![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
This has been happening to me a great deal of late. I will have top pair/top kicker or an overpair and invariably middle or bottom pair will pair on the turn and I will get check-raised on the turn. Sometimes, depending on the texture of the board and the player involved, I throw it away. Othertimes (too often it seems), I wind up paying it off until the end.
Here is an example from the 20-40 game I was in yesterday. Several bad players at the table, playing way too many hands and calling way too often. Someone who was hot decided to stradle. It got raised by another loose player right behind him. A couple of cold callers for $60 to my right. I have AQ offsuit, so I come in as well. There are 6 of us seeing the flop for $60 each if I recall correctly.
The flop comes Q85 rainbow. There is a bet up front, several consecutive calls. It gets to me. I raise, they all call.
Turn card brings a 5. I don't particularily like this card. With several loose players in the hand, chances are good/excellent that someone called the flop with a 5. They all check to me, I bet, they all call and then the person on my right, one of the two/three solid players at the table raises. (yes, I know what you are thinking! How can he be solid if he's playing a 5 for three bets before the flop? Trust me, this guy is one of this casino's most consistent winners. Well respected by all of the top players in the casino as very good). Anyways, back to the hand. When he checkraised me, I just know at this point he either has a 5 or he has 8's full. I call anyways hoping for a miracle Q on the end as the pot as so huge now.
Rivercard brings a complete blank. Tough player bets out. Its apparent that no one else is going to call, so I call and of course he has 54 suited.
Questions:
1. Since this seems to happen to me quite frequently (middle/bottom pair pairing), would one solution be to check the turn if I have position (I did in this case). By checking, I save money if indeed that card did hit someone and I might induce a bluff on the river by someone. Also, someone else may lead out on the river and if there is a raise, I can throw my top pair away.
2. In the example above, should I have thrown my hand away when checkraised by the solid player?
3. Should I have paid off at the end?
All comments appreciated.
Generally I would suggest checking on the turn. They called your raise on the flop with something. This play happens heads up when a player calls your bet on the flop after checking, but maybe in a similar situation previous when you bet, the same player folded. So if he calls chances are he has something. So checking behing him unless you have improved is prudent. If you will allow me to make a comment about your play here, I would not have come in with AQ offsuit in this situation. This is just my opinion of course, but for the most part I like to be the one putting on the pressure. With the pot already raised, you need to come in with a hand that has re-raise potential and plays better against more players. If you were first too act then yes of course you would play it. I'm assuming that you came in because these players were normally not playing strong starting cards, but still with the pot raised you need to come in with the goods. Good Luck
i agree with al's comments regarding the AQ offsuit; against a straddle and a raise it doesn't look too promising to me.
in answer to your 3 questions...
Q1. Since this seems to happen to me quite frequently (middle/bottom pair pairing), would one solution be to check the turn if I have position (I did in this case). By checking, I save money if indeed that card did hit someone and I might induce a bluff on the river by someone. Also, someone else may lead out on the river and if there is a raise, I can throw my top pair away.
A1. i think i would have bet in this situation. i'm in late postition and i don't want to give out any free cards that could beat me.
Q2. In the example above, should I have thrown my hand away when checkraised by the solid player?
A2. when i got check-raised on the turn, i probably would have thrown my hand away. without other knowledge, i think it is clear that i'm beat.
Q3. Should I have paid off at the end?
A3. having called the check-raise on the turn (which i just said i would not have done), i probably WOULD call my opponent's bet on the river. the pot seems too large here to make a mistake by not calling.
now... some questions of my own. i've only been playing poker for about a year and a half, so i'm hardly qualified to give advice. so... what do you guru's think of my solutions to the problem at hand?
1. As someone who has never played 20/40 and has only been playing holdem for a year, let me say that you ABSOLUTELY MUST bet the turn! There are TONS of holdings (other than a 5) that players would have been getting the proper odds to call on the flop with, including any Q, any 8, an open end straight draw, a gut shot straight draw, a 3-flush, and maybe even a pocket pair (it seems that no one had to call 2 bets cold). Even when the 5 hits, the risk of giving a free card here is too disastrous not to bet (especially if the second 5 matched the suit of the Q or the 8).
Consider these questions: a) How many times will I lose $40 by betting? b) How many times will I lose $600 by checking? And, if you want, c) How many times will I win an extra $200 by betting?
No question... BET!!!
As for your question 2., it depends on your read of the player. Ask yourself what the probabilities are that this player it betting his 5, bluffing, or semi-bluffing a draw (notice that with that many callers, if he thinks they will all call his raise, raising a new nut flush draw would be a pure value bet). Then act accordingly. Another queen is still an out for you even if he does hold a 5 (as you mentioned), and even though there are good chances that at least one of the two remaining queens is held by someone else, this out is still important. All things considered, I would call unless I was VERY certain that this player has a 5 AND my queens are dead. Actually, now that I think about it, depending on the other players at the table, I should probably at least consider reraising if I thought it was necessary to knock the other players out, especially if I think the original raiser would not cap it. This may also make the raiser check to me on the river if a blank hits (which could be the case here if he thinks that I might've raised on the flop as a semi-bluff / to buy a free card with A5s).
As for your question 3, again, it depends on your read of the player. If you called on the turn, you proably have reason to call on the river.
Good luck.
Hmmm, this is the second time I've replied to this post. Perhaps John Feeney knows what happened to the first one :)
At first reading, it sounded to me like the first raise preflop was a blind raise. If that were true, then I would have popped it again with my AQ. If it was a 'legit' raise, then I would call. The raise of a straddle is often made with weaker holdings than a raise of a big blind (at least where I play). Consequently, playing AQo against this raise should fare much better than against a 'normal' raise.
Given the very nice flop [Q85 rainbow], but the odd action to me [bet, many calls], I would have called on the flop intending to raise on the turn unless something scary happened. I don't like raising here because: I am not trying for a free card and I don't really want to give others a free river card; I don't really want to take the lead with so many undefined hands who will without doubt be calling my raise and checking to me on the turn. The pressure will be on me to make a bet/check decision on the turn with little or no information, producing a higher chance of error than I like.
In the actual situation, it would probably go bet-calls/folds-raise before it gets to me. Now, I can fold with a clean conscience or gamble if the pot seems worthwhile. Had it been bet-calls/folds to me then I would have raised. Had it been checks-bet to me, then I would probably have called him down.
To address your questions:
1. Given that I raised on the flop, I would have bet on the turn.
2. If the solid player is capable of being tricky or the pot is really large, then I would call. Otherwise, my cards are in the muck before he finishes the raise.
3. Given that I stuck it out to the river, I would put in that final bet.
Eric
This is a major leak in my game, calling check raises on the turn with top pair and nut kicker.
I've finally decided that sometimes you just have to fold these hands. When that ragged flop pairs on the turn, and you lack any substansive re-draw.
I play low limit 4-8 and 6-12, so you can see how they get there with junk and at the low limits I believe that you can fold in this circumstance almost 100% of the time and not lose much -- if anything. Your opponants wont usually pick up on this and use it against you in future hands. But everyonce in a while you come across a player you know you have to payoff at least part of the time.
This are typically your aggressive semi-bluff at every opportunity types.
But in the 20-40 games your players are going to be pretty cluefull most of the time ... there you probably cannot fold more than ... say 60% of the time
But I'm really interested on how the experts are going to answer this one.
Chris K.
I'll be going to Las Vegas in the near future and would like to play. However, I would like to know if this is possible, and/or practical, with a $1000 stake? Is there any place that has raise limits? Can I play and still have money or expect that I'll be raised until my stake is gone?
The following is based on my play at Foxwoods and AC. The younger women around my age are mixed in their ability but all are incredibly arrogant. When they beat you they let you know it. The older women are either drunk and loud or are quiet. They are very tough to play against. If the flop is K,8,2 and you bet and the woman calls you , I find it very hard to be sure if they have a K or,8 or,2!. The older women reason that if they have a small piece of the flop they must see the river.The younger women play a more regular style but it seems to me that they go out of their way to beat guys around the same age. They must be constantly fighting the age old sex thing. By they way this post is not to make any women mad. You can't live with them but you can't live without them. I'd rather not play against them because they have to many advantages over me. The trouble with Tribbles also applies when playing against the fairer sex!
Anytime decisions at the poker table are made on non-poker issues money moves. You've already gone a little ways in figuring out your players. Use it to your advantage. Maybe the competative women calls you all the way to the river trying to suck out on you. Get paid off or if she is also loose-aggressive let her provide deception for you. The weak-tight player will let you semi-bluff on the turn to advantage. Don't let their apparent sex get in the way of evaluating their play.
In the example of the player that will call if the flop even touches them. If you play tight-aggressive poker you will come out on top. This kind of player should have ATM written across their forehead -- ocassionally there are fees but most often its pay day!
There aren't many Barbara Enrights or Annie Dukes. At the risk of being jumped by some wimp who feels he has to stand up for women's lib (how's that for a contradiction), here's my general experience. [This necessarily excludes the few perennial women at the top (who can win equally against the men or the women).]
Younger women play the modern game. They've read the books and play the same "EV" game the whole world seems to be grinding on these days. They want to be on top and, yeah, in some ways, they can be more venemous. Show no mercy.
Older women treat poker like they do a relationship: they look for solid values and it's hard to get them committed to a hand, but once they are, they'll usually ride on into the river with it. Never try to bluff a mature woman or a drunk.
My stereotypes of young/old female poker players are nearly the opposite of the original poster. If I see a young woman playing $40-$80 Hold'em in LA and I have no other information, then by default I will first assume she may be hyperaggressive and a reasonably good player. If I see an older woman playing $40-$80 Hold'em in LA and I have no other information, then by default I will first assume she may be passive, and may rarely bluff. The same is true in Vegas, except that tourists often play a couple notches higher limit than back home and then attempt to parlay their winnings at even higher limits, so the stereotypes don't hold very well.
Most of the successful female players I know are more aggressive than *any* successful male player. That's what I mean by hyperaggressive - more aggressive than would normally be correct. I assume this is because they get so much mileage out of people misapplying the other female poker player stereotype - mistaking them for a passive female who never bluffs, thus allowing them to steal pots. On the other hand, many men hate the thought of being bluffed out by a woman and will call all the way, allowing the aggressive female to make very thin value bets once she identifies such an opponent. It seems like many other serious poker players don't think gender plays much of a role in poker, so maybe I'm wrong on this one.
Some young aggressive (often hyperaggressive) females: De (Mirage), Nicky (Mirage), Jennifer (Mirage), Annie Duke (Mirage), Mary (Hollywood Park), Diane (Hollywood Park and Commerce), Mimi (Bay 101). They differ in tightness and skill, but they're all very aggressive.
Old passive females: (I'd rather not name names, just in case they're reading.)
-Abdul
I thought Jennifer was over 25.
I used to classify women players differently than men and it hurt.I try to throw away the sterotypes because it puts you into a bigger quessing game. I just try to read the style of play regardless of gender.
Sound advice I'm in complete agreement with.
Abdul stated:
"If I see a young woman playing $40-$80 Hold'em
in LA and I have no other information, then by
default I will first assume she may be
hyperaggressive and a reasonably good player."
AL replied:
"I try to throw away the sterotypes because it puts
you into a bigger quessing game. I just try to
read the style of play regardless of gender."
AL, please note that Abdul is NOT advocating that you make certain assumptions about an unfamiliar young woman and stick to those assumptions regardless of information you later acquire. He qualified his statement with: "...and I have no other information..."
Of course, you should modify your assumptions about individuals once you get a read on their style of play, regardless of their gender, race, age, or any other stereotype you initially might have fitted them into.
That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong to stereotype unknown players (i.e., ones about whom you have no other information). Suppose my experience indicates that 90 percent of players fitting category X will bluff 85 percent of the time on the river. Further suppose that a stranger who fits category X sits down at my table and (on the first hand) we are heads-up at the river with the pot containing 2 big bets. I check, and the stranger bets. Against most strangers, I probably will fold my marginal hand. Against this stranger, I probably won't.
The wonderful thing about poker is that it punishes people who have irrational biases against certain groups. If you believe people in category Y are inherently stupid and act on that belief at the poker table, then you are going to lose a lot of money to those types of players (if your belief is wrong).
Generally, when I play with women, even with my aggressive S&M style, I still get beaten a lot.
Now now Etienne, watch those double meanings.
Generally, when I play with women, especially with my silly nature, I giggle a lot.
That aside, my experience has been that underestimating a woman at the poker table is a mistake. I generally agree that women bluff less than men and can be bluffed less than men.
Today I happened to scroll down into the posts from a couple of weeks ago, just to see if anyone had given any new responses. I noticed that a response I had given to Chris Villalobos' post of April 14, "More fun with Middle Pocket Pairs", was no longer there. This, though his post and another response were still there. Anybody know how this would happen? (I know *I* didn't delete it.) No big deal, but it did seem a bit odd.
It may have gone into the archives.
If you have a pair of deuces in the small blind you are getting 5-1 if there is one limper and the big blind doesn't raise. Similarly you are getting 5-1 in the big blind with a pair of deuces if someone raises and the small blind calls. Which situation is more advantageous?
The Big Blind
The small blind, in the big blind the raise lowers the value of the hand.
Interesting question.
In the small blind, no matter what you're anticipating, the big blind may raise you. Also, you have the worst position for the rest of the hand. If you hit the flop, a check-raise is apt to limit the field to two, or you'll win the pot.
In the big blind, you know at least the little blind has a decent hand or he wouldn't have called the raise (especially since you can raise again). You're in middle position which isn't too bad. Also, the raiser has a good hand unless he was in a steal position, and even then he may have one. Finally, you're apt to get more action when you flop a duece here, as it's more likely your opponents have something. Especially if you check to the raiser, he bets and the little blind calls. Then you can raise, as the pot has gotten pretty big. The others are then apt to call.
In an all-in or close to all-in situation, the little blind is probably a more advantageous position. You're less likely to be up against another pair if the pot wasn't raised. You'll also get to see all cards, maximizing your chances of catching a duece.
In a normal situation, I think the big blind is a more advantageous position. In fact, the little blind should probably fold in a normal situation. In the big blind you're more apt to win a bigger pot if you make a set. In the small blind situation, you may never get to see the implied odds you need to call pre-flop.
We are given a fait accompli, so the facts regarding pot odds and the different amounts posted by the 2 blinds are now irrelevant, as are other hypothetical questions such as what would have happened had the small blind with the deuces been raised.
What we have is
(1) Fred, in position one with deuces, with 3 units in a 3 way pot, and
(2) Jack, in position two with deuces, with 6 units in a 3 way pot.
Clearly, Jack has the larger EV because of ----(i) position ---(ii) the larger pot.
Everyone has forgotten the most important conideration for this particular problem as stated. Hint: it is not that deep.
OK, another attempt. The big blind is getting 5:1 on 1 small bet, while the small blind is getting 5:1 on only half a small bet. So the big blind has the more advantageous situation.
Advantage is advantage, so make that : The big blind is getting 5:1 on 1 small bet, while the small blind is getting 5:1 on only half a small bet. But both are getting the same advantage, odds of 5:1.
Given someone has raised, that sucks for you...so small blind is better.
The Implied odds are better with the big blind
What I mean by implied odds being better in the big blind. IN the little blind if you don't hit a set you can't call a bet becuase there was no raise.Any flop could give someone a pair. In the big blind if the flop comes 3 6 9 , the raise could be big cards. I check and call if I know the player and can read him if the small blind folds or I feel both are on big cards. When I hit a set there's more of a chance that someone will have a hand and give me action 2 Q A [ I hope not a over set]. I feel there's more money to be made in the big blind.
Small blind with no raise. Higher implied odds and less chance of being up against a pair in an unraised pot.
I agree with Jason. Your implied odds are much greater in an un-raised pot. Since you are probably going to dump the hand unless you hit Trips which is around an 8to1 shot. In an un-raised pot you only put in 1/4 Big Bet to win around 6 Big Bets which is giving you around 24to1 in Implied odds. In a raised pot your Implied odds go down to around 9to1 because you had to invest 3/4 Big Bet in before the Flop.
CV
In the small blind scenario you are only putting in half a unit to complete the bet. That half unit is compared to future *full* units when you look at your implied odds. If you expect to pick up two additional small bets and one big bet, that half unit call is getting implied odds of 13-1. With the call of a full bet from the big blind, expecting to pick up the same future bets, the implied odds are only 9-1. So I think the key is in the greatly magnified implied odds you are getting with your call of just a half a bet from the small blind. That makes it the more advantageous situation.
But you might not get those full bets. They'll have to like th flop too!
Yes, but I was only saying that in the one case your implied odds are determined in relation to the full bet you put in (You're getting 5-1 and if you expect to collect, say, 3additional small bets post-flop, then your implied odds are 8-1). In the other case they are determined in relation to the *half* bet you put in (If you expect to collect the same 3 additional bets, now your implied odds are 11-1). But in light of Mason M's post below, maybe this is a moot point anyway. Oh well...
Oops... skipped right past David S's answer to the question. Now that I've read it, I guess it's not such a moot point after all. But this was also a question with some considerations - such as those Mason M. brought to light - that were easy to overlook.
The small blind is the more advantageous 5-to-1 situation.
There appear to me to be two interelated reasons. The first is that after a raise and then a 3-unit call by the small blind, you are more likely to be up against better hands than the case where you put in 1 unit to call just the limper and the big blind just calls. Of course in real life you don't know what the big blind will do, but as stated in the problem he will just call.
Secondly, in these two and three-handed holdem situations, a lot of equity comes from being the first aggressor with any kind of made hand, since often no one hits the flop. Betting two units with deuces in the small blind into a six unit pot after the flop will win with higher frequency than having to bet two units into a twelve-unit pot from the big blind. The other players will frequently call against your deuces to pair an overcard, exactly what you do not want to happen.
The small blind. Imagine in 10&20 you flop a set of deuces and by the time the hand is over there is an additional $100 in the pot. That is 20-1 when you only called $5 from the small blind. But only 10-1 on the additional money when calling $10 from the big blind. Plus when your set gets cracked you lose $5 less from the small blind.
I've read most of these posts but not all, and everyone seems to be saying that 5:1 on a small bet is like getting 5:1 on a big bet. Well, news flash, 5:1 ain't great odds for deuces. For an all-in type situation, you want at least 7.5:1 on your money. The point of having deuces is to cash in on your implied odds. Therefor, you'd like your upfront money to be as small in proportion as possible to your implied odds unit. So, having the hand in the small blind for one small bet is the preferred situation.
Since the 5:1 odds are not sufficient, I would not play the pair of deuces in either case. Therefore, the small blind is preferable because your fold only costs half a bet compared to a full bet when you fold from the big blind.
Dan,assuming the scenerio where both the caller and BB limp it is probable that you would be throwing away the favored hand. Yes it's 7.5 to 1 to improve to trips but there is an excellent chance you wouldn't need any improvement to win.
As an aside, depending upon the sb table image and the propensity of the bb to defend his blind a raise by the sb might be the best play of all. I'd sure like to play deuces heads up against a late limper.
If you are in the small blind with one limper there is only three(2 1/2) bets in the pot. If you are in the big blind with a raise and the small blind calls then you are getting 5-1. I let this go the first time because I thought that you wanted the pot odds equal in order to make the decision.
Al, you wrote "If you are in the small blind with one limper there is only three(2 1/2) bets in the pot" and asked where the 5-1 is...
Actually there ARE 5 (if a bet= 2 unit), since as the small blind you are only calling 1/2 bet to 2 1/2 bets (5:1)
Sorry, I was thinking in terms of full bets not half bets. Ignore my previous post
I feel it's the small blind which is more advantageous:
1) Only costs one unit to play the 22; since you will probably be folding the 22 after the flop without trips, the greater implied odds from the BB's 2-unit call don't mean as much pre-flop. 2) You probably are facing a weaker or drawing hand from the non-blind player; 3) You have a greater opportunity to check-raise and/or induce bluffs- plus you can see who thinks they have strength. 4) With 6 units in the pot, post-flop, your opponents are making a bigger mistake in calling your trips (pot 3:1), or trying to draw out hands, then they would be with 12 units (6:1) 5) Assuming your opponents will call your bets to the showdown, you are gaining 20 units total from them after the flop. SB gets 20 unit gain for 1-unit call pre-flop, BB gets 20 unit gain for 2-unit call of raise pre-flop.
Comments?
I say the small blind situation is better. I raise, (usually) drive the big blind out, and then play heads up against the limper. Usually the limper doesn't flop anything and folds. Even when they make something, they might still fold because my hand appears to be stronger than it is.
you changed the scenario, Jeff. DS's original post already had you limping in and the BB calling, not raising....
I think in terms of expectation. It's true that in both cases you are getting 5-to-1 immediate odds, and you may get better implied odds from the small blind since you only came in for half a unit, but in which spot do you make the most money.
For example, suppose you are playing $10-$20. If you could collect 12 bets out of the big blind, that would be $120 profit assuming your hand holds up after you flop a set, and it would cost you on average approximately $75 to get there. Thus you would show a profit of about $55 for every 8.5 hands.
Now suppose you are in the small blind and collect $60 everytime you flop a set, and it costs about $37.50. While your implied odds are the same, isn't your expectation now lower.
This is just a hypothetical example. It could work out very differently. So the question is, as I see it, in which spot is your expectation higher. (Hint: will the extra money in the pot make people tag along who otherwise might not?)
I thought I said something along these lines in my post. If you do make your set in the big blind the pot will be bigger and your opponents hands will be better on average. They will be more apt to call bets and/or raises, especially before the turn.
Also, in the small blind, I think you should fold 22, or perhaps raise.
Although it looks on the surface like the big blind would have the higher expectation, the raise has to be taken into consideration. This has to lower the win expectation a little more often when you do make a set, because you have a raise and the small blind calls. In a real situation I would probably call in the small blind, and fold if the pot was raised in the big blind. Don't your implied odds drop when the pot is raised, or are you saying that because the pot is raised that they go up because people will stay longer? I don't buy this thinking. Players don't automatically stay on the flop because they called one raise. If the pot was capped or something that would be different. With a small set against a raised pot I don't want them staying as this gives any over pair more chances to draw out. I don't think the big blind has a significantly larger profit potential.
My take on the hand is totally differnet than your's. If I'm in the big blind with a raise and the small blind calling that raise I know that I'm probably against decent holdings. Most likely I have to flop trips to win.I might or might not call depending on the type of game and my read on the players.
In the instance where there is a late limper and the bb doesn't raise I'm pretty comfortable knowing I have the winning hand before the flop. I can very easily win the hand without flopping trips.It begs the point anyway because as I stated earlier I would normally raise from the sb if I thought I had a decent chance of dropping the bb and come out betting on the flop.
In the first case I would have to play passively if I didn't flop trips.For me it's an easy selection.I'll take noone raising me preflop.
As an aside, if I thought the only way I could win the hand was to flop trips I probably would fold with only 2 other players.
You're heads-up in a tournament and just posted the big blind all-in. Your opponent calls and shows the AK of spades. Except for any aces or kings, what other two cards would maximize your chances, and why?
George,
The best hand must obviously be a pair, since AKs is the highest suited connector. Since you're disallowing any aces or kings, we start with QQ. One would think that QhQd would be preferable to QsQd because of the 2 chances of making top flush (with 4 on the board). This is not so, and QsQd is preferable, because the blocking action (removing 1 spade) outweighs the small chance of the additional flush. But QsQd's chances of making a straight are smaller than, say, JsJd, because 1 ace and 1 king are already out.
So the optimum hand is TsTanyothersuit, because not only has it the best chance of making a straight (out of the other higher pairs), but it also blocks AKs' chance of making a straight (which, say, 9s9d wouldn't). Crudely, I make it a 54.3% chance to win the pot against the AKs.
Etienne
You did'nt address counterfeit situations. If there was two pair on board, say JJQQx, then the pair of Tens would lose to the Ace. Where with QQ, your pair can't be counterfeitted. Also with a full house on board, JJJQQ, same situation. But is that enough to make a difference.
Also, if the board has an Ace or King (or both) then you need trips or a set to win. So now your high pair is at a disadvantage to making that straight, if there are only aces on board. Whereas a smaller pair, such as eights, has more chances. A pair 2-5 has even more.
With two aces on board, you can't make a broadway without also giving your opponent a full house, so a high pair has disadvantages there too.
Now what do you think the best hand is?
George,
I have absolutely no idea of tournament jargon (buyins, satellites, add-ons, posting the big blind all-in etc.) simply because I've never seen, let alone participated in, one. I thought I was slowly picking up ring-game terminology when you broadsided me with broadway and counterfeitting. (I used Dan Kimberg's online poker dictionary).
Well, even with your broadways and counterfeitting, TsT is my final offer. Have you something better in mind?
Etienne
Sorry Etienne, didn't mean to broadside you like that. A broadway is an ace-high straight. Counterfeitting means rendering your hand irrelevant by the board cards. If you held TT and the board cards were QQJJ6, your pair has now become useless and your hand is now QQJJT (which would now lose to AK, even though AK didn't improve per se).
I raised the question because after looking at the hand rankings you posted, I realized that 88 was better against AK than 99 (because of more straight possibilities should AK pair.). 77 is better still.
As for the best hand overall, I'll give others a chance to give their opinions before tackling the question myself. TsT may indeed be the best hand, but QsQ was better than you thought.
George,
You wrote : I realized that 88 was better against AK than 99 (because of more straight possibilities should AK pair.). 77 is better still.
The straight possibilities of a pair are only a minor component of that hand's strength. In addition, 88 and 77 have the same number of straight possibilities against AK. So why do you say 77 is better than 88 (against AKs)?
You also wrote : TsT may indeed be the best hand, but QsQ was better than you thought.
I was just going through my thought processes 'aloud' when I rejected QsQ for TsT - in fact, it's a very close call.
Etienne
George,
I wrote : The straight possibilities of a pair are only a minor component of that hand's strength. In addition, 88 and 77 have the same number of straight possibilities against AK. So why do you say 77 is better than 88 (against AKs)?
You are right, 77 is better than 88 and 99 - there is a local maximum at 77. But 88 is not better than 99.
Etienne
Now it's you who are using terms I don't understand (local maximum). ;-)
AK would win with a board of QJT8x and KQJTx, two of 99's straight boards. Only QJT9x counterfeits 88 [yes, I realize certain cards for x add some more possibilities]. 77 can't be counterfeited if it makes a straight [ditto], Hence 77, 88 and 99 in that order.
Also, in this problem, the straight possibilities are a major factor. The rank of the pair is only relevant for protection against being counterfeitted by two-pair or a full house (all relevant board cards higher than your pair).
George,
After having done some more sims, I've come to the conclusion that I shouldn't have come to any conclusion regarding TsT versus QsQ - too close a call. Likewise with 7s7, 8s8 and 9s9. Still there should be no contradiction with the hand rankings I posted, because these are against random hands. If you looked at Jazbo's site, he gives an actual example of 2 hands, X and Y, where X is ranked above Y, but when pitted against each other, Y is favourite over X.
Etienne
I found that fact interesting, that one hand would do better than another against a random hand, yet be a dog to that same hand.
That is a common occurence. For instance AK is an underdog to 22 but does much better against a random hand. By the way, what hand would does best against a pair of kings other than AA or KK? .
AKs.
AKs only has two outs, besides the straight and flush possibilities.
George,
AKs only has two outs, besides the straight and flush possibilities.
Shouldn't that be 3 (aces)? The concept of outs is relative, not absolute. It depends on the other hand(s), and to be considered it must have a good chance of producing the best hand.
The best hand against AA is AA - one which has no outs. But it is the best because it has taken away outs from the original hand (an extreme example, I know) - what I called defensive. Similarly, AKs has taken a valuable king away from KK - that surely must count for something?
Etienne
Good point about the king. But in this situation you're playing catch-up. I think the the extra chances that you catch up with the five outways blocking KK if you catch an ace. You can also have a QJT straight counterfeited if an ace also comes.
Yes the ace has three outs, not two. But no matter, it also has three outs in A5s ;-)
I'll guess A5s, not in suit with either K.
I'm pretty sure that the chances of any hand with an A in it are better than any hand without an A. Certainly we want the A to be suited with its kicker to maximize flush potential (and we don't want to be in suit with a K, also to maximize the chances of hitting our flush). Finally, I think the only real question is what rank the kicker should be. I've picked 5 because I believe that it provides us with maximum straight potential against KK.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
I also adopted your reasoning and came up with an intuitive shortlist of AKs and A5s (the latter not in suit with either K) ie. a defensive versus offensive kicker. My Turbo simulation gave AKs first place, with A5s literally breathing down its neck.
Etienne
When you've been referring to your simulations, I thought you had written one. I also have Turbo Texas Holdem and I'm not sure I accept it as accurate. I may be wrong.
I would think that the five is better than the king because you can make three fives with it. The king hurts you except to make a straight. Even then, an ace on the board also gives the KK a straight. If A5 makes a straight, the KK needs another K and a K,2,3 or 4 to win. The way I see it, the five must be better.
Of course I'm assuming somebody is all-in and betting is no factor.
George,
When you've been referring to your simulations, I thought you had written one.
I have indeed written many, and if I don't specify Turbo, then it's my own work. My software activity, as far as hold'em is concerned, is divided between
(a) what I call short-term ad hoc applications eg. confirming flop probabilities, "Ultimate Problem" calculations etc. and (b) long-term modelling of the game. Here I have reached the stage of the flop only, and still haven't taken a million things into account.
I also have Turbo Texas Holdem and I'm not sure I accept it as accurate. I may be wrong.
Firstly, let's give the boys at Turbo the credit they deserve. If their checkdown results were inaccurate, then their product would have long been removed from the shelves. Clearly what is controversial, debatable and highly difficult to program is the player interactions with their betting and bluffing strategies, to name but one.
The king hurts you except to make a straight.
It hurts him more.
Etienne
I agree with Greg that it's A5s, not of the same suit as one of the kings.
The original post in this thread asked what hand does better against AKs, Excluding a hand that held an ace or a king. A pair of sevens seemed best out of the pairs lower than tens but higher than fives. Etienne thought that tens were better than queens. He's probably right, as the increased straight possibilities probably overcome the slight counterfeit problems with TT.
But does 77 fair better than TT? TT has the advantage of having an A or K on the board to help it's straight possibilities should AKs pair. Also, having two tens reduces AK's chances to make a straight. But should AK pair, some of TT's straight cards also give AK a better straight (or tie).
77 can't lose with a straight which uses one of it's sevens. But it gets no help when AK pairs, and doesn't reduce AK's chances of making a straight. Finally, it's more vulnerable to being counterfeited.
How about 55? It get help towards a straight only if AK pairs the ace. It only helps to block a wheel. But it can't lose if it makes a straight.
Etienne is probably right about TT (one suit the same as the AKs).
I suspect the rankings would be TT, JJ, QQ, 55, 44, 33, 22, 77, 66, 88, and 99 (one card of each pair suited to the AKs). But it may be that 55 is better than TT.
Now and then the best player in the game ( and everyone knows he is) gets re-raised on the river by a non- idiot. He can safely fold with anything not the nuts. True or False?
At first, I would generally say true.. However, once the non-idiots notice the "best player" folding to the re-raise, they may start taking some shots at BP...making the answer False.
False it would depend upon how strong his non nut hand is. For example: He could make the second nut flush on the river or second best set.The reraiser could be betting with a lower flush in the first instance or a lower set in the second or just plain think he has the best hand.
I've reraised a raiser,been called and beaten before and I'm no idiot...at least I think I'm not. LOL
I'd say false to that.I think the stronger the player is the more likely the other player is trying to bluff him out. I'm no great player but I do know that strong players will fold a hand much more than weak players.Also the strong player may make amistake by calling and costing himself a bet,but it is better to make amistake that will cost you a bet than making a mistake that will cost you a pot.
False by counterexample.
Board is Qc Jc Tc 5d 5h
Hero has 9c 8c. Is he going to fold to a reraise?
Close to the end of a tourney, 7 players left (started off with 44). You have 9 chips left, big blind is 12 chips. You are two behind the button. Everybody folds...the guy right in front of you raises (you assume he would only raise with a premium hand, such as AK, AQ, AJ, AT, AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT or 99). You look and you see JJ.
Is this as obvious a call as it seems?
Correction .... big blind is only 6 chips. limit hold'em
If you have JJ you are big favourite to win the pot if he doesn't have KK or AA. You should call. You won't get better hand before the blinds eat you up.
I really need more imformation. How many places are being paid? What is my chip situation compared to the other players, especially the raiser's ? If I fold is there a good chance to sneak into the money without having to post?
But OK I don't know the particulars so based on your scenerio CALL.
correction - big blind is only 6 chips (i have 9 chips left)...first pays $2600...second pays $350 .. third pays $200 ... everything else is squat. everybody else has at least three times more chips than i do (total of 440 chips out).
seems like a call, even if someone raises.
With such a huge difference in payouts between 1st and the rest (essentially winner-take-all) it seems like a call is in order. You have a chance to triple-through, and the BB hopefully will not call.
You are in a desperate position, as you don't have enough chips to raise. If you fold here and go all-in on another hand your 3-chip raise of the BB should not be enough to cause him to fold any hand.
If the structure were a more standard percentage payback, then the decision becomes much more involved. Is anyone likely to bust out before I do? What do I gain if they do? Is there a chance the players don't know proper tournament strategy and will all fold to me when I take my BB? (It's happened!) If I survive the blinds is a deal possible? If I win the hand with my JJ is a deal possible?
Forum,
Well, back from Vegas. Though not a profitable experience, I think I learned some things about my play. What I found was that though my Starting Hand decisions are Top Notch, my play after the Flop still needs lots of improvement. I have come to this conclution due to the fact that I can win at 4-8 Hold'em and bellow, but once I stepped up to 6-12 I got my butt whipped because most of the players played as good as me Pre-Flop, and then played better than me after the Flop. While just playing "Tight Agressive" made me a winner in the Lower Limits it wasn't enough to beat the 6-12 Mirage game. So, its back to the Books for me.
CV
Chris I have played 10-20 and 20-40 holdem at many venues in Vegas and eastward. It's been my experience that the games at the Mirage are much tougher as a rule than anywhere else.Atlantic City Mississippi and Louisiana have games that absolutely mouth watering. From reading the posts at rgp I understand it's true in Cal too.
Sooo, take heart and don't get discouraged you can still play at the higher limits profitably to offset the rake. Just be more careful in your table selection. :)
Chris,
Good hearing from you. Contrary to what you say, I would suggest that it was a profitable experience - the trip was not profitable. Jason and others more qualified than myself will give you the appropriate advice and guidance for the future. Remember that 99.99% of people walking into a casino cannot beat any game (not only poker), and you have entered a privileged class when you say that you can win at 4-8 and below. Also, you were honest enough to admit that 6-12 (at the Mirage, probably the toughest place in the world) was too strong for you - most others would have blamed it on standard deviation. I am now inviting you (and everyone else) to the party I will be throwing (hopefully this year) when I know that I can finally beat 3-6 (Mirage!).
Etienne
PS. Given the unfavourable trip results, did you at any time go on tilt, or experience any other discipline problem?
Did I go on Tilt? Well, one night I did play too long. I was tired and felt that on a couple hands I got too loose. I think I shouldn't stay up later than I usually do when playing cards.
cv
Chris
I'm not familiar with the 6-12 games at the Mirage, but would doubt that many of the players played as well as I suspect you play preflop. In my experience, as you start moving up in limits you do encounter, however, a lot more "move making" after the flop (semi-bluff raises, reraises, and check-raises; betting into "scare cards"...). This takes some time to adjust to. I wonder if that might have been the main problem you ran into.
How I found myself loosing the most money was: 1) I Semi-Bluffed too much. 2) I paid off the Rock Solid players after they re-raised me on the Flop. 3) I didn't Induce Bluffs from the other aggressive players.
What I think my plan of attack shold be now. I should stay at the 3-6 and 4-8 and take small shots at the 6-12 until I feel I've improved my game.
CV
You would rather be in the small blind. Jim Geary said it best. You are counting mainly on your implied odds here and they are much greater in the small blind. Of course that in itself does not necessarily prove the point since you would be betting twice as much when you call a raise in the big blind. Thus with those two deuces I would rather be getting 10-1 odds for $10 than $5 even though my implied odds are not as good. But in the problem stated The 5-1 odds is really just barely enough to call against good players when you are in the big blind. However it is an easy call in the small blind. One other point. Those who said that they would prefer to be in the small blind because they are not against a hand that raised are using a bad argument. With a pair of deuces against two opponents you almost always need to flop a set to win. That being the case I would actually prefer to be up against a strong hand as it will increase my implied odds. I would feel differently with a pair as small as fives.
David Sklansky writes:
(the situation is one limper, you are the SB with deuces, and the BB checks)
"With a pair of deuces against two opponents you almost always need to flop a set to win."
Well, if the flop comes A, K or even Q high, and is reasonably ragged, I'm going to win by firing more than 25% of the time. Probably significantly more. And if I do get a caller, he's going to get his butt wacked when that completely innocent 2 hits the turn 4+% of the time.
That's the way I looked at it. I figure flopping a set is a rarity and even in a three-handed pot I don't figure to make much on it anyway except when one of my opponents makes a strong hand (which might even beat my set). Stealing the pot (or winning with the best hand, which will be the majority of the time in a heads up situtation) is a frequent occurance and is going to contribute much more to my overall expectation than the the occasional set.
To me a set has much more value in a multi-way pot when it crushes two small pair, top pair, and overpairs, and when it improves to a full house and beats straights and flushes.
Maybe I'm missing something, but here's my question:
Why would you play the 22 in SB after the flop if you DIDN'T hit the set? a) Every card on board will be an overcard (i.e. you won't be sure if someone overpaired your 2's); b) Unless the flop is REALLY ragged rainbow, it will probably give someone a better draw than the 22 is getting c) 4% chance on the turn doesn't make ME feel really comfortable about "whacking butt" d) If you are agressive with the 22, the 4-1 pot odds will probably cut down on your stealing chances, PLUS you're stealing with a fairly weak hand... If you aren't agressive, you're inducing bluffs you can't fight or giving free draw cards that probably won't help YOU...
Granted, you're playing BB and limper, but how comfortable can you ever be UNLESS the trips flop?
Also, I personally don't see the 5's being that much stronger, David, even with the better straight draws. What was the reasoning behind that statement?
Easy E writes:
"Why would you play the 22 in SB after the flop if you DIDN'T hit the set?"
Because you believe your expectation is positive. If your two opponents will both fold at least 25% of the time when you fire then 'you will show an immediate profit'.
And you will show further profit when a duece hits the turn, and those times it's checked down to the river and you have the best hand, and those times it's checked on the turn and a duece hits the river, and other unlikely but possible scenarios where you end up with the best of it. (e.g., you make runner, runner wheel)
JP, I agree with you- I shouldn't have said "ever play.." Sometimes it's tough to answer these questions, as you would spend a day thinking of each possible scenario/reaction that could be possible...
I must have miscalculated, because I don't see the 3:1 value of bluffing with those 2's.... I say bluffing, because there are almost no outs that won't make you second-best, since every card's an overcard. Buuuttt... if you know the opponents THAT well, it makes sense to take a shot on the turn, maybe river
"I must have miscalculated, because I don't see the 3:1 value of bluffing"
There's 3 small bets in the pot. If you bet, and your opponents fold 25% of time, you earn
3 x . 25
and you lose
1 x .75
which adds up to 0.
QED
No value- I was right!
And don't come back with advertising value, because I think you won't get the right ROA (return on action). Instead, as I've been recently tutored on this forum, you'll risk more damage from the people who will now call down your bluffs more often...
I personally think of 22 as generally junk, myself.
The raise doesn't raise the implied odds much unless it is a big pair. If it's something like AK it's only good for maybe 1 extra bet, unless the flop hits the hand which as you know is only going to happen about 32% of the time.
Dear all,
There is plenty of information available on holdem and 7 stud, most of it from 2+2.
However, I need to learn Draw due to its abundance and the lack of holdem at my local cardroom.
The only passable draw advice I've read is Caro's section in Super System, written before I was born.
Does anyone know of any decent books/web sites?
Richard Cavell
Have you looked at Malmuth's book _Winning Concepts in Draw and Lowball_?
Under the "Common Mistakes" heading following each major tournament analysis section, one of the mistakes listed is "slowplaying friends." It is regarded in the text as "bad strategy and bad etiquette."
Bad advice or bad editing? Isn't this supposed to read "softplaying friends?"
Normally, I wouldn't even ask this question (I would, after some thought, respectfully disagree with the position as printed or assume it was simply a typo), but this same point appears under EVERY section entitled "Common Mistakes."
Thanks in advance for clearing this up!
JG
It could be written either way.
Yes, Mason, it *could* be written either way. Unfortunately, one way is wrong and the other is not. The problem is that the two terms are not synonymous. Simply consulting both terms in the glossary included in the book (definitions paraphrased below) would lead one to conclude that it is clearly an editorial blunder.
slowplay - to check or just call a bet with a big hand in order to win more money on later rounds.
soft play - to avoid betting or raising with the winning hand as a favor to a friend.
The text *should* read "Soft playing friends..." as this is obviously what the author intended.
OK. I think that everyone agrees that it is obvious that it should read soft play.
Man! Now I can be a winning player, not knowing the suttle difference between those two terms has been killing me for years!
High offsuit combinations seem almost totally worthless in ten-people-see-the-flop holdem. The chance of KJ winning against nine opponents seems to be virtually zero. Should all of these be avoided, except maybe AK and AQ? Even seeing an unraised flop with KJ seems to be a waste.
Assuming that everyone except you sees every flop, which starting hands should you raise for value pre-flop?
Conversely, in a tight game, with actually played hands being heavily weighted towards higher cards, would certain lower and middle cards actually gain in value? For instance, if 54s does get two fours on the board, you are virtually certain to be the only one with that set. Also, with many fewer opponents, the chance of a higher straight or flush would be small. (While 54s would probably not be playable, except under specific and rare circumstances, 98s might be with this considered.)
If you were theoretically going to play a dealer's choice game against eight world champions, what would you call? (Limit Omaha with an ante?)
Among experts, what game would reward the slight differences in skill and not just pass the money around?
Why can't Kxs be played in large pots the way Axs can? The chance of another opponent being suited in your suit is only about 1/3. The chance of one of those cards being an ace is only 1/4, and often the ace will be on the board when you make the flush. So the chance of a king high flush being cracked is less than 1/12.
The answers to all your qestions are in Holdem Poker and HPFAP. They might be hard to find, but they are there. If you play in games with more than 5 people seeing the Flop all your starting hands must be able to make Trips, Straits, Nut Flushes, or Strait Flushes. In these games most hands are won with Two Pair or better.
CV
KJ is a poor hand multiway. I might limp in with it on the button (particularly if the blinds are weak-tight). AK and AQ are also tough since I'll need to play fast when all I flop is top pair. It's worth looking at limping pre-flop with the intention of check-raising on the flop, if a raise from early position gets no respect. It's nice to be able to reraise with AK or AQ if the raise comes from middle position when I am in late position and there is no one between me and the raiser. Otherwise, in a no fold'em game, I would be cautious with AK and AQ. Raising pre-flop from early position is dangerous when too many players can be expected to cold call. I would limit myself to raising under these conditions with just AA KK and AKs. Any pocket pair goes way up in value at such a loose table, I'll play all of them from any position. Small suited connectors become playable from middle and late positions assuming you don't have reason to believe there will be a raise on your left. I would suspect with 54s and a flop of say 944 that an A4s could also be out there even in a tight game. The major difference in big pots between AXs and KXs is that the nut flush draw can often raise on the come, while other flush draws would be playing hyperagressive (unless raising from last position when trying for a free card) if they did so. If most everyone is staying for the flop, I'll take a shot up front with either AXs or KXs, and hands like QXs or J8s late. Top pair on the flop, in a no-fold'em game can be a dangerous trap.
Wit regard to Mr. Sklansky's May 1 Card Player article on "systems", I have the following remarks: Sklansky states that it is "hogwash" that the Martingale system fails only because you may run up against the house limit or your own limited bankroll. However, his discussion indicated that it is exactly due to the players bankroll limit (or house limit) that the system fails. With unlimited bankroll and no house limit, you can just bet until you win. Of course, the system is "hogwash" because no one has an unlimited bankroll and there is always a house limit (if only due to the fact that the house can get broke.) We all know that no "system" can overcome a true disadvantage. However, there are "systems" involving more subtlety than the Martingale system - e.g. attempting to quit while you are ahead. This, of course, won't work either in the long run, but the reason requires a little analysis. The Martingale system is nonsense, but Mr. Sklansky's analysis of the reason is puzzling. (It should be added that generally I am a great fan of Sklansky's writings.)
chas friedman
friedman@math.utexas.edu
Truly infinite bankrolls are unworthy of discussion (unless you are Georg Cantor). Any system, subtle or otherwise, must lose if every bet has the worst of it. Deeper analysis is never required, Period,
In my fortune cookie today, my fortune read : "Wise man knows the sum of negative expectancy bets must have a negative expectancy as well."
All I questioned is the statement: ***"Proponents of the Martingale system say that the only reason that it may not work is that you may run up against the house limit or your own limited bankroll, but that is hogwash."*** Well, these ARE the reasons that the system won't work (in your examples the players limited bankroll is wiped out.) Even when you have an advantage, your limited bankroll can still cause you to get wiped out, although there is now somewhat less chance of this (depending on your edge.) You can still lose 10 or 20 bets in a row (or any number) if you have extremely bad luck. Of course, limited bankroll is a fact of life and thus extremely important. The Martingale system IS hogwash, but it seems to be for exactly the reasons that your bankroll is limited or you come up against the house limit. One last remark: If you have a really huge bankroll and there is no house limit, then even though you would eventually get wiped out by an astronomically bad run, for all practical purposes, the Martingale system is a good strategy. For example, if I had enough to make 100 (or some quite large) number of bets (each twice the previous) at roulette, and were allowed to do this, then undoubtedly I will never lose during my lifetime and will in fact win a bundle. Remember, just as bankrolls are finite, so is life. So if I have a strategy that will probably win for a million years or so, it is useful to me! The house imposes a limit on bets to avoid this (or approximations to this.) So we see again that it IS the players limited bankroll and/or house limit that makes the system untenable.
cf
I don't think the house puts limits on the size of bets to avoid losing $1 to the Martingale. Don't forget, they're just giving you back your money, plus $1 when you win.
They could just tell you to put what you want to risk in an account, tell them when to start counting, and add a dollar to it if you win. No money on the table. Of course, should you lose x bets in a row, they keep the money in the account.
And I think it's a lousy strategy. All that time and risk to win $1.
It reminds me of a story I heard in school many years ago about someone who requested the King pay him in the following manner for a deed he had done. Using a chess-board, pay him one penny for the first square, two pennies for the second, four pennies for the third, and so on, doubling the amount for every box u
... Eventially the King had th poor lad beheaded when he realized the scam. The point is that you will get to astronomical sums faster than many realize.
What some people need to realize is that negative expectation is negative expectation is negative expectation is negative expectation is negative expectation is . . , no matter how many bets you make.
Actually there is an exception to this. In GAMBLING FOR A LIVING (see pages 119, 120, and 121)we discuss an idea's of David's where we show that betting every combination in a Pick Six can be profitable even if every subset of bets may be unprofitable. Years ago we got into an argument with Stanford Wong where he claimed that this is not possible. He made a statement similar to yours that if every possible subset has negative expectation then the aggregate of all bets must also have negative expectation. Yet in this case it is clearly not true. Can you see why?
Did I say that! In the example in Gambling For A Living, you clearly demonstrate how two negative expectation subsets do not prevent betting both horses (the entire set) from having a positive expectation. But this situation occurs in a paramutual pool where money has been added, and the pay-outs are based on the bets of others. It also does not relate to what I was saying (I wasn't thinking that deeply).
Nevertheless, I'm glad you pointed out that situation, as my statement could have been interpreted to have more depth than I had meant.
The reason it works is that someone, the other player, has a positive expectation bet. When Horse 2 wins, he gets back $31 for his $20 wager. When Horse 1 wins, he gets back $15.50 for his $20 wager. In fact, even without the extra dollar, he's getting positive expectation. But he's simply found a horse that's 50/50, yet paying 2:1--but only if he bets both horses.
Once the betting is closed, all subsets do not have negative expectation, as the second player has positive expectation on his Horse 2 bet. And if both players bet both horses, all of the bets have positive expectation. So was Stanford Wong really wrong with his position?
George,
Scenario as in GFAL, p.120. Player A has already bet $10 on Horse 1 and $10 on Horse 2. You're the only one left who wants to bet - this whole exercise is about you - forget Player A. If you bet $10 on Horse 1, it's a negative expectation bet, and if you bet $10 on Horse 2 it's also a negative expectation bet (both -$2.25). Even when the betting has closed. But if you bet $10 each on both horses, your expectation is now +$0.50.
Had there been a toteboard to look at, you would have seen that both horses were offering odds a little better than even money (that $1!!), and also would have bet them both.
By the way, I can't see how you figure Player A is getting 2:1 betting both horses.
It's cute and contrived, but it's legitimate.
Etienne
It's also the reason why it may be correct to bet every combination in a lottery when any one combination would have negative expectation.
In practice, I don't think your observation in the pick-six situation holds for a lottery.
Assuming a large enough prize to cover the odds:
1. Any combination that nobody else bets has positive expectation. So some sub-sets have positive expectation.
2. Betting all combinations is probably negative, as most (or at least many) combinations will cause the prize to be split, sometimes among many winners.
3. The bigger the prize gets, the more likely that you'll have th share the prize, as more people will play, and they'll play more combinations.
4. If the prize gets abnormally large, then it may be correct to bet all combinations. But it then may be better not to bet all combinations, leaving out the ones most likely to split multi-way.
The other player is getting 2:1 on his bet for Horse 2, if he bets both horses. Of course, $10 of it was the money he bet on Horse 1.
I realize that at the time you're making your bet all bets look like they'll give negative expectation if another player has bet both horses. What I was saying was that in retrospect, the second player had a positive expectation on his Horse 2 bet when the race started.
"For example, if I had enough to make 100 (or some quite large) number of bets (each twice the previous) at roulette, and were allowed to do this, then undoubtedly I will never lose during my lifetime and will in fact win a bundle"
Not really- you might have much more opportunity to win one unit at a time ($1 or $5 or whatever), but it would take so LOOOOONNNGGG, I doubt you'd make enough to be worth the time involved. If your unit was bigger (say, $500), then your bankroll implies that you're a billionaire- how stupid are you for wasting your time gambling when you earn more by breathing?
Unless you raised your bet after you WON also, to speed up your wins... since classic Morontingale has you dropping back to base bet after you win your unit back, with flat betting thereafter. Oops, that's right- negative expectation never goes away, does it? Darn....
If he lost 99 bets in a row, he would need more than $512,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to make the 100th bet.
Perhaps he should have been more realistic and said "enough money to make 35 bets" Then he would have needed only $17,179,869,184 to make that 35th bet. ;-)
I wonder how the casino would handle that? Special chips, say $1,000,000 each, represented by Kuggerand gold coins?
Would you have to stack the chips on the numbers you wanted, or would they let you just call it out? "I'd like 2 billion on black, please?" \ :}) Is this a smiling cow? or an bee with crab arms? /
:}) looks like the Frito bandito to me.
You're right, it does now.... was broken up, evidently..
Chas,
I haven't had the opportunity to read the article in CP magazine, but would like to state the following :
(1) The Martingale is doomed to failure no matter the size of bankroll.
(2) No advantage in terms of mathematical expectation accrues to the gambler who possesses the option of discontinuing the game after each play.
Etienne
How would the solution to Sklansky's Ultimate problem change if player 1 (or player 2) precommitted to a strategy? The other player will then choose an optimal response to this strategy. By precommitting to misplay some hands a player might improve his expectation on other hands. Recall player 1 did not bet with three aces. But if player 1 precommitted to bet some of these then he might successfully bluff more often too and increase his overall expectation.
Note this strategy is not subgame perfect, and player 1 would want to change strategy on some hands. So there may be a credibility problem with precommittment. Hey Paul Pudaite, can you help us here?
He could only increase his expectation if player K didn't counter his strategy. And than, only to the point of K's guranteed expectation with his optimal strategy.
The problem with doing this is that you are now in a guessing game on what strategy the other will use. This might gain a little expectation, but probably risks more if player K out guesses player A.
By playing optimal strategy, you gurantee yourself a certain expectation, and do even better if your opponent mis-plays--without the risks.
However, in a real life situation, very few, if any, play optimally. If you have a good read on your opponent, you can alter your strategy to take advantage of his sub-optimal play. But if you mis-judge him, you may actually be losing expectation.
In practice, you would probably do better to develop strategies for the average type players and use them as needed, until a player demonstrates he's worthy of optimal play.
I seem to get in trouble a lot with A/10 & A/jack when I am in early position. Many times I just call only to get raised. Then I wish I had gone ahead and raised in the beginning because I find in the tougher games that the call tells me as much or more than a raise does. Also, when I raise and get called and my ace hits, I bet out and get called down to the end only to be beat by an ace with a better kicker. Due to the position, I find it very hard to tell where I am at with these hands.........I like to flop the ten or the jack better than the ace.........How do you play these hands in early position?(ps...Most of my playing experience at 10/20 comes from playing at the Mirage, which to me, has got to be one of the toughest places in America to play, especially during the week and daytime)
To Mason/David or anyone who has much experience playing and winning at the Mirage:
I have only played 10/20 at the Mirage, what do you think the major differences are between the 10/20 and the 20/40 hold em games at the Mirage(besides the stakes)?
My questions are:
1. You mentioned in one of your books that the side action is very good at the big tournements, is the Wsop one of those tournements? Is the action still good this late into it? Or is it better to just stay and play at the Mirage(I would think the better players would show up for this tournement, so the games would be tougher).
2. I believe Skalansky mentioned that the Golden Nugget used to spread a 15/30 Holdem game that was very advantageous to a player who played tight because of the blind structure. Is the 15/30 game that is being spread at the Horseshoe during the WSOP that game? If so, how does the blind structure make it advantageous and how would one adjust his play to that structure?
3. You mentioned in your books that an expert player can outplay his opponent after the flop with a hand that the expert realizes he is behind with.........What specifically does the expert do that outplays his lesser opponents after the flop?
Jeff:
To answer your first question the WSOP is one of those tournaments that we were referring to for good side action. However, it was not as good this year, especially at the big limits. However, if your game is $15-$30 or $30-$60 hold 'em, it was still great.
This type of action does die down as the tournament progresses. Players go broke, or just go home.
Generally, this action spills over to The Mirage, so the games are also good there. Many players come for the WSOP, not just tough players, so all games in town improve for a while.
Here's the answer to the second question, The $15-$30 game at the Horeshoe is not the old Golden Nugget game. In the old days many of the hold 'em games had blinds much smaller than today's game. For example I remember seeing some $3-6 hold 'em games with blinds of $1 and $2. These games produced much smaller pots and the players played much tighter. That's also why advice such as never play a flush draw if a pair flopped began to appear. (This advice still wasn't right then but it isn't as bad as it is today.)
By the way, the Horseshoe now spreads on a regular basis $15-$30 hold 'em -- even when there is no WSOP. It has a $10 small blind and a $15 big blind
a/10 is a very tough hand to play up front.I generally won't play a/10 up front unless I'm in a game where there isn't much pre-flop raising.a/j you need to tighten up a great deal if their is a raise to your left.I generally won't call a raise to my right with a/j,it simply makes the 2nd best hand too many times.As far as the difference between 10-20 and 20-40 at the mirage I don't see much difference except the players are cockier in 20-40 and the dealers seem to take more crap in 20-40,but that's just my opinion.
I was reviewing my Hold'em for Advanced Players, and I noticed that AT offsuit is in Group 6, below the following hands in Group 5 (77, 87s, Q9s, T8s, KJ, QJ, JT, 76s, 97s, Axs, 65s).
It seems that the rankings will change if the pot becomes heads up or multi way (I assume AT off is better than many of the Group 5 hands when heads up, and a better raising hand in late position, when no one has entered the pot). Do you agree?
But also, even in a multi way pot, 3 or 4 players, I think I would rather have AT than any of the group 5 hands.
With 5 or more, I begin to see the legitimacy of the strong drawing hands in Group 5.
But overall, I think I would have put AT off either at the end of Group 4, or near the front of Group 5.
You might be right if you are a superior player. The other hands however are not as hard to play well. So for most of my readers I'll stick to those rankings
I'm definitely not a superior player.
When you say "the other hands however are not as hard to play well", do you mean that it's easy to fold these hands if the flop doesn't hit, but with AT off, you might be playing on when you are well-out kicked, and a superior player can lay it down when he's beat, but a 'normal' one can not? Do you mean that AT off can be trapped in for several bets as second best (or even third best), and that its hard to be trapped with 87s after the flop? (you either have it, have a draw or got nothing).
Thank you.
Yes. plus good players are more likely to win without improving.
"AT offsuit is in Group 6, below the following hands in Group 5 (77, 87s, Q9s, T8s, KJ, QJ, JT, 76s, 97s, Axs, 65s)"
TP- I'm just a learning player also, but walk through some example flops with your A10:
1) KQJ, 2-suited: Great flop NOW, but match it to the above and see how you could be outdrawn. Only 77 and JT are chasing way uphill- you can't improve.. and A or 10 on turn makes JT or Axs a split pot
2) KQJ rainbow- Stronger for you, but still probably have river flush draws, plus those full house draws. lower flush groups would probably drop, but...you have no improvement
3) Any flop w/o A/10/x or trips: You've probably sucked in to the river, and may already be beaten... Even A/10/x gives plenty of people with K/Q/J to outdraw you
Those large 3-gaps, even with Ace, have a LOT of danger. I believe that is why A10 off is so weak (the mathematics will prove it, I'm sure), especially as you add players. Plus, larger # players = larger pot odds = correct draws by opponents= more "bad" beats. Even with a "great" flop like #1, you will have to be agressive- therefore investing money in many lost pots (and, probably facing raises from speculators).
Make more sense now?
Regarding flops for ATo, Easy E wrote:
1) KQJ, 2-suited: Great flop NOW, but match it to the above and see how you could be outdrawn. Only 77 and JT are chasing way uphill- you can't improve.. and A or 10 on turn makes JT or Axs a split pot.
2) KQJ rainbow- Stronger for you, but still probably have river flush draws, plus those full house draws. lower flush groups would probably drop, but...you have no improvement. ----------------------------------------------------------
While I agree that by and large ATo is a piece of trash, I think that your examples are not illustrative of this. I would take that ATo over any of the group 5 hands which might go with the flops. I am the favourite. They must climb the big hill to get to me. Yes they will win their shares of the pots, but I will make a fortune off them when my made straight holds up (which should be at least a quarter of the time against 5 players with the two suited flop).
No, my hands won't improve, but since they don't need to improve, I don't think that is a big problem. It seems to me that you are a player who prefers playing from behind (ie drawing). If that's the case, then I'd like to invite you to come up to Edmonton to play at my table.
Eric
Eric As warm as my heart is now from your generous invitation, my 11-week old won't let me travel THAT far for poker... :)
As to your response, 3 things: 1) If you are drawing to the nuts, and getting sufficient odds to do so, then coming from behind isn't a mistake 2) Yes, the flopped straight examples I gave are better than the group 5 hands, but they have other outs and your hand doesn't. Yes, it's a made hand, but made with some risks. And I believe that there is a lot of potential to conterfeit A10o with those Group 5 hands,especially in 2-flush flop. When the third suit hits on the turn, A10 will probably feel obligated to cry-call unless serious power starts hitting the pot.... I believe this reduces the power of that "made" hand, along with the split pot possibilities. 3) They were given to illustrate that, even with the made hand, the A10 wasn't as strong as was being suggested. That's why it is in group 6, below the rest. All of the other non-made hands are what make ALL 3-gaps so weak.
Does that sound more palatable? We aim to please...
My point (probably poorly made) was that it seems to me that you would rather have the other, drawing, hands than the ATo. Regardless of drawing to the nuts or having enough people to make it +EV, the ATo is still the best hand to have (except for AT suited with the board - but that is a different issue). Yes, it may be brittle, but I think that it will make the most money from that flop.
I still agree that ATo is junk, but still contend that the two straight examples aren't convincing. If you are trying to show that even with a great flop there is still danger, then yes, they show that; but every hand with a great flop has that problem. However, it sounded to me like you were saying that it would be better to have one of the other hands for this flop. That is where I am having trouble. If I have misinterpreted you, then I humbly apologize.
[All this discussion brings to mind one of my worst losing streaks - lost several hundred in a couple of weeks of 3-6. One day I flopped two good straights and two full houses and lost both of them.]
Eric
"Humbly apologize" smologize- defend or die, I like to say!!
And MY point, evidently lost in the examples, is that there is a REASON A10off is considered so weak by Dave S and company- and why it's in group 6.
The examples were there to prove that, yes- you have a good made hand, but it's fraught with a lot of danger AND people can draw to the nuts (getting proper odds) without making a HEfAP mistake.
Of COURSE I'd prefer the made hand... but I wouldn't mind having some of the others when that straight flopped either. I'm not sure if I agree that the straight flop would make the most money (depends on how bad/agressive the callers are), but that's tougher to determine.
Where can I find any low stakes tables in legas or does any exist?
#6 (tricky aggressive - could have any two cards) open raises the pot. # 7 folds. I am on the button with KQs. What are my best options? (1) Raise to take control of the hand and to knock out the blinds. (2) Smooth call and wait for flop.
Flop comes 9c 5h 7s
If both blinds fold and we are heads-up - what are my best options? (1) If # 6 bets into me I should Raise (2) I should fold (3) I should call ( the least favorite choice) (4) If # 6 checks the flop, I should bet. (5) If #6 checks the flop, I should check also and take a free card - dodge a possible check-raise!
The 3d comes on the turn
What are my best options now? (1) If # 6 bets into me I should Raise (2) I should fold (3) I should call ( the least favorite choice) (4) If # 6 checks the turn, I should bet. (5) If #6 checks the turn, I should check also and take a free card - dodge a possible check-raise!
The Ah comes on the River.
What are my best options now? (1) If # 6 bets into me I should Bluff-Raise (2) I should fold (3) I should call & try to beat a stone bluff with high cards. (4) If # 6 checks the river, I should bet. (5) If #6 checks the river, I should check also and show it down.
All comments are appreciated!
Opinion only:
1- re-raise before the flop. 2- if bet into on the flop... fold, only if you re-raised before the flop. 3- If checked to on the flop...bet....if raised, then fold 4- If called on the flop and checked to on turn....bet
Bob, you ask for specifics alot in your posts. Either you are writing your own book or you don't see that there is not one absolute in poker.
Alot depends on the player, and "Tricky" says to me that you don't have a good read on this player.When this player does somrthing unexpected, look at the situation that he was in and see if this unexpected play falls into some kind of pattern.
All I know is, all of these numbers have me confused... tell me what my hand is again: 1's full of 4's, or a straight 1,3,4,5,2? And do they beat a pair of 6's???
Reminds me of those scenario game books you could get, which would give you choices to scenarios on each page. Each particular answer pointed you to a different page, leading you on various paths through the whole book...
How to play against this tricky player is up to you.
But here’s the odds on your hand vs one player after you see the Flop.
Assume he will play, as you say, any two cards.
You’re a 1.19 to 1 Dog.
When you see the Turn
You’re a 1.90 to 1 Dog.
When you see the River
You’re a 1.91 to 1 Dog.
If he uses any rational selection method of starting hands instead of just any 2 cards you do worse.
Let’s say he plays only Group VIII or better.
Here’s the odds on your hand vs one player after you see the Flop.
You’re a 2.19 to 1 Dog.
When you see the Turn
You’re a 2.52 to 1 Dog.
When you see the River
You’re a 2.42 to 1 Dog.
No Al, I'm not writing a book. I do make notes of the best way to play certain hands and record them in a special notebook. The questions I ask (are so simple to me) but apparently I have a problem commuicating that in a post.
I'm simply trying to get a rule of thumb on the best way to play certain hands about 75% of the time. I am well aware that you would play the same hand opposite in certain situations with specific players.
It all comes down to whether this player will pay you off all the way with ace high. The answer to that question contributes to a tremendous swing in your proper strategy.
Bob, I'm not trying to be sarcastic with you about writing a book. Reading previous posts it seems that you go into great detail with your questions, so i thought that might be the case. Sorry if i got you riled up.
Our hero is playing 15-30 and 3-bets the UTG player. Pot is heads up and = $100 (-rake).
Flop is TT2 rainbow.
Based on observation of UTG's play I am *quite* certain UTG has AK based on action so far.
Hero checks knowing that UTG will call flop bet anyway hoping to bet/raise on turn (if not A or K of course) to make it incorrect for UTG to call. I wanted to keep the pot small to reduce the UTG's odds. Yes, I fully realize I gave UTG infinite odds to see the turn, but I postulated that hopefully making UTG fold on the turn maximised my chance of winning the pot.
An offsuit Q hits the turn. UTG bets and hero raises. I was hoping that my play may make UTG think I have AA or QQ.
UTG thinks+thinks then calls.
Of course an A hits the river. The river is checked around.
Was this a mis-application of the concept of manipulating the pot size as referred to in David Sklansky's most recent Card Player article?
Other comments on the play of the hand?
My experience is that most players will automatically make this call on the flop if they have precisely AK but then frequently but not always fold on the turn. I don't believe checking the flop will induce your opponent to fold more often on the turn.
Derek,
When the Q falls on the turn he is looking at a gut shot draw and two overcards so he had a lot of reasons to call. He certainly wouldn't put you on Q's in the pocket as there would be no reason to give a free card to a possible A,K.
I'm not sure but I don't think that this situation applies to what David Sklansky was referring to in his Card Player article. My opinion is that you are giving up too much by giving the free card on the flop.
Perhaps the A,K should have capped it pre-flop. Oops I shouldn't have written that. Oh well.
Tom Haley
Derek,
Upon further review perhaps an application of the concept that David Sklansky's Card Player article covered would have been to simply call the UTG raise and bet on the flop if it was favorable. This way the contains $70 instead of $100 and a call by the A,K would be a mistake due to the small pot size.
I think the A,K should have capped to make the pot bigger so that if an A or K comes a player might be encouraged to call on the flop when they shouldn't. Also the pot is big enough so that in most cases the A,K can call a bet on the flop correctly. The A,K might get a beneficial free card also. Just some thoughts.
Tom Haley
The statement you made about capping with AK so that you can justify calling a bet on the flop is what I call "making your own pot odds" and is virtually always fallacious thinking. It we assume that the reraiser has a high pair (any pair for that matter) at least 80% of the time then you are betting even money into a less than 50% chance that you will hold the better hand after the flop. The implied odds will always justify calling the reraise, but the one cap bet is only getting 1-1.
I was browsing through a copy of the 2+2 tournament book I borrowed from a friend, and I saw a mistake I've seen a few times before in the 2+2 literature. I couldn't take it anymore. As much as I hesitate to give you guys a black eye on your own forum, this is just something that HAS to be fixed.
I could just explain where the error is, but that wouldn't be nearly as much fun as giving the following scenario:
You are in a no limit holdem tournament, and it is down to three players. The blinds are negigibly small compared to the stack sizes, which are T1500, T1000, T500. The tournament payout schedule is 60% for 1st, 30% for 2nd, and 10% for 3rd. All three players are of equal caliber, and you are the chip leader. The small stack moves all-in, the other player folds, and just when you are about to fold your 22, your opponent shows you AKo (let's say this does not forfeit the pot in this particular tournament). Is it +ev for you to call?
A few reminders, so that we are all on the same page:
• I am not asking if you SHOULD call, only if it is positive ev to do so.
• 22 is a slight favorite over AKo. We'll call the edge exactly 51% for simplicity.
• The chips in the short stack are worth more (in real money) to that player than the chips in your tall stack are worth to you.
• Mason's method of calculating the correct tournament split is perfectly reasonable.
Now, given that all of the above is correct, it would seem that the short-stacked player is giving odds to the bigger-stacked player, making even a 50% proposition profitable for the bigger stack. This is the idea behind "attacking shorter stacks, as their chips are worth more" that is advocated by 2+2 books. But the ev is in fact NEGATIVE here (despite the 51% edge), and the idea described by 2+2 is flawed. I'll leave this to stew awhile before I post a follow-up explaining the reasoning and showing the math details for this particular example.
Tom Weideman
I either don't understand what you are getting at or you haven't read our books well enough. We also point out that in this type of situation the player who gains will be the second player who is sitting out the pot. That is on the one hand you may have a small gain in equity versus the small stack, but you may be giving it up plus a little extra to the player with the middle stack who doesn't play. This idea is discussed in our books.
By the way, you don't have a 51% edge, you have a 2% edge if your hand wins 51% of the time. I know that you know this but it may confuse some of the other forum readers. If you had a 51% edge, then you should surely play in the example given.
If I don't understand what you are getting at, I'll be looking forward to hearing what you have to say.
I am aware that you have described that how the third player benefits from a confrontation between the other two players, and in fact this key element is why I chose this example to illustrate my point. But let me make my point clearer (I will post the full answer to the example later):
It is TRUE that each of player A's chips are worth less than each of player C's chips.
It MAY be true (then again, it may not) that correct strategy for player A is to attack player C's shorter stack, even in cases where player A has little or no edge in the confrontation.
But...
It is NOT TRUE that these two statements are related to each other. To avoid being told that I am not reading your books carefully enough, perhaps I should quote from Gambling Theory. In the section entitled "Tournament Strategy", Concept 12 ends with the line:
"In addition, keep in mind that their [shorter stacks] chips are worth more than yours, meaning that you are receiving an overlay on your bets."
This is patently FALSE. In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite, i.e. a 0% edge in the cards (i.e. 50% pot equity - sorry if I confused anyone before) leads to NEGATIVE ev for the larger stack. Of course, the shorter stack experiences even a greater negative ev here. How is this possible? The hand is not zero-sum; the third player gets the balance lost by these two players.
To see why this is, look at it this way: If you lose chips, your stack goes down and the chips you lost are worth more to you. If you gain chips, your stack goes up, and the chips you won are worth less to you. You are therefore risking more valuable chips to win an equal number of less valuable ones. No matter who you are confronting, this corresponds to an underlay for you, and you need an edge to overcome this. This is also true for your opponent. The equity (or "juice", if you like) lost by both players in this confrontation is gained by the third player.
Math details of the specific example I gave will follow soon.
Tom Weideman
Tom wrote:
"It is NOT TRUE that these two statements are related to each other. To avoid being told that I am not reading your books carefully enough, perhaps I should quote from Gambling Theory. In the section entitled "Tournament Strategy", Concept 12 ends with the line:
"In addition, keep in mind that their [shorter stacks] chips are worth more than yours, meaning that you are receiving an overlay on your bets." "
Actually you are right. The wording in GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS is not correct. In the tournament book we changed the wording to "his penalty for losing the pot will be larger than yours." This is because even though his chips may be worth more than yours since he has less of them, when they transfer to your stack they are not worth more. They now now have the same value as the other chips in your stack. In fact, since you now have more chips overall, they have actually droped a little in value. However, this should not affect your strategy.
So if you have a large stack you should still attack the small stacks. Especially late in a tournament. However, keep in mind that certain marginal confrontations may still have negative expectation because of how they may help a third player's equity in the tournament. In the next edition of GAMBLING THEORY this wording will be corrected.
Mason Malmuth writes:
"So if you have a large stack you should still attack the small stacks. Especially late in a tournament. However, keep in mind that certain marginal confrontations may still have negative expectation because of how they may help a third player's equity in the tournament."
End quote.
To state it more explicitly, while the expected value of calling in Tom's example is negative, the expected value of folding there is even more negative, "so if you have a large stack you should still attack the small stacks." Correct?
To belabor the obvious, it's sort of like splitting 8's versus 10 in blackjack. Splitting 8's is negative e.v. (and increases variance too) but it's still (normally) better than hitting or standing, which have even worse negative e.v.'s.
Which has the lower variance (relative to the random variable of prize winnings) in Tom's example: calling or folding? Folding would be the lower (zero) variance play in a ring game, of course, but here, if you let the small blind increase his stack, he may eventually grow big enough to knock you out into third place, and such events will dramatically increase your variance even if they are somewhat rare. I leave it up to someone more industrious to compute the variances or someone more knowledgeable to speculate on the variances.
Disclaimer: I really don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to tournaments.
-Abdul
This is sort of where I was headed next, once the other stuff was cleared up. One could view such a slightly negative ev situation as a case of having to choose the lesser of evils, i.e. this negative ev spot might be better than all the other spots coming along in the near future.
I only partially believe this, however. The only reason you are accepting this "bad spot" is because you feel there is not enough time to wait for a better one. Why is time limited? Because the tournament blinds are rising. But when this happens, then the chips already in the pot are likely to lay sufficient odds to make getting involved a positive ev situation.
Overall, I think that there are many tournament players that overuse this "attack the small stacks" strategy a great deal. I think the best advice is to make an assessment of the endgame, and if all of the big stacks are gunning for small ones, you stay on the sidelines and let them do the job for you. If the other large stacks are sitting on their hands, then get a little more aggressive, but don't overdo it.
As for the variance aspect of all this, I haven't given it any thought. If I wanted to reduce my variance in this spot, I'd just offer a split and end the tournament right there.
Tom Weideman
Ton wrote:
"• Mason's method of calculating the correct tournament split is perfectly reasonable. "
The reason I mention this is that someone on rgp has been attacking this method, and I have yet to see a better one. This is the same person who concluded that based on a sample size of 2 that the maximum likelihood estimator for the standard deviation that appears in my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS and which was originally derived by Mark Weitzman is a bad estimator. This isn't accurate either.
I only included that line so that when I posted the solution to the example, everyone would use the same method of deriving each player's equity (rather than using, say, Weitzman's method). The final results are independent of what method is used (provided that method is "reasonable").
I'm not interested in getting off-topic here, but for the record I should note that I posted a three-player tournament settlement method on rgp last year which is different from either of these, but is MUCH harder to use. I have since abandoned it due to its impracticality.
I want to emphasize that my original post in this thread should not be considered a condemnation of 2+2's publications, nor should the phrase about Mason's method for calculating tournament splits be considered an endorsement. I just enjoy getting to the truth behind these topics. As for responses from 2+2 authors, I for one am far more impressed with intellectual honesty than with defensive posturing.
Tom Weideman
How does the math work when the large stack is trying to get the small stack to fold? In other words suppose the large stack trys to move the small stack all in where the small stack is getting 3-1 odds to call and is a 26% shot. Should he not still fold thus making the large stack's raise correct where it wouldn't be in a live game. This of course should be contrasted to the small stack moving in against the large stack giving him 3-1 on a 26% shot. Being even lazier than Tom I haven't done the math. If it turns out that I'm right, I'll take the credit . If not, blame Mason.
It's an ugly situation, to be sure. Unlike "standard" game theory problems where there is a single correct (mixed or pure) strategy that yields a certain minimum ev, in this case, whether your ev is + or - depends upon the rationality of your opponent (meaning your guaranteed minimum ev is 0, if you don't get involved). In other words, you can say that your play is "correct", in that it is incorrect for the other player to call (allowing you to win), but if he does call irrationally, your play loses money. I frankly would not feel comfortable depending on the rationality of my opponents in real life situations. But this is a common occurance in games that are not zero-sum.
Tom Weideman
I forgot to mention another place where this phenomenon occurs in ring games: high-low split. If you and another player both have one-way hands going the same way, you can sometimes find yourself in a position where if you bet it will be disadvantageous for both of you if he calls. If he is "rational", and folds, you make money, but if he irrationally calls, than you both lose. Again, this is a feature of this being a non-zero-sum game (half of what you bet goes to the third player). Many authors have addressed this topic in more detail than I have here.
Tom Weideman
The High-Low split situation was discussed in r.g.p a while back and an interesting twist was raised which is probably relevant to tournaments. If you know that your opponent is going to call you then you can't (rationally) make the bet, in which case your opponent gains EV. Perhaps it would be valuable to have a reputation for making "bad calls" in a tournament situation, because this would discourage large stacks from attacking your small stack (which is +EV for you).
I've only played in 20 -30 tournaments(mostly re-buys) and I've made the final table roughly 40-45% of the time, not by my superior playing abilities, but by my superior non-playing abilities. In the later parts of these events if I have a reasonable stack, I wait for exceptional opportunities only while I watch the other guys eat each other up. I haven't played in the large World Series type of events, but in smaller re-buys this strategy seems to work. So,if I'm understanding what is being said here,this strategy can be correct as I am in effect the third person who benefits when the other large or larger stacks are busy attacking the smaller stacks etc. Is this right ? Intuitively it feels right as so many players lose patience and go for the all or nothing play before they really need to.
This brings up the REAL point.
When the big stack bets into the little stack, it is often incorrect for him to call even when pulling an odds overlay. This is why big stacks SHOULD ATTACK the small stacks. Because of tournament payout considerations, it is often wrong for anyone to call, but it can be really wrong when you have the short stack. This IS consistent with the maxims in GTOT. In your example the chip leader was CALLING the all-in player; that's a long way from attacking a stack. Attacking is correct because the onus of transferring the equity to the sideline player is transferred to the calling player. If the roles were reversed, it would be correct to raise the AKo player all in even if he knew you had deuces if he was aware of the equity transfer concept. BTW, something I've neer seen in print before: it is very important to assess who is aware of these considerations at the final table, and play appropriately thereafter.
In summary ATTACK good, CALL bad.
I wouldn't characterize the comments as "attacking" your method.Basically what's been said is that in certain circumstances MacEvoy's method favors the top stack while your's favors the small one. I don't know what your method is frankly, but it was generally conceded that between the two your method was more fair.
I might add that both methods could be made to look silly if you take the ridiculous example of the players having 70%, 29% and 1%., with a payout of 3000, 2000, 1000. My point was who the heck is going to deal with a guy having 1% of the chips anyway. The other two players would be much better off waiting for the low man to either get knocked out or accumulate a signicant chip total.
Okay, here's the math for this particular example in a nutshell. Using Mason's tournament split method, the equity of each player at this point is:
A(you, T1500): 42%
B: 34.67%
C(opponent, T500): 23.33%
Let p be the probability you will win this confrontation. You will end up with either T2000 against player B, or everyone will have T1000. If the result is the former, your tournament equity becomes:
You eliminate player C: (2/3)*(60%) + (1/3)*(30%) = 50%
If you lose this confrontation, everyone has the same stack size, giving you exactly 33.33% of the prize fund in equity.
Your ev in this situation is therefore:
EV(A) = p*(50%) + (1-p)*(33.33%) = 33.33% + p*(16.67%)
First of all, notice that if your probability of winning is exactly 0.5, your EV is 41.67%, which is LESS than your current ev of 42%. In other words, you need to be a clear favorite to win the hand in order to have positive ev.
Now we can solve for p to see what chance we need of winning in order to improve on our current 42% equity. For EV(A)=42%, we get:
p = (42-33.33)/16.67 = 0.52
Our 0.51 odds of winning with 22 vs. AKo are not sufficient to give us positive ev, as we need a probability of greater than 0.52.
One last comment: In real life, the blinds are not negligible compared to the stack sizes. But if you found it difficult to compute pot odds (or implied odds, etc) at the table during a ring game, just imagine how impossible it is to do so in terms of real prize payouts (rather than in terms of chips)! The only solution I think is to be aware of the mathematical features so that your close judgement calls at the table can have a greater likelihood of being correct.
Tom Weideman
Why are lowball and draw not spread anymore?
It's simple. The games were too slow and boring. When stud and hold 'em became legal, the players quickly abandoned draw and slowly abandonded the more popular lowball.
Texas Hold'em nolimit tourneyquestions no rebuy:
I have played some tourneys and sometimes I have got JJ.
I find it very difficult to play this hand. I hate to get it when many players (more than 5 others) because I don't know how to do. My instinct is to raise but I have been busted with this hand so many times now so I don't know how to do.
If I don't know my opponents and if no raise before flop, should I raise any position or just call?
Should I call if I'm in late position and the raiser was in early or middle position?
Should I play this hand like pair of 5, I mean if overcard on flop just fold if trips then...
I would be very happy if someone could help me with this question because I don't know many here in Sweden who play poker. Thanks in advance!
I'd think I the Tourney has gotten to the point where there is a good chance you could you could win before the Flop with a raise, than raise. Other wise just call and if on the Flop an over card falls, and you don't make trips. Well, thats a though one. Again, If the players are playing in conservative mode, than bet into the overcard if you are in early position. If you are in late postion and someone bets into you, and you're not Heads-up, I'd say fold it. This is probably to simple an explanation though. You have to think about chip postion. What you think the opponent has, what he thinks you have. And, what I still have a problem with: What he thinks, you think, he has.
CV
You really haven't given us enough information.It depends on your position, whether you are a big stack or a small stack, how early or late it is in the tourney, who has bet in front of you,the texture of the game, etc. There is much to consider.
JJ is a tough hand to play at times. I would prefer to win the pot before the flop or at the worst play it heads up. In no limit your bet can go a long way in ensuring that.
In late position in a passive game you could even just call a cheap bet,but even here if a bunch of guys limped in before me, I might take a shot and go all in.
Since you're having trouble with JJ, don't! Don't go broke with JJ. If during the course of play, you think someone may have a better hand, fold. After more experience, you will be able to play it in some more borderline situations.
I think I might have played this hand wrong. What do you think.
I'm in Early Position with TT. I limp in. A middle postion player raised and just the BB and I call. Flop comes xKx with a Heart Flush draw, no Strait Draw. BB checks, I check and the raiser bets. BB folds I think about it and decide that I'll try to check-raise and see if my TT is still good. (Now I think I should have come out betting the Flop.) Anyway, the Raiser just cold calls. Now on the Turn the Flush draw completes, agian no Strait Draw. I bet and the Raiser just calls. Now on the River the worst card in the Deck falls, the Ace of Hearts making a Red Four Flush and Two Over cards to my Black TT. I check and Fold.
First, I think I might have saved a bet by just coming out betting the Flop and I might have "Tied" the Raiser on, when I wanted him to Fold, by Check Raising the Flop. I think on Forth Street I made the right play by betting into the Flush. I also feel I made the right Lay Down on the River.
Can anyone guess what cards the Raiser was holding? Hint: They weren't Suited or a Pocket Pair.
AK is my guess with the king being a heart. First you should have brought it in with a raise not a call. If you get reraised you can put the player on a high pair or at worst AK.
On the flop you have to bet,if raised, you can either fold or call.On the turn I would check and fold to a bet.You're beat.
Actually it was QhAc. The game was 10 handed so I didn't think raising in early postion was a good Idea with TT. I usually try to go for trips or if rags Flop, push my hand for what its worth. Since the Raiser only had AQo he must have known something was up when I check-raised the Flop. Though he was kind of loose. Maybe my check-raise gave him enough doubt to make a loose call. He just got lucky on the end.
CV
I don't know if the outcome of the hand would nhave been any different, but I do know that not raising in early position was too passive.With 10,10 you don't want to have to rely on flopping a set or low cards. You have to try like hell to limit the field down as low as you can.
As it turns out he did it for you by raising the flop,but with you just limping in and checking the flop your check raise looks suspect anyway.You trapped him for a raise and got stung in your own trap.
Had you raised preflop, bet strong on the flop he might have laid the hand down. Once he sees the turn card your goose is cooked.
When you get hands like JJ,1010,99 in early position you MUST raise,and for the most part forget fancy plays like check raise bluffs, and just play solid 90% of the time.
Jason Rosenburg said: "When you get hands like JJ,1010,99 in early position you MUST raise..."
There are often good reasons *not* to raise with these hands in early positions. These are laid out pretty clearly in HPFAP. See, for instance, the comments about playing J-J early.
With T-T, I would say that I am generally more likely to *reraise* with it than to open for a raise under the gun.
Constantly opening early for a raise with 9-9 is, I think, really just beginning to push it too far. You're going to be looking at no set and a flop containing overcards nearly 70% of the time.
In general, it seems to me that TT and 99 are tough cards to play with that flop as described, especially if neither gives you a deep back-door flush draw.
Raising them in tough game to drive out players may not work. Raising in loose game only helps when you hit the set (as fewer people drop). Raising in tight games might be worse, since a K would probably see your check-raise as a bluff since you didn't bet out first....
If you wouldn't raise in early postion ,first one in, with99, then you might as well fold it.Limping is the worst choice.Yes, 70% of the toime overcards will come ,that's why you want to win the hand preflop, or try to get it heads up.
You would reraise with 10,10,??? Depending upon who is doing the raising, that could be throwing away money.
While I have HPFAP, and read it several times, if it says that raising utg or in early position with JJ is incorrect,then I humbly disagree.
Jason,
You wrote : If you wouldn't raise in early postion ,first one in, with 99, then you might as well fold it. Limping is the worst choice.
UTG, I would normally fold 77, but folding 99 as opposed to limping is, imho, throwing away about the same EV as you would expect to make raising.
Etienne
I disagree with your view that limping in with the 9-9 is the worst choice. Just as it can often be correct to limp in early with a pair like 7-7, it can be correct with 9-9 - though it is clearly a better hand. You are playing it largely for it's set potential, but are happy if it happens to become an overpair to the flop. (pretty much as Chris V. stated in his post) It seems your philosophy about playing this hand would lead to the conclusion that you should raise with *any* pair you play from an early position. I think that would be what Mason M. would call a "self-weighting" strategy.
With the T-T, of course I would not 3-bet someone whose raising standards make them inordinately likely to have a big pair. But against typical players, a reraise with T-T can often give you a very good chance of getting it heads-up (or no more than 3-handed) where your chances of winning are good. There is usually far less chance of this when you're just opening for a raise early. (Note also that I was referring to my likelyhood of reraising with it accross all situations that come up. I might be less likely to do so against an early position raiser.)
Re. the J-J, as HPFAP points out, whether it is correct to open for a raise early depends on the game. Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't.
In most games we recommend that you just call UTG with hands like 10-10. Their main value is in flopping a set.
Let's assume for argument sake that an UTG player has a solid image. By just calling with 1010, I'm encouraging hands like Ax, AJ, KQ,KJ,QJ, Q10S,K10S, etc. to call.Would you call a raise from a solid utg raiser?? I wouldn't.I want those hands to fold.I want to win the hand right there if possible, or play against just the blind(s) and I'm going to come out betting no matter what comes on the flop,(unless a ragged flop with a ten).
I think the only problem with using that strategy all the time is that you will only win a small pot since no one will call, but plan to loose a large pot since only superior hands will call your raise. Of course, I can see playing this way every once in a while against players who will give me credit for having an AK or a Big Pocket Pair (which TT isn't in my book). I guess it would be more on the lines of a Bluff than a Semi-bluff since there is only a 8.4% chance I will improve my TT by the River.
An other thing is that when I Check-raised in this Hand I had a suspision that the Middle Position Raiser didn't have a King because I had seen him raise with Medium Pocket pairs and Axs. I guess I should have mentioned that. If I thought the player would most likely bet the Flop only with a King in the hole I would have folded. Also, this was a heads-up situation, if more players were still in the pot I would have Folded.
Again, we could debate this for hours. I'm not saying that you wrong. I would use your play, but I think in the games I usually play I would make more money not raising in early position. But middle and late position would be a different story.
CV
Well, I'd certainly rather raise UTG with T-T than with, say, 6-6. And - don't get me wrong - sometimes I do. But I think you need to think about where you draw the line, *and why you draw it there*. With what pairs do you begin to limp? Any? The thing is that T-T is right around that line. Again, if you look at the comments in HPFAP re the play of J-J in early position you will see some of why this is.
I can't find my copy of HPFAP,so I can't comment on the advice given there.I play mostly 10/20 to 20/40 holdem.In fact I played against Mason once a few years ago at the Mirage.
My philosophy is to play on the tight aggressive side depending upon the table chemistry.It is very important fior me to make my play as unpredictable as possible within my constraints. If I am going to only raise UTG or very early position with premium pairs, AK, or AQs AJs, I'm giving away too much imformation.I'm too readable. So I mix it up occasionally.Most of ther hands I play in early position I am going to come in with a raise or I'm not going to call.(Unless I'm on a slow play).
How can I play small pairs from up front. I don't know what the action is going to be like behind me.If I knew that 5 or 6 players were going to limp then I'd limp too.I would usually raise with tens and probably nines too. The lower pairs I would usually muck.(depends on the texture of the game)In a really rocky game I might raise with a pair of 6's .In an average game I'd probably muck, in a loose aggressive game I would muck. In a loose passive game I'd limp.
Other factors enterf into it. When was the last time I saw the flop? If I'm perceived as very tight I might come in with a raise. Have I been winning consistently? No one is going to respect a raise from a guy who is getting pounded.
Soooo, yah I'm going to enter the pot in early position raising with tens and jacks almost everytime, but there are a bunch of other hands I'm going to be raising with also.
Now in late position my play on these hands will vary widely depending upon the game texture and who has entered the pot in front of me. I tend to do a lot more calling in late position. Raising with jacks or AK is far less automatic.
Since you fear too many passive callers there isn't anything wrong with limping in. I don't particularly like 10 10 early in that kind of game for the same reason.
It looks like you saw the possibility of the raiser not having a K or bigger pocket pair to be significant. I keep going back and forth on whether or not it would have been better to bet out or check raise like you did so it is probably a wash. I don't think you got any more information with the check raise than you would have gotten with betting out and betting out would only have risked 1 bet instead of 2 if he had come over the top.
But by check raising you represent a strong K at least. His call of the raise is a pretty good indication that your 10's are at least even money to be the best at that point. For him with his AQo (I peeked) he is making a terrible call of your raise. Pot odds are only giving him 9 to 1 and he should figure a Q is only going to cost him more money in the long run. That leaves only a 3 out 14.5 to 1 shot on the turn.
By betting out you keep the pot small enough that chasing isn't as attractive but the raiser can feel a little better that pairing his Q might still be good. Pot odds are 7 to 1 for a call on his part and his draw is 6.8 to 1. Enough that a call on his part would probably be correct though borderline.
So, since his call of your check raise was a big mistake and a call of an out bet would be marginal then you made the right play under the circumstances.
Of course, once the 3d heart comes on the turn there is no way you can shake him even if the K on the board wasn't a heart (you didn't say), and a call on his part is clearly correct.
Mark
I don't like the check-raise on the flop here either. Calling with TT UTG pre-flop can be excused, but raising immediately makes more sense as others have stated. The exception to this is if you are in a game where players routinely call two bets cold (they are going to play their hand anyway regardless of what your raise might imply) from any position. Avoid the immediate raise against a table full of calling stations, and reraise if the raise comes out of late position or if most of the players are still in the hand when it gets back to you. Has this player ever seen you check-raise semibluff on the flop (maybe with just the flush draw)? I don't know if you could have gotten this live one to fold before the turn. I would have checked behind you on the flop, and likely have raised your bet on the turn (with the ace of suit) when the flush card falls (seven outs on the redraw if you reraise with a made flush, otherwise you'll probably muck anything else but a set which I think you'd just call the raise with). See how I'd know about where you were at before the river?
Although I've tried several times using different computers and browsers, I now get an "operation timed out" message and can no longer access the archives. Is there anything that can be done to make them available again?
- Greg
I also couldn't access- Netscape 4.01
Sorry for the problems with the archives. I've alerted Chuck. I'm sure he'll let us know what's going on just as soon as he knows. Please bear with us.
Thanks for calling this to my attention. I am working on a solution.
Chuck
For those of you who are "famous poker players", such as Malmuth, Sklansky or Zee, do you think you're in a slight disadvantage in that many people who you have never played against will know you and maybe your style. For example, when I was at Binion's, I sat in a 30-60 Hold'em game with Mason, he obviously did not know me, but right off the bat, I knew how he played (which is that he is a good solid player). If Mason had not written all those books, maybe it would have probably taken me a lot longer to recognize his abilities at the table.
So, how do you handle that? Is there anything you can do? Or do you just take that into consideration when you play, and adjust accordingly.
Thanks.
You know what, I'd be willing to bet that the best poker players (Brunson, etc) will take on ALL challengers, regardless of their opponents' knowledge, because they feel that they can catch up pretty quickly and crush them.....
I'd also be willing to bet that 2+2 folks have the same attitude (prob. justified!)- or why would they "dare" to write strategy books that would "give them away"??? I don't know if they are the best or not, but I'd rather not find out personally....
To directly answer: they probably aren't worried about it- it's called confidence and experience.
I would like to invite our readers to submit guest essays for review. Long or short, if it is thoughful and contains beneficial information we will consider posting it. E-mail me if you would like to discuss any particular idea.
Thanks
P.S. See Mason's new essay posted in the "Mason Sounds Off" section.
Are there any major changes or corrections in the 2nd edition compared to the first?
No. The information is the almost all the same. The book was re-type set, card pictures were added, and a small number of changes were made. But if you have the first addition there is no reason to update.
.
Im just wondering. I understand the tactic of a bluff check-raise on the river-- after missing his hand. However, wouldn't the stonger play in this situation-- be for Ray to check-raise the turn-- and then bet whether or not he completes his draw on the river?
Comments appreciated.
A lot depends on what you think your opponent thinks. The advantage of check raising the turn is that if your opponent doesn't fold you may draw out on the river. On the other hand, if your opponent recognizes the possible draw he might feel compelled to pay off. There is no possible draw for him to recognize on the river.
One thing I know about Ray is that he won't easily give up on winning the money. Could be he decided early on that the opponent might have been drawing himself, so Ray allowed him to bluff the river (after the flush draw missed) and after the maximum chips were in the pot, then tried to steal the pot. Also, don't forget, there is a good chance Ray could have played with him in an earlier session and might have known he could be out of line.
Just my $0.02
Please don't misunderstand- I'm not criticizing Ray-- by any stretch. If there's one thing that I've learned-- anytime that someone asks me about a situation-- The single most important factor is who you're playing against. So, I don't claim to know the variables in THIS situation. I just USUALLY-- If I have a big draw-- prefer to check-raise the turn and bluff the river when I miss-- as opposed to bluff check-raise the river. Perhaps I need to rethink this one-- or simply vary my play more often.
Thanks for the comments-- Mason and Joe.
I have been playing poker for a couple of years and thoroughly enjoy it as a hobbie but I think there are some things that hold back how great poker could be and how big it could be in America and around the world. I believe there is great potential to improve the game and its image.
Unfortunately, poker and gambling has a negative reputation, which is somewhat justified by those who participate and abuse the privilidge . I wish something could be done to improve this image and make poker a more acceptable form of entertainment. I think there is an excellant opportunity to change that image right now due to the increased participation in the WSOP and movies like "rounders" which will bring more attention the game.
I dont know how hard it would be, but I think an organization like the PGA should be started, maybe call it the professional poker players association(PPPA) and require membership by all players who participate in events with prize money of over xxxxx amount of dollars. The purpose of this organization would be all or some of the following:
1. Promote the game of poker and work to project a favorable public image.
2. Create a list of standards for all members...i.e. proof of financial stabilty(like in golf so pokers dont get a bad rep for not paying bills etc) dress codes, code of conduct, etc. The purpose of all of these would be for the betterment of the game. This may open doors for Corporate sponsership. Who would want to sponser most of the poker players now? Nothing personal but a lot of the time we dont dress the best, take showers, shave, etc. This probably sounds harsh, but its the only way corporate america could ever get behind the game.
3. Promote and establish a world poker circuit
4. This one is a two edged sword......develop technology that would enable people watch the events on TV and see the players hole cards--------I can hear everyone screaming as I write this....I know no-one would want that information available to their competition, but if it was only for the final table or 2 days, whichever is deemed best, this could really generate a lot of tv and corporate dollars. This would make the events that much more lucrative for the players.
5. Work with casinos and poker rooms to establish standards that are to the benefit of the game and that promote new players participation......
. .a. Something that I wish all poker rooms would start to do is; implement a policy that punishes players who try to intimidate or rebuke a player for his play.(you know what I am talking about........some local or guy who thinks he is hot @#?!!, is getting pounded by some neophite that is getting lucky and instead of licking his chops and waiting for his opportunity he lays into the neophite about his play and thereby takes the fun out of the game and the neophite never plays again! This happened to my friend while we were playing last weekend) This is terrible for the game!!!!!! They should be tossed from the casino immediately! The casino wouldnt lose because, ultimately, the player will come back, especially if the poker room has cultivated a place whereby inexperienced players feel comfortable coming to play and return on a regular basis. We need to work to remove the intimidation factor for new players!
. .b. establish a minor dress code
6. Use funds to lobby the government where necessary and relevant. Also work to legalize poker in states where it is not legal.
I could go on and on..............
Other thoughts:
I love the WSOP, but I think the Horseshoe is really dropping the ball in how they have set that thing up. The games are spread all over and to the unknowledgeable person, its next to impossible to tell what is going on. They should build a bigger cardroom that can facilitate the entire event in an organized fashion so that people can be drawn into it and really get a feel for the experience. This could generate tons of new interest and participation in the game.
They should build a big room like the TAJ in Atlantic City and add an area with a dropped floor, much like a basketball arena. They could have bleachers around the pit during big events so that people could have a better view of the action. Moniters with zoomed views of the cards would help people follow the action(the moniters at the WSOP were pitiful, you could hardly see the cards, also the bleachers were falling apart and the security guy ultimately kicked everyone off the bleachers except for the press--whats up with that?). When the tournements are not going, this pit area could be used for high stakes poker and people would still have a good view to see the games.
The dollars involved in these events alone should attract a huge following! America loves to gamble, the PPPA could work to figure how we can enjoy watching people gamble!
I think there would be some minor costs associated implementing these ideas and security issues, but the benefits would far and away exceed the information, privacy and comfort we would be giving up. Its the same philosophy 2 + 2 has. They could have kept all of their information to themselves and benefitted greatly, but by writing books and publishing information about poker it has served to make the game better for all!
Poker sure seems to be exploding across the country and the world, it sure seems like a great opportunity to take the game to an unimaginable level!
What are your thoughts?
You raise some good points. I believe Mike Sexton is trying to develop things along the lines that you are discussing here. I believe that Poker needs to be matched up with other events such as Billiards or 9 Ball championships. Pool has had the same type of reputation, but has raised itself out of the mirk, so to speak. Or what if you went to a car race but after or before that event at the same venue there was a No Limit Poker Championship going on? This would attract huge draws of curious people who have never witnessed high stakes gambling before. I think that if Poker can piggy-back under other events for a while and get taken out of the Casino atmosphere part of the time it stands a better chance. Comments??
Great idea, I think anything that can help pokers image and increase participation would be great for the game. Those are the type of ideas that could really get the ball rolling.
Surely, there are more devoted poker players than billiard players and Bowlers, yet they have a professional circuit. Another great thing about poker is that all ages can compete against each other for their entire lives(assuming good health)
Eventhough every private club in the country has a poker room it's still illegal in most states. The best thing to do to promote the game would be to standardize the house rules and the rules for the dealers to follow. When a player went to play somewhere else they wouldn't have to learn new rules or think about if someone does this what happens. The day is coming when more states will (are) legalize slot machines at racetracks and maybe poker rooms. We need people like Mike to tell the State here is a set of standard poker rules that will prevent cheating and are fair to everybody. Most people equate gambling with cheating and that attitude needs to be changed first.
'Another great thing about poker is that all ages can compete against each other for their entire lives(assuming good health)"
Actually, have you seen some of the players at the games, health-wise?
I think a better statement would have been "assuming good-enough WEALTH" !! :)
Too Bad Poker isn't that much fun to watch. Unless you really get into Poker, as a player, spectating is just boring. How many of you would enjoy watching a Fencing match. I'm a pretty good Fencer but unless you are also a good Fencer you will never be able to appreciate what I'm doing on the Strip. At least in Golf, spectators can marvle at how far the ball was Driven or how long the Putt was.
I guess if edited well with a couple well known Poker Commetators who can see the Player's Hole cards. Watching Poker wouldn't be that bad. I just can't see Poker becoming a big sport. Look at Chess, you can see every move the Players make, but its so complex only good players actually enjoy watching it.
As for better promotion of Poker. That looks to be tough. Try to tell a Casino to pull out a bank of Slot machines to put in a Poker Table. Ha Ha. What needs to be done, which will be slow but sure. Is to have People like S&M give out good information about the game so that people like you and me can actually win some of the time, and maybe even be in the Black. Once more people truely become winning players then maybe Poker will be taken Seriously as a Game of Skill and not a Con like the game of Craps. I tell you I've had a very tough time trying to show my friends why you can win at Poker, but not at Craps or Roulette. I still think some of them don't get it. Its all Voodoo to them. I'll stop rambling now....
CV
"As for better promotion of Poker. That looks to be tough. Try to tell a Casino to pull out a bank of Slot machines to put in a Poker Table. ... can actually win some of the time, and maybe even be in the Black. Once more people truely become winning players then maybe Poker will be taken Seriously as a Game of Skill and not a Con like the game of Craps."
Actually, Chris, what needs to be done is show conclusive evidence to the casinos that they GAIN, not lose by adding poker. Some proof that this message may be getting across? The sports book/poker room combination of location.
If casinos could see that players often take their winnings and give the casinos a shot at the money (track, sports bets, table games), they'd probably feel warmer. My wife and I have made a LOT more trips to casinos (and actually, 95% of them were to ONE casino= customer loyalty increased by poker) since we started playing "The Game".
Whether it could be proved that this win/win for the casinos (poker room income, food income, plus improved chance that $$ doesn't leave) is better than slots profits guarentees is the question. As an example.. I almost NEVER play slots (hate 'em), except video poker sometimes. When I was just gambling, I went a number of times for the various table gambling (I LOVE craps, by the way, even though I didn't play often because of bankroll requirements). My wife and I doubled/tripled our visits to the casino in 97 vs. 96, with a corresponding greater total $$ loss to the casino games.. So, poker accomplished the following: 1) Made us go more often 2) Made us go to one place 3) Gained the casino more money overall then ever before- that they wouldn't have gained if poker wasn't available.
THAT is the kind of information that the casinos would salivate over, and would motivate poker rooms...
Check out the European Poker Players Association. It might serve as a good model for what you would like to see.
Eric
Unfortunately, I will be surprised if poker tournaments ever get any significant corporate sponsorship.
What I view as the major hurdle is the total lack of any merchandising tie-ins. Early in its career, things like the professional tours for golf, bowling, billiards, tennis, etc. got sponsorship from companies that sold the equipment used to play those games. Clearly, a golf club company has some incentive to tie itself into professional golfers, so that they can say that the best players use their product. There is no such possibility in poker. Sure, Macanudo sponsored some poker tournaments in Atlantic City, but who cares whether the best poker players smoke that brand, they don't necessarily know anything about cigars. Whereas, a golf pro obviously must know a lot about golf clubs, balls, etc.
Now, if we could ever make poker a popular spectator game on TV, then we could get corporate sponsors who get TV time in exchange for their sponsorship. This is why sports like golf now get corporate money from car-makers and others who aren't directly in the golf business. I know personally that although racquetball is a popular sport to play, it doesn't televise worth a damn, and has never built-up any useful TV audience. As such, the pro racquetball events are still sponsored almost entirely by racquetball equipment manufacturers. Again, unfortunately, I would be quite surprised if poker ever became popular to watch on TV. The excitement just isn't there to watch it for hours, and if tournaments are structured too quickly, they become almost completely luck-driven.
Obviously, however, just because I can't see how corporate sponsorship will ever work for poker doesn't mean that someone with more brains won't come along and solve the puzzle. The problems certainly appear insurmountable to me.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
>This is why sports like golf now get corporate money from
>car-makers and others who aren't directly in the golf
>business.
While the golf audience may be a small fraction of the population, they are a clearly defined, lucrative market for advertisers of luxury cars, investment companies, etc. The potential exists to similarly market poker to specific sectors..
> I know personally that although racquetball is a popular
>sport to play, it doesn't televise worth a damn, and has
>never built-up any useful TV audience. As such, the pro
>racquetball events are still sponsored almost entirely by
>racquetball equipment manufacturers. Again,
>unfortunately, I would be quite surprised if poker ever
>became popular to watch on TV. The excitement just isn't
>there to watch it for hours, and if tournaments are
>structured too quickly, they become almost completely
>luck-driven.
Play a five-hour final table, and then edit the film down to 30 minutes. Especially in no-limit, the number of significant hands is a small fraction of the total, and time waiting for decisions could also generally be edited out.
Another problem is the need for recognizable competitors. Casual spectators would need people to consistently follow. At the major tournament level, the winners may be complete unknowns. While there are many personalities in the game, there is a high likelihood that none of them would even make the final table of a specific tournament. This raises the possibility of just selecting nine competitors for a televised match, rather than playing down a field of several hundred.
Anyone know about the TOC and how well that will work? From what I've read (just in Cardplayer), it seems like an ambitious effort, but something that could be successfull.
Actually, as far as tie ins there are some that would work. Cigars as mentioned is good , cigarettes, Jewelry. But it doesn't neccesarily have to fit the game. Volleyball has many sponsors that are not directly re-lated that work, in fact you could add alcohol and sunglasses, and more. Also I had seen on tv that there was a group of investors that were trying to start a gaming channel on cable. I think this would go over as there would instruction on all types of gaming from poker to horse racing, and if people watch, then the advertisers will come. So maybe the first step is to get a tv channel.
I would like to here different idea's of how to play when you hold two over card's in your hand on the flop. I know there are a lot of unanswered things here [was it raised was it resaised, how many callers, your position] I notice so many people play it differently Some players always call one bet with overcards, some only call with AK, some players resaise with them. I have my way of playing them But I won't get in to that . I will say that I've changed my way of playing them in the last two year's. I would also like to know the limit you play at becuase idea's at 3and 6 may not work 20 and 40 and idea's at 20 and 40 may not work at 3 and 6. I feel there different games that need to be played differently. I'd like to hear from players at all limits.
You are asking a wide open question.
I play them completely differently depending on the texture of the game and my opponents. I also play very differently in tournament situations vs. ring games.
Sometimes I'll bet. Sometimes I'll call. Sometimes I'll fold. It really depends on what I put my opponents on (based on preflop and postflop actions and their normal tendencies), how big is the pot, what was the texture of the flop, and what I think I can accomplish with my action.
Here is an ABC way of playing overcards on the Flop. This comes from recent notes I've taken from HPFAP in attempt to improve my game.
Of course this relates to a tougher game than 3-6. These plays aren't as good in Loose Wild games. I think unless you have a backdoor Flush in a Loose Game you should throw away Two overcards on the Flop if they haven't paired and if they have paired you should check-raise them to try to drive out the Calling Stations.
1) Overcards should be bet especially if they have a Backdoor Flush opportunity. 2) Overcards should call if they have a chance of being good if they hit on the Turn. 3) If Overcards can get a Free-Card they should be checked against many opponents, but bet against few opponents if they have a chance of winning on the Flop. 4) You can also try to raise with Overcards if you are in late position and think you can get a Free-card.
Maybe I should have kept this to myself. I really don't want anyone using this information against me.
CV
The most important considerations are 1)How many players are with you on the flop 2)Are you in first betting position 3) Has someone called a bet in front of you 4)Are there any draws on board
With few opponents (one or two, maximum three) you have a good chance that neither of them has got anything. Fast play before the flop may indicate a strong holding being out there. With few opponents play aggressively. Bet or raise on the flop but slow down if more than one opponent stays with you for the turn. If one player goes to the turn, keep bullying. A lot of players will call on the flop but fold on the turn.
If someone bets on the flop and a player in front of you calls, the value of your overcards has gone way down. Be prepared to fold here, especially if there are flush or straight draws on board. If there is a flush draw on board you may hit one of your overcards but still lose the pot if it makes a three flush on board. Instead of six outs you're down to four. Bad deal.
It pays to know the players involved but any time you decide to play your overcards the key word is aggression. Lee Jones in "Winning Low Limit Hold'em" argues that you won't leave much on the table if you decide to virtually never get involved with overcards. I agree to an extent. Opportunities do arise though. Especially against weak/timid opponents and against a field of just one or two players. But you gotto come out with all guns blazing. The checking/calling approach won't work.
To answer your sub-question, I play 5-10 Limit Hold'em.
Onno van Keulen
Dear David,
I play at the 3-6 level. The games vary from between really loose to quite tough.
I take a very mathematical approach to the game - not a heuristic one. At any stage of a poker hand, you can consider that each player currently involved has a certain percentage equity in the pot. In a sense, the reason why you do anything (bet, raise, fold) is to increase your own equity (and simultaneously decrease your opponents') in the pot, or else to change the size of the pot so that your percentage equity, whether it increases or decreases, represents a larger absolute amount of money.
After the flop, if you could imagine what other people have in their hand, you can calculate their percentage equity. I would always want to have slightly more than 100%/number of players.
If you're playing against reasonable players, they will only play if they have a chance of winning. So they would play only if they hit a pair or draw.
So at face value, if you're playing in a game where everyone plays reasonably well, overcards are worth very little unless you're getting high implied odds, because you're only going to be up against a better hand.
The value of overcards would come mainly from places other than the possibility of hitting an overpair. Their value would come from the possibility that you can bluff with them, the possibility that you can manipulate your opponents into giving you those overpairs cheaply, or the fact that you are in a really weak game where you have other opponents who have even less probability of winning. For example, if you raise coming in with two big cards, you buy yourself bluffing rights, as you can represent an overpair.
And for all of those reasons, I would suggest that they also apply to other types of situations, such as when you hit a middle pair with overcard and backdoor flush with Axs. If you're going to use the tricks I mention above, you might as well wait until you have a better chance of winning.
So I don't think much of overcards.
Richard Cavell
Forum,
At Cactus Pete's in Jackpot. They always have a 1-3-6-6 spread limit Hold'em game going, but not much else. Anyway, it has a $1 dollar SB and a $2 dollar BB. If you raise the Blinds you can make it up to 5 dollars to come in. Of course the next raise would make it $8. Anyway, I've always wondered how I should loosen or tighten my starting hand requirements from a regular 3-6 game. I thought since my Implied odds are better I should loosen up on my Drawing hands. But how much? It doesn't seem like $1 less would make much difference. But it seems to make lots of multi handed pots. Also for only $1 extra in the small blind should I start playing any two cards?
CV
Forum,
Now that I think about it. I should probably Tighten up because there is less money in the Pot.
CV
The different blind structure changes your implied odds. For example, you should probably limp with all small pairs unless there is a fair amount of raising. On the other hand you may want to steal less unless the blinds are folding a lot more than in a normal game. I would also play almost any two cards in the small blind for just $1 unless the player in the big blind raises a lot.
I really enjoyed playing the Sklansky Challenge. I was wondering if it ever is put into Casinos, would it promote more people to be interested in Live Poker?
One thing about Live Poker is that to the new player it is very intimidating. The Sklansky challenge is a hard game to play well but it lacks the intimidation factor. Also, if a person learns how to play the Sklansky Challenge well. They are on thier way to being a good low-limit player. So, David is this Video Game part of some master plan to brain wash gamblers into playing Live poker? I hope it works!!
CV
what is the Skalansky Challenge?
This is a new game (with several variations) that I invented with the intention of offering it to casinos as either a live table game or a video game. For now it is available in CD form as part of Interplay's Beat the House II virtual casino game or as part of Interplay's Caesars Palace Video Poker Deluxe game. Both are available in most computer stores. You can also sample Poker Challenge by clicking on it on this website's home page.
One thing that should be noted is that the Caesars Palace version dosn't have any on-line help if you make a wrong choice durring the play of the Hand. I made the wrong choice of buying Caesars Palace and not Beat the House 2.
CV
Assumptions:
1) The below quoted prices are valide and coexist at a certain point in time.
2) I didn't botch the mental math
3) I have the correct understanding of how future's prices work.
I pulled these prices off http://www.nss.net/Futures/BoxFut.html.
WBA HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE - 12 ROUNDS
SATURDAY, JUNE 6 - MADISON SQUARE GARDEN
LAST MOVED - 05/13/98
........................ BAL-HILTON MIRAGE STARDUST
Henry Akinwande ...........+350.......+550....+400
Evander Holyfield ............-500.......-750....-600
I rarely bet sports as I hate giving up EV and have no reason to think I'm a superexpert. With that disclaimer, and bearing in mind that I botched the full house prices on Sklansky's first puzzler, I hope I have the following correct:
a -x means you bet x to win $100 + x,
and a +x means you bet $100 to win $100 + x.
If this is so, one could arbitrage by betting Holyfield at Bally's and Akinwande at the Mirage thus:
Bet $520 on Holyfield at Bally's which wins $632 if Holyfield wins.
Bet $100 on Akinwande at the Mirage which wins $650 if Akinwande wins.
You're guaranteed at least $12 and at most $30. Of course, these numbers can be adjusted to guarantee something in the middle, I just did these in my head real quick to make this example work.
Now, aren't the markets efficient enough that gamblers are jumping in to bring these prices in line? If I was still in Vegas, I'd be 2nd mortgaging the house to bet these two sides(after confirming I had the numbers right of course!). Assuming I could acquire $100k, would $16k and $84k be enough to bring these prices to equilibrium? Off the top of my head, it seems like $100k of action buys you about $3-4 k of guaranteed profit over just one month. Do these situations occur often enough that I'm wasting my time here in Arizona with a day job? Or am I missing something?
JG
the concept is the same tho
Jim,
The way I have it figured if you lay $520 at Ballys on Holyfield you profit by $104 if Holyfield wins. If you take the odds on Akinwande for $100 you win $550. Plus $4 or plus $30. If you lay $540 on Holyfield you and take the odds on Akinwande for $100 you win $8 or $10 dollars. Therefore if I lay $54000 on Holyfield at Ballys and bet $10000 on Akinwande at the Mirage I make either $800 or $1000 dollars. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. I hope I got the math right.
Tom Haley
This arbitrage opportunity provides ~1.3% (= 1/77) guaranteed return (achieved by betting both sides in a 32.5 : 6 proportion) on investment in about 3.5 weeks, which annualizes to a ~21% annual return (21k made from your 100k bankroll annually). If the sports betting market is not very efficient, maybe you can cut down the investment time to less than 3.5 weeks (and therefore increase your annual rate of return), but even so, I'm guessing it would be difficult to stay fully invested in a similar opportunity at all times (many will overlap, for instance). Bottom line - probably not a good idea to quit your day job unless you have some other gambling income prospects.
Tom Weideman
Tom and Jim,
Actually I was thinking that the line on baseball games might provide more opportunities for this type of "arbitrage." After reviewing the 2+2 book, Gambling for a Living, this strategy is mentioned for baseball games on page 81. I have no idea how often this opportunity presents itself for baseball games but I would guess more than once a week at the sports books in Vegas.
Tom Haley
This happens several times a week in baseball with both sides and totals.But you must have multiple outs and you must be able to get down before the move hits.
Joey,
Thank you very much for your input. I agree with what your saying. Have you tried it? I was thinking that you could either call in the bet someway (even offshore bookmakers) or have a partner and use cell phones. Is this too crazy?
Tom Haley
Actually local books are much better for this than any other because they tend to move with their own action.The big offices in the islands move the fastest by far,Mirage and Stardust and any other Vegas books are much slower than the islands,because the islands take much higher amounts and they have alot more wise action.The snags you run into are the limits and vegas and island books make you post,no betting on credit.Usually the difference is small,average about 5 cents,which means you have to bet $1000 a side to win $50,and that's only if the dog wins.Can you make alot of money doing this?No.Can a baseball better increase his winnings or cut his losses by doing this?Absolutely.
This is a real scenario from the world series of poker three years ago. There were 22 players left and I had the shortest stack of chips left. I was under the gun with the blinds being 3 and 6 thousand. I had 8 thousand left in chips and we were playing limit holdem. I picked up AJ off suit and raised. The small blind threw his hand away and the big blind, who had roughly 18 thousand promptly raised me all in so we were heads up.
To make a long story short I busted out. I have often wondered if I made the correct play. The player with the next closest amount of chips had 13 thousand left and he was in mid -position in relation to the blinds.
Any thougts or commentary?
You were going to be put all-in by the blinds in two hands anyway. With a hand as good as AJo, you have to put it all in. You did the right thing by raising, based on a stack of T8000.
What I don't understand is how the big blind raised you all in? If you raise a T6000 big blind with a T8000 stack, you should have already been all-in. Are you sure about the stack size and blinds?
If you actually had T14000 (blind + T8000) then you still did the right thing, imho. You would have been put in before the T13000 stack. AJo is still better than you would probably get in the next 12 hands or so. The T13000 stack is sure to wait you out unless he picks up a big hand.
Being a WSOP hold'em event, I suspect that they were paying 27 places. If so, 21st and 22nd probably paid the same. But you still want a chance to finish 18th or better, for the higher pay-off. So you are going to need to make a move with the first playable hand you get.
Hi,
Here is a topic that is slightly off the beaten path. I am currently living and working in Taipei, Taiwan. It is a land with a stunning lack of gaming opportunities--except for Mahjong.
Thus, I am planning a trip to Macau for a little fun, and hopefully, profit. However, I have never been to Macau before, and I am totally unaware of what kind of games are played in their casinos. I assume that they have the standard casino (read: long-odds) favorites.
However, I am wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Macau's casinos, and can offer any information on the games played there. Also, I will be seeking some Seven-Card Stud and Hold'Em action while there. Does anyone have any experience with playing poker in Macau?
Any insights that could be offered about playing in Macau would be appreciated. I am most interested in hearing about poker in Macau.
Thanks, Darren.
Darren,
Here is a topic that is slightly off the beaten path.
Sometimes winners in Macau casinos are found here also.
I am currently living and working in Taipei, Taiwan. It is a land with a stunning lack of gaming opportunities--except for Mahjong.
If that's the case, I'm surprised that you haven't heard about the spate of killings and bombings going on between rival gangs involved with the various casinos in Macau. Special forces have been flown in from Portugal to deal with the problem, with not too much success.
Thus, I am planning a trip to Macau for a little fun, and hopefully, profit.
Unless you personally know Broken Tooth Koi (just ask around), or your entourage includes about the same level of security afforded to President Clinton, I strongly suggest investing a little more and flying down to Melbourne or Sydney. For poker, I think your closest bet would be Vienna. Till then, stick to Mahjong.
I assume that they have the standard casino (read: long-odds) favorites.
Correct. You cannot expect to be a large winner and live.
Just my opinion.
Etienne
Oh yeah.
I am very aware of the situation with Broken Tooth Koi and the various Triads making hay in Macau. But, small things--like gunfire and carbombs going off--never interrupt my concentration at the card table. It is the big things, like having the putz accross from me draw to an inside straight flush, that throw me off my game. ;-))
Darre
You once wrote (I believe in the first Poker Essay book; I don't have it handy) that none of the PC poker games you had seen were realistic or particularly useful for practice or learning (I'm paraphrasing). Have you seen anything new on the market since that time that is any better? Is playing an unrealistic game (as you state, the main problem is that the program, i.e., the other "players", does not learn from or react to events) just not useful, or can it be actually detrimental? Will an unrealistic game teach the wrong things, or reinforce the wrong behavior? If the games are not going to help me learn poker, are there any that are at least not harmful, that could be used purely for recreation?
Thanks in advance,
Mike B
I believe that the "side limit games of stud and hold 'em" in the WSOP computer game are reasonably good to practice on. This is particularly true for the hold 'em. I consulted on them so I should know. Unfortunately we ran out of time and memory space so they are not as good as they should be.
As for the other games I have never seen anything that is worthwhile. Some people are saying however that the new version of the Turbo programs from Wilson software is better. I have not yet looked at these, but I would not recommend their previous versions. Also, if you get a program and it gives advice on how to play, be very careful. It doesn't take that much incorrect advice to cause you to lose all your money.
In this Chapter there are two examples of Folding a Good but not Great Hand when there was no Raise before the Flop and you are in Second Position. A Solid player in First Position bets and there are many players after you.
In one you hold AcTc and the Flop is AsQs9d.
I'm still scratching my head. Is the Fold correct because the Flop could have hit some players with a strong Drawing Potential? Every time I look at this problem. I keep thinking I should Raise and not Fold because I probably have the Best hand. Of course Calling wouldn't be a good play. What am I missing here?
Thnaks, Chris
Chris,
Your flush chances are now nil, plus your chances of making a straight which exclusively wins the pot (without sharing with someone else) are very small.
Our initially strong ATs has in effect turned into the inferior AT, a hand which S&M have plenty of warnings about - see The First Two Cards - Afterthought, p.36.
Etienne
i think the point is, a solid- solid being the optimem word- player to your right bet, in early position- with players to act behind you. your in the middle, if he has aj, your in bad shape. then their is the possibility of a raise behind you. anytime you have players behind you you have to lower your implied odds because of the risk of a raise or a draw out. either raise or fold.
Chris,
Remember that in the book a solid player is betting into you. Also remember that in the book it states that there has been no raise before the flop which means the pot is smaller. The possiblity that you may not have the best hand; the possibility of raises and re-raises due to the action behind you; the fact that there may be a lot of cards that come off the deck that hurt your hand; and the small chances of improving your A,T (even if you hit your kicker it may help someone more) combined together would probably dictate a fold. I say probably because I agree that it is a raise or fold situation. Also in HFAP it is stated that if the pot is large you should raise in the situation you are describing.
Tom Haley
if i had bothered to read the other responses first i wouldnt have bothered to post a message, well thought out responses.
Choose your battles. The pot is small so why not just give up? If you raise and get action, you can't like your hand.
It is unlikely the bettor is bluffing or semibluffing because with many players in the pot it is very likely someone would like that flop.
By the way, I'm not convinved this is a raise or fold situation. I might call to collect more information and see if a blank hits on the turn, at which point I may like my hand more.
Recently in a Limit Hold'em Tournament I make it to the final table. The blind structure at this point is T300 and T500 with a playing limit of T500 and T1000. I find myself with T1800 in 4th position. Here are other details: the game is fairly tight, only 2 or 3 people seeing the flop; 2 people with stacks lower than me (one with T1000 and another with T1300); chip leader at this point has around T6000 and the rest of the players are somewhere in between (don't remember exactly); tournament pays six places.
I get dealt Kd Jd, i figure that I either raise or fold. I chose the former. One guy calls me all in and the big blind (chip leader) calls me. Flop comes 8c9dJs. I like the flop since it gives me top pair and backdoor straight and flush potential. I bet and the big blind calls. Turn comes the Td a card that doesn't make me feel very comfortable, but I figure that at this point I only have T300 left so I bet all in. Big bling calls. River the Jh.
Showdown: Big blind makes a straight with 77 and the all in player had Ad4d. I bust out of the tournament.
I was wondering if any of you had any comments on this play. Whether it was good to raise and decide to go all in with KdJd given my position and my chip count. And if it was good to bet it all the way as I did or try to save a few chips on the turn since there was a straight out there (but i think that this play leaves me with only T300 and the blinds are coming up).
Thanks in advance,
Carlos
Carlos,
Personally I would have play it the same way. You could have picked up the blinds conceivably. You ended up with a good hand but just got a little unlucky. I am assuming that payouts were top heavy.
Tom Haley
Thanks for responding Tom. I figured that if I had been on the big blind with the amount of chips this woman had, 77 would've been a good call for only T500. On the flop maybe she just put me on AK or not a pair and that is why she called the bet on the flop. But I would've figure that if I'm going all in in 4th position I should have flopped a set or at least an over pair.
The tournament was a $25 buy-in with no rebuys. The payouts were around $100 for 6th, and 1st paying around $600. Every other place somewhere in between.
carlos
Carlos,
One thing is that she was probably thinking she had 6 outs on the flop although she could be dead or almost dead against every one of them. Even with the four straight on the turn you still had some outs like a queen and/or a flush card. It seems that if you would have folded it would have been hard to survive with the small amount of chips left and the pot was laying you enough to draw at them. If you would have checked I doubt you could have folded to a bet on the river.
Tom Haley
The following took place during a no-limit Hold-em tournament. I would be interested in comments regarding this play.
Background/Structure
The tournament started with about 45 players and was down to two tables, with 6 and 7 players each. The blinds doubled every 20 minutes and were currently at 200/100 and about to go up to 400/200 in a couple of hands. They were paying 4 places, with the payouts at $1800/900/500/400 (or something close to that split.) I had played in this tournament before and typically figured you would need at least $2000 in tourney chips at the final table in order to have a decent chance to survive the blinds and finish in the money.
The Play
The average stack size at my table was $1500, with the big stack about $3000. There was one big stack at the other table close to $10,000. I have $1400 in chips and figure that I have to make a move in the next 30 minutes(15-20 hands maximum) or get blinded out. As mentioned, the blinds are $200/100. I am to the left of an under-the-gun player and pick up JJ. The UTG player (solid, not tricky) pushes all-in for about $1800 before I get the chance. I tak a little time and consider the following:
1. He also needs to make a move and would probably bring it in for a smaller raise with AA or KK and try to trap someone on the flop, or possible even suck the aggressive big stack in before the flop. So I definitely rule out AA or KK.
2. Picking up the blinds at this stage is also crucial, so an all-in move with AK, AQ, or even AJ would not be out-of-line. Of course, I wouldn't mind taking my roughly 50/50 chances against this group of hands at this stage of the game.
3. In my mind, an all-in move also would be appropriate with even a small pair, since probably only the big stack would call without a premium pair, or possible AK. Of course I love my chances against a smaller pair, but somehow feel that it is not his most likely holding give his position.
4. What about QQ? Yes, this guy would also make this bet with QQ, so there is one hand I really fear. I quickly handicap him as follows: 50% AK AQ or AJ; 35% QQ; 20% small/middle pair; remote 5% AA or KK. So, I call, but not with a great degree of confidence.
Epilogue
I hit a Jack on the flop (two kings also came, but no Q or A). I graciously turn over my Jacks-full-of-Kings. The UTG guy mucks his hand, claims he had Queens and proceeds to grumble for the next half hour about my terrible call and his bad beat. (I should have made him show down first, but felt a little charitable.) I agree that assuming he told the truth about his QQ, it was a bad beat. But was it a terrible call?
Double T,
I don't think so. Like you said he could have been raising with a lot of hands that you were the favorite over. This call is especially right if you didn't think he had A,A or K,K. There is only one hand that he could have pre-flop that would be ahead of your J,J pre-flop if you throw out Aces and Kings. You needed chips and it was an oppurtunity to get some.
Tom Haley
I think that call was too risky. I guess knowing the player well gives you some advantage, but calling all-in, in Second Position with JJ against an UTG raiser is something I wouldn't dream of doing unless the game was Short Handed. Maybe thats why I haven't done so well in Tourneys.
CV
Chris,
Maybe it is too risky. I'm sure you're not the only one who thinks this way.
Tom Haley
The game was down to 7 handed.Starting requirements are a bit lower.In your mind you had to make a stand soon. Could you have waited though? Sure
In the hand as you describe it you are figure to be a small favorite or a big underdog. I personally would not have called the bet.That's not to say your play was the wrong one.I much prefer to be the aggressor not the caller in due or die situations,again a personal preference.
I don't think you can be criticized either way. Afterall you felt you had a good read on your opponent. Also no matter how well you play you have to get lucky somewhere along the line to win or place highly.
If the guy really had queens why didn't he show them?
I don't like the call. You don't have to "make a stand." You still have enough money for four or five laps. Tho you may not be in the comfort zone (8 or more laps of blinds constitutes that zone for myself), you certainly don't have a gun to your head. If you had but enough money to see just one round of blinds, then it's an easy call.
But with two tables to go, perhaps other people (like your current opponent) will make enough stands for you to weasel your way up the ladder without as much risk. Calling all-in is generally a weak play in multiple-place tournaments. If you're the one on the attack, it is a much better play, tho I'm not saying I would've made it here if I was first in here. The problem with calling all-in is that you've eliminated your best tournament out: opponents folding without a showdown. The key to doing well in tournaments is creating these outs. See my post lower down with the title "Your example was jigged," in the "long-time 2+2 error" thread. Attack good. Call bad.
Your hand may well be 50-50 to win the hand, but there are better spots with worse hands than calling an all-in aggressor with such a vulnerable hand. Find those spots.
JG
I think it was a great call. You had to get lucky,You did,maybe,right choice-rookie-low limit player.
Given the conditions, I don't think it was any more "risky" a play than any other- especially given the conditions
What hands that are BETTER than JJ was he going to go in with? AA KK QQ AKs.. AKoff might have shot at overcards... Yes, I'd rather go all-in with those first, but with limited hands left to play, and given his analysis of the situation, that JJ was probably the best hand he was likely to SEE before getting booted.
Odds are, he's going to have to go all in sooner or later (he's below average stack, remember, with 13 player and 4 payers). There's not much of a better hand that he was going to see than the JJ- QQ wasn't THAT big a favorite over him, as the board K's proved. Yeah, he chased, but unless he got AA KK in a few more rounds, he was gonna either chase or blind out anyway...
I don't see that as a "bad" beat. I see that as a slight favorite getting outdrawn... boo hoo- only happens about 8000 times a session.
He made a play, he got a little lucky- good for him. Welcome to tourney play...
This occurred this weekend in a 10-20 HE game at the Taj Mahal.
I had been playing in the game for about two hours. The game had 2 solid players plus myself. Rest of the table was pretty weak. One player in particular was playing pretty wildly and losing. I saw him drop $300 in the 2 hours and he claimed he was down another $300 before that. I wasn't surprised given the way he was playing.
This guy went all in a few times with his last $100 buy-in and then proceeded to go on the biggest rush I've ever seen.
Over the next three hours he amassed $1800 before finally cashing out. That's 30 BB per hour. Practically everything he played turned to gold and he played practically everything. He started raising crap and playing hands blind and still was hitting. He kept saying he was "playing the rush".
Needless to say, the rest of the table was stunned and just about everyone there took a substantial beating. I saw every counter-strategy applied. Tighten up, loosen up, more aggressive, more passive...didn't matter.
This experience brought some questions to mind:
1) How often can one expect to see this kind of event? 2) I would expect that a solid, tight player will rarely if ever experience such a thing since they simply would never play enough hands with enough action to achieve these results. True? 3) What about "playing the rush"? Does it make sense? If so, to what extremes? I thought I knew the answer to this one but now I'm wondering.
I have no doubt that this guy is a losing player over the long run. His variance has to be tremendous. Even he appeared to be somewhat stunned by his run of luck. Unfortunately for the rest of us he had the good sense to get up from the table and cash in. He didn't even move up to a higher limit game. I heard him say he knew he'd get whipped badly if he did.
I thought I'd been playing long enough to not be surprised by anything at the poker table. Makes one wonder what remains to be seen in the future.
jim
Jim,
I see players that I don't consider very good win a substantial amount of money during a short period of time by playing like the player you describe. It isn't rare but I would say not often. If the game is loose a player like this can certainly win a lot of money very quickly. If the game was really tight I honestly don't think a player like this will ever do all that well even if they are hitting a lot of hands because they just won't get paid off that much and there will be less players competing for the pot. So here are my answers to your questions:
1) How often can one expect to see this kind of event?
Occasionally in a loose game.
2) I would expect that a solid, tight player will rarely if ever experience such a thing since they simply would never play enough hands with enough action to achieve these results. True?
Solid, tight and aggressive will occasionally have some tremendous results when they hit a lot of hands in a loose game. They will hit a lot of hands because they will get a lot of cards they like (more than normal) and know how to play them. In other words a solid, tight and aggressive player will have there lucky days as well. Very knowledgeable players will find some steal opportunities as well.
3) What about "playing the rush"? Does it make sense? If so, to what extremes? I thought I knew the answer to this one but now I'm wondering.
My answer is no it does not make sense but I'm sure others will disagree. I have a hard time telling when I'm rushing except that I am getting a lot of hands thay I like relative to the current situation (position, type of pot, players involved, etc.). What I try to do is play the same way whether I'm winning or losing. Although some suggest that you should tighten up when you are losing. I understand the reasons but I think if you tighten up too much you will cost yourself too much money. Also playing tighter doesn't mean playing weaker. Just some thoughts.
I always seem to respond to posts about rushes - I guess because to me the whole idea seems so clearly illusory, and I am intrigued by how others see it so differently.
Anyway, I checked my old records and found that I once won $1805 in a 10-20 game in a little over 5 hours. And if you were to ask anyone who plays with me, they'd have a tough time thinking of more than one or two players who play any tighter than I do. As I recall, in that session I just got a very high percentage of quality starting hands which also happened often to turn into strong hands on the flop or later. So yes, a tight player can have such a run of cards.
But if you want easily to find players who have had much bigger wins ("rushes") in proportion to whatever limit, just poll a few maniacs. I'm not positive, but I think the majority of the biggest wins I've seen anyone have were achieved by such players. Of course they've also had by far the biggest losses I've seen.
But the more important point is this: Say you were to get someone to pay you $2 to your $1 on the flip of a coin - over and over. Ahead of time you decide that he will always win if it comes up heads, you win with tails. You know it's not rigged, blah, blah, blah... Now you proceed with, say, a billion tosses. Somewhere in the millions you're now fairly wealthy, but you observe that it has just come up heads 117 times in a row. Are you going to call off further betting because of his "rush"?
Well, back a couple months I had a monster rush in a 10-20 game. AQ 4x, AK 3x, KK, JJ, 89 turning a straight... All in 20 minutes. I was +1200 at the end of the 20 minutes. Strange thing was, I got way more action than was warranted, by people trying to run me down. That probably accounted for the size of the win.
So I do believe in rushes, and a couple things I've noticed from the games I play in:
a) If somebody wins a couple of hands back to back,
and they're an otherwise decent player, if they
say something like "I'll play this in case I'm on
a rush" the hand is probably pretty strong.
b) Win a couple of hands, and you get more action on
the next hand you play. People will go out of their
way to run down someone on a rush.
I was playng in 1-5 7-stud no ante game. My strategy was to play 3 of kind and if i win last hand - pair and 3-flush for the bring in. I win 7 hands out off 8.Can somebody play less hands? Did you se biger rush?
It's tough playing poker in Las Vegas if you don't have any friends or family (girlfriend/wife, etc) around. I was in Las vegas for the WSOP for a week and a half, and it was pretty difficult. None of my friends are poker players, so I couldn't convince any of them to come along and my girlfriend does not like vegas.
Has anyone experienced this before, any suggestions? Seems like the loneliness can only hamper my play.
Next time you head down to Vegas. Post it on the Forum. If I can grab some time off work I'll head down. I'm allways looking for an excuse to head to Vegas. I'm sure there are other people who might do the same.
CV
I experienced that in Tunica Miss. I was goign to quit working to play poker full time, but when I got down there it was just so boring when I was away from the table, so I decided not to do it.
It really depends on your own personality. I am normally a gregarious friendly person at the poker table.I enjoy striking up a conversation or two or three.I have a very thick Boston accent despite living in Texas for the past 20 yrs.Invariably someone will ask where I'm from and when I say Texas it usually gets a big laugh.The point is many times the people you are playing with are in the same boat you are.Often times I'll turn to the guy or woman for that matter and ask if they want to grab a quick bite to eat.
Many card rooms are like subcultures,it you are a regular you meet other regulars and become friends through the poker room.One of the reasons that poker is so popular is the social aspect of the game.Unless you are a jerk, or extremely shy,in time you'll find a niche.
I always take my VCR when I go to Vegas. Next time I may buy a laptop computer. You have to have other things to do when you make an extended trip on the road.
I would think that you should treat this in the same manner as any other trip.
1) If you were on vacation, would you only do one thing? If not, does the locale support other entertainment?
2) Would you go on vacation for a week by yourself? If not, don't treat this any differently...
It's a 10-20 game at the Mirage three mornings ago. There are several live players including two guys from Spain with very little playing experience who don't speak much English. I am first to act in a hand where on the river the board is A K Q J 10. No flush is possible. We are three handed at the river, with one of the Spanish guys in the middle and a sort of tight, straight-forward player last to act. I bet out, the spanish guy asks his friend if he should call (in Spanish) and his friend tells him yes and he calls. The last guy also calls and we split the pot three ways. Now, the dealer had told them several times previously that they were not to speak Spanish during a hand. This they clearly understood, but for some reason did not take seriously. After I got quite annoyed with them, I think they finally understood the rule. Later, when describing the hand to a friend, he suggested that perhaps it was unethical to have any betting, in that situation, on the river. (Other situations would be a royal straight flush, AAAAK, KKKKA) So, what do you all think? Is a bet in that spot a strategic action or an unethical one? Was the Spanish guy actually asking a question concerning rules, or was he seeking strategic advice?
If someone Folds to a bet with a Board like that. I would think that they shouldn't sit down at a Poker table. As long as you are abiding by the rules of the game, I think, no move you make can be concidered unethical. Two players to a hand is though.
Once in a tourney a Non-Nut Straight was on the Board with no Flush Draw, and a friend of mine bet into me because he knew I'd think that he had possibly made the higher Straight. Of course I called and we Split the Pot. We both had a good laugh after.
CV
Jessica,
This is good question in my opinion. I will bet that there is no rule in any poker room that covers this situation. To me it is similar in a certain way to a 7 stud situation where if a player calls a bet and can't beat the board of the player who bet they get their last bet returned.
Going out on a limb, I think that if you bet and the player folds then he isn't entitled to any money from the pot because reading the board is part of the game. I can definitely see how it could be argued the other way and it may be benificial in the long run to simply check and hopefully create a more pleasant environment for the losing player if that makes any sense. I don't think he was asking about rules either.
I can understand how you would become incensed over the behaivior of the two players speaking the foriegn language during the play of the hand. I had a similar situation about a week ago. One guy couldn't speak English and his friend was talking to him in Spanish during the play of the hand. The dealer didn't do anything and I at first curtiously reminded them that they were breaking the rules. It happened again and I got little more aggressive in my tone of voice. It happened the third time and I started to really show my hostility. Well the guy who was standing over the game started to argue with me and I told the dealer to call a floorman and the guy standing over the game backed off. During this time the dealer didn't do a thing (neither did any other players) which I think is normal for a lot of dealers (and players). I went over to the guy later and told him that I really didn't mean to get angry (I didn't really feel like I needed to tell him that) and we talked about it. He said his friend didn't speak a word of English and he was just telling him how much he had to put into the pot to call. It seemed to me that he didn't need any help as he had no problem with it after his friend left. He eventually lost all of his money by the way.
Tom Haley
Tom wrote: "To me it is similar in a certain way to a 7 stud situation where if a player calls a bet and can't beat the board of the player who bet they get their last bet returned."
Never heard of that rule (but I don't play much stud). What kind of dumb rule is this, though? If I bet and get called, how can this guy possibly deserve to get any money back? Additionally, what kind of person has so little pride that they'd call a bet and then say "hey, I can't beat his board, give me my bet back?"
Another thought. Isn't this just a way to give someone a free look at the other guy's hole cards? Seems unfair to me. Pay if you want to see my hole cards.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
I agree with all of your points. I know this was and I believe it still is a rule in the poker room that I play in. I don't play much 7 Stud $1-5 myself. I hope someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that this rule is fairly common at low limit 7 stud.
Tom Haley
This was the rule when I played in AC/Foxwoods, although I never saw it actually happen, I just heard that it was the rule. I guess its to protect the blind and insane.
It'scalled the impossible call rule, it must be for weak players,but if you can't beat his board you get your money back. I've seen weak players do it, not trying to see his hole cards just dumb with no idea how to play.
THIS is an actual RULE???!! I haven't ever heard of this before in A.C., and I KNOW I would have had a loud arguement if anyone ever tried to enforce it in MY pots.....
Please tell me that this is a mistake, as I do not want to start asking about this rule every time I play. I know for sure that this is not true in the Tropicana... or it wasn't enforced if it was...
If you're stupid, you're stupid. Just because your mistake is dumber than the ones I make, I don't wanna hear it...
The only thing that would prevent me from fighting about this, rule or no rule, is if we changed one other rule: which player has to show their hands first. The loser must go first, then the next loser, and finally the winner (bettor)
If you get money back because you were suckered, I get to see your cards first on THIS and EVERY hand......
..grmble get your money back, indeed! PLEASE!
I always show my hand in showdown becase i thinck it is polite.
In the old draw poker games if you called a bet after the draw and could not beat openers -- a pair of jacks -- you got your money back. Thus a few players would call with a missed flush providing their cards were all the same color and quickly announce that they had a flush and quickly spread their hand. When it was caught they got their money back, and occasionally when it was not caught they stole the pot. This was not a good rule since it encouraged shots to be taken.
I was playing 5-10 in Canada once with this asian lady who was just taking a beating and didn't speal much English. In that same situation she was second to act and folded and the better and the caller on the end split the pot.
My feeling is that it is completely ethical to check/bet/raise/fold in any situation, except of course where there intent is to sacrifice your own EV to increase the EV of a confederate (i.e., collusion) and any other infractions of the rest of the cardroom rules. When people object to a play I make (like a check-raise), I sometimes sarcastically remark, "I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that I wasn't allowed to raise [or whatever] there. In future hands I'll be sure to ask you what I'm allowed to do before I make my play. I'm new at this game and don't know all the rules."
At Bay 101, management tries to award the pot to the best hand, even if it is seriously fouled or mucked after showing one card or whatever. I think Bay 101 would force a split on that board if it had checked down on the river and your opponent(s) mucked their hands without showing them after you revealed yours. At many casinos, you'd lose all rights to any of the pot if you mucked your hand without laying it down on the table first. In any case, even at Bay 101, if you bet on that board and your opponents fold, you win.
-Abdul
I made the same bet on the river a few years ago, against players that I knew would not accidently fold. The situation was such that three more big bets was enough to allow the house the last dollar rake. The player in the middle had just suffered two consecutive bad beats, cracked another hundred, and seemed ready to go on tilt. When the pot split three ways, there was one extra dollar which went to me. By betting, I had effectively taken a dollar from this player and given it to the house. This player was aware of what I had done, suspected I had done it deliberately (I did), cursed me, and began to steam raise with every playable hand the rest of the session. Needless to say this was a very profitable move, though borderline unethical.
I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this yet, but I think I would've gone for the check raise to drive out the middle player.
Jim, I don't think you can count on the last guy to bet. My experience is that when players see a straight on board at the river, (and in this case a nut straight) they often don't bet. Maybe if it was a pro in last position, or a very aggressive player, you could risk it.
Jim,how the hell would a check raise drive out anybody?
The idea was if there was anyway the confused opponent might fold (the premise upon which Jessica bet), then perhaps the way to maximize confusion was to "go for the check raise."
I had this situation come up with a board once of quads plus an ace. I check raised someone in the middle out. Most everybody at the table knew what was going on but him, and didn't say anything as they were hoping to eventually get a piece of him as well and didn't want to steam him or educate him or anything.
I am intending to go play Hold'em in Vienna shortly. My German is very basic (numbers, yes, no, thank you, plus the standard tourist phrases). This thread has also highlighted the problems facing a language handicapped person playing in a foreign country.
Till now, I've been playing against the casino, plus of course all European and Asian casino staff speak English. What if I don't understand something said at the table? If my neighbour starts explaining it to me in English, won't the other players justifiably get angry, even if they mostly do understand English?
I will definitely call the casino to find out the answer to this question before I go. The last thing I want is to upset someone at the table.
Etienne
I just spoke to the floor manager in Vienna. German and English are the only 2 languages allowed on the table.
Check raising is also allowed - I asked!!
Etienne
Etienne: Ok, enough,,,,how do you pronounce your name?
You want it in WAV format?
Strangely, just yesterday, this very situation came up!
The board was A-K-Q-J-10-no flush. A three handed pot.
The lady in the middle was talking to someone behind her so I bet feeling 90% confident that she would look at the board and fold.
I tapped her on the shoulder and politely said, "it's up to you," she looked at the board and said, "I can't call."
We split the pot two ways and I thought it was a good play.
The pot was very small. After it was over she looked at me and said, "you split my pot! I am going to watch you closer from now on." I told her I had a straight and had to bet. She just laughed.
Usually in this situation in the games I play in somebody says outloud, "there is a straight on the board, split it up!" To their credit no one said anything this time.
I didn't consider this play unethical at all. In fact it was fun.
Since one of the main objects of poker is to get your opponents to make mistakes that are favorable to you I don't see anything wrong with this. I do think though that some consideration should be given to the effect you might have on the game if your are successful. Specifically if your opponent is a new player. Will your successful bluff here cause sufficient humiliation to your opponent that they are too embarrassed to return?
I disagree with any rule that would return a bet when that bet was too obviously stupidly made. I can however see why a room would want to have a rule like that. It is in any room's best interest to keep as many chips in the hands of the clueless for as long as possible.
Mark
I've been thinking about grabing Brunson's "Super System", but I was wondering if it's worth it. I've heard rumors that there will be a revised Edition. Also, is there anything in this book about Limit Poker that 2+2 hasn't covered. I'd really like to read up on the No Limit parts of the Book. Is there info in there that Ciaffone didn't cover in "Pot Limit/No Limit Poker"? I'll probably end up buying this book, but might wait for a new Edition if the rumors are correct.
Thanks, Chris
are you crazy, yes -baldwins section on short handed play is worth more then the price of the book
i cant resist any further. which takes the greatest amount of all aroung skill, and which is moor fun, limit, pot limit, or no limit, well take hold em for instance
Chris,
I just bought S/S, and yes it's a great book. I also have the Ciaffone/Rueben book on no limit poker and it too is more than worth its price. The difference in my opinion is that Brunson tries to teach you HIS approach to no limit hold'em, and he does come up with some unexpected strategies. His strategy is aggressive, trying to dominate the table, intimidating opponents, and fast playing both strong holdings and draws. He also has a (surprising imo) strong liking for small suited connectors in no limit play. A lot of chips move in and out of the center when Brunson is in action. This approach, he concedes so himself in the Tournament chapter, might not work as well in tournament poker. The psychology of no limit poker is nowhere better discussed than in S/S. It is quiet expensive though, and some of the games might not interest you as much as others. I found Mike Caro's section, as much as other of his writings, lacking in objectivity and I don't particularly enjoy being spoken to as some flunky high school kid. Also he puts himself too much in the center of proceedings. Other sections, though about games I never have, and most likely never will play, I found interesting. Especially the lowball section. My main beef is hold'em though. The limit section by Baldwin is excellent. Less "scientific" than M/S in HPFAP but a refreshing and inspiring read. I have never seen a bad review of this book yet. It has to be good.
Onno van Keulen
Perhaps this might help. This is our latest comments on SUPER/SYSTEM that appeared in the Recommended Reading section of our book GAMBLING FOR A LIVING.
14. Super System — A Course in Power Poker by Doyle Brunson (1994: B&G Publishing). This text is considered a classic source of information on most major limit games played, as well as on no-limit hold 'em. The book was written by two-time World Champion Doyle Brunson in collaboration with some of the best players in the world, including Bobby Baldwin, Mike Caro, Chip Reese, and David Sklansky. Unfortunately, as the years have gone by some of the information it contains has become outdated. For instance, most high-low split games are played today with a qualifier for low, and the excellent high-low split section does not discuss this concept. The structure of limit hold 'em has changed, and this dramatically affects some of your strategy decisions. And jacks-or-better draw poker is hardly spread anymore. However, the section on seven-card stud is still excellent and the book contains much general overall poker wisdom.
The game is No Limit Holdem. You are out of Position with a good Drawing hand like a Straight Flush Draw or Flush Draw+Top Pair. Lets say you just have one opponent and the money is Deep. With Drawing hands like these is it right to go all-in on the Flop. Maybe a Check-Raise all-in would be better if against an Agressive Player.
Now if you have position should you play differently? I guess it depends on what Draw comes in. Maybe it would be better to go all in with a Top Pair+Flush Draw on the Flop, and try to milk a Straight Flush Draw because you have better Implied odds if the Straight comes on the Turn.
CV
The most relevant factor in how to play the hand is how much money is in front of both players.
Chris has already mentioned the money is Deep.
you dO NOTpnt want to be caught out of position with one half of your money in, if you choose to bet, check raise, or fold, just be sure your willing to back it with your entire stack, or at least there is that threat, which is why you lead into the raiser with a made hand , but check raise with a DRAW
So the way I'm reading this is: If you happen to to get one of these Good Draws you should be ready to put all your money in on the Flop, even if that means over-betting the Pot. Then Cross your Fingers that your opponent doesn't have a Set.
Also, to round out my strategy what other types of good hands should be played this way. I guess it depends on the situation. But say you have AK and happen to Flop an Ace. Would there ever be a situation where you would want to get all in if the Money was Deep? Or would a Split Two Pair be the best hand to try this play with, since you have outs to a Full House.
CV
all right, i cant resist, which takes, more skill, and or, which is more fun, limit, pot limit , or no limit hold em
They each take different skills, or at least the same skills in different proportions, so your question is unanswerable. Which takes more skill in each person's opinion depends mostly upon how much relative importance that person assigns to the relevant skills.
For me, PL and NL take more skill, because they reward the skills that are my weakest (reading opponents and psychology), while limit requires skills that are my strongest. Oddly, however, I do better in PL and NL tournaments, probably because these take more patience than ring games, and because as the limits go up more and more of the play occurs preflop.
Which is most fun? Depends upon you. I like them all. To make money in live games, I do better at limit. To make money in tournaments, I do better at PL and NL.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
D Poker,
Ok, I will take a shot at it for you but this is so subjective take it with a true grain of salt. Limit poker is less fun than big bet poker. Perhaps I believe it is so because there are more happy faces and fun conversation going on in the nolimit games. This may be due to the slower pace of the game or that most players know each other and have played against each other for many years. Even with the high pressure of the game the players do keep a better attitude. As for as skill goes both games take a different kind of skill to win. Limit takes a more complete understanding of the game and puts a high premium on knowledge and the application of it. In limit your money turns over quite often and small mistakes add up to defeat you. In nolimit reading the players and having the nerve to back your convictions are of primmary importance to your success. Small mistakes can be overcome by great decisions in big pots. Being able to make the big bluff in the right spot is a major money maker in nolimit where in limit bluffs count but do not take the nerve and the penalty is small when caught. I would say that limit poker does take more total skill than nolimit. Very few nolimit players are able to be overriding favorites in limit games such as Bobby Hoff, Steve Lott, Bob Ciafone, and Dan Harrington to name a few. There are many good limit players that can win in the nolimit games at a decent rate. Players like Tom Hood, Tab, Lee Salem, Yosh, and quite a few more easily adapt to the nolimit environment. Good Luck.
Ray Zee wrote: I'm a bit confused, are you saying that these are great players in pot/no limit, but maybe not so good in limit, or that these players are good at both pot/no limit and limit? Please clarify...thank you.
Ray Zee said: "I would say that limit poker does take more total skill than nolimit. Very few no limit players are able to be overriding favorites in limit games such as Bobby Hoff, Steve Lott, Bob Ciafone, and Dan Harrington to name a few. There are many good limit players that can win in the nolimit games at a decent rate."
Though I have minimal experience in pot/no limit, this is consistent with my observations. The very good limit players that I know seem to do well when they dabble in pot/no limit. Also, I currently play in a cardroom that has a semi-regular pot limit hold'em game. When the pot limit specialists play in the 20-40 game, with only a couple of exceptions they range from barely mediocre to really weak at limit hold'em. It seems they pick up some habits in pot limit which they can't leave behind and which really cost them in the limit game. (e.g., not long ago a really big name no limit player sat in this 20-40 game for a while and did things like just calling with AQ when first in, one off the button.)
John,
Just curious, where do you play? Is the pot-limit game spread daily? Is it a full table or short handed all the time?
Thanks.
Where I've been playing lately - and the room I was referring to - is Ocean's Eleven in Oceanside CA. Oceanside has had some pot limit activity ever since The Oceanside Card Casino established a game some years ago. That cardroom is nearly dead now. Many of us think that is largely because of the negative impact of the pot limit game.
Now Ocean's Eleven Feels they should have a pot limit game because "the other place had that game for seven years, so there's a demand for it...". They don't seem to consider the effect it has on the rest of their business.
As just one small example, there is a regular 20-40 player who is just the kind of player anyone would want in their game. (Believe me, a table full of players like this would be the world's easiest and most lucrative game.) He's not wealthy, but I think has some sort of independent income and seems to be able to afford his losses at 20-40. Unfortunately he sometimes plays pot limit. A while back he ended up playing heads-up all night against a veteran professional pot/no limit player. Reports had him losing somewhere between 16 and 20 thousand that night. I was surprised that that only put him out of action for about a month. But obviously few players can sustain such losses and keep coming back. Others will just not *want* to subject themselves to such losses. The damage to the 20-40 game is obvious too.
Ironically, this cardroom is resisting trying to establish a 40-80 game though many players want it. They fear that a higher limit game will break too many players!!
Anyway, to answer the rest of your question, the pot limit game goes erratically, maybe two or three days a week. It's short-handed probably 80% of the time. Typically it's half Omaha (high), half hold'em. Sometimes just hold'em. Usually the binds are 5 and 10, but sometimes 10 and 20.
The one really good thing about it is that the pot limit players do sometimes play 20-40. ;-)
I couldn't agree more with John's post. When I spoke at The World Poker Conference this is what I had to say about this topic.
"I will enjoy my time in your poker room providing that
9. Management does not promote pot limit and no limit games. (A) Weak players never win; (B) Cheating accusations are inevitable; (C) Takes up a table that could be used for other games. Every cardroom that I have ever seen that promotes pot limit and/or no limit games on a regular basis has run into trouble. Many people recognize that these games upset the balance of luck and skill that poker needs to thrive. When weak players never have winning nights they will frequently quit playing — sometimes through necessity because of lack of funds — and the games will dry up.
But pot limit and no limits also causes a more sinister problem which very few people in the cardroom business understand. In a game where someone will occasionally lose all of their money because of a turn of a card, cheating accusations are inevitable. Yes, it is true that "one outers" and "runner-runner" do sometimes occur. But when a cardroom develops a reputation for cheating, whether justified or not, it is frequently just a matter of time before their business is damaged. I do recognize that if players come to a room on their own and request this type of game that the cardroom should consider it, and I also believe that these forms of poker are appropriate for occasional tournaments. But again I want to reiterate that in my opinion it is a major mistake to promote these games on a regular basis.
Again I agree, I just hope you don't think knowing how to be a good Pot-Limit and No-Limit player is important. All of the Hold'em Tournements I've ever played in had the Last Table turn from Limit to No-Limit. So a good Tournement player needs to know how to play both Structures well.
CV
A couple of comments on these issues:
1. Since Mason is correct about weak players having no chance in big-bet poker, that is the answer to the question of which form is more a game of skill. We say chess has more skill than backgammon, for example, because a weaker player has less hope of winning vs an expert at chess. Thus, big-bet poker has more skill than limit.
2. The point about accusations of cheating was recently illustrated in a thread on r.g.p. in which the very Oceanside game discussed above was accused of being rigged. Based on what I deem excellent information, I believe those accusations are false.
3. Question: why is limit poker hardly ever played in Europe? Haven't they caught on? Or do they know something we in the US don't.
Don Smolen writes: "Since Mason is correct about weak players having no chance in big-bet poker, that is the answer to the question of which form is more a game of skill. We say chess has more skill than backgammon, for example, because a weaker player has less hope of winning vs an expert at chess. Thus, big-bet poker has more skill than limit."
I'm no expert at "big-bet" poker. But the longer I have studied poker theory, and the more I have thought about this question (prompted initially by Mason's essays), the more strongly I lean toward thinking limit poker (Hold'em anyway)involves more skill.
Before I go on, let me just say that I think how you define "skill" has something to do with the answer to this question. That said, I'll just barge ahead assuming we're talking about the same thing.
I have discussed this with a friend who is primarily a big-bet player, but who - unlike many such players - has a fair understanding of limit hold'em as well. While he prefers to play no-limit because his edge over a weak player is so great there, he has sometimes conceded to me that the limit game contains more subtleties and complexity than big-bet poker.
It seems to me that there are a great many small variables that the skilled limit player must consider in hand after hand in order to maximize hourly rate. In big bet poker I believe many of these variables become irrelevant as you can often adjust bet size to the point where subtlety goes out the window and you just hope for your opponent to make that massive mistake.
At any rate I have never seen the logic in the argument that allowing for a bigger edge means a game contains more skill. A game could allow for only the tiniest edge, but could require tremendous skill to attain that edge. Of course the converse is also true. Magnitude of edge does not equal skill required.
My problem with that whole concept is much as it is with those who would drive across town to save a quarter on a loaf of bread -- is searching for small edges in a complex world any way to live? In a limit game, you can often play for hours seeing marginal or negative returns while playing perfect poker. I still agree with the investor who wrote, "I'm convinced of the inevitability of failure when attempting to secure a small safe return."
Earl asks, "...is searching for small edges in a complex world any way to live?
Certainly a point worth considering. I would never argue with anyone who said there were easier ways to make money than at limit poker. However, it is also true that when you are able to find those small edges consistently, over time, the money will follow.
Earl,
You have discussed this concept before and I have to say that I think you have an extremely valid point about small edges. The meaning of poker "skill" is rather subjective so I will stay out of that discussion.
With that said it seems that when you are selecting a game to play in you want to select the game where your edge is the greatest. Maybe this is the real skill, game selection. You want to be adept at a lot of games so you can play in the best game possible given the size of your bankroll. What concerns me a lot about limit poker and hold'em in particular is the idea that you really can't have any flaws in your game or you will lose all of your money. If this is true, it seems to me that there will be very few long term winners. But obviously this is wrong because everybody I talk to in the cardroom thinks they play well! Also it seems like it would be rare to find someone who is a Seven Stud expert, a Seven Stud/8 expert, a limit Hold'em expert, an Omaha/8 expert, and an expert at big bet hold'em all at the same time. However, I do believe that a player can get to be at least reasonably good at a lot of games. If you are not an expert at a particular game does this mean that there are flaws in your game? I would say yes but I think you can still win money in the long run against players that are a worse than you. You will win a lot more against players that are a lot worse than you. So I want the biggest edge possible and I'm not that concerned with the fact that I may be much better at one game than another.
Tom Haley
>Every cardroom that I have ever seen that promotes pot
In Europe, poker is played almost exclusively pot limit. How do they keep games going and attract new players if bad players never win in pot limit? (This may result from the fact that Europeans play pot limit stud and pot limit Omaha in addition to pot limit holdem. As weaker starting and midstreet/flop hands in stud and Omaha are more likely to draw out on stronger hands than in holdem, mistakes are less costly in those games.)
I disagree. First some cardrooms in Europe are promotimg limit games. Second, and much more important, where pot limit is promoted there are not many games. Poker has a long way to go in Europe before it catches up to the U.S. I believe that pot limit in Europe keeps the game to an exclusive few.
John Feeney wrote, "It seems they pick up some habits in pot limit which they can't leave behind and which really cost them in the limit game. (e.g., not long ago a really big name no limit player sat in this 20-40 game for a while and did things like just calling with AQ when first in, one off the button.)"
And no limit tournament players are even worse. Recently, in a Mirage $20-$40 hold'em game, I raised UTG (with AQ), two fishy players called, and a WSOP $10,000 no limit winner called two cold with J9 offsuit (either on the button or one to the right). He must have been thinking, "I hope he's got AQ and the flop comes QT8... then I'll bust him!" Maybe that works in no limit, but in limit it's a sure way to the poor house. The flop came rags and he overcalled and hit his jack on the turn and won the pot. It's also possible that the amount of money was inconsequential to him, but he usually plays just one notch above at $40-$80.
-Abdul
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 May 1998, at 3:30 a.m.
Posted by: T.P.
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 May 1998, at 9:55 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 May 1998, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 May 1998, at 4:39 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 May 1998, at 6:58 p.m.
Posted by: Don Smolen (dsmolen@bellatlantic.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 May 1998, at 9:04 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 21 May 1998, at 2:49 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 22 May 1998, at 5:04 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 May 1998, at 1:21 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 23 May 1998, at 3:41 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Johnson (alm_rubenstd@carleton.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 May 1998, at 2:48 p.m.
>limit and/or no limit games on a regular basis has run
>into trouble. Many people recognize that these
>games upset the balance of luck and skill that poker
>needs to thrive. When weak players never have
>winning nights they will frequently quit playing
>sometimes through necessity because of lack of
>funds and the games will dry up.
Posted by: MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 24 May 1998, at 3:41 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 20 May 1998, at 11:15 a.m.
You may want to look at my book POKER ESSAYS where I discuss which game is more skillful, limit or no-limit. These were very controversial essays.
One thing for sure, the good no-limit or pot-limit player has a greater advantage over the weak player than the good limit player. This is one of the reasons why no-limit and pot limit games do not exist on a daily basis and/or burn out quickly. This means that if you want to be a successful hold 'em player on an everyday basis, you will need to learn how to play limit very well.
Wow! Mason, that's the most diplomatic response I've seen you make on that no-limit / limit skill issue.
But whether or not one agrees with you on which one takes more skill, I think everyone must agree with your last statement, that a successful hold'em player must learn limit since no-limit/pot limit is rarely spread.
I just got done re-reading your 3 essays on No-Limit vs. Limit, and Structure of No-Limit. I aggree with most of the points mentioned.
Even though these Pot-Limit and No-Limit games tend to burn out and are not something a good Poker player will be playing everyday. I think we sould all be good No-Limit and Pot-Limit players to take advantage of the opportunity when it shows up. Thats the big reason I've been posting about No-Limit Strategies. There is a small buy-in No-Limit Tourney at Cactus Petes every Wednesday and it seems to me that if I'm a good No-Limit player I'll have a better chance at getting into the money than if the Tourney was just Limit.
CV
No-limit tourney strategy is quite a bit different from ring game no-limit strategy.
Small no-limit tourneys especially tend to play quite differently than no-limit ring games. After the first few rounds, they tend to be all-in preflop matches. Even in the first rounds, everyone is generally short stacked relative to the blinds. This has a dramatic effect on your hand selection and play options.
I'm not going to get into an argument about which game requires more skill,just a few observations. In no limit and to a certain extent pot limit perception is more important than your actual card holding.You are playing the players more than the cards. While position is very important in limit it is even more so in the other games.Implied odds are signicantly higher in no limit and pot limit.If you can enter a pot cheaply it is often prudent to play a wider variety of hands than in limit.
They are different games and require a different mindset. It's like two guys whose occupation is that of "driver".One drives a bus,one is a racecar driver.
I think that luck is more of a factor in limit than no limit.Size of your bankroll is more of a factor in pot/nolimit than limit.
The old saying "hours of boredom and seconds of terror" is so true,in no/pot limit, but what a rush. :)
I hope this simple question can be answered? We were playing a game of 55, five in your hand, five on the board. One player's hand- J 7 7 K 9. My hand.................- J 7 7 4 3. Cards on the table......- J J 5 6 Q. Here is the problem, who wins? We are both full, Jacks over. Does it go to the sixth card?....He would win. Or when your "five" card hand is tied, you go to suit? In this case I was holding the Jack of spades, I felt I should have won.
Let me take the situation yo the extreme and ask what would have happened if we were playing a game where there were only 3 on the board and 2 in your hand. Player one has - J 7 Player two has - J 7 Table shows - J J 7 Who gets that one? That was when I referred back to my point......... EVERY poker hand consists of FIVE "5" cards, PERIOD. Spades-Hearts-Diamonds-Clubs
Mike,
Only five cards play and suits do not matter. The pots you mention are split pots. Good Luck.
As Ray said, the pot should be split. This comes up often in games with common cards such as Hold'em, Omaha, and the game you described: 55.
Suits are NOT relevant to determining hand ranks in poker, except for determining whether there is a flush or straight-flush. A spade royal flush is exactly the same as a club royal flush.
Suits are sometimes used to determine the bring-in, when racing for chips in a tournament, when high carding to determine who gets the button or moved to a different table, and rarely (but seeming to become more common) when determining where the odd chip goes when a split pot doesn't divide equally.
Of course, in your home games you can play with any rules you want; but if you deviate from generally accepted rules, make sure that everyone in the game knows and agrees to the house rules before cards are dealt.
What hands to play pre-flop are pretty well defined, but what about the situation above? Suppose you limp in in with something in the low to middle of the calling groups of cards, and it is raised ( and sometimes reraised) behind you? When is it right to call? to fold?
Rich
Rich,
Unless you believe the raiser behind you has an over pair to your two cards always call the raise as you are getting good odds for trying to hit the flop. With a double raise behind you you should fold most hands unless the reraiser is likely to not have an overpair. If you have no clue as to the likelyhood of them having such hands watch more carefully as you play and you will find it is quite easy to make this judgement. Good Luck.
Mason's new strategy essay, "A Few Decisions," is up on our Essays page.
I think the First player had either 9,9 T,T or J,J and was trying to limit the field. ;). On your play on the Turn where you checked your Ace. Wouldn't that be the proper play against one opponent since he most likely will not call your bet if he is indeed holding a overpair to the Flop, but will call or maybe check-raise if he can beat a paired Ace. Also your checking the Turn makes him think that his Pocket pair might still be good and he calls your bet on the end. This strategy also keeps you from losing more when you are beaten. But having a Third party in the hand puts a wrench in the works. Maybe it would have been better to bet. I would like to write more, but have to head to work. Any comments?
CV
Chris,
Here are my comments on Mason's very interesting essay.
Everytime I get into analyzing a limit hold'em hand it seems very complicated which tells me something about the skill level required.
I like the play on the flop for a variety of reasons although some players would go ahead and re-raise again but I don't think that this would be the right play. I like the three bet pre-flop and the call on the river. As Mason said his play on the turn is controversial. For a lot of reasons I think a check raise is unlikely. That still doesn't mean the check on the turn is wrong. There is $390 dollars in the pot which I wouldn't think Mason would mind winning immediately. If his opponents called and were big underdogs that would be even better but this may not have been the case for the middle player. I understand that the check on the turn induced the middle player to bluff and probably persuaded the UTG player to overcall. If the chances of a check raise are very slight I think the right play was to bet on the turn. It will be interesting to read what other's have to say including Mason.
One possibly interesting sidelight. There was a discussion on RGP about playing A,8s UTG. One school of thought advocated raising UTG with A,8s since raising with it will show a slight profit as calling would show a slight loss. Therefore raising with an A,8 UTG may not be that far fetched.
Tom Haley
Seems to me that if the guy three bet on the flop, he's not going to try to check raise if he hit two pair on the turn. To do that, he has to put you exactly on either AK or AQ...and I think Mason mentioned the player was highly aggressive. I would think that aggressive players are always afraid of losing a bet, especially a big bet, thus if he did have trip 8s or A8, he would bet, and not risk the lose of a bet for the favor of a possible check-raise.
So, basically, I think the play on the turn would be to bet.
But given that you checked on the turn, the call on the river sounds correct, as is the play on the flop....both seem very reasonable good plays.
I'm interested in the Calling of the Re-raise on the Flop. Since Mason labled these people as "Live", did that induce his call on the Flop? It seems to me that it might make a lot of difference on how he played if he thought the person was "Solid".
Just something to add here. I'll try to explain why I think betting the Turn is right. What do we think the Second player had who was Cold Calling all those bets. I think she must have been on the Straight, or at worst a Gut Shot Straight. Mason says she was very live. I've never played 20-40, obviously, but its sill hard for me to believe that a person playing that high would be Cold Calling with less than a Straight Draw.
Now if we put her on a Straight Draw. Since the board and her actions suggest that is in fact what she has. Wouldn't betting the Turn be the proper play. Even if we risk a Raise from the First Player. Though Mason did make an extra bet playing the way he did.
CV
Well the first time I tried to do the Math I was completely wrong. It doesn't look like anyone noticed though.
Anyway, the way I see it now is that by letting both players (the one with the Probable Pocket Pair plus the one with the Probable Straight Draw) play for Free on the Turn. He is costing himself $6.88 per hand. He would do better to bet in this situation. The Straight Draw will play, but he knocks out the chances of the Pocket Pair making Trips on the River. This small chance is enough to make him want to Bet the Turn. He does even better if both call his bet on the Turn even if no-one calls the River.
CV
But he does even worse if he bets the turn, gets raised and calls, pays off on the river, and looks at an unbeatable hand. If you are raised on the turn it will be very difficult to throw your hand away given the size of the pot and the players involved.
Where is the advantage in the string bet and if there is none then why are they illegal at the table ?
String bets, when used by a person intending to angle, are often used to read the expression of the initial bettor before deciding if the "stringer" wants to raise. If the bettor is clearly unhappy or disappointed that the other player is calling, firing off a string raise will often cause him to fold. Even if the raise is called string and the player is required to take it back, he has usually received the info he needs to determine his play on the subsequent rounds of betting.
The ruling itself is often used as an angle as angling players know it exists and how to utilize it. For instance, angler flops gut shot straight draw with two overcards, tourist flops top pair and is first to act. Tourist bets. Angler has reason to believe he will bet each round and he would really like to see a free turn card if he doesn't hit his hand. He calls, and then attempts to throw out a raise knowing it will be called back. Tourist clearly saw the intent to raise and will most likely check the turn and give the angler two shots at hitting his hand, for the same price as the call on the flop. Same concept as raise the flop to buy a free card on the turn if you miss, cheaper price.
Regards-
I inadvertently did this once (angled on the anti-angle string bet rule):
7 stud. I've got 6dAh down, with 6c shownin. guy to my left has king showin. Very low limit game tourist game. Hey I _am_ a tourist so what I do care. K-man bets, half the table calls, I (being a rocket scientist and all) figure he's got a pair of Kings, but everybody else seems to have crap, and they are calling anyways, so I figure I've got odds to call. Next card no help for anybody, I get a crappy club. K-man bets again, everybody calls again including me. Third card no help for anybody, except the guy with the king pairs his other card, and I'm showing 3 clubs now. I've been playing _really_ tight in comparison to the rest of the table, so I've got a good image. King is still high on the board, but he doesn't bet, and everybody checks around to me. Somebody makes a comment about not betting into my flush, so I figure what the hell, if thats what they want to believe, far be it from me to deprive them. It was 1-4-8-8. I've got stacks of 4 in front of me. I move one stack out, then another. Now, I thought even though they were sperated away from my main pile, they still weren't really out of "my territory", i.e. I thought it was obvious that I was making one pile out of two, in preparation for actually placing my bet. The guy with the K and small pair showing gets all bent out of shape, and yells "string bet", so the dealer makes me take back 4. I knew at that point that _he_ is buying my flush bluff. Him getting so upset convinced the rest of the table too. They all drop. I keep betting. I normally don't think I'm that good of a bluffer, but he was so obviuosly trying to draw the right cards to beat my "flush" (maybe he made it to 3 pairs?, hell maybe his pair showin was all he had) that I didn't even consider this a bluff. I knew he'd drop if he didn't fill up, and I knew odds were he wouldn't. So I bet my pair of sixes like it was the winning hand, not brashly, but with utter calm, sort of with a "are you sure you want to hand over any more money to me?" type attitude.He calls til he sees his last card, then drops. Easiest hand I ever won.
In response to LoneStar's explanation of how an angler could possibly use the stringbet rule to obtain information...this is a good reason to allow stringbets. Why are they not legal? If someone wants to put more money into the pot, then why not let them?
Nick Fox wrote:
If someone wants to put more money into the pot, then why not let them?
It is a basic principle of poker that everyone makes one action in turn. If you want to play synchronous poker at home, go for it.
There is a game in Australia called Manila that you may have heard of. There are five betting rounds. The lowest limit is $2-4-4-4-8 ("Two dollar manila"). You can get $5,$10,$20 manila games all over Australia and New Zealand. The game is very 'impure' if you're a mathematical type - but this is a game full of morons, and from my conversations with them, it seems that more than half of the professionals in Australia started their bankrolls in Manila.
Anyway, the first round costs $2 to play (with one $2 blind). The first raise is to $6, then to $10. (The game is supposed to be all $4 rounds, but the first and last rounds have been corrupted. I think that this is to make it easier for good players to win.)
The Greek boys who play this game have a habit that whenever it is folded to them in late position, they will toss out $4. After seeing people's reaction, they will then either complete the raise to $6 or retract one of the chips. It's very common. But the dealers here wouldn't know the difference.
In fact, the people who play this game use all kinds of angles. Tonight, I saw one instance where a guy in last position yelled 'check whatever comes' before the last card came out, and then threw his hand over. He had a volatile hand and was worried that his opponent in first position had a flush, which indeed he did. His inexperienced opponent sheepishly threw over the flush, second nut, and was upset that he didn't get a bet in. If it were me, I would have casually bet into my opponent's face-up cards and not shown anyone my cards until my bet was called.
Later in the evening, one guy was bet into on the end. He was holding a cylinder of chips with one hand. He was slowly dropping chips from the bottom of his stack and picking them up again, right in front of his stack, as he was thinking. He was clearly 'just fiddling'. But then he dropped his chips a foot in front of his stack, and as soon as his opponent threw over a powerful hand, he picked up the chip again, all very smoothly, without missing a beat, and passed.
They think that they are using professional techniques, but they're not; they're morons.
And if you allow them to do it, you encourage that standard of behaviour amongst poker players.
If people are going to win at poker, let it be because they have a superior knowledge of maths, psychology, or kinesiology - not because they use childish tricks to confuse the flow of the game.
Richard Cavell.
I was reading an interview with Mason in a back issue of "The Intelligent Gambler". Mason talks about how low limit stud is an entirely different game from "real stud" in that low limit stud was a game of trapping. I was wondering if I could get some examples of this. What types of hands do you trap with? What sort of tactics should be used in order to trap opponents? Thanks...
Few comments from my experience with low limit stud (1-4, 1-5):
If I start off with a buried big pair I will usually not bet it too agressively unless someone is betting a draw agressively. Then I try to make them pay for the draw and immediately raise the maximum to try to get the play heads-up.
If there are a few players in and most of them are chasing, I will just tag along with the $1 or $2 bet on 3rd and 4th street and if on 5th street once there more money in the pot and if I have a good hand or a live drawing hand I will bet the maximum right away and try to steal the pot at that point or get it heads up (increasing my chances to win). For some reason, there is a big difference in low limit stud in betting the maximum and say one dollar under the maximum. Most of the time the players will interpret the maximum bet as a very strong holding and they are more likely to surrender their equity on the pot.
Just some thoughts,
any more comments?
carlos
I'm not sure I agree with this and I'm certainly curious about Mason's reasoning here. In fact a previous thread seemed to indicate a general agreement that one should most always be betting the max in low spread-limit stud. As always though I'm willing to keep an open mind.
My experience has been that it is quite possible to "train" low limit stud opponents to play your game. I do this by almost always betting the max when I am leading. If I find that the table folds too easily to these tactics then I simply keep playing hard and fast looking to steal as many hands a possible, even if they are only $1 or $2. All but the most timid players get tired of this after awhile and begin to play back at you. Sometimes it even changes the entire nature of the game. Then I change gears and play a tight, solid game as they've just begun to loosen up and play more poorly.
Sometimes the rocks just won't budge. Then its time to switch tables. Quite often, that's not necessary.
When you get a good trapping hand its usually one with great hidden strength or hidden potential. I don't see any reason why you'd play that any differently than at higher limits.
In SEVEN-CARD STUD FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS when addressing the small spread limit games we say "IF you have a decent hand on third street, you probably should raise but not necessarily the full amount,..." See pages 99 and 100 for more discussion.
I read this section and I simply disagree. My opinion is that you have to train the table to accept max limit betting as the matter of course. If this turns out to be impossible and there are no other games to be had and you don't feel like going home yet, then fine, I agree with your opinion.
However, I have had so much success changing the nature of the game to fit my desires that,as long as I am the favorite at the table, I am looking to get as much money as I can into every pot I play. That means getting them to call $5 as readily as they would call $3.
I have had many players tell me that they can never tell what I have because I always max bet. The answer to that, of course, is that I almost always have the best hand at that time. Many players have also told me that they feel they have to stand up to my play just so they don't get pushed around. Any time I can get weaker players to stand up to me, I'm quite happy.
It's a question of intimidation and getting them to fight back with inferior weapons.
jim
Yes, along with that advice your book also says "Other than this, there are not too many changes, except to realize you are in a game against bad players".
This is what really caused my earlier question when I read the interview where you described low limit stud as something quite different from "real stud". What did you mean when you called low limit stud a "trap game"? What sort of stategies and tactics are useful in a trap game?
I will be talking more about this subject in the future. Once there is significant money in the pot the games play similarly. But third street is extremely important in stud, and in the little games with a very small (relative) ante, you are trying to get others in rather than knock others out. This makes all the difference in the world and makes little stud play very differently from big stud.
By the way, little stud refers to $10-$20 and smaller. At $15-$30 the ante is finally large enough that the real stud concepts apply.
Lots of people have been talking about no-limit/pot limit skill versus limit skill.
I have two other questions....what takes more skill: Tournaments or Ring games (same game, such as limit or no-limit) and No-Limit/Pot-Limit Tourneys or Limit Tourneys (if you think limit requires more skill than no-limit in ring games, do you necessarily think the same way about tourneys?)
Since tourneys are much more volatile since the stakes rise so quickly versus what one's chips, I would think that tourneys should be better for the bad player, and worse for the good player, since there is so much more luck involved...thus I would say that ring games require more skill.
Overall, I think most people would agree with you. However, they also require some DIFFERENT skills, from what I've read, so your comparisons aren't 100% apples to apples...
In my experience playing mostly small and medium buy-in tournaments, the final table is very often comprised of the best (or at least the better) players who have entered. The big buy-in tournaments seems to bear this out as well given published results with the same names appearing over and over. So your contention that tournaments favor bad players more doesn't stand up IMO.
Anyone can get lucky in either tournaments or ring games for sure. But skill will win out in either/both over time.
Which takes more skill? IMHO, the most skillful players of all are those who can play mutiple games well and in both tournament and ring-game structures. Obviously the limits/buy-ins also have a major impact.
I agree that it takes the most skills to play every game well and be able to adapt. I think only people who put effort in to studying all game structures will be the Top-players.
This takes me back to Fencing. There are Three weapons. The Foil, Epee, and Sabre. Everyone always argues on which weapon takes the most skill. To make this short, they all involve different skills, but only true geniuses can master all Three Weapons.
I guess what I'm trying to point out is that since we all enjoy Playing Poker, and enjoy improving our games. Why limit ourselves. We might not be geniuses, but that doesn't mean we have to be specialists.
CV
One thing for sure is that many of the hands that you play in a tournament are finished before you get to the river. That is someone has gone all in. Thus, you do not have to play many hands all the way through. This means that tournaments, whether they are limit, pot limit, or no-limit play more like no-limit games.
Clearly it must be more skillful to always have to play four or five rounds than frequently one or two.
On the other hand I agree that the best tournament players are very good at what they do. But I also believe that the great side game players are the ones with the most poker skills.
Mason writes:
>Clearly it must be more skillful to always have to play
>four or five rounds than frequently one or two.
It might be true but it certainly isn't clear.
One way it might not be true is if the one or two rounds might require decisions which are more important than the four or five rounds. For example, any time you go all in, particularly late in a tournament, the decisions leading up to it are disproportionately important.
Another possibility is that there are more hands dealt per hour. This is probably the case, since tournament play is generally tighter and, at least in holdem, when a player goes all-in, the rest of the hand can be dealt very quickly. So those opportunities to play only one or two rounds come up more frequently than the opportunity to play four or five rounds in a ring game.
Jeff writes:
"One way it might not be true is if the one or two rounds might require decisions which are more important than the four or five rounds. For example, any time you go all in, particularly late in a tournament, the decisions leading up to it are disproportionately important."
This is a good point, but here's an example to think about. Suppose in no-limit you are dealt two aces and can put your opponent all-in before the flop. You should frequently do so and then you are done playing the hand. In limit you may have three more rounds of decisions, and sometimes these decisions are extremely difficult.
Going back to my original essays on why limit was more difficult than no-limt, this was not my point. I argued that in no limit you could always bet the right amount, thus always making it incorrect for your opponet to call with marginal hands. This is not the case in limit hold 'em. Sometimes when you lead you know they will all call anyway. Here you have to consider checking, and possibly give a free card if no one else bets. This is a strategic delimma that occurs over and over in limit, and is very hard to resolve correctly. Yet the best players do a pretty good job in this area while the marginal players don't. This is part of the reason why we say in HPFAP that if you only play ok from the flop on, don't expect to do much better than break even.
Mason writes:
>Suppose in no-limit you are dealt two aces and can put
>your opponent all-in before the flop. You should
>frequently do so and then you are done playing the hand.
True for a big hand like aces, but consider the situation with lesser hands: Very often these hands can not be played for a raise in a limit game because the implied odds are not good enough. Whether the implied odds are good enough in a no limit game often depends on what cards you think your opponent has, the size of his stack, and how he plays. This is a situation which comes up frequently and requires a lot of judgement.
Similarly (and somewhat related to your example), it may be correct to slow play much more often in a no limit game, depending on the situation and your opponent, because of the implied odds. Again, judgement is required more frequently in this case for no limit.
A lot of valid opinions here. One I'd like to add is that while a good ring game player can get the money consistently in a cash game, without tournament skills, he's very unlikely to win a tournament. You must have excellent global (tournament) as well as local (game) strategies, and sometimes the emphasis must be on one above the other. A simple example: just because you have a hand that would be good enough to play to the river in a cash game doesn't mean that you'd necessarily take on the chip leader with the same hand; depending on the situation, you may not even call the opening bet. Another extreme example: late in the super-satellites with a big stack, it quite often becomes correct to not even look at your hand -- just throw it away because you are guaranteed a seat if you don't play. Often, being a great cash player can be debilitating to one's chances in a tournament.
Maniac in the Tournament
I was playing in a small buy in limit hold’em tournament last weekend. There were about 100 players in the tournament with no re-buys. At my table was a well known maniac who I’ve played against a few times in tournaments. I play against him a certain way which is as fast as possible. Anyway he went on to win the tournament. I mentioned this first because I was able to build a huge stack early at his expense although I never got him in a position where he was all in. As play progressed to the 5th round I hit a dry spell. Usually when this happens I can steal enough blinds to keep my stack up there. Well not at this table because the maniac is in every hand and getting callers. I lost a decent size pot to a player who spiked a 2 outer on the river and so my once healthy stack was starting to look kind of average. First question, does anyone have any advice on what to do? The maniac was directly across the table from me so I couldn’t really isolate on him. I got moved to another table, actually three other tables and things got a lot better. I got to the final table and although my chip position wasn’t that great I was o.k. By this time the maniac had a huge chip lead and of course was in every pot. So at the final table I was faced with the same problem I was faced with earlier. How do you counter the maniac in a tournament situation like this or do you? The blinds were way up there by this time.
When you play a maniac fast, you're playing his game not necessarily yours. This means you will either get lucky and get ahead quickly or get busted out early. Nothing wrong with that I guess if you're willing to accept the increased variance in tournament results.
If you play a normal, solid tournament game, that lets others take the risk against the maniac.
The problems with maniacs is that they tend to skew the distribution of pots towards either themselves (if they get lucky) or to one or two other players who take down the pots and get a chip lead. If you're the player taking pots then that's good for you. The other two results (maniac takes the pots or another of your opponents does) put you in a position where you're facing bigger stacks than you might otherwise without the maniac in the game.
Of course, these problems present themselves if any opponent, maniac or otherwise, goes on a rush. Just that a good opponent on a rush has a better chance of holding the lead than the maniac.
Obviously, chip position and tournament stages also make a difference in considering these factors.
So, personally, I would: play tight, solid in early stages of the tournament regardless of whether you're up against a maniac.
OR
if side action looked good and this is a small buy-in tournament, play fast and get up or out.
jim
My biggest disappoint ment in the new 2 2 poker tourney book was the lack of discussion about what sort of advantage a good player might expect. I was surprised this was the case since S and M are very good about estimating this sort of thing in other publications. My guess is that a 90 percentile tourney player might expect to return double his avg buy-in plus re-buys in the smaller tourneys, but that's just a guess. Any other ideas out there?
I don't have strong opinion on this, but I would like to tell a story about a small pot limit omaha/hold em tournament I played once. To my left was a guy that regularly played in a UKL25 - 25 -50 pot limit game (the buy-in was L15). He lost an all-in hand early, then went plain psychotic!
He was all-in every hand of omaha, and about a third of the hold em hands. The house had to station one of the floormen at our table, because he busted every three hands, and rebought 10-15 times in about 45 minutes. Every hand I played, I was all-in on the flop every hand I played (in part because I was raising into him. I now think this was a big mistake. Was it?). Anyway, I busted out with about half an hour of rebuys left, and, although there was a hell of a lot of chips on the table, I decided not to rebuy. This was because I thought that skill had no part to play in that table, particularly with this guy sitting dirsectly over me.
Questions: 1. I think I must have had the worst seat at the table(negative EV). Am I right?
2. I think that my tournament EV must have been affected by this guy. Does his rebuying help me (Equity in a larger pool) or hurt me (smaller % of the chips in play)? How would my skills relative to PSYCHO, and the rest of the field make a difference?
3. My strategy in these tournaments is mainly to wait for hold em round, then steal blinds/ play premium hands. Is this correct, and if so, should I be p;aying at all?
Kieran
Kieran writes:
>>3. My strategy in these tournaments is mainly to wait for hold em round, then steal blinds/ play premium hands. Is this correct, and if so, should I be p;aying at all? <<
This is what I like to do steal blinds and play premium hands. The stealing part was impossible against the maniac. Even if he slowed down on the river there were always other players involved in the pot. This seems similar to what you were encountering only I wasn't in a rebuy tourney. One can only wonder how many times the maniac in the tournament I was in would have re-bought.
I had a similar situation in a stud satellite recently. A man playing every hand was sitting to my right, making it impossible for me to isolate players on draws. This is a common hazard when playing in limit tournaments, where even one calling station at the table will distort the game.
I'm not sure I'd mind a calling station in a pot-limit game however. Regardless of the type of game though, your "EV" is not an issue; your volatility is the issue. Calling stations enhance your odds on drawing hands while conversely making it more difficult for your big pairs to stand up; unfortunately drawing hands are not the hands you would often play in any tournament. Thus you are going to have more opportunities to win big pots -- or to go broke.
You made the right play in not rebuying. In the super-satellites, I don't usually rebuy; I played 3 for the WSOP, and during hour one of each, ran a 200 stack up to 850, 650, and 625, respectively. At the end of each night, I finished 16th, 2nd, and out; stack size was irrelevant to finishing position. Since the blinds have went up three times at the end of the rebuy period (a common setup), a rebuy has a decreased real value for chips received (I liken it to inflation).
When players are playing loose in these rebuy events, your expectation is much higher to NOT rebuy and instead play a conservative tournament strategy to capitalize on the loose money in the game during the first hour (I saw one man rebuy 6 times in a super -- and he was still out before the hour was over). If you get unlucky enough to get busted that first hour, your $200 the following night has much more value with a fresh stack than the $200 spent on a late rebuy.
A corollary principle is in effect here. Where is the value in spending 7x$200 in an attempt to win a $10,000 seat? Facing a field of approximately 200 players, you have an expected return of approximately 7-1 with the true odds of winning at approximately 200-1, whereas in a single-table satellite, you are 9-1 facing 9-1 (actually, if you count the couple players who are playing like the meter is running in a single-table, your actual odds are better than the buy-in odds).
First, the tourney book was not written by David or myself even though we both made contributions. Second, if you are good at one table sattelites, then this alone might double your equity.
I did some research on tournament expectation a while back. I’m pretty sure you have to be better than 90th percentile to expect to return double your buy-in plus rebuys in the smaller tourneys. I do think it’s possible to achieve this expectation, but you have to be the best player in the tournament, or very close to that. So in terms of percentile, you probably need to be in the high 90s.
I am slightly confused about the advantages of a big draw in the two types of big bet poker. Is it true that if you flop a big draw, it is an advantage to be playing no limit rather than pot limit, due to the exposure to reverse implied odds, if both players are deep?
If I am right about this, how deep would the money have to be in pot limit relative to the blinds before this became a factor?
And, in a fit of trolling, which is more skillful, pot limit or no limit?
In my opinion you'd rather be playing the draw in Pot-Limit because of the smaller chance your opponent can put you all-in with only one card to come. If your opponent realises you are on a draw it is correct for him to put you all-in, as long as he has got a made hand himself. The odds may have become prohibitive for the draw. With the draw you would prefer to do your big betting on the flop, and importantly, in position. Never bet your draw out of position with only one card to come. In tournaments the difference between PL and NL is often insignificant due to the "shallowness" of the chips.
Onno van Keulen
Hello,
I would like to learn how to play poker. I am willing to do the appropriate amount of studying to become an expert. Which poker game should I learn how to play that will give me the biggest return when I become an expert? Which books should I buy? How much can I expect to make? Thanks!
Gack! You just don't know what you are in for. Poker is a very tough game, but you can become a winner. To be a winner you will probably want to start with "Hold'em Poker" by David Sklansky. I really like "Getting the Best of it" also. If you really plan on becoming an "Expert" you will end up buying all the 2+2 books plus some others. Find a game you like and start studying. Also, Turbo Texas Hold'em Poker Software will prepare you for what to expect in a live game. If you start beating a Poker game you should be able to get at least 1 Big Bet per Hour. If you start playing 3-6 Texas hold'em. Your Hourly Rate should be $6, but this is after a lot of study and practice. Don't expect to make a fortune the first time you play just because you read a book.
CV
Where can I find "Turbo Texas Hold'em Poker Software?"
Check the ConJelCo website. "www.conjelco.com"-I think
Some famous poker player (I forget who, maybe it was me...or maybe not) once said something to the effect that it would probably cost you about the same to learn how to play winning poker as to buy a new Cadillac.
I'm sure you'll get excellent, serious advice from other responders here. I also know that some players have beaten that mark by a lot. But, in my experience, I believe that that estimate may not be too far off target.
In any case, just remember that nothing worth having comes cheap.
jim
Jim,
How much is a new Cadillac these days? A showroom? And finally, an exclusive dealership?
Thanks in advance,
Etienne
New Cadillacs go from $35K and up. Showrooms and dealerships? Ask John Elway.
I feel fortunate that I only lost a mid-size Chrysler before I started winning.
jim
The joy is in the journey.
Lern to play hold'em. I have 9 books on hold'em, 2 on stud,2 on stud hi-lo, 5 general poker boks poker boks. But it is nothing compare to my dad chess liabary.
I heard that there was a large jackpot on an interstate lottery last week, and it got me thinking.
Normally, I would consider a game like lotto to be a negative expectation bet. However, if the jackpot has grown large from previous draws, I am not sure if this is the case.
For example, in the UK, we play with 49 balls, drawing 6. From my math classes, 49C6 = 13,983,316. If we also simplify by assuming that only one person will have the winning ticket, this seems to make positive EV bet if the ratio between ticket price and jackpot is greater than 14,000,000:1. Am I right in this?
Does anyone know if a real-world lottery offers such opportunities?
Kieran
Yes, last week's lottery was a good bet. The odds against winning were slightly higher than 80 million-1. The payoff was your choice, either $104 million now, or $175 million over 20 or 25 years. Either way, positive EV. Of course, if there were multiple winners, the payoff is split, and you shouldn't bet it if you really need the dollar or two you put into it. Frank
You should also remeber that since people tend to play birthdays etc it is better to play number greater then 31 to increase the chance that you will be the lone winner if you hit it.
Two points that need to enter the calculation:1Taxes. 104 million is really only 62 million after tax. This would seem to argue against playing, but 2. Other returns. This is not a winner take all situation. You have some equity in hittins some but not all numbers.
In general, state lotteries are a bad bet, even when they give the appearance at a glance of being +EV.
The California lottery a short time ago had a huge jackpot that was advertised as over $100,000,000, (I think it was about $104M) which sounds like a great deal.
The actual cash value of the jackpot is ~1/2 of the advertised value, though. $104,000,000 is what you'd receive over 26 years with the annuity that the jackpot would buy, but if you wanted the actual jackpot it was something like $52,000,000. Still not a bad chunk of change. Except, each ticket has ~1/18,000,000 chance of winning, and during the week that the jackpot jumped over $100,000,000, about 89,000,000 lottery tickets were sold. That means that the expected result was that the jackpot would be split 5 ways. This reduces the jackpot expectation to about $11,000,000. The jackpot was in fact split multiple ways, but I think it was a 3 or 4 way split. And then, don't forget taxes on top of everything else.
There has never been a time in the history of the CA lotto that purchasing a ticket would have been +EV.
I don't know the numbers for the powerball lotto, but I suspect that it wasn't +EV either. the advertised jackpot of $195,000,000 had an actual face value of $104,000,000. During the week of that drawing, I've no idea how many tickets were sold, but it was probably in excess of 200,000,000. The chance of hitting the jackpot in the powerball lotto was about 1/80,000,000.
There was an expected 2.5 winners on the draw. This time only one person had a winning ticket, so he got lucky. Assuming 200M tickets sold, there was about an 8% chance that no-one would win, and about a 21% chance that there would be a single winning ticket, 26% chance of 2 winners, 21% chance of 3 winners, and about a 24% chance of 4 or more winners.
When lotto jackpots get high, the rate of ticket sales accelerates. The state lottos have such a high house chop that it's almost impossible for a +EV situation to occur. If the powerball had rolled over again, though, they may have had trouble selling enough tickets for the next drawing so that there might have actually been a chance of a +EV situation occuring.
When you get into dollar amounts like that the true odds are comepletely irrelevent.If the true odds are say 10,000,000-1,and I'm going to bet $1,it really doesn't matter to me if the payoff is 4,6,8,10,12,or 25 million it's all comepletely unreal money,it's nothing like in a crap game taking 9-5 on a 4 when you should get 2-1.
The question wasn't about whether the lotto was a fun thing to do, or about dreaming about winning millions, but whether or not the large jackpots create +EV situations.
Since syndicates can actually purchasing enough tickets to cover the field (or at least a large portion of it) in many state lotteries, it makes sense to ask if there are investment opportunities offered by lotteries. The answer is that maybe there are, but if so, the opportunities are few and far between.
In the horse racing section of GAMBLING FOR A LIVING we discuss why it makes sense to purchase every possible combination in a lottery. You may want to look at that.
Furthermore, if you know that a syndicate is operation, you may not have the positive expectation that it appears you have.
Your premise is correct. A similar situation arises in large Pick-6 bets at racetracks when the prize pool has been building over several days and now has a "negative" takeout. The actual (or parlay) value of the pool then becomes a positive expectation. (Naturally, every geek and his brother jumps on the bandwagon and drives the value ever higher till it's hit.) Both the lottery and pick-6 pools are still longshots, but if you could live many lifetimes, I suppose you might be able to write 'em down as "positive EV" (not sure I'd like you variance if you bet large amounts however).
In your new poker book, you describe a "rock game" Briefly it was a standard 15-30 game with one exception: The winner of the previous pot was automatically the $30 blind for the next hand. You imply, therefore that the 30$ in the pot is like a rock, meaning, I assume,that it has no value. This seems like an obvious error since the "rock" is live! In fact the rock has value since if you have a playable/raisable hand next then you can get full value from the "rock". Using a number from another essay, you state that good hold-em players play about 15% of all hands. This would give the rock a value of about 4.5, plus whatever value you get when there is no raise and you get to see the flop for free, or no one calls and you win the small blind. Also note the rock has different values to different positions at the table. Obviously the rock has more value if you are about to be the button, than if you will be in poor position for the next hand. Thus the pot is not worth the same for all players! Of course your general conclusion of an extremely tight game seems eminently correct
Mason may go into more detail on this, but just to clarify a couple of points:
He states that it was a 30-60 game (not 15-30) in which the big blind was posted by the winner of the previous pot.
I don't see in the essay any implication that the "rock"-like big blind had *no* value, just that the structure allowed for very tight play - a conclusion you agree with. Clearly its value is as a "ticket of admission" into the next pot.
By the way, this is a little like a game I used to play in sometimes. It was 10-20 with a half kill (so it became 15-30 if someone won two pots in a row, with that person "killing" it by posting a live $15 blind in addition to the regular $5 and $10 blinds). But sometimes we would play what we called "leave it in". This meant that it was automatically killed every hand by the winner of the previous pot. So it was a $15 blind that just stayed on the table, making the game 15-30, with $5 and $10 blinds. Here also, the rock-like blind had some value as entry into the next pot. This structure was not quite as extreme as the one Mason describes, but certianly allowed for very tight play. I loved it, but also knew it was bad for the game in the long run. I don't think it is ever spread anymore at that cardroom.
I played in this 10-20 game called "The Mayo Game". If you won a pot that had a packet of mayonaisse in it, when it was the mayo winner's turn to staddle, he had to straddle and the mayo also went into the pot.
As a sidenote, I was stupid enough to ask why they called it "The Mayo Game". The answer was "because we don't have any mustard..."
Would someone be kind enough to provide the definition and/or concept of a "protected pot"? I've heard the term many,many times, and realize that I really don't know exactly what it means. Thanks for any help.
LouB,
The book, Sklansky on Poker, has an essay about the protected pot. Essentially a multiway pot on the river is "protected" because a successful bluff will not be possible.
Tom Haley
Tom wrote: "The book, Sklansky on Poker, has an essay about the protected pot. Essentially a multiway pot on the river is "protected" because a successful bluff will not be possible."
Thus when someone bets in this situation, they are less likely to be bluffing. This is especially true if they are an experienced player. It would not applu to a lunatic type player.
Does anybody know the heads-up odds for KJs versus A-9 off? I made the following play in a no limit tourney and was wondering what my chances were; putting aside the bet vs. call philosophy.
The table was down to 7-handed with an average stack size of about T1000, with no extra large stacks. I had T500 after posting the T50 big blind. The blinds were due to increase to 50/100 in 2 minutes, so I was only looking at a few more rounds. It was folded around to the button (who had the smallest stack at about T400), who bet 100 in what looked like a tentative steal. This guy figured both me and the SB were over-tight. The small blind reraised all-in for about T600 and practically announced "I can beat King-rag." I had picked up KJ of hearts, which I know is a dubious hand to even consider an overcall in this situation. However, I believed I a had a very good read on both these guys and called based on the following analysis:
1. The button would fold (even with a small pair) in the face of my overcall.
2. I was 90% certain that the SB was holding no better than A-9 or K-T. I put the odds at about 50/50 for each hand, with the very slim possiblity of a middle-pair.
3. I figured I was a big either a big favorite against K-middle and only a slight dog against Ace-middle (or middle pair) given my straight and flush possibilities.
4. This seemed like as good a spot as any to put myself into contention since I was laying T500 for a pot of T675.
Assuming my read on these players was right, was this a reasonable play? Did I make a reasonable read on these players, which are both above-average tourney players?
By the way, my read was dead on. The button folded and the SB had A-9 (spade and club). The ten-high flop missed us both. The queen of hearts on the turn gave me a straight flush draw, but I didn't get there on the river. The SB remarked that he was surprised by my "terrible" call. But I don't think so, unless someone tells me that KJs is a bigger dog to A-9 than I think it is. Thanks for any comments. I am particaluarly interested in any KJs versus A-9 off simulations. Also wonderiung whether it matters if the Ace matches the suit of KJs.
Michael 7 ,
I ran a 1,000,000 hand "Hot/Cold" Sim of KhJh vs. Ac9s. The results were A9o 53.79% KJs 46.21%. So I guess if you were positive the Raiser had Axo you wouldn't want to go all-in with your KhJh since it knocks you out of the Tourney. But given the spot you were in and the read you had on your opponents. I think you made the right play.
CV
Chris-
Thanks a lot for the quick response. By my math, I made a positive EV call given the blinds and the (I hope) dead money from the button. [54% x (-500) + 46%x (+675) = +40.5.
This is a weekly tournament that I play in primarily for recreation, so I take the approach that "It's better to burn out than fade away". (Apologies to Neil Young). That being said, I recognize that when you are in a position where you need to make a play to survive, it is *much* better to take the initiative and put your chips in first. However, it seems that everybody half way decent plays like this and you are either going to only steal the blinds or be a big dog if called. I sometimes think that you get a nice overlay to double-through by calling an all-in bet from a late-position small stack if you have a reasonable King, Ace or small pair. What do you think?
I don't like this play, and think you should have folded.
You say you put the SB, to a 90% certainty, on Ax or Kx, where x is a middle card. Given the action to this point, I fail to see how you could be so certain. While you know this player and I don't, I would think that hands like AX and KX (where X is a big card) should be considered, and any pair has also got to be possible. If this guy knows nothing about playing NL HE, you can't put him on any hand with confidence, and if he does know something about this game, there are still a variety of hands with which he might resteal. Would he automatically slowplay any big pair (AA-JJ) from his position, to lure you in?
Now, let's assume you're right. The only hands you're a favorite over are those with a K and a worse kicker. The majority of the time you'll be against a hand that is a slight or a big favorite. You've told us that you had T500 left if you just folded, and the blinds would be T50/100. If you fold here you'll get to see the SB hand for T25, then a full round of hands before posting the T100 BB. I would fold here and wait for an opportunity where you're a favorite, instead of an opportunity where you MAYBE are getting a dinky overlay because a third player has put a few chips in. Now, if there was going to be a lot of dead money in the pot, you can rethink. Here you're barely making a good ring-game call (and I think that this is actually a bad call there as well), at a point in time where a mistake or bad luck is going to bust you out of the tournament. Be patient.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I was playing in a 7-Stud tournament yesterday. This was a low buy in tournament with about 90 players and the limits were raised every 20 minutes. I wasn't catching a lot of good hands but when the limits started increasing I was able to do a fair amount of ante stealing to build my stack a little. We starded with $1000 in tournament chips. It got down to 2 tables and I wasn't in real good shape as I had $2300 in tournament chips with the limits being $500-1000. I had the low card showing with Aces in the hole. My first mistake:
1) I didn't bring it in for $500 dollars. I'm pretty sure that this was wrong. I brought it in for $200.
On 4th I came out betting and got two callers. One with a 6 showing and one with a K showing. I knew the guy with a 6 had a pair and I also knew that the guy with the K was likely to have very little. On 5th I caught a blank (an eight as well), the guy with the 6 caught an 8, and the guy with the K caught an Ace. I bet $1000 and it put the guy with the 6 all in. The guy with the A,K,Q called.
2) Perhaps I made mistake number 2 here. The guy with the A,K,Q probably would not have bet if I checked. I'm thinking that maybe I should have saved a bet here since my hand was kind of dead and I was almost positive that the guy with the A,K,Q didn't have much. I knew he had read me for a lot worse starting hand than I actually had.
I have something like a 4,8, and 5 showing. The sixth card brings a 5 for the guy all in and the guy with the A,K,Q catches the case Ace. Of course he bets and I call all in. His pair of Aces with a K,Q high beats my pair of Aces. The with 6 showing catches 2 pair and wins the pot. Perhaps I should not have called the last bet but I think that was o.k.
Tom Haley
Sounds like your post-mortem analysis is right on the money; once most players get on a hand at 4th street in a stud tournament, they're reluctant to let go. Stud is more fun in a cash game, but maybe not the best game for a tournament.
Tom, Only bringing it in for $200 would indicate that you were thinking of going for a trap here. Given that, I think I would have followed through on that tactic by going for a check-raise of 4th street.
However, based on the way you changed up and bet out on 4th street, I'd say the rest of your reasoning is valid.
jim
Since I've just criticized someone else's play of a tournament hand in another thread, here's a chance for him, and you, to tell me what mistake(s) I made.
Setting: Orleans in Las Vegas, daily noon tournament. Low buy ($20), with unlimited $10 rebuys for the first 3 limits. Started with 50 players, last 10 getting paid, with prizes from $750 for first down to $30 for 10th.
Situation: 11 players left, 6 at my table. Event is Omaha hi-lo 8 or better. Blinds are 100-300, limit is 300-600. I have 1600, and there are only 2 smaller stacks in the tournament, 1 at my table. I post the SB, and am dealt AcJcJsTd.
Before the hand is dealt, I am thinking "fold anything but the nuts here, because someone else will bust out before you face the blinds again." I am also thinking "don't be a wimp, you're trying to win this tournament, not lock up $30 for 10th place." Anyway, 3 of the players call (can you believe it), 1 folds, and as I'm looking at my cards (I usually wait until the action is on me before looking, so I can observe my opponents instead of thinking about my cards), the BB is already tapping his hand to indicate a check. BTW, I am virtually certain that this is NOT a ploy.
Question #1 - Should I put in 2 of my precious chips to see the flop here?
I am getting 13:2 on the call, and since I know the BB won't raise, I call. I also told myself that I would not put in more chips without an excellent flop. Flop is QJT, with 1 club and 2 hearts. Geez, there's my J, but the flop is way too coordinated for me to be happy. With 5 players, someone almost certainly has a straight. I check, because I don't have enough chips to push anyone around, and I am hoping that no one will bet. BB does bet, and everyone folds to me.
Question #2 - Should I put in 3 of my precious chips to see the turn here?
I feel that there is some chance (maybe 30%) that I've actually got the best hand. The BB has been pretty aggressive, and would certainly have bet with 2 pair or better given this flop (he knows people will likely fold unless they've got the AK). Although BB is clearly not a good player, he is an aggressive one. I saw him go 3 bets with bottom 2 pair on the flop earlier in the tournament. Anyway, he could have anything from JT to AK with the flush draw. The pot has T1800 in it, and winning this pot would give me T2800 + whatever else goes in from BB, and would position me in about 3rd chip position, an excellent place from which to win the event. I decide to call and see the turn. I decide not to raise because I know the only hand he might be betting now that he would fold is 98 with no redraw, and I feel that there is only a small chance that this is his holding.
Turn is a nothing, 6s. I check and he bets. The pot is now T2700, I must put up T600 to call, and will only have T400 left. I have 10 outs if I'm behind, possibly 14 outs if a K will give me half or all of the pot. I have considered the possibility that he has trip Qs, but I think he would have taken the free card here if that was his only holding.
Question #3 - Should I call here?
Well, I start to think that I've made the classic mistake of chasing early, and then the pot gets so big that you can't let go. If I quit here I will have to win 2 pots to get to the same place I'd be if I win here. Even if you figure even money on each future risk, that's a 25% chance to get where I'll be if I win this one, and I think that I have much more than a 25% of winning this one. I think that there's about a 25% chance I've got the best hand now, plus you can add about 20% for the times I'll win even though I'm behind now. That's 45%, and I call. However, unless the board pairs, I am still hoping for a free showdown.
The river is a useless 7c. I think for a little while (purely an act), and then check. He bets, and I call. He has K9 with no pair and no flush draw, and it is, as we know, good. I bust out 11th, 1 from the money. While I am very unhappy with the result, and want to rethink my read of this player, I still feel that I optimized my chances of winning the whole thing, even if I gave up an easy coast into 10th place money. Now, if this had been a big buy-in tournament where I got in from winning a satellite, and 10th place represented a significant profit, I probably would have folded preflop. Of course, I would be the first person to point out that EV is all that matters, not how much you spent to enter the event (that's all in the past, and is therefore, in one sense, irrelevant to the decisions you're making now). Anyway, please feel free to criticize, comment, and so forth.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Why wouldn't a King give you all or half of the pot?
After that flop, you are pretty much going to see the river. Once this is true, you are better off getting your chips in earlier instead of letting your opponent put them in for you. A raise on the flop might have slowed your opponent down (he didn't have the nut straight). A raise on the turn wouldn't have dropped him, but then you don't have to worry about him not paying off if you hit.
When you give him the option of not putting you all in, he's most likely going to select that option with hands that are behind you.
Wow, sure didn't have to wait long for a response.
Stephen Landrum wrote:
>Why wouldn't a King give you all or half of the pot?
I didn't write this very clearly. 3 of the Kings obviously give me the nuts, which might be good for all, or half, of the pot. The Kh might make my opponent's flush, and do nothing for me.
>After that flop, you are pretty much going to see the >river.
Maybe that's true in a ring game. But was that necessarily true here, in a tournament, where I have limited ammunition? While I chose calling, I don't consider this play (or a raise instead) to be automatic. I think that folding is an option that should be considered seriously.
>Once this is true, you are better off getting your chips >in earlier instead of letting your opponent put them in >for you. A raise on the flop might have slowed your >opponent down (he didn't have the nut straight). A raise >on the turn wouldn't have dropped him, but then you don't >have to worry about him not paying off if you hit.
But, I didn't know he didn't have the nut straight. If he does, then I get it all in earlier. If he doesn't, then I might save some chips. Also, if he doesn't have the nut straight, he might slow down by my just calling (I would have slowed down if I were him). Thus, I think one significant question here is "will my opponent be more likely to slow down if I raise than if I just call, by a margin large enough to suggest that it is worth the risk that he has the nuts?"
When it comes to getting paid off at the river, I'm more worried about going broke if I don't hit then getting paid off if I do. Again, although this was an aggressive player, there was some chance that he'd freeze up with K9 or 98 after I called (even though he didn't).
>When you give him the option of not putting you all in, >he's most likely going to select that option with hands >that are behind you.
True. Here, however, there was just too much chance that he had the nuts. As such, raising accomplishes nothing. If he doesn't have the nuts, then just calling provides some chance that he would stop betting.
I appreciate your input. Actually, I would be most curious whether you think my call preflop is good or not. Also, why do you think seeing the river is so automatic after the flop? If I give it up on the flop, I am possibly giving up a big pot, but I am guaranteed to have enough chips to make the money, and actually make 2 or 3 bets the next time I do play a hand. While I chose to play, I think good arguments can be made for folding on the flop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Actually, you could have escaped on the flop - I really meant that once you decided to call on the flop, you were committed to seeing a river.
As for your opponent slowing down, I can't imagine why he would with a lesser straight, or with top trips. I certainly wouldn't in his position. Your chips are too short to fool around with, so if I were in his shoes I'd expect you to be betting any hand but perhaps the bottom straight. Of course, you know your opponent better than I do.
As for your fear that he held the nut straight, it didn't prevent you from going all-in calling him down. That's something you could have decided on the flop, and if you were going to call down if blanks fell, then again I think that you should get the chips in early.
As for the initial call with (AJ)JT - I probably would have made the same call. It's a one-way hand, but has good prospects if you hit it hard. There are too many callers to consider raising with this hand (another viable option if you think you can see the flop heads up). The flop was less than ideal, but you had a tremendous chance of winning with that flop even when behind (>40%) unless you were facing someone with QQ. I'd have decided on the flop to play or fold, and if I was going to play, I'd get my chips in.
My tournament Omaha play is much more aggressive than my ring game Omaha play. Partly this is effective because I see the same opponents in Omaha tournaments in Omaha ring games, so the shift in emphasis in my play is quite effective, and also because in the tournaments they are more afraid of losing their chips than in a ring game where they can just buy more.
The more I think about it, the more I am realizing that I should have done 1 of 3 things:
First, fold preflop, because I want to make the final table before I risk going broke.
Second, call to see the flop, but then only play on if the flop is totally favorable (a made house, flush, or top set with no better hand currently possible). This play seems too weak to even risk 2 chips on, however.
Third, decide that I'm trying to win, and play this hand to optimize my profit. This play would encompass betting out or check-raising the flop that came (i.e., it would correspond more with your recommendations, and less with the way I played the hand).
Thanks for your insights.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I saved your post (of the 400 this weekend) so I could reply on RGP, but I'm glad to see you posted it here as well. When I read it last night, my first thought was to dump, but upon the clear light of day, I like check-raising the flop once you're heads up. That would drive out the 89s and K9s, and he may dump right there if he's on a non-nut heart draw. If you are facing an AK, you still got a bunch of outs.
Once you saw the flop, I wouldn't say you're committed to the river, but the $30 for tenth shouldn't dissuade you from aspiring to be the big stack. If it's a coin flip (or so), between sneaking in for $30 and a 1/20 chance at $750 or a 1/4 chance at $750, I say let's gambool.
I've been keeping records of my winning hands and losing hands for the past year. I have won 279 times with aces and lost 127 times with them for a winning pct. of 68.7....I also have a 61.4 % for Kings and a 55.1 winning pct. for Queens. Some "experts" at the tables have told me the per centages are wrong. One of the said he has run simulations on turbo texas holdem and aces only win about 33% of the time. I suggested that the players stayed in all the way, but he says he set the profiles similar to a regular game and they don't stay in. I have played hundreds of games on TTH , using random profiles set by the computer, and I still came up with similars results to my chart. The expert said that all of the books such as Malmuth and Sklansky say 33% win pct. for aces. My chart is wrong according to them, but I was there and took the money when my aces won as well as lost the money when they didn't hold up. What is the correct answer? I can't believe My win pct. is going to drop that much after thousands of hands. Incidently, the expert said he ran the simulation for a millon hands.
you are right
Daniel,
I've been keeping records of my winning hands and losing hands for the past year. I have won 279 times with aces and lost 127 times with them for a winning pct. of 68.7...
Your figure seems correct and there's no conceivable lineup in TTH that comes even close to 33% unless you're playing with no fold'em profiles. In cases like this, the best thing to do is to ask the "expert" what 10 profiles he is using in his lineup, and then run the simulation for yourself. (Of course, I'm assuming he is using the originals provided with the software, and not any of his own making.)
One thing puzzles me, though. To have been dealt 406 aces in a year, even allowing for all the luck in the world, you would have had to play 77,000 hands (calculations below). That's 7 hours a day, for each of the 365 days in the year. Are you sure your record keeping is for the past year only? If it is, you are playing a lot of poker.
Etienne
Calculations
Probability of pocket aces = 1/221
Assume binomial distribution,
n = number of hands per year, p = 1/221
Then expectation = np, and standard deviation = sqrt(np(1-p)).
406 aces in a normal year would require 89,726 deals. For a very lucky year (3 standard deviations), we solve the following equation for n :
np + 3*sqrt(np(1-p)) = 406
to get n ~ 77,400.
Etienne,
Sorry about that. I got to looking at my records and they go back about two and a half years. I'm getting old and forgetful. My records with Kings and Queens are above 50% on the winning side also.
Your numbers seem about right to me. Neither David or myself has ever published (that I can remember) figures such as 33 percent for aces. However, if all of your opponents were to go to the river automatically then 33 percent might be a reasonable figure. However, in a real game it is not.
Dear Mason and David,
Thank you very much for responding. I love your books and articles
I was not impressed with Sylvester Suzuki's tournament book. Would like to know your opinions.
I am disappointed with the book. I had hoped that the author would have discussed how to handle specific type hands in the various situations which occur during tournaments. He limited himself to generalizations which leave the reader wondering exactly what he should do in certain situations.
One situation which occurs frequently, which I don't remember seeing discussed, is how the same hand is valuable if you're the aggressor, and mediocre if you're responding to someone else. In a no-limit tournament or satellite, raising with high suited connectors is a good play if there is some chance of stealing the blinds and money from those who have limped in. If you are called, you still have a pretty decent chance of winding up with the best hand, and can muck if you're re-raised. However, calling with the same hand to a decent size raise is probably a bad play.
Another situation which occurs frequently in no-limit is what to do with a medium size pair against a decent size raise. If you're against a smaller pair you're a big favorite. If you're against a bigger pair you're a big dog, If you're against two overcards, you're a small favorite. Also, you may win against a larger pair if you move in and he folds. I would think that later in a tournament you move all-in, hoping to win what's in the pot already, and still are the favorite much of the time if you're called (the higher the pair, the better). Earlier in the tournament (no rebuys available), you might be more careful. During a re-buy period, this move is almost automatic, as you are very likely to be called by a lesser hand. But perhaps not late in a re-buy period if you have an over-sized stack, as you don't want to have to spend more on re-buys than is necessary.
I got the impression that the author was afriad of being critized and therefore limited himself to generalizations. In fact, at one point, he advocates playing a certain way in a certain situation, then goes on to say that playing the opposite has merits too. This isn't the sort of wishy-washy attitude we're accustomed to by Two-Plus-Two authors.
There is also some redundancy in the book, repeating the same information, verbatim in some instances, that was stated earlier in the book.
To be fair, there is a lot of information in the book for those with moderate to no experience playing tournaments. Indeed, it may be the most accurate book on tournaments yet published. But the void that previously existed on good information for tournament play, has not been filled by this book as much as I had hoped. There is still a lot more to be said on tournaments.
But for the $20 price the publishers are asking, it's definitely worth the money.
Just a note. POKER TOURNAMENT STRATEGIES is mainly targeted for small buy-in tournament play. It is also not a book on how to play poker. The questions above on how to play certain no-limit hands in certain situations are also poker as opposed to poker tournament questions. (Even though they are very legitimate questions they are really beyond the scope of the book.) The idea of the text was to sketch out how you adjust your play as the tournament moves along and how to handle rebuys.
I understand your point, but find it hard to seperate poker from a poker tournament. There are ways to play certain hands in tournaments which would never be right in a ring game. And there are different proper ways to play the same hands, depending on current tournament conditions.
I think most readers were looking for some of the above when purchasing the book. But as it is, it's worth the $20. It just short of what was expected.
Mason, you'll have to understand, that when you (plural) write the definitive books on Hold'em, Stud, High/Low and Poker Theory, as well as gambling in general, nothing less than the definitive book on tournament play was expected. Im sorry, but you guys set your own standards by which you will be judged. ;-)
(Easy for me to say, I don't have to write the books)
I actually agree with all of this. POKER TOURNAMENT STRATEGIES is a good book, but not a great one. We believe that it is the best book on poker tournaments currently in print. It contains no hype, and doesn't ramble on about how to play poker. It just talks poker tournament concepts. However, it is not the definitive book on poker tournaments. That has yet to be written.
Just wanted to remind everybody that my book Sklansky on Poker has a few chapters devoted exclusively to tournaments. In it you will find some concepts that are not covered elsewhere.
The book arrived today, and on reading the introduction I was delighted with it. It explained the mathematics of variable chip value in clearer terms than "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" or "Sklansky on Poker". I also think that the material on final table deals is valuable.
Beyond that, I am disappointed in the book. There is a tremendous amount of repetition in the way it deals with material. The concepts of tournament equity are dealt with without touching on the underlying maths (probably for fear of intimidating readers), and leave me wishing for a treatment of Kelly strategies in poker tournaments, for example. The fact that it is forcefully aimed at the small-buy-in tournament is mentioned more than once in the text, but omitted in the publicity, and for those of us who already own many of the 2+2 catalogue, it should be said that much of the material is duplicated.
Overall, it has the advantage of being the clearest version of the concepts on tournaments, but seems a little thin on ideas. The decision to avoid discussing particular games means that we avoid endless discussions on who to play small pairs or suited connectors in early position (DON'T), but then have to read endlessly about rebuying instead!
After a tremendous beginning, the book left me feeling let down. I think that others will agree with me.
Kieran
I thought the book overall was ok....not up to par with the Hold'em, Stud or Theor of Poker book (but then again, almost none are up to par with those).
Unfortnuately, there was so much repeating and generalizations. I wish there was more 'different info' given out.
Overall, here are my ratings for some of the 2+2 books (10 being highest, 1 lowest)
Theory of Poker 10 Hold'em for Advanced Players 10 Stud for Advanced Players 10 Gambling for a Living 4 for experienced gamblers, 10 for new gamblers. Gambling Theory (not sure about title, written by MM alone) 10 Poker Tournament Strategies 7 Getting the Best of It 7 for experienced gamblers, 10 for new gamblers. Poker, xxx and Life (not sure of title, by DS alone) 6
Also, the two Poker Essays books are both 9s IMO, but only if the articles are new to you. I actually enjoyed these the best because they are good 'bathroom' reading, short but very useful articles.
Thanks for the nice comments on our books. I would like to point out that GAMBLING FOR A LIVING was written for the masses, as opposed to some of you who are really quite sophisticated and who participate in this forum. So we agree with the evaluation that T.P. gives it. We also tell people who contact us that if they are relatively new to gambling this is the book they should start with. But there is no question that it is not written at the level of sophistication as some of our other books.
I might have rated Getting the Best of It higher. It's my personal favorite of the group. But I was considerably less knowlegable about gambling when I first read it, as opposed to now. Perhaps the lower rating is warrented for experienced gamblers. But as I flip thought it now, I'm tempted to re-read the whole book again. There are a lot of insights, as well as interesting stories, that make this book good reading.
Although some might find that hard to believe, as the author has given some questionable recommendations lately. He's gone as far as to recommend life insurance as a good buy. But perhaps he was on tilt at the time. Everybody goes on tilt from time to time.
Sometimes it is appropriate to make a negative expectation bet if it lowers your standard deviation. For example, I buy car insurance and health insurance. I buy it with a large deuctable, so I am now protected against a personal disaster that I would not be able to afford. I do this even though I know that this bet has negative expectation.
For certain people (who probably consider their families very important) life insurace may be a bet worth making even though it is negative expectation. This is one bet that I have not made.
Mason wrote:
>Sometimes it is appropriate to make a negative
>expectation bet if it lowers your standard deviation.
I agree with this, of course, but I would express it another way. You are, in effect, paying a penalty in order to cancel a bet you were forced to make but did not want to. For example, we are all forced to make a large bet that we will remain healthy, though this is something most people would rather not gamble on. So we buy health insurance as a way of cancelling this unwanted bet.
My comments regarding life insurance were meant to be read between the lines.
This one has been bothering me for two weeks now so I thought I'd share it.
$60 entry fee, no rebuys. 10 players in tourney. T2000 in chips to start. Payout is 60%-30%-10%. 20 minute rounds. Blinds double each round.
Early on with blinds at T50-T100. I'm in early position 4th after button. I get AA and make it T300 to go. Get two callers, one middle position and other SB. Flop comes J33. SB checks, I bet T1000, next player folds, SB raises me all-in.
I've got T700 left. I judge myself to be the best player overall and T700 is still a playable position this early for me. I've played against this opponent before and believe him capable of calling my initial raise with A3s, 33 or even J3s.
I sweat this decision for a full minute before laying down. Opponent shows me KK.
My overriding reasons were: 1) its too early to be eliminated, and 2) there was no side game action worth bothering with.
I guess there are two decision points here. Did I raise too little pre-flop? Should I have called the all-in bet?
All opinions welcome.
jim
Your first question was "Did I raise too little pre-flop?"
I've got to say no, your raise was fine. I prefer to always raise the same amount when I raise preflop in NL and PL games. This way, no one can read me for a steal or a legitimate raise. They also can't judge whether I am trying to win the pot now, or increase the stakes. I usually use 3x the BB as the amount of my bring-in. Any more than this, and your steals cost too much. Any less, and the BB will almost always call. The only time I raise more is when there is an ante. Then I'll bring it in for about 3x BB + half the total of the antes.
The only exception is when I'm getting short-stacked in a tournament. If my normal bring-in amount is more than about 60% of my stack, then I raise all-in instead.
Your second question was whether you should have called the raise. This depends upon your read of the player, and nothing we say matters that much. The only thing we can do is provide you with things to think about when you make your decision.
First, you had T1700 after your preflop raise. The pot was T1000. Betting the size of the pot is generally a good size bet to make in NL, so your T1000 bet after the flop cannot be said to be wrong per se. However, this bet represents so much of your stack that I don't think you should bet the flop at all unless you've already decided that you'll go all-in. Don't commit the vast majority of your stack if the situation is such that you'll fold to a raise.
Thus, knowing nothing about your opponent, I'd say that there are 3 major options available to you.
First, check with the intention of folding to a bet (unless, of course, you get 1 or more free cards, and one of them is an A).
Second, check with the intention of calling a bet. With this strategy, you are trying to induce a bluff by your opponent, as you can beat any bluff. While checking and calling is generally a weak play in NL (or limit, for that matter), this is just the perfect situation for it. The only hands that will bet are those with a 3 (or JJ), or those that are bluffing. If you think that a bluff is much more likely than 1 of the real hands, then calling is a good play. Conversely, if you bet out because you think that you're still the best hand, the only likely outcomes are winning the pot immediately, or being called (or raised) by a better hand. The way things really turned out in this hand are an aberration, because your opponent played KK like a chump (or a psychic).
Third, bet all-in on the flop. The only reason to do this is if you think that 1 or both of your opponents are calling stations, and will call you because they don't believe that you'd raise preflop with a 3, but they are too timid to bet any hand of their own that isn't strong. For example, if you know an opponent would call with a hand like Jx (x being any kicker except 3) or with any 2 overcards, but won't bet with any of these hands, then betting out is the best play. However, given your stack size relative to the pot, don't bet out unless you're prepared to go all-in.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
Good analysis as usual. I use the same strategy myself on pre-flop raising.
On the 3 options (remember, I have AA):
1) Check with intention of folding...Some day I might be that smart but, with aces, so very, very hard to do.
2) Check with intention of calling...Once again, so very, very hard to do.
3) Bet all-in on flop...I agree. Probably the best choice. Full (or fool) ahead and damn the torpedos.
I notice you skip option #4 (my actual play)...bet pot but fold to raise. I guess you consider this the worst play. My only excuse is that I felt that even down T1300 from even I stood a decent chance. I know this group well and I've come back from behind quite frequently with them.
However, in balance, I agree with option #3 as the likely best choice in most situations.
jim
I never played no limit. Still as a stud-east coast player,I feel you should call period! The other ideas our bull****
I'll bet that most of the time that this player check-raises he's got the nuts or near nuts. He probably figured you had Ax minimum, AJ at the most. You will be right in your lay down over 80% of the time and you still have a chance win.
If he's only right to fold 80% of the time, then he shouldn't lay it down. He's got pot odds for the call, if the opponent is bluffing the opponent has few outs if any, and he has one or two outs if the opponent is not bluffing and not holding the miracle 33.
Greg wrote : < The way things really turned out in this hand are an aberration, because your opponent played KK like a chump (or a psychic). > ' why was this guy a chump? I would have raised a bunch if I was him pre-flop (he just flat called), but after the flop, I've gotta believe the all-in raise was a good bet. Assume for a second that you were in his seat, and you had just called preflop (whether you should have raised or called is moot, assume you just called), what would you do on the flop? I would raise all in also, and I think just about everybody would have. Its the right play, the guy either has AA, QQ, AK, AQ, AJ, JJ or another pair. He definitely does not have a 3 since he raised preflop. And assuming he has QQ, AJ, he's gonna call, and with KK you wanna shut out Ax. I think its a good raise.
Now, the call preflop I think was poor. I would've raised all in, and ..... lost.
When I said he played it like a chump, I was referring to the flat call preflop. When it came back to the small blind, the pot was big enough to be worth winning immediately, plus there's a good chance that his reraise will get called by a hand that's not getting good enough pot odds.
After the flop, his play is OK. However, I would have just called the flop, and tried to get all the money in on the turn, instead. There is only 1 card that concerns me on the turn (A), and if my opponent holds an A, that leaves him only 3 chances in 46 of hitting the turn. I'll take that level of risk in order to suck him in on the turn. Of course, if I know something about this opponent, that will influence my decision greatly (as to how to play the hand).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I want to disagree with the idea that it was too early to be eliminated. I don't know if it is ever too early to be eliminated.
The reason for this is that as the tournament goes on, the less chips you have the more each chip is worth. However, early in a tournament, this effect is very small. Thus I would not change my play much from that of a ring game unless I know the other player very well. And, I suspect that in a ring game you would call this raise.
If it is late in a tournament where the size of your stack is now significantly affecting the value of your chips then you may want to switch strategy. In fact, there are probably some situations where switching strategy would be absolutely correct.
Mason wrote:
I have to agree with this advice, even though psychologically, it is hard for me to follow it. I have not played many tourneys yet, and each one I play in, I want to do well, and doing well, instinctively means staying in as long as possible. This is clearly not the real measure of 'doing well', it should be maximizing expectancy. This was definitely difficult for me at the WSOP, as I believe I played too tight, and got blinded off too often in the No-Limit and Pot-Limit tourneys, because I wanted to 'do well', not realizing that I may have been limiting myself.
Seems my notions before were :To be knocked out early is an embarrassment, to be knocked out late (but out-of-the-money), is just 'bad luck', and I can live with bad luck.
T.P. wrote that I wrote the following:
"Mason wrote: I have to agree with this advice, even though psychologically, it is hard for me to follow it. I have not played many tourneys yet, and each one I play in, I want to do well, and doing well, instinctively means staying in as long as possible. This is clearly not the real measure of 'doing well', it should be maximizing expectancy. This was definitely difficult for me at the WSOP, as I believe I played too tight, and got blinded off too often in the No-Limit and Pot-Limit tourneys, because I wanted to 'do well', not realizing that I may have been limiting myself.
Seems my notions before were :To be knocked out early is an embarrassment, to be knocked out late (but out-of-the-money), is just 'bad luck', and I can live with bad luck."
First I never wrote this. You need to check your source and correctly identify the author. I can assure you that it was not me. Second, I have never played a no-limit or pot-limit tournament at the WSOP. In fact, since no-limit and pot-limit are not in my area of expertise, I hardly ever play either of these formswheter it is a tournament or a ring game. Further, since these games hardly ever exist on a regular basis, I doubt if I ever will play them very much.
I apologize....for some reason, the words after "Mason wrote:" were supposed to be my response to a quote I was going to put up by Mason from his previous quote, but obviously I screwed it up. My apologizies.
Your pre-flop bet was fine, unfortunately, nobody played back at you. That's surprising, as someone held KK.
After the flop you made a major mistake. It's not the amount that you bet, nor the fact that you bet, but rather that you didn't already know what you would do if re-raised!
As it turned out, you weren't willing to commit the rest of your chips after betting T1000. Yet this large of a bet, which leaves you with T700, almost demands that you call. I'm not saying that you should have called, you may have made the right play based on the player and was unlucky that he only had KK. But if you made your assesment before making your bet, you may have made a smaller bet or not bet at all.
One thing which should have been considered after your opponent moved all-in (and of course, before betting) was the amount in the pot compared with your stack size. Actually, it would be your equity if you folded (which you rate higher than average) compared to your equity if you call and win (which would be higher, but not proportionally so, unless you think you can push everyone around with a big stack). If you thought winning the pot (stack = T4400) trippled your chances of winning (stack = T700), then you would use this to compare to your opponents probable hands. If you thought you could beat half the hands he would re-raise with (including AA (tie), KK, QQ, AJ, and so on) then a call was in order. If you thought you could only beat say 1/4 of the hands he would raise with, then a fold was in order.
In this particular situation you judged that the player would call you (and of course re-raise after the flop) with A3s, J3s, 33, and lets throw in JJ, Q3s and K3s. Thats up to 12 possible hands, depending on the suits of your aces. KK, QQ, AJs are 14 combinations which he might re-raise you and be losing (possibly QJs, JTs, AJo, etc.), again depending on the suit of your aces compared to the jack. I'd estimate your chances at about 55/45 with more than doubling your chances of winning the tournament if you won the hand. Therefore, I would recommend a call.
You could actually expect your opponent to re-raise with KK or QQ before the flop some of the time. Since he didn't, you might reduce the chance that he held KK and QQ somewhat, and estimate your win chances at 40/60, still probably worth a call.
Some of this might seem like a lot of work to do before calling (or betting!), but it's necessary. I admit that I don't always do it. But when I'm at the final table, or near the pay-off positions, and every call, bet and fold is crutial, that's exactly how I think before taking action. The later in the tournament it gets, the more important to think that way! Of course, late in the tournament the prize structure is also figured in.
I liked some of Greg Raymer's insights and recommend them.
By the way, you stated that you sweated the decision for a minute before laying down the hand. What was you doing with the time? Good players think; Lesser players worry. THINK! (I know you were trying to figure out his hand. Next time take two minutes and calculate your equities. ;-)
Thanks for all the responses.
I agree that I made a mistake here. Of course, if the guy had shown me a 3 or anything that beat me outright I probably never would have posted this, secure in the knowledge that my judgement was flawless.
If you had just called with the Aces in the early position before the flop, you would have had an easier and less costly decision after the flop -- even if it was wrong.
IMHO A good laydown at this point.
I had the small blind with AA shorthanded (seven players, two of them away from the table) with one stranger and the rest decent to strong regulars or semi-regulars. No one is steaming or otherwise playing out-of-line. The stranger has not shown down any hand that I would never have started with, respecting his positions. He calls after the first player folds, the button calls, I raise, and we see the flop (522 rainbow) with seven small bets in the pot. My bet on the flop is called by both players, and I bet the turn when another five shows up suited to one of the deuces. The stranger raises, and I get plenty of time to reconstruct the hand while the button thinks about it. I know they have put me on the big pair (if I picked up the flush draw on the turn with AKs, why would I bet when I can't call a raise?) and that they're aware that I know their reads are correct. The question is whether the stranger is capable of raising with a medium pair to force the button out (saving the pot if the flush is completed on the river and the button had cold called the bet on the flop with two overcards and the backdoor draw) and as a semi-bluff against my hand by representing A5. What he doesn't know is that my aces are of different suits from the fives on the board, which means it is impossible for him to have started with A5s, and I don't believe he's the type of player who would throw away money before the flop with AX unless suited. He might raise on the turn with four deuces hoping I think he's bluffing if he thought I wouldn't call a raise on the river without a pat hand anyway. However, most players will wait until the river to raise with four of a kind, and this stranger doesn't know how well I play yet. If he had started with suited connectors containing a five, and it is o.k. to call with them before the flop from his position in a shorthanded situation, then there is something fundamental that I'm missing. So, I felt it was more likely that he had an overpair and was making a move rather than quads. The button folded here, I called, and check/called the stranger's bet on the river. Did I make a bad decision calling the raise on the turn? If this was a player I am familiar with who semi-bluffs alot, then I'm sure I'd have correctly gone to the showdown with my pocket aces. If this was a poor player, I would have to laydown my hand for the raise. What do you think of the stranger's raise on the turn assuming he's holding pocket eights or nines? I'm not going to tell you what his cards were, because the result of a hand has nothing to do with the correctness of the strategic concepts involved. To say that I played it right if I won, or made a mistake if I lost is *fuzzy thinking*. All comments would be most appreciated.
I think there is enough doubt to call the Raise and Check/Call the River. Why would he raise on the Turn in his position with the nuts? I would think his most likely action was to overcall and hope to trap the two of you if he had the 5 or the 2. An other play I might have tried if I was in your position was a Check raise on the Turn since I wouldn't have thought the other 5 helped anyone. But if I checked, the Stranger bet and Button Folded I might have just cold called since I would have thought it more likely for the Button to try to Bluff. I would then check/call the river.
CV
Chris, check-raising the turn is not an option here, since only a hand that beats me will bet into my check. Remember that they know that I know they know what I have. Notice that I can't bet on the river because if the stranger is capable of making a move with a weak overpair he is going to follow through with the semi-bluff by raising me again. There is no hand which beats mine that he will fold with at the end. Also, four deuces is not the nuts. If the stranger thinks that the button could be on A5s which is possible with the overcall before the flop, then raising the turn with quads is better than slowplaying since he'll get to four bet it when he's right.
Maybe Check-Raising is to dangerous, but I don't think Betting right out on the Turn is the best play either. When I described Check Raising as an option I was thinking one of the other players would try to Bluff at the pot. Now that I think about it Checking and Calling both the Turn and the River would make you more money when your opponent can't beat Aces Up, and you lose less when the bettor has you beat. I just don't see where folding is right. Mason's latest Essay was about a similar situation. I was thinking betting the Turn was right, but as Mason pointed out. It would be very hard to let go of his hand if he was Raised on the Turn. Of course he was dealing with people who were "Live". In your situation the Raiser might be the type of person who would try to take the pot away from you.
CV
There are some similarities to Mason's latest essay now that you mention it. Maybe if I share my thoughts about his hand, he'll post some valuable insight on this thread?
Andrew,
I'm probably wrong but I think you should have folded. When you raise pre-flop, bet on the flop, and bet on the turn you are representing a strong hand. I think if you were worried about a bluff you should have checked the turn. Just my two cents.
Tom Haley
Tom, against certain types of players (the ones which play any type of drawing hand without regards to pot odds) I would agree with you about checking the turn. This is not because I fear a bluff, but because then I could reasonably be up against 65s or 54s. I had only an hour to see what I could learn about him from his play, and I didn't see this kind of mistake. However, it could take many hours before I see this type of hand on the showdown in a pot contested shorthanded before the flop if he's making this kind of mistake, since I'm only going to see it when he catches and is called. I went with my initial reaction (disbelief) this time, and as Chris has pointed out - there seems to be enough doubt to put in two more large bets and find out. What about the move itself? Is it valid?
I believe this move is never valid against a SB raised pot in a solid game.
Chris K. (sorry for butting in)
Chris,
That's quite alright. I think it would be a bad play myself. It might be o.k. if you had some doubts about the S.B.'s hand as I have done this kind of thing as well.
Tom Haley
Well, the game sounds pretty solid. You raised from the small blind. It is very likely they put you on AA or KK. My philosophy is never represent a hand your opponant can't put you on -- unless you have it.
Since you know he does not have A5s ... perhaps he has A2 suited ... knowing that you cannot conceivably have a 5 he is not worried about the 5 pairing the board.
You're pretty sure he cannot have a 5 or a 2 ... and he know this. Therefor my vote goes in this direction:
1. He has A2s 2. He has quads. 3. Perhaps he slowplayed AA or AQ AK etc.
Furthermore, I do not believe he is semi-bluffing. If he can put you on AK in the small blind, he could in all likelyhood be playing a weaker Ace and believes he just caught up and is free rolling on you.
My guess is you are beat. I also guess you will never your AA down.
Chris K.
I think he would have raised on the flop with A2s. One thing I didn't consider at the table was that if he was capable of making this move on the turn, then he would have been more likely to have gone for a semi-steal before the flop with hands like 77 or 66. Since I was very close to folding to his raise on the turn anyway, realizing this might have been enough to actually push me in that direction.
I would have called on the turn, there are too many hands he could raise with the intention of checking and showing down on the river (Ax 33 44 66 77 88 99) plus you can still draw an Ace. But when he goes ahead and bets the river I would fold there, not many players would bet one of those hands for value on the end.
I believed I was making a *crying call* on the river also. If my read was correct, then I expected him to follow through with a bet on the river, in which case check/calling gets me one more big bet that I'm not otherwise entitled to when I pick him off. If I'm wrong I'm dead, but I learn alot about how he plays if he shows me a hand like 65s, 22, A2s, or even AA. I thought that if I was beat then he had made a bad decision before the flop which I might be able to use to my advantage later in the session. This is particularly so if he was playing a drawing type hand before the flop without enough players involved. If I don't call here, it might be awhile before I get this type of information.
"I know they have put me on the big pair..."
I'll have to take your word for it as you were there, but in many games I think the small blind might raise here with something less, such as AK, AQ... because these players showed a lot of weakness by just limping in in late positions in a five-handed game. So could they have put you more generally on just high cards or a high pair? If so, as I think another poster mentioned, the guy could have had some sort of ace, put you on something like AK, and been trying to raise you off the pot.
"The question is whether the stranger is capable of raising with a medium pair to force the button out (saving the pot if the flush is completed on the river and the button had cold called the bet on the flop with two overcards and the backdoor draw)..."
But I would usually expect someone with a hand like 88 or 99 to come in for a raise in a five-handed game. Again, you were there, so perhaps your read on the guy is that he would limp.
"He might raise on the turn with four deuces... "
Maybe. In trying to put him on 22 (or 55), without knowing him, it would be tough to know how he would play 22 preflop here. Some players wouldn't play it at all because they couldn't expect to get very good odds for flopping a set in this short-handed situation. Others would raise, while others would limp. So yeah, maybe, but as you said most players would wait to raise on 5.
"What do you think of the stranger's raise on the turn assuming he's holding pocket eights or nines?"
Someone else referred to this, but the fact that he bet again on 5 reduced the chance that he had such a pair. But just looking at the turn, if for whatever reason he's decided he's going to go to the river, then I think his raise here has some merit. He doesn't fear a reraise from you, and knows he just might get you to fold a better hand.
I also think he could have something like 98s, Q9s,... some sort of hand he might have limped with preflop, that now gave him a flush draw (on 4).
I'd play AK or AQ that way sometimes with these table conditions. This particular hand, I was prepared to call before the flop and go for a check-raise on a flop with all rags or one making me top pair if I was fortunate enough to have AK or AQ. He hadn't shown much agression against the button and blinds earlier, so I didn't have a feel for what he would do with a small or medium pocket pair in that position. At the turn, I never considered puting him on a semi-bluff raise with two overcards and a flush draw. I bet the flop and the turn, so he should be concerned that pairing up on the river would only make him a second best hand which he'd have to pay me off with. Also, alot of those big suited gappers like Q9s would be good candidates for a semi-steal before the flop, yet he did limp.
If I bet out on the turn and got raised I would most likely fold. I guess there is about 320 in the pot, you are going to have to pay $80 to win $360 on the end. An easy fold in my opinion. You are only getting 4.5 to 1 odds, plus the fact if you think he is raising with a flush draw you will still lose some of the time. Just not worth it.
Just my opinions.
-Rob
I knew it was going to cost me two big bets to showdown, though it's possible I should save a call on the river. You could very easily be right, it is 4.5:1 if I decide I'm going to call the very probable bet on the river. Therefore I must believe that he would be semi-bluffing more than 25% of the time when he raises. I see your point, but there are some external considerations when dealing with a stranger. I was probably too anxious to determine how he plays and let that affect my thinking at the table, despite the end result.
I wonder about backing up your Pass Line bet with "Free Odds". Since there is no house Vig on these "Free Odds", the Wins and Loses on them will even out in the Long Run. You will still lose the same amount of money from your original Pass Line Bet. So all this talk about "Free Odds" lowering the houses advantage is obscuring the fact that the House eventialy wins the same amount of money from the player's Pass Line Bet even with X100 Odds.
CV
Chris,
Say you have $101 dollars to bet on the pass line. If you bet $101 on the come out and don't take odds your expectation is worse than if you bet $1 on the pass line and when you get a point back it with a $100 odds bet. When you are hoping to get lucky and win a lot of money quickly, I would play craps such that I bet $1 on the pass line and backed it with $100 odds. Also if you make a lot of bets this way and your expected loss is very small and the house gives you a room, food, and beverage comp then you may actually be ahead in the long run. I know the Horseshoe has 100-1 odds bets and I think a few others do as well. I have no idea how big you have to bet to get the comps.
Tom Haley
Thats definately true Tom. I've often wondered if I could get just "Sloshed" with free Drinks while playing the minimum Pass Line Bets. One thing that I found, when I was still playing Craps was that the Dealers start to turn into jerks if you play conservitively and don't Tip. So the best strategy would be to Drink Fast! I think an other good way to get comped would be what the Aventurer did in AC. Know a powerful Card Count and only flat Bet BJ. If you just break even on your BJ but bet big the comps would make a nice profit. Hmmm... Now there's an idea. Isn't BJ close to an Even game in Vegas if you play downtown? If you new just the High Opt1 count and Flat bet with the proper strategy you might do very well. I say Flat Bet so that the Casino doesn't start to worry that you might be a counter. Does anyone know how high you have to bet to get Comped at like the Nugget or Binions?
CV
You may want to read the book COMP CITY by Max Rubin where he discuses in depth exactly this sort of idea.
At Binions (which is the only place you should play craps) you can get 10 x odds on any passline bet of $1 to $4. At $5 and up you can get 100 x odds.
Betting $5 on the pass line and then betting $500 odds is MUCH better than betting $500 on the passline originally.
You will lose about $7.05 if you bet the $500 on the pass line and will only lose appx. $1. if you take the odds.
Most other casinos have a $5 minimum passline bet with only double odds.
If you are after comps and are a $100 player don't be shy about asking. They love big players.
I think my point was missed about the pass-line bet. Of course you want to put the smallest amount of money possible on the Pass Line itself. Since the house vig is 1.414% on any amount you put on it. But the Free Odds are never going to take away the 1.141% house advantage on your original bet since they come out even in the long run. The Free-Odds only make the disadvantage of your original bet look smaller in relation to the amount of money you put in play with the Free-Odds bet.
So my piont is unless your Free-Odds bet helps to get you Comped (which you and Tom stated is possible) you might as well give up putting Free-Odds in back of your Pass Line bet and bet the minimum Pass-Line bet. Free-Odds might look like they make a difference in your out come, but in reality they just make your Bank Role look like a Rollar Coster that is allways heading down hill at the same rate it would if you never made a Free-Odds Bet.
CV
Chris,
I suspect that a player at Binions who bets $500. on the pass line gets much better comps than a player who bets $5. and backs it up with $500. odds. The pit bosses aren't total idiots, and they know which player is making the house the most money.
In fact, the pit bosses will try to estimate how often you make other bets, like placing the numbers, YO, and hardways. The more of these bad bets you make, the higher your comp level.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Chris You ARE lowering your disadvantage, if you compare the total amount bet and the way that you bet it.
$101 on Pass Line at 1.414% disadvantage vs. $1 at -1.414% and $100 odds at 0%.
The biggest difference is in what you get PAID for winning. When you win the $101 pass, you get $101. When you win the $1 with $100 odds, you get anywhere from $121 - $201. After the first roll, the Pass Line and the Odds bet face the same ratio of win/loss, but the Odds bet makes the entire $101 bet closer to the appropriate payout when you DO beat the odds and win.
The casinos make their money in the vig (just likes sports books) that they take from the winners, as well (if not more) than they take from the losers.
Last week during an early morning session in a typical Mirage 10-20 Holdem game, Allen, a completely sodden young man, took the 6 seat. He was in his late 20's to early 30's, good-looking, well dressed, and obviously intelligent, despite the deleterious affects of 36 hours drinking, gambling, and chasing women. He described some of his exploits and perseverated over the inevitably negative reactions his shrink would have next Monday morning. He was amusing, charming, and only spilled one drink over all his chips, and the player in the 5 seat. I was safe and out of spill reach in the 9 seat.
What happened next, I found to be quite astonishing. The other 8 players at the table proceeded to bombard Allen with chips. In the first 45 minutes, Allen had doubled his $200 buy-in, within the hour, it was tripled. Players, who had otherwise been playing cautiously, began raising and re-raising on the river with middle pair. Another player who barely played anything lower than AK, called Allen's raise (with one limper ahead) with K6 suited. Everyone was focused on Allen, with nothing else on his or her minds, but getting the drunk's money. Funny thing was, Allen wasn't throwing his money in their laps. Yes, he did figure to lose most of his money (if only for the fact that he was tipping dealers up to $30.00 per pot), but he wasn't playing badly on all streets. His pre-flop play was loose, but he wasn't playing any two cards. If he bet the flop, he had a piece of it. If he raised the flop, he had a substantial piece. Now, Allen did get lucky on a few hands. He flopped two sets and one straight. But, the players involved in those hands over-reacted so ridiculously that they lost 3 - 5 bets too many each time. They didn't seem to be considering that Allen knew the value of his hands. He was drunk, he would lose his money, but he wasn't an idiot. Allen lost the money he won,plus the $200 buy-in, and went to take a cold shower.
Anyway, the lesson this experience reinforced for me was how important it is to pay strict attention to the game and your opponents. Missing even one key hand can cost lots of money. If you don't know how you opponents are playing their hands, how can you play your opponents correctly? When Allen sat down, everyone saw dollar signs in their eyes. Drunks are supposed to throw their money away indiscriminately. Well surprise, surprise…even the drunk can reveal patterns, which help you make important decisions. The fact that he is drunk is an indicator of his overall game, but his individual actions still need to be interpreted. The longer you sit at the table with him, the less he should be considered a drunk, and the more he should be considered an opponent who has made this play or that play.
I bring this issue up, because it's a big one for me. I talk TOO much at the table. I need to pay attention more, because the more attention you pay to the game, the more money goes into your pocket. What am I losing by missing the action of even one hand that I'm not in? I'd love to hear some of you put a value on attention and observation in a game.
I think there are two lessons here. The first, as you pointed out, is to pay closer attention. This is one of those things which is easy to say, but hard to do. I, for one, frequently get bored when playing poker, and either start playing too many hands, or pay more attention to the basketball game on the TV or the young lady across the table. When I have the discipline to play properly and pay closer attention, I'm frequently able to take advantage of things I see. Discipline! Discipline! Discipline!
The second lesson is that over-reacting to a bad player tends to lose money rather than win money. If you play your normal game, and take advantage of what you observe IF you have the chance, that probably yields the best results. Sometimes you may raise with a hand you might normally call with, not to make the bad player put more money in, but to chase the other good players out, trying to go heads up. But even this can't be done too much. On average, if the bad player goes broke with his $200, everyone else stands to benefit about $20 on average. So what's all the fuss? I think Jessica had the best of it at that table.
Another thing to consider is that some players pretend to be drunk or play bad. You can only detect this by watching how they play, not how they look, talk or smell. Although in this case, the $30 tips are not typical for a pretend drunk. He was probably the real thing. Therefore, it's not Jessica but the dealer who had the best of it! ;-)
Jessica,
I agree with the 3 good points made by George.
I played 10-20 at the Mirage last December - I should have started with 3-6, but that's another story. The tables were generally filled with locals and other pros. I'll never forget my first session, when the guy to my left immediately asked me "do you chop?" I wasn't wearing my lumberjack shirt that morning, and after a quick check to see if there weren't any logs of wood lying around, I turned to him and asked "What do you mean?" That was the beginning of the end. S&R's white tigers were probably still slumbering a few yards away, but I had released enough blood into the water to get these sharks into attack mode. I played fairly loosely pre-flop and almost every time I called I was raised, and most of my raises were reraised. After the flop, the onslaught continued, and if I hadn't improved on the flop I would throw my hand in. When I did get to the showdown I was inevitably 2nd best. These people were good. The few times that I did manage to flop something decent, everybody folded as if I was playing my cards open.
In general though, the players had the cards to back them up except for one local. I noticed a very high correlation between my participation in a pot and his. This guy was, to quote George, "over-reacting to a bad player". This really cheesed me off, so one time when I had him to myself and felt that he was bluffing, I beat him with an ace high bust hand. He turned red and started mumbling about how badly I played (he was probably right). I was getting trounced by everyone else, but a few hands later beat this guy again with a gut shot draw to a low straight which I made on the river. He went ballistic and was the only one that lost to me. I definitely would not have stayed in for that gut shot had he not been in the hand.
Enough about fish, now back to the drunk. I've seen some very good acts in my time. If my intention was to cultivate the image of a drunk with the ultimate objective of moving into a much higher limit game, then I would definitely throw the occasional $30 tip to the dealer. If you're going to act, then act till the end.
Etienne
I agree that if you want to have players bombard you with chips, that tipping the dealer $30 and knocking over some drinks might be a good idea. But do you want people bombarding you with chips?? I don't. When I play at the Mirage or elsewhere out of my home state, I want the other players to know I'm mack daddy and don't f*** with me.
Case in point: last weekend while visiting the bay area, I played the 15-30 at the 101. Didn't know anyone at the table. The first three rounds, the same player raised my big blind when most everyone had mucked. Each time, I three-bet him with hands that I would've just called with under normal circumstances. I won two pots without a showdown, and one when I flopped a 5 :) . After that, there was a lot of late position limping on my big blinds...
I wouldn't behave like this in my "regular" game, as usually I play with the same seven to eight opponents every Friday night. There, I feel it's important to manage image and meta-game considerations. Once you find your optimum point on the curve, you don't want to move off it too much either way. But when you're playing short sessions on the road, I think it's important to take the bull by the horns.
You were lucky you didn't get real trash in your big blinds early in that session, and that you won the first showdown. Otherwise I expect they would have been way too intimidating with reraise-resteals from the button and one off before it even got to your blind(s); fighting with each other to pick up your apparent loose/agressive defending bets. I probably don't play it your way - just my regular game - and so what if they steal a few more than they should? Yet, I applaud your style.
Jim,
This is not something I'd try at home. But if my drunk act causes a normally tight player to call my raise with K6s, and leads to widespread lack of caution and wholesale loose and wreckless play, then let them bombard me. They are violating the Fundamental Theorem of Poker and will ultimately pay for it.
Given a tough lineup that crumbled the way Jessica described, wouldn't you have preferred to be the "drunk"?
Etienne
Etienne Your absolutely right.Their is nothing in poker I hate worse than all the whining,crybaby,non-gamblin creeps that have to belittle anyone who gets out on them.You know the guys who lose a pot on the river then have to tell their neighbor or anyone else who wants to listen about how bad the winner played the hand,or abuses the dealer for spiking the 2-outer that cost them the pot.I guess it makes them feel better.Hey all you moaners out there hold'em is a 7 card game!!!If you think you should just be handed the pot because you have the best 2 starting cards go play 2 card gut.No I don't think the whiners would play that either because you ante every hand and you gotta have balls.
Speed limits exist in life as in poker; a deterrent to hurting oneself or others. I remembered what I had absorbed from your post when I didn't try to steal with A8 two off the button yesterday. Good behavior is rewarded. I would have been drawing dead to the big blind on a flop of AAT. Thanks Jessica, I owe you dinner some day.
Mason,Ithought that was out of character-for you to talk about being embarassed! Ihave to tell you that you and David are always big talk in Atlantic city . Your 7card for advanced players has helped me be a winner from 1-5 (which I must say was a great action game until the .50 ante was removed because of tight players -players immediatly stop playing-no more semi bluff no moreplaying correctly because raises on third street bad pplayers with no money in the pot would play correctly my point great games ruined by no ante- hope this could change) I am winning at 15-30 stud thanks for things I have learned from 7stud for ad players and other things I have read from you and your partner David Thank you! Iwould like you guys to reviw Turbo Texas holdem Ihave the stud program,has value,but players can't read human's hands and don't check raise enough. Perhaps,you David+Wilson software could do business together he could sell his products through you and more important for players- you could develop the best software.Everyone on the East coast would buy it because you endorse it. Win-Win- Win situation. 1more request could you tell us as some of us our dummies when you down load your demo -computer says to large for workpad open on worl pad then it looks kike computer jib what do we do? Thanks for your web Please write more game situatins which happen to you guys
I have just read a post in the forum which lit the proverbial light-bulb.
I would like to ask if anyone has a universal rule for tournament play, or a "Fundamental Theorwm of Tournament Poker" to steal a line. I hope the question is realistic!
Kieran
In HFAP you show examples of two hands where a player should fold because of Reverse Implied Odds.
Please rank the importance of the conditions necessary for folding.
A: No raises Pre Flop B: At least two players to act after you C: Flop is, at least, two suited without you D: Flop is not paired E: Two or more cards on Flop higher than a nine F: You don’t have a pocket pair G: You have, at most, one pair using the Flop H: You don’t have an open end straight draw I: You don’t have a gut shot straight draw J: A solid player leads.
If all these conditions are necessary, the conditions are so very rare that it’s not worth worrying about.
I know there are a lot of people who use this forum who play 21 and/or have played 21. I have read a lot of accounts that indicate that playing 21 professionally is very difficult and not very feasible. This is a subjective interpretation as it seems that casinos are more sophisticated in their techniques for identifying card counters today. I was wondering if anyone has opinions on playing 21 professionally (at least for part of your income) and if the casinos in Las Vegas for instance are too tough on card counters. I played 21 years ago and the swings in the game were too much. I also should have worn a t-shirt that said "I am a card counter" because my casino comportmant was so poor.
I read the book Las Vegas Blackjack Diary by Stuart Perry and really liked the book. I don't know if any of you have read the book but I think it is quite good. Perry used a rotational scheme for playing casino's in Las Vegas. In his conclusion he stated that he would have modified the scheme somewhat but still used it. His concern was playing too long in one casino for a given period of time. He felt that in order to not wear out his welcome in some of the better casinos he had to play in some mediocre games at other casinos to get in enough hours. I think this was a mistake and he admitted as much in his conclusion. The question I have is how long can you play in Las Vegas with a good act before you have to cool it for awhile. Perhaps by never betting above a certain level and having a good casino act you could play for quite awhile. Any comments appreciated.
Tom,
I have read a lot of accounts that indicate that playing 21 professionally is very difficult and not very feasible.
It is very difficult, but is still feasible. With continuous shuffle machines slowly being introduced, together with the increased sophistication in casino surveillance techniques, I would not recommend anyone starting off on a career in BJ today ie. spending the many hours needed to master the required skills.
The question I have is how long can you play in Las Vegas with a good act before you have to cool it for awhile. Perhaps by never betting above a certain level and having a good casino act you could play for quite awhile.
My philosophy has been to hit hard with short surgical precision bombing raids, rather than a prolonged campaign. Playing red or green, instead of black or pink, is not necessarily a guarantee of longevity. Also, there are other places in the world apart from Las Vegas.
My answers are intentionally short and not adorned with explanations, specific examples etc. because I am still active. My ultimate aim is reach the level of poker you guys play, so that I can finally play a game where I don't have to be looking over both shoulders, and where I feel welcome. When I take into account the fact that I will be up against people with 5, 10, 15 and 20 years poker experience, I occasionally find myself humming the theme song of that successful TV series "Mission Impossible".
Etienne
Etienne,
Thanks for the responses. You write:
>>My ultimate aim is reach the level of poker you guys play, so that I can finally play a game where I don't have to be looking over both shoulders, and where I feel welcome.<<
There is a world of difference and I have a lot of respect for someone who can put up with all the crap you can get as a card counter. I have experienced the casino counter measures personally. Poker is joy to play comparitively something that all poker players ought to remember.
>>When I take into account the fact that I will be up against people with 5, 10, 15 and 20 years poker experience, I occasionally find myself humming the theme song of that successful TV series "Mission Impossible".<<
Experience is good and necessary however if you have a good strategic understanding of the game you play, you will benifit much more from experience that someone who doesn't. A lot of players with many years of experience have been making the same mistakes for years and will continue to do so.
Tom Haley
I, too, really liked Stuart Perry's "Vegas Blackjack Diary." What I like best about it is how honest it is about what one goes through.
It's my opinion that it is exceedingly difficult these days to make one's living playing 21. Given the computer tracking methods, getting away with playing black chips requires such a large bankroll, such a great act, and nerves of absolute steel.
However, I believe that one can play a positive EV game at red and green chip levels without too much trouble in Las Vegas. It's still tough to do, but it is doable. I don't think one can play long enough and make a high enough wage playing for green chips to really make a career of it, but that's just my opinion.
Study up, PRACTICE, play the single deck games with a 1-4 spread for nickels and see how you do. Good luck.
You will go quite insane if you try to play blackjack 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, and anyway your career would probably be brief if you did that, because of overexposure. It's best to do it as a part time supplement to other income, be it poker or video poker or a day job. You can easily go a year in the hole in blackjack, even if you play a lot of hours. (You need about 700 hours at the same unit size to have a 95% chance of winning, if you're playing good single and double deck games and playing them well.) If you can team up with some skilled players you trust, then you can reduce the swings to the point that you may never have to suffer a losing year. The stress of the job is higher than most, at least if you have to worry about being booted, and normally this is a constant worry.
I was just nearly booted a couple of days ago from one Vegas casino (some players I was doing a team play with were booted) and I probably would be booted if I returned soon. Even so, bootings are very rare for me, even though I specialize in single and double deck. The skill level required to get away with black or purple action in blackjack is similar to that required to beat a 40-80 Hold'em game. Both require years of experience, lots of book reading, and lots of thought and dedication. However, it's a lot easier to get started playing with an advantage in blackjack than in poker - it's just that as a greenhorn you're much more likely to get booted from the blackjack tables than the poker tables. :) Also, it takes fewer years of experience to make $1000/hour in blackjack than $1000/hour in poker, as poker does not "scale" well. When you have a huge bankroll, you can't just jump into a $500-$1000 poker game and play with an advantage if you only have the skill to beat a $5-$10 table, whereas you can jump into a $500 minimum blackjack table and play with an advantage if you can do the same at a $5 minimum table, and if you are extremely skilled for a $5 player you might not even get booted for many hours from the $500 table.
One of my former teammates once said, "It's probably not worth getting into blackjack unless you really enjoy the comps." I try not to get seduced by the comps myself, but here are a few of the comps I have received: megasuites larger than my apartment often with jacuzzis sometimes with a baby grand piano or mirror over the bed... all food comped virtually all the time, so I live on a steady lobster diet while playing blackjack... and all room service too, so my home fridge has stayed stocked with Dom Perignon and other fine champagnes for many years... long limo rides (longer than an hour) which is quite nice with a girlfriend... concert/play/show tickets many times... an offer by the assistant shift manager to get me a "girl"(!)... a long yacht ride and lunch with one other high roller couple... first class airfare reimbursed...
And we started out with just a $4000 bankroll between 3 of us, playing nickels and dimes on single deck, and built it from there. It's nice to see mathematics turn into reality. But I caution you that it is bloody hard work and if playing alone the long run is very long indeed. Also, some blackjack teams avoid hand held games altogether, for fear of cheating.
You'll find a heavy concentration of skilled blackjack players at Wong's http://www.bj21.com and some other websites plus the rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated newsgroup.
-Abdul
The situation of UTG raise, middle cold call, AK reraise happens often enough that it would be interesting to know what the approximate odds are against AK winning at this point without improving, and how great a variance on these odds player types make. Intuitively I would rate it 3:2 against (with two live ones), which would seem to be frequently enough. Mason, after it does become three handed, do you expect to win without improving half the time? Is it also automatic to three bet here (I probably wouldn't) with AQ?
"If he has an over pair it is probably not aces, kings, or queens or he would have made it four bets before the flop." It has been my observation that some players will never cap it with AA, KK, or QQ before the flop, while others will always do so. If someone always caps, then they probably need to occasionally cap it with a hand like JTs to avoid giving away too much information before the flop. This is very risky since any flop (other than quads) that helps the JTs enough to continue, contains the inherent possibility that JTs is drawing dead anyway. However, by not capping with the biggest pairs, they have to cause at least one opponent to make a mistake on a later round to recover opportunity declined. This is compensated for by the deception gained by not capping. Therefore, unless I know the UTG live one well, I would not discount the possibility he has the big pocket pair simply because he declined to cap it pre-flop. His decision not to check-raise on the flop however, is more likely to convince me that he didn't start with a pocket pair higher than JJ. It would seem to me that optimal play would call for sometimes capping, while other times not. I just don't know if capping 25% of the time (as I am inclined to) is best at a solid table. I would tend not to cap it when the action is back to me the second time, and would want to four bet a reraiser initially.
His reraise on the flop also suggests the possibility that he's holding 87s (as well as the other hands you put him on at this point) and made the often abused occasional raise from early position with middle suited connectors. Particularly with you at the table Mason, he could be trying to impress one of the authors who wrote about this play with his *knowledge* of the game. He's decided to defend against a possible free card play with the immediate reraise. That suggests no A8s or overpair except JJ, but I don't play 20-40 at the Mirage so I can't really know what is or isn't possible there. I can also see JJ waiting for a blank on the turn and betting out, but there aren't a great many blanks available with a seven and eight on the board. With the overcards that three bet pre-flop, and the free card play apparently ruined, I would have mucked my AK to the reraise and lost five bets on the hand. So many times the two overcards are no good when they improve on the turn, that I wouldn't want to have to be redrawing to make a winner. I could also be drawing dead at this point.
What do you do if he leads out when the ace hits the turn? Since he didn't, it would seem you're being given credit for possibly having AA. Your check here has to be correct, given that you trust your card reading skills. It could also represent a slow play having turned top set to a good player if the ace makes the board four suited.
Sometimes when you induce the bluff on the river and it's not heads up, you can get some really strong hands to fold. Unfortunately, you have the wrong type of players and there is too much in the pot. When the lady in the middle bets on the river she's either missed a draw or has three eights. I feel they're equally likely possibilities. Substitute the live UTG player with solid level-two thinking player, and a raise on the river would be correct if there is even a 10% chance he'd fold his boat (77 87 A8). You'd lose the extra bet if he's on an overpair to the flop, but I think it's 50% he has an overpair (most likely JJ) and 50% all other hands (which AK can't beat) at this point. Using the lady's bluff bet to throw in a raise could conceivably save you the whole pot where a call would just induce the overcall. If she has you beat with three eights you're going to lose the pot anyway. As it turned out, you got an extra bet from a very poor overcall on the river. Why he doesn't muck his pocket jacks on the river is beyond my comprehension.
You got the best possible result from this hand, I would have been minus five small bets from your seat.
Andrew wrote:
"The situation of UTG raise, middle cold call, AK reraise happens often enough that it would be interesting to know what the approximate odds are against AK winning at this point without improving, and how great a variance on these odds player types make. Intuitively I would rate it 3:2 against (with two live ones), which would seem to be frequently enough. Mason, after it does become three handed, do you expect to win without improving half the time? Is it also automatic to three bet here (I probably wouldn't) with AQ?"
I suspect that you will win without improving about one-third of the time. You should only three bet with AQ if the raiser has loose raising standards. If this is not the case or you are not sure, you should throw AQ away.
""If he has an over pair it is probably not aces, kings, or queens or he would have made it four bets before the flop." It has been my observation that some players will never cap it with AA, KK, or QQ before the flop, while others will always do so."
My experience does not agree with this. Almost all players will take it to four bets with kings or aces.
"If someone always caps, then they probably need to occasionally cap it with a hand like JTs to avoid giving away too much information before the flop."
This would only be true against observant players.
"This is very risky since any flop (other than quads) that helps the JTs enough to continue, contains the inherent possibility that JTs is drawing dead anyway. However, by not capping with the biggest pairs, they have to cause at least one opponent to make a mistake on a later round to recover opportunity declined. This is compensated for by the deception gained by not capping. Therefore, unless I know the UTG live one well, I would not discount the possibility he has the big pocket pair simply because he declined to cap it pre-flop."
Again this is not my experience but it may be true on occasion.
"His decision not to check-raise on the flop however, is more likely to convince me that he didn't start with a pocket pair higher than JJ. It would seem to me that optimal play would call for sometimes capping, while other times not. I just don't know if capping 25% of the time (as I am inclined to) is best at a solid table. I would tend not to cap it when the action is back to me the second time, and would want to four bet a reraiser initially."
I'm not sure what you are driving at so I won't comment on this one.
"His reraise on the flop also suggests the possibility that he's holding 87s (as well as the other hands you put him on at this point) and made the often abused occasional raise from early position with middle suited connectors."
I agree that this is a possibility.
"Particularly with you at the table Mason, he could be trying to impress one of the authors who wrote about this play with his *knowledge* of the game."
I doubt this. I don't believe that he had any idea who I was.
"He's decided to defend against a possible free card play with the immediate reraise. That suggests no A8s or overpair except JJ, but I don't play 20-40 at the Mirage so I can't really know what is or isn't possible there. I can also see JJ waiting for a blank on the turn and betting out, but there aren't a great many blanks available with a seven and eight on the board."
I didn't think the player was this sophisticated. If I did I would have been less likely to raise on the flop.
"With the overcards that three bet pre-flop, and the free card play apparently ruined, I would have mucked my AK to the reraise and lost five bets on the hand."
I disagree. The pot is too big to fold on the flop even though you can hit your hand and still lose.
"So many times the two overcards are no good when they improve on the turn, that I wouldn't want to have to be redrawing to make a winner. I could also be drawing dead at this point."
You are correct, but the pot has gotten too big.
"What do you do if he leads out when the ace hits the turn? Probably just call.
"Since he didn't, it would seem you're being given credit for possibly having AA. Your check here has to be correct, given that you trust your card reading skills. It could also represent a slow play having turned top set to a good player if the ace makes the board four suited."
This is correct. When the flop bettor checks he thinks it is likely that I have made a pair of aces (not a set of aces), this may or may not be to my advantage.
"Sometimes when you induce the bluff on the river and it's not heads up, you can get some really strong hands to fold. Unfortunately, you have the wrong type of players and there is too much in the pot. When the lady in the middle bets on the river she's either missed a draw or has three eights."
She could also have made aces on the flop.
"I feel they're equally likely possibilities. Substitute the live UTG player with solid level-two thinking player, and a raise on the river would be correct if there is even a 10% chance he'd fold his boat (77 87 A8). You'd lose the extra bet if he's on an overpair to the flop, but I think it's 50% he has an overpair (most likely JJ) and 50% all other hands (which AK can't beat) at this point. Using the lady's bluff bet to throw in a raise could conceivably save you the whole pot where a call would just induce the overcall. If she has you beat with three eights you're going to lose the pot anyway. As it turned out, you got an extra bet from a very poor overcall on the river."
All of this seems logical to me.
"Why he doesn't muck his pocket jacks on the river is beyond my comprehension."
My check on fourth street created enough doubt in his mind along with the large pot to get him to call.
"You got the best possible result from this hand, I would have been minus five small bets from your seat."
I got lucky.
To cap or not to cap would make for lively debate. One of you world class players might consider this for a Card Player article.
Is it possible to eak out a small profit at low stakes HI-LO Stud?
A riverboat I occasionally visit sometimes has nothing going but $1 to $4 with $8 on the end HI-LO, no ante, $1 bring in. The game is very slow, as the dealer has to figure out both best high and best low hand at the end, along with dividing the pot, and of course, pulling out the 10% rake.
But not only is the game slow, but the dealer expects tokes from two players on most hands that go till the end. A common hand: most players drop on 3rd street, a few more drop on 4rth, then 2 or 3 players stay till the end. The 2 winners divvy up the pot minus the rake, which is mainly their contributions, then each toss the dealer a buck.
My stategy has been to play mainly hands with a potential to sweep, but that can be 1 or 2 hands an hour at this slow game.
You said that there's a 10% rake. What's the cap? If there's no cap, then play elsewhere. Start a home game if you have to.
If the players in this game are as bad as those I see in comparable stakes in California and Vegas, then you can make a small profit. However, because the stakes are low, and not many hands are being dealt, you'll be lucky to average even $5./hour. You could easily be earning only $1. - $2./hour, even if you're the best player at the table.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I forget to mention the cap; it's $3.
The main reason to play this game is that it's the only game in town. However, it's somewhat interesting in that most players overplay high hands and call the bring-in with low hands such as 2,4,8 unsuited.
If only the pace would pick up, and double toking would end. It's hard to be a non-toking groundbreaker.
The game should be beatable, since you can, and should, play incredibly tight in a loose 7-stud high-low game with a huge rake. I would guess a great player could make $10/hour in such a game, but it's just a guess.
The key for me in the hand that you played was not the check on the turn, but the raise on the flop. I think this is the correct way to play, which is avoiding just calling, especially when you have posistion. Most players would not raise in this spot, and this is a good example to me of expert play. The check on the turn seemed very logical for all the reasons you mentioned and more. The scary part would seem to be the player in the middle who kept calling. She could have had anything and it would be difficult to read. Simply, a well played hand.
All the fuss about Poker Tournament books is beyond me. Does everyone really want to have access to "high quality" information that will also be available to ALL THE OTHER PLAYERS? What good will that do you? There's no advantage to be gained by memorising plays and strategies that all the other guys have also read about. The only knowledge that is "private" is the stuff you come up with yourself. Think out some plays and stick your money in with your beliefs. A cookbook approach won't get the money. Savvy poker, a little luck and basic knowledge about tournament techniques should be your "starting package". In addition............. Do your own thinking! No tournamnet books were available when Moss, Brunson and Ungar started winning the world series. How many tournament books do you think these players read. My estimate is: ZERO.
Reading a Basic text like the ones written by Ciaffone, McEvoy, Cloutier or even Sherer should be enough to get anyone going. Experience and thinking about tournament poker should do the rest.
Nobody wins any tournament without getting lucky either. Cloutier, finishing 3rd in the last WSOP Big One should really have been out way before when he bet all-in with what if i recall correctly was a QT offsuit versus AQ offsuit when the board showed a Queen. He spiked a Ten on the River. That's poker. Those who think that books are the key to the Holy City have the wrong idea what Poker is about. I also read the 2+2 Tournament Book.
I didn't finish my last sentence. The 2+2 Tournament book was a disappointment indeed. All the more reason, if the 2+2 people think this is currently the best available title on tournament poker, to start doing yoing you own thinking. It's like in chess. Reading the good middle game manuals and game selections won't increase your rating unless you get the proper experience against quality opposition. Here too the quantity and/or quality of absorbed information is not the deciding factor in how strong a player you may become. It's what you do with it. Ultimately you're only limited by the measure of your own ability. No poker writer is ever going to stretch that limit. Stop reading and start thinking would be my advise.
Onno wrote: "Stop reading and start thinking would be my advise."
Umm, why not do both?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Sure, everyone should do all their own thinking and plenty of it. To limit reading because all others have access to the same information is wrong. You must know this info if you plan to be able to counter it in your defenses. The more you learn at any level the better opponent you become. Many players just dont have the natural ability to win big by playing by the seat of their pants. These players now play at expert levels by applying what they learned from print. Yes, Doyle, Moss, Ungar, and others won before the great books came out. They had so much natural ability not many people could hold their own in the same game. Doyle has kept up with the books as well as have published one of the all time great poker books. I bet Doyle will tell you he is a better all around player now then way back when. Ok, Doyle write in and back me up. All the players winning on a regular basis big time have done a lot of studying and thinking. It is a must in todays tough poker environment. Good Luck.
Onno,
I took your major point to be that players rely excessively on and expect too much from poker books. I agree that it is not possible for a book to teach you how to play poker well including tournament books. Books are great and I wouldn't have a clue without them but expecting them to be more than an aide and reference to improve your play is misguided.
Tom Haley
ommo, obviously you read also. You stated and implied that you have read almost all of the tournament books written. You are also reading the info posted at this site. Could it be , that it is you who is looking for the ultimate answers in these books and when not finding it taking your frustrations out on us a little. You stated that 2plus2's book was a dissapointment. What was it that you were looking for? Nobody will argue with you about thinking, but reading certainly can't hurt. Poker books are the only type of book where I have paid $30.00 and received hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of good advice. Very few investment books will do that for you .Seeya
When I was at WSOP, I heard more than one long time pro player complain about the information that is being published. One of these folks, who I've known for years and who has been a fairly successful pot limit player in the past, is now playing low to middle limits, and not doing well. He was very bitter over dinner about "smartening up the suckers" in his words. He also admitted to me that he has not read any of the poker books. My guess is he, and many like him, are basically doomed.
While I agree that reading won't replace thinking, the good poker books help me to focus my thinking - I don't expect a rote formula, but I do like to analyze the ideas put forward - I may or may not agree, but just thinking about them has to strengthen my poker reasoning.
The biggest problem I have with many poker books is the poor quality (or apparent absence) of editing; for example, the new book by TJ Cloutier and Tom McEvoy has many, many thought provoking and profitable ideas. Anyone who plays big bet poker can benefit from them, I think. However, you have to work hard to dig the concepts out and put them together for consideration due to rambling, repetition and lack of logical organization of topics.
Two plus two had similar problems in early editions (IMHO), but all of their later editions I've read have been cleaned up greatly. So, though I haven't read the new tournament book yet, I would expect at least a reasonably well organized presentation of ideas, and I'm sure I'll pick it up at some point.
Since there seems to be some interest in my latest essay I thought that I would quickly describe a hand that I played the other night that has some similarities.
I was playing in a seven-handed $40-$80 hold 'em game at The Mirage. The player UTG limped in. This was an extremely good player who has been very successful in the upper limit hold 'em games for years. However, there are spots where I feel that he plays a little too loose but he makes up for it with excellent play on the flop and beyond.
Everyone folded to me. I held ace-king offsuit in the small blind and raised. The player in the big blind who was moderately live called, the UTG player called.
The flop came ace-queen-jack of three different suits. I bet and both players called. On fourth street a blank fell and I checked, the player in the big blind bet, the excellent player called, and I called.
On the river another blank hit. I checked, the player in the big blind bet, the excellent player called, and I called. The player in the big blind had king-queen off giving him a pair of queens with a king kicker, the excellent player had ace-seven suited giving him a pair of aces with a weak kicker, and I won the pot with my pair of aces and king kicker.
All comments are welcome. (By the way, if I would have lost the pot I probably would not be posting this hand since it would not stand out in my mind. I do not win all of these hands.)
Okay, I'll hazard a couple of comments.
0) Firstly, thanks for bringing this to discussion. I appreciate your opening yourself to criticism for the intellectual vigor of this forum. Having said that...
1) I just think a very good player would learn not to limp in with ace-middle suited upfront. Abdul claims this hand has +EV when you barge in; seven-handed, I'd think that's even more likely to be a strong play, tho there is certainly no shame in dumping. Acknowledged that you pointed out that this may be the only lacuna in his game. Still, it just seems easy to learn.
2) Did you put limper on AQ or AJ when you checked the turn? If so, wouldn't they have popped the flop? I'd still be obligated to call them down, but I just don't think this is a likely holding - given how he played it postflop. If you didn't put him on flopping two pair, were you just trying to hand your opponents some rope? If that's the case, isn't it optimistic to be expect to be snapping off bluffs AND overcalls? If that's not the case, don't you think you should have continued to bet? I'd be upset if I checked a free card that turns out to be paint costing me the pot. The other possibility was you were expecting check, check, bet, you raise, trying to end the discussion right there. Then once BB bet, you decided to just call it down. Even then a raise may still be in order; at least one of them has gotta be throwing in some dead money.
3) On the river, I think I'd check raise risking the chance someone stumbled into their kicker making two pair. I just cannot see from how the betting went that anyone flopped two big pair.
This seems like it should have just played out as a rather mundane hand. AK raises preflop. AK hits, bets, bets, bets, wins against a worse A. I await some reason I hadn't thought of above for your play, but I think I would've just played it straightforwardly.
Regards,
JG
This hand I probably would have played differently.I would have bet into the scary board on the turn, and probably fold if raised. The pot would barely be giving you enough for 6 outs. If you bet, you probably would lose the A7 player, and then check it on the river. I know you say in your book to check hands on the turn that tend to have outs, but even if someone had 2 pair at that point, they probably wouldn't raise as they would fear you for trips since you raised pre-flop from utg, and with that board you could have easily had a set. Just my .02c
Mason,
Thank you very much for posting this hand. It certainly is important to extract as much as you can on your winning hands. I look at this hand from the perspective of what would you want your opponents to do with the hands they had. Of course you'd want them to give you all of their money but realistically you would certainly want them each to put in a bet on the flop, a bet on the turn and a bet on the river. They were big dogs and you certainly didn't mind them being in this pot trying to outdraw you as their putting money in the pot was a mistake that you gained from. If you lead on the turn you probably lose the A,7. If you bet on the river you probably won't get the call. For a lot of reasons I don't think a check raise would be right on the turn. I think that you got the best results possible with this hand. You played it great and I know I learned something from this hand. I would call your play an example of a poker finesse.
Tom Haley
P.S. I think there is a lot of interest in all of the essays you have written (as well as David's and Ray's). I don't think you get a lot of responses because your reasoning is hard to argue with. I am sure that there are a lot of forum participants who get a lot out of them including me.
Tom:
There is a trap here that we can all fall into. There is no question that I played the hand perfectly given the hands that my opponents had. However, they didn't have to have those hands, and when that is the case is the penalty for playing the hand this way worth it? That is does this more than make up for those times when they have hands as above?
Essay hand revisited.
Suppose on the River that UTG Bet and the lady raised.
Now, hasn't your check on the Turn given you a problem?
If you had bet, it looks like you could now throw away the hand.
But your check might have induced either or both to make a move.
Mason,
I understand what your point is and I did think of that. Basically what I was thinking was that if your opponents had you beat with one of the following:
1) Straight 2) Trips 3) Two Pair
you're probably going to have to pay it off anyway and if they do you have you beat you certainly want to put as little money in the pot as possible which you did! Of course you had a few outs although hitting the straight would be the only one you could be confident gave you the best hand and a lot of times a split at that. However an Ace and a King actually might improve your hand enough to win it. Anyway I think you're in this one until the showdown. The only other thing that I thought of was that when the K,Q bet on the river what would you have done if the A,7 had raised? I don't think this would be very likely however given the texture of the flop.
If your opponents are very weak after the flop with something like a pair of 9,9's if you don't bet on the turn they get a free card to beat you although it is likely that at least one of your opponents fit into the flop in someway. I think that the chances of a player getting a free card and beating you thus causing you to lose the pot when you could have won it with a bet are very small and worth the risk of checking to win the extra money. I realize that a T,9 is possible but I think it is still worth the risk. All comments appreciated.
Tom Haley
I agree. With three cards to a straight on the flop, you do not have much choice but to check a basically inside straight draw. Free carding is a big risk, but the raise out of the blind probably folded K 10 offsuit, and medium pairs. So, the A's hold up, because his raise thinned the ranks just like it is supposed to...
Given the hands your opponents played, you did NOT play the hand perfectly. You would have won at least as much money (and probably more) if you had check-raised the river. Not that you should have done that against unknown hands, but "given the hand your opponents played"...
Suppose one or both fold to the check-raise on the river. Not likely, but not impossible either. Now, Mason can not gain information about what the big blind was absolutely playing. This can be important if you don't know your opponent cold.
Point well taken. My criticism of Mr. Malmuth's absolutist statement was too absolute. I should have said it was very unlikely that he played the hand perfectly.
The results playing the hand this way wound up being perfect. You succeeded in winning the maximum amount. However, I'm curious what you would have done on the turn if UTG would have raised when the big blind led out. I certainly think this would have increased UTG's chances of winning the pot. It would be a very difficult call for you to make. I prefer playing the hand more straight foreward and avoiding the scenario of having to call two big bets cold.
I think the UTG player being very good makes a difference here. If I were in this hand with your cards against two weak players, I would probably bet on the turn. But against a good player, I would have to ask myself what he was calling with on the flop. He's not likely to call there on something like a gut shot draw or middle pair. Yet if he has something worth staying in with why didn't he raise? Waiting to raise on the turn might well be why. Other than a straight draw with T9s, the possibilities create a good argument for checking and calling.
If he has an ace-weak-kicker (as he did), checking may induce him to bluff. If he has you beat, the most likely hands for him seem to be either QJs or KTs. In the case of the former you have plenty of outs (though hitting a king might give the big blind player a straight). In the case of the latter you are in pretty bad shape, though not dead. But combining all possibilities makes checking look like a good option. You avoid being raised (barring the scenario a couple of other people have mentioned where the big blind bets and is raised by the UTG player. But if that were to happen you could fold, feeling reasonably confident that QJs was the worst possible hand the UTG player held.), and get the money in the pot anyway.
That said, I could see how it could have played out this way for the reason someone else mentioned - that you were planning to check-raise, but the wrong player bet. But I don't think you would have bothered to bring it to our attention (as a hand similar to that in your essay) if that were the case.
I used to believe that in any hold'em situation there must be a definitive way to proceed. That there must be an optimal selection when presented with choices, if only I'm savvy enough to find it at the table. However, all the great writers agree that one must be able to vary ones play to have any chance of prolonged success at the expert level. Mason has been generous to show us through actual game conditions, some of the less obvious yet equally valid variations available. The theme of induction is continued here in a hand not as complex as "A Few Decisions", though far more subtle.
When a game is tight and tough as opposed to typical, it doesn't necessarily take a raise before the flop to thin out the field. Moreover, a raise will be reraised much more often then cold called by anyone who's going to see the flop. The excellent player UTG knows there's a decent chance shorthanded he'll get heads up with the big blind, and if so an ace is a favorite. Calling with A7s is not without risk since he could get raised by anyone up to and including the button (losing position on the blinds), leaving him with fit-or-fold flops. Yet it does not seem to be a bad play in a tight game, just a high variance one to me. Along comes Mason with a small blind raise, and the flop. He has position, aces which may or may not be good, and Mason has defined his hand. Not great, but playable nonetheless.
AK in the small blind could call, check on a flop of rags or top pair, hope someone bets and checkraise. I like the raise pre-flop here though with what is probably the best hand since there's no assurance someone else will bet on the flop. Having told the opposition he has a big pocket pair or AK or AQ, betting the AQJ rainbow flop is mandatory. KTs, QJs, and JJ are the only hands I see the other players having which concern an AK. Anything else which beats AK I'd expect to have raised/reraised before the flop. T9s will draw, but you can't give it a free turn card. TT must be persuaded to fold. I'd be satisfied to win the pot right there. When both players just call with this kind of flop, it would seem to me AK is up against good but not strong hands where no one is confident they're best.
A bet on the blank turn should win the whole pot right there, but will be raised if AK is beat. This is the obvious choice. Check/call with the intention of check/calling the river is the subtle choice. The key to recognizing this alternative exists (if it doesn't come to us instinctively) is that a straight, a set, and to a lesser degree two pair have good reason to raise on the flop; and that these player types are unlikely to make the mistake of slow playing with these hands by smooth calling the flop. The straight should raise on the flop as it is vulnerable to the board pairing, and needs to make it expensive for the set to draw out. The set is vulnerable to straight draws, and should not let those hands draw cheaply. Two pair is a problem. The big blind could have QJs, and have been faced with the choice of calling or raising on the flop.
The pot is just the right size to allow the UTG player to continue (hoping Mason started with KK), while the typical player in the big blind is encouraged to quasi-semibluff bet (not much chance both opponents will fold). This is not without risk since AK could be outdrawn (or already beat) and a ten on the river could allow a chop, but AK doesn't have to call a raise this way. It is nice when both the big blind and UTG are the right types of players and that they both had near perfect holdings complementing the inductive check on the turn and river.
Good hand Mason, I like the lower EV choice too. Is it possible to correctly induce a bluff (or a bet from a weaker hand) in the middle position of a three player contest? I've never seen it, and have some doubt.
Andrew Wells wrote:
> I used to believe ... that there must be an optimal selection when presented with choices, if only I'm savvy enough to find it at the table.
When analyzing games much simpler than poker, game theory says that often the optimal strategy is a "mixed" strategy. In a given situation, you should do A X% of the time, and B 100-X% of the time (or perhaps you should mix between more than two actions).
When you really understand this about very simple games, it becomes clear that it will apply to more complex games like poker.
Okay, I misread the first post. The field had thinned before it got to Mason. Hie raise was still correct, and your analysis is very good. It shows real experience at this game. Very helpful to the rest of us.
What is the highest continuous rate of profit a good player could realistically make at 1-5 stud or low limit holdem? The standard suggestion is two big bets per hour in low-limit, but that seems too small an estimate.
After rake and tokes, I do not think anyone can win 2 big bets per hour in games that small. Anything over 1 big bet per hour would be great.
It can be done.
Vince,
I'll put in my 2 cents here. This is an old saw but so much depends on your opponents. If you play against the right type of players in a $2-4-8-8 hold'em game or $1-5 seven stud game (actually any game) I think your expectation can be a lot more than 1 big bet an hour. I wouldn't be too concerned with your hourly rate here, just find a good loose game with a lot of calling.
Tom Haley
The poker room where I occaisonally play at spreads a 2-10 high - low 8 stud game. I have several questions about how to play this game.
1. The bring-in is $2, but you can bring it in for $10. If someone brings it in for 10, they usually have a good high hand. Is it proper to call with any low hands here at all?
2. What if someone raises the $2 bring-in to $12. This is usually done with a premium high hand, although sometimes a very strong low will do this. Is it ever correct to call a $10 raise with a low hand unless its a monster?
3. How far do you go with the low hands? Is it ever proper to take a card off on 4th street when you catch a brick?
Thanks for responding , Tom Boldrick pokerchip5@aol.com or
boldrickt@hotmail.com
Tom Boldrick writes:
The poker room where I occaisonally play at spreads a 2-10 high - low 8 stud game. I have several questions about how to play this game.
These games are easy for the good players to beat. The spread limit allows you to limp in cheaply with potential monsters and get paid off if they hit or quickly dump when things go sour.
Think low hands that can backdoor into high.
1. The bring-in is $2, but you can bring it in for $10. If someone brings it in for 10, they usually have a good high hand. Is it proper to call with any low hands here at all?
Probably not. It depends how many other callers you have. You don't want to play heads-up against the big pair with only a shot at low. Even with a two-way hand, you'd prefer to put in small amounts earlier, to start seeing if you hit before committing larger dollars.
2. What if someone raises the $2 bring-in to $12. This is usually done with a premium high hand, although sometimes a very strong low will do this. Is it ever correct to call a $10 raise with a low hand unless its a monster?
Probably not. Tho if you're in a wild game with 5 or 6 other players, you might want to get in there.
3. How far do you go with the low hands? Is it ever proper to take a card off on 4th street when you catch a brick?
I assume you mean when you catch a brick on 4th street. Unless you got caroused into putting a ton of money into the pot on 3rd, it's easy to cut loose here. Remember to get in cheap. If things don't go well, get out. Try only to be putting the large bets in when you're driving towards a big hand.
JG
Tom,
Read my book you can order it thru this forum from Conjelco. Your questions will be answered. Two handed a good three straight or three low cards with an ace will be almost a dead even gamble against a high pair when played to the end without betting.. The low hand will find more opportunities to outplay the high hand by catching scare cards and getting free cards in many cases. The high hand will be betting first mostly and giving the low hand the chance for raises and positional plays. All in all the low hand is the better money maker when you have positively identified your opponents hand.
In the May 29th issue of Card Player Magazine the publisher is highly critical of two players at this year's World Series of Poker. These players won events during the tournament and elected not to tip the dealers; the publisher considers this unaccptable. While she is entitled to her own opinion, this is far from an open and shut case. The primary reason for tipping in our culture is to reward an individual's good service; unfortunately good service from poker dealers has become the exception, not the rule in Las Vegas. There seems to have been a downward spiral in the quality of dealers over the last ten years, and this has led to increased player/dealer hostility. A direct result of this has been a general decrease in the dollar volume of dealer tips; this is apparent in side games as well as tournaments. Players say they will tip if dealers improve, and dealers claim that they will perform better if players tip more. With this type of a circular argument, it is incumbent upon both cardroom management and tournament directors to improve the quality of poker dealers for everybody's benefit. Dealer procedures for poker should be as rigorously enforced as they are in blackjack, currently this is not the case. Player abuse of dealers should not be tolerated; enforcement of this policy is very uneven, some players get away with murder, and this needs to stop. In the end, it must be said that some dealers are highly professional, but they are punished because of their less competent colleagues. Management must raise the quality of poker dealers which will, in effect, allow dealers to earn a better living. Hopefully, all sides will do what is needed to solve what has become a major problem before it becomes totally unmanageable.
I agree that the CARD PLAYER editorial is not an open and shut case. The fact of the matter is that poor dealer quality is an industry wide problem.
To this end Two Plus Two Publishing (which I own) has recently published THE PROFESSIONAL POKER DEALER'S HANDBOOK by Dan Paymar, Donna Harris, and myself. We expect to lose money on the project, but it is our effort to help alleviate this problem. So far we have given away over 250 copies mostly to cardrooms and other poker organizations.
It is a shame that some players feel that they should not tip after winning an event at the WSOP. But to be quite honest, there are a couple of dealers who regularly deal to me who I refuse to tip. Everyone needs to recognize that unless dealer quality is improved nationwide, poker will not grow at the rate that it should.
I do see many instances where players overreact to dealer problems, and the perpetual claim of player abuse is then heard. However, I have also noticed that many of these situations occur because the dealer has performed their job poorly. They will frequently be talking and not paying attention, thus producing a slow game and making too many errors.
The only way to solve this problem is for everyone to pull together, but the main burden should be on cardroom management. They need to take player's complaints more seriously and recognize that poker plays best when it is a fast paced game. This means a dealer who pays attention and does no extraneous talking. When this is accomplished I suspect that the publisher of CARD PLAYER won't be telling us that not tipping at the WSOP is unacceptable. This is because everyone will be glad to tip for the good service that they will then be getting.
Mike,
I read this CP editorial and I understand the point however I take issue with a couple of things. First of all why should the winner of a small tournament have to pay a higher percentage tip like 5-10% as opposed to 2-5%? Ok the money payout is smaller so the dealers get less but so what? These tournaments are designed to get more players into live games and thus provide more hours for the dealers. The dealers shouldn't expect to make a lot of money from dealing in one of these small tournaments in my opinion.
The other problem I have with the editorial is that they didn't present the other side of the arguement. What were the reasons that these players decided not to tip? Perhaps they thought the dealers were bad and didn't deserve one. Perhaps they took care of the dealers that they thought deserved a tip away from the table. I do agree with a lot of sentiment regarding the number of downs that a dealer has should be accounted for. In general I think the dealers do deserve to make an acceptable wage for dealing the bigger tournaments.
I like the new book from 2+2 about dealing poker. Hopefully dealer training and standards for poker will continue to get better. I think it is perfectly fine to stiff dealers in live games. I have posted about this on RGP. I used to tip $1 no matter what. Now I stiff dealers that I think are incompetant. I actually get along with the dealers real well because I am courteous and seldom stiff. However, there are a few. I have noticed that one of the guys I stiffed regularly no longer works in the local card room. He was very bad and finally got the message from the players.
Tom Haley
As relates to the tournament tipping issue, particularly the WSOP, I can't agree with not leaving a tip for an entire group of tournament dealers -- regardless of the circumstances. During the time I was at the tables, only one of the tournament dealers made a big mistake and it wasn't during the main event.
However, I do believe that the way tips are calculated should be with a bit more information from the tournament staff, rather than a fixed percentage. Tips should be based on the number of (tournament) dealer hours. This would result in a much more equitable payment for the dealers and more understanding by the players. It would also result in more dealer interest in dealing the tournaments.
Let's say a player won the $1 million prize -- how much should he tip? If he is going on a 2 - 5% scale, then that's $20-50,000. Quite a large tip, but under the current practice, who knows if it is fair or not? In smaller tournaments, this information is even more important, because the tip is a larger portion of a small prize.
None of this is to say that a player couldn't or shouldn't also tip particularly noteworthy dealers (a weak example: perhaps they pointed out his overlooked backdoor straight before mucking it).
The concept that better tips will improve dealer performance is not really on point. I believe most people take pride in what they do, including dealers, and giving tips based on number of hours would neither improve nor harm a dealer's proficiency. In particular, at the WSOP, most dealers are highly aware of the impact of a mistake they might make.
Mike,
My perspective as you know is a little different. I play most of my poker at the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City where the quality of dealing has gone from bad to worse since you last played there. To me...the Mirage Poker Room is poker heaven compared to what I have to face at the Taj.
The World Series always has some rough spots but generally they do a great job and I tend to agree with Linda Johnson that the tournament winners failure to tip is inexcusable.
One problem at the WSOP is that everyone is overworked...From Jack McClelland down through the floor people and the dealers nobody takes a day off for the whole tournament and nerves get a little raw towards the end of the tournament.
I guess the rationale for this is that there are fewer people to share in the pie..but because of this policy the "pie" is getting smaller.
On a personal note it was great getting back to Las Vegas again. Good seeing you and Mason and the TWO PLUS TWO gang ...A pleasure to finally meet the lovely Jessica....and my fondest best wishes to the hard working staff at the Mirage Poker Room.
I saw Ray Z one last time one my last day in down and I asked him to confirm the rumor that for the entire WSOP he had not reached double digits in HOURS PLAYED...and he did confirm that this was correct.
My favorite line was one that both you and Jessica both laid on me at different times when I reported that I had finally had a losing day..."You must have been cheated" I loved that.
I expect I'll be back in Las Vegas before too long.
Best Regards
Jim Mogal
I tip, in ring games and in tournaments, what I perceive to be the accepted minimum amount. I don't like the tipping system, in poker or elsewhere, but I conform because that's the way things are, and tippees have to eat.
A much better solution, IMHO, would be for management to give their employees a fair wage, abolish tipping as an economic necessity, and let the market place establish a price structure that reflects management's shouldering of the entire labor cost burden.
Probably never happen, but an excellent starting point would be in tournaments. Pay the Dealer's and Staff out of the Player's entry fees, and eliminate tipping.
Tom Sims
Tom,
Wonderful post...I can support everything you've said here.
To carry it a step further...I'd love to see them abolish tipping in the Atlantic City poker rooms even if it meant raising the already high time charges and paying the dealers according to merit.
I suggest this because the tipping system clearly doesn't work in Atlantic City. The tips are pooled and the good dealers have less incentive to do good work because they can't keep their individual tokes.
What's worse is that the bad dealers hang around and continue to exist off the "goodwill" created by the good dealers.
I've heard that they are trying to change the law in New Jersey to let poker dealers keep their own individual tokes but I have a feeling this will never happen...given the state of politics in New Jersey.
Of course many players would bitch and moan about paying a higher rake with a "no tipping" system... (I can hear them now..."I never win any pots so I'm not saving anything")...but most rerasonable players would understand that an extra three or four dollars per hour in time charges would replace the three or four dollars in tokes which most of us pay per hour of play.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
I would like to hear what people think is correct tipping in live games and touraments I have my rules for tipping but, i'd like to hear other people's thoughts.
I agree with a number of the earlier posters. Mike said that tipping is a part of our culture and is a reward for good service. I agree. Tom said that he dislikes the system of tipping but does it because the dealers have to eat...I can agree with this too.
In the end I think there is no right answer...you do what makes you feel right.
I have a friend who is a professional player...plays at the 15/30 and 20/40 level and brings a roll of half-dollars to the table and tips the dealers and the cocktail waitresses 50 cents for each hand won or drink served. He probably adds a few thousand dollars to his bottom line every year by not tipping dollars...and to him its just a business expense.
I am not a full time or professional player...but I put in a lot or hours at the poker table. I usually tip $1.00 for any hand in which I win and the hand goes to 5th street or is multiway. I never used to refuse to tip because of bad service...but lately at the Taj Mahal I have refrained from tipping some really terrible dealers...perhaps in the hope that they will get the message and find some other line of work.
In tournaments I always tip 3% in major tournaments with $1000 or more buy in events and up to 5% in small buy in tournaments.
I also pay hommage to the Poker God now and then and in my recent 29 day stay at the Mirage I tossed a few $5.00 and $10.00 tokes to dealers who put me on big rushes, got me unstuck or delivered miracle cards on the river. I do this because it makes me feel good but I can understand why everyday players cannot afford to do this.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
David,
This has been discussed a lot on RGP. In one of Mason's books he states that tipping should be kept to an acceptable minimum. This is what I think is right. David Sklansky says something to the effect that tip enough so that dealers make an acceptable wage. I think this is fine. My problem with aboloshing tipping is that it tends to lump in the good dealers with the bad dealers. I know the card rooms should be dilligent in making sure all of their dealers are good but I'm not so sure that this is as easy as it seems. From what I understand about the situation in Atlantic City, this is exactly what is happening as there is no incentive for dealers to deal well. There is a dealer in the card room that I play at that I consider exceptional. He has all of the qualities that make a dealer really good in my opinion. In fact he is the only dealer in this card room that I have seen that makes sure all the cards are in play on a periodic basis by counting the stub. There is another dealer who I consider terrible. She is lazy (she wouldn't even consider counting the stub), she deals slow, she's always talking to the players, she makes a lot of mistakes, etc. I just don't think that she deserves as much as the exceptional dealer and the only way that this can happen is that she gets less in tips. About bringing the roll of $.50 cent pieces. I know guy that tried this in the local card room. The dealers refused to take the money as they said they could only take a chip as a toke. Well since this was the case he decided not to tip at all. I don't know how prevalent this is. I guess my whole point is that what I am striving to do is base my tipping amount on the quality of the dealer. The idea presented by a well known pro on RGP was that if a dealer is supposed to deal 30 hands an hour and they only deal 20 they are costing the winning player a lot of money. I do think the cardrooms have a responsibility to provide good dealers. Hopefully the new 2+2 book on dealing poker will help in this area.
Tom Haley
This probably won't be a popular viewpoint, but I think the two WSOP tournament winning stiffs did the best possible thing for the poker tournament industry, at least if they force a change to future policy to pay the dealers a fraction of the entry fees. It's ridiculous to expect an individual to fork over $2,500-$25,000 in a single toke, when it's hugely positive EV for them to simply keep the money. We're poker players, for God's sake; we wouldn't raise with 72o UTG in a $100-$200 game, and so why would we want to make an even worse negative EV play of giving away $2,500-$25,000 to a whole pool of people, most of whom we will never see again and some of whom did a piss poor job? And in any case the player has little hope of having any of that money come back to him, directly or indirectly, at a later date. (An exception might be the WSOP main event winner, as he/she has the potential for additional income from his fame, such as Phil Helmuth, who gets paid a weekly salary by Bay 101.) If the dealers are angry at the tournament winners for the dealers' lack of compensation, they're mad at the wrong people. They should be angry at the tournament managers, people so greedy that they stiff the dealers to the extent permissible by Federal law and let the tournament winners take either the financial loss for paying the dealer's wages or the public outcry for stiffing the dealers, whichever unpleasant alternative they choose.
Tom Haley said that the problem with abolishing tipping is that it tends to lump good dealers with bad. Well, that doesn't really apply to tournament tips, now does it? Tournament tips already lump good dealers with bad.
In related matter, after I won a $45 pot in a $10-$20 Omaha game at the Mirage, I tossed the dealer a dollar and asked her to chop it (i.e., take $.50). She gave me the most hostile evil look, made the change, took the half dollar and banged it as hard as she could on the tray. I had almost never played with her before, and I think this may have been the first pot I won from her. A friend had previously warned me that she was "evil", saying she would snarl at what she perceived as insufficient tips (even $1 tokes) and would deliberately slow the game down to a crawl as retribution. In response, he refuses to play when she deals. He simply sits out until she is gone. Of course, I will never tip her again. I'm not naming names, but I'm sure you know who I mean, if you play her shift. If the Mirage pooled tips, I would have a hard time tipping any dealer on her shift.
I don't really like whole idea of tipping in ring games either, but I don't mind doing it for the good dealers in Vegas, where the house rake is reasonable and some of the dealers are top notch. I don't tip at Commerce casino in California, however, where the $9 per half hour they charge for $20-$40 should allow the casino to pay the dealers very well without my help, thankyouverymuch.
-Abdul
I forgot to mention in my earlier post...I am always puzzled about tipping other poker room personnel...(other than dealers that is) In NJ its illegal so the problem never arrises. In Calif and Nevada if I have a good winning session I will tip the brush..but not every time.
Tipping people like Shift Bosses and Supervisors seems to smack of bribery almost...and I don't like the practice although I see many everyday players doing it. I would hate to think that this practice will influence these people to make decisions favorable to the player but I suspect that this is precisely what these tips are for most of the time.
Please correct me if I'm wrong....Perhaps we could have some feedback from the many Senior Poker Room Employees who I know are lurking on this Forum.
Jim Mogal
I don't like to tip floorman not because I'm cheap (which is certainly a valid reason), but because I'd hate to be involved in any tit-for-tat situations. If I were a floorman, I wouldn't accept them. That being said, at the last two tournaments I went to, there were two employees doing such an excellent job, I did tip them - as I was leaving for the last time. I'm referring to the woman who ran the board at the Reno Spring Peppermill tournament and the woman who ran the satellites at the WSOP in the evenings. And I wasn't a merry winner; I lost several thousand on both of these trips. I don't remember their names, or know how much money they were making, but it wasn't enough. These are the kind of workers I want to see at tournaments. If a lot of people have the wisdom to see this, it certainly will make for a better poker world.
As for tourney tipping, this comes up on RGP a lot, but not one person here has mentioned the method published by S or M in CP a coupla years ago. Determine a fair-market wage, count the number of man-hours, calculate the total fair amount, and figure your share.
Here is an article I wrote to rgp in 96 detailing this method for the USPC.
This post on rgp was immediately met by misdirection and confusion from a dealer to steer the thread a different way. A followup posting went without response. I think the reason is clear; dealers would prefer at the big tournaments to brainwash participants that a fixed % of the prize pool is what they are entitled to. Perhaps the incidents mentioned in CP were a backlash against the perceived hustling and overtipping at big tournaments. I don't know. I'm not trying to inflame any dealers, but I've yet to hear an argument why the above method is unfair.
It's unfortunate that the dealers got stiffed by two players at the WSOP. However, tipping should be the perogative of the players and not subject to public critique. If my church started publishing a list with how much I put in the basket this morning, well, I imagine things would dry up real fast.
JG
Year ago I wrote the following concerning tipping. I appears in my book POKER ESSAYS.
"Of course, there is a simple solution to this problem: Tipping should not be allowed. I believe that cardrooms (casinos) should pay their help a decent wage and should not expect their customers to do it for them. If this means that the rake (or collection) would have to be increased a small amount, then I am in favor of it. For example, in a $10-$20 hold'em game, I would have no objection to a maximum rake of $2.50 as opposed to the standard $2 if (1) the extra 50 cents was taken only when the pot got fairly large, meaning that it would amount to just a few extra dollars per hour, and (2) tipping was then prohibited. This idea also could apply to poker tournaments. Just charge a little extra juice and then do not allow the winners to tip.
Although I recognize that this is a radical idea, I believe that cardrooms adopting this policy, even as a temporary experiment, would be flooded with business. Additionally, I believe that players — even those who tip liberally — don't like the pressure of being expected to tip any more than dealers like being stiffed.
Finally, I don't expect my thoughts to solve the tipping controversy, and I'm sure that every so often it will pop up again. However, if some cardroom somewhere would increase its rake a small amount and outlaw tipping, we just might have the start of something new."
Since this was written, many cardrooms have raised their rake, but nothing has changed in this area.
I was going to argue that the quality of Dealing would go down since we couldn't Tip the Bad Dealers Less. I just realized that if the Dealers only got a % Rake from each Pot they would concentrate more on dealing fast Poker to increase their Hourly Rate.
CV
The major thing that needs to be done is to emphasize to the dealers NO EXTRANEOUS TALKING when in the box. This will speed up the game and reduce errors more than anything else. In our new book we repeat this idea over and over. Players can help by doing what I do, and that is to tell a dealer to be quiet and pay attention to the game. They usually don't like hearing it but I have found it to be effective. I also don't tip dealers during that down who I remind of this. I will tip them in the future if I see a noticable improvement.
Mason,
There actually is a card room that does not allow tipping at least that's what I've been told. I believe the Speaking Rock Casino near El Paso, Texas does not allow tipping and I did hear that the rake was high. I have heard complaints about the rake as well.
Tom Haley
I don't recall seeing Linda Johnson MENTIONING THE NAMES of the two devious criminals that decided not to toke. I know who they are. What's the matter Linda. Don't care to go that far?
It takes 2 to tango, and apparently 3 to play poker - management, dealers and players. If one of these 3 parties decide to withdraw its services, then there ain't no poker. On the other hand, when things are running smoothly, this can be a beautiful, symbiotic relationship.
I presume that after many years, a certain status quo has evolved. Precisely because this is an evolving process, the norms and standards will occasionally be questioned and defied. What is urgently needed is the establishment of a body, representing all 3 parties together with non-interested arbiters, who will initially review the current situation and address all legitimate grievances, with the ultimate aim of providing a feasible working solution.
A tip is not a tip if a player is obliged to give it. Dealers cannot be expected to live off the current minimum wage/toke setup. Management has to be convinced that it is worthwhile running the whole show, and not replacing it with 100 slot machines.
Unilateral action should not be allowed. I heard that the Mirage recently raised its rake on 10-20 hold'em from $2 to $3. If the increase is to go towards supplementing the dealer's income, then fine. Because a lot of players will be bringing rolls of 50 cents to the table after a move like this.
Etienne
I was listening to Larry Grossman Interviews the Tournament Director for the "World Series of Poker". Anyway they were talking about which Limits are the best to win at. Of course they agreed that the Low-Limits were the best. The interesting thing that they were talking about was that the 10-20, 15-30..ect. were, most of the time, the toughest because they were mostly filled with people who are trying to become pros or semi-pros, but don't have the Bankrole to get into the higher Limit games.
How true are these statements and are there some Bottle Necks in the Toughness of the Game vs. the Limit of the Game in Vegas?
CV
Chris,
For as long as I have been playing I have been looking over my shoulder at the higher stakes games and regretting that I don't have the bankroll to participate in them.
There are no "entrance requirements" to play high stakes...you don't have to pass a test or even be a winner at the medium stakes...all you need is money...lots of it.
I am currently playing between 15/30 and 40/80 stud and whenever I look at the 75/150 and higher games I see players that I used to handle with ease when they were playing the lower limits with me. Of course the super tough world class players are in these games as well but you only need a couple of weak spots to make a game like this profitable if you area good player.
I'm trying not obsess about this but its hard sometimes.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
I generally play the 10-20 and 15-30. They both can be very tough or they can be very good. I find that here in Los Angeles the 15-30 is better as there are more games. The 10-20 is generally tough as you get players moving up from the lower games and many players moving down from the higher games that have maybe had some losses but they don't want top play any lower than 10-20 to get back into shape for the higher limits. But there are always live players moving through every level game.
Another question might be: Is middle limit hold'em a team sport?
>So why is it that the expert can win more playing stud than
>hold'em? Well, it turns out that there are many
>reasons. This essay will discuss three of them. Two are
>strategic and one has to do with the structure of the
>game itself.
>The two strategic reasons are the fact that (1) upcards
>are available and (2) stud hands are more sensitive to
>whether they are being played short handed or
>multi-way. This means that stud hands vary more in
>value than hold'em hands. Also, the typical player does
>not do a good job adjusting hand strengths.
Stud hands vary more in value than holdem hands?
Vince,
I believe this would have to do with the exposed cards. In other words how live your hand is, how live your oppenents likely hand is, etc.
Tom Haley
I Have played some seven card stud at the 1 to 5 level and am begining to play 5-10. In order to elevate my playing level I have read a few books and I am practiceing on my computer. I would appreciate any discussion or advise on any one or all three of the following questions. (50 cent ante. two dollar bring in, 5-10 betting structure)
1. The material I read indicates that a low open ended straight such as (3h-4d-5s) should not be called on 3rd street even if you are in late position and can limp in for two dollars. Are there any conditions which it would be correct to call a two dollar bet with a low open ended straight.
2. You have a small pair and a three flush on fourth street (Kh-3h-Jh-3s). Hearts are live, the pair is live. The queen in front of you bets and you are sure the bettor has a pair of queens. Can you call this bet with the one overcard or do you need two to continue the draw.
3. When Reraising an apparent overpair on third street under one of the three conditions stated in "Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players" . should your pair be hidden as pictured or does it matter.
Thank you very much in advance.
For $15-$10 seven-card stud:
1. The material I read indicates that a low open ended straight such as (3h-4d-5s) should not be called on 3rd street even if you are in late position and can limp in for two dollars. Are there any conditions which it would be correct to call a two dollar bet with a low open ended straight.
As long as your hand is live I would call the $2. You are looking to catch perfect.
2. You have a small pair and a three flush on fourth street (Kh-3h-Jh-3s). Hearts are live, the pair is live. The queen in front of you bets and you are sure the bettor has a pair of queens. Can you call this bet with the one overcard or do you need two to continue the draw.
You can call.
3. When Reraising an apparent overpair on third street under one of the three conditions stated in "Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players" . should your pair be hidden as pictured or does it matter.
In little stud I would be reluctant to make this play. There are two reasons. First the ante structure is smaller, and second, since there is less stealing it is more likely that the player with the big card has what he represents.
On a related thought I have just written an article comparing "real stud" to "little stud." It should appear in the first issue of the new POKER DIGEST which I understand will be out in July.
Thank you very much for your answers. they are vey helpfull and appreciated. I would like to ask two followup questiones and add a third which will cover all my major concernes.
1. You said you would call the $2 bet with a low open ended straight if it was live. Please give me your definition for live straights as it relates to this question.
2. If you have a three flush and a non suited card on fourth street can you call the bet of an apparent pair if you have only overcards. If yes do you only need one or must you have two. Example (kh-Jh-7h-3s) - apparent queens bets .
3. The final question I will ask relates to high pairs and dead cards. If you have a pair of queens, jacks, or tens on third street with only one unduplicated higher card on the board, are there situations it would be correct to raise when one of your pair cards is dead .
Thank you very much in advance
You made the following comment in a post you recently made:
"I was playing in a seven-handed $40-$80 hold 'em game at The Mirage. The player UTG limped in. This was an extremely good player who has been very successful in the upper limit hold 'em games for years. However, there are spots where I feel that he plays a little too loose but he makes up for it with excellent play on the flop and beyond"
I have seen this comment made by you and skalansky several times, What exactly does it mean to play excellant on the flop and beyond? What are the specific qualities and skills do I need to develop to play excellant on the flop and beyond?
You have a point and it is a vague statement. In HPFAP we say "Most of the profit in hold 'em comes from knowing how to play after the first two rounds."
What we mean is that you have a good understanding of all the strategic concepts that we talk about in the 2 + 2 books and do a good job of applying them. There are very few players who qualify in this area, but those who do are quite successful at limit hold 'em.
To excel in this area my advice is three fold. Read and reread the appropriate books, get your experience at the poker table, and think about the game.
I've read and continually reread virtually all available books and think about the game. Unfortunately, there is no legal poker available to me here in Texas to help me get the valuable experience I need.
I can only surmise from your reply that there isnt a neat little lists of things a person can do to play well on the flop and beyond except to have a thorough understanding of the game and its theory(as outlined in your books) and be able to apply that understand under the stress and time limitations at the table.
I still wish there was a more specific list that I could begin to focus on.
Jeff begs, "I still wish there was a more specific list that I could begin to focus on [to play well on the flop and beyond]."
How about...
1) Hand reading. 2) Pot odds, implied odds, when you can bet/raise or call. 3) Check-raising. 4) Free card play. 5) Fundamental Theorem of Poker and Morton's Theorem. 6) Heads up and short-handed play. 7) Play on the river (no more cards to come.) 8) Pot size manipulation.
Sklansky's _The Theory of Poker_ and S&M's _Hold'em for Advanced Players_ hit all these topics.
-Abdul
You should also study these texts like you are taking a College course. Don't just read them, take notes on all the Chapters and keep them for easy access. I've found that I retain more info this way. Also, TTH2 is a very good tool for people who can't get to a Casino every day.
CV
Abdul,
I have both the books you mention, but can't recall a Morton's Theorem. Could you please elaborate.
Thanks,
Etienne
Oh yeah, sorry, the books cover all those topics *except* Morton's "Theorem". The Fundamental "Theorem" of Poker does not always apply multiway and Morton's "Theorem" gives you some idea of when that occurs.
Morton's "Theorem" implies that if one player has a made but vulnerable hand like top pair, another player has a strong draw like a flush draw, and a third player as a weak draw such as bottom pair, then there is a range of pot sizes where the player with the made hand wants the player with the weak draw to fold *and* the player with the weak draw *should* fold. If the player with the weak draw calls when the pot size is in the relevant range, he actually takes expected value from player with the best hand and gives it to the player with the good draw.
Now for pot sizes outside this range, the fundamental theorem still holds. For very small pot sizes, the player with the bad draw is getting such horrible odds that not only should he fold but also the player with the made hand wants him to call, because the player with the made hand doesn't have much to lose if someone sucks out on him in this small pot. For very large pot sizes, the player with the made hand would love for the player with the "bad" draw to fold, but he actually has odds to call.
In practice, it basically means that when you have the best hand, you want people to fold in multiway pots, damn it, even correctly in most cases. Knowing this, you might be more inclined to check-raise rather than bet out, in order to make it easy for the weak draws to fold, usually even if it is the correct decision for them to fold if you just bet out and they face just one bet. And conversely, when you have a strong draw and you're up against a made hand, you want everyone to call, damn it, as not only do they give you money directly but they steal some money from the leader and give that to you too, and so you should think twice before risking driving them out with a bet or a raise.
Maybe this won't improve your postflop play dramatically, but it will at least help you think on a deeper level about postflop situations, and this help you identify other improvements you can make. For example, you can use Morton's Theorem to help you choose what sort of table image you should have. In the eyes of Morton's Theorem, probably the best image to have is that of a tight-aggressive player who, when he has the likely best hand, will make it very expensive for draws to stay in and doesn't often slow play, so that they will respect your bets and raises, but won't be afraid of you when you just call.
You can find the original rec.gambling.poker articles on it by doing a search at http://www.dejanews.com. Sklansky also subsequently published a guest essay here and an column in Card Player last year that touched on the subject; Sklansky assured me he understood this concept years ago prior to Mr. Morton's article, even though he didn't go into that much detail in his books. No doubt he did.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Thanks for the vivid explanation. Sounds like very interesting stuff, which I could handle theoretically, but at this stage is a little bit above me for practical use.
Etienne
At whatever stage of the hand, if you have the winner, bet or raise. If you have a draw, call. Do not drive out the people who are creating your pot odds. The tough part is estimating the implied pot odds--the reason you raise with A 10 suited before the flop, even though it is not the best hand. See Sklansky's The Theory of Poker.
Didn't Sklansky discuss this problem in the chapter entitled "Another Gambling Paradox" toward the end of _Getting the Best of It_? The discussion in the chapter sounds very similar to what you're describing as "Morton's Theorem." Much of your description mirrors Sklansky's discussion, and he comes to similar conclusions: "What this means is that you must be more cautious than you might have thought when you hold a decent hand with little improvement chances in an unavoidably multi-way pot. [p] This extra degree of caution should _not_ be exercised if you have a chance to thin out the field by raising." [page 234] A little later: "Only certain kinds of poker hands do better against many opponents, namely those that improve to very big hands. ... When you have an already made hand [that does not have an opportunity to re-draw to a larger hand], you normally prefer as few opponents as possible drawing to beat it." [Page 235] I have always found this to be one of the most intriguing chapters in Sklansky's work, and I have struggled to find applications in my game beyond the thin-the-field-with-made-hands and play-more-suited-and-big-drawing-hands-in-multiway-pots advice. Since you seem to have given this a lot of thought, I'd be interested in hearing (1) whether you think "Morton's Theorem" describes something different from Sklansky's _Getting The Best Of It_ chapter (and why and how, of course!) and (2) what adjustments/insights this has given you into your game. Hoping to hear more ... : )
David Denny
What Sklansky is referring to in that section of _Getting the Best of It_ is what I call the "lowball effect". For example, in lowball, a pat 87654 is going to be a favorite heads up but a dog against several opponents. The mathematics of hold'em are a bit different, and what Morton's Theorem says is more subtle, in my opinion. Morton's Theorem says that when you have the best hand, often you'd like an opponent to do what he's supposed to do, as otherwise he's going to take some of your money as well as his and give it to the third player, and so often the Fundamental Theorem of Poker does not apply in multiway pots. (Certainly, Sklansky notes in the _Theory of Poker_ that the Fundamental Theorem does not apply.)
The first Sklansky quote you gave you ripped out of its context, so it sounds promising, but in the book it's firmly entrenched in a lowball effect discussion. The second quote you gave, the one about some hands playing better multiway or short handed, isn't Morton's Theorem either.
Morton's Theorem should apply to some lowball situations too, where you have the best hand, and you'd like people to fold correctly or else they're going to take your money and some of theirs and give it to the best draw, but the general lowball effect does not necessarily involve this - your opponents could all be calling quite correctly and you'd still have the effect of your hand becoming a dog once enough of them call.
-Abdul
When I wrote, "(Certainly, Sklansky notes in the _Theory of Poker_ that the Fundamental Theorem does not apply.)" I actually meant to write "(Certainly, Sklansky notes in the _Theory of Poker_ that the Fundamental Theorem does not *always* apply in multiway pots.)"
I have hand an inkling of Morton's Theorum as I watch what happens when the player with the best hand does not raise before the flop. All of those calls embolden the players with the draws--and the big pairs get stomped into the felt.
I have read many of your posts and consider you a top player. Would you comment on this play.
4-8 Hold'em. I am in middle position with a QJx. Several people call the first bet, including an agressive player who has been winning. I do also. Flop is 10 6 K rainbow. Agressive player bets. I call. Rest of table folds. Turn is A rainbow. I check. Agressive player bets. I raise. He reraises. I reraise. He calls. River is a 6. I check, he bets. I think, man oh man, and reraise. He calls. I lose. Except for the last reraise, I believe I played this hand correctly. Comments?
Hello,
I use my computer to keep notes on my card play, track wins and loses, preform postmortems on my play, etc. I was wondering if anyone is aware of any software that I might use to insert card images into my text, and where such software might be available.
Thanx, Darren
There are many sources of card images. One I use is Mega ClipArt, $10-$20. If you save each of the 52 graphics files separately, you can import them into a picture window in Word or whatever. Bill
The Gambling Forum May 1998 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo