1.
(I'm basing this response on my understanding of the discussion on odds in The Theory of Poker.)
Anthony,
If you have 10 outs with one card to come there are 44 cards unknown if you know your opponents hand. This means you have 10 outs out of 44 chances to win. This reduces to 1 out of 4.4 times you will win. Which is 3.4 to 1 against winning. When you win 1 out of 4.4 times it means you win 1 and lose 3.4. That is 3.4 to 1.
Another way to look at it is to say you have 34 losing cards and 10 winners. 34 to 10 reduces to 3.4 to 1. Good Luck.
Thanks for correcting my post, Ray. I realized the error while I was out this afternoon.
I guess you could say that as long as you bet more than $630 into the $560 pot (reducing your opponent's odds to call the $350 raise to exactly 3.4 to 1), he will be making a mistake if he calls, and you will gain accordingly.
On the other hand, I know that I couldn't make that precise a calculation at the table in the heat of battle (maybe some top players can), and perhaps the all in bet is the best approach.
Am I missing something here? A set could be the nuts! This raiser could be bluffing (doubtful, but possible) or have a wide variety of hands. Plus he can fill up, these combinations of possibilities make me want to call. If he can put you on a straight in this spot he plays too damn tough for me!
What you say is valid, but I'm just treating the question as a theoretical application of Sklansky's Theorem of Poker.
By betting at least $630 into the $560 pot, you are causing your opponent to make a mistake if he calls, since the pot odds are not sufficient for him to call the $350 raise. In the same way, if you had bet at least $120 into the original $280 pot (rather than trying the trap check), an opponent would be making a mistake by calling, since he would be getting less than 3.4 to 1 on his call. (In the latter case, I'm assuming you lay down your straight if the board pairs, so there are no implied odds on the river.)
In both instances, if your opponent calls he would be playing incorrectly compared to the way he would play if he could see what your hand was.
same players as before....I am on small blind this time. Big blind is solid player, UTG is below par player. I get dealt A3, unsuited. UTG makes it $10...I call, big blind calls. I have $1000, big blind has more and UTG has about $800.
Flop comes 10c 3c 3s.
I check, bb checks, utg bets $40.
What would you do here?
I raise $40. bb folds. UTG raises me all in....$700 or so.
What would you do?
I saw him hit a set of 6s in same position, and he came out betting $100 into a $50 pot. I also saw hime bet $400 into a $200 pot with a jack high flush on the turn. (he got rivered on the end as someone hit a boat).
So I figured "this guy is not afraid to bet a good/great hand...maybe he doesn't have the idea of trying to trap a player...this seems like it would be consistent with someone who does not play that well." So I put him on 10 10. I figure he can't have 10 3, since he called UTG, and he can't bet $700 into me with a pair, even if it was Aces since there are two 3s on board (I didn't think he was savy enough to make this play)....so the only thing he could have was 10 10 (unless he called with K3 suited, or something like that).
Anyway, given the flop of 10 3 3, the odds of him having 10 10 is .2% (3/47 times 2/46)...the odds of him having X3 is 2% (1/47). So I am a 10 to 1 favorite to be ahead...but he did bet $700 into a $100 pot.
I'm not sure if it was the right play or not...but I folded...one hand later, he revealed to me he had 10 10 (although, obviously he could've been lying).
What do you think of the fold? Would you have called?
( assume the having or not having the $700 is not going to change my life in any meaningful way).
Boy this is a tough one. Why did he overbet the hand by so much? He really wanted you out. If you had 10 10 would you have bet it that strong,do you know anyone who would?I think he was on the nut flush draw. I grit my teeth and call.
You made the right play. it appears that this player bets according to the rank of his hand. If it had been 4 of a kind he probably would have bet $1000.
I beat this guy in the pot and thank my lucky stars there is such a game called poker.
If he beats you he beats you.
Roy,
I don't understand your response. Do you mean you would call in this situation?
If so, could you explain why? (not that I disagree, but I would like your opinion).
T.P.
Yes, I would call.
You got a perfect flop, and there is only one hand that can beat you. Namely, 10-10.
If he has that hand he has that hand!
Why wouldn't he bring it in for a raise with pocket 10's? Why would he lead bet? Why would he over bet the pot $700? Too many why's.
Of course you must know your players and the situation, but, if you are good enough to get away from this hand in this spot (again I have imperfect information, no tells, playing styles, I know you said a little bit about his game but that isn't enough in real life. Situations can change drastically from one hand to the next!) then you play too damn well for me!
Looks like a good spot for a double up to me. If not, buy more chips and try again!
You can't win em all!
Well, I would've called. That seems to me the situation you wait for in no-limit. Opponent moves all in while you hold a hidden monster. If you can't go bust on a hand like that, I don't think you're playing right. I just can't imagine anyone with 10's full hammering that pot like you described. Bet's the flop (very unlikely), you play back, he jams instead of calling with position to let you hang yourself on the turn? Impossible. Him saying he had the tens tilts my thinking that way even more so, if that is mathematically possible.
Here are some of the hands he more likely held in my guess of order of likelihood:
Ax of clubs. (assumes your A isn't C)
Completely nothing.
A bad ten.
Two clubs, not ace.
A good ten.
A pair between 4's and 9's
A pair > tens.
A worse case trey.
Okay, tens.
Another ace trey.
My inability to correctly calculate the number of possiblities that this list enumerates is well documented here, but I already got tens at less than 1%.
Now, throw in the Bayesian spin "given that he played the hand this way," and we're talking celestial unlikelihood.
I'll wire the money and let you keep half if I'm right, bearing the full downside risk myself.
Regards,
Jim Geary
What do the big boys think? S , M, Z? I haven't seen a response from you guys....You guys may not play much no-limit or pot-limit, but I would still value your opinion highly.
Actually, on a separate note, it's this type of hand (and others) that makes me think No-Limit and Pot-Limit is at least more interesting than Limit, and possibly more difficult.
Normally, I would agree with you that since it is so unusual for someone to lead into the flop or make the gigantic raise, he is most likely not to have 10 10....and also I don't give much weight to the fact that he told me that he had 10 10.
However, he did lead into the flop when he flopped a set of sixes. I'm not sure if this is the right conclusion, but mine was that he is willing to lead into a pot with a monster.
I'm not sure if I did the right thing by folding, but it sure is more interesting than just another limit hand.
T.P.,
I haven’t played in a live No-Limit game too often but in NL tournaments I’ve been in situations where I had something like A,2 and the flop came A,A,3 a few times. I’ve bet all of my chips whether I was leading or if I was raising. This play may be wrong but in my mind I am hoping to fold better kickers if any exist. In your situation you are in much better shape imo. You’ve got to call.
Here is the way I look at his telling you he had a set of tens. If he had the set he would probably say he didn’t remember or lie about it in some way sometimes. Sometimes he might tell you the truth if he had the set. If he didn’t have the set of tens he would lie and say he did every time imo. If you didn’t have the set of tens would you tell the truth when you were asked? Lets say half the time he had the set of tens he would say he didn’t remember or some such. The other half he would tell you the truth. Since he said he had the set of tens odds are he didn’t.
Tom Haley
I agree..what you said makes sense....but this guy just seemed like a (excuse my language) 'doofus'. A guy in his forties, that looked like he had some money, and did not play very well. Fairly passive....I had never seen him in the 20-40 or 40-80 games.
I could very well be wrong, that's why I put out the question. I still don't know what I would do if confronted with the same situation....but I would defintely be more inclined to call than before. thanks for your input.
The following is a pot limit hand that I observed yesterday. Also I'll be a name dropper of sorts since he was involved the hand. The legendary Amarillo Slim is playing in this game and on this hand is in the small blind. Blinds are $5 and $10 dollars. The UTG player Jim(who was very recently featured in Card Player) straddles the big blind for $20 and it is live. Another player who I would call a very unorthodox player, raises the straddle by betting $80. Everyone passes to Slim who calls the $80 and Jim the live straddle also calls the $80. To put some perspective on this hand, the player who raised seldom raises before the flop. He is also a player that I would not call weak, he'll put his money in the pot and is not easily run off of a hand. Anyway when he raises like this it is very safe to put him on a very good, limited few hands. Something like Queens, Kings, or Ace,King. I know that Slim and Jim realize this as well.
Flop is Ac,5s,4s. It is checked to the pre-flop raiser. I would think that if he had Queens or Kings he should check. If he has a set of Aces he should bet the max. What about A,K? Anyway he bets $250 and Slim folds and Jim check raises by calling the $250 and raising $500. Should pre-flop raiser call, fold, or raise? Pre-flop raiser calls. The next card is the 8c and Jim pushes the rest of his money in about $420 and pre-flop raiser calls. Next card is a 10s putting 3 spades on the board. Jim turns over his hand and he is holding the A,9s giving him the flush. Pre-flop raiser has A,K. Did anybody play this hand right? If not how should it have been played?
Tom Haley
I would think that the bet on the flop is the right play to make...the preflop raiser wants to make it expensive for anyone to see another spade come up...and even though it is 2 to 1 that a spade will finally show up and a caller will get 2 to 1 odds, there's still a bet to be dealt with on the turn if the spade does not come up...so I think anybody calling (unless calling all-in or almost all-in) with a spade draw is probably getting a bit the worst of it (verus AK).
I think the raise is a bad one....if the preflop raiser is bluffing with KK or QQ, let him....its OK, because the raiser had the A9...let him continue to bluff....if he had A with better kicker or AA, then Jim still has some outs. I would call, and then check-call again on the turn (the turn being offered about $1100 to $400 odds).
But once he has check raised, I think its correct to bet again on the turn, because if he checks, he'll just have to call if the other guy bets. This gives him another chance to win if the guy backs off of AK. However, if Jim checks, and the other guy had KK or QQ, it would give him an out against Jims hand.
So overall, by my humble opinion, there was only one thing I would have done differently, which was the check-raise. I don't see that much merit in it.
Tom,
Maybe they should have, but these guys arent going to fold for a 80 dollar bet. When Jim hit ace and 4 spades he was committed to playing a big pot. If he is beat most of the time he will be a small dog to ace and a bigger kicker{12 outs}. By check raising he may knock out a smaller kicker than a king and win with the worst hand. Also why give a free draw to an unknown hand. A good player will not lose more to Jim if he cant beat him and can only cause trouble for Jim by maybe bluffing him out on the end. Jim also only had $1200 and that is not enough to get tricky with. Its one of those hands where 2 people are just going to get all in. Good Luck.
I think Jim should have raised more on the flop if he wanted to gamble with his 12 out hand. If I understand the rules for pot limit correctly:
1) when pre-flop raiser bets $250 dollars there is $500 in the pot.
2) therefore Jim can call the $250 and raise an additional $750.
This would have gotten Jim nearly all in on the flop. If his flush comes on the turn he doesn't have to worry about getting paid off. If pre-flop raiser would raise with his A,K on the flop (I would), Jim should lead with his hand I would think. If pre-flop raiser smooth calls then makes a big bet on the turn when Jim bets on the flop, then I suppose he could shut Jim out on the turn. It seems like a lot of times in pot limit, you would want to play your hand on the turn instead of the flop, when you are ahead, to try and shut your opponent out with one card to come. Does this make any sense? Anyway it was probably close between check raising and leading with Jim's hand with the caveat that he should have raised more.
The pre-flop raiser I believe had a problem in that his opponents have a pretty good idea as to what his hand is. I don't think the pre-flop raiser could win a lot of money from second best hands that were big dogs because his opponents would have little doubt about his holdings. Therefore when he bet on the flop, only the hands that should fold will fold. The only way he is going to get action if he is beatan or it is close. The obvious drawback is that he gives his opponents a free card to beat him. He could be faced with a tough decision on 4th if he checked on the flop. There are some advantages to checking the flop, however, his check could convince an Ace, weaker kicker they had the best hand or it could induce a bluff. Therefore I think he should have checked his A,K on the flop as crazy as that sounds. If he was a player that would raise with a bigger variety of hands pre-flop, the bet may be right because he would have a better chance to get paid off by a second best hand. I must be crazy but the pot on the flop seems pretty small to me given the size of the game and the amount of money the players had. Even though I said it, it seems crazy not to bet your A,K with the flop above. Just seems like the chances of getting paid off by a big dog are slim in the situation described. By the way, I'm not exagerrating about his pre-flop raising habits.
It is true, as Ray said, that this is a situation where the players almost always are going to play a big pot on the flop. While the A-K really can't be faulted for the pot-size bet (he wasn't trying to get paid off, he was trying to win what was out there), he should also consider a bet of maybe half the pot here (as noted by Ciaffone, if the opponent would fold to a pot-limit bet, he'd probably also fold to a 1/3 to 2/3 bet). In any event, the best play for the A-K is to maneuver the opponent with the flush draw into a position where he has to call a pot-size bet on the turn (assuming he doesn't hit the flush).
I couldn't resist posting one more thing after sending Earl an e-mail message about this game. This is another hand that the pre-flop raiser (Danny) was involved in. Blinds $5 and $10. Early caller, a raise to $40, and Danny cold calls $40 one seat away from the button. Button and blinds fold, early caller calls the raise. Flop is 8d,4d,2c (suits don't matter with this hand). Check to pre-flop raiser (Harold). Harold bets $120 dollars and Danny calls other player folds it is heads up. Next card off is a 6h and Harold bets $360 dollars and Danny calls. River card is a 9c. Harold bets $1000 but Danny only has $300 in from of him and calls. Danny confidently turns over his A,4o and Harold mucks while Danny is pushed the approximately $1600 pot. I guess it is hard to run Danny out of a hand.
Why should Danny fold if he feels he has the best hand and Harold will keep bluffing at the pot. A lot of money is made in no-limit and pot limit by picking off bluffs.
It appears that in this particular situation Danny felt that Harold had big cards and he played his hand accordingly. Danny didn't play back in case his analysis was wrong or scary cards came on the turn and river. When all appeared safe he paid it off. At some point Harold may also check, and Danny can then take a free card or bet. My guess is that he would have sensed the weakness and made a bet to avoid giving any free cards. From your description of the play I feel he would of called a $1000 bet if he had had that much money in front of him.
Your right, it is hard to run off the best hand.
Randy,
The thing I question by Danny, is getting involved by calling the raise in the first place with A,4o. I have a lot of respect for someone how can put their money in the pot, as Danny did, in the situation described in my latest post. When I originally posted about the hand where Danny had A,K I stated that Danny was not a weak player. What I meant was that you are not going to run Danny out of a pot simply by making a big bet at him. This latest post is evidence supporting that statement. Therefore when Jim check-raised on the flop in the original post, he had virtually no chance of running Danny off of a legitimate hand.
You're right Danny does make most of his money by picking off bluffs imo. Harold made a major mistake by trying to run Danny out of the pot. He should no better since he has played enough with Danny. Obviously Harold made some big mistakes on this play. Not taking into account how deep Danny was is a major mistake. When he bet the $1000 on the river he wasn't thinking about how deep Danny was. Harold was virtually handing away the last $300 to Danny. Nice guy and I'm sure Danny appreciates it.
Tom Haley
1-5 7-stud.I call 1$ whith (3s7h)4h.I get 3h. Check round. 5's street. I get Th. (??)x99 check. (??)x22 bet.I raise??? Should I do this is my main question. Pair of 9's fold. Pair of 2's call. 6's street-I get Jh and bet. pair of 2's call. River is blank.I bet. He call. If anybody see any mistakes on my or oponents part. Any coments welcome.
First of all, there are many stud games where I'll not call 3rd street with as weak a hand as you had. Not even for $1.
However, there are some games where I might take a shot with this. Having done so and catching a pretty good card on 4th street, I would have bet. I don't mind getting more money in the pot here but I also don't mind too much if I can run one or more opponents out.
On 5th street, I see nothing wrong with the raise as long as your hearts are still pretty live. 6th and 7th street bets are automatic in this situation.
Just my opninion.
Boris: I don't believe I would play (3s7h)4h. You catch 3h on 4th st, I would take the free card. On fifth st the 22 bets ($5?) into your 3-flush and I don't believe the pot is big enough to chase, but if you are going to play, the raise was much better than a call.
The biggest mistake was paying $1 to play the hand in the first place. Fred M.
One our local card rooms has a Hold'em jackpot over $70,000 now with a very difficult beat standard of Quad J's. Who knows how high this will eventially get.
I have never suffered the beats that I have taken this past week. Every game has at least three river chasers. Raising with good hands isn't the answer. It seems as if a number of players are playing crazy.
Should I give up this room (which up until recently has been good to me) until the bad beat gets hit? Or should I become extemely passive until the storm passes?
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
NO, and where's the room at.
No, didn't help much. Players Island in St. Louis is the room.
J.P. Massars "Limit Hold'em Query" post somewhat describes what I was refering to. The AAJ flop w/AK is typical of what I have been chased down with.
It has happened so often this past week that I couldn't determine if it is just a bad run or that with several chasers in each hand that someone is going to catch up.
Normally, chasers create profit opportunities. But also normally, there would be one and maybe two chasers max per hand.
Sounds like a great place to play!!! Lots of loose action. You're going to have a higher swing in your Profit & Loss, but overall, you should expect to make more (assuming you play ok).
If you stop raising with your good hands, you're just asking for it, in my opinion. You have probably run into one of those bad streaks where a higher than normal number of turns and river cards are nailing you. I personally LOVE river chasers, because when I win the hand the pot will be huge, and I am still going to win more pots than any given chaser. Don't expect to win anything like 50% of these pots, however. Of course, bluffing and semi-bluffing is out. Don't give up.
Can someone give me the best way to structure H.O.R.S.E for a home game? 1 unit to 2 unit betting structure. Mostly novices. I've never played this, or seen it played. I think this would be an excellent way to get different games played, but still keep a Casino feel. As you know from earlier Posts, I'm trying to turn these people on to Casino Poker.
Some other questions about structure of H.O.R.S.E..
1) Does each game go a Round the table before changing to the next game?
2) Does Stud and Razz have Blinds or a Bring in?
3) "H" is for Hold'em, "O" is for Omaha High?, "R" is for Razz, "S" is for Stud High, "E" is for Stud Hi/Low Eights or Better?
4) I don't think I should have an ante for any game.
P.S- Last night was the First Home game Night. We just played Stud High, but everyone had a good time. Thanks for the advice on "How to have a Good Home Game". Looks to be a regular event. Of course, I won alot of money from them. I did try to educate the players before hand on how to play well, but I think most just wanted to gamble. Hopefully, that attitude will change and they will want to try to play better. Allthough, my pocket book won't mind if they don't.
Chris
Chris,
Yea, one round of the table works well for horse type games. The O. could be for omaha split as well. You can put in or take out any games that the players do not feel comfortable with. Each game can have its own ante or blind structure. Stud type games have an ante and the high card or low card starts the action with a small mandatory opening bet. Ive played in home games where we just had the dealer ante for everybody on the hand. It works if all the antes or blinds are the same amount for each player. Dont win too much or you will soon be resented. Good Luck.
Except for family, my son for example, I would never try to educate a poor player in an attempt to make him or her a better player while still a regular member of that game. Some will never change their method of play regardless, and that is one of reasons you do good in your home game. And, I would not tell a person of poker books that I have read----Poker books?
20/40 Hold'em - I'm in the BB with A7o - one limper from early position, one from middle, and button calls. Flop is A J 9 rainbow - turn is 8. Two players are a little above average, the other is weak passive.
(1) Should I take a stab at the pot on the flop? If I do and get two callers, do I bet on the turn also? If I bet the turn and still get two callers - Then should I Check/Call on the River?
(2) Should I check and call on the flop if someone bets? (Broken Wing)
(3) Should I check and if they all check behind me - lead on the turn?
(4) Should I check raise on the flop?
(5) Are there better options that I'm over looking?
Bet the flop. If you get two callers, bet the turn. No-one raised before the flop so there is an excellent chance your aces are good. Why give a freebie? You will have to use your judgement if you get one or two calls on the turn. It all comes down to knowing your players and being able to evaluate the situation. Sometimes I will bet the river other times I will just check and call. Occasionally checking and folding. It is impossible to give advice concerning specifics without being there and knowing what kind of a game it is, or how people play. You have to know your man.
If I checked the flop it would be with the intention of folding, most of the time. I would raise if I felt someone was taking a stab at it or had Jack or smaller pair. Sometimes you know that nobody's got nothun, so you can check raise as a trap to win some bets from a speeder. Checking and calling is just too weak. You are putting yourself into the position of guessing. Make them guess. Besides, betting can gain you information. It is often very productive to bet to see how your opponent's react.
Poker is an imperfect game. Sometimes you will make mistakes and other times you will make the right move. Hopefully you will learn from your mistakes and each time this situation comes up you will improve your play.
I think you should bet most of the time on the flop.
The rest of the time you should attempt a check-raise (but don't try for the check-raise when it's the passive player who is on the button).
Checking with the intent of calling is a bad idea.
Your opponents are very likely to be out there with gutshot draws and/or middle/bottom pair (KT,KQ,QJ,JT,T9,98,87). The pot is small enough so that it is incorrect for them to be calling your bet, so check-raising is not terribly important, but not giving them a free card is.
Once the eight comes on the turn against two opponents I think you should bet and fold if raised. Your opponents should be as scared of the board as you are (after all, you are the BB, you could have anything) unless they've actually made a straight. If raised, you are either badly beaten or can easily be outdrawn; a Ten is a pretty sick out, not worth wishing for. Just give it up.
You've recently sat down in a 10-20 game in Los Angeles. You've been playing about 20 minutes.
The game basically consists of 4 ethnically unidentified people of the same ethnicity who are playing pretty much every hand, and 5 ethnically unidentified people of the same (but different than above) ethnicity who are playing almost no hands.
There's been a good amount of raising preflop since you sat down, and you've folded pretty much every hand either before the flop or on the flop, except for AA, which you raised preflop, got heads up, and had to show on the river when called.
You find AK off in early position, raise, and 3 of the people who are playing almost every hand cold call your raise, (one being in the BB) Everyone else folds.
The flop comes AAJ. The BB checks. What do you do, and why?
(I will relate what I did, and what happened, later)
FIRE......and if raised, re-raise. Play this hand as aggressively as possible as long as you feel you have the best hand and the turn and river come stiff stiff. Otherwise, just pay it off. I find that most California games consist of many over-aggressive players and this situation is when you can punish them badly. My motto in California is absolutely NO free cards. Never miss an opportunity to bet or raise if you have a good hand. As aggressive as these kinds of players are, they will take free cards if they missed.
I`ll bet it . In the game you described they will call you all the way to the river
I would check if I thought they would all go out on 4th street when I bet again. If they will call or raise I would bet it out and call all raises or reraise and pay it off if I am beat. Free cards are not as dangerous here as they revolve around your king. Since they are callers why give free cards and lose a betting round unless you can make it up later or they may bet the hand for you. By the clue you give I bet you checked it and some suck out hand got you.
The above mentioned strategy for most California games is Absolutely correct. In some house games down in Dallas and East Texas different situations come up. But if Ray Zee says play it that way Play it that way.
Larry,
Of course you must change to fit the style of play in the games you are currently in. If you are any relation to my friend the great Bob Hooks from down there, you inherited the most important skills. If not read the books and get them by hard work. Good Luck.
You did not specify if there was an AJsuited on the flop. In any case there is a gut shot straight draw out there so I would bet my hand. If raised, I would reraise or call. But I would definitely go to the river with this hand. If there were no draws, I would check this hand and induce a bluff on the turn. Spidey
Bet.
This sounds like the kind of game where your hefty profits are made on the pots that go nuclear that you take down. Checking rarely builds one of these pots. If you wait til 4th street, opponents start losing some of the imaginative possibilites of hands they could make, as well.
They expect you to bet no matter what you have, even 99.
Bet and ReRaise on the flop. Lets get some money in there. Expect to get raised with AceUp, but NOT a set, as they like to slow play, hehehe, and don't know its obvious.
If called consider check-raising on the turn. The check appears consistent with someone who will automatically bet on the flop, and agressive ethnically neutral people like to try to bluff a tight player out of the pot.
Play straight forward unless you have a specific reason to do otherwise.
- Louie
If you bet with one hand be sure to raise with the other. Your hands will feel neither abused nor neglected, and the unidextrous people won't get offended. :)
OK. Here's what happened.
I bet, everyone folded.
And by the way, there was no flush draw possible on the flop.
Thanks to Ray Zee for pointing out that in this situation, I needed fear a free card less than I thought, because I had a King, and either someone else would need a King or a King would have to come (hee hee) to make their gutshot broadway.
This is the kind of situation where it can be very easy to feel stupid. You bet, everyone folds. You check, someone picks up a draw or makes their gutshot, you don't improve, and you spend the next hour mulling over how mathematical catastrophes become real nightmares.
But in fact the reason I made this post was of a completely different theme.
There was a fairly long post on RGP a few weeks ago which described how ethically similar (but otherwise unidentified) people at a poker table will give action to each other when they are involved in a pot among themselves but are aware enough not to give action to others, especially those they perceive as tight. Thus observations of how these people are playing are colored, and one may feel a game is better than it really is.
My gut feeling was that this was an example of that phenomenon. Had the preflop raise come from one of them, not me, there probably would have been action to the river.
After playing in the game for 1/2 hour I concluded that the game was not nearly as good as it first appeared because of the above, and left.
Conversely, one sometimes observes two retirees left alone after the flop, checking the hand down by mutual agreement through the river.
In a typical hi-limit stud game, big ante structure, the following happens. A Queen, first to act, raises, you next call with KJ6 (6 up) suited, and a 7 calls in late position. All others fold. (Both opponents are reasonable, Q probably has QQ, but could have high 3 flush or buried pair; 7 probably has drawing hand 3 flush or 3 straight with 2 flush, but could have A77.) On 4, Q catches offsuit 8, you catch a K, making a pair of kings, and 7 catches an offsuit Ten. You have 3 reasonable strategies: a)bet out, b)ck with intention of raising, c) ck with the intention of calling on 4, but trying for ck/raise on 5th when the limits double. I'm pretty sure a is wrong, although you feel silly when they both check behind you. I'm not sure between b and c, even though this type of situation occurs all the time. It is possible that one choice is clearly correct and should be the standard play in this situation, but it is also possible that the two choices are so close that other factors (discards, caliber of opponents, game theoritical mixed strategy) should be primary reasons for your choice.
In 7studFAP it says the best play is check-raise to eleminate 7T.
Steve,
I would want to get rid of one of the hands and try to set up the best way to do it. If I thought they both had pairs then playing weak to the q's may be right until 5th st. If I thought I could knock out the 77a hand a check raise on 4th st. would be my play. Right now the kj6k is in great shape but does not have good scare card possiblities. Meaning on 5th st. not many cards can come to scare the field so it becomes in this case you will get more action and it will be easier for them to figure out your hand. This is a hand where you will be soon taking control of the betting, playing till the end unless someone pairs their door card, and praying you improve or dont get sucked out on. Steve is probably right in that some of the early decisions are about equal in strength. This is where you need to have a good feel for your opponents and how they may play then base your playing strategy on that information. Good Luck
In the high ante structure, since you have a king overcard it might be best to reraise on third street and get it head up right there. This would be especially true if an ace had folded, and your king must be live.
I have a tendency to bet in this spot for these reasons:
1. J-7 might fold, especially if he has a king in the hole.
2. One or both might both fold on 5th st.
3. I can try for a check raise on 5th if I feel the one guy really does have queens (or a big pair) and try to eliminate the other guy that way. By betting on 4th and then checking ,some players will mistake this for a green light.
4. I might catch a jack and then I will be glad I bet.
5. I might catch another king and then I will be glad I bet because they will probably both fold and I will have picked up two bets.
6. I might pair my door card for the same reasons as above.
I too desperately want to try and eliminate a player and I also agree with Mason about re-raising on 3rd. st. (which I would probably do 75% of the time.) Yet I hate it when they both check behind me (as Ray said) so I bet and try to evaluate the situation as it unfolds. Unless I'm SURE the two queens will bet.
How do you play in this situation Steve. I'm sure you have as much experience in these types of games as anybody. I have only played with you a couple of times but it seems to me that your insight would be as enlightening as anyone's.
By the way, how did you play the hand and what eventually happened. Or was this just a hypothetical.
(??)K raise on 3 street. I call whith (5A)5. Evrybody else fold. I get an ace. (??)K get a king. She bet. What shold I do?
Since she got a King on fouth street, it's more likely that she started with a pair in the hole, three flush, straight draw (high cards), or she was stealing on third street (you didn't mention the other up-cards or her poistion). There's a small chance she has Aces-up.
You could raise to see if she'll re-raise. But that would be announcing the strength of your hand (and she'll know when you make a full house or better). If she was on a steal, flush draw, or straight draw, she should give it up. If she was on a hidden pair, your probable Aces up should force her to fold, but she might call for 1/2 bet to see fifth street. If she has trips, she'll probably let you take the lead and come back at you on sixth street. The same thing with quads. If she does re-raise it might be with Aces-up, trips, or Kings-up.
If you just call, you're saving 1/2 bet if she has trips or quads. If she has Kings-up, you're saving her 1/2 bet. If she was on a draw, you're giving her a cheap card to improve her draw to four cards. If she was on a steal, you're giving her a cheap shot at Kings-up, which might tie her on until the end.
If you fold, you're giving up the probable best hand.
I'm planning on seeing this hand to the end if she doesn't improve.
Having said all that, your upcard Ace on third street should have discouraged her from trying to steal the pot. Again, I don't know her position, upcards, or how she plays. Given the limitations of this problem, I'll assume that there's a small chance that she was on a steal.
While not more than 50%, there's still a good chance she has trips.
Giving a cheap card to a drawing hand is risky, but you have outs yourself.
Therefore, I think the best strategy is to just call on fourth street, and bet if she checks on fifth street. If she bets on fifth street, raise if she catches a suited card to her first King or another high card. If she doesn't seem to improve, just call her bet with the intention of raising on sixth street if she doesn't seem to improve there.
If you get re-raised when you raise, you're probably in trouble, but have some outs.
There is a school of thought that believes you should always throw away a stud hand when someone pairs their doorcard on 4th street (barring a set of trips yourself). However, this is one of those situations where you *may* be ahead. If you can find out, play on. Still, if it is a nothing pot, you may wish to not contest the issue.
I think the answer depends heavily on what you think the player may have and whether you have good control over the player. If she is a tight and timid player, I would put her on trips since she raised on 3rd street. In this case, I would fold. You are a big dog to chase KKK with AA55 on 4th street with little money in the pot. However, if she is likely to steal in this case or if she raises a lot on 3rd street with different cards, I would immediately raise her. If she reraises, and she is not tricky enough to reraise with KK or KK's up (most people are not since they're now afraid that you might have AAA or 555 since you raised into open KK), then I would fold my hand. If she doesn't raise and checks to me on 5th street, I would bet on 5th. To take it one step further, if she check raises you on 5th street, I think you can also be pretty certain that she has KKK, and you should fold. Even then, there isn't enough money in the pot to chase KKK.
A similar situation happened to me a few weeks ago. I had split AA4. A weak, loose player called with a K before me, and I raised. Everybody folded and he called. One 4th street, we both caught blank. I bet and he called. On 5th street, I caught AA44X, and he made open KK. He bet. Since he was equally likely to have KK's up or KKK or even only KK, I raised him. He reraised me immediately, and knowing the way he plays, it was very clear to me he had KKK. I folded my hand. Sure enough he showed me KKK.
I think that in general when you encounter a situation like this when you're not sure if the player has trips or two pairs, and you have a better two pair, you should raise. On the one hand, if you have the best hand, you get value out of your raise. Many players would find it too difficult to fold KK's or even KK in that spot, at least not immediately (if the player had to call a raise earlier, it's more likely that he has KK's up or some other good draw; and therefore, he's likely to pay you off). With the raise, you get more value with a better hand. On the other hand, if the opponent has trips, he will usually come back with a reraise immediately. In this case, you can fold and save yourself money. (although the raise costs you two bets, if you called him to the river, you would spend three bets. Obviously, the earlier you find out, the more money you can save.) Granted, all this analysis hinges on the assumption that you have a good read of your opponent and a good prediction of his action. If he is a player you don't have good control over, and you think he might be someone who will come back with a reraise with only KK's up or KK for deception, then this play loses value. In this case, you probably just call if you suspect he doesn't have trips.
One counter argument I've heard regarding this play is that your opponent who holds open KK but do not have KKK will be tempted to bluff you, possibly all the way; and therefore, you gain more by just calling and letting him bluff, assuming the he would fold if you raised. I think this argument makes sense if your opponent fits this bluffing type. However, I would only call if this is a very aggressive bluffer, and is apt to bluff on continuous rounds. I think many players become wary enough of your call of the open KK's that if that's all they really have, they might stop bluffing, and therefore, you'll have missed a chance to raise and get the extra bet out of him when he was most likely to call the raise. On the other hand, if he has KK's up, most players will pay you off even with your raise.
ps.
If your opponent is equally likely to have KK's up or KKK, and you have AA's up, if the pot is large enough (usually is on at least 4th street if there was a raise on 3rd), folding is wrong. KKK vs. AA55 is 80% vs. 20% on 4th street; AA55 up vs. KK99 up is 76% vs. 23%. These hands are similar enough in relative strength that a small amount of dead money makes calling a break-even play (this is not even counting the possibility that your opponent may have only KK). I think, clearly, calling is the superior strategy to folding when these two scenarios have equal probability of occurring.
However, given that I believe that with a raise you can earn more when you have AA55 vs. KK99, and lose less when you have AA55 vs. KKK than in the case of simply calling, I think raising is the best strategy.
Thacks kathy you are stud expert. But I do not belive in raising for information. This discusion bring us to the matematecal problem. - If somebody get an open pair on 4's sreet and we know this player start whiht a pair how many times he will have trips and how many times he will have two pair??
Boris,
I think this goes back to the question of what hand you put your player on. I agree that in many situations it's not worth it to chase a possible trip, and I routinely fold into open door card pair. I would only make this raise if I have a very strong hand myself, like AA55, and I do not believe the opponent has trips. Otherwise, I think it's too much to give up.
Kathy
If a player has a pair 2 times out of three it will be of their door card rank. Once you SEE another of that rank there are half as many combinations of pairs available, so the player is now even money to have started with that rank.
So an opponent KNOWN to have started with a pair and then pairs their door card is 50:50 to have a set. But his is an unrealistic scenario since you never KNOW they have exactly a pair.
You should not have called with A55 unless you figured there was a reasonable chance this player did NOT start with KK. So lets suppose you figured her likelyhood to have KK was 60%, or 40% not to have KK.
Well, seeing the new king means she started with such a pair half as often, or 30%. Compared to the original 40% you are a 4:3 favorite to have the better hand, or 57% (the number of "other" possible holdings hasn't increased, but the number of possible "Kings" holdings has reduced).
If you are beat you have a 4 card out vrs the 3 kings and a 2 card out vrs the (future) Ks Full. If you have the better hand then she has either 2 or 4 cards to beat your AcesUp and either 2 or 0 cards to beat your full house. The KKK will make a full more often than AA44.
If the original 60% was sound then I'd say you are a small favorite. If the original 60% was noticeably too high they you should have re-raised on 3rd. If the original 60% was noticeably too low then you shouldn't have called the raise on 3rd street (except against certain rare desirable opponents).
- Louie
Louie for one raise i thinck ican call i have pair and overcard.
If you know someone started with a pair and then paired their doorcard it is not 50% that they have trips. What you do is compare two probabilities. The probabability of starting with a buried pair and then hitting your doorcard is 1/3 x 3/49 = 3/147. The probabability of staring with a non buried pair and then hitting your doorcard is 2/3 x 2/49 =4/147. So of the seven out of 147 times that you pair your doorcard when you start with a pair, four of those times you will have trips. The probabil;ity of trips is 4/7. As for the original question the proper play will almost allways be to simply call all the way. The only exceptions would be against very tight players who must have trips or very timid players who will never reraise bluff.
I see your 4/7 point.
Is it also 4/7 if the K raises and I can see another king on 3rd?
It looks like my 57% figure is also wrong?
- Louie
If he is 60% to have started with two kings, then he is exactly even money to have trips if he pairs his doorcard. This is because 60% x 2/49 is equal to 40% x 3/49. Getting back to 3rd st. If you see one other king (and pretend you see no other cards), the number of ways he could have a buried pair is 6 x 12 =72. The number of ways he could have a pair of kings is 2 x 48 =96. This makes him 4/7 to have kings rather than a buried pair. If he then goes on to pair his doorcard, you compare 4/7 x 1/48 =4/336 with 3/7 x 2/48 = 6/336. So if you know he will raise with any pair and one of his doorcards is out and he then proceeds to pair that doorcard, it is now only 4out of ten that he has trips.
I have (88)8 in late position. (??)J raise UTG. Two calers. (??)K raise. I call. I get blank. (??)J get J. (??)K get K. Two others catch blancks. (??)KK check? I check. (??)JJ bet. Pepole in midele fold. (??)KK raise! What shold I do?
Since they both acted like they had pairs on third street you have to give at least one of them trips. One might have the other's pair in the hole, but both? Too bad you didn't raise the Jack out (or try). You're history. You only have four outs on fifth street.
If you do call they'll put you on trips so there's no secret if you fill or make quads.
If these are normal players, I would rate your chances of being in the lead at this point at less than 1%. You might fill up but so might one of them, and there are two of them. On the other hand if they have 'teamed up' on several hands before this, and the stakes are low, I would check and call the hand down and demand to see their hole cards.
They can not 'teamed up' one of them is my frend. We came to casino togeder, but if they are what is frendship. Stakes was 1-3.
I just had a chance to look at the second contest problem posted by Sklansky. As usual, the problem is stimulating and worth thinking about. Although Sklansky's answer cannot be two far off from the actual optimal strategy, I believe that the problem is much more complicated than it appears to be. There are three cases, each of them is negligible individually. However, together they can make a substantial difference. Here is my analysis based on the assumption that all players involved are solid. Call the player with AA player A, the player drawing one card player B and the tab player with a pat hand player C. 1. With the potsize before the draw and a tab hand, it is reasonable to say that no player would get into it with a 4-straight draw or even 4-flush draw, the pot odds (or implied odds) is not quite enough for such a hand to get in at the first place. Therefore it is reasonable to say that player B has either 2 pairs or a hand with open-ended straight-flush draw. 2. What about player B has a quad ? I have to admit that I am not familiar with this game. But let's assume that player B does not raise with a quad before the draw (which seems quite reasonable). Then player B will draw one card in this case for deception purpose. 3. Player B could have two small pairs with an Ace kicker ! This happens with prob. around 2/42 among all the 2-pair cases. In this case player B knows that the prob. that player A gets Ace-full is much smaller, and it is profitable for player B to call the bet all the time. (I have not done the actual calculations yet, but a very rough estimate indicates that already).
To summarize, the prob. that player B has a pat quads or a straight flush among all the completed hands (full-house, quad, straight-flush) in this case is certaintly not negligiblebecause player will certaintly raise with these hands and hence bluff with other hands. That combined with the prob. that player B has 2-pair with Ace kicker will certaintly affect player A's strategy, and I believe a randomly mixed strategy is certaintly needed for this problem, which may reduce the betting frequency to 80%. An acurate analysis can be carried out using matrix games. I will spend some time on this over the weekend and let you know about the result if I succeed in this. If I do come up with a better answer(not too close to David's answer), will I get a book ?
While it may not be good poker to call a bet before the draw with the 4-flush, David's problem specifically stated that "you know that it is about equally likely that he has two pairs or a flush draw." However, that is irrelevant, as he won't call your bet with only a flush.
Making a accurate analysis will be complicated, as the exact cards discarded by player A will effect the chances that player B started with a straight-flush draw.
I reccomended that player A bet less than all his over-fulls/quads. The exact percentages were 60% if a King wasn't discarded, and 66.3% if a King was discarded (Kings Full of Aces is equivalent to Aces Full). However, this did not take into account the straight-flush possibilities or the Ace (Aces) in your opponent's hand possibilities.
If your opponent has both your other Aces, then you can only make under-fulls. This is so rare that you don't fear it--he probably won't fill up anyway (he'd only have two outs *if* his pair is bigger that your trips).
If your opponent discarded an Ace (2/43 times if he has two-pair), then you can not make quads and your overfulls are almost cut in half. If you knew this, you would not come out betting with an under-full, as there are not enough over-fulls to protect the under-fulls from a call. However, you don't know this.
You could reduce this risk by betting a few more hands than you would otherwise.
You can also reduce this risk by checking when you have Queens Full. Other than Kings Full, you fear no other hand when showing your hand down. At the same time, you reduce the odds for your opponent's call when you're betting out.
Whether you bet a few more hands, or check a few under-fulls, I doubt you have to bet as much as 80% of your over-fulls/quads to protect your under-fulls. I'm guessing the number to be around 63/70%, depending whether you discarded a King (if you bet all under-fulls, less if you check with Queens Full).
As far as a straight flush is concerned, I don't think it changes the percentages much, maybe a percent or two.
As far as a bluff raise is concerned, simply call with all your over-fulls/quads. The times that he raises with a full house he's probably beat--and the pot odds aren't there for him (he betting 20 to win 30 with at best a 3:1 chance to win.). The straight flush is so rare that calling when he raises with it is worth it to prevent him from stealing back with his full houses.
This is very impressive analysis. However I would never pose a question that required that much detail. I should have specifically said that there was no straight flush draw to eliminate these extra fine points. It is also true that the odds were not good enough to call with a four flush since the opener was all in. Maybe there was an extremely loose player yet to act. This question was meant to illustrate some fairly difficult yet clear cut poker principles that all should be able to understand Thus I think it would be counter productive to achieve a degree of rigor that was obviosly not intended.
> I appreciate Sklanski's intention of simplicity of
> the contest problem and agree with Gorge's view that
> a complete analysis of the problem is too complicated.
> However, since this problem does bring up some interesting
> mathematics, I would like to pursue this issue a little
> bit furthur. Among player B's all completed hands
> (full-house, quads, straight-flush), straight-flush
> only accounts for about 0.1%, by my calculation.
> Similarly the chance that player A completes to a four
> Aces is tiny. So let's ignore these two cases
> (The two cases also offset each other). Let's not get
> into the analysis of the discarded cards, since it
> becomes far too complicated. Then we can restrict
> player B's completed hand into either a full-house
> (completed by drawing one card to two-pair), or
> a pat quads. Player A either completes an Ace-full
> or a small-full, and we assume that small-full accounts
> for about 20% and it is always a loser against
> player B's completed hand.
> My calculation shows that the prob. that player B has
> quads is about 5.6% among all the completed hands.
> It is reasonable to assume
> that player A will not try check-raise, since it is not
> profitable in this case. Syntax error, missing operator or `;`
> Now player A has the following 8 options:
> 1. bet and fold to a raise with any hand;
> 2. bet and fold to a raise with Ace-full, check and fold with small-full;
> 3. bet and call a raise with Ace-full, bet and fold
> to a raise with small-full.
> 4. bet and call a raise with Ace-full, check and fold with small-full;
> 5. check and fold with Ace-full, bet and fold to a raise with small-full;
> 6. check and fold with any hand;
> 7. check and call with Ace-full, bet and fold to a raise with small-full;
> 8. check and call with Ace-full, check and fold with
> small-full;
> Player B has the following 6 options:
> (with quads,B always Raises if A bets, bets if A checks;
> With a full-house hand:
> 1. raise A's bet, and bet if A checks;
> 2. raise A's bet, and check if A checks;
> 3. call A's bet, and bet if A checks;
> 4. call A's bet, and check if A checks;
> 5. fold if A bets, and bet if A checks;
> 6. fold if A bets, and check if A checks.
>
> Now we can formulate this problem as a matrix-game
> problem and work out the payoff matrix. Each entry in
> this 8x6 payoff matrix corresponds to the average payoff
> to player A with respect to a particular option of A and B. For example, the (1,1)-entry in this matrix is -10.
> Soving this matrix-game, I obtain the following optimal
> strategies for player A:
> The player A uses option 1,3,5,7 with frequency
> 15%,60%,8%,17% respectively, and never uses options
> 2,4,6,8. It means player A should always bet with
> small-full, but only bet Ace-full 75% of the time.
> It should be pointed out that although this optimal strategy is quite different from Sklansky's answer since Sklansky's answer does not take the quads possibility into consideration, however, the optimal strategy does not bring too much extra profit over the simple strategy of using option 3 all the time. The expected value for player A using optimal strategy is 18.09. Using option 3 all the time, he gets 17.87.
Now, for those of you interested in this type of problems, I propose the following modified problem. As before, we restrict player B's completed hand to be either a quads or KKKQQ or QQQKK. Then quads accounts for about 20% and full-house accounts for about 80 %. (This is achieved by restricting player B's hand before the draw to be either a quads, or KKQQx so that player A's small-full is certaintly a loser.) What are the optimal strategies for both players in this model ?
Player A should still bet all full houses, since B cannot call with ANY of His; not getting the right odds. 80% of time A wins the pot with the lesser hand, and $20 loses this one bet. Good bet.
B should RAISE with a few full houses as bluffs (calc skipped), and A should take the standard defensive calling frequency as previously noted, passing all the small full houses and calling with only (most of) AcesFull.
- Louie
Any Straight Flush, Quad Aces, B making xxxAA, or B discarding an Ace does not change the basic 'bet all full houses' strategy for A and, but DOES change how well it does and how often B raises.
By way of introduction, I am not an expert hold'em player. I do have about 4000-5000 hours of poker experience lifetime, but I now can only play on trips to casinos (6-8 times a year) and have less than 300 hours of hold'em play. I have read everything S & M have put out on the game at least twice except PE II by M which I just bought. All this being said, I do a lot of thinking about this game and have some (hopefully original) ideas. Recently I was playing in my favorite loose passive game at 4-8. I was dealt 4s-5c on the button. UTG called and 4 others called. Since the blinds were the type to raise only with the very best hands, I called. Little blind folded, BB waived. The flop was Ah-Td-5s. UTG bets out, the 4 call. With 12 bets in the pot and 8.4-1 against improving, I called. BB folded. The turn is the dream card - 4c. A five might not be as good because these guys would call before the flop with J5, Q5, or K5. UTG bets again, 3 call 1 folds, I raise. They all call! Uh oh. I'm thinking there must be 2/3 of the deck will beat me. River is 7s. They all check. In my fright combined with the thought that I will only be called if I am beaten, I show my hand and they all muck their cards. On the drive home I start to think about this hand. How many possibilities did they have to beat me after the turn? The worst set of opponents hands I could invent was 3-6,6-7,JT, and A9. 24 of the remaining 38 cards beat me. In the actual hand 3-6 was impossible because of the river card, so change that to 3-4 and you have 20 total outs for the opposition. More likely scenarios produce 15-18 total outs, so I was still the favorite (assuming I was in the lead) against 4 callers! Further, since I would have probably been called by lesser hands, all my thoughts at the table were wrong. The reason I bring this up is that DS (I think) has pointed out that as the number of callers goes up, your odds of winning decrease even to the point where a hand might be unplayable. This would be almost impossible in hold'em because there is only one board and players will often be drawing at similar hands. Suppose a situation where you had AK and the flop was A89 with two suited cards. You bet and get two callers. If one is on a flush draw and the other on a straight draw, their maximum total outs is 15, and your chance of winning the pot is still 42% or 1.39 to 1. Also you will often know to dump the hand, decreasing potential losses. Any thoughts?
