![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to premise my question by stating that I consider myself a solid player who has a reasonable handle on the statiscal norms that occur in poker. I have struggled with this problem for several years.
Center dealers were introduced into Washington card rooms in 1992. One of my first impressions of these dealers was how poorly trained they were and how much they were in a hurry to get their next tip.
I was aware that the 10% ($3 max) rake and $1 drop for the jackpot was going to make it very very difficult to beat the $4 - $8 holdem games that were most popular.
In addition to the exorbitant table fees, I began to notice that I was falling victim to many more back door draws with an inordinate number of boards showing 4 to a flush or 4 to a straight.
At first I thought that my poor performance was due to a run of short term bad luck. However, this situation has continued for 5 years. I should point out that when I travel to Nevada or California, I don't feel I encounter this excursion from the statistical norms for back door hands.
My question is two fold:
(1). How many times an hour should one expect to see (on average) four to a flush on the board or four to a straight on the board. I am convinced that this anomaly is occurring because the dealers are not providing a good shuffle. I am witnessing 8 to 10 of these situations an hour.
(2). Does this seem like a totally unrealistic conclusion to what I have described.
huh!!
You suck Mr. Miller,your just a nit with cobwebs in his wallet.
Mr. Miller,
I believe you said you were in Las Vegas playing at the Mirage.You were involved in a huge pot at the holdem table,and on the board were two Ace of Spades. Your son came up and whispered in your ear that the deck was fouled,you told him to keep his mouth shut and took the pot down anyway.
You were not complaining about the shuffle then ,were you.What an example you set for your son.I can see that you were proud of how you took that pot down with a fouled deck.
And here you are whinning about 4-card straights and flushes on the board. Its no ones fault that you happen to be playing the "Idiot " end of these straights and flushes but your own.You need to be playing in Las Vegas,where the games are as tight as your penny squeezing, dealer stiffing ASS.
The cardroom in question is not a cardroom but a Poker Room and there is a difference.The Muckleshoot happens to be one of the finest , customer service oriented, well run Poker Rooms in the Northwest. the only complaint I have is that I have to sit there every night and put up with a tightass player named Dan Miller. And I'll still be there playing when the back door cards finally bust you.
It's all a bunch of el crappo!
Dan,
I certainly can agree with your misfortune, my heart is bleeding profusely.When I deal the cards to you and you just limp into the pot like a little girl -I sweat your every hand.Because the way I look at it is I'm either going to push the pot to you and get stiffed or I'm going to push it to one of the other customers , who is likely to throw me a dollar.My ass begins to quiver when the river card comes,because I know you are about to be snapped off.When this does happen , I find it hard to contain myself. Fortunately , at the end of the night, when I'm counting down my tips, I know that "carma" has once again sliced the pocket of Dan Miller.
Don't quit your Boeing job Dan , the other players would suffer from this.You have got to be the biggest "pigeon" to have been seated in my game since Moe. Why even the "govenor"-AKA JB- outplays you.Its not the seat, but the asshole in the seat, there you go Dan.
Well Dan , I'm starting to get misty over all this , so while I'm making my "beamer" payment I'll shed a little tear for you.
In response to "Curse of the Washington Cardroom",having been a player long before becoming a dealer I feel I can speak for both sides of the table. I find it pretty amusing that you see 4 to a straight or 4 to a flush at least 10 times an hour and yet you blame the dealer.While every dealer shuffles differently the basics are pretty much the same,scramble,shuffle,shuffle,box,shuffle. Some do a better job than others. There is a burn card before before each card or cards hits the table. Perhaps you should take another look at the 52 cards in the deck. To state that"the dealer is only looking for their next toke" I take offense to. Of course they do but that is not the total of their job. Do you not look for your next paycheck? Dealers work for minimum wage and live on their tokes. By the time they claim their tokes and taxes,insurance,and a small amount for a 401k being deducted,their paycheck for two weeks comes to about $100 or less,sometimes closer to zero. I strongly suspect that you are highly overpaid at you job and probably think that you are worth every penny. Our job is to keep the game moving smoothly and to get as many hands out as possible so that the "stuck" players have more chances to recoup their losses. While we are doing this we call for cocktails,chips,and deal with 7 to 9 personalities. Our ideal would be to shove a least one nice pot to every player at the table so that everyone would have a resonably good time. There is usually at least one player at the table,like you,who we shove 3 or 4 pots to before we receive even $1.00. That is your privilege. To bad mouth the dealers and insinuate that they are somehow plotting against you by putting 4 to a straight or 4 to a flush on the board is ludicrous. Your complaint about the house rake and jackpot drop is also humorus to me. Of course the house is out to make money,they are in business. They have lots of employees to pay,lights,heat,music,free meals,free drinks (non-alcholic),security,maintenance, and so on. I'm wondering how you feel about the jackpot drop now that you won the jackpot last Saturday,probably the same. Perhaps you should have your own game in your home where the players are not made to feel obligated to toke the dealer. They can bring their own sack lunches and drinks. You can vacuum and dust and clean up the cigarette burns and trash on the floor after they leave. You will be able to shuffle to your heart's content and if you are human and make an error you can smooth it over with the players. At any rate you won't have to worry about lousy dealers,tokes,jackpot drops, or house rakes. Most of the dealers at the Muckleshoot Casino are some of the best in the state. I am not grading myself,as I said I was a player long before I became a dealer. The dealers work hard and try to please while running their game. While I agree that a 4-8 game is hard to beat,it is not because of the dealers. Put the blame where it belongs,on bad play and river "suck-outs" while keeping in mind that these people are also donating to the pot.If they don't get there playing trash you win. Give the dealers their due in running the game while trying to accomodate the playes in the best possible manner.
I agree with this last reply by vigilante. Losing while playing hold-em should not be blamed on the dealer's shuffle, the house rake, dealer's tips, jackpot drop, other player's at the table, etc., anymore than winning at the game should be credited to these 'events'.
A good player should be able to quickly assess the players of each game (and resulting 'style' of play) and adapt his play accordingly. If he is unable to do so and perceives his losses as due to 'outside influences', he is not a good player.
Dan, I've heard your name mentioned quite often lately at the local cardrooms. The dealers are calling you "trifecta",three hands in a row before they get a buck!
How does thinking of hands in terms of brave and scared differ from thinking of hands in terms of implied odds and reverse implied odds?
What’s gained?
Even though they are technically equivalent, "Brave" and "Scared" have much more meaning to most people than those coined phrases. Similarly using "people" is better than using "homo sapiens".
"Do you wish you were all in?" strikes at the heart of the issue; whereas "Do you have reverse implied odds?" does not.
- Louie
There is more to it than that. A hand can be Brave not because it is getting implied odds but rather because its ability to bet can help it knock players out of the pot that would have outdrawn it. Thus brave hands do better than the computer might indicate.
Thanks. I think I get it now.
So a straight against two flush draws on 6th street would prefer to be all in; but if not all-in is worth a RAISE right now: the terrible river situation outweighs the good 6th street situation.
Thus the straight is "brave" with overall reverse implied odds? And coversely a pocket pair is "scared" but has great implied odds?
- Louie
The serious misunderstanding that I see is: What is the value of labeling hands "Brave and Scared"? How in the world can these concepts be aplied to the benefit of the poker player? Why would anyone use these concepts without first understanding thier value or exactly what they are? I have more "misunderstandings" about these concepts but will wait until or If I get an adequate response to the above.
Vince
The concept is most valuable in conjunction with calculations or computer simulations that figure the winning chances for various hands. You now adjust these results based on the degree of braveness, understanding that some hands can esily change categories based on the situation.
"The concept is most valuable in conjunction with calculations or computer simulations"
This now makes sense! I asked in my original response if you were referring more to computer simulations than real world! You didn't bother to respond! Consequently, I never offered, nor will I now offer an opinion on these concepts!
Vince
The concept is important for the real world because it helps you adjust your hand selection away from purely statistical considerations.
I may have a very imperfect (or even incorrect) understanding of brave vs. scared hands, but I think my QJs is a brave hand on the button and a scared hand UTG due, primarily, to the fact that I can maximize it's potential using my position when on the button. To me there would be many situations where a formerly brave hand becomes a currently scared one and vice versa. The factors that would affect this are numerous.
Last saturday, limit hold´em tournament, 13 tables, pay 9 players.
It was down to 3 tables, on my table there were 2 rahter tight players, 2 loose players , the rest typical. Limit was 1000/2000, Blinds 500/1000. My stack was 11000 (little less than an average stack on my table). I in the SB holding KK. Raise from a tight player from middle position (everybody folded to him, button (typical player, big stack) reraised, I made it 4 bets, original raiser folded, button called. Flop came QT4 (2 hearts). I bet, button raised. There was 14000 already in the pot, I had 6000 left. What should I have done?
I decided after a very long time of thinking, that there was a small chance of having the best hand plus even if I was beat I still had 2 outs (plus a backdoor chance with my king of hearts).I definetly would have folded the hand having a bigger stack, but I thought, that being shortstacked I want to try it with this hand. I knew, that this player would have reraised preflop with any hand like AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, but he wouldn´t raise me on the flop with JJ and AK (AKh was not possible, because I had the king of hearts).
I was lucky he really had AQ and I won the pot. But being at home, I thought a lot about this hand, and I think, that even with just 6000 left, I should have folded. What do you think?
I think you're lucky most people still don't realize how big a piece of cheese the A-Q is.
What were you afraid of on the flop? Two aces or two queens. If you don't give him credit for those two hands, then you made the correct play.
A typical player with a big stack on the button doesn't need AA to 3-bet preflop (and if he did, why did you 4-bet rather than fold then?). Then, just because he raised you on the flop, you're thinking of folding?
No way. The hand he actually had (AQ) seems the most likely at this point. Plus, with 2 hearts out there, he might have been raising the flop so that you'd check and give him a free card on the turn (if he held something like AhJh). I see that you're saying he wouldn't do this, but a lot of players will, at least occasionally. I would think that you're not really concerned with QT, as this isn't much of a hand to reraise with. However, if he is loose enough to play this hand this way, then there must be a lot of other hands that he'd also do it with, such as QJ, which you are still ahead of at this point. Also, he could have the other two kings, a hand that he might also play as described. Overall, it seems to me that you're much more likely to be ahead than behind, with a very small chance of a tie. Given the size of the pot, and the dramatic downturn in your chances of placing high if you fold here, I would call.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
This is exactly the flop you would look for. Pound away until an Ace comes.
It certainly pays off to know your opponents.
huh?
I am in the big blind in a typical $10/$20 holdem game. Aggressive player in early position limps, solid player in middle position raises and it is folded around to me. I have KJ of diamonds and call. I flop the nuts with AQT rainbow, with no diamonds. I decide to check (probably a mistake) and to my suprise, it is checked around.
The raiser is aggressive enough that his check signals "monster" to me as he would certainly have bet AK or even KK in this position. I put him on AQ, AA, or QQ, although I think a check with any of these hands was a big mistake on his part since he is surely giving someone a free card to a nut/gutshot and is unlikely to let have them make a second-best hand.
The turn is a blank, but makes a two-flush in hearts. I bet out, first guy calls, and original raiser raises. I reraise, guy trapped in the middle cold calls, and original raiser just calls. River is a killer- another ten (not a heart). Do you bet out, check and call, or check and fold?
I decide to bet, thinking that I might elicit calls from worse hands such as AQ, AK, or even an unlikely KT or JT by the guy in the middle. I figure that if I am raised, I can probably fold with a clear conscience even though the pot was so large. Any comments on this river action or the play of the hand in general would be appreciated.
"Killer" is right. I would check-and-cry-call; even though there is no hand the opponent could "rightfully" have that I can now beat. You have to be in FPS* phase 3 to slow play top two pair with THAT board. But since this player obviously does not play "rightfully" (e.g. the slow play) its worth a call. .. err .. at least that's a good rationalization to make the call.
I like betting it out on the turn to get 3-bets. For the same reason I like betting it out on the flop; you disguise your hand and can get multiple-bets in; and prevent the gut-shot and back-door flush "free" card.
- Louie
*FPS - "Fancy Play Syndrom" @tm Caro.
Interesting and truthful note about they aggressive player who slow-plays ... Nothing like giving your hand away for free. If he checks you save money and if he bets he's weak enough that you can steal it from him. ... heheheDOH! <-- that's me referencing a previous hot topic and rubbing it in.
Well I would have to say that you probably are in trouble here, but, I think if he raises you should call to see if he has the AQ AA QQ. He could quite possibly hold KK as well. I do believe that a pot is big enough to make this call. I think this is what's called "Betting For Value?" Its probably not the best move, but I would make the call in this situation.
OTOH I think that I would have checked to him on the river, that way it only cost you the one big bet, and you still get to see his AQ QQ AA instead of betting and folding. If your gut feeling about this guy is accurate, then I think that is the only thing I would have done different.
IMO Walleye
If the player suspected of having a full house is the type that has the gumption to raise on the end without a full house, then a bet is incorrect (but a check and call would be correct because if he has the gumption to raise without a full house, he certainly has the gumption to bet without one).
On the other hand, if you are up against a less tricky player who will raise only when he has a full house but will call with a lesser hand (but not bet it), it is correct to bet (and then throw away when raised).
In other words, knowlege of your opponent (as usual) is the key. Against an unknown opponent, I would check and call in the scenario you speak of.
I think, under these circumstances a check and call strategy is correct. It´s possible to play against a full house, but you don´t know wheather he has really filled up. By check and call you can see the showdown for just one big bet. And don´t forget the player to your left. Probably he´s gut some kind of flushdraw, maybe a pair, too. Best case would be, that he´s got KTh or JTh, so he´s got bottom pair, a gutshut-straight-draw and a flush-draw, making trips on the river. I think, it´s easy possible he´s got such a monster drawing hand, because he called 3 bets on the turn. And if he´s really got the T of hearts, he´ll probably make an overcall. So you can get the same amount of money by not risking to be raised.
Dave, Mason,
Over on rec.gambling and elsewhere in poker literature there is much talk of EV, marginal hands etc.
I've read a lot of the books out there. But I still find myself asking "How do I determine the value of this hand?" while at the table.
Is there something out there that will allow me to quickly determine the EV of a hand, or at least it's "maginality" at the table.
These writers seem to imply that a pro knows the EV of his hand at the table and can decide whether to play possible small winners to increase profit vrs. not playing them to reduce variation. This seems like a really valuable tool.
For example let's suppose I hold an Ah Kh 10s. Not really much of a hand by the starting hand rankings in the books out there. Yet it has come through on occasion. It has flush, straight and overcard possibilities. What is the rating of this hand exactly?
Clearly EV is a function of pot size. But at least knowing how to tell for sure when a hand is "marginal" or has become so would be nice.
Obviously you also have to consider your opponents possible holdings. So to some extent if youre reasonably sure his hand is even more marginal I would guess pot odds etc. don't apply as you expect to win. However if your not sure then it comes back.
My game is 7 card stud if possible relate it to that at Hold Em examples go right by me.
Any comments would be welcome.
Frank,
You are still looking for a set formula for winning. You need to acquire a winning foundation of poker skills and then blend them at the table for the specific type of game you find yourself in. A strategy that would win at one table might be a big loser if used at another. You have to devise a strategy that will work for the game you are in, and then continue to make changes as the game conditions alter.
The best boxers have different styles that they employ against opponents; analysts refer to this as "solving" the other boxer's style. Until you can sit in a game and analyze the types of mistakes the other players are making and then devise a strategy to capitalize on them, you will be frustrated in your results. By seeking to quantify all decisions, you are simply looking in the wrong place for the answers you want. Knowing the numbers is extremely helpful, but it isn't, by itself, the key to winning poker. Having a decision tree that makes winning play automatic wouldn't be the same for any two players. You might decide to call a bet because the pot was laying you 6:1 and you felt you were only a 5:1 underdog to win. Someone else would fold because he had observed something in the way the opponent bet that he concluded meant the opponent had a mortal "lock". Someone else would raise, feeling that this was the correct play since the opponent often laid down big hands when confronted by aggressive shows of strength. In poker, even when you have all the tools, it sometimes comes down to going against your normal decision because there is something not quite right but you can't put your finger on what it is exactly. You would rather pay one more big bet and see what it was that you sensed but couldn't decipher. I have often paid to see the cards when an opponent exhibits unusual reactions at the table. I find it pays off later on even when it doesn't result in a won pot right then.
Hey Big John,
No doubt I'm still trying to quantify if for no there reason than it would serve as a base and the authors out there seem to have a quantified approach a lot of time.
However I do agree with your preceeding post 100%
I've no doubt been in games where I knew the other players had never read a Tony Korfman book let alone Dave and Mason and they were easy games. You know, the kind where you say to yourself "gee these folks start with anything!".
I just kinda felt the base was knowing the non human factors cold. So really I'm looking to understand the paints and canvas before I paint! I'm beginning to believe the art part is the people part. As you point out. If you know you can get someone to fold with a raise fairly consistently the rest kind of takes second place.
To some extent I think everyone finds that out the first time they bet with all thier strength on the board and they lose. The light bulb goes off and says, "Damn I should thought about why that guy (or woman in my case) kept betting into my trips. I think it was about my first game! I think Jack Binion said that Doyle Brunson said, "players thinking about thier own hand has made me a lot of money!" (How's that for a grapevine!)
Anyway, I've decided to play low limit recreationally and do more research there until I can say I feel good about the prosepects there rather than play the highest limits I can afford and be stressed about the results. I had found mid limits seemed to play more rationally but I eventually took a beating. A major proponent of 7CS for Advanced Players suggested I go back and learn to clobber low limit before coming back (in a freindly way). This guy actually carried the book to the table with him in a 7-11 bag! When he showed it to me in away from the table he had written margin notes on every page. He said, "gotta do it like a religion Frank!".
But I do suspect that I still have lots of questions to answer, many "technical" before I'll be happy.
So what's your take on authors that use a lot of "EV talk" and the like. For example Caro is always talking about using "breakeven" hands to play psycological games with such as "advertising". How is he determining which ones are long term "breakevens" or winners or losers?
Clearly we all know the basic starting hands and even Korfman's little book summarizes a fairly good beginner's strategy. (Although WHY it's ok isn't real clear until you've read all the other stuff!)
Also, how do you rate the statement, "pros win about 3 out of 5 games they play in"? I read that the other day and have no way to figure it out. Is that a 3 out of 5 fair standard?
Thanks A Bunch, Frank
Hey Everyone,
Anyone ever play at the Tunica Ms. Casinos? May have a chance to stop by there soon and was wondering what the local talent level is like.
Frank
Very typical games. Low-limit - loose passive. Higher-limit - tighter, but skill level not as high as vegas or AC.
BTW, this post probably belongs on the exchange forum.
I have always held to the belief that I do not tilt. Now I'm not so sure. Is making a bad call when you know you are beaten tilting? Last night, with four callers I raise on the button with Kings. Both blinds call?! Flop is garbage except 2 small spades. Checked to me, I bet with 3 callers. Turn comes Ts. Checked to me, I bet. Fold,fold,raise. There is $88 in the pot, my call costs $8. I know he has the flush but I don't believe he has Ace high. One of my Kings is Spades, so I believe my call here was correct. Was it? River comes 6h. He bets and I call!! Tilting!! He turns over 49s and I fire my Kings into the muck. Here I had an out and sufficent pot odds to call his checkraise on the turn. I felt I wasn't drawing dead. But why the call on the river. I find myself often refusing to lay down top pair in the pocket, especially Aces and Kings,even when I know I'm beat. Any comments on how to plug this leak, other than:have more discipline, recognize when you are beaten, accept that the flop often changes the value of any given hand. Also, should I have bet when checked to on the flop?
Try the trick that helped me quit smoking- keep track of what it costs you. Write down or take mental note of all of the AA, KK, or other "crying" calls you make offset by the rare instances in which it saved you a large pot from a possible steal. Of course, this is inexact since you won't know unless the cards are shown, but is a a good approximation. By the way, this method also helped me get off of the AJo and KQo "habit".
Hmmm...A very good idea. Will have to try it for 7 card.
isnt the key question do i win this one out of ten times . if you do you are on the plus side.
If you read my suggestion, it is the same way to get there, but a bit more systematic. The guy was looking for help when he KNOWS he is calling dead, not on whether or not he should call. By his definition, he will win less than one out of ten (0 to be exact). Now go back to calling two bets cold with AJo and KQo and leave the strategy to us experts ;-)
Since you have the king of spades you might be better off to check on the turn. This is because if you are raised you have to call. On the other hand, if you did not have the king of spades you should bet if you believe that you will be check raised only if you are drawing dead. See HPFAP for more discussion.
I meant when checked to on the turn, but I think you knew that's what I meant. Thanks, that is a point I will store away for the future.
Just how certain were you that you were beat? Is this a player that would NEVER raise with anything but a flush here? If so, calling on the river was a mistake. But those kinds of players are fairly rare, and the pot is laying you 12-1. A call, if there is even the tiniest doubt in your mind, is not that wrong, and may be correct.
A check on the turn is definitely in order. However, given that you bet (and were checkraise) you can be fairly sure that the raiser can beat an overpair. He may not have a flush, but be may have paired his kicker, or been slowplaying a wired set. Given the size of the pot, you're probably stuck calling the turn, and calling the river if the board pairs (thereby givir).
Another thing to note on the turn is whether or not there were any overcallers. If a good player calls his raise w/ a three flush on the board, you've REALLY got problems. If you're kings are dry (which they weren't here, but for next time..) just get out- you're beat.
No overcallers. If there had been I would have leaned toward the belief I was drawing dead.
I had never seen him before, but he was a no foldem kind of player. He was having a fantastic run of cards, which was probably why he was emboldened enough to call my preflop raise. But he was not aggressive, every time he raised he flat had the best cards. If he had two pair, he would have just called. I don't think he would have raised, even with trips, not with the flush on the board. He was that kind of player. But he was on a bit of a rush.
Its the final table (10) of a no-limit HE tourney which is paying five places. The average stack is about 3000 with only one large stack with about 9000. I have 4700 and am bunched with 3 guys with about 5000-6000 each and the rest of the field has shorter stacks. The blinds are 200/400 and I am in the big blind.
It is folded around to the button who goes all-in for his last 1100. He gets called by the SB, who also has a total of 1100. I look down to see a marginal QTs, but am tempted by the pot odds (2600 for a call of 700)and the chance to bust out two players. I also figure that there is a good chance that they each have an Ace, increasing my chances to win if I flop a pair.
I counted my chips and agonized before making the call, but lost the hand when th flop came A-Q-rag. In retrospect, I think it was a good call in the sense that I would have made it again if I could see their cards (the button had A-rag and the SB had A-J, so I was less than a 2-1 dog to both hands). A deal was made for 10 cents per tourney dollar when another guy busted out two hands later, causing me to reconsider the call since it cost me about a sventy bucks real money. Of course if the flop had been Q-rag-rag, then call would have been worth an extra 260 bucks, which seems like a pretty good deal. What am I missing and should I have even looked at my cards?
Q-10s is a marginal hand to call with even when you are forced to go all-in with a short stack. While it might be worth a raise when in position and no callers, I can't imagine calling anything with it unless I had to -- particularly as one of the chip leaders and facing two players. And although I agree that the price was there, strategic considerations dictated a fold (not to mention the trouble you got into by catching a piece of the flop).
You make some valid points, but need to reread the post. Both of the other players were already all-in, so I was investing a maximum of 700 to win 2600. The flop could not "get me in trouble", since I was paying for 5 cards and a guaranteed showdown.
Given that you're still going to have a lot of chips relative to the blinds if you lose (by lots of chips, I mean that you can concede your blinds for a couple of rounds, and still have enough chips left to put in a big raise preflop), and you're getting almost 4:1 on the call, I'd say that this is a definite call to make. If you changed the scenario so that you were the SB, and the big stack, or someone with a stack comparable to yours was the BB, then I'd say that a fold is in order, so that you don't face the prospect of losing more chips to that person. On your facts, I'd call everytime, I think.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think you made a bad call. Your risking about 1/6 (700 of 4300) of your chips on a hand that is very marginal. I ran QTs on Caro's poker probe against 2 random hands and it won 43.1% of the time. But your not against two random cards. The button voluntarily went in. He has to have a hand that will make yours a little worse (mayber a lot worse). My guess would be that your probobly no better than a 33% chance to win the pot. Your stack size is not going to increase significantly by taking this gamble. (You said that most players had at least 3000 chips with several in the 5000-6000 range.) I think I'd want a little better odds before committing against two all in hands. Additionally since they were both all in you have no chance to outplay your opponents after the flop.
Another consideration is that by calling both players you have two possibilities. a) You eliminate both - A very good result b) You eliminate one, and bring the other about even to you. The problem is choice b will occur two out of three times on average.
I think your much better off allowing the short stacks to duel it out. By calling your letting one player back into the tournament 2 out of 3 times. I'd rather have leave one with short chips (2600) and have the other eliminated, than eliminate one and resurrect the other player.
Bottom line - In my opinion QTs is not a good enought hand to gamble with in this situation. Not a horrible call by any means, but I'd of mucked my hand in this situation.
Just my 2 cents, Tom B.
No bad beats.... if you put some theory I am sure no-one will object. Cheers Andas
I had AA in NL Holdem. Flopp KKx. Small bet, 2 calls, I fold. The fun part is it's easy in NL. I would have had a hell of a time folding that in 20-40.
I'm not sure I would be patting myself on the back for that one. You have ENORMOUS implied odds in no-limit. If the other players in the pot (and you) all have big stacks in relation to the "small" bet, why not peel a card off and try to break somebody if that miracle Ace comes off. It will be difficult for someone to laydown a big King or even the pocket xx underfull. I got broke in the exact situation once when I gut cute with AK to a KKx flop and a guy with pocket Aces made a "questionable" call and turned the case Ace.
I'm not sure I would be patting myself on the back for that one. You have ENORMOUS implied odds in no-limit. If the other players in the pot (and you) all have big stacks in relation to the "small" bet, why not peel a card off and try to break somebody if that miracle Ace comes off. It will be difficult for someone to laydown a big King or even the pocket xx underfull. I got broke in the exact situation once when I gut cute with AK to a KKx flop and a guy with pocket Aces made a "questionable" call and turned the case Ace.
aces over in pot limit seven stud. when i checkraised with the aces over, i knew i had the best. i bet the pot on seven and got raised the pot. he could have been bluffing.
Tonight in the 15-30 game I was on the button with AJs. Everyone folded to the player on my right, who is a tough, good player. He just called. I folded my AJs.
I am in the BB W/ 9Qs Flop comes T J K. (no spades) its bet around button raises, I re-raise, and button re-raises I fold. I knew this player well, he would never cap unless he had the nuts. I really wanted to call but knew Id be dead. It is real hard to fold whe you flop hands like this. but Bite your lip, and save some money.
He held AQ, I made a good fold. It just hurt cause I was stuck about 200.00 that night. Not long after that hand I was delt A7c and flopped a flush and lost when an Ace fell on the river to fill up a guy with a pair of 6's. I left the game right after that hand... went home and stewed about it for hours.
Walleye
"I knew this player well, he would never cap unless he had the nuts."
Walleye, you are certainly a much better player than I. I have never been able to read a player that close! I wouldn't have been able to fold this hand at this point! Good Lay down!
Vince
Vince,
I just happened to know this player very well, I have played many hours w/ him and my book on him is solid, he never deviates from his play, he is I guess Tight/weak. He has even told me "I would never bluff in a 4-8 game, because they will all just call!" When I heard this I immediately wrote it in my book, he is very predictable. I had a hard time laying this hand down, but I was 99% sure he had AQ.
Players like this is where a book/notes on all your opponents comes in extra handy. I often ask them their names and also give them "Nick Names" associated to their style of play. It helps me very much. I thank you for your comment, but I don’t think I am of that level. But I appreciate the kind words. (I hope they were Kind words)
Walleye
No Limit tourney down to final 3. I have 50% of the chips, greta player has 35%, bad player has 15%. Blinds are getting large and I haven't played a hand in awhile. I raise about half my stack UTG w/ 6-2o. Great player reraises all in, bad player calls, I fold. Of course I would've hit runner-runner two pair to eliminate great player's AA then been head up against bad player, who made a gutshot w/ his A5o.
Playing pot limit Hold em. Blinds are £1-1-2, Player in middle position makes it £5 to play tight player on the button makes it £15 to play. I am in the big blind and have kings. I know the button only re-raises with a pair of queens or better and since he has the button maybe AKs. I figure I can find out where I am now so I call the £13 that it is to me and raise £30. Initial middle position raiser folds and guy on the button thinks for about 30 secs, before raising the pot £97. He has about £100 left in his rack. I spend about 10 seconds trying to convince myself that he might have Kings and we might be splitting it before I fold. He showed me the Aces. I guess this fold is easier in pot limit than limit, because if you dont fold when you think you should it costs so much more.
Maybe a better question is what is the worst fold people have ever made? I can remember a pot limit holdem hand where I had KQ of diamonds and the flop came jack high with 3 diamonds!!! An extremely aggressive player to my right bets the pot £15. I know if I smooth call him hes going to bet all the way against me so I flat call. The guy who was in the small blind pre-flop now raises £60. This person always check raises when he has the nuts, but only when he has the nuts - a rather large tell. The initial raiser calls and I try to find a way to call him. Because I have both the K + Q I figure he either has the nuts or at best the 4th nuts, but Im convinced he doesnt make this move with a hand as weak (relatively) as the 4th nuts. He has about £250 behind and I know Im making a decision for that amount of money. Since I am stone cold certain he has the nuts I pass. Just as Im congratulating myself on being a truly great player and having more discipline than god, the hand is checked out from there, and the checkraiser shows down top two pair to take the pot??? The other guy in the pot had the bare Ace of diamonds, and I went for a long walk feeling like a complete lemon.
I have 99 in middle position. I call, the button (a maniac) calls, and the small blind (an old rock) raises. I call, the button calls.
The flop: K22 rainbow. The small blind checks, which he would do with almost any hand at this point (but I know he's got AKs, AA, KK, or QQ). I think about checking and folding, and decide that if I bet and the maniac raises, I might get the small blind to lay down anything but KK. I bet, maniac raises on the button. The small blind smooth calls.
The turn is a miracle: a 9. Small blind checks, I check. Maniac bets, small blind raises, and I chuck my pocket 9's full in the muck.
Small blind shows KK, the maniac actually had a deuce.
Thinking of going to Reno soon. Anyone know where the most liberal (DAS, Surrender, etc..) single deck games are? Thanks a lot.
Tdel -
What difference does "liberal" rules make to YOU? What strategy do you employ? How important is depth of deal penetration to you?
Answer the above and I will answer your question!
G.
Last time I was in Reno the Peppermill had a real nice 2-deck game with surrender and DAS, and reasonable penetration.
Heh. Two responses, but nobody answered your question. *I* thought it was pretty straightforward.
The most liberal rules for single deck blackjack in Reno is at the Cal-Neva. Dealer hits soft 17, double on any two cards, surrender. If you're a counter, the bad news is that they do not allow insurance.
If you include Sparks, its also worth noting that Western Village has an H17, DOA game with some funky bonuses for strange hand combinations like 777 and 678 suited. I don't have the exact details.
If you wish to include the Tahoe area, I *believe* but cannot confirm that the Lakeside Inn still has a 1D, H17, DOA game plus Double after Split and Resplit Aces. This game is basically even (plus or minus a few hundreths of a percent) right off the top.
Hope this helps.
Well what or how do u all play a hand that the flop cantains trips to your hand ,,, like 9 J J and u have a hand that contains a J middle to early position? Should i check to see where the bet comes from? should i bet it? i ended up looseing this hand ont he turn with aces full to my jacks full, but in any position is there a differant play for such a hand? i know if it were the other way say the flop is 9 J X and u hold pocket Jacks, remind ya this is omaha hi/lo.Is there a better way to play it? And next what are the odds that if i hold a single suited hand ( all D,S,H,C) what are the odds of me amaking the best hand say the flop contains 1 or 2 of my siut, what are the odds that i make my nut flush? thanks ,,,
what the fuck are you talking about?
You should mix up your hand once in a while to keep people on their toes, but in general you should bet.
One thing to keep in mind in Omaha is the value of the kickers in your hand with this flop. If your kickers are all above the 3rd card on the board you have 9 outs to make a bigger full house than the one already on the board. If your kickers are all lower, then you could be drawing completely dead and should act accordingly. Sometimes it may be correct to fold the hand if there is a lot of action in front of you.
Don't consider checking on the flop for deception if you think it will be checked out - this hand is just not big enough to give away a free card.
Well hello,
A few days ago i wrote Mason and ask him a couple ?s he advised me too write them here! So please be honest with me as i ask these, 1) what is the easiest way to adjust to cold cards? i play normally a very tight game, i will win 2 out of every 4 hands i play when i play them, it may be the first 5 hands i play and win 2 or 3 or it may be a hr in to the game before i play my 1st hand,It happens everytime i play im always up huge,, then cards are'nt there, i find my self playing hands like A 4 9 J or worse! then i really go on tilt. cause the cards i play dont win, not to get u all wrong i have my share of heaters, hell some times so hot it would melt the crome off a harly, but inbetween how can i adjust my play to the bad cards im getting? 2) is it wrong to win and run, will other players start to look down on me for this? i mean im makeing my liveing now playing, im single i share a house with a freind, bills a small so too me making $50-100. a day when i play is a great income, ive never made less than $50, but when i sit down to play i have others players that are there too play all night or all day, i cant i hit bottom after 5 hrs. 3 nights ago i sat down to play i won my first 3 hands, i was up$400, would it be wrong of me to get up and go home, sense well i made my $ ????? please help if ya can thanks
at limit poker you dont have much room to make any kind of moves. that means (except for heads up to three way at most) you dont gamble, you have to show down the best hand period. your emotions have nothing to do with it, unless you are only dealing with one or two opponents, then you can use some cute moves. other then that throw your emotions out the window (and im not refering to going on tilt, i mean your hunches and trying to outplay somebody). other then that stick to playing cards, cant help a hand that it not there.
How do you know you are getting cold cards until after you've gotten them? There is no way of predicting which cards will come next, so don't worry about it.
However, it sounds like maybe you have a bit of a discipline problem when you don't hit your hands for a while, in which case there's nothing wrong with quitting a winner. A better solution is to work on your discipline. Winning a few hands and building a big stack of chips should be to your advantage on future hands because of your dominant table image, if you know how to take advantage of it.
I question your comment that you win one out of every two hands you play. Even if you played AAKK every time you shouldn't be seeing that kind of win rate. So, your perception of being 'cold' may be skewed to the pessimistic side, inducing you to play poorly.
Dan
The other replies talked about tilting. Let's consider your "hit and run" concerns. Don't worry about the other players opinions of you in this regard. Play when you're comfortable and can concentrate. If all you are doing is worrying about losing, you will, since your concentration will be less than your best. If you run into a situation like you describe, where you get hot and build a stack, set yourself a limit. If you are +$400, make a mental commitment to quit if you go down to +$200 (or whatever). This will also allow you to play and gain experience. As you become more experienced, you will learn to recognize "good" games, where it will pay to play longer regardless (more or less) of your current stack size.
I have encountered an interesting phenomenon. Upon moving up from the low limit to middle limit holdem games (10-20 and higher), there is no doubt that the level of play is tougher. My interesting observation/comment is this: It might be better to be (or at least perceived as) an unaware "bad" player than one that is good enough to at least try to play the game well, one that has read the books and is "aware".
Bad players get one huge benefit - bluff protection. What I mean is that players in the middle limits usually are good enough to know not to try to run bluffs against bad players, and usually don't do many fancy plays against them. This has the effect of turning the game into a more straight-forward, "best hand wins" situation when the "bad" player is in the pot, effectively taking the strong player's fancy plays away from him. I wonder if this alone isn't a greater money making advantage than all the profits that come from being a "good" player who can only ocasionally steal a pot / win or save extra bets from a fellow "good" player. When a bad player sits in on the game, and a player whom I respect is heads-up against them, I notice that the fact the the target is "bad" forces the respected player to play very predictably and scared - almost "weak-tight" since the respected player knows that he cannot run any of his pet plays (target is too unaware to even know what it means), and that since the target plays unpredictable hands, it is difficult to be aggressive (i.e. top pair is almost a "scared hand" vs target since he is a good candidate to show you two pair with illogical hands (J-7 or some sort of mix), and not betting AK (after raising pre-flop) into a broken flop heads-up for fear that the "bad" player actually caught some of it).
I realize that the "bad" player by definition does not take advantage of this situation, but I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't be more profitable to be a good-"bad" player (one that plays way too loose, but plays well from the flop on) than a tight-aggressive player that has to face tough plays and have bluffs run against you since you have been marked as 'aware' enough to be able to make tough laydowns and fold marginal hands. I know this might be confusing to read, but I'm sure many of you in the middle limits have at least witnessed this soft-play vs bad players from tougher opponents, and I hope you might have some comments. It just seems that an effect mix might be unpredictable / unaware. This makes people afraid to be too aggressive and stops them from taking shots at you. This unpredictable / unaware player can thus not fear tricky "play" raises, get lots of free (or cheaper than usual) cards, and can get action from their "lucky" hands (mostly weird two-pair holdings).
I thus think that while it is still better to be a "world-class" player, these are few and far between, and most of us are in the "good - very good" catagory, aka "aware". I guess my theory is that aware players only prey against one-another, and if given a chance to either to be in this 'aware' catagory and thus get to run your trick plays and steals against your fellow 'aware' brothers (and have to face these same plays yourself), or in the 'unaware' catagory that does not get to run these steals/trick plays in exchange for bluff-out protection and much less steals/trick plays run against you, I might prefer the latter.
Comments?
You should try to play well, not too loose before the flop and then well. But you should also take advantage of bad players when they are in the pot since, as you pointed out, they make the pot protected. That is if a good player bets and you are in the pot with him along with a bad player then you know it is less likely that he is bluffing. This is one of the keys to being successful in games where many players play too many hands and go too far with them.
I'd add that if the 'good' players make a lot of plays at the pot, you should call more often.
One of the little-discussed reasons for calling on the river with a marginal hand is that it protects you from future runs at the pot. In a limit game where the pots are relatively large at the end, it's often correct to call with any hand that can beat a bluff, and even when you are wrong it has the effect of inhibiting other players from running at you in the future.
When you start seeing good players value betting weak hands into you on the river (second pair, top pair with no kicker), you'll know you've taken this too far and you should tighten up somewhat on your river calls.
Oh, I should try to play well. I learn something new every day. :) Get real. Oh yeah.
Doug
If you are in a game with "good players" and pretend to be a "poor player". You will be found out! You will only fool other the bad players. Well, maybe you won't fool them because they are "unaware" and by definition can't be fooled.
You may find that if you attempt to play anyway other than your best game at all times that you develop into the kind of player that you are pretending to be! That's not to say that your best game should not include varying your play. Also, you most certainly will never become a "world class player" (whatever that may be) because you will not have a base to build upon! Winning at poker is done by capitalizing on your opponents mistakes. Develop the skills needed to do that and you will win. Image projection is certainly one of those skills. The key is to project the imaage that fits the situation (game). Image is best handled in a Chameleon like manner! Understand each image (tight, loose, etc.) and how and when to project them!
Opinion by Vince
You can certainly "fool" the opponents; as I had done for a year playing 10/20 draw recreationally in Gardena. The props were falling over themselves to give me their money. .. err .. well a little bit anyway. While the opponents will eventually see through vocal BS, you can fool them indefinately by identifying unusual situations and going out on a limb. They see you out on the limb often enough to know you are "bad" but do NOT pick up on the situation.
Raising with 3rd pair when it is likely the opponent bet a draw is an example. The other opponents may deduce you ROUTINELY raise with 3rd pair and give you plenty of action in situations where they are a cinch to have a hand; and you would fold if you didn't have them beat.
Ever raise with 2nd pair and bet it for value and get paid off successfully against two opponents (you know, the first guy would routinely slow play anything good and the second would raise with anything good; CHA-CHING 2nd pair good kicker!)? Or calling the tight player down with pocket 3s since he is likely to have only AK.
Well, it takes the intellectual discipline of the authors to not be convinced you are a maniac when they see such a thing a one or two times a night. AND ... they see you make routine "expert" great plays and the conflicting psychological assault is too much and then they play VERY predictably against you.
No, winning is NOT just "capitalizing on mistakes", its "creating those mistakes".
- Louie
I usually try to pick up plays I have noticed that work effectively for other players (weak or strong) and meld them into my own game. I have noticed a lot of players that appear a little "looser" than what S/M starting hand guides suggest preflop can get away with it because they have a better sense of where they are with their opponents once the flop comes.
Once you move up to middle-limits, you will notice that you will find a new class of player: the one who has done a decent bit of poker "studying", but has no idea what to do with this knowledge. Trying for a check raise against timid players, trying to bluff calling stations, etc. Basically they think any pot they are in against a "less worthy" opponent, will be won because their "knowledge" of poker is going to cause them to a. have a better hand at the showdown or b. allow them to bluff their opponent out of the pot, not realizing that somebody forgot to tell the cards who the "good players" and the "bad players are".
My advice is, if you are against one of these mid-limit "professionals" who tends to try to fancy play WAY too much, take a page from the "fish" and turn into a calling station with any modest holding. You will notice these types of players do a lot of head shaking and chucking into the muck when you show your top pair bad kicker or middle pair and the like.
I agree with your analysis, I have found the same to be true. But to say this is a "strong advantage" isn't true. What is true is solid play >90% of the time: playing quality starting hands, taking advantage of position, pushing your strong hands, calling when odds warrant it,and developing reading skills, will give you a positive expectation. This is true vs. good or bad opponents. You just have to make some adjustments, depending on who you are worried about in any particular hand. Since these bad players play way too many hands and usually continue to call even when drawing dead, you do have opportunities to put some moves on good opponents. As far as playing "bad" on purpose, see Vince's post.
BTW, if this is a strong advantage, why do they usually leave the table without any chips?
Nice post but the problem is that you have to define what a bad player is or why he is a bad player. Some "bad" players play every hand, some give away free cards, some play good cards weakly. If you can identify the weakness, your home with the cash. Example, last weekend I hold KQs, flop comes J rag rag, I bet player to my left raises, I call, three way action, turn comes A. I bet into flop raiser he CALLS. River comes 10, making my straight. He had two pair on the flop and didn't raise my bet on the turn when the A showed up. After the hand, I told him that if he raised on the turn I was gone he said I thought you made two pair when the A hit. Ship it!
If you would have folded for a raise on the turn (which may or may not be a good idea, depending on the size of the pot), then you should just check/call the turn and fold if you don't hit your straight on the river. There's no sense in betting here if you'll fold for a raise, since your hand has outs.
GD
Read my post more carefully. I told him that I would dump on a raise. In actuality, I knew this weakling wouldn't raise and if any danger showed up on the river and I bet into him he would fold his two pair like an acordian(sp?).
Where can i get starting hands for no limit Texas Hold'em? I know David Sklansky's starting hands for limit play, but here where i'm posting this we have only pot limit and no limit games, so i really do need some advices. Thank you for any information you can give me about this type of games.
Super/System by Doyle Brunson
pot limit and no limit hold em by tj is also worth looking at. just ask for the title at the gamble book store, i forget tjs last name. clouter or something like that.
Clothier
.
M7s Starting Hand Guide for low-mid level no-limit
Raising Hands
TT-AA in any position AK in any position (but proceed with caution) AQ/AJ/KQ if late position and first one in (extreme caution)
Reraising Hands
AA KK QQ (against late position/steal raise only) AK (if your stack or raiser's stack is small in relation pot or if you want to "gamble" all-in against likely underpair or dominae a weaker player who will commit with a smaller Ace)
Limping Hands
22-88 in any position if blinds are small since sets don't require position
Suited connectors, suited Aces and other speculative drawing hands can be played liberally in unraised pots in late position and in situations where you have good position in relation to the raiser (rasier on your left instead of your right since you can "trap" people between the raiser if you flop big); These hands should not be played up front.
Cold Calling Hands
You should not cold call a lot of raises with "limit" hands like AQ, AQs and AJs unless you are willing to commit your stack on the flop with a flush draw. Good no-limt players will charge you heavily to draw a flush and refuse to poy you off when you get there.
You can cold some raises with medium pairs if you have good position in relation to the rasier and the raise is less than 10% of your stack (and the raisers stack). Medium sets are the calssic hand for doubling through overpairs or top pair/top kicker, so don't be afraid to take a few shots and even call a modewt raise.
The play of AK is the trickiest and depends on whether you are likely to get paid off by guys with AQ or AJ when an ACE flops or KQ and KJ (ugh) when a King flops.
i went and played for a hr or so tonight at the local poker room, heres a hand that came up! in the BB its a family pot. my hand is this Ks Js Qc 10d the flop is this Kh Qs 10c now being that the str8 is there and no flush cards. i bet, its capped agian, heres my ? is this hand worth calling to the river? being capped in early position, i sure that the str8 is made. i played the hand to the river in this case, my thinking that if any of the 3 paired i was in for the best of it, but they did not i folded on the river and the pot was plit with 2 nut str8's. turn and river were lo cards 8h 4s so i never made my straight, comments on this hands please?
You have 9 outs to make a full house. Depending on the hands you are up against, you either have good odds to call, a longshot draw, or you are drawing dead.
One of the things that makes Omaha complex is that the action varies so much depending on the type of flop you get. How many callers were in the hand? With this hand, there are two made straights driving the action. Were there other callers? If there were, then they almost certainly had at least two pair (probably top two if they are decent players), and perhaps a set. There is no flush draw on the flop, and no straight draw other than the straight that is already made. Therefore, other callers must be drawing to a full house.
If another caller has top two pair, you have seven outs left, with 4 of them winning you only half a pot. If someone has middle set, you're in much worse condition - hitting your ten is no good, giving you only 3 outs for the winner. Worst case: Someone else has top set, and you are drawing completely dead.
With two made straights, you are going to get centered, and have to pay a lot of money to try to draw to your hand.
Whether you should have folded or not depends on the nature of the players and the size of the pot, but this is the type of hand that is often over-valued in Omaha.
Dan
Dan,
I think you mean he has only 6 outs. Your other comments, about whether there are other callers, are still correct. However, now he may be down to 4, 2, or 0 outs. Given that this pot is likely to be capped every round until the flush or full comes, it seems too expensive to draw for, unless there was a family capped pot preflop (and even then it could easily be a -EV chase).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Uh, yeah. 6 outs. Note the time that I left that message...
Agreed that this hand should be mucked, but our hero probably also has 2 outs for 1/3 or 1/4 of the pot, since an Ace gives him the nut str8 too.
Danny S
thank you all, i agree now looking back that the call too the river was wrong the players in were rocks, but i just sometimes have that come up and never take notice of who is in, and how they have shown me that they do indeed have there hand, again thanks that gave me a new thing to study on next time the hand comes up,,,
Hi everyone,
In a recent post I trashed a column in "Gaming Today" that dealt with beating Bacccarrat using trends and patterns. Responses to that post implied, no downright claimed that Baccarat can be beat using a Level 4 point count developed by Peter Griffin. David Sklansky agreed that the point count was a valid method for beating Baccarat. Mason Malmuth directed our attention to some obscure publication "Baccarat for The Clueless". For what reason I'm not sure. It implied to me that he may also believe that Bacarrat systems have some merit. Another poster referred to me as "weird" and "close minded". Hmmm.... Well that's another post best left for the exchange.
While at HP Casino this weekend during a tournament break I stopped into the Gift Shop. There on the shelf was a book I had been planning on buying. I opened it to the table of contents to review the material it contained and found a section entitled "Unbeatable Casino Games". The authors whom I respect include games like "Craps", " Roulette" and among others on pg 174 "Bacarrat". On pg 176 they unequivocally state that Baccarat is "UNBEATABLE" (not a quote). They go on to say that various attempts at point counts have been tried. But they dismiss them out of hand as to impracticle to be of any value. (paraphrased).
I was going to puchase the book but decided to wait. I thought that if the authors are wrong on this subject and did'nt do their homework here then it is quite possible the rest of the material in the book is flawed also. I haven't reviewed any other material yet but will if necessary. I am calling on the authors of that book to defend their material or explain their mistake before I go any further!
The book: "Gambling for a Living" Authors: David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth.
Vince Lepore
Surely you understand the point of the thread concerning baccarat - If you are a computer that maintains a 4 level count, you can beat baccarat with a whopping .1% advantage and a standard deviation worse than any other game in the casino. I think it is safe to say that clearly baccarat is unbeatable. Don't waste your time on it.
Vince, you continue to miss the point we made. You CAN get a positive expectation at Baccarat. But the amount you can win is so tiny that the game is not 'beatable' in a way that can benefit the professional gambler. Get it yet?
"Vince, you continue to miss the point we made."
I didn't miss the point at all!
"But the amount you can win is so tiny that the game is not 'beatable' in a way that can benefit the professional gambler."
I said that you can't win! I said the game is unbeatable! Just because you can simulate a win with a computer does not prove that you or anyone else can win!
Anyone that implies that you can win is wrong! I also said that a responsible author would make that very clear.
"Get it yet?"
Get it Yet!
Vince
We get it now, whatever you say is true just because you say it is so, and since you are all-knowing, there's really no point in attempting to have a discussion with you.
Or did we miss YOUR point again?
"there's really no point in attempting to have a discussion with you."
Why would anyone that feels this way bother to read or respond to a post of mine?
Feel free to disregard any post or response that has the name Vince Lepore on it! I certainly will avoid yours in the future even though they contain such valuable insight into gambling!
Have a good Game!
Vince
Can you implement cookie based kill files?
I continue to find it amusing you demand so much proof for baccarat but you are willing to accept anecdotal evidence for poker. In this context I use proof in a fairly formal manner. What do you mean by proof?
[Note my comment about "wierd" and "close minded" had to do with your ability to argue one way for a topic you like and another way for a topic you don't. I'll amend those two comments to just "contradictory" to remove then negative conotations.]
"willing to accept anecdotal evidence for poker"
I accept nothing without proof my friend!
"your ability to argue one way for a topic you like and another way for a topic you don't"
If you read my responses I argue against untrue (unproven) poker concepts as strongly as I argue in favor of those I find valuable. Poker concepts that I find valuable or believe are valuable I test at the poker table. When I first read 7 Stud for Advanced players. I learned each tactic that it recommended and applied them at the table. Lo and behold they worked! I've done the same with the material in HPFAP. I've found the material there will work when applied correctly. I prove these concepts through real world application. That's where the value is(to me)!
I will state this again, You nor Anyone else cannot take any Point count developed to gain a + expectation at baccarat and beat that game in the real world!
"What do you mean by proof? "
I find it amusing (or is that your quote) that you only read the part of my response that amuses you! Show me the money! Show me the professionals that are beating this game! Show me the statistics! Oh yee, that likes analytical material!
Show me and I will take back my comments!
Vince
If the deck contained 50% deuces and 50% treys, a bet on the player has a gigantic advantage since the banker must stand on 5 when the player catches a 2 or 3. I wrote about this in Getting the Best of It. The opposite is true for 8s and 7s. But this or other situations do not come up often enough to give you anything but an insignicant edge.
" But this or other situations do not come up often enough to give you anything but an insignicant edge. "
Come up often enough! What's the probability of a Bacarrat shoe containing 50% 2's and 50% 3's or 50% 7's or 50% 8's at a point where they deal the hand! And, you would need a hell of a lot better point count system than a level 4 to identify when the deck contained only 2's and 3's or 7's and 8's. Or maybe the key is to wait around for a significant amount of face cards (or farce cards) to be left in the deck for ties! Get real!
Is your book correct or not! Is baccarat unbeatable or not! For the gambler and not some theoretical nonsense that can't be proven!
Vince
Vince, David just proved it. If you never bet unless you saw this outrageous condition, you would have a positive expectation, and thus would be 'beating' baccarat. The amount, however, is trivial, so it's not worth your time. This is what we all have been saying from the start.
WHAT PART OF THIS ARE YOU NOT GETTING???????
"WHAT PART OF THIS ARE YOU NOT GETTING???????"
This is the last time I am going to say this because you DAN ARE NOT GETTING IT!
BACCARAT IS UNBEATABLE IN REAL WORLD PLAY!!! WHAT PART OF THAT ARE YOU NOT GETTING!!!!
"David just proved it"
BULL....!
VINCE LEPORE!!!
IF you can learn and utilize the multi-level point count, and IF the betting limits allow you to bet at a liberal spread, THEN baccarat can be beaten for pennies an hour.
GD,
I see You're in agreement with the rest of these analytical, theoretical technocrats that make unprovable claims and expect us poor defenseless gamblers to believe them!
BACARRAT IS UNBEATABLE IN THE REAL WORLD!
BANCO!!
Vince
All I'm saying is that, given the proper conditions, baccarat is beatable. The conditions necessary to beat the game are (at least in part) those which I have detailed in my previous post.
I still don't understand why you say it ISN'T beatable. If you want to say that noone ever has in fact beat it, I'd be inclined to agree with you. If you want to say that beating baccarat would be an utter waste of time, again I'm in agreeance. But isn't beatable? The math is there, Vince-- it CAN (again, under the proper conditions) be beaten.
I think you're confusing what CAN be done with what HAS been done. But simply because noone (that we know of) has of yet beaten the doesn't make it impossible to do so. There was a time when the same was said of the four minute mile-- now look at the times milers are posting.
My original post on this subject was simply that Peter Griffin can be counted on to be correct. Certainly with some gigantic bet spread you could have a miniscule edge with an accurate enough count. If Griffin said a mere point count is enough I believe him. But it is of no practical value. End of story
This may be redundant, as I think I posted on this last time. Griffin gives an "Ultimate" point count, using 2 decimal places, for each denomination. You can keep pencil and paper notes at the table, so you don't need to learn to count like one would if taking up blackjack. But consider the following before wasting your time...
Griffin also points out that this point count "falls apart" with very small subsets of cards - the ones where almost all of the profitable bets can be found. BJ point counts do the same with very small subsets (see Griffin's 10's and 4's example in theory of Blackjack), but are reliable for most subsets one is likely to ever encounter - and there are large subsets that occur reasonably often which do offer significant edges. The same is not true for baccarat.
Griffin is not alone in his conclusions - Ed Thorp wrote that baccarat is not practically beatable - after they got rid of the side bets he made a killing on.
I am sure countless (pardon the pun) others have looked into the matter, as the game is very easy to program- much more so than blackjack. I don't remember a post here ever asking "Where in Vegas can I get the best penetration baccarat game?"
Vince,
The way one proves something is by showing it is by showing the math. The fact that someone might put in 1000 hours at the craps table and is still a winner does not prove it is a beatable game and likewise someone does not have to play craps and lose to prove it is a losing proposition. All they have to do is the math. So yes if you have nothing to do the next month excpet stand around and count Baccarat shoes you very well might find a situation that is prifitable. And for someone like who who obviously has lot's of time to waste maybe the penney or so an hour you might get in EV might be of more value than you currently get for your time.
"I find it amusing (or is that your quote) that you only read the part of my response that amuses you! Show me the money! Show me the professionals that are beating this game! Show me the statistics! Oh yee, that likes analytical material!
Show me and I will take back my comments!"
I read all of your post. That is why I asked what you consider proof. I _don't_ consider anecdotal evidence proof so "show me the money" doesn't hold any weight in the search for proof. You've been pointed at the analysis several times but then asked for more analysis so David posted an example and you rejected it.
Note that you still havn't shown that you understand the point I was making. A poker player argueing for hard proof (non anecdotal) that another game can be beat isn't being rational.
Vince,
Doggone it I thought this one had been put to bed. The statement of the generally accepted position is that Baccarat is theoretically beatable for a minute amount of money with an enormous standard deviation, but in practice you would have to play for an inconceivable amount of time with an infinite bankroll for it to work. What would you like clarified about this statement ?
As for your comments on computer simulations, what about blackjack basic strategy ? Thorp didn't sit in a casino playing a million hands. Does this mean you don't believe in the results ?
Andy.
The point, it seems to me, is this: if you give a problem to someone like Peter Griffin or David Sklansky or Mason Malmuth or Mike Caro, e.g., can baccarat be beaten, they can give you an answer, not an opinion. And the answer, it has turned out, is yes -- now and until the end of time, yes.
Is this answer of any value to anyone trying to make money playing baccarat? No. It has been well explained above why this indisputable fact is of no use to anyone trying to make any money with a traditional count system -- you can beat it, but not for any profit that would be of any significance to anyone.
Is the answer of any use at all? Absolutely! It is of immense value. First, it is the truth, and the truth will always is valuable.
Second, it might have turned out different. There may very well have been a traditional count that could be of use in baccarat -- now we know.
Third, it is another example that any gambling situation can be analyzed mathematically, which may improve methodology for future analysis.
Fouth, there is now a core of data to build on. Who knows who might dream up some way to make money with it? Perhaps a special Baccarat promotion may be profitible, armed with this data. Perhaps shuffle tracking, or card tracking?
Fifth, If anyone says Baccarat can't be beaten, we can now say "you are wrong" -- with all the provisos.
There is an chapter in Peter Griffin's "Gambling Ramblings" called "Discontinuity at the Golden Mean." Here Griffin shows some odd properties of "all time high" calculations, the Greek golden ratio (6.18:1), and Fibonacci sequences (1,2,3,5,8,13. . .)
Does this mean we can all start whacking roulette by adding our previous two losing bets together to come up with the next? Of course not. What is its immediate value? Who knows. It is research. It is an active mind answering questions, finding new data, just because it can.
The beauty of this endeavor, gambling, it seems to me, is that it includes both a high-minded scientific rigor, and playfullness, typified by Peter Griffen (He is sorely missed), and me getting bitched at last night, in a poker game, because I put cigarette ashes in someone's "spit-cup." At any rate. . .
"As for your comments on computer simulations, what about blackjack basic strategy ? Thorp didn't sit in a casino playing a million hands. Does this mean you don't believe in the results ?"
BJ is a totally different animal than Baccarat. There have been numerous authors that have addressed the subject. There have been court cases over the players right to use BJ counting systems in casinos. I have personal experience using basic strategy and counting systems. I have been barred from one casino for counting. The casinos have just about validated the theory that BJ can be beaten with a point count by barring susspected card counters. there is numerous other evidence that can be pointed to that supports the theory that BJ can be beaten with a point count.
If you call a Casino anywhere in the world and tell them you are a professional Bacarrat player that loves to play high stakes and you will be arriving at the local airport tomorrow they will send their best limosine to pick you up. They will provide you all the writing material you need to KEEP COUNT. They will give you a free room, etc. Get the picture!
Ask all these proponents of Bacarrat Point count systems how many professional Bacarrat players they know!
Again. BACARRAT IS UNBEATABLE IN THE REAL WORLD!
And please don't mistate my position on computer simulations. I believe they are very valuable tools. Valuable tools only! They cannot, in every case, necessarily model reality exactly, as some would have you believe! Mathematics is a precise and perfect world! Not quite the world we live in!
Vince
Okay, I'll bite the troll's bait and bait the troll back...
Baccarat is beatable in the real world.
There are baccarat teams.
Casinos take countermeasures against skilled baccarat players.
I have had casinos take countermeasures against me in baccarat, both effective and ineffective.
I have beaten casino baccarat with a large expected value and overall positive results.
I used a combinatorial analyzer to mathematically prove that baccarat can only be beaten for a small edge in theory: http://www.posev.com/baccarat/bullshitless.txt
What I did had nothing to do with that report, and I beat it with a large edge in reality.
Break the assumptions of the proof and you break the proof.
I did not cheat, but that would be one way.
-Abdul
"What I did had nothing to do with that report, and I beat it with a large edge in reality. "
That's inrteresting since it is such a wonderful report. And quite frankly proves my point.
Emphasized here (In Theory):
"I used a combinatorial analyzer to mathematically prove that baccarat can only be beaten for a small edge in theory:"
"What I did had nothing to do with that report, and I beat it with a large edge in reality."
Isn't this great! How many of you out there would like to take a stab at GUESSING how this man and his team beat Baccarrat. Especially since it had nothing to do with his report which was included CARD COUNTING SYSTEMS!
"Baccarat is beatable in the real world. "
I guess we should just take the word of this fellow because he is a mathematician and knows card counting systems although it appears card counting is not how he beat the game.
"Casinos take countermeasures against skilled baccarat players."
Thanks for sharing this with us. I especially like the way you describe the countermeasurers we should be aware of.
"Break the assumptions of the proof and you break the proof."
Whay proof! Your word that you beat the game. Show us the proof and the asumptions and then we'll talk!
"I did not cheat, but that would be one way."
This must be your proof statement! I for one believe you!
Besides David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth in "Gambling for a Living" list Bacarrat as an unbeatable game and have the courage to offer their reasons for their statement. All you provide is "Trust Me".
Have a nice "Combinatorial Analysis ".
Vince
Vince,
A lot of posters explained that Baccarat could be beaten, in theory, for a very small amount. They basically conceded that it could not be beaten in the real world, because no one is going to put millions at risk in an attempt to win pennies (the edge is so small you might as well flip a fair coin for millions instead, in that by the time you do it enough for your real world experience to approach the theoretical expectation, you'll be dead anyway).
In response to these folks, you asked for evidence that someone in the real world has beaten the game. Abdul has told you that he has beaten the game in the real world. He has intimated that there is some "trick" to it, but hasn't told us exactly what that trick is (I hope that he will, but I suspect he won't).
Still, he has told us that he's beaten the game. What proof, exactly, do you want? If his word isn't enough, then I guess you want his records, each page countersigned by an unassailable witness? Let Abdul know what you want, specifically, and maybe he'll oblige. In either event, unless we're about to learn how we (all of us) can have a positive expectation at baccarat, let's let this thread die.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"What proof, exactly, do you want?"
I want the truth!
"let's let this thread die."
If no more unprovable bullcrap is posted on this subject then I'm for it!
Vince BTW " but hasn't told us exactly what that trick is (I hope that he will, but I suspect he won't)"
Too much to ask I guess! Tell me my friend how else will you know if the game can be beaten?
Vince begged, "I want the truth!"
That's what you received.
No, all I got was claims! Claims that I've heard before! Claims that you've heard before! Claims that led you to do your own evaluation of Baccarat. Why were YOU skeptical pf these claims? Why didn't you accept the WORD of the claimant? Why should anyone believe YOU that Baccarat is beatable? And, don't forget this whole arguement began with the claim that by using Point Counts in the REAL WORLD one can beat Bacarrat. Not some shuffle tracking system or something similiar! Or whatever your well guarded "secret" may be. In your report you point out, correctlly I might add, that the computer environment is one of perfection. Implying that real world imperfections which must be taken into account when evaluating a baccarat play. Point Counts were what this thread was all about! You state your beating Bacarrat has nothing to do with your report! Your report was about point counts!
Which is it? You can beat Bacarrat in the REAL WORLD using point counts or not? You can keep your well guarded "secret" to yourself! Answer this about point counts!
Vince
Vince!
If you are sufficiently intelligent and not lazy, you have been given enough information to figure out the answer for yourself. If you lack sufficient intelligence, or are too lazy, you have gotten all you can possibly receive, and far more than you deserve.
"If you are sufficiently intelligent and not lazy"
And just who in the hell are you! I ain't got it oh guru of intelligentia! Why not enlighten me and others of the insufficiently intelligent and lazy! Of course you sound like all these other gurus that like to run their off at the mouth without bothering to provide any proof of there statements! I doubt you even understand the issue! You certainly have not "sufficiently or intelligently" commented on whether Bacarrat can be beaten! Or maybe you are just a clone of Abdul!
Have a nice game!
Vince "insufficiently intelligent and lazy" Lepore!
The burden of proof is on you. You need to prove that someone should enlighten you.
What! I believe you were the first to flap your gums to me! Are you now afraid to respond! I think others are also waiting to hear your brilliant comments on SOMETHING! ANYTHING!
Please!!!
Vince
Vince, when you decide to tilt at windmills, you should make sure that you don't tilt right into the nasty spinning blades of death.
Paul and Abdul have contributed immense amounts to the gambling world in general and the online world in particular. You might want to pick some less-worthy individuals to rant at.
"You might want to pick some less-worthy individuals to rant at."
Dan, Since you consider my posts "ranting", please feel free to disregard them in the future! They are not required reading!
BTW if I want advice on who to "RANT AT" I'll ask for it!
Your posting buddy! Vince
Vince begs, "You can beat Bacarrat in the REAL WORLD using point counts or not?"
If by "you", you mean a generic "one", then, yes, it's possible, as you've been told over and over. The combinatorial analysis is a mathematical proof of this. An overall positive expected value is possible. Casino big table baccarat shuffles are so thorough that I don't think there is any point questioning the random shuffle assumption of the combinatorial analysis.
Some casinos in the world use extremely deep penetrations on baccarat. Against them, point counts would be more valuable than normal, but still not very valuable. Much more valuable would be what I call nonlinear or multiparameter counts. The baccarat pit critters kindly supply you with paper and pens to track every card out of the shoe (:-), so exact counting of every denomination is possible. A computer could take that information and attain a humongous edge on the tie bet, as shown in my report. For example, with 16 cards unseen before the last round, you could make 1.8% of your whole bankroll by optimal betting on tie while wired into a computer. How much of that potential profit is realizable by a human would depend on how clever that human is in devising heuristics to identify good betting situations based on remaining cards deep in the shoe.
I know someone who has tried to do "nonlinear counting" on shoes. (Not me.) He's barred from all his local casinos, though I'm not totally sure whether it was blackjack or baccarat that did him in.
Since American casinos don't have good penetration on baccarat, I'm not willing to go to the effort myself (unless you'd like to pay me by the hour to do the research.)
-Abdul
"(unless you'd like to pay me by the hour to do the research.) "
I would like, only that you stop spouting bull crap that you are unwilling or unable to prove!
Prove it! Real world proof! A guy being barred for:
"I'm not totally sure whether it was blackjack or baccarat that did him in"
Is certainly not real world proof you would accept!
YOU also said that YOU beat the game without using anything in your report! Are you afraid to share what must be a marvalous system!
YOU now say that the game can be beat by a point count and refer us to your report! Your report deals with Computer Simulations and not the REAL WORLD. YOU state in your report that the results shown were done in the perfect world of the computer implying, rightfully so that the REAL WORLD is not perfect!
So why should anyone anywhere believe you when you say that BACCARAT IS BEATABLE IN THE REAL WORLD! Especially when you are unwilling or unable to prove it!
Your off hand remark:
"A computer could take that information and attain a humongous edge on the tie bet"
Begs the question? What don't you understand about the term: REAL WORLD PROOF???
Vince
Vince-
This may sound stupid, but why do you insist on making such a distinction between 'the real world' and computer simulations? Given that the opponent is static (unlike in poker), what works in a computer sim. must necessarily work in a casino environment. I'm assuming that you're point rests on a belief that a human being can't do the proper calculations fast enough to beat the baccarat game, but I'd bet there are plenty of people out there who are mathematically sharp enough to make the much coveted pennies an hour at baccarat should they chose to play.
"but why do you insist on making such a distinction between 'the real world' and computer simulations?"
GD,
Do you know what a level 4 counting system is? Do you understand the difficulty in learning one? According to Griffin and I believe Abdul (though I don't want to put words in his mouth so leave it at Griffin ) you need at least a level 4 counting sytem to beat baccarat. Sklansky's example of getting advantages when there are x amounts of 2,3 or 7,8 requires the user to keep side counts in addition to the point count. A computer is a percfect environment and a perfect user (the computer). No mistakes are made! The yield I've seen put forth in this perfect world is +.07%. In Abdul's report he identifies a slight error that Griffin made in his calculations. He never states what the effect of that error is! It doesn't take a genious to see that it would only take a slight error to wipe out a positive expectation of .07%
Given the difficulty of learning and PERFECTLY impimenting a counting system required to get a .07% advantage (that's if Griffin's calculations are correct and "slight errors" don't matter) I still stand by the statement that the game of Baccarat is UNBEATABLE!
I can't make it any plainer than that!
Opinion by Vince BTW I was perfectly willing to end this thread but you asked!
Vince Vince Vince Vince Vince-
Yes, I do know what a leve four point count is, and I also know how hard it would be to utilize the same in a casino environmnent. But that DOESN'T mean that it CAN'T be done, just that it would be next to impossible for most of us mere mortals. A fine line, to be sure, but there is a difference.
A level four counting system is trivial when each round takes a minute, each round uses a maximum of six cards, and the pit critters graciously supply you with pen and paper for counting the cards. One could do the full level 470 counting system of the card weights to two decimals of precision (-4.70, +1.82, etc.) And one could even do two of these level 470 counts simultaneously (different counts are required for player and bank bets.) And you could count the exact number of cards seen on top of that. With some math tricks, even the true count (count divided by number of remaining cards) wouldn't be a problem. Baccarat takes a loooong time between rounds at a slow table.
The mistake I identified in Griffin's results was that one of the card weights was slightly off. This unbalances the weights, so it's easy for anyone to see that there is an error, and indeed it should have been easy for Griffin to spot the error. The error could be intentional. Math book authors sometimes introduce errors into tables to be able to catch copyright violators. Or else it was a typo. The nature of the error, 2.17->2.28, suggests typo.
However, I think it's likely he used the correct numbers in his calculations. A quick check of the table on page 221, which shows the count advantage estimates compared to actual advantages, reveals that he likely used the correct number in his calculations. Using the incorrect number produces a bank estimate of -.91 for the 13 card subset he gives, but using the correct number produces a bank estimate of -.90, which is the figure he supplies in the table.
-Abdul
Vince screams, What don't you understand about the term: REAL WORLD PROOF???
I understand there is no such thing.
"I understand there is no such thing. "
Abdul,
This is just about the best response on this subject that I've seen!
Thanks
Vince
I was recently playing 3-6-12 HE in Louisiana, and got dealt 67s in the small blind. I was going to call for $2, but it got raised, and I mucked it. Do you think the structure of this game was enough to justify a call even in this early position? [The flop came 589, and it was a monster pot!] I know the value of suited connectors goes way up due to the 12 on the river, though I don't know how much.
-Josh
Call!
Vince
Josh,
The value of suited connectors goes up in low limit games, I would call. Depending on how many players are seeing the flop I might even give a re-raise to possably get a free card on the turn. If you dont get the flop, Fold. You said it was a monster pot, so your pot odds were good enough to call.
I belive I asked the same question a couple of months ago, look back in the archives, there was a bunch of great points.
Good luck Walleye
He was in the small blind. A raise from there isn't going to get him a free card.
You are right! I overlooked that...
Walleye
It depends how many callers there were, and whether the players in the pot tend to take their hands too far. If there were more than 3 callers, I'd call.
I agree with Dan in essence, especially the part about players taking their hands too far. In case this concept isn't clear, he means (I believe) players who won't release top pair, second pair, etc., even when it should be clear that they're beat, players who would still bet an overpair into you on the river when you raised the turn, players who might raise the turn with two pair even though the straight or flush just got there, etc.
The reason I only agree in essence, is that I would want more than 3 opponents before I'd call this raise from the big blind. Since you're only in for $1 (1/3 of a bet), and it's costing you $5 to call, and since you're in the worst position the entire hand, I'd want 5 or more opponents. If there were only 4, at least 3 of them would have to be folks whom I believe will go too far, as described above.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
One other point- Unless it's going to be a family pot, suited connectors are WAY over rated unless the player in question knows when/ when not to chase with hands like mid pair, three to a flush, etc. For players who can't discern a good chasing situationi from a bad one, suited connectors generally force them to hemhorrage money.
I'd normally agree with you except that this is 3-6-12. Your requirements are about what's needed for a normal 3-6 game. The 3-6-12 gives you tremendous implied odds if you make your straight or flush, IF the other players are willing to pay off on the river - which is why I qualified my message with the point about players taking their hands too far.
Yes, you could be right. I've never played a game with this structure, and haven't ever thought about it much. I understand the implications for drawing hands in this game, but have never attempted to "quantify" it, as to exactly which hands it'll make me more inclined to play or not play.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
need a family pot to cold call.
You didn't say how many callers there were,but since that's the kind of game I play in, I have to believe there 3+ callers. You also didn't say where the raise came from, which could possibly affect the number of callers. Still with 3 or more callers, you should call. With a flop like that, you could have bet it hard all the way through the river and continued to get some action.
Since I pitched in High School and College baseball I have been keeping a book on my opponents. Their tendencies and how I did against them. I would often keep it in the dugout during the game and reference it between innings. Many people overlook this tool. I am a tournament fisherman and also have a book on all my good spots. I even take pictures and put them in there to remind me what it was like when I caught a bunch of good fish. I have been keeping a book on the players where I play for close to 1-1/2 years now. I have accumulated close to 200 pages of styles, tendencies and bad beats. Sometimes It is hard to keep up with, especially after sitting in a 6 hour session and you have seen about 20-25 different players come and go. But at the casino where I play they do not have a problem with keeping a pad and pen on the drink tables and writing notes during the shuffle and when I'm out of a hand. I have been asked several times what I was doing and reply "writing my theses". They kind of look at me like I'm some kind of idiot for doing my homework at the poker table. But it sure helps a lot. My play at the table has improved so much since I started keeping notes. I just wanted to know if any others are using this tool, and if your not you should consider trying it. It sure helps me remember what is what, and who does what!
Walleye
I don't,but it sounds like a good idea. I just don't think I could do it at the table. Since so many hands are of the vanilla variety, perhaps I could sit out a hand after I noticed a certain tendency. Generally, there are only three or four players at the table whose play is good enough for me to need a book against. But it could be valuable against them.
Hi All,
Just a quick question. Has Mason or David had anything to do with Turbo Texas Hold em? I an considering buying a copy, and because I am a beginner I am somewhat concerned about the quality of the advice. If Mason or David haven't had anything to do with it, are there any recommendations?
Regards A.N
We had nothing to do with it.
Alexi:
I have purchased it (along with HE) and have nothing but the praise for it. It is definetly the best on the market in the judgment of the most pros - a superb tool to practice on.
Good luck!
I keep notes on every player. Frequently, I encounter the same players. I note what hands they play from what positions, how often they bluff, what hands they raise on. When I get home I write this information down. I always keep a piece of paper and a pen with me while I'm playing. If something really interesting happens, I'll go to the bathroom and make my notes.
Tell me, Are you a winning player? Does all this work add to your win rate? Is it fun? Does it make you feel like a genius, perhaps Caroish?
Poker is not a job! It's a game!
Opinion by Vince!
Let me be more specific. I kept on losing to the same bunch of guys everytime I played 6-12, 10-20, or 15-30 Hold'em. After reading about fifteen poker books, a few had mentioned keeping a book on players.
So, I started keeping track of the players that beat me and how they did it. When I take a beat for a big pot that I thought I should have won, I go to the restroom, get out my pen and paper and note the following: What hand I held in what position, did I raise or call preflop, did I bet or check on the flop, the turn, or the river. What position and cards did my opponent play from. Did he raise or call preflop, on the flop, the turn, and the river.
When I get home I analyze this information to determine whether or not I was outplayed by my opponent.
I have been doing this for the past 6 months. For the past three months I have been in the black.
What ever works!
Write on!
Vince.
Last night, I run into the bathroom in a casino and found it full of people standing there and writting sth. down on notebooks...
Guess your tip is widely taken... :-)
They were bookies!
Vince
walleye, just a couple of ?s 1) is this a book u right at the table or take a mental note of and write down when u get home? 2) what edge does that give u i mean where i play there are alot of regulars during the wk it was said once by the manger there "these guys have shared the same $100,000 for the last 10 yrs".. they play to gether often and know each well, for me being new to there poker house i need this edge of knowing the little things! If i were to say start taking notes during a hand would that offend them? comments please thanks
I will sometimes keep my book on the drink tray next to me or on the floor. I dont allways bring it in, but it is in the car, If somthing happends that I want to remember I will make a mental note, and write it in the book when I go to the car. Sometimes people ask me what Im doing or writing, I just tell them its my homework or theses. Just so they dont get upset. I will put it away if asked.
Its a nice edge, I use it to recall players and their tendencies.
I would say if you are new to a poker room, I would wacth these games, wacth the players from the rail, this gives you the best opportunity to take notes on certain players.
Good luck Walleye
The situation at the river is that my hand is (TT)/AA46/9 and my lone opponent is showing JQ79 the J and Q are suited.
The action went as follows: On third street I raised and was called. On fourth I bet a double unit and was called. (At this point I'm pretty sure my opponent has a flush draw) I bet on fifth and sixth and was called.
The limit is 30/60 and I don't think my opponent is capable of bluff raising on the river. Do I check or bet on the river.
Would my strategy change if my opponents hand is JQ7Q still with the first two cards suited?
I'm not qualified to give an answer really.
And since we don't know the starting board or the folded cards it's hard to say what we could rule out.
However it's and interesting problem so I thought I'd think out loud on it and we could arrive at a "decision tree".
There's probably a ton of misconceptions in this. But maybe it will get the thread started. So don't laugh to hard at it.
However, Maybe Dave's suggestion to get into the mind of your opponent is what's critical here. You know the What do you think he has, What does he think you have, What does he think you think he has.
So let's try and go through it.
I see 12 situations and I've not come to grips with all of them, but it's a start. Clearly if a board read could've ruled some out the problem is simpler.
The Skeleton :
Case 1. You think your beat a.i he thinks he's beat and he thinks you know
ii he thinks he's beat and he thinks you don't know it. b.i he thinks he's not beat and he thinks you know
ii he thinks he's not beat and he thinks you don't know
Case 2. You think your not beat a.i he thinks he's beat and he thinks you know ii he thinks he's beat and he thinks you don't know it. b.i he thinks he's not beat and he thinks you know ii he thinks he's not beat and he thinks you don't know
Case 3 You're not sure a.i he thinks he's beat and he thinks you know ii he thinks he's beat and he thinks you don't know it. b.i he thinks he's not beat and he thinks you know ii he thinks he's not beat and he thinks you don't know
A lame attempt at filling the Skeleton in :
Case 1. You think he has you really beat.
If you think he has a flush you can't beat then I suspect your goal is to cause him to fold.
So let's ask, "What do you think, he thinks, you have?
a. i. If you believe he thinks he is beat and he thinks you know it, bet to show strength in my opinion, because a check will let him check and see for free and cause him to have to decide to fold or not, putting the pressure on him...hopefully he folds rather than calls or worse yet raises, putting the pressure back on you.
A check raise wouldn't be possible because your assesment here is he's afraid he's beat and he thinks you are aware of it. So he won't bet if you check.
ii. If he thinks he's beat and you don't know it, bet because you've assessed him as not capable of a bluff and he'd think he was if he tried a raise.
b. i. If you believe he thinks he has you beat (and you think he does) and he thinks you know it you might check to find out for free yourself. Risking of course he might bet. If you believe a reraise will change his mind then a reraise is in order. However, checking will allow you to control the raising action and limit it to a crying call at your discretion.
ii. If you believe he thinks he has you beat and you don't know ...
Case 2. You think you have him really beat.
If you believe he missed his flush and you have him beat,your goal is to get the most money in the pot.
So let's ask, "What do you think, he thinks, you have?
a. If he doesn't think you have him beat, and you think he will bet, pull a check raise. You've already assessed he can't bluff raise so you'll get his extra bet.
b. If he thinks you don't have him beat, bet. If you check he'll just check along rather than fold. And then he might have you beat!
Case 3. You're not sure who's got the nuts.
I say a defensive check. This puts you in control of raising. If it's 50/50 then why risk the money?
If something tilts the odds your way bet. Hopefully long run you would make a profit by EV.
Anyway I've run out of steam, maybe us and a few more poker savvy types could finish help fill out the cases.
Poker is the damnest game! :-)
Frank
Can you really go thru all this in 15-20 secs at the table?
Hell No!
But Dave's (Sklansky)stuff says you have to at some points!
He even spends a page or two on an example of this in one of his books. I think it was a game at the Sahara. It's either in 7 Card For Advanced Players or The Theory of Poker. Don't remember which. I gave them both away as gifts at one point.
This is why I keep saying a more concise set of guidlines is required in some of the books!
I've been lambasted for wanting a cook book approach by some in the forum. Now you can see why I want something better.
You might be able to think about it apriori.
I also think you'll know which of the cases you are in most of the time and only need to recognize it.
Frank-
I think what you need to do is post at least one example of a hand for which you think a 'cook book' approach could be employed. You don't have to know what that approach is, just that you think such an approach could be constructed. I've given your posts some serious thought, and I cannot, for the life of me, think of a single situation that arises during a r game that lends itself to a kind of 'algorithm' answer.
In short, tell us what you're looking for, and give some examples (either of hands that have come up in your experience, or hands that you've just imagined).
GD,
Fair question. But realize I'm still in even in my own opinion a crummy player that needs much more table experience. So perhaps time is the answer. Just recently I've begun to try and put myself in the opponets seat and say to myself, "What does he think I have?". I apparently have 1 more level to go according to Dave.
And after trying to use the 2+2 stuff I've read (Theory of Poker, 7 Card Stud for Advanced Players, Poker Essays) to try and answer this simple "possible flush on the end" vrs. two pair problem I'm more convinced than ever that the poker world could use it. Were the texts out there clear this question wouldn't have even hit the forum. So clearly I'm not the only 2+2 reader that hasn't been able to fully apply the stuff. (But I can't apply calculus to well either...I will admit it may mostly be my limitations.)
I had tried to use Dave's psycology stuff to answer this hand and ended up with 12 possible cases! As one other poster asked, "can you do that in 15-20 seconds?" I had to answer "No, but I might study it before hand and apply the answer from memory if I know what case I'm in".
Then I thought about pot odds an the basic poker theorum and decided bet...make the opponent make an EV mistake.
Several others said "check". I'm guessing to get control of raising action.
I'm looking for the mythical "tight aggressive" style they speak of but with specifics (or any other style that works). Which hands to start, how far to play etc. Layed out in an easy to read and remember format. Reading "The Theory of Poker" and trying to devise it seems like reinventing the wheel. I only argue that what really goes on in the mind of a successful pro is not as complex as the book.
In short I want the real "nuts" pure and simple...then with the theory. It's almost a question of presentation.
Pearcy and West try to do this. But everyone here says throw those away. But at least you walk away from them with concrete actionable points.
How about the 2+2 authors describing mathematically or logicaly correct starting hands for starters. Not just describing them but listing them and the conditions under which they are and are not valid to start.
Then how far to play them and under what conditions to fold, bet or raise them.
This would include all the multiple out hands that Dave speaks of in various places.
It would also include how to tell at the table whether it is a great, good, or marginal hand. At table rates of play.
Further it would list any "never do's" and sucker plays.
Additionally it would define how to tell when your too loose, tight, passive, aggressive, and specific adjustments.
Lastly a list of all known board reading points.
Then after listing these points of strategy, describe the underpinnings that make them valid.
And then maybe a part about what the 2+2 authors teach private students.
Seems Dave gives us things to consider but leaves the solutions to the student. Like a math book.
I have to admit a "cookbook" approach is not what I'm looking for. I used that term sarcastically. I don't think that the optimal strategy could be cookbook due to the human factor. But a mathematically correct or at least generally correct foundation is possible to list then explain (for each game). Then the true theoretically interested could indulge in "Theory of Poker".
I'm looking for what everyone seems to call "good solid poker strategy". I see a lot of print about it but never is it defined.
From there it obviously has to adjust for the human element.
Anyway, It's not exactly the answer I think you wanted (Hey tell me what to do with two kings against a pair of aces!). But rather a desire for an enumeration of the answers to all the situations that typically arise and how to decide at table speeds.
Thanks for the effort you've put into the question! :-) Frank
Let me propose a metaphor. I'm going to compare poker strategy to a business negotiation.
If you hired a negotiator to represent you, whether to negotiate a business contract, a lawyer to negotiate a settlement, or anything similar, you would want to hire someone with lots of experience who could elicit valuable information from the other side, give out only the informaiton you wished to the other side, interpret what's behind what the other side is saying/doing, and quickly determine the best way to optimize your result in the negotiation. I don't think that you'd expect this person to apply an algorithm to this situation, it is too full of human factors. However, your negotiator should be aware of many different techniques and styles, how to typically optimally apply those styles, the expected affect of those styles, and most importantly they should know how to judge which style to use at what time. Overall, this good negotiator got where they are with lots of experience, and by learning these techniques one at a time, and then learning, through their experience, when to apply each technique. While they could explain to you why they did what they did each time, they probably could not give you a specific algorithm that they used to make this determination. Their experience guided them to realize that technique X was the best for this spot, and I can ignore certain factors as being of minor relevance, even though they point in another direction.
Poker is the same. You read books like Theory of Poker and others to learn concepts, techniques, styles, and methods of doing things. You learn what to consider, and even pick up some clues about when to consider it. Only experience is going to tell you how to best do this.
As an example, let's say that I give you an algorithm that says to reraise someone who raises first in from the button if you have any pair in the big blind (in HE). But, what if this player is known to only raise, even in this good steal position, with only premium cards. Then you should probably fold your pair of 2s here. However, there is an infinite variety of players, and few are this extreme. How can I give you an algorithm that adjusts for this infinite variety of players? I can't. You need to learn the concepts and tools, and use your experience to quickly (in less than a second, with practice) determine which tool is appropriate, and then use it to arrive at your decision (to fold, in this example).
I don't think that I've written this all that well, so I hope that it's not too confusing. Seeing as I'm just taking a little break while at work, I'm not going to try to edit it.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree with your assessment. Poker is much as you say as I've experienced it.
I guess I was looking for precisely defined tools rather than having to try and re-invent them.
Thanks, Frank
If you hired a negotiator to represent you... you would want to hire someone with lots of experience who could elicit valuable information from the other side"
Wrong, Oh Ancient One! You (I) would want someone that could Win for me! Your best choice is aproven Winner! Johnny Cochrana surely comes to mind in criminal proceedings!
Now is the same true for Poker Material? You certainly want to read material that will help you Win! Consequently isn't material from proven winners more likely to be the best. With ring game play you can never be sure that the author of the material is a winning player! Does anyone really believe that Sklansky and Malmuth and Zee are winning ring game players? Why? Because they say so! How do you know they aren't habitual gamblers that use thier book revenue to support their poker habits?
The answer is that you don't! Nor does it matter! Poker Books, just like books on the best seller list, are usually recommended by someone you know and/or respect. That's how I found out about Sklansky and Malmuth.
My point is that if the TwoPlusTwo authors were New York columnnists and never played a game of poker in their life but had written HPFAP and 7SFAP it would not make any difference to the reader at all. In these books the concepts speak for themselves! One must be able to logically evaluate each concept on it's own merit. Once convinced a concept has value a player can then test it at the table. That's where they will prove the concepts validity and incorporate it into their game.
Don't believe a gambling author's concepts based solely on their reputation! Challenge tham at every opportunity before accepting anything at face value!
O.k. Off the soap box now! Opinion by Vince
I liked this post and wanted to make some comments on it.
"If you hired a negotiator to represent you... you would want to hire someone with lots of experience who could elicit valuable information from the other side"
Wrong, Oh Ancient One! You (I) would want someone that could Win for me! Your best choice is a proven Winner! Johnny Cochrana surely comes to mind in criminal proceedings!"
This may not be correct in poker. Some people have a knack for playing certain specific poker games, yet can't do a good job of explaining what they are doing. I believe that this is particularly true of many of the so called tournament stars. This is why both David and I have been critical of some of the other books on the market.
"Now is the same true for Poker Material? You certainly want to read material that will help you Win! Consequently isn't material from proven winners more likely to be the best. With ring game play you can never be sure that the author of the material is a winning player! Does anyone really believe that Sklansky and Malmuth and Zee are winning ring game players? Why? Because they say so! How do you know they aren't habitual gamblers that use thier book revenue to support their poker habits?"
I want to make a point here. I don't believe that Ray, David, or myself have ever claimed in print that we were big winners. My attitude has always been that I will let the books and our other writings speak for themselves. If we are able to write terricfic books I don't think that it is necessary to go on a publicity campaign, like some poker writers do, as to how well we play.
"The answer is that you don't! Nor does it matter! Poker Books, just like books on the best seller list, are usually recommended by someone you know and/or respect. That's how I found out about Sklansky and Malmuth.
My point is that if the TwoPlusTwo authors were New York columnnists and never played a game of poker in their life but had written HPFAP and 7SFAP it would not make any difference to the reader at all. In these books the concepts speak for themselves! One must be able to logically evaluate each concept on it's own merit. Once convinced a concept has value a player can then test it at the table. That's where they will prove the concepts validity and incorporate it into their game.
Don't believe a gambling author's concepts based solely on their reputation! Challenge tham at every opportunity before accepting anything at face value!"
I strongly agree with all of this. Poker is a game of concepts, and you need to know and understand what concepts are important, what concepts have little importance, and when is the right time to apply these concepts. You should, as a reader and as someone who is striving to get as good as they can at poker challenge the concepts that you read, no matter who writes them. If any of you have read either of my POKER ESSAYS books or my GAMBLING THEORY you will see whole sections where I have challenged other people's concepts. I believe that this is an important part of the process towards winning play.
Mason
"Do I check or bet on the river. "
Tend to Bet! Especially if he is the type that will call with two pair because the pot is big or he has seen you bluff before!
"Would my strategy change if my opponents hand is JQ7Q still with the first two cards suited? "
No! Be even more inclined to bet!
In both cases this guy has got to fear that you may have three aces. He isn't going to raise or bet even if he makes a hand! If he is on a draw and makes it you lose one bet. If he misses he folds. The situations where you make money is when he has two pair and will call to keep you honest. I believe that conventional wisdom says check and call. Try and induce a bluff but I still believe that betting makes more sense. If this guy is a bad enough playere to call you on fourth street with a flush draw after you pair your door card, especially an Ace, he will probably call the river with any two pair. Although, I really don't claim to understand people that play this way especially at 30-60. Of course he may have been rolled up! Who knows!
Gosh, I'm not even sure what I'm saying here!
Vince!
Vince! Yeh that's right that's me!
"He isn't going to raise or bet even if he makes a hand"
I disagree here. A lot of good players who play at 30/60 or higher will raise if they make a flush here. They can put you on three Aces and still know that you are not a favorite to improve on the river.
I'm not saying that I disagree with your strategy of betting this hand.. in fact I usually will bet for the same reasons you mentioned...to get paid off by two pair....and at limits of 15/30 or less most players will just call you down with a flush because they have an irrational fear that you are betting on Aces full.
If I'm playing with a good player who will raise when he hits a flush...I sometimes have trouble laying down Aces Up in this spot.
Again I want to point out this is a thinking out load session. Don't go by me. I don't want you losing on my account but it is an interesting problem.
Another angle to consider is the odds of hitting a flush.
The flush is an underdog to the made hand as it hits only about 48-49% when you have a 4 flush on 4th street.
Betting or raising the opponent makes his pot odds worse so by some of Dave's writting I believe whatever will get as much of the oppents money into the pot at less than the 1.5 to 1 that the flush draw is at would be "correct".
I guess that is why some of the other posters in here say poker is part art. Because you have to read the opponent as well as the card.
I think that conventional wisdom is correct in this situation. If we assume that there is some accuracy in your read (that he was on a flush draw), then there is no reason to believe that he has picked up 2-pair by mistake. Even if he has, he may not call with it. Also, given his board, he may have had a straight draw along with his flush draw. Overall, I think that if you bet you are going to get called by a worse hand just about never, but you will always get called when he's better.
If you check, it's not primarily to induce a bluff. It may induce a bluff, which is good, but the main reason is simply to only lose 1 bet when he has made the flush (or straight).
The chances of getting called by a worse hand here some to be 10% at best. As such, it just isn't worth it.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
(My highly unqualified view:)
The only reason I see to bet the river is the possibility that your opponent will call with a worse 2 pair. In the original situation, & assuming that his first 4 cards were indeed a 4-flush, I agree with FossilMan that the chances of your opponent backing into 2 pair are slim enough that a check is in order.
But if your opponent had a pair showing (e.g., a 6th street Queen pairing the 4th street Queen), then his chances of finishing with 2pair are much greater, so I'd bet.
If you had started with Axx suited, or AKQ or similar, couldn't your betting pattern have been the same as in the game? And if that's the case, your opponent may consider the possibility that you've been betting just a pair of Aces significant enough to call you on the river with Queens up.
Suppose we do check, are you inplying to call if the opponent bets?
I gather that you're strategy is to cause the raising control to fall to ourselves as opposed to the possible flush.
True? Or have I misread?
Seems logical. Perhaps the idea of betting to reduce the potential flush's pot odds is faulty. Though I believe Dave's stuff seems to indicate that in the long run the times you make the play and he doesn't hit will make you a long term winner. (Though I believe the questioner was trying to figure out how to win this particular incidence of this hand.)
On the other hand that argument would also work for a check and call without the risk of having the potential flush raise. So maybe you're on to something.
This isn't an argument. I'm just trying to decide myself. There seems to be arguments on both sides.
Can anyome induce Dave, Mason, or Ray to comment? This is really an interesting point.
Unless you know this opponent well enough to know that he is highly unlikely to be betting without a better hand that yours, you call. How unlikely depends upon the pot size. If there are 8 bets in the pot, he then bets (now 9 bets total), and it's your turn, you call if there's at least a 10% chance that he could be betting a worse hand than yours. Usually, this would be where there's at least a 10% chance that he's bluffing (as he probably isn't betting 2 small pair for value).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Hmm, Ok but I think part of this specific problem was the potential flush holder was second to act. So the original questioner was trying to determine Check v. Bet.
What I'm reading here seems to imply that the oppenent is first to act as you say to call.
Thanks, Frank
No, you're right. The 2-pair has to act first, but should check and then call if the potential flush bets (as long as there is at least some minimum chance that potential flush is not actually a flush, with the exact amount of the minimum chance being determinable from the size of the pot in relationship to the size of the bet).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Ok Gotcha, Your saying the odds the pot offers have to be better than the risk I estimate (subjectively, or by card reading) I'm taking.
I'm still guessing the check is to control the potential raise and/or avoid another bet.
Hmmm, that estimation could be tough. The original questioner providedno information on the other board cards.
I have enjoyed reading all the responses to this thread... much food for thought.
I liked Frank's first response because it gets to the gist of the problem of what to do on the river....getting inside your opponents head.
I thought Fossilman and Vince were also correct in their suggestions.
The was another respondent who addressed very nicely the case where my opponents board was JQxQ about how much more important it was to bet here...and I totally agree on that analysis.
I didn't mention the starting board cards but we can assume that my third street A was live and the opponents suit for his J and Q was also live.
This hand reminded me in a way of the Ultimate Problem thread that David put up the prize for last year which lead to such elaborate analysis.
The whole decision is on the river! This hand virtually plays itself on third, fourth, fifth and sixth street...AUTOPILOT. The decision to check or bet on the river...and subsequent decisions about whether to call or fold are where a players makes or loses his money on this hand.
I'm sorry some of the better high stakes stud players who frequently participate in this forum (Ray Z, Steve Z, Mike Souchack and others) didn't chime in.
I mentioned in my reply to Vince earlier that I sometimes find it hard to lay down Aces Up in this situation if I were raised on the river. When you get this hand at the 75/150 level and higher your have to be aware of players tendancies and how carefully they are watching your tendancies.
For example, I suspect that if I bet this hand at the river and give it up to a raise... I am encouraging any observant player at the table the player to try to bluff me in the future... and at the high limits this can be very costly. When I DO fold this hand to a raise I do everything in my power to convice my opponent. (and for that matter every player at the table) that all I had was one pair of Aces ...I won't show off my pair of tens in the hole. But great players don't fall for that stuff so sometimes you just have to be seen paying off at the river.
On the other hand...I'm afraid Fossilman's suggestion of just checking and calling on the river may be giving up some value... there are a number of good situations where my opponent will just slop into two pair and pay me off. Add this to the probability that many of them who do make a better hand will still not raise because that are afraid of the possibility that I have filled...and as I mentioned in the original post I didn't think this oppponent was capable of a bluff raise on the river...make this river decision more problematic.
Complicated game this 7 card Stud
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
"I am encouraging any observant player at the table the player to try to bluff me in the future"
This is true at the mid limits also and a player would be wise to look for this tendency in an opponent. I can recall numerous instances where obsrvation influenced my play on the river and won an otherwise lost, in some instances very big, pot!
Somehow players have missed Sklansky and Malmuth's recommendation that: "When in doubt on third street, Fold. When in doubt on the River call (paraphrased)" Plus calling is sometimes the best strategic play even if you are 95% sure you are beat!
"Complicated game this 7 card Stud "
A player sometimes complcates the game more than necessry by "over thinking" a situation at the table. It is usually better to go with your first instinct and leave the analysis for when the playing's done! As appears to be the case here. My point here is just a thought for consideration and not criticism in anyway of anyone or anything that was posted here. I must be getting gun shy and feel it necessary to state diclaimers now!
Vince
Has anyone tried the new game "Mambo" in Atlantic City, or elsewhere?
Danny S
I tried it in a home game here in Houston last Thursday. We played 4-4-8 limit with a 1$ ante. We played when our HE game got down to 7 players. The pots averaged 75-125$ and were often scooped. Unlike Omaha Hi Lo there were no quartered pots. All pots were either split or scooped. I cant wait to try it again. Won 250.00 in 2 hours. It is very important to remember that straights beat flushes. You could see the players drawing to flushes with no low possible and losing to a 4-5-6 low scooper.
Randy,
Lou Krieger in Card Player has been writing about this quite a bit lately. I've been busy and haven't had time to read these particular articles but my guess is they should give you a good start.
Regards,
Rick
During the past five years, I have speculated on sports and poker with some success and some failure. Nevertheless, the one constant that I have noticed is this: whenever I have seriously considered the advice of Mason and David in gambling situations, I have usually come out on top. In comparison, when I use my own judgement, I fail. The principles that David and Mason have put together over the past 15 years really work. Is it working for you?
"In comparison, when I use my own judgement, I fail"
This cannot be a good thing! Free yourself!
BTW whose judgement did you use when you decided to follow Sklansky and Malmuth's advice?
Vince
Vince,
With regards to my message "learn from the best" I think Mason's "Gambling Theory" and David's "Getting The Best of It" offer the best advice on bankroll management and general gaming theory.
In the past, I have adventured without getting the "best of it". For instance, not getting that extra point advantage in a sporting event. In poker, not searching for the best games. As in life, gamblers need to see the big picture and often that requires a complete knowledge of "getting the best of it", "gambling theory" and superior judgement/discipline....
By the way, that is the only aspect of the game that Mason and David frequently ignore......human nature is weak and maintaining discipline in gambling situations is much more difficult than the authors suggest...or is it?
Perhaps it has to do with youth...I am in my early twenties and still have an adventurous attitude towards gambling....even if that means OCCASIONALLY gambling without getting the best of it......something that I know is not recommended by the authors. What do you think?
Anthony
"What do you think? "
Since you asked. I think that you should never lose your: "adventurous attitude towards gambling". How do you think old foggies like Malmuth and Sklansky gathered all the knowledge they generously share with us in their books!
My comments related to judgement were meant in a positive way (believe it or not). Certainly the title of the post is correct: Learn from the best" But though you may learn from them rely soley on your own judgement! For in the end you must live with your decisions!
Keep on thinking!
Vince
BTW "even if that means OCCASIONALLY gambling without getting the best of it.."
Been there done that! (Still do, thank you very much!)
To be honest Anthony I've read a lot of Dave's stuff and have yet to isolate a working set of principles for use at the table. He's written so much. SOmetimes I end up with analysis paralysis and still don't know the right move.
But I can see how it goes that way. Poker looks simple, but in trying to thrash through one 7-card question with another poster in this forum it ended up being a minimum of 12 possible cases + a question of pot odds. There are tons of "ifs".
Mason's Stuff has a more readable style for me. But I've read less of it because when I was last stocking up on books Dave's stuff seemed targeted at my game. (Seven Card Stud for andvanced players, Theory of Poker.) Granted "Advanced" has 3 authors.
Actually I'd like to hear your success stories and what principles applied from Dave and Mason's stuff. I don't get the study time I'd like always for this pursuit so maybe you are seeing things I'm not.
I see a lot of study ahead to master this thing.
Frank
As far as guidelines and principles of hold'em go, there is no doubt that these men are the bona fide experts on this game. However, you have to be careful not to follow their system too exactly. Even they warn that their strategy is only a guideline and must be altered by other factors to produce wins in the long term. I find that some of their guidelines for late position play may be too liberal for me but I'm learning to make those adjustments.
Well Said,
Unfortunatly I'm a stud player and a lot of the HE stuf goes right by me. I'm pretty new at the game all together.
Eventually I will have to try to master HE also.
For now I'm on stud primarily becaue I believe that for me the fact that up cards are assigned to someone helps me determine what to do. Also there are more of them out.
The community card structure if HE is a little foriegn to me and almost seems like it would cause the game to take on elements of draw in terms of reading opponents.
I've read stud is extremely complex. Perhaps I picked the wrong game to start on?
Let me know what you think.
Thanks, Frank
"I've read stud is extremely complex. Perhaps I picked the wrong game to start on?"
I believe you picked the perfect casino poker game to begin with! If you began with Hold'em and mastered it you would, in my opinion, never be able to master stud. There are reasons I believe this: 1) Even though Holdem appears simple it is in fact very complex. Evidence this by the number of varying responses to the same question right here on this forum. Consequently Holdem is very difficult to master. 2) Holdem is fast paced. 3) Holdem Gives the appearance of action. There are other reasons but these examlples emphasise the fact that Holdem has all the necessary ingredients that make a great GAMBLING game. It can make your blood boil and really get the adreniline flowing.
7 Stud is also a complex game but as Malmuth and Sklansky point out once you understand the situation there is usually only one way to proceed. 7 Stud is slow paced. One author correctly dubbed it "The Waiting Game". Stud requires more time at the table learning the correct application of poker tactics before you can play it well let alone master it! The large luck factor causes a great deal of frustration. Frustration that would cause a Holdem player to think twice before trying to master the game. Stud is a very disciplined game.
My point of all this is that by learning 7 Stud first one is learning the game of poker the way it should be played. It requires more disipline and patience to play correctly. Holdem drives men to drink! The fact that Holdem is very action packed alone would drive one away from trying to learn stud after mastering Holdem.
BTW, Merle, I also believe that once you master Holdem your Stud days are numbered! It becomes a game to play occaisionally for a change of pace!
Opinion by Vince
Vince,
So are you call Hold Em a great "gambling" game yet say Stud has a large luck factor.
So which one is more of a gambling game? Meaning harder to use skill to win.
I'm guessing stud as the 2+2 authors point out it has a typically higher std. dev. and that hold em has no progressive ante. They often point this out while saying it is why stud games often are spread to higher limits.
I've heard that Hold em, once you know the tactics is the easier of the two to win over lesser skilled opponents, causing me to conclude stud if the harder of the two to master.
Which is what led me to wonder if Hold Em isn't the better place to be.
Comments?
I said:
"Holdem has all the necessary ingredients that make a great GAMBLING game"
This is because it is action packed and fast paced not because of the "luck factor". Similiar "ingredients" to those that make craps a GAMBLING game.
"So which one is more of a gambling game? Meaning harder to use skill to win. "
My opinion (my experience is at the low and medium limits upto 20-40 Stud and Holdem) is that it is a toss up when playing against players of equal skill in the either game. If you play against "good" Holdem players you will find it just as hard to win as it is against "good" stud players. My experience leads me to believe there are not as many "good' Holdem players as there are stud players. Plus stud's larger luck factor makes the game more frustrating for the expert player. So in my opinion to win at either game you must effectively apply all the poker skills you need but it is easier at the Hold'em table. Keep in mind that you find a lot more GAMBLERS at the Hold'em table because of the "GAMBLING Ingredients" I have alluded to.
"causing me to conclude stud if the harder of the two to master. Which is what led me to wonder if Hold Em isn't the better place to be."
I'm not sure which is the most difficult to master. I recommend that Stud be LEARNED first. The reasons for this I outlined in my original post. I belive both should be mastered along with Omaha and other popular Casino Poker games. I also believe that once masterd Hold'em will become the game of choice for the vast majority of poke players.
Vince
I would continue to read and study as much as you can. There is no question that Dave's and Masons writings are some of the best on the market. But i'm sure that they would tell you nothing they write doesn't have an exception. Also, by reading/studying and getting a lot of playing experience you will acquire the necessary tools you need to better your judgement. Good Luck
A book I would like to see, and I doubt I ever will, would be called "How to sit at a new table and decipher all your opponents habits and read all their hands in the first five minutes". I think perhaps David and Mason and others would consider a book of that type would be giving away too much, but I would pay a hefty sum for it.
Kevin
This winter I played with alot of the same people and I knew how they played before I sat down. It was very profitable. Some fish stay in the pond.
My game has improved geometricly with thier advice.
What do you have to say about this book by Mike Petrin? Can you recommend some book about Texas Hold'em odds? Thank you for any advices.
It is correct in defining Holdem Hands odds! I don't believe it will help someone's game very much! You just need an approximation of odds (pot size vs chances of making your hand) to win at poker. Other skills are more important. The Slansky and Malmuth series of books are the most valuable tools a poker player can have!
Vince
In an earlier post, Mason mentioned he liked it. I've started it and, though I don't mind it, I agree with Vince, it's not necesaary to advance your game. However, if you liked 3rd year Stats in college, hang out at the "Mathematics" section of your local bookstore, or need a cure for insomnia, it could be the book for you.
Kevin
I sat in a omaha tourny yesterday,$20 buy in $15 rebuys, start with T500 i looked across the table too see that only 2 of the players were regular omaha players some were HE and a few 7card stud, as the button was moved to each player before it got to me i notice a player that i had never seen do well he was once called "fish" cause he could not win. as i watch the other players i noticed there chips were going down and down, me still at full stack,but as the game moved on to the $50/$100 this so called fish was in the lead as far as stack size, now i played a heads up hand with him. he over powered his hand in the beginning everyone else folded! so as i hold a Ad 3d 4s As i reraised, so now all i can hope for is too plit the pot if he is on a hi hand? or was he? heres the flopp Ah Ks 7d well he bet i reraised. he reraised? ok i stoped for a min, my guess he's on nut low 2 3 or 2 4 or mayby astr8 draw,so i called. the turn was the 4d he bet? what should i have done i thought about it for a min. i called. the river is a 7h, now i got lucky i thought! he bet i went all in, i was shocked when he turned his hand over first he laid down, a pr of kings then he laid down 2 3 nut lo ... geez could this guy make a mistake,, no. he ended up finish first at our table and moved into the winner table well the luck went on, he played his SB & BB raised his 3rd hand and went on too win 4 hands in a row 3 scooper and 1 split pot. this guy ended up winning the tourny with his last hand being aces full of 3 and a 2 4 for nut lo,,, has any one ever seen a player with that much going for him, what kind of edge is there to try to beat such a player?
How do you best protect yourself when your up against trips on the flop? The game is very loose passive, so the trips are not betting for value (is that the correct term?). Do you have to just see it to the river if you hold second best hand? Any advice would be appreciated.
I'm not sure how you could tell you're up against trips, but...staying depends on the pot odds vs chances of drawing a card that will beat the trips, taking into account chances of opponent improving to full house or quads. This assumes you're head up (no one else has a chance to catch up). I'm a novice but this is what I have gleaned from reading the books by M&S.
Sorry I was not more specific. I meant a hidden pair that you do not know about. Example would be AK7 rainbow where I hold AK and somebody is in with 77. I don't know this because of he is not betting is hand correctly so I find out on the river. (Play is usually multi-handed in loose game).
This game often comes up in home games. It's very simple yet most players play it very badly. Does anyone know of a counting system for this game? Normally, you only bet if the difference in the ranks of the cards is nine or greater. However, there must be some counting systems that refine this estimate.
There may be variants in the rules, so I will summarize the version that I have seen. Each player antes. Two cards are dealt face up. The player to the dealer's left may bet an amount up to the pot size that the next card in the deck is in between the two cards dealt; he may bet 0. If he does bet and the next card is in between the first two cards, then he is paid from the pot. If the next card is equal in rank to one of the first two cards, then he loses double his bet. Otherwise he loses his bet. The bettor's losses are added to the pot. If the first player did not scoop the pot, then the next player to the left has two new cards dealt up for him, and the process is repeated in turn around the table until someone scoops the pot. The cards are dealt without replacement until the deck runs out, then it is reshuffled.
I've known this game as "In-Between".
Personally, I hate this game. It takes away the advantage of a better player using poker skills over a lesser player. It often takes too long (wasting valuable poker playing time). It is often boring unless the pot starts getting very large, after a number of players have "hit the post", ie. payed double their bet. Then what happens (and I've seen this often) a friendly home game gets ugly when one player is down a bunch and wants to bring out his check book to get the pot (and his money back) for $300, then he hits the post, this after you've been playing $2 max bets poker. The game can easily bust someone in 20 minutes, who would rather play all night, all for the "excitement" of watching the pot get large.
My strategy when I'm stuck playing, count all the cards until I'm sure I can't post, and have a better than 50% chance to take the pot. If the pot is large, I will alter my bet based on what I have for the night to play (no sense busting out at 8 pm). The caveat to this is any A23 with QKA, I will likely bet even if I might post.
Usually, however, I'm too bored to count and end up passing until the game is over.
Kevin
Another name for this is Acey Ducey.
Steve,
I've been spending an enjoyable night catching up with what is on the forum and reading the great posts contained within after a couple of weeks of not having time or access to my computer to participate. Anyway, the title of your post caught my eye.
Years ago, when I played in mostly social small stakes home games with friends and such, one guy would consistantly call this game. It seemed the results of this game would often overwhelm the results of how you did at poker. It just didn't seem fair and I always wanted this game excluded from the rotation, since an occasional big loss would often generate hard feelings.
A much better use of "between the sheets" is to add this phrase to the message contained in almost any fortune cookie. It makes it a lot more fun.
I'm on my second glass of wine so I'll refrain from providing any counting advice.
Regards,
Rick
This hand came up yesterday playing HE the betting and players in i feel is not an issue here so i will just tell u the hand the flop is A 6 6 the turn 6 river 6. now there is 4 players in at the end of the river, no one held a A or pr high card being K , what is the real ruleing here? the way it was only 3 players had oppinions and all 3 were differant? any one with a theary or ruleing?
Board plays, 4 way split
Walleye
The board plays, no matter what the opponents hold... Even someone holding AA can not improve the 6666A board.
K-Q off suit, one to the right of the button. First player calls, second player raises, two other callers, I call, button folds, first player calls - five players. Question one: should I have raised? Flop comes 3-7-10 offsuit. First players check, original raiser bets, fold, call, I call, first position calls. Question two: should I have raised? Turn comes queen (there are now two spades). Check, bet, raise. Question three: what do I do? Thanks,
Well im still new to poker but I would like to take a crack at this one. I think this play depends on who the pre-flop raiser is. If it is someone who would raise with any two cards that look remotely alike then I would three bet because of my position and to thin out the field. If it is a person who only raises with premium hands then I would fold. If I'm not sure then I would fold anyways because KQo comes in second alot of times.
Flop coomes 3-7-10 rainbow. I think you can only do one of two things. Raise to hopefully get a free cards and catch top pair or fold and wait for the next hand. I would probably fold because drawing dead really sucks.
Turn comes the Q. If it was bet and called to me I would definately raise and show down the river. If I'm three betted I would fold. Since there was a bet and a raise before it got to you a fold is easy. You are probably looking at two pairs or maybe even a set. Even if the turn raiser might be raising on the come you still might not have the pre-flop raiser beat. Again, drawing dead really sucks.
So how did I do?
TB
You probably should have folded before the flop. If the first player was a reasonable player, then you should give his under-the-gun raise some respect.
Calling on the flop with two overcards is marginal. At this point, you're really hoping that the original raiser had a medium pocket pair like JJ. Anything else ties up your outs and has you dominated. If he had AK, you're drawing to 3 queens, and he can't re-draw on the river. Pretty weak situation to be in. The presence of the 10 on the flop improves your draw a bit, because you can hit a runner-runner straight.
Interesting situation. I'll be interested to read the other responses. My take:
Question 1: No, in my opinion. Assuming the raiser is of the tight variety. Early position raise more often than not means strength, and very likely a hand that has you notched and maybe one that has you dominated.
Question 2: Maybe, but probably not, in my opinion. In some games, the raise could give you a number of advantages and options: 1) you may find out if the raiser has overpair, in which case you could muck it 2) if you raise and get multiple callers, you can take your free card 3) if you succeed in thinning the field, you've both helped yourself and set yourself up to steal from an AK raiser. The reason I add the "probably not" is that the game you're describing sounds like it is of the no-fold-em variety: the benefits to be had from raising with a drawing hand fall if your opponents will call you down with any part of the board.
Question 3: That's a toughie. You can make a strong argument for tipping your hat to the new raiser and getting out: you could very well be in 3rd place. But this pot is pretty big and he might just have hit the queen. I think you can call if the original raiser is the type of player that would continue a bluff with AK. In this case you're likely to be ahead of the original raiser and may have odds to call the two bets. That's a tricky proposition, though.
What happened?
Question one: should I have raised?
No.
Question two: should I have raised?
No.
Question three: what do I do? What you should have done on the flop. Fold!
Vince.
It's a multiway pot, and you're hand may already be dominated. I'd fold pre-flop, unless I knew the raiser was the kind of guy who'd pop it here with something like JQ or a pair of nines, in which case I'd suck it up and bump it again. As for the flop-- if you're going to stick around, the 'free card' raise sems like you're best move.
In all of the above replies to the original post, I am somewhat surprised to see that no one asked the following questins before attempting to evaluate the play:
1. What kind of game did you happen to be playing: small, medium, or large stake? 2. Was it a loose, tight, loose aggressive,loose passive, etc. 3. Characterize the players in the hand in order for me to to evaluate your playing response. 4. Were you on a rush at the moment, or have you been experiencing solid winning session?
To properly reply to the player's questions, one hardly has enough information to do it justice. I am convinced that not every hand analysis fits every playing situation, the type of the game, and/or the profile of the players in action. Consequently, for a responsible and learned poker player (of which I am, perhaps, neither one),to properly respond to your questions, I think one should simply reply "I don't have enough information to properly analyze your play." But I can give you a bunch of speculations subject to a number of conditions/presumptions. And this might be a sort of a lesson to most of us when posting a message: The quality (i.e., the specificity) of the questions asked will necessarily determine the (educational) value of the answers/replies we'll likely to receive. In a nushell, the detailed situational information does matter if one places value and expects a sound feedback.
Royal flashes ....
Here's an interesting hand from last night's 20-40 HE game at the Mohegan Sun. The game is pretty good, with a couple of pretty good players, but mostly loose and weak to very weak players.
Very Nice Man is politely going on tilt. He straddles for 40 UTG, which is the first straddle I've ever seen since moving to Connecticut. Thus, while I know how many straddlers play their straddle back in California, I'm not too sure what this guy might do. It is called in 3 places, no further raise, and I hesitantly call on the button with QhTh. I feel that this is probably a mistake, albeit not a big one.
The main problem with playing this hand is that if the flop comes with 1-pair for you, it is going to be hard to know if your hand is any good, and whether you've got all 5 outs that you need to catch up if you're not currently the best hand. Kicker problems abound. Also, if you flop 2-pair, you're almost certainly against 1 or more straight draws, and someone is probably drawing to a better 2-pair. However, the pot is going to be big enough to chase, so the real question is will you make a marginal profit long-run, or take a marginal loss?
The other big issue is, what is the straddler going to do? If he's like some straddlers, he's going to raise when it gets back to him no matter what (unless it's already capped). If that's the case, then I'm investing 3 bets preflop, which cuts down considerably on my implied odds. What finally got me to call was the thought that no one appeared to have a top hand, as they had only limped in and had not raised. Usually, there is at least 1 guy who'll try to 3-bet right away with any decent hand, hoping to get heads-up with the straddler's random 2 cards. Since no one raised, I'm sure that I'm not up against anything as good as JJ or higher, AK, AQ, KQ, etc. (although a hand like QJ or KT might be limping in, which will really hurt me).
Small blind folds, big blind calls, and straddler does raise to 60, and 6 of his see the flop with a 370 pot. Flop is AsKs6h. Straddler bets first, is called twice, and player to my right, a very loose and sometimes overly aggressive player raises. There are 23 bets in the pot, and it costs me 2 to call for a gutshot straight. There are likely to be at least 3 more bets put in the pot behind me, but the straddler might raise again, forcing me to pay 3 bets. I decide that overall I'm likely to be getting somewhere between 10:1 and 13:1, depending upon what occurs behind me. While this is marginal (11:1 against hitting a J on the turn, 15:1 if you don't count the Js), given the implied odds of how many big bets I'll gather if a J does come, I decide that this is a slightly profitable play. Big blind folds, straddler does raise, and everyone else calls. 33.5 small bets, or almost 17 big bets, in the pot.
Turn is 3h. What a great card. Only a J would be better. I now have up to 9 outs for the flush, plus 2 Jacks (plus maybe the Js). The flush might lose to the A or K high, but no particular reason to believe that those hands are out. Straddler bets out, and is called by 2 players (one fold), and I call. 21 big bets.
River is great, the 8h, and I collect big bets from the 2 previous raisers after they both check to me, and scoop in a pot holding about 1K.
While I think that I made some mistakes, I think they weren't big ones. However, I'm not too used to scooping a monster pot holding a cheesy hand like QT, so I'd like to hear any reasons why I made a significant error.
If nothing else, I think that it's an interesting story.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The only mistake you made was not factoring the flush draw into your caluculs on the flop. Straddled pots are ALWAYS won by runner-runner draws.
Seriously, this hand illustrates the value of suited hands in no-fold em style pots, which can be created at higher limits when there is a straddle and several "loose" calls before the flop.
Greg-What exactly is a straddle since I have never seen it on the east coast.
An 2*SB placed UTG before the hole cards are dealt. It acts live. I believe I saw a restraddle one time in AJs (bay area) but was somewhat stunned at the overall environment and wasn't sure.
A straddle is a voluntary blind raise before the cards are dealt. For example, in the 20-40 game described, the regular blinds are 10 and 20. If he chooses, the person next to act may put out 40 before the cards are dealt. This works just like a blind, in that if no one has already raised, the straddler may raise after the big blind acts. This is something that is not very common, but is used by true gamblers to build a big pot, in the hopes of winning said pot and making up their substantial losses for the night. It is also used by pot-limit and no-limit players in a more intelligent manner (though often for the same stupid reason). The intelligent reason is that it will buy you last action before the flop, and if the money is really deep, you can maneuver the size of the pot with a strategic raise here. Of course, the question is whether the advantage gained by last action is worth the price of a double sized blind.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan) "2-time straddler in pot-limit, because I had to fold the second hand preflop"
I guess I don't understand why you wouldn't raise preflop. Its a raise or fold situation. Six players, nobody raising the Straddle and your going to call? Your anouncing that you have a peice of cheese. Played with a raise, you would get the turn for 20 and the river for free or have a chance at the pot right there. Ak on the flop would surely be checked to you at which point you would purchase the river for a measly 20. Checked all the way around on the turn, you could determine whether you had a shot at the pot with only a bet, poet and didn't know it. Have a great day at the felt. Bob
I disagree. While the things you point out are true about seeing the later streets more cheaply if I raise preflop, with this hand most flops are going to miss me and I won't be able to utilize the tools you describe. That being the case, why spend an extra $20 preflop. These tools are only going to save me $20 or $40, even when I can use them. If I don't want them at least half or more of the time, then what's the point of spending $20 to buy them? I think that your strategy does buy something of value, but that you're spending too much to buy it.
Also, this pot is going to be so big, that I'm not going to buy it on the turn or river no matter what I do. The best hand is going to be there on the river almost all of the time. If I flop 2nd pair, I'm not going to drive out top pair (maybe 2-3% of the time I'll be able to, but not often).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Precisely. It's the runner-runner flush that changes the marginal call on the flop to an easy one. Be embarrassed no longer!
-Oz-
I didn't overlook it, I just didn't discuss it in my post. It does add about a 5% chance of winning, which is not insubstantial compared to my approximate 15% chance of catching a J on the turn or river. Where it has a really big affect is on a real weak draw in a monster pot, in which case the addition of a runner-runner flush may double your chances of winning.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Actually, there is a synergistic effect between the two draws that I've commented about on rec.gambling.poker. If you assume that any Jack is good, the chance of catching a Jack by the river is 16.5%, and the chance of catching a runner-runner flush that doesn't include the Jh is 3.3% (if I've done the calculation right). But that assumes that you will always see the river, which doesn't necessarily hold if straddler and aggressive guy are still going after each other on the turn if a blank comes. The runner-runner heart flush adds to your chance of catching the *straight*, by giving you odds to stick around through a raise barrage if a heart comes on the turn. That's the synergistic effect: it adds xh-J to your outs for the straight, instead of just the turn J if the QT were unsuited. So the runner-runner adds more than just the chance of a flush to your chance of winning. The actual computation is somewhat more involved than this (Js - xs is very unlikely to be good, the board might pair when you make the flush, etc.), but the general principle holds.
I would have played it exactly the same, and I agree with the others that the presence of the backdoor flush draw is very important to this call. Nice pot!
You played it wrong and got lucky, that's poker.
I'd be VERY interested to hear just what you would have done differently.
Either fold or raise (3 bet) the flop, depending on what felt right. Let's face it, pot odds are important, no doubt, but cold calling 2 bets on the flop for a gutshot THAT MIGHT NOT HOLD UP (2 spades on the board, although probably no wired pairs) is never a goog idea IMO. Go for deception here if you're going to play the hand. Based on what was written about the hand, however, I fold here. The competition looks weak, I'd rather lead than chase. Get em later.
Greg,
that hand sir took down a huge pot, i agree dont be ashamed, a hand that was played last night i was ashamed it fits both this and the worst fold threads, the 20/40 game where i play attract many players but last night was a great night for what the players call "LUNCH" they come there with there wifes get bored and want to kill soem time so they think poker would be a great start,, they have no clue,... well heres the hand,, im in hte BB its a capped preflop i limp in with a pr8s now the flop is this 3 3 8 now as i look around while the SB lookes things over i notice one of the lunch players getting wiggly, too me i just flopped the nuts as far as i can tell!the SB checks i bet fold, fold the "lunch" raises, fold call call SB fold so now what? if he was as lucky as i think he just got hes holding case 3s.. or a 3 with what it didnt matter, i was paying this guy off tho see it! well the turn is another 3 i checked ,lunch bets fold and the late player raises? i mucked my 8s full and watched as i was replaying what just happened.. well the river "heads up now" is raised back and forth till its capped!!!! whos got the 3? niether one lunch turns over a pr 2s and the other a pr 4s where was the justice in that hand .. well comments please on the the worst mucked hand ive had yet?
Are you nuts? If someone caught a one out draw on me, I'm paying it off. I might be accused of getting married to top full house on the flop, but I'm sorry, I'm just gonna have to see quads to believe I have a loser. There just aren't that many times you are going to see the 3 if the rest are on the board in hold em. And I have been shown the nuts plenty of times, but until you or I develop the ability to know for certain when a monster like top full is beat in hold em, I think you have to pay it off. Just my opinion. eric
I would like to know one thing: How in the world can you do all that thinking during the play of a hand?
"I'm not too sure what this guy might do"
"I hesitantly call on the button with QhTh. I feel that this is probably a mistake, albeit not a big one."
"The other big issue is, what is the straddler going to do?"
"There are 23 bets in the pot,... There are likely to be at least 3 more bets put in the pot behind me, but the straddler might raise again, forcing me to pay 3 bets. I decide that overall I'm likely to be getting somewhere between 10:1 and 13:1, depending upon what occurs behind me"
"I now have up to 9 outs for the flush, plus 2 Jacks (plus maybe the Js)."
"The flush might lose to the A or K high, but no particular reason to believe that those hands are out."
"While I think that I made some mistakes,"
Yeh you mada A mistake, you though too much! Man I know poker is hard but this seems like a ridiculous amount of thought to apply to a hand during play! There appears to be the presence of paranoia in the thinker!
Opinion by Vince BTW, Nice pot!
I have to disagree with you here Vince. As for the numbers, I do those almost by second nature. I used to count BJ, and can track the number of bets in the pot without even being aware I'm doing it (this took practice, but now is subconscious almost). Calculating the pot odds is a conscious effort, but a minor one. You see the same situations so often that the only real thinking involves determining which outs you can count and which you shouldn't because they're not really outs (such as the Js in my example).
While I'm always thinking of how I might lose (the higher flushes in my example), clearly I'm also thinking about how I might win (the flush cards and the jacks). I certainly don't think I'm being paranoid, and I'm certainly not afraid to go multiple bets without the nuts when I have reason to believe that my opponent has a lesser hand.
In summary, I certainly don't plan to do less thinking at the table. If you're not constantly focussed on the game during a hand, you're going to miss valuable insight that will help you on that, and future, hands. While I don't disparage anyone's right to play poker any way they wish (it's their money), I believe that you need to be considering all possible factors (and giving each it's appropriate weight) in order to maximize your profit.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"I believe that you need to be considering all possible factors (and giving each it's appropriate weight)"
When you're right, You're Right! Oh! Ancient One! (Fossil Man)
Vince
Well, for what it's worth I think you played it great. But I don't understand why so many people loathe QTs. IMO this is often a GREAT hand, since any flop that gives you a straight draw is bound to have hit (and usually hit hard) at least one other person, thereby giving you incredible pot odds. Plus, if the flop comes ten high, your kicker is usually good. True, people who can't get away from e flop probably shouldn't play this hand much (if at all), but since you're obviously not from this school I think the pre-flop call is a no brainer. When the tilting straddler popped it I'd think you'd be salivating, since if the flop hits you fairly hard you're in a wonderful position. If the flop is raggedy (something like eight high) with even one heart, you've got a great chance to bet on the flop, get raised by the straddler, and narrow this thing down in a hand where you've 'probably' got a 2 1/2 to 1 chance or so of winning it (overcards, I think, would have a tough time calling two bets cold on the flop since the straddler could already have them beat). In short, I don't think there's anything embarrassing about this at all. Great hand!
If your only outs are three offsuit jacks and a runner runner flush draw, I'm not sure I can justify a call on the flop. Does it really seem like you are getting proper pot odds to make it a profitable play over time? I think on the turn you have to call, but it is unprofitable to call on flop. (On the turn you are certainly committed with a big hand.) There are people on this forum who have the ability to calculate the exact numbers. 15% winners for the gut shot and 5% for the r-r flush seem a little high, but I'm not one of those people. As far as getting lucky goes, if I felt ashamed of it, I couldn't go on playing poker! Besides, don't you ever get beat by longshot hands? So you got lucky this one, single time. I hope you make a fortune that way. Thanks for the post, eric
Greg,
Don't be embarrassed. I think you did great. Some posters wrote that you were lucky on this hand but I disagree. You were not lucky, you were skilful! That's two different things.
Maybe the flop is the most interesting part of this hand. Three jacks will give you the nuts for the moment and the back door flush draw + Js can be counted as one more out. So the odds is 11 to 1 that you will hit your hand.
When you act there are about 23 sb in the pot and you have to pay 2 sb to call = 11.5 to 1 for the moment.
If nobody raises behind you, then you clearly have the correct odds to call, considering the players behind you who will call the raise. But I would like to say that even if you KNEW that the straddler would raise, your call would have been correct anyway. Some of the players who have already put 1 or 2 sb in the pot will probably call this raise, so I estimate that you will get about 9-10 to 1 even if the straddler raises (and you have to call 3 sb).
As I said earlier the odds is about 11 to 1 to hit your hand and if the straddler raises you'll probably get about 9-10 to 1 in pot odds + the implied odds. I think your call was clearly correct.
It's not right to call you lucky, because in the long run this play will be a winner.
Sincerely,
Emil
What's "Kill" in kill HE? Thanks for your help.
That's when the pot exceeds a certain size, causing the limits for the next hand to go up. I played in a 3-6 HE game with a kill - whenever the pot exceeded $50 the next hand was played at 5-10.
Kate; In our k'sin-o! winning two in a row means you have to post double the previous big blind and the limits double.
Thanks Kate - I appreciate your answer.
Seriously, I would love to know if anyone here won money last year (if you didn't keep records and are not sure umm... you probably lost). Hell, I lost last year. This "poll" isn't so much about your ability (or luck, maybe) as it is regarding the rake. You guys know your shit and are probably solid, but let's remember that when 9 3-6 players sit down with $200.00 a piece and play 35 hands per hour for 6 hours with a rake of $3.00 per hand (standard in CA with no jackpots or "bonanzas", which I won't even get into) at the end of the session the house has $630.00. That's over ONE THIRD of the total buy in!! KInda tough to make a profit here don't ya think. Please, please prove me wrong; I love this game!
I won money last year. I was up overall at all limits, 3-6, 4-8, 5-10, 10-20, 15-30. I personally know a dozen guys who can say the same thing.
Hope this helps your confidence!
For the year:
Net win at stud Net win at hold-em Net loss at Omaha Net win in satellites Net win in supers Net win in minor tournaments Net loss in major tournaments
My advice: it's more profitable to stay in your niche, but more rewarding to expand your game. Enjoy the ride.
Don't worry about the rake. The losers pay it.
That's not true ...... EVERYBODY PAYS for the rake .....winners and losers ...
David
the losers are paying you and you're paying the rake with their money. aren't they paying the rake ?
For a different perspective, since you are going to win the losers' money in the end, then you could say that they are playing with YOUR money. Of course, that's not any more true than what you said.
Once I've won the money, it's MY money. I can't pay the rake with someone else's money, any more than I can buy groceries with someone else's money.
how do you figure? everyone pays the rake.
The CA game the orignal poster mentioned is probably a collection not a pot percentage.
Yes, its kinda hard: you need to be much better than average to win. Yes, low limits can be .. err .. are routinely beat. But it is a rare game when more than 2 players are truely favorites (5/10 and below).
For a RAKEd game: 35 hands/hour and 9 players = 3.9 hands/hour on average. But if you are reasonably conservative you may win about 2 hands per hour; (2hands/hour)*($3/hand)*(6hours) = $36 of YOUR cost; well below the $70 average cost (not counting tips, coffee, and a fruit dish).
The relatively high RAKE collection in low limits makes otherwise marginal hands at a TIME collection table noticable losers; meaning play even tighter.
Note that the silly California "rake the ante" system does make everybody pay the same amout of rake, but not tokes and coffee.
Try playing less hands, and betting many more iffy hands than you are otherwise inclinded to do. If you think you are a 2:1 dog to win but are getting 4:1 for your bet; that's a GREAT bet. This applies well to flopped flush draws, but also to most EVERY hand that is good enough to get to the river (e.g. if your jacks with a queen is good enough to call, then it is probably good enough to raise). Its OK to lose MOST of the hands you bet or raise in these loose games.
- Louie
Most of the posters here don't play 3-6 most of the time. If I am incorrect here let me know - I just stating my unscientific gut-shot survey.
I'll tell you the same thing I told the IRS...I lost a lot of money playing poker last year...and the year before...and the year before...etc
Damn right the rake will cause you to lose money. You should endeavor to play well enough to beat, a reasonable rake, which is $2.50 to $3.00 max. per hand. However, when you get up to 10% to max. $5.00, and are a player of limited skills, you will not win. A break-even player cannot overcome a 10% to max. $5.00 rake. Of course, I am considering a player, who plays three or four days a week. If you have been losing, figure out how much of that money, was what you paid to play the game. You may not be playing that badly. Bottom line is that whatever you are trying to earn, you must subtract, what you are paying the house to play.
Don't forget the tokes. My experience at the various low limits is that players tip the dealer a far greater percentage then at the medium limits. I have even seen players in 5-10 split games tip a dollar for pots that are split multi-ways.
Dan is the Man!! I recently donated to Dan in the 10-20 at Argyl. The more posts you put up Dan, the more I'm going to learn about your game. LOL-so keep posting messages so I can get my money back.haha
Uh, thanks, Ron. You're the third guy I play with who's said he's reading my stuff. I may have to re-think some of my posts... (-:
Dan, don't stop posting because of this (although using initials instead of your name may have been a better idea).
Just a little tip from 'skp'.
Late night musings re: the ol' 67s.....
Lately I've heard a number of players (both here and elsewhere) maintain that suited connectors are playable pre-flop from early position in a loose-passive game. While I agree that this is indeed the case in 3-6-12 and 1-4-8-8 games (generally) I wonder if its true in structured limits. My concern (if you want to call it that) centers around just where the equity lies with these kinds of hands. Naturally what you're hoping for is a big draw; but how much of your equity comes from being able to 'steal' a pot on the flop from late position with mid/low pair? I don't have any figures, but the anecdotal evidence would suggest (at least to me) that these moves alone account for a large percentage of the suited conncetors profitability. Obviously one can't steal like this in early position, and the fact that many players in loose-passive games will play virtually any paint regardless of their kicker makes betting with mid-pair in early position that much more dubious.
True, there are times when you do flop a big draw, someone to your left bets out, and you can check raise, therefore building a monstrous pot. Given this, it seems that playing suited connectors in early position in a loose passive game when there's an aggresive player to your left makes real sense. But on an 'ordinary' night, I wonder if this practice isn't -EV.
I think it all comes down to just where the equity is in suited connectors, and how one can maximize it, since I don't 'think' that big draws alone can make suited connectors profitable. But I certainly could be wrong.
Any comments/criticism welcome.
I too am a fan of suited connectors in loose-passive limit games. One of my leaks, playing them against a tight and/or aggressive line up.
I find a lot of equity comes from playing odds correctly, cover for your paint and opportunities to steal on the turn and river. 67s gets into many situations of calculating pot odds, and hits those low rag flops when paint doesn't and in early position, the best position to steal on the turn or river with nothing.
Hope I'm never dead,
Albert
Right- only in a loose-passive game, there's no guarantee that there's nothing but paint behind you; the most raggedy flop could have hit someone VERY hard, thereby ruining your steal attempt.
What is the play here?
At my table, I'm third in chips with 1700 chips (average is about 1000), leader one has about 3500, leader two has about 3000. 27 players left out of 65 for three tables.
My big blind (400) gets raised by small blind(raise makes it 800, 400 to call), with no other callers, by chip leader number 2. I peel my two cards apart revieling AA.
One of my friends says go for it and another say "Never take on a larger stack".
Anyhow, I reraise to 1200 at which point small blind puts me all in with a reraise (1600) and a blind bet of 100.
I turn over my aces and he turns over Jacks.
The flop comes K72, no flush The turn a 9 of clubs and the river a miricle Jack. I'm out of the tournament.
Question is: Should I have tried to double my stack to become tournament coleader? Should I have even called? Should I have reraised? Should I have held my raises for the flop?(At which point I might beat him out with a raise against high cards such as Queens or Kings)
This should be interesting.
Put it all in. You have a 90 percent chance or better at doubling your stacks and giving you a chance to win the tournament. 1700 in chips with 400 blinds requires you to risk most of your chips at some point. why not aces? Your friend had a good point about taking on larger stacks but I suspect that advice should be saved for the final table.
YOU wrote: "This should be interesting."
Actually, it shouldn't be. You were still quite far from the money, and very short-stacked (as was everyone else, even the chip leaders only have 6 sets of blinds, the average player must have had only a little more than 1 set of blinds). Given how far you are from the money, if you get a chance to go all-in preflop with AA, you do it. You have everything going for you, in that it's heads-up (maximum chances of winning) and all-in preflop (you can't get outplayed on a later round). Even if everyone else at the table went all-in ahead of you, you'd still call here, as you are so far from the money, it's worth taking a gamble when you have the best of it.
Someone is going to have to manufacture a pretty specific scenario before I won't go all-in preflop with AA. There are a few, but if you're a full-time pro tourney player, you'll probably only it maybe once.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think In this situation I would have went all in on the re-raise, you have the best Pre-flop chance to win the pot, Not really a tough decsion at all. I wouldnt worry about the big stacks, Your a winner with that hand like 75% of the time. Also you will be blinded down anyway.
JM2C Walleye
Interesting, why? You are a long way from the end of this tournament. You are low on chips relative to the size of the blinds. You are heads up against a much inferior hand. How can you even consider doing anything else but putting your chips in. I can't imagine a better situation for you at this point in the tournament. As for your friend who says you should never take on a big stack, I think you should *never* take advice from him.
I think the better question is whether the small blind erred in reraising you. When you re-raise it seems right to take a look at the flop with JJ, since he knows you are committed to calling is pre-flop re raise. If the flop comes with 2 overcards to his Jack he might be able to get away from the hand.
You should clearly keep on raising with your Aces
Danny S
I think that my friend has some interesting points. I might add that he is the most intelligent poker pro that I know. He says laying the hand down wouldn't be a bad move. But heh, heres an example, compare trying to win a tournament to trying to win 500 dollars, heads up, against another. You've got 300 dollars left against his 700 and he raises your blind of 25 to a total of 225. You got Queens, what do you do? I would have to say MUCK. You only want to take on this player when you have the best of it. Do you have the Best hand with QQ, I don't know but he's willing to push in 225. I would wait until I'm in control raising marginally to claw my way back and win that 500.
P.S. I do this in heads up games against my friend at home. We buy in for 20 and get a few stacks of chips. Everytime he bets, I fold unless I have the nuts. It works because when I bet he chases.
That may work fine against this one opponent, but it will make you a quick loser against any skilled opponent.
BTW, you use the word friend twice. Once a friend who is the most intelligent poker pro you know, and then again about the player who will chase you even though you only ever bet the nuts. If this is the same friend, then he must be the only poker pro you know (and I doubt he's a winning pro), because I don't know any pros who play that badly. If these are different friends, then the above obviously doesn't apply.
Also, your friend who told you to never take on a bigger stack isn't totally wrong, he's just being too absolute for the situation. Generally, you want to avoid bigger stacks, and all else being the same, you'll not play against a bigger stack in spots where you would play against a smaller stack, and vice versa. However, there are spots where the other factors completely outweigh this advice. There are no absolutes in poker, there is always an exception. Even though I'll admit that some exceptions are pretty contrived, they are always there. Most strategies have exceptions a large portion of the time.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The only time the size of the stacks should really matter with this hand is if you are very close to the money, you can surive a few blinds, and other short-stacks can't. Then by playing a waiting game you can maximize your chance of getting into the money.
The scenario you mentioned isn't like that. You have AA, and you're going to need to build your stack to survive. AA is the best hand to do it with, so put the chips in.
Incidentally, you didn't mention the payout structure, and it makes a big difference in your later round strategy. If the pay is fairly deep and spread out, you need to play more of a survival game. If most of the money goes to first place (or first 3, but highly graduated like 75%, 15%, 10%), then you are going to have to build a big stack and play more agressively. None of that really makes a difference with this hand, but it's something to remember.
Dan
Any one have any thoughts on Caro's "Pro 7 Card Stud Report Version 2.0", "11 days to Stud Success" or "Guide to SuperSystem"?
Frank
Thumbs up to 7-stud report v.2
"11 days to Stud Success"
Anyone that thinks they can master stud in 11 days is smoking something illegal!
Vince.
He didn't say you could master the game. Improvement could be made in the time frame, with study and application. Better stay on this site pal; Dougie needs a stable mate. chris
"Thumbs up to 7-stud report v.2 "
Well this is really an insightfull response! We really need opinion's like this on this site!
Tell me why Caro didn't title his work "11 days to Stud Improvement". "Success" implies to me that you will, after his 11 day course, be able to win at the game of 7 Stud. Does he explain that this is an improvement course only. Does he state the level you need to be at to begin his 11 day Success Trip. Does it state anywhere that the course is for a novice, journeyman or advanced player. It sure isn't implied by the title! If improvement is what you are looking for I suggest 7 SFAP. You can read it in a lot less than 11 days.
Since you feel that you are capable of rating (Above) Caro's work why don't you elaborate a little more so all of us ignoramusis can gain the insight that you have gotten from this material.
BTW I don't know what is meant by your reference to "Dougie" or even who or what "Dougie" is but if I were given a choice, not knowing anything about him, it would still be preferrable to being in a "stable" with him than with YOU!
Have a nice game!
Vince.
I believe 'dougie' is a reference to Doug Grant, an anti-gambling fanatic who routinely haunts rec.poker and made a brief visit here about a month ago.
"Thanks GD"
Oh yeh! now I remember! Maybe I don't want to be in the same stable as him after all!
Vince
Along with the sweatshirt, hat and Uston button, wear a gaudy gold watch engraved with "Griffin Lifetime Achievment Award" and carry a card signifying you as a charter member.
Just one more reason to play poker!
Aces, Scottro
Vince, Vince, Vince: What will become of you?
First you are counting cards at BJ. Then you are dabbling with Baccarat. Whats next--shooting dice downtown with 25cent chips?
I know, I know----this belongs on the Exchange. But everyone else was picking on him, and I wanted to as well.
Now, get back to Bellagio and tell us about some more 15-30 hands.
Yesterday - Bellagio: 15-30 Stud. I'm bring in with 6d,7d/5h. Immediate left local pro: Ks-raises. Fold to me: Call. 4th street me: 5c hand now 6,7/5,5. Him: 8h for Ks,8h. I bet $30. He turns his hand over and shows his hole cards Kc,8d, says "I respect you sir and folds."
Question: How many poker mistakes were made on this hand, if any? Why?
BTW Abe, thanks for the tip on $.25 craps.
"dabbling with Baccarat" Are you sure you don't mean "babbling"? BTW if I thought you guys would listen I would humbly explian why I feel the way I do about accuracy in gambling literature. Baccarat is not an issue it was only a vehicle for discussion. I don't play it and don't intend to!
"everyone else was picking on him"
Really I hadn't noticed! I am always in one form of argumentative state or another!
Vince
... I don't think "humbly" applies well to either of us ...
[K raises UTG in stud, everyone fold, bring in has (67s)5...]
Fold. He's not stealing and really has Ks. If he may be stealing and you want to call, then usually re-raise instead.
OK. You really have (J5)5. Still fold.
You call and pair open 5s: Well, since you shouldn't call with a pair of 5s then he's an idiot for thinking that you would, since he "respects you sir and folds".
He's an idiot for SHOWING his two pair and folding. Or he's a genious and is manipulating ... Naaaawwww.
- Louie
Two mistakes.
1. Your call on third street. Even if he WAS stealing what do you like about your hand? He has at least three overcards and you're head's up.
2. His fold on fourth with two pair...for me that's a ticket to the river and I pay off three fives every time
Good Luck,
Jim Mogal
"1. Your call on third street. Even if he WAS stealing what do you like about your hand? He has at least three overcards and you're head's up."
Calling wheh you should fold.
Was my play a mistake?
Fact is that I put him on Kings and still called. Any 8 or 4 on 4th makes my hand playable and if they're diamonds so much the better. Any 5 as shown against a good player will usually win the pot. So that's 11 favorable cards. 42 cards seen. 32 to 10. The pot odds are about right. What about the 3 of diamonds or 9 of diamonds. I could justify a fourth street call with either of those cards if his board is not too scary. If your correct that all he has three over cards my hand looks a lot better!
2. His fold on fourth with two pair
Folding when you should call/raise.
Was this a mistake?
7STFAP does say that if you decide to play against a paired door card that you shoud have two pairs higher than the opponents pair. But it doesn't say nor imply that it is correct to call/raise with such a hand. You must consider your opponents playing ability and your own playing skills! In this case that is what the opponent did and made his decision with that in mind.
Poker is a situation game! If you play your cards you will not win! If you play your opponent's cards you will not win! If you play your opponent you will not win! Put all the poker skills you need together and use them at the right time and you will win! That is the "Feel" for the game that you need to win!
Opinion by Vince
Vince
" 32 to 10. The pot odds are about right."
Those are the odds to get on a draw. you're still a big dog to beat a pair of Kings.. and as I said you're putting in half the money since you are head's up...I don't like the odds at all.
Now if three other players had called...and if the 4 and 8 are live...maybe the odds improve...but even then the other callers probably have better draws than you do....
Sorry Vince I think we'll just have to agree to disagree that 567 is a good call against a K raising in 1st position.
Good Luck,
Jim Mogal
What cards were live that would fill your straight-draw and how many diamonds were out/folded? It's hard to make a decision after the fact without seeing the board as you did.
Since drawing hands play much better multi-way than heads-up, and you figured him for K's, I have no idea why you called. It was obvious he wasn't on a steal, and the worst you could have figured him for was 2 overcards. With a "non-quality" straight draw (West), there was no reason to call here.
Aces, Scottro
It's usually wrong to play a small draw heads up against a likely overpair. If your hand is very live, you can get in for less than a bet, and you have a two straight (if you have a three flush) or a 2 flush (if you have a three stratight with no gaps) then it becomes correct if you are against the type of player that you can easily manipulte or clearly read, or who gets married to a hand even though it is clear that he is beat. Since you were the bring-in this might be the case, but it is at best a very marginal call.
Paired door card be damned! If I was in this situation, you would need a crowbar to get me to laydown Kings up. A pair of Kings maybe, but with Kings up you still have roughly a 25% chance to fill up. True, you're not getting pot odds if the player does have trip 5's, but I think this is compensated by the times the player doesn't have trips (in which case you have a monster hand already). In the long run, I can't the Kings Up losing money.
Tell me what do you do if the pair of fives check raise you!
Vince
If I believed him, I'd fold.
That wasn't the question. The question was what if any were the mistakes made?
Vince
On Friday at 1:09 AM Vince Lepore replied to a message by Dr. Toast with this question. "Tell me what do you do if the pair of 5's check raises you ?"
At 5:29 AM about four hours later Dr Toast replied "If I believed him I'd fold"
At 11:14 AM on Saturday in the above message the OTHER Vince Lepore said "That wasn't the question. The question was what if any were the mistakes made?"
Am I missing something here?
Apologize me! Yes! I was mistaken! I thought we were still on my original post where I asked for mistakes if any! I'll revist the fold response later!
Sorry!!!
Vince
Mistake may be confusing luck with skill.
"Mistake may be confusing luck with skill."
What the hell does that mean?
You sound like the one confused. If you are having trouble analyzing the situation just ask. Someone on the forum will be glad to help! Silly comments like the one you made certainly don't help anyone trying to understand 7 Stud!
Vince
Plays like this is why poker pro's can make a living at playing poker.pairing the door card was a lucky break. C.M.
I have read several authors ideas about what size bankroll you should have before playing. If you are going to play at a fixed time limit game (3 hours) at 5-10-20 HE game, what is a reasonable size bankroll.
Would that figure change if it was 7 stud, Omaha, 7 Stud Hi-Lo 8 or better, or Omaha 8?
Here's the dilemma. The game is 5-10 7-Stud. Friend asks me what the buy-in should be. In my past experiences, and from the reccomendations of a trusted RGP friend, my buy-in at 5-10 or 10-20 is $500.
Now, on RGP, the topic has been brought up again, when I questioned another RGP'r advising a new 5-10 player to buy-in for $150. I thought that was a little low. The estimates from several posters on the thread are from $150-500.
So, I thought I'd find out what the experts (sincerely) in this forum had to say on the topic. Should I re-think my buy-in in these games? I don't want to be under-funded, yet I like the intimidation factor of a larger stack.
Any thoughts?
Aces, Scottro
If a large stack is part of your strategy go for it, nothing says it all has to be lost before exiting the game.
When I first bumped up to mid limits I asked the manager of the Mirage (John) what would be realistic for 5-10 stud. He is a player himself and seen plenty of games. His reply, $200. It has allways seemed to be enough. I've actually sat down with as litte as $100 and profited $200, but as often lost it.
John Fox, author of "Play Poker, Quit Work, Sleep 'til Noon" reccomended 2 buyins, and reccomended quiting that game if you lost it. But that was California Card Club Draw Poker.
I'm no expert but 2 buyins has always seemed ok to me. I find I actually think a little harder when I don't have the luxury of blowing too many hands.
The only caveat I think of there is to have some reserve in case you end up with so many useless hands the ante is just getting it. [But then maybe a steal is in order to!]
Any thoughts on the same question for a 5-10 HE game?
thank you, Tim
I think you need to factor game type into this decision. In some loose passive games I've played 200 with 100 in reserve is more then enough but would probably lead to lots of short sessions if the game was loose aggressive.
YOU should buy in for an amount that will not distract YOU from YOUR game. What's good for the goose is not necissarily good for the gander.
Some Factors favoring a large (>40xBB) buy in: == you feel more confident with more chips. == losses appear relatively smaller and do not bother you as much. == You believe it intimidates the opponents. == Pulling more money out really nags at you. == You are in a high varience game like No-Fold'm == Your late betting round judgement is superior in a no-limit game.
Some factors favoring a small (<15xBB) buy in: == you have a limited bankroll. == you have more discipline when your stack is small. == you can take advantage of the opponent's tendancy to disregard those with small stacks. == You don't mind pulling money out. == "Risking" a large stack is distracting. == You are in a low-varience game like 5-draw == Your early betting round judgment is superior in a no-limit game.
Be advised that the Authors are correct in that the "optimal" buy in is one ante.
Naaaaaawwwww .... forget making your own personal choice. Just buy in for what I buy in for, since that's obviously the "best".
- Louie
You said your buy-in for 5-10 or 10-20 is $500. At double the limit, you buy-in at the same amount, so it doesn't appear to be having enough bankroll to cover a certain number of losses as the driving factor for you. Thats how most people will respond to what the appropriate bankroll is, which is why you see the variation in the answers you get.
The last part of your last sentence is the key ... you like the intimidation factor of a large stack. If that works, then $500 is the correct buy-in for you. However, while the stack size may cause someone to have an initial impression of you, after you have been at the table a while your play will be what determines the intimidation factor. If you play better because you have a bigger stack and feel more confident, then that is absolutely the right thing to do.
A Poker Guy!
4-8 HE in the San Diego area. I just sat down in the game, never having played HE in California. UTG raises, he is a native who I think (based on table chat) plays a lot. Early player calls, two other calls I am one to right of button with AA, reraise, both blinds fold, UTG caps, everyone calls and 5 of us see the flop.
Flop is QJT rainbow. UTG bets. early raises, fold, fold, I just call, (not sure where I am here, but I have a gutshot and overpair at worst, (a call is in retrospect mistake 1) UTG raises, we all call.
Turn is an offsuit 4. UTG bets, early calls, again I call. River pairs the Ten. UTG bets, early raises.
At this point I felt sure I was beat. UTG I put on AK or a set, and up to the river I had the early position player on either top pair, or a 9 or K for the straight draw. But with the raise on the river I felt he must have improved, to a set of T's or better. Since I faced a reraise from UTG I released my AA. UTG just called.
UTG showed down KK as the winner; early had Q9 for top pair and the straight draw and tried to get fancy on the end. My failure to call the double bet on the River cost me a very large (22 big bets) pot. Sklanski calls this sort of error catastrophic. Boy, do I agree.
Comments Please
I think this a really interesting hand. The only thing I will say off the top of my head is that I think you should have re-raised on the flop.
Tricky hand. Looks like you have no possibility of a read at all, and have to either call all the raises etc all the way with an overpair (or reraise if you are confident you have the winner - it clearly won't make anyone fold). I wouldn't want to fold AA, even with that board, so looks like you have to sit through the big swings and bad beats and just see it through.
Good to hear that Cali games haven't changed.
Larry;
IMO Sklansky defined, from a probabilistic sence, what was a logical winning approach to poker at the "Golden Nugget" card room in the early seventies. (ie Rational play in a rational game with simple rules.)
"No Fold'em Hold'em (NFH)" Has shown us that logical systems can be thrown into chaos, yet order is still the largest subset of this new class of low limit poker.
In other words, NFH is out side of three sigma where only aggression rules and therefore; very disiplined "rules of engagement" need to be adapted" by those who wish to play with chaos on limited BR's.
The undisiplined Player's are creating the Chaos with money. a very high risk. The question is how do you cut the origional aggressor off from winning big pots? I find in Sklanski's origional writing's paths to this goal that are ignored by the avarage player today.
Major,
VERY interesting! Post some more on this topic.
Larry obvious to raise before the flop and then comes the scary flop but why get passive when you have such great position?I am going to raise every bet into me until someone reraises and tells me where I stand.By becoming passive you turned it into a total guessing game.When the middle raiser just calls the flop he obviously neede help an didn't get it and almost no river card will make him the favorite as far as I'm concerned.UTG needed to be tested on the turn to see if he reraises before I give him the nuts. Good flopping-----
Larry -- Ouch. That is a real tough spot because you didn't know the players. Not obvious to me that you made a mistake, but I think I would have called on the theory that you can now beat any two pair hand like Q-J or K-K. I would figure I'm beat but call because of the pot size.
"Sklanski calls this sort of error catastrophic. Boy, do I agree."
Sklansky calls this a mathematical catastrophe. It is! But it can be worse than that (if anything can be worse than a catastrophe). If you call and lose, well you kick yourself a little for losing two bets. But if you fold and would have won 22 bets now you (I) beat the crap out of myself. Sometimes this carries over into play during the rest of the session! Now that's a catastrophe! A psychological catastrophe sometimes referred to as "Tilt". Sometimes we carry analysis a bit too far in poker.. Sometimes it's best to go aginst the flow and bite the bullet and take a small kick in the butt rather than a "bad beating".
Btw you probably analyzed the situation on the river correctly against good players except good players don't normally bet straights into a paired board with two callers and this board. That may be what the Q,9 was thinking and tried to get rid of you (which he did) in the slight hope that the other opponent was on a missed draw. I've done this and won with this play myself.
Isn't poker wonderful!
Vince
I'd add that if you're going to make a mistake when the pot is large, it's better to err on the side of calling too much. Not only do you prevent catastrophes like this but calling does two more things for you:
1) It gives you peace of mind. If you fold, you're always going to wonder if you were the best. By calling, you'll know. And, if you fold and then get shown a hand that you had beat, it may cause you to play worse and lose far more chips than the call would have cost.
2) It inhibits players from taking runs at you in the future. This can be worth the price of the call alone.
Obviously, these are the reasons bad players also use to justify being calling stations. So don't overdo it. But if the decision is close, and the pot is large, call.
In a loose, no-foldem game, it's just not that bad to be a calling station. It's far worse to get pushed off pots.
Dan
Last night i was invited too sit i a pot limit round by round home game! so with the $2600. that i have won in the last month or so i decided why not, well i get there late and there is two tables going no open seats .. so i watch for a while and then a seat was open, well this roudn happened too HE so as i looked a roudn i only knew one other person at the table. the cards were dealt i posted $10 well before it had got to me there was 3 players in and the betting was as such,, BB bet $50. #1 raised $50 # 2folded and #3 raised the pot wich was $180. well now its too me i have Ac Kc so i reraised the pot now i did not think that the action would get much better but wow,, its folded back too the BB who folds the #1 player called and so did the player to my right the pot now is $980. well the flop is as such Qc 9c 8s now the BB checked the player too my right with a huge srack looks things over and bets the pot making it $1960. now with such a limit left in my $ i had too take a min to think ... thow there was really no decisioni was all in at that piont! it was ganna make me or break me! so i reraised and went all in with $1250.at this piont the BB folds and its left heads up .. so i was called and as i sat there shakin looking at this huge pot, i watched as the turn card hit the table. the 3c i then wanted to turn my hand over mayby a for fitt at that piont but i could'nt so as i watched the river it was a 6d i stood up and et my monstor ont he table,,, the player stood up and and dropped his too he had the Jc 8c.. i took my cout off the chair gathered my $ and cashed out one hand in and one hand won i left for home!!!!
Jason,
About the only thing you did right in this hand is cash out and went home after you won.
Jason, I dont even know where to begin talking about this hand except to ask where the game takes place. I live in England but would be prepared to fly anywhere to play against these opponents. There are so many things going on in this hand that I dont understand, I think from your previous posts that you are still quite new to poker and I guess that you probably havent played a lot of pot limit, so hopefully you can learn from this without having to pay for the lessons.
Pot limit has a feature like no limit in that providing the antes/blinds are decent size it becomes a trap game. If you play a hand well you can double your stack but if you make a mistake its going to cost you your entire stack, which means that you have to play conservatively, especially if you dont have a great handle on your opponents.
AKsuited is not a hand to stick in the third raise with preflop, you have to fold if someone comes over the top of you, if someone flat calls you then you have to be worried that they are trying to be clever with bullets. There just aren't that many flops that you can be real comfortable with. On the grounds that most people will now be putting you on Aces, if the flop comes King high and someone starts firing into you then your one pair is not ahead.
When the flop comes Qc 9c 8s if anyone wants to start firing you are bang in trouble. I have no idea what the guy is doing with J-8 in this hand given the pre-flop action but 99 times out of 100 if someone bets into you on this flop you are looking at a straight or a set both of which have you in lumps of trouble. On the flop you have put in $2230 to win $3210 so you are getting slightly less than 6-4 for your money, you are 2-1 against the straight and 7-2 against the set -Good luck. Oh but you do have the added equity that he might fold to your reraise which is worth exactly nothing at this point. The most consistent money losing play that I see at pot limit HE is people with flush/straight draws trying to get themselves all in on the flop like they have the holy grail with almost complete disregard to what the other player may hold.
There is an addage that there are old players and there are bold players but there are no old bold players. Agression certainly has its place in pot limit, but you need either a great hand or a great handle to play full steam ahead.Good Luck if you decide to play pot limit again, Dominic.
Come this April I'm headed for Las Vegas. I live in the UK where everything is pot limit (tourneys or cash games), so would appreciate comments on the following:
i) what are good low-middle limit games in LV? i play holdem, omaha8, 7 stud, and 7 stud hilo mainly.
ii) what kind of player can i expect to meet at the average low-middle limit table (i.e. up to 10-20)
iii) any particular differences I should watch out for? I've read most of the books on limit poker, but my experience in this department is limited, so I would appreciate any advice and "real world" tips.
iv) are there any major rule/etiquette differences you are aware of between US and UK poker (the main difference I know of is that in the UK it is illegal to tip the dealer; in the US I've heard it is almost compulsory)
v) does anyone know about the tax treatment of poker winnings (yes I'm being optimistic here) in the US for foreigners?
Thanks in advance.
Matt
I think the UK has a tax treaty with the US. Make sure you check out the details before you leave the UK as I believe if you fill out the right paperwork you can get any taxes taken out of tourney wins, etc.
I suggest you play lower than 10/20 if you have not played limit before. Expect many more multi-player hands and more betting and raising, and far fewing bluffs.
Yes, tipping is part of the game. Some think throwing cards, verbally abusing players and dealers, nocking drinks over, demanding cocktails LOADLY and idignantly, and flicking cigarrette ashes on the cloth are also part of the game. The steriotypical Limey opinion of us crude Yankees is right on the money in a poker game.
Legally you can deduct gambling losses at the end of the year up to your gambling wins. Its the NET winnings that may get taxed, but there is no relief for a net loss.
Large wins and some small wins at tournaments are paid in an IRS cooperative manner so you will end up leaving some $ at the counter (got your passport handy?), and will have to fill out a return in a manner I don't know.
Cashing out more than $10,000 also requires the cashier to be IRS cooperative. If this may be you, keep extensive paper records of your buy INs. Cashing out less than $10,000 is not logged to the IRS in any way. You are not allowed to manipulate your cash-outs to hide a win greater than $10,000; but I don't know what that means exactly.
You are obligated to declare your non-IRS cooperatively logged winnings at the end of the year. I hear some actually do; but there does not appear to be much +EV in that. If you do, there is considerable temptation for creativity. Extensive banking paper-trail of gambling money is available to the IRS. Pocket the cash. But I suspect both the US and UK would be interested in someone crossing the boarder with LOTS of $$.
You may deduct "expenses" such as hotel, travel, and poker books if you are a "professional". I don't know what that exactly means to the IRS but I suspect it does not include foreign tourists.
- Louie
The $10000 cash transaction reporting requirement is to the treasury department, not the IRS. You will also probably have to report to customs if you are carrying large amounts of cash when you leave the country.
The UK has an exemption agreement with the US which allows you to keep your entire winnings without having the IRS taking out a chunk up front that you'll have to file to get back. Some clubs apparently don't know which countries have agreements and which don't, so you may find some of your tournament winnings held out.
Hello Mat,
I've only been playing for about two years, so the chances are that you are a far better player than me. On the other hand I've played in Vegas and at Foxwoods in the East several times. These comments apply to $3-$6 and $5-$10 but I believe from talking to others that they apply to higher limits too:
1) The really good news is that the overall standard of play is lower - sorry to offend Americans, but its true, at least at lower limits.
2) Get ready for loads of people to see the flop, and get ready for sessions when people with 9-4 offsuit outdraw you, on the last card, every single time. Try and keep to short(ish) sessions, and don't hesitate to take a break. Do not go on tilt!
3) The flip side of the above are 'rock-garden' games. I played in one of these in the Horseshoe in January. Just walk away from them, as when everyone is playing that tight, the card distribution is responsible for your results as much as anything else. I know these games can be beat, but its more fun to go in search of a better (looser) game, especially when the rocks play the table every day, and people like you and I are on a fixed (limited) visit.
4) A minority of American players are rude, loud, and love to insult losers and dealers. Its great because it just makes me more determined to beat them, or at least not to lose anything to them. I particularly hate the way that they throw their cards at the dealers, bad-mouth the dealers, and generally act like they think the dealers are cheating them. I'm surprised and disappointed that they are allowed to get away with this behaviour.
5) Most American players love the game, and are friendly and fun to play with. Many are very old for some reason. Its worth playing longer sessions with these people, as I refuse to accept they can play at anything like their peak at that age and for long sessions.
6) Tipping the dealer is normal and usual. I just look at a few pots and see how much other players are tipping the dealers, and try to do the same. Remember, unlike in the UK, the house is taking a rake off every pot, so adjust your win expectancy to take that into account, and also the tips.
DISCLAIMER - I'm not a great poker player, and I like America and Americans a lot. I'm just trying to give the situation as it has appeared to me on several visits.
Not having ever played in a tournament, I have a question before I enter my first.
How are the lower denomination chips raced off when the blinds and antes go up. I've often heard this mentioned, but I don't know how it's done. Any help is, of course, greatly appreciated.
Aces, Scottro
At the director's discretion.
If you have some idle time then find out how and when it will be done, as you may figure a way to get one WHOLE chip extra in your stack!
Suppose all $1s are "raced" when the structure changes from 3/6 to 5/10. "Raced" means "rounded" for this tournament. So if you are in the BB on the last hand at 3/6 and you have $142 and someone raises, you can call for free since $142 and $139 both round to $140.
That's quaint. There are LOTS more important things for your mental energy.
- Louie
Often a card is dealt face up to each player for each chip that they have left (i.e. if you have 3 small chips, you get 3 cards), and the highest card wins. One casino I played in made it the highest HAND (i.e. a pair beats high card).
Multiple methods:
1. Chip-up - all odd chips are traded in for one of the next highest denomination. Ex. 23 chips of T1 will be traded for 5 chips of T5. Same for 21, 22, 24, and 25 T1 chips.
2. Standard Chip Race - All chips in even amounts are traded in for the next highest denomination. Then for each odd chip left in your stack, you're dealt 1 card. Of all cards dealt, the highest single card wins all of the odd chips, which are then traded in for the next highest denomination.
3. Hanson Chip Race - See Dan's post in this thread. It's the first time I've ever heard of that one. Sounds like a stupid way of doing it, but I've seen cardrooms do stupider things before.
4. Round-Off - All even chips are traded in, and all odd chips are rounded up or down by normal math rules of rounding (e.g. 2 T25 chips gets you 1 T100 chip).
5. Multiple Winner Chip Race - I've never seen this one actually used, but it has been proposed on RGP before, and it is the best way I've ever heard of for racing chips (the chip-up method is the best method, IMO). Each player is dealt 1 card for each odd chip as per the standard chip race, but instead of the 1 high card winning ALL of the odd chips, the highest n cards each win 1 chip of the higher denomination, with n varying with the total number of chips being raced off. Ex. 10 players each have odd T5 chips of 0,0,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4. Each player gets 0-4 cards, one for each chip they have, and the 4 highest cards each get 1 T25 chip. This spreads out the bonus for winning the chip race among multiple winners, instead of one person getting all of them. I've seen chip races where someone wins the chip race and ends up tripling their stack as a result. Other times, I've seen players who only the 1-4 odd chips left, and they get busted out of the tournament upon losing the chip race. They still might get busted out with this method, but the chances of that happening go down at least.
If anyone can think of any objections to the latter method, I'd like to hear them. The only good one I can think of is that it's more complicated, and therefore dealers are more likely to screw it up than any of the other methods.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Jeez, I don't think I want that one named after me... I agree that it's a really stupid way to do it. The high card race has a linear correlation between number of chips left and your chances of winning, which is as it should be. The high poker hand method unfairly favors the people with the most odd chips.
The best poker hand method should also change strategy on the last hand. Having four odd chips is very good; you should tighten up considerably if you have 4 chips.
The method where more than one player gets the odd chips seems so obvious that every casino should use it
Playing 4-8 Hold'Em, 9 handed, loose passive, my 3rd time at a casino card room. I have A3o on BB. Five or six limpers (I have to get better at counting bets), and I check. Flop is 3AK rainbow. SB bets, I raise, player to my immediate left re-raises. He had been very quiet thus far (1.5 hrs). Two cold callers, SB folds and I fold.
At first I thought I was worried of the re-raise from what I thought to be a tight player, but he if he had AA, AK or KK he would have raised pre-flop. My real worry I think is the 2 cold callers. On reflection I feel I should have called and then bet out on the turn, or re-raised, though I certainly wouldn't have driven anyone out.
Incidently, I later discovered the player to my left was a habitual bluffer who stole a few small pots but eventual busted out because of reckless play.
Any thoughts?
Without trying to quantify it, it seems like an easy call to me, UNLESS the re-raiser is a well-known quantity (and a real boulder). The fact that he's been "quiet" for an hour and a half is not enough to put him on a hand better than aces up. The math guys will tell you (I think) that you should compare the chances that he is bluffing/trailing to the return you will get if you call. On that card, there would be at least 15 small bets in the pot after you called. You should be pretty sure he's got the goods if you are going to lay it down with those pot odds. I'd have been concerned about the cold callers too, but funny things happen all the time in low limit games. I don't know whether I'd bet the turn after all of that; depends on the players, etc.
With two pair you need to see the turn since most likely someone also has a high card and is drawing to a straight. You could make a full house. If the next card is a Q, J, or T then worry about a straight. If your afraid he will raise then check and call. If the river gives four cards to a straight or there is a pair then you may wish to check and fold your two pair unless the pot is big enough then call.
I think it's safe to rule out wired aces. Ace on the board plus the ace in your hand and three other players in action (probably two of them each hold an ace). Most likely you have the best hand. One of the cold callers most likely has JQ, J10, or Q10 -probably with a three flush. There also might be a hand like 45. The only hand to worry about is AK, but if you bet the turn and get raised you can fold safely. If the quite player had AK and decided not to raise UTG you're in trouble, but why wouldn't he wait for the turn to raise?
You probably should have called. The only likely hands that have you beat are AK, AA, KK, or 33. He probably would have raised with anything but the 33, and since you hold a 3 it's not likely that that's what he had.
The most likely hand for him to have had was something like AQ or AJ, and he was raising to isolate the habitual bluffer who bet.
The cold callers shouldn't worry you if it's that loose of a game: A lot of loose players would call there with any Ace, or something like KQ. Someone might have had K3.
Anyway, Aces up is a big hand in Holdem. You need a lot of evidence that you're beat to lay it down, especially when the pot is large.
Dan
Against a rational opponent, you must be beat here. However, the question then becomes, is this a rational opponent?
It's hard to put him on a hand here. If you assume he's tight because he's been quiet so long, then he can't have K3, even suited. Even tight players raise preflop with AA, and almost always with KK (there are a few exceptions who ignorantly want to wait and see if there's an A on the flop), so 33 is the only hand you can put him on. If I had 33 in this spot and there was a bet and raise into me, I'd tend to call only so as to allow them to continue their raising into my likely best hand (of course, if these players know me, and I know they know me, then I might change my more standard play of just calling into raising, just to fool them). So, it's hard to put him on 33, it's just that no other hand seems more likely. I guess that AK is still possible also, as some people don't raise preflop with this hand. However, this hand is only marginally weaker than 33, in that it beats every hand (that's likely to be out, given no preflop raise) except 33 here. Again, I'd tend to just call with AK here.
Since it's so hard to put him on a likely hand, even though he's been quiet, you have to start considering that he's not a rational opponent, and that he's playing something like K3s up front. Some players go back and forth between tight and loose, in an attempt to fool everyone else. Some take it much too far, and work so hard to fool you that they screw themselves by playing (or not playing) the wrong hand at the wrong time pretty often.
To answer your question, it's going to cost you between 5 and 9 small bets to call him down from here, and you'll win at least 20, and up to 40, small bets if you do. Depending upon the later action, if you just go into check and call mode you're getting about 4:1 on your money. It seems to me that you'll win at least about this often, so I'd tend to call to the river here, unless there are multiple raises later (especially if a straight card appears).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
FossilMan nails it as usual. You mus be an extremely tough opponent if you think this rationally in the heat of battle. I am steering clear of mid-limit HE at Foxwoods now that you are in town!
Ha!
I was kicking butt when I first moved to town, but have getting my butt kicked lately. At least in the recent past, you needn't concern yourself. For good and bad, a lot of the opponents in the Mohegan 20-40 game aren't that rational, so the variance is pretty high for a 20-40 game.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You said it's a loose game so why are you so worried about the cold-callers? Loose players make loose calls. I might fold if I had a better read on the guy but other would probably raise again and bet out on the turn and see what's going on. Sounds like you have good discipline though so with some experience you might find yourself being a very good player. Keep up the good work!
The answer to your question: Was it a bad fold?
Yes. In that "bad" is the same as a mistake! What should you have done? Reraise.
This is a loose game with all limpers. Noone limps with A,A,KK or in most games like this A,K. You have a 3 so play the hand las if you are in the lead!
"I was worried of the re-raise "
I read into this statement: "fear". Face your fear and go for it! Find out for sure! If you are sure your beat that is a different situation. Poker is situational! When you are in situations like this one you got to take a chance sometimes! With 2 pair against a bunch of limpers is one of those times. Don't worry about losing a few bets. Pay attention and learn and your future will be bright!
"I later discovered the player to my left was a habitual bluffer"
If you don't know a player, give him the benefit of the doubt, consider him: "Bad". Also, it's sometimes a catastrophe to find out after the fact that you gave a player too much respect as you can see.
"I should have"
Phrase of a loser! Lose it from your memory!
Fear: A poker player's friend/foe. In this case your foe, opponent's friend. Put fear on your side!
Vince BTW "(I have to get better at counting bets)"
Roy Cooke article in Feb. Card Player covers this subject. I learned from it myself and can thus recomment his suggestion.
Yeah, this probably wasn't the right spot to fold. However, I encourage you to look on the bright side- at least you are physically capable of laying a hand down, something which a thundering majority of casino poker players have never learned how to do. So in one sense you've already got a leg up on the competition.
I saw this last night for the first time. I'm assuming this is a negative EV game, but has anyone actually figured out the mathematics?
I don't know which issue offhand, but I'm certain that Card Player magazine published a complete basic strategy for this game (very different from classic BJ strategy, of course), & it resulted in a house edge of about 1%.
Blackjack Forum Magazine at RGE21.com reviewed a book on this that has a complete basic stragety for Spanish 21. The book also has counting stragety to reduce the house advantage but it is still -EV.
Okay...the movie wasn't that bad.
However, that one scene at the Taj...when the CSouth's "pros" were butchering the lambs....well, I didn't like the way that scene "poked fun" at the tourists who think poker is similiar to roulette or craps, etc.......
By the way, some of the pros I have played with are way to cocky.......that gives me even greater incentive to play well and kick their..........
I am not a pro, however, I do consider myself a decent player who is capable of playing with the pros in the 10-20 to 40-80 games. After all, I have read the great books and we all know they are by Two Plus Two. Besides, I have put my time at the tables and have achieved some success in the past.
Nevertheless, it constantly amazes me how arrogant these pros at Foxwoods and AC actually are....they need to calm down and practice humility....it will only help their bankroll in the long run anyway. Maybe I am being too judgemental....what do you think about my assessment?
Anthony M
I agree with you about some "Pros(???) being very ego driven". I am similar to you...I have a good day job and enjoy my poker once/twice a week...I play all limits $10-20 to $40-80, but prefer and to play full pot and NL hold'em (cash ring games). In the last 11 years I've only had one losing year, so I rank myself as above average. Some pro players are great guys and ONE who I can't say, has CHANGED in the last 10 years that I've known him. He is now winning more since he stopped...upsetting other players...being picky about rules..now joins in social table humour and stories..taken his beats truly well...and is now helping other players (me included) with strategy and tips during play. This last point actually many may disagree with...BUT it has helped him win more...YOU work it out. Some one once wrote in a poker book..."be nice to the opponents and they'll give you their money".Many players can be given tips but they never really "change their playing style".
I enjoy BEATING the ego driven and arrogant players. In fact if I beat the best player(in his own mind) it gives me a real kick and makes the night more fun and memorable. Dazzler
3-4-99
To: June Field, David Sklansky and POKER DIGEST hold'em fans,
David Sklansky's article "Brave Hands and Scared Hands", POKER DIGEST Vol.2/No.5, describes some of the shortcomings of various computer simulations of hold'em poker. If a simulation uses players that never fold (and presumably never bet), he points out correctly that the "true winning percentage of a hand will be affected" by hands that fold in a real game. David continues "There are programs....that play out the hand according to some .... strategy, and then see how often each hand wins."
The implication of these statements is that David thinks that existing hold'em software, with or without strategies, all generate results based on win percentages - He sums up with the revelation that "mere percentage of pots won does not fully indicate the strength of a hand. Rather, it is MONEY WON".
If David had familiarized himself with Turbo Texas Hold'em, he would know that TTH is a realistic model of a hold'em game, where all the mechanical aspects of the game are DUPLICATED - all statistics are based on tracking DOLLARS won and lost.
Bob Wilson and I feel this is essential to analysis, because there is no reliable correlation between money won and win %, even when strategy is involved. When strategy is not used by the computer players, win % is often not in the ballpark. (In which case it takes a heap of "....poker knowledge to make the proper adjustments.")
Those acquainted with TTH know that its simulations have always been presented in terms of $ won and lost. Some computer profiles may be flawed, but they can be upgraded by the user. (Users don't have to wonder if apparent flaws are caused by a need to extrapolate $ won from win %.)
Our computer model of hold'em produces realistic results because it uses computer players that check, bet, call, raise, fold, reraise and check-raise with about the same values as seen in real games. To perform realistically, TTH profiles react and adjust their play based on many factors. These include:
- the stage of the game (before the flop, on the flop, etc.). - the status of the pot (checked, bet, raised, or reraised). - their position. - the poker hand they currently hold. - any straight and flush draws they have. - other prospects, based on what board cards are showing. - the number of opponents (this optional feature really improves the quality of play). - the nature of opponents' actions on current rounds of betting. - the nature of opponents' actions on previous deals.
Mike Gilbert...Prop player Normandie Casino Poker analyst & sometimes author Devoted contributor to the design of TTH and the promotion of poker
Response to this post can be found on the exchange!
Vince
My only comment is that David Sklansky is well aware of the capabilities of your program. I suggest you read the essay on "Home Computers and Poker" on our essay page.
I agree that that the Wilson software programs are improved over what they were several years ago. I also agree that they are very good games. But they have a long way to go before they are ready to be used as serious research tools.
Well if Malmuth can respond on the T&S forum so can I. So there!!
"If David had familiarized himself with Turbo Texas Hold'em, he would know that TTH is a realistic model of a hold'em game,"
And, just whose definition of realistic are you using?
"Our computer model of hold'em produces realistic results"
There you go again! Just who decided what is realistic and what is not!
"To perform realistically, TTH profiles react and adjust their play based on many factors."
Not good enough my friend! Realistic, now, now!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not endorsing David's article. But what's wrong with the article is not in the area of simulators.
You nor anyone else will ever (NEVER) develop a computer program that will coprrectly simulate a live poker game. Poker is not Chess! It's much more complicated than a game of perfect knowledge! Big Blue could not beat a poker expert! The only value a poker simulators has is if one is bored and has nothing to do for an hour or so. Because after an hour or so of poker simulations the user will go batty!
You guys all seem to miss the point! Poker is played by human beings for something that has meaning to them! When you can program that concept into a computer come back we'll talk!
Opinion by Vince
Well put, Vince. However, remember that as recent as ten years ago most 'experts' agreed that a computer could never beat the best chess players, and now a computer has beat the man who may arguably be the best chess player who has EVER lived. For now, simulations have little real-world value. But a lot can (and probably will) happen in the next ten to twenty years.
IT takes a human to make the machine!!!!
I know that these computer simulations do more than just deal out the cards. And I realize that their rankings are based on money won, not just win percentages. But if the playing strategy is flawed so too will be the rankings.
I've read Sklansky's essay in Poker Digest, and I've read Malmuth's essay in this website. I am not sure why David thinks his simplistic ad hoc method of adjusting no fold'em simulations based on "scared" hands would be better than Turbo Texas Hold'em simulations that play out the hands with all the normal actions. I was frankly surprised by the whole article. I am not sure why Mason thinks that accumulation of errors make it a mistake to use simulations as serious research tools. I was not surprised by the article given Mason's previous statements on this subject.
The general trends picked up by Turbo Texas Hold'em simulations are very likely correct. For example, we may argue on whether AJ is playable under the gun. Turbo sims generally show a small profit with AJ UTG. We may argue about whether that is correct, and we'll never get to a conclusion since it's within the "noise" from the general inaccuracies in the simulation, and to that extent Mason's criticisms are valid. However, one general trend from Turbo is that weak offsuit aces quickly decrease in power as you move away from the button. And there are big drops in strength from AK to AQ to AJ in early position. And offsuit aces generally open best with raising, though AK is a bit ambivalent. Seems reasonable, right?
Turbo sims also suggest that value of AJ UTG depends on how tight or loose your opponents are playing, and that the minimum value for AJ is when your opponents play a bit too loose, in which case Turbo produces basically a zero EV for AJ. Again, the zero EV is questionable, maybe it's off by a tenth of a small bet or even two, and "a little too loose" cannot be pinned down too precisely without succumbing to the simulation flaws. Also, every situation is different, and so speaking of general EV's is a questionable thing anyway. Yet, the general conclusion drawn from Turbo is likely correct: AJ is generally weakest up front when your opponents call your early raises a little more often than is wise for them. That's an interesting paradox, don't you think? But it is plausible if you think about it. I've found tons more nuggets of knowledge using Turbo sims.
If recognized "experts" come to a different conclusion from what Turbo sims say, there may be a problem with the conclusions of the experts. An "expert" recommended calling in the big blind with Q5 versus a tight raiser and tight cold caller and a bunch of loose players. Turbo sims said no. Again, the exact cutoff cannot be truly pinned down with Turbo; if Q5 should be the minimum, Turbo might find Q9 or T4 as the minimum in a particular situation. But the general trend from all sorts of Turbo sims is that weak offsuit cards are death in multiway pots even for big odds - doubly so for big-littles, like Q5, versus tight raises. The mathematics of flopping two pair or trips with such hands and having them hold up suggests the same thing, having a lot to do with the nature of the community cards in hold'em. The "expert" concluded that he was correct and therefore the simulations and mathematics were wrong, before later recanting. Again, what's at stake is not Q5, but a fundamental concept of the game, which the "expert" did not fully grasp at that point. And now we're supposed to trust the flawed intuition of an "expert" more than a pretty good simulation? I do not.
Turbo Texas Hold'em 3.0 features vastly improved/increased check-raising and call-reraising in the middle, and it now adjusts preflop to the position of the raiser, so the new version addresses some of the old criticms. It even adapts to the check-raise frequency/quality of the other players, including you. Turbo is most realistic, in my opinion, in simulations of tight 60-120ish games or 20-40 games full of Vegas caliber pros or short-handed games at 10-20 and up - games where most pots are heads up by the flop (or the blinds are stolen.) This is because Turbo's biggest weakness is in its reading of opponent hands. Turbo reads boards, not hands, essentially. In pot contests that are heads up from the flop, I assert that hand-reading is not all that important, while board-reading is fairly important. Of paramount importance heads up is how frequently you contest the pot. If you disagree, then speaking on behalf of Mason Malmuth, you're wrong, and you don't understand heads up play. Turbo plays most fiercely heads up.
Those that think Turbo plays very poorly should try playing in a 2, 3, or 4-handed Turbo game with the corresponding short-handed advisor player filling the seats and all the toughness flags turned on. You should also find a full table simulation with the best tight-aggressive players to be fairly challenging and to have a "feel" much like the worst game you've ever played, even if the Turbo game is not nearly so difficult to beat as a real world tough game.
At this year's BARGE, I'd like to see Mason attempt to beat a 3-handed Turbo Texas Hold'em 3.0 game against two 3-handed advisor players. Or maybe heads up, but I am not 100% sure how the 2-handed advisor assumes the blinds are set up. And preferably without a bunch of practice beforehand. At least it would give Mason an opportunity to play Q5 legitimately.
-Abdul
This discussion about the use of simulations as poker learning tools seems appears to be headed down the path of a "MATTER of OPINION" of "experts".
I, for one am, not an expert. I am a pretty good middle limit player (self evaluation)! So I speak from that paltform. I have tried poker sims in the past. I found them childish and boring and of little value in learning to play poker. The one exception is Caro's Poker Probe. I used to love to use it to show how much of a "dog" an opponent was when he played inferior cards to mine and beat me! I would then rip him apart in the privacy of my home with all kinds of verbal disparaging remarks! But I don't do that anymore! I learned that it didn't do any good to cry in my milk and went forward! Poker probe does give one the ability to evaluate the merits of various starting hands. But, so what! I'm sure Turbo Hold'em does also. But again so what!
I can vouch for Malmuth's point in his essay that research and experience work when learning poker! I don't include sims in that research. I believe the results of using a poker simulator are non transferrable or at best minimally transferrable to the real world! And don't justify the cost! Besides if you play alot of poker in the REAL WORLD the last thing you want to do with your free time is sit in front of a computer playing a poker game!
I also don't believe Malmuth playing against Turbo Hold'em would prove anything. Besides would'nt all the pressure be on Malmuth. Or have the developers some how figured out how to program "pressure" and the effects of other human emotions into their simulator? This was precisely the problem that, I believe, was the straw that broke Kasparov in his match with Big Blue. Although I believe Malmuth (or any poker expert) would win, this would still not prove anything.
Rather than continue to criticize Turbo Holdem I ask it's proponent! What, where, who and why should anyone use this simulator? What, where, why and who has this been of value to in the past? Besides the developer's that is!
Opinion (questions) by Vince
I have never tried Turbo Texas Holdem and was never referring to it specifically. If it really does play well than its hand rankings would be accurate. But does it?
One problem I have with computer sims is not really a computer problem at all, it's a problem related to drawing general conclusions from a small sample set of players. For example, if you could observe a tough 15-30 game at Bellagio for hundreds of thousands of hands, you could develop a scientific strategy for hand rankings for THAT GAME. If there are players in there who never checkraise, or who always play their 'favorite' hand of K5s regardless of position, or have any number of personal quirks, then an optimal strategy will exploit this, but be quite useless in other games.
Turbo Texas Hold'em in the past has had problems with checkraising, and the opponents you face may have quirks that are built in to the program due to the biases of the guy who developed it. So even though it may play tough poker, running millions of hands against these virtual players may turn up anomolies that only apply to those particular virtual players, and not to poker in general or even another lineup of players in TTH.
But this is nitpicky, and I think this effect would only skew the results at the highest levels of precision. For learning gross patterns and principles through simulation, I think TTH2.0 is very effective. Just don't categorically state that 87s is better than 98s just because the sim shows that it has an extra .2% of EV or something.
I don't really care about the nitpicky stuff anyway. In my opinion, if you understand the theory behind hand selection, and understand why suited connectors do well in certain situations, and have a rough idea for which hands are +EV in which position, then the rest of the details get swamped by other factors (i.e. whether to play 87s vs 67s depends more on your knowledge of your opponents and your feel for the context of the game than any theoretical differences in EV between the two hands - the former knowledge is much more important).
Dan
This sums it up in a nutshell. Any good poker player plays his opponent, not the cards. Hence, knowing your opponent is paramount. And I cannot see how any simulation can help you learn more about your opponents.
Neither David nor I are able to commit to any BARGE events this year. We have other projects that we are involved with.
Mason,
That is unfortunate. The events that Jessica, David, and yourself participated in seemed to be very popular. I'm sure that the 2+2 contribution to BARGE will be missed this year.
Tom Haley
Let me rephrase in a self-directed manner...
If Bob Wilson were to challenge me to play heads up with the 2-handed advisor player in Turbo Texas Hold'em 3.0, for any stakes I wished, for a period of 100 hands, I would be hesitant (without first playing it myself and making damn sure I could trounce it.) I've played with it a small amount, and at this stage I would rather play heads up against certain professional poker players than TTH 3.0. Now, it may be that my first impression is wrong, and that I'll discover some gaping exploitable holes in its strategy. I'm (almost) sure that given sufficient time I could learn its flaws, and thus that's why I put the 100 hand limit on the challenge. But right now, it has me scared! And I consider myself one of the best short-handed players in the middle limits. (That's a sufficiently vague claim that I hopes it's not too obnoxious.)
When I started playing 3.0 heads up, I set about to check-raise bluff it to death, like anyone could against the older 2.0. "ADV_2" initially respected my check-raises, but quickly adapted to give me the lack of respect I deserved, e.g.:
I have JdTs on blind, ADV_2 has 8c7h on button.
ADV_2 raises, I call.
Flop comes AdKdAs.
I check, ADV_2 bets, I raise, ADV_2 reraises, I call.
Turn is offsuit 6. Board is AdKdAs6c.
I check, ADV_2 bets, I fold.
It cold bluffed me out with nothing, 8 high, no draw!
You might question whether either of us were sane, but this is how heads up play goes, due to the big odds your are getting to make a hand or make your opponent fold. And it was doing that because of adapting to my previous play. (This was against a prerelease version of 3.0, and I know Bob Wilson made some last minute changes to defending against check-raises and to the short-handed advisors, so this type of behavior may or may not occur in the released 3.0.) While this type of play by ADV_2 seems exploitable, it's going to re-adapt to exploit how you are playing when you try to adapt to exploit how it is playing. It seems adaptation is just in its infancy in Turbo, and is very limited now, but given how scary it is today, there is no way in hell I would accept a challenge from an unseen (and yet unexisting) Turbo Texas Hold'em 4.0.
-Abdul
Now you're talking. I also had the pleasure of beta testing version 3.0. To all the people who :
- think TTH is just a fun game not to be taken seriously, or
- have girlfriends with no knowledge of poker who easily beat the game, or
- talk about a 10 year time frame before we see anything serious in computer players
I make this offer : I am prepared to put up my own money backing TTH Version 3.0. I would, of course, require reasonable odds, and judging by the recent (and not so recent) posts, this should not present any problems. I reserve the right to use my own profiles, and am prepared to invest $10,000. There are enough fine minds on this Forum to define the mechanisms which will ensure a fair contest.
Etienne
Etienne,
I like the way you think! Being a diehard empiricist at heart, I think this is the way to go in resolving some of these issues.
But, what do I see on checking the site several weeks after your challenge? Why have you not been besieged by the best poker minds around eager to fleece you out of that 10 grand that they should feel themselves easily able to wrest from the deeply-flawed TTH3?
Interesting!
I can remember when a chessmaster (rated around 2200, I think) that I worked with many years ago was almost going to to punch me out for suggesting that a computer would someday be world champion. He berated me and the AI experts of the era for their "ignorance" of chess, and pointed out how "impossible" it was for a computer to ever play even a good game of chess, let alone at his level.
Well, his level was beaten a long time ago, Kasparov only more recently.
I think poker is less of a challenge for world-class play than was chess, but only a tiny fraction of the effort and brains had gone into poker compared to chess. Deep Blue was the culmination of 40 years of effort by some of the best AI minds around.
I still don't understand the value of the sim. If I'm in mid position with AJo or AQo and a player from early position comes in for a raise, I'll sometimes re-raise it, sometimes fold, and occasionally (though rarely) just call. In any case, my desicion is based almost entirely on my knowledge of the raiser. How does TTH refine this decision making process?
I think that one of the main values of sims is that you can derive some kind of baseline from which to further decide your play. Call it a first order approximation if you will.
What do you do in a situation where you don't know the players well enough to have a handle on their early position raising criteria? Maybe you can make some kind of decision at the table, but sometimes you have to play the cards and not the opponent. A sim can help you decide what the strength of your cards is. From what you subsequently learn from playing the hand at the table, you can adjust the playability of the cards away from the baseline.
Eric
GD writes:
I still don't understand the value of the sim. If I'm in mid position with AJo or AQo and a player from early position comes in for a raise, I'll sometimes re-raise it, sometimes fold, and occasionally (though rarely) just call. In any case, my desicion is based almost entirely on my knowledge of the raiser. How does TTH refine this decision making process?
Turbo sims suggest that everything else being equal...
_____________________Versus a Raiser while in Late PositionIf the raiser raises with minimum..._____ Then cold call late with minimum...
=================================== _____ ===================================
PP Axs Kxs 0gs 1gs 2gs Xxs Ax Kx 0g Top % _PP Axs Kxs 0gs 1gs 2gs Xxs Ax Kx 0g
== === === === === === === == == == ===== _== === === === === === === == == ==
TT AJs --- --- --- --- --- AQ -- -- _ 5-3 _JJ AKs --- --- --- --- --- AK -- --
77 A8s KTs JTs QTs --- --- AJ -- -- _10-3 _TT AKs --- --- --- --- --- AK -- --
66 A3s K9s 98s J9s --- --- AT KQ -- _15-5 _88 ATs --- --- --- --- --- AK -- --
33 A2s K7s 54s 86s Q9s --- AT KJ -- _20-10 66 ATs KTs JTs --- --- --- AQ -- --
22 A2s K2s 54s 53s 96s Q7s A9 KT T9 _30-15 44 A8s K9s 98s J9s Q9s --- AJ KJ --
22 A2s K2s 32s 42s 52s 92s A2 K8 87 _50-20 22 A2s K5s 87s 86s J8s Q8s AT KT QJ
(All >32,42,63,74,84,94,T5,J6)..... _80-35 22 A2s K2s 54s 75s 85s J6s A7 K9 T9
(All).............................. 100-45 22 A2s K2s 54s 53s 74s 95s A4 K8 98
Sorry for the ugly formatting, HTML wasn't being too cooperative. The above uses a compact representation that I've explained on rec.gambling.poker. Few seem to understand it, unfortunately. Only the minimum hands are listed. For example, A2s means A2s through AKs.
So, if the raiser would raise with the top 20% of his hands, like 33, A2s, AT or better, then according to Turbo you should (at least) call with the top 10% of your hands, like 66, ATs, AQ or better. But if the raiser would raise with the top 5% of his hands (TT-AA, AJs-AKs, AQ-AK) then you should call with just the top 3% of your hands (JJ-AA, AKs, and AK.) Of course, there are a lot of other variables. Like the looseness of the blinds has a big impact on how many hands you can play when facing a tight raiser. If they play too loose, you can call with more than 3% of your hands. Again, the exact thresholds are questionable in general and any particular situation will be different, but the concept of calling with fewer hands than the raiser is raising with is almost certainly correct.
In addition to calling with much less hands than the raiser, another general trends the table shows is that you should be extremely hesitant to call raises with offsuit aces. Against a raiser who would raise with half his hands, AT is a minimum offsuit calling ace according to the sim, whereas other minimums are trashy hands like K5s, 86s, and J8s. It makes sense, since these hands have less of a chance of being dominated (like taking AT up against AJ) and more outs via flushes and sometimes straights even if they are dominated. The blinds are also left to act, which is a big part of why you can't play very loose against a very loose raise. Again, maybe the cut-off point should be different, but the general trends are likely correct.
I know you asked for middle position, but the above late position is just what I had already done. I would not expect early or middle position play to be significantly different, except versus loose raises.
I plan to extend the table to 3-betting. But I'll tell you right now that Turbo sims suggest that 3-betting is rarely correct. You can 3-bet with AA and AK (offsuit only). KK is borderline. Again, maybe the exact threshold is off - maybe QQ is a good 3-bet. But suffice it to say, in most situations few hands are worth 3-betting with even versus computer players who don't take the information into account well. Since you can 3-bet with so few hands, it would give away a lot of information to 3-bet with them, so I suggest not 3-betting versus a single legitimate raise. Flat call or fold. When facing a steal or semi-steal raise, that's another matter.
-Abdul
Computers use programs now and forever. They are logic machines now and forever. Human beings are not! Contrary to what psychiatrists might tell you humans are unpredictable! Even though humans may be predictably unpredictable programers will never be able to develop an accurate prediction program that will predict that unpredictability.
Whew! That said! Let's talk about the ability to program a computer to beat the best chess player in the world! Kasparov is probably the best ever, though in his youth Fisher would have given him a run for his money. I'm sure you can name others but what's not the point. Certainly ten years ago noone believed a computer could beat the best chess players. But longer than ten years ago there were very good to excellant chess programs. Programs that only the very best players could consistently beat! Why is that you ask? (I knew you were going to ask, GD, you always do!). I'll tell you why! Chess is a game of perfect information. Every move that a player can make is right there out in the open. It can be analyzed completely. A strategy can be calculated to take advantage of any move. Programmers, with the aid of expert chess players, can develop programs that can Calculate the advantages of various strategies. The computer is then used to predict, if you will, the best course of action. Because all of the information that is needed is available for analysis the computer does it's job very well! For this reason alone we should not be surprised that Kasparov was beaten!
Remember also that Kasparov was playing for pride only! He got paid whether he won or lost! O.k, maybe more if he won. But none of the prize money came out of his own pocket! This fact of playing for one's own money, something that has meaning to poker players can never be programmed! Just how much meaning money has is a personal thing that varies from one individual to the next. And neither can human emotions be accurately programmed! Besides from the fact that emotions are not well understood, Emotions and behavior caused by them also differ in degrees from one human to the next. Causing an ininite set of potential results that defy classification and predictability.
No my friend! Poker (players) will not ever be disciplined enough to be beaten by a computer! This is an amazing game we participate in! Someday people will realize just how amazing it truly is! I think it was Doyle Brunson that said Poker is a "Peoples Game". With respect to computers he is absolutely correct!
Opinion By Vince
I have a question for you all. If this program is no good because of the fact that humans are unpredictable, wouldn't that be an argument for the fact that TTH is a good program? I mean if a player didn't play a hand the way the experts would agree that it should be played, wouldn't that be an advantage for the computer instead of a hinderance? Since the computer would not be effected by tilt or distractions or the like, it would thus play a very solid game. Perhaps it wouldn't be able to squeek out a few extra percentages of a bet per hour, but it surely would be a winning strategy.Opinions?
Using proper randomizing game theory, a computer could theoretically be programmed to beat an expert poker player especially in a game like lowball. Other games would be more difficult to program but are at least theoretically possible. What this program would NOT do is beat bad players as quickly as the human expert (who himself would lose to the computer) would beat the bad player.This is because Game Theory assumes good playing opponents. Deep Blue would take more moves to beat me than Kasparov would but that means nothing in chess. Since houly rate means something in poker, Vince is half right about computers never being highly effective players. But he is wrong if he thinks they could not be programmed to be a favorite head up against a champion or anybody else.
"Vince is half right about computers never being highly effective players."
David what the hell does "half right" mean. How could a computer not be a highly effective player and beat a champion?
"But he is wrong if he thinks they could not be programmed to be a favorite head up against a champion or anybody else."
David this is obviously proveable! What is the software that can beat a champion! I'm open minded (a little) and am even willing to test it and I'm not a champion! Just a fair middle limit player. If you are right I will concede but will still not use a simulator! I little if any value in them!
Wait a minute! Is this your out: "a computer could theoretically be programmed to beat an expert poker player"
Come on david we can do better than theoretically! If it can be done it should have been done by now especially given you're statement of me being wrong. What's the software?
Vince
In Mr. Sklanski's defense:
A "perfect" stategy is one that cannot be beat even by an opponent who knows that strategy and can adjust to it perfectly if desired. Assuming zero-sum (no rake) games; the "perfect" strategy is guaranteed to have +EV no matter how small, against less-than-perfect opponents.
The "best" strategy is one that produces the most "effective" win. For poker, that almost always means "highest hourly rate".
E.G. Given the exact situation S the "perfect" buff strategy B% can be calculated. But if the opponent will incorrectly always call then the "best" strategy is, of course, never to bluff. "Perfect", in this example, is worst than "Best".
Be it understood: Unless the opponent is "perfect" then the "best" strategy is NEVER the "perfect" one. It is ALWAYS possible to make little adjustments to "perfect" to take advantage of the opponent's less-than-perfect strategies.
Mr. Sklanski is suggesting that a computer can theoretically be programmed to play "perfectly" but is unlikely ever to play "best". Therefore computers will not be particularly effective. While the program may beat the expert at a steady low rate and the suckers at a steady higher rate, the expert will routinely have a higher hourly rate against these suckers, since he can make adjustments based on JUDGEMENT.
But no, no such program exists or IMO is forthcoming.
- Louie
Game-theoretic optimal programs like Sklansky mentioned have been produced for certain kinds of poker games. The problem is, the poker games used were not any that are played in card rooms. They were "toy" poker games. I once looked into writing such a program for Hold'em, but I gave up when I realized that given the combinatorics of the cards and the betting actions, the space needed to store the solution would take more storage than available on the largest file systems of today (without compression.) The space needed to generate the solution is normally exponentially larger than the solution.
A very good approximation might be possible, but then you lose the guarantee of it being undefeatable.
Some (almost) real card games, like heads up limit lowball (or 5 card draw) with a betting cap, might be within the reach of today's computer hardware and game theory "technology.
-Abdul
Computing the solution for 5-card draw may be more intensive than hold'em. Don't forget that play also involves selecting discards, and the information set for your play after the draw must include the cards you discarded.
But you might find lowball tractable.
Etienne just put up the money...
As you are fond of saying, "show us the money". Or as I like to say "put up or shut up".
I hate to have to go over the same old arguments that we used to hear for chess.
When you say "Kasparov was playing for pride only!" it makes me wonder if you are very familiar with GK's play.
Unpredictability is not a tough thing to include in computer programs. What do you think people are? Some kind of non-Turing equivalent gods? Is this a religious debate? Just what exactly is the mechanism that will make humans forever better at something then a computer? I can agree that for music and poetry writing it is difficult for a computer to get life experience that is relevant (not impossible though). For a game like Poker, with a very limited domain, computers can do it. If there was even half the money available for a successful program as chess it would be there by now.
Also I think the TTH progams are fairly reasonable and I am shocked that anyone would even debate this whithout even trying them. Obviously they have some flaws, but they show what can be done with very limited effort ( compared to the community effort of chess, I am sure Wilson worked hard ).
David
"Also I think the TTH progams are fairly reasonable and I am shocked that anyone would even debate this whithout even trying them"
Shocked are you!
If:
1) "For a game like Poker, with a very limited domain, computers can do it"
Then the following means what:
2)"If there was even half the money available for a successful program as chess it would be there by now"
Computers can't do it yet?
If this is the case, why would anyone have to try a program that a brilliant person like you has obviously tested and found not to work as you state in 2.
BTW if you read my posts correctly you will see that I do not find it odd, unreasonable or shocking that a computer can be programmed to beat a chess expert. A poker expert now that you need to show me! It was never my intention to compare the two games! I don't think they are in the same world and thus uncomparable! The analogy was drawn by someone else's post and I responded to it!
BTW-BTW:
"Unpredictability is not a tough thing to include in computer programs"
Oh really!
BTW-BTW-BTW
"Just what exactly is the mechanism that will make humans forever better at something then a computer?"
It's not a matter of better or worse! It's a matter of a computer being programmed to accurately mimic human behavior while giving consideration to human emotion and the effects of those emotions! In general this might be able to be done but specifically it is undoable!
Vince
This is
A
message
for
the
narrow
minded!
Explore
new
Ideas!
This
is
a
message
for
the
CONFUSED:
That think poker simulation software is a new idea!
Vince
Vince asked: "If this is the case, why would anyone have to try a program that a brilliant person like you has obviously tested and found not to work... "
I meant to be as successful as beating a World Champion. Most chess players are happy with current PC based programs and don't require a Deep Blue machine.
also
Do you really think the emotional side is so important to model? I personally think that a statistical model of the other players recent and past playing style will be enough to make very good judgements. The emotions will be captured in the statistics if done well.
What is it, I'm missing! Real world Casino Poker is played on a green felt table with live human beings not computer images (skeletons at best).
"The emotions will be captured in the statistics if done well."
No Way! Emotions are personal in a specific manner. A general description of an emotion and the behavior it causes is not good enough. Fear for example is an emotion. You can define it in general terms. But to specifically predict an idividuals behavior or to analyze an individauals concept of fear is in my opinion an impossible task. Even if you could do an ulimited interview with an individual you could never truly understand that individual's concept of FEAR! Consequently you can never adequately program the concept of FEAR (and other emotions) and it's effect on the player.
Therefore if you program a simulator to free run and analyze certains hands the result has to be inconclusive! If you put a man in the loop and simulate a poker game then the only one really playing poker with true emotions (not really because the fear factor is not as dramatic as in real world poker) is the human player. Again you will get inconclusive results! Results in my opinion that will may or may not hurt your game but certainly won't help it!
Opinion by Vince
VL;
1. Have you looked into the theory of "Fight vs Flight".
2. If so, Can it be applied to Poker in the same manner as it is used in other forms of competition?
"1. Have you looked into the theory of "Fight vs Flight". "
No
"2. If so, Can it be applied to Poker in the same manner as it is used in other forms of competition? "
I don't know!
Vince
"It's not a matter of better or worse! It's a matter of a computer being programmed to accurately mimic human behavior while giving consideration to human emotion and the effects of those emotions! In general this might be able to be done but specifically it is undoable!"
And why do you think that mimic'ng human behavior is optimal?
True. And for what its worth I think it will be a LOOONNNGG time (if ever) before computers can beat top players in a limit game. But no limit?- I think it can be done. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a correlation between a no-limit players starting hand requirements (in certain situations, e.g. coming in for a raise, calling a raise, etc.) and their bluffing tendencies, and if a computer could accurately track this it could probably win through a simple process of examining the board/calculating the probability that the player is bluffing and either inducing or picking off a bluff from there. Plus a computer never goes on tilt, which can be a major problem for a no limit player. In other words, I think a computer MAY someday become an excellent no-limit player simply by tracking tendencies. But with limit I imagine it will be harder to do, since the human has to make that many more mistakes before the computer can 'break' him/her.
> Poker is played by human beings for something that has meaning to them!
That's true. And it's plausible -- to me, anyway -- that it's impossible for a computer to convincingly simulate a person at large in the world, or to convincincly simulate the emotional state of a human playing poker.
But those limitations aren't relevant to the question of whether it's possible to program a useful simulation of poker opponents. A limit poker opponent's range of actions is limited to: fold; call; raise.
Yes, in a game against live opponents, one may notice emotional consequences -- states and tells -- that are way beyond the ken of current simulation software. Such observations are useful and in some hands may be the difference between winning and losing. But they are peripheral elements of the game, not fundamental issues of strategy and tactics.
If the inability to gauge the emotional state of opponents makes a computer program useless, then for the same reason it makes a book useless. E.g., the strategic and tactical advice in "Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players," such as the starting hand rankings, does not account for variations in opponent states. The advice assumes an average across all players in a certain range of games (e.g., "Las Vegas middle limit"). But still, one can learn from this and other books, just as one can learn from a good-enough simulator. A simulator can instantiate strategic and tactical principles and thus provide useful information such as hand rankings and it can provide practice. (Practice is the presentation of specific situations: unlimited opportunities to think about strategy and tactics and to discover unexpected outcomes.)
Is Turbo Texas Hold' Em 3.0 a "good-enough" simulator? That may be arguable, but I think it's not plausible to dismiss it on principle. It is not necessary to play only against "perfect" or even champion players in order to learn and to improve one's game. And such "perfect" or champion opponents aren't necessary for high-volume simulations to provide useful principles -- such as starting hand values to use as a general guideline in a certain range of games.
Mike,
Actually I think there have been many hands presented here on this forum lately that would make excellent benchmarks for TTH2 or if it has been released TTH3. It would be interesting to me to examine the play of the hands and the advice given by the sims in light of what the correct strategy is. I totally disagree with Vince about the "unpredictability" of humans being a negative for poker sims in general and TTH sims in particular. Most humans don't play a very sophisticated game of poker or think on many levels so it would seem to me that this one thing that the sims have going for them.
Tom Haley
seat7 button HFAP CARO AA Pair AA AA KK Pair KK KK QQ Pair QQ QQ AK Suited JJ JJ JJ Pair AKs AKs AK Offsuit TT AQs AQ Suited AQs TT TT Pair AJs AK AQ Offsuit KQs KQs AJ Suited AK AJs KQ Suited 99 ATs AT Suited JTs KJs AJ Offsuit QJs 99 99 Pair KJs KQ KJ Suited ATs AQ AT Offsuit AQ QJs KQ Offsuit T9s KTs 88 Pair KQ JTs A9 Suited 88 A9s QJ Suited QTs QTs JT Suited 98s 88 KT Suited J9s AJ A8 Suited AJ KJ QT Suited KTs A8s
Here is a comparison of "Holdem For Advanced Players" hand rankings, with a printout from TTH for 7 million trials (hand frozen on the button in a ten-handed game), with a comparison of Caro's rankings. Two noticeable things; the Turbo rankings don't value being suited as much as the other two; and, Caro ranks KQ above AQ and Sklansky rates AQ higher
Max,
Thanks. Interesting regarding suited hands. I was also thinking along the lines of evaluating how TTH2 plays on the flop, turn and river as well. We have had several hands posted here recently were the play on each street was pretty clear cut. I think it would be interesting to observe how TTH handled the same situations. In my mind the evaluation of how the sim plays after the flop is very important in determining TTH's value as a research tool. In light of Abdul's observations about 3 betting and yours regarding suited hands, I wonder what TTH recommends for calling raises cold. Also I think that as TTH evolves there is a very good chance that it will become quite challenging and will be able to at least hold it's own against good mid level hold'em competition. I have TTH2 and I think it is a lot of fun to play and a worthwhile program to own. Is TTH3 available now?
Tom Haley
Tom Haley writes:
Is TTH3 available now?
Bob Wilson's Texas Turbo Hold'em 3.0 is now available. It hit the shelves a couple of weeks ago.
In light of Abdul's observations about 3 betting and yours regarding suited hands, I wonder what TTH recommends for calling raises cold.
What do you mean you wonder what TTH recommends for calling raises cold? You refer to my observations about 3-betting, so I know you read the post in which I gave TTH-derived recommendations for cold calling raises. It's not the final answer on the subject, as different simulation set-ups could produce different results, but it's certainly an answer.
-Abdul
Ah, given Steele's observation, it seems that Tom Haley was asking what the "advice" feature would recommend (or equivalently what the best Turbo player would do) in a certain situations. This is different from what the best play is as determined by Turbo simulations, which was what I posted before.
Given a raise UTG in a 10-handed game, folded to you on the button, TTH 3.0's advisor recommends (or equivalently the Advisor_T player would play) the following:
88 -- reraise
77 -- call
AJs - reraise
ATs - call
A9s - fold
KQs - call
KJs - call
KTs - fold
QJs - call
JTs - fold
AK -- reraise
AQ -- reraise
AJ -- fold
KQ -- fold
Of course, whether these plays are correct depends on how the UTG player is playing, which was the focus of my other article. Again, the above is a totally different beast than my recommendations based on simulations.
-Abdul
It appears that the advisor isn't giving as much credit to the UTG as I would in real life, or as the sims from your other post would indicate. The first thing I thought of was that I wouldn't be happy calling my typical opponent with KJs on the button in that situation as the advisor advises. If I understand your formatting, I believe that per the sims, calling with KJs enters the fray only when you put the preflop raiser's raising range as the set of hands g.t.e :
PP Axs Kxs 0gs 1gs 2gs Xxs Ax Kx 0g
------------------------------------
33 A2s K7s 54s 86s Q9s --- AT KJ ---
That's certainly a wider berth than I would give credit for to my typical opponent in that situation.
JG
I agree with Jim. In fact, I think that the advisor's advice is pretty good only if your purpose is to lose all your money. In fact, if the utg raiser is a tight solid player, you can make a good argument that you are better off calling with 72 offsuit than with KJs. (Of course neither call would be correct.)
I would be curious to hear what other forum posters think of the advisor's advice for this specific situation.
I'd want some other callers to play most of those hands.
In any event, in a heads-up situation, my calling requirements are largely dictated by the nature of my opponent. If I think I can seriously outplay him, my calling requirements go way down. If he's a good player, I'll throw away damned near everything but AK, KK, AA.
I don't even much like calling with pocket pairs like 88 or TT. I'm a small favorite if he's got two overcards, and a huge dog if he's got a big pair. But even that's irrelevant if he plays well, because if any overcards to my pair land it puts me in a tough situation since he has initiative.
Generally, I think this is a high-risk, low-profit situation. If you're a big favorite over the field, why not save your chips for a better situation? Even if I think I can extract some small EV out of something like KQs, it might be better to just fight another day.
Dan
In a little different situation, we say in HPFAP that if you are in an early position and a tight player on your right raises and you are next (notice that there are players still to act after you) that you may want to throw away AJs and KQs.
This is one of the areas where I have my suspicions about the quality of simulations. Sometimes the vast overwhelming factor in making a decision like this has to do with the emotional state of your opponent, the size of his stack, whether or not he's intimidated by you, etc.
I'll give you a quick example: I was playing in a 15-30 last week, and was dealt AJs on the button. Everyone folded to a tough agressive player who was one off the button. He smooth called as first one in, and I mucked my AJs. My reasoning was that the only hand I could see him possibly just calling with here was AA (or maybe KK). He would raise with any other playable hand, or fold. I could make this laydown because I knew the habits of this opponent fairly well, EVEN THOUGH I'D NEVER SEEN HIM MAKE THIS EXACT PLAY BEFORE. The last sentence is important - I had no empirical evidence to use to adapt my play to this strange situation. I just had to extrapolate by trying to put myself in his head.
It turned out that he did have KK, although I would have felt pretty good about the laydown even if he didn't, since the logic behind it was sound. And I have a hard time imagining a simulation that could do the same thing.
Dan
"Everyone folded to a tough agressive player who was one off the button"
Dan, I am not a fan of simulators but I believe some bright fellow will use the above to indicate that your lay down (marvelous I must say, I probably would have called even smelling the odor of his play) can be programmed! I'm sure the response will be in the area of opponent profile! But I'll let the proponents defend the sim!
My reason for the response is that I agree with:
"Sometimes the vast overwhelming factor in making a decision like this has to do with the emotional state of your opponent"
The behavior caused by this state is personal, unique to that individual and can in general be determined but not speciffically. For instance in your example, if I were playing your hand and were thinking logically I might call but if I'm on tilt I might raise or maybe not I might call even on tilt or maybe I'd fold if I were playing super poker or just tight poker. Emotional state of an indvidual is not only difficult to determine the behavior caused by that state is not definable with a probability function!
Opinion by Vince
VL; If I remember your posts you were in the Military?
Are you familiar with smart weapons and the way they are programed to see through counter measures?
Some!
My job for the past 12 years was in support of Navy/AF Airborne Electronic Warfare Development Programs.
Vince.
Are they still utilizing "Fuzzy Logic" to track targets that are moving behind "dark zones"?
"Fuzzy logic" will probably always be a part of military EW development programs. But to answer your question specifically, I don't know!
Vince.
From Abdul's post:
>>88 -- reraise 77 -- call AJs - reraise ATs - call A9s - fold KQs - call KJs - call KTs - fold QJs - call JTs - fold AK -- reraise AQ -- reraise AJ -- fold KQ -- fold<<
This is getting so far down the page that it may be doomed to obscurity, but I wanted to generate a bit more discussion of this topic. I'd mostly agree with the things Mason and Dan have said about calling a raise on the button against a tight UTG player. Specifically, looking at the list of hands Abdul produced, head up against a tight, solid player I would not play against his raise (would not call or reraise) with the 88, ATs, KJs, QJs, AQ, or obviously any of the weaker hands.
But that's head up against a tight, solid player. Against a more typical player, still head up, I think the AQ, and maybe the KJs start to become playable. The QJs and JTs start looking borderline. If you know the player's raising standards are a bit looser still, then the QJs, and JTs start looking more clearly okay, as well as the ATs. I'd still stay away from the others until the raiser is clearly a "loose raiser" as Mason referred to in something recently. (As you start adding additional callers the hands like QJs become more clearly playable.) Note that these standards are specifically for on the button. Anywhere else is a different story. These are part of some standards that I worked out in consultation with David S. some time ago. Any thoughts, disagreements? I certainly could have distorted over time the things David and I discussed.
So if the TTH advisor was assuming a "typical" player UTG, maybe the advice was not so far off the mark. It still seems too loose, but not so much so as if you assume a tight, solid UTG raiser. Comments?
John Feeney
John, your comments are totally reasonable.
Mason Malmuth wrote, "In fact, I think that the advisor's advice is pretty good only if your purpose is to lose all your money. In fact, if the utg raiser is a tight solid player, you can make a good argument that you are better off calling with 72 offsuit than with KJs."
The last sentence is erroneous. The first is negative.
I see no reason to slam Turbo. First, one cannot possibly be sure one is correct. Second, no one can be correct since the only answer is "it depends on the raiser's requirements and other stuff". Third, the advice in the previous message was just for the button and quickly gets tighter as you move off the button, and one off the button the advice is getting close to correct, except there is no such thing. Fourth, about "losing all your money if you follow the advisor's advice", I think the advice from the advisor is certainly better than the play of 99% of players below $10-$20. It doesn't often make a mistake because it doesn't often play a hand. Novice players would profit tremendously by listening to the advisor, and if you look at the traces of the hands I gave in another message, it's hard to see how the advisor is going to make you lose all your money. I see some ways its plays could be improved, and I don't use the advice feature myself and I don't suggest that other professional caliber players attempt to use that feature. Turbo still a valuable research tool and sparring partner without the advice feature.
Moving to one off the button, versus an UTG raise folded up to you, the advice feature of Turbo recommends:
KJs - foldKQs - call
QJs - call
JTs - fold
AJs - call
ATs - fold
77 -- fold
88 -- reraise
AQ -- call
The above recommendations for one off the button are much more agreeable than the previous for on the button, right? I would normally fold QJs, and against tight raisers I would muck AJs, KQs, and even AQ. But it really, really depends on the type of raiser. Turbo tends to raise with more hands under the gun than S&M recommend, because this is correct, IMO. In fact, the Advisor player always open-raises if it opens the pot. A good example is QTs. If an S&M player played this under the gun, he'd limp, at least following the advice of HFAP, I think. Turbo would raise, and, though it depends on the rest of my opening strategy, I basically think this is the best way to open with QTs in a tight game (though you won't see me playing it often UTG). The simulation is a bit "myopic", because it has trained on itself to beat itself, which is something that Darse Billings has noted more generally about AI game-playing programs. But even so, I'm not so sure it's incorrect to raise with QTs UTG assuming your opponents are playing optimally and so are you, because they do have to give your raise a lot of respect for fear of the other players, as you can see by the tightened behavior one off the button.
In any case, I don't think the situation is so clear that edicts can be made about proper strategy, except that it should be obvious that it's better to call two cold with KJs than 72o. I see the point that is being made, however. I too cringed at the KJs call recommendation, though I cannot be sure it is incorrect against a "cooptimal" UTG raiser when you're on the button and not one off. Avoiding being dominated is the core of my play philosophy. For example, in the big blind versus a legitimate raise, 65s is about on par with KQo for calling hands. (72o doesn't cut it, of course.)
One reason I stick up for Turbo is that I did criticize Turbo 1.0, where I did not think the players played well enough to make for meaningful simulations. Turbo 2.0 was an order of magnitude better than 1.0, and for the first time poker simulation research became possible. 3.0 is sure to frustrate you in a positive way.
-Abdul
P.S. I've been sick with secondhandsmokebronchitis on top of mono, so I've been posting a lot. I'll tone it down when I recover.
What about call unknown raiser whith group 1 and 2(no TT) and on buton and cut-of seat group 3(no 99 but TT)
"I think it's time that we go back to debating theory and strategy. I'm sure the producers of TTH are aware of its shortcomings and will be forever working to improve their product, just like most of us are forever working to improve our poker games."
I seem to recall the above was a response to a post of mine. Am I now to assume that it is o.k. to discuss TTH. I would relly like to know? I felt kind of embarrassed at this response and decided you were correct and silently (you don't know how hard that is for me) agreed to leave TTH alone.
Which is it?
Vince
We were looking for examples where the computer's choice and the human expert's choice butt heads. Granting me the benefit of the doubt, we found one.
Abdul,
Yes and thanks. My question wasn't very clear. The advisors advice is obviously assuming a more liberal raising standard than I would assume.
Tom Haley
I believe the TTH reccomendation question may be confused. It is possible to investigate by experiments how one might play in a certain situation. That does not imply that any TTH advisor player will play that situation the way the experiment suggests.
David
I find it almost a certainty that what we are witnessing on this forum right now is the future: 1. in the development of a better poker simulator to serve as a research tool, 2. the development of a software program that will be able to defeat expert poker players, and 3. the energizing of a core of curiosity that will stimulate the furtherance of 1 and 2. In the past two weeks we have had input from Bob Wilson, Mason Malmuth, David Sklansky. Abdul Jalib and others on disparate parts of a hitherto disjointed whole. Is it going to lead us to a synthesizing process that will shed new light on poker? I, for one, positively believe it is. The future of the next leg in the advancement of poker theory is taking place right here and right now. Thoughts or comments?
Interesting reads that may be applicable to thinking outside the "Box": 1.Bert Kosko on The science of Fuzzy Logic. His students,at USC, have produced graduate papers on poker utilizing Fuzzy Logic especially utilizing "Patch Theory"
2. James Gleick on Chaos. Especially the info, on how a simple game with very simple rules can turn into Chaos. 3. Bellman's (UofCal.) research into "Dynamic Programs" that in theory, could resolve real time systems like Hold'em/Stud with matrix's of linear programs.
Keep in touch if you have any info on these subjects.
A poker
simulation
lacks
the one ingredient
needed
to win
at poker.
INTUITION!!!
C.M.,
I disagree with your assertion which is why I believe that a sim such as TTH does have a reasonable chance to evolve into at least a decent hold'em player at the mid limit level.
Tom Haley
My point is that a poker simulation lacks alot of ingredients needed to be a "total package" player.A simulation can not read a player,it can not learn how a player plays (yet)and adjust to that player's style,know when a player is on tilt and is going to go wild ect... This is why a skilled human will always(atleast till the year 2100) book more dinero than a sim.
C.M.
With eight/nine other players at the table how can players keep track of all the other players moves and deduce the direction they will take with the hand?
>>This is why a skilled human will always(atleast till the year 2100) book more dinero than a sim.<<
I'll take the under. ;)
"Thoughts or comments? "
Big John,
What in the world would you do with a poker simulator! From your posts I gather you are a winning Pro. No? Don't you get enough poker in live games. Would you really spend time playing with a poker game?
"Is it going to lead us to a synthesizing process that will shed new light on poker?"
Don't hold your breath!
Vince
Vince,
I have been a net winner playing poker, but I'm not a "pro". I've watched, as an interested bystander, as the two camps, pro and con simulations, have argued their cases. It is obvious to me that computer simulations are of considerable value already and will grow in value as each succeeding generation of software overcomes prior shortcomings. I own TTH for Windows, vers. 2, and use it mostly for practice. I have owned Poker Probe for several years and used it to improve on my strategy for playing NL HoldEm in tournaments and ring games. You would be surprised at the things you can learn if you are open to new ideas.
I am anticipating that better simulation programs will lead to faster paced progress in developing winning strategies. When Sklansky published his hand rankings for Holdem and the underlying reasons for those rankings, he provided a framework for TTH to be developed. Each improvement on poker theory and strategy is built on all that came before it. When the ability to perform computer simulations improves, it will provide a platform for the next generation of poker theorists to contribute. As 2+2 has stated in their books, those who don't avail themselves of this information will be left behind. I predict that future writings of Sklansky and Malmuth will contain empirical confirmations produced through computer simulations. I also predict that Wilson Software will lead the field in simulation software. The sooner there is a convergence between the old ways and the new ways, the sooner the learning curve will be ramped upward.
Big John wrote:
"I have been a net winner playing poker, but I'm not a "pro". I've watched, as an interested bystander, as the two camps, pro and con simulations, have argued their cases. It is obvious to me that computer simulations are of considerable value already and will grow in value as each succeeding generation of software overcomes prior shortcomings."
We certainly think that they have a lot of value. That's why we included an appendix of simulations in our book SCSFAP. However, it makes much more sense to do these simulations for stud than hold 'em since it is more likely to be correct to chase in stud than it is in hold 'em.
Mason,
When you become convinced that the simulation software has improved enough that it has become a viable research tool, will you incorporate it into your future writings?
I've been following this debate with some interest, as I've recently ordered TTH3 (it hasn't arrived yet), and I'd like to add a few comments. (I apologize for the length.)
A comparison was drawn earlier between poker sims and chess programs, such as Big Blue, but it seems to me a more fruitful comparison would be with neural-net backgammon programs such as Jellyfish. Like poker, backgammon is a game involving both luck and skill where the better players always win in the long run. Unlike chess, a game of perfect information (as someone here pointed out), poker and backgammon require knowledge of probabilities and good judgment, rather than raw analytic power. In other words, chess is a game amenable to analysis, while poker and BG, being games of limited information, in the one case, and incorporating random elements in both cases, require an additional element of judgment (informed guesswork).
It might be argued that "judgment" is a characteristic of people, not machines. In fact, this is why chess programs took so long to catch up to human players: they could analyze the variations of a position for several moves but they had no "strategic sense," and so a human player could outthink them on a macro level. But the backgammon programs have proven that judgment can be quantified probabilistically, i.e., that the different possible moves in a given situation can be assigned equity values, and an optimum move determined. Yes, it's playing the game and not the player; but backgammon players, like poker players, are playing for money and are subject to emotional variables that can't be quantified -- yet a program like Jellyfish is capable of playing at a world-class level.
A neural-net program is one that has taught itself how to win by playing millions of games against itself. In other words, the programer doesn't tell it the best strategies, it learns them on its own. For the orginal neural-net BG program, which I believe was TR Gammon, the programmer simply told the computer the rules of the game and the win condition and set it to play against itself; ultimately, it became a pretty good player. (Jellyfish, which is now a much stronger program, required some tweaking to help it "understand" certain aspects of the game which are not immediately obvious.)
What is interesting is the response of top players and theorists, such as Kit Woolsey, to the "discoveries" of Jellyfish. Backgammon is a much older game than poker (by a couple of millenia), yet it is only within the last 30 years that BG theory has really advanced. During the 1970s BG revival, strategies were developed that radically altered the way people thought about the game. These ideas continued to evolve until, by the mid-90s, 70s-style players, if there were any left, had no chance against 90's-style players. At about that point, the neural-nets came into play, and everything changed again.
I'm getting long-winded here, but the upshot is that top players take these programs very seriously. For example, one of the modern bibles of contemporary BG is Bill Roberti's "Advanced Backgammon" (it is analogous, say, to THFAP). Roberti's two-volume work is a collection of problems, e.g., "what is the best way to play such-and-such a roll in this position," or "should I offer a double here"? Some enterprising players entered all these positions into Jellyfish to see of the program would agree with the expert. As I remember it, Jellyfish disagreed with Roberti about a third of the time.
As I mentioned above, Jellyfish works by assigning equities to different moves based on its "judgment" of the position. Experts now put a lot of faith into these numerical assessments, so much so that where their opinion of the best move differs from JF's, they are frequently willing to re-evaluate their thinking and accept that JF may "understand" the position better than they do. Remember, BG, like poker, is a game of judgment, and these experts are willing to concede that a computer may have better judgment (as opposed to mere analytic prowess) than they do. Part of the reason, I suppose, is that the program hasn't been tutored by a person (and therefore limited by his level of skill), but has derived its own optimal strategies from having played millions of games, many more than any expert could play in a lifetime. In other words, the computer has a much vaster experience of the game than any person, however knowledgable, could ever have. Backgammon theory is now going through another period of revision specifically because modern experts are altering their ideas based on what they are learning from sims.
Now, I don't know how TTH was programmed, though I don't believe a neural net was used. And, yes, poker is a much more complex game than backgammon and includes many more variables. But that doesn't mean a program can't be developed that could play poker as well as Jellyfish plays backgammon, even if TTH isn't it (and it may well be, for all I know). TTH's ability to simulate millions of hands under the same conditions and deduce from the result what the best play would be emulates the activity of a neural net, i.e., it "experiences" that situation in a way you could never do in many lifetimes. I don't think the results can be dismissed out of hand simply because they disagree with a human expert's evaluation unless you can demonstrate that the parameters of the sim are fatally flawed. I would rather tend to doubt the judgment of the expert, who, after all, has only been in that situation a few times, if at all (or many times, but not millions), and who must perforce base his opinion on general principles. One thing Jellyfish has demonstrated is that general principles are invalidated by specific instances more often than was previously suspected.
If the same thing that happened in the BG world happens in the poker world, and the poker experts are as open-minded to evolving strategic ideas as backgammon experts have been, then poker sims will be a dominant tool in developing new ways of looking at poker long before 2100.
"A comparison was drawn earlier between poker sims and chess programs, such as Big Blue,"
I believe that I made mention of "Big Blue" first in one of my responses. So I will respond here.
I don't know a lot about Back Gammon. I do know a lot about poker (just ask me). My understanding about BG is that it is played "heads up" (one v. one, sometimes partners play but there is only one move per side), for a set prize or wager at the completion of a game or series of games. No betting rounds as in poker. The element of "luck" referred to is "I believe" the roll of the dice. Unlike poker BG is a game of perfect information! (It doesn't matter what your definition of is, is). Therefore, in my opinion, it is more a kin to Chess than poker!
"What is interesting is the response of top players and theorists, such as Kit Woolsey, to the "discoveries" of Jellyfish."
We have poker "experts" that swear by TTH3. And...
"poker and backgammon require knowledge of probabilities and good judgment, rather than raw analytic power."
O.k. So what?
"while poker and BG, being games of limited information,"
What is the limited information part?
"chess is a game amenable to analysis,"
So is Holdem Poker!
"informed guesswork"
In poker, "Judgement" may appear to be "informed guesswork" but in fact it is much more sophisticated than that. Certainly you are using probabilities to influence your decisions. But the probabilities, although set, are combined with numerous other "judgement factors" when deciding your best play. I don't find very many "judgement factors" other than the roll of the dice and maybe limited knowledge of your opponents skill in backgammon.
"Experts now put a lot of faith into these numerical assessments"
Mike Caro's "Poker Probe" is a simple poker simulator that provides a wonderful method of numerical assessments of poker hands. That's all it does. It does it well. It cannot play poker!
"- yet a program like Jellyfish is capable of playing at a world-class level. "
Does this mean that the best BG player in the world is now a computer like the best chess player in the world?
"I would rather tend to doubt the judgment of the expert"
This is a "huge" mistake in poker. Expert's base there judgement on live play experience. Poker simulators will never "learn" to understand the effects of playing in a live game.
"then poker sims will be a dominant tool in developing new ways of looking at poker long before 2100. "
I recall that a poster on this subject suggested that if the money were available to develop a "poker" simulator as sophisticated as "Big Blue" that poker would also be dominated by computer play. Well, there is obviousy much more money available in the poker world than the Backgammon world and yet this post seems to claim that BG is already there. Something is rotten in Denmark! Besides 2100 is a long way off. Poker Simulators available today, in my opinion, are boring unrealistic images of a truly great game!
BTW "the poker experts are as open-minded to evolving strategic ideas as backgammon experts"
Statements like this whether meant in a derogatory way or not give the impression of: I'm better than you! Anyway, I am not an expert so I reserve the right to be close minded until I see a valid arguement! Backgammon is not Poker!
Opinion by Vince.
Vince:
There are no betting rounds in BG, per se, but a player may offer to double the stakes during the course of the game. If the offer is refused, the refuser "mucks his hand," so to speak. So you can "bet" to increase the stakes when you think you have an advantage. Yes, poker betting is much more nuanced, and poker is a multiplayer game and more complex than BG, and thus more difficult to simulate. I believe I acknowledged this in my post.
My sentence on the matter may have been confusing, but I did say that Poker (not BG) was a game of limited information, and that both games incorporated chance. It is the chance element that make them games of judgment, as opposed to pure analysis (although analysis is obviously not precluded in either case), despite BG being more chesslike than pokerlike.
"Informed guesswork" does not imply lack of sophistication. And while I may be inclined to agree with you that poker requires more judgment than BG because you are playing against many people whom you must learn to "read," good BG players, like good poker players, vary their play based on the nature of the opposition. The point I was making is that there are enough simularities between the games, despite the obvious differences, to draw a simple analogy: that if you can design a sim that emulates a top BG player, you should be able to design one that emulates a top poker player. I believe we have a philosophical diasagreement on this point that is irresolvable.
I'm not familiar with "Poker Probe," but it sounds less sophisticated than TTH. TTH can play poker; how well, I don't know, but future sims will play much better as more human-like artificial intelligences are developed.
Jellyfish is not the best BG player in the world, but it gives the best players a run for their money. It plays at an expert level, which is why its judgments are respected. It is not the last word in BG strategic thinking; it is simply a tool that helps suggest new ways of looking at the game.
If you mean that computers will never understand the emotional effects of playing in a live game, then sure. But many of those effects, however complex, manifest themselves simply as altered behavior. For example, taking a bad beat might cause a player to play more loosely and aggressively for a while. A different player might button down instead. These kinds of effects can be programmed into player profiles. Nor is it impossible to program for human unpredictability.
I'm not suggesting that poker will ever be dominated by computer players; I am predicting that the future evolution of strategic thinking will eventually be dominated by the use of sims as tools in shaping that thinking.
Finally, I wasn't trying to denigrate poker experts in any way, or intimate that they are closed to new ways of thinking. In fact, I believe the opposite is true, as this forum alone demonstrates. Since I'm far from being an an expert in either BG or poker, there was no question of being derogatory toward anyone.
DJ; Where can we learn more about the details of Jellyfish's programing?
A better heading Subject might be :
"The Sim's vs The Neandererhal's"
"Neanderthal" is the correct spelling. However; Mark Twain, had no respect for a man who could only spell a word one way.
Who's Mark Twain? Does he post here?
The Neanderthal, Vince!
Vince; Neanderthal's preceeded the age of reason above the subsistance level. I have not found this true in your posts. Yes persons (PolyCorr) do not generate progress.
Nova:
Check out www.backgammon.com. There should be some links there about computer BG that will provide more information. One correction: the original neural net was called TD Gammon, not TR Gammon. The author was Gerry Tesauro. Searching on "TD Gammon" or the author's name should bring up a bunch of stuff. Tere's an interesting article to get you started at:
www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/backgammon/td.html
Dean thanks; A computer has a "Total recall of facts" and is not limited, as 'most' humans are, in their memory. Therefore the crux of the question seems to be: Can a human, who does not have total recall of the facts, make a better judgements than an improved simulator?
Does anyone have a good rule of thumb for translating point spreads into approximate winning percentages in college basketball?
Danny S
Translate the spread into a money line, (if your not sure what the appropiate money line is your sports book will tell you)then transfer the money line into a percentage.
What I'd like to know is how to translate a random spread to a money line. In football the rule of thumb is approx a 6 point favorite will be 2-1. What is the corollary(sp?) in basketball?
Seven card stud Hi/Lo 8 or better. $5 anytime, $10 on open pair or 5th street, $20 on 6th and river. I am forced in with a 5 (hole cards 2, 6 rainbow) it gets called and no raises. 4th street gives me a 4. High hand bets, I raise and everyone calls. I catch a blank on 5th. The other two players are clearly going high and start raising each other. Bottom line, I fold on six street (another blank) when it becomes $40 to me. Should I have stayed? It would have been two round of $80 as both players had full houses.
A rookie would like to know.
"It would have been two rounds of $80 to me" Only one round, you wouldn't call any bets on 7th if you didn't catch the low.
How many callers did you have on third and fourth street? And how many A, 3, 7, 8 have you seen (assuming straights are not counted for low). This is what you want to consider in figuring your odds to call.
I would have raised on fifth with no competition for the low and a chance to scoop, with two cards to come even after catching the blank. More money in the pot makes a call on 6th even easier.
It depends.
First question, how many cards have you not seen yet, and how many of them are the cards you need? You need an A,3,7,8 on the next 2 cards to make your hand. If we just look at the active players, you've seen 16 cards (your 6 plus their 4 upcards times two), which leaves 36 unseen cards, 16 of which will make your low. This is 20:16 against, or 5:4. Obviously you've seen other cards, and some of them may be the ones you need, so you'll need to adjust these odds for the facts.
Now, on 6th street, it's costing you $80. You don't know this when you call the $40, but you might have been able to guess that it'd be so. Anyway, if you put in $80 and catch a good card, you'll get back $120, plus half of whatever is already in the pot, plus half of whatever goes in from both opponents on the river (which may be another $40 profit if they cap it again).
It seems to me that you should probably have called here, unless a significant number of your needed cards were already out. However, even if you'd seen half of the 16 cards you need, you're still 20:8 against, and it appears that you'll get back at least a little more than $200 for your $80 on 6th street (although this scenario probably makes folding and calling pretty close).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I have been a split player at all limits for many years.I am also a poker dealer in a large room. I see more players drawing for half the pot with a great low draw, but have seen many of these hands mucked at the river. My thinking is if I have a lock on low and can catch a high hand, I will hammer the pot mercilessly. That decision is made on fourth street, however. But I will try to save chips if I only have a low draw. Happy Hogging!!!
Let's end it! O.K.
Vince
Unbeatable!
x
Card Player Magazine! March 5 1999. pg. 112
" Turbo Texas Hold'em V2.0... it's truly monumental" -Mike Caro
"It's an invaluable analysis tool for hold'em players...fun to play too." - Lee jones
"There's no better software on the market at any price." - Lou Krieger
Are these not all respected (by others not me) poker authors! Would they say something they did not feel was true! (Although, Krieger and Caro are rather ambiguous). Would they imply that something was of great value if indeed they didn't feel that way. Of course not!
So run out and buy this: "best on the market", "monumental", and "invaluable analysis, say it again, invaluable analysis tool"!
I stand ,humbly (Bah Humbly that is), corrected and hereby rescind my past remarks about TTH ! (Yeh Right!)
BTW I'm now sorry I gave my son Krieger's book! BTW-BTW, Abdul you have coconspirators! Maybe they should be invited to STAND UP AND DEFEND THEMSELVES here. But Alas that's too much to ask! Now isn't it!
Opinion By Vince
Let me take a moment to repeat a few comments on TTH. My complaint is that it is probably not yet ready to be used as a serious research tool, and I know that in the previous version the advisor made many mistakes. (I do not have experience with the current version to comment on the advisor.) Does this mean it is no good?
The answer is that for many things I am sure that it is a good product. First, it's a game, and one that can be much fun to play. Second, for someone new to poker it can get you accumstomed to how the game is played. Third, you can look at many hands in a very short period of time. Fourth, it can produce all sorts of statistics that some of us will find interesting. And, I'm sure it has many other positive attributes.
So I would say it depends on your purpose for purchasing it. Anyone who looks at the product can clearly see that a lot of work has gone into it, and I am sure that many of you will feel that you have gotten your money's worth when you buy this product.
I think it's time that we go back to debating theory and strategy. I'm sure the producers of TTH are aware of its shortcomings and will be forever working to improve their product, just like most of us are forever working to improve our poker games.
Mason;
I'm glad you came out as you did on this subject.
I agree that T&S is the objective of this forum.
T per my Dictionary is defined as: An exposition of the principles of a scince or art. An explanation of phenomena.
S defined as: Use of theory.
Tactics: Science of maneuvering forces for battle.
How do you define the T&S expected in your forum?
Major,
You speak with "forked toungue"!
First you agree with Malmuth on the inappropriateness of this subject on T&S and then you DEFEND Mike Gilbert and TTH here! It wouldnt have been so bad if you had reversed the order of your responses then you would have an out!
Which is it? Appropriate or not!
Vince
VL;
Thank you for giving me a chance to clarify my obtuse note to Mason.
It has long been MyOp that the forum has not been well define as to the desired content and levels of substantion.
My intent was to draw Mason out on this subject.
Your posts do not lack clarity.
They challenge our thinking and many people do not like this. Keep on trucking!
How conflict is resolved is the key to progress.
P.S.: Concerning Mason & Mike G. they know each others stance on things and was my feeling that Mason was giving Mike is due.
"They challenge our thinking and many people do not like this. Keep on trucking!"
Major, (I know this belongs in E-Mail or the Exchange but..)
If I have ever been paid a better compliment (other than that of being a good father) in my life, I can't think of it!
Thank You!
I might add: "How conflict is resolved is the key to progress."
I like this statement but want to think about it a little more!
Vince
In a loose 6-12 holdem game, I had As6s on the SB. I called after 6 player limped. Flop comes Ks9s3s and I bet on the flop and get 6 callers. Turn comes Kd. I bet again and get 4 caller including BB (tight player), the guy UTG (tricky player) and two other loose players in the late positions. River card comes 9h making the board Ks9s3sKd9h. I checked so did the BB. The UTG bet , two loose player fold. I thought for a while the only hand I can beat was a flush and it was very unlikely this guy could bet his flush in front of two guys behind him. Also I saw the BB was ready to call him so I fold my hand. When the hands showed down, the UTG had QsQh and the BB had AdAh. I folded a winning hand.
I had AhJs on the BB with 5 players in no raise. Flop comes 9s10sJh and I checked to see where the action comes from. The tight player on my left bet and all called so did I. Tourn brings 9d and the same guy bet again two callers plus me. River was 4c and the same guy bet, two players fold and I called. He showed Qs8s.
Case 1: For your call to be correct you have to think about what the cahnces that the bettor would bluff or perhaps bet a weaker hand. Given the fact that the pot is very large, he doesn't have to do this too often for your call to be correct. (A common mistake made by intermediate players is that they don't take into account the size of the pot.) But if you are going to call you might be better off raising. This will stop someone with a nine from over calling behind you.
Case 2: This hand is more straight forward. I believe I play it exactly as you did. The only way I would play it differently is if I had specific knowledge about my opponent(s) that would lead me to a different decision. In hold 'em, if you are playing well, there will be some spots where you just lose money.
Hand 2- not much you could do about it.
Hand 1- This, unfortunately, happens sometimes too. One thing to remember is that it takes a special kind of player to call a river bet with only an underpair when there's a flush on the board and the board has paired twice. Even the lousiest players are rarely guilty of this, so this hand should stick out in your memory like the proverbial sore thumb. Next time you're playing with this guy DON'T TAKE ANYTHING HE DOES SERIOUSLY. NOTHING. He is not playing rationally, and therefore his bets and calls should not be respected- ever.
Incidentally, this is the major problem I have with loose HE games that involve really bad players. Some participants on this forum (namely 'Bad Concept' Lepore, although I know there are others) maintain that the problem with no fold 'em is that everyone's chasing and 'sigh' running you down. But for my money what makes games like this so damn agonizing is that you can't put anyone on a hand- or a thought, for that matter. Hence, you're stuck making a lot of crying calls that you ordinarily wouldn't make, which sends your fluctuations through the roof. I had a game like this about a week ago where I pretty much HAD to show down with any kind of decent pocket pair, since the better(s) could just as easily be betting a gutshot or low pair as top pair. When you find a game where the players have NO CLUE, I think it's better to get out, since all you're going to do is keep pushing money around to each other until the rake eats up everyone's buy-in. Games like this are hard to get away from since they're so soft, but I'm not convinced that they're worth the time.
Those of us old enough to remember the late sixties and early seventies will recall that great slogan on a beautiful poster....it was when middleclass mothers turned against the Vietman War (not just campus radicals) that Nixon knew that he had to end it.
I thought of this slogan while reading the forum the last week or so which included over 70 messages about Bacarrat.. many of them quite heated.
At one point one poster pleaded with another "Let this thread die"
It occured to me that the best way to make a thread die is to NOT RESPOND.
"to NOT RESPOND."
I spent 20 years in the military. Those with an attitude a kin to the statement above some called "cowards". A name that I did not hear applied very often to "draft dodgers" who at least "responded" in their own and sometimes brave way!
There is nothing that says anyone has to read posts on this forum. They all have subject headings! You don't need to read or respond or anything if the subject doesn't interest you!
BTW - "when middleclass mothers turned against the Vietman War"
Were they not responding?
Vince
Post deleted at author's request.
"No, Vince, no one called me a coward."
Gary,
I'm missing something here!
My point was that if you did not respond to a "call for war" that some may call that cowardly (not responding). Taking a stand against is not cowardly. Hence, my reference to draft dodgers!
"But, I sure did share those attitudes expressed in the slogan."
I believe that I made it clear that "the slogan" was a response in it's own way! BTW I also shared those sentiments.
I was trying to say that if you are not going to particepate in a war (discussion) then don't! Don't just say your not going to rsespond and then respond whether directly or indirectly.
I want to end this bacarrat thread. But I wanted to know the feelings of the other forum members that haven't taken part in the debate. I asked for a poll for that reason. Then I get a response implying that people shouldn't respond! I didn't like that!
I am a Vietnam Era veteran (never in Vietnam) and I would never ever imply anything but the highest respect for those that responded and served thier country and their beliefs!
Vince
What is the best book to be read, when planning to play in these type of tournaments? (Seven card stud, TH, Omaha)
Kurtz,
I haven't yet found a book that is specifically helpful to playing small big-bet (if that isn't a contradiction in terms) tournaments. I recommend careful reading of the best books (Theory of Poker first and foremost, Reuben & Ciaffone's Pot-Limit book and 2+2's advanced Stud & Holdem books). Then think hard about which concepts apply to the games you are in and what adjustments you need to make. And get as much practice as possible !
Good luck,
Cassandra
Cassandra,
Darling, with insightful (and I mean this) posts like this, why haven't we heard more from you in the past! I have Ciaffone's book by the way. The tournament section is rather thin.
"Then think hard about which concepts apply to the games you are in and what adjustments you need to make. And get as much practice as possible ! "
This advice is what I am going to follow. I believe it to be CORRECT!
Thank you!
Vince!
I am honestly unsure as to whether I am being patronised here :-). Perhaps if I really was a woman and not an occasional poster on this forum using an assumed name (chosen for its mythological significance) when I try to appear knowledgeable I'd be used to this and I might be able to work it out. Special prize for anyone who can tell me who Cassandra was !!
C.
"I am honestly unsure as to whether I am being patronised here :-)."
No way! That's why I said I really mean it! I am sometimes sarcastic (a little bit and try to note it when I am) but not in my response to you!
Vince
Cassandra, Hmm now where have I heard that name before! Need to think about it!
For those of you who haven't memorized the gazillion gods, goddesses, and hapless humans of Homer's ancient world of the Iliad and Odyssey, Cassandra was a beautiful Trojan princess who was given the gift of prophecy by a lovestruck god named Apollo. (In fact, Cassandra went out of her way to mention, more than once, that the Big Horse everyone was all excited bout was filled with bad guys.)
No one ever listened to Cassandra's prophecies however. Why? Because
when she refused to reciprocate Apollo's generosity by showering him with her personal delights, he petulantly punished her with a fairly poetic curse -- her prophesies would always be accurate, but no one would believe or understand her. Hmmmmm. Sound familiar?
Well done Sir. The prize of respect is being beamed out to you as I type.
C.
Its always a thrill to call a bluff :-) Thanks for the respect
What ideas do people have on strategies for winning NCAA pools?
Last year, I picked the favorite to win each game, and was within a point of the lead until the last weekend. (There were an unusual number of upsets in the late rounds last year, and I suspect that in some years this strategy would have done better)
I think that most people pick too many upsets, few of which actually happen, and that many of the upsets that will happen are ones that no one predicts (Santa Clara). People certainly overrate "name" teams, even if they happen to be mediocre in a particular year. Ranked teams from outside major conferences tend to do poorly in the tournament. A team that has vastly improved over the past year will also tend to do worse than its ranking would indicate.
A few years ago, people would analyze the seed numbers, saying that for example, #9s are favored over #8s, at least one #3 and #4 will lose, one #6 will get to the round of eight... In recent years, these trends have mostly not continued, which means that either the seeding method was changed, or else that those trends were actually just random fluctuations.
Alot depends on how many people are in your pool. If you are in a pool with say 100 people, picking favorites is unlikely to get the money, since many will pick mostly favorites, with a few upsets. Those who correctly pick the upsets will beat you. As the pool size gets smaller then the chances of going straight favorites increases.
Good knowledge of the game will help you predict the games with a one seed differential, which is probably essential for doing well.
Depending on how large the points are for the last game, you may want to pick against Duke, on the theory if your team wins the whole enchilada, then you have a good shot at winning the pool.
Doing the math, say there are 100 pools. 80 people pick Duke and the remaining 20 pick 10 different teams. If you pick Duke and they win, you are still only 1 in 80 to win the pool. If you pick say Connecticut and there is only 1 other UConn in the pool, then you have a 50-50 chance of winning the pool. Is Duke 40 time more liklely than Connecticut to win? I think not. The answer is that the temas should be picked in proportion to their chance of winning. I suspect that most follow a strategy of picking some early upsets, but sticking with the obvious number one, in this case Duke.
Danny S
P.S. I am still looking for an answer to the question of how to turn a point spread into an approximate money line in college hoops
A further follow-up. I saw the picks in a pool at work. Of 37 people 23 had Duke which is probably too high, since they are an underdog against the field. 7 had UConn, clearly the number 2 team. 2 Had Maryland, and the rest of the pix were one each for Stanford, Miami, Mich St., and UNC. Getting 36-1 on these teams was probably decent.
Other interesting notes: Kentucky was considered the "obvious" upset, being picked on 17 pools to make the final four but never the final two. Nobody picked Auburn to win, and only 6 had them in the Final four. Mich St. was only picked to make the Final four 5 times. Maryland was also considered strong having been picked for 15 ff's and 13 championship games.
Danny S
Seven Card Stud 30/60 My hand is AA/36K on fifth street. One opponent shows 5A3 and the other 9J8. There are no two suited boards so flush draws are not a factor.
The betting went this way. I raised on third street, the 5 reraised, the 9 called this double bet cold, I made it three bets and both called.
On 4th street A5 checks 9J checks, I bet, A5 raises, 9J calls I reraise and both call.
On fifth street 5A3 checks, 9J8 checks...
What should I do?
What should I do?
Check!
If you want my reasoning, the obvious hand that you must be afraid of here is the 9,J,8. But there is also a slight but unlikely possibility that the 3 5 was rolled up. More likely a big pocket pair with an outside chance of Aces up but very unlikely. Must be Pocket Kings or Queens from the way the hand has played so far. I'm not even close to putting the 9 on a hand. Calls a raise cold! Is he a poor, average, good player? He could very well be rolled up but if so should have reraised you on fourth especially with the pot getting bigger and bigger. My guess is that he is a weak player and called with 3 to a flush and picked up a straight draw and the eight either made his hand (unlikely because with pot size he would have to bet unless he was absolutely sure you would bet and try for a check raise) or gave him a pair of eights or opened his stright.
So much for my hand analysis. Why do you check? Because it ids ovbvious that these two are in for the duration! Your only live card may be the 6 (K is live if you don't coun't the likelyhood of your opponent having that pair). Even thogh the raiser's hand appears to be dead you still have two opponents. A,A on 5th against two opponents in this situation is not a strong holding.
Your best course of action is in my opinion to check and take the free card!
Opinion by Vince
I agree with Vince here, but I read the hands slightly different. 5A probably has the last A and might just be A-up. He figures you for KK or K-up and is raising to make sure. Player 3 is representing a straight draw, but is he the kind of player who would hold (10,Q) and chase a one gapper into this mess? Vince is probably correct in his read that this guy started on a flush draw then thought he could chase the straight with a shot at the flush. It seems to me that he is not rolled up (I never dismiss that, but usually don't give it much merit, and I'm right 423 times out of 424), but just a weaker player? You tell me.
So yes, I think the obvious move is to check here, and hope to pair up before the river and win with A-up.
Aces, Scottro
When both players check to me on fifth street I believed that the pair of Aces was still the best hand. Like Vince, I put the 5A3 on a large pocket pair and (to be honest) I didn't think hard enough about what the 9J8 started with. With $585 now in the pot...if I bet $60 I know I will get called by any player who has one pair and they are right to call me.
But suppose the 9J8 started with a flush draw and now has not yet paired up...e.g. K3 in the hole suited to the 9 doorcard....It's not a terrible play for me to bet again here to try to drop this player who may not call. He has to hit runner runner now to have a chance since it should be clear to him that both of his opponents have high pairs.
Moreover I still have the best hand and one of them has to improve to beat me.
Anyway I did check here and caught an 8 (I now have AA/36K8) My opponents have 5A32 and 9J8T. The hand was won by the 9J8T who caught a Q on the river! he actually was playing a pair of 6's in the hole and the 5A32 started with pocket Q's.
So I did save money by checking on fifth since neither would have folded their one pair hands...but I still think I should have bet on 5th because a busted flush draw without a pair might give up here.
I'd really like to hear from the two plus two authors on this RZ, DS and MM
Good Luck Jim Mogal
Jim,
I would have bet the hand on 5th for sure. You looked like the best hand and the pot was already big. Any chance that another may fold makes the bet worthwhile just on that. In stud all the time people chase with hands they get tied in on and you must make them pay as well as pay yourself when they catch or you are wrong. Both players played in such a way that it made your aces stronger as it looks like they may have pairs in the hole.
Bonafidies:
As I recall: Mike Gilbert has been a working PropPlayer in SoCal for over 20 yrs. I can only think of three other Prop's who have lasted this long without having to find suplimentry incomes.
Even with all his table knowledge, he looked into TTH and contributed articals about TTH's hand analysis to (Jane's)Card Player. He targeted specific areas that needed improvement bases on his actual table experence and aided in the investigations that has led to TTH's improvement.
IMO detailed analysis (either math/sim) of specific faults can either prove or disprove TTH's value.
I belive Mike sets a good example of how progress in any field is made.
Bonafidies:
As I recall: Mike Gilbert has been a working PropPlayer in SoCal for over 20 yrs. I can only think of three other Prop's who have lasted this long without having to find suplimentry incomes.
Even with all his table knowledge, he looked into TTH and contributed articals about TTH's hand analysis to (Jane's)Card Player. He targeted specific areas that needed improvement bases on his actual table experence and aided in the investigations that has led to TTH's improvement.
IMO detailed analysis (either math/sim) of specific faults can either prove or disprove TTH's value.
I belive Mike sets a good example of how progress in any field is made.
By now, many of you are thinking "what a tiresome loser that Vince Lepore is!" But the fact of the matter is that Vince is justified in his refusal to accept conclusions pronounced by anyone, no matter how widely accepted as an authority, in lieu of explicit proof. In any logical framework, a single erroneous assumption or inference can (in principle) corrupt all subsequent deduction. Even if someone has never been wrong before, it remains logically possible for that person's next pronouncement to be wrong. Reputation is no substitute for proof.
One response to this circumstance is to ignore any and all opinions, and accept only proven assertions. Unfortunately, this is a sure way to accomplish almost nothing. Even if you had sufficient aptitude, there isn't enough time to verify all but a small portion of the theorems that have been proven, let alone prove new ones.
But even if you could gather, construct and verify the corpus of mathematics past and future, you'd still be a long way off from doing anything useful in the real world. One of the main reasons for this is that in any real world situation, there are a host of specific conditions which have material relevance, yet many of these conditions are unverifiable.
For example, how do you know what your opponent's precise poker strategy is? How do you know that the baccarat dealer isn't cheating? How do you know that the chips you bet aren't counterfeit and that the pit boss won't spot this before you get paid off? The answer to all of these questions and many more is: you can never know for sure.
If you want to do anything worthwhile in the real world, logic and proof can never be enough. (Just because they aren't sufficient, doesn't mean they aren't necessary -- don't make that deconstructionist mistake!)
So if proof is impractical and insufficient, what do you do? Well, why do you want to understand anything? The reason you want to understand something is because you want that understanding to help you make better decisions, to improve your chance of choosing the best option as you are presented with the opportunities.
The pursuit of knowledge can be a collective enterprise, but the things you choose to believe and act upon are ultimately entirely your own individual responsibility. It's your life, your opportunities, your choices. No one can require you to accept someone else's opinion in lieu of proof (this is the sense in which Vince and Doug Grant are right).
But those of us who wish to accomplish more with our lives are willing to make pragmatic decisions, using our own judgment as best we can, about whether to rely on the pronouncements of others.
However, and this is where some go astray, relying on an authority does not transfer responsibility to that authority. A decision based on expert advice requires a personal decision to rely on that expert, and that's where the responsibility remains. If you're not willing to accept that responsibility, then you have to ignore the expert, or you have to figure out for yourself whether his claims are valid.
For example, if I lose money by calling with any two cards when my small blind is unraised in a 15-30 hold'em game with 10-15 blinds where the big blind never raises because Mason Malmuth says I should, I can't blame Mason. It was my decision (Mason didn't hold a gun to my head!), and it's my own fault. If I fold hands like Q5o in this situation because Abdul Jalib says I should, and it turns out Q5o would have been profitable, it's not Abdul's fault. It was my decision to believe Abdul and his Texas Turbo Hold'em 2.0 simulations.
I must confess that I sympathize with Vince's stance. I, too, tend not to accept an assertion unless I can verify it for myself. I (too?) am concerned when I see others disseminating opinion as fact. And I, too, am unpersuaded by appeal to an authority, no matter how well-respected.
But unlike Vince, I realize that I have no right to demand proof (unless I have been commanded to act as the authority dictates), and am quite content with this state of affairs. If it's really important to me, I'll work it out for myself; if I can't work it out and can't find someone to help, I'll make do as best as I can. I haven't seen any evidence that groveling is an effective alternative, at least for me. I assume that Vince has his own reasons for groveling, and I respect that, at least sort of. :)
"But unlike Vince, I realize that I have no right to demand proof (unless I have been commanded to act as the authority dictates), and am quite content with this state of affairs."
Paul, I don't know you nor of you! Others on this forum have referred to you as a respected contributer to the Gambling world. If you are a respected contibutor (author) then I find it difficult to accept that the above comment. A respected author by definition has the responsibility to demand proof before commenting on a subject. If you do not then you risk seriously and irresponsibly misleading your readers! (I hesitate to use the word followers yet some readers are just that!)
"I assume that Vince has his own reasons for groveling"
Hence my "groveling" about real world proof!
"By now, many of you are thinking "what a tiresome loser that Vince Lepore is!""
You sir, along wiht Dan Hanson and others that respond here are very good name callers! But very poor in defending your position on a suject like Baccarat! Especially when the weak attempt at defing your position is exposed for what it is!
Have a good day! You and your ego!
Vince
Vince, I don't recall calling you any name other than 'Vince'.
Dan,
Vince's statement seemed incorrect to me as well because as far as back as I can remember you're posts have been respectful and courteous.
Tom Haley
"You might want to pick some less-worthy individuals to rant at."
This in my opinion is in the category of name calling! "Rant" was meant in a derogatory way, in my opinion.
If I am wrong, Dan, I apologize! For, you see, I do respect your posts and wish to continue with an interchange of ideas!
Vince
Rant is not a name, it is a verb.
Oh, it wasn't meant to be disrespectful. A Rant is an emotional statement of ideas. Your messages, if anything, always contain a lot of emotion. Lots of exclamation marks, CAPITALS, etc. Nothing wrong with that, and in fact I often enjoy the way you state your opinions.
Dan
BTW- Why would anyone that feels a poster on this forum is a "groveling" "loser" read his posts? As I said to Dan and others, please feel free to disregard my posts. They are not required "groveling".
Vince
I have never fealt Vince was a " ... loser ...".
But you make a good point about the inadequacies of demanding "proof".
Now prove it.
There MAY be no "proof" that one should pass Q5, there is also no "proof" that one shouldn't. Those that demand proof before acting will end up sitting there for the rest of their lives. Until such time, one would be well advised to consider the opinions and judgments of those will well deserved respect.
Didn't "proving" 1+1 = 2 take some 200 pages and some 30,000 hours? Not much EV in that.
- Louie
I suspect the root of the problem is this: some people assume that since subjective matters cannot be quantified that they therefore have NO WEIGHT and should be ignored: Just because I don't know EXACTLY how much I can carry in a back-pack over 20 miles DOESN'T mean that 400 pounds isn't too much.
I have just finished The Complete Book of Sports Betting by Jack Moore and am not too certain whether his "blindfold method" has any credibility whatsoever.
Could somebody give me a review of the books and his idea?
Regards A.N
Question everything. Good words to live by.
Its important to realize that Vince hasn't posted anything to disprove Griffin's work. His only "proof" is to quote Sklansky out of context and to try to demand proof of others. If Vince wants to convince others then he needs to eat some of this own advice.
Ther is an old saying that applies here: "You can't prove a negative" Nor should one be required to. I made no claims! I only asked that proof be provided. Proof that one or all could analyze for themselves. If you think that is too much to ask then I WILL RETRACT EVERYTHING I'VE SAID ON THIS MATTER!
"If Vince wants to convince others then he needs to eat some of this own advice"
I am not trying to "covince" anyohne of anything! I am trying to be convinced!
(Con)Vince!
Just a clarification irrelevant to the philosophy of science and beliefs debate...
The Q5 debate was not regarding calling in the small blind for one chip - it was regarding calling in the big blind for one more bet versus a tight raise, tight cold caller, and a bunch of loose limpers who can be assumed not to reraise.
The complete discussion can be found in the archives, April 1998, under "Plus EV?". Here are is the debate distilled down as much as possible...
Tom Haley wrote:
The game is fairly loose and somewhat aggressive. There are 5 callers to the player who is immediately to the right of the button who raises, button calls, little blind folds, and big blind calls... and everyone else calls. [Bunch of irrelevant action omitted.] Big blind turns over Q,5o for two pair! The big blind is a good player but I?m wondering about him calling a raise in the big blind with Q,5o. Then I started thinking that he was getting some very high pre-flop odds, 15.5 - 1 neglecting the rake so maybe it was worth it. I know that someone else who called could have raised again pre-flop but in this game this play is a rarity. How bad was this call?
The tightness of the raiser and cold caller, and hypothetical unwillingness of the loose players to limp-reraise, was mentioned in another message.
I, Abdul, responded:
Whether or not calling with Q5 is correct in this particular situation, in general, this is exactly the sort of call you do not want to be making in hold'em - weak high card versus a multiway field.
I of course meant weak offsuit high card.
I, Abdul, continued:
... I ran a bunch of Turbo simulations... To illustrate that it doesn't matter if you are getting great odds if you're dominated, consider the case of 7 players limping in with any two cards and then an 8th player raising with AK. Q5 is a $1.50 loser to call here on the big blind (relative to folding) in a $10-$20 game.
And note that unlike a lot of raising hands (like AA and AQ) AK is not a true domination of Q5, so AK is by no means a worst case scenario.
Mason Malmuth replied:
If your strategy is to fold your hand unless you flop at least two pair then this call must be profitable. You don't need to run any simulations to be able to see this. I suspect that the problem with your simulations is that you are forcing yourself to play hands till the end in spots where you do not have to play all the way.
Mason then said:
It's approximately 20-to-1 to flop two pair and if that happens you expect to win some extra bets, the call is correct. Also, keep in mind that if you flop a queen it might be write, depending on the action, to throw the Q5o away.
Side note: It's about 2% to flop a real two pair, plus another 1.4% to make trips. The chances of making two pair or trips by the river are a lot higher, but it's of course hard to get to the river with Q5, and hard to have a Q5 two pair hold up.
David Sklansky opined:
Clearly it is unprofitable to call if you are only counting on flopping two pair or an open end straight draw. Anyway I salute Abdul for his willingness to so strongly disagree with everyone else. And for most players, I am sure he is right.
Mason recanted:
Major correction. Everything that I've written was based on an error in my thinking. For some reason, I was thinking that it was only 2[0]-to-1 to flop two pair, it is really more like 50-to-1. Even adding in trips the odds are closer to 30-to-1. Thus I have to agree with David S,
Again see the whole archive if you care, to make sure I didn't unfairly omit anything.
After Mason had criticized my opinion and Turbo results, but before Mason had recanted, I indirectly sought the opinion of a "higher authority", Howard Lederer, a 400-800 and up player who has done extensive simulation studies that helped him get to where he is today. I didn't speak to Howard directly, but I was told he thought it wasn't even close and was shocked Mason would say such a thing. His advice was reportedly to muck Q5 and several higher offsuit queens in this situation.
"I see your Zee and Malmuth with an Abdul and a Turbo simulation, and I raise you a Lederer."
It's an interesting tie-in to this philosophy of belief thread. How should one react when faced with one answer from Zee and Malmuth and another from me, Turbo simulations, and Lederer? When you get Q5 in this situation, as someone else pointed out, you cannot simply refuse to make a decision between playing and folding. Probably when there is this much disagreement between sources you respect, you should invest the time to work through the math and run some simulations and think through the logic to arrive at your own conclusion.
-Abdul
Let's set the record straight on this one. You should not be calling raises from the big blind with a Q5o. I think that this is clear from my comments above. Somehow, when I gave the original answer I was suffering from brain lock. I have never made this play. When I realized my error, I immediately acknowledged it and posted it to everyone on this forum.
Again, I do not advocate this play, nor have I ever advocated it.
Now for a special note to Abdul. You are obviously a person of talent and capability. However, it distresses me to see someone of your potential get caught up in so much negativity. We established this forum as a place to exchange ideas and to debate concepts. For example, we have put a great deal of effort into alerting cardroom management to some of the mistakes that they make, and I spend a great deal of my time assuring that this forum runs smoothly. We at 2 + 2 also hope to use it to the betterment of all aspects of poker. I don't believe that you are contributing in this regard, and I think that it is unfortunate. There is no question that you could be a valuable forum member and contributor. Perhaps we will see the best side of Abdul in the future.
This refers to the debate a little earlier on simulations. Sorry for the delay and hope my comments can be taken here.
Abdul posted a table based on simulations on what hands to cold call an early position raiser depending on what percentage of hands the raiser will raise with. My response is so what? You do not need to run millions of computer simulations to achieve the same basic result. To anyone who has played draw poker what hands to call an early position raiser is part of the fundamental arsenal and is initially determined by probablity (minimum hand the raiser could have based on position and number of players, you call, or reraise, if your hand has such and such a chance of being 50% better than the minimum he is raising with) and adjusted by player characteristics. Of course, with draw poker you start with a complete hand so it is much simpler, but the basic idea is the same except that in HE you have TWO starting hands - before the flop and when the flop hits. Before the flop you are sort of playing two card draw poker and on the flop, as S&M intimate in HPFAP, hand values (possibly) alter significantly and you have to reevaluate.
I consider that you can come up with just as effective cold calling strategies (if they are effective) without needing to run millions of simulations. Just apply basic, fundamental poker strategy and a bit of mathematics. Depending on computer simulations for this information is simply unnecessary and does not provide the user with any grand insights.
"a bit of mathematics"
That's about all the mathematics a poker player needs!
Vince
I find this attribution bizarre. I generally find Abdul's posts interesting and constructive. He's one of a handful of people whose posts I look for here.
To me, Abdul's fault is that he cares so much about the truth that he puts way too much effort into sharing his knowledge. I don't see how he can possibly recoup these efforts.
I have learned more about poker from Abdul than I have from any other poster. To me, there is no question that he already is a valuable forum member and contributor.
>>The Q5 debate was not regarding calling in the small blind for one chip - it was regarding calling in the big blind for one more bet versus a tight raise...<<
FWIW, I suspect Paul P. was referring to a question I raised here in late January concerning calling for one chip in the small blind (in a game with 2 chip and 3 chip blinds, such as 15-30 or 30-60). I made reference to a post of yours on RGP (dated 1/23 in a thread titled something like "15-30 Hold'em") in which you took issue with the HPAP advice on this topic, advocating significantly tighter standards. It intrigued me and sparked some questions. Mason posted some helpful comments which clarified the justification for the HPFAP advice. Though I can't seem to pull up the "recent archives" right now, I believe Q5o was mentioned in the thread merely as an example of a junk hand that one might call with in this spot if followig the HPAP guideline (if one expects to be able to play it well), or that one would fold if following the tighter standards your simulations suggested.
It's actually an interesting little disagreement between your simulation results and HPFAP. It seems like one that could actually be resolved - somehow.
John Feeney
I simply want to say I'm glad to see you posting here again, Abdul. Your posts in the past have been insightful and thought provoking. I hope you will continue to post.
I wholeheartedly agree... please continue to post here Abdul, you're insight would be much appreciated! I seem to remember you saying that you were going to back off a bit from poker to get into sports betting, though, so maybe your contibutions may still be limited in scope.
Matt
P.S. Write a book, already! :)
"a 400-800 and up player"
Why would anyone in their right mind listen to a 400-800 player that plays against a very small and limited field of players in lieu of a middle limit expert!
That is not to say that I agree with calling with a Q5 offsuit. But it is a valid question for middle limits because of the way the game plays. How do we middies know that it is a valid question for the way up there limits.
"I see your Zee and Malmuth with an Abdul and a Turbo simulation, and I raise you a Lederer."
I'll take this bet any time!
Vince
Abdul,
Just one question for Mr. Lederer. In his big games of 400-800 and up, is there EVER a pot where there's a raise and this many players in the pot? ;-)
If there is, I need to get a bigger bankroll, so I can move up into this juicy game.
Sounds like California 20-40, eh?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In the different situation of being in the small blind and having to call only 1/3 of a bet, would it become correct to call with Q5o or K2o? What about J2o or T3o or 72o?
One the one hand, being in an unraised pot in a tough game means that it is less likely that a king or queen is out against you. (HFAP) So your queen or king might be good if you hit it. If the pot is shorthanded, you also have bluffing opportunities (against the right opposition) when you are first to act. (Q5o - flop K62 rainbow.) If tight limpers entered the pot from early position, or if there were several players in the pot, I wouldn't even want to put in one chip behind Q5 or K2. (Since it would be more likely that I was facing something like KJ or KQ / since top pair would be less likely to be good if I hit it)
J2o and T3o are more dangerous, since you are more likely to face a jack or ten when the pot is unraised. Unless I was facing only 1-2 weak-tight players I would be inclined to muck these, especially in a multiway pot. With T3 or 72, you might easily be bet into by overcards when you actually have the best hand.
Should I be calling with any two cards for 1/3 of a bet in the SB?
I have never folded a hand in the small blind in a 15-30 game if the pot was not raised. The combined possibilities of (a) hitting a good flop and (b) the possibility of stealing (either on the flop or on the turn if everyone shows weakness on the flop) make it mandatory (IMO) that you put in the extra $5 with any two cards. As we all know, sometimes it helps to be first to act (eg. everyone checks the flop, a blank hits on the turn - well, the small blind is in a great position for a steal).
BTW, I agree with your observations on some of the thrash hands you discuss in your post. But if one plays well after the flop, I don't see how folding pre-flop when it is just $5 to call can be correct. A good player will generally know when to muck or continue if he catches just a piece of the flop.
One exception to always calling: If there's a maniac to your left who often raises from the big blind, I would call less often from the small blind. (Of course, I would also try and get a seat change hopefully to the left of the maniac).
The rationale for the HPFAP guideline of calling with any two there includes:
a) the great impied odds you get on the one chip call. Think about how subsequent bets going into the pot are all compared to the 1/3 bet you put in at the start. In just a routine pot you can end up getting easily over 30:1 on that initial call.
b) the requirement that you play the hand very well after the flop. The emphasis here is on recognizing when you're beaten and recognizing stealing opportunities. Regarding the former you may, for instance, need to recognize in some instance that you have to just check and fold when you play Q4o and the flop comes Q-T-7.
c) Part of the previous point is that just because you called preflop doesn't mean you have to continue with the hand. You don't have to let yourself get trapped.
Those points made, I think that many (probably most) players would probably be well advised to fold many hands here because of the difficulty of playing some hands so near perfectly postflop. I would think that one safe conclusion to draw from the simulation results Abdul posted is that it is at least difficult to profit and easy to lose money with the weaker hands in this spot. Whether or not a top player can succeed with them is an interesting question. I do think the HPFAP advice is based on sound logic. But that doesn't mean that most players can succeed with these calls. I play a lot of hands there, but I do dump some of the worst and some of those most likely to lead to trouble.
John Feeney
I didn't realize that there was a discussion of this here in January, causing some confusion regarding which discussion was the Q5 in the blinds discussion. The recent archives seem to be down, so I can't see that recent discussion, though it started on rec.gambling.poker, and those archives are at http://www.dejanews.com under "15/30 holdem question" in the "past" messages.
Sklansky and Malmuth in "Hold'em for Advanced Players" write that "...if it costs only one third of a bet to enter a pot, every hand should be played..." and go on to note the exception of the big blind being a frequent raiser.
My view is different.
For the same reason it's a mistake to call with Q5 in the big blind versus a tight raiser, tight cold caller, and bunch of loose players, despite the big odds, it is sometimes a mistake to call with Q5, K2, J2, T3, or 72 in the small blind for even one chip in a 2/3 blind structure game like $15-$30 with $10 and $15 blinds. I'm always talking about offsuit hands here, as suited hands are huge here. The problem with weak offsuit hands is that your chance of flopping two pair or trips is only 3.4%.
And suppose that 3.4% occurs. Now, you know that sick or nervous feeling you get when you have 72 and get a free play in the big blind and the flop comes T72 two suited against 6 opponents? Your gut remembers the times this hand has gone sour. Sure, your hand is likely best at the moment, but you'd better pray the board doesn't pair (other than to boat you) or make for any other disasters. Out of position, you might attempt to check-raise to narrow the field, but will anyone bet? Even if you pair your deuce on the turn, how do you like your hand when another ten comes on the river, or when an innocent looking five comes on the river and the fish raises you with his 5's full? Even on the flop and turn, do you feel good enough that your hand is best after someone 3-bets you to go ahead and 4-bet it? If someone 4-bets you, do you assume you are up against a set or bigger 2-pair and muck it or do you play on?
Essentially, a hand like 72 suffers reverse implied odds when it does flop a hand, or at least it gets a whole lot less effective odds than a straight and flush draw in a family pot or a flopped set. Taking everything into account, it's not like you can look at the 3.4% and claim you need a whole lot less odds than that (much less than 28.4 to 1) to call, despite being able to fold on the flop if it misses you totally.
Q5 is much less likely to flop two bottom pair than 72. On the other hand, against typical limpers, Q5 is more likely to be dominated by hands like QJs/QJ, QTs/QT, and Q9s than 72 is to be dominated by hands like 87s, 76s, 97s, A7s, and K7s (as there more ways to make QJo and QTo than there are to make those 5 suited hands combined.) KQ is also frequently going to limp, properly or improperly, so that's one more common offsuit hand for Q5 to worry about.
In the extreme, against three very tight limpers in the small blind facing one third of a bet, Q9 may be better to fold than to play, and with a rake QT is questionable, according to Turbo Texas Hold'em simulations. The thing is, if the limpers are tight, what the hell do you think they're limping with? Maybe baby suited aces, maybe pairs, but odds are good that one of the three has a queen, and that queen is going to have a bigger kicker than yours for sure. Maybe you say you can know when you're beat with top pair, but when you flop two pair against the same top pair with a big unpaired kicker, you can lose the pot if the board pairs or your opponent pairs his kicker. And that's the kicker.
Against very loose limpers, it's another story, though 72 is unplayable even with 5 very loose limpers according to Turbo sims. Weak offsuit cards are really fighting an uphill battle in multiway pots. Straight, flush, and set draw cards are what have value here. But Q5 and K2 are very close to the borderline. Based on Turbo sims, they may be slightly under the border with a rake, but I'm certainly not going to claim you're making a huge mistake if you call. Your concerns about variance, image, and exactly how well your opponents play postflop will swamp out which side of zero we'd like to claim Q5 and K2 are on. Kings in particular have value in unraised pots, since then it's less likely they have kings, and so it's more likely your hand can hold up if you just flop a king. Queens are common limping hands, however, so beware of Q5.
If there are 8 loose limpers up to you, then what? Then you're getting 29 to 1 odds, which is better than the 28.4 to 1 odds of flopping two pair or trips. There are a lot of factors bumping the odds you actually need up and down, but being able to fold on the flop is pretty huge here. I didn't run a sim, but it's a clear call with any two cards, in my opinion.
I do note that it's hard to get a fair simulation of these types of situations. If the simulation concludes a hand is playable, it probably is, but if I had tried a more appropriate postflop strategy for the simulation, some other hands might have been found playable. However, human intuition is notoriously bad in assessing high payout low probability events, which is the situation here, so I would not rely on anyone's intuition here, though mathematics is certainly useful.
To put it succinctly, as someone recently said on r.g.p, it doesn't matter if you're getting big odds if you're dominated.
This message is in the same neutral tone and constructive spirit as my "Q5o revisited" message. Thanks for your support.
Keep flopping two pair with Q5,
Abdul
Geez Abdul, where have you been? As MM stated elsewhere, you clearly have a great poker mind and I look forward to your continuing posts.
Having said that, I do have some comments on your post:
1. The problems you talk about in getting a flop like T72 when you have 72 in the SB is of course not unique to trash hands such as 72. You may well make a clearly legitimate call with a hand like 87s and get a flop like Q87 which leads to the same potential problems (albeit to a slightly lesser extent). Obviously, when calling with 87s, you do so based on several equities while calling with 72 off has fewer "good flops", nevertheless, the problem after the flop in the two examples are the same.
2. With respect, I am not sure that your analysis takes into account the steal potential from the small blind. Clearly, most hands would become muck candidates if the only criterion were whether your hand will improve to win the pot. However, when you take those chances and couple them with the possibilities of orchestrating a steal from the early position (typically on the flop against a short field and on the turn against a large field when everyone shows weaknesss on the flop) and compare that to the pot odds being offered, IMO, a clear fold becomes an easy call.
Lastly, I add that I fully agree with John's comment that calling with any two cards may not be the proper play for everyone.
Over at rec.gambling.poker you'll find many Jalib treasures. Look up his posts on "early position openning revisited", "probability blues", "why low stakes poker is not poker", and "what business are poker pros in?". Also check out the BORG (best of rec gambling). His "short table strategy" is the nuts. While you're there, look up Paul Pudiate, Tad Perry (a current and very valuable poster at rgp), Darse Billings and Micheal Hall( who's posts are of a style much like Abdul's). Or e-mail me and I can fax them to you...I'm just across the water in Victoria. BTW, are you known as "Mr. P" at your table? Sunday night I caught four pocket Aces in just over three hours and they all stood up. After I turned #4, the guy on my right said "I was at a 10-20 table in Richmond last year when a guy everyone called 'Mr. P' caught seven pocket aces in one hour." Incidently, the guy paid me off on all four. Maybe you remember him. Churchill @ ampsc.com
Spitball, thanks for the info. I'll let you know my fax No. by e-mail and would greatly appreciate it if you would send me those materials.
BTW, I am not Mr. P (a very nice fellow but not much of a player). I was at the game where he got those 7 pocket Aces in an hour. He hit an Ace on the flop 4 or 5 times and won all seven times that he got the American Airlines hand. On one hand, he raised on the turn and someone commented "What, Aces again?" Mr. P said "Ya, I got 'em again". First player "bullshit - reraise". They go three bets again on the river and sure enough Mr. P turns over Aces which gave him top set (the other player also had a set).
There were some real "Ripley's Believe it or not" happenings that night. Another player ( a real live one) won 15 hands in a row that same night (guys in Vancouver still talk about it even though it happened about a year ago).
If you play as well or better than your opponents you should call with any two cards if the big blind rarely raises. However this advice assumes you know how to sometimes win with one pair or no pair and how to fold even two pair.
skp,
I also admire Abdul's analysis and am glad to see him posting here again. Like him, I throw the worst hands he describes away, especially when my opponents are tricky or calling stations, thus limiting my steal potential. However, if I'm in a situation where I'm dominating the table and feared, I think calling with allmost anything just has to be right.
One minor point. I do think throwing some of your worst hands away pre flop makes it easier to steal when you do play.
Regards,
Rick
The pace of growth in poker strategists is a direct result of the excellent improvements in communications. I am only a user of strategy, not a contributor. On this forum, rgp and through personal email correspondence, I have been able to obtain new poker insights (new to me, that is) that have resulted in my making many big bets that I wouldn't have won otherwise. I've plugged some leaks in my game and organized my thinking in a way that has improved my expectation of profit. I am grateful for all of this.
I have noticed, particularly in the past six months, a diminishment of the spirit of cooperation in the internet poker playing community. To a degree, this lessening of civility and goodwill has been responsible for the departure of prior contributors. Many now feel that the signal to noise ratio is too high to make the effort worthwhile, and have withdrawn to private correspondance with selected individuals in a quasi-studygroup setting. We, the internet community, are poorer for their absence from our more public forums. I disagree with the conclusions and strategy of many posts that I read, but try to express my own opinions in a way that won't seem like a personal attack on the person or people holding conflicting opinions. I want and expect that all contributors should feel free to express their opinions without fear of being attacked, made fun of or humiliated. While I may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier of poker, I still might contribute something in a post that leads someone else to a new and valuable insight that all might share in and profit from. It might be a direct result of me stating something that is incorrect that stimulates another poster to stumble across a breakthrough while thinking of how to express his knowledge of why I am incorrect. We are all in search of improvement of our poker skills, so we should try to make the path of learning less a matter of competition and more a form of cooperation.
I think that this is a wonderful post. I also think that Big John's advice is exactly what we need.
The ability to learn from others and recognize your own mistakes is one of the aspects of becoming a top poker player. Poker has a way of testing our mettle. No matter how well you play, there will be those down swings and they can make us doubt our ability. The only way that I know of to survive and to achieve success as a poker player is to have a "total" undestanding of the game. Of course "total" is a concept that we probably can't achieve, the closer we come, the better our chances will be.
This forum can be of great value to all of us. But for it to continue to be successful, we must all work together. Remember, the battle has already been won. There is no need to get trapped in additional skirmishes that achieve little.
I was glad to see Abdul return to this forum. I don't know if his absence was from the friction I sensed in the past between him and Mason; but I think is important that no matter how much people disagree they continue to discuss the concepts that we all come here to read about.
Randy
Randy make a key additional point. the ability to be crical in a whole maqnner and the desire to accept same as a useful tool to intellectual stimulation. These are qualities many people in the general population are lacking. It is easy in email to hit the send button too soon and respond in a nasty or off putting manner. rgp has dropped down so far in quality that many people have dropped out. Poker is special beacuse it can be both intellectually challenging and at the same time be an emotional visceral experience. It becomes for each of us at any moment a personal battlefield.
Big John,
A great post! I'm fairly new to the forum and haven't had time for the last two weeks so I can keep up or contribute and to be honest I missed it.
Tonight I had time to lurk a bit and all in all, the quality of the thinking and analysis here is far beyond anything you will read elswhere on the net. For the most part, people are civil and share your interest in improving our insight into this great game.
Like a poker room, it doesn't take long to figure out who is worth listening to. Fortunately, the civil and insightful dominate and I'm sure most of us who read and participate here are all grateful for that.
Regards,
Rick
Being fairly new to this forum myself, and with so much yet to learn, I've found a place to express my opinions about this game we all love. I'm taken seriously here, even though I quite possibly might not be correct in many of my observations. It is my hope that those who don't agree with my theory will correct me and/or explain the flaws in my thought. I count on this forum to learn from others who have been where I am now, and it is this spirit of cooperation that accelerates my learning.
The group, like rgp, certainly is growing. I'm glad to see more of us involved, as it gives me a chance to look at different opinions and decide for myself. I welcome any new contributors to this forum, and I'll say that I will do my best to make a quality contribution when I can. Thanks to all.
Aces, Scottro
You are such an idiot.
In the dominant philosophy of "feel good is good" it is essential that attacks be against REAL PEOPLE and not IDEAS, since IDEAS have no feelings. I mean, I feel much better when I say "You are such an idiot" than I would "That idea you just said is irrational".
And what sense is comminicating in a safe unanimity (sp?) environment if not to protect us from real retaliation?
And if my first reaction to an idea is negative, it MUST be wrong. To consider otherwise would be to invalidate my feelings.
And what else could possibly be true than the first idea that pops into my head?
And if I have embraced a strategy, then considering that it may not be perfect is unthinkable. I mean, that would make ME less than perfect. You wanna argue with my Mother?
And discrediting the messenger is much easier considering a logical and practical analysis of the ideas.
And it makes my feel like a man.
And who made the Authors the God of the internet to suggest that the main purpose of this forum is the exchange and evaluation of strategy? How does that make me feel good?
And who says that LEARNING is a good thing? Abraham Lincoln learned himself through college and look what happened to him!
- Louie
In the spirit of your post; You are a moron.
No aces for you, Scottro
I have for the most part stopped posting at this forum, but I still like to read some of the posts. I'm always looking for that gold nugget. Although I don't feel like I was any great contributor, I tried to be honest when I posted here, or when I felt I had enough experience to respond. But I have left in protest( so to speak) against particular individuals who in my opinion drastically over post on all subjects and are not qualified to do so.Then continuing to post with titles such as advanced concepts of this or that. Although these people have just as much right to post as I do, and they are entitled to their own opinion,... I still believe that they are abusing the forum, and possibly purposely posting obviously incorrect strategy suggestions as well. And of course they always agree with eachother.
Again, they have a perfect right to do so.. and I don't expect anyone to agree or disagree with me, but I wanted to explain why I have left. I felt that I was also starting to over post to respond to these people. So, the answer for me is to not respond and not contribute. Although this is my private little feud, I have also seen 2 very good contributors in Abdul Jalib and Gary Carson absent since having feuds with Mason and David. It's funny how those 2 individuals are very very intelligent yet they have been squashed by Mason with off handed dismisals of their opinions, etc. etc. The last reason is that mason and David don't get involved in posting advanced concepts as much, or going into much detail on certain subjects. So for the most part this has become a beginners forum. The excuse is that they don't have time or don't like to type. Well, you guys started this, so you should be active and realize that even though you write here about concepts that you are exploring in a new book, you will still sell the books. In fact you will sell more since players other than beginners will become more interested. You are not giving away information for free as you might think. To the contrary, players want a reference guide. So even if you spell out strategy that you want to charge us for, we will still buy the books so we can refer to them. You don't have to print your whole book on the forum. I won't go further, I think you get the idea. So Long
Al, welcome back.
"I still believe that they are abusing the forum, and possibly purposely posting obviously incorrect strategy suggestions as well."
I take it that "they" in the above quote refers to yours truly and Dan Hanson.
I obviously disagree with your characterization that we are abusing the forum. It's an opinion which you are entitled to hold on to but one (IMO) that is not based on any hard evidence. In fact, I have hardly posted over the past few weeks so over-posting should not be a concern to you.
I do take serious objection to your comment that I have posted obviously incorrect strategic ideas ON PURPOSE. Hey, my ideas may well be incorrect (obviously, I am just a student of the game who is still learning) but to say that I disseminate incorrect information intentionally is offensive. I mean, why in the world would I do that? As well, I trust that others such as MM, DS and RZ would step in and correct me if I were constantly dishing out incorrect strategic suggestions.
In any event, I agree with Big John's post - let's put these personalities aside and get back to discussing strategy. To that end, I invite you to continue posting (on strategy and not on personalities). This post notwithstanding, I will do the same.
I want to chime in on this wonderful post! (Love ya Big John)
First, I must say that I have been involved in a few controversies since joining this forum. A forum that I enjoy immensley and look forward to visiting every day. A forum, to me, belongs to all the posters not to just one individual. Of course we must all respect the rules of that 2+2 has imposed. Not because they are the host but because the rules are fair and will allow this forum to run smoothely. We must, all, thank them for not only hosting but more iimportantly for particpating!
Now to the subject. Spirit of growth and cooperation! Can it be put better. Maybe, maybe not! I GET IT! I BELIEVE IT! AND I TRY TO PRACTICE IT!
I take an oath to be more diligent in my responses to not attack the poster. In the past I have always tried to attack the subject and not the poster. Sometimes I slip. I do attack the subject though and will continue to do so. I know this sounds like I feel this post is directed towards myself and a few others. Maybe, maybe not. Whether it is or not, It applies to me and everyone else! I must say that I always (almost always) end a response with: ,Opinion by Vince. That is all they are opinions. Opinions for discussion. They are not intended to be correct answers to a question or subject. My responses are made with in the : "Spirit of Growth and Cooperation" for understanding gambling in general and specially poker. Please include me as a proponent of Big Johns appeal for: A spirit of Growth and Cooperation on this forum!
I Humbly thank all of you posters that gratiously share information on this, Best of the Best, Forum!
Not an Opinion! A fact!
Vince.
..
Group Hug.
Mason in the Middle.
:)
Simulations:
1. If someone were to give me 100 situations and I had 5 seconds to tell you what I would do if it were up to me I would be willing to bet I could get the right answer about 98% of the time. Just from instinct and experience. I have never run any simulations. That being said...
2. I have a very simple chess computer I downloaded somewhere for free. I have it set to move within one-second. I have never won.
3. I would HATE to have to sit in a game with 8 simulators wearing white shirts and one seat open.
4. For that matter I wouldn't want to see ONE simulator sitting in a game I wanted to play in. You KNOW the simulator isn't going to go off! Won't get out of line, at least not like humans do, it won't get tired or hungry either. Man, that's not an ideal opponent for my money.
5. Conclusion. I feel I can come up with the right play most of the time in a limit game. Whether or not I MAKE the right play is a whole nother matter. I feel that now or sometime in the near future--simulators (computers) will be able to play a passable winning game. When that time comes I am hoping for a rule that specifies "only humans at the table."
Roosevelt,
I agree with you. As TTH evolves the value of practice against unemotional disciplined opponents might help those with a tendency to tilt, play better when they are losing in a live game. Just a thought.
Tom Haley
blinds are 10,25. six people take the flop, so do i. im in way over my head playing in this game so a dont raise. i have aa89, flop comes a24. i bet the pot. one caller. no flush draw possible. turn card is a duck. i bet the pot. i get raised the pot. if i call im broke. what could he have becides the quads? do i have to lose all my money every time i have a good hand against quads? im not in the habit of laying down the big full so i raise back my ramaining hundred twenty. turns out he has the straight on the flop and decides not to lay it down and tried to slow play. my point isnt that i won, my point is i was thinking what could he have to make this play but four ducks. what would you have done. i might also add that this money has meaning to me. having read the above i should have said he slow played the nuts then decided to bluff, sort of, rather then lay down.
in case you are wondering the real answer is he probably has a lot more money then i do and decided to make a play at the wrong time. but that still dosnt answer my question. think about it.
If he's a weak or tricky player, he could have anything. Sometimes great players misread you, and think that they can push you off the pot, when in fact they can't. If I were your opponent, since you bet the flop, I might put you on the straight, and figure that I can now raise you off the pot since the board paired.
When people say that you almost have to lose a lot when you make the top full and someone else makes quads, they're right. It will be a very rare opponent who is so predictable that you can fold here and know you're right.
Even if he wasn't bluffing (or misplaying the straight), he could easily have 44, and think that you're paying him off with your straight.
There are too many ways to be wrong to fold here, plus you do have a 1-card redraw if he does have the quads. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I like to clear up the myth of what I call the "Asian Player Myth" and it goes like this. Asian players are all gamblers and they make all poker games juicy in California. This myth is not true. I myself and some other players who are not neophytes prefer to gamble with non-asians. Before you label me as "Stereotyping whitey" heed this, I am not the one who invented the myth. Asian players above the typical lowest games IMO are not that bad. All those who invented this myth are clearly not living in California or they only play the lowest limits where most of the fish are. What seems to cause this myth is the sear volume of such (Asian) players in the Golden State. How come this fact is missing from 2+2 literature of poker myths ?
what the fuck are you talking about? you judge humankind by their past play not by their race. stuie unger looks kind of asshole to me.
i might add that both david and mason look like nerds, and brunson looks like your tipical home town champ. only me and old chip look like someone to be afraid of.
"Stereotyping"
This is exactly what you are doing! Asian, Black, White, Red, Yellow, etc! What the hell is the difference! In poker, NONE, as it should be in Life! Play on!
Opinion by Vince.
I am not the one who is stereotyping - if you really get to it. Are you saying that this myth does not exist or you never heard of it ?? Like I said I never claimed it and my point that it is untrue. Other than that cut out the 'Politically Correct' bullshit because I was not born and brainwashed here.
Vince,
Andras is right, he wasn't born and brainwashed here. He was born and brainwashed in Hungary.
"Other than that cut out the 'Politically Correct' bullshit because I was not born and brainwashed here. "
Andras, I am responding to this because you are a regular contributor to this forum and I respect you. There is nothing "Politically Correct" in my response. I've certainly heard silly remarks attributed to players because of their race, religion or for other bigoted reasons. I disregard them out of hand! My experience in the military with both genders and all ethnic groups and religions allowed me to learn for myself to treat people, all people, as equals as I hope they treat me! I do not tolerate racial or religious slurs in my presence!
Take that to the Bank!
Not an opinion a fact! Vince.
Vince I respect you and your opinion. I was refuting a vicious racial stereotype that IMO was circulating for too long without being commented on. You are right and if I offended anyone I apologize. I was just trying to disperse a 'myth' and at the same type warn my midwestern whitey 'brothers' "DO not come to California and expect easy pickings." If this saves a few big bets for my 'brothers' - my efforts were well spent.
Vince-
You know I think you're great, but in this case-- well, get real.
I majored in philosophy as an undergrad (don't laugh), and while most of what I learned hasn't exactly served me well in later endeavors there is one snipped I picked up that I'd like to pass on to you. William James, the famed pragmatist, developed what he called the 'belief-action' principle, which, in essense, states that you can truly learn what a man believes by what he does. This is overly simplistic, since the theory in it's entirety was meant to refute the rationalism of Descartes (amongst others) but for our purposes here this little blurb is all we need.
Now, suppose I present you with two poker tables- one full of Asians and one full of quiet old men, all over seventy. Further, let's say that that you've GOT to play at one of these tables for the next twelve hours, and that the stakes at both games are way too high for your bankroll, which you would like to preserve at all costs. In other words, your total playing bankroll is riding on your estimation of which of these two games has the lowest risk of ruin. Which do you pick? Or do you simply pull out a quarter, say 'heads I play with the geezers, tails I play with the Asians', and leave it at that, since you really don't have a clue as to which table is more conservative? (to further sweeten things we'll say you can't see the 'action' on the tables, just the players).
If it was me I'd go play with the old men, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. This isn't racism, and really (as some have claimed) isn't culturalism, since you don't have to correlate the cultural origin of the players to make your decision. All you do is think back on your history at the tables and say 'I might be wrong, but in my experience young Asian players 'gamble' more than old men, and therefore, based on WHAT I KNOW TO BE NOTHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN MY ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE, I'll go play with the old men. This isn't bigotry, or stereotyping, or a generalization about Asians. All it is is a decision based on what you think you've seen at the gaming tables.
By calling this stereotyping you're doing a great disservice to the millions of blacks, Jews, women and Japanese (during WWII) and countless other minorities who have had to battle racism and bigotry their entire lives to acheive any measure of success. Let's keep this in persective- all this is is an intial assessment which is tentative, mutable, and entirely subject to change at the shortest notice. It isn't an indictment of a culture or a jab at players of Asian descent.
== "You" herein means "any reader".
Please do not deliberately exagerate a notion in an effort to discredit it. There is not myth that all asians poker playes are all "Crazy Asian Maniacs". There is a "myth" that many asians are maniacs and generally bet and raise in similar paterns differently than other kinds of maniacs; and that steriotyping them is useful.
I have personally noticed in California that there is a higher percentage of Solid Asians than Solid Anglos, AND there is a higher percentage of Asian Maniacs than Anglo Maniacs.
I also steriotype "little old man" and "girl friend" and "punk" and "tight black" and "aggressive mid-life crisis" and "Author who can't play low limits" and "Greek Power" and "Wanna-bee" and "No Fold'm" and "Nit Wit" and "Bridge Woman" "Red-neck" and "Muppy skipping therapy" and on and on.
And it works very well to steriotype players, since it gives an immediate sense of expectation and I can adjust it over time as I play more and more against that player. You have to play with someone for many weeks before you can get a reasonable clue to their game.
So if I sit down and on the first hand a player bets into me on the river after calling my raise on the turn, I am NOT conserned if it is a "Crazy Asian" or "Greek Power" (both of which bet when they intend to call "anyway"), and I AM conserned if its a "little old man" or "girl friend". Well, would you call against the first two and pass against the last two? Well, isn't that steriotyping in practice?
But such steriotyping is used to evaluate their PLAY and I do NOT attach it to them personally. One of my old friends was an "Asian Maniac" and another close friend an "aggressive mid-life crisis".
Haven't you thought a game was a "no fold'm" game, thus steriotyping the players in it?
Those who refuse to steriotype because is FEELs so "politically incorrect" are costing themselves a lot, and doing the world no good in the processes.
.. err .. IMHO.
- Louie
"Flame On, Torch." - Dr. Xavior, "Fantastic" issue #38 May '66.
Since the subject is forum is how to play poker, the ethnic origin of the maniac makes no difference on how the game is played. If the guy's a maniac, then the guys a maniac.
However I have noticed one characteristic to Asian players that FOR ME does make a difference as far as wins and losses at the poker tables go. I find Asian players much more difficult to read than those of other ethnic backgrounds. I spend most of my time at the table watching the faces of other players. It doesn't seem to have much value against Asians. Perhaps someone can provide some clues on what I could be looking for when examining such "inscrutable faces".
Chris,
"I find Asian players much more difficult to read than those of other ethnic backgrounds. I spend most of my time at the table watching the faces of other players. It doesn't seem to have much value against Asians. "
Those slanted eyes have +EV. Saves a fortune on sunglasses.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Sure, I've heard the Asian player myth. Its been around the west coast gambling community for years. How about a couple more? Jewish players are good because they play tight. Asians understand numbers better then caucasians that makes them lucky. Its all bull shit. pure stereotyping and scapgoating. Louie explains it perfectly.
The nonracist attitude expressed by Andras is to be applauded. Andras and I go way back.
However...
I must admit that while I am not racist, I am "culteralist", much like Louie.
Asia-born people generally have a different, more accepting, notion towards gambling, and by gambling I mean gamb0000ling. Go to the Asian^H^H^H^H^HCalifornia side of California cardrooms and you'll see. Luck is such a fundamental part of Chinese culture and identity that I don't think most westerners can fathom it. A white person raised in Beijing by parents from the Chinese culture would generally think much like the rest of Chinese. A person of Asian descent raised in Flint Michigan by fifth generation Americans would generally think much like other Americans.
It's harder to see now with the smoking ban in California, but do you think Asians smoke at the same rate as non-Asians? If you saw a random Asian, would you think he had the same chance of being a smoker as a random Caucasian?
There is a way to use such a stereotype wisely to assign a probability to the hypothesis that someone is a smoker (or a gamb0000ler). First, set your prior probability that someone is a smoker based on race, sex, and anything else you can observe initially. Then as information comes in, let's say you don't see them light up for 5 minutes, you adjust your prior probability based on this information and wind up with a new "posterior" probability. If you don't see the person light up for a whole day, you'd be getting close to certain they don't smoke, regardless of what race they are and what prior probability you started out at. Bayesian inference is the mathematically rigorous way of doing this, though of course people just wing it in real life.
I realize I will be flamed, but I think more stereotyping, not less, is appropriate. Towards that end, Vietnamese tend to be among the very best poker players even at higher limits, Koreans tend to be emotional and tend to go on tilt, Chinese tend to worship luck and gamb000l to pay homage to the god of luck, and Japanese in America tend to be rich by other means and don't usually play poker for a living. By "tend to" I just mean they tend to have that trait more often than a randomly selected human being. Of course it's important to quickly update your initial guess based on the additional information of how they are playing. And of course stereotype an American-born Asian as an American, not as belonging to any subculture of Asia. Be culteralist, not racist.
In general regarding the action in California, I have often said that all my opponents there play 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, as far as I could tell, and then when I would go to Vegas they would be there too. So, they are far more experienced than I am or will be for the next couple of decades. It looks like the games are great, because the pots get huge, but a lot of the action is smart action, like capping it with a nut flush draw and lots of callers in already. Maybe you think someone is a fish because they're sometimes raising with 97s under the gun, but it's just not that big a mistake if either it might go seven way to the flop or the raise might steal the blinds. And remember, they might only play 97s UTG when the gamb000ling clock strikes. I prefer games where my opponents are playing J3 offsuit and that sort of thing. Then there is a lot of dead money in the pot to go after. And the frequency of opponents making gross errors is higher in the pro-infested Vegas $20-$40's than in gamb000ler-infested LA $20-$40's. A tourist who has rarely played the game is much more likely to do something completely wrong than a player who plays 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. An experienced gamb000ler is likely to be especially dangerous against a tight player (i.e., you) after the flop. In California I really didn't like the $15-$30's and $20-$40's, and I spent almost all my time in the more controllable $40-$80's. The $10-$20's were often great too, though, and I know someone who beat them for as much money per hour (over many hours) as most pros would be proud to earn in $40-$80. The only limits in California where I encountered people who had never played before were in $10-$20 (and below) and $60-$120. A Persian prince played $300-$600 and some huge pot limit with apparently little experience, though of course I did not play against him. (Would it be wrong to stereotype a Persian prince as having a lot of money? :) The megafish are worth their weight in gold. The typical California "fish" are going muster quite a fight for their meager meat.
-Abdul
You got your post up just minutes before mine, but I wished I could have read yours first.
I applaud your logical, scientific stance on using 'stereotype' (but in reality, personally observed experience) information as a start point, and then adjusting your probability analysis based on further gathered info (which might quickly dispell the stereotype for this particular individual). This is just smart, is what most people do (in poker and life), and again I appreciate someone who can state what he has observed from his own eyes, believes to be true, and not fear "flames" from those who have grown uncomfortable in relating factual observations with a race.
Races have distinct cultures. Cultures produce a structured way of thinking and acting acceptable to this culture. These can be observed. Why is it wrong to _say_ a specific race tends to act a specific way?
As stated briefly in my other post (I'm Chinese), you are totally correct in your assesment of luck and how intertwined it is in our culture. Though I was born here (first in our whole family tree), even my parents, brother, and sister (born there) have this as a basic component in their thinking, always doing things to not spoil their luck.
BTW, on a purely poker topic, just a short thanks to you Abdul for all your intelligent posts both here and r.g.p. I normally just read, but since I'm writing, I wanted to give a quick "shout out". Your stance on this topic as well only strengthens your position as a truth seeker in my eyes.
J10Suited
"I applaud your logical, scientific stance on using 'stereotype'"
"This is just smart, is what most people do (in poker and life),"
Smart?? This is horrible!
Maybe Abdul can figure out with his scientific approach how to get rid of em all! Whadda ya think!
Vince!
Quote my full passages, otherwise you seem like you are just trolling for an aggrivated response. Also, I don't think any logical person can infer from either my or Abdul's post that we hint at extermination of any race as a valid view point. Its obvious, but I'll say it anyway- ITS NOT.
Others, I encourage you to read my full statements, and if you would take the time, to read my full post to see where I REALLY stand on this issue. I, like Abdul, expect some heated disagreements, but I do think its important to read it in its full context, at not just two snippets from vince.
Vince, I will say that I normally enjoy your posts, and appreciate your dedication to this forum. Even if we disagree on this point, I hope we can agree to just disagree, and have continued dialouge in the future on other poker topics.
I meant culturalist, not culteralist. Oh hell, neither are words, so I can spell it however I choose. :)
Abdul,
"...Chinese tend to worship luck and gamb000l to pay homage to the god of luck..."
God of ruck been bely bely good to me...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
I'm not thin skinned, but....
Maybe this post is a little offensive......
BTW, I've seen many more Asians that can speak understandible English than I have Americans that can speak any Asian language. Yet this post is the typical response (sigh).
Don't get riled up though, your thoughts are your thoughts.
j.
J10-
If I recall correctly, I think Albert's last name is Wang, and that he's being sarcastic here.
Oh my god it's true, I'm Asian!!! First generation at that... I guess I should learn to play the stereotypes?
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Albert-
For what it's worth, I don't think anyone's suggesting that you 'play the stereotypes'. And I hope you didn't take offense to my post- all I was trying to do was clarify things for J10, who I think misunderstood your prior post.
Guy
GD, Of course no offense taken. I don't think I am able to take advantage of any stereotypes if there really are any.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Alberto Martingalo... Asian??! No Way!
-
Greetings:
I generally agree w/ Louie here -- absent ANY other information, I do not think it is incorrect to unconsiously revert back to a stereotype to make an _initial_ evaluation if this sterotype has proved to have a correlation to YOUR PAST EXPERIENCES. This is not a way of 'racist' thinking, but more of a genetic predisposition to survival in all animals - you must use your previous experience to guide you in what _appears_ to be a similar situation, when you don't have anything else to go on; to ignore your previous experiences is just unnatural ("those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it") and from a Darwinian surival perspective just unwise.
Look, I happen to be Asian, and I don't take any offense in the "wild-action player" image asians sometimes get, because it, like all stereotypes, has some basis in fact, (otherwise, a stereotype would not perpetuate; if someone made up a sterotype that was false and not witnessed by others, it would quickly leave the public consiousness since it will be apparent that it is false). It (action asian players) is something I've experienced personally, and it is common enough to have entered the "poker consiousness". I do think it taking a stereotype at face value with no personal experience along the sterotype line is faulty, but I think we all should be honest with our experiences compared to the corresponding sterotype, and if it proves to have a correlation, to not immediately discount a stereotype because it makes some uncomfortable. More importantly, one must always give another the open-minded chance to establish him/herself as the individual person that he/she is. But again, lacking _ANY OTHER INFORMATION_, I think one must go back to his experiences, and if those experiences happen to match a well established stereotype, well its just natural to have that as an _INITIAL_ impression.
(off soapbox)
But as all good poker players know, one must adjust to a particular individual player to be most effective; if one goes only by stereotypes, and never leaves this impression, well you know what will happen - you lose. Thankfully this is true in real life as well.
On a different note, I just would like to offer that I've asked some relatives of mine about this, and they told me that in Chinese culture, if you do not believe in your luck, you will not have it. Thus, this might be the genisis of an asian player getting in the last raise no matter what. Also, it might be the basis for two asian players seeming to always raise each other when in the pot together - it could be a 'metaphysical' battle to establish who has the 'luck'. Now I happen to not believe in such things, but I don't fault anyone who does; things based in faith are just that, and can't be proven scientifically, but I do have an open mind enough to believe there are things beyond our perception, and that it _might_ be possible to manipulate these forces in some fashion (but I don't thing raising in poker is the way ;) ). Better put Maulder and Scully on the case - they can then publish their findings under the 2+2 banner.
On a side, side, note, I've personally benefited from this stereotype image; since I'm generally tight, this wild image can do all the advertising for me to allow me to get action and still play tight. As one can see, if one pins the "wild asian player" image on me, and does not adjust, well, yipee!
J10Suited
"I've personally benefited from this stereotype image;"
I guess that makes it right!
Tell me, Where do you draw the line?
Accuse me of being "Politically Correct" I draw the line at EQUALITY! Go ahead and promote stereotyping! I am sure that all the people in this country of Asian ancestry will appreciate it! Just tell them it's only a poker game for crying out loud. Nothing to worry about!
By the way, Any skin heads in the croud!
Vince.
Vince:
Not promoting stereotyping as the _only_ means of judging a person. I AM saying, that, given no other information, one must use his past experiences as a basis until he gets more information. I will state that I have found many of my experiences happen to match some (not all) stereotypes that happen to exist. How do you think these stereotypes perpetuate? Because they have a basis in fact.
So I use them for an initial judgement, and this is what plenty of humans as a mammal species do. Sklansky himself writes about this in "Poker, Gaming, and Life", the "Solving the Race Relation Issue" essay, which I just happened to read tonite. Again, given no other info, one must draw upon past experiences. Stereotypes reflect the collective experiences of many, and when my experiences matches up, then I WILL use it as a STARTING POINT. My race has many stereotypes, both good and bad. I happen to find many to generally have a correlation to real life. So I use these as well. Other races too. I think it would be fair to say that we should stop anyone from drawing the ONLY conclustion about races from stereotypes, but to say I can't use this as a starting point given no other info IS to P.C., and prevents one from thinking freely and logically.
Also if you bothered to read my full post, I benefit when one uses the "action asian player" image applied to my tightish game and is closed minded enough not to adjust. I think anyone else who reads my previous post will clearly see that is what Im saying here and in the other post - you can use previous observations as a starting point, but if you are unwilling or unable to adjust quickly to the INDIVIDUAL, then you lose, in poker and in life.
J10Suited
J10,
The problem is not with people that see clearly! Assign a stereotype to a group of people and sooner or later someone will use it negatively toward that group. Rejecting stereotypes is not being politically correct, it is learning from history!
I most certainly read your whole post, Abdul's post and every other post on this subject! And, I don't like them! Not because they are not intelligently written but because they are wtitten by intelligent people!
Sure I picked certain portions of your posts and used them for my own purpose. It was for the purpose of shocking you into reality. Yes, maybe my reality, but I believe very very stongly that to promote the use of stereotypes to identify the Cultural or Ethnic background of people should not be tolerated for any reason! This is not a scientific and logical society we live in!
And to those that don't believe this subject belongs here I say I say bunk! If not here then where? This subject must be discussed everywhere and anywhere possible! At least I believe so!
(Strong) Opinion by Vince!
Vince, the whole point to cultural studies is to try and understand a people by noting the differences in their culture and subsequent differences in which they may approach life decisions and interact with each other. This is not racist, it's a famously liberal idea.
Just as American culture tends to make Americans think in certain ways, Asian culture is bound to make Asians think in certain ways. Russian culture definitely influences their thinking. The Samurai tradition in Japan is totally alien to us.
And yes, as a generality 'luck' plays a bigger factor in Asian culture than it does ours, because we in the west have had hundreds of years of rationalist philosophy to guide us (excluding the faculty of Berkeley). Other cultures don't adhere to the same beliefs. This is not a racist statement, and is not meant to be construed as negative.
However, Asian mythology has created a problem when it comes to casinos and gambling. Asians are vastly over-represented demographically in casinos. And they are losing a lot of money. Asians make up about 2.9% of the total population in the U.S.A. I don't know what the total percentage of Casino patrons is Asian, but it's a LOT higher than that. Here in Edmonton, it's at least 25%.
All cultures have unique aspects that can be a hindrance. Some asians are taking old notions about luck and fate and using them to impoverish themselves. As for us, we have Jerry Springer.
"The whole point to cultural studies "
Oh! I get it! Sterotyping is really a "cultural study"!
You know me Dan, I am always not getting it! Thanks for shedding light on my short comings!
"And yes, as a generality 'luck' plays a bigger factor in Asian culture than it does ours, because we in the west have had hundreds of years of rationalist philosophy to guide us"
Say, J10 - How do you like this one! No "rational philosophy" in Asia like we westerners have had to guide us! Too bad for you huh! Of course Dan says for clarification: "This is not a racist statement, and is not meant to be construed as negative."
So don't any of you take it wrong! Dan means this in a positive way, I guess!
"Some asians are taking old notions about luck and fate and using them to impoverish themselves."
This is just another positive remark about a people (some not all) that has been provided for clarification!
Thanks again!
Vince
You turkey, theres no such thing as an Asian culture. If I were from a country in Asia, I would be very offended. I lived in the Philippines for 6 years and traveled extensively Asia/ Southeast Asia. Every country has a different culture. In fact, many Asian countries are multicultural, e.g. Indonesia, Philippines, China.
I have a little joke for you. What do you call a person who speaks three languages? - trilingual. Two languages? - bilingual. One language - American.
I know, I know... I DID say I was generalizing. But a belief in 'luck' seems to be a common thread that runs through many different Asian cultures.
The problem with the Asian player myth (IMO) is that it just isn't accurate. True, there are plenty of maniacle Asians playing poker here and elsewhere, but I've noticed that a) most of the crazier players seem to be Korean (not Chinese, Cambodian, Vietnamese, etc.) and more importantly b) most of the crazier players are LOUD. In fact, I'm sure there's a stronger correlation between loud players/aggresive players than Asian players/aggresive players.
That said, I will admit that if I walk into a room where there are a bunch of loud, young, male Koreans playing, my first assumption is that the game is hopelessly on tilt. But some of the tightest, most disciplined players I've ever been up against were Asian, so I think that even as a generalization the 'Asian player myth' lacks merit.
"But some of the tightest, most disciplined players I've ever been up against were Asian, so I think that even as a generalization the 'Asian player myth' lacks merit. "
Oh S#@$!!! How many big bets did that just cost me this year....
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
"A rose is a rose is a nonrose when its molecules change" with time. Why are all the "smart" washers, cars, etc. originating in Asia? Why are Asian governments spending millions on fuzzy logic Institutes to develop systems to make these machines smarter?
You are playing basketball on a playground and are the captain of a team. It is your turn to choose a player, and your choices are as follows (I'll even stay away from the race card here):
(1) 5'3" woman
(2) 6'10" man
You know nothing else about there two players beyond their appearance. If you choose the man, are you sexist? If you choose the taller player, are you bigoted against short people? Of course not! I would take choice #2 every time because it is my experience that tall people tend to be better basketball players and men tend to be better players than women.
After you have played basketball with these two players long enough to know a lot about their basketball abilities, their skill should speak for itself. Gender and height shouldn't enter the equation. If the short woman turns out to be a better basketball player and you still pick the tall man just because he is a "tall man", then we could say that you are sexist (or heightist).
Similarly, let's say that I sit down at a stud table with an old man and a young Asian. In my first hand, I get split aces in a heads-up pot, bet in last position through sixth street (improving to two-pair along the way) against an apparent flush draw (who check-calls), and then get bet into on the river. It is possible that I would call the Asian player's bet and fold to the old man's bet simply because of their age/race and previous experiences I have had against Asian players and "old men" players. (The same way that previous basketball experience against short women and tall men will influence my judgement about their basketball skill.) This does not make me a racist or ageist. I am simply using logic that is similar to Bayesian analysis.
Of course, the old man could turn out to be a habitual bluffer and the Asian could turn out to be weak-tight. After I have played with these players enough, I should eliminate race and age completely from my analysis of their play, and base it on their actual poker style/skill. If I continue to pay off the weak-tight Asian because he is an "Asian" and I allow the habitual-bluffing old man to continue to push me off pots simply because he is an "old man", then maybe you could call me a racist or ageist. (Though "stupid" is another word that comes to mind...)
-Matthew Bjorge
BTW, In my opinion, not all stereotypes of race, gender, sexual, religious groups etc. are based on fact in some way. There are some stereotypes out there that are based completely on idiotic bigoted beliefs.
"There are some stereotypes out there that are based completely on idiotic bigoted beliefs. "
Now, with this in mind where do you draw the line? And what makes you qualified to draw that line? And how do you stop someone from using sterotypes acceptable to you for their own purpose?
I'm stopping here because I'm getting mad!
Vince! BTW what about in a humourous way you might say? O.k. maybe as long as those that are made fun of are in on the joke and accept it. But then again maybe not!
"There are some stereotypes out there that are based completely on idiotic bigoted beliefs. " -Me
"Now, with this in mind where do you draw the line? And what makes you qualified to draw that line? And how do you stop someone from using sterotypes acceptable to you for their own purpose? " -Vince
--------------------------------------------
All I meant here is that most stereotypes are based in truth but some are not. There is no line-drawing here.
SITUATION #1
(1) If a man and a woman are chosen at random from the world population and have a high-jumping contest, there is a greater than 50% chance that the man will win the contest.
(2) If a Kenyan and a Norwegian are chosen at random from the world population and are entered in a marathon together, there is a greater than 50% chance that the Kenyan will win the race.
(3) If a 65-year-old old man and 25-year-old man are chosen at random from the poker-playing population, there is a greater than 50% chance that the 65-year-old man has more weak-tight tendencies than the 25-year old man.
(4) If an Asian and an American are chosen at random from the poker-playing population, there is a greater than 50% chance that the Asian will be more aggressive than the American.
As far as I know, all of the above statements are true. Recognizing the fact that they are true is NOT bigotry. Using this information to make a +EV bet is NOT bigotry. The above statements ARE consistent with existing stereotypes. What people choose to do with the above (true) information MAY be bigoted, depending on the action (see the end of my post).
SITUATION #2
(5) If a Christian and a non-Christian are chosen at random from the world population, there is a greater than 50% chance that the Christian will have commited more "acts of kindness" than the non-Christian.
(6) If a homosexual male and a heterosexual male are selected at random from the American population, there is a greater than 50% chance that the homosexual male has "hit-on" more unwilling members of the appropriate gender than the heterosexual male.
The above statements are also consistent with existing stereotypes (at least in some scope), but are complete trash. There is no truth in either of these statements, and the stereotypes exist because of bigotry instead of reality. I probably should have tried harder to come up with less politically volatile statements than the above two, but I did not invest the time to do so. It is NOT my intent to discuss the above issues, or to imply that most Americans believe the above stereotypes. I was simply stating that they do exist in some scope. PLEASE do not reply to this post to discuss these issues.
SITUATION #1 vs. SITUATION #2
This was the distinction that I was trying to make with my original statement in a previous post (and at the top of this one). The original concepts that started this emotional part of this thread were simply that there are truths behind SOME existing stereotypes, and that these TRUTHS can sometimes be used to make poker decisions in the absence of other information. Doing this is not bigotry.
Where some poeple go wrong is that they assume that EVERYBODY in a particular sub-group of humanity will ALWAYS fit the existing stereotypes of that sub-group. The type of person who is surprised to see a woman outperform a man athletically or who is surprised to see a weak-tight Asian poker player does not understand that some stereotypes can make truthful statements about a population as a whole, but do not apply on an individual level.
----------------------------------------
"BTW what about in a humourous way you might say? O.k. maybe as long as those that are made fun of are in on the joke and accept it. But then again maybe not! " -Vince
MAKING FUN of an individual or a population is completely different than recognizing a truth, because it is a value judgement. Differences exist between sub-groups of humanity. We are not all EQUAL. (However, we should all be given EQUAL OPPORTUNITY and EQUAL RIGHTS.) When you make fun of someone because they are different from you, you are making the judgement that this difference makes you better than them. That judgement is wrong. The difference is not.
Vince, in this thread you have made references to people "using" stereotypes AGAINST people or to MAKE FUN of or HURT people, that doing so is wrong, and that nobody will ever change your mind on this point. I am in complete agreement with you here. When I see/hear people using stereotypes (true or not) for this purpose, it makes my blood boil. It strikes a nerve with me more than any other thing I have come across in my lifetime. I think we completely agree on this point and I hope you have not misinterpreted any of my posts in this way.
-Matthew Bjorge
"How come this fact is missing from 2+2 literature of poker myths ?"
Has one of the 2+2 authors actually written on this topic or are you refering to comments made on the forum?
FWIW the idea of weighting information or establishing initial conditions based on cultural tendencies seems prudent. Something only mentioned slightly in this thread is using others preception of you against them. Its yet another example of adjusting to the situation.
Just last week (or was it last year?) I was abducted by aliens. While they performed medical tests on me I thought about how much more fun it would be to be playing poker. Somehow, the aliens READ MY MIND! Next thing I know a deck of cards appeared and I was sitting in at one of the hottest games in the galaxy. I won a pot or two but then I went on tilt! You see I just couldn't read my opponents as well as I could my fellow humans. The big eyes and little fingers drove me nuts. Every time I thought I had them figured out, I was wrong! Anyhow, what was the point of this forum again? Doc-
Hey, Mnphxcreekhg is one hell of a poker player. Did you fall for the old, "Oh, shazbot, I dripped some mucous fluid on the floor" tentacle muck?
Never play poker with someone who has a 3 marsupial pouches.
And never play poker with someone named "Doc". But I digress.
One of Mason's book deals with Poker myths.
"cultural tendencies"
So I guess we should ask someone if they were born in raised in Asia or America before we stereotype them!
"the idea of weighting information or establishing initial conditions based on cultural tendencies seems prudent'
What the hell is going on here. This discussion was not about poker strategy and tactics it was about putting labels on people! And that's wrong!
Vince
how would you feel if you had to call and raise a 2000 bet rather the 20. thats why pot limit is more skillfull and its also more fun. and all in one hand.
Darrell, I agree. Pot limit and no limit are VERY exciting games, especially hold'em (& Omaha high full pot). Back in the Wild West draw was played with an ante..first guy in UTG must bet or fold. The betting was no limit..often pocket stakes. Limit poker is very SAFE, what can you lose in a $5-10 or a $20-40 game...$500 or a grand if you're an expert. On the plus side you can grind out the rent/food. It's a very safe occupation...a little like a guard at Fort Knox. I think "limit" poker was invented by the rocks because they never had (or lost) the courage, heart, passion, bankroll, skills or talent to play real poker.
Limit is a lot harder to play than no limit or pot limit, because it is so difficult to make a living at LIMIT poker. To win one and a half big bets an hour is hard work.
I'm with you Darrell...long live BIG BET poker the game that takes.. #1. Courage #2. talent #3. money management, heart, passion,people skills, a good bankroll, etc. NL hold'em (and PL) are the most exciting game to watch (when out of a hand), very exciting to play and combine maximum pressure and fun all at the same time. My NL hold'em game is "electric" when we play it (10-14 handed with a $5-$5 blind...$150 BI with $100 topups...mid nite we have $12-15K on the table). One nite I was stuck $1300 and in the last two hands I won and cashed out a $700 winner. Try doing that in a $4-8 or $10-20 (or $15-30) game. Get Stuck $1300 in a limit game and you have NO hope to walk out a winner in 30 minutes, maybe 30 hours.
I also love big bet poker, but I have to strongly disagree with Mr. Lanyon's statement that:
>I think "limit" poker was invented by the rocks because >they never had (or lost) the courage, heart, passion, >bankroll, skills or talent to play real poker.
To call big bet "real poker", and to say that limit poker players lack courage, skill, etc. is total BS. So you're playing PL poker for a few hundred dollars buy-in. Try playing limit HE with bets of 1,000-2,000, and tell me that it doesn't take talent and courage to play that game.
The point is, the more money that is at stake, and the more that money means to you, the more skill and courage it takes to play and succeed at that level. The difference between your PL game and a limit game having 5,10 blinds is just that yours is a bigger game, probably more equivalent in risk to 30-60. However, in your game one need only risk $150, with $100 rebuys. In a 30-60 game, the minimum buyin is probably at least $300 in most casinos. So, which one involves more risk?
While big bet poker is great, I don't think that limit poker is deserving of disrespect. The level of skill needed in either game depends completely upon the skill of your opponents, not the structure of the game. Heck, if your game is full of weak players, I can come in as a rock and they'll pay me off anyway. I might win a thousand or so at each game with little risk and only $5 blinds to pay. All of that depends upon the opposition, not the structure.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Well put, FossilMan. Anyone's whose ever gotten shellacked for a grand or two at a twenty forty game knows that it takes the same kind of cajones to play mid limit as it does low-level pot limit.
"I think "limit" poker was invented by the rocks because they never had (or lost) the courage, heart, passion, bankroll, skills or talent to play real poker."
I would think that limit poker was invented by the casinos that wanted to make more money off the game. If everybody is done bruising their chests does somebody know the real history?
"thats why pot limit is more skillfull"
Nothing could be further from the truth!
Because the skilled have a better chance at winning than the unskilled in Pot Limit certainly does not translate to a more skillfull game.
"how would you feel if you had to call and raise a 2000 bet rather the 20"
This statement hardly PROVES anything about the skillfulness of Pot limit! Yeh, that's right guys I require proof when someone makes flat out statements like this!
I don't play pot limit so I won't comment on it's skill requirements. I play limit! So you guys who believe this post please comment! Then I'll do my own comparison of skillfulness!
Vince
O.K., I'll comment. I've played quite a bit of NL HoldEm in ring games with small buy-ins. ($50.00 to $1,000.00)
I think it is the most exciting game to play and to watch when not in the hand. I've played in bigger limit games, $200-400 lowball, where the amount on the table and the buy-ins were larger, but the excitement of risking it all each time you play a hand is missing. In NL lowball, which I also played a lot of during the 60's and 70's, the action was usually too slow unless you required high blinds and antes. Most pots were contested only after one player gave "air" to another to induce a call.
I am a lifetime net winner at NL Hold-Em, having usually played against more skillful players. I attribute my winning to my exercising caution in the face of the known superiority of the other players. It is this reason that causes me to believe that the expert player doesn't have an overwhelming advantage in big bet poker. I am apparently the only player in the world that believes this; certainly no poker author has ever written to confirm my opinion. I have watched weak players play NL for many hours over a period of weeks and not lose any more than they would have had they been playing 10-20. If the buy-in is small enough, the weak player can double and triple up three or four times in a row because he is getting all the action he could ever ask for. I've been stuck $1,000.00 in a $100.00 buy-in NL game on several occasions and gotten my money back with another $100.00 buy-in with just a few winning hands. A weak player should know to leave a game once he has a lot of money in front of him rather than waiting around for a better player to bust him with a single hand. A player with modest skills who has a good understanding of starting hand values can modify his playing standards with a large stack in front of him and continue in any NL game. I certainly play a different game when I have a very large stack to protect than I do when I am trying to get some chips to play with. In a NL game with the right buy-in and ante/blind structure, I'll sit down with anyone and play.
Big bet takes different poker skills than limit poker, but I don't believe that a mediocre player is at a greater disadvantage through playing big bet if he is playing in a game where the buy-in isn't too big for his bankroll. I would like my chances much more with a session bankroll of $500.00 in a $100 buy-in NL Hold-Em game than in a 15-30 limit Hold-Em game with the same $500.00. It is much easier to get unstuck in a NL game than in a limit one. For me, focus and concentration is much easier in big bet poker. This is especially true when I am out of a hand and observing opponents. I learn much more about opponents in NL than I ever do when playing limit.
I have more than 1000 hours experience playing ring game NL Hold-Em, and wonder how others, with similar or greater experience playing NL, feel about my conclusions regarding weak players chances while playing limit vs. NL.
Double D-
Me thinks you use faulty logic. Just because someone is willing to shove a whole bunch of chips in the pot when he thinks he has an edge does not make him a "skillful" player. I actually wouldn't even define it as "courage", but rather a willingness to take a calculated risk.
Bill Gates could win more money than all the big bet poker players in the world in one minute if he simply picked a color on the roulette table, plunked down a $100 million bet, and happened to overcome the slight house edge. Does that make him Courageous? NO! Does that make him a skillfull gambler? NO!
Big bet poker is a great game. Limit poker is a great game. Basketball is a great sport. Baseball is a great sport. Michael Jordan couldn't hit .200 against minor league pitching, but that doesn't mean he isn't a great athelete. These sports and these two games are just DIFFERENT. Different strokes for different folks. Give it a rest about big bet poker and try to find a more legitimate way to convince your fragile ego that you are a GREAT BIG MAN.
Double D
What you said is absolutely poetic.
Darrell, As a person who plays pot limit 90% of the time I have to disagree with what you have said. I think both pot limit and limit are skillful and tough games. When I play limit I do feel that many of the weapons I use at PL are not there. You can make more mistakes in a game of limit and it doesnt cost you as much, because a mistake at big bet poker can cost you your whole stack. Also at big bet poker if you make a great play you can double your stack rather than win a few additional bets. In limit you have to be more accurate, there is normally a correct and incorrect way to play a limit hand to win the optimum number of bets. At pot limit there are often many different ways to play a hand to get your opponent 'all in'. I think big bet poker is more exciting, most players that I know who have played big bet poker regularly find limit poker 'tame' even when they play limits which give them the same size swings that they can have at PL. Big bet poker does make it harder for new players to break into the game. A new player who has played only kitchen table poker can read as many books on PL/NL as he likes but if he plays against a table of relatively experienced players he will get ironed out far quicker and far more certainly than a player whos read our esteemed authors and plays limit. This does mean that cities like Vienna actually have far more regular poker players than a city like London which is many times the size but plays pot limit rather than limit.
In that book you have two charts. One about what you can make and another about bankrolls. My question is this:with 7-stud 8 must using those charts what can you make in that game and what bankroll would you need at various limits?
Predator,
Hope I don't step on anyone's toes here and answer someone else's question but a complete and thorough discussion of determining win rates and bankrolls can be found in his book, Gambling Theory and Other Topics.
Tom Haley
Best wishes to all.
I am playing very long sessions at a very loose game and I would like to ask remarks and personal experiences addressing the question: is it possible that a good player can loose 200 small bets in a 30 hours long session without doing serious mistakes?
In the game that this happened I play often long sessions and I have won one time 400 small bets in about 30 hours and often I win from 100 to 200 small bets in 30 hours.
I lost about 200 small bets last weekend and I believe that at least 100 of them are due to steaming and loss of effectiveness and loss of edge and improved play of the opposition when they saw me losing pot after pot for about 3 hours to any kind (reasonable and unreasonble) draw.
Do you think that a solid (not tight but solid, that is tight-aggressive and expert) player can encounter such loss?
Thank you.
Maria.
"is it possible that a good player can loose 200 small bets in a 30 hours long session without doing serious mistakes? "
Playing a 30 hour session could be considered a serious mistake all by itself. I'm not saying it is for you but for me it is!
200 small bets/30hrs= 6 2/3 small bets/hr.
Hmmm... 1 hand to the river/hr.
Others will probably say that the Std Deviation for the game you play predicts this kind of loss/win!
I play 15-30 Stud and Hold'em. 200 small bets is $3,000. I have never lost that much money in a marathon session. I have lost a little more than half that!
A few weeks ago I played in a 20-40 Holdem game. A level I don't normally play. I lost very close to that in a 20 hr+ session.
So I don't have an answer but I hope this helps!
Vince. BTW "Do you think that a solid (not tight but solid, that is tight-aggressive and expert) player can encounter such loss?"
I am a solid player! (Just ask me!)
Vince-
1 hand to the river an hour in a loose game? That doesn't sound right. In a game like this you're going to be doing a fair amound of chasing (I know, I know, you're cringing right now), and because the pots are so big you're going to have to show down some pretty, uh, exotic holdings.
I meant you lose 1 hand (played to the river) per hour on average! I'm probably off in my estimation but the point is that I have lost a lot in a marathon session!
Vince
If your standard deviation in a loose game like this is 12 bb/hr (which I think is a reasonable number for a very loose game), then after 30 hours your standard deviation should be around 65 bb, or 130 sb. If you are winning 1 bb/hr, you should be somewhere between up 190 sb or down 70 sb about 2/3 of the time. To be down 200 sb should be a rare occurance, as should being up 400 sb, but it's certainly possible. You might see results like that about 5% of the time.
Dan
How does the advice feature of Turbo Texas HE compare with the advice in Sklansky and Malmuth's HE for Advanced Players?
BillC,
I can't remember every instance but if my memory serves me correctly the two sources are not even close to each other. Abdul was kind enough to post the advice for calling raises cold from the TTH3 advisor in a response to my query. If you can configure your opponents pre-flop strategy I would think that the advisor wouldn't be that important. I don't know if the advisor for TTH utilizes the pre-flop strategy of the individual players to provide it's advice.
Tom Haley
Well, HFAP does not cover every possibility, not even close, whereas the Turbo Texas Hold'em advisor covers literally every possibility. The answers the advisor gives you are not always correct, of course. In general, it's a lot closer to S&M than most give it credit for. I would characterize Turbo as looser and more aggressive than S&M, though in certain situations it's tighter than S&M.
Also, you can change the advisor to use one of the other players, perhaps one closer to S&M style, as the basis for the advice.
I think perhaps you'd get a better idea of Turbo if I showed you some sample hands. Here is a game of all Advisor_T players with all the toughness flags turned on, which should correspond to the same as what the advice feature would recommend. The position is shown relative to the button in parens, so (7) means 7 off the button, which is under the gun in a 10 handed game. (0) is the button, (SB) is the small blind, and (BB) is the big blind. Note that my version is not quite patched up to a pull 3.0, unfortunately.
Here are the first 10 hands out of this game.
Hand #1
(7) 42o folds, (6) J2o folds, (5) AQs open-raises, (4) K4o folds, (3) A3s folds, (2) J5o folds, (1) J9o folds, (0) K6o folds, (SB) 75o folds, (BB) ATs reraises, (5) AQs calls.
Flop comes Ad2c5s. (BB) AcTc bets, (5) AhQh raises, (BB) AcTc reraises, AhQh calls.
Turn is 5d. (BB) AcTc bets, (5) AhQh raises, (BB) AcTc calls.
River is 8d. (BB) AcTc checks, (BB) AhQh checks.
Hand #2
(7) 72o folds, (6) 75o folds, (5) A6o folds, (4) Q7o folds, (3) KJo open-raises, (2) K9o folds, (1) 73s folds, (0) A9o folds, (SB) T4o folds, (BB) T6o folds.
Hand #3
(7) K3s folds, (6) K2o folds, (5) K8s folds, (4) T4o folds, (3) Q3s folds, (2) 86s folds, (1) AJs open-raises, (0) A5o folds, (SB) 63o folds, (BB) ATo reraises, (1) AJs calls.
Flop comes 5h9cQs. AcTs bets, AsJs folds.
Hand #4
(7) 86s folds, (6) AQo open-raises, (5) Q6s folds, (4) J8o folds, (3) T5o folds, (2) J5o folds, (1) A4o folds, (0) 74o folds, (SB) 72o folds, (BB) 62o folds.
Hand #5
(7) J5s folds, (6) T3o folds, (5) K4o folds, (4) 98o folds, (3) 96o folds, (2) A3o raises, (1) A3s folds, (0) K2o folds, (SB) J3o folds, (BB) 72o folds.
Hand #6
(7) T9o folds, (6) QJo folds, (5) Q5o folds, (4) 64o folds, (3) J8s folds, (2) J7o folds, (1) 92s folds, (0) ATo open-raises, (SB) K6o folds, (BB) 98o calls.
Flop comes 4c7d9s. 9h8s bets, AhTd raises, 9h8s calls.
Turn is Ad. 9h8s bets, AhTd raises, 9h8s folds.
Hand #7
(7) J4o folds, (6) K8o folds, (5) 83o folds, (4) J5s folds, (3) Q2o folds, (2) AQo open-raises, (1) A5o folds, (0) 52s folds, (SB) 64s folds, (BB) TT calls.
Flop comes Qd7hTd. TcTs bets, AdQs raises, TcTs reraises, AdQs rereraises, TsTc calls.
Turn is 8h. TsTc checks, AdQs bets, TcTs (check)raises, AdQs folds.
Hand #8
(7) T3o folds, (6) K2o folds, (5) 75o folds, (4) TT open-raises, (3) 86o folds, (2) 43o folds, (1) T6o folds, (0) 93o folds, (SB) Q4o folds, (BB) 86s calls.
Flop comes 4c2d9d. 8h6h checks, TcTd bets, 8h6h folds.
Hand #9
(7) T2o folds, (6) J2s folds, (5) K9s folds, (4) 92o folds, (3) QJs open-raises, (2) 33 folds, (1) QJo folds, (0) T9o folds, (SB) 88 reraises, (BB) T6o folds, (3) QJs calls.
Flop comes 5h9cKc. 8c8s bets, QcJc raises, 8c8s folds.
Hand #10
(7) T8o folds, (6) T4o folds, (5) J5o folds, (4) A9s open-raises, (3) 93o folds, (2) ATo folds, (1) Q2s folds, (0) K8o folds, (SB) J2o folds, (BB) T4s folds.
Typical $10-$20 hold'em game. For some reason, the game was riddled with huge hands and many big hands were getting craked, eve though people were playing realtvely tight. We even had a Aces-full-of-tens or better bad beat jackpot get hit at my table (the first time in about 3 months). I had KK three times, QQ twice, AA once, and flopped three sets, a nut straight, and a full house in three hours. And I was only up 50 bucks! Anyway, that is just background about the action at the table.
A tight player calls from middle position and I raise on the button with QQ. A loosish player in the BB calls and the original limper calls for a three handed pot. The flop is QcTc7c. Limper bets and I raise. BB calls and limper calls. Turn is a 2 of clubs. BB checks, limper checks, I figure I can't be good and take the free card to fill up. River is the 8 of clubs. BB bets out, limper folds, I fold and limper flashes the Jack of clubs. Questions abound:
1) Should I have raised on the flop or waited for a blank on the turn? (MM has an article about flat calling with a set with a different board in Poker Digest this month.)
2) Since I DID raise the flop, should I have bet out on the turn since I was unlikely to get reraised by anything but the nut flush, I might get a smaller flush to fold, and I had 13 outs anyway?
3) Was it worth a crying call at the end? I don't think the BB would launch a cold bluff into two "tough" players, but I probably would have had to call if the limper bet after a BB check.
1) "Should I have raised on the flop of waited for a blank on the turn?" Definitely raise. Why let on-the-come players get a cheap card?
2) ". . .should I have bet out on the turn. . . ?" In general, a good policy would be to bet hands with no outs on the turn, but to check hands with outs.
3) "Was it worth a crying call at the end?" Knowing your opponents helps here; in general, most players fold too often on the end given the size of the pot; there was $145 in the pot; if you felt there was a better than 1 in 8 chance of winning, you should have called.
Hope this helps.
Can anyone recommend a couple of good Omaha books? (High only).
In the casino where I play, they play 10-20 Omaha. They cap before the flop every time. I would like to know the starting hand to play in this particular game.
The only really good book is Ciaffone's "Omaha Hold'em Poker".
Dave,
I agree with Dan. My only question is where on earth is this game?
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I don't really expect an answer. Keep it your secret.
In 1-4-8-8 Holdem, I often play hands like J7s in any position if the game has shown tendencies to be loose passive, which it usually has. What I don't do is cold call a raise, especially a max raise with those kind of hands. I also will usually fold that type of hand, even after I called originally. If the raise comes from a traditional steal position (which is BTW a misnomer in 1488, because it is impossible to steal late-too many people have already called, IMHO-UTG is a steal position in this game *"What?!"*,"IS he crazy?" Actually, that's another post.)and is less than the max, I will often call if I have already contributed. What I see is players, even some of the ones who don't play badly, routinely call or cold call a raise preflop. Who is right?
I feel that J7s is usually a weak hand. I will call an unraised pot in late position, depending on who has already called. J7s is only slightly better than if it were unsuited, right?? Even if flush gets there.. (rarely), you may be beat by 3 overcard flushes.
Why not just wait for something better than J7?
I believe that it is right, even after a raise to call with J7 suited with more than 6 players. In fact, I would call even if it were capped with 8 players, I might even raise. This is why, if you raise and are last to act and hit the nuts (there is also a straight available) no one has you on J7suited offering you terrific opportunity for profit. It also should be an easy hand to fold. With a flush possibility you can tread lightly (you did say loose passive).
Your post amazes me. The only part I agree with is that this should be an easy hand to fold. And the time to do it is well before the flop...
One last word on this and them I'm done.
TOP, pg. 32-- "No matter how great a player is, if he plays much too loose for the ante he is giving an edge to those players who play correctly for the ante".
In short, why would you ever want to give an edge?
I hope this post is sarcastic.
1) You can't flop the nuts with this hand, save a full house (one in a thousand) or quads (har har har). A straight will in all likelihood get snapped off, since the cards that make you are likely to makes someone else as well in a capped pre-flop hand.
hand's in all likelihood dominated anyway, and everyone's going to call to the river regardles of the flop, so nobody has to 'put you on' anything, since they're not going to fold.
The idea of playing J7 anywhere other than the button (or one to the right if the game's real loose) or playing at AT ALL for a raise is total laugher. This hand is a dud. Treat it as such.
When you play a hand like J7s do you win more money than you lose. If your only spending one or two dollars to see the flop with seven other players and then fold to a raise or if you don't have a draw to the best hand on the flop you may playing ok.
Have you kept any records on how much you won playing these types of hands, if not you should start.
How can play J7s continually and claim that it shows a profit. against 7 random hands you would fall just below 50%. how can you play out of position. i am confused that this would even get a discussion going.
I totally agree with Mike!! J7s is not much better than a trash hand, and even if you are in late position in a un-raised muti-way pot, what happens when you catch part of the flop, such as a J? You definitely have kicker problems. This hand, IMO should only be played in SB or BB, as you will get into too much trouble with it!
You guys are being too literal minded. I said hands "like J7s" and you all focus on J7s. What I was talking about was playing loose in a game in which most of your opponents are playing looser. Specifically, I was talking about the difference between calling for $2 in a game that begs you to see alot of flops with anything but trash and calling a $2 or $4 raise, for a total of $4 or $6 dollars with the same kind of hands. What I was talking about was the fact that some regulars who are overall winners do just that and I think it's a big mistake. When I started playing I was the tightest player at the table, overall positive expectation but the better players stopped giving me much action and would take me off now and then, because my play was predictable. Now I'm still as tight as almost anyone at the table, but the regulars can't figure me out. For the record, hands like J7s are at the tail end of my marginally acceptable starting hand guides. And yes, you might be suprised how profitable hands like that can be when it only costs $2 to see the flop. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the structure of a spread game like 1-4-8-8.
If you already have the answer, then why ask in the first place? I think everyone here is familiar with the 1-4-8-8 structure, and the whopping implied odds that one gets w/ their drawing hands, so (at least my) opinion (s) aren't formulated w/o a firm understanding of spread limit games. Still, w/ hands 'like' J7s, you really can't flop a draw to the nuts and you can't like it if you flop top pair. If these kinds of hands are making you money from any position, then you should keep playing them, since you're probably a dynamite player after the flop. But for Everyplayer I would think this is a bad idea.
BYW, my post was directed more at Paul, who advocated capping the betting with group 8 hands, not at your original post. I wasn't attacking your position, just making my position clear.
Best of luck,
Guy
Hi,
I was in a small Holdem High/Low tournament recently and made it to the final table. Since it was a small tournament only the top four got payed. I got blown out in 5th place. The turning point was the next to last hand when I had pocket queens in early position. I had the 2nd or 3rd largest stack and raised pre-flop. Two other players (P1, P2) stayed in. The flop came: J46o. I bet, P1 call, P2 call. Turn: 2. Now, here is where I need an opinion. As I was reaching for my stack, the player(P1) to my left bolted his chips out, which caused me to hesitate and think. Does he have trips? So I checked. He bet; other player(P2) bet. I called. In retrospect I think I should have check-raised to drive one of the two out. The river was a 5. I bet, call, call. Player P1 had A3 for low and straight for high. Player P2 had Jx for pair of jacks.
A player not in the hand commented that I should have kept pounding instead of checking to drive one of them out. P1 was leaping in for the low half of the pot and would not have folded anyway. But the way it worked out, he won the high also, so it seems to me to spend a lot of chips driving out the pair of Jacks was futile in retrospect.
Consequently, my stack was depleted and I lost on the next hand, placing me out of the money by one position. What do you think?
Keith
Keith your playing HL HE and in all hilo games scooping is king.Once the 642 is out no amount of raising is getting out the eventual winner and actually with a flop of J64 your going to get in trouble more often than not. With your chip position, backing off on the flop and folding on the turn was probably a more prudent move. Two low crds suited may have been in action and certainly an ace which doesn't make you a huge favorite. Regards Jerry
This is a tough spot, and the correct play depends almost entirely on what you know about your players. If the tell you saw of the eventual winner grabbing his chips simply means any low, then you're still ahead (which you were). If his anxiousness could mean that he has the straight (i.e., the 35 in his hand), then using this info could have saved you chips.
As it was, it took a runner-runner, or a 5-outer, for you to lose the high. You didn't necessarily misplay the hand, you just got unlucky. You really can't fold QQ, even in hi-lo, in the face of zero overcards, when you're playing 5-handed, unless there is other (significant) evidence that you're beat.
Better luck next time.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
With what types of hands should you call the $1 bring in in 1-5 stud if you are fairly certain the pot will not be raised?
Thanks, Mike
Too much to mention here. I advise you to purchase Roy West's 7-Card Stud 42 Lessons How to Win at the Medium and Lower Limits.
After that, check out Sklansky's Thepry of Poker and then, when you think you're ready, Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players.
Aces, Scottro
Ante or no ante?
You must consider:
The ante! Your position! The number of callers! The likely hood of a raise if you call! Your playing ability! Your opponents that have already called! Your opponents that are to act after you!
I'm trying to paint a picture here. Starting hand selection requires consideration to the above factors!
In general if there is an ante and the game is loose tend to call with cards that are very live and have a chance of developing into a stong poker hand, i.e Three flushes, three straights, Big pairs, Small/medium pairs with live Ace kickers.
If there is no ante tend to play tighter. Stick with Big Pairs. Three flushes headead by A or K and extremely live. Live High three straights only, no gaps, with two flush is best.
Hope this helps!
Vince!
Depends.
If you can expect more callers AND can expect callers on later rounds when you hit your hand, you should loosen up and call with:
- any live pair and live or one-wounded kicker. - any live concealed pair. - any 3-flush even if you see 3 others. - any reasonably live big 3-straight. - any completely live (small) 3-straight - any completely live hidden AK. - any hand you like when all the other player's cards are dead (3 have a 7 and 3 have a T). .. err .. consider raising. - this is probably not a complete/perfect list.
You should also play these hands if your chances of stealing on 4th or 5th when you catch a scare card are very high (i.e. vrs weak-tight types).
If you are not confident of your control of later rounds than you shouldn't play a hand worse than a live pair and live OVERCARD A or K.
- Louie
PS. Routinely fold if someone DOES raise.
Several years ago I listened to an argument between two players who were discussing a play that a third player had made in the $40-$80 hold 'em game at The Mirage. This third player had called a limp out of the small blind for $20 in a multiway pot, the big blind then raised, everyone else then called, and this person folded. One of the arguers claimed that this fold had to be wrong (assuming the first call was right) since you were getting the exact same pot odds.
Any comments?
The only thing I can think here, is that the small blind assumed that his chances of winning were reduced by 2 factors: The strenth of the big blind's raise, and the increased size of the pot, which would weaken his chances of making a play at the pot on the flop. The size of the pot could also encourage him to chase with a marginal hand.
Im not an expert, but when Im in this situation I take a second look at starting hand requirments. Since Im getting the same pot odds I may call a raise by the BB with smaller pairs, suited connectors, giving the fact that everybody else limped in after the raise. Depending on the players, It tells me that nobody is excited about their hand to re-raise. And their hand is just good enough to "see the flop"
Depending on the flop, I will check-raise, See how many callers I have and what the BB does. If he checks I definatly raise, If he bets out then It depends on my hand and how many callers follow.
IMO Walleye
The argument that the situations are identical is false. Players will be getting different odds in future rounds, and you may know something about the BB.
It will be much harder to get people out of this pot, and much harder to fold your own hand. So if you had QT offsuit (an example off the top of my head, and I have never played casino poker before), you might fold after the raise because if you flop top pair you can't get rid of anyone, and you will also have a harder time reading anyone else to see if your pair is outkicked, because few would fold anything that has a chance to improve.
If you know the BB to be someone who would only raise with big cards, then you are really in trouble. And given his position, he is less likely to raise with a drawing hand than if he were in late position - his chances of buying a free card are slim from the BB.
Either of your pairs (if the flop hits you) are good candidates to give others a straight draw, so there will be a lot of cards that you wont want to see on the turn or river, and you have almost no power to control the pot from the sb.
To put it in 2+2ese, hands that have high implied odds increase in value after the preflop raise from the BB, so some hands must suffer. It is those which don't have high impled odds, such as QT offsuit, that lose a lot of value, especially given that you have no capacity to control the pot given it's new size and your position.
Just my 2 cents - sorry if I'm way off. Can't wait to try out a live casino poker game this week...
This appears to echo my response, only much better worded, and with a good example. In my own case, I would much prefer a small pair, or low suited connectors rather than QT off.
When calling from the small blind the big blind's raise even if the amount of the small blind is exactly half the amount of the big blind it is not the same as calling the small blind the first time.
I believe that there are two major differences:
The first is that you are closing the action whereas before you were exposed (willingly or unwillingly) to action as extreme as facing three additional bets when it comes to you if the BB raises and UTG makes it three and there are enough callers so that the button may choose to make it four bets and your T9 offsuit may be now worthless.
The second is that now you know much more about the hands that are out there and this information may encourage you to play your hand or not. For example depending on the player on the big blind and the player UTG you may know exactly that BB has Aces or Kings or that the UTG does not have Aces or Kings if the UTG is a player that would slowplay Aces or Kings and will reraise with those hands any other raiser or if the big blind is a tight player and she/he will raise at this position only with AA or KK.
Incidentally a big problem may be that now you will not be able to protect a pair of nines (assuming that you started with T9) with a bet or check raise because first there is a good chance that the big blind will bet the flop and there will be many callers due to the size of the pot whereas if the pot was not raised a bet from you may have reduced the field or if the button is a habitual bettor then a check raise would definitely have protected your hand. Hence, even if you may believe that the raiser most likely does not have a pocket pair still your expected pair on the flop has much less value now than before.
Mathematically speaking: If before you called the flop you believed that playing at a raised pot has negative expectation (that is assume that the second decision to fold when the pot is raised is a correct decision) then if a raise occurs then you lose .5 small bets that you invested. Say now that you consider your hand to have a positive expectation of just .6 small bets provided that the pot is not raised by the big blind and say that the probability that the big blind does not raise is .9 then your overall decision to call the small blind is correct and has positive expectation of (.6)x(.9)-(.5) = +(.04). Little but positive.
Best to all as they perceive best.
Maria
the odds are same but implied not so same. If big blind raise means big hand. While other players argue, this player probably know what in their hands. sionara
Mason,
I don't know the answer to your question, but here is something you might want to think about. Consider the following two situations:
Situation A:
You have a hand in the BB. The first player in raises, and there are now some calls. The SB mucks. It's up to you to call or fold.
Situation B:
You have the same hand in the SB. There are a bunch of callers, and you call. The BB raises, and everyone calls. It's on you to call or fold.
Now, at least around here, a lot of opponents will call a raise before the flop with almost the same hands as what they will play in an unraised pot. If that is the case, you should play almost the same hands in these two situations. The fact that some of your opponents need more to call a raise before the flop (and thus have a stronger hand in situation A) is balanced by the dead half-bet in the pot.
William
Given that the first call was correct the subsequant fold can still be correct. The fact that the big blind raised introducing info about his and that wasn't available previously available. Using Bayesian updating it is quite possible that the player in the small blind is no longer getting the correct odds to call.
Mason: I think the key word in your scenario is "limped in." Since the SB was already forced in with a 1/2 of the small bet, to see the flop it was gone cost him just (another) 1/2 of the small bet while facing the risk of a raise from only the last player to act - the BB. Furtherj, assuming that the BB is not a lose but a calculating, solid player, a raised coming from him/her is thus less likely. Under these conditions, a limp in by a SB is justified as poker players are perenially tempted to complete the (1/2 small bet) call. However, when the BB raises and the others/most others call, the SB gets the rude awakening message that his/her questionable hand is no playable. First, a starting weak hand; second, the worst of possible positions; and third, facing an ostensibly strong hand from the BB. A raise from the BB and the multiple ensuing callers coupled with a full small bet call no longer justified the SB's action.
Hence, the two sets of circumstances radically changed the play:
1. The forceful information of a (very) strong hand by the BB acompanied by the multiple callers;
2. Reduced odds by needing to call with the full small bet with a questionable starting hand.
I think whether calling or folding depends on what kind of hands the small blind called with. If they are suited cards or pairs which can flop a big hand or a big draw, it can be correct to call in a multiway pot. If they are unsuited cards, folding is acceptable.
If I'm correctly understanding the information in your books, I would say the pot odds are lowered. The SB should either reraise or fold. If he just calls, the BB will bet on the flop and everyone else will fold if they don't hit. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Well, like everything else in poker-it depends and I don't mean the adult diaper. Like alot of other players, I tend to call an unraised pot in the SB with some pretty marginal hands. It is difficult not to respect a raise from the BB as if you examine the reasons for raising, a raise from the BB can only be made to get more money in the pot. It's not going to fold alot of players, it's not going to set up the free card play, it's not the place to bluff as your position the rest of the hand stinks, it is really only the place to get more money in the pot as many will call a raise once they have contributed. My post below is in the same vein. Yeh, I would have folded too.
Mason,
I'm going to make the assumption that the big blind will only make this raise with big pairs (JJ or better), AKs, AQs, and AKo. I believe this is a reasonable range for typical players (although I agree with your analysis in HPFAP that raising with medium pairs and hands like JTs in a true multi-way pot also makes sense but most players don't seem to do this). For a 40/80 game, I'll also assume that the small blind was getting between 11 to 1 (four limpers) and 15 to 1 (six limpers) on his call in order to call the pot "multi-way".
It stands to reason that the analysis is restricted to SB calls that were marginal in the first place. There are two basic categories of this type of hand. First is a hand that has little high card strength and requires high implied odds. A hand like T7 off-suit (an off-suit double gapper) would qualify. If you knew the big blind was going to raise, it would be correct to through it away pre flop. But you didn't know this pre flop. Now that the big blind has raised, I believe its value has increased a little bit and the second call is even more correct.
My reasoning is due to the likely post flop play. Let's say you flop the open-ended draw. You check, the BB bets, and there are several callers. If you think the BB is unlikely to reraise, a check raise for value may be warranted. If you flop an inside straight draw, a check and call becomes correct (and if you make your straight on the turn a check raise will almost always work). If your flop two pair, you can chose to come out betting, generally hoping an overpair will raise, or once again check raise for value (especially if the flop is ragged). In most cases the hand becomes easier to play post flop and you will make more money when you hit.
The other type of hand is one that contains some high card strength but is easily "dominated" by most of the typical hands the BB would raise with. Hands like Ax and Kx off-suit fall into this category. Here a call would be at best marginally correct * before the BB raise but IMHO a reasonable fold after the BB raises.
Here almost all post flop play becomes unfavorable with an opponent on your left holding big cards against a large field. The hand simply has little betting or staying power. It loses to overpairs (in the case of Kx), to the high card with a better kicker, and also to the draws which are likely to be played aggressively with such a large pot.
Regards,
Rick
* Hands like Ax and Kx off-suit are very dependent on the playing style of the opponents. I tend to through them away (even for a half bet) in a multi-way pot if my opponents are fairly tricky. On the other hand, the style of your opponents doesn't matter quite as much
Good analysis.
I caution the part about T7. You say you assume the raiser has JJ-AA, AKs, AK, or AQs. (I agree that one should raise out of the big blind with more, and I agree that most players don't - probably 99% don't raise with more hands and probably 50% of players raise with fewer hands than your list.) As a thought experiment, suppose you are considering calling initially with T7 for half a small bet and the big blind has already checked out of turn. Now, the under the gun limper informs you that he has JJ-AA, AKs, AK, or AQs, and he always tells the truth about such things. Has your expected result from T7 gone up or down given this information?
Relative to T7, this bit of information means there is a 55% chance that the opponent has an "overpair" to your cards. If he does have such a hand, you are effectively dominated, because flopping one pair is no good, and flopping two pair is no good if the board pairs. Your straight outs - and possible increased implied odds by getting paid off by a big pair you suck out on - do not make up for your reduction in effective outs when up against a big pair.
Even in the 45% chance your opponent does not have a big pair, he still has the nut or second nut no pair, and may call on the end unimproved, and won't be easy to drop before then, and so any steal value has been reduced.
By the time your hand increases in strength to a baby suited connector, it is a good hand against a multiway field that includes a big pair, though it would still be more valuable without that big pair involved.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I have no quibble with your analysis and your subsequent remarks in the thread are right on.
In writing the post I had one big problem, and that was selecting a hand whose primary value is not high card strength but in hoping to pick up a draw and is in fact marginal for that situation. As you have stated before, any suited hand is clearly playable, and I think you have stated or would agree that any connector (except the smallest ones - i.e., 23 and perhaps 34) are also clearly playable. That leaves middle offsuit single gappers such as T8 and double gappers such as T7.
The problem for me is that I consider middle sized single gappers to be very close in playing value to connectors and double gappers to be much worse than single gappers. I while back I wrote a response to a post regarding this, which can be found in the archives as follows:
Re: One gap in hold'em - Posted by Rick Nebiolo on Thursday, 31 December 1998, at 12:41 a.m., in response to One gap in hold'em, posted by Boris on Wednesday, 30 December, 1998 at 1:39 p.m.
You didn't seem to be participating much in the forum at that time (which was the forum's loss). If you have time, could you take a look and perhaps post a response or even start a thread on the comparative value of connectors, single gappers, and double gappers. I'm sure you would have a lot to add.
Regards,
Rick
Well, I haven't read all the other good posts yet, but the first thing that comes to mind is Reduced Implied Odds. Also, by having the BB showing strength the SB loses his chances to Bluff the Flop if it comes to his liking.
CV
Though I've only had time to skim most of the other responses it looks like some people, including Chris Villalobos, touched on, but didn't really explain what I think is the key consideration here: the change in impied odds from the initial half bet call to the full bet call.
The initial half bet call is compared to future full bets when you look at implied odds. Thus if 3 people limp in and you call the half bet, you're getting 8.5:1 (4:0.5) now. Then if two opponents put in one bet on the flop and one bet on the turn you've received 20.5:1 on your half bet call. If you make that second preflop call for the full bet, you again get 8.5:1 on the call. But what happens to the odds you've recieved after the two players put in one bet on the flop and one on the turn? This time, for your full bet call, you've received only 14.5:1 from the pot - a big difference.
I agree as well with the comments to the effect that the big blind's raise has indicated a strong hand, making your hand relatively weaker. So even considering only immediate odds, you're getting the same odds with a hand that's comparatively weaker.
John Feeney
John,
You write :
< The initial half bet call is compared to future full bets when you look at implied odds. Thus if 3 people limp in and you call the half bet, you're getting 8.5:1 (4:0.5) now. >
If you are getting 4 to 0.5, this translates into 8 to 1, not 8.5 to 1. However, I think that in this case you are getting 4.5 to 0.5, or 9 to 1.
< Then if two opponents put in one bet on the flop and one bet on the turn you've received 20.5:1 on your half bet call. >
I make it 21:1.
< This time, for your full bet call, you've received only 14.5:1 from the pot - a big difference. >
I get 15:1.
This doesn't affect the logic of your argument and if I haven't made the mistake, then I know the psychologist in you will understand and forgive my nitpicking.
Etienne
Etienne,
Yes, you're right. In an odd way I was making the same error that many players make in being blind (pardon the pun) to the difference between the half bet and the full bet when looking at implied odds. I kept thinking of the small blind as half a unit when I added up the units-to-one, when it's actually one unit ifor that purpose. That fouled up my numbers straight through. Thanks for the correction.
John Feeney
Etienne's corrections are correct, but John Feeney still wins a cookie for the correct answer that Mason was looking for, or at least that's what I thought he was looking for.
But it's a bit misleading to call it 21:1 odds if two opponents will call the flop and turn in this situation, as it does cost you more to get to the turn, and you might still lose the pot even if the flop hits you. It's not fair to call it 21:7 odds either (still ignoring the river), since you can fold on the flop or the turn. You can work out an exact solution by considering every possible scenario.
It all gets very confusing unless you switch to expected value, which, to Mason's credit, he often suggests doing. In fact, this may be what he is looking for instead.
Suppose you have 22...
Case I: you miss the flop. EV = -0.5 small bets. Probability = .88.
Case II: flop hits you, Probability = .12 (just for flopping a set - I have ignored straights, straight draws, etc. but I don't think anything else is significant, besides the chance of winning the pot unimproved if it checks the whole way or you bet a rag flop and get called by only AQ or something.)
Case IIa: you expect to raise on the flop and turn against two opponents and get one caller on river and win. EV=+18.5 small bets, conditional probability ~= .90, probability = .12*.9. (Just my wild guess on the probability of winning after flopping a set. Run a sim to get a better answer.)
Case IIb: same as IIa, except damn fish sucks out on you on the river and raises you there. EV=-8.5, conditional probablity ~= .10, probability = .12*.1. (Oops, I just noticed that should be -10.5 after finishing the post, so, uh, never mind, fish doesn't raise.)
Now add up the product of each probability and expected value and you get .88*(-.5)+(.12)(.9)(18.5)+(.12)(.1)(-8.5).
The total is an EV of +1.456 small bets, which is a lot better than folding with an EV of 0 small bets (I've assumed the small blind is already in the pot), so call.
Let's work through the same scenario but adjust the probabilities and payouts for a hand like Q5. Then you have a 3.4% chance of flopping two pair or trips, will extract maybe two less big bets from your opponents when you do (relative to a set), and will lose maybe half the time when you do flop two pair or trips (again, run a sim to get a better estimate.) This has an EV of -0.38 small bets, which is worse than folding, so fold. For a third of a bet in a $15-$30 type small blind, I compute an estimated EV of -0.22 small bets. This ignores the case that you flop one pair, get odds to call (or get a free card) or have the best hand and then improve on the turn or have your one pair hold up o the river. This also ignores the case that you bluff the pot, though I'm surprised to hear people highly value this, as against several players, my experience is that one of them will almost certainly call (or bluff raise) me if I bluff since they don't tend to respect bets from the blinds. I get the impression that players at all limits are on the lookout for the bet-early-on-the-turn-after-flop-checks-through bluff, and this move is even less effective on the river. I realize it works sometimes and adds some value, but for a hand like Q5, which does not lend itself to semibluffing, I don't know if that added value is even worth considering. Against one or two opponents I frequently take down the pot with 72 in the big blind, sometimes with a check-raise cold bluff on a flop of the right texture. But against many opponents I rarely try to steal with garbage.
I'll give a bonus cookie for the first to extend the EV estimate of Q5 to the additional subcases I've just mentioned.
-Abdul
By the way, do you think it ever the case that you should call for a half bet in the small blind but then fold to a raise from the big blind who has just raised without looking at his cards?
I'll give the answer in a follow-up.
-Abdul
(I wasn't referring to the heads up case - I meant the same type of case as Mason and John gave.)
Here is the answer to my previous post:
Yes, of course there are times you should call for half a bet and fold for a full bet back to you when the big blind raises blind. That's what John was attempting to get at, rather than considering the effect that information about the raiser's cards have, as other posters did.
If you use the same equations for 2-pair in my previous post, but substitute a value of .15 for the probability of flopping a playable hand that has a 50% chance of winning by the end, then it comes out that you should call the first half bet (assuming the big blind won't raise) but then fold for one more bet back. For this particular scenario, there has to be only a 4% chance the big blind will raise, or else you should fold for the first half bet despite it being positive if the big blind does not raise. However, I am assuming that the opponents and you play exactly the same with the larger pot size, which won't be true. A simulation where the players adjust for pot size, such as in Turbo Texas Hold'em, could answer the question more authoritatively.
In any case, I think actually the information a "sighted" big blind's raise gives certain hands about their chance of being dominated is a far larger effect, so come to think of it, maybe John didn't deserve the cookie, but it's too late now. :)
-Abdul
No, don't take my cookie away! I have Netscape set to accept all cookies. Seriously, to defend the importance of the "different odds" factor I'll say this:
Isn't it really because of the great implied odds (I'm uncomfortable using the term "implied odds" here as I actually see it as something slightly different, but that's close enough.) that you can call for a half bet in the small blind with some pretty weak holdings in the first place? For example, you might justifiably call with the T7o that Rick N. mentioned in this thread. We'll say you're getting 7:1 immediate odds on that call (2 limpers + big blind + small blind). Now imagine that everything is the same but there is no fraction of a small blind already in the pot. That is, to play the hand you have to put in a full bet in the same position getting the same 7:1 (6 limpers and the big blind). So you're getting 7:1 with a hand that can possibly make a straight but which has almost nothing else going for it. I give it a little more value than Q5o. I think that turns it into a clear fold. So the difference is the magnified odds that you get when you make the half bet call. One situation is a call, the other a fold.
Of course you might quibble over T7o being playable for even a half bet. But my point is that there are hands you can play for that half bet that you couldn't play in any other position preflop. And it's because it's so cheap, giving you great implied odds. Once you take that away, even with a "no-look" raise from the big blind, you have a serioulsy less attractive situation. The information given by a "sighted" raise from the big blind is certainly important too. But I dont't think it threatens my cookie!
John Feeney
Abdul,
Mason has initiated what has turned out to be a highly illuminating thread. You write :
< Yes, of course there are times you should call for half a bet and fold for a full bet back to you when the big blind raises blind. >
< snip >
< In any case, I think actually the information a "sighted" big blind's raise gives certain hands about their chance of being dominated is a far larger effect,... >
It then follows that there exist scenarios where it is to the big blind's advantage to raise "blind", as opposed to a "sighted" raise (or check), and vice versa. Could there conceivably be any situation where it might be advantageous for the big blind to pretend to peek, a "blind sighted" raise?
Etienne
Etienne wrote:
>> It then follows that there exist scenarios where it is to the big blind's advantage to raise "blind", as opposed to a "sighted" raise (or check), and vice versa. <<
I don't see that this follows in a multiway pot. Just because it's correct for the small blind to fold for one more bet does not imply that it's ever correct for the big blind to make it one more bet.
Stephen,
You write :
< I don't see that this follows in a multiway pot. Just because it's correct for the small blind to fold for one more bet does not imply that it's ever correct for the big blind to make it one more bet. >
What I had in mind was a situation where I have already decided that I am going to raise preflop in, say, a 3-way pot because I've put the small blind on one of those marginal hands discussed in this thread, he's a far stronger player than the first limper and I want him out. So if I put him on a hand that may be dominated, I maintain that it is to my advantage to "sight" raise rather than to "blind" raise. Hope I got that right.
Etienne
The implied odds for calling the raise are almost half they were for calling the half bet.
Your chances of winning are reduced, often greatly, when the BB raises.
- Louie
Many of you have shown a good understanding of poker by your answers. The followin quote from John Freeney does a pretty good job of summing up the situation:
"I agree as well with the comments to the effect that the big blind's raise has indicated a strong hand, making your hand relatively weaker. So even considering only immediate odds, you're getting the same odds with a hand that's comparatively weaker."
Thus there probably are a small number of hands where you initial call from the small blind would be marginally correct, but after the big blind raises you should fold even though the current pot odds are exactly the same.
87o, 2 off button. 4-8 hold'em, loose passive, rarely raising before flop. 3 callers in front, I call, button calls, SB folds, BB checks, 7 players. Flop is 8xK with 2 cards clubs. Checked to me, I check, it's checked around. Next card is x of clubs. Checked to me, I bet, 1 right of button raises, folded to me and I call. Next card is a club, I check and fold, player has A of clubs for the runner-runner flush. He suggested that if I'd have bet the flop he would have folded but with mid-pair no kicker on flop, is it not better to check in my position with 2 players to go and the threat of a checkraise? On the turn I simply felt my position warranted a bet since no one showed strength on the flop or turn, And I most likely had the best hand. I thought anyone who would have checkraised the flop would have bet out there.
Any thoughts?
Kevin-
For what it's worth, I think the pre-flop call is iffy. You're about (I think) five or six to one to flop an open ender, and of course 3.5% (approximately) to flop two pair or trips. Given this, I think these kinds of limps are pretty marginal.
I'd probably bet the flop, since there's no real reason to think you're behind. If someone check-raises you can safely bail, since it's unlikely that anyone's going to pop this puppy with a worse hand than yours. In other words, I think the odds are pretty good that you're giving the free card here and not getting one (particularly with the two flush on board). I get the impression that you're not a maniac, so your bet on the flop has got to mean something, and your opponents (I hope) will respect this.
Anyway, I think these unsuited connectors are way overrated, and usually ought to be folded, unless you're either on the button or one to the right of it and the pots virtually a family affair.
Hope the rest of the session went well.
Guy
"Checked to me, I check,."
Right!
"Next card is x of clubs. Checked to me, I bet, "
Wrong! My god you have a pair of eights with a 7 kicker aginst 6 opponents with three clubs and a K on board. Check and thank them all for the free card!
"And I most likely had the best hand."
When evaluating your hand you must also consider the likley hood of it being beat on the river. You had a mediocre hand, at best! Why bet! Sometimes caution is the best road to travel!
Opinion by Vince!
IMO, the pre-flop call was not a good idea.
However, having made the call, I would have probably bet the flop. There's only one player left to act behind you. I would bet and represent the King. If no one check raises, you have assumed command of the betting. Even if you are trailing to a hand such as pocket 9's or whatever, you have a lot of outs on the turn (to be specific, 2 8's, 3 7's and 3 Kings). The Kings are not really outs but if a King hits and you bet again, hands like A8 or 99 cannot call you. In the same vein, a club on the turn can also be an out for you because most players would bet on the flop with a 4 flush. No one bet. Thus, it is likely that no one has a four flush. As well, if you bet again on the turn when the club hits, most players would naturally put you on the flush.
If you are checkraised on the flop, your play thereafter should be guided by the type of player the raiser is and his position but generally speaking, I would call and hope to hit one of my 5 outs failing which I would probably muck on the turn. BTW, if I improve on the turn but the turn card makes it three clubs on the board. I would probably still raise depending on who it is that raised on the flop (i.e if the checkraiser on the flop was a player to your left, you can probably assume that he was not raising with a flush draw. On the other hand, if the checkraise came from your right, a flush draw is this fellow's likely hand particularly since you gave no indication that you would be the bettor on the flop).
As usual, I have gone on too long.
Bottom Line: IMO, I would not have called pre-flop but having done that, I would bet the flop.
Thanks for all comments. My feeling is this, with the table playing loose-passive and rarely a raise before flop, and all the players limping in this hand, I think a call here (87o) is marginal but not terrible. If the flop hits, I stand to get a good sized pot. Once the flop did not hit hard however, I should have likely either bet and folded if checkraised (or re-raised depending on opponent), or I should check and fold. If I did bet on the flop and it did not drive too many hands, I should likley check and fold on the turn.
Does that thinking make sense?
Thanks.
Marginal call. Bet the flop; someone with a King should have bet themselves and there is only one person behind you.
If you are CALLED you must KNOW whether this person would call with Ks or would have (correctly) raised. This will help determine your turn actions.
Do NOT bet the turn against reasonably aggressive players unless they believe you would have checked the 4-flush on the flop. Otherwise, expect an aggressive player to raise with a big draw, and put you in a bind.
- Louie
This is a good example of GIGO: garbage in, garbage out. Yes, you probably had the best hand on the turn, but with a pair of 8s and a 7 kicker, there weren't too many cards left that you would like to see on the river. Playing 8-7 is a mistake.
The problem with the bet on the turn is that no one would think you have a King after having checked the flop. So, despite the fact that giving another free card on the turn means that the river card may well beat you, I would have to check at this point and hope for the best.
"The problem with the bet on the turn is that no one would think you have a King after having checked the flop."
Qualification: it doesn't matter that they know it IF they are too timid to take advantage.
"Well I KNEW you were bluffing but I just COULDN'T raise".
The posts on Asian stereotypes got me thinking. What stereotypes would people apply to me?
I realize that after playing against me for several hours, whatever preconceptions others may have had would be adjusted, but how can I use them to my advantage in the meanwhile?
I am a middle-aged female, not overly attractive nor ugly, dressed for active vacationing... I suspect the stereotypes applied are not particularly flattering. That's ok... I know they are wrong.
Anyone brave enough to comment? (I don't have a terribly thin skin, but don't be TOO rough!)
From like a really superficial level my experiences have been you just described somebody that either fits into one of two models:
1) So tight they throw away KK to a raise preflop. 2) Tight preflop but then chase almost anything.
Actually 2 may just be the "bored or tilted housewife" version of 1.
Additionally this type always seems to want to show me their cards after they fold. In the last week I've had to tell middle aged females twice to please not show me the cards they are folding while I'm still in the hand because I don't want my hand fouled. I'm a somewhat gregarious type that will nod and smile at bad beats so maybe thats the problem/benefit.
In ring games I rarely depend on any type of stereotypes. I'm in it for the long haul. The only time this kind of thinking _might_ effect my thinking is in a tourny.
I'd start with conservative, middle class, tight, likely weak but maybe stubborn or experienced. If you bet into a crowd I'd put you on minimum top pair good kicker or two pair and ratchet down if you showed otherwise as the game progressed. If you raise in any round post flop I'll put you on a set or better and adjust from there. A raise pre-flop is *for real* rather than a position play. I expect to be able to push you off your blinds or any ragged flop. I think you'll be intimidated by check-raises on the turn or calling three bets cold unless you've got a monster. Of course, as soon as you show me you don't fit that stereotype, I'll try and fit you into another one. "Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people's actions." Utne Reader, Sept. 98
A very good Post!
"Criticism fails without a working alternative".
Responding to this is like betting into capped pot pre-flop with just one overcard, but here goes:
Middle aged female, wearing "vactioning" gear, which I assume is something like a jumpsuit or athletic wear.
First thing I would look for is if you are wearing a wedding ring. If so, how expensive does it look? If you are wearing an big diamond on a flashy ring, well, coupled with your vaction look, and especially if you walked in with your husband (10-20 years older, hehe) who proceeds to sit in the "big game", I would put you in the "plays just for fun catagory" i.e. calls raises more often then raises herself, stays with a draw almost no matter what, never check raise bluffs, checks and calls with top pair - good kicker, will bet only top two or trips and above, and only if the board doesn't threaten. Might bet the nut flush draw, but often won't until it is completed. Loves suited cards. Tries to spike any A-x holding on the flop, then proceeds to check and call with it. Hardly raises to drive out players. Raises pre-flop with just AA or KK, and even then will check that hand if 3-suited cards on flop or turn. After a few rounds, I'll know whether you take cards off with middle or bottom pair, and whether you'll fold these if you are bet into all the way and don't help. If you don't fold these, then she can never, ever be bluffed out. Generally her mindset is "I want to see if I can make my hand" and does not read others' play. Passive, but won't be bluffed out with any Ace w/ Ace on flop. A raise from her, well, you can throw away a lot of good hands, because you'll be looking at a powerhouse. If you raise her, she will always give you some type of credit (does not detect raise semi-bluffs, or raises that are trying to buy a free card. The free card play works best against her), but might call on the end if she is the unbluffable type. Never, ever makes it three bets without the nuts. The best of this breed, who has a lot of experience playing, is weak-tight, with the tight protecting her from getting into too much trouble.
Modest wedding ring, talks of her childern, her life, her job:
Mostly tight play. I would initially see her as the "purse-strings" of the house, knows fiscal responsibility. Probably wouldn't be playing in a mid-limit game. In fact, since I now play 10-20 or 15-30, I hardly encounter this type. Most likely she's playing 1-2 stud.
No wedding ring (can be married, but doesn't like to wear the ring); divorced, or never been married:
This is the type that can be most variable.
Some are just plain mad at life (unmarried, generally unattractive type), and almost subconsiously want to lose because it justifies in their mind that fate is against them. Mutters a lot of curses under her breath. Shows every missed hand face up to everyone all the time (very annoying). Plays any suited connector. Sometimes bets with exagerrated motion when bluffing or weak. But, detrimental to me, will bluff, and knows that most men don't suspect her of bluffing. Believes in lucky/unluck dealers. Smokes so much, all her life, she sounds like a man, baby. I saw too many of these at the 6-12 level. (Saw plenty of men like this too).
Another is the independent woman who got sick of her husband, or just wanted career, or just didn't like married life. Some are very intelligent, and if not good already, are trying to get there. Must observe to make any other comments.
Some seem to have "penis envy" (God, I hope I don't get banned for saying that), and want to prove to all that they can be better than the men they are playing. Knows sports too, but not really (knows popular names and dates, but couldn't tell you a member of the Bronco's offensive line). Wants to be "one of the boys". Expect a steady stream of tricky plays.
Well, I guess that's enough. As I've said in another post, this is what I would go on INITIALLY, if I knew absolutely nothing else about her. Before I get yelled at, I do know of good women players who wear flashy rings, etcetera. (strangely? though, I'll stick to my point that married w/ children and from a modest household just don't seem to gamble at the mid limits). This is just what I would use as a starting point, but probably have a different read on you after a few hours.
J10Suited.
Sue,
I should stay out of this but I can't resist. I wouldn't be looking for anything fancy from you and I wouldn't be the least bit concerned. I would watch how you played very carefully as I do with any player that I was unfamiliar with and refine my opinion as I go.
Tom Haley
You can probably bluff your ass off, since nobody's going to figure you for a tricky player. Too, most players (if there at all aware, which is no sure bet) will really respect your pre-flop raises. I know if I'm playing against a middle aged woman who I haven't played before I always give her credit for whatever hand she's representing- particularly if she's shown any 'card savvy' whatsoever in the preceding rounds. There are exceptions, but if it's seen before I'll fold something as high as pocket J's pre-flop against a raise, and fold a set on the river if I'm bet into with a four straight on the board.
In other words, mix it up! Get tricky! You'll make a ton before anyone catches on.
Best of luck,
Guy
Thanks, guys! (I notice it was all guys.) Not terribly flattering, as I suspected... but plenty helpful! It gives me something to shoot at NOT being, as I work at improving my game.
I have just started playing poker in the last couple of months, at a low limit, of course. I have suspected exactly some of the reactions you have mentioned.
How about you women out there that have been playing for a while? What have you experienced directed at yourself or other females? Any tidbits would be helpful!
Not very flattering-- so true. But I wouldn't worry about it. I dress like a scrub, and have got long, blonde hair that hangs down to my shoulder blades. People (particularly old men) look at me and immediately take me for a drug addled fiend who CAN'T know anything about cards. Which, in my opinion, is just fine-- I'll let 'em learn the hard way.
Sue:
How about describing your game to us a little? Just curious to see how accurate we were.
Also, what size ring (if any) do you wear? :)
J10Suited
Yours was a very interesting post!
Your "modest wedding ring" was not too far off. (Plain gold band, hubby doesn't gamble.) However, I'm more likely to talk about flying/ sailing/ kayaking/roller blading than my kids. And I DON'T mention my math degrees or computer programming at the poker table.
Since I played poker for the first time a couple of months ago, I'm definitely in the tight (but hopefully not too weak) category at the moment.
Sue,
Let me first salute your endeavor in learning poker and utilizing the forum to help improve your game.
I have been playing poker for about 2 years now. I started out playing 3-6 holdem and 1-5 stud and currently play mostly 20-40 holdem and occasionally 10-20 stud. (Holdem is my preference of the two).
In my experience most of the time your gender is of little consequence in the game... it gives you no particular advantage or disadvantage and you can disregard it and just play good poker. That said, however, there are a few situations that can be extremely profitable for you if you can recognize them and play accordingly. Most of these that I mention you will likely not encounter much prior to the 10-20 limit and higher. At the risk of offending any of the lower limit players (and there are a few that play very well), *most* of the players that you encounter in the lower limit games are simply unconscious... they play the same, really poor game, against anyone without regard to sex, race, etc.
One profitable opportunity occurs when you run into the player that feels that he/she (yes there are women who play this way, though most are men) can push you around in most any hand. These types will raise virtually every time you are in a hand, will reraise when you raise, and will fire at you throughout the hand regardless of the cards they hold. They are playing you, the player, not the cards. This situation can be very profitable with a few minor adjustments to your usual play. I generally tighten up just a little before the flop. Keep in mind that you will often have to put in *many* bets without having a clue of whether or not you have the best hand. My strategy is to limp with a few of my normal raising hands, and raise with fewer of my quality hands (ex. limp with pocket 7's through 9's, maybe even 10's, raise with A's, K's, Q's, AKs...). Let this player beat himself. Raise with your good hands. Call his reraise or rereraise if you are fairly sure you hold the best hand. Most important, lay down only the very worst of your holdings on the turn and river and almost never lay a hand down with any possiblility of winning (including A high) if you are heads up with this individual.
My best example of this individual occurred in a 3-6 game. I raised in early position with AQs, my opponent 3 bet, the hand was 5 way to the flop. The flop came Q high, two of my suit. I bet, one caller, maniac raised, I reraised, in between caller folded, maniac made it 4 bets, I called. Turn blank, I bet, maniac raised, I called (even a maniac could have a set or two pair here). River, flush card came in, I bet, maniac looked me in the eyes, loudly said "raise", I reraise, forceful "raise!", I look at the board again making sure I didn't miss the pair or straight flush possible. Nope, I didn't miss it, I have the nuts. I raise. This goes on for 10 bets when the maniac finally just calls. I turn over my hand and the dealer says "Yep, that looks like the nuts to me" and pushes the pot.
The other profitable situation occurs when you have the sweet tourist in your game. This player is normally playing for fun and really doesn't want to take the money of a player that he likes, especially a female player that he likes. Play solid poker against this individual and recognize that when he tells you he has a hand, believe him. These players do not lie about their holding and they will usually show you their hand after you muck yours.
My husband told the following story about my experience with this player, but didn't remember the hands exactly so allow me to retell it. The sweet tourist is on my right in a 15-30 stud game and we have been talking for the past 30 minutes or so about his trip, Vegas, etc. A hand comes up in which he has a small pair on his board on sixth street. I catch an A on my board to go with my Q,J. He bets, I raise, he says, "I know you have the straight, I have two pair so I have to call to see if I make my full house". He calls and checks blind prior to the river card. I bet the river feeling comfortable that I can safely throw my hand away if raised, and reasonably sure that he will call the bet if his hand does not improve. He looks at his card and says "Well, I made the full house, but I'm not going to raise, I just call"... turns over his full house and beats my broadway straight, apologizes, and takes the pot. I was harshly criticized by another professional for betting the river though I still believe the play was correct.
Another situation with the tourist type was in a holdem game... tourist raises under the gun, I three bet behind him with Ah,Kc, the rest of the table folds. The tourist makes it 4 bets and says "I've got em'". I laugh and just call. The flop comes Qc,Jc,4c. (2nd nut flush draw, gutshot, and two overcards is a hand that generally just cannot be layed down on the flop). Tourist looks back at his hole cards, says "I've got em', with a flush draw" and bets. I think only briefly before stating "I would guess that my draw is no good" mucking my AK face up. The tourist then showed me his two black A's. We were laughing as he took the pot. I lost the pot but saved at least 3 or 4 bets, possibly more.
Most of the time, in most games, you will see little or no advantage based on gender. Some players will probably categorize you as a certain type of player but without knowing what type of player they think you are, there is not any way to exploit that stereotype. Play solid poker and recognize the occasional situation in which you have a big edge. You can gain much added expected value when you stumble into one of these situations.
Best of luck to you!
Regards-
Lone Star,
Many thanks! Your reply got printed & tucked in a copy of the current poker book I'm reading. It feels like very sound advice, that I'll want to review occasionally.
In the few times I've played, I did actually once run into the "sweet tourist", who kept showing me his hands and not raising on me on the river. I very quickly had a "read" on his hands.
Sue
Sue,
In my experience, being a woman at a table filled with men has been an advantage to me. In low limit it doesn't matter very much unless you happen to be sitting next to an old man that has a sweet disposition. In tournements and higher limits though, it's different. EXAMPLE:
A few weeks ago I was in a HE tournement at the local Indian casino and was in the BB w/AJs. The flop comes Q Q 3 and it gets checked around. I bet (hoping to steal) and all else but one folds. He's a super nice older man who is a GREAT PLAYER. The turn produces another queen and he bets. I raise and a few moments later he folds. He said to my boyfriend sitting next to me (I knew she had it because of that smile of hers). For some reason I felt really sad right then because I didn't recall smiling and I wouldn't have used a tactic like that to steal the pot. He asked a few hands later if I had it, I lied and said yes. He had pocket K's, would have had the full house and won but alas.
Since moving up to higher limits I have noticed that men will check to me more often than not and will almost always show me their hand when I'm not in it. Being a woman has been an advantage for me (and I'm not even that great looking, plus I'm overweight so I seriously doubt it's a sex thing) but instead of relying on whatever favors I can get, I prefer to outplay them. I believe very strongly that men expect women to be weak players because after nearly every session when I'm racking up, some guy will say "wow, you ARE good". As if they are taken completely by surprise.
My chunk of advice to you would be to not think of yourself as a woman at the table. If the men want to treat you differently because of it, they are putting themselves at a disadvantage. There are some women who rely on their feminine wiles to get an edge in the game, I can't imagine that working for too long (at least not up against the same crowd:)
Good luck to you,
Adrienne
"He had pocket K's, would have had the full house and won but alas."
Great player, maybe! A great player wouldn't fold pocket kings against his mother in this situation. He may have been a great liar! I know because I'm "a super nice older man" ! Be careful, that "super nice older man" may be setting you up!
BTW-We older men don't care if women are beautiful or sexy we love them all!
Vince.
Adrienne,
I appreciate you sharing the benefit of your experience.
I'm not into "feminine wiles" either... but I want to be as aware as possible of what the other players are thinking.
I am constantly amazed at the (low-limit) poker table how much information other players give away about how they play. For example, I remember one woman saying "Check raise? Have you EVER known me to checkraise?"
They will tell the whole table what they had in their hand, or actually show it... They will discuss their own play or other people's play, and what they probably had.
I tend to just sit there and absorb... try to be friendly in other ways.
Sue
Wet lips = good hand. overbite lips = big draw smile + wet lips = nuts in hand (no, not that kind !!!!) eat a banana at table = bluff boyfriend seated behind her = strong player boyfrind wears a 'choker' = agressive type
If you found the 'Asian player' thread upsetting, then you ought to find this thread disturbing as well. Only we haven't heard from you, which makes me wonder if you think that stereotyping people based on their race is reproachful, but stereotyping people based on age/gender/dress is O.K.
Comments please :)
"Only we haven't heard from you, which makes me wonder if you think that stereotyping people based on their race is reproachful, but stereotyping people based on age/gender/dress is O.K. "
I think the word I would use to describe "sterotyping people" is reprehensible. People include all male/female, all, ages all races, all creeds, etc (the etc is in case I left some one out).
Vince
I think the word I would use to describe stereotyping people is "essential." Most of us stereotype people multiple times each day, since it helps us function in society.
Accurate stereotyping at the poker table can add significantly to your bankroll. Prejudicial beliefs at the poker table can hemorrhage your bankroll.
My stereotypes about female players:
Straightforward Not very aggressive Doesn't bluff much Won't fold for a check raise Calls a lot on the flop
The other thing is, how I will play against you. Since I assume aren't aggressive, I will bet my hands for value, and won't try many check raises. I will fold for your bets and raises more often than I would against a man. If you show weakness, I will try to bluff you.
*But*, I will watch. If you are to be playing differently from what is described, I should catch on within an hour or so (at a full table).
William e
My question is this: If you have a royal straight flush of hearts, does a rsf of spades beat it? What suits beat what suits in rsfs?
vivienne,
I believe that this would be a tie and the players would split the pot.
Tom Haley
Vivienne,
The hands tie as Tom Haley stated. I will add that in Southern California, any odd chip would go to the ace of spades (suits are ranked in reverse alphabetical order for this purpose).
Regards,
Rick
The only times I know of that suits have "precedence" is for purposes of bring-in the low/high card and splitting an odd chip. There is NO precedence of suits in the show-down.
If you have read some of my previous posts on Poker Digest essays you probably know that I am not a fan of this magazine. But Sklansky and Malmuth both contribute, so I read it (some of it)!
In fairness I found acouple of intersting articles in the latest issue. Of course, one was by Sklansky and the other by Malmuth and Lynne Loomis.
First Mamuth and Loomis.
Article: "How to play Omaha and Omaha Split. " This article is simple and well written and great for the beginner in these games. Because I'm not familiar with copyright laws I will not type the whole article here. (The real reason is that I'm lazy). But for each game the authors list 6 tips. The one I find the most valuable is Tip. No.6 for Omaha Split: "Turn your cards face up when the hand is over."
For beginners this is the best advice anyone can give you! Don't listen to paranoid players that tell you you may be showing other players how you play! Turn them up, let the dealer or the other players help call the hand! You will be amazed at how many hands are missed and not found until someone other than the owner looks at the hand! Do it!
Now for Sklansky! I have my own reasons for mentioning this one!
Article: "Can you get the edge over the Casino?"
This article is also well written and easy to understand. It is about BlackJack. It's value in my opinion is to the novice and casual BJ player. Mr. Sklansky declares in this article that BlackJack is beatable. He does not use the term "Real World" but that is what he means! I believe this! I do not ask for proof that BJ is beatable in the real world. That is because I have done my own research on the subject. I have learned basic strategy (perfectly). I have learned to count down a deck in under 12 seconds. And I have played many (successful) hours applying what I have learned (in the real world)! Of course this is related to my previous post(s) on Baccarat! What did you think? That I would let sleeping dogs lie! Right!
Anyway I reccomend these two articles. I haven't read the other articles in the mag. just these two. Sklansy and Malmuth each have another in the mag. But the two I mentioned, in my opinion, make the mag worth getting!
Of course a post by me wouldn't be complete without a jab at either Malmuth or Sklansky. Mr S this ones for you! In your article :(You are talking about learning basic strategy and card counting) "Many people are to lazy to go through this. I personally find that astonishing, especially for those people who play blackjack a lot." "Those people" are GAMBLER'S for crying out loud! What in the hell do you expect from gamblers. These are the same people that throw cubes down a green felt surface and yell "SEVEN" or "Yo". They scream "Banco" at the Bacarrat table and "Double Zero" at the roulette table! GAMBLER'S don't need skill, they are strolling down "Penny Lane" with "Lady Luck" wrapped around their arm! Just the same I liked the article!
Opinion by Vince!
"(You are talking about learning basic strategy and card counting) "Many people are to lazy to go through this. I personally find that astonishing, especially for those people who play blackjack a lot."
But isn't counting NOT allowed in a Casino? The evil perpetrator is likley to be thrown out and banned. All for doing something so terrible as "using his/her head", rather than mindlessly scraping/tapping a felt table and laying down chips. That still amazes me.
The comment on turning your cards over is right-on! With four cards, it can get confusing. Especially if the board has several cards closely bunched. Straights are very easy to miss. Never rely on memory. t-h k
I just picked up John May's "Baccarat for the Clueless". I haven't read it through carefully, but I did go over the sections on gaining an advantage over the casino. Much interesting information there. Vince, might I suggest that you go out and pick this book up? It's $12.00 US, and well worth the investment.
If John May is who I think he is, then is blackjack credentials are impeccable, and he quotes all the right people (Griffin, Wong, Epstein, Sklansky).
To be honest, I had always considered baccarat to be a waste of time. Vince and I quibbled over the meaning of the word 'beatable'. I take it mean that you can theoretically place +EV bets. Vince seems to think that it means you can buy a car with the winnings or something. Anyway, this book might change my mind. It outlines several ways in which you could gain a real-world, usable EV, and provides evidence that some people are already doing this. (For example, the Griffin Detective Agency apparently has several people on file because they are 'baccarat card locators', and some baccarat players are now getting heat from the casinos.)
Whether it changes your mind or not, it looks like a great read, with lots of history and background information. And for a gambling book, it's dirt cheap.
I'll post a full review if anyone is interested after I read it, and I'd be interested in what other people think of the book.
Dan
ConJelCo actually has this book in stock, though I am such a mope that I haven't had time to update the catalog to show it. (And I wonder why it hasn't sold well!)
If you want a copy and can't find it on the order form send me an e-mail. I expect to have it on the order form late today or tomorrow.
Chuck
"'baccarat card locators',"
Yeh Dan, you read it and let the forum know your findings! I'm through with this until someone like you or Abdul or whoever provide some proof. BTW the above sounds like a great card counting system. I must hear more!
Vince
Vince,
Would you be interested in my describing my baccarat method to a neutral third party who would then post a decision here on whether it is plausible that this method can attain a big edge in baccarat?
I've spoken to Michael Hunter, and he has agreed to be the "judge", on the condition of keeping the method secret.
BTW, I know Jmay ("know" in an Internet sense), and in fact I helped him get started on baccarat. He is the one I mentioned who has been barred from his local casinos (for either blackjack or baccarat.)
-Abdul
I don't know about Vince, but I'm interested.
Huh...I never thought I'd say that about a Baccarat post.
CV
The judge, Michael Hunter, has been given my "secret baccarat system" on the condition of keeping it secret and not using it. Now we wait until he passes judgment on it.
-Abdul
Abdul-
Why is it 'secret'?
GD asks why the technique for beating the game is secret.
So that a bunch of clowns don't burn out the game, as often happens when opportunities like this become available. Discussing this much openly about it may have greatly limited the lifespan of the opportunity for Abdul as it is.
Abdul sent me a very detailed description of his Bacarrat system. It doesn't involve card countin or cheating and appears to provide a fairly healty advantage (I didn't write a sim. so I can't say that his advantage numbers are correct, but even if they were incorrect the overall procedure is very viable). For Vince this is definitely the kind of opportunity you can pay the rent with, eat with, buy a car with, etc., etc. given the correct ability, bankroll (surprisingly enough the variance isn't huge), and (somewhat unique) opportunity.
I'm strapped for time at the moment but will play with this idea some more. Unfortunately I doubt I can say much more without breaking my agreement with Abdul. I admit to initially thinking that a Baccarat book rated down with a slots book in my buy list. Abdul has just reminded me that such assumptions are contrary to what makes gambling interesting.
mph
"For Vince this is definitely the kind of opportunity you can pay the rent with, eat with, buy a car with, etc., etc. given the correct ability, bankroll (surprisingly enough the variance isn't huge), and (somewhat unique) opportunity. "
Michael,
Thanks for the info but I am done with Baccarat discussions unless directly asked for my opinion. (My son said I was to opinionated. And I taught him everything he knows!) Besides I consider playing Bacarrat in the same category as playing Blackjack (Ugh!)! Hope you and/or Abdul get rich playing that game! I really do! (BTW-If you do I'm looking for someone to put me up in a major poker tournament, how about giving it some consideration after you win those millions and pay the rent! Just a little humor!)
Vince.
Abdul,
If you believe I doubt your honesty, intelligence and sincerity you are mistaken! In fact I admire and envy you! (the intelligence part, the others I have also)
Bacarrat is not the issue just a vehicle! You do not need to prove anything to me!
For All here: Bear witness: "I retract any objection I have had in the past to anyone claiming that Baccarat can be beaten!"
If anything good has come of this it is that before we began discussing Baccarat I had not seen one of Abdul's posts here in my time on the forum.
I hope too see and learn from more of them!
Vince
Hi,
I've been playing hold'em for about six months now (yes that is when Rounders came out) :) and I am currently playing at the 6-12 level in LA. I've recently adopted the stratagey of only comming into a pot with raise. I picked it up from a lady playing at the Bellagio whom I thought was a very good player. I usually play nines or better suited and Jacks or better off suite. I do mix in a few low suited connectors so that I am not so predictable and I pick my spots for medium and small pairs.
If the flop misses me I will usually check and fold if someone bets (sometimes accidently turning my cards over). *smile* I will only attempt to steal once I think I have earned table respect and I feel that I can bet everyone out. So far I've been able to bully about one-third of the tables I sit in. My friend says that it might not be a very good strategy since I am investing an additional small bet into a pot that may or may not hit me.
Can you guys tell me if what I'm doing is sound strategy or am I just "gambling".
Thanks for any advice.
TB p.s. so far I have read HEFAP and Hold em Excellence. What should I read next?
Not the worst way in the world to play. The main problem as I see it is that there are hands that prefer more competition in order to increase pot odds. Small pairs and suited connectors and the like. Based on what you said, you aren't playing these hands at all, so you are just missing the oppurtunity they present. Is it working? That's the true test
Danny S
Read Theory of Poker. Then re-read it. Then make notes and re-read it again. It has helped me more in "thinking at the table" than any other book. (Along with the use of this forum of course).
I disagree that this book is only for advanced players, I feel a beginner (and I am one also) should read it FIRST, and if it is too confusing and they can't grasp any of the concepts, should think long and hard about investing any time and money into this game.
I totally agree. Although some of the chapters are quite difficult, much of TTOP is immediately useful even before you have played a hand in anger. It is then very helpful to read, play a session, think about the hands you played, re-read and see how the concepts apply to those hands, and iterate this process.
Andy.
coming in with a raise is good strategy aslong as you are the first one in. I would suggest you read Bob Ciaffonne's books as well. One piece of advice; 6-12 holdem in LA HAS A HUGE $3.00 drop that makes this game very very difficult to beat in the long run. Consider moving to 10-20 as soon as you get a reasonable amount of playing time in.
Actually Al, the drop is $4.00 for the 6-12 at the Commerce and the Bike. ( Not positive about the Bike) Games are still very beatable though.
using your figures, the 6-12 games are costing at least $ 16.00 hourly plus tips. The 10-20 game costs 10hr plus tips. Even against poorer players, to make two big bets an hour consistently is a grand feat. Especially when you are new to the game. My point is, that this new player, once he gets some more playing time in should switch in order to survive the swings. it takes years to improve your game, even at that level, to become a 2 bets per hour player. Why not give your self a chance at survival. 10-20 is tougher, but more stable. This is my problem that I have with the clubs. They overcharge considerably in the smaller games, but that's another subject.
The rule is "Proceed when you see it to be appropriate"
T.B.,
I hope you are also checking and calling and check raising sometimes when the flop does hit you or your opponents will soon start to bet you out whenever you miss and check. You may beat 6&12 with this simple strategy but when you move up you had better vary your play and improve your game. Good Luck.
Ray, I've had a bit of success playing this style in 1-4-8-8, though I vary it with a looser style of play. Works very well against unknowns, but the regulars will soon dub you "he who only plays big pairs", if you overdo it. Still it is an almost guaranteed way to make a small profit in 1-4-8-8, but it won't make you a great or even a very good player.
"Still it is an almost guaranteed way to make a small profit in 1-4-8-8, but it won't make you a great or even a very good player."
I've been wanting to address this issue for some time. I have been around cardrooms for a long time, and I can recognize good play. I am not a great player or even a very good one. I am a winning player. I win in more than 80% of the sessions I play, and my average win is larger than my average loss. I have shown a net tournament profit each of the last three years since I've started playing them. With the exception of no limit games and certain shorthanded lowball games, I restrict myself to playing games where the competition is weak. While I am an amatuer player, I believe I net more than the average California "pro", due, at least in part, to the fact that I participate only in games where I figure to be a winner based on experience and ability. I am not sitting in any games where I figure to be outplayed by many superior players. I see players in 20-40 Hold-em at the Commerce that I routinely outplay in 6-12 games. I assume they are losing in those games the same as they did in the 6-12.
Judging by my profit/loss statements, I am a good player, albeit a "minor leaguer"; a big fish in a small pond. Every once in a while I'll get tempted to move up to the higher limit games to see if I could beat them, but I always decide to stay where I am. The game I'm currently concentrating on is a 3-6 stud eight or better that I'm beating for just under 4BB's per hour. I keep score with the money, but I don't need to win to support myself or my family.
I spend at least four hours everyday reading poker books, practicing with TTH and reading this forum and rgp, so I believe that I qualify as a serious student of the game. In addition, I play six days a week. By one standard I am a superior player to the 300-600 player who winds up losing money after playing 500 plus hours in the game. If he and I played in the same game, he would probably take my money, but we don't play in the same game and I am a winning player and he is a losing one.
Thoughts and comments welcomed.
"Judging by my profit/loss statements, I am a good player,"
John,
How could anyone reading your post come to a conclusion that does not reach far beyond you being just a "good player". I have had a problem in the past with writer's referring to players as "World Class". If there is such a thing as a poker player rating system I haven't seen it! If a player can point to his experience the way that you can and know in his heart that he is being honest with himself I believe he would have to consider himself one of the best!
Opinion by Vince!
I think you do yourself a disservice. From your posts and from your win rate, I believe you are at least a very good player. But this leads me to ahother question. Malmuth has charted win rates, for various skill levels at various playing levels. A 4-8 Holdem player should make $5/hr if OK,$10/hr if Good, and $14 if Great. Therefore, I'm a great player!!??- NO WAY, I'm not being modest when I say I'm a fair, but improving player. Like you Big John, I study poker almost daily, practise with TTH2, but only play 1-2 days a week. What do you think, have I just been lucky, or does Mason need to reevaluate his chart, at the lower limits?
You guys are really great players. You dont have to be playing large stakes to be a great player you just need to be one of the best in your field at your limits and you guys are. As far as getting better by working and studing that proves it. Its important to try to improve at your game, not just so you can move up in stakes, but so you can increase your win rate. If you have two hands and there is money on the floor why not use them both and get more of it? By getting better you are using both hands at the poker table. Along with the dough comes added satisfaction and less flucuations. Doug if you really do win 14 anhour at 4&8 you are much better than you think. Dont believe big John he is more than a good player just a bad judge of his own ability. Good Luck.
(Long, rambling post)
Ray,
Thanks, but I'm not a great player. I wanted to get a discussion going about the ways a "decent" player can compensate for his lack of real playing ability and still be a winning player. It is a fact that there are many very good poker players that are long term net losers while lesser players (poker ability wise) are consistent longterm winners. For me it is simply a matter of game selection and choosing to play in games where inferior players abound. I exercise greater personal discipline than other players who put their entire bankrolls on the table for a single session. Another advantage I seem to have is that I don't play poker with my ego; I can admit that I'm outclassed and leave a game where my chances don't appear that good.
I've played poker with many rgp posters and also a few who post on this forum. Some play as well as they write, while others seem to have the theory down but lack the discipline and self control to play as well as they know how to. It seems to me that the reason most competent players lose is that they lack adequate self control. I have a few days when my game is off due to poor discipline, but I have many, many more where I am focused and in control. Another ego problem that I see is a player so full of his own ability that he fails to observe the other players that make up his game and attempts to dominate the game through the force of his aggression.
I can't believe that I'm the only poker player that has had to come to terms with the fact that his playing ability is only second tier, at best, and who has had to seek out a level of play that allows him to win. This isn't to say that I haven't been able to win in mid limit games from time to time, but that I do much better on an hourly basis restricting my play to games and levels where I know I can win. I see no advantage to being a break even player at 15-30 when you can be a multiple BB per hour winner at the 3-6 level. I can usually win as much at 3-6 as I win at 6-12 or 9-18, so why bother to play them other than the dubious "thrill" of competing against a stronger field? I am a stronger player at NL, so I have been comfortable playing that game against some excellent players. I wouldn't dream of playing Bobby Hoff in a 30-60 game at the Commerce, but I've played with him on many occasions in the small NL game when it was being spread at the Commerce. ( He was a big favorite in that game too, but I had "outs".)
I keep reading, studying, playing and discussing poker in the hopes that one day I'll have some kind of epiphany and be able to understand and access all the information I've imputted over the years. I am getting better, but I believe it is still correct for me to continue playing my winning strategy by staying at current levels. I would be interested in discussing this situation by private email with anyone who is experiencing similar limitations.
I agree with Al.
If you are first one in, then coming in with a raise has extra value if there is some chance of winning the blinds outright. So it's not a bad strategy to either fold or raise if you are the first one in (especially true when you are the first one in from middle or late position).
If there are already callers, you have to learn to re-evaluate your strategy. The person just calling in front of you may have a better hand than the one you are raising with. If you have a hand like medium suited connectors you might want to encourage more multi-way action by just calling. It all really depends on the nature of the game, and the nature of your opponents. But just raising every time you enter the pot regardless of context is not a smart way to play hold'em.
All in my opinion, of course.
This strategy is also highly uneffective against observant opponents. If someone's paying attention they'll notice you're raising every pot (and folding when the flop doesn't hit) they'll start re-raising you w/ any kind of A and any halfway decent K and bluffing you out on the flop. I've been up against players before who play a 'raise or get out' strategy before the flop, and if they're weak/passive after the flop (which sounds like the case with you) a good player can make a killing simply by semi-bluffing.
For 6-12, I like the strategy of only coming in for a raise. Generally speaking, I find the value of thinning out the competition is greater than the value of deception gained by sometimes calling with a raising hand. In hold-em you miss a lot of flops; the fewer players remaining the easier to take the pot, especially if those players think you have the better hand to begin with.
However, in bigger games, "only" doing anything can lead to problems, some of which have been pointed out by other posters. You should still be raising most of the time when you come in, but you should sometimes just call with your weaker hands and with your powerful hands too. There will be better players in the games as you move up, so the value of deception goes up accordingly.
Good luck.
Not be holier than thou but I think "sometimes accidently turning my cards over" during play is just not right. If other players did the same thing, the game would become chaotic. You may get away with this at 6-12 but I won't recommend doing it at higher limits.
Russ
Hi,
Thank you for all the helpful comments. I'm gonna go pick up a copy of The Theory of Poker right away. :) So far I have only played fives sessions with this strategy and here are the results. $220 win 9 hrs $150 loss 2 hrs $420 win 10 hrs $280 loss 10 hrs $450 win 6 hrs
So far so good but I'm still not sure if it's because of my preflop raising. I like doing this because it makes the other players think about their hands when contesting a pot with me. If someone wants to play their suited dung cards or their Ax off-suit then Im gonna charge them for it. I am very aggressive on the flop if it hits me. I will raise if someone bets into me or check raise from early and three bet if someone raises or check raises me. I don't see the need to slow play in 6-12 as people will pay you off. Of course slow playing is nice just to mix things up. I do take full advantage of the value of hands by position. If I see four limpers and I have a pair or some medium suited connectors in late I will come in. (with a raise of course) :)
The benefits that I have noticed so far is that I get a huge amount to table respect and players will just call me down even if I have a dominated hand. This saves me alot of small bets in the course of 9 hour session. And the best thing so far is I have been protected check raise bluffs as people will believe that I will only bet if I have a hand. (I usually call down the first check-raise I get) Plus I get my fair share of steals. As they say you don't need to hit the flop to win just as long as your opponent misses. :) The down side to this is I might be throwing in an extra small bet just to see if the flop hits me and that might be bad.
Thanks again.
TB
I will be playing in a home pot-limit hold'em game this Saturday. Blinds of $1 and $2. But, here's the catch, It will be $25 limit. So, it's actually pot-limit up to $25 and then that is the maximum bet. So, it is easily possible to have the $25 limit met before the flop.
How do you play this type of game? I have played pot-limit before with $1 and $2 blinds, but never a limit placed on the beting like this.
I will appreciate any ideas of how best to play this type of game.
Thnaks for any advice.
Tom Overton Denton, Texas
After seeing the "Missing Message" posts, I'm wondering if anyone responded to my question about the pot-limit game. I will appreciate some advice on the strategy for this type game.
Thanks,
Tom Overton Denton, Texas
Tom,
It sounds like you are essentially in a $25 limit game, with that limit not being approached until a few bets have gone into the pot. I would be inclined to trap a lot here, becasue the blinds are so small relative to what you can win later. If you can get in for just $2-5 preflop, then I would play any pair in any position, suited connectors, and suited As and Ks most of the time. Of course, this also depends a lot upon how loose or tight these guys are, and how often they're going to pay you off with lesser hands, etc.
Being a home game, I'll bet that you're a big favorite, so just play your best and count the profits.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Whats the buy in?
Walleye, Min buy-in is $100. All rebuys must be $50 or more.
My friend Nollan Dalla advised that I should treat it as a 10-20 or 15-30 game with a small pot. He also advised to look for strong drawing hands. Of course, all this is determined by the pre-flop action. Seems like if you raise with big pairs and you still have 6-7 seeing the flop, then you could be in trouble. I do not know what to expect as I have played low-limit with all the players and they are usually pretty loose.
thanks,
Tom Overton
I agree with Mr. Fossil: its a straight $25-limit game with trivial blinds; but you cannot over-bet the pot.
Protect big pairs; draw cheaply to strong hands. Pairs are betting than suited connectors since the draws may very well NOT be able to call pot sized bets.
You want to HAVE a hand before investing alot, discounting stealing of course. Make few if any speculative calls.
I suspect manipulating the size of the pot with a small B4 flop raise will have some real applications here.
I MUST know how the later rounds are likely to be played before making a decision on the earlier rounds.
- Louie
Last night i played in a $10/20 HE game it was a easy hr before i had a decent hand to play in the BB i watch as the others look at there cards before i do! i look to find K K well at that piont i noticed the three players in front have folded and just two and the SB were left, i raised and got called all around.. the flop is as such A k 4 now the SB bets i smooth called and so did the rest,, the turn is a 10 now the SB bet i rasied all folded back too the SB who in returned raised. so i called, the river is a another 4,, the SB bets i raise,, back and forth till it was capped!! should i have raised the roof on this? well the small blind flipped his pocket A's over and i never looked twice as i mucked my hand! now not knowing that i was beat all the way what could i have done differantly? I mean the SB was not or had not been too active up till then so i had no idea of what he was like in a heads up hand,, any comments or suggestions? thanks AcesJ
You are probably going to lose money with the second set over the top set. How well did the SB know you? If you have been sitting there for an hour being a foldbot and then raise from the BB you told the table what your hand was. For the other player to raise back into you was probably a warning unless he was a total maniac.
One thing I don't understand. It sounds like it was heads up on the river. How did the betting get capped?
FECES HAPPENS. (Abdul: notice the use of non-offensive secondary cuss words...) Don't let yourself get all bent out of shape. Set-Under-Set is a cinch big loss.
However, how many raises can you give him? Your raise on the end is an OBVIOUS full house; and you have the smallest full you could reasonably have. His ReRaise should slow you down to a crying call.
- Louie
You were not out played! The small blind should have reraired before the flop. You lost less than manny players would have.
I think if the SB had re-raised, our hero would soon put him on Aces and would NOT have given that much action. So the "mistake" of the SB actually paid off this time.
David and Mason, the three messages I notice gone (so far) are:
"Re: Another dreaded BACCARAT post ("Baccarat for the Clueless")" in which I give a lot of pragmatic information for professional gamblers regarding the brittleness of special opportunities such as 2:1 on blackjacks. I mention an experience at the Alton Belle, where perhaps you sell books.
and
"Re: Q5o revisited" in which I say "Physician, heal thy self!" while defending myself from the attack of one poster to this forum.
and
"Re: THANKS! And what about the female experience?" in which I give a whole lot of useful information geared specifically towards female poker players taking advantage of how men perceive them. In it I refer to a part of the male anatomy as leading men to do stupid things when playing poker against women.
Does anyone remember seeing these articles in the few hours they might have been up?
I have been saving my articles for just such a contingency. I'm not pointing fingers. There are many possible explanations for missing messages, including my fault. But do I have your permission to repost them here? That is my only question.
Caching this message just in case...
-Abdul
Abdul, I logged on shortly after your last batch of messages, and I don't recall seeing any of those. If they were deleted, it was awfully fast. I'd suspect a communication error, or perhaps you never hit the post button or something?
Abdul,
I recall reading the third one only - about your theories on the female and male experience. It was lighthearted and non-offensive (at least to me), but I suppose one could find something obscene in last year's taxation statutes if one really looked hard enough. I am somewhat disadvantaged, however, compared to most other Forum readers in that I'm totally unfamiliar with the local (US) poker scene, personalities, cardrooms, politics, etiquette and gossip. Maybe if I was Mimi, I would have objected to being called a onetime maniac/fish, despite the praises you showered on her later on. Maybe David had told his wife that he had never met the Mary you placed him sitting to the left of in $40-$80. Maybe your opening assertion about S&M, even with good old Andy as your witness, was abusing some unwritten code of behaviour. And maybe the files just got lost.
Etienne
Who's Mary?
David,
I recall Abdul mentioning a certain Mary, who apparently was sitting next to you in $40-$80 Mirage, I think, till you got up. Having mentally reconstructed the missing post to the best of my ability, I then attempted to find anything offensive or objectionable, which I certainly missed on the first reading. The 3 examples I cited in my earlier post were the best I could come up with - pitiful wouldn't you say?
Etienne
Consider writing down the "cookie" information right after a post. Consider re-loading the forum right after a post and look see if its there. Then look at "view... document info" and write down the number (16,xxx). Consider giving up on trying to make them admit it. Consider stopping them from WANTING to delete your posts.
Perhaps shamelessly brown nose; it keeps them off MY back!
- Louie
Abdul, I remember reading your post. I remeber because I had aproblem with it! But that's another issue! I have had a response deleted on the exchange! It had a nasty title directed towards a "Dazzler". He accused me of "not liking" Bob Wilson. I don't know the man and have never said a word about Mrr. Wilson one way or another! I respond aggessively when attacked! It's my nature! I don't know for sure who deleeted my response. That it should have been deleted or not is not the issue. The issue is that if the host or anyone else deletes a forum members post the poster should be notified. We deserve an answer to the questions: Are posts being deleted? If yes, What is the criteria for deleting them? When they are deleted can the poster please be notified with the reason?
This comment is directed to two plus two.
Vince
The following is our acceptable use policy. All forum participants need to read it carefully. It appears through the link on the left hand side of the page.
"The Gambling Forum: Acceptable Use Policy
Two Plus Two Publishing is 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, perhaps because of this growth, we believe it is time to announce an acceptable use policy.
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.
We reserve the right to delete any posts that we feel violate these guidelines."
These guidelines are directed to all posters.
May Abdul re-post the messages? I would like to read them.
I think this is an excellent policy. However, I sincerely hope that this policy will be consistently enforced, without regard to the poster. I've seen a number of posts in the past few months with enough expletives to make a sailor blush, and to the best of my knowledge these posts were never deleted. In short, I hope that this policy will apply to all posters in the future, regardless of temperment and/ or quality of past posts.
I don't mean to belabor the point, as it seems you have taken a lot of criticism for the deletions already. And I also realize that it may be difficult to judge the propriety of messages taken out of context. But I just finished reading Abdul's deleted posts and was shocked to see that the one on women was deleted.
Why was this deleted? Was it deleted for not having a "minimum of courtesy"? If so, I feel like I'm in kindergarten again: the word that I presume was responsible for the deletion is not vulgar by any dictionary's standards. It is also hard to argue that the hyphenated derivaties that Abdul used were vulgar, although I concede that a case could be made. I submit that that post was much more interesting and thougtfully written than the typical I-had-a-pair-of-sevens-on-the-button-and-the-guy-RAISED-what-to-do-what-to-do post.
Abdul asked "But do I have your permission to repost them here? That is my only question"
Indirectly he asks...have his posts been censored?
I am one who lobbied early for this forum to be monitored..and I encouraged Jessica to come up with the posting guidelines... which I have no problem with.
From what I've seen of Abdul's contributions I can't imagine him falling afoul of the guidelines.
Mason simply stated the guidelines but did not say if Abdul has been censored.
I agree with Vince here, Abdul deserves an answer.
Jim Mogal
The three posts removed were as follows:
1. We felt that the first post was vulgar. It included language that we felt was inappropriate for the forum.
2. The second post came under the "waste of time clause." It went on and on about some of the author's various blackjack exploits. We felt that it had no inherent value. The purpose of the forum is to discuss "theory and strategy."
3. The third post dealt with personal problems that Abdul has with me. I felt that it should have been private correspondence.
These posts will be removed again if they reappear in the same form.
Abdul or anyone else is welcome to post on the forum as long as they abide by our guidelines. (In fact, there are several Abdul posts currently up on the forum at this time. Many of you will find them of value).
Mason
I have put the articles of mine that Mason censored up on my website, at http://www.posev.com/posted/censored/ for those interested in reading them. I think the information in two of them is valuable, and in the other I think I should be allowed to respond calmy to personal attacks made on me, but you be the judge.
-Abdul
1. My vote would have been not to delete message #3 but I understand the other two deletions. 2. If I ever wrote that women should not adjust their play based on their sex I was just trying to be politically correct. 3. Abdul is simply wrong to think that we would delete criticisms of casinos as a general rule unless they were blatently scurrilous. Furthermore only a miniscule fraction of our books are sold in casinos (Three of our books outsell John Grisham"s The Firm at Amazon.com) . Anybody who read my testimony before the National Gaming Impact Study Commission knows that I don't suck up to casinos.
I publicly apologize to David Sklansky. I treated "S&M" unfairly as a single entity in my censored post. It was Mason alone who made the statement that women should not adjust their play based on issues related to their sex.
-Abdul
There are two areas that I wish to address.
1. Approximately 2 percent of our book sales go to casinos or cardrooms.
2. I have always agreed that there are some differences and advantages that women do have at the poker table. But I have also argued, and feel strongly on this point that before a women can take advantage of this they must first know how to play well. Now, once you know how to play well, I don't believe that that the male/female differences will increase your win rate very much. I don't know all the women that were named in the post, but I do know some of them, and those that I do know all play well. They would be significant winners whether they were men or women.
I just rechecked our numbers and need to make a correction. Approximately 4 percent, not two percent of our book sales go to cardrooms/casinos.
tHOSE STATS ARE MISLEADING. As a general rule you are going to sell more volume on an initial order to a large bookstore chain. If a casino orders less, but more often, then in reality, you are probably selling more books in the casino.
The stats are not misleading. Our initial orders went in a long time ago. The stats are based on reorders.
This situation occurred at an informal book signing seminar on 07/31/98 at the Border book store located on Sahara and Decatur:
I was a relatively new player at the time and was curious if there were any things that I needed to watch for in regard to gender as I learned to play poker. I asked the question "Are there differences in poker based on being a female player?" Mason's response was a short, terse, "No" there is no difference. I rephrased the question later and asked it again as I was genuinely curious and wanted to learn all aspects of the game. Mason's response was again that there was no difference. He looked to David S. who proceeded to answer my questions and provide suggestions that have proven quite helpful to me as a female poker player. I thank David for that advice and for all of the other advice and suggestions that he has offered throughout the past two years.
Regards-
Abdul:
There is no question that some of your posts are among the most enlightening that appear on our forum. When you are at your best, there may be no one better, and there is no question that a great deal of effort goes into your work. We hope you continue to participate, but do keep in mind that we must stick to our guidelines whether you agree with them or not.(Also keep in mind that unlike David I'm a big prude.)
Mason's message makes me kind of sad, because I don't want him or anyone to think I expected that, or that he had to do it. However, I appreciate it. Mason showed himself big of heart to write that and to leave up my message pointing to the website listing the censored articles. As I explained in private email, I don't think I can live within the actual guidelines here. That's not my fault or Mason's. So, without malice, I will stay in my lairs of rec.gambling.poker and rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated.
Most of all I justed wanted to say "peace."
-Abdul
Message #1: I can understand that the "anatomically correct" terms in the message may be cause enough to delete the message. However, the information in that message could be valuable to the forum, and simply deleting the post and emailing Abdul your reasons could have resulted in a less "vulgar" repost (if Abdul was willing) and the forum would have benefitted.
Message #2: Mason, if you are going to delete personal attacks, you should refrain from making them yourself. You made a reference to Abdul's negativity in one of your posts. When Abdul tried to defend himself, you deleted his response. Ususally people "get in the last word" by making a sound argument, not my silencing the opposition. I, for one, don't like to see personal attacks here at all. However, if one attack is successfully posted, the person under attack should be allowed to defend himself.
Message #3: I feel that this post was not a simple "Abdul's blackjack exploits" post (i.e. bragging). Abdul made an earlier post that he was beating baccarat using a very viable system. When he refused to post the details, many posters wondered why. The deleted post did an incredible job of explaining why Abdul could not post his system, and at least to me, implied that the +EV in his system was a result of a special casino rule or promotion that might not last long.
Regardless of the reasoning, however, I would think that when 2+2 deletes a post, it should give the poster a courtesy follow-up email with (1) confirmation that the deletion was intentional (and not an Internet hiccup) and (2) the reason(s) for the deletion. This would prevent the poster from attempting to repost the message in its original form, and could also result in an amended repost that met 2+2's guidelines.
I believe Mr. Malmuth was correct for the first two and made a marginal call on the third; it being simply a waste of time.
1) Instead of the "p" word, try "Testosterone Dominatated" or "two-brained" or "fanny fixated" (..oops, can I say that?) or "hormonial controlled brain bypass" or "priority challenged" or "watcher of blouses" or "desirous of adoration" or "flirt happy" or "Ego Satisfaction Deprivation Syndrom". You know, there's nothing quite like sarcastic political correctness.
But I agree its something woman CAN, and SHOULD, take advantage of.
2) I believe Mr. Malmuth's "attack" was a well said, timely, polite, and USEFUL suggestion. It DOES appear that you could use your talent more constructively on the forum. Therefore, your "energetic defense" was mis-placed. His was definately CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.
3) I am the ONLY one with a liscence to ramble. Or mis-spell.
Lighten up a little; its +EFV. (Expected Fun Value).
Continue to post.
- Louie
This post is pure suck-up nonsense. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Abdul's posts. Nothing. I, personally, found them quite fascinating. As I do MOST of Abdul's posts. Quite simply Abdul Mahall Jalib is one of the pre-eminent gambling thinkers of our time. His posts are THE most anticipated on ANY newsgroup-website.
Mason Malmuth on the other is a trite, petty, ego-centric jealousy oriented individual who has more enemies than friends. In fact, many of his former friends are now his enemies. I guess he is right and they are all wrong. It takes a lot of talent to rub almost everyone you know the wrong way.
I would consider it an honor to have this post deleted.
Mr. P
Just an observation: all these posts (mine included) really, REALLY, should be in the other forum. Since this is posted in response to Mr. P's article, I'd better say something about it, too. Are you Abdul's father? AJ certainly has interesting things to say, but you go a little overboard. However, he sometimes (not always, or even usually) posts what appear to me to be ego-boosters, some which attack other people. Once the fight is joined, both parties tend to go astray.
Eric
The fact that your post has not been deleted indicates that this forum's "Acceptable Use Policy" is applied in a rather "uneven" manner.
Ok Ok we understand you are the man!! gees,,, common tell me that those were not of some value, and I'll say u have missed the piont of all 3! i read this forum daily to be sickened at every message i here that you hide behind a two sentence answer!! Yes this is your site i cant argue, or it will be tossed out... let it be mine and not Abduls.. the piont im trying to get at is very simple if u get it or not will find out later... You are in the buisness of making $. i have read yur book (BOOK) and will read no more! till i see that there is something worth the $30.00 that u get! i have had many answers answered here because of peaple with the knowledge to comment!!! i have never seen you answer directly! if u want to beat around the busch god bless u!! ur hurting yur long term fortune by doing so!! Good Day
The 2+2 books have been worth litterally THOUSANDS of dollars to me. If any one is not worth $30 to you, then either you do not play or you need a SERIOUS paradign shift when reading them. IMHO.
- Louie
Paradign shift details available on request.
Uh, Louie-- that's paradigm (with an 'm'). Still, it looks like we finally found someone who spells worst than you :).....
GD,
That should be "worse than you" (not "worst than you").
Etienne
No, No guys - It's: "Hey Mister can you Spare a Dime" from Donnah Summer's "Bad Girls". You know: "Talking bout bad, bad, bad, bad girls!" Or is it "about"?
Vince
Donna doesn't have an 'h', Vince :)
It's your world,boss,we just live in it.
Mason Malmuth, IMO, provided a straight answer with his response. Please be fair! The following are my thought s on his response!
"1. We felt that the first post was vulgar. It included language that we felt was inappropriate for the forum. "
I certainly agree with this rule. Vulgar posts should be deleted!
"2. The second post came under the "waste of time clause." It went on and on about some of the author's various blackjack exploits.
I believe that posts that fit in this category should be on the exchange forum. If a post falls into this category then, IMO, it should be moved to the exchange by 2+2, not deleted. Then readers can decide if it is a waste of time!
"3. The third post dealt with personal problems that Abdul has with me. I felt that it should have been private correspondence."
I agree with this only if it applies to any and all personal attacts regardless of who they are directed towards and who makes them!
I believe that if a post is deleted or moved that with the exception of those in the vulgar category the poster should be notified by 2+2.
These are my opinions. I agree that this forum is the sole property of 2+2 but what makes this or any forum worthwhile is the Posters. Their concerns must be answered by management!
If others agree with my position or have positions of their own regarding forum rules please chime in!
Opinion by Vince
Good Post!, in that it contained working alternatives. Resolution to conflict.
Mason; Please disregard my last post under your last post. The Post was ment to be under Vince's Post of 11 Mar.'99 @ 5:20a.
Having read the three deleted messages, I don't believe a single one of them should have been removed. I also believe that if anyone but Abdul had posted them Mason would not have considered removing them. I have read far worse personal attacks on this forum (including some directed at me), and there has been far more profanity in other messages.
While this is a commercial website and therefore the property of Mason Malmuth, he should recognize that the value of any forum of debate goes way down without objectivity. I value Abdul's posts highly, and quite frankly if he were to go somewhere else and start posting there, I'd probably tag right along.
I used to run a commercial BBS system, and I can tell you that the value of an online community is directly linked to the quality of the people in it, and it's usually a very few highly motivated people that 'drive' that community. Abdul is one of those valuable commodities, and if you lose him you will lose a great deal of value.
Dan
Well, I never thought I'd say this, but Dan is right here. The P-word is used extensively in the media and is not considered vulgar. Again, this site is for newbies and others who are starved for information, but don't want to put up with the crap on rgp. Once again Mason your objectivity has been clouded because of your dislike for another. Gee, just the other day you were talking about how little you make selling books, now it's you guys telling us that you out sell some of the best sellers on amazon.com None of abduls posts were any way a problem. You had to know that he would react to you voiding them. So it's purely a power struggle. How mature. maybe a girlfriend or something would help.
Amazingly both of them have beautiful bright charming girlfriends.
Then it's there fault!! I knew a woman was behind this!
David wrote: "Amazingly both of them have beautiful bright charming girlfriends"
From one of Abdul's posts: "My wife will complain about being omitted..." ;-)
Reminds me of my usual Valentine's day thought:
"To my wife and sweetheart, ...may they never meet!"
Say it aint so!!
It's clear to me that Abdul is one of the most important posters here at 2+2. I find it quite disappointing that Mason Malmuth feels so threatened by Abdul that censorship is his only recourse. C'mon Mason, lighten up.
Ton Haley
Someone is impersonating me as I did not write this message!!!! Wow I think I'm going to become anonymous. I do like Abdul's post's a lot BTW.
Tom Haley (the real one)
Tom,
Even though 'm' and 'n' are qwerty neighbours, it would be hard to imagine the "imposter" making an unintended typo in his first name. So to "legally" protect himself, he is Ton Haley, not Tom Haley and deliberately uses a non-existing email address with daytrading connotations. After a few additional minutes of hard-disk detective work, my suspicions as to who the "imposter" could be point in the unexpected direction of none other than David Sklansky himself. The tracks were, undoubtedly, left deliberately.
Etienne
Etienne,
Actually I wasn't angry about it. It just blew me away that someone would impersonate me. Thanks for the detective work.
Tom Haley
Based off of his actions, I believe Mason Malmuth owes an apology to his 2+2 Book readers and website readers/writers. Maybe he had something personal with Abdul, if that was the case, he should have settled that with him personally. Instead, he has done his website and his readers a disservice by deleting the posted messages. I read them on Abdul's website, and I think two of them are completely related to strategy and has a lot of added value. The other one was only a retort towards Malmuth who had used his negativity on abdul...read Mason's comments, its clear the two of them have a problem.
So I say this to you, Mason: you owe an apology for disappointing your readers and contributers for deleting messages that are useful to your webiste and your readers.
This is one of those forkroads: make your website strong or see it whither away into nothingness.
Good luck.
Keep in mind that Mason did not delete Abdul's post that provided a link to those same three messages! This controversy is mainly about the dignity and decorum of Two plus Two's website. Keep in mind also that we sometimes refer prospective business associates to this site. One of the deletions was in my opinion a mistake. The other two are debatable. On the other hand there is no reason for Abdul to push the envelope as he at times does.
I think that sums it up rather well.
Also, I think that now that there is some resolution to this matter, harmony could best be maintained if Abdul were to write the book many have asked for. He should then submit it to Two Plus Two for publication. Mason should publish it. Then Mason and his girlfriend, and Abdul and his wife should grab some bread, cheese and champagne, and go for a picnic on the shores of Lake Bellagio................ and look back on this whole thing and laugh.
John Feeney (or Tom Haley if this isn't taken well)
Even mason wouldnt shoot himself in the foot twice by deleting the link(or would he:)
Ever noticed the correlation between a strings ritht movement to its real value? eg: far right inversely proportional to value.
When do we all get together for a group hug?
I just re-read David's essay on fighting fuzzy thinking, in which he determined the "best play" in a football game with probability and a little math. This concept still fascinates me, and I'd like to learn more. However, I don't know of a source to help me learn this ever-important aspect of poker.
I've read Theory of Poker a dozen times, and I understand the underlying concepts of pot odds, implied odds etc. But learning the calculations and practicing them is a different story. Up to now, I've been a strategy player, knowing what to do and when by my experience, practice and study of the game (mostly 7-Stud). I can read the other players fairly well, and consider myself a pretty solid player at the medium and lower limits. But now I feel it's time to take my game to the next level and learn how to effectively apply what I know about odds.
The problem is that I don't know how to practice this without being in a live game. I'm 8 hours from the nearest legal poker room, and this live practice is nearly impossible on a regular basis. So, how do I learn these concepts and practice them? I was never a math wiz, but I understand the basics (my degree is in English) and am certain that, with practice and study, I can apply these concepts attain a greater edge on my competition.
Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Aces, Scottro
Scottro;
Try Schaum's Outlines for the basics of probabality & Statistics.
Unless you have an author-like steel trap mind, you won't be applying those mathematical calculations AT THE TABLE.
I remember the noteworthy hand, remember my seat-of-the-pants estimate, and go home and work it out. If I remember the result, I may recognize a similar situation and be able to apply a better estimate.
- Louie
While watching the Superbowl I had a similar experience to Mason's comment that knowing the odds and applying the odds were two different things. The situation was that Atlanta was down by 21 points and had just scored a touchdown to cut the lead to 15 with 5 minutes left. They went for two points instead of kicking the almost automatic extra point, a decision that was derided by the everyone around me who pointed out a 2 point conversion had a 40-45% of succeeding.
Say the two point conversion has only a 40% of success. Atlanta bascally needed two more touchdowns to have any chance. Say they managed to score them. If they kicked extra points all 3 times, they would tie and have presumably a 50% chance in overtime. If they succeeded in the conversion, they could kick extra points for the next 2 touchdowns and win with a 40% chance. However the extra out is that if they miss, they could still come back and make another conversion and tie the game. This has a 24% chance of happening, with them winning half of that time. Hence it seems by going for 2 the Falcons had a 52% chance of winning assuming they score two more touchdowns instead of just a 50% chance.
This was a situation where football people who knew the odds were not able to do the above analysis and came to the wrong conclusion.
In poker essays II on page 138 it is stated that if the pot is big then it may be correct to call with as little as three to a flush and no overcards. I was wondering if this is a similar situation:
A player is on the big blind and has 6s5s. The pot contains 12 small bets. The flop is Ad Jh 7s.
If the preflop raiser was the button and she/he bets after everyone has checked to her/him should the big blind to call?
As a matter of fact personally I would be more inclined to call in this case rather than call with 9s8s on a flop Ad Jh 9c where I do not know if making my hand would win the pot for me. What do you all think.
Best to all as they perceive best.
Maria
12sb is not "big" enough. You are in the neighborhood of 23-1 against making this flush, and you still have to put more money in if you pick up the draw.
I think bottom pair is a much better hand than an under 3-flush.
- Louie
You also might get "middled" by any player to your left who might decide to check raise. I would much prefer to have bottom pair and a back door draw, and have the better/raiser to my immediate left.
Pat Reeves
Maria:
To call with the two undercards and a three flush you probably want about 25 small bets in the pot ann you can call for just one bet. However, your situation is worse than this since you may get check raised by one of the players behind you. So you should just fold and be ready to play the next hand.
"To call with the two undercards and a three flush you probably want about 25 small bets in the pot"
This is much too consevative!
Cards that help her hand in this situation are any 4(4)any 8(4), value must be given to other spades but mostly the 3s,9s, 10s,Qs,Ks,2s provide have some value also. That's 14 cards that help the hand. The,As and Js are dangerous but maybe playable. That makes sixteen cards that can keep the hand in the running. 31 throw aways! 12 small bets in the pot are enough to call!
Opinion by Vince
I don't think 12 small bets is enough.
First, someone may check-raise the flop. Second, you will also have to put in at least two small bets on the turn for a chance to make your hand, giving you reverse implied odds lower than your current odds. Third, some of your opponents may fold, reducing your reverse implied odds even further. Fourth, you may have to put in two big bets on the turn if there's a raise. Fifth, most of your hands you can make can still lose the pot, especially the flushes. Sixth, if the flush does come and is good, you may not get paid off on the end.
First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth.
So what!
Fifth.
God, I hate when that happens!
Be bold and brave! Besides have you never seen the face of a rock when you beat his set of Aces with a backdoor 7 high flush or straight! My god, my friend, Live a little! Play poker!
Vince.
In a recent article in Card Player, Lou Kreiger (I'm pretty sure it was Lou) stated that, after the flop, either a backdoor straight or a backdoor flush gives you just about ONE extra out (reminder example: if you have an inside straight draw with nothing else, that would be 4 outs).
This approximation would agree with Mason's post above; 2 outs would require about 25:1 pot odds.
Do the 2+2 authors like this one? Using it in pot odds calculations at the table is certainly easy to do and allows me to quantify those "combination" hands like "bottom pair with inside straight and backdoor flush draws."
Dick in Phoenix
I call these imaginary outs (i) and use the formula:
= 4t/st wins + i (where a 3Fl. or Stright = 1i) to compute the required pot odds. The use of the imaginary (i) keeps me focused on the real problem.
"If the preflop raiser was the button and she/he bets after everyone has checked to her/him should the big blind to call?"
Yes, call, especially, if you believe that the players behind will not raise!
Opinion by Vince!
Vince you should right a book with all those convincing exclamation marks about poker,so we can make bundles of money off your readers!!! not an opinion,a fact! an observer
In case we hadn't exhausted the topic...I'm too am curious about perceptions. I'm rather non-discript, white male, mid-30's, fit, married, short hair, no accessories. I think if I'm defined at the table it will be by my clothes - outfit #1. Basic dealers wear; black shoes, pants, and vest, white shirt. #2. grey t-shirt, black leather jacket, black b-ball cap. If there's smokers, add a blue filtre mask. I'm talkative about sports, movies, politics, etc. I avoid poker discussions.
I'l take a shot... Serial killer playing in the clubs to launder money. Not really paying attention to the game, never raising or folding as he seeks out his next victim....He uses the mask to hide his facial expressions as he stares at the waitresses and dealers...
How did I do?
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Unfortunately poker seems to attract this type like a lamp does with bugs. I believe there are at least three sub-species which have been classified, namely (a) THE PERSONALITY BY-PASS Moron : This one has the same effect on a poker game as halitosis does to a romantic moment. He is like a Black Hole from which Nothing emanates. (b) THE SELF-CONFESSED GENIUS Moron : Luckily they are few and far between.They never tire of educating the table, and even next door's table if things are a bit quiet, regarding every single hand that has been played. All such 'players'should be on Congressional panels. (c)THE DRUNKEN BOORISH Moron : The worst type. Not alone do they cause frequent interruptions and pass offensive remarks ,especially when losing, they also spill drinks, upset cocktail-persons and often accuse opponents of having dubious parentage. Because they are usually big losers most of this abnoxious behavior is tolerated when really they should be thrown out in the gutter where they belong.
Was it Bob Ciaffone who said to take some Ex-lax?
Coming in to a new game, and I don't know any of the players. I am posting, one to the right of the big blind, the table is 9 handed. 4 people ahead of me call the big blind...I check (I am already in), the button calls....thus making it 7 big bets in....and now the small blind decides to fold.
I've seen this several times, and each time, I quickly came to the conclusion that the small blind must be a tight player....maybe tight weak (at least before the flop)....and a tight player that thinks tightness is the key to winning. Thus when he/she is in another hand later on, I am very careful...knowing he/she has pair or big cards.
Two questions:
1. Do you think my opinion of the small blind (assuming no other knowledge) is justifiable? 2. What hand, if any would you fold with if you were in the small blind position? (assuming big blind is a normal player, not known to be a "crazy raiser").
1) Yes, assume this player has the goods when he plays B4 the flop.
2) Depends. In the 2/3 SB $15/30 game ($10 SB) I would always call after a couple players have already called. In the 1/3 SB $3/6 game ($1 SB) I would rarely play worse than 75s. In the 1/2 SB $10/20 game I would play unsuited connectors.
- Louie
Don't out think yourself. Just because the small blind folded doesn't make him tight. If 4 people have put up money and I'm holding 8x offsuit why throw good money after bad especially in the earliest position.
Abdul, my favorite poster here and on rgp recently wrote, (buried in a TTH/sims thread:
I plan to extend the table to 3-betting. But I'll tell you right now that Turbo sims suggest that 3-betting is rarely correct. You can 3-bet with AA and AK (offsuit only). KK is borderline. Again, maybe the exact threshold is off - maybe QQ is a good 3-bet. But suffice it to say, in most situations few hands are worth 3-betting with even versus computer players who don't take the information into account well. Since you can 3-bet with so few hands, it would give away a lot of information to 3-bet with them, so I suggest not 3-betting versus a single legitimate raise. Flat call or fold. When facing a steal or semi-steal raise, that's another matter.
I would like to see more commentary on this question. The TTh advisor is frequently urging the 3-bet.
I understand the value of ambiguity in the mere call, even with KK or QQ. However, . . .
1) with KK, QQ, or even JJ and a chance to get it heads up or three-way, it seems worth reraising. Especially if someone cold called between you and the raiser, in which case a cap from the raiser convinces the person in the middle to get the hell out. Without the reraise, the big blind is more likely to stay in, too.
2) With some other hands, the reraise (say with KQs, or 99)can simply help you reclaim your positional advantage, taking some of the initiative back from the early position raiser.
3) If someone cold calls three bets behind you, that is VERY useful information, and it is gained EARLY, and at (relatively) small expense. Let's say you have QQ. UTG raises. You reraise and to your left calls is much different than you calling and to your left calling or raising.
4)Reraising also is useful in slowing down the UTG raiser who has 88, 99, JJ, etc. They are more likely to put down their hands when they see an overcard, even if it is not yours. You have position.
5) Mixing up play, deception, etc. is good. Just want to know more about what the best mix is.
I am no expert. I am no Vince Lepore, even (since I post once a year instead of five times a day).
I mostly want to understand more reasons, and do value those of both Abdul and 2+2 authors.
Good post. I agree with you completely. I have not read Abdul's post on this, so I cannot comment on it directly but, if he is really suggesting that you can only 3-bet with AA, KK, QQ, or AK then I would strongly disagree with that. I have not run any sims to back up my opinions on this (I guess I'm going to have to finally buy TTH just to be able to engage in this form of analysis), but I will very rarely smooth call a raise on my right, unless there has already been a couple of callers and I want to be involved in a multi-way pot. I think this is a classic case of "pump-it-or-dump-it", and is EXACTLY the reason why I prefer to have my more aggressive opponents to my right. I will come over the top with almost any hand I am going to play. I will, however, mostly restrict my play to hands that play well head-up....large to medium-large pocket pairs, AK and AQ (suited or not) and sometimes other large cards or smaller pairs, depending on what I know about the raiser.
I agree that all of the reasons you mention are legitimate reasons for raising, but I particularly like the one about gaining information. Assuming that you are going to play the hand anyway (and that we are only discussing the comparative merits of smooth-calling vs. raising), you get a much better idea of where you stand (and thus, how to proceed after the flop) by raising. My table image is generally such that, anybody (who is not a complete fish) who stays in for 3 bets to my left, will set alarm bells going off in my head. Most of the time, I will find myself heads-up with the original raiser. I couldn't feel as comfortable with my position if I smooth-called and then got 2 or 3 callers behind me. Of course, I'm not playing in any wild 3-6 or 1-4-8-8 games either. In a true no fold'em game, I would come over the top with only hands that want many opponents (plus AA and KK and sometime AK) and dump everything else. I'm no expert either, and I would welcome any differing opinions as to why smooth-calling might make more sense than I think.
Keep Shootin'
Steve
This is our position (David and myself) on this subject when playing limit hold 'em.
"You should not be calling many raises if no one else (except the raiser) has voluntarily entered the pot when playing hold 'em, no matter what your position or what your two starting cards are. You should usually either fold or occasionally reraise."
"You should not be calling many raises if no one else (except the raiser) has voluntarily entered the pot when playing hold 'em, no matter what your position or what your two starting cards are. You should usually either fold or occasionally reraise."
You will find players doing the opposite of this all the time at the 15-30 level. It is the mistake of calling when one should fold. When it happens it seems to open the flood gates to inappropraite calls by others that follow the initial incorrect call (incorrect, even if they are getting slightly better pot odds). It seems almost magical at times!
I believe quite firmly that the above (quote) is correct winning Hold'em poker strategy. Reasons to violate it may be to loosen up a tight game or to put a potential (previously known) maniac on tilt (Although the best way to tilt'em is to three bet with 5c,6c and win the pot showing down the hand. Notice the above advice ays to occaisionally reraise so this is in line with that advice)! However, it is better to follow S&M's advice and not put yourself in a potentially damaging situation! Calling two bets cold is just a bad play! And calling from the blinds against a single opponent is not an envious position to be in!
Opinion by Vince!
"I am no expert. I am no Vince Lepore, even (since I post once a year instead of five times a day). "
I was going to respond to this until I got to this point!
Why are you picking on me? I put my REAL name on all my posts now and if you don't want to read them why bother! I enjoy this forum and responding to others posts so excuse me for doing something I enjoy. I am no expert and have bever claimed to be one! But I'm glad you made this reference to me so that I will now avoid your posts. BTW a simple e-mail would have kept me away from your posts also!
Vince.
Some reasons to overbet the pot:
Some reasons to underbet the pot:
In Ciaffone's NL/PL book, he emphasizes in the NL lowball chapter that it's important to keep your bets at about the pot size in almost all cases, since better players will catch on if you bet small when you want a call and large when you don't. What about in NL holdem? Is it better to frequently vary your bets, or should you tend to keep them at the pot size in most situations, especially preflop?
Dan,
I think its of utmost importance to bet in such a way as to not let your opponents get a clue about your hand from the bet size. That is why betting the pot size or some similar size of bet regularly will make it harder for them to make their decisions. However, there are many times you may over or under bet the pot and you may not care what they may read you for as you want to put that amount in. Preflop many times you may want to drastically overbet the pot such as when you have ak and your opponent looks like a pair. A large bet or raise may get him to fold and a call wont cost much. Most no limit players are afraid to go broke before the flop without aces or kings and you can use this to your advantage if you can read players well.
Welcome back Ray.
SHOULD you be afraid to get broke with less than Aces or Kings before the flop? I personally don't like to call an overbet pot from a solid player with TT-QQ or AK, but don't mind putting the raise in myself since you get the added equity of a possible incorrect fold by your opponent.
What about betting a big draw vs. a set/top two on the flop. Some guys seem to always beg for a call by underbetting made hands and signal they're on a draw by going all-in. It seems to me that if you like to frequently move-in with a big draw (a play that I am beginning to question by the way)that you should bet a made hand the same way.
Tight Lines; but not Tight Poker Games!
M7,
You shouldnt get broke to a good player with qq or less by calling unless you are already trapped. Betting allin or a large bet with a weak hand hoping to knock out a good hand that wont call a big bet is a different play that the best players make quite frequently. Betting a draw against 2pair is not so good but you dont know he has that 2pair or better untill you have committed many chips and then most of the time you must now go for the rest. Most of the time you will be about 2 to 1 dog and by then the pot will give you more than that. Most big bets or raises with a draw on the flop are so you can win it right there which is a major money earner if it works. Most people overplay their big draws against callers. Also, the good players will bet their great hands forcefully on the flop just like a draw many times as well. If you find a no limit player that plays straight foward he is dead meat if you are paying attention. Good Luck.
This newsgroup/forum is for the enhancement of, and the sharing/discussing of poker, in all it forms. And a very important part of the game of poker is keeping good records concerning our own poker play, as well as our opponents, win/loses, where played, things we like/dislike about the game, etc. Over the past month I have had the fortunate opportunity to test a new soft program designed specifically for keeping such poker data. A demo can be downloaded from www.tje.net/poker(I believe only lower case will work). Demo is free but if you buy it, it costs around $30.00.
I would recommend at least trying it because I think it covers all the bases required for keeping good poker records.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
NL; Does it ask specific questions or leave it up to you to fill in the info about yr Opponents?
It gives you a nice little "notepad" on the same entry page for posting your wins/loses, to make notes about the session or about your opponents. It is somewhat limited in space, but not so limited that you can't put in the pertinent data. I am still learning and trying all the features that this program offers. I would suggest getting the demo and looking it over to really get the answer to this and other questions. Would be interested to know what you and other think about it.
May the flop be with you
Nevadalarry
When I visited rgp today I saw an attack on 2+2 or personally an attack on Mason Malmouth. It concerned the removal of 3 posts. Personally, I hate blackjack and don't care for it on this forum. I'm strictly poker. The one about sex, well I posted a small message about that and I didn't go into detail about it. It's not like Abdul is a superman and discovered this by himself. I have known these principles about women and in fact have posted several messages about the difficulties on playing against women. The other post Abdul wrote, I was told a personal thing with Mason. I care not for this type of stuff here. In fact I WAS CENSORED by 2+2 because I wrote a nasty post to Doug Grant. Am I mad? Who cares! But I wish some people could have read it because it was pretty funny. Now concerning Doug Grant. He once again is raving about anti-systems and that he had some sort of training of the type like James Bond. He has posted that Abdul is an imposter! What's up with that guy. This is a free country but no one wants to here this type of bull. That's the only thing on rgp that I hate is all the waste product posts on everthing but poker. Now there is talk of someone building a new forum. So what! I still will post and read here because most people here are serious about poker. That's what I want. They can have Doug Grant and whatever they so desire. Now I don't agree with everything 2+2 says but even they will tell you that this is the case. However I'm sure that they won't hold this against me. So people let's cut the crap and get on with what we are really here for. TO IMPROVE OUR POKER PLAY!
Joe:
Thanks for your comments.
The purpose of this forum is to exchange ideas and debate them. Many of the posts that appear disagree with us and a few are even highly critical of some of our ideas. We welcome this and feel that the product of the debate is that we all become better players.
However, we do ask that all posts be done in a professional manner, and that everyone respect everybody else.
We thank all of you who participate in our forum and sincerely hope that everyone is benefitting from it.
Mason Malmuth
"Many of the posts that appear disagree with us and a few are even highly critical of some of our ideas. We welcome this ..."
I'm sorry, but I do not believe this is true.
I have noticed for some time that there is a slight sense of hostility in the posts of the authors when responding to a post that disagrees with them. Instead of "This is my counter reasoning" I routinely sense "You should not say that". Such a sense comes in the flavor of the changed subject line "xyz's Falicious Reasoning" (appearantly trying to embarras xyz); or in the curt replies "we have already explained this in our books"; with the presumption that the explanation in the books is "obviously" correct; or in responding with silence to a direct rational challenge.
It SEEMS such posters are jumped on rather than their notions corrected or discussed.
While I don't think this attitude is excessive, I do belive it exists.
- Louie
Louie Landale writes:
>>>"Many of the posts that appear disagree with us and a few are even highly critical of some of our ideas. We welcome this ..."
I'm sorry, but I do not believe this is true.<<<<<
Spot on Louie. It's time for a kinder, gentler 2+2 forum where contrary points of view are given some small measure of respect. Yes, we realize it's all about selling books but you'll sell few books to people that you disrespect in public. Please lighten up Mason.
Tom Haley
Tom
well put a recent suggestion was to simply stop returning here till all was gone and back to why so many have enjoyed this forum! As a poker player yes you need a good judgement... but some here have gotten carreid away!if i wanted to argue with some one about something so far off the subject of poker i'd do see Barbra Walters,, Hell she might even have something to say and even help with these^^^ any ways great piont,,,
Tom-
This isn't entirely true. Al has mercilessly ripped Mason in earlier threads, and Gary Carson has made more than a few posts that would, uh, qualify as 'venomous'. So far as I know, none of these posts have been deleted. True, I think there are some inconsistencies in the posting policy, but to say that Mason deletes any posts that question his poker playing acumen/ worth as a theorist is wrong.
The above message is another imposter. I did not write it.
Tom Haley (the real one)
Tom Haley times two. Will the real one please stand up and identify yourself?
I ran into a Tom Haley at the Treasure Bay in Biloxi. The real one wouldn't happen to play there, would he?
Bill G.
"So what! I still will post and read here because most people here are serious about poker. That's what I want"
Now, need anything else need be said!
Vince.
Hi all,
I have been playing the weekly poker games for years. I have done my homework, read the books (just finished "Theory of Poker"), and would like to move to the casino level. I have seen but never sat down at a casino table, and am a little intimidated by it. I know that experience is probably the best teacher, but I am seeking any advice on procedures, etiquette, what I can expect, etc., so that I can be more comfortable on my first few visits and not the obvious "new guy". Any advice/opinions/stories are greatly appreciated, as I understand that you've been there once.
Thank you!
I read an article that deals very well with htis subject. I thought it was by Mason or Sklansky. I can't for the life of me remember the author! Anyone remeber an article like this to help out this "new poker player".
Vin
Check the Poker 101 articles by Jan Fisher in Card Player magazine. The articles are available on the Card Player web site.
You really don't have to worry about much. The one thing I'd keep in mind is that you can't 'string bet' at a casion-- that is, you can't throw some chips in to call, then go back to your stack and throw more in for a raise. If you're planning on raising, either put all the chips out at once, or say 'raise' to the dealer.
Also, the cards can't leave the table, and be sure to 'protect' your cards with a chip on top of them so they don't get accidentally mucked. And don't show your cards to another player when they're in the hand.
Good luck. Knock 'em dead.
Guy.
I think you will be better off to let them know you're a "new guy" and ask them questions, like rules. I'm sure you'll find most of them will offer answers friendly. I still remember the first time I went to a casino to "play" Poker. By that time I was even not sure flush or strai ght, which was bigger. I slowed the game hell down. They were happy to have me at table.
I forget to mention that at 1st or 3rd time of my playing Poker, on the river I got 2 pair or something like that, an aged gentleman sitting to my right, kicked me under table after he raised while I picked up chips and wanted to call. I did put my chips back. (He won with a straight.) I'm not sure if it's NOT a coincidence. However he was one of them who had been helping me the whole session. Not all of them want your money so bad.
Have fun!
I have just recently completed my 4th session in a Casino and played a total of 14 hours. I feel very comfortable at a low-limit table, and have even been able to control it at times. The best advice I would give is to play VERY tight for the first half hour, until you have a feel for your surroundings.
Intimidation disappeared very quickly for me, I'm sure it will for you too.
Good Luck
Lee Jones has a chapter on making this transition in his "Winning Low-limit Hold em'. An expanded version is available in the 1999 Casino Guide by Bourie. Use the intimdation you feel to begin very tightly. I ventured into a casino game before I was prepared, played much too loosely and walked out 12 hours later without all the money I won counting cards at Blackjack for two days. Better luck to you.
You might want to play in one or two of the $20. tournaments that some of the casinos offer. This way you'll get over some of your nerviousness and get some casino playing experiance in. When you sit down the first time for real play tight untill you get the hang of it.
I fully endorse the idea of playing real tight until you get the hang of it. Although I am experienced at casino poker, I follow the same strategy when in a new environment (on Vegas trips for example). Not only do I give myself some time to get a read on the players etc, my super tight image also can help me still a couple of pots once I decide that I have waited long enough and want to get in on the action.
Here are some rules/tips that the original poster may not have encountered in his or her home game:
1. String raises are a no-no (see GD's post for an explanation).
2. Act in turn. It is very poor etiquette to act out of turn.
3. Protect your hand by putting a chip on it. Try and memorize your cards so you don't have to go back to your cards in the midddle of a hand (for example, to see if you have a high club in your hand if three clubs are showing on the board on the turn).
4. Don't comment on a hand until it is over. For example, if you fold a hand like 78 and the flop comes with two sevens, don't let on that you folded a 7 while the hand is still ongoing. This is totally unfair to the players involved in the hand and definitely constitutes poor etiquette.
5. In deciding what to do, remember that if it is close between calling and folding, you should fold if you are in the early stage of a hand and call in the late stage of a hand (of course this is just a general rule which you can modify as you get the hang of the game)
6. If you are unclear on cardroom procedures etc, have your concerns clarified by the floor person. Try and do it away from the earshot of the players at your table.
Good luck.
Wear an old track suit, Las Vegas casino jacket, expensive sunglasses, walkman with headphones and don't say a word, everyone will think you are a regular.
Seriously the length of time before you are confortable will not be long. I wouldn't really try to hide much the first few times and just ask questions if you need too. The other posts have a lot of good advice.
David
2+2:
When you detect a post that violates your posting guidlines, consider deleting the TEXT and inserting a short "We deleted this post because..." phrase instead of just deleting the post.
Thus the author knows what happened, and other posters are reminded of the guidelines.
- Louie
Can someone at Two Plus Two comment on who this book is written for? I have most of the 2+2 books and liked everyone of them but this book in my opinion has very little poker content.
This is a text of very unusual material. It caught my interest and because of that we decided to publish it. It does not contain strategy advice and it will not help make you into a better player.
Mr. P.
Bye!
All right last night heres the game 10/20 full table im last to act sitting in the dealers lap! (ok close) well its 3 bets to call before i looked at my hand i noticed 6 players in 7 capps it now LOOK pocket Aces wow !! ok so now the storie but tells the truth there is a happy ended to everything!!! well i call but acted real hesative abaout doing so!! wrks every time!! ok the flopp A A 4 ,, hey i have a huge grasp now "so why is the SB betting?" or better yet what the hell does the BB have to raise with... gees im liking this table! well now theres a good sport # 5 makes it three bets omg these guys are nice,,, well look the player beside me siad"might have some fun ""capp it"....ok great i hope u stay in till the river pal ok the turn hey a K now the funn starts... well again SB bets BB raise^^^^ wow again its capped before it gets to me!!! " Is it my birthday"? well now this is where things could have been better,,, but im not the one that was complaining> wow another K what can this dealer do a better job for a player or what... SB has 4s full BB as the Ks and me who never had a chance to show my betting ability has the STONES... well like i said i read the SB &BB hands and what a bout the player next to me what they have , its not that important sense he mucked it after i laid my Aces down... just one of hte many hands that were huge last night thought ya could use a break from S$M WORLD WAR ,,, TKA
Just calling before the flop here is a very bad idea.
It was capped before it got to me all the way to the river,, i had no chance to raise thow if it were pot limit or NL then yes i agree!!! it was a huge hand,, I had pocket A-s 5 times with in 3 hrs and won 3 times!! best night i have had playing in a couple of wks,,,,,
With 7 players still in it to win it and the Blinds raising you probibly cost yourself a couple hundred dolars by not raising pre flop and not check raising after the flop.But congrads anyway.The game plays with a lot less stress when you flop the nuts.
He said in the original post, and again in his follow up THE RAISING WAS CAPPED ON EACH ROUND BEFORE IT GOT TO HIM!
steve....if they cant read any better than that how can they "read" in a game? maybe we will be lucky enough to sit down at thier table...
"ok the turn hey a K now the funn starts... well again SB bets BB raise^^^^ wow again its capped before it gets to me!!!"
And it was also capped on the flop and on the turn before his action.
AA, I like your act before flop. That's probably the main reason that they just "ignored" you from flop on.
BTW, where's the game going?
I have run into a 10-20 'club' with the following wierd games:
1. A version of Omaha hi-lo-8 where the players are dealt 5 cards and at the end, you can use 2 cards as usual from your hand, or all 5 of your cards. There is sometimes an option to buy a card or exchange a card at the end ($10 and $5 resp.). The game has a hefty 5.00 ante (10 spots)!
2. A hi-lo game they call 10-10. Deal one card down and one up, betting round. Third card down, and then option to exchange a card for 5$, then a betting round. Fourth card up, betting. Fifth card up, and option to exchange 2 cards for 10$. This is sort of like 5 card draw I guess. The 10-10 refers to the rule that you must have 10's or better to win high, and a 10 low as a qualifier. Also, a 4-flush beats any pair!! Low card brings it in.
Any advice concerning this game would be appreciated. It is a loose game.
I'm assuming this bear knows his poker,otherwise why are we discussing him. Either he didn't like the look of the line-up in the cabin (Ray does live in a little cabin,right?) or else he was/is shares in with him and only calls round to collect. Trust RZ to have the local muscle on his side. Moral : DON,T PLAY IN MONTANA.
Several years ago Dan Harrington and I took a trip to Montana and visited Ray for a few days. He took us on a hike through Glacier National Park. When we finally came to the ranger station, they had just spotted a grizzly bear some distance down the side of the mountain. We could see the bear through a small telescope that they had set up. Dan asked Ray if he had played any poker with the bear recently and Ray replied, "No, you're safe."
Mason, Dan Harrington's name is very familiar, why?
The reason the name Harrington is so familiar is that it is a mythical character from poker that always gets aces in the right spots and sucks out all the time. The phrase Damn Harrington was coined to refer to this charactor. I believe Mason had to shorten the word Damn to Dam out of respect for this forum and then misspelled it to Dan, thus Dan Harrington was mentioned. But you can rest assured there is no such character. Good Luck.
Years ago there was a bar in Missoula with a big sign in front saying "liquor in the front, poker in the rear" the only comment I would add is some of the ranchers over there play some very tough stud poker.
It's a bit rich for Ray Zee to be damning Mr.Harrington,as fine an Irishman as ever lived, in fact it,s unbearable. Ray Zee should join the Montana National Park Service and let the rest of us poor suckers get on with our poker lives.
"Ray Zee should join the Montana National Park Service..."
I wasn't aware that Montana had withdrawn from the Union...yet.
i was wondering what pot odds one needs to call on the flop. for example, you have JsTc in late position. 1 caller, you call, big blind checks.(okay, i should raise here i guess ...) that's 3 small bets. (rake and small blind ~cancel out.) flop comes Qh 2c 9d. big blind bets , its raised and now: there's 6 small bets in the pot. you assume the big blind will just call. so 7 bets in the pot. that's 7:2 odds you're getting.(6:2 or 3:1 at worst) my question: do you use the odds with 2 cards to come, 2.2:1 and call OR do you use the odds that you'll hit it on the turn, 5:1 , and fold.
thanks a lot.
When considering the pot odds you need to continue with a hand take the current pot size and implied future bets. David Sklansky explains implied pot odds in HPFAP and I believe Holdem Poker.
The point is that you consider potential future bets when estimating pot odds.
In you example above for instance:
"so 7 bets in the pot. that's 7:2 odds" Those are the current odds that you are getting given the pot size. However, if you feel that there will be additional bets on the turn and/or river by one or both of you opponents then you add that to pot size. I assume the turn/river is twice the flop bet size. 1 bet (1 call) implied odds now 9:2; two bets (calls) 11:2 etc. It is a judgement call on your part and comes with experience!
sure , but lets say even with implied odds youre getting 13:1 (thats pretty high). do you call with a pocket pair?
its 11:1 to make trips by the river, but 23:1 to make trips on the turn.
so do you call?
"do you call with a pocket pair?"
Consider: How high the pocket pair.
Your position
Likelihood of being raised by someone after you.
The play of your opponent: Is he aggressive, can you get a raise in if you make your hand. Will he pay you off if you make your hand.
How well you play.
Then make your decision to call/fold or raise and live/learn from it. Raising in some situations (with a pocket pair) is a much better play than calling. Maybe the order is raise/fold/call in the decision process. But take special care to not let fear guide your decision. Be cautious, sure, but not afraid.
Opinion by Vince
I was playing in a moderately loose 4-8 hold 'em game at the Biloxi Grand when I was dealt pocket fours in middle position. There had been no raises, so I raised, and this left 6 players just before the flop. My question: is a raise with a small pair (2's thru 7's) legitimate or is it better to only call, and hope for many people in and then to be hit by a big flop? I wondered if my play was correct when the flop came up 10-4-4. Any help for this beginner would be appreciated.
Bill G.
Bill,
In the game you are in its probably best to call and hope to flop a set or open straight draw. If you know that six or seven are sure to come a raise wont be detrimental to your long term results but it may be better to play tight and not create big pots until you play better and can guess when it may be the time to do it. Go thru the archives as its been discussed there and many past posts are really great. Most of your questions can be answered by reading some of the good books on poker. The biggest mistake beginning players make is that they play too loose in bad positions. The biggest mistake experienced players make is that they play too loose in bad positions. Good Luck.
Ray,
I was showing my friend the site and I naturally came to your reply to the post. I know the forum doesn't want a lot of "good post" type stuff but the following was pretty special:
""The biggest mistake beginning players make is that they play too loose in bad positions. The biggest mistake experienced players make is that they play too loose in bad positions.""
Good Stuff.
Regards,
Rick
Ray - I agree with Rick N, your quote is memorable. But it got me thinking (always trouble) -
Any book on Hold'em, certainly including HEP and HEPFAP, point out to readers that in the small blind, or in the big blind after a single raise, you are getting a bargain, to be able to see the flop for half price. Therefore, you should loosen up and call with hands that otherwise you would throw away. Since this advice is in the section on how to play before the flop, position is usually not mentioned at the time.
My question to the group is: do we play too many hands in the blinds, because we have been taught to, and then get into trouble later because of our lousy position (i.e., FIRST).
Dick in Phoenix
"My question to the group is: do we play too many hands in the blinds, because we have been taught to, and then get into trouble later because of our lousy position (i.e., FIRST)."
My answer: We indeed do play "too many hands' in the blinds! But not because we were "taught" too! Certainly we who follow the instruction of 2+2 authors and have read HP and HPFAP have been influenced by the blind play strategy in those books. But it is not the "reason" we play too many hands in the blinds. Most of us or at least me have a tendency to put our own spin on things we read. I first interpreted the remarks in the two mentioned books to mean that I could play "all" blind hands (at least BB) that were raised once. As a "gambler" this allowed me to "get into action" more often and I could always blame S&M for doing so! I found out through rereading the material and experience (the hard way) that this is not the case.
So what is correct blind strategy? You won't find it through use of a simulator (no not stimulator). Nor will you find it in HP or HPFAP. Although, HPFAP does provide a necessary foundation for learning correct Blind play. O.K big mouth so what is it already, for crying out loud! Well if you don't know the correct blind strategy then you MUST use HPFAP strategy until you find for yourself "the correct blind strategy". And don't let anyone tell you any differently!
Opinion by Vince!
HPFAP doesn't say what you say at all. Here is a repeat of the first two paragraphs (page 28) on how to play the blinds.
"Playing your first two cards out of the blinds is very different from the other positions, because you will have terrible position for the next three rounds, but this is somewhat compensated for by the fact that you have to call only a partial bet. This makes you play extremely tight in some situations but enables you to play extremely loose in others.
Over their careers, many players lose a lot of money from the blind positions. This is because they frequently overestimate the value of their hand in comparison to the partial bet that they are required to make to continue playing. Even though you can play looser in some situations, you still must play fairly tight if the pot has been raised and the raiser is not in a steal position."
I recently kept track of how I did in the blinds over 5 consecutive sessions. Although I was a winner in 4 of the 5 sessions I lost money from the blinds in all 5. So this backs up Mason's point as quoted from HPFAP.
It is true that you are getting 3-1/2 to 1 odds, so you don't need to win as often to make calling a raise from the big blind profitable. But what happens more often from the blinds than from other positions is that you find yourself getting involved with marginal holdings that can get you into trouble. It's much easier to win with A-K than T-9, and much easier to play A-K as well (no worries about an overcard hitting on later rounds, or a higher straight, a higher pocket pair when you flop top pair, etc.)
The world class players can turn those marginal hands into winners, but the rest of us should try to avoid going out on a limb.
Andy,
You said "I recently kept track of how I did in the blinds over 5 consecutive sessions. Although I was a winner in 4 of the 5 sessions I lost money from the blinds in all 5. So this backs up Mason's point as quoted from HPFAP."
Of course you lose money from the blinds!! Everybody does. For Example, let's say you are in the small blind in a $20/40 holdem game and always throw anything but the best hands away. Then your expectation is -$20 per hand for the hands you throw away. Now you decide to play hands like T8 offsuit versus three or more limpers. You find that you now lose only $15 per hand in this case. Therefore, you are doing better by playing the hand. But you will still "lose" money. And since most hands are either throw aways or marginal, you should lose money whenever you play the blinds. The trick is to lose as little as possible.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. BTW, I have no arguement with Mason's point.
"HPFAP doesn't say what you say at all."
This is absolutely true as the HPFAP quote shows. However, this myth about playing a lot of hands from the blinds because "it is a bargain" has been floating around (in print) for quite sometime. Anyone out there recall the article or book/author that makes this claim. Logically it appears to be a correct statement. Thus making it a dangerous conclusion. Especially for guys like me that are "gamblers" at heart and look for any reason to play more hands.
Vince
"Logically it appears to be a correct statement. Thus making it a dangerous conclusion. Especially for guys like me that are "gamblers" at heart and look for any reason to play more hands."
Vince,
I think you hit the nail on the head.
I have to apologize for my mis-statement about what HPFAP said. In fact, S&M went out of their way to caution about position.
Maybe next time I will check my reference before stating what I think it says!
Obviously I would agree with Vince's post above. I have seen this somewhere.
Dick
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is your relative position to the raiser when you call a raise in the BB. If the player to your left raises,you not only get the opportunity to see how everyone else will respond before you decide whether or not you want to call, but you also get an idea of the strength of the raiser's hand. And, because other players will frequently respect an early raise, this advantage often carries over to later betting rounds. If the raise comes from the Button, then you are exposed to a possible re-raise, and poorer position relative to the rest of the field on later betting rounds.
Any thoughts on this?
Pat Reeves
Patrick,
Yes I have a few thoughts. I agree with your points. I will say that in some games you know the players well enough to know that they will not re-raise after originally calling in early position. Even so the relative position is a lot worse and there are many games where the re-raise from an early position caller is a valid consideration. So I think the points you make are all extremely valid.
Tom Haley
My quote does apply to the blinds but I really meant it to apply to bad position in general in all games mostly when coming in early too weak or calling early after a early position raiser or caller.
One thing to remember about plays like this is that it'll force you to endure some very wild fluctuations. This isn't necesarily bad, but if you haven't played a ton you miight end up down at the end of the night, and start questioning some plays you made that were in fact 'good' but happened to cost you some money. In other words, you may start having some self-doubts, when in fact those self-doubts are unwarrented. I know plenty of 'good' players who raise w/ pocket pairs pre-flop but have since ceased to make it three bets with top pair top kicker on the flop, as they mistakenly believe that it's these kinds of plays that have caused the fluctuations in their bankrolls- to put it another way, they're not recognizing the real reason why their stacks seem to swing up and down.
I know. . . But this one is unusual, and it does have a strategic moral.
I wasn't there, but this is how the story is being told. At Sam's Town Tunica, recently, the Hold'em jackpot was just short of $50,000. Three players remained at the river. Player #1 showed down aces full of jacks with an AJ. Player #2 was next and hesitated. #3 held AQ to make aces full of queens. #3 wanted to see #2s hand first -- I suppose he wanted the drama of showing down the jackpot hand, and refusted to open up. #2 finally showed a queen-7, the lone queen of hearts making a royal flush! #3 then showed his hand. Jackpot!
They thought. The two aces full hands met the jackpot requirement, but since they both lost to the royal, and the royal was not a qualifying hand (you must be able to play both your cards), there was no jackpot.
The players share for #3 would have been over a thousand bucks -- IF the royal had hit the muck. #1 would have taken down over 10K, and #2 over 5 -- this in a 3-6 game.
The strategic moral: be very aware how a potential jackpot affects your hand.
posted quickly and got the numbers wrong. Big end = 40% of jackpot, around 18K. small end = 20%,around 9 K Players share = 20%/participants -- over a thousand.
Has there been any statistical analysis of the percentage of hold'em hands that are not raised before the flop? And of the hands that do have a pre-flop raise, the percentage that are two bets, three bets or four bets (or five in Nevada)?
I play 20-40 and 30-60 in southern California. It seems that there are some games, or at least long stretches in some games, where almost every hand is three bets before the flop; and then again there are some games (the better ones) where the big blind gets to see the flop without a raise quite often.
It seems a greater percentage of the pots are raised or re-raised in 30-60 than in 20-40. The players are more aggressive pre-flop, in general, plus it seems a lot of them are waiting to play 40-80 or higher, whereas in the 20-40 many of the players play 15-30 or 20-40 but will not play at any higher stakes.
All replies appreciated.
Had one of those genuinely weird nights a couple days ago that I thought I'd bring up. I was playing in a typical game, with all the usual suspects, when this guy from Kansas (he hailed from Topeka, which may explain a lot) sat down. Now in my day I've seen all manners of bad play, but I've never seen anything like this- this guy bet out on 90% of the flops, and more often then not bet out again on the turn, regarless of what he held. He'd bet into an AAQ flop with a six high, get raised, then call down the river. Or call four bets on the flop with a gutshot to the idiot end. Bet a seven high on the river with a three flush on the board and five players left to act behind him. In other words, his play completely and consistently defied all known forms of poker strategy.
Needless to say, this created an interesting effect, since I was virtually forced to call (and bet, and raise) with hands that I'd ordinarily pitch without a second's hesitation. For example, I've got pocket nines up front, and the flop comes TJ3 rainbow. I check, this guy bets, and I.. well, I raise, which ordinarily isn't my MO, but I really don't have any legitimate reason to believe that I'm not holding the best hand. Other examples abound, and while I won't bore you with the specifics, I felt compelled to play hands that, given a game that's even halfway normal, I'd have no business playing.
Generally I can adapt fairly well to odd game conditions. Players calling with second pair no kicker, for example, is something that I've gotten used to. But even the worst players typically play according to some guiding philosophy, (no matter how demented that philosophy may be), and I can pick up on at least some of their betting/ calling trends.
But what do you do when you stumble into someone whose playing style resembles that of a retarded lemur? You can't simply 'pick your pots', since they're in every hand, and can't ever put them on ANYTHING, ever, since they play every hand exactly the same. The problem is compounded by the fact that this guy, while obviously an incorrigable bluffer, would call your bluff raise every time, so you couldn't just blow him out of the hand. I can't count the times that he'd bet at the flop and while I could beat a bluff I knew he'd call anyway, and then of course he may not be bluffing, and if he was he might catch anyway, etc. etc..
I don't know for sure just what kind of impact this sort of player has on a game, but I suspect that when one runs across a player that bad he has the effect of making everone else play just as bad as he does, thereby diminishing everyone's profits as we push chips back and forth and pay the rake. I'd be interested to see if anyone's conducted a study on this subject, and whether or not my hypothesis has any merit. I'm also curious to see if this 'effect', if indeed I'm right, is heightened exponentially when there's two or three of these clowns in the game.
Anyone else ever ran into something like this?
"I was virtually forced to call (and bet, and raise) with hands that I'd ordinarily pitch without a second's hesitation."
What! This guy from Topeka held a gun to your head and vitually forced you to call/bet/raise. Is that legal where you play?
"I suspect that when one runs across a player that bad he has the effect of making everone else play just as bad as he does"
I suspect when one doesn't adapt well to a "Heaven Sent" situation, one is not playing winning poker.
It seems to me that I've read somewhere that when playing against a loose player one should tighten up some, not loosen up! Betcha that gets the dough, uh bread, uh, uh dinero (Oh btw go see "Analyze This" with Diniro He's great, dinero made me think of that), yeh money that's it!
"I'm also curious to see if this 'effect', if indeed I'm right, is heightened exponentially"
Since you claim the "effect" is " making everone else play just as bad as he does" you are the only one that can answer this. Are you willing to let your game deteriorate exponentially because god has seen fit to send you multiple "guys from Topeka"?
GD (old buddy) - Have a nice Game!
Opinion by Vince.
Vince-
Thanks for the scathing review of my post. Seriously though, I agree w/ your points, but I don't think I articulated myself well. Let me try to elucidate my point (such as it is).
1) I suppose everyone approached the game differently. What your, or anyone else's, approach is specifically I cannot say, but I know that when I sit down my 'goal' is to win every time I see a flop. Not that this happens, of course, but as soon as I see the flop, whether I like it or not, my first thought is "what, if anything, can I do to win this puppy". If the bet comes early can I bluff out the bettor? Do I have odds to chase? What are the odds that I'm already beat, and what are my cbances of getting a better hand to lay down? And so on and so on. In other words, I never just sigh when I miss and fold- sometimes, of course (actually most of the time) I will fold, but I'm constantly searching for an alternative.
Now, I know that the 'party line' for dealing with such players is to tighten up, play solid cards, and punish them when you do hit. And while this is unquestionably a '+EV' strategy, I'm simply curious as to whether or not it's the MAXIMUM EV strategy, fluctuations be damned. Hence my inquiry. Or, to put it another way, "is it profitable, in the long run, to show down an underpair against someone who plays like a syphilis stricken Homo Erectus?"
2) Both you and Mason have made the point in the past that a game w/ too many abominable players will have the effect of 'dumbing down' everyone else's game, since you (the hero, the poker stud) will have to make any number of plays that the bad players will also make. For instance, the pots get so huge on the flop that you've got to chase w/ low pair three to a flush. Further, since you can't do anything 'tricky' against bad players much of your playing arsenal has been totally defused. Now my question is whether or not one REALLY BAD PLAYER can have the same effect on a table as two or three loose/passive fundementally unsound players.
Let me give an example. I'm three to the right of the button with black tens. Six callers to me and I raise, hoping to buy the button (plus I know everyone's going to call, so I'm getting the odds to flop a set). Flop comes Q93 rainbow. Topeka (actually we called him the 'Kansas Kid', per his request) bets out. Two callers before it gets to me.
Here's what I know. Kansas could have either a) any kind of a queen (since he'll play big-littles for a raise without blinking), in which case I'm doomed, since he won't fold for a raise. Or he could have a) an open ender, b) a gutshot, c) a nine, d) a three, e) an underpair, f) overcards, or g) a monster like a set of nines, threes, 93 (probably off suit), etc. All of these are real possibilites. The callers in between us could also have any of the above (excluding perhaps g, since they probably would have raised). Now at this point the pot has close to 11 bets in it, which means, roughtly, that there need to be roughly a 15-20% chance that I'm ahead right now to call (15-20 is a figure I just dug up; I have no idea if this is right or not. I'm using this as an approximation because there's a chance that I'm ahead but could still get drawn out.) Now in a normal game I'm gone, since there's an excellent chance that if I'm not beat already I will be by a draw on the turn or the river. But Kansas' bet means nothing, and everyone at the table knows this, which means THEY TOO could very well be calling with hands that are worse than mine- then again, they could not. But the fact remains that there's really no way to tell; the fact that a truly crappy player lead bet casts the entire scenerio, and the future players' actions, in a very strange light. The hand is no longer unfolding acccording to any sort of logical principle.
Now one of the best weapons a decent player has at his disposal (that's me, your malicious insinuations notwithstanding :)) is the ability to logically deduce just what sort of hands his opponents are probably holding, and act accordingly. But when this 'weapon' is taken away, you're advantage is reduced considerably. Given this, just what is the max EV strategy for dealing with these kinds of players? Or, is the best strategy already spelled out, namely 'tighten up your athletic supporter and wait for the coconuts?' This is my question.
Please respond.
BTW, I hope we can hook up in May and play some HE. I keep you abreast of my travel plans.
Does the guy have a brother? Thursday night, 'Bill' sits down at the club and plays every holding for six and half hours...4-8 HE. Over the course of the evening we discover that he's a stockbroker (?!) visiting from your side of the border. He goes on a run but his stack doesn't change...he gets up to use the WC and we notice his pockets bulging...'Uh, sir, you can't squirrel your chips like that'. The effect he had on the table was maddening. We *all* went on semi-tilt as we tried to take the fish for his chips. At one point he was up six racks, then down two, then got hot again and actually finished up on the night when he left at four a.m. I took many runs at him early, was up a couple racks, then he wacked me for some serious beats (calling my UTG raise with 10,3o and flopping a tight, betting into me every round and hitting a gut-shot, raising his big blind with J,5o and flopping quads, yadda, yadda) It became a kind of lotto night where 'normal' play was pointless. Fortunately the table was filled with regulars so we all had a good time with him, lots of joking. We made him feel welcome and hope he returns again soon:) It certainly was an interesting change from the ussual grind.
After he left we couldn't agree on whether the guy had any talent or not. A, he played every holding, no exceptions, B, he raised his big blind every time if no one had raised ahead of him, C, he often bet into the flop but had no problem folding if someone else showed strength, D, he played any pair or draw extremely agressively, E, he got paid off huge whenever he hit (doh), F, he left with a small win, about fifty bucks.
They must be related. And they must have incredible karma. My man Kansas managed to crack my pocket A's twice and pocket K's twice, and all four times we were heads up. The 'best' pre-flop hand he held in any of these cases was a T8o.
Bellagio: Tueaday night: 15-30 Holdem: Guy one to my right and guy one to my left. Discussion NCAA basketball. Guy on the left: Duke is favored by 45 points over Florida A&M. Guy on right: Hmm that's a lot!
Vince (that's me) has never made a sports bet in his life. Thinks (o.k. ponders, o.k. does what he does) "Hmmm that's 45 points in forty-eight minutes. I don't care if Duke is playing a high school basketball team I'm taking this bet". Run to the sports book and says "fifty on Duke's opponent".
Duke won by 41. 99-58.
What a strategy! The book will be out in the fall in time for next years NCAA tourney!
Afterthougt. Score at half was 58-20 (Of course, Duke whadja ya think). I was convinced I was going to lose the bet! Went to 'Orleans for the Friday night NL Holdem Tourney. Checked the Duke-FLA A&M score on the tote board- which I never looked at before- misread the score, I read 99-29 Duke. Walk back to my table and tell my son (he's visiting) I lost and I then rip the winning ticket into four little pieces. Dick, a poker buddy sitting at the table (who I had previously told about my bet) yells "Hey Vince you won your bet"! Well when I realized, thanks to Dick, what I had done I ran to the Customer Service Desk and the young lady there scotch taped my ticket back together. Now, I hope Bellagio takes it!
The strategy is helped if you tell a good poker buddy of your foolish bets when you make them!
Vince.
We will be sure to incorporate this strategy in spite of its complexities in the next edition of Gambling For a Living.
David, Was that the strategy of thinking Duke couldn't spot a high school team 50? Or the other winning strategy of ripping up your losing ticket to change its' luck????
Vince, ya gotta let us know if you were paid off or not...
Playing in a low-limit HE game, and am dealt AQ offsuit two right of button...Preflop is bet by UTG and called to me. I call, call and button raises. Everyone calls. Flop comes up 3-K-Q rainbow and blind bets. One caller, everyone folds to me. I call, fold, button calls. Turn is an A with no flush threatening. Blind checks, next player checks, I bet. Button raises and blind and other folds. I am thinking what the button has...if he had pocket K's,Q's or A's, I am sure he would have raised on flop. Blind probably had a king. Does he have A-K? Button has been pretty deceptive all night, mixing up play. I am thinking he would have raised on flop if he had it. (Or would a tight-aggressive player But he does have position already.) So...I re-raise and he re-raises me back. I call. River is a 2. He bets, I call. He shows me J-T offsuit for nut straight....Hmmmmmmmmm....should I have done differently? Appreciate your advice.
CW
Three things.
1) I think I would have either re-raised before the flop or folded. If someone (anyone) three bets you can be pretty sure you're sunk, and either fold there or take a quick peek and the flop and then fold.If you're only called you've got to like your hand if you flop top pair.
2) The flop-- note that the re-raise before the flop makes the flop play (particularly w/ this kind of flop) a ton easier to deal with. Otherwise you're stuck in this guessing game, which you'd like to avoid. Still, I think I'd fold on the flop here, since you're overcalling and don't have a any kind of draw to hand you'll feel real comfortable with.
3) I'd fold when the button re-raised on the turn. There's no hand I can think of that he'd reraise here that would be worse than yours. If he had KQ you can be fairly sure he'd have made some noise on the flop.
Opinion by the Colorado Kid
It is not a good idea to raise with AQo before the flop when there are already so many callers.
David
1) We don't know how many caller there are already.
2) My point was to either re-raise or get out (generally).
CW,
Since the button just called on the flop then raised when the ace came after you suddenly became active you have to think he has three threes or aces up or the straight. Theres not much else unless he is a very liberal raiser. You cant beat really any of the possibilities so a fold or crying call and call on the river are in order. Your reraise was certain death and then maybe you should have saw the light and folded on fourth street if you werent getting pot odds to make a full and if you were take one off and fold on the river. Remember that your hand looks like it could be a straight and for him to get so frisky he must have something real good. Good Luck.
"He shows me J-T"
This is the only hand he can have! The play of the hand and his turn raise tells you that!
"should I have done differently? "
Reraising was a mistake. Calling his raise on the turn was a better play. "Cry" calling the river is quetionable but in low limit with the amount of bets in the pot probably correct.
Opinion by Vince.
For what it's worth, I would raise with a hand like that in your position >50%. If I have a hand which plays well shorthanded and I have a chance to buy the button, I'll try it. If I understand your post, everyone was in the pot. Either raising or folding preflop would be preferred to calling, with that type of hand. Of course, as always everything depends on the nature of the game. You would also have been forcing the eventual winner to make a mathmetically incorrect call,especially since he could not predict the action which would occur behind him. Many times players will make incorrect calls,as I said, it depends on the nature of the game. If you believed a raise here would fail to buy you the button and/or thin the field, then folding would have been the better option. IMHO. Also, most deceptive low limit players play more deceptively before the turn and less so on the turn and river.
I have several comments:
1. I agree with the pre flop call (instead of a raise). Generally, I do not like raising with hands like AQ off or even AK off when there are already several players who have called before me. This idea relates to the concept of manipulating the pot odds. If I hit an Ace on the flop, the betting will likely get checked to the raiser (me) and my small bet is unlikely to cause anyone with anything to fold. On the other hand, by not raising and keeping the pot small (and if I hit an Ace on the flop), I stand a greater chance of being able to raise a bettor to my right and thereby have a much greater chance of limiting the field.
There are other reasons but suffice to say (IMO) that a call is better than a raise. And the hand is a pretty good one and can't be folded pre-flop where there has been no raise.
Thus, a call is best (IMO)
2. On the flop, you have a bet from your right and you have the preflop raiser to your left. In this instance, a call is definitely not the right thing to do (IMO). Generally, I would fold (because there is no guarantee that even if I hit an Ace on the turn that that Ace has not helped the preflop raiser even more).
On the other hand, the pot is a fairly large one. Thus, if I were to choose to remain in the action, I would raise instead of calling. Then, the preflop raiser's action to your raise should tell you a lot about the strength of his hand. If you just call and the preflop raiser raises again on the flop, well that could just mean business as usual (i.e. many preflop raisers will raise on the flop NO MATTER WHAT THEYVE GOT). Thus, you still can't be too sure what this fellow holds and given the size of the pot, you may find yourself playing check and call the rest of the way. This of course is not the ideal way to play poker.
Bottom Line: Fold or raise on the flop. A call will keep you in the guessing game.
3. The turn. I definitely would not have reraised. I would have just called his raise and check and called the river. You have to think when he raises that he couldn't be raising with a hand as weak as AJ or A,10 (I would rule out hands such as AK or AA as he definitely would have raised on the flop with those hands). He may have a set of Kings or Queens (some players habitually wait until the turn before raising with a set) or he could have J,10. Obviously, with any of these hands, he has you beat.
Tight games:
Abdul:"In tight games after 3 limpers, AQ and AK are the only offsuit hands you can play, and raising is best. 99% of "tight" players make huge mistakes by calling with hands like KJ offsuit on the button after several tight limpers. AJ and KQ can and do limp, and these are a large fraction of the hands played by tight players, so this is the main reason KJ is unplayable. They will limp with AQ too, and for sure one of those players has an ace, so KQ becomes unplayable, apparently. And yet you can call with lots of suited trash, like T8s and Q9s."
HFAP: The weaker your opponents are, the more hands you can play. Be more inclined to play marginal hands against poorer players.
In a tight game with a tight limpers in from early position, should I tend to avoid limping in late position with weaker offsuit hands KQ/KJ/QJ/JT?
Loose games:
Abdul:"The exact breakoff points may be wrong, and in fact they are wrong because every situation is different. But the general principles are likely legit. In multiway pots it's likely true that with respect to playing on the button after 5 limpers:
* In a loose game, you should build a pot with big suiteds, suited connectors, and pocket pairs 66 and up.
* Weak offsuits are no good unless they are likely to be best, in which case you should raise to punish dominated hands."
Mason on raising on the button in a fishy game with 87s: "This means that I would never raise in this situation with this type of hand. I won't be manipulating anyone into making the kind of mistake I would like them to make on a later round if I happen to get a lucky flop. They will make this mistake anyway, and why should I be charged for it?"
If your opponents will play too loose after the flop irrespective of the pot size, it is not necessary to trick them into playing loose through a negative-EV play.
So which hands should be raised on the button in a game with players who play too many hands and take them too far?
When should you raise with offsuit hands in a very loose game to "punish dominated hands"?
"So which hands should be raised on the button in a game with players who play too many hands and take them too far?"
High suited connectors - Always. Medium/small suited connectors, small pairs - very occaisionally.
"When should you raise with offsuit hands in a very loose game to "punish dominated hands"? "
Never! Punishment is best left to the Penal Community. (I hope using the word "Penal" doesn't break the forum's rules if so - Sorry!!!). You try "punishing" people in loose games and they will take your "bat" away from you and beat you with it! I am assuming you want to do this "punishing" in a multiway pot in which my experience tells me that there is likey to be some "real hands" mixed in with those "dominated hands". (BTW-I'm not simulator nor di I use them like Abdul. Also, my ex wife said I'm not much of a "stimulator" either, just before she left me. Hmmm.. I wonder what she meant by that)
"In tight games after 3 limpers, AQ and AK are the only offsuit hands you can play".
I certainly don't agree with this comment.
Why not limp with JTo, T9o, 87o at a minimum and consider occaisionally limping with 76o, 54o, 34o, Even 23o? How about J9o or even T8o?
When selecting a hand to play one must consider more than just the relative strength of the hand.
Opinion by Vince.
I'm assuming that in the loose game their play won't be significantly altered by the raised pot and that they won't tend to check to the raiser.
I'm playing 9-18 at an Indian Casino yesterday in a game with some good players and a couple real bad ones. Young guy in seat eight is up about two racks and talking out of the side of his mouth to the two people on either side of him about how bad everyone else is playing. He had just cracked my top pair top kicker with his pocket 7's after a 7 came on the turn, and seemed to think he had played it pretty well by getting me to call his raise on the river. I am unhappy with his attitude and waiting for my turn.
A couple hands later, a real bad player, down at least a rack and a half for an hours bad play, three bets seat eight's raise from UTG and seat 8 caps it. Flop comes Q,3,6 rainbow and UTG bets out and gets raised, reraises and is again raised, thinks for a minute and just calls. Turn card is an 8 and UTG bets, gets raised, reraises,reraised, just calls. River is a 3, UTG bets, raised, reraise, reraised, reraise, call. UTG shows down his Q,3o and takes down a huge pot while seat 8 petulantly shows his vastly overplayed rockets before consigning them to the muck. Warm feeling of love suffuses my being.
Few hands later, I am BB with J9h and call a single raise from seat 8 after two limpers and a call from SB. Flop comes 6-9-A with one heart, SB bets, (he always does) I call, one other call from seat 3, (the bad player who was the hero of Q3 hand) fold, and seat 8 raises. SB fold, I call and so does seat 3. Turn is 4h and I bet, seat 3 folds, seat 8 raises and I call. River is Ah...... I check, seat 8 smirks knowingly to his left and right and bets out, "Raise" I say, putting my chips in the pot. Seat 8 looks like he'd been kneed in the groin and sheepishly pays me off. I show down my J9h and pull in a pot that was worth almost as much as the look on his face as I began whispering in seat 2's ear about how badly seat 8 played that hand. (He had AKo)
Sometimes, when another player is poisoning the game with his superior attitude, you just have to put a couple bad beats on him and teach him humility. I fully expect to get taken to task for this post, but I knew what I was doing and it was worth chancing losing those extra bets for the opportunity to put this guy on "tilt". I wish he would post his version of what happened from his perspective since I know he reads this forum from a past conversation we had in another game.
John,
With the way seat 8 played his Aces when they were cracked, it was only a matter of time before he lost a lot of money by overplaying his hand. I've played with the know it all types many times and I haven't ever seen one that lasted that long. Everything is great when they are running good but when things go south for a period of times they usually can't handle it. I think your call on the flop was o.k. and I think his raise on the turn was the right play as well. Interesting that he would bet behind you after the flush card hit on the river given the way he played the hand. I kind of wonder what he thought you read him for and what he read you for.
Tom Haley
this post is in thanks to Ray Zee for his book "high-low-split poker for advanced players"... i had to come home to n.c. in '96 to take care of my ailing mother til she passed away last year and was looking around the area for a game to play in while home. all the local games had gone to hilo split 8 or better and i knew very little about the game except that when i played a couple of times i lost my butt. thought they were just "house games" where the only winners were the house people cutting the pots. so i ordered your book and began studying it since i had to be home with mom most of the time. i had a lot of time to read and study for about a year when she got really bad off. anyway, last year after her passing i started playing regularly in one of the local games (which by the way are illegal in n.c.) and ever since then im making a decent living playing in this little $10 limit game. when i sit down at the table with these local yocals i know that im by far the best player there and they have no clue to correct play in the game (most are old 7 card players and still overvalue the high starting hands). none of them would dare open a book and read it to better thier games. some of them actually think they know what they are doing. they have big wins at times when they get lucky but they suffer huge losses quite often. you can sit there and watch thier chips grow and descend like an elevator. anyway, i want to thank you for your book which has paid for itself a thousand times over already for me. one question i have is are there any casinos in mississippi that have 7 card hilo split 8 or better in the poker rooms? i like the casinos there and spent a lot of time there in the past playing blackjack and holdem. thanks again
Hilopro, My experience is similar to yours regarding hi-lo stud and Ray's book. I play in Northern Miss. now, and unfortunately, there is virtually no hi-lo stud spread. When a game does get up, they insist on playing spread-limit, 2-10, which I think ruins the game. Having to call the max bet on 4th busts the poorer players too quickly, and without them, the game quickly breaks. However, hi-lo omaha is doing very well, and you will find the omaha section of the book quite valuable. Omaha isn't as interesting, I think, as hi-lo stud, but right now it is the best low-limit game in town. The only problem, for me, is that by playing so much omaha, my hold'em skills are starting to atrophy:-).
peter....the game i beat here in n.c. is spread 1 to 10 anytime with a $3 blind and i do quite well at it. one thing in my favor is that they play 6 or 7 nights a week......i play holdem at the Shoe in tunica when i get out there but have not honed my holdem skills to where i can make my living there as ido here......in fact i usually lose when i come out there but i think the main reason for that is i tend to play in the 4-8 games because of the jackpts they offer. i believe i need to try 10-20 or higher and maybe as you do play omaha too......what are your thoughts on this?.....if you would like to correspond more let me know and ill post my email address....
HiLoPro,
A couple of thoughts. Obviously you have found a tremendous game. I have rarely played in home games that size and that good where you can play six or seven nights a week. I do wonder if at some point you won't be welcome (or you bust them all) because of your high win rate. In other words, don't expect this game to last forever or to be easily replaced.
Expect casino games to be tougher and your overall game will have to improve in order to have even close to the results you are getting now, especially at so small a limit.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. BTW, your email is available by clicking on your name in the post.
rick...it is a tremendous game and it has been going on for years. its not just a home game but a private game that caters to the players like a small casino. a lot of retired men and women and a few have nothing else going on in thier lives and would probably die if not for playing poker every day. and the guy that runs it has been making his living doing so for many years. he has a knack for getting the players in there daily. and they get off trying to beat me. it thrills them to win a pot that im in. they only get upset with me for takng "thier" money to tunica or somewhere and losing it, as if they think they can win it all back. i want to move ahead though in the near future to be able to do more than just make a living which is all i can do in this small game.i study and go to the casinos to sharpen my skills so that i may be able to move ahead with my proffession. any input, info, suggestions, etc. that you and others give me is greatly appreciated. i just recently discovered the message boards and i believe that they are very informative. im very open minded when it comes to learning from others. thanks for your response and those from others. i plan on being very active on the boards trying to learn as much from others as i can.
good cards to you
hilopro,
Pay close attention to game selection when venturing into casinos. There is nothing better than a super loose limit Omaha H/L game such as the one you play in since you are always drawing to or betting the nuts (or even better, both!). This game may be harder to find in the casino but you will have other choices.
Watch out for the super loose holdem game which is much trickier to play than Omaha H/L. You will definitely have a higher percentage of bad days than you will in Omaha and keeping your cool is important. You will rarely be showing them the nuts as you do in Omaha and the draws are not as strong. In holdem, you may want to look for medium action games at first, hopefully at a higher level. Mason's First Essay book covers why this is so.
Regards and Good Luck
Rick
'Orleans: Noon Holde'em tournament. 4 players in the pot. flop: 4d,9d,6c. S Blind bets. Floor man yells: "Dick you got a phone call!" Dick, the next player to act, yells back. "Tell 'em to wait a minute." Dick then calls the bet. I turn to the player next to me and say (honestly I did): Dick's on a flush draw or he would have taken the call! Turn: Ad! SB check. Dick bet. You guessed it, Dick shows down a diamond flush! Then answers the telephone call! Do you think this one is in Caro's "Book of Tells"!
On a more serious note. Though this was an extreme case it does point to the value of being "observant" during a poker game. When I play, I try to pay attention to everything that is going on! Although I am not a proponnent of spending a lot of time studying potential tells I am a proponnent of "paying attention". By being involved in the game one may pick up little things that will aid in decision making during a session. I put much more value on paying attention to what is happening than what may happen!
Vince.
Vince,
Well that was cute, I have to say that it almost topped what happened to me tonight,, 10/20 HE in middle,, 4 callers then me i raise KK the player to my left sais "RERAISE","I HAVE TO GET THIS HAND OVER WITH I HAVE TO GO THE BATHROOM"!!!!!was that classified as a TELL!! well the hand was great i had no idea how to read this player so with a flopp like 3 4 6 I checked he bets so all call the turn is a K its checked to me I bet he Reraised ! all fold back to me so I raised he called the river is a A i checked he bets i call
This goes hand in hand with the kind of tells like: it's feeding time and your opponent stops slurping his stew to play the hand, especially past the flop, he ain't bluffing, same win last hand winner stacking his chips.
Two more excellent "verbal" tells.
Yesterday, playing 6-12 Hold'em two different guys at the same table do the same thing:
(1) Flop is 6 2 2, two spades. He announces as he bets the flop that his draw might get there.
(2) Flop is 7 6 4, two diamonds. Turn card is another diamond, but also a 7, giving me the K flush. Another guy up front says "one more diamond".
In both cases, I folded, I knew these guys. I knew exactly what they had:
(1) 4 dueces (2) full house
The second time, I showed the guy my K flush when I folded to his "one more diamond" yell. He was visibly pissed because he had to show his hand to a player who was all in.
Paul Martino
"I knew these guys"
This is the reason these "silly" comments were tells!
Vince.
Yeah you are most correct. My point being that in general, announcements like these mean made hands. I don't know if I would have shown the K-flush against people I did not know as well.
Paul
Posted by: Doug M
Posted on: Sunday, 14 March 1999, at 5:56 a.m.
Posted by: Paul Martino (paul@ahpah.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 March 1999, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (Leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 March 1999, at 8:00 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Martino (paul@ahpah.com)
Posted on: Monday, 15 March 1999, at 10:36 p.m.
When I go on tilt, I start to play too many hands. It's a natural thing, I think, after you've had pocket Aces cracked by some moron with 7-3 off-suit, or had your flopped set go down to an idiot who caught runner-runner for a backdoor flush, to want to get right back into action and push things by betting, betting, betting to try to steal a pot.
I find that reminding myself of how few hands I should actually be playing helps keep me focused and out of pots I shouldn't be in. David and Mason, in HPFAP, recommend playing, in a typical game, only hands in groups 1-4 in early position and groups 1-5 in middle position.
So even in un-raised pots, they recommend playing only 142 out of 1326 hands (less than 11%) in early position, and 212 out of 1326 hands in middle position (less than 16%). And not being as good a player as either or them, I find I routinely fold some of the group 4 & 5 hands they suggest playing in un-raised pots; also, many of the hands should be folded when there is a raise in front of you. Thus the number of playable hands, for me, is quite small compared to the total number of possible hands
After a tough beat, it seems I alway look at 4-2, J-6, Q-3 ad nauseum for the next 15 hands. Rather than ask for a change of deck because my cards are "cold," I remind myself that this is normal, take a deep breath, congratulate the winners on their good play (especially the 7-3 offsuit genuis), toss that J-8s into the muck,and wait for a good hand to play aggressively when it comes. GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.
All comments welcome.
wow you just described my night thanks for making my bad beat night sound so small thow pocket Aces being snapped heads up against some one who cought a 3 on the river to make a set in a capped heads up match was just the small end of the night I had my A K s snapped in a A K 6 flop turn a 6 river a k so well the bad beats went all night,, the one thing i noticed was it was never the same person who cought my hand the table took turns!!!so let me ask what can u do so u can aviod this ?????? anything or mark it down in the U LOST section and go on with the rest of the week? any suggestions????
Bad beats are a part of the game. If you play well, you'll take more bad beats than you inflict, since your opponents will be chasing more than you will. It's frustrating, I know, when they chase and catch; all it takes is couple of these a night to turn a good session into a bad one.
But this is only true if your definition of good and bad doesn't inlcude how well you played. If you did everything you could and still got snapped off on the river, well, it happens; your opponent was not a million to one underdog, maybe he was just a ten to one dog and it's not a miracle he beat you, just against the odds.
Keep playing those pocket Aces and A-Ks, play them well, and you'll have the money in the end.
"I remind myself that this is normal, take a deep breath, congratulate the winners on their good play (especially the 7-3 offsuit genuis), toss that J-8s into the muck,and wait for a good hand to play aggressively when it comes"
You sir have what it takes to succeed! Anyone got a better strategy than this? I don't think so! (No sarcasm please)
Vince.
Been there - done that - lost money to prove it.
Your response to bad beats is the best approach.
If I have been ravaged by a series of bad beats, I quit unless the game is good. Not because I believe the cards are against me, but because my confidence is shaken.
If the game is good, I become extremely tight. Bad beats put me in a poor frame of mind (and my table image suffers). I find marginal hands to be too much effort and I can't play them properly when I'm not sharp. If the game is good, an hour of tight play can turn my confidence and image around.
Sometimes, I like to fake going on tilt - It's had some success. Anyone else try that?
Faking going on tilt is something I've considered and I would be interested in any responses. However, my problem with this, and other aspects of "tell theory" especially "faking" tells, is the wide variety of opponents I play against. I quite regularly find myself on a table with one of the top players in Europe, someone whose play can politely be described as strictly "recreational" and everything in between. I think if you try this kind of thing the good players catch on fast and the weak players don't even notice. So when someone reacts, you have to decide which level they are thinking at (0, 1 or 2 as I consider it) and it just complicates matters further. I prefer to make all bets and raises with the same quiet, even tone.
Any comments ?
I think it is a huge advantage to have opponents consciously thinking that they have no idea how you play. Their confusion about your play results in their being tentative and making mistakes. I have heard arguments both pro and con about playing deceptively and playing straight forwardly, but, for me, the bottom line is that I make more money by playing my cards deceptively and establishing that I am capable of betting, raising or folding with almost any holding.
I might checkraise semi-bluff the turn with a flush draw, or bet all the way with 7-2o against a weak tight player when I'm head's up. Most of the time I have what I'm representing of course, and I tend to get my winning hands paid off. When I'm "advertising" it is usually against one other opponent and I have to feel that the play has some possibility of winning the pot for me. Once opponents put you in a category that they find comfortable, you can see what it is by their play against you and adjust to a playing style designed to beat that assessment. I like to think I am constantly adjusting to the opponents in the game I am playing. If not, then I am simply changing my playing styles in an arbitrary and capricious manner without any known reason for doing so. Either way, I'm not going to be that predictable.
Andy,
Almost all players play much better when they are winning. It's handling the bad beats and losses well is one of the things that distinguishes a good player from a mediocre or bad player. I will say this, there is an occasional day, perhaps once every six months or a year, where it gets really bizarre and I get my clock cleaned totally. On these days I pack it in early and find something else to do. Other than those days I try and do what you do, suck it up and play good poker and with practice I believe it gets a lot easier to do this but you have to try hard.
Tom Haley
The game is 6-12 Hold'em. I raise UTG and get called by 8 players. Flop is Ks 8d 7c. I bet again and get 4 callers. Now, a Kd falls on the turn. I bet again and get reraised. So, I fold. River is the 6d. The reraiser has Kc 6c.
Here's the question. When a game is this loose with a lot of callers, should I just limp in with Aces and play them the same way I would if I had a small pair? Note that, there was hardly any raising preflop in this game and there was almost always at least four callers per hand. Your typical no fold'em hold'em game.
Probably not. But you should play your hand much differently on the later streets. All you did was bet. You have to think about checking on both the flop and fourth streets in an attempt to trap a weaker hand and knock other potential winners out who may be getting correct odds to beat you.
Raising UTG as you did was the best play. After the flop you still have the best hand (you can beat top pair any kicker) Here you want to eliminate as many opponents as possible and try to build the pot should blank or A fall on the turn. A check raise would probably work best by trapping some players for a bet, then having them fold to the raise (I think this is what Mason was reffering to). Many loose players probably wont respect the raise and call anyway, but if even one player fold, I think you have gained, because you have built the pot bigger and dropped a player that a straight out bet may not have acheived. On the other hand if you think betting out will drive out more people, then this might be a better play after the flop. THe best decision is the one based on what you have observed on how your opponets will most likely react. Whatever the case, the K is probably the worst card that could fall on the turn.
Thanks for the advice. I should have check raised on the flop and just maybe he would have mucked his hand if he thought I had AK or KK (of course before the turn for him to assume I had KK).
mah,
No he probably wouldn't have mucked the top pair, however, if you could get it down to a 2 player contest you would increase your chances of winning. You're just going to lose some hands with Aces. You will also win some very big pots even when your Aces don't improve. My advice would be to get your money in their with Aces pre-flop. I believe that in the long run you will show the most profit by doing this.
Tom Haley
It's not *mandatory that you check-raise the flop. Sometimes you should, sometimes you shouldn't. You need to mix up your play with your real hands. The most important factor in deciding to check-raise the flop is how certain you are that someone behind you will bet. If the players are at all clued in, a check-raise might very well fail here, because it's suspicious that someone would raise under the gun and then check when a king lands. If the players are oblivious to that kind of analysis and are also fairly agressive, go ahead and try for a check-raise.
Aces are a pretty good hand to check-raise with, because there are no overcards that can land to burn the hand. Be less willing to try it with weaker big pairs like kings and queens.
In my opinion, if you are in a game in which a pre-flop raise won't limit the field, limping with aces is a reasonable play. The deceptive quality of this play will often offset the extra bets you missed before the flop (assuming you win the pot). You are much more likely to get paid off by top pairs on the later streets. Also, from a psychological perspective, it is much easier for me to lay down my big pocket pairs when the flop is terrible (i.e. 7c 8c 9c) and there is a lot of action and i haven't raised pre-flop.
"When a game is this loose with a lot of callers, should I just limp in with Aces and play them the same way I would if I had a small pair"
Big pairs go down in value in a "loose" especailly, no foldem, game. However, Aces are not in the same category as big pairs. This stems from the fact that there are no over cards to worry about. Consequently, they do not play the same as small pairs. Mason Malmuth responded that you may want to play your hand a little differently and look for ways to knock people out. I don't necessarily agree with the "knock out" strategy. In the vast majority of no foldem hands this strategy will end up costing you more money. No folders are a very optimistic group and consequently the statement "you couldn't get them out with a cannon" isvery close to the truth. But I suppose evn though it is a frustrating undertaking it may also be a correct stagey. I just have my doubts. Of course, there are situations when a try for a "check raise" is clearly the correct strategy. One of the situations, I believe, is used to take advantage of an over aggressive opponent that you believe you have beat and are fairly sure that he will bet if you check. Even in no foldem this type of play is very effective. I should especailly enhance your image to your more observant opponents.
Now the question: Should you limp in with Aces?
1) Yes! Limping in with Aces in no foldem may allow you to "get away" from them. Muck them if you believe you are beaten without a large investment in the pot. It will also allow you to "punish" other players when you flop a set. You may also win a huge pot!
2) No! Raising with Aces has got to be a correct poker play in No foldem. Your getting more money in the pot with the best hand! How can anyone argue against that?
"Now, a Kd falls on the turn"
When you bet into a Kxx (xx=straight draw here) flop of 8 players and 4 of them call an alarm should go off in your head. It is highly unlikely that all four are on straight draws or have small pairs and very likely a pair of kings are out there. Betting the turn here may not be the best play. (Boy, is this going to get some heat). Check and fold/call may be best. Note that even though giving a free card is always a danger in no foldem your bet will not have the effect you desire and knock people out. This is evidenced by the fact that for you to have seen the river someone else in the hand must have called your bet and your opponents raise plus the river bet. Now since you folded Aces just what in the hell did the "caller" have that "logically" justified a call! No foldem - Hmmm... Have Fun!
Opinion by Vince
Thanks Vince. Playing pocket Aces or any big pair appears to always be difficult in this type of game. Since, the winning hands were two pair or better most of the time. Futhermore, it's impossible to isolate.
After I thought about it for a while, I liked the idea of the check raise on the flop for several reasons. My opponents would have to give me credit for a big hand, and I would have saved $6.
How would I save $6? If I raised preflop, $12, check raised on the flop (assuming that someone bet), $12, and then checked on the turn instead of betting out. If there was action on the turn I could then muck my hand. But, if that other K didn't come I would still have a chance to see the river.
What do think?
"What do think?"
I think that sounds like you are doing what needs to be done to be successful at poker. Thinking about the game!
The strategy you mention is a workable strategy. Check raising the turn with a favorable board is also workable. Try mixing your play in these situations. The experience you get from trying a few different (logical) strategies/tactics will be useful in making future decisions. One of the most difficult poker tactics to put into practice is to muck a big in hand or potential big hand. In a big pot it is downright impossible for most of us. Before you go mucking those wonderful Aces in a situation like you described make SURE that you are beat and the pot odds (current and implied) do not warrant a call on the turn and a reluctant call on the river.
Opinion by Vince
Vince-
I don't know where you stand on this, but I pray to the Allmighty that you don't fall into the 'limping with A's' camp.
I believe there is a place and time for everything in poker.
I recall (button) limping with Aces against an early position (solid) player that limped also. Both blinds called. The flop 9,6,3. Check to me. Both blinds folded. Early called. A! On the turn. Check to me. Bet. (I though about checking but bet any way) Raise! Reraise. Call. River 6! Check/Bet/Raise/Reraise/Reraise/Reraise/Call. Early had pocket 9,9. Said. "Your limp fooled me!" Had the board not paired I may have gotten another bet or two. He was afraid of four sixes, a thought that certainly crossed my mind!
I believe that it is normally best to play Aces strongly. Especially before the flop in a loose game! But there are no absolutes in my game. Right or wrong that's the "camp" I'm in!
Vince.
Why was this the 'time' to limp w/ A's? What happened on later streets should have no bearing on your assessment of the pre-flop play.
"Why was this the 'time' to limp w/ A's?"
I don't know whic example you are referring to? If my example of limping on the button it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. The way the game was going. If I recall correctly it was a tight game. And it just seemed the right thing to do!
If you are talking about the loose game example of the original poster that's something else. As a matter of the record if you read my response I give two answers to limping in his situation. 1) Yes 2)No. (Don't pin myself down that way!) Seriously though the answer to your question: Why is this the right "Time". GD, You, a very knowledgeable poker player, evidenced from you're posts, should be able to answer that question yourself. Most plays in poker, especially Holdem Poker, are argueable. The play of Aces is no different. You know quite well that timing is everything, well maybe not everything but close, in poker. You also know that when playing of big pairs before the flop a lot of factors such as position, type of game, opponents etc should be considered. Can I tell you the times when the factors are right to limp with Aces, no! If I told you when to play Aces slow then you would play as I do and I'm not sure that would be a good thing for you or anyone else. Can I tell you that there is a time and place to limp with Aces and feel confident that I am correct, yes. My best GUESS of when that time is, is (No Clinton(is)m here) when your skills and experience say; This is the time! It's when one has the "feel" for the game and plays on his instinct!
Best I can do!
Opinion by Vince.
Vince-
I was referring to your example (thanks, BTW, for the kind words), which, IMO, was not a good time to limp w/ A's. Your raise from the button could be seen as a steal raise, in which case the blinds call (or raise), the limper pops it, etc.
The only time I think one can argue for a limp is if one is in late position, noone has yet limped, and the blind is a very weak/ passive player who will fold pre-flop for a raise but will chase w/ virtually anything on the flop. Otherwise, limping w/ A's is a total catastrophe. Most players won't fold for a raise after they've come in, so you're not going to 'scare' anyone off with a raise, which means all you're doing is costing yourself money. I will cap it everytime with A's. I will keep throwing money in, from any position, until someone tells me to stop. Of course, the situation is different for those who can't get away from them-- but if you 'know when to fold 'em' (heh heh) then not popping it preflop with those purty rockets is just dumb.
"not popping it preflop with those purty rockets is just dumb."
God, I love it when you sweet talk me!
Vince.
GD (and Vince),
I'll butt in with a quick comment. In a loose game I agree with GD that you want to get the money in pre-flop but I don't think it hurts much to limp now and then as Vince stated. Besides winning the occasional big pot because of the deception, this kind of play really seems to get people's attention (even the ones who normally don't observe much). This has the benefit of protecting your limps a bit from early position and creating more doubt about your playing style in opponents minds.
Regards,
Rick
"Besides winning the occasional big pot because of the deception, this kind of play really seems to get people's attention (even the ones who normally don't observe much)."
Rick,
I knew there was something about you that I liked. exactly my point, I mean your point, I mean our point, Oh! Forget it! Point is, I agree!
BTW - Your real name is not Humphry Bogart by any chance, Mr. Rick, Casablanca. You know...
Vince.
Vince,
If I had a "Waspy" sounding name like Bogart why would I use my current last name when I don't even look Italian, my name has been mispronounced all my life (I still have nightmares about role call on the first day of class from elementary school), leaving obvious pshycological scars. Anyway, that guy is dead (I think).
Regards,
Rick
That's nothing. You can only imagine what it's like to be entering the seventh grade at a new school with a name like 'Guy' when the attendance roster is smudged and the 'u' looks like an 'a'...
I was at a 5-10 table that was very tight except for two loose players.Pots were never over $40.00 most of the night.So I was on the button got dealt Q 10 suited hearts everyone folded but the two loose guys so I just called. then on the flop I made the flush it came J 3 7 hearts the first guy bets next calls then I called again.Next card a 2 of clubs first guy calls next raise I call again first reraise next reraise again I call next card 8 of clubs everyone raises to the limit well the first guy had a pair next guy had a two pair I won a nice pot.The reason for my play was I knew they were playing with anything so after no one really raised after the flop the first guy looked happy no one raised then when they were raising on the next round I but them both on the bluff or a pair which Im sure they but me on because of my calling well was this right because of the situation or should I have folded fearing the K A of hearts suited? Well anyway everyone at the table was amazed at the play because they couldn't belive I didn't try to run them out of the pot after the flop.
I think you should have raised on the flop. When you have a queen-high flush, you don't want to give a cheap card to a player who just has the ace or king of that suit. (Which a loose player will often have, since they tend to play any ace or hands like K8.) Also, these players will probably call anyway, so why not get the money in the pot.
On the turn, the raise would be trouble from a good player, but with this guy there are many other hands he would be raising with other than a higher flush. I wouldn't fold here in any case, since there are too many other possibilities, especially since you haven't shown strength in the hand. The flop bettor could be bluffing or could have top pair. (some loose players can have anything) The raise on the turn could be a flopped set or a lower flopped flush. The chance that one of your opponents flopped a higher flush is low. In holdem, you don't usually want to worry about the maximum hand unless there's a very good reason to think that's what you're facing.
I agree with the previous post.
I almost always push a flopped flush or straight. My hand ain't getting any better. Chances are you have the best hand. If you lose to a bigger flush, that's life.
Like my grandpa used to say - "Bet your hand, it's better to win a small pot than lose a big one"
If someone holds a king or ace of the appropriate suit you're not going to run them out. You are also not going to run out hands like a set, two pair, or another flush. The only hands that you will run out are hands that you would like to stay in. Do you really want someone with a ten of hearts to fold?
Furthermore, since you are able to anticipate plenty of action from these two live ones, it seems to me you played the hand well. (Notice that if you had a smaller flush, suppose you held 9h8h, the above advice would not be accurate. Now you would want to run someone out with if he held a 10h.)
In this example our hero is looking at the Th.
But, even if he wasn't, anyone good enough to call with the Th won't fold for a raise.
Once you've read the Theory of Poker (the poker bible), HFAP (definite winning approach) and Getting the Best of It (critical to understanding the nature of "gambling")you are ready to put it all together with Poker Essays II (the best book on poker, given the aforementioned background knowledge.)
Despite the attraction of simulators to some -- magic bullet theory? -- suffice it to say simulators cannot emulate a real game environment. Can they someday? Nope. But they may be able to beat you. Interesting, eh?
In David Sklansky's The Theory of Poker a play is described where a semi-bluff raise is correct even though a call would be incorrect. The percentage of times when you win the pot immediately with your raise combined with the chances that you draw out on your opponent transforms the semi-bluff raise into a +EV play when the call is -EV. When you think about it this is a very powerful play. Of course it comes up on the turn in hold'em and I would like to delve into it and hopefully get some feedback. I am making a few assumptions that will be used as parameters for this discussion. One is that the pot is being played heads up, the second is that I am assuming that you will win one more bet on the river when you hit, I am neglecting the possibility of re-raises, and I am discussing a structured fixed limit hold-em game. I think heads up situations are the place to start and you can extrapolate from the proper strategy for heads up situations to get a handle on the right play for 3 or more player situations. The assumption on winning one more bet on the river is an arbitrary choice on my part. In reality you will win another bet on the river when you hit a certain percentage of the time which requires another estimate on your part. The re-raise possibilities such as semi-bluff re-raises makes the math a little messier and I believe that this possibility can be accounted for after an analysis of the heads up no re-raise situation. Also if there is a possibility of a re-raise then your chances of a successful steal immediately are diminished which David points out in many of his writings. The fixed limit betting such as found in a $10-20, $15-30, $20-40 etc. game as opposed to spread, pot, or no-limit makes the math a little less messy as well. I will also look at the situation when a call is correct but a semi-bluff raise is a higher EV play.
Basically this play involves three parameters to calculate the EV:
1) The chances of winning immediately 2) The size of the pot currently (remember I am assuming you will win one more bet if you hit). 3) The chances of drawing out when called (remember I am ignoring the re-raise possibilities).
Number 2 is a simple parameter to deal with because the pot is sitting there in front of you and the exact amount can be determined. Number 3 is fairly straightforward but could conceivably get somewhat complicated. The more you can (correctly) narrow down your opponent's hand the easier 3 gets to calculate. Number 1 in my opinion is the trickiest and I will hope to offer some guidelines that I use to determine this percentage.
In my opinion, the semi-bluff raise on the turn is not utilized often enough. I'm sure I don't use it enough. Until I went through and did some calculations for myself, I thought the play had to have a much higher success rate for winning immediately than it actually does. For example say you have a gut shot straight draw (inside straight draw) with 1 card to come. Four cards will make your straight and 42 will not which means you will hit your gut shot about 8.7% of the time. Say that you know that if you hit your straight it will win. If you think you can raise as a semi-bluff and win immediately 30% or more of the time, then if the pot is laying you $65 in a $10-20 game the semi-bluff raise is a +EV play. Remember I am assuming that you will win an extra bet on the river when you make your hand. Clearly a simple call is a -EV play. Another example, say you have a flush draw with 1 card to come. You somehow know that if the flush card comes you will have the best hand. If the pot is laying you $65 in a $10-20 game and your bluff raise is successful immediately 12.5% or more of the time (1 out of 8), your semi-bluff raise will be +EV. A third example, say you think your chances of winning immediately with a semi-bluff raise is only 5%. You have a pair and a flush draw, and you know that if you hit one of your hole cards or complete the flush you will have the best hand. If the pot is laying you $45 in a $10-20 game, your semi-bluff raise is a profitable play. One last example, say you have a pair and an overcard kicker with one card to come and you know if you hit your kicker or your pair card you will have the best hand. If you think your chances of getting away with a raise immediately is 5-1 or better (actually 5.3 - 1), your semi-bluff raise is +EV. Perhaps these numbers aren't that surprising to a lot of people but to me they were. Of course you have to trust my math and it could have some errors. I'll post my derivations if requested. I plugged them into a spreadsheet to come up with these numbers and I checked the results to make sure they were consistent. I may post a table as well later.
I believe that the estimation of odds for immediate success with a bluff-raise is the trickiest task. Some may believe that this is a spot where their intuition should guide them. Unfortunately I don't have a great deal of intuitive feel for the odds of success so I am left with trying to come up with estimates in a logical and rational manner. I am of the opinion that the following criteria are the most important for determining your odds of success with an immediate bluff:
1) How your opponents perceive you. 2) The type of player your opponent is. 3) The size of the pot. 4) Your ability to read hands. 5) The texture of the board.
If you are perceived as a tight aggressive player who seldom bluffs your chances for success go way up. On the other hand, if you are a player who "advertises" in some sort of way (most players do to some extent) to get paid off on their good hands, your chances of success go way down. Mason and David have stated many times that stealing a few pots of moderate size can more than compensate for some calls that you might otherwise get by advertising. Also, I don't think there are that many great hands that you wish you had more callers after the flop in limit hold'em anyway. If you are up against a habitual calling station your chances of success go way down. Certainly a weak tight player would improve your chances greatly. Mediocre players who are easy to read help your chances a lot because you can discern the strength of their hand a lot easier. Also a lot of players will not re-raise if they don't have the nuts. On the other hand caution is advised against a tricky player that is capable of thinking at advanced levels. Players that are capable of laying down a mediocre hand or better improve your chances a lot. Also, if you're in a situation where your opponent would try to steal but your hand is weaker your raise has increased chances of success. If the pot is big your chances for immediate success are, in my opinion, virtually non-existent. Hopefully you could steal immediately when your opponent would not be adjusting their calling strategy correctly to the size of the pot. However, when the pot gets big everyone will call looser. The idea with 4) is that if you can't read your opponent that well it will be harder to determine that they are weak and thus assess your chances for success. As an example, say the flop showed K,K,7, everyone checks, and you are on the button. The turn comes a second suited card and you pick up a flush draw. If you can't read your opponent that well and don't know whether they are slowplaying a K, betting a 7, betting an underpair between a 7 and a King, betting an underpair below 7's, betting a flush draw themselves, or simply trying to pick up the pot, I would think that the profitability of your semi-bluff raise here becomes questionable. Although you could calculate the possibility of each hand type to determine the chances of your raise being successful. On the other hand if you knew your opponent was highly likely to have nothing in this spot then your chances of success go way up. The texture of the board is important as certain boards lend themselves to situations where bluff raising could be successful. Several are pointed out in Hold'em For Advanced Players. So how do you come up with a percentage for estimating how often your bluff raise will succeed immediately? One thought that I have is that somehow the various factors that I enumerated should be combined as individual probability estimates themselves and multiplied together to give you an estimate. If the pot is huge but all of the other factors are very favorable I feel that the chances for immediate success are reduced to zero. I think the other factors have this same effect. If each of the categories was rated as .8 for favorability the chances of immediate success would be (.8)**5 or .32768. I do see some problems with this method. First of all assigning a value to each one is subjective in itself. I think that focusing on each aspect that goes into assessing the probability of success does help in making better estimates. The second problem that I see is that some factors might overwhelm the others and the multiplication of the various factors may be rendered erroneous. For example if you can read your opponent so well that you know they have nothing but their nothing is better than your nothing, the other factors may not be that important. Overall I think using the individual estimates may be viable because there are certain factors that may be very favorable and they are probably constant like how you are perceived, how your opponents play and the size of the pot.
Earlier I mentioned that I would touch on the situation where a call was +EV but a semi-bluff raise had a higher EV. From what I calculated the semi-bluff raise has a lower EV only when there is a tiny chance your opponent will fold.
Of course I can't do all of this in the heat of battle so I have to plan these plays away from the table so when the situations come up in a live game I can make the play more or less automatically.
Tom Haley
A couple of other factors that make this raise even more valuable:
1) By making this play now, you encourage calls on your real hands in the future. This alone can make the play worthwhile against the right field.
2) In a multi-way pot, a semi-bluff raise may give you more outs by forcing a hand behind you to fold that would beat you or tie you if you make your draw. For example, if the original bettor has top pair, but someone behind you has second pair with an overcard that matches yours, then a raise that gets him to fold gives you two more outs to win the pot. Best-case: The original bettor is betting a draw, and your raise gets everyone else to fold. Now you go from being perhaps a 4-1 underdog to win the pot to a 3-1 favorite.
That's not to say you should use this play all the time. For it to be effective it has to be balanced against real value raises.
Dan
Have you considered that it might work better vs two opps than one?
More moves are expected heads up.
Erin,
Interesting and good point. It would strengthen you in the "How other players perceive you" category and given all other factors being equal it could put you in a +EV situation. Other factors could conceivably be weakened but not necissarily.
Tom Haley
The last post was not written by me. I don't know who is doing this but it's begining to set a little tiresome.
Tom Haley (the real one!)
Tom,
I (and am sure many more) have read your post with interest. Perhaps it could be expanded and submitted as an essay. I'll try to comment on some minor points when I get some free time as you cover a lot of ground but it looks good and involves a not often explored area of strategy.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Thanks. That is what I am trying to do, explore an area of strategy that I feel is important for the tight aggressive hold'em player. I am hoping to get some feedback. I decided that some tables might be interesting and I should post the math so that someone else can examine it to make sure I did it correctly and offer suggestions or improvements as the case may be. I am particularly interested in getting comments about arriving at the estimates for immediate success. I'm thinking about what I wrote a little more in that area. I'll probably post the math in a day or two. The tables are based on the math and are of course valid if the math is valid. The math is simply expressing the EV in algebraic terms and solving for the particular variables in terms of the others.
Tom Haley
Tom,
Thanks for a great post! I'm sure I don't use this play often enough. I agree with almost everything in your post. You are one of the contributors who make this forum so great.
However, I think there is something wrong with the calculations in your second example.
You wrote:
"Say you have a flush draw with 1 card to come. You somehow know that if the flush card comes you will have the best hand. If the pot is laying you $65 in a $10-20 game and your bluff raise is successful immediately 12.5% or more of the time (1 out of 8), your semi-bluff raise will be +EV."
Say that we play this hand 100 times, and take into consideration all your assumptions:
Bluff wins: 12.5 * 65 = 812.5
Improvement of hand wins: (100 - 12.5) * (1/5.11) * 105 = 1797.9
Your hand loses: (100 - 12.5) * (4.11/5.11) * 40 = 2815.1
So, in 100 hands you'll win 812.5 + 1797.9 = $2610.4 and lose $2815.1
2610.4 - 2815.1 = -$204.7 or -$2.047 per hand
Example 1 and 3 seem to be right, but your last example is impossible to figure out, since you don't mention the pot size.
I can't guarantee that I'm right, but at least you should check the second example one more time.
Sincerely,
Emil
Emil,
It's nearly impossible for me to err on these calculations. I spent a moment looking over your work and frankly I was able to spot your error right away. I'll leave it to others to point it out. Thanks for your contribution.
Tom Haley
Emil,
Yes I did make an error in the one you mention. I don't know how I got 9/37 instead of 9/46. Anyway thanks for checking them out and I'll get back to you on the last one. And yes it easy for me to make these errors.
Tom Haley
its been my experience that at pot limit when you get to the highest limits the casino has (ie in mississippi, etc. that have pot limit) the softer the game is. i have my own ideas on why this is so. the blinds are so high that only deep pockets play. (of course i might add i dont have a deep pocket, but im willing to go bust in one night.) these buch of good old boys really enjoy their poker, and they are not worried about the loss of a couple of grand on one hand. i might also add that they lose very graciously. ive never seen a big blind pot limit player go on tilt. thoughts?
i might also add (addressing some of the posts below) that insulting me really dosnt get a rise out of me. at the table or away from the table.
For obvious reasons far fewer people play pot limit, especially at higher (say $1000 buy-in level +) limits. Therefore there is a much higher chance that you will have played against other players in the game. Being familiar with them leads to more exchanges of opinions etc. While the pots can get very big there is relatively little hypertension.In my experience there is far more tension/aggravation at low level limit games. Perhaps people there are playing off very small bankrolls so that any beat whether reasonable or not becomes a high blood-pressure situation.
I saw a smallish player with glasses go on tilt once.
In a fairly tight $10/$20 holdem game, I made a runner-runner Ace high flush with AJs after flopping top pair to the Jack and proceeded to lose four big bets on the river to a straight flush.
I call from the SB wth AJ of clubs in a four-handed unraised pot and the action went like this: Flop of Jh9c3d. I bet out since the pot is relatively small and nobody showed any particular strength. The BB folds and the middle position and button limpers call. The turn is the 7 of clubs. I check. Middle guy checks and we both call after the button bets. (This guy is not much of a bluffer so I put him on a straight or minimum two pair).
The river is the 6 of clubs, making a Jh9c3d7c6c board. I decide to bet out, figuring I might get two overcalls from straights or smaller flushes. I figure it is hard for someone toput me on such a big hand given my relatively light action. The middle player folds and the button raises!
This guy is NOT an idiot, but is not a rock that will raise with only the nuts. Even though I recognized the possible sraigth flus, I figure it is much more likely that the guy has something like KQs or KTs than T8s, so I pop him with another raise. He raises again, and now I am about 90% certain he has the nuts but pay to see his T8 anyway.
Shuold I have saved the last bet on the river? Should I have reraised the river? How about the check-call on the turn?
I think that you played it well on the river. You put in the third bet at a time when it appeared much more likely than not that you had the best hand. Plus, since he raised, he probably has something, and will pay off your third bet. Since you knew this guy wouldn't go 4 bets with a K-high flush, you just called, knowing that he likely has the nuts, but you needed to see it. Calling here isn't a big mistake, if it's any mistake at all. There are something like 13-14 bets in the pot, so you'd only have to be wrong 8% of the time to justify the call. Plus, if this is a game you play in regularly, you don't want them to think that you're capable of folding after you 3-bet, as you're likely to start seeing some tricky plays against you.
Just calling preflop looks good. Betting out on the flop is the preferred play, with going for a check-raise #2. I don't like the check on the turn, as the only hand you fear at that time is T8, and it seems more likely that you'll be up against a weaker pair or weaker kicker, than that you'll run into T8 here. Of course, in retrospect, you played the turn perfectly.
No real errors here, just bad luck. Get them next time.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
You said "I don't like the check on the turn, as the only hand you fear at that time is T8, and it seems more likely that you'll be up against a weaker pair or weaker kicker, than that you'll run into T8 here. Of course, in retrospect, you played the turn perfectly."
The last sentence is true only if you could see your opponents cards. I'm sure you realize that making quality decisions based on an assesment of the available information at that time is what matters.
Personally, I (and probably you and SKP) would have lost more money on that particular pot but I think our play would have been much more correct confronted with that situation over time.
Regards,
Rick
"in retrospect" is a pretty big clue.
Of course there's a distinction between what you should intelligently do, and what you should psychically do. I differentiate, in poker and in business, between SMART decisions, and RIGHT decisions. Cold-calling 4 bets preflop with 27o, flopping trips, and winning a monster pot with a full house was a RIGHT decision, as it made you the most money this time. The entire thing was NOT a SMART decision, as you will lose more than you win in the long run if you play like this in this type of situation.
By checking and calling the turn, our hero made the RIGHT decision, although, I think, given the information provided, not the SMART decision.
Since we can only learn to make as many SMART decisions as possible, that's where our focus should be. Unfortunately, results matter in our society, just as they do in poker, and you are often going to be graded by how RIGHT your decisions are, with many folks thinking that RIGHT and SMART are practically synonymous. Since all you can do is your best, you must learn to deal with the misfortunes associated with SMART yet WRONG decisions.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Nothing wrong with the play on the river.
IMO, a check on the turn is a mistake. Why give a free card when your hand is likely to be the best? Besides, even if someone made a straight and raises you, you still have outs with your flush draw.
BTW, I agree with Greg that the flop can be played either with a bet or a checkraise. I would be more inclined to bet against a short field amd try for a checkraise against a large field.
Michael 7,
You said: "Even though I recognized the possible sraight flush, I figure it is much more likely that the guy has something like KQs or KTs than T8s, so I pop him with another raise. He raises again, and now I am about 90% certain he has the nuts but pay to see his T8 anyway."
Note that math gives you your answer here. You were 90% certain that he had the nuts (IMO, an overestimate anyway), and the pot was laying you fourteen to one so it is a clear call.
I agree with SKP and Greg that the check on the turn was a mistake. You may want to note my brief comment to Greg's post because I think you both tend to have the same problem in deciding whether the play was good or not (most players do).
Regards,
Rick
Your hand is likely still best on the turn, it is well worth calling a raise, they may very well fold one-pair or gut-shot hands that are drawing to beat you, and if they check you will wish that you had bet. This hand is SCREAMING to be bet. Unless ... I would check-raise an aggressive button since I was in the SB and could easily have a check-and-fold hand, thus encouraging a weak bet.
You WANT top-pair top-kicker top-draw.
There are trolls only under a FEW of the bridges. Most do not. Bet the turn.
You really have to know your opponent AND not be known for laying down 2nd nuts before you fold when he 4-bets the river.
- Louie
After everybody admonished me for checking the turn, I decided to reread my post since I didn't think it was such an obviously bad play. Alas, I incorrectly communicated the action since I was focused on getting to the the river play. On the flop, the middle position player RAISED after my bet and the button cold called. I just called the raise with the intention of betting out on the turn if a blank hit. Once I picked up a flush draw on the turn, I was content to check and call since a "free" card was as likely to help me as hurt me. If I bet and the middle player raised, I figured I would be calling an additional bet as a likely underdog. When the bet came from the button instead, I gave him credit for a two-pair or better hand since he was facing a possible check-raise from either one of us.
Maybe this was still a mistake of non-aggression, but I think it makes the play on the turn less clear cut.
IMO, your clarification does make your play less clear cut. However, I probably would still bet out on the turn.
You said it was a relatively tight game and you were in the small blind and the flop was 4 handed. Thus, I gather that the button limped in after one player in front had limped in. Thus, I would reason that the Button probably did not start with a pocket pair (particularly Jacks or 9's) as he would have raised instead of limping in. Thus, when the button cold calls two bets on the flop, I wouldn't think that he had a set (although two pair i.e. J9 is possible even though the proper play for the button with J9 would have been to three bet the flop). And since the flop had no two flush, I would likely put the button on a straight draw (I would have guessed Q,10 moreso than 10,8). When the 6c hit on the turn, I would figure that I am still good vis a vis the Button.
Now, what about the middle player who raised before the flop? Well, for the same reasons as above, it is unlikely that he flopped a set (my conclusion is further buoyed by the fact that most players in a tight game would wait until the turn before raising. In any event, most players would not raise a bettor to his right in a shorthanded flop on the flop with a set). He too could have top two pair. However, his most likely holding is a pair of Jacks with a weaker kicker than yours. Now, you have to think that he now fears the button (who after all coldcalled two bets on the flop) and might check the turn. Thus, I wouldn't want to risk giving a free card to the button and would therefore bet.
Bottom line: I would probably still have bet again on the turn. After all, being raised would not be disastrous what with my flush outs on the River.
When you picked up the flush draw, it should make you MORE likely to bet out again, for two reasons: One is deception. If you check and call the turn and then bet the river if you hit your flush, you might not get paid off as well as if you had bet the turn. Second, your hand just got stronger, meaning you hold more equity in this pot. So giving a free card is even more expensive.
Note that if you thought there was a good chance that your hand wasn't the best at this time, then it's OK to check since you have outs, and you don't really want to bet and get raised. But since you have to think you have the best hand at this time, you should bet.
In my opinion,
Dan
I think the point of the 'clarification' post was to show us that he didn't think he had the best hand on the turn, since the button cold called two bets on the flop.
I'd have to have an incredible read on a player to not think my AJ was the best hand with a J93 flop just because a guy raised and there was a cold-caller. I'd entertain the possibility, but it wouldn't be enough to induce a check from me on the turn.
Point taken-- but, all we can do here is refer to the post, where M7 say "I gave him credit for...". We can argue, perhaps, that he shouldn't have given him credit for it, but given that he did a check on the turn seems reasonable.
BTW, why do you say you'd have to have an incredible read? If the button was a fairly tough player, you'd have to figure him for a straight draw or a made hand after he cold called the turn-- in other words, a straight draw or something better than your J. When the seven falls- well, that completes one of the two open-enders.
In short, I don't think putting this guy on a straight or better when the turn comes is too incredulous, but I'd be interested in hearing why your opinion varies.
He *could have the straight, but if he had a straight draw it's much more likely to be TQ than 8T if the button is a tough player. If he does have the straight, I still have outs with the flush.
I don't know. If he's fairly solid, then he'd probably play either QT or T8 if they were suited, and probably wouldn't play either if they weren't.
I guess my question pertains to your statement that you'd need an 'incredible read'. This may be true if we're just talking about the straight, but if were talking about any made hand (that is, two pair or better) then I think that changes the picture.
Overall, I like the idea of checking on the turn when a scare card hits if you hvae outs, and betting when you don't. It just (at least to me) seems to make intuitive sense. And in this scenerio, the possibility that the seven made a straight COUPLED with the possibility that he's already there, makes a strong argument for checking.
I would agree with your strategy but only where the penalty for giving a free card is small. For example, I would be much more willing to check with a pair of Aces where the turn card looks like it may have made someone a straight. With just a pair of Jacks and two opponents to contend with, the penalty for giving a free card is just too steep. I would take my chances and bet (particularly since I do have some outs on the river). This may seem like it runs contrary to S&M's advice on the turn to bet hands without outs and check hands with outs. While that is generally a good principle to follow, it does not apply (IMO) in this situation where you may currently have the best hand (in addition to a great draw) but where there are several cards that could ruin your hand on the river.
Very true. However, you're forgetting the original premise of M7's post- i.e., our hero gave the button credit for two pair or better. Given this, a check on the turn only seems natural, since you're going to have to see the river anyway and hope you improve.
Now we can argue whether or not our hero should have given the button that much credit-- Dan, for example, seems to think this is a mistake, but I don't know if it's that much of a stretch. While I try to keep myself active in no fold 'em games, there are times when I'm playing in the afternoon in a game populated by WW2 vets and the like-- in other words, guys who were pushing fifty or so by the beginning of the Reagan years. In cases such as these, if I see anyone call two raises cold (and there's no flush draw on board) I get real leary when the turn card could make someone an open-ender. And while I (we) don't know the button, we have to assume that M7 does, and if the button was, indeed, this kind of player, then he's got to be in a check and call situation on the turn.
Much of this- in fact, all of it- depends on the caliber of your opponents. Against the usual competition I'll bet out, but when you run across someone who's capable of putting a play on you then you've got to be careful-- what if he, too, just picked up the flush draw (maybe he had something like K9c) and decides to semi-bluff raise. Then where are you? You've got to call, of course, but when no club, jack or ace falls on the river (and none will, we all know that) you're in a sticky situation, since you have to assume your opponent called with something substantual on the flop (he didn't, really, at least not with the K9c scenerio, but you get the idea).
And so it goes. I guess my philosophy re: turn play is that I'll check and call IF a) I've got outs, and b) if I don't hit those outs I've got enough of a hand to call the river. In this case both the requirements are met, since M7 essentially played this hand the same way one would with a straight draw, so a check on the turn and river could induce the much coveted bluff. However, if the situaton were different (say there were two hearts on the flop and the third dropped on the turn) I'd bet and fold for a raise, since the button played the hand like a flush draw and is willing to raise on the turn (it isn't lost on me that a raise by the on the turn w/ a three flush on board is one of the bluff moves outlined by you in your excellent bluffing article).
What this comes down to, I think, is whether or not M7 should have given the button as much credit as he did. I don't think it's unreasonable, but I realize that one could construct an argument for the other side. I'd like to hear what you think on this, since I think it's an interesting debate.
Guy
Sorry to miss out on this interesting debate while I was out of town. The button, by the way, WAS one of these pre-WW2 types. I figured that the chance that the seven hit him for a straight PLUS the chance that he was slow playing two-pair or better PLUS the chance that the flop raiser had two pair or better made a check the more sensible play. If the seven had been a blank, or had not given me a flush draw, I probably would have bet out and strongly considered folding if the button raised.
For what it's worth, I think I would have played it exactly the same way.
GD, I really can't take issue with anything you say here. As you say, much depends on what Michael put his opponents on, their propensity to put a play on him etc. Under those circumstances, I might check as well.
You raise some interesting points re: the turn bet. I don't have time now to elaborate but perhaps I'll start a new theread in a couple of days.
BTW, I very much enjoy your posts. Keep at her.
Only you know how the button plays, and whether or not you need to respect his cold call. But why not three betting the flop? If the middle player caps it then his hand is pretty well defined (probably a set, at least top two) , and if you do decide to check the turn there's a chance that it'll get checked around, thereby giving you a free card should you so desire (if, that is, you want a free card here).
The Gambling Theory and Strategy Forum has been growing in popularity. Load time for the Forum is directly related to the number of messages in it. There are two ways to speed the Forum up; 1) archive messages sooner, and 2) split the Forum.
We already archive messages that are older than about 1 week. This post is to let you know that we have split the Forum. The more observant of you will have already noticed that this Forum now has Poker in its title. We'd like to try to limit this Forum to discussions of the theory and strategy of poker. The new Forum, accessed through the link in the left column is for discussions of the theory and strategy of all other games. And, of course, the Exchange forum is still for all items that do not relate to gambling theory or strategy.
Chuck
What a great idea! Especially since poker is in a class all by itself! My guess is that someday we will need a foum entitled "Holdem Poker". We'll see!
Vince
Here's a question (that I'm sure to receive a little flack over), I live in an area that doesn't allow me to play poker at any card rooms and so I go to private games around town. The problem is that most games are dealer's choice and end up having wild cards. What are some strategies in games against wild card games (some get out right ridiculous - ie. 3's 9's and one eyed jacks). Do Skylansky's Theory of Poker apply here?
I know that it hurts my play (luck seems to play a much larger part in these games) and maybe I should just not play in them, but I enjoy them nonetheless. Also I do well in the long run with the people I play with.
Any help would be appriciated. (I'm not looking for criticism on these games - I already know)
Jon,
A simple answer is to play tighter than most of your opponents do and then you will win in most any game that you dont make more mistakes than they do during the play of the hand. In games you dont understand well try to decide how easy it is to make the nuts. If it is fairly easy play towards that end. Then after the draw or flop do the same thing, and that should keep you on course. As you are playing watch carefully as to what kind of hands win the pots and how easy they are to make. I mean do the early leaders stand up as in holdem or do the drawing hands get there like in omaha. The big thing about wild card games is having to fold hands that you are used to playing such as full houses nut flushes even four of a kind in some games. Good Luck.
In a game with 4 wild cards, the average winning hand will be stronger, but not ridiculous. In deuces-wild draw, a pat straight is probably the best hand before the draw, and a high pat three-of-a-kind is also good (it's probably the best hand and it has a decent chance to draw out if it isn't). We play this with match-the-pot betting, but with limit betting it would become even more important to have position (to see how many your opponents draw) and flexibility (If you are facing many opponents you can break up 82254, while you can't break up JT987. So 82254 is the better hand in a limit game, plus that's two deuces that your opponents don't have and can't get.)
With eight or more wild cards like Baseball, it's almost always correct to fast play a hand that is best at the time. It's so easy to be drawn out on that virtually no hand is safe, so plan check-raises accordingly to narrow the field as much as possible on every street.
In my home game, I taught them the games Omaha-8 and Stud H/L, and also started calling holdem. When I started playing, most dealer's choice calls were wild-card games like you describe. Now they've taken to the more serious games and we play these almost exclusively (and seven-card stud and Chicago).
Low stakes limit HE tournament, the limits double every 20 minutes. 97 players, 93 single re-buys, a total of 190000 of chips. First place pays $950, second $550, third $350, fourth $190. Buy-in w/ rebuy was $30. Final table, four players, limits are 5000-10000 (blinds are 2500/5000),about 5 minutes into the limit. Chip leader has about 85000, second place 60000, I have 27500, and fourth place has about 17500. Clockwise position is 80000-60000-my 32500-17500. The chip leader has been very aggressive, second place extremely passive, and fourth place playing an unimaginative but good game. My image is somewhat loose. I am in the big blind w/QQ. 4th place player folds, chip leader raises to 10000, small blind folds, I re-raise to 15k, get re-raised, I make it 25k and get called. I then toss in my final 2500 as the flop is being spread, before I see the flop. Comments, suggestions, observations?
You did nothing wrong.At these levels you can't wait around hoping for an upgrade to 1st class. Many of these tournament situations boil down to almost even money shots and in this case it's unlucky if you have the worst of it. Some of these gung-ho tournament heros seem like they have taken the poker equivalent of viagra - see how much staying power they have in real-life cash action!
Not bad, but I would make a few adjustments.
Why go 5 bets preflop? If you just call him at 4 bets, you can get away from the hand if both a K and A flop, as these are highly likely to have hit him (true, he might have a pocket pair of QQ or below, rather than an A or K in his hand, so it will still require some judgment by you as to whether or not to call anyway). If there is only a single A or K on the flop, then the size of the pot probably requires that you stay in there just in case it didn't hit him, but if both show up, then you can fold pretty safely most of the time.
By going 5 bets, you may have convinced him that you have AA, but he's still going to call after the flop with any hand, given that he's going to be getting 21:1 on that last call, when you throw in the T2500. Since he won't fold to your 5th bet nor the T2500 bet, why make them? Wait and see what happens. Heck, maybe he'll get stupid and when he flops a set, he'll show it to you to induce a fold (which you'll gladly make at that point).
Also, why bet the T2500 blind? It's true that it's going to go into the pot almost every time. However, there is some small chance that he'll check it down given your action preflop. As such, why not try to save those last couple of chips, on the off chance that he'll let you get away with it? The only thing you lose by trying is the chance of winning those few extra chips from him. I see lots of players do this, and I consider it a mistake everytime (until and unless you've got the nots on the flop or later, at which time you might as well get that little bit of extra value from your hand).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Well, I got seriously outplayed on a hand on Saturday night. Here goes:
Wild 10-20 game. Lots of raising preflop and multiple players seeing every flop.
I pick up AdJd in the big blind. Button raises after 6 players limp in. I call and all limpers call. We take the flop 8-handed.
Flop: Ac9c3d
I check with the intention of checkraising the button. No dice. Button checks.
Turn: 10c
I am in a game where I know that most people would bet on the flop with a flush draw (exception: perhaps the players immediately to the right of the button might check with the intention of checkraising should several people call the button's bet). In any event, based on the above reasoning, I bet on the turn figuring that no one made a flush.
Mike (a good to very good player) to my immediate left raises and everyone folds. I figure that Mike definitely would have bet on the flop with a flush draw so I reraise. Mike caps it. I now figure that my goose is cooked and muck my hand. Mike gleefully turns over Kc,Qd.
He had nothing (yet) and had outplayed me.
Why and How?
The answer is obvious: My play became too predictable. Just as I thought that Mike would have bet on the flop with a flush draw, Mike too figured that I would have done the same. He had greater conviction in his read and followed through with the capped bet. Of course, the fact that he held the Kc also obviously helped his decision. He must have figured that even if I held a flush, I would probably put him on the nut flush given that he has capped it. His capped bet was also therefore made on the chance that I would throw my hand even if I had say a Queen high flush.
In any event, there is a point to the above post. It is simply this : Ensure that you vary your play. Obviously, my tendency to bet every time I flopped a flush draw made it easy for Mike to know that I had not completed my flush on the turn.
BTW, I realize that I made some errors on that hand. I will leave it up to you guys to carve me up on that score.
P.S. I did not like Mike showing everyone at the table that he had outplayed me. Obviously, he was trying to get under my skin and perhaps put me on tilt. I was seething inside (not at being outplayed but bcause Mike had gleefully showed his nothing hand to everybody). Nevertheless, I am proud to say that I did not let the incident affect my play one bit. I went on to play my "A" game and booked a nice $1095 win over the session.
The main problem I see is not the predictability (because there are so many players who will pay you off anyway, even if you are tight and predictable), but the habit of always betting your flush draws. Even in a game like this with big pots and lots of players, I doubt that you should bet all of your flush draws on the flop. You should be more inclined to check most of the time, bet occasionally, and raise when you've got the field trapped.
Anyway, reconsider the betting out as the primary way of playing that hand.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
I should have added that Mike probably figured I would bet with a flush draw on the flop IN THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION i.e. where the pre-flop raiser is several players removed from me. That's what I meant by saying that I was being predictable by always betting my flush draws. Of course, if Mike (who was UTG) had been the pre-flop raiser, I would try for a checkraise on the flop rather than betting if I had a flush draw (assuming Mike gets enough callers).
I agree with your point and I can see why you made it after reading my initial post. However, the reality is that I do not always bet my flush draws but I would always do so in the scenario described in my original post. So, I guess I was read by Mike (a good player) to be situationally predictable. Perhaps, you are right: it may not be a huge problem particularly in the game that I play in because most players (unlike Mike) would not be able to determine that I was playing in a situationally predictable manner. The weak players would see that I sometimes check my flush draws and sometimes bet them. But they would not really be analyzing what guided my choice of play. On the other hand, Mike did and correctly deduced that I probably did not make a flush on the turn because I would have bet with a flush draw on the flop GIVEN THAT THE PRE-FLOP RAISER WAS TO MY RIGHT.
Ac9c3d is not the best time to bet a flush draw, since it's an unconnected board, so you aren't sure to gain value on your bet. Players with face card hands will muck, the chance of another flush draw being out there is small, and you'll likely be facing only Ax hands, of which there may only be one or two. If your opponents don't play any ace (since there are seven of them in most probably do) then AK might raise if he puts you on a free card play, and you might be heads-up which is not the situation you want. If they do play any ace, you still are not guaranteed more than 1-2 callers.
Now with your AJ, there's an ace on board, so that leaves only two aces out there. Other than a set, what else would call a bet here? So an expert with a flush draw might check and call the flop.
Mike either has the flush, has a set/two pair or is (semi-)bluffing. Reraising would not be my choice, since you can only beat a bluff. If he has only one high club, he's not folding to a bet.
Dan, I agree with your third paragraph.
On the first two paragraphs, I would agree with your assessment if you were playing with only rational players. In my rather weak game and given the size of the pot ($160 in the pot before the flop), there would be a lot of callers without an ace (for example, players holding a 9 or a 3 or a pocket underpair and sometimes even a hand like 5d6d or 2d4d on the "strength" of a backdoor flush and straight draw). It is exactly for this reason that I normally do bet my flush draws even with an unconnected flop. If I am not met with a raise, I gain valuable information i.e. no one likely has the top card on the flop (in this case an Ace). Suppose I had bet the flop with KcJc, I give myself a lot of outs on the flop: Any club, and perhaps any Ace, King or Jack. Had I checked on the flop, someone else may well bet with say a 9. Of course, I can't then put him on a 9; I would likely put him on an Ace. If I hit a King or Jack on the turn, I would once again be forced to play check and call. In fact, given the size of the pot, I may also be forced to pay off on the river. Generally, I hate playing a check and call game. I would rather lead with the betting. Furthermore, by betting the flop and if I am raised, I can be pretty sure that I am indeed up against an Ace. I can then fold my King on the River (after having missed my flush) with a clear conscience.
However, having said all of that, I do agree with you that there are much better flops with which to semibluff with a flush draw. An Ace high flop is not the best one to do it against given the high likelihood that one of your opponents does have an Ace. However, I would probably still do it to disguise my hand. The fact is that I am going to call even if there is a bet and a raise before the action comes back to me. Now, if I were to call two bets cold with that flop, my opponents would naturally put me on a flush draw. Generally, my thinking is that if I have a hand that is worth calling two bets cold, I have got a hand worth betting.
"$1095 win over the session. "
Wow! Hey, Mister can you spare a dime!
"He had greater conviction in his read and followed through with the capped bet.'
No way! Give me a break! This guy capped expecting you to call not fold! He figured he would get lucky. He had a nut flush draw and a gut straight draw. That's the reason he raised. Not to get you out. He folds the river if his hand doesn't improve. He got lucky without seeing the river. He got lucky beacuase sometimes you (we - me) think TOO much at the poker table. Consequently we are afraid to make a mistake. In this case, from the way, I read your post you may have even been overly infulenced by what others at the table may think of your play! He didn't out play you, my friend, you out played yourself!
"I did not like Mike showing everyone at the table that he had outplayed me."
You better thank him for this! It is probably the driving force that led you to play your "A" game. (May the force always be with you!)
Gee! Now that you mentioned it! I wish I had an "A" game!
SKP - This post is not a personal attack! You know: "I Luv Ya Man!"
Your Poker Posting Buddy! Vince.
skp,
Let's see you were thinking about what Mike had. Mike was thinking about what you had and also was thinking about what you thought he had. He moved his thinking up a level from yours and got the best of the situation.
Tom Haley
"He moved his thinking up a level from yours and got the best of the situation. "
Come on! This guy wasn't thinking at all! He was working off of adreniline! He was gambling! He didn't expect Skp to fold. Not unless Skp frequently plays weakly, which I doubt. Skp read the situation correctly or incorrectly depending on your point of view! He chose to give up based on his altered perception of what the other guy might have. His initial instinct (the guy would have bet with a four flush) was correct and he should have stuck with it! He gave into fear and suffered for it!
Fear: A poker players friend/foe!
Opinion by Vince
Vince,
Don't you ever try and out think your opponents? I honestly believe that Mike took a shot here because he knew that skp didn't have a flush and he knew that skp was suspicious of the raise and made the next re-raise to convince skp. Was it a good play? Probably not in the sense that Mike probably didn't plan on skp's re-raise. However, I do believe that Mike thought about what skp had and thought about what skp thought he, Mike had. If skp would have taken this into account he might have figured out what was going on. In other words if skp would have thought about what Mike thought he, skp, had (what Mike read him for) he probably would have figured this situation out. Instead skp only thought about what Mike had and got lost in the hand (it happens to everyone at one time or another). I'm not sure but I would guess that Mike has seen skp make some quality laydowns (a sign of a good player IMO). I think showing the bluff was a major error by Mike. This applies to what I wrote about with semi-bluffing on the turn. Now when Mike raises on the turn he is going to get paid off a lot more now. However, how many hands will he legitimately by able to raise the turn with? If he doesn't show the bluff everyone will assume he had what he represented and will probably feel comfortable with that assumption. Now Mike can do it again at some other time and probably have a pretty good chance of succeeding. A few pots stolen on the turn with these raises can really add up. Just my opinion Vince as maybe you are right in that I am giving Mike too much credit.
Tom Haley
My guess is that this reponse comes from the real Tom Haley. An imposter couldn't analyze the situation so eloquently. I know that I sound like a know it all. Maybe because I'm so brilliant, I don't know. But, I am one for giving the player the benefit of the doubt. I find a lot of value in your response from the point of view that maybe one should not take a "good play" or just a "good result" for granted. Certainly, Mike could have been thinking as you have stated. He may of been just working on instinct or tilt or adreniline as I think. But your reasoning is the type that will keep one on their toes for the rest of the session or at least until Mike proves to you by other means that he is not the player you gave him credit to be. Consequently, even if I am correct and you are wrong you're finding is much more valuable during a session than mine. Your analysis makes the active player think and protect himself during the session. Apparently Skp was influenced by the belief that he was "outplayed". He then played his "A" game. My analysis may be more valuable in developing the corrrect response the next time a situation like this occurs and thus better thought about via forum discussion.
These discussions are why I joined this forum. I, as you may have noted have or had opinons of the correct way to play poker. When you only discuss your ideas with yourself you begin to believe everything you say to be gospel. It ain't that way!
Thanks to the REAL TOM HALEY!
Vince
Vince,
Your welcome and you are right it is the real me! I do understand where you are coming from about this hand and having good dialog about poker hands in general.
Tom Haley
Tom, nice analysis.
The key here is that Mike held the King of Clubs. He could not and would not have capped the betting on the turn without it.
When I made it three bets on the turn, having the King of Clubs in his hand may have indicated to Mike that:
(a) I have a much weaker holding than what I am representing; or
(b) I have a non-nut flush which I may lay down if he caps it.
Turn the situation around and give me the King of Clubs. For example, let's say that I had bottom pair with the King of Clubs. The betting goes the same way and Mike caps it. I would obviously call with my King high draw but if I missed, I would have no trouble whatsoever calling again on the River. This is because the fact that Mike (a good player) capped it on the turn without holding the King of Clubs would tell me that he may have a much weaker hand than what he is representing.
What Mike did here was take a page out of pot limit poker startegy and put the screws on me because he knew that I was not raising with the nuts on the turn. He further knew that I could not know that he was not raising with the nuts on the turn. Finally, he had position on me which of course is a key factor in these situations.
skp, I actually think you made an excellent play by re-raising in this spot. Tom Haley
The only thing that would concern me here is that your opponent(s) have realized that you're the kind of player that has enough discipline to fold after three betting the turn. I don't know how often you're forced to do this, but as a rule (against opponents with a clue) I would virtually never do this, since it's tantamount to giving other players a free pass to get 'tricky'. If Mike hadn't seen you lay down here before, I doubt he'd have had the cajones to cap the turn.
In other words, get rid of that part of your image- or, if that's impossible, then I'd wait awhile before I folded in that situation again against a good opponent. IMO
guy
To tell you the truth, I can't remember the last time I laid down a hand after making it three bets on the turn. Probably several months ago.
Oh- well then, you've got a repuation as a player with the discipline of laying down, which is just as bad. START PLAYING LOUSY CARDS!!!! :)
I agree with a previous poster who said thinking too much and giving people too much credit can be detrimental. When the raise comes back to you, there is a lot of dead money in the pot. If he raised the turn, he is probably not going to go anywhere.
In most games I play in people dont raise the turn without SOMETHING ( rarely do you see complete bluffs). Even fewer fold the turn after raising. Especially when the raiser has 7 people to bluff out. So he has a draw or a made hand. You are getting 6-1 on a call here and on the river. Call me a calling station, but I would pay to find out whether he is on the draw or whether he is made.
Well said. The error I made was not in folding when Mike capped it. Rather, my error was making it three bets in the first place.
"The error I made was not in folding when Mike capped it."
I won't comment on the three bets but folding here was a mistake!
Opinion by Vince.
"Call me a calling station,"
Hardly!
Vince.
Some tight player, playing KQo UTG in a loose wild game.
Just call the raise and pay it off; if he's going to fold he's only got 3 outs anyway.
The mistake you made was ASSUMING that when you re-raised the opponent is GOING to revert back to playing naturally based on hand value. This is usually the case, but when you run into those who take some convincing then you need to play more conservatively, unless you have to kahoonas to semi-bluff 3 or 4 times in a hand; one more than the opponent. But "strategically" you are better off adapting to such a player: check-and-call a lot more, rather than trying to out power them: re-raise them a lot more.
I suspect your "raise with the nuts" physical pattern is different than your "semi-bluff raise" pattern; and that's what gave KQo bravery.
EXCELLENT not letting the twit get under your skin. You GOTTA tell us HOW to do that.
- Louie
PS. When the twit showed his hand, he is "advertising" and unlikely to do it again.
"the twit"
Where you from bo?
Twits is part o da britis ilses ain't dey mate!
Atttempt at humor!
Vince.
Recently visited San Francisco area and played in a 3-6 hold em game at Casino San Pablo.I usually play 10-20 and 20-40 on the east coast but on Saturday afternoon only 3-6 was open with a long list for 8-16. This game was full with amazing action with many five cap bets.Many pots were 100-200 range and it was very difficult to fold my normal folding hands from higher limits. My question is do you loosen up strictly depending on position or not at all.I have to believe you should loosen up somewhat but hands like 9-10o,Qxs and such should they be played for multiple bets from middle and late position? I ran hot and cold and fluctuated between -100 and +200 for most of the day but never felt comfortable. Regards Jerry
In my humble opinion, in order to beat that game you must make sets and flushes. Therefore you can play pairs and big suited cards from all positions. Hands that do very poorly in that game are the big unsuited cards (KJ, QJ, A10, etc.). Personally, I would play AK unsuited in a raised pot, but I wouldn't be wild about calling a raise with AQ unsuited. I've been having a running debate with a friend of mine who props there about suited connectors. He feels that because so many players will play any suited cards, you can easily see your 87s flush get cracked by 10xs or Jxs. I feel that you can play them, but only in the back (and not for multiple bets). Its not a question of whether you're getting the right pot odds, but rather can they win against 7+ opponents. I must respectfully disagree regarding 10,9 offsuit and Qxs; I don't think they're playable in this type of game. Just my $.02
John
My approach in such games is as follows:
1. Play any pocket pair from any position;
2. Dump off suit big card hands such as QJ, Q10, KQ, KJ, K10, AJ, A10 in early position and of course dump them even in late position if the pot has been raised. I don't mind playing AQ even in early position (I generally raise with it).
3. Play Axs or Kxs suited from anywhere. I would even call a raise so long as there were enough players in the pot.
4. Play Qxs or Jxs in late position (for one bet)
5. Play small suited connectors in late position (for one bet). If there has been no raise, I sometimes raise with these hands in late position if the tendency in the game is to check to the raiser on the flop. The preflop raise can often give you a free card on the flop. This can be huge if for example you flop a backdoor flush draw.
Generally, I play very loose from late position. I play tight from early position with the exception of small pocket pairs and Axs or Kxs (hands which I would normally throw away in a more "sane" game from early position).
As for my raising and reraising requirements preflop, they are probably not much different in a no fold em game as in other games.
As for play on the flop and the turn, I do checkraise in such games more than in other games either to (a) get more money into the pot or (b) limit the field depending on the situation.
While you generally do not have to bother trying to play deceptively (I mean is there anyone paying attention?), I do make some plays (that I would not make in other games) in order to give the illusion of action. For example, I might raise with a hand like 98s under the gun if I believe that I am still going to get several players who will call 2 bets cold. If I don't believe that I will get the required number of callers, I would probably dump the hand rather than play it in early position.
I would also add that one of the biggest errors that I see otherwise good players make in such games is folding marginal hands at the end. No fold 'em games are often populated with habitual bluffers. As well, the pot is usually large enough to justify a call at the end with a hand that you would probably throw away in a more "sane" game.
One further common error: Calling when you should raise on the turn. You will often have to raise with the second best hand on the turn. This is crucial to success in such games.
A final common error: Not taking into account the value of extra outs. For example, if you flop a gutshot draw with a backdoor flush draw and also have an overcard, it might be correct to call two bets cold on the flop (depending on the size of the pot). Many otherwise good players bail out too early in such situations. The irony of it all is that in this regard, the only ones making the correct decisions are the very good players and the clueless ones.
A last but important tip: Your cool will be put to the test in such games. Do not tilt. I do pay heed to Mike Caro's concept and leave the game once I have crossed my threshold of misery in any playing session (I do this by ensuring that I leave my bank card at home and can only lose what I have brought to the cardroom on any given day). Remember that money saved on a losing night is as good as money won on a winning night.
All of the above is of course just my opinion.
I think the Kxs from early position is a very iffy proposition. One of the major advantages with the Axs is that, should you flop a flush draw, you 'probably' have twelve outs as opposed to nine. While this is sometimes true w/ the K, an A on the flop obviously ruins this extra out. Fruther, split two pair w/ Axs has a better chance of holding up than a split two pair w/ a K.
In short, I don't think that any hand has +EV if you're just crossing your fingers and hoping for a flush draw (not that you're doing this, but to make a point...), and in a loose game, where you might chase w/ a low pair high kicker, I'd much rather have the A kicker than the K. In short, the better redraws possible w/ the Axs make this a far superior hand to the Kxs, IMO. (My view may also be jaundiced by the fact that I've endured some of my most savage beats with the wily suited king, so I recognize that my analysis here is probably based on little more than anecdotal evidence. Still, I think the suited K's are usually duds.)
GD, I agree with your comments except perhaps this one:
"In a loose game, where you might chase w/ a low pair high kicker, I'd much rather have the A kicker than the K".
In my experience, the Ace has a high propensity to make someone else an even better hand. To take an example, if the flop is 973 rainbow, I would rather be in there with a K3s instead of A3s because if I hit an Ace, the chances of someone holding A9 or A7 are much greater than the chances of someone making a better two pair when a King hits (and I hold K3s). (BTW, This is also the reason that when calling solely on the strength of two overcards, I prefer to do so with a hand like J10 or KQ instead of AK or AQ but that's another topic).
One other advantage of playing Kxs over Axs is that you are less likely to run into kicker trouble when you do flop top pair. This is because many players play any Ace while they would not play any King. Thus, you are probably in better shape (relatively speaking) if the flop is K98 and you hold K2s versus a flop of A98 when you hold A2s.
I am not saying that Kxs is better than Axs (I did raise it as a point to consider in a thread I started a few months ago entitled "Can K6s be better than A6s?"). All I am saying is that in some situations, Kxs can be better than Axs even though intuitively that sounds impossible.
You know, I thought about that very point after I posted that message, and I have to say I agree with you. Another problem with the suited A is that often, in a no fold 'em game, you're playing against a real passive field, in which case you'll be betting your weak A for someone who's holding a better A.
One more point about the suited K- if you do end up in a 'chasing' situation, I've found that there's a greater chance that, should I hit a K, there's a greater chance that it'll make someone a straight than an A. This is because so many people (in the kind of game we're speaking of) will play any two paints in any postion, regardless of whether or not they're suited, and have no problem with playing hands like AJo, Q9o and ATo, etc. from any position, where they're less likely to play unsuited wheel cards (although even this is no sure bet).
skp,
I was ready to go with the flow on the Kxs hands but after reading your 7:33 p.m. response I want to check out that old thread concerning Kx suited versus Ax suited. Did you mention the month?
I do think you are a little too tight on the small suited connectors (I would also add one gappers). I believe they can be played for a raise as long as you are getting about five or more opponents. Of course you are really hoping for the straight.
Note that I also haven't completely read the old posts concerning small flushes and how vulnerable they are to Qxs and Jxs which are played in these super loose games by your opponents. If you think I'm wrong (perhaps based on this) let me know.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I believe the old thread was in November or December. I tried to tap into the Archives a few minutes ago but couldn't access it.
As for suited connectors, I should mention that I do play them in early position in loose passive games and tend to dump them in loose aggressive games. The reason for this is that I stand a better chance of buying the pot with a bluff or perhaps winning the pot with just one pair in a loose passive game as compared to its more aggressive counterpart.
Same deal with calling a raise with such hands (and one gap suited hands). I do call if I anticipate 5 or more players in the pot and if the game is generally passive after the flop.
"I stand a better chance of buying the pot with a bluff or perhaps winning the pot with just one pair in a loose passive game as compared to its more aggressive counterpart."
Could you please explain further the above statement? Why do you think that you are more likely to win with just a pair in a loose passive game as compared to a loose aggressive game? Both are loose. If anything, you should win more often with just a pair in an aggressive game, with less calling stations.
Suppose I play 98s from early position and the flop is something like 4,8,K with a two flush. My chances of winning the hand are much greater in a loose passive game because I may be allowed the opportunity to hang around to see the turn and river where I might get lucky and hit or where I end up having the best hand without any improvement. For example, the betting may get checked through on the river if no one has made anything.
Furthermore, in a loose passive game, I may even bet on the flop with my hand and I may not be raised (even by someone holding a King) This then would allow me to keep driving on the turn (if a harmless looking card hits) and I may go on to draw out on my opponent on the river.
On the other hand, if I am in a loose aggressive game, I would be more inclined to check on the flop. Then, there may be a bet and a raise behind me causing me to muck my hand.
I guess what I am saying is that in a loose aggressive game I will often have to fold a marginal holding on the flop or turn (even if it is actually the best hand at that point)because of the threat of action behind me. In a loose passive game, I can take command of the betting and take my marginal holding and turn it into a threat to my opponents.
As we all know, "check and call" poker is not winning poker. Betting and raising is winning poker. The latter I can do much more freely (even with marginal holdings) in a passive game.
Too, the suited connectors can stand a raise from mid-late position (if there are enough players) where IMO a suited A or K generally can't since there's real good chance that the raise indicates these latter two holdings are dominated.
skp - A good thoughtful post.
I just have one quibble. Per your #3, I question whether your potential profit is great enough to justify calling a raise, or simply flat calling early in an active game, with Axs. Basically, the only thing you are looking for is a flush, with the 2-pair and trip hands occurring rarely.
[One of the leaks in my game which I hopefully have plugged was chasing when I started with A2s and flopped an Ace.]
Your chance of making a flush starting with 2 cards is about 5% (I think a simulator gives about 7% but the practical odds if you fold with a backdoor flush on the flop becomes 5%). Therefore, for a $3 small bet, you need to foresee a potential profit of about $60 to make this a good investment. So far so good; lots of pots get bigger than $60. But if you have to invest $6, my same calculation results in the need to predict a $120 profit to make it a good bet. And that is a lot for a $3-6 game.
Am I being too conservative? I play in a very loose, usually passive $3-6 game myself, and I certainly play these hands, for one bet.
Dick in Phoenix
IMO, the suited A is one of the most over-rated starting hands in HE (this is not a response to skp's post, which I think is excellent, but rather a remark on HE hands in general). That said, one of the reasons Axs is usually ranked as high as it is is because you find many situations after the flop where it is profitable to chase (i.e, you flop bottom pair with top kicker and three to a flush). If you're just looking to get hit by the flop, Axs is a money burner- but if you can 'pick your spots' after the flop where chasing will make you money, Axs will turn a profit.
In other words, Axs isn't considered a quality starting hand simply because of the flops it can hit, but because of the number of flops that it can chase after. Also, when you do flop a four flush you usually have 12 outs as opposed to just nine.
GD - Your point is excellent, and for the game I play in, you might have just talked me out of playing Axs. My game is very loose, usually passive, and the average number of players seeing the flop is 5-6, and then most of them will pay 1 more small bet to see the turn even with complete garbage.
In this game, I do not want to pay good money to chase after a hand that I hope will end up 2 pair. That is just not good enough to beat the small straights etc. that these loose players come up with. I can see that for you guys playing in tougher games, when you more often get heads up, A22 is a much better hand to play.
My "basic strategy" for this game (adjustable at the table depending on who exactly is there) already says, don't play the Category 6 high-card hands at all, and usually don't play KJo (Cat. 5) either, because there are always too many players in to make a high card hand good. [BTW, I have never observed any player tighter than me. That sums up my strategy.]
Opinions? Given that I don't usually want to pursue A22 after the flop, should I just not ever play Axs ??
Dick in Phoenix
Dick-
Please don't let me talk you out of playing Axs. IMO this is a profitable hand in middle-late position, but only if you can identify 'good' chasing situations and semi-bluff situations.
Who over rates it Axs. It is a disater waiting to happen. even from the button. (where you cant call if first in , but have to raise.) Staying away from Axs is a money saver of huge proportions. now if i could only convince myself of this...
You don't need that much money, because sometimes an ace is going to be good when it lands on the flop. Sometimes you will make a wheel. Sometimes the flop will be 22x. Sometimes you'll hit an ace on the flop and split the pot with a bigger ace. Sometimes you'll play your flush draw and miss, but ace high will win the pot. Sometimes you'll win the pot with a bluff. Etc.
If you can play this hand well and know when to get out when its beaten (but more importantly know when it's the best and play it strongly), then it's very profitable in a loose game.
Dan
Dan-
I (kind of) agree, but only if a) you're opponents are the type that will raise when they have top pair/ something other than top kicker, and b) most of the players behind you will raise pre-flop if they're going to play an ace. Otherwise, Axs is a doomed hand.
The way I've mapped it out, the (made) flush draws with Axs make this hand just about break-even. Therefore, you've got to know how to play this hand when you flop top pair, and you've got to know when to chase when you flop bottom/mid pair. This is where the money is with the suited ace. Now, if your opponents are really passive, you'll never know whether your top pair on the flop is good, or whether by chekcing you're giving a free card to mid pair or a straight/flush draw. In early position you are playing Axs in the dark, and it's damn hard to figure out where you're at in an unraised pre-flop pot- and with passive players (when you're in early position) this can be very hard to do.
IMO this hand is over-rated up front. True, you may flop the four flush or trips, but the more likely scenerio is a flop like As 9c 3s, you're early and bet, three callers and the button raises. Where are you? The players in between you could have A's, or flush draws, or some other goofy holding, while the button could have an A either better or worse than yours, or be betting a flush draw for value, and so on and so on, ad nauseum....
If you can figure out where your at here (or at least come close) then I guess the Axs is a hand worth playing up front. But IMExperience putting people on hands in loose no fold' em games is pretty much a crapshoot- thus, I stay away from Axs early.
If you were in a completely passive game, and one in which everyone called any time they held an ace, then if you flop an ace as top pair you're about a 1.6-1 favorite to have the only ace. That means if no one ever raised with their ace and just blindly called to the river, you'd still make money with it every 100 times you flopped top pair (aside from people making two pair or other better hands, which is another issue). In the real world, you can do better than that, since there are times when you will be given the evidence to lay it down, and if you are more agressive than the other players you'll make more money with it when you're the best than they will if they are. And of course, even real fish usually don't play any Ace, meaning that if you do flop top pair with your Ace in a typical game you're better than 2-1 to have the only top pair, and in an average game where people need their Ace to be suited or with a reasonably large card, you're in even better shape.
Top pair is always a good starting hand in Holdem, and having an ace as top pair is always profitable, IMO. In other words, if you gave me A2, and put me against 9 opponents with random cards and played 100 hands where the flop has an Ace and two other cards, I'm going to make a lot of money.
Dan
Excellent point. However, assuming the flush draws basically pay for themselves (a big assumption, but I think it's at least pretty close) but no more, than the money's got to come from playing top pair and chasing.
You'll flop the flush draw 11 times out of a hundred, which leaves us with 89 hands. Remember, that's 89 small bets (if you haven't had to call a single pre-flop raise) that we have to make up. Now, of those you'll flop an A roughly 15 percent of the time. The question is, just how much of those 89 bets to we have to make up with these 15 hands? I'm guessing 4 per hand (that brings us to 60), with the other 29 being 'made up for' by chasing w/ low pair, backdoor draws, etc. OR flopping a monster (22x in the case of A2s, or top pair with the four flush). Two aces on the flop won't do you much good, since you've probably crippled the deck.
I have absolutely no idea if the above numbers are correct. But, assuming they're in the ballpark, I think it's damn hard to 'count on' making four small bets on average everytime you flop and A.
I'd like to hear your take on this, particularly where you think my number are off. I think the above paints a crude but relatively accurate picture, but I'm not sure....
Guy
he game really does have to be very loose and very passive in order to play it up front. Most players have trouble backing off this hand when the game tightens up.
Anyway, as I write I'm running Mike Caro's Poker probe with As 2s versus Ah Tc and eight other random opponents (a new hand is dealt for each of the million hands analyed). Of course this is just a run out but it may add a little to this excellent thread.
OK, results are in. I don't know how to paste from DOS but after one million hands, As2s won 10.76% of the time which is slightly above average. AHTc won 11.58% of the time which was of course best. The random hands won from 9.70% of the time to 9.78% of the time which shows that even in a big sample, there is quite a bit of varience.
Given this senario, it does seem that the A2s suited will get creamed when the other Ace is out. I wonder if money made on flushes makes up for this. It seems that you really would have to play well in order to do so.
Regards,
Rick
Sure, if another Ace is out and you just blindly play to the river, A2 is in big trouble. But your results are skewed, because you're starting with AT, which is a pretty good Ace, and can make a straight as well. If we were to limit our opponents to just an Ace with a big card like a ten or above, then many of the other Aces dealt out will be folded before the flop, and our chance of having the only Ace goes way up.
And in real life, you're not going to blindly check and call all the way to the river with this hand. You need to be able to play it at least reasonably well.
Let me give you an example of a game where Axs is NOT playable in early position (and in fact is rarely playable at all): A regular 15-30 game I play in is very tough, with mostly good players. A typical scenario for each hand is that the players will all fold until we get to someone with big cards, who will raise and attack the blinds. Most pots are two-way, or three-way. The occasional 4 or 5 handed pot only happens because there are 5 very good hands out there. Mixed in with this is the odd person who will slow-play AK by not raising before the flop, and people who routinely limp in with hands like AQ or AJ if there are already callers.
In this game, playing Axs up front is a losing play. The most likely scenario is that you are going to be raised by someone behind you, or someone will just call with a bigger Ace. You almost never get enough callers to make just the flush draw profitable, and if you get any action on the flop when you hit an Ace you're probably dominated. In addition, if you hit an ace on the flop another player with an ace may play it deceptively and force you to pay him off all the way.
These are the types of games S&M are referring to when they talk about folding Axs in early and middle position, I believe.
In contrast, a game where people routinely call up front with hands like 89, TJ, 97s, etc., and where there are usually 5 or more callers is much more reasonable for Axs, and in a game like this, if there isn't a lot of pre-flop raising, I believe Axs can be played profitably from any position.
Dan
Dan,
Of course I agree that if you blindly call to the end, you are not simulating real game conditions. However, in an unraised pot, it is tough to let go of top pair (when it is an ace) unless the board and action are scary.
I also agree with the criteria under which it is playable and unplayable. The problem is that in L.A., game conditions often change quickly. Here even the better players do not adapt quickly enough and will continue to play when some of the loose players are walking or have left the table.
Since the hand may be pretty marginal UTG even under better game conditions, top players should get in the habit of dumping it up front unless they have a good reason not to and also pay close attention to the lineup as it fluctuates.
You are right about AT offsuit. I will rerun the simulation with A9 offsuit and see what happens.
The results are (for what it is worth): As2s wins 10.85% of the time. Ah9c wins 9.30% of the time. The random hands win between 9.96% to 10.03% of the time.
Regards,
Rick
Dan, Thank you for a lot of thoughtful posts on this subject.
The game I play in is extremely loose and passive; I would venture to say that almost everybody will stay for a single pre-flop bet holding any ace. So there is a "principle of restricted choice" in trying to decide if there is another ace out if you flop one ace. You need to consider all 8 opponents, not just the ones that stayed, to calculate the odds.
Help me with your calculation of the 1.6-to-1 odds that an ace is not out. I get more like 1-to-1, calculated as follows. The chance that one hand has an ace is about 8% ( 2/47 * 44/46 * 2 ). Then I get the chance that an ace is NOT out as (1 - .08) to the eighth power, which is 50.7%.
I have one further difficulty in my game trying to play well after flopping the ace. Most of the players in this game, holding second pair if it is reasonably big (e.g., flop AQx), will not only call but often bet it for value. (They generally don't raise with it, but sometimes will call a raise.) What this means to me is that they look like they have an ace, by the way they are playing; they would play an ace with a medium kicker about the same way. This characteristic makes it hard for me to read their hands.
Comments?
Dick in Phoenix
If you are looking at two out of the four aces between your hand and the board, I get the chance that none of the other 8 players was dealt an ace to be: 31c2/47c2 = 465/1081 = 43%. So there is a 57% chance that one of the other players *was* dealt an ace. Then you get into the questions of what are the chances that they would have folded that ace preflop, what are the chances that you have them outkicked, etc.
Note: XcY is my notation for X choose Y, the number of ways to choose Y objects out of X.
Dave - I agree with your result. I got there in a similar manner (using your notation) - all possible sets of 16 cards in the hands out there is 47c16, and all sets of 16 which do not include an ace is 45c16, and 45c16 / 47c16 is 43%.
For those readers who have not studied probability, the number of combinations of N things taken K at a time [my notation is C(N,K)] is equal to
C(N,K) = N! / ( K! * (N-K)! )
where N! is N factorial, = N*(N-1)*...*2*1.
I figured out the error of my ways. I calculated the odds for 8 independent 2-card hands. But since this sampling is done "without replacement," they are not independent, with the odds of each subsequent hand having an ace going up slightly from the previously sampled hand. I won't tell you right now in this post what I do for a living, but suffice it to say that I am embarrassed to make an error like this.
Dick in Phoenix
The way I generally handle this is to bet out on the flop, and if either a) a maniac or b) a crafty late position player raises, then I call and bet out again on the turn. If I'm raised again, well, I'm probably sunk. If I'm ahead then in all likelihood the other player(s) will either fold (which is fine) or simply call, in which case I can usually check down the river (if need be- if it looks like there's a busted flush out there than I'll bet it, since it looks like you may be bluffing). This isn't always the way to go, but it's worked fairly well for me so far. Of course, there's always the possiblity that you'll get called on the turn by a better hand (or a hand that draws out on you), but even then you'll often get to check down the river.
This 'stop and go' play, as first officially documented by Al Raiseya many months ago, is a real dandy- I use it alot. Not only does it confuse your opponents, but since it's the kind of play generally used by novices it also has the effect of making you look like a rookie. Further, once your opponents have seen it a few times, and undestand that your bet on the turn doesn't mean that you were slowplaying or that the turn improved you, hands like A good kicker will pop it again, in which case you can fold with a clear conscious (unless the board is something like A K 4 4, in which case you're probably tied). Of course, some opponents will raise you on the turn as a semi-bluff, but IMExperience there're few players out there at the lower limits who have the savvy to raise on both the flop and turn with a hand that's still drawing.
GD,
Al started the thread (or he was at least above me in it - I'm just copying the following post header from my MS Word archives) and it can be found as follows:
"betting into the raiser on the turn - Posted by al raiseya on Thursday, 21 January 1999, at 12:28 a.m."
BTW, I would like to get credit for first posting the term "stop and go" just below Al's post although I did in fact hear this term from a long time L.A. area prop.
Regards,
Rick
Simple answer: I screwed up. I took the number out of my head because I had worked a similar problem the night before in Omaha, but the situation was different. The numbers posted below look correct, and they make it a little more precarious for A2, but I don't think they change the overall conclusion. If I get some time after tonight's game I'll put together some probability tables for another Ace being out based on more typical calling requirements by loose/tight players.
Sorry for the confusion, guys.
Dan
GD,
I agree with you on the general theme of your post.
Regarding A2s, you also wrote: "IMO this hand is over-rated up front. True, you may flop the four flush or trips, but the more likely scenerio is a flop like As 9c 3s, you're early and bet, three callers and the button raises. Where are you?"
Obviously, you have a tough decision. I believe this is a hand that you may want to check the flop with and see what happens. Fold to a lot of action. Call if a freguent bluffer bets and most fold. Check raise an over-agressive late position better. Be happy if no one bets the flop and a not too scary card comes on the turn.
Regards,
Rick
One more BTW: Turbo Texas Hold'em software vastly over-rates Axs and even Ax unsuited. Down to about A7s, it thinks it is a power hand, and the advisor is always telling me I should raise preflop, in any position! If anyone from Wilson Software follows this forum, you should revise the advisor's and the players' control tables. Read all of this correspondence; this is not a strong hand.
Dick in Phoenix
You are very correct about the need to call on the river with a marginal hand. For example, in the 4-8 game I play in near San Diego, agaimst quite a few of the players it is often correct to call on the river with a hand that can beat what was second pair on the flop. For example, I recently went to to river with unimproved pocket fours against a mad raiser, because the flop came QQ3. The pair of fours held up against her J3 suited.
Larry
On a recent trip to AC, I had a long run of either unplayable hands or hands which became unplayable due to the flop. This continued for about 5 hours. When I finally began to pick up playable hands, I noticed that I got very little action, particularly from the local pros. In response, I began to play much more agressively then I usually do and seemed to dominate the table with what I believe to be generally inferior hands. This trend continued to hold up the next day when I played at a table with several of the same players. The game was a 10/20 Holdem Table at the Taj.
I am going to retire shortly and hope to spend much of my time playing poker. While I respect the ability of the Alantic City pros to accurately identify someone's style of play, my question is: " Would it be worthwhile to play very conservatively over the first several months of my retirement in the hopes that the locals will lable me as a rock?" My experience is that once you gain a certain reputation, it takes a lot of evidence to the contrary before people are willing to change their minds.
Thanks Al
I would adjust over a shorter time period. If you end up in a hand drought and notice that you are not getting action start stealing. If you are getting a long run of good hands bet more for value. I don't think the value you will get out of being perceived as a rock for a short period by the regulars (not your profit center anyways) will pay for itself when you decide to cash in.
"On a recent trip to AC, I had a long run of either unplayable hands or hands which became unplayable due to the flop."
"This continued for about 5 hours."
So when did you have the long run before or after this short five hour session?
"I noticed that I got very little action, particularly from the local pros."
A good player will adjust to your play! Once he gets a read on your starting hand requirements he (BTW He refers to both sexes here) will begin to play against you when he believes he has you beaten.
"I began to play much more agressively then I usually do and seemed to dominate the table"
This is extremely important to winning poker. But don't for a minute believe that poker pros don't know how to deal with players that are trying to dominate their game. My guess is that you will be lulled into playing over aggressively if you are not careful. A natural occurance that occurs when one experiences limited success with an unsound concept!
"While I respect the ability of the Alantic City pros to accurately identify someone's style of play,"
If they are pro's then by definition they are successful! Don't be afraid of them but by all means don't play them for fools.
"Would it be worthwhile to play very conservatively over the first several months of my retirement in the hopes that the locals will lable me as a rock?""
My advice is to play conservatively forever and ever! Pro's have a way of adjusting their play to the way that you are playing at the moment not the way you played yesterday or for the last six months. Although, because of your image, they may defer from entering a game you are in , especially if they don't like the rest of the field.
Opinion by Vince
1.How can someone make a living at 10/20??(or are they semi pros or 40/80 players moving dowm.)
2.If you are retiring why play w/ pros at all. you will have 24 hours of 7 days to choose when to play. why not play just when there are only weak players in a game??
3.You should play based on a standard set of criteria:the style that you are most comfortable with measured against the lineup at the table and your seat (ever so key, sometimes more important than the table itself)
4.Why cant you get them to just respect your play period:as unpredicatble, clever, intuitive etc.
4. good luck
4.
Those are some good points, except that I disagree with #1. People can make a living at 10/20. Unlike 20/40 where you play against exactly the same people day after day except for the occasional weekend player, 10/20 is like a new crowd every day. Most of the time it plays like 5/10 or 4/8 or 3/6. You don't have to worry about image or fancy plays. I know that you can make a living at this level of play.
Do NOT advertise for several MONTHS.
You will only "fool" a couple players/game, and they are much more likely to remember you last two weeks of overly aggressive in position play than the previous months of weak-tight.
Weak-tight advertising can be accomplished with a single HAND, such as calling on the button with AK, flop an Ace, JUST calling somebody down, and checking on the end. And this will "fool" the tourists, where your money comes from. It really is OK if a couple players know EXACTLY how you play.
But the style you chose because of your ROCK image seems to be the superior one: very selective, but routinely betting and raising. If they are sure you don't have 3rd pair due to your selectivity, they WILL SQUIRM when you bet at them, even if they know you may have just a draw.
- Louie
Thanks for advise. I think the message is that good players will not be fooled for long, if at all, and I should concentrate on just trying to play good solid poker. Incidently I am not trying to be a pro. Playing poker is just something that I enjoy a lot, but I do believe that deception is part of the game.
Thanks, Al
Our friend Michael in his article "how many raises without the nuts" described the following situation:
you have AJ in the small blind. Four people see the flop.
The flop is J 9 3. You bet and you get two callers.
The turn is a 7. You check and the button bets.
In Michael's article the suits were of importance but let's assume a rainbow board and let's concentrate on the following statement concerning the guy on the button: "the guy is not much of a bluffer so I put him on a straight or minimum two pair".
The pot now contains 4.5 big bets and, even if we assume that the other player will call, your pot odds are at best 1 to 5.5.
You have (at best assuming that the button has 97) 11 outs but at worse you may be drawing dead. In addition likely such a player has two pairs with the Jack (J 9 or J7s) in which case you are drawing very thin (only 3 outs).
Mathematically I see a fold if the statement regarding "at least two pair" is correct. However, I have never folded top pair with ace kicker for a single bet on the turn and I wonder if you can help me support my action using a well founded analysis. Or maybe you can argue that I am wrong or you may argue that the statement regarding "at least two pair" has only 70% value.
As I told you: I would *never* fold AJ in that situation even if the pot was giving me only 1 to 4.5 pot odds assuming that the other player had already passed either out of turn or he was acting before me in a slightly modified similar situation.
Thank you,
Maria
Gambling Theory and Strategy Forum - Poker is maintained with WebBBS 2.24.
Copying from my notes I mistyped:
Read: you have at best 8 outs.
3 for an Ace 2 for a Jack 3 for a 3
"the guy is not much of a bluffer so I put him on a straight or minimum two pair".
This statement has a little value in evaluating your play! The part of the statement that is important is "not much of a bluffer".
The flop is J 9 3. You bet and you get two callers.
The turn is a 7.
Wouldn't "not much of a bluffer" just call the flop with JT, or Q,J or even K,J and then when it's checked to him bet out. I think so! These are certainly very possible hands for this type of player.
A bet on fourth street is clearly the correct play in this situation! Check this!
Vince.
BTW - "I have never folded top pair with ace kicker for a single bet on the turn"
You've never run into a four flush/straight on the turn that you folded top pair w/best kicker against! Be careful because if you run into this situation (again or for the first time) you may want to consider folding! It's very dangerous!
Opinion by Vince
Dear Vince:
I have clearly stated that we have a rainbow situation.
My related comment is: "I will not fold if the board is rainbow and only an inside three straight is showing for a single bet from the button on the turn even if the pot has only 4.5 big bets when it comes to me provided that I have top pair top kicker".
Would you fold? Can you be so certain about reading the opponent and fold on that spot. I cannot. Is it my mistake? I hope not but I feel uncomfortable about *predictability*.
Maria
"Would you fold?"
No. Nor, did I say that you were wrong!
"Can you be so certain about reading the opponent and fold on that spot."
No. Nor do I believe anyone else can!
"I cannot. Is it my mistake?"
No, nor did I imply that it was!
My BTW comment focused on the use of the word "never". I don't believe in absolutes when discussing poker and sometimes I get carried away and to technical. I believe your analysis was correct and apologize If I implied otherwise!
Vince
Ouf! You got me worried Vince.
Thank you for the reassurance.
I know that I play somewhat loose and I have high variance but that was too close to my basic strategy and I do not want to have basic flaws :).
Have a nice day.
Maria
"I know that I play somewhat loose and I have high variance"
Like, who doesn't? It's the only way to have fun at poker. Other than winning of course!
Vince.
Vince wrote:
"Wouldn't "not much of a bluffer" just call the flop with JT, or Q,J or even K,J and then when it's checked to him bet out. I think so! These are certainly very possible hands for this type of player."
In addition, what if this player had A9 or K9. Wouldn't a call on the flop be likely and now a bet on the turn? If this is accurate, it seems as if a check raise might be a better play than just calling.
"In addition, what if this player had A9 or K9."
Mason, I somewhat agree that these are possible hands for this guy. But I read "not much of a bluffer" as not very aggressive also. I just don't believe he would bet these two hands. If I thought he would bet then the "check raise" is by far the superior strategy. My main arguement was with the check and fold strategy. I believe betting was more correct. But if I thought he would tend to bet inferior hands I would vote for a check raise try.
Opinion by Vince.
What am I missing? Top pair with top kicker? Why would you check? And what button is playing 9-7 under the stated circumstances?
Right now I'm too tired to write what I really wanted to write but I read a post on RPG that Abdul Jalib wrote that is dangerously incorrect. I will write it tonight. In the mean time will Tom Haley's imposter stop using his name and try to be original and use someone elses!
Mason's letter to the Bellagio which he posted on the exchange forum got me thinking and looking back at my results from two different structures that I play in which are similar limits but very different blind structures.
1. 4-8 where the sb is 2 and the bb is 4. I do terrible in this game. Over 33 hours, I can't turn a profit. I am down about $130. I think I am defending my blinds too much and not playing the right starting hands. Possibly this is because I keep thinking "When the blinds or antes are large in proportion to the limits, you should loosen up." Maybe I am thinking this too much and playing too loose.
2. 2-5-10-10 where the sb is 1 and bb is 2. I do pretty well in this game, especially when the game is passive. I can play all my starting drawing hands for 2 and toss if the 5 raise is made. This makes life easy on most decisions. I don't really defend my blinds at all in this game. Unlike the 4-8 game where a raise is 1:1 with the bb, the raise is 2.5:1 in this game. It really makes a difference.
My problem is that I have a problem with the structure of the 4-8 game, which is more like the structure of the bigger games. I want to move up soon, but I am scared because of this above comparison, any tips?
2: passive low-ante games are great: they pay to draw against you, but you often draw for free.
1: the 4-8 with 2/4 blinds is the STANDARD game; the one HPFAP is written. Stick as close to the starting hands in their.
I suspect the more experienced and aggressive players you find has you intimidated. Notice I didn't say "better". Even bad experienced players can and do take advantage of intimidation.
Its harder to play in the standard games. Play 4/8 when it looks good, otherwise play 2-5. You will ease into a comfort zone.
- Louie
Thank you for the response, it helped clear my head.
Tight games:
Abdul:"In tight games after 3 limpers, AQ and AK are the only offsuit hands you can play, and raising is best. 99% of "tight" players make huge mistakes by calling with hands like KJ offsuit on the button after several tight limpers. AJ and KQ can and do limp, and these are a large fraction of the hands played by tight players, so this is the main reason KJ is unplayable. They will limp with AQ too, and for sure one of those players has an ace, so KQ becomes unplayable, apparently. And yet you can call with lots of suited trash, like T8s and Q9s."
HFAP: The weaker your opponents are, the more hands you can play. Be more inclined to play marginal hands against poorer players.
In a tight game with a tight limpers in from early position, should I tend to avoid limping in late position with weaker offsuit hands KQ/KJ/QJ/JT?
Loose games:
Abdul:"The exact breakoff points may be wrong, and in fact they are wrong because every situation is different. But the general principles are likely legit. In multiway pots it's likely true that with respect to playing on the button after 5 limpers:
* In a loose game, you should build a pot with big suiteds, suited connectors, and pocket pairs 66 and up.
* Weak offsuits are no good unless they are likely to be best, in which case you should raise to punish dominated hands."
Mason on raising on the button in a fishy game with 87s: "This means that I would never raise in this situation with this type of hand. I won't be manipulating anyone into making the kind of mistake I would like them to make on a later round if I happen to get a lucky flop. They will make this mistake anyway, and why should I be charged for it?"
If your opponents will play too loose after the flop irrespective of the pot size, it is not necessary to trick them into playing loose through a negative-EV play.
So which hands should be raised on the button in a game with players who play too many hands and take them too far?
When should you raise with offsuit hands in a very loose game to "punish dominated hands"?
(I'm assuming that their play won't be significantly altered by the raised pot and that they don't automatically check to the raiser.)
Iceman -- just as a reference, you may recall a thread on September 17, 1998 titled "Axs and Kxs -- Are They Worth It?" In that thread Abdul discussed the same issues you mention under "tight game", with a few other informative comments. Mason responded with some helpful advice which kind of rounded out the discussion. You participated in the thread, but I wanted to remind you of it just in case... A couple of additional comments:
>>Tight games:
Abdul:"In tight games after 3 limpers, AQ and AK are the only offsuit hands you can play, and raising is best. 99% of "tight" players make huge mistakes by calling with hands like KJ offsuit on the button after several tight limpers. AJ and KQ can and do limp, and these are a large fraction of the hands played by tight players, so this is the main reason KJ is unplayable. They will limp with AQ too, and for sure one of those players has an ace, so KQ becomes unplayable, apparently. And yet you can call with lots of suited trash, like T8s and Q9s."
HFAP: The weaker your opponents are, the more hands you can play. Be more inclined to play marginal hands against poorer players.<<
Nothing really contradictory here so far. The HPFAP comment about weak players is certainly true, but in this case, even if they are weak-tight you have to balance it with basic hand strength considerations. As an extreme example, you may want to play some extra hands against a really weak tight player, but if you strongly suspect he's limping in with AA, or KK you obviously have to fold.
Situational variables should play a big role here too, sometimes leading you to play differently from how the pure simulation data would dictate. e.g., I believe Abdul's sims suggested that even if it's just one tight limper, you should fold KJ. But I think that if he's very predictable and you know that he'll check and fold if he doesn't connect with the flop, or can easily be bluffed, or is very easy to read... then you can play the KJ profitably. I'd like others' input on this, but it seems right to me.
Once you have that string of several tight limpers, it does seem quite reasonable to be folding all but some very strong offsuit hands (playing pairs and many suited hands). But I should add that such a string of tight limpers seems like something I don't encounter very often. Usually someone raises when a string of tight players does play. But of course it can happen.
>>Loose games:
[...] If your opponents will play too loose after the flop irrespective of the pot size, it is not necessary to trick them into playing loose through a negative-EV play.
So which hands should be raised on the button in a game with players who play too many hands and take them too far?<<
Well, certainly big suited cards and big pairs.
When should you raise with offsuit hands in a very loose game to "punish dominated hands"?
Tough question. As you know, Abdul it grappling with this in that RGP thread right now. He has some insightful if undecided comments about it. I've long been in that camp that says just call with the AQo, for example, behind a bunch of loose limpers. That way they won't all just check to you and call (correctly or nearly so) on the flop. Someone will probably bet allowing you to raise and thin the field. But I see you're talking about players who are *not* expected to be influenced by pot size or to check to the raiser. That makes it trickier. Certainly that bigger pot will make their subsequent calls (with hands that aren't drawing near dead) more correct, but what will be your overall EV one way vs the other? Uhm, I think I'll let someone else take it from here. (But in most games I think they *do* check to the raiser. In my game they do it to check-*raise* you. :))
John Feeney
If I could play hold-em and Omaha on-line and avoid driving, fatigue, wasted trips to card room because game too full or too weak, it would be great...If places like Planet Poker are for real and not just running a cheesy scam, seems like some winning players in cardrooms would have success stories from their experiences with online card rooms.
So...have any of you logged wins and collected your winnings successfully from Online cardrooms? How do win rates and house drops compare with live games? How do they handle it when server glitch boots you in mid-hand (and similar type aggravations). Do the dealers make faces if you don't toke? Thanks...
I have played about 300 hours at all limits 3/6, 5/10 & 10/20. and have won over $2,100. Most of my play has been at the 5/10 and this is where most of my win has come from. I don't like the 3/6 because its like any casino where you have no idea what anyone has and it gets frustrating trying to adjust to the game. The 5/10 and 10/20 games are tougher yet beatable.
I know every post I've read on two plus two bashes any form of online poker because of the ability to collude via online chatting and perhaps other ways.
So far, I havent noticed a negative effect on my results.
I realize that there is a risk of collusion, but for someone like me who is from Texas and doesnt have access to any legal poker I find several benefits. The following is my list of pros, I'll let everyone else bring up the cons(ps, these are not in any particular order):
1. I dont have to drive anywhere
2. I can play in the comfort of my home, lying down on the couch(even while on the crapper....if u have a laptop...hahaha-just jokin)
3. Dont have to tip a dealer
4. No smoking
5. No tipping of cocktail waitresses
6. No hotel or travel expenses
7. No one can read my facial expressions
8. I can record my hands perfectly and review my play
9. I can record other peoples play
10. I can read and/or watch tv
11. It keeps my game sharp, hey if I can beat a game consistently where collusion and cheating is occurring(if it is???) How mmuch better can I do at a live poker room.
12. I can play while working(talk about helping your patience!)
13. I can play while cleaning the house, cooking dinner, tamking a luch break, heck, just about anytime, anyplace!
By the way, I have no affiliation whatsoever with PP, I just really enjoy playing there and how easy it is at virtually anytime.
For what its worth, I spoke to Phil Helmuth online while we were in the same game, he said he wasnt worried about collusion and felt the game was safe to play. He said he was in the process of setting up his own poker website.
There are some drawbacks that trace does not mention, with the biggest one (I think) not being able to read tells and gaining no 'real-life' poker experience. I have heard of people that only played on-line games and did poorly in live tournament play due to the above disadvantage. There are some advantages with on-line poker, but I personally enjoy the feeling and comeraderie (spelling?) of live games.
What is the realistic advantage to having the small card a 2-5, giving the slight straight possibility? Is it worth playing A2-A5 in some situation where A6-A9 should not be played, or is the bicycle negligble?
IMO, despite the bicycle draw that A5 offers, it is a worse hand than A9. Two main reasons:
1. The 9 kicker can "play" where a 5 would not.
2. You stand a much greater chance of winning a pot with a pair of 9's as opposed to a pair of 5's.
On the other hand, I would probably take A5 over A6 because the above two reasons are not nearly as applicable. Thus, the bicycle possibility that A5 offers makes it a marginally better hand than A6.
I agree completely with this advice. Here's a couple of other problems with A2. If you flop a pair of deuces, and your hand is best, any card except a deuce or an ace, has the potential to beat you. If your hand is not best, you may find yourself bluffing with three outs as opposed to six outs.
"I agree completely with this advice. Here's a couple of other problems with A2. If you flop a pair of deuces, and your hand is best, any card except a deuce or an ace, has the potential to beat you. If your hand is not best, you may find yourself bluffing with three outs as opposed to six outs. "
I think MM meant "...three outs as opposed to FIVE outs..."
OTH, you may find yourself betting with seven outs as opposed to three outs if you play A2s and flop an ace.
I think there are more things to consider before ruling out A,wheel suited. Before I go on let me say that most times A9s on down has it's problems and should only be played in the right situations. Here I agree with skp and MM.
However in a loose passive game which I control, I may favor A2s over A7s. You need to think about your total hand selections and your own style. Here are some reasons.
In some games where players play any Ace and always bet top pair, A,6-9s can get you into kicker decisions that A2s would not.
You actually can sometimes play more agressively against a player you control and suspect has an ace. Example: flop A,3,5 two suited. You may play more aggressively and raise the flop bettor with an extra possible 4 card outs. He may also be on the flush draw. The gut shot often gives you seven outs instead of 3 over a better Ace.
I often play the middle suited connectors in the right situations. When 9,9,7 flops, the have to fear my trips already. I don't need to add A9s to round out my game. I do need to cover the flops with wheel cards. Playing A,wheel suited once in a while does that.
In predictable passive games where players will always bet flopped aces, then you get some +EV from knowing how to play your aces when it is checked to you.
When the hell are you going to play a deuce if you don't ever play A2s? OK, maybe 2,2. I will never fear wheels from you if you don't play wheel cards. Not that I would play many deuces. If the flop came 2,2,2 or 2,2,3 rainbow and it is checked to MM on the button. I know that it would be close to impossible for him to have a 2 or even a 3. Check raise the predictable player who you know almost definitely does not have a 2 or 3.
Playing A2s once in a while is an extension of the following example: If you knew that your opponent never played a card under a T, how easy would it be to rob him blind?
Of course, A5s is the best of the wheels. I prefer it much more than A6s because of the straights and because I already play many more suited connectors with a 6 than a 5. I am still extremely careful playing A5s in only the right situations.
I think you have to consider small Axs. Don't go overboard tho. It can't stand a raise too well. Also consider your total hand selections. If you already are playing many deuces, than A9s is a much better hand for you. OTH, stop playing all them deuces!!!
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert (Putting fear into those wheel flops)
Unless you flop a flush draw, all the straight "draws" you flop will be non-nut gut-shots; hands that must fold. So the "wheel" chances are even slimmer since you must abandon MOST of their equity.
Take skp's advise.
- Louie
I disagree that you *must fold a non-nut gutshot. There are certainly times when you should call. Anyway, I think the texture of the gutshot is more important than whether or not it would be the nuts if it hit. A 3-1 gutshot that can become open-ended on the turn is often preferable to a 2-2 gutshot, even if the former will not make the nuts. For example, if the flop is 67x and you have 9T, there is no card on the turn that can improve your hand other than by giving you the straight or a pair. On the other hand, if the flop is 67x and you have 8T, you have the same number of outs as the 9T hand, PLUS a 5 on the turn makes your hand open-ended. This is a much stronger texture for a gutshot, and it's a factor that is almost never mentioned in the literature.
Dan Good point. However, the downside with the 3-1 is when you hit top pair, It can easily give somebody a straight. With 2-2, you have top pair and an opened straight and you hope that nobody was drawing to the top 3-1!!
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Good point about the 3-1 (3 in a row, a gap, then one, such as 9875) over 2-2 since you can back-door a straight; but its a 60+:1 shot (4/47 times 4/46 times 2 (Ten then Jack or Jack then Ten) = 1.48% = 67:1). Maybe that's why they don't bother talking about it much.
So, when would you call with a non-nut gut-shot in a routine pot (not counting set-up-a-steal bluff calls)? I don't think a back-door straight AND flush can overcome the bad odds you are getting.
- Louie
It's a sixty to one to actually get there, but much of the equity here (I think) comes from the semi-bluff possibilities once you do turn the open-ender.
I've plateau'd recently. Since reading THFAP late Oct/98, I won consistently about 1-1.5 BB/hr. In Feb/Mar though I've been flat, no profit from 150 hours of play. I go through small swings during games - rarely up or down more than two racks. Here are a few plays from Sunday's game... 1. 4-8 HE, loose passive. I call on button with 25c (worst cards I've called with in five months...for varience:) Seven of us see Ad 3s 10c. SB checks, BB bets, all call to me, I call knowing SB will either call or fold. SB folds. Turn is 4s. BB checks, UTG bets (loose, experienced, big loser, likely a flush draw), 'tree Dave' raises, fold, I re-raise, fold, fold, re-raise. 'tree Dave' is an excellent player, very tricky, a consistent winner. I pop him again, he re-raises. He *knows* I don't play 2 5 and will keep popping me until we're out of chips, about 15 more raises. I raise again, he re-raises. I call. I got scared (sorry Vince, I know you warned us), what if the board paired, or a spade fell. I put tD on trip A's, or perhaps A 10s, trip 10's a big longshot as he'd already seen me both raise with pocket rockets pre-flop and just call with them. A blank hit, he bet, I raised, he called and didn't show. Should I have kept popping him on the turn until we were out of chips?
2. Later, the game is six-handed, all new players, still loose passive. I raise on the button with KQs, three callers. BB bets a Q 9 3 rainbow flop, two callers, I raise, three calls. Turn is a 10 suited with the three. BB bets, UTG raises, cold-call, I fold. River is a four, no flush, BB wins with his Q5o, UTG shows his J9o, and other player shows her A8o, no flush draw. My reasoning...it was 2a.m. and the three stooges are all very weak players and all would lose at least a rack, likely two more before they left for home around 4-5a.m. I assumed that my Q was no good and that a K wouldn't help. I thought a J would be good but might lead to a split (the cold-caller). BTW, all three went broke but not until six and I cashed a small win. 3. Same game, I'm on the button with KJo. We're still six-handed and 'the world's tightest player' raises on my right. I fold, K J flops and K7o takes a big pot. WTP folded the flop.
I've looked at these three plays and would play them the same way today. Should I reconsider? The three stooges collectively lost around six hundred in just under four hours. I won 110 of it, and finished the session up $35. WTP cashed in three+ racks for the four hours he played.
1) I can't think of a single situation where, if heads up on the turn, I wouldn't dump my entire rack out on the table when I'm holding the coconuts. The worst case scenerio is that the other guy has a straight flush draw, in which case he's got (usually, unless you can beat the straight he's drawing to) 14 outs. You're a huge favorite. 2) This, to me, would depend on the guy who raised. 3) Results oriented thinking. If the KJ hadn't flopped you wouldn't have brought it up.
What happens when he has the same straight as you with the straight-flush redraw? Do you really want to put all your chips in when the guy is on a free-roll?
Sorry I misread the original post about who had the free-roll flush. I would say anytime you have the nuts with the redraw you want to put a lot of chips in. Maybe not all your chips, I believe the Kelley criterion can be applied here if you use that sort of thing.
Randy
What is the Kelley criterion?
I don't remember the specifics, but it's a money management system in which you bet a certain amount of your bankroll depending on the percentage of your advantage. There's tons about it in most good BJ books if you're interested.
The Kelly Criterion is a proportional betting method that maximizes the exponential growth of your bankroll. It's the end result of some work Kelly did in information theory quite a long time ago. In essense, the Kelly Criterion suggests that you bet a percentage of your bankroll equal to your advantage. In blackjack, for example, if you have a 1% advantage over the house you would bet 1% of your bankroll. If you bet more or less than this, your bankroll will not grow as fast.
This is a pretty agressive betting scheme, and a lot of people use 1/2 or 1/3 of this amount.
Dan
"Bet a percentage equal to your advantage" is only true if you are making even money wagers. If potential payout is larger (for instance in a lottery or on a video blackjack machine with a big jackpot), you need to be betting a smaller proportion of your bankroll. Since blackjack has payouts that are higher than even money (and since you can also increase your wager in some instances) the Kelly number would be a little less than your advantage in that game, but betting your advantage is a good first order approximation.
And, as stated, most people wish to play a little more conservatively, betting 1/2 to 1/3 of the Kelly number. The Kelly Criterion has little to do with individual poker plays. It could be used with an estimator of your hourly win rate and standard deviation to see if you are playing in games that are too big for your bankroll, but has little application to the play of individual hands because you cannot in general size your bets nicely to it.
Agreed on both counts. In "Extra Stuff" Peter Griffin has an excellent treatment of risk of ruin and bet sizes with non-unit payoffs.
You dont have the nuts till the river.Your opponent does not have a flush draw unless he has the straight.He does not have two pair because of all those reraises. I would obviously put the guy on trips.Seeing he had a set he has 10 outs.Thats alot of outs he has for you to think about before risking it all.
C.M. an observer
You should continue to raise since even if he has the same straight, YOU have the free role flush draw. And you are a BIG favorite against any other hand, AA, ATc.
This is a different situation than if you had 52h; then HE may be free-rolling you.
- Louie
I was in Atlantic City at the Taj playing 7.5-15 HE three years ago. I had probably less than 50 hours HE experience at this time. Anyway, I had a hand that I probably will never forget.
Board on the turn was 2d3d4c7h
I had 5d6d. I had just called the flop and then raised the turn.
A drunk and I raised each other 8 times.
The drunk had about 2 stacks left and asked whether I wanted to just bet $200.
So, what happens? I start pissing my pants. I am thinking "shit, this fellow could have something like Ad5d and although I've got him beat now, he could hit a diamond and bust me."
So, being the idiot that I am, I decline the offer (of course, he couldn't have had Ad5d because I had the 5d).
Anyway, a diamond hit on the river. He bet and I just called still thinking that this fellow now had hit the nut flush. Obviously, he didn't. He also had 56 but my free-roll got there.
Man, it is amazing what idiotic things go through your mind when you are scared (Vince is right!).
1) 'Tree Dave' as you call him should be kicking himself and leaving a post asking the forum why he called every chip you had after the turn card and didn't take into account that you were on the button and may make an occasional move with less than desirable starting cards. The way I see it, you cost yourself about $120 (15 bets at the $8 level). GD is mostly correct when he said he will take the stone cold nuts all the way, and this would be the correct decision after the turn. If you have the nuts after the turn, you need to make it expensive for them to draw out a winner. He was stuck with calling all of your raises as he was getting proper odds for just about any hand that he may have held. By the way, I think this 2 5o is good for your table image, as it projects a somewhat unpredictable image.
2) I think I would have called after the turn. There were 14 small bets before the turn. You had top pair with a very solid kicker and a gutshot straight draw.
3) GD is correct on number 3. Never be afraid to fold pre-flop against 'the world's tightest player'. This would not have been brought up by you had 3 rags hit the flop.
Good luck in the future!
Louie Landale is on the right track here but didn't read the cards correctly in your posting and thus came to the wrong conclusion in my opinion.
You said that after 4th street the board had A-10-4s-3s and you have the 5-2clubs. So you have the nuts but not the pure nuts or killernuts, which would be the 5-2s. If you had these cards, you would then have the nuts PLUS the freeroll for the whole pot. If even one of your cards was a spade, you would have the nuts with no possible freerolling nuts against you.
Since you don't, I wouldn't put in anywhere near 15 raises or all my chips in this situation unless you were 100% positive from the play of the hand that your opponent did not have 5-2s. Otherwise, he could be freerolling on you and you are the sucker. After a few raises in limit HE, you can't be sure. But after that, normally the person will have the improbable holding.
I was in a pot-limit game the other night. The board shows 10, Q, J, A, 5 rainbow. There were 3 players in this hand and approximately $60 in the pot. UTG bets $10, 2nd player raises to $20 and 3rd makes it $40 to go. UTG calls and 2nd player folds. Sure enough, both players in the action show a K and split the pot. This is a friendly house game, and I said that I didn't understand the purpose of 2nd player raising to $20 without having a king. My friend (a pretty good player) gave his explination and I still didn't agree with the raise. Is there any value to him raising to $20? I think that had he just called, the hand would have played out the same, except that 2nd player would have saved $10. Any thoughts?
"2nd player raising to $20"
What happened on the turn needs to be considered. But this seems to be an attempt to get the third player out with a hand that may be the best. The 2nd player thought that the original bettor was bluffing, he had a hand that he thought could beat the original bettor and wanted to get the third player to fold something like two pair or trips so he raised. When he was reraised by the third player and called by the first he knew he was beat and folded. Notice he did not bet the pot in case he was mistaken and could get out relatively cheap. BTW- I think that the third player will probably throw two pair or trips away with a bet and raise in front of him.
Opinion by Vince BTW-BTW Keep in mind when reading my response that I don't play pot limit!
Has there been any talk of starting up a place to post trip reports? I really enjoy them and have a few I would like to share.
Big A,
Post them on the exchange forum located by clicking on Exchange on the left side of the page(for those not too familiar with our website). Ill read them all.
Trip reports can be put on the Exchange Forum.
"Trip reports can be put on the Exchange Forum."
Mason, you sure have a way with words! You'll never be accused, unlike yours truly, of talking too much! Meant in a friendly way!
Vince.
I REPEAT!!
In the REAL WORLD, not some computer world, BUT IN THE REAL WORLD
WE POST TRIP REPORTS ON THE EXCHANGE PAGE!!!
What part of that did you NOT UNDERSTAND.
A' course that's just one man's opinion.
First name a' MALSON Second name a' MAYMOTH (just a joke, Vince.)
Skp recently posted "Outplayed". There he described a situation where he folded a hand on the turn for a logical reason that he later found to be incorrect. His anaiysis of the situation led him to believe that his oponnent had outplayed him. I disagreed with his analysis and took a position that he (Skp) made a mistake by reading too much into the play of his opponent. Tom Haley disagreed with me and explained his reasoning in a later response. Although, I disagreed with Tom's analysis I belive that it could be correct. More importantly I believe that his analysis, in line with Skp's, could actually be more valuable than mine even if mine is correct! When I say more valuable I should clarify that by saying more valuable during the session. From Skp's post, believing that he was outplayed inspired him to play his best (A) game and he ultimately ended up a significant winner. The important thing to keep in mind here is that if you find yourself in a situation where you believe your opponent has outplayed you, this occurs frequently in Holdem, then you are better off giving him credit for it during the session and consider him a worthy opponent until he proves otherwise! Aftter the session revisit the situation you were in and determine if you were outplayed by your opponent or by yourself! If you believe the latter, prepare yourself before the next similar situation against this opponent or someone else for that matter. This equates into taking a percieved error in judgement (once Mike showed his hand) and applying a positive strategy (Playing your A game) to obtain a desired result! Whether I've stated this correctly, I'm not quite sure. Bottom line is that it is important to act positively in the face of adversity!
I found that important! Hence this post!
Vince.
"Bottom line is that it is important to act positively in the face of adversity"
Vince, for sure. It would have been silly for me to try ang "get back" at Mike. That day, there were only two good players at the table (me and Mike). Although I was pissed off at Mike for showing his hand to the table, I was not going to try and lock horns with him and get him back. Instead, I focussed my attention on playing well and taking the money from the weak players. In general, where there are several weak players in the game, my strategy is to avoid locking horns with any other good player in the game. Many good players attempt to massage their own ego by doing battle with other good players. IMO, this is bad poker.
"Many good players attempt to massage their own ego by doing battle with other good players"
Hey, Give me a break! We all need a little "massage" every once in a while!
Vince
I'd like to add that if you always play against bad players, you are unlikey to improve.
If one's goal is to become the best poker player around, he should by all means seek out the toughest competition to hone his skills.
On the other hand, if one's goal is to simply grab the dinero, he ought to look for weak competition.
Personally, I don't mind being a big fish in a small pond even though you are probably correct that I could improve my game a lot by playing with and observing good players rather than the relatively weak ones that play in my usual game. (Jeez, I hope no one in my game reads this stuff).
Skp,
I'm with you vis-a-vis big fish...small pond. I am of the opinion that you can learn a lot by continually playing against weak competition. I spent four hours today in a game with two excellent low limit hold'em players and watched and participated in a glorious feeding frenzy. I noticed that the other two winning players used pretty much the same skills and reasoning that I use when playing low limit against weak players. (find out what mistakes the players are making and devise and implement a strategy for taking maximum advantage of those mistakes)
I have played lowball with some of the same people for going on 30 years, including a few of the "real" expert players. I would hazard a guess that the best lowball player playing in the 30-60 lowball at the Commerce Club, cleared something under $40,000.00 last year due to the collection, tokes and the average quality of skilled competition. The game isn't "soft" enough to overcome the fixed costs of playing by a margin large enough to justify the time and effort of playing. I think this particular game (Commerce 30-60 lowball)is close to dying. There are several pretty talented lowball players who have become net losers in the game after having been winners for many years. Most of the "live ones" are playing other games.
I'm learning to play other poker games. I prefer to earn while I learn. Right now, the weaker the competition, the better I like it. By the time I decide to play middle limits regularly, I will have learned enough in the weaker games, and through other study, to be a solid favorite in 15-30, 20-40 and 30-60. If not, I'll continue to play the low limits and continue to win money doing so. Those that believe you can only improve by facing tough, skilled opponents do a disservice to the concept of learning through books, simulators and forums such as this one at 2+2. It is possible that I am completely wrong and have, in fact, reached the limit of my poker skills. If this is true though, poker is different from every other skill I've acquired and used in my 56 years.
Big John,
You said: "Those that believe you can only improve by facing tough, skilled opponents do a disservice to the concept of learning through books, simulators and forums such as this one at 2+2."
I absolutely agree with the above statement. For personal reasons, I don't have time to play much until perhaps late spring after playing steadily for about twelve years. I'm not wasting time during this hiatus. In addition to rereading all the great poker books, I believe this forum will elevate my game by a significant percentage.
Although I have several successful poker friends that I discuss strategy with, having the thoughtful group on this forum willing to put their ideas in writing and get almost immediate feedback makes owning a computer worth it all by itself.
There is one other problem when you get into limits above 20/40. That is that almost all-40/80 games are "forced move" and it is really difficult to stay in a good game. In addition, the player pool is small enough that you really have to work on mixing up your play in order to keep your opponents off guard.
If you want to stay in the money year in and year out, follow skp's and Big John's advice.
You can learn and reinforce lots of habits that you'll wish you never learned if you spend too much time in the lowest limits against the weakest players.
The most successful players at the mid limits that I know spent little time at the lowest limits, and moved up to the mid limits as quickly as they could. In the mid limits, they spent some time unlearning some of the stuff that they had learned, but because it wasn't so deeply entrenched in their mind, they were able to adapt more quickly than someone who'd spent years playing the bottom games.
I agree that the tactics for winning change when you move from low limit to mid limit games, but the skills necessary for winning can be learned in either game, or in no game at all. When I first learned to read it was with the Dick and Jane type books, not War and Peace. The ongoing process of reading increased my vocabulary, along with talking and listening, to the point where I could finally tackle Dostoevsky's works. Bad habits, reinforced in low limit games, would need to be abandoned at the mid limits where they would lose money. Skills for poker should transfer easily and naturally as you move up the ladder.
I've played against many winning mid limit players and have been able to get a good "book" on their play. Once my game gets stronger, through experience, I feel sure that I will do well at the higher limits. Right now, I need the abundance of mistakes the weak players are making to cushion me from all the mistakes I am making myself. I believe that it isn't necessary to lose money while you are climbing the learning curve of poker. I am playing almost every day and winning money as I improve my skills. I feel pretty confident that I will know enough to adjust my play as the level of competition improves. In all forms and limits of poker, judgement is important; you need experience to form good judgement.
Big John,
I just loved the following statement from your post above and wonder if anyone else found it quite as profound:
"Right now, I need the abundance of mistakes the weak players are making to cushion me from all the mistakes I am making myself."
IMHO, you are the type who will always be "in the chips". Good Luck!
Regards,
Rick
"You can learn and reinforce lots of habits that you'll wish you never learned if you spend too much time in the lowest limits against the weakest players"
I somewhat disagree with this comment the way it is worded. From what I've read, I seem to recall the concept that lower limit play is not completely different from higher limit play, as you use the same thought process to determine the right play, you just vary it according to the many factors involved.
My feeling is that as long as I make notes following each session, work at my game and analyze how I played, I will be able to get better and avoid "habits". Playing the higher limits sooner won't "help me avoid bad habits" in my opinion, it will just be more costly to learn the "thought process" that I'm learning now.
Some bad habits in low limits cost you very little, but the same bad habits in a tough game can be devastating.
Calling raises with sub-standard dominated hands is a bad habit, but in low limit games the pots are often large enough that you are getting close to correct odds for your very thin draw to your kicker. So you lose money, but not necessarily enough that you will notice and correct this bad habit.
In a tough game, this habit is deadly. The pots are smaller, the hands that raise are better, and the players know how to extract maximum profit from these premium hands.
Another low-limit habit that is self-correcting is calling too much. In low-limit games, it's often correct to call a lot because of the size of the pot. In tough games, each bet you save is precious, and excellent judgement is required to know when to fold.
Dan
The problem is that in the low limits, you will be exposed repeatedly to factors that you'll rarely be exposed to in higher limits, and you'll not be exposed to things that you will have to deal with all the time in the higher limits. It's difficult to "start your game over", you will find after a while that you develop a style of play that you'll have to fight against when moving up. Low limit play punishes some of the things that you'll have to do when playing higher, and rewards some of the things that would be disastrous when playing higher.
If you play long enough in the same type of game, developing habits is not a bad thing. It means that you'll be able to play without becoming mentally exhausted having to always think about every detail of every situation that occurs. The problem with habits occurs when you encounter situations where your habits are incorrect.
However (and keep in mind, I'm a "Newbie"), the process of "Thinking about what the other person is thinking about you're thinking about" doesn't appear to be prevelant in a low-limit game and these skills I would think need to be learned by playing at another level.
I believe the point is "habits" versus "skills". At the higher limits there are greater skills which are needed that are not required at a lower limit, and are thus not learned.
Any thoughts appreciated.
Kevin, IMO you won’t find that many deep thinkers at the mid-limit hold’em games either but generally the players play better at these limits than at the low limits. However, I agree with Stephen. IMO there are a lot of skills that you will not get to develop such as semi-bluffing, inducing bluffs, stealing blinds, defending your blinds etc. in real loose low limit games because you would be costing yourself money if you used them or the plays just never come up. It might be interesting to go through HFAP sometimes and see how many of the strategies you really use in the low limit loose games. Tom Haley
I am bad 78-stud player. But I usually win ,because games ,I play always have 2-4 much worse players than me.
Well, looks like I should have been a little clearer! Everyone brings up good points. It was never my intention to state that players should after a few good sessions at lower limits take their whole bankroll and put it up against the toughest sharks they can find. Nor did I intend to neglect the importance of books and forums such as this. Still, in my experience, if you learn the hard way, you'll never forget. The occasional excursion into a limit higher than you usually play (but not so high that you'll be totally busted) will improve your game if you are observant. Win or lose, you should step back down until you have the bankroll and skill to play that limit regualrly.
Today I had an argument with one friend. He asked me if you are on the batton and everybody calls then the player on your right raises, which hand you will call the raise with 89o or 45s. I said 45s and this is usually I do in this situation. He then said "how could you think that 45s is a better hand than 89o?". I could not answer his question. This is only from my experience.
Need help
J, If I had to call I would choos 45s. In fact I would call with 45s in late position and muck 89o for no raise.
It is dependent on what other hands you play.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
"which hand you will call the raise "
Neither! Regardless of how many callers you have before you you need a "good" hand to call a raise cold! Neither of these hands qualify as "good" hands in my opinion.
The question is 45s better than 98o. Let's look at a situation similar to you're example but without a raise. What is preferable if you are on the button? In this example it doesn't matter, if everyone calls before you, 8 or 9 callers you will call with either hand. Making the question/answer academic only!
Which would you prefer? The 45 suited gives you more straight possibilities and a better chance at making a winning flush! The fact that you only need three board cards for a flush makes it more likely, should you make a three board card flush, yours will be the only one. If you make a flus with 9,8o it is very likley not the best flush!
Since it is unlikely that a pair of 9,s or 8s will win a multiway pot I don't see any real strength of this hand when compared to 45s. Consequently I would prefer 45s!
Opinion by Vince!
Vince:
I agree with you, as I prefer 45s over 89o. What i have a hard time understanding is your comment regarding the three board flush.
Opined by Vince: "Which would you prefer? The 45 suited gives you more straight possibilities and a better chance at making a winning flush! The fact that you only need three board cards or a flush makes it more likely, should you make a three board card flush, yours will be the only one. If you make a flus with 9,8o it is very likley not the best flush!"
Particularly the point regarding if there are only three flush cards on the board yours will be the only one. I have trouble with the concept you presented. I have had to many low flushes beaten by higher flushes on "three board flush draws".
Thanx, S. Doyle
P.S. Maybe another Rocky analogy would help. :)
I would like to agree with Vince in that you would ALMOST never want to call any raise with this hand (number of opponents, strength of opposition, etc. all weigh in as factors). You must also keep in mind that somebody may be lurking in the shadows for a double-tap re-raise.
Without delving into the question of whether to call the raise cold on the button (there are other variables, such as whether you stand to be reraised, what will happen after the flop if you hit, etc.), it's important note that you would rather flop a straight with either hand than make the baby flush and not know where you stand. Viewed solely from that perspective, the 8-9 offsuit might be the better hand (note however that the 4-5 allows you to flop a top straight and catch someone holding an Ace when the flop comes A-2-3 -- the question then becomes which hand are you going to get paid off with).
In a multi-way pot full of limpers and a raise second from the button the 4-5s is obviously the better hand when you take into account the ways of making the straights.The 8-9o can make a straight with a board like 7-10-j,that can give any limper 2-pair(j,10)or open ender(k,q) to make a boat or a higher straight.A board like 10,j,q has an even worse effect giving a higher straight(raiser could have A-K,limpers with an ace or king can kill your straight on future streets) and fullhouse potential.
The 4-5 straight boards however are much more attractive seeing how a higher straight or 2 pairs are much less likely(in a semi legitamte game:)and given the pot size if you make the straight you will have alot more callers with overcards or one pair .The fact that it is suited only helps matters more.
Seeing that the game is full of limpers the chances that they hold paint are higher than they would be holding lower ranked cards(in a semi legitamate game)giving you a higher chance of getting a board with low cards.
C.M. an observer
Two things I'll add to that: First, in most games I play in, I'd rather not flop a flush with a 4-5 suited; 4-5 off would be a less risky holding. Second, when holding 8-9 off, hitting a raggedy flop like 6-7-10 will certainly keep the customers coming, particularly if any hold hands such as A-10, K-10, etc. The more obvious benefit to holding 4-5 offsuit would be that the A-2-3 flop keeps those "any Ace" hands playing strongly.
MAH posted "Another cracked Aces story". Mason,GD, myself and others discussed the pros and cons of limping in with Aces. GD and I somewhat disagree on the correct way to play Aces before the flop. Now, GD always puts forth a strong arguement for his way of thinking. Of course he's no Vince Lepore. This is my post and I'll say it what I want! The question is who's right?
This question of who or what is correct is important! The answer is fundamental to playing poker correctly (if there is such a thing)!
Alright already don't get nervous I'm going to tell you who's right! But I'm going to do it my way! So if your not in for making a short story long then you shouldn't read on!
After an enjoyable but exhausting 5 day visit by my son I decided to stay at home last night! I turned on the T.V. and lo and behold Rocky III was on. Now, I remebered that it was a pretty good movie. Certainly not in the same league as Rocky I&II but o.k. BTW- Mr. T did a pretty good job of imitating Mike Tyson even before Mike Tyson came on the boxing seen. I wonder how he knew? Anyway I decided to watch it! O.K.,O.K. I'll get to the point in a minute. Well in the beginning of the movie Rocky loses the heavy weight title to Clubber Lane (Mr. T). But, not only does he lose the title he loses his lust for the game. He really becomes afraid to fight a rematch for the title. (Mr T. beat him up pretty bad). Well, in a scene on the beach between Rocky and Yo! Adrienne (his wife), Rocky comes to grips with his fears. With the help of Yo! Adrienne (his wife) he decides to give it his all and try and win back the title.
It just so happens that Appolo Creed, the former Heavy Weight Champion who Rocky won the title from has now become Rocky's Manager. You see Mick died. Mick was Rocky's first manager. Almost there. Stay with me now. Well Apollo puts the Rock through training hell. Teaches him to dance. Teaches him to :"Float like a butterfly and sting like a Bee". Come fight nite Rocky is ready!
Rocky enters the ring in the best shape of his life! You see him warming up! Bobbing and weaving. Throwing a hundred punches a minute. He's ready! Apollo Creed had taught him everything he knew about fighting! He was more than ready! I pitied poor Mr. T.
Round 1. Rocky starts out like a "Bat out a Hell". Bobbing, weaving, jabbing, left cross, right upper cut, jab, bob, move dance. Bing, bang, bop! Mr. T got a couple of shots in but clearly round one was Rocky's.
Between rounds. Appolo: "Keep it up Rock! This guy can't go 15 rounds! You got him!
Round 2. Rocky runs out of his corner. Bing, bang, bing jabs Clubber back and forth, bing with a right, Bang with a left, bobs,weaves,dances. Oh! OO! Watch out! Clubber corners Rocky! Gets him on the ropes! Bang he hits Rocky. Rocky's stuck in the corner. Boom Boom, Boom, "Thunder Bolts and lightning very very frightening" Boom! Clubber is destroying Rocky's head. Appolo: Get out of there. He'll kill you. Move! Move!. But wait Rocky just stands there and says Come on Hit Me! Boom! Clubber obliges. Hit Me again! Boom! Boom! You ain't Got nothin! Hit me. Boom, Boom! Rocks bleeding from everywhere now! Oh wow grest! Ding Ding end of round two! Thank God the Rock was getting killed! Of course all hell broken loose in the ring as Clubber attacks Rocky after the bell.
Between rounds. Apollo: What are you doing! Stay away from him! He'll Kill you! Rocky : "I know what I'm doing! I know What I'm doing". (The Rock is a man of few words)
Round three. (Be patient, were close to the end). Rocky and Clubber meet in the middle of the and the battle of the bruisers begins. Remember that Rocky's style was always one of brute strength. That's what got him the title in the first place. Boom, Boom Clubber picks up where he left off in round two. Boom a thundering blow and Boom, bang, Boom, Boom and Rocky looks done. he can't possibly survive the beating form Clubber. Wait! Suddenly, Bang Rocky land's one and then Boom another and the crowd is screaming Rocky! Rocky!! Rocky!! Bang, Bam, Boom, Boom, Boom ant then Down goes Clubber! One, two... eight, nine ten! He's out! Rocky wins! The Championship is his once again! Pandimonium breaks out and ah, well you know the rest of the story.
Now Apollo Creed who was the movies answer to Muhammed Ali spent a lot of time teaching Rocky what he believed was the correct way to fight. But when it came right down to it Rocky's, heart, instinct and experience is what won the fight for him.
Mason Malmuth, David Sklansy, Ray Zee, Roy West, Mike Caro etc. cannot teach you how to play poker. They can give you the basics that you need for solid poker play. That's it! Am I right or is GD right about limping with Aces before the flop. It doesn't matter! What matters is how you play poker, how you play Aces before the flop. Is there a single, absolute, correct way to play each and every situation? Maybe? I don't think so!
I say, find that imaginary Rocky that lives in all of us! Teach him fundamentally sound poker basics and then let him go out and win for you! Rocky! Rocky! Rocky!
Another long (Hopefully not boring and worth your time) post by Vince.
Vince,
My God that was very impressive,,, I felt that was a story long over due,, who's right who's wrong,, well let me ask ,,, which way wins the most? you cant answer that cause you and the rest have no down to earth answer.. You may guess and say that well "This way does " or "That way does" but in any given game you may play your Aces differant,, I choose to