In games where opponents not only play too many hands but go automatically go too far with their hands I don't play hands like 5-4 offsuit, even on the button. In these type of games suited hands and pairs go up in value, hands like yours go down.
You probably should have bet on the end.
You are paranoid about making trips for fear of your kicker enough that you prefer to make 2-pair. You are paranoid when you hit your small two pair, and rightfully so. You are paranoid that when you catch "perfect" and "much better than average" (the 4 and 7) you don't want to bet on the end. It SOUNDS like YOU feel you are only going to win this pot 1/2 the time you improve, if even that often.
After looking at it this way, now how do you feel about your "12 bets in the pot and 8.4-1" to IMPROVE? It looks more like "12 bets in the pot and 18.3-1" to WIN THE POT. Not so good a call on the flop, considering what you are .. err .. will be .. conserned about on the turn.
Unless you are playing by rote a situation in the 2+2 books, you have no choice but to trust YOUR judgment. No matter the real odds, if YOU will be this paranoid then YOU should NOT have called on the flop. You are DEAD MEAT if you don't trust your own judgment.
Look ahead, decide, and go with it.
- Louie
On a secondary note: I agree that your paranoia is justified (except the trips) when added to the chances your two-pair is already beat. That's a REAL tough call against all those players. You'd be much better off if only one or two called.
Yes, it looks from my description that I was paranoid, but it wasn't so much paranoia as it was rust. When you don't get to play regularly, it takes a certain amount of time just to reach the level of play you achieved on the Sunday of the last weekend you were able to play. Improvement, therefore, comes slowly. If I had been playing regularly my $8 would have been in there in a split second. Your point about the 18.3-1 is not accurate, however. If I don't hit on the turn, I'm out of there. If I do hit, it is unlikely anyone else did, so then the consideration is how many chances do my opponents have to beat me (the real point I was trying to make) and the conclusion is they have only about a 40% chance which is counterintuitive. Add a few percentage points for hitting a five that comes second best and the odds of winning the pot are about 12-1. But the implied odds are much greater. Even without the bet on the river, my net profit on this pot was $103. ($132 pot, $24 of it mine, $4 rake, $1 toke.) That's 24.75 to one.
My point was that if you look ahead and don't like it then don't call now. That's easier said then done.
But it looks like a good call if your assumptions are correct. But with just one over pair your chances are only about 75% to win. 3 more callers are likely to drop it down below 60%. But that's another story.
If you really are rusty each week may I suggest you keep notes of interesting hands this week and review and analyze them BEFORE the game NEXT week. Review the styles of your likely opponents or re-read a 2+2 chapter, and you should be pretty much un-rusty by game time.
- Louie
I already do what you suggest. But when it is 6-8 weeks between games, you still lose something. I play a lot of tournament bridge and anytime I have a layoff like that, my game drops off considerably. I'm not "match tough". As is pointed out in the 2+2 books, reading is not enough. You need experience, and the reason for that is 'situation recognition'. Without steady play, situations that you read about (or even pre-plan) will occur, and you may not recognize them quickly enough. However, sometimes you do. I recently was in a typical-to-tough 10-20 game. Five players saw the flop in an unraised pot. The flop was Jd-Td-4s. I don't remember what I had, but this flop missed me completely. As I was mentally preparing to muck the hand, the first 3 players checked to me. With only the button left, I took a stab at the pot. The button raised. The other three folded. Since I knew the button was a regular and a pretty good player I figured there was a 60-75% chance he was going for a free card, so I called. Blank on the turn, bet and call. Blank on the river, bet and fold. Of course, as I later found out in my 4th or 5th reread of HEPFAP, the better play is to raise on the flop, although in their example you actually have something and try to induce a bluff on the river. Since I was bluffing, checking on the river is out of the question, unless you're playing a VERY deep game. The real point is that my plays like this will be less frequent than a "match tough" player will find.
HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS also warns against trying to bluff at pots that contain a jack-ten on board. Your example is even worse since it is alos two suited.
I was going to argue with you about this on the basis that I was only bluffing against one player and therefore had more than the 20% chance required for the bluff to succeed. Then I remembered that a few weeks ago I pulled a JT suited out of a deck and ran through the deck two or three times looking at three cards in succession as flops. The percentage of flops that hit JTs (straight draw, flush draw, tens, jacks) was over 50%. This surprised me. What this means is that if the button had not raised one of the players in front would likely have called. (Especially since I had already established that I was not the second coming of Johnny Moss.) So in fact the button raise was probably the only way I was going to win. Incidentally, when he folded at the end he mucked his cards in disgust, which was uncharacteristic of this particular player. In thinking about this later, I figured he might well have been on a straight-flush draw. If he was, his raise on the flop was a mistake, wasn't it? With a better than even chance to win, I would think he would want a multiway pot more than a free card.
Yuo was traying to 4 playrs bluf. Good rule is never try to bluf more than two playrs.
It is mistake to bluf this flop.
I see people do this all the time. Show down a hand on the river I would give my left gonad to bet!
Don't be afraid! What have you got to lose but a few more chips. You made your perfect hand--bet it! Step up to the plate!
Bob- I think you are correct, I show down a lot of quality hands on the end without betting that are winners. Over a years time, this bad habit does cost me a lot of money. Thanks for making me realize this again.
Bob,
Sometimes it is almost astonishing what people will call with in Hold'em on all betting rounds. Therefore you should probably be betting on the river more than you think you should.
Tom Haley
Until the opposition picks-up on the weak river bet and begins to raise you back. Betting a hand on the river that's too weak for the situation is one of the difficult leaks to fix.
Andrew,
I kind of thought that two pair on the river was a pretty strong hand in this situation. Imo if you have trouble betting on the end in this situation your being too conservative.
Tom Haley
I was refering to your general comments, not the specific hand. I would bet out on the river with the two small pair here like most others would. The line between betting and checking for me with the board and players mentioned, is about top pair with a nearby kicker. I'm not convinced that lowering one's betting standards on the river due to weakness in competition is sound play when no obvious draws get completed. I do know players like those refered to who check anything less than the nuts (and sometimes the nuts too) on the river.
1. No matter how bad they are you shouldn't play 54 off suit (too many flops will suck you along, sometimes blinds do have best hand, lots of second and third bests possible). 2. If you do, you better be absolutely sure you can read them so well that it's like playing with marked cards. That means being able to fold on flop when their bet is with 2pr, a set, etc. and to raise or bet whenever you make the best hand. 3. Not betting on the end is criminal. You played a hand you shouldn't, got lucky, got great action, and now very probably have the best hand. For you to be beaten, one of them must a) have already had you beaten and gotten scared to re-raise on 4 (ie A5 afraid of straight or AT) or b) hit some big hand on end and decided to try for check-raise. I assume if you bet and are raised, you'd know who would be crazy enough to try a ck/raise bluff with all that money in pot and call him, while folding to anyone else.
Actually Steve, my failure to bet on the end is even worse than you imagine. There was NO possibility of a check raise, and the checking to me came without a single pause by any player. I already knew I was a dufus here, but that was not the point of the post.
I was in a middle limit hold'em game. I was the BB with pocket AA. The game is very loose with 4-5 players every hand, even with raises. Five players called and I raised pre-flop. They all called.
The flop comes AA8. So I flopped quads (why doesn't that ever happen to me in stud?)! A8 are suited. Should I check or bet?
I checked since I didn't want to scare anybody. But in a hold'em posting made earlier, somebody flopped trip AAA (AAJ on board), and most advice indicated a bet. As far as other players' perceptions go, my hand is very similar to that previous hand. Granted, I can't lose with AAAA with this flop. But other players do not know that. So I could have actually cost myself money by not betting since people might call anyway. Also I find one comment from that posting very interesting. It said that if there's no betting on the flop, this will cause less betting and calling on the turn since the pot is smaller now. Is that generally true in hold'em?
Anyway, after I checked, everybody else checked also. The turn comes another spade. I checked again, hoping somebody would bet now with a flush or flush draw. Someone did, and I raised. He folded. Was I too haste? Should I have simply called and try to induce a bluff on the river?
Kathy you raise preflop out of position. I put you on group 1 hand. When you check it is look like you do not like an ace or you got all of them. Wheh you check raise whith 3-flash and a pair on board. Only hand I can put yuo on is AA. But if you beting the flop you might have AK or QQ and flash draw will stay whith you. In HFAP was that you have to play your god hand more agreseve when there is 2-flash on board. Your check was loking scarier than yuor bet. Lock at good side if you loose this pot than you save yourself chips by not beting.
I would play this meakly all the way and hope an aggressive player starts to bet for me. You can't be beat so why push the hand. Also, nobody else has an Ace so whoever bets first will most likely pick up the pot. This play is actully described in HPFAP see 'Playing When A Pair Flops'.
I was wondering why so many people would tend to bet this Flop. I didn't notice that the A and 8 were suited. If I was against many players I might try to bet it. This depends on the type of players I'm up against though. In some of the Low-Limit games I play some people will come in on any Two Suited cards. This would be a perfect time to bet the Flop. Now, if the Folp was three Suited I would stick to my first responce.
Chris
Loose players like to call on the cheap flop for "one more card". Rarely give up this money. From the numbers of players calling on previous flops you should already know if bettors get respect.
You DISQUISE your hand with a bet as Boris pointed out.
With monsters I routinely Bet, then Check-Raise against several typical fish.
- Louie
Checking looks suspicious and bad players like to make cheap calls on the flop to take a card off. On the other hand there are many cards that could come off that will trap a player who would have folded on the flop. This would be the overiding factor in most games.
You raised 5 players in a loose game pre-flop and they are EXPECTING you to bet the flop--don't dissappoint them!
Worst that can happen is everyone folds.
On a good day someone will raise you with two eights after you get a couple of calls. You call and then bet the turn.
Try it next time!
Kathy,
The only thing I would add (I would have bet on the flop) is that you really don't have a super profitable hand as crazy as that may sound. You've got the deck crippled on the flop and there just aren't that many second best hands that your opponents can have that they could call you with. Now if you had a pair of T's and the flop came J,T,T with two suited cards your going to be making a lot more money with quads.
Tom Haley
I am inclined towards betting the hand with this flop, as Tom pointed out that there are not many second best hands out there for slowing playing this hand. (There is a detailed discussion about this in Sklansky and Mason's book) When you bet the flop, people will most likely put you on a triple A, or any pocket big pair (other than AA) or even KQ for the flush draw. So people will call your bet with flush draw or even with a small pocket pair. If you check, you certainly miss the money from those drawing hands. The best you can hope for with this flop is that some body has pocket 8 (flopped a full-house) and some other people has flush draw. Then it is still better to bet the flop to get a lot of actions.
I saw a similar case, where a player flopped a nuts straight flush and another player flopped the nuts flush with three small suited cards on the flop. There are 7 players in the pot and it was checked all the way to the river--two big hands were both slow playing in early positions.
Kathy wrote: "I checked since I didn't want to scare anybody. But in a hold'em posting made earlier, somebody flopped trip AAA (AAJ on board), and most advice indicated a bet. As far as other players' perceptions go, my hand is very similar to that previous hand."
I just wanted to point out that there is a huge difference between these two hands. When you flop quads, you are generally unconcerned about anyone passing you. When you flop trips, both flushes and straights can readily come and beat you. In the previous post, one reason for betting was to avoid giving a free card to KQ, KT, or QT, where these hands can catch perfect and beat you. If the board had 2 to a flush, you again want to make the draws pay.
Your current hand is very different. There is essentially no chance of losing (yeah, yeah, someone could make a runner-runner straight flush, but not very often). The only issue is maximizing the money contributed by others to the pot. And your question is the one to ask, bet or check the flop? The answer depends, but in most games I play in, people expect you to check a monster hand, so I will bet it a lot.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
There I was, in a 5/10 stud game at the Taj, and this player was calling EVERY hand to the river. Now, I've heard many say they love having this type of player in the game, but after a while I just had to leave the table. It wasn't only that he drew out on me countless times, and it wasn't only that he took cards I needed when he had NO chance of winning the hand. It's that he seemed, by being in every hand that he had no business being in, to disturb the natural flow of the game, making it impossible to play a type of poker that made any sense. I did begin to get frustrated and tilt a little, which is why I left the table, but I don't think this observation is unfounded. Any comments?
Sometimes a great game is a bad game afterall.
This observation is unfounded.
It may have been true for the one session you're describing, but that has nothing to do with this type of play in general. The presence or absence of a player does not affect what cards you get. Sometimes, a player calls and keeps you from getting what would have been an important card. So what? Just as often, his presence will get you the card you want. Assuming the cards are well-shuffled, it should be RANDOM. If it isn't random, then something is wrong (cheating, shuffle-tracking, etc.), or you've just found someone with honest-to-god ESP powers.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I wish I was in a game with a lot of spoilers, such as the one you describe. I have heard this complaint for years. The most frequent variation is that I do fine in strong games, but I always lose when there are a lot of bad players.
My only explanation for this, is that many developping players can maintain their discipline and concertration better against tougher opponents. When they start playing with fish, especially losing to them, they become unglued and end up playing as badly or worse than the live ones. Hey, he just called a double bet to beat my KK with 54 suited, well I just call this next double with 97 off, and get lucky myself.
Even for great players, the art of milking the maximum from a fish is a difficult one. I can think of several players who do better than I do in tough games, but don't win nearly as much as I do when the game is weaker.
It should also be noted that 2 of the 3 key members of the 2+2 team are famous for seeking out and playing almost exclusively in games with bad players. I admire their willingness to wait for great situations, but think that they often let some pretty good ones slip away. (If you see them playing and there is a seat open, get in, if not at least put your name on the list. Although the fish may be broke by the time you get called. I've seen full games with 20 names on waiting list, and when the live one goes broke or quits the game breaks up, sometimes before he has even left the room, which I think is politically incorrect.)
I think this is the answer to why sklansky is aways walking he's waiting for a new fish to get in the game before he will sit and play. I would hate to see the games if everyone did this.
If some boby hit 16 against deler 5 catch 6 and deler bust whit 7 can you put backline bet whit this player?
A few weeks ago Mason said that you were planning a March 1998 launch date for the new Two Plus Two book about tournament strategy.
Have you set a launch date and if so what is it?
Drooling with anticipation, Neil
Mason is just finishing with the final proof-reading (which is why he's been a little less active on the forum). The book will go to press shortly. We except to see copies in early April. I'll keep you all posted here on the forum.
POKER TOURNAMENT STRATEGIES by Sylvester Suzuki (a pseudonym) and THE PROFESSIONAL POKER DEARLER'S HANDBOOK by Dan Paymar, Donna Harris, and Mason Malmuth have both been delivered to the dealer. We need to finish some of the art work then printing will begin. We expect to have both books by April 7.
Sounds interesting. Can we get a brief summary. Would this help in running a Private Game?
Does this mean that we will actually be able to buy books from April 7th or will there be more stages in the process?
Also, is it now possible to put in an advance order?
Mason has made the point several times in his books that the hourly variance in a 20-40 hold'em game is about $500, even for the best players. I have no reason to disagree. In the late 70's and early 80's I belonged to a private club and we had a regular Saturday game. It was dealer's choice but usually the game was 7-card stud hi-lo plus a common card at the end so there were 6 betting rounds. The betting structure was no ante, $5 anytime, 10 on a pair or sixth street, and 20 on the last two rounds. Just to add to the brutality, the raise limit was 3 PER MAN per round. A typical session lasted 6-7 hours. $500 pots were common. I'm guessing, but I would say I played 200+ sessions over 5 or 6 years. I never lost as much as $400 in a single session and I only won more than $400 3 or 4 times, even though I was a consistent winner in this game. If this is a true reflection of the variance in hi-lo games, it seems like 7/eight or better would be a good game for the casinos to spread, because there's plenty of action, the good players will win consistently, and the bad players will win enough to keep coming back. Of course, the number of hands per hour is low, which might require a higher rake. I know this game is spread some places, but I have yet to see it in Shreveport or the Gulf coast. Does it's popularity seem to be increasing?
I won't comment on the hi-lo game, but expert players will have a much lower standard deviation than $500 per hour at $20-$40 hold 'em, and terrible players will have a much larger number.
The 2+2 books say that in loose-passive games it is very important to use the check-raise to protect your hand, and get control of the other players. However, when I sit down in a hold'em game I am never the first player to make a check-raise, because I want to see if others are doing it. If they are, fine, bring out the whole arsenal of tools available. But if no one is check-raising I don't either. My theory is that I am now in home game that has moved to a casino, and there is a tacit agreement of no check-raising. If I check-raise I may save THAT pot but I won't get action on subsequent pots. I will be the trickster, the enemy. Further, I don't want control of these players. I want them out of control at all times. I project an image of 'one of the guys'. I chat with whoever cares to converse, in the hope that they don't realize I'm playing a helluva lot less hands than they are. Mind you I'm talking about those weak games where the average number of players seeing the flop is seven. I also assume that you better players out there never see this type of game at the 15-30 or 20-40 level. Several years ago, I found a 10-20 game like this at the Isle of Capri in Bossier City. I played for 12 hours and in all that time there was not a single check-raise. My recollection is I had one flush and one full house in that game plus 2-3 sets. I clearly remember that twice holding QJ I flopped a nut straight (AKT, KT9) and LOST both hands. Of course, that doesn't prove I wasn't lucky. It may be that my top pair flops held up more than normal. I try very hard to be objective about that kind of thing and it was not my impression that this was the case, but I can't be certain. I was still pretty new to hold'em. I won $1800 in that game. Over to you.
I think you're costing yourself more by not check-raising in loose-passive games than you would by check-raising. One reason is that your opportunities for check-raises are fewer in loose passive games because you normally can't be sure someone else will bet and you're therefore better off betting out in many situations that might otherwise be check-raises in more aggressive games.
Since you will check-raise less often, there's less of a chance of upsetting others and reducing your action...not that I think that would happen anyway. You can soften the blow of the check-raise by continuing to be a nice guy at the table. That image will carry you over any perceived faux-pas when you check-raise.
Your point is well taken. However I think check raises are perceived to be unfriendly more in head up pots. I think you could still get away with it in multiway pots when it is critical to thin the field. If not the only alternative is to play extremely tightly in early position, throwing away almost all unsuited high cards except AK and maybe AQ. On the other side of the coin, if you are in a game where no one is check raising this allows you to play even looser in late position (e.g. A9 offsuit or J7 suited)
OK, I'll try it. It also occurred to me that if the flop is 2-suited you would frequently be identifying a flush draw if someone in the middle calls. This would be a further benefit of the check-raise. Have you and Mason already written about that? It seems every time I think I've come up with something, I look in HEPFAP and there it is.
For clarity, I should have said 'if someone in the middle cold-calls the check-raise'.
Make the play which seems most appropriate for the situation, and don't be concerned about getting action in later hands. You may need to see the turn for free sometimes, so you want them to at least fear the possibility of you check-raising any time you check the flop from early position.
I think to only look at the current situation is too short-sighted in most games. One of the skills, after all, is to be aware of how your opponents perceive you. Also, in the kind of game I describe the future free-card aspect of the check-raise is a very iffy proposition. If they got it, they bet it. A player who will see the flop with Q5 off isn't likely to worry about betting a Q82 flop because I check-raised a half-hour ago.
Ok. I just wouldn't be as concerned about protecting that kind of image. It seems to me that the chip leader is the #1 enemy rather than the trickster. If you check-raise the player with the biggest stack, and end up winning the pot, the rest of the table will not mind. Anything anyone can do to get the big winner to leak back some chips before quitting that session is money still on the table. I think you are correct however if there are mostly new or recreational players in the game, not to discourage them from playing again next week. Regular players - take off the gloves.
Good point about the chip leader. In this particular game I was the chip leader for most of the session, but that won't always be true. Thanks.
Bob if you playing in game in whish players do not check-raise. Why you check two pair on the end?
I have been playing in a stud eight or better game. It is a 2-10 game with no ante and a $2 bring. in this game the low card brings it in. I am at somewhat of a loss as to what to do when I am forced to bring it in. Is their any reason to ever bring it in for more than the required $2. With nothing to win immediatly should i bring it in for $10 with a high pocket pair? How about for a good low? Also should i ever bring it in for an amout somewhere between 2 and 10? I could us a little help on this one.
I think that unless your high pocket pair is aces, you will get the universal response that you should bring it in and if raised, fold. The only way I ever played this game was to play for low. Not 8-low, either. Seven or better. Almost all the time your door card will be seven or less when you bring it in, so if you have pocket aces you have a decent hand. Your aces reduce the chances of good lows in other hands, as well. Keep this in mind when you start with 3 low cards, no ace, and aces start appearing in other hands that look like low draws. I generally played these hands carefully, even when I developed a decent low.
While no rule is absolute in poker, with no antes out there, NEVER bring it in for more than the minimum. If you have trips, why scare out everyone? If you don't have trips, why put up more than the minimum when someone else might have you beat? Now, if there is an ante, then there will be times when you should bring it in for more. How often and with what cannot be answered generically. It depends upon how much the antes and bets are relative to one another.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
J,
If lots of people call and few ever raise the bring in then it makes sense to bet more on your good hands{high or low}. Vary how much you bring it in for and see what the action will stand, do the same with your early raises. Good Luck.
David-In your Advanced Holdem book,I think I have found a contradiction on pages 23 and 53. My understanding is that in a unraised pot with a lot of players,I from late position would not raise with AQ unsuited. The reason is that I am not going to drive out those who have already called because of the large blind structure. Yet on page 53, you state the principle , if a J is the high card on board in an unraised pot, chances are that someone might have a J with a fair to good kicker. If a Q is high card on board in an unraised pot, chances are that someone holding Q and high kicker is not very good because good players tend to raise with AQ.But on page 23, an expert player might not raise with AQ from late position with many players already in the pot. I am one of your best fans, since I have bought and studied a lot of your books. Do I misunderstand a basic principle here?
Let me jump in here. I think what he is saying is that most players will raise the A-Q, most players are not experts players who might not raise in late position with it.
Randy-You are probably correct.Skansky and Malmuth are two of my favorite poker writers.
In the intro of the book, the authors state that some of the strategies may seem to contradict eachother at times. that is because what you do depends on what the circumstances are at the time. The books are there as quidelines to get you to start thinking about the game. if you want to improve from there you have to do much more thinking about the game as well as playing. goodluck
The point you quote was more true before the book was published. Now that it is well read you must take that into account.
David-Thankyou for answering my concern. Yes, I accept your comment, and agree with explaination. I read your other book on Holdem, and like you have come to the conclusion that some stratagies have changed over the years due to the high blind structures. Also, I read that you wrote your first book on Holdem after only playing for approx. 8 hours. Is this true?
No. But it was a short time. Maybe a month.
David-It figures!
David-Is your comments regarding AQ hand on both pages 23 and 53 in your Advanced Holdem book a contradiction? I wrote out all the details, and got wiped off the net by mistake,too much to write again. Please review the pages and respond. I will understand your message.
It has been my experience that when people find out you gamble on a regular basis and for reasons other than entertainment, they invariably laugh, smirk, whatever and say or think 'What a fool. He will soon be parted from his money.' However, when they come to the realization that you are making money on a consistent basis they seem to have a problem with it. They seem to shed nothing but negative light on it. Why is this ? I know many here are rich with experience. Have any of you encountered similar reactions ? If so, why do you think this is ?
Thanks
STG-I find the reaction by others to be just the opppisite of your experience,they seem to think my card playing successes is exciting and always want to know more about games I have played, etc.Maybe, the part of the country one is from makes a difference?
In my opinion, it is more religious, social and moral conditioning that makes people think negatively about gambling.
I have had friends who were unable to cope with the concept of gambling on the basis that it appears to violate the standards of financial order_based on work and compensation. They would explain to me in great detail that gambling is non-productive and there is a psychological gap in the transaction when one wins or loses without work and tangible results.
I believe,informed and educated risk-taking type of gambling is a very challenging and intellectually stimulating activity. Conditioning and limitations imposed by others who may be unable to engage in it themselves for fear of getting financially out of control appears to be the reason. Actually, I observe people gambling with their life and are dead against gambling with money. I feel these people are oblivious to the fact that life is so much more valuable than money. People seem to have their own brand of limitations or challenges and that's reality.
I know plenty of people who are willing to gamble and buy $100,000 worth of a stock (because they think its 'going up' ... without doing any analysis)...but many of these people would not be willing to flip a coin for $5 with me.
It seems people have very different perceptions of gambling when it involves cash versus bank account money. Obviously, it should not make a difference, but ....
Yes, your observation is true to a degree regarding a gamble with stocks. But one must be more specific regarding the quality of stock selected before comparing it with the flip of a coin or gambling in general. The range of quality with stocks is wide and it will depend largely what stock you are investing (blue chip) in or gambling (questionable unknown penny stock on an obscure Exchange) with.
I have done both and I prefer BJ to the latter.
Even with blue chip stocks it is not possible to outperform the market in an efficient market.
Let's not get into THAT!
People tend to frown upon 'consistent winners' because they're envious. I have solved this problem by
(1) only letting a very few trusted friends know about my gambling activities.
(2) building suitable cover - my frequent absences abroad are attributed to business reasons. Even though I'm a bachelor and have only myself to support, society makes me feel like I need cover.
Let me state that I consider my work to be just as challenging as any other career. I have invested thousands (yes, thousands) of hours reading, studying and researching, and continue to do so. There is frustration, temptation and discipline-related problems to constantly overcome, not to mention the rollercoaster ride of my bankroll (and emotions) giving the term job security a whole new meaning!
Now go and explain all this to your good friend Joe who has to clock-in every morning somewhere. No thanks.
Etienne:
I understand your situation and am sympathetic and supportive of you. Actually I feel that you may have quite a number of qualities such as guts, self-reliance, confidence, originality, and entrepreneurship that the average person does not possess.
Being an adventurous and free spirit born in extreme poverty and misery, I was lucky to have the opportunity for education and international life experience (covering three continents and multicultures) before I settled down in the USA. I have done a bit of gambling in Lebanon, UK, France, Italy, Yougoslavia, on Cruiseships (Crystal Harmony, etc.)and in the USA.
I am sure the challenges you face are far greater than the average Joe and the range and magnitude of emotions you experience much greater than the multitudes. However, how can a person develop to full strength without the ability and experience to take it all "on the chin"? Rudyard Kipling's poem "IF" sums it all up so beautifully. After all, the most difficult thing to CONQUER is one's SELF and you have accepted that CHALLENGE! The develpoment of a person can occur only in the process of meeting a difficult challenge and gradually turning it into a success, excitement and fulfillment. Life is not a destiny but a travel. It is up to us to make it a challenging and exciting travel.
In preparation for my starting in the same career path, I would appreciate to know about how long you have been in practice? what method(s) you have used or use to measure your progress and performance? what do you do to improve your performance? and how do you keep records for review and use as a tool for moving ahead and improving your operation? I will appreciate to hear and learn from you.
Good Luck
Sincerely
JJ
JJ,
I make a modest living gambling/risk-taking, enabling me to lead a quiet, low-profile lifestyle. So while I'll try to answer your questions, there are others out there whose advice would be more valuable to you - Sklansky and Malmuth for starters.
I have been at it fulltime for 3 years now, with about 15 years part-time experience beforehand. I only play positive expectation games and strongly suggest you do the same.
10 months ago I thought Texas Hold'em was a form of wrestling. During one of my trips to Las Vegas (May,1997), I somehow wandered into the Mirage poker room. I had some inkling of 7 card stud and not having anything else to do, I decided to risk $50 only and put my name on the waiting list for $1-$5 stud. After about a 10 minute wait, I bought in for $50 and was playing cardroom poker. I don't know whether it was beginners' luck or some other factor, but I started winning pot after pot, the filled chip trays were stacking up, and I could hear the muffled whispers of the small crowd that had gathered behind me. Just kidding !!! My $50 was gone before the cocktail waitress had returned with my first order.
However I did have the good fortune to meet a very interesting character sitting next to me who, in a conversation afterwards, convinced me to seriously look into poker. The next morning I was in a cab on the way to Gambler's Book Club where I purchased five '2+2' publications plus some poker software. I decided to attack hold'em first and have read and reread the relevant books.
Since then, I'm slowly getting the much required practical experience in between my other pursuits but still consider my poker development to be in its embryonic stages. My first goal is to eventually reach the playing level in hold'em where I can truthfully say that it is a positive expectation game for me. Then I have to decide whether I want to add 7 card stud to my arsenal or to concentrate on 1 game only. So you're not the only one making decisions about a career path!! It's a continuously evolving process.
As for record-keeping, I maintain a simple log in which I keep dates, times, location, average bet, session outcome, additional remarks etc. Upon returning home, I copy everything into an electronic spreadsheet for further statistical analysis.
I always travel with diskettes containing, inter alia, my own software and compiler just in case there is a new game/rule/proposition which I have to analyze.
I try to keep up to date as far as literature, software and the Internet goes - but be selective. Gambling for a Living by Sklansky & Malmuth would be a good starting point, as not only will it whet your appetite, it also gives further reading references for your intended area(s) of specialization. You should also familiarize yourself with the concepts of money management, risk of ruin, standard deviation etc.
Well that's about it - keep a low profile and an open mind, always be honest, and only play in reputable establishments.
I wish you the best of luck in your new career.
Etienne
I shouldn't worry about it if I were you. I think that peoples' reactions say more about them than they do about you. I've started playing small tournaments in the UK, and my friends think it's pretty cool, as I would if it were one of them. I get a bit of banter about pulling an Ace out of my sleeve and then a shooter out of my sock, and so much the better !
People who find it difficult to understand can be negative, but then again it's many of these people who, as a previous contributor noted, gamble with their own futures by shying away from proper planning with a feeble "when I win the lottery ...". I'll concern myself with what people think provided they do actually THINK. If not it's their problem.
I was playng whit my mother in holdem game. She made mistake. What is best way to inform her: tell at table after hand, ask her to speek whit me away from table, or tell her at home? If i tell her at table i will make mistke #8 (never make any coment at poker table). If i her away from table we are going to miss a hand. If i wait until we get home She maiht make same mistake again. Any responde is welcome
Boris
Miss some hands and tell her away from the table.
In Mason Malmuth’s book, Advanced Concepts in Draw and Lowball, he has several "reasons" chapters. These have always been among my favorites as chapters written about poker. I’ve been playing in more short handed games and have been doing some thinking about it. So along those lines I have the following reasons to play in short handed hold’em games:
1. The pots are smaller.
2. You get to bluff more.
3. Tournaments, in their latter stages, are played short handed for some of the time.
4. Higher limit money games are often short handed.
5. Your skill comes to the forefront faster.
6. You don’t have to beat a powerhouse hand to win.
7. Your opponents are passive.
8. Your opponents are loose, wild, gamblers.
9. Your opponents are stuck and steaming after an all night session.
10. You are stuck but are not steaming after an all night session.
11. Your hand reading skills are good.
12. Your people reading skills are good.
13. Your opponents will bluff more often.
14. Your opponents will play looser.
15. You will have to go the river more.
16. Your play will have to be more imaginative.
17. You play well out of the blinds in short handed situations.
18. Your proficient at inducing bluffs.
19. Your overlay is bigger than in a ring game.
20. You play more hands per hour.
21. Your opponents on your left play poorly out of the blind positions.
22. Your proficient at playing on the button in short handed situations.
23. The playing skills for short handed games are not as widely known or published.
24. It enhances your image as a gambling player.
25. Your opponents mistakes are magnified.
26. Your proficient at picking off bluffs.
27. Your proficient at re-steals.
28. Your intuition is very good.
29. Your an expert player in hold’em.
30. Short handed play is fun.
31. Short handed play is challenging.
32. It helps keeps games alive in the cardroom.
33. Your spouse likes to play 21 heads up and can only do so reliably at 4:30 a.m. She insists you accompany her but you don’t play 21.
Tom,
The good shorthanded players make the most money there is no doubt about it.
RxR stantion present part 3 of unforgeteble series pair on board. I major role Boris whit straight-flush draw.
Our hero start whit (5h6h)4h. Exposed cards folow 2d, Qc,Tc, 4h, 9s, 8c, 9c, Jc. 2d bring in, Qc raise, Tc raise, 4h call, 9s call, 8c raise(cap), 9c fold, Jc fold; 2d call, Qc call, Tc call, 4h call, 9s call. 4's sreet cards folow 2dJd, Qc6d, TcKh, 4h7h, 9s2s, 8c8h. 8h8c bet, 2dJd call, Qc6d call, Tckh raise, 4h7h call, 9s2d call; 8c8h raise... TcKh cap it whith evryboby calling.
If you see any playing mistakes plese responde. Any coments welcome.
Hello everybody! I'm brand spanking new to the internet, but I wasted no time in finding this forum; this is a grat web site (anyways, back to the problem at hand). On third street, I got to like the odds our hero's getting, (with 5 other players seeing forth street). in order to draw to a 3 straight flush.
This is the way I elvaluate the various hands on third street: (??)Qc I would have to put him immediately on queens, or maybe three big cards. Bluff or semi-bluff in early position is very unlikely in this situation. With so many clubs out there is no way I would put any of the hands showimg a club card on flush draws.
(??)10c At least 10's but most pocket K's or A's in the hole
(??)9s Probobly a flush draw, since the 9c was folded in the other hand I most likely could not out him on trips. If he is a good player he is probably calling for pot odds. If he is a fish and is calling with an underpair, tell me where I can get in a game with him!
(??)8c After he caps the raises I would probably put him on pocket AA's in the hole, (if he has rolled-up 8's why is he revealing the strength of his hand on 3rd street when other people are doing all the raising for him?) which would make (??)10c with a probable KK in the hole.
(??)2d Either a flush draw or he has rolled up 2's and is playing possum. There are veeeery few fishes out there who will see a triple raise in order to try to save their blinds. By the way when the (??)Qc called it was a major mistake in my book!!!
Forth Street: Boy is our hero in trouble!!!
(5h6h)4h catches perfect with the 7h and he still should fold!
(??)2dJd call,call,call (Has 4 diamonds or trip 2's, definitely an underdog, should have folded in either case, but boy is it hard to let go of a set in this case.)
(??)Qc6d call,call,call (This guy is still calling, please, where can I find him? He has a 2 pair at most, but is still a big underdog, should fold.
(??)10cKh raise,re-reraise (He has trip K's now. NO doubt in my mind).
(5h6h)4h7h call,call (Boy is this a tough hand for this guy! Even though he caught perfect, he should fold! He's up against trip K's, AA88, QQ66(probably), and probably 2 higher flush draws He's in 6th place out of 6 players, drawing to only 1 card that can make him feel good about the hand; the 3h).
(??)9s2s call,call (Most likely on a flush draw, should fold against this board)
(??)8c8h bet,reraise,call (He has AA88, since everyone has called and is probably calling all the way it would seem, he is getting a very odds to draw to his live cards.)
Anyways guys and gals, what do you think of my analysis of this hand? Appreciate any comments. Good luck!
Theo, First of all, congratulations on being able to decipher the original post at all. My eyes just glazed over when I tried.
In the absence of any color commentary on the texture of the game or the nature of the opponents, I would agree with your analysis for the most part and with conclusions. I too would not be drawing for the miracle card given the action. All depends on fish-index of the opposition. Suspecting that Boris was playing rather low-limits, I might consider the fish-index to be pretty high.
However, just about all of the possible 3rd street hands might also be trips. Obviously not all are but, for example, why be willing to consider that 2d or 8c might be rolled up on 3rd street but not 10c? This much action, it wouldn't surprise me to see two players rolled up to start. I've seen it before. There's nothing on 4th street to rule that out either.
Jim, thanks for the comments. I agree with you that there may be more than one set of trips with all this action on third and forth streets (I too have seen it happen in many of these types of pots).
What I tried to do was put everybody on a hand by my first impressions of their boards and betting, and adjusting my impressions by their subsequent actions (much I as would do if I were sitting at the table). Of course, if I were playing I would have much more information on the players' playing styles, characters, etc. and this type of information would also adjust my impressions.
If I was playing and was convinced that anybody had rolled-up trips at the start, by all the raising on third street by one or two well known "rocks", then I wouldn't even see forth street and would only lose my first raise-call bet. But if I had just sat down at the table with new players, and didn't have this information yet, my first impressions would probably be what I posted (I can't always be afraid of running into trips with raises on third street or else I might never play a hand!).
But as it concerns the play of the hand on forth street for the stright flush draw, it really dosen't matter if the opponents started with what I put them on, or something better; he should still have folded as soon as he saw the opponents up cards and not even seen one bet on forth street.
Regards, Theo
Well, this one's been bugging me a little, although I had convinced myself that I didn't make a mistake, I'm still not that sure.
Scene is PL HE tournament at the Commerce, $500 + 40 buyin, no rebuys. Started with 77 players, and are down to 25, so average stack is T1500. Blinds are T50/100, and I've got T1250. Table is mostly new to me, as I was sent over about 15 hands ago. I only know (from previous play) 2 people at the table, and they're not involved in the hand in question.
I am dealt QcQd under the gun. I decide that I want to try and get some value from this hand. I haven't played a hand yet at this table, and am pretty sure that if I raise UTG I am very likely to win only the blinds. Therefore I limp with the intention of check-raising if possible. If no one raises, at least my hand will be disguised. Call this decision #1 for discussion.
Well, this action on my part seems to stimulate the first multi-way hand I've seen yet in the tournament. We end up with 6 players, including the blinds and button, with everyone limping. Pot stands at T600. Flop is:
5c 8d Tc
I am likely ahead, but I want to see what the other players do before I act, so I check after the blinds check (decision #2), and it is checked to the button, who bets the pot of T600, leaving him with about T2000 (more than me). SB folds, and BB calls time. I decide that this guy is definitely unsure of his situation, and is not just hollywooding it. After a while, he calls, and only has T250 left.
Now it's my turn. I am pretty sure that BB has a draw, or a T and is unsure of his kicker. I am confident that I have a better hand than him. The button I don't know. It was checked to him, and he bet the pot, which is consistent with a steal on a raggedly flop. While he might have a set, it seems that he would be willing to risk a free card with a set in the hopes of inducing a bluff, or of letting someone catch top pair with their overcard. 2-pair is the main concern here, but the only hand that is playable would be T8, a hand that I would fold, even on the button with no raise. I decide that he has a T or 8, and is betting for value. I reraise all-in. Decision #3.
The other players fold to the button, who wants to reraise. Oops! It is determined that he cannot reraise, because my play wasn't a full raise (I raised his T600 bet by T550). Why does he care? I'm all-in, and the only other player will be all-in even without the raise. I think that he was trying to psych the other player into folding. Anyway, the BB calls with his last T250, and we both lose to the button's T8.
Please evaluate my 3 decisions, especially #3.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
greg,
If you are right in that the button would steal, be on a draw or bet just one pair, you should raise all in. With 6 players in most people on the button wont bet just top pair in a tournament, so for your play to be right you have to be fairly sure.
Greg, My compliments on a well-presented and interesting problem.
I have no problem with your first two decisions given that your reasoning about not raising pre-flop is correct. If you were wrong about the liklehood of everyone else folding to a pre-flop raise, well, that's a different story.
However, it seems to me that that you base decision #3 on the fact that you, personally, wouldn't call pre-flop at all. Many players might be tempted to "bottom-fish" in this situation with many callers limping in the implied odds probably warrant it. He hit his flop.
You are now in the famous either-or situation: either you're ahead or you're beat. I think I would have folded the QQ rather than risk getting eliminated.
God, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Please keep in mind this is my opinion --
Decision #1. (limping with QQ)
The biggest con with playing this situation this way is that you are risking alot more than you think. Do you have the fortitude to let this hand go easily? Can you even recognize when you are beat early enough to protect your stack? When I limp, I'm inviting others to play. When I raise I'm discouraging others from playing. I'm not ashamed to just win the blinds with this hand. I'll get called often enough to justify raising pre-flop. In my mind, you are playing QQ like one would play 88 in this position. The truth is: You are not going to feel very comfortable in a multi-way pot with anything less then a set of QQ. And just limping in UTG is crying for a multi-way pot.
Decision #2 (checking the ragged flop)
I have no clue. I think I would still pissed I didn't raise pre-flop. But the reality of the situation is that 6 way action and a flop with two clubs and a possible straight draw is likely to have given somebody a draw. If I plan on calling a bet, I think I just as might as well bet, less I give a free card to something like A8 or Q9s or similar. At this point I'm going to decide whether I'm all or nothing -- shove-it-in and take my chances or give it up.
Decision #3 (raising all-in on the flop)
I would be unsure of where I am at. I think If I didn't bet the flop, I probably going to give the hand up. I try and remember that my goal is to win money, not individual hands. Going all in in this situation can't be that bad. (if it is bad at all).
In Closing:
Each decision point was more and more difficult. By far the easist decision was to raise opening the pot. By limping, I lack information and wouldn't be able to put myself ahead or behind post-flop and just wouldn't feel comfortable with the hand.
Chris K.
In CT casinos spread game 5-10 hold'em whith a kill. If one player win pot over 95$ then limit go up to 10-20. Blinds still 2$ and 5$ and winer of last hand have to post 10$. I thinck i should fold more hands in killed pot. Do you thinck of any strategy changes for this stracture. Any coments welcome
Boris.
This is new to me. I'm used to HE kill pots, but it's usually based upon winning 2 in a row (southern Cal.), which doesn't happen a lot (most smart players tighten up considerably after winning the first pot). I think that your situation depends upon how big it looks like the pot is getting. If it's looking to be a multiway raised pot preflop, then you should know going in that you're going to kill if you win. However, if you're in the SB or very late position, you'll have good position next hand, and it's not so terrible to kill. If it looks to be a heads-up pot, then there's a good chance you won't hit the $95 requirement, so you can play your normal game.
Where you've got to pay attention is when the pot is between $75 and $94 and it's your turn to bet the river. If you are betting a medium strength hand for value, you won't get full value when the opponent calls. Instead of winning $10 cash from him, you'll only win $10 credit towards the next pot. Depending upon your position and the nature of the game you're in, this will often be worth much less than $10. It's more important to keep exact track of the pot in this game, so you make the right play on the river.
Actually, the biggest factor here is that after a pot is killed, unless the game is very tight, you're probably going to play a long series of hands at $10-20, because almost every pot at this level will exceed $95. So you must keep this in mind when you enter the game, and have enough bankroll to play $10-20, because you'll probably being playing more hands at this level than at the $5-10 level.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Not necessarily so regarding the long series of 10-20 hands unless there is a player or two stuck trying to make a fast comeback. When I play the kill game (except 10-20 with a half kill to 15-30) it has been quite difficult to sustain the kill for more than a couple of hands. I think most 5-10 players tighten up considerably (I know I do) on opening requirements. I am also less likely to raise from early position with AQ or AJ before the flop after the kill. Your comments about paying attention to the pot size are appropriate and important. There can also be a little more bluff raising on the river from players who missed their draws but wanted the pot killed anyway. The pre-flop action should tell you what type of kill game you're in for.
Boris, I would say that it depends on the players in the game, although the pot-kill games I've seen generally tend to stir up the action with a lot of loose calls before the flop. If this table is like usual, playing an agressive game WITH solid cards will win even more money for you than in a regular game.
Be prepared however to experience a big swing in your bank roll for the game as people will be "fishing out" on you more than usual and it will may take time and patience for your good cards to gring home the money.
By the way, if I was up against the "kill player", I would treat him as if he were another blind and use all the standard plays against him (in effect, he really is a third blind). However when you raise the "kill player", expect to get a lot of loose cards from this person in a typical game; and as a result, don't automatically put him on a good hand if he calls you .
Regards, Theo
I was wondering why Stud has such a small Bring-in but a large Ante? Wouldn't just a Forced Half-Bet Bring-in be enough to start the action?
Chris
Chris,
It would be too cheap and the loose players would never win and you know what happens to a game when the bad players never win. I like the idea of a forced bet for all the antes as it speeds up the game considerably. What happens is that one player falls low a few times in a row and goes nuts and ends that situation. Good Luck with your home game.
I had a trip to Grand Canyon last summer and stopped by Las Vegas for some poker. I was able to get into a 20/40 holdem game after only half an hour waiting. The game seems to be typical, and I do not know any player on the table. In about fourty minutes, I was dealt QQ in a late position-- two position away to the button. Everybody folds to the player on my right. He seems running well and has been catching his cards. He called and I raised. Everybody folded after me and he reraised. I call. The flop comes KKx, all off suit, and he bets. How should I play this hand now ? Is folding an obvious choice here ?
If I was in his position I'd bet with Trip Kings or worse to give you a chance to Fold. Of course, if I had Four Kings I would check and hope you catch something on the Turn, or induce a Bluff on your part.
You can either Semi-Bluff Raise or Fold. I don't think just calling him down would be the right play.
Chris Villalobos
My initial reaction is that he has got a pocket pair, and a small one at that. If he has Kx worth back-raising you with, then he probably would have raised bringing it in. If he had medium or big pair I think that he would have raised first in also. Thus, either the flop missed his cards or he has a small pair (although, just maybe, aces also) and has bet to feel you out/intimidate you. I'd call the flop and raise the turn if he bets again (ie play it as if I had AK). If he checks the turn I will bet it. If I am ever raised on the turn, then I will probably dump it. If he stays for the river I will check unless I fill up.
Eric
Jason,
I agree with Chris of how to play the hand in your opponent's position. You mentioned that your opponent was running well and catching his cards while you were at the table, but you didn't mention what type of player he was or what kind of cards he played.
If he is an agressive player he is probably using the psychological advantage he has at the table at this moment, to win more than his statistical share of pots. The fact that he didn't come in raising being first in the pot would seem to suggest a drawing type of hand to me, then when everybody folds after your raise he rightly switches to an agressive stance (although I have seen great players use the same type of play holding big pocket pairs).
I personally don't like to be pushed around and controlled at the table since it makes judgement calls that much harder; I want my opponents to be doing the guessing (unless of course if there are maniacs or drunks at the table, then I simply play better cards than they do and wait for my pots).
In this play I would suggest a raising semi-bluff and wait for his reaction. If he calls and checks on the turn you probably have him beat, unless you bet and he check-raises; then I would fold with very little dought that I had been bluffed. After you raise on third street and if he backraises, I would also fold, putting him on trip Kings. It would take a great player to put you on a semi-bluff and have the courage to re-bluff, without some kind of "tell" on you.
Even if you lose an extra bet or two in this situation, I believe it is a small price to pay given the fact that your opponent will have the thought in his mind, that he will not be able to run over you and will have to have a hand if you are in the pot. This may save you several pots in game as well as give you more respect in the eyes of your opponents, which you can use to pick your spots and bluff them out of pots (heh,heh!).
By the way, if things go as planed and your opponent calls you to the river card, IN THIS SITUATION I would NOT bet on the end, without having spiked a Q on the turn or the river. If he calls you, in my opinion there are more chances than not that he has you beat, by having a K-small kicker, than of having a smaller pocket pair than yours.
Good luck!
Since he limped in from late middle posistion, he could have anything. If he has a King its got to have a weak kicker, I would suspect. I would raise on the flop and see what he does. If he calls and checks the turn, I would check behind him, and call a bet on the river. If he re-raised on the flop, I would then have to base my decision on how this player has been playing his cards thus far. It would take alot for him to re-raise and bluff on the flop, when you raised before the flop. Obviously not always, but many times when someone limps late, and then re-raises they have small to med. pairs.
I tend to raise in this spot. Sometimes flat call with the intention of seeing what he does next. Then, play it by ear. But without any information to the contrary I am probably paying off. Unless an ace comes.....then I get a headache.
I don't agree with most of the responses here. You are either way behind here, with 2 outs, or he is way behind here, with 2 or 3 outs. How you proceed depends somewhat on what you think are the odds of your being beat, given how you think he plays, etc -- but semibluffing is not what you should be thinking about.
_If_ you think he will bet on every street with either the best or the worst hand, then I suspect that for most reasonable probabilities of your having the best hand you will do OK by just calling him down. If you raise him on the turn and he reraises you will not have saved any money; if he folds you will wish you had not raised.
There are certainly some specific types of opponents where this course will not be the best, but it seems like a good place to start in your thinking.
A thought experiment.
You're in a ten handed game where everyone plays almost as well as you.
You're the button each and every time.
Each and every hand you have pocket Aces.
Of course, you'd kill the game.
But,
What do you reckon your Std Deviation per hour to be in a 20 40 game?
Assuming 10 equal players, 20 hands per hour, my quick and crude sim gives me :
hourly expectation : $2,700
hourly standard deviation : $800
for the lucky button player in $10-$20.
I don't think this contradicts David Sklansky's $400 hourly s.d. for an expert $20-$40 player. The higher figure ($800) is due to the fact that because we are blessed with the best starting hand, we participate in 100% of the pots. We are "very loose" (with good reason) and pay the "penalty" with a higher s.d.
The 4th line should read "...lucky button player in $20-$40."
I would think that since you are playing 100 percent of your hands, your standard deviation would be much higher than $800 per hour.
It seems to me that you are using the term standard deviation incorectly even though im sure u know what it means. You should say that your expected return is over +$800 an hour. Stating standard deviation says nothing about winning or losing--its deals with the size of and how likely you will deviate from your expectation. Two people--one with an expectation of a win of $30 an hour and another with an expectation of a loss of $20 and hour can have the same standard deviation. ( or, of course, have different SD) If its the same, say $70, This means that the first player has a 95% chance in any given hour of losing $110 or winning $170 or any amount within this range and the other player has a range of -$170 and +120 ( + or - two standard deviations)
Ron,
In Erin's scenario, the expected return is +$2,700 per hour. The hourly standard deviation, whose definition we both agree upon, is/was* $800.
Etienne
* See my reply to Mason's post.
Mason,
Using Turbo Texas Hold'em, I simulated 20,000 hands to get the $2,700 expected hourly return. That was "quick".
What was "crude" and statistically unforgivable was how I got the $800 standard deviation. I ran a sim of 20 hands 30 times. I would have preferred a sample size of 10,000 but that would have taken a week, and unless I personally write the code I have no other alternative.
Tonight I ran another series 30 times and got a s.d. of $1,300. So it looks like the figure is much higher than $800, as you say. At this stage, I withdraw my guesstimates.
Etienne
I can never understsnd why people pay any attention to Skanky and Mushmouth. Has anyone ever seen them win anything?
So, you sound like your only 12 or 13 years old. If you have a problem with Sklansky's and Malmuth's work, I'd suggest you try to present it in an intelligent manner. You may get a responce other than this one.
cv
+
I have advised Dragon by e-mail that I will delete any new post such as his last one. We will not tolerate personal attacks, whether they are directed at Two Plus Two authors, or at any other poster to this forum.
Hey all, I'm gonna be in Laughlin next weekend. Does anyone have any favorites places to play? Or can anyone recommend any place? Thanx in advance.
I was recently at the Four Queens for their tourneys, and it seems their side game action is very lacking...they had a 50-100 Omaha 8/B, 50-100 Stud 8/B and sometimes a pot-limit game. This was very different than at WSOP or the Rio earlier this year.
Why is that? Also, it seems odd to me that out of the blue, there would be such high-limit split games available at the tourneys (at the Rio, they had these games also). Do the high-limit split players know that there will be action during the tourneys? I would've thought, the action would've been dominated by high limit holdem and pot limit holdem.
T.P.,
I heard complaints about the lack of side games as well from someone I know who went there. He attributed it to the extra tournaments held at night.
Tom Haley
I've only been to the 4 Queens tourneys one other time, a couple of years ago, and I remember that even though they didn't have nightly tourneys then, they still had very few side games.
The side game action at the Four Queens has ALWAYS sucked. This is why I no longet attend. See you all at the World Series.
This is essentially a repost of the question in my second post in ``Some comments on the second contest problem''. I think this problem does occur quite frequently in many forms of poker, and I hope to generate more discussions about this. I know there are many professional gamblers who make decision based on intuition, and they actually come up with the right answer (or almost right answer) occasionally. In this case, I am interested in knowing how well intuition fits the actual correct answer ? Does Math give surprising answer ? If you have any reasonable answer with some justification, please reply.
To make the problem simple and avoid ambiguity, let me state the problem as follows.
Two players A and B heads up at a stage of a poker game. The current pot size is 20 dollars, and it is the last betting round with player A acting first. The bet and/or raise is 10 dollars. Player A has two possible hands, which we call Strong and Weak. Player B has two possible hands which we call Monster, and Decent. A Monster hand beats player A's Strong or Weak hands, and a Decent hand beats a Weak hand, but loses to a Strong hand. Now player A puts B on a Monster hand with probability 20%, and on a Decent hand with probability 80%. Player B puts A on a Strong hand with probability 80%, and on a Weak hand with probability 20%. To simplify the problem a bit further (which is realistic anyway), let's assume that player A will not check-raise in this problem.
It is clear that player A has the following options (according to his hand): bet and call a raise or bet and fold to a raise; check and call a bet or check and fold to a bet.
Player B has the following options based on A's action and B's own hand: raise if A bets, and bet if A checks or check after A checks; call A's bet, and bet if A checks or check after A checks; fold if A bets, and bet if A checks or check after A checks.
What are the optimal strategies for both players for this problem ? Or more specifically, what are the optimal frequencies that player A should bet with a Strong hand and with a Weak hand ?
I noticed that Louie Landale posted an answer to the question, which says that A should still bet with all hands. This cannot be correct since it does not take into consideration that B can have a Monster hand. The pot odds alone does not provide a correct answer. If you look at the extreme of the problem that B always have a Monster hand (change 20% to 100%), then it becomes obvious that A should check and fold every time.
Player A's expectation if he checks and calls with his strong hands is +14 if Player B plays optimally and bets only his monster hands. Player A's expectation if he checks and folds with his weak hands is zero. Player A's overall expectation is +11.2 if he always checks.
Player A's expectation if he bets strong hands and calls all raises is +12 if Player B plays optimally and folds his decent hands and raises only with his monster hands. If Player B bluffs some decent hands, Player A's expectation would go up, and therefore Player B can't bluff. Player B must fold his decent hands to any bet because even if Player A bets all hands, including weak hands, Player B's expectation is -2 when he calls and zero when he folds. Player A could also bet his weak hands then, bluffing into the decent hand. This gives Player A an expectation of +14 on his bluffs, as opposed to zero when he checks. This brings Player A's expectation to +12.4 if he always bets and calls a raise only with strong hands
Player A's expectation if he bets all hands and folds all hands to a raise is +14 if Player B never bluffs. If Player B bluffs, which he should always do in this situation, then Player A's expectation decreases all the way to -10. Therefore betting and folding is not an option for Player A.
If Player A tried to check his strong hands and bet his weak hands for a bluff, Player B would catch on and call when Player A bet, providing Player A with an expectation of -10 on his weak hand bluffs.
If Player A bet 75% of his strong hands and all of his weak hands, with the intention of calling all raises with his strong hands, then he would have an overall expectation of +12.8, no matter whether Player B called or folded his decent hands. Since Player A is calling all raises, and 3/4 of his betting hands are strong, Player B is better off not bluff raising.
Therefore, Player A's best strategy is to bet all weak hands and 75% of his strong hands, with the intention of calling with his strong hands if Player B raises. When Player A checks a strong hand, he should call a bet as protection against the steal.
Player B's best counter-strategy is to raise or bet only with his monster hands, and to randomly call or fold with his decent hands. Player B should check his decent hands when Player A checks.
I seem to have a problem in the holdem games I am playing in Detroit, mostly 5 - 10 and sometimes 10-20. I find that I'll play a hand to the river, only to get raised on the end I find myself almost knowing I've been beat, but almost forced to call because the pot is so large.
I'll give an example. I have AA and raise on the button in a 5-10 game. I get five callers for 10 dollars. The flop came 6-7-8 all offsuit. Everyone checked, and I bet. I didn't like the flop, but I figured if I was beat I would get raised either there or on the turn. Again 5 people called. The turn was a 3. Everyone checked, I bet, and they all called. I liked this at that time. In this game most of the players would often wait until the turn if they made a big hand to raise, so I figured I still might have the best hand. The river card was a king. I thought I liked the king. I bet, got check - raised. My thought process at this time was, there was at least $130 in the pot. How can this guy raise? Did he wait until the river to raise with 8-9? (He was the big blind). I had only see him play a few hands so I didn't know how he played. Well everyone folded to me, and I paid him off. He had 3 kings. In Poker Theory, Sklansky says that if you have been betting all the way, and expect to be called, and are raised then you most likely are facing a legitimate hand and must lay it down. Well I agree, but just one bad laydown and I've made a monumental mistake. Is the secret just to check more on the river ? Am I value betting too much for this type of game ? Is this just a function of experience, knowing when to call and when to release. Thanks in advance.
Tom Boldrick
AA is a nice hand but it is still only one pair. I wouldn't bet a one pair hand on the end against more than one person. You could have lost more in that pot had the KK played it to narrow down the field.
Tom,
If it is common to get calls in that game on the end and win with one pair. Then you must bet it and decide what to do when raised. That is where good judgement comes in. If on the other hand players will bet weaker hands for you on the end then check and call or check and raise if you can read them correctly. Most of these decisions on the end wont have too dramatic of an impact on your results because they run pretty close. Good Luck.
One rule of thumb I use is a try not to bet on the end when I feel that if I am check raised i will have to pay it off. In this situation, I could have easily have been check raised by ak and my aces are still good, so I would have to pay off.
Too many check-callers to bet an unimproved pair from last position on the river. I'd expect any weak-tight player to play without raising the flop with 67, 68, 78, 79, or 89. I've given up trying to get an extra call or two with hands like top pair best kicker, or an overpair even four handed on the river. AK or KQ will bet for you, so when the king falls on the river and it's checked around, I'd have to be cautious since either the king was a total blank in which case only two-pair hands will call your last bet, or the king really made someone. The only way betting AA for value would be correct in this hand is if some of the remaining players are willing to call with a pair worse than yours. Was the winner with the set on the river playing on a short stack? It is understandable that a big pocket pair with short money would not try to limit the field pre-flop, keeping two or three big bets in reserve to protect the pair from weak draws on the flop/turn.
Tom,
The only ways you can win if the player is raising as a bluff or raising with a second best hand.
Lets take the bluff first:
1. Is this a desperation type bluff i.e. one that makes little sense?
This odds of this are hard to evaluate and would depend on the player involved. The odds of this being the case is a pure judgment problem.
2. Is this a re-steal i.e. does your opponent think you are bluffing and your opponent has less?
This is unlikely and would depend on the player. It’s hard to believe that in this multi-way situation and the board being what it is that this would be the case. It doesn’t seem likely with the flop and all the players involved that your opponent would go this far with a hand attempting to re-steal (in his/her mind) when it is highly likely that you have a good hand.
3. Your opponent knows that you know that he/she, the opponent, would suspect at least a decent hand in this situation. Since your opponent knows this, your opponent knows that you know that he/she, the opponent, would not likely raise without a hand that could beat a big pair of some sort. Since he/she knows all this he may be trying to make you lay down a hand because you are capable of thinking at a higher level and are capable of tough folds.
This all depends on your opponent and I would venture to say that this is very unlikely. If you have folded hands like this in similar situations and this player has seen you do it you could give some more consideration to calling.
Conclusion
If he is bluffing it is most likely out of desperation.
Raising With Second Best Hand
This just seems to be too unlikely to consider. With a pair of Kings, for instance, after all the cards are out why raise?
The only hand that you can beat when he is raising here imo is a desperation bluff. As stated earlier this is a problem in judging the odds that this is happening. The other part is that when the King comes on the river your opponent doesn’t know that the King did not help you since you have played this hand the same way you would play Kings in the pocket and maybe A,K.
Tom Haley
A card-counter is easily reconized by others in casino, is it better for a card-counter to play in on-line casino? and is on-line casino reliable? Can card counting strategy be applied in one-line casino?
I seriously doubt any Online Gaming Operator would run a Blackjack game that could be beaten. The cards are most likely shuffled after each Deal. Taking away any advantage a skilled player might have, other than Basic Strategy. You may want to try Sanford Wong's Blackjack page. It is on the Favorite Links page of this Site. You might find a more in depth discusion about beating Online Casinos.
Chris Villalobos
Since there seems to be some game theory experts out there, I decided to throw out a real world problem that even I find too complex to deal with perfectly. It is simple to state and comes up many times in the course of a poker session yet no one to my knowledge has even attempted a game theory solution. I will pay $100 out of my pocket for the best reply. I might split the prize among two or three people but I doubt it. I won't announce a winner for at least 10 days. Only your final answer matters so feel free to post preliminary thoughts. However this is a pure math problem that will require some sort of randomized mixed strategy. Thus if you are not a mathmetician I can only suggest that you find a math professor to work on it for you. It is very possible that pure mathmeticians will find it intriguing enough to accommodate you. I'll take the answer anyway I can get it. THE GAME IS SEVEN CARD STUD. It is the last round of betting. The pot contains $60. You have two aces going into the last card. Your opponent KNOWS this. He has two kings going into the last card. You knows this and he knows you know. (In fact we may as well assume both hands are face up on sixth st.) The last betting round is in increments of $20. Assume that both of you have a 30% chance of making two pairs and a 5% chance of making trips. Check raise is allowed! My question is what is the optimum mixed strategy for both players? Also, How would this strategy change for different pot sizes? I would be very surprised if this question has an easy solution. It very well might take a computer. For a start you might want to work on the problem that asumes all three of a kind cards are gone so each hand simply has a 30% chance to improve to two pairs. Now go out there and take my $100. For me it will be money well spent.
Is the AA first to act?
AA is first to act.
Hmm, the pot has increased ! Before trying to solve this problem, let me ask for some clarifications about this problem.
1. When you say 30% chance of making two pairs and 5% chance of making trips, you do mean that the remaining 65% chance for NOT improving AA and KK.
2. Since check-raise is allowed, the problem certainly becomes much more complicated. Do you limit the number of raises to 1, 2, or 3 ? Three or more raises will certainly make the problem far too complicated for an accurate analysis, although extra raises should not affect the optimal strategy too much. It would be nice if you restrict the number of raises to 1 for this problem.
There is a 65% chance that you won't improve. The only conceivable way there could be three raises would be if the aces checked raised and was reraised by the kings representing trips. The third raise represents trip aces. Two raises is a more common scenario. If you want to confine yourself to only one raise being allowed , be my guest. The right answer under that restriction might very well be good enough to win the $100. But it could also change the answer quite a bit from the real world situation. Thus I will stick to my original question , daunting as it is , just in case there is anyone out ther who will tackle it completely.
Does anyone out there have an opinion about the version 2.0 upgrade recently released? According to TTH this version has "Much tougher players", and "Improved advice". I wonder.
The "much tougher players" are in fact tougher, but they still do not learn from experience. That is to say, they will act the same way every time they are confronted with the same situation--eg, if you raise in late position, certain ones will fold every time if they don't have a premium hand. Others will always call when you have the nuts. Of course in a live game, real players learn from these mistakes "on the fly".
The advisor? Well, he often urges you to call with hands that I wouldn't want to invest money in.
Having said all this, I still like the new software. If you play it right, you can learn to get away from certain hands that would cost you money in a live game. And it's just good practice.
I bought the new version but dont have it yet. I have been led to believe that if i raise a computer player on the flop that player will take my raise into account on the turn and may not bet into me when he would if i had not raised on the flop. Is this true? As you know, in the old version the computer player would "not remember" my flop raise or any flop action and act based on its programmed script for its hand and situation on the turn.
I bought the software in Las Vegas a week ago and found it to be very good. I definitely would recomend it to most people. The computer players are all still very preditable. An average human (who know how computer programs work) can beat the game easily. I'm not sure the user define player profile works without error? I'm having problem getting the result I expected doing that.
Have you read "Trying For a Parlay and Then Some"? There seems to be some discrepancy. The way I read the essay, the first player (who presumably made all the errors) flopped a set of eights.
What do you think?
Yes, the 8 on the flop must be a typo.
Yes, it was a typo. Chuck is changing it. It should have been the seven of hearts, not the eight of hearts.
Prelim. thoughts
The optimal strategy at poker would be to play in such a way as to quarantee yourself the most profit possible when you don't know how your opponent will play.On the Defense side you want to play in a way where you will lose the least possible money when you are beat. You need an attack or offensive strategy, and defensive strategy. The offensive would include bluffing. I might have missed something here, but with the way you set this problem up, it seems that the optimal strategy for the hand with AA, since it is first to act would be to bet out 100% of the time. This is only because he knows for sure what the other player has. AA doesn't need to set up a defensive strategy here, as betting out will quarantee the most profit in the long run. KK should call with the top 75% of his hands. Since KK knows that the other hand has at least AA, then he would call with any improved hand, and raise with KKK. AA would not call a raise, but reraise with any AAA hand. I don't think this is what you are looking for. I think the question should make the KK act first, and make the game Pot Limit. Then the strategy would involve correct playing based on the size of the pot, and the percentage of the pot bet by any player. In your example the bet would be 1/3 the pot. What if it was 1/2 the pot etc. Just my .02centavos worth.
Since we're assuming that both hands are face up on sixth street, may we also assume that the pair of aces doesn't have a king, and that the pair of kings doesn't have an ace?
Also, referring to game theory as explained in your video, what day of the week is it? . . . only kidding.
You have no way of knowing if you are being cheated with any on-line casino software. Would you play against a stacked deck? Would you play if the deck was always shuffled when the count is favorable?
Hello Forum,
I would like to try to Lobby for Public Cardrooms in my State of Idaho. I've been told it would be an uphill battle, but I might be up for the challenge. Idaho is very small, politicaly, so talking to influential people isn't that hard to do. I also live in Boise so getting the message to the legislature isn't much of a problem. I just don't want to make any mistakes that would ruin the chance of Legalized Cardrooms in the future. Does the Forum have any advice?
Thanks, Chris Villalobos
Chris,
You might try researching how legalized card rooms came into being in other states. That might help you find some people who have gone through the process and they could give you some advice. It also seems to me that you are going to have to demonstrate some economic benifit to the state. Also, imo having groups like restaurant owners and tavern owners get behind the legislation is important. My thinking here is that they would have some political clout (money) to influence the legislative members. You'll probably hear concerns about the mob infiltrating this type of business so I would be prepared for that.
Tom Haley
Thanks for the input. This might be a more daunting task than I first thought. I think the "Coffee" was talking on my first post. I still think it will be an interesting adventure. Check out the great link I found though.
Chris V.
Chris,
I didn't mean to discourage you. Pretty cool site.
Tom Haley
In general, it seems that restaurants do not do well when casinos move in....because the casinos usually have restaurants inside....if you can get the cardrooms with a promise of no restaurant attachment, this would get the restaurant support, but I doubt you get it without that.
Chris,
Something you might check into would be the existing gaming facilities in your state. Rather than trying to get stand-alone cardrooms, if you could convince the current tribal operators that poker would put money in their pockets, it could be a win-win situation.
On the other hand, here in MN we've had a cardroom bill the last few years, tying it to the local horse track. Shot down repeatedly, supposedly because of all the money that the Indian Gaming Assn puts into politics. It's not that a cardroom would be a threat, it's the fear of any expansion of non-indian gaming.
Good Luck.
The first thing I would do is to check out exactly why gambling is currently illegal. In many states, anti-gambling provisions are part of the State Constitution, and cannot be overcome by a mere vote of the Legislature. In these cases, it usually requires a vote (often 2/3) of the Legislature, and then approval of the Constitutional Amendment by the voters. All of this is going to be pretty hard to do just for poker. Now, if you were going after all forms of Casino gambling, at least you could get big money (e.g., Harrahs, Grand Casinos, etc.) behind you. For poker only, there would be few entities willing to put up the kind of money you'd need.
However, if gambling is only illegal based upon statutory law, then all you'll probably need is a majority vote of the Legislature. This can be done with much less effort and money.
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
P.S. - This isn't legal advice, because I'm not a lawyer in Idaho (only CA, WI, and IL).
I sit down into the big blind in a 5-10 holdem game, and see QQ. I have been watching the game for a few hands as I was told the seat would be mine in the BB. Players seem like a fairly typical mix of fishy and aware. Six or seven people see the flop without a preflop raise. Flop is AAx. I check, player 2 to my left bets, and 2 other callers to me. I fold. I don't know the other 3 players, and I decide that at least one of them has a hand. Turn is blank, river is a J, and pot is won by 2 pair, Aces over jacks. I am of course disappointed, but I decide I still made a good fold.
However.... After thinking about it overnight, I decided i was wrong to fold so easily. Check-calling to the river doesn't appeal to me much in this situation. I think a check-raise on the flop would be the best play - if I get re-raised I can dump it easily, I might drive out a marginal hand or two, and I could get a free card on the turn. Thoughts?
Rich,
I think you have to consider how your opponents would play an Ace. It also depends on what draws were out there. A lot of players would play the Ace on the flop if there was a two flush on the flop. The check raise on the flop play would be a good play in this game. It might be better to go for it on the turn and check and call on the river. Imo if everyone checks on the turn you know your Queens are most likely the best hand and there aren’t that many free cards that can beat you. If it is bet and raised on the turn you can fold without investing any more money and it only cost you one bet on the flop. If it is checked around on the river well that is o.k. to.
Tom Haley
These are always difficult situations. With no raise and 2 aces I would probably bet on the flop, then check the turn, and call unless there was alot of action. By betting and checking, you might give the impression that you want to check raise. If there was raising before the flop I would be more inclined to believe an ace was out there.
From what you told me, you made the right play. what could the two callers have. Even with fish in the game what could they call with. They could have small pairs and the better bluffing but, that's a long shot. Be happy you did the right thing and kiss the pot good-by.
The right play is almost certainly to come out betting. You are less than even money to have the best hand but the high pot odds would probably justify a call if you had checked. This usually means that it is best to bet. Remember that a bet might prevent the next card from beating you. Furthermore the fact that you might catch a queen to draw out is yet another reason not to fold.
Your position sucks and you don't know any of the players. Take one off and plan to check fold unless the action dictates different.
Based on the problem as stated, we could assume that player A has AAQT86 and player K has KKJ975 with no flush draws for either player and each pair in the pocket. Now, do you want analysis of the situation where A misses but gets one of K's offcards, and vice versa with K, or do you want to keep the problem simple (ha ha) by assuming that when each misses, they get a 2,3, or 4?
I agree with Ray - I'd be afraid of calling a pot size bet (or raising all in) with only one pair once six players have called in an unraised pot. I'm pretty sure that Doyle Brunson stated the big bet rule in his book - "Don't get broke in an unraised pot".
So, even though I don't want to get all in preflop with the hand, I normally would raise preflop with queens. Then, assuming a couple of players had just called my preflop raise, I'd like the flop you saw. I'd bet the flop, and then if raised, play it by ear.
In your situation as described, I'd still probably go ahead and bet the flop, being prepared to lay it down if raised.
Prelim. thoughts As a mathmetician....I'm a good football player. The optimum strategy in poker, is to use a strategy that gives you the maximum GUARANTEED profit over the long hall, and loses the least amount of money possible when you lose. You need an offense and defense.( I knew football would come in handy) I'm sure I'm missing something here, but the way you have this problem set-up, with AA acting first, then the optimal strategy for the AA hand would be to bet 100% of the time, this gives AA the maximum guaranteed profit over the long haul. KK should call with the top 65-75% of his hands, but since he already knows he's beat going in, he should call every time he improves, and raise with trip KKs. AA should not call any raise , but re-raise with trip Aces. I know this isn't what your looking for. I think you might consider having the Kings first to act, and change the game to pot limit. Then you can get into bluffing and calling strategies, as well as adjusting the percentage of the pot bet, such as what hands do you call with when your opponent bets 1/3rd the pot or 1/2 the pot etc. I believe Game Theory is more suited to this. Just my .02centavos worth.
im a former blackjack player whos trying to get itno casino holdem-does anyone have a preffered or systematic way of keeping track of the money in the pot for figuring drawing/calling odds?some say just to estimate how many bets are in the pot;however that seems impossible with any kind of accuracy at all---thanks folks
Once the pot builds up, counting chips is difficult, but counting players isn't. If you track the play (you should anyway), you will know how many players are in at all stages of the betting. If six see the flop in an unraised pot and 4 see the turn with one raise, that's 14 bets. Now that the turn is coming, divide by two to get the number of big bets, and go from there. I don't think this is a very difficult habit to acquire, but if anybody knows a shorter method, I'd like to hear it. Some dealers announce how many players are in, but this is not always reliable.
Frank,
Go to our archives for a previous thread on the subject of pot odds. It was started on January 4th, and is entitled "Pot Odds & Implied Odds". There were several responses in the thread which you will find when you click on the initial post.
Jessica
I really botched my attempt to write on this subject before, so let me try to redeem myself here. Let's suppose we're in a situation of deciding whether to call a single bet on the turn.
Let W be the *net* amount we win if we win the pot. Let L be the amount we lose if we call and then lose the pot. (L=1 here) Let D be the number of cards left in the deck. Let C be the number of cards that are outs (will cause us to win)
Then for the expected value of calling on the turn to be positive, we need:
W(C/D)-L((D-C)/D) > 0 i.e., W(C/D)-(D-C)/D > 0 i.e., (WC-D+C)/D > 0 i.e., (C(1+W)/D)-1 > 0 i.e., C(1+W) > D
In English: add one to the pot size (in big bets), multiply by the number of outs you have (careful about "outs" that you still might lose with), and compare to the number of unseen cards, which is usually 46 on the turn (52 minus 2 in your hand minus 4 on the board). If the number of outs times pot size (plus one) is greater than 46, then call, otherwise fold. (When folding, you have to be sure your opponent has a hand, that you don't have more outs, that you don't have some way to weasel a victory with the worst hand, etc. If there is some other chance like this that you might win, then you can call with worse odds than the formula suggests. But you don't want to be drawing dead, either.)
Implied odds: If you will suck an extra bet out of your opponent on the river if you hit, but will not pay off your opponent if you miss, then you can add 1 to the pot size. (You can add 2 if you are sure your opponent will bet and you will get to raise and he will call and have a worse hand, but be careful, as things are seldom certain in poker.)
To know the pot size, I count the number of big bets at all times. When someone calls the big blind, that's 1 big bet between the call and the big blind (plus a bit for the small blind), when there's another caller, that's "1 point", a quick way of mentally saying "one and a half", and so on. You can be lazy preflop by waiting until the flop comes to take the number of callers times small bets each put into the pot divided by two. It does become automatic after a while. I don't do this for heads up play, when draws are not playable according to naive pot odds but are playable when you consider the high probability that you can take down the pot without a showdown.
For calling on the flop, the situation is much more complicated. Certainly the above formula is inappropriate, because of the redraw potential you have and the improved implied odds. When I'm waiting for a table tonight, I'll try to work out an approximate formula for that situation. As a general rule of thumb that I just pulled out of my ass, you can call two bets cold with strong draws to the nuts, you can call one bet with any reasonable draw, and if last to act, you can often call one bet with fishy draws such as gutshots, third pair, and runner-runner nut flush draws with two of the suit in your hand.
-Abdul
Easy. Count the bets b4 the flop as they are made. If someone raises, add 2 for that person and keep counting 1 more as people call. Dont forget the blinds. Continue counting of the flop. When flop action is done but b4 turn, immediately divide your count by 2 since on turn bets are twice as big and so you can keep adding one on the turn to your new count which is easier than using the old count base and then having to divide when the action is done when at that point you should be thinking about the action itself and your next more.
Prelim. Thoughts The optimal strategy is to make the maximum quaranteeable profit, and lose the least amount when losing. I'm no mathmetician... but the way you have set-up this problem with the AA hand betting first, the optimal strategy seems to bet out 100% of the time.Since you know that you have a clear advantage over your opponent this would quarantee you the maximum profit without having to resort to a offensive and defensive strategy. The KK hand should call with the top 65-75% of his hands. This would mean that the KKs would call every time they improved and raise with trips. The AA hand would not call any raises, but re-raise with trips. The problem would be more interesting if the KKs are first to act and it was pot limit. Although there is some consideration as to pot size and percentage bet in this hand,it would much more interesting when you analyze which hands you should bet and call with and use different percentages of the pot. Such as what hands do you call with when your opponent bets 1/3 the pot 1/2 the pot or the whole pot, and so on. That seems to be where game theory does best. Just my .02centavos worth.
UTG limps, player to his left raises, everyone else folds. You call the raise with ATs in late position in one example and AJs on the button in a similar example.
How can you justify the odds. Most raises in early position will have AK AA KK - QQ JJ TT AQ. All of these hands have you beat.
In one example you hit a flush on the turn against a pocket pair of aces and won.
Did you just get lucky or is this the correct play against only two players?
First, with the ace-ten suited I had taken a late position blind and only called for one bet instead of two. Given the fact that one or more other players can still come in this call is correct but probably close.
Second, I am not sure where you are referring to the ace-jack suited. However, in HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS we explain when you should call a raise cold with this hand and when you shouldn't. However, in a typical game against typical players you should frequently call a raiase with it.
Oops - AJ was in your latest essay - not in your book - sorry!
If a tight player limps in UTG and another semi-tight player two seats to his left raises - the rest of the field folds, you are on the button with AQs, would you call two bets here?
Thanks for the great info from your books and this forum. Two Plus Two has turned a break even player into a consistent winner. I give you guys full credit! Thanks again.
Bob wrote: "If a tight player limps in UTG and another semi-tight player two seats to his left raises - the rest of the field folds, you are on the button with AQs, would you call two bets here?"
Yes I would. However, if the initial raiser was not that thight, or not that tight for the situation, I would frequently reraise.
I'm glad you finally said re-raise. With both the AJs and AQs I would re-raise almost every time, unless it is a player who will only raise with big pairs.
Expert players will frequenly bet on the end only one pair into more than one opponent when playing hold 'em. They are able to do this and make money because they have developed good card reading skills. Some of our books, including THE THEORY OF POKER and HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS have good discussions of reading hands.
Just a quick comment. In my experience, even though the standard deviation is a very important number for winning gamblers, whether they are playing poker or something else, it is also sometimes very elusive. Trying to make estimates on this type of speculation can be very tricky.
Because of this I try not to put any numbers in print regarding standard deviations unless I am pretty sure that I am right. This usually comes with experience and the monitoring of games. However, even with this being the case, it seems like my conception of this estimate is still off in some spots, and I have to retract what I have previously written.
In the next issue of THE INTELLIGENT GAMBLER (which comes out in May?)I have an article on this subject with some surprising results. I don't want to give it away here, but if you are not on ConJelCo's mailing list contact Chuck Weinstock and tell him that "Mason" sent you, and when the IG comes out he'll send you a copy. When this article appears, we will have a few more things to talk about.
I want to emigrate from England to Las Vegas in order to play poker professionally. Can anyone advise the best way to make the formalities etc as painless as possible ?
What formalities are you talking about? Have you visited Las Vegas much before? I would reccommend you come out and visit for a couple of months and rent a place temporarily. That will give you time to get to know the area and play poker, to see if it's for you.No sense moving all your belongings until you know for sure that LV is the place. You might want to look at Tahoe/Reno as well. Good Luck
Are there enough poker games to really support a full-time professional in Reno? I have never been there, but had always gotten the impression that there were very few higher limit games (in fact, I had gotten the impression that even 10-20 games were very few).
If LV isn't for him, I would recommend LA. Not because I think LA is a great place to live (I don't), but because it has the widest selection of low, middle, and higher limit games in the world, plus literally a dozen or more tournaments every day. If only all those big rooms were in a long strip like LV, it would be the perfect place to play.
Later, Greg
Thanks for your responses. I have visited LV twice for extended poker holidays and (after a year's study and practice) my performance in cash games on the 2nd visit confirmed my feeling that I could earn a living as a pro. The formalities I was referring to concerned immigration rules and any legislation that might apply; are you saying that there are no restrictions? I was very interested to see the comment from Greg on the variety of games available in LA.
If you like LV then move there. It is booming! You can invest your winnings in the local real estate and do well. In Los Angeles the games can be great , but the rake in general is better in LV. You can always visit LA. Also the cost of living etc. is much better in LV.
Let me say, I don't want to tell you that LA is better than LV. They are both better and worse, depending upon which factor you're currently analyzing. I do know that Abdul did a lot of research a while ago into which location was best for a full-time pro, and picked LA. Other than LA or LV, I'm not sure that there are any other truly viable choices.
The plusses and minusses are: Cost of living is much lower in LV The rake is much lower in LV There are many more ring games available in LA There are many more high stakes games in LA (50-100 and up) The games at all levels tend to be looser in LA There are more daily tournaments in LA More "tournament trail" events are in LA Standard of living is better in ? (depends upon your personal priorities)
All of the above may be inaccurate.
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
> The formalities I was referring to concerned immigration rules and any legislation that might apply; are you saying that there are no restrictions?
I am no legal authority regarding immigration laws but from my own experiences I would highly recommend you investigate this further. The USA has immigration restrictions and the political climate right now is such that they are seriously cracking down on illegal immigrants. So to answer you question: yes, there are serious restrictions regarding staying and working here. Probably your best bet is to get a one year working permit which used to be called (and probably still is) a L-1 visa. I don't know what the requirements are for getting one, you can check with your local US consulate. You also could apply for a Green Card, but there is a lot of paper work involved an the waiting list used to be years (it took me 4-5 years to get mine). So unless you plan on permanently settling here I would go for a L-1, they can be renewed each year. Also, I believe they have some sort of quota per country for Green Cards per year making it harder to get one. Again, I am no legal authority so make sure you check this thoroughly and try to find different options available. It would be a shame to win a big tournament down the road only to be told you are here illegally and be put on a plane home without your winnings. And believe me that could happen if you don't do it right. Good luck.
Where can I play Holdem on the web? Would be glad if anyone could help me.
aol has or used to have games for fun only for $2 per hour. People played very bad.
C.W. Try a site called Planet Poker http://www.planetpoker.com
I recently discovered this web site that offers a free 30-day trial for play money playing Texas Holdem. The site is www.casinococo.com. You can play the free play money site after you download and install the software.
I would strongly advise you exercise caution in gambling for real money on their site. But I think the play money site has excellent graphics, sound and features. Unfortunately, most of the time the free area is very light or empty. Maybe, some of the readers on this forum can get on the free area and we can have so FUN playing Holdem online. It's got chat capability and everything. Let's coordinate a meeting time for some online Holdem.
There is an IRC poker channel with a lot of activity. It offers several levels of hold'em, stud, and omaha. You have to earn your way up the limit ladder and the competition is quite bad at the lower levels but gets better as you go up. There are also tournaments.
To get started, visit http://www.anet-stl.com/~gregr. This will allow you to download the IRC client. You connect to the site, pick a user name and password and start to play.
The site, software and IRC client are all provided gratis by members of the IRC r.g.p. community.
There is real 3-6 he for $ on www.planetpoker.com out of costa rica. I chatted w a guy who plays, and he said that the rake is 10% up to $3 a hand. However, the set up is partners paridise because you can see who is in which game and choose the game you want. Thus, two people w separate PCs could play partners w 100% accuracy. He says the action is very slow but very loose but usually only one game and short. On the other hand, no one knows about this and they may pick up business w publicity.
More info from postings on rgp second hand from guy that runs plantpoker: two people could easily play partners because they can choose the same table and know who is there by name. However, site has hand records of all play and says could easily spot partners by reviewing all of the hands they played since it knows what their cards and action was on every hand. Cheaters would be barred from playing again although they presumably could get back in using different ID and internet provider. This certainly is better than normal game where hand records usually cannot be seen by camera. However, it still is up to players to report suspected cheaters.
This site can be fun if you want a loose 2-4 game without playing for real money. It's a java holdem game, and it has a chat window for chatting with the other players.
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~johns/netpoker/
For many people it is "formal" games of chance that they object to. They incorrectly believe that if its not "formal" than its not gambling.
If offered $300/day and each day they have a one in 5mil chance of dieing each day, most would reject it. But if offered a $300/day JOB and the same risk on the free-way they would of course take it. Go figure.
Dragon,
Check out this URL
http://www.barge.org/
If you're planning on attending BARGE you can get your chance to play either one heads up there.
Tom Haley
Keep track of the exact pot size. Notice who ELSE is keeping track of the pot size. Get a good feel for how many pots are likely to be killed. Bet for value less as the $95 figure approaches. Possibly call for long odds as it approaches, so long as the better is one of the aware players who may give you a free card.
Slowplay less, if at all.
Position yourself so the players who LIKE to kill the pot are a couple seats on your left, so you are in late position for many of the kill pots. Immediately on your left is not so good since they will "kill" your blind.
Risk killing the pot less when you will be in early position next round, risk more if in late. Risk more if next hand you will already be in the BB.
Notice who changes strategy between 5/10 and 10/20. Take full advantage of this.
- Louie
The original problem considered the straight-flush "monster" as trivially improbable and the funny situations where B has seen an Ace or two is also improbable; so A should bet all the small full houses in the original problem since B is getting only 3-1 ... Yaddy Ya ... If your post made it reasonably likely then I'm sorry, I missed it.
When you make the monster reasonably likely then you are correct when you say A's routinely betting should come under question. I did not check Mr. Rice's math but he seems to approach the problem correctly: EV all A's options and pick the best one.
- Louie
David i surpraise you do not know the answer. For 1'st player it is beter to check-raise whith 2-pair and 3 of a kind and and try to catch bluff with 1 pair. 2'nd player shold bet his 2 pair and 3 of a kind. It is sraitgh-forward strategy. I will try to mixs it up. 1'st player always check. 2'nd player bet 2 pair or 3 of kind. Bet or check one pair. He will bet his pair 8.75% and check his pair 56.25%. 1'st player raise 2 pair or 3 of kind. Fold, call or raise one pair. He will fold his pair 21.(6)%, raise 5.8(3)% and call 37.5%. 2'nd player will raise 3 of a kind.Fold or call 2-pair. Fold or raise one pair. ... 1'st player will raise 3 of a kind.Fold or call 2-pair. Fold or raise one pair. ... 2'nd player will fold or call whith 3 of kind. David I get this from your book.I am book player remember?
Orders will be accepted shortly. We will announce it on this web page when we are ready to accept orders.
How about betting the eights into the preflop raiser on the flop instead of checking on the flop? You have better than middle pair (i.e. the 7h on the flop) and it's possible you might have the best hand at the moment.
I do agree that once you DO check the flop, it seems to be wrong to call two bets cold. Since, you are indeed going for more than a parlay...hoping that both of your opponents only have draws/overcards. However, IS it correct to check to the preflop raiser in this situation on the flop? With only two opponents and your pocket pair able to beat middle pair on the flop...should you not lead the betting on the flop?
Also, should the expert with the AsJs reraise with his hand instead of just calling the two bets? If he's to play this hand in this situation---should he three-bet to knock out the blinds? Or is that not correct here because of the early limper (maybe a slow play) and the early position raiser?
Thanks for any feedback on these questions...
If the raiser was in the middle or late position IMO betting into the preflop raiser would be a good idea. Since the raiser was in the early position I tend to believe that checking is better because in the mid to higher limit game, you will almost always be raised. Preflop you have $40x3 + $30 from the blinds. If you bet and get raised , in the best scenario ($150 + $100) you are getting 12.5 to 1 odds (three people with you calling the raise after betting into the raiser). Your chances of hitting trips on the turn is 2 out of 47 (22.5 to 1 odds) making your call on the raise wrong. If I were the first player, I would check and fold or check raise if the preflop raiser check and the button bets. Heads up play at this point would give me the best chance to win even though I would still be an underdog. On your second point, AJsuited would be a small dog to KK, QQ and a big dog to AK, AQ. Suited hands play better in multiway pot and consequently I would not reraise to get heads up at this point of the hand (especially if the early position limper decided that he would not call two bets (raise and reraise). But this is just my opinion. Spidey
The so called expert should be using his posistion to the max. If he is going to call the initial raise in the first place, he should be re-raising. With the blind structure of the game, aggressiveness is crucial to mere survival. This expert has played with this player before, so I'm not sure why no re-raise. Anyway, the player with the 88s should probably check and fold on the flop if there was a pre flop re-raise. If players only re-raise with large pairs they are giving away way too much. Your deviation will be higher, but I believe there will be alot more profit by re-raising more often. Fred has it right.
Without stating why, I disagree with the reraise with the AJs in this situation. Comments are welcome.
I also want to point out that if the player with the two eights checks, the before the flop raiser will bet automatically almost everytime as he did. This which means that the two eights could become a check raising hand, unless the player on the button does something. This may be a viable alternative to leading on the flop.
I'm assuming that the reason for the no re-raise was because of the original raiser.And if it was either you or Sklanksy raising in front of me, I'd just call too. But, if it was for any other reason, than that this expert had a good read on the raiser, then I would say it's a mistake. It seems that the advantages out weigh the negatives in that situation. But maybe I'm a little too aggressive, because I don't believe in just calling with most any hand when you are the first one in the pot.Why don't you want to say WHY you disagree????
What's wrong with folding AJs on the button? I can't see a reraise here! ( I am a selective aggressive player)
Last week a tight player limped in UTG and another semi-tight player two seats to his left raised. I'm on the button with AQs and I call. The limper re-raised, other player reraises, I called and the limper capped it. The flop comes Qc 6d 3c 2c 2d. I got drug through this and lost $220 in the pot. UTG had AA - other player KK
If I had folded, I wouldn't have lost a penny. I had nothing invested.
(1) Should I fold before the flop? One of them almost has to have me beat before the flop! AK AA KK QQ JJ TT 99 88 (2) If I did get involved, at what point should I bail out of the hand, or am I committed all the way after the flop gives me top pair and top kicker?
I'm assuming you are responding to my post. If you look at my first post I say that.. IF... I'm going to play then I'm re-raising. The example you give about having AQ is a situation where you had a chance to lay it down when you were facing 2 re-raises. you called and you could have escaped, and you still didn't. So what is the point. if you had AKs would you have played it? Because you had a bad experience running into AA and KK doesn't make it a bad play. As always knowing in general how the players you are playing with play their hands helps. If I felt that an early posistion caller was hiding strength, of course I would be careful, but posistion, aggression, and taking control as much as you can, are the name of the game as far as I'm concerned. When you are up against a very aggressive player, think about how it makes you feel when you don't have a no brain hand like AA or KK, and get re-raised. Aggression works.Seeya
I can't agree with re-raising on the button with AJs. It is just too likely that you are going into the flop as an underdog. I can't think of any hand the pre-flop raiser might have which AJs would be a favorite against ( KQs is the only one I can think of ). The expert must be very confident in his post-flop abilities. Additionally, he has excellent position, so a call is in order. Too bad we didn't find out what the pre-flop raiser was holding. I would guess AK, AQ, or a mediumish pair ( tens maybe ).
Also, if you re-raise, the pot will be so big that it will probably be correct for both players to chase you even with a gut shot draw on the flop.
Aggressiveness is important, but it is definitely possible to be too aggressive. In fact, I think over-aggressive opponents are pretty easy to beat because they will always bet your hand for you and are easy to trap.
$.02 deposited
GregG
This is the last post I'll make on this thread.
I understand that most players would not re-raise in this spot. Selective and aggressive doesn't mean call. it means try to take control. You can never be totally sure if your raising with the best hand pre-flop. It is not just about having the best hand, and that's where I believe there are many mistakes made.
Most of the time when someone raises they are not paired. And they will miss the board 2/3rds of the time when not paired on the flop.
in the article that Malmuth wrote, the raiser bet out on the flop, even though it obviously didn't hit him. by re-raising pre-flop the AJs has given himself another chance at winning the pot if he doesn't hit the board, because the original raiser is probably going to check instead of bet out, unless he's got something.the AJ can then get a free card or bet and try to win the pot right there. It is also easier to get away from the hand when a flop like KJx comes and the raiser bets.
Re-raising in that spot is not overly aggressive.And although it is a different game, you will find that your tournament winners are in general extremely aggressive.
You can't pick an aggressive player off before the flop, and when you pick them later, you have to have something. Seeya, good luck and RAISE_IT!
Al Raieya,
>>This is the last post I'll make on this thread. <<
I've enjoyed reading what you had to say and have gotten a lot out of it. If you have more points to make I wouldn't mind reading them.
>>I understand that most players would not re-raise in this spot. Selective and aggressive doesn't mean call. it means try to take control.<<
In this situation I think it depends who you are up against. I think that your points about re-raising have a lot of merit. I'm sure Mason Malmuth has some excellent reasons for calling, however.
>>You can never be totally sure if your raising with the best hand pre-flop.<<
Actually you can but when somebody raises they probably don't.
>>It is not just about having the best hand, and that's where I believe there are many mistakes made.
Most of the time when someone raises they are not paired. And they will miss the board 2/3rds of the time when not paired on the flop.<<
True but a lot of times the flop won't look good to you either with the A,Js. But I do understand what your point is. You've represented a bigger hand than you actually have pre-flop.
>>in the article that Malmuth wrote, the raiser bet out on the flop, even though it obviously didn't hit him. by re-raising pre-flop the AJs has given himself another chance at winning the pot if he doesn't hit the board, because the original raiser is probably going to check instead of bet out, unless he's got something. the AJ can then get a free card or bet and try to win the pot right there. It is also easier to get away from the hand when a flop like KJx comes and the raiser bets.<<
I don't know about folding when a KJx comes. Again this depends on your opponent and how well you play in this situation I think.
>>Re-raising in that spot is not overly aggressive.And although it is a different game, you will find that your tournament winners are in general extremely aggressive.
You can't pick an aggressive player off before the flop, and when you pick them later, you have to have something. Seeya, good luck and RAISE_IT!<<
Interesting and enlightening.
Tom Haley
When you say that re-raising gives AJs another chance to win the pot if he doesn't hit the flop, if you mean that he may be able to steal on the flop if both players check, I very much doubt it. There will already be 10.5 bets in the pot. If both players check and you bet with nothing, that puts 11.5 bets in the pot and now it is correct to call with a gut-shot, overcards, and all sorts of other hands. If I am one of the other players in the hand, I am not going to allow that pot to be won easily.
Additionally, if AJs re-raises, and the flop comes KJx, how is it easier to fold now that he re-raised preflop? I would think it is now harder to fold since there is so much money in the pot. In fact, with 5 outs at 11.5-1 odds I'd definitely not fold.
Finally, AJ is a difficult hand to play in any position, especially if the pot is raised pre-flop. I would venture to guess that many people who play AJ in a raised pot lose a lot of money with it. There are just not many raising hands that it is a favorite over, and many times AJ will be dominated BIG TIME by AK or AQ. When you put in that third bet, it makes it MORE difficult to fold later on, and if the original raiser or limper does turn out to have one of those hands, you are going to lose a lot of money most of the time. In this case, AJ got a very nice flop. If it had come up Axx instead of Jxx it would not be nearly as good because you no longer have the best kicker.
Hey...I could be way off base but that's how I see it.
GregG
Greg,(okay I'm posting one more time). What you say is totally correct. I have no problem with your logic. But the math and odds go out the window when emotion sets in. Most players, react emotionally,when under pressure, and raising is the pressure. Sure, AJ loses to AK, but 22 is a favorite over AK also. But AK will win the money because you play it different than 22. It would certainly make a difference to me who was raising and the posistion they were raising from, before I decided to come in. But if I'm coming in , I'm probably going to try to apply as much pressure as I can. Will I get trapped? Sure, but I will learn just as fast as the trapping player, who I can push around and who I can't. One thing that really made me realize the power of aggressive play, was a session when I decided to raise and _reraise randomly without looking at my cards. I played like I had AA. Did I win every pot? No way, but it helped me to go to what I believe is the next level. Playing your opponents more than the cards. When I used to just play my cards, my losing percentage was higher than it is now. Of course you need to mostly play solid starting hands etc., but I try to make a "play", about once an hour. It really can help when the cards aren't coming, but you know that there is a player or two that you can intimidate. Thanks for your comments, and the friendly debate.
Nice post. I agree completely that psychology is a big factor to playing winning poker. And I probably would make that re-raise in certain situations when I know the players quite well. But here's my point:
I find that the more money there is in the pot, the more difficult it is to bully people out. Your opponents who, rightly so, would put you on a big pair pre-flop, would still have to call after the flop if they hit their hand at all. No matter how aggressive you are, as the pot gets larger your opponents will not be able to stop thinking "I must be behind the way he is betting, but look at the size of that pot!". I find that that this kind of aggressiveness is most effective against 1 or 2 players and when the pot isn't very big ( or when you can bet a significant fraction of the pot like in pot-limit ).
When the pot is relatively small and you bet aggressively your opponents may know that you could very well be trying to bully your way to the pot, but they will think to themselves "The pot is small, it's not worth it, I'll wait until I have a better hand." The smaller pot helped your aggressive strategy! Where the larger one made it tougher to pull off.
GregG
Al, Greg, Tom very god posts thank you!!
Here is hand i want you to analayse.
New started hold'em game. I am one seat away from the buton. My hand is two jacks. Evrybody fold to me. I raise. Buton and small blind (foxwood regulars) call. Big blind raise. Evrybody call. Flop T32 ofsuit. Big blind bet. I raise. Regulars fold. Big blind raise. I call. Turn 9. Big blind bet. I call. River 7. Big blind bet. I call. He had AK clubs.
Plese analyse my and his play. What you will do difrently and way. Any coments welcome.
Boris,
Imo you played this hand correctly. Your opponent played it poorly imo.
Tom Haley
Boris, My playing style would have dictated capping it before the flop. This hand is a good example of a player being to aggressive at the wrong time. I could possibly see the re-raise before the flop, but his re-raise on the flop was overdoing it.
There are several good reasons to only call with the AJs. But let's look at what you are trying to accomplish when you reraise.
One of the important reasons to reraise is to allow you to limit the field so that you maximize the chances of winning the pot without improving. That is you think that there is a good chance that you have the best hand at the moment and you would like to take the money down without improving. This is clearly the major reason to reraise with a hand like AK.
However, AJs has some problems in this area. It could easily be against a pair, AQ, or AK. Thus reraising with AJs may not be accomplishing what you would normally like to accomplish. If I had AQ, either suited or offsuit I would be more inclined to reraise in this spot.
All comments are welcome.
I can imagine spots where I would fold AJ suited. If the raiser is legitimate I don't want to reraise and I probably don't even want to call. If the raiser is weak and will release a hand easily, I might consider reraising. If the raiser is over-aggressive, I might make a stand and three bet with AJ, but probably not. There is a limper in the pot that may not fold. (My experience is that average players will go ahead and call the raises.) Also, over-aggressive players don't lay down too many hands, especially when you make the pot real big for them. I think three-betting with a pair of eights could be a more effective play, in the right situation. A good situation might be three betting a weak player, when there are tight players behind you. Here, your aggressive play stands a chance of being very effective.
The key to the strategy here is to eliminate an opponent ..as Ray pointed out.. Usually this will happen by check raising on 4th street if the 7T has a busted flush draw...and for that possibility alone I choose to try for the check rasie on 4th street. I don't like waiting for fifth street to check raise since there are too many things that can happen to lock both opponents in to the river where I am no longer a favorite to win the pot with a pair of K's.
Also, I don't like raising with the K high three flush on third...(Mason's idea) since..at this point I don't want to limit the field...I am hoping to hit a four flush and I don't know that I'm going to hit a K.
I am just as talented, or more so, than the usual lineup of 10/20 HE opponents, whom I face, several times a week. However, I quit with minimal wins. I guess it is known, as "hit and run". But, I will sit for hours, when I am stuck in the game. And yes, once a month, I manage to drop all of my small wins, in one session. Strangely, I am a break-even player. This may sound strange, but will someone explain to me, why I should play beyond acquiring a minimal win. Or, just generally address the major fault, with what I have been doing.
JBK Hit and run is ok...as long as you also know when to run when you are getting hit.Which is before you give back a month's worth of wins in one session. Seriosly though,we all know that no matter how well you play you still have to get SOME cards to win. So when you are getting some decent cards why not stay in the game for awhile longer than usual?Give yourself a chance to make a decent score. You also have to realize that sometimes it is just NOT YOUR NIGHT.I am not a big proponent of loss limits(I prefer to let the quality of the game and opposition dictate how far I will go)but you may be the type of person that a loss limit system would work for.Try setting a predetermined amount you are willing to lose before you sit down.If you reach it,get out of the game for awhile.Come back in a couple of hours when some of the players have changed and the game has a different texture.Some hands you were being beaten with before may now stand up. Good Luck
As Mason Malmuth has written in a couple of essays, your e.v. tends to improve when you're winning, and suffer when you're losing. This is because when you're "on a rush", you tend to have the table terrorized, you can bluff more, and some opponents are likely to be on tilt, whereas when you're losing, you tend to have the table smelling blood in the water, you can rarely bluff, and some of your opponents may be playing much better, more aggressively versus you. Therefore, when you're losing, quit, or change tables, and when you're winning, keep playing if the game is good.
Now, true, there are some tables that are just too good to leave when getting pounded. And usually your image makes absolutely no difference at these tables. I was playing a wild 40-80 Hold 'em game that fell into this category a few months ago. I got stuck $6000, 6 racks, which is normally way past my "stop loss limit", which I set for the above reasons, not any money management hocus pocus. In fact, I virtually never lose 6 racks, stop loss or no. But I had decided that this game was too good and that my losses had absolutely no impact on my e.v. in this particular game. I had to show down the nuts to win, that's all there was to it. I then had a $9000 plus swing in a couple of hours to finish at +$3000, +3 racks(!) It's not so hard to do when every pot is $1000, often $2000. When I left, it wasn't because I was up, it was because the game was no longer so great and I was tired.
To help make yourself leave when you're losing, I suggest graphing your overall results. You'll then concentrate on making that graph go up as fast as possible, rather than on trying to win for the night. You'll also realize that any one night is just noise.
-Abdul
Not very many people have the mental strength to go 6 racks deep in a $40 $80 game and still play a fairly good game.
chris K.
JBK,
I don't think that hit and run is a good idea as a regular practice. It would be o.k. if you were taking a shot in a bigger game than your bankroll warranted. To me, from what you have written, you're simply a break even player at this time. Perhaps you would be on the plus side in the long run if you played longer when you were winning because the games have a higher expectation. Perhaps when you are losing you are playing longer in games that have an insufficent expectation.
I see this kind of thing often. I player books a pretty good win in a short period of time and has acquired an excellent table presence and are playing at their best. Then they leave almost immediately thereafter. Maybe a week later they play and get stuck. Their table presence is terrible and they start to steam. They seemingly can play for days when they are stuck and dig themselves a deeper hole to climb out of. My advice is to lengthen your time horizon. I wouldn't worry about individual sessions. Imo you should be concerned with hours played and identifying good games that are worth your time.
By the way, being a break even player isn't bad imo. I suspect that if you plug a few leaks in your game you'll be on the plus side long term.
Tom Haley
There is another aspect to the "hit and run" idea. If you play well you should be able to very quickly have a reasonable line on how some of your opponents play. On the other hand, it will take poor playing opponents a long time to make similar adjustments. Thus, if you play well your advantage should increase in a game after only a short period of time.
Let me give an example of what I mean. Suppose there is a player in your game who bluffs way too much but you have never seen this person before. An expert should be able to tell in less than an hour, and sometimes in just a few minutes, that you need to call this person down with very weak hands. A marginal player may also eventually figure this out, but it should take him many hours to realize this.
So the conclusion is that experts actually hurt themselves a little in the sense that they won't make as much as they should if they do a lot of hit and run. On the other hand, it probably won't affect the marginal winner that much.
By the way, if the expert sees a better game, he may quickly change tables and appear to be on the hit and run. The marginal player may not realize the difference, stay in the inferior game, and not do as well as he could.
When winning the chances of you being in a "good" game is goes up, as does the chances of you playing better than normal. The reverse is true when losing. Brain dead players would be well advised to stay in games when winning and quit when losing; assuming they are "obligated" to play so many hours a month. The great players can objectively analyze self and game, and need no such crutch. The rest of us do.
Your objective appears to be maximize your %age of wins. It SHOULD be to maximize your hourly rate, within bounds of your personal risk level. Winning NOW has short term benefits only. In 6 months the feelings you received from those many small wins are overshadowed by the negative feelings associated with being a break even player.
Your long term objectives are to win the maximum money with minimal impact on your life. The best way to accomplish that is to maximize hours in good games and minimize hours in bad games. Think that way EVERY hour.
- Louie
Under what circumstances would you raise (or call) with 42s one to the right of the button when everyone has folded up to you?
When would you raise with 42s one off the button first in?
1. When you've past-posted the BB.
2. When there's no small blind, only a BB, and
you believe he will fold some reasonable %
of the time.
3. When you are sure the button is going to fold,
(because he is not an actor, and is ready to
toss his hand)
and the SB and BB are capable of folding.
Also factor in the size of the SB: 1/3, 1/2, 2/3.
1/3 good, 2/3 bad.
Calling here is an option if the blinds are the
type of players who will nearly always defend
their blinds but are not check-raisers and will
let go for a bet on the flop when they miss.
4. In a tournament, as a big stack picking on
smallish (but not all-in-ish) stacks.
(and hence check to you)
when
>Under what circumstances would you raise (or call) with 42s one to the right of the button when everyone has folded up to you?
(A) When I'm on a rush and have control of the table.
(b) When I have weak tight players on the button and in the blinds.
(c) When I've had a few Coors Light!
(d) When it's during the Holiday Season and I'm in a gambling mood.
Yes, it's usually stupid to play these hands, but it's a hell of a lot of fun to make a deceptive play and make the opponents go nuts and sometimes go on tilt.
(e) I played in a 20/40 game last week and a maniac three bet it before the flop.
His hand - 4c 2h Guess who won? Two pair - fours and dueces.
I would not raise with deuce-four suited And if I did I should be shooted I would not raise if I had posted I would not raise if I were toasted I would not raise if blinds were tight I would not raise here, day or night I do not like such trashy hands I do not like them, Sam I am I do not want to show this down Lest people think I play the clown Win, lose or draw it's bad for me To be seen like this, can't you see? It seems like fun to raise and steal Perhaps, you think, you'll make a wheel Perhaps two pair, well maybe so But if any 3 gives you nut low.
sorry, couldn't help myself. It's rare (but I guess not impossible) to find conditions where raising is correct. But in most games I'd rather not be seen stealing with Q8s, much less 42s.
I'd have to be about 100% sure I could steal the blinds to raise with 42s. Other than that, (and possibly raising first in with a posted blind behind the button) I can't see calling with it or raising with it ever.
You people all play MUCH too tight!
What the hell is wrong with 4-2 suited!
I raise tight players in the blinds without looking at my cards, some of the time!
Now, you want to give me a duke like 4-2 suited!!!
Raise!!!
Jessica Vecchione wrote:
I'd have to be about 100% sure I could steal the blinds to raise with 42s. Other than that, (and possibly raising first in with a posted blind behind the button) I can't see calling with it or raising with it ever.
Jessica, if you steal the blinds 60% of the time, as MM would say, "you show an immediate profit" (even if you immediately muck your hand if either blind calls).
And hell, the chance that you'll flop a straight flush is .005%, so that brings it down to 59.995%.
(-:
Your right, but I in practice this situation almost never comes up in the games I am used to playing in.
I raised! I raised! With duece-four soooted! And Lo! Behold! The blinds I looted!
And now I'll raise them when I'm posted, and even if I'm just plain toasted!
Why I'll now raise if blinds are tight, And now and then when day or night!
I raise! I raise! with duece-four soooted! Let all the cries 'Ai-yah!' be muted!
I'll now raise, why, on a boast! And I'll now raise while eating toast!
I will raise it, Andy Morton! Just like the 'Whos' heard by Horton!
And don't forget the affirmation:
"I'll raise with a deuce four, and I won't be a bore."
Of course this affirmation is only good if you say it at least 100 times before you play.
First, I'm guessing that Abdul has a good story about someone raising with 42s and I want to hear it.
I don't like the idea of raising with wheel cards.
Why? Suppose you catch your miracle flop of A-3-5.
The other players will just assume that you have AA or AK and dump their hands.
Now with a hand like 65s, you can catch a miracle flop and really make some money.
There are also two other reasons why raising with a hand like 4-2s is bad. It is that when you flop nothing and bet, you may be bluffing with essentially no outs. For example, suppose you are first in on the button and raise, the big blind calls, the flop comes Js7h3c. If the big blind has a pair you will be betting with virtually no outs. (You will have to hit runner, runner to have the best hand.
The other reason is that suppose you flop a pair. Virtually any card that comes has the potential to beat you. For example, suppose you have a queen in your hand and you flop a queen. You main fear will be an ace or a king. But when you have a deuce in your hand and you flop a deuce, you fear virtually any card that hits unless it is another deuce or your kicker.
On a slight tangent, See Sklansky's Essay, "Thinking of the Future", (Sklansky on Poker, p 15)
for a discussion of the future benefits of raising 'frequently' (Sklansky's own term!) with 53s.
Abdul,
You have to go through 3 players to get the blinds without a contest. If all three fold ~60% (a little less) you show an immediate profit as stated previously. A very crude way to estimate your chances of getting away with this steal is to take the odds of getting through 1 player, assume that the odds of stealing is the same for each player, and multiply the probabilities together. Therefore:
if X is the probability of getting through 1,
X ** 1/3 > .6
X > .8435 (a little off).
I know the odds of a player folding change based on position but with this crude approximation the percentage of each player folding individually would have to be 85%. If they fold this much it would be like JimmyR said, you wouldn't even have to look at your cards so the particular hand you held wouldn’t be important.
Of course you don’t have to win immediately it also depends on how well your opponents play and how far they will go with a hand. If you thought the button and the small blind were very tight and the big blind would give up easily it could be worth it to try to knock out the button and the small blind with a raise. Again it isn’t so much the value of the 2,4s as any hand will do. Rather it’s how you opponents play.
Bottom line, if the big blind is anything other than a very tight-weak player forget the raise with the 2-4s. Ditto for the player in the small blind. You have a better chance to fold the button with a raise even if the button is a good player. I would make this play rarely. The 2-4s is a poor hand that you can be played off of easily even when you have the best hand on the flop imo. The players on the button, small blind, and big blind would all have to be unusually tight-weak players for me to raise with this hand.
I don't think I would be calling with this hand very often when I was one seat to the right of the big blind. I don't think that passing on 2-4s means you're a tight player either. It might mean you were a smart player.
Tom Haley
Just talked to a friend of mine last night who is in Vegas, playing at the Mirage. Here's another 42s story.
Friend is in BB, with 6h 5h. Passed around to the button who raises. Friend puts him on a steal, and calls.
Flop: 5x 4h 4x
Friend bets, gets raised, re-raises, and is re-raised. He figures he's in trouble now, but can't put the other guy on a hand with a 4 in it.
Turn: 2h
Friend checks and calls.
River: 3h
Friend check raises, and gets shown 42s, which loses to his straight flush.
Just thought it was funny that after all the talk of 42s here, a friend calls long distance and tells me a story about how he beat it :)
p.s. If anyone is at the Mirage this weekend, and runs into a guy named Greg (6'2", losing his hair on top, ponytail, late 20s) give him my regards :)
Dear all,
As should be obvious to everyone, different hands would be better played against different numbers of people. Now, at my local loose low limit holdem game (which can be described as free money available 24 hours a day when I'm bored)there is a hyperaggressive pro who always tries to get heads up with any quality cards.
AA should win heads up about 6 out of 7 times, right? And when you do win, you should win back your opponents' preflop investment (2 bets, assuming you raised) plus whatever he donates postflop.
Against eight other players (which is not unusual in my game), AA should win between 30 and 40% of the time. And when it wins, it should win back 16 bets plus the postflop donation.
So, if you played AA against one other player, you would win 12/7 of a bet every time. Against 8 other players, you would win about 16/3=5 bets
So wouldn't you rather play AA against many opponents? Because, in the long run, you would make more.
Of course I am not quantifying the postflop donation because you can't do it accurately. However, given that most of the money given to the pot at low limits has little chance of winning, I should imagine you would win more if you allowed the extra players in.
The same sort of thing applies to AK, TT, etc.
Any comments?
Richard Cavell
Assuming you estimates on win percentage are close, you're not considering what AA will lose the 60%-70% of the time it loses multiway, nor the 1/7 of the time you lose heads-up. The important thing to consider is what your EXPECTATION will be in the different situations.
You should realize that multi-way, you will not have as many opponents seeing the river as saw the flop, whereas, if you stay you will have to put in all the bets, lowering the pot odds below 8:1. If you don't stay and choose to fold, then you lose even more.It might be something closer to 4:1 or even lower. Also, if everybody stayed until the end, you're win rate would be (6/7)**8 = 29.14%.
Let's assume a scenario where all player stay until the end. In multiway case, you will be getting 8:1 29% of the time. Your expectation will be (8*.29)-(1*.79)=1.53 bets
In the shorthanded case, your expectation will be (6/7*1)-(1/7*1)=.714 bets. So far so good.
Now if some of your opponents realize they can't win before the last card, or on the flop, your pot odds would be lower than 8:1. Remembering that the last two bets are double size bets, you may average pot odds of about 4:1. In this situation, your win rate might be a little higher, as your folding opponents gave up their back door possibilities. Let's say you win 32% in these situations. Therefore, your expectation in this case is (4*.32)-(1*.78)=.5 bets. Of course, you'll lose a little heads up also, say you only get .9:1 on your money, but a win rate of 88% instead of 85.7%. Therefore your expectation would be (.88*.9)-(.12*1)=.67 bets. This is about 25% better with a much lower standard deviation, too!
The optimal number of opponents with AA may be around two, I don't know for sure. However, any experienced poker player can tell you that AA plays better against few opponents than against many opponents.
While I agree with many of the comments that George Rice makes, I suspect that two aces is a little better in big multiway pots, especially against players who play too many hands and go too far with their hands. It can win a huge pot when an ace flops, or one comes on one of the later streets.
1. The low win rate of 30-40% with AA is only obtained against 8 other "imbeciles" ie. all will see the pot through, regardless. 60% is more appropriate against "loose Foster's drinking" players.
2. With AA heads-up, you will win the pot about 85% of the time against an imbecile, and about 91-92% of the time both against a very tight and a very loose opponent. In fact, there's not all that much difference between the 2 types of opponent (tight and loose) as far as your expectation goes.
3. With AA in a loose game (or a tight game), your expectation per hand will always be greater the more players are in the game. In a loose game, however, the ratio of multiway (9) expectation vs. head-up expectation is about 7:1, as opposed to about 7:2 for a tight game.
In HPFAP, p.77, in the Chapter entitled Heads-up Versus Multiway, it is stated : "On the other hand, when you hold big unsuited cards, your opponents are getting implied odds from you....in multiway pots....it may be right to fold hands like AT, KT, and even AJ and KJ". It then continues with the recommendation that KT on the button, with 5 or 6 players already limped in, should be folded by all except the best players.
Indeed, my simulation shows that the expectation for KT is greater heads-up than multiway for a loose (average of 7.5 players seeing the flop) 10 handed game.
One
I finally agree with Earl.
Sometimes one is too many.
Richard,
My experience has been that you'll win your biggest pots in limit hold'em with A,A and other big pairs when you fill up. I really don't mind a lot of players with this hand. I've won some monsters in limit hold'em when at the showdown all I had was a pair of Aces. Usually this happens when there are some very aggressive players in the game who cap it pre-flop with a hand that doesn't warrant it.
Tom Haley
As I was reading the problem, when it came to the ragged flop in early position, my gut feeling was to bet a healthy amount and get heads up with an Ace-Ten. It's time to quit fooling around! In this situation, the button would have most likely raised for a similar reason and you could have more easily mucked the Queens.
What is the good and bad of playing this way?
(a) In early position you always raise with quality hands, pairs, and suited connectors (76s)
(b) You play all hands the same, no one would ever be able to put you on an exact hand.
(c) You will win some of these hands by raising from early position and everyone folds.
(d) You will hit some of these hands after opponents call and they will not have a clue of what cards you are holding!
This way of playing is not as bad as many people will think, but I believe that in many situations you can do better than this.
For example, against opponents who are relatively unaware and only make their playing decisions based on the hand that they hold, you should be costing yourself something by playing the 76s upfront. On the other hands, against opponents who remember things for a long time, only playing the 76s occasionally will have the same effect as playing it everytime.
Thus I think that you can do better than playing as you describe. But I do concede that most of your points are accurate.
Bob wrote: "(b) You play all hands the same, no one would ever be able to put you on an exact hand."
I'm assuming you mean the same preflop, not throughout the hand.
If you mean the same throughout the hand, then there's a big problem. To win a hand, you must be there on the river. If you played all hands the same, you'd have to be there on the river EVERY time, an obviously losing strategy.
Mason's point is excellent, however. Only try to fool players that can be fooled. Deception is wasted on those players who aren't observing anyway.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I've seen plenty of people play this way. It works for awhile, but then everyone realizes that the raising frequency is just too high, and they make adjustments. For example, if I were sitting on your left, I would know that reraising you with 88 is definitely a positive ev play, since my hand dominates half of the pocket pairs (a wash), is a small favorite against high non-pairs (+ev), is a solid favorite against most suited connectors (+ev), and I have position on you. If you were mixing up your play with the appropriate frequency (rather than heavily weighting it toward trashy hands), I could never be sure what play is correct, making it more likely for me to make a mistake.
Also, don't be so sure that this disguises your hand - do you intend to limp in with any hands (say KQo) which don't fall into your three categories? If so, this group is pretty small, and limping in greatly limits your hands making you more readable in the cases where you do limp.
The bottom line is that if you decide to open for a raise every time you open, and you do so with hands as weak as any pair or baby suited connectors, the other players will adjust and beat you. If they are not aware enough to adjust, then there's no point in trying to be deceptive anyway.
One other point: Playing as you describe is MUCH better than playing in a passive, predictable manner. In fact, I think it is exactly because so many players have gone to this style (at least here in CA) that holdem games have gotten tougher than in the "old days" of weak-tight opponents.
Tom Weideman
Bob,
There is an old saying that I've heard often in cardrooms:
There is no better player to play against than a player who plays shitty cards, shitty.
I hope you'll pardon my language. What you are saying has merit. Perhaps raising in the B.B. with 7,6s when the pot is multi-way would be better. Infrequently I raise with a hand early like 7,6s. This play loses a lot of value if your opponents ignore this information.
Tom Haley
I would assume that you muck the high trouble hands like KQ off suit, KJ off, KT, QT, QJ.
I disagree w most of your hands in early position. For small pairs, you have the best expectation against no opponents or many at the cheapest cost so that your pot odds will be high. If you raise in an early position, my experience is that you usually do not get everyone to fold often enough to make this a winning play but you do limit the field to 2-3 callers at double the stakes which i believe has a negative expectation because you seldom hit trips and someone else usually makes a better pair. Also, its usually a guess as how to play the hand. Better to limp in, get 3-5 callers and higher pot and implied odds and then dump the hand if you dont hit trips. Easier to play also.
Same reasoning applies to low suited connectors.
Late position can be different. If there are no callers or alot of callers, a case can be made for raising.
Big pairs and high suited connectors are different because of their extra potential.
I put live straddle. I get J9. 5 calers. Flop QJ3.I bet. There is a call and a raise. I call. Turn 5.I check. Raiser bet. I call. Flop caller fold. River is 9. I check-raise oponent call he had Q4.
Next hand. I get two kings. Unraised pot 7 calers. I check. Flop T64 two clubs. I check. Player next to the buton bet. Buton raise. I reraise. 2 cold calers. Betor fold. Raiser call. Turn 9 of suit. I bet. 1 caller. Buton fold. River Q of suit. I bet oponent call he had QJ clubs.
Next one. I get Q2 clubs. 8 calers before me. I call. Big Blind raise. Evryboby call. Flop Td6c2d. I check. Big Blind bet. 2 calers before me. I call. Turn Qs. I check. Big Blind bet. 1 caler. Last playr raise. I reraise. 2 players call. Last plaeyr cap it. Evrybody call. River Qd. I bet. Big Blind call. 3'rd player raise. Last oponent reraise. Evryboby call. Big Blind had two aces. 3'rd player had Kd3d. Last oponent had two 6's.
Can yuo plese analayse this hands. Did I or my oponents made any mistakes. Any coments welcome.
Boris,
On the following situation you posted I would like to comment on a few things. First I would like to tell you that straddling is just a waste of money. Yes, you may get lucky from time to time and win a big pot but overall you will be a loser.I want you to know that this is only my opinion and I feel that everyone has their own style of how to play HE.
Out of the three hands you played I would have only played the pocket KK's. I understand the game you were in was a very loose table since their was so many callers. I think you were very lucky to win with the J9 and Q2. Out of curiousity how come you didn't raise with the pocket KK's?? I think that was a big mistake because you could have tried to narrow down the field. I would comment on the other two situations but I feel that both of those hands were a mistake from the start. I have two more questions for you, "what limit were you playing?" and "How long have you been playing HE?"
Dice
Being in the big blind I don't think you will narrow the field down at all by raising with 7 callers. Though you will get more money in the pot with the best hand. I think it's a close call of what to do -call or raise. If you don't raise and get a bad flop A 10 10 just fold, knowone knew you had kings. With a good flop be aggessive but beaware that there's a lot of hands out there with 7 callers and a lot of money in the pot for odds to draw.
Mr. Russell
You are absolutely right. What do you think about the other two situations with J9 and Q2?
I sometimes use a straddle to try and loosen up a game. Generally it doesn't work,but sometimes it does maybe 20% of the time. To use it I have to feel the game is right. The J 9 got to see the flop for just the straddle. A flop with a Q J in it is going to hit a lot of hands that called the straddle -two bets cold. I check and fold to a early bettor If the bettor is in late position I try to read the player if no tell I fold . If I bet the flop and got raised I would give it up, unless I felt the player was drawing. Even then there would be a lot of scare cards that could hit the turn. If a scare card comes what do I do. The game sounds like there's a lot of callers and you need to show the best hand to win.
This forum has superb content but is really spoiled by an abysmally slow response time. It can be quite frustrating to try to read a whole thread when I must wait 10 seconds or so on each page fetch. I ask Two Plus Two or ConJelCo or whomever administers this to please move it to a faster server.
AK
Mason, Chuck, and I are meeting in April during the World Series. Improvements to the forum will be our #1 topic. Please e-mailed me with your suggestions.
Hi everybody!
I'm totally new to this page, and I am from Denmark - so please excuse my english!
I'm currently writing a series of articles for three of our national newspapers, on the subject of gambling.
Therefore I'm eager to get an interview with some full time gamblers.
So if anybody could help me and answer here or drop me a mail I would be most thrilled!
I am traveling this week to Las Cruces New Mexico, and wanted to know if there is anywhere nearby you can play poker in a public cardroom. I have seen tournament listings in Card Player for New Mexico, but it does not state what city the casinos are located in.
Thanks in advance for any information.
Mr.Moody
Your in Luck!!! I just happen to live in Las Cruces, NM. I am sorry to disappoint you but there are no casinos or poker rooms in Las Cruces. However, there is a casino in El Paso Texas which is about an hour south of Las Cruces. The Casino is called Speaking Rock. They mainly play hold'em and 7-stud. The limits for hold'em vary from 4-8 to 15-30. For 7-stud they vary from 1-5, 2-10, and 2-10 with 20 on the end. They stay open 24hrs.
The other nearest casino is about 2 hours away, which is located in Ruidoso,NM. The casino is called Apache Casino at the Inn of the Mountain Gods. Its a small casino and poker is only held from 6pm-2am.
I would recommend Speaking rock because their is a lot of action. I hope this helps. I hope you have a great stay in Las Cruces. If you need any other information feel free to E-mail me at anenriqu@nmsu.edu.
Dice
The other day I was asked if I considered myself a gambler or a poker player. After thinking about it a few minutes I came to the conclusion I am a poker player not a gambler. I guess a gambler in my mind is one who will play anything if their is a chance to win money. As for myself I only like to play poker. I don't like or play any other casino games. I guess I just want to know if any of you feel the same way. I am just curious. Please comment.
Thanks
Dice
The word "Gambler" has a stigma attached to it that gives most people the impression of a person who is a Degenerate or Crook. The fact that most Games of Chance are rigged so that the uneducated person allways has the worst of it helps to enforce these impressions. Also, Religion has gotten involved to help steer their Followers away from these Games by preaching that Gambling is a Sin.
But all people are Gamblers in some form. Gambling means to take a Risk for some advantage. You cannot survive in this world without Gambling.
To Gamble is to Live.
Chris Villalobos
A person who can document with valid records over a statistically significant number of hours that he/she has a positive expectation is not gambling. He is investing in poker futures just as people who invest in stocks are investing not gambling. The key is that while a + return is not guaranteed in stocks, it is clear from history that over a long time the expectation is +.
I reserve the term gambling for the very narrow definition of a person taking a risk without knowing or even having any information on whether the expectation is + or -.
I do not define as gambling a person who plays the slots, roulette, craps, etc since it is clearly known that the long term expectation is - and it can be calculated that over thousands of bets the chances of coming out ahead are nil. Since the term gambling implies uncertainty and since it is very nearly certain that a craps player will lose in the long run, the term does not fit. I cant think of one that does, so i just call this implicitly planned losing.
There is one exception to my definitions that seems to make sense. People who have a negative expectation but a chance of a huge one-time return such as the lottery or megabucks might be called gamblers because they are willing to trade an affordable (if this is true) stream of bets over time for a small chance to completly change their lives. Economists defend this by defining the value of each dollar bet as less than the value of each of the dollars won if the sum is huge.
I have prepared my solution to the simplified version that assumes no trips.
What is David's E-Mail address? Posting it here now would give the answer and method to all before the expiration date.
It seems that there are not many people interested in this topic. Let me post my answer to this problem. The Mathematics involved is quite standard, the hard part is the case analysis (book-keeping sort of things). I believe that a computer program could be written to handle the case analysis for writing down all the entries in the payoff matrix, then a complete solution to the problem will be possible. For now, I am working out the payoff matrix by hand, and hence I am only giving an approximate solution to the problem. I believe that the approximate solution should be very close to the real optimal solution.
For the player with AA, the optimal strategy is: with one pair: check and call 91.7% of the time; check and raise in the remaining 8.3% of the time; with two pair: check and raise 94.5% of the time; bet and call the raise in the remaining 5.5% of the time; with three Aces: check and raise 83.3% of the time, bet and reraise any raise in the remaining 16.7 of the time.
For the player with KK, the optimal strategy is: with one pair: check and fold all the time; with two pair: Always call if AA bet; check after a check 37.5% of the time; bet after a check and fold to a raise 19.5% of the time; bet after a check and call the raise in the remaining 43% of the time; with three Kings: If AA checks, always bet and call a raise; if AA bet, call 33.3% of the time and raise with the intension of calling a reraise 66.7% of the time.
I know that this post was mostly about play after the flop. However, I am curious about the original call. I generally would not call a raise in the big blind with just J9 suited, preflop. I think this would be particularly true with this structure, given that the big blind is only half a bet. I would be interested in other's thoughts. Maybe I'm too tight.
Byron
Continuing with the idea of attacking the blinds. You have K,8o in the position immediately to the right of the button and everyone has folded to you. When do you raise, when do you call? If you raise what do you do when the big blinds calls the raise pre-flop the flop is one of the following and the big blind checks to you? What do you do if the big blind bets into you?:
A, 8, 4 (A and 4 suited)
J, 8, 7 rainbow
K, 6, 2 all suited and you don’t have a flush draw.
T, T, 3 ( T and 3 are suited)
A, 9, 2 rainbow.
One more question, if you raise pre-flop what do you do with the preceding flops when the big blind re-raises?
No doubt there will be other opinions, but here are my responses: First, this is a fold or raise situation. I would raise nearly all the time if the blinds are tight-passive players, or otherwise don't seem to defend more than say 60% of the time when raised. I would continue with a bet, if checked to on the flop (assuming the small blind folded for the pre-flop raise) in all five cases. If the big blind bets, I need to consider the possibility of a delayed re-steal. Against a typical player, I would call the bet with only the second and third flops. If the small blind folds and the big blind reraises pre-flop, again I need to consider the possibility of a resteal attempt, but I generally concede that the blind has a legitimate hand with most players. I can fold K8 in the face of a reraise right away against the type of player who would only raise from the big blind with the textbook type hands (AA KK AKs). Assuming I call the reraise, and the big blind checks on the flop, I would check behind with the first, fourth, and fifth flops since certain players will go for the resteal immediately with Ax or any pair. If I flop top pair or top pair with an overcard then I'll usually bet. Success in attacking the blinds seems to be directly proportional to the size of ones chip stack. It's not something I'm inclined to do even against the real rocks when I'm stuck.
I want to address one aspect of this question. You raise the blind with a questionable hand in a late position when you are first in. The big blind calls and it is just the two of you. Now the flop comes and you don't particualrly like it, but you go ahead and bet. At this point the blind is getting 5-and-one-half to call.
In HPFAP we say (in the short handed section) "if you fold evertime you don't have a pair, a draw, or overcards, then you are not calling (or raising) enough in a heads-up pot. My guess is that most of your opponents when they defend out of the blind will not meet this calling criteria. Therefore you should bet virtually everytime no matter what flops.
By the way, this idea only applies to a late position raiser. If the original raiser was in an early position it is much more likely that he started with a legitimate hand.
Mason,
Jazbo Burns has a table on his web site
(http://www.monmouth.com/~jburns/)
of how individual hold’em hands will do independently against a random, unknown hand.
K,8o will win 0.5602017 of the time against a random hand. 4,2s will win 0.3682901 of the time against a random hand.
So if you like attacking the blinds with a 4,2s then you ought to LOVE the K,8o.
It seems that there are a lot of flops where the K,8 will connect with a mediocre hand that you could get played off of pretty easily. Imo a 4,2s would be even worse. Not only would you have to get through the big blind when you raise pre-flop but you will have to get through the button and small blind as well. As is stated in HFAP, you have to take into account the players in the blinds when you attempt a steal as Andrew pointed out.
Actually when I posed this question I hadn’t referred to Jazbo’s table, I just thought that the K,8o would be slightly better than .5. The statement in HFAP is actually what I had in mind when I posed this question. To me, one aspect of the HFAP statement is that a good player will do more than his share of bluffing in the blinds in short handed situations. It seems to me that a good player in the big blind will slaughter you if you raise indiscriminately trying to attack his/her blinds.
Tom Haley
I have family moving to the Dallas area. Is there anywhere to play Hold Em in this area? I know there are casinos in Louisiana. Anything closer? Thanks in advance.
I have been working on this off and on for several days and realized that my assumption is that a game theory solution would be one that either player could announce to the other and there would be nothing he could do about it, similar to the Sklansky bluffing system. Is this what you are looking for? If so, I am very close to finished.
Just out of curiosity, where do you play 5 - 10 in Detroit?
I play at Poker Players Plus in WIndsor, but they are closing up.
I know it can be very dangerous, but I've won some hugh pots with this hand in early position.
What is the up and down side of playing this hand early, UTG or second or third from the BB.
Starting hands are relative to the type of players you are in against and the tone of the game. In general, I would play the hand if I was first in, and I'd raise coming in. if someone called in front of me, I would be less likely to play it.
As you're well aware, KQ can easily make a second best hand which you may be inclined to bet (top pair unimproved) all the way to the river. I don't believe I am giving away too much by folding immediately against tough competition. I think that AJ is probably the minimum hand with positive expectations in difficult game conditions. However, against anything less than a table full of strong players, I will occasionally call (hope I'm not raised) and see how the players react to my checkraise on the flop with top pair or two pair. I don't like KQ as pure overcards to the flop since even if I pair on the turn, I am vulnerable to an ace on the river. I'd prefer to have at least a gut shot to go along with KQ as overcards. If I'm going to get trapped with KQ, then I have already raised from late position trying to buy the button. KQ is difficult to manage from up front unless you are in the pot with calling stations.
A couple of comments. First I like KQo up front better than AJo. Second, there are many situations where I perfer to have KQ as overcards than AK as overcards. This has never been published, but what happens is that when the ace hits and you have AK you frequently look at someone else's two pair. This doesn't happen as frequently when a queen hits.
Interesting! You're right - too many players are still in love with Ax - naturally they're looking for the ace on the turn with bottom pair. This is really something I'll have to think some more about. Thank-you Mason.
Maybe it's wiser to check/fold any two overcards to the flop out of position without backdoor or gut shot outs. I'll be betting the turn if I hit top pair, but if I get one caller it's easier for that opponent to play me for one pair than it is for me to realize when I don't have the best hand. Now if I bet when a blank comes on the river and am raised, I have a tough decision. With position I have chances to save a bet when two pair chooses to check-raise the turn, and since I won't bet into a raise on the river. I'll also be bluffed off the winner more often up front. Comments?
Against tough opponents who respect early raises, KQo is a STEALING hand. If called, you're beat; usually really bad. You'd be better off stealing with 87s.
Against a whole table of loose agressives you will often find yourself beat and not know when. Again not so good.
This hand has potential in those games where people respect raises when they have draw hands but do NOT respect raises with any trouble hand: if they will call raises with QT (Doh!) but not 87s then this hand is gold .. err .. bronze.
Raise early only if you expect to get called with worse hands. Call early only if they play very predictably.
KQo is NOT a premium hand. Its a trouble hand. It has strong potential in late position when nobody else raises.
- Louie
Hi, my name is Marco and i'm from Germany so excuse my bad english. Some friends and I play 5 Card Draw Poker once a week. Now we noticed one to be the winner almost every time. It can't be normal, that he has a Full House or a straight or a high three of kind every time. We suppose that he is cheating! Which sorts of cheating can he use? Which are the signs and what we have to look for to stop him? You can answer here or with e-mail to: DerGeneral@t-online.de
Thanks
Check the internet gambling bookstores, there are some references covering this topic for sale. I can't suggest a particular title, but also check magician's handbooks which show the slight-of-hand techniques stage by stage. This should allow you to focus attention properly when this player has control of the deck.
Look for books by John Scarne, who not only is (was?) a card expert and master mechanic, but also the foremost cheat-buster in the world. I've got a book, I think it's called "Scarne on Cards", in which the first chapter is devoted to cheating methods, how to spot them, and how to protect yourself. Granted the book is a bit old, but I think it contains some good advice in this area.
Good luck catching the bad guy (if he is one).
Eric
The video tapes by Steve Forte called the GAMBLING PROTECTION SERIES are the best available. Also, from your description, if this person is cheating it sounds as though he is holding out, which in draw poker was/is the most common way for a cheat to operate.
When I said draw poker, I meant high draw, not lowball.
If this player is cheating, and if he is good at it, you will not be able to catch him.
If he is not so good, then reading some of the books recommended by others will clue you in as to what to look for in a card cheat.
You say he has a high hand everytime. Does he have a high hand every single deal, or only every few deals (even though he wins most of these showdowns)? In other words, if this guy is only winning a few pots a night, and always has a high hand when he does so, then he is probably just playing a lot tighter than the rest of you, and is winning for just that reason. If he is winning almost every pot, and has a high hand almost every time, then you might have a real reason to be worried. I don't know about your home game, but most home games are jammed-full of loose, calling station players. The easiest way to make money in these games is to just play tight.
Another clue to look for, is he always getting a high hand when it's his deal? This is an opportunity to stack the deck or deal seconds. I would implement some anti-cheating strategies into the game. Have one person shuffle the cards, another person cut, and a third person deal the hand. By this method the deck is manipulated by three different players for each deal, and it will be much more difficult for a player to deal himself a good hand by cheating.
Another thing to do is to count down the stub after the draw. Since you will know how many players were dealt in originally, and since you can count how many cards were drawn, you know how many cards are left in the stub (the undealt cards). If there are not enough cards in the stub, then someone may be holding out a card (they're keeping a card in reserve for when they might need it later).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Marco,
If you're sure he is cheating, you don't need to know how he's doing it to stop him. Just tell him to stay away, or quit yourself. If you want to catch him red handed before you confront him, it may never happen. Some of these guys are so skilled they can tell you what they're doing and you won't see it.
If you want to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, while you're trying to catch him, you should take some precautions:
Count down the deck before every deal. This will stop him from holding out.
Keep strict control of the discards. There is no good reason for anyone to look through the discards, except to arrange them in some fashion. Be especially leary of someone who looks through the discards and uses the overhand shuffle.
Make it a rule that the deck must be cut before each deal, and try to miss the crimp.
Wear a hat so that the suspected cheater can't see your eyes. Cheaters prefer moving when not being watched, so they will be more cautious if they can't tell where you are looking.
Good luck, and let us know what happens.
Tom D
If I've Flopped the Nut Flush Draw in Hold'em. Its Bet into me, I am the last to act, and have three or more opponents in the pot with me should I try for a Free Card or should I raise and then bet again if the Turn is a blank. Should I just call and call again or Call and Raise the Blank on the Turn? I'm assuming the Board isn't paired, and that my raises only get more money in the pot (these simulated opponents are pure calling stations).
Now if only two or less opponents see the Flop with me should I go for the Free Card. I'm also assuming they won't Fold.
I'm asking this because I had the Nut Flush Draw and took a free Card with 3 opponents on the Turn and then then Bet the River when my Flush card came and 2 of them Folded Correctly.
Thanks, Chris Villalobos
If there is multi-way action, I would raise the flop and take the free card on the turn. I will play the nut flush draw agressively as long as there are two or more opponents and the board is not paired. Heads-up is a different story. If I felt I could get a free card on the turn, then I would raise and check the turn if I missed. If I felt the bettor would re-raise me on the flop, then I would just call. Under normal circumstances, when I miss a draw and I'm given the opportunity for a free card, I take it. Infinite odds are always better than whatever the pot odds would be. The only time I would bet or possibly raise the turn on a semi-bluff would be when I wanted to mix my play up.
I would think that against Two or more opponents I would want to try to get as much money in as possible on the Flop since I'm only around a 1.8:1 Shot at this Point. Now on the Turn, if its a Blank, and Checked to me. I'm thinking I should bet if I think my Implied Odds are Greater than 4.1:1 at this point. At this point the Pot alone might be offering me more than 4.1:1. I guess there is a small chance that everyone will Fold, or I might be raised, but at the games I've been playing in, I wouldn't count on it. Unfortunatly, on the River, if an other Blank comes I won't be able to knock a person out with a Bluff at this point.
CV
Chris,
Remember if you pair Aces it may also win for you so your implied odds probably don't need to be this high.
Tom Haley
If the board isn't paired and I feel that I won't be check-raised, then it's ok to bet the turn. But like I said, infinite odds are always better than what the implied odds would be. I'll take that free card almost everytime especially in the games that I play in. Frequently, I'll go from the opportunity of seeing the river for free to now paying two bets because I was check-raised. However, your games sound passive enough where you can semi-bluff/semi-value bet your flush draw.
Chris,
There is no guarentee that they would have not folded on the river if you had bet the turn. In this situation it was probably right to take the free card. If your implied odds are high enough bet the turn as well. When you do bet the turn you have to take into account the player who lead on the flop and his propensity to check raise.
Tom Haley
Chris,
Do you think you are live on your ace, or other card?
If they are calling stations, raise then check. Normally
though, you need to consider where the bets comes
from and if you will be three bet or not. If there are 2
or less opponents, it all depends on how they play.
You need to adjust for this everytime. Same is also
true multiway, but you already said they were calling
stations.Good hand to vary your play with, especially
when players are paying attention. Just my opinion, Jay
Random thoughts: If you only take the free card with a drawing type hand (four-flush / open-ended), which is to say checking the turn rather than making the first bet, you have given too much information away to even a poor opponent. Thus if no drawing type hand could be completed by the river card, you will be bet into on the river by other hands which were drawing (particularly two overcards) too. Then you may not be able to call the bluff bet. To overcome this situation I like to try for the free card with hands like middle pair and a backdoor possibility as well as with outright draws (8 or 9 outers). Occasionally it can be useful to fake the free card play with something like top set, but only if the board (on the turn) doesn't give both flush and straight draws hope. This play needs an opponent with a hand like two pair against you since you hope to induce a bet on the river so you can raise and get called. Your raise has to get called since you gave up one big bet on the turn for deception. Be sure to mix up your play with the nut flush draw by checking with everyone else on the flop, or just calling a bet from last position about 30% of the time. Drawing at the nut flush with the ace on the board instead of in your hand (when raising from last position on the flop) often steps into an early position check-reraise, or flat out reraise, but at least you know where you are in the hand at that point. My point is that trying for the free card is not a no-brainer, this is especially true against tougher competition.
David is right -- we never see more than three raises with optimal play, and three raises can only occur when the first player checks.
One thing that is interesting is that the solution continues to change as we increase the number of raises allowed (equivalently, as we vary the size of the smaller stack), even though the players never actually make more than three raises in any of these solutions. Some of these changes are not completely trivial. For example, if we allow 33 raises, then the first player should sometimes make it four bets (i.e., re-re-raise after the second player reraises the first player's check-raise) with aces only, but if we allow 34 raises, then the first player should always fold after the second player reraises his check-raise.
But the solution, as far as it goes, isn't changed too dramatically if we limit the players to one raise. In particular, the optimal strategy for the first player at the start of the round and after the second player responds isn't affected by the number of raises.
Optimal strategy sometimes lets the opponent off the hook by failing to exploit suboptimal mixing frequencies. However, an optimal player can still beat an opponent who makes "dominated" choices. I'm curious about whether experienced players know enough to avoid the dominated choices in this situation.
Here's a challenge: list the plays that one should never make in this situation. (For example, you should never reraise with aces only if you bet and are raised.)
The Problem was posted by David Sklansky on March 17. The pot size is $60 and all bets are $20. One player has a pair of aces and the other a pair of kings. All cards are face up on the table. Both player have a 30% chance of improving to two-pair and a 5% chance of improving to trips. The pair of aces acts first. David asked for the optimun mixed strategy for both players and offered a $100 for the best answer. He also asked how this strategy might change for different pot sizes.
It should be noted that for a strategy to be optimum, it should work no matter what the other player does. For our purposes, let's assume that each player can figure out the other player's strategy. Otherwise, the optimum strategy would be dependant on how the other player act or reacts.
At Pot=60, "Player A's" best option is to always check. If (when) "Player K" bets, Player A should react as follows:
With a pair of aces,
Fold 38.46% of the time
Call 60% of the time
Raise 1.54% of the time
With aces-Up,
Call 96.67% of the time
Raise 3.33% of the time
With trip-aces,
Raise 100% of the time
Player K's best strategy is to always bet when Player A checks. Then reply as follows:
With a pair of kings,
Fold if Player A raises
With kings-up,
Call if Player A raises
With trip-kings,
Call if Player A raises
Actually, at first, Player A's strategy is such that it doesn't matter how Player K responds if Player K bets or checks kings after Player A checks, because the expectation is the same. Player K could reduce his standard deviation by checking instead of betting. However, since Player A knows this, he would then alter his strategy and not call with only a pair of aces when Player K does bet. This costs Player K in the long run, therefore Player K must bet.
Also, the same applies for calling with kings-up. Player A would take advantage of Player K folding by bluffing more. Player K must call.
What Player A has done is provided Player K with the same expectation whether he checks or bets after Player A checks, and in effect, forces Player K to bet. This helps Player A when Player K has kings-up, as Player A is now folding 38% of the time Player K has kings-up also. This increases Player A's expectation.
Player A raises with aces and aces-up at the specified percentages for good reason. Raising at those percentages gains Player K nothing should he fold or call. However, Player A must balance two principles here. He also must not make it better for Player K to just check behind him, as Player A would therefore face a decision when Player K does bet--is he bluffing or does he have trip-kings. Player A hopes to gain when he folds aces when Player K bets trip-kings too. However, he doesn't want to fold aces-up when Player K bluffs with kings-up. By keeping his bluffing percentage with a pair of aces down, Player K does not do better by checking behind Player A, and must bet to protect the times he has trip-kings.
With the above strategy, Player A gurantees himself an expectation of +$44.78 per hand. He would do even better if Player B doesn't play optimally.
Player A's can not devise a strategy as good by betting out, although he can come within a couple of dollars. This shouldn't be a surprise, as he is exposing his aces to a possible kings-up. Mixing up his betting will only give Player K information to devise a counter-strategy. Anyway, Player A does better to check against our optimum playing Player K. In fact, Player A could check in the blind.
Different sized pots will be addressed in the next post.
I guess my indenting to make the above more readable was a mistake. Anyway here is my response for different sized pots.
As the pot size gets smaller, Player A needs to fold more often to get Player K to bet. Again the idea is to lower his exposure to king-up without lowering his expectation when Player K has a pair of kings. When the pot drops below $58, there is no longer a reason to raise with aces-up, as the numbers work out that Player K is just better off checking behind Player A. When the pot drops below $47, Player A should no longer bluff with Aces.
As the pot size gets larger, Player A should fold less often when Player K bets. Also, Player A should slightly increase the percentages of times he raises with a pair of aces, with 3% being optimal at at pot=$120. Raising with aces-up, however, is important, as the pot size is getting big and Player K is more apt to call. At pot=$120 the correct percentage is 42.26% and at pot=$200, the percentage is 58.84%.
To figure the exact numbers, I devised the following formulas, which may or may not be fully reduced. I'm not a mathematician, but I did the best I could. It's important to realize both the limits above and the fact that logic may dictate a different course of action than the numbers indicate. For example, as the percentage that the kings improves decreases, folding may never be correct. This isn't relevant in this problem, but the formulas may work in other problems, too.
For S=pot size, B=bet size, F%=fold %, P(kni)=Probability that Player K doesn't improve:
F% = 100 * B/[P(kni)*(B + S)]
For S=pot size, B=bet size, P(kni)=Probability that Player K doesn't improve, P(ani)=Probability that Player A doesn't improve, Ar%=% of times a pair of aces should raise:
Ar% = 100 * {2 - B/[P(kni)*(B + S)] - 1/P(ani)} / (S/B + 2)
For S=pot size, B=bet size, P(kni)=Probability that Player K doesn't improve, P(ani)=Probability that Player A doesn't improve, P(ait)= Probability that Player A improves to trips, A-Ur%=% of times aces-up should raise:
Hold on . . .
A-Ur% = 100 * [ B * (6*P(ani) - 2*P(ait) - 3) + S * (2*P(ani) - P(ait) - 1) - {3*P(ani)*B + P(ani)*S} / {P(kni)*(1 + S/B)} ] / [ (1 - P(ani) - P(ait) ) * (S + 2*B) ]
In David's problem, P(ani)=.65, P(kni)=.65, P(ait)=.05
While these formulas are useless at the poker table, certain observations can be made beforehand which could come in useful.
In my next psot, I'll make some observations regarding these calculations and solutions.
I've been interested in this problem, but have spent very little time on it. I'll probably continue to put it off for some time to come, but I looked at it long enough to formulate one particular question for you:
It appears that you limited the number of bets, rather than allowing for an indefinite number... Is this so, and in particular, did you force the action to end at 2 bets?
The result is a bit startling to me, in that I would not expect there to be so many dominated strategies (in particular, A betting out and K checking behind A's check). Maybe these come about due to a limitation on the total number of bets? If this latter conjecture is true, the question is whether ANY limitation on the number of bets causes this behavior, or does the SPECIFIC limitation that you imposed do it.
Tom Weideman
No, I didn't limit the number of bets. But I looked at that option only briefly, as the impact on total expection is minimal. Although, at higher pot sizes, it will be more important.
In order for there be a second raise, Player K must re-raise Player A. He would be getting 120:40 on his money at best, even lower when Player A re-raises, some of the time on bluffs. Player A would choose a re-raising strategy to balance out that Player K gains nothing by calling or folding. The pot odds would be 200:20, so Player A would re-raise trip-aces 100% and aces-up 11% or 6.67% he raise with aces-up (=.005). He would be calling with Aces-up 2.83/3.33 and re-raising .5/3.33 to put it another way.
Therefore, expectation (From Player A's perspective) can be calculated as follows:
Player K calling with trip-kings:
.65 * .3846 * (0) = 0 (folding when Player K bet) .65 * .6 * (-20) = -7.8 (calling with aces when K bet) .65 * .0154 * (-40) = -.4 (raising with aces) .3 * .9666 * (-20) = -5.8 (calling with aces-up) .3 * .0333 * (-40) = -4 (raising with aces-up) .05 * (100) = +5 (raising with trip-aces, K calling)
Total = -13 for Player A when Player K has trip-kings and calls
Player K raising with trip-kings:
.65 * .3846 * (0) = 0 (same as above) .65 * .6 * (-20) = -7.8 (same as above) .65 * .0154 * (-40) = -.4 (raises, folds to re-raise) .3 * .9666 * (-20) = -5.8 (same as above) .3 * .0283 * (-40) = -.34 (same as above, calls K's re-raise) .3 * .005 * (-60) = -.09 (raises, re-raises re-raise, K calls) .05 * (140) = +7 (raise with trip, re-raises re-raise, K calls)
Total = -7.43 for Player A when Player K re-raises with trip-kings
Player A's expectation is lower if Player K just calls.
The question to ask yourself is what does Player K hope to gain by raising with trip-kings? The majority of hands that Player A raised with in the first place were trip-aces. Player K has put himself in the position of being called, indeed raised, by only better hands. Player K costs himself $6 per hand by re-raising. It's the classic example of betting into players who will only call or raise if you're beaten. You don't want to do that.
In order for a re-raise to be correct, Player K must also be willing to re-raise with kings-up to lure Player A into calling with Aces-up when Player K has trip-kings. Does Player K want to lure Player A into calling with aces-up when Player K has kings-up. I don't think so. You must remember that the possibility of Player K having kings-up is seven times more likely than trip-kings. Player K can't re-raise, even with trip-kings. He gives up too much when he has kings-up.
I stand by my original post regarding trip-kings. Player K should just call. In fact, Player K does better to fold his trip-kings than to raise! (A's expectation = -8).
However, I would like to take this opportunity to correct the figure for A's expectation. It should be +$44.65 per hand, NOT $44.78.
As for different strategies, sure there are others. It's just that they have a lower expectation against someone who plays perfect. If you know an opponent will play different that perfect, you can adjust accordingly.
I'm sure this question will lead that way sooner or later, as it should. ;-)
George -- your proposed solution is incomplete. Even though you claim the first player should always check, we still need to know how the second player can effectively defend against a bet by the first player.
Also, I don't think your solutions are correct. I believe that the first player can guarantee an expected return of $45.02. Against my strategy for the second player, your strategy for the first player only returns $44.92. This is also a lot lower than the $47.58 that your strategy for the first player returns against your strategy for the second player. So I think your strategy for the second player is also exploitable.
By the way, Chuck Weinstock and I may try to make it possible for people to try out their strategies against my strategy.
I haven't calculated K's best strategy thoroughly when A bets because I discovered early on that A is better off always checking.
However, its best to know what K should do if faced with that situation. In real life, you probably won't be playing against someone who plays optimally.
To get the optimum solution, both players need to know the other's strategy, or everything is reduced to a guessing game. You haven't posted your solution, so I can't compare. However I disagree with your calculation for my expectation, it's a little lower. And I don't think you can do something with A's strategy that I can't lower your expectation below mine by playing Player K's hand. Of course, I can't do that unless you post your strategy.
As for Player K against my strategy for Player A, he can't do anything, as expectation for A will be the same no matter what K does with kings or kings-up (and go up if K re-raises). If Player K alters his strategy for trip-kings, A's expectation will go up. Player A has Player K's back against the wall.
To convince me otherwise, I'll have to know your strategy and put it to the test. C'mon, I showed you mine.
Simply running a simulation doesn't prove anything if I don't know your strategy. However, if both player know each other's strategy, now we have something.
I accept that I may be wrong, but you're going to have to prove it to me. ;-)
I posted a solution on Monday and it did not appear either. I informed Chuck about this and was hoping my post will appear so that I can save some typing. Now I see quite a few posts about this problem, especially Gorge posted a good solution with justifications. Although Gorge's solution is quite close to the optimal one for player A (in the sense that the expected value is close to the optimal expected value, not the frequencies), the frequencies do not seem quite right to me (not just because it is different from mine:)). AA should not fold one pair that frequently (38.46%), and should definitely check and raise much more often with two pairs. I do not have much time right now, but I will post my answer again tonight after teaching:)
There seems to be something wrong with this part of strategy: Player K's best strategy is to always bet when Player A checks. Then reply as follows:
With a pair of kings,
Fold if Player A raises
With kings-up,
Call if Player A raises
With trip-kings,
Call if Player A raises
If player K always calls with Kings-up, then player A should only raise with Aces-up or better. If A only raises with Aces-up or better, then Kings-up should never call. If Kings-up never calls, the A should raise with unimproved Aces and trips, but never with Aces-up etc. All the above convinces me that some complex mixed strategy is best for both A's raises and K's reaction to them.
A is balancing raising with some losing hands (aces) with raising with some winning hands (aces-up and trips) so K will call. Player A will not gain nor lose by this maneuver, as his expectation against kings-up will be $21 no matter what Player K does with his kings-up (check when A checks, or bet and call when A check-raises, or bet and fold if A check-raises. That's why the raising percentage for Aces and Aces-up are so low. If A raised more often with aces, K would have to call and A would lose expectation. If A raised more often with aces-up, then K would have to fold, and therefore, would never bet kings-up to begin with, but A would be losing more to trip-kings than is necessary.
You forced me to re-think something that may indeed give A a higher expectation. I may be able to improve on my strategy a little. Let's see . . .
No, my raising frequencies are optimum. I should have known that. I didn't pick them by trial and error. I used poker logic and then reduced that to a formula.
Sklansky's problem is not an easy call because true Game Theory is straight forward their are no unknowns. This problem has each side start with 3 choices at 5, 30, and 65 % and one side already has an advantage and then each side can either check, bet, fold, raise or reraise.
This means it is no longer a two-person or three-person game but a multilevel game that is dependent on how likely the other side will fold or not raise.
The pot is $60 and bets are $20. In a showdown with all hands played A will win 75.75% of the time and K will win 24.25% of the time. This means that K only wins 1 in 4.12 times which is less than the pot odds.
As to the solution. If A checks K must bet trips and two pair, and bluff or fold KK. If other two K's out fold. If A bets K must bet or raise trips and two pair, and raise or fold KK. If other two A's out call, don't raise.
A should bet if K will bet more than 35% of the time and check if K bets less than 35% of the time.
If A checks and if K bets more than 35% of the time A should raise. If K bets less than 35% of the time A should call.
If A bets K can call or raise trips and two pair, or fold one pair, and only raise or bluff on one pair if A will fold more than 1 in 3.66 times.
If A checks K can bet trips and two pair, and only bet one pair if A will fold more than 1 in 3 times.
If A raises or reraises K can only reraise if A will fold in proportion to the pot odds.
In any poker game you will know how often your opponent will raise or fold after you play a few hands and you adjust your play accordingly. K can not really bet or raise until he knows A's plan. If A checks or bets he still has the best of it.
I agree with your last paragraph, but you haven't backed up your strategy with expectation values.
You are mixing up you strategy against what K does, which is good and ultimately where we'll need to go with this problem, but I think some of your strategies are off.
For instance, K shouldn't bet kings-up if A checks unless he knows that A will call with aces enough times to offset the times A has aces-up. He'd be betting when he'll only be called by a better hand. Why should A then raise with aces-up? He can already beat kings-up (who should fold) and would be raising into trip-kings.
K shouldn't raise with two-pair if A bets, for the same reason. A would have to call enough times with aces to justify raising into aces-up and trip aces.
Why should A bet if K will bet more than 35% of the time? Seems like you're preventing K from bluffing with kings. Yet you will check if K won't bluff? I don't know what you're trying to achieve here.
"If A checks . . . [and] if K bets less than 35% of the time A should call" Should call with what? A can't call with aces, as K at 35% (or lower) is betting with kings-up or trip-kings.
Until we've worked out the optimal strategy, mixing up our strategies to take advantage of sub-optimal play by our opponent is fruitless. We'll be making too many errors.
This answer cannot be correct since K's expectation is clearly negative. If A checks everytime and K bets everytime and A calls everytime then the hand is reduced to a showdown with with an extra $40 in the pot. A wins every time K doesn't improve (65%) 35% of the times he improves to 2 pair (10.5%), and 5% of the time K trips (.25%) for a grand total of 75.75%. Therefore if K wants to do this, I'll be happy to take an average $10.30 from him when he bets (of course I too will raise every time with trips and a time or two with aces up).
A crock?
If A checked everytime and called K's bet everytime, why in the world would K bet everytime? He can't bet with kings, can he? Now, A can't call with aces, because K isn't betting kings, so A must call with two-pair or better only. But if A is calling with two pair or better only, K can't bet kings-up, can he? If K isn't betting kings-up, then A can't call with two-pair, can he? And so on. You can't have a strategy where both players always call or bet. You have to bet/call/raise at certain percentages to gain expectation and force responses from your opponent.
K's expectation is not negative, but +15.13 per hand in my strategy. The combination of expectations must add up to $60. In a showdown situation where there was no betting, K's expectation would be +$14.55 per hand. With the presence of betting, K can increase this, and in my solution, does so at the minimum rate Player A can allow. Or so I claim.
I invite you to share with us *your* strategy.
Your answer specifically states that A cannot increase expectation by betting. My analysis indicates the same. So saying that A must check every time appears to be correct, although the conclusion is based on A betting with a 'logical' system. I am still looking into what happens when A decides to bet 60% of the time he gets trips, 60% of the time he gets aces up, and 20% of the time he fails to improve. This is just an example of a 'randomized' system. One could go crazy playing with variations of the latter theme, except A can never bet more times with unimproved hands than improved hands. Having reached the conclusion that A must check every time, you then state that K should bet every time A checks. Now you realize that doesn't work, as I have pointed out. Further, your numbers look suspicious. It looks like you analyzed what would happen in 100 hands, because 1.54% of 65% is almost exactly .01, which is 1 hand per hundred. 3.33% of 30% is also 1 hand in a hundred. So you made up some numbers and then couched them in mellifluous persiflage, IMO.
NO! What I was saying is that the conclusion you reached in your post was in error, because K won't bet into A if A CALLS 100%. In my solution, A folds enough times to make it correct for K to bet! Big difference. And as I have pointed out in a number of posts, A's expectation will be the same no matter K does, if he follows my solution. However, if he checks, A might catch on and take advantage of this fact in future hands and ater his strategy to gain expectation.
Your assumption that analyzed based on any pre-conceived number of hands is wrong. If some of the number multiplied out to be exactly one, then so be it. Many of my percentages are expressed as 38.46% and so on. However, if I had done what you said, what difference would it make?
NO! What I was saying is that the conclusion you reached in your post was in error, because K won't bet into A if A CALLS 100%. In my solution, A folds enough times to make it correct for K to bet! Big difference. And as I have pointed out in a number of posts, A's expectation will be the same no matter K does, if he follows my solution. However, if he checks, A might catch on and take advantage of this fact in future hands and ater his strategy to gain expectation.
Your assumption that analyzed based on any pre-conceived number of hands is wrong. If some of the number multiplied out to be exactly one, then so be it. Many of my percentages are expressed as 38.46% and so on. However, if I had done what you said, what difference would it make?
Let me see if I get this straight. A devises a calling and raising strategy to make it advantageous for K to bet into him. Is this game theory? Am I missing something? Does Scotty have the transporter fixed yet?
No, A devises a calling and FOLDING strategy to get K to bet!
My solution is posted above under a new thread. It was posted on March 25.
David- In a $10-20 Texas Holdem game, what is the win expectancy per hour in a 10 handed game that runs from fair competition to pretty tough, but does not contain any pros?
About 30 dollars an hour for the very best players.
David-thankyou for your timely response, I thought that it might be about $50 an hour, since I am winning about $13 an hour in both the $6-12 and $10-20, I am engouraged to keep playing and improving my game. I have read three of your books, the most recent is Hold'em for advanced. Need to work on semi-bluffing after the flop, and several other plays, but as you warned "not to get carried away with too many fancy plays"
David-thankyou for your timely response, I thought that it might be about $50 an hour, since I am winning about $13 an hour in both the $6-12 and $10-20, I am engouraged to keep playing and improving my game. I have read three of your books, the most recent is Hold'em for advanced. Need to work on semi-bluffing after the flop, and several other plays, but as you warned "not to get carried away with too many fancy plays"
Just started using new turbo he program. My biggest criticism of old to play against is that computer would not take into account action on previous rounds in deciding whether to bet or not. With new, I called on a certain hand on flop and the computer bet into me on turn. I then replayed the hand and raised b4 the flop and the computer checked to me on the turn which it would not have done in the old version, so this is a big improvement.
The next big improvement, although maybe only perfectionists like me will care, is that you can specify an exact, minimum, or max number of opponents. My past research has shown that 54 suited is a small loser even on the button w no raise in a game that i have structured in which the average number who see the flop is about 4.2. However, this ave , of course, includes some hands w three caller, some w four, and so on. I have always intuitively suspected and have actually modified my play so that if there are 7+ callers in this situation I call also, but w the new program I can actually take the exact same set of hands and break them down by exact number of callers to see if my hypothesis is right and when the hand becomes profitable.
I played a bit with the first version of Texas Turbo Hold'em. It was so awful, as far as strategy goes, that it has taken until now for me to touch it again, many, many years later, in its latest incarnation. I shelled out the bucks for it, and I have to say it is completely worthless. Worse than worthless, really - it's a waste of time.
The reason I can say this without reservation is that the program has some serious bugs.
Here is an exact situation from the program:
Board: Qs 2h 4d 7s 2d Player1: Ks Ac "pair" Player2: Jd Tc "two pair"
Okay, it called player1's hand correctly, there is a pair on the board, but can you find the two pair of player2?
My favorite was pocket jacks versus pocket jacks - the pocket jacks that got called as "trips" won versus the one that got called as two pair!
I think some of the jacks are acting as queens. Maybe if some of the queens are acting as jacks and we can figure out which ones, then the program might be sort of be useful.
I rebooted under Windows safe mode, but still had the same problem.
Presumably, Wilson Software will offer a patch. Until then, don't buy it.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Thank you. I was thinking about upgrading it but with these kinds of defects I don't think so. You saved me a few bucks.
Tom Haley
The program's author says this behavior is not normal and says he'll send me another set of program disks, believing it to be a file corruption problem.
My thanks to Mr. Wilson.
-Abdul
A few days ago I received "Fix disk for TTH for Windows V2" as, i assume, did all others who either bought their V2 directly from Wilson Software or bought it from somewhere else and registered it. The enclosed note said, "The enclosed fix disk fixes a program 'bug' which caused the Advisor to tell you to lay down several excellent starting hands." I'm not sure if the problems referred to in previous posts of this thread were addressed.
Are posts to this question being held back for some reason. I've posted my response under a new thread. Two posts I made here, although not solutions, were never posted. What gives?
Here is my analysis and solution to the simplified version that assumes Aces and Kings not available on final card. My presentation is organized as follows: Summary statement of problem, assumptions, and methods used. Breakdown into sub-problems and solution to each sub-problem. Summary overall solution. Calculation details.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Game is 7stud. Two players on seventh st. Player A holds two Aces and 30% chance of improving to Aces up. Player K holds two Kings and 30% chance of improving to Kings up. Small cards held by each player are different, and thus each's 30% chance of improvement is independent of whether the other improved. Each player know the other will play in accordance with optimum game theory strategy. Pot size is $60 and betting unit on 7th street is $20. What is optimum strategy for each player? How will strategy change if pot size is changed? My solutions did not involve the use of a computer or math-statistical techniques beyond comprehension of most poker players.
SUB-PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS First, let's look at the results if one of the players was all in so that 7th street was just a showdown. Player K will win the pot only when he improves and A does not improve, or 21%. Thus K's "mathematical expectation" is $12.60, and A's is $47.40.
From Player A's point of view, the next sub-problem is whether or not K can improve his mathematical expectation if A checks 100% of the time. To solve this problem, analyse each of the 4 possible situations: (1) K improves, A doesn't 21%, (2) K improves, A also improves 9%, (3) Both fail to improve 49%, and (4) A improves, K doesn't 21%.
The answer is that if A checks 100% of all hands, K's best strategy is also to check 100% of hands and achieve the showdown results. Any betting strategy that K tries to use will result in reducing his mathemtical expectation. The detailed calculations are shown in the last section. The summary answer is K would reduce his mathematical expectation by 38.6 cents when he used his best betting and bluffing strategy countered by A's best strategy in response. If the pot size were increased to over $100 before 7th street, then K can improve by betting. $100 is the equilibrium point. The reason the higher pot size would help K is that it reduces his cost of bluffing, since he must bluff proportionate to pot size to induce a 100% calling response from A.
From A's point of view then, the question is whether A can improve the showdown expectation with some betting strategy other than checking 100%. K will consider calling if he improves. (A further sub-problem shows that no raising strategy for K would have positive results). Analysis shows that when A bets improved hands plus correct bluffing ratio of umimproved hands, then this changes the situation for K for those times that A checks. Where K could only check if A checked 100%, the change in the improved vs. unimproved hands A holds after checking helps K more than the amount that A gains from betting.
Thus it would seem that A's best strategy is to check 100%. However, there is room for a small departure. If A checks 100%, K's best betting strategy will lose 38.6 cents. So isn't there room for A to profitably bet a small portion of improved hands plus correct bluffing. The answer is yes. A can profitably bet 4 of the 30 improved hands, and "bluff" with 1 of the 70 unimproved hands. At this equilibrium point, A gains 18 cents in mathematical expectation vs. the showdown results. K, of course, loses 18 cents despite employing his best counter strategy. Even though K's best betting strategy after A checks has now improved from minus 38.6 cents to zero, this doesn't help K because no betting strategy better than checking is yet available. However, if A's strategy were to bet more than 4 of 30 of improved hands, K's gain for those times A checked would be more than A's gain for betting.
SUMMARY OF SOLUTION Per 100 hands, A bets 4 improved hands and 1 unimproved hand; K calls. On the other 95 hands, both players check. The overall mathmatical expection is $47.58 for A, and $12.42 for K, which improves A by $.18 versus showdown or 100% checking by both players.
A larger pot size would favor K.
CALCULATION DETAIL Because of the length, will provide this in separate post.
CALCULATION DETAILS. Because of the length of yesterday's posted solution, I left the calculation details for this separate post. Since I'm using Web TV and not a computer, this is not a neat columnar presentation, bt just elaboration of the basic calculations so they can be verified.
To restate yesterday's summary solution to the problem simplified by eliminating the trips possibilities:
Per 100 hands, A bets 4 improved hand and 1 unimproved hand; K calls when improved. On the other 95 hands, both players check. The overall mathematical expectation is $47.58 for A, and $12.42 for K, which improves A by .18 versus showdown or 100% checking by both players. A larger pot size would favor K.
SHOWDOWN CALCULATION. For this and other calculations, each of the 4 possible situations is analysed and weighted by the per cent. K improves, A doesn't 21% (.30-(.3X.3)) Both improve 9% (.3x.3) Neither improve 49% (.7x.7) A improves, K does't 21% (.3-(.3x.3))
______
100% $60.00 in pot. K wins 21%, (x60=$12.60). A wins 79%, (x60=$47.40)
IF A CHECKS 100%, CALCULATIONS RE POSSIBLE K BETTING STRATEGIES. To get A to at least call(plus A's bluffing strategy) when K bets his made two pair, K must bluff once for every 4 made hands(I'm assuming reader familiarity with Sklansky's writings on bluffing frequency.) When A also makes two pair, A raises. To get K to call these raises, A must bluff once for every 6 times he raises with two pair(lower bluffing frequency required because of higher pot size at this point. In terms of math. expect., Cost of bluffing to K is ($1.50) (.3x.25x$20) K's gain from winning bets is $4.20 (.21x$20) K's loss of double bet when successfully check raised is ($3.60) (.09x40) K's gain when he catches A check-raise bluffing is $.514 (1/7 x .09 x $40)
____ Net Loss to K ($.386)
EFFECT OF CHANGING POT SIZE. Of the 4 components of the ($.386), the $4.20 and ($3.60) stay constant when the pot size changes. The other two factors vary because the required bluffing frequency changes when the pot size changes. The larger the pot, the more favorable the outcome to K. At $100 pot size instead of $60, K's cost of bluffing goes down from ($1.50) to ($1.00), and K's gain from A's check-raise bluffing goes from $.514 to $.40. The net result goes from ($.386) to 0.
A's STRATEGY FOR BETTING. At the optimum point for A, the distribution of situations is shown in the table below:
A Bets A checks Total A Improves (2 pr) 4 26 30 A Doesn't Impr. 1 69 70
A gains $.24 when called(.04x.3x$20), and loses ($.06) when caught bluffing(.01x.3x$20), for a net gain of $.18.
At this point, the 95% of hands that A checks, put K only on a equilibrium point if K tries a betting strategy: K's winning bets $4.14 ($20. x (.0285-.078)) K's cost of bluffing ($1.425) K's loss when check raised ($3.12) K's gain catching A check-raise bluffing $.445
As A bets a higher proportion of hands, the gain to K's betting results after A checks, would exceed the gain A makes from betting more hands.
I did try to type some tables in calculation detail, but looking at the actual post, it doesn't come out that way.
Thanks to all who responded to Abdul's post. This is an account of the actual play and the type of game I was in and I would appreciate comments.
The game is a tight Mirage 10,20 in the morning hours in which most of the nighttime players have been replaced with the regular starving professional types of daytime players. I was playing my last round before going home and hadn't played a hand, other than blinds, in the last three rounds. I picked up 2s,4s one off the button and raised considering the tight play of the game and truthfully not giving the play as much thought as I likely should have. Play folded to the big blind who made it three bets, I called.
Flop is As, 10s, 3h. Big blind bets out, I call with flush draw and gut shot. Turn is 8c. Big blind bets out, I raise (thinking that if he had many hands that he would have three bet with before the flop he would likely lay them down and knowing my hand still had outs if called.) Big blind three bet making me fairly certain he had AA or AK.
River is 5d. Big blind bets, I raise, get reraised, rereraise, big blind thinks for a while and calls. During the course of the raising, Mr. Abdul, who is dozing behind me after critiquing my play for the night, wakes to the raising. I take down the pot with harsh criticism from everyone within earshot.
Comments and opinions welcome.
Regards-
LoneStar,
They shouldn't be chastising you, they should be congratulating you and encouraging you! I think you'll admit that you got lucky but that's o.k.
Tom Haley
Even in a tight game, the probability that all three players will fold is not enough to justify the raise. Especially as if the button comes you will not have last-to-act privileges.
The only justification would be for future effect, as Sklansky discusses in the essay I refer to in the earlier thread. But as you are about to leave the table, this future effect can only be if you play with these people again AND they remember AND you remember that they were present and realize that they might possibly remember.
I believe your raise on the turn is justified (mathematically) based on your outs and the chance that the BB has KK,QQ and maybe AQ, AJs.
When the BB reraises you on the turn, he could plausibly have ATs, TT, 88 as well as AK or AA.
[Chuck Weinstock informs me that there may be a weird bug that omits some posts when displaying by thread. All of the posts show up when displayed chronologically. I'm reposting this as a new message since my previous post was one of those that disappears in the threaded display.]
David is right -- we never see more than three raises with optimal play, and three raises can only occur when the first player checks.
One thing that is interesting is that the solution continues to change as we increase the number of raises allowed (equivalently, as we vary the size of the smaller stack), even though the players never actually make more than three raises in any of these solutions. Some of these changes are not completely trivial. For example, if we allow 33 raises, then the first player should sometimes make it four bets (i.e., re-re-raise after the second player reraises the first player's check-raise) with aces only, but if we allow 34 raises, then the first player should always fold after the second player reraises his check-raise.
But the solution, as far as it goes, isn't changed too dramatically if we limit the players to one raise. In particular, the optimal strategy for the first player at the start of the round and after the second player responds isn't affected by the number of raises.
Optimal strategy sometimes lets the opponent off the hook by failing to exploit suboptimal mixing frequencies. However, an optimal player can still beat an opponent who makes "dominated" choices. I'm curious about whether experienced players know enough to avoid the dominated choices in this situation.
Here's a challenge: list the plays that one should never make in this situation. (For example, you should never reraise with aces only if you bet and are raised.)
Confirming the post problem. My posted solution doesn't appear.
I can see it as seporate post not as replay?
As you've probably guessed after reading my post, I disagree that the number of allowed raises matters, unless you don't allow any. For the sake of argument, let's assume there is no limit to raises. Actually, if you work out David's percentages, this hand was played heads-up from the start. Therefore, in most cardrooms, there is no limit to the raises.
My solution for the optimal strategy dictates that there will only be one raise, when Player A check-raises. Player K should just call with trip-kings. To do otherwise increases A's expectation and K doesn't want to do that.
As for exploiting suboptimal mixing frequencies, there are so many variations that we could never figure them all. You also leave yourself open to being exploited if you "guess" wrong. Let's discover the optimal strategy before engaging in cat and mouse games.
I'm posting this as a new thread because your solution does not appear unless readers list posts chronologically.
I think you were on the right track for the most part, but got tripped up in a few areas.
First, the problem had a 5% chance that both players would improve to trips. If both players check, Player A's expectation is +$45.45 per hand. Player K can improve off of this by betting some hands, after all, he'll have trips against a weaker hand 95% of the time he has trips.
Second, you advocate that K calls when A bets. All the time? K can't win with just kings, no matter what A has. K must fold with kings (65% of the time). If your figures were calculated with K calling all of time, then your figure for A's expectation is much too high.
My calculations showed that it was better to reduce A's risk against kings-up when he had only Aces. My calcualtions also showed that A was always better off just checking.
Perhaps you might re-calculate, adjusting for trips and folding with only kings and see where that leads.
George, Thanks for your comments. I did state that I was simplifying the problem by assuming that trips would not be made. David suggested that as a first cut simplification.
I did assume that K called only when he improved K's up. Sorry if I didn't state that.
How do get my messages to list chronologically so I can find my post.
NE2,
To get the message board to show you a chronological listing of posts, you go to the Search\Personalize Display feature located at the top of the Forum page. The link shows you a form which allows you to change the way all messages are listed. My guess is your current option is "thread, in reverse order". Click the option arrow and a list of other choices will be displayed.
John
Can anyone tell me which is the most reliable online casino?
Hey Andy, If you don't mind playing with virtual money, you might want to check out GameStorm's site. I've been playing poker, blackjack, hearts, and stuff. You might want to check it out, let me know what you think. skeeter
Looking for info on Shichiban Sabaki Craps.
Has anyone ever heard of this?
Thank you
Jason's solution doesn't appear on a normal thread listing, so I've started a new thread on it.
My counter-strategy for Player K to your strategy for Player A is as follows:
Check a pair of kings behind your check, fold if you bet; Bet kings-up when you check and call if you raise, fold if you bet; With trip-kings bet if you check, and call any raises, fold if you bet! (folding is $.07 better than calling). I might re-raise sometimes with trip-kings, but you didn't say which hands you would call if re-raised.
Your expectation is reduced to +$43.45 per hand. My strategy for Player A is more than a dollar better. I might be able to reduce your expectation a little more, but it isn't worth the effort to calculate, as your strategy for Player A is not optimal.
I worked out your strategy for Player K and it works out to +$44.20 per hand for Player A. Player K would do better to use my strategy than yours.
Jason's solution doesn't appear on a normal thread listing, so I've started a new thread on it.
My counter-strategy for Player K to your strategy for Player A is as follows:
Check a pair of kings behind your check, fold if you bet; Bet kings-up when you check and call if you raise, fold if you bet; With trip-kings bet if you check, and call any raises, fold if you bet! (folding is $.07 better than calling). I might re-raise sometimes with trip-kings, but you didn't say which hands you would call if re-raised.
Your expectation is reduced to +$43.45 per hand. My strategy for Player A is more than a dollar better. I might be able to reduce your expectation a little more, but it isn't worth the effort to calculate, as your strategy for Player A is not optimal.
I worked out your strategy for Player K and it works out to +$44.20 per hand for Player A. Player K would do better to use my strategy than yours.
Let me state at the outset that I did try to solve the problem, with mixed strategies going into 4 rounds of betting - I assumed a maximum of 4 raises. I got hopelessly bogged down and gave up, so congratulations to everyone who managed to get to a solution.
Whilst I'm sure an algebraic solution is always preferable to a computer simulation, I have the problem "modelled" already, and got an expectation of $44.87 for your player A.
You also state about player A that mixing up his betting will only give player K information to devise a counter-strategy. I suggest that A's mixing up his betting strategy will put player K in either the same situation information-wise (not necessarily expectation-wise) or in an inferior situation, but certainly not in a better position than now when he is constantly checking.
I know I should separate logic from game theory, but it seems to me that player A is not being 'efficient' when with a hand like aces up he calls 96.67% of the time and raises the rest. I would expect a little more raising.
Paul R. Pudaite mentions "dominated" choices in one of his replies to your posts, giving an example of never reraising in a particular situation. I would be hesitant to proffer any "dominated" choice before solving a problem. For player K with a pair only, you always bet and Jason Gao always folds (when A checks). Jason never folds a pair of aces while you do so 38.46% of the time.
As for your comments re Jason, I get an expectation of $42.60 for his solution, but I'll check that again. His player A never folding a pair of aces seems to me to be somewhat suspect, but who am I to question a "dominated" choice.
There seems to be disparity among those who have tried to calculate the expectation of my solution. I've gotten different figures myself, so I will look at it one more time to see what it truly is. I know for sure it's 45.3 minus A's loss against trip-kings.
The difficulty with this problem is that it requires thinking a few levels deep, and doing this consistanlty is quite hard. You really have to concentrate. But a few days practice has made it a bit easier.
To understand why the raising percentage is so low, you have to understand what is going on. The call/raise percentage is calculated so Player A will realize the same expectation regardless of what Player K does. Specifically, Player A is looking for an expectation of $21 (.35 * 60) for the times Player K has kings-up. This is what Player A would get if K just checked behind A. If Player A raises more, it then becomes correct for K to just check. While this doesn't cost A anything against K's king-up, now A is also raising more often into trip-kings! Player A doesn't want to do that, as it lowers his expectation against K's trip-kings.
The same logic is used with folding to K's bluff bet with kings. Player A's expectation against kings is $60 if K checks. Therefore if A acts in such a way to try to increase this, K will just check behind A. By inducing K to bluff, A will win $80 when he calls with aces and nothing when he folds. At the right folding frequency, A's expectation will be $60 if K bets. Now, K gains nothing by just checking with kings, and in fact loses, because if K doesn't bet with kings, A can fold aces when K does bet, as K will have at least kings-up when he bets. Therefore, K must bet with kings. Now, A is happy to fold 38% when K bets, because he is losing nothing to kings and he gets to fold aces 38% of the time K bets with kings-up or trip kings! This improves A expectation. A could try to raise more often with aces to get K to discard kings-up, but the best he can do is increase his expectation to $21. But now he's raising more often into trip-kings, lowering his expectation there.
As for mixing up strategies, that's fine if you think you can trick your opponent is giving you more expectation. However, if he's better than you at it, you will lose, not gain. Also, I think it's important to know the optimum strategy before going out on limbs looking for gifts. Finally, I feel that it's important for both players to know each other's strategy in problems like these, if you want to really see what the optimum solution is. By varying your solution, your opponent will vary his accordingly, taking advantage of when you stray.
However, in real life situations, playing the optimum strategy may not yeild the best results. That's because your opponents will usually play less than optimally, and you should take advantage of this. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't know the optimum strategy yourself, just in case.
As for dominated choices, I confess that I'm not familiar with the concept, perhaps someone will explain it. However, my analysis showed that always checking was superior to sometimes betting or always betting. Hence, A should always check. Even an intuitive player knows that betting with just aces can't possibly be a winning play. K won't call with just kings. And if A just bets with aces-up and trip-aces, then K can't call with kings-up either. Expectation wise, A is still getting $60 against kings and $21 against kings-up. Now he's betting into trip-kings with inferior hands. Do you see the problem with this? Mixing up his checking and calling hands will still never yield more that $60 and $21, as K won't stand for it. But it will expose A more when K has trip-kings than is necessary.
I guess the proof is is the pudding. If anyone can improve on my optimum strategy, go right ahead. But realize that you'll have to let us all have a crack at the counter strategy to see if your strategy stands up. When I say optimum strategy, I'm talking for Player A. Since he acts first, his is the strategy and Player K's reaction is the counter-strategy.
The correct expectation for my strategy is +$44.83 per hand.
Optimum strategy in poker is to make the largest Quaranteed profit in the long run, when you don't know how your opponent will play in a given situation. In this situation, with AA knowing that he has the superior hand going into the last round should not take a defensive position in my opinion. he can quarantee himself a nice long term profit by betting out 100% of the time. The percentages that have been used in a couple of answers where AA does something 7% of the time are unrealistic. A optimum strategy must be able to function in the real world. How would you implement this strategy. By your side cards? Then it becomes way too complicated.
I agree that all these percentages can not be used at the poker table. However, doing this sort of exercise can uncover a better strategy than we would use otherwise.
For instance, you advocate betting out 100% of time and state that this would guarantee you a nice long term profit. What you failed to realize is that you are guranteed a nice long term profit no matter what you do, within reason. By working out the numbers, we discover that we can make a dollar or two more per hand by taking the very defensive posture you advise against. My "simple" strategy might be to fold aces one-third the time and raise your bet only with trip-aces. You can't bluff for profit, and now I'm not calling your kings-up one-third the time I have aces. I'm also not betting my aces into your kings-up. I wouldn't know this if I didn't work out the numbers.
I think that the strategy for A I posted has expectation a bit over 44 (unless I made some mistakes in my calculation of the entries in the payoff matrix). I did use the matrix-game approach, however, I made some conservative assumptions to reduce the size of the matrix considerably, hence my solution is not optimal, but I believed that it should give an expectation quite close to the optimum. Now I see Gorge's solution, I agree that Gorge's strategy I was posting this message yesterday afternoon, but the network went down in the middle. Hope this time it will go through. I verified that Gorge's strategy for A guarantees a profit of at least 44.83, with the following completion of the actions: When A raises, he will always fold to a reraise with one-pair, call with Aces-up, and reraise with three Aces. So Gorge's solution is better than mine (it makes about fifty cents more). I liked Gorge's solution because he derived his (very good) solution using logic not fancy mathematics. At the moment, I would like to make a few comments about Gorge's solution.
1. Gorge's strategy for A cannot be optimal. The strategy proposed by Gorge for player K is optimal with respect to this particular strategy for A. However this strategy for K is not optimal globally (actually very bad globally, since K bets too often with one-pair). A can simply call with one-pair all the time to obtain much higher profit than 44.83. The fundamental theorem of game (of this type) says that if A's strategy was optimal, then K's corresponding strategy (which is optimal with respect to A's optimal strategy) must also be optimal. This implies that Gorge's strategy for A is not optimal.
2. I liked Gorge's bootstrapping approach. As far as I can see, he derived 38.46% frequency of folding for A with one pair is simply to balance K's betting so that K cannot make any advantage of it by betting one-pair and at the same time it minimizes the exposure to Kings-up or three Kings. It is a good start. However, A should check-raise with Aces-up and three kings more often to reduce K's betting with two-pairs so that A can protect his one-pair hand (as suggested in my first post). Another reason that Gorge's strategy cannot be optimal for A is as follows: Since A is only folding 38.64%, K cannot make any profit by betting one-pair, hence A's raise with one-pair is definitely wrong. Simply changing this raising frequency to calling gives higher profit. I will try to do a bit more calculation and see if I can come up with a better solution than this.
How to play in the blinds:
"Don't play hands like 54, T9, A2s with ANY raise (not just an early raise) with only 1 or 2 others in the pot"
If you had a likely steal raise on the button, wouldn't you still call with A2s and T9?
I know 54 is trash without 4 to 6 callers, but I thought the other two would be playable from the BB. Am I wrong?
no.
David,
Is your answer:
No, you wouldn't still call with A2s and T9?
or
No, Bob is not wrong about playing in the BB?
DanS
When should you raise or reraise with
Ax suited
in BB?
When you strongly suspect the raiser is trying to steal, and you are trying to resteal. If the original raiser calls, then a bet on the flop often wins right there.
I agree with you, I'd call with A2s and T9 if I knew my opponent well.
I had found a website, where are several informations about cheating methods. There are some usefull tips how to protect and how to discover.
By the next play I watch him with eagleeys. And when he really cheats......
Here is the adress: http://www.zonpower.com/neocheating/chapter1.html
Thanks for your answeres.
can anyone comment on the online casino " 21blackjack.com"?
Jason -- your solution for the first player is incomplete. You don't specify how that player should respond to a reraise (by the second player) after reraising.
I think it would be interesting for the people who are posting solutions to give some idea to the rest of us on how they are going about arriving at these solutions.
My understanding, poor as it might be, is that to solve this problem correctly one would have to use game theory and do the following:
-- enumerate the pure strategies for Players A and K
-- compute the payoff matrix
-- solve the payoff matrix, producing
selection probabilities for each pure strategy.
It is my understanding that there may be more than one possible choice of selection probabilities for both A and K, but any valid solution will still produce the 'value' of the game: A's maximum win and K's minimum loss.
I'm not a mathematician, so putting things in the terms you use is beyond by ability. However, I'll be glad to share with you how I arrived at my solution.
First, I listed all the possibilities Player A could use initially (such as always betting, always checking, checking aces and betting aces-up and trip-aces, etc.). There were eight (8) feasible alternatives. Then I listed Player A's possible responses to Player K's actions, of which there were six (6). I then started working out K's expectation for each of the 54 scenarios. It quickly became obvious that 1-always checking and 2-checking aces and aces-up but betting trips, were the best two. I kept always betting, as it was the best among the times A bets with only aces.
The best follow-up strategies were a-call with aces and aces-up, raise trip-aces, and b-call aces, raise with aces-up and trip-aces. "a" worked better with "1" and "2", where "b" worked better with always betting.
Using logic, I eliminated "2" because Player A could never gain by just betting trip-aces because K would never call that bet. And betting sometings with Aces-up would make expectations even worse.
I would continue with "1" and use "a" and "b". Always betting was compared at various times to see if it might come close, but it never did. I eventially abandoned betting at all as a strategy.
I also change from calculating K's expectation, to calculating A's expectation instead, not realizing that the will always add up to the pot size before any bets are made. Game theory experts probably already knew this, but I didn't.
I discovered early on that K could limit any strategy A used by simply checking. Therefore, any strategy A uses must not exceed K's checking expectation, or K will simply check. For this problem, Player A stands to make $60 when K has kings and checks, $21 if K has kings-up and checks, and $3 if K has trip-kings and checks. Therefore, A can never hope to exceed $45.45 in expectation (.65*60 + .3*21 + .05*3). In fact, Player A may not even be able to get that much, as in this problem. Player K can and will play in such a manner to guarantee a negative expectation when K has trip-kings.
I also discovered that Player A does better to concentrate on his opponents hands, than on his opponents least likely hands. This is beause whatever is gained against a certain hand must be multiplied by the likelyhood of that hand. A will always beat K if he wants to. K can't bet with one pair. A's next concern is kings-up, which is K bets, lowers A's expectation to about 18.x instead of 21. Bluff raising with aces is one way to do that. Anothe way is to fold aces. Bluff-raising with aces needs to be accopanied with raising trip-aces or aces-up, or a combination thereof. The pot size will limit the percentage of times the raise is a bluff. Also, K must win enough to justify betting in the first place. K will be getting 120:20 on his raises, limiting the percentage of bluff-raise to 1/6 or the times he raises with aces-up or trip-aces. However, there is a down side to this, as he is now bluff-raising aces and aces-up into trip-kings too often, costing himself there.
How about folding aces. Well he can't fold aces all the time or K will bluff us with one pair. So we must call (or raise) enough times that K can't show a profit by bluffing. The lower we can get that number, the more we can save against kings-up (and trip-kings too!). As it turns out, the optimum percentage for folding aces is 38.46%. At that number, Player A makes $60 against kings whether K bluffs or not (great!).
Now A has increased his expectation against kings-up to about $20.50. Can he get it to $21? Sure, he'll bluff raise with aces a little to get that extra amount. For K to call the raise, there will have to be sufficient pot odds to justivy a call and for K to fold there will have to be insufficient pot odds. K will do whatever is better for him, or if checking is better for him, he will just check. What we need to do here is pick a raising percentage with aces that justify a call against the times we raise with aces-up and trip-aces. We must also keep the figure low enough so that A's expectation does not exceed $21. The exact percentages were for A to bluff-raise 1.54% with aces to raise 3.33% with aces-up and to raise 100% of the time with trip-aces. Now we have what we wanted.
Unfortunately, we have to concede expectation the times that K has trip-kings up. A has maximized expectation against kings and kings-up, but in doing so, has exposed himself to trip-kings when he raised, but helped himself when he folded. At the current percentages, A has a negative expectation of $9.40 against trip-kings. This only amounts to 47 cents overall.
Hence, Player A's expectation is (.65*60 + .3*21 - .05*9.4) = $44.83 per hand.
Jason is providing a solution for 2 rounds of betting only ie. a maximum of 2 raises. His player K, with trip kings, will always call player A's round 2 reraise.
You're in a typical full ring game, have been playing for a couple of hours and are about even. There are no strangers at the table, and everyone is familiar with their opponents play. You have 86s in the big blind. Would you prefer that the pot be raised before it gets to you or not, and why?
If everybody drops to the button and he raises, I won't be happy defending the blind with this hand, even though he won't usually have very much. If 3 call and the button raises and LB calls, I'm getting nice pot odds for a single bet, so I'm not unhappy, but the pot odds are still better without the raise. There is a chance of a reraise, but that doesn't seem to happen very often except in tougher games. So I'm sure you are going to say the raise is better, but I can't picture the circumstances where this hand would not want to see the flop as cheaply as possible, except in those occasional cases where you are varying your game for deception. This might be a good spot for that (raise yourself) if there are 5 callers or more.
Good answer Bob. I'd really like to hear from more players on this one. I'll reply to all other posts sometime next week. What I'm thinking about here are general concepts, not so much strategic techniques. These may be contrary to prevailing mainstream principles however.
I like the idea of occasional deception out of the big blind. The problem here is that most of the flops that give 86s a draw, will not be a draw to the nuts. Therefore 86s needs larger implied odds. Also flops that help 86s are not going to help most players with two big cards. If fewer players will see the turn this reduces the implied odds for the 86s. So, I feel 86s would need eight way action to justify a raise once in awhile. As rare as this would be with all players knowing each others style, I'd be pleased just to be protected from late position stealers and would decline the option to raise.
No, you do not want the pot raised with this hand 8 6s. If you are second under the gun and the first man raises it do you call or fold, I fold. When there are a lot of people in the pot it is correct call a raise but you would happyer not to put more money in the pot before you see the flop. Once you see the flop you know if you have a hand or the odds of hitting a straight or flush on the turn. With 8 6s in the big blind it is hard to call a steal raise I would fold. There are a lot of steal hands that will be better 86s and by calling your going up hill. The only time I'll call is when someone keeps stealing my blind. I''ll take a stand [maybe raise].
I would prefer to face a raise. In an unraised pot it is more likely that another hand would be helped on a flop that fits with the 86s. I'll let a late position steal raise get my blind, except maybe if a player on the button is willing to try to steal with any two cards. I have a good idea what I'm up against if the raise comes from an early position player and can fold unless the right combination of players are committed to seeing the flop. The most likely way the 86s improves on the flop is middle pair. I have to bet here because I need to know if I might have the best hand. I can't call a bet (without the 7 or 8 out drawing flops) since I won't know where I am on the turn. I need to be able to narrow down quickly what possible hands my opponents could have when I bet with the 86s on the flop, and this is much easier when the pot is raised pre-flop.
Raising with 86, either the first or second raise, may be an expert play, or one that you risk only when you have chips. By raising you represent a strong hand, which may drive out the other drawing hands, especially the low straights and flushes, leaving you to out flop the big card hands. If it works you have someone tied to the railroad tracks. If it doesn't, you fold. Whether it will succeed depends a lot on the other players. If all eight call you (not likely) the likelihood of you surviving the flop decline. If only a few, and the flop is trash, betting out may be all that you have to do to win. The danger is, of course, two suited, or big cards. The sweet spot is flopping an open ended straight draw because you have better odds of improvement than the big pair. Hopefully neither the turn or the river pair the board.
I like the concept of an occasional out-of-line agressive play, but it probably takes a significantly better hand (98s comes to mind). I agree with everything else in your post. Sometimes when you do make a straight with an 86 vs. a 98 there is an extra bet available from disbelieving players. I wouldn't necessarily give up on the hand just because there aren't enough players already in the pot to make drawing worthwhile, though as you say straightening with the 86s is preferred.
I would prefer that my BB was NEVER raised. I think that the reasons are obvious.
However, to get more to the heart of your question, I don't necessarily hate that the pot has been raised when I've got 86s, as long as its multiway (i.e., at least 5 others, preferably 6-9). In this case, I've got a good enough hand to play given the odds (at least 11:1 on my preflop call), and the pot has already gotten so big that people will call my bets/raises when I hit a big hand. Alternatively, I will have sufficient pot odds to call for my straight and flush draws.
I will rarely raise from the BB, unless I am restealing (with or without a good hand). Admittedly, an aware opponent will be able to put me on a truly premium hand when I do, but a good aware opponent can only do so much to you in limit poker when he knows your hand. He can get away from his, put it's usually not possible for him to push you off of yours (especially once you learn that he's capable of trying).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Interesting comment on restealing against an aware opponent! Specifically though, 86s is not my idea of even a bad hand to resteal with. Pot odds are not my primary consideration. When playing a hand out-of-position, I am much more concerned with who is in the pot. For example if the raiser is the type of player who will often fold two overcards to the flop when someone bets into them, I'll take a shot in a three-way pot since I have extra value when I bet out should I flop a pair. I'll call a raise with the 86s from the BB any time I can out play all of the competition. I don't like the 86s from the BB multi-way unraised because even if I flop a draw, it's probably not a draw to the nuts. I can't play for a free card, and I'll be unsure about anyone having a better hand if I do complete the draw on the turn. I can't bet the hand if I pair on the flop and have any realistic chance of winning the pot right there.
Actually, I did not mean to imply that I would resteal with 86s against an aware opponent. I just meant that I would only resteal (in limit poker) with a premium hand, even though my aware opponents would learn this to be so.
Additionally, I have no interest in being able to outplay my opponent with 86s. Unless this player is someone who you've got almost 100% control over, you just can't make much money with a hand like 86s. It's too unlikely that you'll flop anything (draw or pair or better) to beat a player who probably will have 2 overcards whenever you do manage to flop a pair. Most games I'm in are plenty loose enough, such that I won't make a run at someone with a hand like this unless I'm going against the whole table. And, as you say, flopping a pair only is useless against this many opponents. The reason I like this is because I'm not even tempted to outplay so many folks with a weak hand, whereas if I was heads-up, I would feel a need to try. I think that's more a trap for me than for my opponent.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The big blind offers few advantages. Seeing the effect of a raise before having to act, and knowing who I am up against because of that is foremost. I'm more likely to get trapped in some multi-way unraised pot if I flop two pair. One pair I can release either way, but at least I can bet it on the flop when raised pre-flop. I need to check/fold or check/raise on the flop with the pair in an unraised pot. If I get to the turn, its basicly cost the same (original blind and two small bets), but now I'm playing with a much better idea of whether or what help I need.
Andrew,
O.K. I would rather there not be a raise but a raise wouldn't bother me necessarily. I would want to be against a player when he raises gives up easily if he doesn't flop anything. To me it's all who I am upagainst. I guess I just like the idea of getting a free flop more than anything else.
Tom Haley
Do we all agree that who you're up against from the blinds is more important than how playable your cards are?
If an agressive player were in the blind, I would not try this unless there were several callers. These hands are best played cheaply. Most of the time you have to give them up , but when you hit one, you are a big winner. Pot odds really do matter, even in low limit. My question still is: does position?
Position really matters regardless of game conditions, or number of players. More so with fewer players, and somewhat less so (at least with starting card requirements) in no-fold'em.
In a jacks or better game, what are the odds of getting a payout by holding one face card and drawing 4 cards vs. discarding all 5 cards and drawing 5 new ones. I would appreciate it if someone could do the math. Thanks.
In 9/6 Jacks, if you bet 5 units and are dealt:
Kc 9d 7h 5s 2d
Hold the Kc alone, and your EV is 2.3826 units
Throw everything away, and your EV is 1.7067 units.
Best wishes,
Tom Sims
*** The Smart Money was on Goliath ***
Measure with a micrometer * mark with chalk * cut with an axe
In his Book "The worlds greatest blackjack book", Lance Humble, states that even with a good card count, it is not possible to gain the winning edge in a 6 deck game. Is this true?? Why/why not?? Please help, since Denmark only offers 6 deck games!
Even in single deck games, card counting gives you a minor positive edge.
In my opinion, card counting for six deck games is like resorting to "positive thinking" when faced with a life threatening disease requiring medical intervention. The sheer number of probabilities defy any efficient guessing of the cards. But of course, the counters may shed some ligt based on their experience in this area.
Unfortunately, in BJ gaming, people explain outcomes in light of their level of knowledge, preparation and personal traits and characteristics. And, every person being unique, experience is so different. Superstition, delusion, credulance and naivete may happily coexist with a range of other desirable good qualities.
I hope you succeed in finding the answer to your question. A lot depends on you... Good luck.
No it's not true, and I don't remember that statement being in Humble's book. Six deck blackjack can be beaten. However you will experience some severe fluctuations.
Also the Count System Humble and Cooper promote is the Hi-Opt 1. While this count is better at making Stratagy Desisions vs. one deck. It lacks the ability to make accurate bets against multiple Decks. This is due to the Fact that the Hi Opt 1 System doesn't count the Aces. I started with this count myself, but then quickly turned to Wong's Hi/Low Count. I would suggest using the Hi/Low count or the K.O. Count against multiple Deck games.
CV
Sklansky's problem is slightly underspecified. The solution depends on the number of raises allowed (alternatively, on the size of the smaller stack). This is despite the fact that optimal players never make more than three raises. The reason that the optimal solution changes with stack size is because the (extremely large) set of non-optimal strategies varies with the number of raises allowed, and the optimal players must make subtle adjustments to their mixing frequencies to neutralize these different sets.
Here is the solution if we allow at most three raises:
Opening action by player 1:
Action Aces Aces-Up Trip-AcesCheck 1125/1183 157/273 1
Bet 58/1183 118/273 0
Response by player 2 when player 1 checks:
Action Kings Kings-Up Trip-KingsCheck 313/338 41/78 0
Bet 25/338 37/78 1
Response by player 2 when player 1 bets:
Action Kings Kings-Up Trip-KingsFold 1 107/624 0
Call 0 1499/1872 0
Bet 0 1/36 1
Response by player 1 after check-bet:
Action Aces Aces-Up Trip-AcesFold 17/50 0 0
Call 3/5 0 0
Raise 3/50 1 1
Response by player 1 after bet-raise:
Action Aces Aces-Up Trip-AcesFold 1 1/6 n/a
Call 0 5/6 n/a
Reraise 0 0 n/a
[Note: player 1 never bets with Trip-Aces, so can't be raised.] [Also, note that player 1 never reraises, so no response by player 1 is needed to bet-raise-reraise-rereraise; however, player 2 must specify a response to bet-raise-reraise because player 1 need not play optimally.]
Response by player 2 after check-bet-raise:
Action Kings Kings-Up Trip-KingsFold 87/100 238/888 0
Call 0 649/888 0
Rereraise 13/100 0 1
Response by player 2 after bet-raise-reraise:
Action Kings Kings-Up Trip-KingsFold n/a 23/44 9/44
Call n/a 0 0
Rereraise n/a 21/44 35/44
Response by player 1 after check-bet-raise-reraise:
Action Aces Aces-Up Trip-AcesFold 1 405/2512 0
Call 0 10171/12560 0
Rereraise 0 91/3140 1
Response by player 2 after check-bet-raise-reraise-rereraise:
Action Kings Kings-Up Trip-KingsFold 1 n/a 1/10
Call 0 n/a 9/10
[End of solution for three raises.]
Here are the modifications if we allow four raises:
Response by player 2 after check-bet-raise:
Action Kings Kings-Up Trip-KingsFold 1 25/111 0
Call 0 649/888 0
Rereraise 0 13/296 1
Response by player 2 after bet-raise-reraise:
Action Kings Kings-Up Trip-KingsFold n/a 0 1/12
Call n/a 1 11/12
Rereraise n/a 0 0
Response by player 2 after check-bet-raise-reraise-rereraise:
Action Kings Kings-Up Trip-KingsFold n/a 1 1/10
Call n/a 0 9/10
Re^3-raise n/a 0 0
Minor modifications like these continue as we increase the number of raises allowed.
Question: If it is correct for player A to always check three aces, then why is the proper response with three kings ,after bet raise reraise, to reraise again only 35/44 of the time rather than all of the time?
This is an excellent question; answering it reveals some of the subtlety of optimal play in games with non-trivial extensive depth (aka ply's).
Notice that the optimal strategy for player 1 is to never reraise with any hand after betting and getting raised. Thus if player 2 is confronted with a reraise after raising an opening bet by player 1, he "knows" that he is playing against a non-optimal opponent!
His strategy for this situation must extract his security value against all strategies that make this reraise. This includes strategies that sometimes lead with trip Aces. By only rereraising 35 times out of 44 with trip Kings, the optimal strategy makes sure that player 2 is not exploited by such strategies.
Why wouldn't aa reraise with AAA? Secondly, your not done, you have to adopt your strategy percentages to the game itself. In other words, how are these strategies going to be actually implemented? Now you are going to have to adjust the strategy to fit the game unless you can use side cards or pot size or some other method so that the closest to the correct strategy is employed. But, maybe David will be satisfied with the theoretical percentages. if you are into it, I'd like to read how you would handle it in a real game situation ? Thanks
When I tried mixing up the strategy like you've done, it only lowered Player A's expectation. If you think about, it has to.
Have you worked out your expectation for this solution? If so, what is A's expectation?
I'll work it out myself tonight, when I get home from work, if you haven't.
There was a typo in the solution. When holding Kings up, player 2 should fold to a check-raise 239 times out 888 (not 238 times).
Also, I somehow switched the name and subject fields.
Finally, I omitted the expected return for player 1. It's 2 156569/624000.
The expected return is 2+ what? Dollars? Per hand?
2 156569/31200 bets. So with $20 bets, it's $45 569/31200.
You've obviously put in a lot of effort to get to your solution. Well done.
There's another typo - opening action player 1 : 157+118 doesn't equal 273.
My sim gives me 45.02 as expectation for your player 1, but this is an approximation only (see later).
One philosophical question though. When I attacked the problem (not too successfully, I might add (-; ), I didn't differentiate between, say, check-bet-raise and bet-raise-reraise for player 2 in round 2. Similarly, check-bet-raise-reraise and bet-raise-reraise-reraise for player 1 in round 3 had the same strategy. If player 2 can apply different strategies depending upon whether player 1 checked or bet, then that surely means that there's something inherently wrong with player 1's first round randomizing strategy. Why don't you supply different strategies for player 1 in round 3 for check-bet-raise-reraise and bet-raise-reraise-reraise?
Ok, Ive been cruching numbers without benefit of a program for 9 days now, even though I do it for a living. But I'm tiring of this problem, so I will give you what I have come with so far. It appears at first glance that A must do some betting to increase his expectation, and that he must bet every time he improves plus some other number. The optimum for this strategy is about 45 bets per 100 hands - the 35 improved hands plus 10 others. Using this strategy, A wins something like an extra $125. The reason it isn't more is something I will call the 'decision index'. K will only have a decision to make 35% of the time, because he can muck his 65 pairs. So in this scenario, K's decision index is .35. The problem with this strategy for A is that now K can employ the Sklansky bluffing system every time A checks, because K knows A only has aces. So K bets 35% of the time with improved hands and 8.75% of the time (25% 0f 35%) with K's. The 25% is because of the pot odds now being offered. No matter what counter-strategy A employs, he will lose the equivalent of .0875 pots ($60) when K bets. Multiplying this out we get 55 X .0875 X $60, whicb is $288.75, which greatly exceeds A's expectation. Now what? perhaps A can bet 20 times, 5 times with trips, and 15 times with aces up. Now K can get a positive expectation just by calling with trips, since he now knows that A has at least aces up. The amount is $10. I'll let you do the math on that. It is almost certain that K can also devise a winning strategy for the 80 checks as well. Clearly, any number between 11 and 35 bets causes A similar problems. How about a magic number like 6.25 bets (all trips plus 25%). This results in $3.75 per 100 hands for A, but B employs exactly the same strategy in return (when A checks), and wins $14+ per 100. Why does K win more? Because A's decision index is .2875 (.35 minus .0625) while K's (when A bets) is only .05. Lastly, if A checks every time, K can employ the last strategy to gain a little. The result of all this is that A, with the better hand going in, never has a betting advantage on seventh street! Arned with all this, perhaps one of you can find a "randomized" betting strategy for A and get Dave's $100. By randomized, I mean something like the example in my last reply to George Rice's solution.
What a great forum this is, I get answers on all my questions! COOL!!
Now for todays big question: Since I'm stuck with Denmark, all the great games of Baccarat, and the fun pokergames are not offered in the Danish casinos, HOWEVER we do have 7 card stud, split limit ($10/$20) under following rule:
the casino are allowed to take 5% of the final pot, and the dealer is expecting 3-4% in tips!
the question is then: are these terms okay???? if not does it help if the other players er JERKS that newer have known of the fact that poker is more than just luck?
Sounds more like Robbery than Poker. I don't think anyone could beat that game.
CV
Henrik,
you need to get your fellow players to slowly pressure them into lowering the rake and having a cap on it of a certain amount. If you dont all the money will dry up in the future. Dont be preesured into the high tips by the management and dealers. Ive played in Europe and it is a joke what you have to put up with when playing. Some places have come around a little as they can see their best interests are in keeping the players in money. Good Luck.
I'd like to apologize to the Gambing Forum community for reliability problems (server errors and whatnot) that have occurred recently. I am working the ISP to improve the situation.
Chuck
I just got finished reading the two fairly recent books on no-limit and pot-limit poker by Ciaffone/Reuben and Cloutier/McEvoy.
Could you please make a few comments on these books? Strengths, weaknesses, etc...
Here are two unpublished book reviews addressing these two books. 10 is the highest rating that I give and I do not recommend a book until it receives an 8.
Pot-Limit & No-Limit Poker by Stewart Reuben & Bob Ciaffone (10). Without a doubt this is the best information ever put out on these games. It contains terrific discussions of no-limit hold 'em, pot-limit hold 'em, pot-limit Omaha, as well as some other games played with a "big bet." In addition advice on tournaments and satellite play is given. And, to help you learn the material quizzes are provided. However, it is not an easy book. Much of the material is quite complicated and a quick easy read "won't get it." But if you are interested in any of these games, and some of them do appear around the major tournaments, especially the World Series of Poker, this text is must reading.
Championship No-Limit & Pot-Limit Hold'em by T. J. Cloutier with Tom McEvoy (6). This book covers some of the same material that the Reuben, Ciaffone book discussed above does, but not at the same level of detail. Even so, Cloutier does a reasonably good job of discussing many topics. These include starting hands, play on the flop, turn and river, and reading your opponents. He also gives pretty good advice on how to play in no-limit and pot-limit tournaments.
I do however have several complaints about the book, and because of this, I do not rate it higher. First, there are too many stories about T.J. Cloutier as well as other filler material. Second, the authors need to learn that six-five suited is really a better hand than six-five offsuit, and that the "bunching factor" has virtually no effect in hold 'em. And third, I strongly disagree with the constant reminders that no-limit or pot-limit is more difficult than limit play. I believe the opposite is true. In fact, the best part of the book are the sample no-limit hands at the back of the text. What is interesting is that virtually everyone of these hands would be more difficult to analyze and play correctly if it were limit play.
Mason wrote : Mason - can you give an example? I have read you write that you think limit is more complicated than no-limit for years. Having played a little bit of both, I can not agree, but I regard your opinion so highly, that I am, of course, willing to listen to what you have to say.
Thank you.l
In my book POKER ESSAYS I have two essays addressing this subject. I suggest that you look at them.
Posted by: MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 1 April 1998, at 9:32 p.m.
I tried to post this message under the thread about Gorge's comment, but it is not appearing. So I am starting a new thread here.
I think that the strategy for A I posted has expectation a bit over 44 (unless I made some mistakes in my calculation of the entries in the payoff matrix). I did use the matrix-game approach, however, I made some conservative assumptions to reduce the size of the matrix considerably, hence my solution is not optimal, but I believed that it should give an expectation quite close to the optimum.
I was posting this message yesterday afternoon, but the network went down in the middle. Hope this time it will go through. I verified that Gorge's strategy for A guarantees a profit of at least 44.83, with the following completion of the actions: When A raises, he will always fold to a reraise with one-pair, call with Aces-up, and reraise with three Aces. So Gorge's solution is better than mine (it makes about fifty cents more). I liked Gorge's solution because he derived his (very good) solution using logic and intuition not fancy mathematics. At the moment, I would like to make a few comments about Gorge's solution.
1. Gorge's strategy for A cannot be optimal. The strategy proposed by Gorge for player K is optimal with respect to this particular strategy for A. However this strategy for K is not optimal globally (actually very bad globally, since K bets too often with one-pair). A can simply call with one-pair all the time to obtain much higher profit than 44.83. The fundamental theorem of game (of this type) says that if A's strategy was optimal, then K's corresponding strategy (which is optimal with respect to A's strategy) must also be optimal. This implies that Gorge's strategy for A is not optimal.
2. I liked Gorge's bootstrapping approach. As far as I can see, he derived 38.46% frequency of folding for A with one pair by balancing K's betting so that K cannot make any advantage of it by betting one-pair and at the same time it minimizes the exposure to Kings-up or three Kings. It is a good start. However, A should check-raise with Aces-up and three kings more often to reduce K's betting with two-pairs so that A can protect his one-pair hand (as suggested in my first post). Another reason that Gorge's strategy cannot be optimal for A is as follows: Since A is only folding 38.64%, K cannot make any profit by betting one-pair, hence A's raise with one-pair is definitely wrong. Simply changing this raising frequency to calling gives higher profit. I will try to do a bit more calculation and see if I can come up with a better solution than this.
Finally my message gets posted ! As I am reading through my message, I noticed that the last few lines about ``simply shifting raising frequency to calling with one pair'' is not right, because K will simply fold to any raise with two-pair. (It is easy to get into this kind of trap when doing too many levels of logical thinking ! that is why a mathematical approach is more safe ).
I'm glad to see I've got someone coming down the same road I'm on. But I don't think you can improve on it. At least try, so you can confirm my solution . ;-)
You're correct that the raising frequency doesn't effect A vs. a pair of kings. To understand the raisiong frequencies, just take the concept one step further. Now, A wants to limit his exposure to trip-kings, but at the same time prevent K from benefitting with two-kings. He also wants him to bet two-kings. Therefore a small percentage of raises is desirable. What's interesting is that for larger pot sizes, A check-raising frequency goes way up (over 50%) for aces-up, but doesn't seem to go much above 3% for a pair of aces (In fact, as the pot gets even higher, it starts to come down again???). However, I sampled at round numbers, pot=80, pot=100, etc., and it may in fact jump around. By the way, I posted formulas for the folding frequency for aces, and the raising frequencies for aces and aces-up. These were devised from pot=60, using the logic I used to solve that problem, and should hold up at other pot sizes, with some limitations.
As far as K counter-strategy to A's optimal strategy, he could always check with kings and A will yield the same expectation. That's what the strategy was devised to do. A's still not exposed to kings-up any more than before. If K did that, A could react and take advantage of that by raising his folding percentage with aces (all the way to 100%). In fact, K could bet only with trip-kings, and A's expectation is the same.
What I failed to do is totally ignore A and derive strategies for K to minimize his exposure to other strategies. In other words, what should K do if A checks, and what should K do if A bets. I think this is what you meant by global strategies for K. I never thought to do this because I assumed that A would always be using A's optimal strategy. In the real world, you don't know what strategy your opponent will use. I'll start working on that, but I know that K's optimal strategy vs. A's optimal strategy will still yield A $44.83 (or worse). After doing this, then we can re-address A to see if mixing up his strategies is warranted. But you have to take risks to achieve gains.
By the way, the name is GEorge. ;-)
If both players use their optimal mixed strategy neither player can do better by unilaterally changing his strategy. So till you provide the full strategies, I cannot check that changing your player A's strategy will not adversely affect player K.
These strategies should be unique - when you proposed a counter-strategy for player K against Jason's player A (an earlier post) you said "check a pair of kings behind your check, fold if you bet". Yet you advocate player K always betting when player A checks as your main strategy.
Having said all that, I enjoy reading your logical approach to problem solving (your reply to monster, strong, decent, weak was a classic) and wish you luck with the $200 prize.
I appologize for my Fuzzy Thinking but I am not sure what "Swing" means in David Sklansky's article in Card Player on Jan 23. In it he gives a 4 step formula for estimating or predicting your "Long Range Results." The steps are:
1. Estimate your total results. 2. Count number of sessions. 3. Estimate largest "SWING" for typical session. 4. Multiply "SWING" by square root of of number of sessions.
My question is what is a "swing." I always thought you could have a large up swing (win) or down swing (loss).
In the article you give and example of a large one day swing of $1200, apply the formula, and go on to predict that your estimated long range results might be lower than your actual "to date" results. This leads me to conclude that you were talking about "loss" or "down swing." Could one substitute the word "LOSS" for swing in this article?
The reason I am confused is that elsewhere in the article you say to ignore fluky huge WINS or LOSSES that might occur once a year. Since you mention WINS, it confused me as to how to combine WINS and LOSSES in the formula above.
In attempting to perform step 3 in the formula, how do you estimate the largest SWING? Say your estimate for largest LOSS "swing" is $1200, and your estimate for largest WIN "swing" is $1500. How do you proceed? Do you use the average (+$300), ignore win swing, or what?
I think you were talking about "down" swings, but aren't they balanced somewhat by "up" swings? What am I missing?
Richard Allen
I meant a one way swing in either direction. If you are a good player your largest swing,( I guess I could have also called it the absolute value of your result) should be one of your wins. And I suggested that you ignore an extreme result if it seems greater than most of your big swings.
So you just use the highest swing (ignoring flukes) IN ONE DIRECTION and disregard the highest swing in the other direction?
In your example: results for 361 days was negative swing of $1200. If you had a positive swing in the same period of positive $1000, do you disregard it?
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like you'd have to consider swings in both directions. Would I be wrong to:
1. Toss out all "flukes." 2. Take an average of the top couple of negative swings. 3. Take an average of the top couple of positive swings. 4. Compare the two, and apply the DIFFERENCE (positive or negative) to your formula.
Again, pardon my fuzzy thinking...I'm just cofused by the fact that you only considered the swing in one direction.
Richard Allen
Your biggest one day losses ought to be abuot as big as you biggest one day wins, disregarding extreme flukes. This whole technique is somewhat imprecise but is an easy way to get a good approximation.
I think good players consistently have bigger big wins than their big losses. Bad players have the reverse pattern. Good players allocate more playing hours to great games, and leave bad games rather quickly, therefore they will have big wins, while the situations that are more likely to lead to equally big losses are cut short. Bad players often tend to quit quickly when winning, but to play long, steaming sessions when stuck. The results of this are obvious.
You know in a real game situation, the kings cannot usually be sure that the aces haven't allready made two pairs by sixth st. So if we were to specify that on the river there was a 40% chance that aces made aces up along with the 5% chance that he made trips (while the kings chances remain the same). And if we were to further specify that the pot contained a more reasonable $140 before the last $20 bet, we would really have a usable answer. And I'll pay another C note for it.
Now you're just torturing us.
After finding a solution to your original problem, I think it would be in our best interest to go off in different areas and consider possibilities like this. Not only make the circumstances more realistic, but also deal with opponents with known tendacies.
I hope you realize that anybody who tackles your problems merely for the $100 has doomed himself to working for slave wages. You're right, the solution will be well worth $100 to you. The real payoff for us will be in the understanding of how to tackle future problems, and with increased profits at the poker table.
But it doesn't hurt to dangle a carrot in front of our noses. ;-)
David -- just out of idle curiosity, how much would you be willing to pay for a computer program that solved the following problem:
1. User can specify pot size (in bets) and number of raises.
2. Suits (hence flushes) are ignored, but straights are possible.
3. Player 1 holds (A b) A c d e (f).
3a. A, c, d, and e all are different ranks.
3b. User can specify whether or not c, d and/or e could have paired b.
4. Player 2 holds (K g) K h i j (m).
4a. K, h, i and j all are different ranks.
4b. User can specify whether or not h, i and/or j could have paired g.
5. User can specify whether or not either player could have started with three of a kind.
6. Up cards permitting, user can specify whether or not either player could have developed a straight draw on 5th and/or 6th street and/or completed a straight on 6th street.
Taking this a bit further, how much would you (and anyone else interested) be willing to pay for a subscription to a web site offering this service? What if the site also featured a program allowing explicit solution of any heads up river in hold'em (including flushes)?
This is an economics problem that has a lot to do with how many other people know it.
I would be very pleased if there was someone out there who knows the world class satistician Persi Diaconis and could persuade him to look at this problem and this Forum. He is an ex poker player, a magician, a MacArthur genius award winner, and is presently at Harvard. It is now obvious that even a simple version of an everyday poker problem poses difficulties worthy of eminent mathmeticians. Thus if you know Persi or other professors of his ilk you should not think it beneath them to read this Forum. There is no reason why we sholdn't have some Nobel Prize winners joining us.
David,
I think that your question is starting to gain a full head of steam and think it would be a good idea for you to hold off on awarding your prize for at least a few days, and maybe longer. When you award the prize, it will tend to douse the flames burning in many of us.
As you have not worked out a solution yourself, then getting the input from Persi, or someone else with his credentials would be great. It also may help lead this discussion to places we would never reach ourselves. And what a great use of the forum that would be.
Unfortunately, Persi does not use e-mail. Other possible candidates would be John C. Harsanyi, John F. Nash, and Richard Selten who shared the 1994 Nobel prize in economics for their work on games of incomplete information (of which poker is a prime example). However, they are all fairly old and they, too, may not use e-mail.
Persi and David are sitting next to each other on a long flight from LA to NY. Persi leans over to David and asks him if he would like to play a fun game. David just wants to take a nap, so he politely declines and rolls over to the window to catch a few winks. Persi persists and explains that the game is really simple and a lot of fun. He explains 'I ask you a question, and if you don't know the answer, you pay me $5.' Again David politely declines and tries to get some sleep. Persi, now somewhat agitated, says 'OK, if you don't know the answer you pay me $5, and if I don't know the answer, I will pay you $50!' This catches David's complete attention, and he sees no end to this torment unless he plays, so he agrees to the game.
Persi asks the first question: 'What's the distance from the earth to the moon?' David doesn't say a word, reaches into his wallet, pulls out a $5 bill and hands it to Persi. Now it's David's turn. He asks Persi: 'What goes up a hill with 3 legs, and comes down with 4?' Persi looks at him with a puzzled look. He takes out his laptop computer and searches all his references. He taps into the Airphone with his modem and searches the Net and the Library of Congress. Frustrated, he sends e-mails to all his colleagues and friends. All to no avail.
After over an hour, he wakes David and hands him $50. David politely takes the $50 and turns away to get back to sleep. Persi, more than a little miffed, shakes David and asks : 'Well, so what is the answer?' Without a word, David reaches into his wallet, hands Persi $5 and goes back to sleep.
Nesmith Ankeny who wrote the book, "Poker Strategy,Winning with Game Theory", was supposed to be a proffessor at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Maybe you could contact him directly if he is still there, or contact the Putnam Publishing Group. If he's around, I'll bet he is capable and willing to solve your problem.
Professor Nesmith Ankeny is dead.
Contacting him is therefore out of the realm of mathematics or logical analysis.
(-:
I've just read Malmuth's fascinating "Gambling Theory And Other Topics" which contains the only analysis of Pan Nine I'm aware of.
I have access to several Pan Nine games in which a twist Malmuth does not mention is offered. There is a tie bet available paid off at 7-1. Clearly this is a terrible bet off the top of the shoe with a greater than 20% house edge in the house-banked game.
In the player-banked version of the game it seems this edge could be significantly reduced by collusion between two players. Does anyone know the optimal strategy for doing this? Presumably this does not give you an edge on this tie bet, or the game would be too simple to beat.
However, I'm certain that colluding players could obtain an edge over the house late in the deck (the casino deals out almost all the cards). If the dealer stands on 5 when the player hits the removal of a rank of face cards reduces the house edge on the tie to just 4%.
More extreme situations could give the tie a huge edge over the house. Logically, removing fives, threes and aces would result in a situation where only five totals are possible and your advantage would be about 40% assuming all other things are equal.
I'd be grateful for any input from anyone doing similar research.
I'll give you guys a hundred just to stop all this mental masturbation. OOPS! I said a no no. I can appreciate the challenge involved, but what are we learning ? That poker has its own little mathematical bottomless pit? Is the question really a point about game theory and poker? I love ya David, but I hope you will start asking questions regarding common, real poker situations where us earthlings can fathom an answer. I think your question was really you making a point about the complexity of the game since you are now asking for a noble prize winner to come to the site and answer it for youand us. There are enough situations in stud and hldm that are tough enough to know when you are making the right decision, for us to discuss, without slide rules. Loveya Babe,lets do lunch.
Sure, if your'e buying. After all I'm going to be $200 poorer soon. $200 I would not have spent if I thought this problem was only of esoteric interest.
While the exact problem that David specifies does not exist in 7 stud (because the cards are not exposed), in fact it DOES exist in a real world poker game:
Mexican Poker.
(Very simply, 5-card stud with a joker and the T's, 9's and 8's removed. On each street each player has the option to expose his hole card, receiving a down card, or receiving an up card. If the joker is dealt face up, it is a bug, if face down, it is a genuine wild card.)
It is quite easy to get into a situation on the river where there are two opponents, one of whom is showing
AAxy
and the other
KKwz
(or any other lesser pair).
Assuming live cards and no overlap, each player may improve to trips (3 outs, including joker), or two pair (6 outs).
The nice thing about this forum is that you can "tune out" topics that don't interest you. I have a degree in mathematics and,like you,YOWANDA and turned off by all this deep mathematical analysis....but I can understand that others are fascinated by it.
When you tune into the forum it is not REQUIRED that you read each posting...I just skip to the "good stuff"
Have a nice day.
I enjoy this thread; I have an MA in economics (game theory is my area of specialization)
I don't understand one word of this thread, nor do I think I ever will. (Until David explains the final answer, in his inimitable way.)
None the less I find myself reading all the posts hoping it will somehow sink in through osmosis.
Call me ignorant but will someone please explain to me why on earth you would EVER lay down three aces on the river?
I have had to read some of David's books countless times in order to understand some much simpler concepts.
I am hoping when this is all over it will all be put into perspective for the layman.
No one advocated laying down three aces on the river. At least not in these problems. As you no doubt realized, that would be absurd. Folding aces or aces-up is another matter, depending on circumstances.
We're just trying to figure out how the pair of aces can make the most money in the long run against a pair of kings. A less complicated but effective solution would be as follows.
Check aces and fold 1/3 time if bet into. Bet aces-up 1/3 the time and call if raised. Check aces-up 2/3 the time and call if raised. Check trip-aces and raise if raised.
If you had the kings, then:
Check with kings and kings-up if checked to. Bet with trip-kings if checked to and call any raises. If bet into, fold kings, sometimes call with kings-up and raise with trip-kings (call if raised into).
You will do almost as good as someone following the complicated strategy (which no-one will use in practice), without all the effort.
This strategy works with any situation where there is pair over pair and no overcards as kickers in the lower pair's hand, and where the bet is 1/3 the pot. If the pot gets larger, be more inclined to check-raise with aces-up also. Maybe bet with aces-up 1/2 the time.
Some of the more important concepts present here were--not betting (with aces) when you will only be called by a better hand; folding one-pair a fair portion of the time so save when two-pair bets, but not too much to encourage one pair to bluff; and to bet sometimes (aces-up) when a poorer hand (kings-up) will be suspecting a bluff.
The thread isn't finished yet, as we have not started discussing mixing up strategies yet. That should be interesting.
David asked this question without having the answer. Once he absorbs them, perhaps he'll be able to explain the results better than the number-crunchers (we hope).
Dear George,
On behalf of the other posters to this thread (The Ultimate Headache)I am inviting you to go back to your own thread! ;-)
Seriously...I don't think Jimmy R was serious about folding three A's...he was probably trying to poke a little fun at you and your fellow problem solvers.
There are many of us who just go by the feelings in our gut when we make these decisions and we spend our energy studying our opponents mannerisms and habits...because a solid read on your opponent is just as valuable and perhaps more valuable than all this mathematical knowledge.
Moreover most of us either don't understand the math...or are just too lazy to do it.
Jim Mogal
Jim Mogal wrotes ``There are many of us who just go by the feelings in our gut when we make these decisions and we spend our energy studying our opponents mannerisms and habits...because a solid read on your opponent is just as valuable and perhaps more valuable than all this mathematical knowledge.''
This is absolutely true, and in fact has been just domonstrated by this discussion. The math can only help you to gain a little (very little in this example if you compare the three solutions). If you have a much more accurate reading of your opponent's hand, you gain a lot ! However, you will still need some math to take advantage of your information--your reading of the opponent's hand simply changes the priori probability distribution of opponent's hands. The math will enable you to make the BEST decision based on all available information.
About Sklansky's problem, it is even true that almost every player will always check and call with pair of Aces only simply because of the pot-odds. With this assumption, player K should never bet with pair of Kings--and that is how I started my first approximation.
I appologize for treading on your thread.
The things you named are not *perhaps* more valurable, they *are* more valuable to the average player, and probably to the expert too. By the way, I'm an average player aspiring to be good, very good, excellent and hopefully expert, just like most of us.
All the fuss on the other threads was how an expert should play the hand. The expert (hopefully) is already proficient in the things you named, and many more. If you haven't already done so, read the articles by Mason Malmuth where he lists the importance of certain skills at various levels of particular games. I don't think squeezing a few extra cents was among any of them. You can find them in back issues of Card Player or his Poker Essays II.
I probably wouldn't have participated in that attempt to solve that problem if I wasn't home sick with the flu for over a week. I think all that effort in trying to solve it slowed my recovery considerably. :-(
By the way, that feeling you get in your gut is sometimes gas. Make decisions based on it at your own risk. ;-)
George raises an interesting point. It is that there are many skills important to poker. But I believe, and I have never written this before in exactly this way, that the most important skill of all is the ablilty to combine all the other skills and available information in a logical manner.
For instance, let's suppose you are trying to figure out someone's hand. You will use knowledge of the underlying probability distribution of card combinations, understanding their position, understanding how all the action relates to their possible holding, their general playing tendencies, any physical manerisms they might exhibit, how they are doing in the game at that particular time, how they perceive the other players in the pot, and so on.
But doing a good job of recognizing all of these things won't help you much if you give too much importance to the wrong ones. Thus the ability to combine these skills and information together is the real key. Of course, the ability to do this well is going to be somewhat dependent on experience. But discussion and a great deal of thinking about the game should help.
Any comments are welcome.
This seems to be an important comment. I believe that expert players who appear to be making 'gut' decisions are combining the factors that Mason mentions almost subconciously. In the heat of play the cogitive processes are too slow.
Also, one has to remember that unlike chess where one has many potential moves with many potential pieces in poker however deeply you analyse you must either bet, call, raise, reraise, check or fold. Sometimes, (very often!) you take the correct action but only subsequent analysis reveals why. This is why it is important to reflect on past decisions and imagine potential decisions.
Poker problems and discussions help clarify thinking and enhance actual play because they allow the 'poker brain' to be filled with the right ideas, so that in live play correct action is more likely. Once the right action has been arrived at there is no need practically to continue one's analysis. Only later thought reveals its accuray.
Even chess players have time limitations on their thinking. Poker players more so. Chess players go through a decision tree but contrary to popular thought, Grand Masters rarely analyse through long strings of moves because it is usually unnecessary. The right move is often obvious.
Many poker decisions are obvious and even an error, as long as it is not too serious or repeated too frequently, rarely makes a big difference in the long run. The biggest (and most costly errors) I see are gross ones such as playing too many starting hands, playing hands out of position, steaming, putting people on a specific hand too early and having a flawed basic stategy. Anything that can eliminate these must help the bottom line more than cerebral analysis.
If deep analysis helps you arrive at better decisions do it: If over analysis has a counter effect of making you too passive or indecisive stop it!
I believe that studying, problem solving, discussions with expert players and thinking over one's own games all enable one to benefit from the 'experience' of others.
Perhaps a' heirarchy of decision factors' or questions would be the subject of a future article, Mason?
Incidentally, I play with George Rice. He is a solid player.
Your response strikes me as the most practical one. I hope you get the 200 . I cannot imaginine any but the top players being able to analyze this situation on the fly.
The question that I have is: what factors do you use to make the first decision--the people, the boards, the sense that--more often than not--the kings are beat and will remain so? All three, plus the color of the other player's shirt?
Comments? (delete NoSpam-1389 from address to reply)
I assume by first decision you mean whether to bet or check with Aces-up. But the process could be the same for any decision.
In his video, David gives and example when asked why he took a certain action he responed "Because it's Tuesday." And that reason was the truth. The significance of that is randomizing your action should be based on factors that an opponent could never figure out. For example, if you want to fold aces when bet into 1/3 the time, you could fold if your last card was a duece, three, or four of hearts (assuming they didn't pair you). That would be folding 9/26 times you didn't improve. Even if your opponent knew this, he won't know what you'll be doing before he acts as he can not see your last card. If you based it on gut feelings or estimating in your head based on previous action (such as saying to yourself that you called the previous two times, and now I'm due for a fold), your opponent might be able to figure out how you think and bluff with kings only when he knows you'll fold the aces. By using a technique like David has suggested, your opponent will never be able to figure out your actions.
As for the money, Paul has earned it more than I. But I think David was looking for more than has been provided up to now.
It's funny that two of you who responded to my post said that you wrer economists or had a degree in math and specialized in game theory studies, yet there has been no posts by you addressing the problem. yet you have taken time to tell me not to read the posts if I'm not interested. If David hadn't offered money I probably wouldn't have read much of it. At the same time my post wasn't totally serious, in case you didn't notice. Jim and Jimmy get it. Poker is a game of people. i certainly didn't disrespect david or anyone contributing to those questions but again, what's been gained? Poker attracts the math wonks etc. because of the probabilities and so on, but i believe the next steps in the game will come from the pyschological side of the game. You don't see many posts regarding this side of the game, because you can't attach a formula too it or create a spreadsheet... well maybe a spreadsheet, but you know what i mean. My plee to David was for more non math questions that require common sense and other types of important skills that are truly in their infancy, but you will probably only see math oriented questions since this is the aspect from which he approaches the game. Have a good one !
All of the questions David posted envolved both math and logic. True, the latest were very involved mathematically, but he was in search of information that he didn't have himself, and may not have been offering them for educational purposes. Although much can be learned if you follow the posts. Perhaps if you ignored the complicated math and concentrated on the results and the analysis that's sure to follow.
However, some math is always necessary in poker. There are not many situations that don't require you to consider the pot size, the size of the bet, the likelihood that your opponent(s) have certain hands, or the likelihood you'll improve your hand. Sometimes the combination of these factors, and other, make for a very involved solution.
But you don't need a degree in game theory to benefit from this. Frequently, you can conclude some basic rules-of-thumb which typical players can use. They may not make every cent of profit available, but they may do a lot better than they would have otherwise.
An example from the ultimate problem is that betting on the end is not necessarily correct. If there was another card to come, then betting would usually, if not always, be correct. However, after all the cards are out, checking and calling (or raising) is frequently the best choice. A number of players posted that they would have bet with aces. I think that this is clearly wrong, and confirmed by all the number-crunching.
It's hard to offer prizes for totally non mathematical problems since you could never prove who was right. But I might try it in the future where the question would be more of an essay question and the prize would go to the person who could best justify his or her position. Now what about lunch.
Does Jaque en LE Boxe sound okay ? I'm glad you and Mason are responding positively. Your right , it is hard to offer a prize when there can be more than one answer to a question. So maybe it wouldn't be right for that format, but I hope that this forum will in all seriousness address parts of the game that are more ambiguous. Such as, we are always saying "know your player", but what does that really mean. What steps does a pro player go through in order to categorize his opponents. of course we all see someone who turns over AK all the time and we call him tight etc., but I'm hoping there will be more discussion on how to play against different types of players and how to exploit different playing styles Etc etc etc. I'm hungry, I'll meet you there.
The following is the optimum strategy for Player A to follow. Also provided is Player K's best response. As for anything else, I'll deal with that in a later post.
David didn't mention the odds on a full-house, so it's assumed to be zero.
A percentages were changed to aces-up=40%, trip-aces=5%. The pot was increased to $140.
Player A: Always check; If (when) Player K bets, then:
Aces: fold 15.15%, call 84.85% Aces-up: fold 10.42%, call 88.44%, raise 1.14% Trip-aces: raise 100%
If K re-raises, fold aces-up and re-re-raise with trip aces
Player K's optimum respomse to this strategy:
Always bet after A checks.
If A raises, then:
Fold kings and kings-up, re-raise with trip kings. Raise with trip-kings, call if re-re-raised
This gives Player A an expectation of $107.47.
As with my solution to Ultimate #1, Player A's expectation is the same regardless of how Player K plays.
If player A checks and player K bets, you suggest sometimes folding aces up even though you usually call with two aces. How can this be? If you are going to give up the pot a certain percentage of the time surely that percentage should come totally from your worst hands.
Not necessarily. Consider the following:
For the sake of argument, we'll assume that A wants K to bet into him.
When K has kings, A will always have him beat. In order for K to bet, A would have to fold enough times to make it worth it for K. In this situation, it really wouldn't matter if A folded only a percentage of trip-aces, it's all the same to K when he has only kings. It's just the percentage of the time A folds that counts. In our problem, since A will also have kings-up and trip-kings to contend with, he certainly would want to fold only a pair of aces if K bets.
When K has kings-up, the decision to bet is similar. Will the pecentage of A calling with worse hands combined with the percentage of A folding better hands be good as combined total of calling with better hands. Again, it doesn't matter to K when he has kings-up if A folds always with aces and sometimes with aces-up, folds always with aces and sometimes with trip-aces, or if A calls sometimes with aces. So long as the expectation is the same. Since A will sometimes have trip-kings to contend with, he certainly will not want to fold trip-aces. However, it really doesn't matter to A if he folds less often with aces, or more ofter with aces-up, if he knew he was facing exactly kings-up.
Combining the these two thoughts---A would like to fold only aces if he can. But can he? If he folded aces only, getting K to bet with kings will require an exact percentage. Exact because A doesn't want to fold more than is necessary to get K to bet. Since A can't vary this percentage based on K's hand (because he don't know it), this percentage by default is also his folding frequency against kings-up and trip-kings. However, this means that it's worth it for kings to bet. How about a kings-up? As it turns out in your problem, if A folds aces at the right percentage to get kings to bet, the percentages for K when K has kings-up won't be there for K to bet. A is simply not calling enough with the worse hand (aces). Therefore, K will simply check with kings-up.
If A wants to get K to bet he'll have to fold with aces-up a few times to entice him. But he just can't do that, because then his folding frequency against kings will be two high. He's got to balance the two. Calculating the exact percentages turns out to be two equations with two variables. One equation if k always bets, and one equation if K always checks. They both should show the same expectation. In this problem it would be $63 (.45*$140).
By the way, the reason A wants K to bet is so A will be folding as many hands as possible agaisnt trip-kings, without giving up anything against kings and kings-up. Actually, A doesn't really care if K bets kings and kings-up, so long as he gets to fold those hands.
Having said all that, the percentages I stated for Ultimate #2 were wrong. I accidentally used some of the numbers from Ultimate #2. The correct percentage for A folding with aces is 22.22%. The correct frequency for folding aces-up is .69%. This will yield an expectation of $140 against kings and $63 against kings-up. The exact raising frequency for aces-up is still being worked out, as well as the expectation. I will re-post the numbers when I'm finished.
As it turned out, the folding percentage for folding aces-up was rather small. An almost negligible .69% (.0069).
Please explain what you mean by optimal mixed strategies. I don't know exactly what you mean. Could you also give an example using a simple problem.
Thanks.
Mixed strategy simply means a strategy where you don't necessarily do the same thing every time with the same hand. What I meant by optimal strategy is the one that would do best against an expert or altenatively the one that would do best if your opponent somehow discovered the strategy you were using. If I have not defined optimal correctly then I would like someone to tell me why.
I think the best definition for optimal mixed strategy is mixing among your alternatives in a manner which makes you indifferant to what the other players in the game do.
Your expectation for A's strategy may be correct for the strategy you give for K, but K's counter-strategy is not optimal.
I'll choose the following counter-strategy to foil A using your strategy:
When A checks, check with kings and kings-up. Bet with trip-kings and just call a raise.
When A Bets, raise with all hands.
This gives Player A an expectation of $44.40. That's good, but not as good as my $44.83. You may be on to something which you can tweak up a bit. However, when choosing K's counter-strategy, you must exploit A in any way possible to discover A's true expectation. By the way, there may be an even better counter-strategy for K. I just looked long enough to bring you down below $44.83. ;-)
I get an expected return for player 1 (AA) of 45.0679487179585 against your counter-strategy. Perhaps I transcribed the optimal strategy incorrectly -- I'll check on this. Chuck and I are finding it a bit more difficult to make my spreadsheet available than we anticipated; we're still hoping to post it eventually.
Yup, I transcribed incorrectly. Etienne caught the error. In my first post, I have player 1 checking 157 times out of 273 with aces up, and betting the other 118 times -- which adds up to 275 times. It should be betting 116 times out of 273. Sorry about that!
I think my next project needs to be to generate HTML output instead of plaintext. :-)
Well what do you guys think of KQo UTG. I don't think much of it and folded it playing 10-20 last night and my housemate is still bitching about it (mainly because the flop was AJ10)
KQ is very much playable UTG. However, it could very easily become second best if a king or a queen flops, because you'll be the one giving the action to AK or AQ. It should be folded in a tough game.
The flop being AJT isn't an argument for playing it, because you didn't know this in advance and couldn't have known this.
According to exhaustive "smart" simulations I have done in all positions w a game that has about 4.2 flop callers counting the blinds, KQo is profitable in all positions if there has not been a raise up to your action, but not as profitable as I expected. With a raise, it is profitable in only late position.
I'd usually fold too, unless the game was very tight. Raise if I play, believing this to be no better than a break even proposition UTG without weaker players.
You wrote KQ off suit, but the symbol you used was for suited. If offsuit you were probably corrrect in folding--unless you could play the hand for one, maybe two bets.. The odds against that flop are 76 to 1. If the KQ was suited, folding was not the correct play, unless you were at table of rocks playing A's. Then, who knows?
I don't see *KQs*, just *KQo* in the original post.
Okay, I misread it. You were corect to fold. A perfect flop does not justify playing what Brunson calls a "trouble hand" out of position in a medium stakes game. Also, anyone drawing a flush has two chances to beat you.
I don't know if this is the optimal counter-strategy, but If K uses it, it reduces the expectation for Paul's strategy for A to $43.54.
When A checks: K should check behind A with kings and kings-up. K should bet trip-kings and call any re-raises.
When A bets: K should fold kings, call with kings-up and raise with trip-kings.
A's expectation on hands that he checks is $36.01 and on hands that he bets is $7.53, for a total of $43.54.
I think that any attempts to bet by A only reduces his expectation. I think the optimal soultion will include A checking all of the time.
Expected return contribution when player 1 (AA) checks against your counter-strategy is $36 457/1820 (36.2511); contribution when player 1 bets is $8 223/273 (8.8168). Total expectation is $45 53/780 (45.0679). I can break it down further if it will help us locate the discrepancy.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Matchup; Sequence; EV contribution
Aces v Kings; Check-Check; $24.1071
Aces v Kings; Bet-Fold; $1.2429
Aces v Kings Up; Bet-Call; -$0.1912
Aces v Trip Kings; Check-Bet-Call; -$0.3709
Aces v Trip Kings; Check-Bet-Raise-Call; -$0.0742
Aces v Trip Kings; Bet-Raise-Fold; -$0.0319
Aces Up v Kings; Check-Check; $6.7286
Aces Up v Kings; Bet-Fold; $4.9714
Aces Up v Kings Up; Check-Check; $3.1055
Aces Up v Kings Up; Bet-Call; $3.0593
Aces Up v Trip Kings; Check-Bet-Raise-Call; -$0.3451
Aces Up v Trip Kings; Bet-Raise-Fold; -$0.0212
Aces Up v Trip Kings; Bet-Raise-Call; -$0.2125
Trip Aces v Kings; Check-Check; $1.9500
Trip Aces v Kings Up; Check-Check; $0.9000
Trip Aces v Trip Kings; Check-Bet-Raise-Call; $0.2500
Expected return breakdown for optimal AA strategy vs. George's KK counter-strategy (reformatted).
Matchup | Sequence | EV Contribution |
Aces v Kings | Check-Check | $24.1071 |
" | Bet-Fold | $1.2429 |
Aces v Kings Up | Bet-Call | -$0.1912 |
Aces v Trip Kings | Check-Bet-Call | -$0.3709 |
" | Check-Bet-Raise-Call | -$0.0742 |
" | Bet-Raise-Fold | -$0.0319 |
Aces Up v Kings | Check-Call | $6.7286 |
" | Bet-Fold | $4.9714 |
Aces Up v Kings Up | Check-Call | $3.1055 |
" | Bet-Call | $3.0593 |
Aces up v Trip Kings | Check-Bet-Raise-Call | -$0.3451 |
" | Bet-Raise-Fold | -$0.0212 |
" | Bet-Raise-Call | -$0.2125 |
Trip Aces v Kings | Check-Call | $1.9500 |
Trip Aces v Kings Up | Check-Call | $0.9000 |
Trip Aces v Trip Kings | Check-Bet-Raise-Call | $0.2500 |
A "rational" solution to Sklansky's Ultimate Problem
Sklansky's problem is slightly underspecified. The solution depends on the number of raises allowed (alternatively, on the size of the smaller stack). This is despite the fact that optimal players never make more than three raises. The reason that the optimal solution changes with stack size is because the (extremely large) set of non-optimal strategies varies with the number of raises allowed, and the optimal players must make subtle adjustments to their mixing frequencies to neutralize these different sets.
Here is the solution if we allow at most three raises:
Opening action by player 1: | |||
| Action | Aces | Aces-Up | Trip-Aces |
| Check | 1125/1183 | 157/273 | 1 |
| Bet | 58/1183 | 116/273 | 0 |
Response by player 2 when player 1 checks: | |||
| Action | Kings | Kings-Up | Trip-Kings |
| Check | 313/338 | 41/78 | 0 |
| Bet | 25/338 | 37/78 | 1 |
Response by player 2 when player 1 bets: | |||
| Action | Kings | Kings-Up | Trip-Kings |
| Fold | 1 | 107/624 | 0 |
| Call | 0 | 1499/1872 | 0 |
| Bet | 0 | 1/36 | 1 |
Response by player 1 after check-bet: | |||
| Action | Aces | Aces-Up | Trip-Aces |
| Fold | 17/50 | 0 | 0 |
| Call | 3/5 | 0 | 0 |
| Raise | 3/50 | 1 | 1 |
Response by player 1 after bet-raise: | |||
| Action | Aces | Aces-Up | Trip-Aces |
| Fold | 1 | 1/6 | n/a |
| Call | 0 | 5/6 | n/a |
| Reraise | 0 | 0 | n/a |
[Note: player 1 never bets with Trip-Aces, so can't be raised.]
[Also, note that player 1 never reraises, so no response by player 1 is needed to bet-raise-reraise-rereraise; however, player 2 must specify a response to bet-raise-reraise because player 1 need not play optimally.]
Response by player 2 after check-bet-raise: | |||
| Action | Kings | Kings-Up | Trip-Kings |
| Fold | 87/100 | 239/888 | 0 |
| Call | 0 | 649/888 | 0 |
| Rereraise | 13/100 | 0 | 1 |
Response by player 2 after bet-raise-reraise: | |||
| Action | Kings | Kings-Up | Trip-Kings |
| Fold | n/a | 23/44 | 9/44 |
| Call | n/a | 0 | 0 |
| Rereraise | n/a | 21/44 | 35/44 |
Response by player 1 after check-bet-raise-reraise: | |||
| Action | Aces | Aces-Up | Trip-Aces |
| Fold | 1 | 405/2512 | 0 |
| Call | 0 | 10171/12560 | 0 |
| Rereraise | 0 | 91/3140 | 1 |
Response by player 2 after check-bet-raise-reraise-rereraise: | |||
| Action | Kings | Kings-Up | Trip-Kings |
| Fold | 1 | n/a | 1/10 |
| Call | 0 | n/a | 9/10 |
[End of solution for three raises.]
Here are the modifications if we allow four raises:
Response by player 2 after check-bet-raise: | |||
| Action | Kings | Kings-Up | Trip-Kings |
| Fold | 1 | 25/111 | 0 |
| Call | 0 | 649/888 | 0 |
| Rereraise | 0 | 13/296 | 1 |
Response by player 2 after bet-raise-reraise: | |||
| Action | Kings | Kings-Up | Trip-Kings |
| Fold | n/a | 0 | 1/12 |
| Call | n/a | 1 | 11/12 |
| Rereraise | n/a | 0 | 0 |
Response by player 2 after check-bet-raise-reraise-rereraise: | |||
| Action | Kings | Kings-Up | Trip-Kings |
| Fold | n/a | 1 | 1/10 |
| Call | n/a | 0 | 9/10 |
| Re^3-raise | n/a | 0 | 0 |
Minor modifications like these continue as we increase the number of raises allowed.
Very impressive solution, Paul ! I think that I know how you used a computer program to generate this solution through an iterative process now (I have just come up a program myself!), and I have verified that your solution does give the right expectation. However, as far as I can see, this iterative process starts with the assumption that A always check with three-Aces, It is quite safe to say that the strategy is optimal among all the solutions that A always check with three-Aces. I have also verified that George's solution is optimal among all the solutions that A always check first. I cannot be conviced that Paul's strategy is optimal among all the solutions (i.e. there might be a strategy such that A bets three-Aces sometime). The only way to convince somebody that a proposed strategy for A is globally optimal is to present strategies for both players, say, StrA and StrK, such that StrA guarantees an expectation EA and StrK guarantees an expectation EK, and EA+EK=60 (the potsize before the action). It is easy to calculate the guaranteed expectation for any proposed strategy, but it is much harder to find a good strategy. Anyway, can you find a good strategy for player K such that it guarentees, say, 60-44.95=15.05? I do not think that your proposed strategy for K has that property.
I think that a complete solution to this type of problem is possible (even with any pot-size, bet-size, and probability distributions of these hands.). One needs to write a computer program to automatically write down all the entries in the payoff matrix (which could be very large) from a few very simple decision trees. Note that I am not talking about computer simulations here. I am simply talking about using computer to do all the book-keeping stuff and then use the matrix-game theory to find optimal solutions for both players. The book-keeping stuff is very tedious (I spent quite amount of time for the reduced 6X8 matrx) and needs high concentration for a humanbeing, but a computer can do it correctly in a few seconds once the program is written. I will ask a student to do that as a project. By the way, I think that the mathematics involved in this problem is very standard, (certaintly does not need people like Diconi), the tricky part is just programming. Well, if someone can come up with a much simpler approach (general enough) than matrix-game approach, it could be really something.
This isn't much of an explanation, but ... betting AAA is dominated. The conditional expected return for betting when player 1 holds AAA is $69.1474. The conditional expected return for checking when player 1 holds AAA is $70.0378. In zero-sum games, players only mix their actions when their conditional expectations against an optimal opponent are identical. Otherwise, they should always choose the action with the highest expectation.
Also, my algorithm doesn't assume that player 1 should always check AAA.
I have a hunch that George is getting led astray by a correct result: it's true that for each hand, player 1's conditional expectation is maximized by checking. However, even though player 1 can't get a higher expectation by betting, player 1 can get *equal* expectation by (sometimes) betting AA or Aces up (but, as I've "explained" above, this is not the case with AAA). By sometimes betting AA and Aces Up, player 1 gets more action after checking AAA, and consequently, higher returns from AAA.
(This is also causing George to generate inferior play by player 1 in his solution for Sklansky's "Ultimate Problem #2". Player 1 should be able to guarantee a payoff of $110.22.)
We are all posting around the same time, almost like a real-time conversation. ;-)
Yes, as I've just posted, my solution was limited to checking and I failed to take advantage of picking my spots to bet. I shouldn't have assumed that because checking was significantly better than betting, that I should therefore never bet. However, I did everything in my head or by hand, and have strained the limits of by abilities.
Jason is right that the math isn't that hard. Thankfully, as it's been a long time since calculus and differential equations in college. A little algebra is all that's needed.
As for my preliminary solution for ultimate #2, it has the same flaws as my solution to ultimate #1. The correct raising frequencies weren't worked out either.
However, as the percentages of improving change, the importance of betting will change also. I anticipate that for ultimate #2, betting will be more important. I don't know about guranteeing a payoff of $110.22, as this is about the check-check payoff. But we should come close.
What? Are we supposed to compete with charts?
Nice going. I re-did the figures and they agree with yours. I don't know if I can come up with a better counter-strategy than it. But it seems to work out the same as yours, which is much more complicated. Why is your counter-strategy for K so involved?
Looking over your strategy, I see you basically did the same thing with the checked hands I did--making liberal use of check and fold with your pair of aces. This is a strategy, or sub-strategy, which seems to go against the grain of many players. Clearly, it is a powerful concept. At least when all the cards are out. However, you used a little smaller folding frequency than I, made possible by betting a good percentage of your aces-up hands.
I was surprised you were able to get away with betting *any* hands, as overall, betting is inferior. However, you managed to get a better return on your money on your bet hands than on your checked hands. Apparently, two-pair, with sufficient one-pair hands to keep K in line, plays better if bet. You simply changed the percentages, in effect, with your checked hands to return expectation there to optimal. I didn't think to segragate the hands in that manner. If I had examined the results of my analysis of betting-out closer, I might have tried something similar. But even optimizing the checked hands took enormous concentration and effort. I'm curious if you conceived this all in your head logically, or worked it out by trial and error, possibly with a computer program.
I don't know if your solution is optimal, but it's apparently better than mine. Kudos on a job well done.
Now you only have to finish the solution with the random mixed strategy David requested, and address different pot sizes. If you have this programmed, different pot sizes shouldn't be that difficult. However, a random mixed strategy will take some more thinking.
Also, beyond David's problems, this should really be looked at from more angles. A good number of the cards you receive, while not improving your hand, will reduce the probability of your opponent improving. Moreover, in real life situations, you don't really know what your opponent has. He may have a pair of kings 70%, two-pair 25% and trips 5%. He may also have your other pair of aces in the hole.
The pot size in this problem was kind of small. Also, this was a heads-up situation from the start. If the hand was eight-handed from the start, the percentages would have been different. When all of these things are addressed, we'll have a strategy usable at the poker table.
Do tell us how you arrived at your solution.
I'm going to take a long awaited nap. Tomorrow I think I'll play some poker instead of talking about it. :-)
First, I have to say I'm impressed with the amount of work George put into this problem, and I'm equally impressed by the results he was able to get with, as he admits, little or no background in the mathematics involved.
Having said that, I'd like to give Paul a breather by helping him clear up what still seem to be misconceptions George and (I'm sure) many others have about Paul's solution.
With the problem fully specified (including the number of raises allowed, which are at least ultimately limited by the size of the smaller stack), it has an exact solution, which is not based on any further assumptions. This solution does not require a simulation or any other form of approximation, it only requires algebra - lots of it. One does not have to use trial-and-error to search for better counter-strategies. The exact frequencies at which the various pure strategies should be mixed are solved in an algebraic manner that has been well-known for a long time.
The fractional forms of the mixing frequencies that Paul gives indicate that he has worked out the exact answers, and he has not performed any kind of iterative simulation. It would appear that a computer was used, but this is no doubt just to do the algebra which can become cumbersome to do by hand in this case.
I don't understand what George means by, "Now you only have to finish the solution with the random mixed strategy David requested...". Specification of the mixing frequencies IS the random mixed strategy.
The only other comment I wanted to make is somewhat off-topic, but I'll offer it nevertheless. I've never seen a better example of the human tendency for "guruism" than I've seen in this thread. I've read numerous comments along the lines of looking for an authority figure who will come along and straighten everything out. In some cases posters are suggesting that eventually David will sort out the mumbo-jumbo to make it understandable to mere mortals, and even David himself suggested that we approach a leading authority in the field. I've seen this need-for-a-guru problem before on the net (in the sci.physics newsgroup, where everyone offers their own theory/opinion), and it comes from the unique problem that from your computer you cannot see the proverbial sheepskins (or lack thereof) on the wall of the person contributing to the thread. With all the noise that enters each thread, it becomes impossible for the uninformed reader to distinguish between the true authorities and those who are giving their best guess. The real experts typically do not spout their credentials (not wanting to come across as conceited, and figuring that the correctness of the work will speak for itself), and the non-experts typically imply that they know more than they really do (another thing I liked about George's posts was that he was very forthright with regards to his limited background).
It was at this point that I was going to state that I could assure this forum that there is no greater expert in this field than Paul Pudiate, but then I realized that the only way you could believe me is to think of me as being an authority as well, which you have no reason to believe either. Sorry, you'll just have to go to Amazon.com, order one of several game theory textbooks that exist in the literature, teach yourself the subject, and then check Paul's work for yourself. Come to think of it, you'll get a lot more out of doing this than by reading anything you find here.
Okay, I'm done ranting. David, I suggest you mail Paul the check.
Tom Weideman
I, too, am impressed by Jason and George's effort and results. I had a hard enough time just transcribing the solution correctly! -- Jason got very accurate results for the simplified problem he was able to work on quickly by hand (I'm sure he or his student will be able to program the full solution with no problem), and George got accurate results except for his oversight of the viability of player 1 (AA) betting out.
One of my friends was wondering why it was so hard for everyone to see that I had delivered the correct result. There's a sense in which verifying the solution is "half" as hard as solving the game in the first place. This problem is so difficult (three hands for each player; 6-ply, two main branches); that even checking the solution is still much harder than solving the standard textbook check/bluff problem (two hands for player 1, one for player 2; 2-ply, no branches). For each player, you have to solve a 3-hand, 3-ply, 2-branch sub-problem. And unlike the textbook problem, it will still be very difficult for someone to grasp the correctness of the verification.
I wrote an essay yesterday on how to apply optimal strategy to your real world game. I sent it to Chuck for him to publish in The Intelligent Gambler (I've been promising him an article for over a year!). If he doesn't have room in the next issue, I was thinking of submitting it here as a guest essay.
What I'm saying is that K doesn't know what strategy A will use. Assuming Paul's strategy for K is optimal (and I don't know if it is) then how does he take advantage of sub-optimal play by A to maximize his expectation.
Also, if K plays sub-optimal, how can A exploit it for even more profit?
For example, if A is the type of player who will always suspect a bluff and call with aces, K would do better to always bet with kings-up after A checks, rather than 37/78 times. Likewise, if K is the type of player who will always call with kings-up if A bets, The never betting aces and always betting aces-up may gain you more profit.
Against the same players day in and day out, an optimal strategy may be the best, or safest, strategy to employ. But against players who are tourists or will not play agaisnt you long enough to catch on, a less than optimal strategy may take down mor money is the long run. Also a good player may simply be lazy since he thinks you're employing optimal strategy, and leave himself open to exploitation.
I know that I would want some extra strategies available to me to selectivly use against different opponents. I think you should be able to return an expectation over $46 on average if you take advantge of your opponents weaknesses.
Paul's squeezed every penny out of the experts, now how can we squeeze some extra dollars out of the bad players?
Tom writes:
The fractional forms of the mixing frequencies that Paul gives indicate that he has worked out the exact answers, and he has not performed any kind of iterative simulation. It would appear that a computer was used, but this is no doubt just to do the algebra which can become cumbersome to do by hand in this case.
------
I would assume that the pure strategies and the payoff matrix are also generated by computer algorithm, not by hand. (These computations don't involve algebra)
Also, one more thing that appears to need clearing up. Some people seem to think that there might be a better counterstrategy for the KK player than Paul presented.
But the solution via game theory produces the optimal mixed strategies for BOTH Player AA and Player KK (at least as far as I understand things). If Paul's program correctly generated the optimal strategy for AA, then with almost no doubt (barring some bug in the program) it also generated the optimal strategy for KK.
Correct, Paul, Tom?
JP Massar writes:
Also, one more thing that appears to need clearing up. Some people seem to think that there might be a better counterstrategy for the KK player than Paul presented.
But the solution via game theory produces the optimal mixed strategies for BOTH Player AA and Player KK (at least as far as I understand things). If Paul's program correctly generated the optimal strategy for AA, then with almost no doubt (barring some bug in the program) it also generated the optimal strategy for KK.
Correct, Paul, Tom?
--------
Right. Generally a game theory problem is considered "solved" when the optimum (minmax) strategies for all contestants involved are found, and the ev for each player is computed as well.
Tom Weideman
Tom wrote:
you'll just have to go to Amazon.com, order one of several game theory textbooks that exist in the literature, teach yourself the subject, and then check Paul's work for yourself. Come to think of it, you'll get a lot more out of doing this than by reading anything you find here.
---
There are quite a few books on Game Theory at Amazon.com. Do you have any recommendations?
Tom, I am convinced that Paul's solution is exact and hence is derived from a general formula. Since the only exact approach I know of is the matrx-game approach which needs to solve a linear program, your post suggests that there is a simpler algebraic approach and it is very standard (available in the textbook.) It will be very helpful if you can list some of the reference books here so that we can all truely learn something from this discussion. I am happy to see there are so many people interested in this type of problem, and there are even authorities involved in this problem. I am very impressed by George's effort too, and I think George deserves half of the awards.
By the way, Is Paul's solution an exact optimal solution for specified number of raises ? It seems to me that the truncated solution (of the optimal solution for many raises) is not exactly optimal for specified number of raises. That is, one cannot simply use a single fixed strategy (for all the cases). For example, in some poker rooms, check-raise is not allowed, Paul's truncated solution may not be optimal in this case. Of course I did not have time to check it.
First, matrix methods are algebraic methods. Matrices and their properties are basically just a powerful tool for working with systems of equations.
Second, specification of the number of raises (as well as the rules like (dis)allowing check raise) are a crucial part of the statement of the problem. As Paul pointed out at the beginning, without knowing how many raises are allowed (whether that number is artificial or is limited by the size of the short stack), there is insufficient information to solve the problem. The most interesting (to me) part of this discussion is the fact pointed out by Paul that the answer depends upon the number of raises that are in principle available, even though optimum play never exceeds 3 raises. I'm just guessing, but I doubt that the strategies and ev change substantially when the number of raises available exceeds three. Still, it's interesting that as the number of available raises grows, the answer changes, even if those raises are never actually used. It appears that in poker as well as in chess, "the threat is stronger than the execution".
As for game theory textbooks, JP asked me for recommendations as well. I'll post them in another thread.
Tom Weideman
The expected return for the problem does not change with respect to the number of raises allowed (as long as at least 3 raises are allowed). (This is a corollary of the fact that co-optimal play never exceeds 3 raises. I leave this as an exercise for the reader. :-)
What are some of the most informative books and software available for an average weekend 7 stud and HE player. I am currently an average, break even player and would like to learn some of the strategies that are so freely discussed on this forum. Also would appreciate add'l info on web sites for software, newsgroups, etc. Any information will be appreciated so as I can improve my game. Excellent site!!!
Any books from the Authors of this Site are probably the best you will find for the Pro or Weekend Player. The other Author I would recommend is Bob Ciaffone. I'm sure other Posters will add to this List.
CV
The books from 2+2 are definitly the best. You should make it a point of getting at least the following books:
For all poker games: The Theory of Poker, Poker Essays and Poker Essays II.
For Stud: Seven Card Stud For Advances Players.
For Hold'em: Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players.
For Gambling in General: Getting The Best Of It, amd Gambling Theory and Other Topics
Except for the Fundamental Series which is for beginners, you can't go wrong with any 2+2 book.
As Chris stated, Bob Ciaffone has a few good books. One on Big Bet Poker, One on Improving your poker, and one on Omaha.
For the subject of tells, Mike Caro's book of Tells is worth the money.
All of the above authors are professional gamblers, mostly poker, who make a lot of money doing it. They know what they're talking about.
In the back of "Gambling Theory", Mason Malmuth rates most gambling books published as of that date. That could save you a lot of money that you might have wasted on a "less than perfect" book.
You can order 2+2 books from 2+2 or ConJelCo here on the web, and any book on poker from ConJelCo (who provides this forum for us).
For other sites of interest, check out our links. You may also want to look at some of the additional links on the ConJelCo page.
Lee Jone's book published by ConJelco on low limit Hold 'em is very good too.
Player 1 have flush draw and two small pairs. Player 2 have medium 3 of kind. Player 3 have a straight. It is 6's stret in 7 card stud. All players know what oponents have. Player 1 can improve 29% to flush or small full house. Player 2 can improve 22% to full boat or 4 of kind. Pot is 1 dollar bet is 10 cents. What is optium mixed strategy for all players??
Can anyone help me with this ? I have played about a dozen small pot-limit stud tournaments here in the UK and something is puzzling me. In over 20 hours play, I've never seen anybody check-raise. I realise how to take advantage of this, especially in last position, but I just don't know why no-one does it. Is it : because it's against the rules (surely not) ; because there is no strategic reason for check-raising in pot-limit (I don't buy this one either) ; because it's just frowned upon and not "the done thing" (maybe) ; or because no-one is imaginative enough to do it (my best guess) ? I don't want to ask at the table as it might alert good players to the fact that I would consider doing it. But I don't want to check-raise someone and hear everybody suck their breath in around the table :-) ! Any thoughts (especially keen to hear from UK/European players ??)
PS I'm really enjoying playing and it wouldn't have been possible without your books - thank you.
Andy,
Ask someone on the side if it is customary or if it is not in good taste. The person running the tournament can help. If you are much better than the other players it may be best not to start it as you can now play position much more strongly by not fearing a check raise. If they are using their position on you than it may be best to use it to control them. Your goal is to make the most money by using the tools available to you while not doing anything to encourage your opponents to play better. Good Luck.
I've got a couple of more pot limit HE hands that I hope Earl enjoys reading about and are worthy of comment.
Hand 1
Blinds $5 and $10. Lawerance a regular player who isn't particularly tight or weak or imaginative brings it in UTG for $35. I would say about half the pots are being raised in this game. The next guy passes. A guy named Lonnie calls and their are three other callers trail in for $35. Five players in for $35 including the BB. Flop is Q, T, 7 rainbow. BB checks, Lawerance checks, Lonnie makes it $175 to go all pass to Lawerance who check raises the max, Lonnie re-raises and Lawerance and Lonnie get about $1200 in a piece on the flop. The turn and river are nothing special. Lawerance shows pocket Q's and Lonnie shows A,Q. Pot to Lawerance. Comments? I think they both played it wrong but I guess it could be argued that Lawerance didn't.
Hand 2
Shortly after this hand Lonnie is UTG and makes it $25 to go. Four other players trail in for the $25 and big blind makes it $100. Lonnie calls and Vito a player to the right of the button calls. Flop is A,9,2 rainbow. Big Blind checks, Lonnie bets $300, Vito calls the $300 and raises the rest of his money which is about $500. Vito hasn't been playing much and I can personally verify that he is a player on the loose side. Big blind folds and Lonnie pounds his hand on the table in disgust and reluctantly calls. At the showdown Lonnie turns over A,K while Vito flashes his A,Qs to his neighbor. Vito had top pair and a 3 flush on the flop. Comments? I think pre-flop Lonnie kind of invited a multi-way pot with his $25 raise as it was too small. Other than that I think played the hand fine. Vito shouldn't have called for $100 possibly pre-flop?
Tom Haley
Not getting to play as often as I'd like, yes, it is interesting to see how others handle these situations. Thanks, Tom, I'm still eager to visit Alburquerque (you know, beautiful sky, mountains, etc...).
Hand 1: Lawrence only played it well because apparently Lonnie put him on a straight draw and overplayed top pair. A concept of Bob Ciaffone's that I agree with is that the check-raise is correct if your opponent's call has to be nearly automatic. In this case, however, Lonnie could have got his head out of the trap but instead smoked on in there with all of it; a self-inflicted wound in my opinion. You are correct, neither one played it correctly. Lawrence's best play would have been to bet into Lonnie on the flop.
Hand 2: I don't think it is wrong to slow-play A-K in PL. However, whether to play A-Q for $100 in late position would be dependent on the relative stack sizes. This is just one of those poker hands where somebody had a little bit more than the other.
Why do you think Lawrence should have bet out on QQ? I think checkraising is a fine solution....if he bets out, he may or may not get any callers...if no one hits the flop (set or AQ), then maybe someone is willing to try to steal the large pot, in which case you'd have him trapped.
I think a checkraise may very well be the best play here if you think there's a high chance someone will bet. I guess you've gotta know your players....were these guys fairly aggressive players who aren't afraid to bet with nothing to steal a pot?
T.P.
>>were these guys fairly aggressive players who aren't afraid to bet with nothing to steal a pot? <<
To answer your question the answer is yes they are players who will bet with nothing to steal a pot.
Tom Haley
Then I think a check raise is the move to make.
Suppose we change David's problem so that the betting is no limit.
Does the math to solve the problem become combinatorially explosive or is there a way to solve the problem in a reasonable amount of time and space?
My feeling is that the unlimited version is simpler in that raising almost does not play any role. And that is why unlimited poker is easier theoretically (of course not practically).
No limit is much more difficult to solve. For example suppose we give each player 4 chips and deal each player a hand. In limit poker (e.g., Sklansky's stud problem) each player's strategy must specify mixing frequencies for at most 5 decisions, each involving no more than 3 choices (e.g., fold, call, raise). In no limit, each player's strategy involves up to 11 decisions, some involving up to 5 choices (e.g., player 1 can check, or bet 1, 2, 3 or 4 chips).
Furthermore, the solution is much more sensitive to the precise conditions (stack sizes, probabilities of hands).
Finally, the solution is much harder to understand.
I am assuming that the stack size of each player is much larger than the current potsize. It is true that there are many more decisions involved if one tries to solve the problem using the usual matrix-game approach without mathematical (or logical) preprocessing. I believe that the decisions (which matters in an optimal solution) are much fewer than the limit case, that is, most decisions are fixed (either 0 or 1). Of course, that is just my feeling. I have not done any detailed analysis yet, but I will persue this topic in the future. (This forum has been a good source for problems for my course. I usually give simple ones as examples and/or assignments, tough ones as course projects, or even open questions as thesis topic.)
Even if we assume (incorrectly, I would guess) that the player with AA always should begin by just checking, certainly the KK player's counter-strategy must involve some betting. And when the KK player bets, he needs to decide how much to bet. In no limit poker, there usually are many different bet size options (at least in theory), so the optimal strategy generally will be quite difficult to determine.
As computer technology advances, I can imagine that blackjack will be dealt by a computer, and hence the deck will be shuffled every time after one hand, and no counting system will help. Of course players will feel a bit uneasy--who knows if computer is programmed honestly. I never feel comfortable against a game handled by Casino's computer. Yes, you can beat the vedio poker if the progressive jackpot size becomes large enough and if every card do come out equally likely (among the remaining deck.) But how do you know if every card will come out equally likely ? It is very easy to program a computer so that the probability of each coming card is conditioned upon the cards you choose to stand. For example, if you hit a 4-flush and draw one card, the probability that a heart is coming may not be 9/47, and is instead programmed to be lower.
You are talking about big time jail sentences, at least here in Nevada.
I heard about a few complains about Dealer's cheating at blackjack table (this is even mentioned in Griffin's book) and the Gaming Commission cannot do anything about it. If all the machines do operate according to a priori random distribution, is it possible to get the information about the distribution of symbols for each slot machine ? Then it will be possible to beat even slot machines when the progressive jackpot reaches a certain level.
Does anybody know if the NV gambling regulations are avilable online? Answers to these kinds of questions would be a lot easier to swallow if they referenced such a document.
Desert Diamond Casino (Tucson, AZ) has computer-dealt blackjack. One central monitor shows the dealer's cards. Surrounding it are five or six player monitors (with buttons for hit, stand, split, double-up, etc.). Computer even announcs each player's current total.
There are three or four sets of these computer blackjack stations, and the players seem comfortable with them. At least there usually are no empty seats.
I doubt the casino would risk their license by "fixing" these machines to give the house an additional advantage. In any case, it would be reasonably easy for a player (or a non-playing observer) to record a large number of hands (the more the better) and determine if the cards were being dealt in a statistically suspicious manner.
By the way, the casino also has computer roulette and computer craps. The only "live" table game is poker.
In one of the threads on the forum, I read that the coordinators of the forum were going to meet in April to discuss ways to improve the speed on this website and I would like to offer a suggestion.
My idea would be to put a new short-cut to go to the top of the current thread from wherever in the thread you are currently are. One of the current problems on the forum is navigating through multi-layered threads on a particular discussion. With the "top of thread" sortcut, someone can read through a thread and then short-cut back to the top to start on a different offshoot of the thread with only one search!!! This idea will speed up the searching capabilities of the forum by several minutes on many threads which are usually found on the forum.
If the code for the forum has been written in modualized format and is well commented, this improvement can also be done with minimal cost and effort.
Yours truly,
Theo Kolettis
Gawd I hope somebody does something to improve this site, it is such a great resource of info it's a shame maneuvering is so frustrating. I see it like going through a magazine. YOu go the index and find an article you'd like to look at. But then you have to turn each page to get to the article. Let's say its on page 50. So you thumb through pages 1-49 and then get to 50. OK, Now, you have to go back 49-48-47 etc. to get to the index (it seems like it takes that long) then, wait for 230,000 of 120,000 bytes to do whatever they do...(how it gets 230 out of 120 I haven't figured out). Then you have to thumb through pages 1-51 one at a time to get back to where you were. And if you read anything, you have to thumb all the way back, then all the way forward again each time. How does rgp make it so simple....or am I missing something.
I apologise if the problem is my old Mac SE/30. I just wanted to say again that this is such a great resource I hate to see it bogged down with technical problems...how about simplifying things in order to speed them up?
Most of the problems you mention should go away if:
Chuck
Except when you return to the forum index you are taken to the top of the tree. It would be nice if you were returned to the place of the original thread.
That problem was solved about a month ago. I would contact Chuck, as you shouldn't have to suffer that anymore.
I play 3-6 with a kill at a local casino. Usually there is a bet , a tableful of callers, and occasionally a raise. No more than two people will drop. No one three bets, even with pocket Aces. Once in awhile the game tightens, but usually not. People cold call with trash (open ended off suit, with a gap, and two suited are quite common starting hands) It's as if the players accept six bucks as the price to get to the flop, where the game begins. In this situation, does position matter?
The same table will play quite differently once it becomes a kill pot. But the basic game is limp and see at six bucks a peek. Comments?
What a great game! Never Bluff and Bet all your good hands for value. Drawing hands like Axs and small pocket pairs go up in value in this type of game.
CV
What about medium straigts? Especially suited connectors, or one gaps? Also, from any position?
I have a hard time playing Unsuited Medium Connectors and they end up being worse if they start having gaps between them. My view (this comes from reading 2+2 alot, talking on the Forum, and also experience at the table) is to not play them at all unless you are in a very late position. Now if they are Suited you can start playing them earlier. What you don't want is to get raised and isolated with these cards. A rule I like to follow right now is not to play cards I'm not confident with. This takes some expierience, intuition, and study. Stay alert and watch what your opponents play. Also, stay away from trouble hands like KTo.
CV
Try reading No Fold'em Hold'em by D.R. Sherer for some thoughts about how and when to play trash. You are right about not wanting to be isolated with one of these hands, But, in a tight game with a bunch of rocks chasing Ace's, seven-nine off suit will pay off. In a loose game, who knows? The reason for my original question. Sklansky says that the lower the limit the tighter you should play. But in his book, Hold'em for Advanced players, he advocates playing speculative hands from late position, provided you can get in cheaply. The game I play in is so loose that people will play any reasonable hand from any position, raise or not. So, I do too, but recent results suggest that I need to refine my stategy.
In loose-passive games, you want hands that can become monsters. These hands don't improve to monsters often enough. When you play them from late position you at least have possibilities of trying for a free card play later. Chris' advise on not playing a hand you're uncomfrotable with is an important consideration.
Position is still important, it'll get short handed on the turn. Play any pair anywhere, any AXs or KXs anywhere, raise with any two suited big cards and AA or KK anywhere. Be sure to sleep between hands since you will never wan't to leave this game unless you're steaming and on tilt.
Well put. It does get short handed on the turn. I try to encourage that by raising on the flop if I have big cards. This may get me a free card on the turn. If it doesn't, well then I get ready to pass--if I respect a player who bets out or I pick up a tell. The problem is that--in this particular game--more hands are won by straights and flushes than big cards. People stay to the river with any draw. They will also stay with two pair--even against four or five players--hopng for a full house. It's a great game if you catch cards. Otherwise....
Top pair in this game is a BIG victim. It can take extraordinary patience, but you only need two or three monster hands with ordinary luck to book a nice win here (paying a whole lot less pot tax to the house than everyone too). AXs and KXs are the hands to take chances with, not big cards except AK or AQ. Small and medium pocket pairs are money makers, you get to play a set agressively or an easy fold just about all other flops. Chasers make the 11:1 shot pre-flop worth it when you're a 60% favorite to remain best hand against straight and flush draws the rest of the way with a set.
Please delete NoSPAM-1389 to get e-mail address to respond to Position and Low Limit Hold'em. Lo siento....
The reason this is an interesting and important problem is because at is so easy to take advantage of the fellow with the aces if he doesn't mix up his play. This is especially true in the case where the pot is larger and the aces are 45% to have made at least aces up when the smoke clears. (Thus I added Part 2 to my problem. I am waiting to see more said about it.) If the aces are known to always bet when they improve and not otherwise, then the kings should never call with less than three kings (and it should raise with those trips as well as sometimes with less as a bluff). If the aces always bet when they improve, plus occassionally when they don't, this puts more pressure on the kings and is thus a better strategy for the aces. However this strategy still makes it easy for the kings when the aces check. Because the kings now know that they have the best hand and can therefore bet the kings up with impunity without a fear of a raise. (They should also bluff occasionally with just two kings). Now if the aces try to avoid this problem by checking everything (and the kings know that that is the aces strategy) , the kings gain a lot from this information.( This is more true for Part2). The reason is that if aces always check, the kings should check behind them with kings up. Even though kings up are 55% to win at this point, it is not worth betting them for value since they will usually lose two bets the other 45% of the time when the aces improve and check raise. Thus if the aces are known to always check, kings up would basically be risking two bets to win one. (notice that this logic would not follow if the kings were first to act since the hand is not over if they check. In this case it is more reasonable to bet kings up) The bottom line is that the kings have a very effective counter strategy if aces up is KNOWN to either always bet or always check. So I needed some professionals to tell me how to mix up my play to put the most pressure on the kings. So I offered some money. And I acted like I thought we needed Persi Diaconis to do the job. And it looks like I'm starting to get what I asked for. But what about Part 2? I bet Persi would have done it by now.
I suppose that Paul has a program for this type of problems. Hence he should be able to come up with optimal strategies for any problem of this type within a few minutes. I will certainly not try to compete with him before I have such a program ready. I do not think Persi Diaconi can compete without using a computer. Again, the challenging part of this problem is not math (well, the math part is quite standard, and is available in the literature, as Tom mentioned), it is simply programming.
Since the solution I posted on Wednesday morning only involved the simplified problem that eliminated trip Aces and trip Kings, I have just been a passive reader of the discussion since then. I admire the precision of Paul's approach, and endurance of George's sticking with the problem.
However, in view of this post by David, I would expect to get some consideration because the points David makes were ones that I made in my post:
If A checks 100%, the only strategy available to K is to also check 100%.
When A employs a betting strategy, this improves K's situation for those hands that A checks and leaves a positive betting strategy available to K. In the simplfied problem, the net advantage would be to K, if A bets more than 5% of the time.
A larger pot size helps K.
Therefore perhaps my post did the best job of combining gaming theory and math with some practical common language conclusions.
Did we lose your original post? Can you tell me where it is or could you repost it. Sorry
My solution was posted on Wed. 3/25 at 11:13am. Calculation detail was posted on Thur. 3/26 at 11:32am.
Apparently these posts can only be found if you search chronologically.
Glad to know we reached our conclusions independently:)
It's still a bit crude, but Chuck Weinstock has set up a spreadsheet to evaluate solutions to Sklansky's (First) Ultimate Problem. It's at the URL below. There are actually three spreadsheets. On the first, you can enter strategies for both players and it will pit them against each other. On the second, you can enter a strategy for the first player and it will show how well your strategy does against the optimal strategy for the second player. The third spreadsheet is analogous, but for the second player.
You have to be careful right now because we haven't got error-checking done yet. I've sent Chuck the code, but he hasn't converted it successfully.
It may seem strange that it would be correct to always check three aces while sometimes betting aces up. Since no one has provided a simple explanation, allow me. First realize that there is no difference between aces up and three aces except when the other hand makes three kings. Secondly since the aces will often check an improved hand in order to get a check raise, it is simple to see that the three aces should always be part of that category of improved hands that are checked. The reason is that if you check three aces you win four bets (usually) when your opponent makes three kings, since he will reraise your check raise, but you only make three bets when you come out betting and then reraise him. Thus in this one case three aces does better by checking and in all other cases does exactly the same as aces up. HOWEVER keep in mind that this assumes an expert agressive opponent who won't be afraid to reraise your check raise. Against the typical player you should bet trips to try to get three bets off his three kings.
I think that one logical reason that checking trip-aces is correct is that even if you can get an extra bet out of a typical player when he has trips, that situation will only happen 5% of the time when you have trip-aces. Whereas, a typical player may bet into you with kings-up, hoping you'll call with aces suspecting a bluff, and then call if you raise, netting you two bets in that more common situation. If you had bet into his two pair, he'd probably just call. Also, if you check trips, you opponent may re-raise your raise anyway when he has trips, netting you three bets. So perhaps checking trips against typical players may still be correct. I guess it depends how one defines a typical player.
However, betting trip-aces against *certain* opponents will indeed be correct. That's why it's important to have a number of strategies in your arsenal, to use against the right opponent at the right time.
But if you take it one step further the fact of the matter is that in real life betting three aces is the better play simply because you might get called by unimproved kings.
Indeed. The more you change the problem to true life, the more the best strategy changes. What a concept! ;-)
It wasn't that long ago that Gary Kasparov would have bet his mother playing against a computer.
What would be the incentives (or objections) to forming a multidisciplinary team who, with the appropriate financial backing, would develop a poker-playing automaton? The shareholders would presumably recoup their investment with the computer's future winnings.
Does anyone think that a computer "sitting in as a player" would pose any sort of threat to them in a high limit game or tournament?
Which side of the fence would you prefer to be on?
Let me operate this computer i don not care if get arested.
Boris,
The computer I'm referring to is not a little illegal device which, as you correctly say, can get you arrested and jailed. I'm thinking more along the lines of a human operated Deep Blue with all the publicity that typically accompanies such a milestone.
Etienne
Etienne,
I do think a computer could be programmed to beat a single world class player. I don't think it would be able to beat a group of world class players i.e no limit tournament fields.
As the Deep Blue experiment showed with Kasparov, the computer was able to beat Kasparov after reviewing every move/game/stategy that Kasparov had ever employed. Deep Blue was programmed only to play vs. Kasparov. If after Deep Blue beat Kasparov, another grandmaster sat in the chair, it is my opinion that the computer would not have stood a chance.
In fairness to Kasparov, he was unable to review any patterns to Deep Blue's play other than their previous head to head matchups. This gave the computer an unfair advantage as to strategy and probablitity.
I do not understand the complexities of programming such a machine as Deep Blue, but I would think the money invested for the R&D phase and the subsequent length of time required to acquire every bit of information available about the world class players would far exceed any potential profits such a venture may or may not reap.
John Gaspar
John,
I think IBM's machine was more of hardware coup than a software coup in that IBM's parrelel processing capability was demonstrated. The IBM machine can do an icredible amount of calculations in a very short period of time. Even being able to do all these calculations it was not possible to beat Kasparov until the software was optimized in such a way to play him specifically as you stated.
As far as coming up with a Deep Blue to play world class poker. In light of the recent postings regarding optimal strategy using game theory I would venture that it is indeed possible to program a computer to win against a table of world class players.
Tom Haley
Surely anyone with experience at poker, chess, and programming realizes that, if even
a tenth of the effort and money were put into building a great hold'em program
that was used to build Deep Blue, you'd have one tough cookie.
And here I agree with Malmuth that it would be harder to make it great at a typical ring game than at a pot limit type tournament game.
Here are the optimal strategies for both problem I (30% chance that player 1 has aces up; $60 in pot) and problem II (40% chance that player 1 has aces up; $140 in pot):
Strategy for Player 1 | ||||||
| Hand: | Aces | Aces Up | Trip Aces | |||
| Problem: | I | II | I | II | I | II |
| Opening action | ||||||
| Check | 0.9510 | 0.9490 | 0.5751 | 0.4388 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
| Bet | 0.0490 | 0.0510 | 0.4249 | 0.5612 | ||
| After check-bet | ||||||
| Fold | 0.3400 | 0.1790 | ||||
| Call | 0.6000 | 0.7778 | ||||
| Raise | 0.0600 | 0.0432 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
| After bet-raise | ||||||
| Fold | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.1667 | 0.1000 | ||
| Call | 0.8333 | 0.9000 | ||||
| Reraise | ||||||
| After check-bet-raise-reraise | ||||||
| Fold | 1.0000 | 0.8416 | 0.1612 | 0.1274 | ||
| Call | 0.8098 | 0.8726 | ||||
| Rereraise | 0.1584 | 0.0290 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | ||
Strategy for Player 2 | ||||||
| Hand: | Kings | Kings Up | Trip Kings | |||
| Problem: | I | II | I | II | I | II |
| After check | ||||||
| Check | 0.9260 | 0.9591 | 0.5256 | 0.4583 | ||
| Bet | 0.0740 | 0.0409 | 0.4744 | 0.5417 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
| After bet | ||||||
| Fold | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.1715 | 0.0684 | ||
| Call | 0.8007 | 0.9150 | ||||
| Raise | 0.0278 | 0.0167 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | ||
| After check-bet-raise | ||||||
| Fold | 0.8700 | 0.8431 | 0.2691 | 0.1564 | ||
| Call | 0.7309 | 0.8436 | ||||
| Reraise | 0.1300 | 0.1569 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | ||
| After bet-raise-reraise | ||||||
| Fold | 0.5227 | 0.2045 | 0.1385 | |||
| Call | ||||||
| Rereraise | 0.4773 | 1.0000 | 0.7955 | 0.8615 | ||
| After check-bet-raise-reraise-rereraise | ||||||
| Fold | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.1000 | 0.0714 | ||
| Call | 0.9000 | 0.9286 | ||||
Expected return for player 1 (AA) in problem II is $110.2115.
Question:
How can it be correct for player 2 (Kings) after bet,raise and re-raise, to RERAISE with kings-up 100% of the time but re-raise with three kings .8615% of the time?
He's recommending raising 100% of the time with kings-up and 86.15% of the time with trip-kings. However, he'll only have kings-up in that situation 1.67% of the times he started with kings-up, but 100% of the times he started with trip-aces.
Description and history of the bully: He is a professional winning 20/40 player, semi-manic (but picks his position and prey carefully) His favorite plays is to be in the last three positons and have one average player limp in early and loves to raise with hands like 97s - 86s - 84s. He plays 90% of the hands he gets involved with one way only - the hammer down all the way through the river.
For two months now I have had the better hand 80% of the time before the flop and often thru the Turn. However, he manages to snake out on the river and win the pot 80% of the time.
Today he sit two seats to my right, and tried to steal the button every opportunity. When I had the BB, he would be on the button and constantly hammering away. One time I called him all the way to the end and beat him with a fullhouse on the river. (Again he had two suited cards 35s) But this was the only time I beat him all day.
The final showdown of the day: One weak player limped in from middle postion (bully is two seats left of button and raises) next player folds. I'm on the button with QJo ( I call) Blinds fold. Now there only the three of us left in the pot.
Here are my questions: (1) Should I fold? (knowing in my heart that he has two small suited cards - from his history)
(2) Should I raise? (If I do, there is a 99% chance he will reraise regardless of his hand - because that is his style, he is aggressive to the max)
(3) Should I just call and see what happens on the flop? (I did smooth call)
(4) The flop comes 7s 2s 9d - (limper checks, bully bets, I call, limper folds, now it's headup)
(5) Turn is the Ah (bully bets and I just know I have him beat, so I made a semi-bluff raise - not to my surprise he reraises - again that's his style - I call.
(6) The river comes 3s - he bets (his hand was 8s 4s) Like I said, I had him pegged perfect but he holds over me - All advice would be greatly appreciated.
Never semi-bluff an over-aggressor. Bet for value, raise for value, and call for value (you will normally call where you would otherwise semi-bluff; super-aggressors hate to be called because it gives less information and doesn't let them posture with a re-raise).
Don't try to optimize your win when holding only a small edge (i.e., your J-J versus his A-Q offsuit is not the time to pump the pot). A corollary to this is that you should not try to build the pot before the flop; if you make the pot unduly big before the flop, this gives the over-aggressor a reason and opportunity to try to maneuver you into difficult decisions.
Finally, leave your ego parked at the door; going to war against an irrational aggressor is more effective when conducted with a quiet stalking style rather than open head-to-head combat. If he sees you keep coming when he is peddling trash, he will eventually slow down. That's when you come back over the top of him. Liken it to a chess game where a good player builds excellent defenses and pre-stages his men throughout the opening, while his over-aggressive opponent launches weakly-supported and ill-advised attacks; when those attacks fail, leaving the agressor with his defenses down and his position exposed, the better player moves in for the kill.
However, realize that even playing the best of strategies, while your win rate may be higher, your variance will also be higher than it would be against other players.
Earl has given a very good practical advise indeed. Math cannot help you much in this kind of situration because it is very difficult to estimate the probability distribution of your opponent's hand. If your reading of his hand is perfect (e.g. he has his two small spades open) then there is no doubt that you raise him until he stops before the river, and if he is lucky enough to catch the river, be it. If you do have very accurate reading about the opponents possible hands, then the discussions about Sklansky's ultimate problem do help to give you the BEST strategy (This can be achieved by your thinking and analysis after the game as you are doing now). But in reality, when you are not very sure aboutthe distribution of opponent's hand, playing conservative against such an opponent is a good strategy, if you cannot outthink him and do not want to put yourself into a situration of making tough decisions (after he bet and/or raise), simply play conserative, do not make any fancy play. With your particular hand, I would prefer folding before the flop (why go after him with a possibly small edge, especially there is another player involved already) you can occasionally call him with that hand, but never play fancy against him !. Remember that there are 8 or 9 other players on the table, you do not have to be the policeman to keep him honest with a marginal hand. If he keeps playing this way, he will be caught by one of the players (not necessary you) on the table frequently. And he will become a LOSING player FOR SURE in the long run.
The above being said, your question does bring out an important mathematics problem related to all the discussions about Sklansky's ultimate problem. Since you have a ROUGH estimate of the probability distribution of his hands, you can somehow associate another parameter (measuring the possible errors in your reading) with your estimated probability distribution, also set a tolerance level (related to standard deviation) for yourself, then find a good strategy based on those parameters. I believe that it is not an easy problem anymore, and has applications to many other areas (such as stocks). It is a very hot topic now (called financial mathematics), and the 1997 Nobel prize in economic is awarded to people for contributions in this area. I am not an expert in this area, but I am shifting my research (and teaching) interest towards this area.
If you've read any of my posts lately then you know that I advocate aggressive play. This player might be a little too aggressive if he is actually playing every hand, but if he toned down just a bit he probably would be truly awesome. This man simply is not afraid of his money and he seems too continue playing at least with some outs. he doesn't strike me as much as a maniac as you might think. His deviation I'm sure is high, but from your post I'd be willing to bet that he is not the long term loser that has been described unless he is always playing every hand. As Earl stated, your deviation is going to be higher playing with this player and I by your description, he put you on tilt which is what this style tends to do to people,.. or it simply intimidates the hell out of people. he has got you playing a guessing game with him, because you know he's raising with less than optimal hands, but even a maniac can hold cards and get lucky so you shouldn't be in there with him without solid hands . At the same time you can learn something about human nature and how this aggression affects you and the other players. Don't you want the other players that are in against you to be intimidated the way you are? Take a lesson from this guy and add some speed to your game. it doesn't have togo over the top, but an extra raise or re-raise here and there can add alot too your game, when it doesn't seem justified. As far as how to play against him, I think Earl made some excellent suggestions. Good Luck
Al wath you thinck
Never give this player a chance to raise or reraise on the big bets without your holding the nuts or a draw to the nuts. Tight-passive strategy instead of counter-agression is what I would use while he's in the game. Perhaps you could find a tight 10-20 game to exploit instead of letting this hyper-agressive style put you off your *A* game when he's around? I like to sometimes shift gears and play hyper-agressive too. It's not really much sub-optimal in a normal game, and can be very effective in a tight game.
I just stopped by Amazon.com to browse their texts on game theory - there's quite a few. I think the depth of knowledge in this field that is required in order to apply it to most poker problems is rather minimal, so I would recommend those books that only cover the topic as an introduction. I can by no means vouch for many of the texts I found there, but I would guess that any of them that "seems elementary" would do just fine. I have two basic texts on my bookshelf, which should work fine:
"The Mathematics of Games of Strategy - Theory and Applications"; Melvin Dresher (originally published in 1961, and currently in Dover paperback)
"Fun and Games: A Text on Game Theory"; Ken Binmore (a 1991 university textbook for economics students which I think is only currently in hardcover)
The latter book does a good job of easing the reader into the topic, while the former dives straight into the math, and is not nearly as readable for the not-so-mathematically-minded. Of course, Drescher's book is much cheaper and easier to come by.
Oh, and of course I should mention another book I have that can be purchased through ConJelCo (gotta plug the keeper of this page!) that does cover a bit of game theory, as well as many other gambling-related topics:
"The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic"; Richard Epstein
The only other texts I have that I could vouch for are probably overkill for what is desired here. Still, my favorite, which includes some interesting analyses of poker and poker-like games is:
"Mathematical Methods and Theory in Games, Programming, and Economics"; Samuel Karlin (two volumes - I have the 1962 hardcover printing of these volumes, I don't know if there is a more recent one)
I think it's very likely that one of the other basic texts listed at Amazon.com is the best choice of all to get started. Maybe someone else could recommend one.
Tom Weideman
> "Fun and Games: A Text on Game Theory"; Ken Binmore (a 1991 university textbook for economics students which I think is only currently in hardcover)
This is an excellent book. In fact, I suspect Binmore might be quite interested in the discussions on this forum.
Fudenberg & Tirole's _Game Theory_ is a standard graduate level text in many economics departments. It is very challenging and assumes a lot of math knowledge. Games with incomplete information are among the most complicated, and F&T cover this material quite well. The section with special relevance for poker is 'perfect bayesian equilibrium', a refinement that allows players to extract information about their opponents by analyzing their previous choices.
Here is a website with an intro textbook on game theory, for those of us who are too cheap to fork out for an actual book...
I've found it to be interesting.
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/eco/game/game.html
I took a quick look at the web-site and I would recomend that.
Even the most basic game theory texts require some math, at least at the level of High School Algebra II, or equivalent. For those who need some remedial math but want to study game theory, read "The Compleat Stratygyst" by J.D. Williams from Dover press, assuming it's still in print, as the first book. This book is fairly basic and will help reintroduce you to working with matricies, which is essential in game theory.
If you've read the Williams book or remember your math fairly well, I think Melvin Dresher's book "The Mathematics of Games of Strategy", which was mentioned in another post. It's as good a general work on game theory as I've read.
If you're REALLY interested in game theory, you have to read "The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior" by von Neumann and Morgenstern, which is the first book ever by the folks who invented/discovered the field.
It's probably not appropriate to mention game theory and poker in the same message without mentioning Nesmith Ankeny's "Poker Strategy, Winning With Game Theory". It's out of print, but I was able to track down a copy through Amazon.com. I'd like to comment on it, but I haven't quite gotten around to reading it yet, but I know that Mason recommends it.
Hope this helps someone.
A couple of good places to look for hard to find and out of print books are:
www.abebooks.com
www.bibliofind.com
www.interloc.com/bookdata.htm
All three of these list the holdings of numerous bookstores, and have handy search engines.
Wouldn't it be great if the WSOP told us who the Greatest Tournement Player in the World is? Luck just seems to be too big of a factor in all Poker Tournements. I think some sort of Point System should be implemented so that Tournement players who have won or placed the most in smaller tournements, durring the year, get more chips for their $10,000 buy-in.
Now I know why David and Mason don't play Tounaments. Just because you are a very skilled player doesn't meen that you are going to place in the money. If it did, I'm sure we would see the Authors playing more Tournaments. In the few Touneys I've played in. I've noticed that some bad players usually make it to the Final Table because of luck. I remember the first time I played a Tourney (I wasn't that good) I made it to the Final Table. I then thought I was a good player. So at least Tournaments are good for the Ring Games. I just don't think they are a Judge of Skill, and the Winner shouldn't think of himself as a Champion. Any other opinions?
CV
The EPPA (European Poker Players Association) has a setup like you describe, where tourney places through the year are factored into a championship. They have a web site @ http://eppa.bigfoot.com/
While I agree that luck can be a factor in one tournament, I think that if you follow tournament payout announcements, you'll see that the same names appear on top quite a bit.
In the typical fast-action tournament (i.e., The Orleans noon and 7 pm events), the element of luck is much higher than it is in a medium action such as at the Rio, Queens, or WSOP. In a tournament, your tournament skills are at least as important as poker skill; you must have an excellent global strategy as well as a good local strategy.
It is also true that in the big tournaments, you will always see a lot of the same names at the top. If you have played against people like An Tran, Erik Seidel, and Eskimo Clark (excellent and consistent tournament players), you realize that they have a great deal of skill. Playing against the skillful consistent players is rewarding because you gain tremendously by simply observing their play.
It would be interesting to see some sort of point system, but for those of us who don't get to play in all of the events, it would be meaningless. I could also envision a non-winner possibly becoming the champion, as could happen in a scoring system like the NASCAR point system.
A non-winner winning having the most overall points is not such a big deal in my eyes. If someone can consistantly be near the top, that proves more than someone who wins one tournament. There's too much luck involved in actually finishing first when getting to the final table. However, making the final table regularly is more dependent on skill.
One thing about having a point rating system with money going to the year-end leaders, is that many deals made at the final table will be made with different motivations. Early in the year, players will be hesitant to make deals giving up points. Later in the year, players in the hunt will be making deals with players standing no chance, in order to finish higher overall. The number of points awarded should therefore also be based on the standing of the players at the final (or final two) tables. Early in the year tournaments could be based on previous years results, and gradually change to the current year's standings as the year progressed. Even in the first year of such a system, you can go back and compile the results of the major tournaments from the previous year to rate the players. Also, those who can not afford the large buy-ins of WSOP tourneys, and others, would have the chance of winning.
I agree with the original post 100%
I can't understand why people are so impressed with tournaments and the people who suppossedly do well in them.
Apparently you are not considered a great player unless you have won a few tournaments. Bull****.
In my opinion, for the most part, tournaments are pure ego.
Sure you see a lot of the same names that is because they play IN ALL THE TOURNAMENTS!
If they also listed the times they BUSTED OUT WITH NOTHING you wouldn't be as impressed. Tournaments are very streaky. The tax considerations are ridiculous. I feel the BEST players DON'T play tournaments at all. (Perhaps one here and there).
Tournaments, satellites and super satellites have also effectively killed off a lot of great side action that no longer exists. I am constantly hearing,,, I have to go to bed to get some sleep for the tourney,,,or,,,I'm gonna go play in the super and then maybe a satellite or two and then go to bed. Too bad. Most of these people don't realize they are throwing their money down the toilet, and have a much better chance of showing a profit by playing in the side games instead.
If the more likely profit is in the side games, what is a reasonable swing in 3-6 hold'em with a kill? Or, to put it another way, how far can you get down before you have little chance of getting even in a three to four hour evening? How far can you get down before you have little chance of showing a profit?
Lately I have seen my tournament winnings from low buy in freeze outs dissappear. Sometimes it is because of mistakes on my part caused by poor concentration or fatigue, but more often than not it is because of the seat. I have come to think of it as the DEAD SEAT SYNDROME: no stating cards of any merit, starting cards that die on the flop, or that make mediochre and second best hands. I have watched other people change seats, table hop, and finnally just give up, usuallly busted by this slow bleed. The next person in the seat may catch a premium hand, or severall: but more often than not, the seat stays dead. I do not change seats very often, because I always hope, feel, or sense that the next hand could be the one I am looking for. I do know something about probabilities, so I wait, and wait...like that cartoon you used to see everywhere of the skeleton with a fishing pole.
Is there isn't a formula, or a rule of thumb, that would predict the number of winning hands a player can expect in a four hour period, or a dollar amount that means he has lost more than he can expect to win back given the limits. Say, if you sit down with 200 at a 3-6 hold'em game with a kill, you should quit the seat or game when you have lost what? 100? 125? 150? ( Presuming you are playing intelligently, not timidly, not stupidly.) I am patient, but what has happened lately has me checking out 99cent videos.
Comments? Delete NoSpam-1389 from address to reply.
We all agree that poker is a game that requires a lot of skill. But some people do well at certain forms of poker because they just happen to fall into the right strategies. Put them in a different type or change the structure, they aren't so good anymore.
There are many differences between tournaments and ring games. A true all around expert will understand these differences and do well in both. Names like Dan Harrington, Erik Seidel, and Ray Zee come to mind. (Yes, when Ray was playing tournaments he did quite well.)
But for years I have watched certain players, who are excellent tournament players constantly blow their money quickly in the side games. I can't help but think that these are people who just happen to play tournaments correctly, but don't really understand what it is they are doing. Generally, these players play too loose and are very aggressive.
In fact, the real winners at many tournaments are the big side game players. The tournament winners now sit down with them and discover that they don't have a chance. Of course, they discover this after their money is gone.
However, I still respect many of these people as excellent tournament players. Just like I respect some people as excellent stud or hold 'em players. The best world class players, and there are only a few of these, are good at everything.
I think Mason touched on it. tournament poker is a different game and you can't judge ring game poker to tournament poker. There's different skills in both. A world champion is the the champion of that form of tournament poker-stud ,holdem or what ever. It would be very hard to pick a world champion of ring games and if you could what limit would it be. A 3and 6 dollar limit is a totally different game then 50 and 100 dollar limit. The world champs of ring games are the players that take home the money day after day ,week after week. They may not get the glory but, they get the money.
I ran Paul's strategy for K against mine for A to see what would happen. Since I didn't address re-re-raising with aces-up and aces in my original A strategy (because K did better to just call when raised), I added the modification of always re-re-raising when re-raised. I got an expectation of $44.99 for Player A, compared to $44.83 before. That's an increase of $.16.
If Paul's stragery for K is indeed optimal, then why should I get an increase in expectation with it. I suspect that Paul's K strategy is too aggressive.
Perhaps Paul can run his K strategy against my A strategy (with additions) to verify this, or to expose an error on my part.
The best test for optimality would be to run variuos strategies against it, since a sub-game perfect Nash equilibrium implies that you are indifferent to want the opposition might do.
George, I did notice that one of the frequencies for playing King's up is no right--it gives negative expectation for that particular action. But I took that as a typo and did not check out all the details. There is no doubt that Paul has the right formula (at least for A) and a good computer program. If you would like to check whether or not paul's proposed strategy for K is optimal, simply go through the sort of analysis you did for your strategy for player A. For any proposed strategy for K (or for A), it is quite easy to figure out the optimal counter strategy---and one such optimal counter strategy involves pure strategy only (that is, the frequency is either 0 or 1). That is, you simply check the expectation of a possible action of K against the given strategy for A, (e.g. if A bets, you need to make the decision for K on whether or not call, fold or raise, you simply calculate the expectation for each of the three actions, and pick the one with nonnegative expectation.) I am too busy right now to carry on this discussion (It is near the end of the term, students are all coming to ask questions now:)).
My post "Ultimate Problem Solutions" includes the solution for problem 1 (for comparison with the solution for problem 2) in decimal form. It should be typo-free. Has anyone tried out this solution to see if there's any sign of non-optimality.
Yes, I worked it out by hand as described. I doubled checked it, and came up with the same numbers. As I am not infallable, I was hoping you or someone else could do the same. You were able to program a different K solution to pit against your A solution and demonstrate A strategy was optimized previously. Would it be possible to keep your K strategy and pit it against another A strategy to put the test to your K strategy? If so, I hope it's not a major undertaking.
As I stated in my first post in this thread, hands I raised with should re-re-raise if re-raised.
I've run the decimal version of 2, and of course the fraction version of 1, and both are OK. I haven't run the decimal version of 1 yet, but it looks OK and I'd trust George :).
George,
Your expectation of $44.83 is for a 2 round game. To test Paul (3 rounds) against George (2 rounds) you added on a modification - that's fine - and you ran George versus Paul. That's also fine, though I got $44.91 for A - still an increase. However, the only conclusion we can draw from this is that Paul's K improved from $14.98 to $15.09, therefore your A is not optimal. In fact your '2 round A' expectation, being non-optimal, can theoretically increase till $45.02!
I also ran Paul's A against your K (since K is in last position, I could leave it as a 2 round strategy), and got $45.06 for A, an improvement of $0.04.
Etienne
Stop picking on my A strategy, he did his best. I've already agreed that Paul's A is better. Also, I never addressed K as a seperate strategy. My K really didn't matter as my A could not be reduced.
The issue I'm rasing here is that Paul's K may not be optimal. I showed a better expectation with my A against his K than I thought I should. We got different numbers, but both were above $44.83. I think that proves that there should be a strategy for K which works against Paul's A, without giving anything up against another strategy. I may be worng. Maybe this is impossible. Also, I have not explored exploiting Paul's K some more. If I did, maybe I can do even better.
I'm not sure what you mean by two-level and three-level. K didn't raise anymore because it would have increased A's expectation. K's job was to limit A's expectation. You shouldn't assume I limited the number of raises just because I didn't address them in my posted strategy. In fact I did. I just calculated that K would be foolish to re-raise A when raised.
Paul's K re-raises sometimes when raised, which is why I think it's exploitable and the reason my A did better than $44.83 against it.
Thanks, Etienne! Your figures agree with what I came up with.
Things are working out the way they should -- my strategy for kings has thus far achieved an expected return of no less than $14.98 against every strategy that has been proposed for the aces.
I think I now understand where my logic was flawed regarding Paul's K. I assumed that if I could find a better strategy against a particular A, that Paul's K was therefore not optimal. However, it's not which K strategy works best against a particular strategy, but which strategy works best against all strategies. Paul's K gurantees an expectation of $14.98 and can do better is A is not optimal. Another K strategy may do better against a particular K, but may do worse against other A strategies, sometimes less than $14.98.
It's the same as using a sub-optimal A to get an expectation of more than $45.02 against a very pook K strategy. Getting a higher expectation doesn't prove A's strategy is optimal.
I understood this when I worked on the A strategy, but had a mental lapse when looking at K.
Sorry for the extra work I caused you guys.
Hopefully, someone benefitted from it.
``things are working out the way they should -- my strategy for kings has thus far achieved an expected return of no less than $14.98 against every strategy that has been proposed for the aces. ''
Paul, this guaranteed expectation for K does not quite agree with the optimal guaranteed expectation for A (a few pennies away:)) Does your program really find the EXACT optimal strategies for both players ? (i.e. no tiny bit approximation at all)
Jason,
I can't answer for Paul regarding the nature of the method he used. What I can say is :
(i) He claims an expectation of $45.02 for A and consequently $14.98 for K, figures which I have verified. So I don't know why you say that he's a few pennies out.
(ii) To get to a solution one puts all the available strategies into a 'black box', the output of which is the optimal mixed strategy for both players. I know you already agree that A is optimal - why do you still doubt the strategy for K? It came out of the same 'box'.
Finally, I wish to add that whilst I'm not in your (or Paul's and others) league as far as game theory goes, I'm learning a lot simply by taking part in these threads.
Etienne
Etienne,
I have not been following every post related to this discussion so I can easily miss something. My question came from Paul's own post regarding to George's question about the optimality of his proposed strategy for K. My impression from palu's post was that he was not 100% sure that K's strategy was optimal, and I was busy (lazy) to do the verification. Paul's QUICK answer to the ultimate problem (and Tom's comment) made me thought that Paul might have used a short-cut approach to the problem (which I am not aware of) which might involve some sort of approximations. Now I have verified that both strategies are indeed optimal (Paul could have easily posted the verification himself to clear out all the doubts) and I learnt from Paul that he used the standard linear programming approach to this problem. I am very impressed by his program (I have not seen it yet:)) for converting decision trees into payoff matrices--it involves some nontrivial work.
I believe you're mistaken.
The pot size does make a difference if the bet size doesn't change. The percentages of times you fols/call/raise will be effected by it. I'd be very surprised if you were right about that.
The perfect example is what if there was nothing in the pot. Then A should check and fold unless he had trips. There is no point in bluffing. K can't call any bets. And so on.
With $1,000,000,000 in the pot, K will call any bet with kings-up or trips. A will call any bet at any time. It only costs $20 for a shot to win a billion.
But since David did ask about different pot sizes, it will have to be addressed.
George,
Of course you are correct. My theoretically accurate statements do apply, but not in the way I had said. The "associated zero-sum game" is one in which each player must pay half of the initial pot size, which is indeed quite different for a $60 pot than it is for a $140 pot.
Thanks.
I have two questions that I would like to get answered if possible. The first one has do with a sufficient bankroll to play 10/20 HE and the other is on poker tournaments
I usually play 4-8 HE because were I'm from thats all anyone really plays. They do play some pot limit and 15-30 HE but I don't have the funds to get in those type of games. I will be moving to Albuquerque, NM in about a month and I know they have a good 10/20 HE game. I've played in it a few times and did pretty well. I usually start off with about $300 in the game. Is this sufficient enough or do I need more to start off with depending on the game??? Please comment.
My next question has do with poker tournaments. I have played in about 5 low limit tournaments and have made it to the final table 4 out of the 5 times but I never placed in the money. Any tips on what to do when I am at the final table with about 7 people remaining??? Should I play more conservative or should I loosen up some??? Please comment
I have been playing poker for the past four years on a regular basis. I usually play 4-8 HE because thats what many of the locals play. The do have pot limit and 15-30 but these limits are just not in my range (financially). I do however will be moving to Albuquerque, NM were they do play a lot of 10/20 HE. I have played many times there and have done fairly well. My question is what is a sufficient bankroll to play in this game??? I usually start with about $300. Is this enought or does it depend on the game- tight or loose table???
My second question has to do with poker tournaments. I have played in about 5 tournaments. I have made it to the final table 4 out of 5 times. The problem is I miss placing in the money by one or two places. Any advice on how to play when your at the final table??? Should I play more conservative or loosen up more??? All comments are welcome
Thanks in Advance
Dice
Dice,
Being down $300 in a $10-20 game is not that big of deal.
Tom Haley
Three seems reasonable for an initial buy-in, but I'd want another seven in my pocket anticipating violent session downswings.
Of course in real life there is always some possibility that the fellow representing aces has absolutely nothing, which means that the guy with kings has to consider calling witout improving, which means that the guy with the probable aces has to bet a lot more for value. If there was only a 10% chance the ace had nothing he would not get called by two kings if he bet 100% of the time. (Again let's say a $20 bet into a $140 pot.) But if there was a 20% chance that the ace had nothing, a blind bet must be at least called. ( Of course in these cases the chances that the ace has aces up or better has now been reduced by 10 or 20%). These two situations really are true to life problems rather than simplified models .But I would have to be a true sadist to ask anyone to tackle them. So please ignore this post - especially you George. I'm afraid you are going to get a heart attack.
David waht the chance 2 player has flash draw whith his kings?
Thanks David. I need a break (panting).
(For Sklansky:) George has worked hard enough for this problem and derived a very good strategy for A without knowing the matrix-game approach. So make sure to award at least half of the POT to George. (For George:) I am very impressed by your effort and good result. But do not attempt to solve David's problem using your old approach. If you are really interested in this type of problems, try to read some books (Tom suggested two, but there are more recent ones). If you want to do some research in this area, go to Stanford Univ. (where there are a lot of experts working in this and much hard areas. However, they may not like playing poker. I would not mind to accept you coming to Carleton and I play poker too.).
I wanted some input from experts in this game. I have finally decided to quit for a while. Don't worry...I'm not going to tell another bad beat story. I'm just to the point that it doesn't appear to me that poker is really a skill game, say, compared to golf. For example...If I was granted an exemption to play in the PGA against the best golfers in the world, even though I am good player (3 handicap), I could never beat them. They are just more skilled than I am. However, give me the same opportunity in a side action or tournament game with the best poker players in the world, and I will win occasionally.
It just seems to me that there is way too much short-term luck factor in the game, and if you only play occasionally, it may or may not even out. I would appreciate any feedback you may provide.
Yes, Poker is a skilled game. But it does have a relatively high variance than other more skilled games such as Chess. But that is a double-edged saw, the short term luck is also the good part of the game which hooks bad players. Without short term luck, there was no such game. Would you gamble against a grand master on chess even if the payoff is 100 to 1 ? In fact, it is a true art to invent a good game which has the right balance between expectation and variance. Bad players love variance, good players love (positive) expectation, expert needs to combine both.
Arkansas,
Dont quit yet please. Play some more but only in the best games for your stlye and quit whenever you start to play at less than your peak. I think your results will be good and you will get your confidence back. Good Luck.
I've probably beat this theme enough, but it comes up so often in discussions about poker. Rick Mears, Mario Andretti, and A.J. Foyt won only a small percentage of their lifetime races, but they were still champions. Point: Poker has about the same variance, luck, and skill factors as high-speed auto racing. (For that matter, ever notice that the best team is no lock to win in pro football either).
Earl posted: (For that matter, ever notice that the best team is no lock to win in pro football either)..... Is this some sort of reference to the most recent Super Bowl? ;-) In that case, I'd have to agree.... As for the poker problems, there's that saying, Whether you think you can, or you think you can't...you are right. A short layoff, to get yourself back in the right frame of mind, sure can't hurt. You (Arkansas) are obviously an aware player, and coming back fresh could work to your advantage. After all, the game will still be there in a week or two! Good Luck... Frank... p.s. I am currently on a little layoff of my own, having been sucked-out-on by the clowns maybe just one too many times over my last four playing sessions. This works for me.
Arkansas,
Poker can be and often is a brutal game and I think bankroll and knowledge will get you through.
Tom Haley
I agree completely. Take some time out, and study and practice. Also, collect aluminum cans. That's what I'm doing.
I play 3-6 Hold'em with a kill. The game is loose. Seven of nine players will call a raise before the flop, but few, if any, will three bet. Lately, I have been stymied by what I think of as the dead seat syndrome:poor starting cards, hands that die at the flop, completed hands that are mediochre, and second best. I try to get away from these quickly, but I am being ground down. I see this happening to other people. I notice that some change seats, and tables. I usually don't, because I figure that if I do, the seat will catch fire. I do know something about proablilities and watch the action closely. So, here are my questions.
In a four hour session, how may winning hands can a player expect?
Given a $200 starting bankroll, how patient should a player be? Do you change seats at minus 100, minus 125, or minus 150? Do you change tables at these amounts?
It seems to me that there is a point in any sessions where a player has dropped back too far to catch up, much less have a winning session--given the limits and the rhytym of the cards(proababilites)
I am a recreational player who does his homework. Any comments will be appreciated.
P.S. Delete NoSpam-1389 for address, and THANKS! Chris for your reply to my question about position and low limit hold'em.
Never get Superstitious at the Table. The only reason you will want to change seats is to get in a better position. Change Tables for a better game. Change cards if you think someone is cheating. Once you start thinking inanimate objects have a will of their own you lose a part of the advantage you have over the game. You also slow down the game for me.
As for what to expect from the game. Keep good records of how you have been doing and put them in a note book or Spreadsheet. You can then look over your records and see the Big picture better. Right now I'm in my first down swing I haven't won a session in the last three times I've played, but I keep good records and know I play better cards than most of my opponents. Its just a matter of time.
CV
The type of sessions you talk about are true test of all poker players. Keep this in mind; most of your wins will come in clusters. So it's important to keep your game on track so you can maximize your wins and minimize your losses. I know it sounds alot easier than it is in reality, but if you find your self getting discouraged at the table then it's time to call it a day. The deviation in these games is large enough to put most players on tilt, and question themselves. Although we know that money mgmt is generally a fallacy, I believe in session mgmt. until you log alot of hours at the game I would reccommend keeping your losses in the same neighborhood as your average wins. Forget about time.Although we all are in search of the hourly rate, things can happen very fast in poker, just like any other gambling game. If you get stuck past your comfort level in the first ten minutes, then you better get up and leave. Don't stay because you want to log 4 hours, but , if you are killing the game in the first ten minutes, obviously you should stay to maximize the win. Good Luck
Good Point. If I start to get Emotional durring the session, its time for me to quit. I only play when I'm in a good mood. Some tell tail signs of me in a Bad mood are Throwing my Cards, cursing my cards, or the other players even if its just in my head.
If you can stay in a good mood even when losing you have grown in a big way. This also helps in other parts of your life as well. Learning how to control my Emotions has helped me in my Day job quite a bit.
CV
While I agree in principle with everything the group has posted, I'd like to dissent a little bit in the "leave the table" advice that Roger has been given.
While we all (hopefully?) understand the swings of poker, and the probabilities, sometimes it doesn't hurt to bounce to another seat to straighten you out emotionally. As long as the move doesn't cause a disadvantage for you, (say, moving to the right of a maniac), that move may allow you to "dump" your mental state and start afresh, in a sense.
I've found for myself that moving helps me in two ways: 1) Gets rid of that nagging "jinxed" feeling. 2) Often results in my tightening up a bit, if I'm playing too loosely.
Yes, it's somewhat silly to move, rather than just straighten out my play, but I've found that I can sometimes play "smarter"- since I'm expecting better cards here, I'll wait more patiently for those cards....
Also, if you make the move humorous, you can gain in table image (either as a superstituous moron or a likeable player who others don't hammer as much). One time, after a bad run at 7-stud, I moved seats just after I had received the forced bet card twice in a row. When my new seat received the 2 clubs, I immediately moved again, to the laughter of the whole table! Things improved somewhat for me after that, as I remember....
Anyway, anything you do to straighten out your head, even if technically 'illogical', may not be... besides, driving 2+ hours to play poker doesn't give me as much of the "leave the table" option as it may others...
To continue the point about staying, if you are going to stay when your in a bad space, one thing that might help is to force yourself to externalize instead of internalizing everything. What I mean is that generally, when things are going bad at the table, we tend to focus our thoughts inward and that can create many negative thoughts and emotions that conflict with proper play. Instead, (and this might sound stupid, but it works) if you strike up a conversation with another player or try concentrating on how other people are playing, or just get involved in the moment outside yourself, you can snap yourself out of it. Also when you are having a pleasant conversation with someone right after getting Aces stuffed up your ass it significantly lowers your potential of being a target, as you won't be upset and tilting and the players will see it. Is it easy, no, of course not, but next time someone gets a hand snapped watch how they react. very few can take it in stride because they are focused inward. Seeya
Your comments about being forced inward are right on target. I have seen the look of a slow bleed on other people's faces, so I'm sure it shows on mine. I will try your suggestion about talking to other players; though, for me, it may be best to just take a time out to decide whether I should call it a day. Paying close attention to the game may also help as it turns your mind outward. The very best thing as you also point out is too proably make a joke, even a poor one that will allow you to laugh, and blow off what just happened, especially if you have patiently waited an hour or two for a good hand, and then have someone else kill you on the river. Other players do go after people on tilt (me too) Blood in the water..Thanks.
Very good advice. My average win at the limit I play is 100 to 125. So, I should take 150, and think seriously about switching games before I go broke. I can go play 1-3 high low stud. The game moves slowly and rewards being able to read hands. I have to drive about an hour to get to any one of the four Indian casinos in San Diego, or to Ocean's 11. So, it is unlikely that I will quit completly if I get beat up in the first ten minutes. I have come back from way back more than once, but not lately, So I am doing my homework in an attempt to improve my play, and survive this losing streak. Thanks.
I do keep a record of every session, how I did, win or lose, what hands I played well, and what ones I did not. I am also on a losing streak--seven straight sessions. This has me checking out 99cent videos for entertainment, and doing my homework to try to improve my game. I also play better than most of my opponents, both in the technical and psychological aspects. What these dead seats cause me to do is overplay a medium hand or just misplay a promising one out of pure frustration, a costly weakness .
I find Low Limit Hold'em boring myself. If my card room offered an equivalent Limit of Stud I would definitely change games. Unfortunatly, the Stud games are 1-4 with no Checkraise.
The Problem I find with most Low Limit Hold'em games is that they are mostly Muti-Handed and the Winner has to Show Down the Best Hand. Since most of the hands I get are Garbage, and I can hardly ever Bluff my opponents out of a Hand. The chances of me winning a pot is greatly reduced. But when I do win a Pot it is usually a nice one. This causes big Fluctuations in my Bankrole, and long waits in between hands. Is this Poker? I think not. But its what I have to wade through till I have a big enough Bankrole to play the Higher Limit games. So, what am I getting at. What you are experiencing is normal for us Low Limit players who play well. Just keep your Emotions in Check.
How to Keep your Emotions at Bay:
First there were already some good points mentioned. But here are some of my own.
1) Think of your money as a Tool rather than a symbol of Wealth. What I'm trying to say is that we should look at our Bankroles as Ammo for the Battle. What do we do when we run out of Ammo? We go buy more. What do we do with the Enemy's Ammo that we just won. Well, we don't sell it if we're going back to Battle tomorrow. We add it to our stock. This is just a trick I use to Emotionaly dis-assosiate me from my money's value. I helps me use it more aggressively and not get upset if I lose it. I seem to play a better game this way. Use what works best for you.
2) Pay close attention to the Game even when you're not in the Pot. Make sure you observe all your opponents and how they play. What are there Weaknesses and Strenghts. This helps me from becoming too bored with the game, and is also what I should be doing anyway.
3) Play only cards that you are confident with. I don't mean just playing the Nuts. I won't play KQo if the person to my right just raised, and I think/feel that he would only raise with AA, KK, AK. This is obvious, but I'm sure you can put other situations to it. I think if I can't play my cards confidently, I'm probably throwing my money away.
This turned into a long post for me, but I think it might be helpful you. Actually, making myself write this all down has helped me too.
CV
Most of the time 1-3 high low stud is worse than watching paint dry, but if you can scoop a decent pot; then you can go play poker. One of the local casinos is trying to promote a 3-6 high low. I have played it several times and done well. None of them spread straight high. ( Which I do not understand because it moves faster. More $ for them as more hands get played.) If I had a choice I would play straight high only. I have played straight high in Vegas. Even at low limits it is a real game.
One of the comments in a reply to Help--This Agressive Bullly....is that the bully "is not afraid of his money" That struck me as a very important concept. The bully is actually very smart. He uses his chips to terrorize his opposition. Most people play to keep from losing. The bully plays to crush the table. So, do I but lately, I have simply not done well. I too have aspirations to move up, but with other people's money. Which means I have to learn how to beat the game I can presently afford.
Sklansky and Malmuth''s Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players rates KQ suited as a Group 2 hand. If the game is loose, raise!
Roger,
Al and Chris are right on the money for you. Do what they say and you can have the confidence to weather out slow periods. I think you should read more about probability and expectation as you a a little off on the thinking. There is no rhythum to cards only to your play. Changing anything can not change the cards you will receive and looking back there may have been hot seats. Looking forward all seats are equally likely to be hot, cold, or somewhere in between. Be prepared for big swings in your bankroll as you play. That is a fact of the fluctuations in gambling when playing on small edges. As you improve your edge on your opponents your expectation per hour will go up and you should have smaller flucuations in your bankroll. Good Luck.
So, if each shuffle and deal is an independent event, then there is no rhythm to the cards. Okay, wishful thinking on my part. Thanks for the advice. Part of improving my play is not getting discouraged, but playing each hand correctly. I found the suggestion about session management very useful. I do keep a log of each session, win/loss: good play/ chump play; and the local players. So, I hope to be back into the game, tougher and wiser, very soon. In the mean time, 1-3 high/low stud until I get my confidence back.
As David would say "Use your cards to randomize you play". Thaks Zee for the "cards have no rhythum". How many times do you think you should be entitled to some good ryhthum play, but your cards will not let you. It is hard for some people not to be the table star all of the time,especially in Holdem. Sometimes I am glad just to get back in the game,after several hous of just posting blinds and nothing. Oh yeah,I do like to be the star when my time comes.
I posted an answer yesterday, but I don't think it got sent so will try again...if this is a repeat I appologize. You have to understand that in this situation you are fighting the poker gods. They live in your head and make crazy things happen. You have to FIGHT BACK! I suggest that you set yourself a goal of getting in the habit of visiting the winners cage often. Set a goal of booking a win, NO MATTER HOW SMALL. Go to the casino with that specific goal in mind. Play for a short period of time and and after you win a pot or two, get up and leave. If you get a little behind,cash your remaining chips and get up and leave. Just visiting the cashiers cage makes the poker gods very angry.
I realize that this flies in the face of "The extremely silly subject of money management" but you are dealing witht he poker gods here. You have to trick them. Artifically booking a few wins will really throw them off.
Coincidence! I just read your column in Card Player magazine this morning. Worse coincidence! I have had the exact experience you describe. One of the people who responded to my query suggested that I limit the loss to the expected average win (Thanks, Al) That is a very good idea.
The other good idea comes from your column. Which is not to sit there and go broke! Leaving with a few chips--when I have done it--does help me keep perspective and control. I feel that I can come back to fight another day, draw better cards, and book a win. If I play to the last chip, I feel like a chump, not a player. And, of course, feeling like a chump increases the odds that I will play like one.
I do not take ATM or Credit cards into the casino. Actually I do not even take them with me, since the casinos I play at are within an hour of where I live. I have seen people blow off their last dime, a scarey sight.. Interestingly, some of them act like they are playing blackjack, and double their bets by moving up limits in an effort to get even--one big hand! I remember one lady who did this despite being told by a friendly dealer that the players at the next level would tear her to pieces. They did.
You are certainly right that I need to book a win, no matter how small. Actually several to rebuild my bank roll. There is a game twenty four hours a day, so I won't miss out, if I quit a small winner. Also, there are beginning to be some tournaments in the area with very large prize pools--at Lake Elsinore, Pechanga, and Ocean's 11. Worth waiting for....Thanks.
Richard You are a brave man, to be challenging the poker gods in such a way..... I expect you to win the jackpot on one of those "Big Bertha" slot machines, then be crushed by the falling machine during the check presentation....\
I stick with offering my sacrifices to the Deities of Diamonds whenever possible (the burning flesh does seem to irritate my fellow players, however....)
Roger,
Generally speaking I would say that changing your seat won't improve the cards you are getting. However, as crazy as this sounds I wonder about dealers and their shuffles sometimes. I never have thought about it very much but is this ever a legitimate concern that the dealer isn't shuffling properly? I would think it would be as I definetely need to pay more attention to what the dealers are doing. If the dealer is competant I wouldn't put a lot of stock into changing seats to change your cards.
Tom Haley
Good question. How sufficiently random is a casino dealer's quick shuffle? Do clumps of cards remain in unchanged order within the pack? One can always request a thorough wash from careless dealers after each hand even though this will annoy the rocks at the table.
I do my best to keep the dealers where I play on my side, mainly by not being an asshole when one of them makes a mistake, which they do. I also tip well when I get a large pot. So, I believe that I get a good shuffle. I doubt that I have ever asked for a new set up unless I noticed a bent card, or a player who handles his card too much. Then I will. Otherwise I just play as well as I can. And, as you can tell by my original question, I do not change seats very often--unless I am sitting beside some one I dislike, or whose behavior throws me completely off my game. I would much rather have the "image" players across from me than beside me. Just a thought...
How many winning hands can you expect in a four-hour session? It depends. It mostly depends on your playing style and the playing styles of your opponents.
I am a tight/aggressive player who usually plays in fairly loose low-limit HE games. My records indicate I can expect to win about six pots in a four-hour session. Most of the other consistent winners in these games have a similar win rate.
Tonight's big winner probably will win 25 pots in four hours, but s/he probably is a very loose player who will lose it all back (and then some) during the rest of the week.
I once played a 4.5-hour session without winning a hand. Although it was frustrating, I did NOT loosen up my play as the bad streak continued. If I had, I probably would have won a pot or two and probably would have lost even more money than I did.
My experience is that if I win six pots in four hours I will leave 150-200 ahead. Latley I have been winning one or two, if I catch cards. Perhaps this is changing. I had another frustrating session Saturday against a tight table, but Monday held my own against a slightly looser one, so I posted my first win in two months. Leading me to reflect that Sklansky's statement that poker dealers are easy to beat is very true. I beat a table with four dealers at it, one of who got very lucky, but the rest of whom were easily run over. Sometimes I feel I am too patient and should quit a table well before I get too far down. There is a point that you just get too far behind. Which is why I asked the question that I did.
Someone mentioned Roger A. McCain's "Game Theory" website during the "Ultimate Question" discussion. I have added the site to our "Links" page. We welcome recommendations of gambling related sites of interest to our readers. Just send me the URL by e-mail and Mason, David, and I will review the site. If we like it, we'll include it.
Mr Zee,
This question may be ahead of itself, as I've just received your book (WARNING- Unsolicited consumer plug! I ordered "H/L Split Poker" through Conjelco a few days ago, received it last night- GREAT service from all involved!) and only gotten to "Fourth Street" chapter... but I'll ask anyway.
SETUP- I'm reading about 7-stud/8 seriously for first time. My playing experience with split pots is confined to what I'm come to call "slot poker" (various bizarre home games with crazy idiots, lots of wild cards, lots of shared cards, raising on nothing, etc). In the casinos, I've only been playing Hold 'em and 7-stud hi.
In your book, you mention that a high hand that doesn't improve significantly should fold against 2 low hands.
Question- Doesn't the fact that you are facing a 1 1/2 to 1 betting ratio (your one unit gets three units into the pot, gaining you 50% per bet if you win high) justify taking a few more risks with your high hand, even against the jamming risk? Obviously, when it is two people, your bets gain you nothing in the best scenario, and cost you big when you get scooped, so there is little gain there.
However, unless you are obviously beaten for high on 4th street, doesn't the 'guaranteed' (?!) ratio advantage dictate taking some risks? Don't you gain enough from splitting bigger pots than you would normally expect, with a 1 1/2:1 bet ratio, to make the danger worthwhile?
Or do low hands seem to get more lucky in drawing out, since they are driving for low with hands much deeper into the streets than they probably would if it were high only (i.e. they don't dump as many hands)?
I would have thought that, especially since it's more likely that the 2 low players probably duplicate cards (or why would they stay in?), reducing the possibility that they can outdraw you... and of course, I'm obviously assuming that my high hand is pretty strong (does it have to be stronger than 7-hi? Sounds like it...)
I may find that you've already answered this, later in your book, but if you have anything to add here on the difference in facing down lower high draws in 7 split 8, vs. 7 high-only, I'd appreciate it... Thanks!
Easy E,
Thanks for reading the book and thinking about what you have read. In split games when against two players you are getting 11/2 to 1 for your profit, but you are laying 2 to 1 when you lose. You lose a dollar and win 50 cents. Seven stud high hands are only about 2 to 1 favorite against one hand when you have a big pair against a small pair. Now you are against two players with hands you cant be sure of and you are laying 2 to 1. One of the hands could have you beat already for high and it easy for one of the low hands to have a straight draw. If you improve your high pair then you may be committed unless you feel you have been drawn out on and wont likely win. Read on in the book most of your questions will be answered if you think and interpet what you have read. Good Luck.
I also read your book, in fact, I have almost got it memorized. It seems to me that if you are going high you have to have a hand that will beat Aces up, a low straight, or a low flush; because these are the most likely hidden high hands. So, if my sense of this game is correct, before you lay someone two to one, you need a premium hand. You also should bet out, if not on third street, definitely on fourth to chase out the competion for high. The lows hang in there.
At what point does the ratio almost dictate that I stay in, unless obviously beaten? (And, by staying in, I mean raising..) With 3 other players, I'm now at a 1-1 ratio- is that enough? I'm assuming from your comment that, although I'm a 2-1 favorite over low with one person, I'm less of a favorite against two or more players (makes sense), so I'm getting the worst of it instead of being dead even...
My original query is probably too disconnected a question to answer properly, since I'm assuming it would more strongly depend on my table image, the ability of the other players, etc... same as in my current games.
I'll keep plugging away at the book, follow up in this forum later if I'm still unclear. Thanks for the feedback- I forgot about the 'laying 2-1' component of this situation.
Easy E,
What I said was you are about a 2 to 1 favorite in seven stud with a big pair over a smaller pair. In hi-lo its the same if the smaller pair does not have any low draw. The high pair hand is about 3 to 2 favorite over one opponent in general not knowing if he has a smaller pair or three average low cards. If the high pair is concealed with a small card up it picks up great playing advantage. When it is a split pair the opposing low hand gets the playing nod. Against two other players the BEST high hand does ok if played well and not so good if played poorly. It gets punished on later streets when looking at three low cards or an open pair. As in all poker games you need to learn to read your opponents hands well and play your hand properly against what he holds and always realize that your hand is only as strong as your opponents is weak. Good Luck.
No one has discussed the exact nature of what cards your opponents show, and what cards have been folded, and aside from knowing your opponents patterns and the amount of bets and antes already in pot, these are really the key factors in making a decision to continue to play with one pair vs 2 low hands. To pick a trivial example JsJh2d5s should happily continue vs two opponents showing 2h6d and 3c 8d, while Js2dJh5s has an easy fold vs 2hAs and 5d6d.
Like most complicated poker situations, there are no hard and fast rules.
The Gambling Forum March 1998 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo