![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Suppose that someone gave you a computer Holdem program, with nine computer opponents,
( all playing more or less their best strategy, with random variations )
and you playing the tenth hand.
After how many hands and how many Big Bets, that you could be ahead or behind,
would you conclude:
A: The program’s no good, and never will be.
B: Plays about as good as the Mirage 20 40 game.
C: Plays better than Mirage 20 40 game.
D: I would avoid a real game where everyone played this well.
E: The search for a decent program is over.
If I could watch it play with all the cards turned up for all players,it should only take about 10 minutes to evaluate how well it plays. If I have to play against it as a player it would still only take about 10 minutes if it plays very badly. But if it plays well that might take as much as two hours.
It's not so much how I'm doing against it for some period of time, but how it plays based on my observation. By the way, it usually takes a top hold 'em player about 10 or 15 minutes to get a line on most of his opponents. The reason I say most is that it takes longer to figure out other top players.
So what computer programs do you and Mr. Sklansky like that are avaiable currently?
And how do you rate the Masque Casino Lite Holdem that is my understanding you were consultants on?
thanks, Monty
That was a pretty interesting message. I plan on getting into tournaments heavily myself but I don't know whether to play no-limit or limit hold'em tournaments. Maybe you could help me.
Joseph, please read my response to your "A vision quest" post.
Tom Haley
Trying to find the statistacal formula for calculating the odds of flopping two pair playing Hold'em.
I'm assuming that by "flopping two pair" you mean the probability of the flop coming xyz when you hold xy in your hand. In other words, I am assuming that you are excluding the cases where you either have a pair in the hole or when the flop has a pair on the board.
ways of flopping two pair = (3)(3)(52 - 4 - 4) = 396
total flops = (50)(49)(48)/3! = 19600
P[flopping two pair] = 396 / 19600 = 2.02%
Lessons in tournament poker revisited. During a short side-trip to Vegas while out West recently, I played one of The Orleans no-limit tournaments. After amassing a huge chip lead by running over what was to be the final table, I failed to throw on the brakes. With about 8000 in chips, I set one lady all-in for about 2000 chips when I was holding a small pocket pair; her Ace-rag offsuit cracked me when the board made 2 higher pair on the river.
I'm immediately moved to the second table to balance the number of players. After a couple of hands that go nowhere, I'm sitting with approximately the same amount of chips (approximately 4000) as the rest of the table. I'm then dealt the 2d-4d. Sitting next to last, with blinds of 300-600, I raise 1000. The player to my immediate left calls, the blinds fold. The flop comes 2s-3d-5c. Putting my opponent on 2 big cards or a big pair, I moved all-in -- he calls with what turns out to be a pair of Jacks. Comments or analysis?
AT this point, the most important thing is to get to the final table...sit on the proverbial fence and wait for good opportunities with premium hands. Start to steal more antes as the tables become very short-handed - 6 or less - but until then play a normal ring game strategy in terms of card selection and WAIT FOR THE FINAL TABLE.
Dave D
Earl wrote:
>>Lessons in tournament poker revisited. During a short side-trip to Vegas while out West recently, I played one of The Orleans no-limit tournaments. After amassing a huge chip lead by running over what was to be the final table, I failed to throw on the brakes. With about 8000 in chips, I set one lady all-in for about 2000 chips when I was holding a small pocket pair; her Ace-rag offsuit cracked me when the board made 2 higher pair on the river.<<
I really don't see anything wrong with putting a short-stack all-in when you have a pocket pair. However, it depends whether you bet or called. I don't like calling with baby pocket pairs when there will be no more betting. You are either against 2 overcards (and thus about 50/50), or against an overpair (and thus a huge dog).
>>I'm immediately moved to the second table to balance the number of players. After a couple of hands that go nowhere, I'm sitting with approximately the same amount of chips (approximately 4000) as the rest of the table. I'm then dealt the 2d-4d. Sitting next to last, with blinds of 300-600, I raise 1000. The player to my immediate left calls, the blinds fold. The flop comes 2s-3d-5c. Putting my opponent on 2 big cards or a big pair, I moved all-in -- he calls with what turns out to be a pair of Jacks. Comments or analysis?<<
I can only think of one reason to bet this flop, and that is if I am pretty sure that my opponent will fold, and that he will bet if I check. I would like to see the showdown for free here, as I have an excellent draw, and my pair may hold up as well. You said yourself that he was likley on overcards or an overpair. There is T4100 in the pot, and you can only bet about T2400. Thus, the guy is getting 65:24, or better than 2.5:1, on his call. He is basically pot stuck, and will likely call with any of the hands you predict. Since you know that your semi-bluff is unlikely to work, the only reason to do it is to prevent his semibluff. Given that the guy has JJ, I think he would have checked it down rather than risk crippling his stack against you. He would have won the pot, as we know, but you would still have T2400 to play with.
BTW, this guy badly misplayed JJ. After you raise 40% of your stack, you are pot-stuck when he reraised you all-in, and he should have done it. By not going all-in preflop with such a powerful hand as JJ, this guy is setting himself up for a bluff when the flop contains 1 or 2 overcards. Might you not have semibluffed if the flop included an A and 2 in your suit? I am sure that this guy should have folded his JJ, or gone all-in preflop, unless he is very confident that he can read you accurately if you bet after the flop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Hard to run over the table just calling anyone -- I was surprised she called me with Ace-rag when I raised her. Not meaning to sound sexist, but one lesson I've learned when playing against women is that women are less likely to release a hand once they have some investment (I'd love to see some statistical studies on that!). In any event, she misplayed a mediocre hand and got lucky -- a double beat, in my opinion.
As for the second hand, I agree he badly misplayed JJ pre-flop and that he was probably, as you stated, "pot-stuck" after the flop. Not really knowing his exact hand (I'd had no opportunity to observe his play before this hand), my analysis at the moment I bet was that even if he held a big pair, I was even money to win the draw (13 cards win for me with 2 shots at it), so by betting into him, I at least improve my percentage above even money to win (assuming even a small percentage chance that he folds when I bet). But the other part of my thought process was to not let him have a free shot at beating me if he's holding simply two big cards. With a pair and an open-ended straight draw, I have to call if he bets anyway.
Incidentally, I didn't state that I lost the hand, although that was in fact the case. His two jacks held up, and I became an empty chair.
Still, here was a case of not being able to put away your opponent in a no-limit hand because he's getting a decent price for the call. I'm not sure the idea of "pot odds" is applicable here, because he clearly had no clue what I was holding; if I'd held A-4 instead of 2-4, he'd have been calling nearly dead.
I too am curious as to how he would've reacted if I'd check to him -- but if I'd been sitting in his seat, I would've bet after seeing three babies flop. After a week to think about the hand, I don't know that I'd have played my hand any differently unless I'm positive he checks. Those are the breaks of tournament poker (and it beats losing the way I did in a WSOP 2500 no-limit tournament: all-in pre-flop with a short stack holding K-7 suited versus A-3 unsuited -- no improvement for either of us).
As an aside, nearly all the players in the Orleans tournament were surprisingly mediocre (their "big" play was to move their whole stack in pre-flop when the blinds were still pretty small; pot-sized or smaller bets at any stage of a hand seemed to confuse them). When I started playing tournaments in the mid-80s (when the Stardust had its big Wednesday night deal), the pickings were pretty easy, but up until this tournament, I'd felt that tournament players had improved considerably since then. Or perhaps we're not growing any more no-limit players?
>>Lessons in tournament poker revisited. During a short side-trip to Vegas while out West recently, I played one of The Orleans no-limit tournaments. After amassing a huge chip lead by running over what was to be the final table, I failed to throw on the brakes. With about 8000 in chips, I set one lady all-in for about 2000 chips when I was holding a small pocket pair; her Ace-rag offsuit cracked me when the board made 2 higher pair on the river. <<
It seems that you played well to get to this point.
I’m not sure what your position was or what the action was like before you got to this point. Generally I think it would be wrong to play it this way with your chip position and her chip position if you were only a slight favorite at best
>>I'm immediately moved to the second table to balance the number of players. After a couple of hands that go nowhere, I'm sitting with approximately the same amount of chips (approximately 4000) as the rest of the table. I'm then dealt the 2d-4d. Sitting next to last, with blinds of 300-600,I raise 1000. The player to my immediate left calls, the blinds fold. The flop comes 2s-3d-5c. Putting my opponent on 2 big cards or a big pair, I moved all-in -- he calls with what turns out to be a pair of Jacks. Comments or analysis?<<
A very important aspect is that the blinds are very high relative to the amount of chips each player has. Therefore you were taking a big risk by raising with your 2,4d but it was a situation that probably demanded taking big risks in my opinion. I probably would have tossed this one in the muck but then I haven’t won any no-limit tournaments.
It depends on what you think your opponent called you with and the ability of your opponent. You are in a steal position so the other player has to at least entertain the possibility that you have:
-- A steal type hand.
-- High cards although not exactly a steal hand but certainly a legitimate raising hand.
-- Your opponent would have to consider a big pair as well.
Given all of those considerations what would your opponent likely call a raise with. Lets look at the possible hands.
1. Aces, Kings, Queens. Probably not would have re-raised.
2. A,K. Possibly would have just called.
3. A,Q Possibly would have just called.
4. A,J through all other unpaired starting hands. Doubtful, too worried about being dominated.
5. JJ Maybe if he thought you would check if an A,K,Q fell on the flop and you didn’t have one and bet if you did.
6. TT Maybe if he thought you would check if an A,K,Q, or J fell on the flop and you didn’t have one and bet if you did.
7. 99-22 I think your opponent would re-raise or fold.
I know that all of this is highly subjective and open to debate but lets say that he would make this play with A,K or JJ. With A,K you are the favorite and your opponent would be making a mistake based on the pot size because an Ace gives you a straight which means he would have 3 Kings and 3 fours as possible outs. If he has JJ then he won’t fold but you will still be a money favorite when he calls your bet because you have 4 Aces, 4 Sixes, 3 fours, and 2 twos. Also you could still lose if the board pairs 3’s or 5’s or a Jack comes even if you do make one of your draws. There are 16 ways that he could have A,K and 6 ways he could have a pair of Jacks. So if he will call with both hands he would be making an error 16 times and 6 times he would be around 50-50. So even though you didn’t make your draw and you happened to run into an overpair, I think your play on the flop was o.k. I’m assuming that the pot odds were as Greg Raymer stated them. I think that Greg made some excellent points about your opponent and his possible mistakes. Just my opinions.
Tom, I posted the hands because I also felt they were highly subjective and open to a lot of debate -- in both cases, my card odds were only even-money to win the hand, yet in both cases, I was the aggressor and my opponent couldn't put me on a hand. These are the situations that spell the difference between winning and losing a tournament. While the JJ made a mistake pre-flop, the lady with A-rag made the biggest mistake -- I think she just pushed the panic button.
Your analysis of what the guy with JJ thought I might be holding was interesting, because I often wonder why someone will *call* a big bet with less than a quality hand. He clearly didn't want to get it all in pre-flop, yet he was willing to call for the rest of it after seeing small cards flop; I take this to mean that he put me on 2 big cards.
I took out the calculator when I got home; the precise card odds against me winning that last hand were 32/45 x 31/44 = 992/1980 -- 50.1%. It's not greater than 50-50 because I don't win twice when I hit helpers on both 4th and 5th street, and he doesn't win if I hit the straight or pair the deuces on board when he gets help. Conversely, if I pair the 4d on 4th street, he can still win on the river, but the odds are against him; only a J, 3, or 5 helps (8 helpers) and the rest of the deck wins for me.
Thanks for the comments and analysis. It's always mentally stimulating to see what a situation looks like from the outside looking in.
Continuing with this, at least to me, interesting thread. One of the main questions that has come up is why would the player with the Jacks just call your raise ? I think one should presume that there was some sort of thought that went into this decision. I thought of one other reason why this player may have just called. Perhaps he thought that you would bet all of your chips no matter what flop hit the board and he felt like the chances of you betting all of your chips without a hand was worth just calling. If he would have re-raised you all in you could have gotten away from your hand and saved some chips.
You are most likely correct; apparently he put me on A-K, A-Q, or K-Q and intended to bet again only if overcards didn't flop. I think most players think this way preflop (isn't that what most books teach!) and thus he almost got his head busted because he misread and misplayed the hand. Even if I could've made a bigger bet at him post-flop, I believe he still would've called since there were no overcards on the flop. This is one area where Brunson was absolutely correct: in no-limit hold-em, the small suited connectors have great potential to break an opponent.
I have an opportunity to play 10-50 spread limit holdem. What would be a sufficient bankroll and what major changes inpre-flop strategy should I do.Any suggestions and answers would be greatly appreciated.The only thing I know about the game is that it is played by wealthy people without much experience.
Tell me where it is, and I'll come in person to teach you!
This sounds like a choice game. If you are trying to absolutely maximize your profit, you should try to limp in almost every reasonable hand if you can get in cheaply preflop (for the $10 minimum). Tighten way down, maybe playing only 5-10% of your hands, if you are going to raise, or someone else has raised.
The reason for limping in on every reasonable hand is the implied odds. If you can get in for $10, and if these players give lots of action after the flop, you can easily make a few hundred dollars when you hit the flop, and only lose $10 when you don't. In other words, even if you're playing a longshot hand (let's say, T8o), you might be making 40 or 50:1 on your preflop investment, so it's worth it.
The reason for tightening up dramatically when someone raises, or before you choose to raise, is that the implied odds drop sharply, by a factor of about 5. In this case, you must win many more of these pots to make a profit, so you must only come in with premium hands.
BTW, when I said reasonable hand, I mean a hand that is capable of flopping the nuts, or close to it. This would include all connected cards and one-gappers 45 and higher, all Ax and Kx suited, all pairs, and a few 2-gappers (AJ, KT, Q9). However, you must be able to know when to get away from these hands when you catch a marginal flop. For example, if you play Q9 and the flop is 986, you must leave immediately unless everyone checks to you, and then you MIGHT bet it. Don't give any action on these hands, as it isn't worth the risk unless you have an excellent read and great control of your opponents.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree in principle here: - Pots on the flop are proportionally much smaller than in a structured game. - Limp a lot. - Routinely fold for raises, even after limping - Play hands that can get there. - The major decision is ON THE FLOP, not before.
I disagree that unsuited gappers can realistically get there. T8 is trash.
--------------------------------------------------
Against this field expect a lot of loose RAISING. Therefor play even less hands before the flop since you will have to discard it for a likely raise anyway. If you do flop top pair top kicker plan to call it down.
Politically you will need to raise in THEIR pots or the action will dry in YOUR pots. Usually this means RAISE WITH DRAWs on the flop. You can also give the illusion by BETTING weak hands, but only those with weak boards.
- Louie
A while back I made a post regarding pot limit hold’em. I said that there is still life in pot limit hold’em and indeed I think there is although I finally realized that there is major problem with this game being spread in my locality. Perhaps I’m just one of those players that likes to realize things. One of the old regulars who used to play $10-20 and $15-30 Hold’em showed up in the game again after a very long absence. He used to play limit hold’em and went to pot limit for whatever reason that I am not aware of. I can only surmise that he quickly went broke in pot limit which removed him from the poker scene since the beginning of the year. I have seen this phenomena with many other players. I would make an estimate of about twenty five to thirty five players have done this over the past two and a half years. I believe they go to the pot limit game because they are simply looking to play at a higher limit. The $15-30 game is basically dead here. The $10-20 game which used to be going at all hours only goes down at certain times and you see a lot of familiar faces. I can’t help wondering what would have happened without the pot limit game. I have to believe that you would see more $10-20, $15-30, and even $20-40 here if the pot limit game was not available for the following reasons:
1. The players that went broke in the pot limit game would be playing at the higher limits. Yes they would probably still go broke in the higher limits but this would happen more slowly and less thoroughly. When I say less thoroughly I mean that in pot limit they must have lost a lot of money very quickly as compared to what they would have lost at limit.
2. There would be players to play at these limits. In other words pot limit has removed potential limit players from the game.
Mason Malmuth has written about this topic and I am finally getting it through my thick skull that he has a very valid point. I see living proof of this everyday.
This is yet another reason that many rooms are reluctant to spread pot limit games, they do tend to devour the unskilled players very quickly. I do not believe, however, that pot limit games are cannabilizing the limit games as much as you think. Most players tend to prefer one or the other. I myself have a great deal of trouble adjusting to limit games, but I'm working at it. The availability of pot limit games is limited to fairly high stakes in my area, where all games are private, and the limit action is far more unsophisticated.
We spread a $5-$10 blind pot limit $300 buy-in. Our limit players very seldem get in to that game. The next casino is now spreading $1-$2 blind pot limit for 1 month now and I have seen and talked to several players that HAS hert their BR. I think if you keep the blinds high enough the players on a limited BR will stay out.
I have played in small blind games like 1-2-5 that tend to resemble roller-coaster rides due to the number of players seeing the flop, or trying to see the flop cheaply. I can only imagine that 1-2 would be even worse. But, I think that there needs to be a game at that level to develop pot limit players. I can certainly see how conservative low limit players, can get burned in games like this when their big pairs get drawn out on.
I have the following questions:
How long have you been working their?
What limit games do you have?
How often does $10-20 go down?
How often does $15-30 go down?
How often does $20-40 go down?
Is your pot limit game usually short handed?
I think you are talking about Casino Sandia in Albuquerque. If it is $1-4-8-8 is the most popular limit hold'em game. There is nothing in Hold'em spread between $1-4-8-8 and $10--20. The $10-20 only goes down at certain times. Very infrequently, virtually never, a $15-30 goes down and you will never see a $20-40 game.
The pot limit game is usually short handed where a few players make their living. At one time there were many other limits spread. BTW I think the $1-4-8-8 is bad for this room as well. This is why I think the Omaha $4-8 (2 and 4 blinds) with a half-kill has picked up a lot.
The action in this room has dried up a lot in this room over the past few years.
I have the following questions:
How long have you been working their? 15 months
What limit games do you have? Like you said in bottom
How often does $10-20 go down? every night at 5pm
How often does $15-30 go down? never
How often does $20-40 go down? never
Is your pot limit game usually short handed? no no no
I think you are talking about Casino Sandia in Albuquerque. If it is $1-4-8-8 is the most popular limit hold'em game. There is nothing in (yes) Hold'em spread between $1-4-8-8 and $10--20. The $10-20 only goes down ( you are right) at certain times. Very infrequently, virtually never, a $15-30 goes down and you will never see a $20-40 game.
The pot limit game is usually short handed where a few players make ( not anymore. Full at 2:30 PM. every day ) their living. At one time there were many other limits spread. BTW I think the $1-4-8-8 is bad for this room as well. This is why I think the Omaha $4-8 (2 and 4 blinds) with a half-kill has picked up a lot. ( I agree with you on this.)
The action in this room has dried up a lot in this room over the past few years. ( We just moved our poker room and have inproved it 1000% and business has picked up again. Most days getting 10 tables by 3 PM.) Thanks from your observations Dave. I would like to see a $5-$10 game and our $10-$20 is getting stronger had 2 tables the other day. Thanks Chuck Ferry
Dave Dyches, not sure if you read my responce Thanks Chuck Ferry
response to Re: Is Pot Limit Killing the Limit Games ?, posted by Dave Dyches on Thursday, 6 November 1997, at 2:33 p.m.
I have the following questions:
How long have you been working their? 15 months
What limit games do you have? Like you said in bottom
How often does $10-20 go down? every night at 5pm
How often does $15-30 go down? never
How often does $20-40 go down? never
Is your pot limit game usually short handed? no no no
I think you are talking about Casino Sandia in Albuquerque. If it is $1-4-8-8 is the most popular limit hold'em game. (yes) There is nothing in Hold'em spread between $1-4-8-8 and $10--20. The $10-20 only goes down at certain times. Very infrequently, virtually never, a $15-30 goes down and you will never see a $20-40 game. ( you are right)
The pot limit game is usually short handed where a few players make ( not anymore. Full at 2:30 PM. every day ) their living. At one time there were many other limits spread. BTW I think the $1-4-8-8 is bad for this room as well. This is why I think the Omaha $4-8 (2 and 4 blinds) with a half-kill has picked up a lot. ( I agree with you on this.)
The action in this room has dried up a lot in this room over the past few years. ( We just moved our poker room and have inproved it 1000% and business has picked up again. Most days getting 10 tables by 3 PM.) Thanks from your observations Dave. I would like to see a $5-$10 game and our $10-$20 is getting stronger had 2 tables the other day. Thanks Chuck Ferry
Hey Chuck ! Dag nubbit, I didn't mean to come across like some hi falutin prosecuter cross examining a witness. That PL game over at Casino Sandia is sporadic with the number of players. Sometimes it's full, sometimes it's short. This probably ain't the place to talk about Casino Sandia. Just seems there ain't much for the limit players when you only offer 1-4-8-8 and 10-20. Let's see how things go over the next 6 months or so. I don't think you'll find a lot more action probably less.
Of course you are right, but only because (from what I've read) there are no small pot-limit games in the USA. The skills and techniques required for pot-limit are a quantum shift away from limit games, and if the blinds in the pot-limit game are reasonably high then it will be hard for poor players on smaller bankrolls to avoid getting broke. Pot-limit itself is not the problem, it is the size of the blinds that dictate the game...a $1-$2 blind game would be small enough for people to lea
I have to agree. I play in a one dollar blind no limit game here, and it is not that much different than a ten, twenty game where the pot is getting capped by maniacs. Sure a lot of money can be won or lost in one pot, but since the buy-in is only twentyfive dollars, the game can also be somewhat tame. The main point with playing in pot-limit and no-limit is it is the only way to get experience in this type of game. There is no comparison between these games and limit. One mistake and you are finished. Pot-Limit has been played here for more than 20 years, and poker is still going strong.
In my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II I addressed the idea that spreading pot limit is bad for poker rooms. Here is some of what I wrote on page 232.
"There are three reasons for this. The first, which is well known, is that bad players won't win often enough in this game to stay hooked as poker players. There is not enough short term-luck, and this contributes to the game dying out.
Second, pot-limit (and no-limit for that matter) give off the illusion of cheating. The nature of the game is that every now and then a card will come on the river that will cost someone all his money. These cards will also come in a limit game, but the penalty to the loser will only be an extra bet or two. I believe that if given enough time cheating accusations will begin to surface even if the game is squeaky clean, and the regular pot-limit players will gain cheating reputations even when they are totally undeserved.
And third, the pot-limit game takes a table away from a game that would thrive. When popular games can't be spread because a pot-limit game is going 3 or 4 handed (on a busy night), the cardroom may be doing itself irreparable damage. The live ones will lose too quickly and whether deserved or not, the integrity of the room will be questioned.
Yet spreading pot-limit hold'em is a mistake I see cardrooms make all the time."
All exactly true. But what about those of us who love this game? There must be room for a table or 2 in all of Las Vegas. I see plenty of rooms with a table to spare.
Well, I suppose you are right about the demise of pot limit, but its still a shame.
I thought pot limit games were thriving in the UK. Is this a myth, or are they doomed to die out? Or is there something different about poker in the UK that makes pot limit more practical?
dan
Pot limit in England is more of a tradition, and I believe the public poker industry is not as well developed there as it is here. Mason Malmouth has very accurately described the reasons why pot limit is disapearing. I believe it continues to survive in some rooms due to the attempt to provide games that you can't find anywhere else. I also believe the game will continue to hang on due to the adrenaline factor of having ALL your money in the center of the table with cards yet to come. This is an attraction for a lot of gamblers.
I don't think that there is any particular reason why pot-limit is played, perhaps it is just tradition. However the game is in no danger of fading away, in fact, in the very rare instances of where limit cash games have been introduced, it has been they that have become extinct. But this is to be expected...if all you had ever played was pot-limit poker, then limit play could be seen as very frustrating.
Dave D
Hi,
I would like to share with people my real life numbers as far as P&L per hour and Standard Deviation. Please feel free to include your own also, I would be much curious.
For everygame I played in 10-20 and up (including pot-limit, no-limit, but mostly 15-30), I transferred everything into a 15-30 game base, so all these numbers are meant to represent my numbersin 15-30. I know the sample size probably is large enough for me to be comfortable with these numbers, but nevertheless...here they are:
P/L per hour +38.41 Standard Dev per hour 245 Total Hours 600 Total Sessions 200
sorry....correction:
line 'I know the sample size probably is large enough for me to be comfortable with these numbers..."
should be 'I know the same size probably is NOT large enough..."
sorry for the sloppiness
I recently started playing at a home game where the play is loose and the games are even looser. My question is: Is there any strategy for Poker games like 4x4 and Bingo, where the best hand is usually a Full house and Four of a Kind? Is it just luck? When should I fold?
Zardoz,
The secret to home games is to be one of the tighter players but not the tightest there. No matter what the game is it is not luck. Just play tighter than your opponents and not very aggressive because that scares people and you may find yourself barred from play. The main thing is to last in the game as you will be the big winner and lots of resentment will follow. Good Luck.
I took your advice. I found that the chips were stacking up in front of me so I loosened up my game to give some of the money back to the pot. I take it this is what you ment about trying to last in the game. Thanks.
I have found if you bring some delicious cookies with you to a home game you will be welcome forever. Poker players are complete morons when it comes to food. Give them a cookie and you will become their best friend no matter how well you do! Hey!..he brought the cookies!!
Bring the cookies!!
Excellent political advise!!
I've had some difficulty in this area. Not because its a home game but because I didn't understand the games. Its tough to play 4-card Pyramid hi/low when you just about got to have the nuts to win, but lots of people are drawing to the nuts.
First off, figure out exactly which games are being played, their rules, and sit down at home with a deck of cards.
Deal out the "board" and lots of hands just to get a feel for what hands usually win. This should give you an idea of what is a good hand and what is not.
Then play tight, drawing only to the much better hands. As always, be sure to fold most of the time right away.
Mr. Zee mentioned some good political advice, to which I will add you can make up for aggression when you have the nuts by betting aggressively when you are drawing to the nuts. In holdem this means capping it on the turn with just an A high flush draw against a couple opponents. Do that once or twice a night (i.e. lose a little EV for a lot of image) and you should be fine. Its important, though, that you LOSE a hand or two doing this. If you make the draw, then you'll have to do it again to stop them from getting mad. Also, don't hesitate to bluff in a marginal situation and if caught, say something clever like "Read 'em and Weap!".
To summerize, learn the games their playing.
- Louie
I've noticed on rec.gambling.poker that there has been a lot of discussion as to which hand is better, king-ten suited or jack-ten suited. In the Sklansky hand rankings the J-10s is ranked significantly higher than K-10s. There is good reason for this. It is simply the fact that J-10s frequently plays better than K-10s.
Now in most situations this means two things. First, the hand has more multiway potential, and second, it will not make a "second best" hand as often. K-10 suited is one of the biggest trap hands in the game. Even though it is profitable if played correctly, it is the the type of hand that costs the typical player much money.
However, there are clearly spots where K-10 suited is better than J-10 suited. One would be when everyone has passed and you are first in from a late position. Now you will frequently win the pot -- against a weak player who calls from the blind -- with a king high -- that you would lose with a jack high. You would also rather defend from the blind against a possible steal raise with K-10 suited than with a jack-ten suited (even though you would defend with both hands). Again the high card makes a difference.
But here's an example of where J-10 suited is clearly a better hand than K-10 suited. Suppose you are in the big blind. A tight unimaginative player raises under the gun. You would much prefer to call him with the J-10 suited than the K-10 suited. (In fact, I would prefer to call with the J-10 offsuit than the K-10 suited.) If you don't understand why this is true your game needs a lot of improvement. (By the way, if a tight player raises under the gun and I am in the big blind I fold J-10 suited, J-10 offsuit, and K-10 suited. It is just that the J-10 is not as bad as the K-10.)
(By the way, if a tight player raises under the gun and I am in the big blind I fold J-10 suited, J-10 offsuit,and K-10 suited. It is just that the J-10 is not as bad as the K-10.)
I know my game needs improvement, so I guess its O.K. if I ask this question.
Could you ever be getting good enough pot odds to make a call in this situation correct?
In my opinion yes. If the pot was being played with a lot of players calling this tight early position raiser's raise cold, you can call or maybe even raise if you're feeling adventurous.
The Boise Kid wrote:
>Could you ever be getting good enough pot odds to make a >call in this situation correct?
Yes. My post should have said a tight player raises and no one else is in. I generally require two additional callers in this situation, and then I will call from the blind with K-10 suited, J-10 suited, and J-10 offsuit. I still am very cautious about K-10 offsuit, and will usually muck it. The exception would be if the other players are very weak, but even then a call is highly debatable.
As far as I am concerned in over 25 years of playing holdem. Jack-ten offsuit is without a doubt the most over rated and unprofitable hand there is.
I will let you in on a little secret. If the man under the gun raises and EVERYONE AT THE TABLE CALLS I will throw away jack-ten offsuit on the button! Why? You almost have to make a straight to win. This simply does not happen often enough to be profitable. (making two-pair often spells your doom)
Without question this one hand has cost me more money than than any other hand in hold-em. Think about it!
Askmrmoney wrote:
>>> I will let you in on a little secret. If the man under the gun raises and EVERYONE AT THE TABLE CALLS I will throw away jack-ten offsuit on the button! Why? You almost have to make a straight to win. This simply does not happen often enough to be profitable. (making two-pair often spells your doom) <<<<
Why is this a little secret? I would hope that no one who reads this forum is calling a raised multiway pot (for two full bets) with a hand like J-10 offsuit. I will make this call out of the big blind (for one bet).
[Can I ever call with KT, JT, or JTs in BB vrs early raise?]
Yes.
There are very tight weak players who NEVER call with less than top pair, but are willing to raise with solid no pair hands. These players will miss the flop at least half the time. So if you call and plan to bet on the flop you are risking two bets (call, then bet) to win three bets (your BB, his two-bet raise) showing an emmediate profit with any two cards. And, you might actually make something.
But for hand value reasons all these hands are hopeless against a sensible early raise. Or even a not-so-sensible raise in the hands of a solid-after-the-flop player who has position.
To even consider such trouble against any raise you should be confident you will outplay them after the flop (late position helps here), or you are getting really good odds.
Don't play trouble hands against raisers unless you KNOW its right. They're called "Trouble" for a good reason.
- Louie
Sorry about that last post. I intended it as a response to Mr. Kid's post, not Mr. Malmuth's.
A great deal of discussion has been brought about on RGP regarding the derivation of the groupings for starting hands in limit hold’em. Some discussion has focused on how the starting hands that appear in, Hold’em For Advanced Players, were derived. A lot of discussion has focused on some findings by others namely Dick Taylor, Mike Caro, and Will Hyde that KTs should be ranked higher than JTs. It seems to me that a lot of effort is being put into utilizing computer technology to analyze poker. Specifically hold’em poker. Let me digress for a moment. The following are quotes from a book by Steve McConnell on software development called, Code Complete:
An algorithm is a set of well-defined instructions for carrying out a particular task. An algorithm is predictable, deterministic, and not subject to chance. An algorithm tells you how to go from point A to point B with no detours, no sidetraps to points D,E, and F, and no stopping to smell the roses or have a cup of Joe.
A heuristic is a technique that helps you look for an answer. Its results are subject to chance because a heuristic tells you only how to look, not what to find. It doesn’t tell you how to get directly form point A to point B; it might not even know where point A and point B are. In effect, a heuristic is an algorithm in a clown suit. It’s less predictable, it’s more fun, and it comes without a 30-day money-back guarantee.
End of Quote.
I might add that the nature of algorithms is that they are provable mathematically while heuristics are not necessarily. An algorithm could provide an exact answer to the probability of a starting hand winning a showdown in a ten handed pot if all hands stayed to the river. A heuristic could provide an answer to the probability of a starting hand winning by the advisability of thinning the field, the types of opponents, how these types of opponents will proceed with a hand, the psychological factors to consider, etc. One application of heuristics in Computer Engineering is to provide a way of characterizing an expert’s knowledge. It has long been recognized that the human mind is capable of arriving at a correct decision at a very high speed because the mind is capable of eliminating decision paths that are not relevant to making the decision. My interpretation as to why Gary Kasparov lost to Big Blue in their chess match was that the engineers involved with Big Blue used heuristics to counter Kasparov strategy specifically. Big Blue can explore an incomprehensible number of decision paths in a very short amount of time. In spite of this Kasparov defeated Big Blue handily in a previous match. In part Kasparov attributed his victory to his imagination overcoming the speed of the machine. At leas this is my take.
If I understand Dick Taylor’s approach correctly, he has developed a simulation of actual play and derived his rankings from the results of his simulation. My impression is that he has used an algorithmic approach in developing his simulation. My impression is that David Sklansky and yourself used computer technology but your rankings were in part accomplished by using your heuristics which incorporated your collective knowledge as experts on poker. From what I understand Will Hyde has used an algorithmic approach. I am assuming that Mike Caro has employed computer technology but his rankings were also accomplished by using his heuristics.
If this is the case, then I see nothing wrong with any of the approaches being used to rank starting hands. If the starting hands are derived from an algorithmic technique e.g. simulation or calculation, it would behoove the potential user to understand the dynamics of the simulation and/or calculations thoroughly. If the starting hands are derived from an heuristic approach, you better be sure that the heuristics are those of an expert.
Code Complete: A Practical Handbook of Software Construction Steve McConnell, Microsoft Press
Well said !
I think you people have been eating WAY too much corn!
The answer is very simple. If a man has a choice between a Yugo and a Honda Accord...and he takes the Yogo....Get into his poker game! As quickly as possible!
Expert hold em players who don't even own computers would probably be laughing at all you guys who are making such a big deal about nuances in starting hand rankings. When I wrote Holdem Poker, most players were unaware how to intermingle the value of pairs, high cards and suited connectors. So I used common sense, a little math and my knowledge of how people played in a MILDLY TOUGH GAME to come up with a guideline as to which starting hands could be played as well as how to play them before the flop. However, even if there was some way of being perfect in your starting hand evaluation this is worth ALMOST NO MONEY as compared to someome who might be a little off on their starting hand evaluations but who knows how to play better the rest of the way. I see an analogy to super expert blackjack card counters who quibble over esoteric plays while their more successful counterparts are finding games with deeper penetration. This is not to say that I have changed my mind about the rankings. It's just that they are very dependent on the structure of the game and the way people are playing in that game. For instance a pair of deuces is much worse off if players yet to act tend to raise a lot of pots. In the case of king ten suited versus jack ten suited, KT becomes the better hand in games where players are seeing the flop with Kx, Qx, and Jx suited. If that is the case, JT will now lose to flushes that KT will beat. Also KT will now make money from two kings with a smaller kicker. In a typical casino game of 10-20 or above JTsuited is still usually the better hand. BUT WHO CARES. I want my fans to beat those nitwits out there who refuse to read our stuff and just play by the seat of their pants. That won't happen if you concentrate on sillly things like precise starting hand rankings. In spite of its notoriety, I always considered it one of the LEAST important things in the book (once you got the jist of it.) Thus this is the first and last time I will address the subject and I hope the same goes for you.
Amen !
I've played blackjack for over twenty years and have derived my income from it for about half that time. After two months of record heat I consulted my bishop and he recommended books on hold'em. After studying the works of Mr. Sklansky and Mr. Malmouth I set out to play 2-4 and 3-6 and received twice expectation within 80 hours of play. Anxious to move to the level of game the books were geared toward- I went to 5-10. This is when I started with heavy losses. I have had several 6 to 7 hundred dollar 10 hour losing sessions. After each heavy loss I get most of it back in a course of about 50 hours and then I seem to have another heavy loss. I read and re-read the texts and study my play but I cannot feel that I am able to beat this game having lost over $3,000 after 400 hours of play. I find stealing the blinds nearly impossible, I find driving players out difficult and am calling second best way too often. Although I belong to Mensa, Intertel and several other of these societies in the past, I am accomplished at chess and music as well as consulting for a divergent array of disciplines- my hold'em gloves are off. My question is that since I have failled at this game, would it be realistic for me to try to play seven card stud or should I consider myself as someone not suited for this game?
It sounds like you want poker to be like b.j. It is not the same gambling game. You seem to be what we say is a "calling station" and needs to be broken. When you play b.j. you play every hand, not so in poker where hands are selected. Also when you read the books you may need to do it a few times to get the information assembled correctly in your brain. In poker a player must have self-control to be a winner. No matter how smart you may think you are, you have to learn street smarts as well as common sense. But take heart as you didn't lose a great amount for the hours you played. There may be hope for you after you gain more knowledge and control of your emotions. Good Luck.
Mr. Zee, thanks for your response. Indeed I'm having trouble knowing when to stay with hands and when not to. I have a problem when rags flop and callers fill or will fill no matter if I bet or raise. If I have the nuts at the flop it seems that I have lost this by the time I get to the river and raising second best too often ends up being second best. I'm wondering if the collective outs of many callers is overcoming my outs. In regard to starting hands I follow that of Mr. Sklansky and I try following the play of the rest of the hand according to The Theory of Poker and Hold'em for Advanced Players. I have for three months read and reread these books 3 to 4 hours daily. It seems that if I worry about second best I'm weak-tight and when I try to become agrressive I feed the pot to increase the number of callers I'me getting. How do I break this? How do I know if I'm number one or two when not raised or reraised to the end? In regard to my smarts I have worked extremely hard in increasing my intellectual skills and am recornized as being among the best, however, in all areas I do recognize there will be others smarter than I am. I was simply strying to state that as divergent and as hard as I work to improve my thinking I'm having the most difficult time with this game. I've already learned a tremendous amount about myself while playing this game. My play has constantly been changing with review and I do feel that it is never too late to do the right thing. I'm simply reaching out for guidance as to what this right thing is, with the question of possibly I'm not suited after this attempt. Yes I do feel that street smarts is the ultimate display of intelligence.
As to your original post:
You quit BJ because of a two-month skid? Why? That's to be expected in the course of several years.
Why are you "stealing" when it doesn't work? Why are you trying to "drive players out" when it doesn't work? Sounds like you are playing way too agressively for these games. You, are not adjusting for the game.
As to the above:
Yes, a flop of 7-5-3 when you have A7 is not that good in the very loose games. Someone will hit the overcard. Tend to wait until the turn to raise, since you will have more leverage and you can often lay it down cheaply when beat.
As to a subliminal message in the text above: you are frequently getting raised on the River by people who don't have anything near the nuts? This is NOT the game for any beginner. Asserting yourself with marginal hands only works if it frieghtens the opponents and you can control them. I'm sure this is not happening in this game. Its a nightmare if they tend to raise and you don't know what to do. You, don't know what to do.
You DESPERATELY NEED opponents who call when they should fold and check when they should bet. You need to have confidence that when they DO bet they have at least the hand they are representing. You, know what to do: fold.
Play less trouble hands in the multi-way games. Play more suited connectors and small pairs. Rarely raise B4 the flop. Tend to wait until AFTER the flop to put heat on them. Or wait for the turn.
Go back to the 3-6 where the players want to give their money away. Play ONLY in games you are confident you can beat, and you know WHY. Put your ego asside and play games you CAN beat, not games you WANT to beat.
Don't just watch the action when you are out; FOLLOW the action. If you can't recall many interesting hands then you are not following the action. Determine what players have (also what they "should" have); certainly at least the bettor. Jot down notes on interesting hands, and find a friend to discuss them with. So long as you are reading the books, an hour spent with flesh and blood in this manner is worth a WHOLE LOT MORE than another hour with the books. Positive feedback or constructive critisism is gold for bright beginners.
You, are a bright beginner.
- Louie
Collective Callers?
(Assuming one card to go:) No, the more the merrier in Holdem; at least compared to stud. In the common card game holdem the additional players drawing to beat you generally are drawing to the same hands as the other opponents, at least partially. If you have the best pair, the second player to call with the flush draw is dead money in the pot (also, that's 2 less cards not in the deck). If the first player with 2nd pair calls with 5 outs then the second to call with this pair only has 3 outs, as far as you are conserned. Straight draws routinely collide.
Its rare but it happens that you can get three people all drawing to one card :) ... and get there :(
I'd say in Holdem 3 callers is the worst as far as outdrawing you. More callers makes bigger pots with a noticable less increase in the chance of drawing out. More than 5 and I'd guess your chances of winning improves, since they have each other's cards. That's good.
Yes, these situations are very rare in the real games addressed in the author's books.
In stud, players are generally drawing to different hands so their combined chances mount against you. Three callers all with flush draws will generally have DIFFERENT suits. Good luck. :(
I can honestly say I win with top pair top kicker, so long as I'm not raised, against more than 5 callers regularly. I've even bet it for value on the end against 7 players, with more successes than failures over my life (not even counting the times the silly two small pair folded, unbeknownst to me!). The key, of course, is "so long as I'm not raised"; implying a passive easy to read game.
Which brings us to the orginal point. Game selection is most profitable easy-to-learn skill around, and essential for beginners. Do it.
In regard to Bj, I was referring to the attention from pit personnel in regard to half shoes and shuffle ups I was receiving. I wished I had only gone through a two month losing streak during my career. In fact I have had 3 years out of 21 with heavy play not making expenses.
I do very much appreciate the feedback you have given me to my questions and especially that of collective outs. Thanks!
A note to Jack Black . To help in reading opponents I have found Mike Caro's - 'Book of Tells' now renamed I believe as 'The Body Language of Poker' to be of great help, also Caro's '12 days to holdem success' and '12 days to 7 stud success' are lessons in observation-- they might prove helpful
Let me start by saying that I think that hold’em should be one of the games you play if you want to derive at least some of your income from poker. It is just to widespread and growing for you to ignore it. With that said I certainly think you want to investigate 7-Stud just don’t give up on hold’em just yet. Lets talk about some of the problems you mentioned. The first one, stealing the blinds. This strategy becomes more important as the "tightness" of the game increases. People will defend much more liberally in a loose game. In my opinion, it is actually correct to defend much more loosely than a lot of players think it is. The big mistake, in my opinion, is to play way too tight in the blinds. I believe if you think about this and the mathematics involved you will be able to model the situation mathematically and see this for yourself. All of this is a long winded way of saying that liberally defending the blinds in a $5-10 hold’em game with $2 and $5 blinds is at worst a small mistake. Therefore your opponents are probably playing more or less correctly in the blinds and thus stealing isn’t a way to make money in a loose game. The next problem, driving out players. David Sklansky discusses this problem in a recent issue of Card Player among other places. I can’t say it better than he can. Calling with too many second best hands tells me that you have problems reading hands. I would guess that you are probably calling too much on all of the betting rounds. I’ll assume that most of the pots you are involved in are multi-way. People have to play more straight forward and the possibility of bluffs can be neglected for the most part in multi-way pots. Again if you read David Sklansky’s book, Sklansky on Poker, he discusses the concept of the protected pot. When you lose a showdown with a second best hand you have to review your play and see if a laydown would have made sense and analyze why it would have. Another common mistake that I see a lot is that people lose a lot of money because they slow down on the river. Just my thoughts and opinions.
Thanks Tom, it seems my difficulty has to do with making the transition from weak-tight to that of being aggressive and having difficulty with reading certain players. I've been reading Cooke and Two Plus Two Advanced for stud the past mont and plan to start 1-5 this week. You're comments hit the nail on the head. Thanks again.
For your 10 or 20 years of playing blackjack, you have used straightforward numerical information to play, combined with what may be loosely defined as "social skills" [i.e. getting along WITH people] to deal with the pit and keep them from observing your play too closely.
Poker involves a very different set of skills, most of which are NOT transferable from blackjack - or chess for that matter. The mathematical aspects of poker can be picked up from books like Sklansky and Malmuths' but the subtle nuances of play are less easy to describe verbally. Caro's book of tells is a start. However, in the higher-limit games, some of the tells are very subtle, such as eye movement, etc. I am not commenting on your ability in this area, but will say that I have trouble picking up on subtle tells and distinguishing the 'signal' from the 'noise.' The skill required is hardly involved at all in blackjack.
The heat "tells" from the pit at BJ are more direct than poker tells, i.e. intense scrutiny from the floormen/pit bosses, phone calls, preferential shuffling, etc.
I'm a good BJ player but a klutz at poker...and realize it after a few botched experiments with 1-4-8-8. On the other side of the coin, I know good poker players who lack the discipline to play a good game of blackjack.
One poker note - it is quite difficult to drive players out in low stakes games. I found this to be the case with 1-4-8-8.
I wish that I had better advice here, because I can well understand the problem with blackjack, especially after a 10-YEAR playing career. That is quite a long time and this is to be commended.
Perhaps you may want to consider another venture with the capital you have [hopefully] built up from blackjack, such as real estate, stock market etc.?! Or - perhaps you could use your commendable "people skills" [10 years keeping the pit bosses off your game while deriving more than occasional recreational income from BJ is *quite impressive*] in a job such as sales, teaching consulting or ?!?
I am not trying to be discouraging about poker but rather give the impressions of a fellow card counter about the differences between the games.
I have been reading with interest the posts about making the transition from blackjack to hold-em.
To me, this is a fascinating subject. I have known expert bridge players that couldn't tell you that a flush beat a straight. Professional backgammon players that play every hand. Professional horse players that stay to the river in every big pot because they couldn't resist the price.
I on the other hand tried unsucessfully to make the transition from hold-em to horse racing, sports betting, and backgammon!
As for blackjack, I don't really have the temperment for the game. In other words I don't really like it.
One suggestion. If you were playing blackjack professionally, I would suggest you step right into a 10-20 game. The 10-20 hold-em games at the Mirage for example are very tight and I think you will find a world of difference between those and say the low stakes holdem games.
People actually fold. But be forwarned--the good players aren't going to pay you off. If you find that they ARE paying you (they are probably beating you) then you are most likely playing too loose.
Give this a shot. Just sit back relax and wait for a few good hands. Poker is a game of "feel"...and believe me it takes a long, long time to get a--"feel"--for the game.
I hate to quibble with this advice because I think there are a lot of good ideas that are discussed by askmrmoney. My only quibble is that in my opinion, generally speaking, if you can't beat a $5-10 Hold'em game on a consistent basis it would be wrong to step up to $10-20. I will say that a $10-20 game can sometimes be better to play than a $5-10 game. Your style of play may be better suited for the $10-20 game as I think that this was askmrmoney's point. The important things would be your bankroll, your comfort level with the limits that you are playing at, the characteristics of the game, and your skill relative to your opponents.
These are good points.
My main consideration here was the fact that the original poster had played blackjack "professionally," which to my way of thinking meant that he was playing for more than "nickels and dimes." Therefore, I felt that he might be comfortable playing for the higher stakes even though he was inexperienced.(in fact, I was going to suggest 15-30 or 20-40) The biggest reason being that the higher stakes would equate more with his past blackjack playing experiences as far as wins and lossses were concerned. (by the way when I play the horses I don't bet $5 or $10 to win. I normally bet an amount in close approximation to what I would lose if I were playing a hand of poker at the limits in which I am currently playing)
I have a tendency to play all over the map as far as limits and games are concerned. Sometimes when I sit down in a game, say 10-20 for example, I will feel uncomfortable with the stakes and start playing too loosely--so I step up to 20-40--if I still don't seem to be playing with much "interest" I will start looking for a 40-80 game. Often times this is just what the Dr. ordered and I will start playing very seriously right off the bat--my best game--fully focused. Another way of putting it is that the stakes were too small (on this day, at this particular point in time) to hold my interest and therefore allow me to play my best game by exerting the most discipline.
Now, how does this apply to the question at hand. If I were to take up say, gin rummy, never having played before, my only experience being some books I've read and several hours of watching some good players play--I feel that my first foray into the battle should be for some stakes on which I will focus my full attention (and have it hurt a little if I lose) rather than playing for lower stakes where I might, not only pick up bad habits (by playing against weaker competition) but, not show the proper amount of "discipline" and play according to my capabilities.
This has been my personal experience. Different strokes for different folks. I would have to say though that playing for stakes smaller than I am accustomed to even in learning situations has been more detrimental to my game than beneficial. I have played smaller when learning, but even if I am unsuccessful I step up very quickly once I get a little "hang" of the game. Then, if after repeated failures at a limit I am comfortable with (and this may take some jumping around) I find myself at a loss for my lack of success, I will reevaluate my decision to have played this game in the first place.
Something you may not be considering is that the strategies put forth in the books your studying are intended for $15-30 limits and up. There are some fundamental differences in those games and the $2-4, $3-6 and $5-10 games, mostly to do with the fact that it's much tougher to win without the best hand. For instance, in the bigger games a raise gets a lot more respect (usually) and so you can expect to win an occasional small pot with, say, AK without ever being forced to show it down. In the smaller games either bets may be too small to run anyone off or they are unaware of anything but their own two cards. Either way, if you've raised before the flop they'll see you at the river. So the value of that AK is reduced by just that much.
Also, I recall one writer who spoke of the collective players becoming a sort of ad hoc posse to run you into the ground. AA is a great hand against one opponent, but loses its charm quickly as you add players drawing against it, something that happens all the time in the lower limit games.
Are you using different strokes for different folks?
Here's an example:
You call in a multiway pot on the button with AH 9H.
The BB, who is a little old lady, ( LOL ) also calls.
Flop is: 8S 6H 5H
You got to love it. Two over cards, Four Flush, Gut Shot.
LOL bets, all fold ( no fools ) and you send in the free card play.
LOL calls.
Turn is 8H giving you Ace high Flush.
LOL bets.
Guessed her hand yet?
Hint: She has a pocket pair and you're going to need the 7H on the River to win.
You're best play is to Fold.
OK.
Now let's keep the same situation, with the same betting, only this time the BB is a young man, who just won the last hand, and comes from an ethnic background where Fate and Luck mean a great deal.
When he bets on the turn his likely hand is something like
AS 3C going for a double gut shot.
You're best play is to Raise.
You ask, why couldn't the young man been dealt a pair of eights as easily as the LOL.
He could.
But the betting would have been completely different.
So, for the next few months, forget all the fancy plays and ask yourself:
Am I going to win this hand against this opponent?
Reference your last question: It would be realistic for you to try Stud, however, not for any particular shortcoming of yours.
I now exactly how you feel. I play blackjack at an expert level in the casino and I have made considerable money from playing the game. However, I am only 6 years old playing poker. Today I am beating the game of poker. However, during the first 4 years I had lots of trouble.
During the first 4 years of playing poker I could beat the average player at the game. When I went to Las Vegas, however, I got slaughtered. I learned quickly that my skills were not enough to beat tough competition. Luckily, I've had a good poker expert friend to talk things out with and my advice to you is to find someone who you consider an expert or at least very good at the game. Talk to him and discuss situations about the game. I have found that just discussing the game with "anyone" can help you immensely.
Poker is a game you need to think about a lot. Yes, you need to read and study the good books but you need to do a lot of thinking about the game. When you are out of a pot sit back and try to analyze it.
Another important aspect of the game is you need to learn who your opponent is. If you can beat your average home poker friends but can't beat the locals in Las Vegas you need to figure out why. The books by Malmuth, Sklansky, Zee, etc suggest a tight and aggressive approach. Of course, I agree. You need to adjust your game constantly. You need to be very careful of "new" games where you don't know the players. You need to "get out" of games that are too tough.
Thus, poker and blackjack are similar. Game selection is very important in both games. A large bet spread in blackjack is similar to being aggressive in poker and raising the max to thin the field of players.
Hope that helps. It's already helped me!
Nice post!
Tom Haley
Thanks Michael! I am now starting to know good players because of casino personnel playing poker are recognizing me as a BJ player. Because of these players awareness that I gamble professionally I'm now starting to get some excellent feedback about my play. The general feedback is that I'm not that far off from winning play. That I need to raise and reraise more as well as steal more. Although I'm doing better utilizing position I'm still told that I am playing too tight. What I find incredibly amazing is how well I've been analyzed and the high degree of accuracy this analysis has been. Unfortunately I currently have a serious problem with bankroll because of a seperation with my wife and her having control of all my money because I've been underground for so many years. Apparantly I'm going to have to start over again with getting a job a grinding back a bankroll. Although I have wiped myself out three times in the past I have managed erverything well for the past 15 years as well as having all winning years. Because of the lower bankroll requirements Poker seems more appealing however I am more scared of it then blackjack because I know that this game is mine.
There seems to be alot of discussion on how the different starting hands rank. Would some of the readers answer with their thoughts on this question. 1. Out of 100%, what is the importance of the 2 cards you start with in holdem. 2. Next, what is the % impotance of the play of the hand throughout the betting. 3. Finally, what is the % importance of reading the other players. I am assuming the player plays well and is playing proper starting hands for the game being played. Discount all other variables such as seat selection,position,tempo of the game,etc.
Reading other players is the most important.
100% important
Keeping other players from reading you is important.
90% important.
Strategically playing your hand correctly is very important.
100% important.
The two cards you start with are less important although it is important to get involved in the correct situations.
A,A; K,K; Q,Q; are profitable for anybody. 7,2o could be potentially be profitable for someone who reads hands very well, keeps other players from reading his hand, and statically plays his hand correctly.
Therefore I would assign hand selection as 80% important as I don’t think you want to get involved with junk hands in very many games. Also you don’t want to be calling raises with hands that tend to make second best against tighter type players. Although you may want to consider re-raises as part of your strategic play. You want to 1. Play the correct hands according to your position for the game you are in. 2. You want to try and steal correctly, more of a strategic decision.
To make myself clear, I don’t think that ranking starting hands is very important. I am actually surprised that it gets as much attention as it does. I have posted about strategy before the flop in terms of hand groupings. I probably worded my posts poorly as it was not my intent to discuss groupings per se. My questions really pertained to how to vary your play before the flop to keep from being read and still playing profitably. So really my questions pertained to keeping other players from reading you and strategic play of the hand.
If I could be perfect in one area I would certainly choose reading hands without question.
1. Even as you vary your before the flop stragy, basic rules of starting hands should be obsereved. Ranking starting hands should continue to receive a great deal of attention because this part of your game wil save you more bets and give you greater chance of raking the pot. In conclusion, if you make enough misjugements in this part of your game the odds are greater for you to have a losing session.
Harry,
You are correct as starting hands are the foundation for setting up your play of the hand. If you have the personal discipline to learn and follow the basic starting hand requirements and are able to incorporate them into a good overall playing strategy, you should do rather well. Good Luck.
Since pocket aces is the number one hand to start out with and get cracked all but 30% of the time one would have to put a priority over bets and not missing them. And ultimately the reading of other players, which I lack skill in, will determine your skill level and whether you can beat the game and by how much.
If you could read other players perfectly, starting hand selection would be nearly irrelevant (in no-limit, I'd venture to say that it would be completely irrelevant). As you noted, this is the leak in your game and it *is* the worst leak possible. Unlike blackjack, there is no book substitute or shortcut for experience playing.
As an aside, I might note that highly intellectual people are often more introspective and tend to relate less to others; that is, they tend to live inside their minds instead of relating to the world around them. Yet poker is a creative endeavor as well as an intellectual.
Point! Although originally educated and trained in the sciences I recognized this introspection and was re-educated in the social sciences. It is important to understand and relate to the common sense of the group you are with, and is probably the most important dynamic in life. Although recognized, it is yet a problem. Thanks!
I'll assume a reasonably normal game (10/20 - 15/30): a couple rocks, a couple fish, a mindless aggressive, a couple think-they-are-but-aren't, a couple solids worse than you, and one player who plays better than you.
I ROUGHLY ESTIMATE that a typical winning player's profit is derived in %ages from the following catagories (meaning if you play just like them in a catagory then you lose that much profit):
20% - "Hand Selection" is obviously before the flop, but also the choice of whether to play a hand on the flop. Too many hands and you're dead. Failing to adjust and your dead (either playing the big trouble hands against a bunch of callers, failing to play the marginal draws (6-4s) against a bunch of callers). Calling KQ against the rock raise, or folding KQ against the aggressive's late raise are very expense mistakes that other's make. This could be higher but I'll assume you will mindless toss all the trash regardless.
30% - "Play of the hand"; strategically sound. This assumes you do NOT adjust your play based on the player, but rather how well you know and apply plays "by the book". Solid play usually does NOT make up for shit selection: good situations have more choices for the sound player to take advantage of than bad situations, which usually only have two choices.
15% - "Profiling and Catagorizing" is predicting in advance how a player is likely to play and get a solid indication of what kinds of hands she is likely to have in the many situations. And of course adjusting your book strategy for optimal play against THIS player.
15% - "Reading Hands" is determining which of the profiled predicted hands THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW, often through tells, but also by predicting their particular mood right now (ever just KNOW this guy is going to raise next hand?). And of course taking advantage of THIS opportunity. This doesn't come up often but it is VERY profitable when it does.
15% - "Emotional Control" and mental alertness. Its a big deal to those of us down here. The authors appear to take this one for granted, no doubt because it comes so effortless to them. But imagine how your game would suffer if you got "hot" or continued to think about the argument with your "mate" or that asshole on the freeway on the way over to the casino.
5% - "Disquising your hand" is playing different hands the same and similar hands differently. This isn't so useful against the typical players, since they either don't know better, or are suspicious enough anyway. This is most useful against the want-to-be's, since they just LOVE to form an opinion and go way out on a limb to prove their prowess. The easier the game the more you should go out of your way to GIVE AWAY YOUR HAND. I advise beginning 1-4 stud friends to play in such a way that I can figure out what they have by watching.
In a real tough game, I'd adjust:
LOWER:
Profiling goes way down, since you all have a pretty good idea of the other toughs anyway.
Reading Hands also goes way down, since they are in emotional and tell control.
HIGHER:
Disguising your hand increases a lot, since they can take real advantage over predictable opponents. This, however, is also tied to Play of the hand.
Hand Selection, since key head's-up matches make a big difference.
Emotional Control. Tilt for a moment and they are all over you.
Please don't roast me; its just a rough guess. Or roast me, and I'll roast back. :)
- Louie
Boy, didn't Mr. Malmuth do this in Card Player many years back?... Several more catagories such as "semi-bluffing"...
Here is my answer,
Your choice of starting hands make you 20% of your profit. Your play of the hand all the way thru yields 50% of your profit. Your good reading of the players gives you your last 30%.
You may need to reread my post question to understand, but I think this about the breakdown of a good players profit on a particular hand. Any other opinions?
***
Your choice of starting hands make you 20% of your profit. Your play of the hand all the way thru yields 50% of your profit. Your good reading of the players gives you your last 30%.
You may need to reread my post question to understand...
***
I did reread your post, but I still don't understand.
Are you saying that a 20/40 hold'em player at the Mirage could see the flop with every hand he is dealt, but if he plays perfectly from then on, he could make $32 per hour (80% of $40)?
How about if he chooses his hands perfectly before the flop, and reads people like a champ, but plays horribly from the flop to the end. Could he make $20/hr?
I think Ray means this: A break even player plays pretty well. If he becomes an expert at starting hands only , he will now win about $8 an hour. Later play if done expertly, as compared to merely good adds $20. Reading hands expertly adds $12. (I basically agree with these estimates by the way.) The point is that these expert skills contribute this much to your profit one by one only if you assume your other skills are at least quite a bit above average.
The original post discounted ideas like position, table image and in particular game structure. I would like to ask what difference is made (if any) as you go up the limits, and also between limit, pot limit and no limit.to the significance of the 3 factors mentioned, hand selection, play after the flop and reading opponents
Kieran,
As you go up in limits the play of the hand goes down in value as the better players also play the hands well and make less mistakes to take advantage of during the play. The reading of the other players goes up especially at pot and no-limit almost to the point where it is hard to lose against inferior players. Good Luck.
How does the type of game effect these percentages? For example in a game were virtually every pot goes 4 or 5 bets before the flop, with people straddling, raising blind, etc. (the 10-20 I played in at the mirage this past monday for instance) I would think that preflop hand selection goes way up in importance. Conversly in a game where most of the players are making good preflop decisions postflop play should increase in value.
Comments?
True.
***
I think Ray means this: A break even player plays pretty well. If he becomes an expert at starting hands only , he will now win about $8 an hour. Later play if done expertly, as compared to merely good adds $20. Reading hands expertly adds $12. (I basically agree with these estimates by the way.)
***
This statement has no substance--it is a circular definition. It says that a break-even player who has a certain (but unspecified) skill level of hand selection, a certain (but unspecified) skill level of later play, and a certain (but unspecified) skill level of reading hands will have the marginal profit improvement distribution of 20%/50%/30%. Conversely, assuming a person has a marginal profit improvement of 20%/50%/30% then that determines his skill levels for the various categories.
Obviously, if you consider a "natural" poker player who is superb at later play and reading hands, but plays so many hands early that he only breaks even, then his distribution of marginal profits is not going to be anywhere near what Zee states (such a player would get maybe 95% of his marginal profit by improving hand selection).
I can only assume that since Zee and Sklansky seem to have a certain type of player in mind that this type of player must be common in the break-even players Zee and Sklansky see. However, this doesn't help me determine the characteristics of such a player. Perhaps some guidelines could be given that roughly describe the type of player Zee and Sklansky have in mind?
Aren't you making heavy weather of this?
Suppose someone is breaking even
and he doesn't know why or how.
Now a Genie comes along and let's him pick an area of
the game he could become
an expert at.
Sklansky and Zee vote for choosing playing the hand well all the way through.
I also struggled with the idea of assigning x% to starting hands, x% to reading players, etc. Was it Puggy Pearson who said that he'd made more money off a pair of deuces than most people would make off of full-house aces?
What would be more palatable is the idea that a 20% improvement could come to your game by improving your starting hand requirements. Consider, after all, the old concept that, in the long run, he who starts with the best hands will finish with the best hands. While you will never find me advocating tight play, I agree that trash has fewer outs.
To rephrase: If a player is good but not great at these three facets and then proceeds to BECOME great at all of them, about 20% of his newfound profits can probably be attributed to starting hand expertise, 50% to later play expertise and 30% to reading hand expertise. These figures by the way, vary with the kind of game it is. Curiously, knowing whether and how to play before the flop is more important in the very easy AND the very tough games. This is because many high stakes pros play so well from the flop on that they mistakingly think they can get away with playing hands they shouldn't. Against them your stariting hands decisions account for almost 100% of your profits.
How about a player that is "weak-tight" ?
Yes, it works fine.
I have been invited to a game played locally similar to hold'em except there is no flop as such ie. each player gets 2 cards, then a round of betting, then the first of 5 community cards is dealt face up, then another round of betting, thne the 2nd community card, more betting, etc. until the fifth community card is dealt.
The game is played no-limit, with each player betting a $15 ante at the beginning. Each subsequent round also costs $15 (before raises).
Naturally before going I would like to be prepared. I possess and have read both 'Hold'em Poker' and 'Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players' by Sklansky / Malmouth (not to mention 'Gambling for a Living' !!).
I presume the hand rankings for this game remain unchanged. What then would be the major differences in strategy between this game and Texas Hold'em ?
Thanks in advance.
Etienne wrote: <The game is played no-limit, with each player betting a $15 ante at the beginning. Each subsequent round also costs $15 (before raises).
I presume the hand rankings for this game remain unchanged. What then would be the major differences in strategy between this game and Texas Hold'em ?>>
I've never played this game (I will call it "6-bet-HE"), so everything I say is based only upon guesswork, but I am sure that this game is almost nothing like HE in the U.S. Many hands in HE are played because you will either make a hand on the flop, or pick up a high percentage draw. For example, if enough players call in front of you, then you will always call with any pair (unless the pair is big enough that you choose to raise). In fact, in limit HE, you will often call a raise with any pair if you are sure that there will be enough people also contributing to the pot. The reason for this is that about 12% of the time you will flop 3-of-a-kind, which is very likely to win. However, in 6-bet-HE, you must pay 3 rounds of bets to reach this 12% chance. Your chance of making trips is only about 4% on each card. This means it is much too expensive to draw to small pairs. In the same way, it is too expensive to draw to hands like small suited connectors, as you will have to pay so many bets on so many rounds before you even know if you have a draw, let alone before you make your draw.
I would say that 6-bet-HE greatly increases the strength of medium pair hands, and makes big pairs (AA and KK) tremedoushly powerful, much more so tha in HE. Likewise, suited connectors go down in value, and hands like AK should go up, as most often no one will have any pair on the first 2-4 cards. Even if they do have something like 44 in their hand, it will be difficult for them to call your bets round after round as more and more overcards hit the board.
Any game played no-limit is very dangerous. I would say that you should be VERY careful in this game, and consider not playing it at all. It is difficult for anyone to win in an unfamiliar game, and the no-limit betting just adds to this.
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
This is nearly the equivalent of playing no-limit 7-stud. At the risk of stating the obvious, here are a few general thoughts. As noted by Greg, big pocket pairs go up tremendously in value. Medium pocket pairs are the most treacherous hands to play. Draws are nearly worthless unless you can limp to 4th street -- in which case you might have the opportunity to punish the pairs. If you could get to 4th street cheaply and hit a 4-flush or 4-straight with overcards, you would be approximately a 3-2 favorite over the medium pocket pairs and approximately even money with the big pairs. In the same manner, small pairs would have no value, unless you get to hit the trips by limping.
My question has to do with record keeping. I have been keeping what I would guess are just the basics on my computer spreadsheet. That is, 1.) The amount of the win or loss, 2.) A win and loss section to keep track of wining sessions vs. loosing sessions, 3.) A year-to-date running total, and 4.) Hourly rate. Is that all that is necessary or is there more information that I could input and therefore, increase the scope of beneficial analyst?
Some additional factors that have come to mind, but I am not sure if they are relevant.
1.) We have three Riverboats in my area that have Poker rooms. Boat A is a largely a blue collar type of place. It is where I have played most of my casino type poker over the last three years and most of the players know me and my aggressive style. The down side is that they will stay with me, simply because its me, often when I try to push a marginal hand. The up side is that because I have greatly improved my poker education and discipline they tend to stay with me when they shouldn’t because many of them want to keep me honest. The results are that I still tend to win there but not as much as I do at boat B and boat C. Boats B and C have hotels and therefore, more out of town players. Boats B and C clientele are by no means identical but are notably different from boat A. So a question that comes to mind is: does it serve any beneficial analytical purpose to keep records that put location into the equation? Right now, off the top of my head, I figure I do best at boat C, then A, and then B. But I have no solid data to support that. Is that important to know or not. Obviously I have to play at all three because I can never be guaranteed a game at any given casino, like those who live in Las Vegas can.
2.) Is there any need to break things down into percentages?
Any other tips would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Paul
I'd say if you ask the question, in this case you've already answered it. Track the boats. What the heck, track the time of day and day of the week too. If you know the playing habits of the weakest players, you can try to arrange your playing sessions around them. It's one way to "pick the best game" when there is usually only one table runnning at the game/limit you want to play.
Rich
What records should you keep?
You seem to be keeping the minimum; sessions wins, losses, and hours; and you total them up regularly and determine hourly rate; perhaps each month.
Good.
But why are you asking what other records should be kept when it is clear to YOU that you want to know where your biggest profits come; boat A, B, or C. Since this is important to YOU than clearly you should be keeping track.
And it SHOULD be important to you, so do so.
It should also be important to know in which game you are doing the best; 5/10 or 10/20 etc.
Be advised that there is enormous short term luck and you need many many hours before you can decide, say, to avoid boat B completely. Generally play in the games that you appear to be doing well in, but be sure to put some hours into the other reasonable games as well.
++++++++++
You may want to keep track of the maximum and minimums you had in a session; in case you want to fool yourself with some silly "money management" scheme.
You may also want to keep track of the time of day.
You may also want to note how much money you had when you first started considering leaving the game. This can be VERY usefull if you routinely notice losses after you start considering leaving. Then you SHOULD leave.
You may want to catagorize games by some sort of "wild" or "passive" feature, so you can determine how well you do in certain types of games.
Keep track of anything that is important to you.
- Louie
Here's an idea I've thought about for several years and I'd like to hear what others think.
Why couldn't the sponsors of the World Series of Poker embed the cards at the final table with mini-sensors so that the world can watch the play of cards. This would enhance the television viewing tremendously and bring out the full drama of high stakes play.
How I would envision this working is that the cards would appear normal front and back and could only be read by infrared sensors mounted at strategic spots on the table. The signals would be encoded and routed to a secured room some distance from the actual playing arena where they would be decoded. The entire feed could be on a very short time delay, i.e., 5 minutes. Each hand would be complete before the feed of that hand was released.
The technology is available to do as I envision and the entire project could be overseen by a respectable auditing firm. Combining the cards played with analysis, color commentary and video feed of the table would make the game very interesting.
I mentioned this to another player and his comment was that something similar had been proposed but the "big-time players" wouldn't accept it. My thought there is to ask what makes them "big-time players"? Winning the big tournaments -- yet if they don't play, there will be 10 other people willing to take their place.
In any event, if poker is ever going to get anywhere near the exposure or funding of other competitive events, something similar will have to be put in place. To most observers, watching a poker game is only slightly more exciting than watching paint dry. Even synchronized swimming has more of an audience.
Comments?
I would like to see this happen and I think that other ways of accomplishing the same ends have been proposed. From what I understand the participants are against such an idea because they don't want to reveal their strategies to the opponents who might be watching.
I do agree that WSOP needs some edge to bring new audiences and sponsors to the game, but I just can't believe this is the way. IMHO, this would be tantamount to the top finals players writing a diary of their exact style and giving it away. Can you imagine the incredible edge poker players would have if they knew exactly what someone folded with,raised, semi-bluffed,etc? Maybe I'm not understanding your proposal correctly, I know you said a delayed secure feed, but this just doesn't seem feasible.
Well, I didn't actually mean that the players in the WSOP would have the tv signal available to them during the tournament -- perhaps a local blackout or local tape-delay (that's what is done here in Indianapolis for the Indy 500 and seems to work well since they sell out (1/4 - 1/2 million seats) every year).
But, for the sake of discussion, I'll assume you mean that the players would view the video later and from that, gain some insight into how their opponents play (for use in later competitions). Good point, although it's one that I've always thought was a bit overrated -- does anyone believe that most of the top players do not play very much the same game? At the highest levels, the players play the players much more than they play the cards. Heck, even at the final table of low-limit tournaments, when the blinds and antes are high relative to the total number of chips on the table, finalists have no equity in any hand -- the better ones are simply playing their position vis-a-vis the other players. So, point is, despite all of their egotism about how they occupy rarified air, I don't think the WSOP final table players are going to really be giving away anything that the better players don't already know.
My idea springs from the thought that we have to market the game more aggressively so that both the game and the players prosper -- it's ironic and somewhat sickening to see some of the so-called "competitions" that are propagated in the name of "entertainment" these days. Contrast that to the exposure that poker (doesn't) get. But the potential is there -- the movie "Maverick" sold over $100 million in tickets. I'd love to see the public's response to the real thing with $1 million on the line. If television bites into the game, that $1 million could easily become $5 million....
I don't understand. Why does poker need sponsorship anyway. Why do people think this is so important. The WSOP has grown every year since it's inception, and if this isn't success I don't know what is. Poker is a private affair. Individuals put up their "own" money to play in tournaments or otherwise. Whose business is it to see "how they play". Poker is not a spectator sport. I for one do not want anybody getting a line on my game. Isn't poker tough enough as it is? The game dosen't need sponsorship, and in my humble opinion will never have any. That is just fine with me. Making it interesting for television is a moot point. Poker players don't play for television. They play to make money. Also those who say that poker needs sponsership, and must have it in order to survive are simply wrong. The game dosen't lend itself to this...and I dont believe it ever will.
Here is another way to look at it. Poker players as a group are a sorrowful lot. At any given time in any game most of the people at the table are losing. They are somber, morose and often times downright unpleasant, and this makes for horrible television. The only poker games that I like to watch are the very high stakes games and they don't want you anywhere near them....and I don't blame them...why should they...I don't like people hovering over me either. Why? The answer is simple...it's nobody's business.
Yes the movie Maverick did very well. Yet did you notice how badly done they did most of the poker scenes? Embarrassing. Anyone who has ever played poker had to cringe at the ridiculousness of it all. When will Hollywood ever get it right.(besides, it did well because the stars were Mel Gibson, James Garner and Jodi Foster...three perennial favorites,not because it had anything to do with poker)
I just wish people would get off the sponsorship kick once and for all....It is not going to happen...and should not happen...and that is the truth.
That's an interesting opinion, with some very valid points. But the reasoning is only partially correct.
The main reason the WSOP *has* done so well is because of its worldwide reknown. While poker may be intrinsically private in a cash game, once a player enters a public arena, in a public tournament, it ceases to become a totally "private affair." You, by entering a collaborative effort, have surrendered a small portion of your "private game" for the good of the event itself. Which is precisely my point -- an event of that magnitude should be given the greatest viewership imaginable.
I agree (as does every poker player who has ever seen the Maverick movie) that the poker was terribly contrived. So how else will the world understand the subtlety and skill of the game if they don't see a Huck Seed or Jack Strauss win a huge pot with the two worst cards in the deck?
Contrary to your "truth," the sponsorship *will* happen; indeed, I've read that even the organizers expect some sort of event sponsorship within the next few years -- with or without the viewing enhancements I've suggested. True, I'd be at least a little surprised if very many players get individually sponsored.
But I digress. My idea was first and foremost to enhance the already existing television coverage -- in order to move it from ESPN at 2 a.m. to a more widely-viewed audience. From that, the WSOP prizes will swell; and *that* is the bottom line.
Does anybody know what the number one televised sport is in England?? SNOOKER!! Yes Snooker! I watched it on cable one day. It was fascinating! I was completely absorbed. Professional snooker players can make a million dolars a year!
Sorry I do not want a television camera breathing down my neck when I am playing poker. (and I think the vast majority of players would agree with me) People watch what is interesting. A good movie gets good word of mouth. You can not make something interesting when it is not. Poker is boring to play...it is sleep inducing to watch. I fail to see how revealing opponents hole cards (assuming you can get players to agree to this)will make it interesting without extensive editing. (which it gets now anyway) People that are interested in poker will watch it, as will a few that aren't. For the most part the masses will stay away. By the way: Do you know why sports reports are at the end of local television newscasts? It is because viewership drops off precipitously. The great majority of people simply aren't interested.
I am curious. Who would sponsor these events and why. What possible gains would they receive from watching Phil Helmuth tell his opponent who drew out on him that he is a total idiot that can't even spell poker. Do you really think they would show John Bonetti telling the dealer she is a worthless $%^@..and he will never play in a game she deals in for as long as he lives? How about Johnny Chan throwing the cards right in the dealers face. Are these the heroes little Bobby is going to watch on Saturday morning and tell his daddy he wants to be when he grows up? In it's basic element it is a classless game. The stakes are great and emotions run very high. The language is very coarse. And, as I stated previously many of the players are so downright unpleasant as to make the game completely unenjoyable. (it only takes a few) The truly pleasurable people in the game are the once in a while players, the recreational players and the semi-pros...Many of the professionals are struggling so hard to make a buck that they don't care what people think of them...and act accordingly. Yet you must have them or the games wouldn't even exist for the recreational players to play in. Pros simply make the system work. (especially at the higher stakes) But if you think sponsorship would change their behavior... I have news for you....NOT!
Finally, the last thing I want to see is poker players wearing hats that say Macdonalds, shirts that say Kem Cards and jackets with STP stickers all over them. Pleas give me a break!
Well, I had to laugh at your account of many professional poker players (true as it is), so I imagine middle America might also laugh at watching it.
True there are dozens of basketball, football, baseball games each week, and unless you have a bet working or your favorite team playing, who really cares (I won't even discuss the racial aspects of all that). But, there's only one Masters, one U.S. Open, one Indianapolis 500, one World Series -- and one World Series of Poker.
I believe you are correct in your assumptions about the player's antics, but wrong about the effects. This same argument was proposed about the "redneck" southern stockcar drivers -- and once television was on the scene, they quit punching each other out on the track (well, most of 'em ...) in order to get a bigger piece of the pie.
Quite often, the "best" player doesn't win a particular event because he doesn't have the temperment or social skills to cooperate enough to remain in the arena (i.e., 20 minute penalties at the WSOP). Does anyone remember Bobby Fischer? A total boor amongst others, but to even the most dispassionate observer, the greatest chess player in history -- yet he couldn't accept the conditions of most matches and thus only won one championship.
The cameras are already "breathing down the player's neck" at the WSOP. My proposed system would allow that to be pulled back since the cards would be electronically linked to the television booth.
I'd curious as to what the authors on this forum think about 1.) the embedding concept, and 2.) corporate sponsorship of the *event*.
I'm not overly bothered about sponsorship...although European players seem to be better organised as a body (check out the EPPA) and are gaining some benefits for tourney players. The only reason I've been prompted to respond is a previous poster's comments on snooker being the most popular televised sport in England. This isn't true, and hasn't been so for many years now, but there are interesting parallels with Poker. Snooker WAS very popular, which was strange because 1. It's reasonably complex. 2. It's very
It's very what Dave??!!!
I stand corrected. The last time I watched snooker on television WAS many years ago. LOL. Times change I guess. When I saw it back then it was the no. 1 televised sport. Which I found pretty amazing. So tell me, what is the most popular now....cricket! LOL
For some reason, my message has been truncated...don't know why! :-( Point 2. was that snooker is very boring to watch. Now try as I might, I just cannot see how they can take out the intrinsic boredom factor out of poker, even with all the cards shown, many, many pots will just be raise, no-one calls or other routine action. For this reason I think that if any sponsorship or TV popularity is gained, it will be short-lived, just as snooker's popularity eventually waned. By the way, the mostpopular televised sport is probably what we call football and you call soccer!
Dave D
Earl Not only do I agree with 99% of what you have proposed but I must also commend you on your patience and persistance in dealing with some of the downright silly replies you are getting.
It has always amazed me over the years how many of poker's "superstars" have done so much to hurt the image of the very game that they depend upon to make their living....and it is more annoying to listen to others defending this behaviour and condoning it.
Your point is right on the money when you said that if it became a condition of competition in the WSOP that such a system of televising hole cards so that spectators could follow the strategy of the "masters"....how many of them would no longer enter tournaments...especially if the result of this was a large amount of sponsor provided money added to the prize pool.....they would just have to "grin and bear it" if they wanted to continue to ride the "gravy train". I would be very surprised if some of the more enlightened "movers and shakers" on the Poker Tournament scene ...people like Mike Sexton, Tom McEvoy and Jack McCleland didn't agree with your proposals as well.
Keep up the good work.
If you play much the same opponents every day, how do you stop good card reading from folding in on itself?
Scenario: $10-$20 hold`em, full game, a few tough players, a few bad players, everyone else in between. From the very first hand, I start getting great cards--A-K, K-Qs, Q-Q, A-A, you get the idea. This continues all night long. Result: I see many more flops than I ordinarily would, and more turns also. Occasionally, my hands hold up, but many times they get cracked.
Over an 8-hour period, I win FIFTY pots, more than I have ever won in any single session (usually I'm good for 15-20 pots during that time). Granted, there were some small pots I won on the flop, and more than a few steals, but despite winning 50 pots, I lose $300 for the night, because I saw many more than 50 flops. I went to the river a lot of times, only to end up second best. I might add at this point that the players who beat me were not loose cannons running me down on the river with miracle draws, but good players with better hands (e.g., I have K-Q, flop is K-Q-8, they hold 8-8). Other times, they make straights and flushes to beat me.
My question is, is this a common occurrence?--getting great cards and losing a bundle because I have to stay to see so many flops? Or is there something fundamentally wrong with my game?--I mean, if I get great cards consistently, shouldn't I be taking down the money?
Any advice would be appreciated by this very confused player.
Sounds like you are losing to much with your fair hands. You may be missing the opportunity to save one or two bets when it is obvious that your are beaten. For instance if on the river a player bets into a multiway pot or if he raises you or someone else it is rarely right to call with just top pair.
From my experience, which is thousands of hours at the Hold-em table, this is not a common occurrence. Answering your question is not that simple and straight forward though. I have in 1 1/2 hours flopped 13 sets with pocket Jacks or higher, and won only 2 pots (non of them were set over set)! There are a lot of reasons why you ended up $300 stuck and not a $1500+ winner. Without seeing you play it is hard to tell you why you ended up stuck. But the situation has happened to me more than once and I can give you some tips and shed some light on what is went on.
Your table image is bad at this point. Players will notice how you are running and will try to take advantage of it. Go into a protect & build your chips mode. Avoid burning your chips, if you don't flop it or a strong draw, muck it. I have never won 50 pots in a 8-10 hour period and lost. If I won 50 pots in a 8-10 hour period in a normal game, with the type of players you mentioned, I usually am a $2000-$3000 winner in a $10-$20 game. If you had a huge fluctuation in your stack during that session, it was probably your play. I am not criticizing, just giving you an honest opinion. I think that it is very hard to answer a question like the one you posed without seeing the player play. >>GOOD LUCK!
I've been wondering which hands are good to play if the pot has been riased and I am in Middle to Late position. Concidering that I feel the Raiser isn't trying to Bluff. From reading "Hold'em for the Advanced Player" I know that I need "a very good hand", but I'm unsure what that would be in middle to late position. Groups 1-2 only, or could I add 3-4 in looser games? In Late position I know that if there have been Callers I should play suited connectors and pairs from as low as Group 4. Can I do the same in Middle position? Right now my Bankrole will only support 2-4, 3-6 games so I guess I would say most of the games I'll be playing are loose. Thanks, TBK
I would follow the recommedations made in Hold'em for Advanced Players and Hold'em Poker. You generally play tighter against a raise when you are in middle position than when you are in late position. Try to observe carefully the types of hands players are raising with and make the appropriate adjustments if players are raising with relatively weak hands.
Assuming the raiser certainly has a solid or premium pair-kind-of-hand:
Your pair-kind-of-hand should be BETTER than her minimum raising requirements; and it really doesn't matter much how many others are in; unless its a lot. Do NOT be calling raises with trouble as KJ or AT. Big card heads-up-matches are almost always a big favorite for one player (AK vrs KQ) or even (AQ vrs JJ). You MUST avoid the big underdog situations to win.
BUT WAIT!!! Synapse players who call raises also are very selective, so you should notice the profile of the CALLERs. AQ should be an easy fold against a tight early raiser and two tight callers.
Your estimate of their minimum requirements is a function of the position they raised. Still have no idea about this player? Then play a hand YOU would have raised with in that position, figuring that you are much more selective than an unknown player in early and middle positions. Add a seat in worse position for every sensible caller, and TWO seats for every rock who called the raise (you have already noticed who the rocks are, haven't you?). Notice with these guidlines you will rarely be calling a raise with less than a premium hand. The marginal hands you fold might be a little profitable, but they can also be very expensive in the hands of new players: AJ is a vastly superior hand when YOU raise then when someone ELSE raises.
BUT WAIT!! There are also draw-kind-of-hands, being of course suited and pairs (unsuited connectors 98 are worthless for two bets). Calling a raise with these hands (even ATs) is more a function of how many other's are or will be in. The more players in the more of these you can play. The "raise" becomes noise. What the heck, lets say if there is a raise you need either better position by two seats or two more callers, in order to play the same hand if there was no raise (this can't be far wrong ... can it?).
Rehearse when someone raises and you have nothing. What is the minimum hand you would have called? ReRaised?
- Louie
Here is one more area that I'm having problems with. If I hold AKs, Raise, and am left with only two callers. Now the Flop comes but totaly misses me. If I'm the first player to Bet, should I bet or should I check and fold. Consider that maybe a lone J or Q flopped. I think I should check and fold if I feel the only way I could win is having an A or K come in the next two cards. Thanks again, TBK
There has been a discussion on this situation previously in this forum. You may want to look at the archives and find the thread titled, This Situation Stinks. I believe it was posted in the July - August time frame.
I am only able to play about once per week, and I enjoy tournaments. Thus, I try to play in them every time I can, and I usually am playing in the medium buy-in events (i.e., $50-300). Because I can only play in a few of these events per year (about 35), and because I have only been playing seriously and keeping records for 2 years, it is really not possible for me to obtain an accurate estimate of EV based solely on a statistical analysis of my monetary results. In fact, I would probably have to play for a few more years to get a reasonably accurate figure. The thing is, most of these events have fields of 75-300 players, and so even if I'm a favorite (let's say double the chance of winning of an average player), I still would only expect to win about once every other year!
Anyway, I have been exploring an alternative method so that I can estimate my long term EV using short-term results. What I do is, for each event, I record the number of entrants other than myself, and how many competitors remained when I busted out. By comparing these figures I can get a numerical ranking of my play for that tournament, with a score of 0 when I win (0 competitors remaining out of whatever number started) up to 1 if I bust out first. My hope is that by averaging out these numbers, I can come up with an estimate of whether I am a winning or losing tournament player.
For example, if you were to enter 10 tournaments at $100./event, placed 4th in one of them for a $600. payday, and did not win any money back in the others, you look to be a losing player. However, what if you used my system to average out your result versus the field in these events, and obtained a score of 0.25. This would indicate that you are usually outlasting 75% of the field, but are not quite making the payoff (usually about 10% of the field is paid). This suggests that you are a good tournament player with one of two problems, either you're not getting lucky near the end, or your end game is weak.
I would appreciate your input as to the usefulness/validity of this method.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg: I think that this method has a few holes. The problem is that if you just play very tight you will tend to outlast most of the field but be a long term loser in tournaments.
Many of the top players either bust out quickly accumulate a lot of chips. While this would not be good strategy in a side game, there is a strong statistical argument supporting this approach. See my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II.
Heres' a simple example. Let's say you enter a no rebuy tournament and that there are 100 players in all. If we assume that you are average, then you have a 1 percent chance of winning the tournament since you will start with 1 percent of the chips. Now suppose that 10 people get knocked out and you still have 1 percent of the chips. What does this do to your chances of winning the tournament?
The answer is that it doesn't change them. 1 percent of the chips, assuming that you are still average should correlate to a 1 percent chance of winning the tournament.
If it gets down to 2 players and you have 1 percent of the chips, ignoring the effect of blinds and antes on your stack, you should still have a 1 percent chance of winning the tournament. (There is an essay in the book SKLANSKY ON POKER called "Freeze-Out Prices that discusses this idea.
While I think that your proposal has some merit, I suspect that it is too simplistic to accurately model the complexities of playing tournament poker. My recommendation is to just use your best judgement. If you see lots of people making plays that you know are mistakes, then you should have the best of it. On the other hand, if you see the best tournament players making these "mistakes," then you may need to reevaluate your strategy.
Best of luck and I welcome any comments that you or others may have.
I agree with Mason's thoughts about the complexity of calculating a tournament EV. It only takes one WSOP victory to make up for several years of -EV. Thus, I believe that the riskier early strategy of "doubling up or busting out" is in fact the best long term approach. Conversely, that one big win is going to tilt EV calculations in the other direction. In top-weighted contests such as major tournaments, it would not be unusual for EV to remain negative until a big score.
In addition to the books cited by Mason, this idea is (partially) supported by McEvoy in his latest tournament book and, as I noted some time back, by Andy Beyer in his latest book on betting the horses (citing to stock market investment).
I have some thoughts about Mason's idea of a 1% possibility of winning a tourment when 10% of the players have been eliminated and you hold 1% of the chips, but I'm more intriqued to see what others may think.
I play pot-limit tournements about twice a week, although they only have small buys £10 (unlimited rebuys) and small fields (about 50). I have also used a "percentage of field" statistic but some others I have found more useful are:
Investment Return = (Prize-Buyins)/Buyins *Final Return = % Time I make the final table *Place Return on Entry = % Time I make final 3 (In the UK only the final 3 are normally guaranteed money, unless a deal is made) *Place Return on Final = % of Time I make final 3 after being at the final table
*All these stats are compared to an average result and a difference calculated so I can see how I have performed versus an "average" player.
I find these stats are a useful barometer of my on-going performance - especially the difference between average performance. For example, this year I am making a small loss - these stats show me that it is because I am buying in too many times and also I am not reaching the place money enough when at the final table.
Hope this helps
Dave D
Here are some thoughts I have. I am certainly don't have any major tournament victories under my belt but I have a won a lot of smaller tournaments. So what ever it is worth here goes.
I would have a game plan that consisted something like this:
1- In the early stages when players did not perceive the limits as putting their stacks in a lot of jeopardy I would tighten up (that's pretty easy for me to do). I wouldn't be too concerned at this point about the size of my stack. I would of course play solid poker and exploit oppurtunities that presented themselves but my main goals would be to keep from losing a lot (sometimes it can't be helped) and projecting a tight image.
2- There seems to be a point in tournaments where a lot of players tighten up a lot. This occurs when the players perceive the limits as a threat to their stacks. At this point I would start doing what Mason Malmuth and others recommend, start taking advantage of tight play and I think we know what that means. I am looking to accumulate a lot of chips and if I go broke doing it so be it. If there is anything I can't stand is lasting to just out of the money after hours of play with nothing to show for it when good money games were in progress with the busted out players. It's great if I am going into the latter rounds with a lot of chips. The big thing is learning how to take advantage of tight play on ALL of the betting rounds. This is something that I still screw up but I am getting better at it.
3- In the late stages of a tournament there is a lot of blind stealing plays. Prepare yourself before you get into a tournament, to play heads up in the blind against late position raisers. Get yourself heads up against short stacks if you have a big or medium stack. Prepare yourself for short handed play because you'll need these skills when it gets down to a few tables. Your going to have to make a lot of plays near the end.
4- When you get to the final table, hopefully with a lot of chips, the "real" tournament is just starting. My opinion is that you want to avoid big confrontations with large stacks when you also have a large stack until its two handed. Let the short stacks bust out. BTW all is not lost if you have a short stack just get it in there at the right oppurtunity and be cognizant of where you stand. If you have a large stack attack the small ones. When you get down to 3 players and sometimes more, people will start talking about deals. I have probably made too many deals against players I knew I had a good shot at beating heads up. I have had to play heads up and three handed a fair amount, however. Think positive and prepare for three handed and heads up play before you enter the tournament because you just might need to play to someone for all of the chips.
What does this have to do with measuring your performance in tournament play? Nothing! You obviously enjoy playing in them so just play and do your best. Learn from your mistakes and have fun!
Greg writes:
>>> Because I can only play in a few of these events per year (about 35), and because I have only been playing seriously and keeping records for 2 years, it is really not possible for me to obtain an accurate estimate of EV based solely on a statistical analysis of my monetary results.<<<
The data you currently have is the best to assess your EV. Yes, the sample is small but nothing else would more accurately reflect your performance. Tournament poker is well known to be a high standard deviation way to make a buck but to get to the root of your EV, be it positive or negative, just go with what you have.
In your model it would be possible to be a .25 player and never cash a ticket.
Best Luck,
Ed
One way to more quickly get some idea of how well you're doing in tournaments is to keep track of your chip level (net of rebuys/addons) at each limit of play. Then you can compute how many bets/hour you're winning. For more details on doing this, see my article on the Best of Rec.Gambling site. One thing to realize is that your win rate will tend to fall the deeper you get into a tournament (the weak opponents are getting knocked out). So if you average 0 big bets/hour profit, you are probably going to lose a bit more than the entry fee in expectation. I averaged 3.40 big bets per hour, and averaged a profit of about 1.40 * buy-in. Tourney profit rate should vary approximately linearly with chip win rate.
Suppose you are on the button, 3 people have limped in, you have 87s (spades). You call, SB folds, BB checks.
Flop comes T96 all diamonds. BB bets, someone in between you and the BB raises; everyone else folds.
Assuming neither of the players in a known maniac, what should you do?
I've been in similar situations 3 times now in the not-too-distant past and gotten to a shown down. I've reraised every time on the flop, only to be shown a small flush by the flop raiser every time on the river.
Obviously this is not statistically significant but it is annoying. Am I just completely wrong? Should I just be auto-folding in this situation?
Why not fold? You limped; what equity do you have in this pot? There are a lot better spots to take a questionable hand to the river. Not only may you already be beat, but you may even get outdrawn by a bigger straight. So, you have potentially the worst *made* hand with no redraws. But, I guess I know what you mean: every time I play in a limit hold-em game, there seems to be 4 or 5 people drawing every hand -- and someone usually gets there. That's limit poker.
[T96 diamonds, facing bet and raise, Hero has straight...]
Even if you have the best hand you are still in some trouble. Surely the raiser is drawing to beat a straight; as is perhaps the bettor. You could very realistically be up against the Ace draw and a set. If you have the best hand you will win a little more than half the time, if that.
This is not a raising hand; I don't think. Well, unless you thought the raiser has only the Ace draw and you want the bettor with two pair to fold. But if one of them has a big diamond then you certainly WANT all other diamonds drawing. And if one has a set you certainly WANT all other pair hands to call. Anyone with a synapse will alreay be folding a big straight draw, that does not include a diamond.
I would guess that if the raiser has a flush even as little and 55% of the time then you should fold.
BUT WAIT!!! Typical "aggressive-want-to-be" opponents who do NOT have a flush will be paranoid YOU do, if you call. Some such players like to bet assertively on the flop and then back down on the "expensive" turn. [Cowards! :)] So against such a player you should call the raise figuring to fold on the turn IF bet. That is, you should call if you haven't spent 5 seconds thinking about it, giving away your dilema and giving them confidence....
Notice that the "nut" straight you flopped is noticeably worse than 9-6-5. That makes for a much easier fold since an over card CAN beat you with a higher straight (yes, the origal better can easily have AsQ). In Omahaha high only your "nuts" is a routine fold even with a rainbow flop.
- Louie
JP,
Louie and Earl are right on here. You need to get out if you believe the player is non aggressive and has a good chance of having the flush. If you think he is a pusher of draws then play on carefully. Hands that cant improve if already beaten lose value depending on the chances someone has a better hand. As the holdem games get higher stakes, say 50&100 and higher {which most of the readers here that study will be playing at some point as I can tell by the questions you ask} more of the players make the kind of plays to put you off guard. So when you flop these straights and small flushes, you routinely go to the river with a positive ev on the hand. These trouble hands boil down to being able to read your opponent and making the correct decision based on that info and not on the size of your hand. Good Luck.
I was recently playing 6-12 HE on a Sunday afternoon when action was very light. It got so light that at one time I was playing with 2 off-duty dealers, a floor man, and one other casino regular. I have relatively little shorthanded experience, so I welcomed the opportunity to play with only 4-5 players. I started playing a little looser (I try to play tight-aggressive) and using early position to steal rag flops. I came out ahead, but really wish I had more insight into this aspect of the game. I've read both Sklansky's book Hold'Em and DS and MM's Hold'Em for Advanced Players, but this subject is lightly covered. As I feel that the more competitive players excel in shorthanded play, I'd like to improve this aspect(as well as overall) of my game. How does one approach shorthanded play?
Kandy,
You play shorthanded every day. Each time 5 players fold in a full game it is now shorthanded. If you think about it like this you can watch and learn how the different hands do. It seems much different in real shorthanded games because the hands go quicker and the blinds come around sooner, but it is just the same. Good Luck.
Ray-- It seems a little misleading to suggest that when 4 or 5 players fold in a full game, you therefore have a "shorthanded" game. While there are obviously the same number of players as in a real 5-handed game, there were 10 or 11 hands dealt out in the full game. Doesn't this vastly increase the chances of someone holding a very good hand? I mean, the more hands you deal out, the better the chances that someone will get a good hand, right? (pre-flop, of course) And it would seem that the average winning hand would probably be a good one.
In a real 5-handed game, however, it seems the chances are not so good that someone holds a good hand, and this fact alone would hold great sway over how you decide to play. Naturally, your starting requirements would loosen up, but your play on the flop would be different also, because you know that there were only 5 hands dealt out, lessening the chances that your opponents hold good cards. Here it would seem that the average winning hand would be not as good as that in a 10- or 11-handed game.
I'm not an expert, but please tell me if I've missed something.
Mike:
You are referring to what is known as the bunching factor. It is the idea that once many players have passed the remaining deck is "rich," thus producing a higher likelihood of a good hand.
While this idea does have merit in a game like draw lowball where five cards are dealt to each player, and high cards never have positive value, it does not apply to hold 'em. Simulations that we have had done privately show this to be the case. But if you think about it card values are not very "uniform" in hold 'em. This is why AK is a playable hand, 76 suited may be a playable hand, a pair of fours may be a playable hand, J9 may be a playable hand, etc.
In other words Ray is right. Once five or six people have passed at hold 'em it is like playing in a short handed game. In draw lowball it would not be quite the same because the average (remaining) hand values would tend to be higher.
Mike,
I feel as though you may be closer to how the play generally goes in shorthanded holdem than our two esteemed experts, MM and Ray Zee; wow did I say that. Well anyway, its not the "bundling factor" but other factors of play raised to a much higher level such as the betting position in this smaller field that causes one to place a different value on an otherwise marginal hands. Secondly, reading the field and gaining insight about any weakness or strenghts that may be in the rest of the field. Lastly, kowning if these players tend to play tight or loose and in what situations.
These are some of the same factors used in a regular size holdem field but with one major difference. That difference is that these same 4/5 players did not have the luxury of having 5/6 other players passed before it was their turn to act. No, these players are almost always under the gun if not defending either a large or small blind. This difference by its self changes the dynamics of play such that how and what you play in shorthanded games is dependent on these different factors more so than most regular size ,(10)handed, holdem games.
My experience is not as vast as any of you guys and do not claim to be an expert. I hope that I have not missed the point here. Any way, that is what my experience seems to indicate.
You may want to go to the archives and find the following thread:
Button play: Number of folds matter?
I believe it was posted in the middle of August. A lot of folks are in on this discussion including Ray Zee, Mason Malmuth, and David Sklansky. Ray Zee and Mason Malmuth are correct in my opinion.
The August discussions, "Button Play:Number of Folds Matter?",were very helpful and I now agreed.
Thanks Tom..........
Mason writes:
*****
You are referring to what is known as the bunching factor. It is the idea that once many players have passed the remaining deck is "rich," thus producing higher likelihood of a good hand.
While this idea does have merit in a game like draw lowball where five cards are dealt to each player, and high cards never have positive value, it does not apply to hold 'em. Simulations that we have had done privately show this to be the case
*****
I have two questions about this.
First, David Skansky wrote in a recent Card Player about this topic, noting that the probability of getting a hand in the top 10% of hands went from 10% to 12%, given a number of folds.
I interpret this to mean that there IS a bunching factor, albeit what might seem like a small one. Is this the correct interpretation of what Sklansky wrote?
Second I wonder what the simulation you talk about did? It seems to me that in a 'typical' game there are many players who simply won't lay down a hand with an Ace in it. Contrast this to a game where people play 'according to S&M'. Now, many Ax hands will be mucked.
Without any attempt at calculation the difference in distribution, given many folds, of the remaining hands would seem to be altered enough to be significant between the two scenarios.
JP wrote:
>>> First, David Skansky wrote in a recent Card Player about this topic, noting that the probability of getting a hand in the top 10% of hands went from 10% to 12%, given a number of folds.
I interpret this to mean that there IS a bunching factor, albeit what might seem like a small one. Is this the correct interpretation of what Sklansky wrote? <<<
That's my guess too. But it did not strike me as the correct way to look at the problem. When I'm thinking of stealing the blinds with 97s, I'm not worried about whether the blinds have pocket aces, kings, queens, jacks or other such premium nightmares, I'm worried about whether a blind has a hand such as A2, which my opponent may reraise with and take all the way to the showdown unimproved. A naked ace is a "premium" hand in a very short-handed game, where the S&M hand rankings are inappropriate. If Sklansky meant the top 10% of hands in a short-handed ranking system, then never mind my objections.
JP continues:
>>> Second I wonder what the simulation you talk about did? It seems to me that in a 'typical' game there are many players who simply won't lay down a hand with an Ace in it. Contrast this to a game where people play 'according to S&M'. Now, many Ax hands will be mucked. <<<
I'm going to combine my previous concern about aces with JP's concern about many players playing aces to devise some worst case estimates for being up against an ace while trying to steal the blinds.
In California, there exist games where the players will open with any ace in any position, essentially. Say it's folded to you on the button, and you have 97s. What is the probability that the big blind has an ace? In a three handed game, the probability is 1-(1-4/(52-2))*(1-4/(52-3)) = 15.5%. In a nine handed game that has folded to the button and where anyone will open the pot with any ace in any position, the probability that the big blind has an ace is 1-(1-4/52-14))*(1-4/(52-15)) = 20.2%. 15.5% versus 20.2%
Sklansky sees as minor the difference of 10% to 12% for premium hands at a full versus short-handed table. But where Sklansky sees a 2% increase, I see a 20% increase. Where Sklansky would see a 4.7% increase in the probability of an ace, I see a 30% increase. It's proportionally 30% more likely that the big blind has an ace if the game has had many folds as opposed to being a true short-handed game. (There are benefits to both perspectives.)
When stealing, I'm also concerned about the small blind having an ace. If either of the blinds have an ace, I'm a big underdog with something like 97s. The probability that either has an ace is 37.2% in the folded full game case, compared to 29.1% for the short handed case, a proportional increase of 27.6% or an absolute Sklansky increase of 8%. Either perspective seems terrifying for the potential blind stealer at a full table, when he's considering stealing with hands that would have a marginal positive expected value in a true short-handed game.
This is a worst case scenario. Producing the probability of an ace in the blinds with S&M type players having folded in early/middle position would be an interesting comparative experiment. As JP and simple logic suggest, the effect will be smaller with S&M type players who are folding many aces in early and middle position.
In short, I cannot accept, without more impressive data, the S&M&Z hypothesis that a short-handed game is the same as a full game that has had several players fold instead of opening.
-- Abdul
Abdul, You make a lot of good points but I still feel that the considerations are basically the same. In my opinion, when attacking the blinds, one must consider strongly the following:
1. The hands the blinds will defend with (frequency of folds, calls, raises).
2. The ability of your opponent(s) in the blind(s). Which means, to me, their ability relative to yours on the later rounds.
I don’t think that these considerations change whether you are on the button after 7 people have folded in a ten handed ring game or you are playing 3 handed. Yes, if a blind defends with a hand that he has 30% of the time in a ten handed ring game and it is profitable for the blind to defend this 30% of the time, then if in the short handed game if he gets these hands 36% of the time he is 20% more like to have a hand he can defend with. I agree that 20% more often is a significant consideration. The opponent will be more likely to have a hand that he can defend with but you can make the appropriate adjustment in your strategy. So in a sense what you are saying is true, but I still feel that you are making the same strategic considerations.
It would be interesting to see how the bunching factor problem was simulated. My intuitive feel is that the bunching factor is not significant for what ever that is worth. I wonder about this; Does there tend to be more chopping in a ten handed ring game than in a short handed game of five players?
Yes. But for only the exact situation you described.
If there are several players who routinely play any Ace and on this paritucular hand they all folded, there is a notieable increase in the number of Aces left.
:: Without any information your first card is going to be an Ace 4 out of 52 or 1/13. If four people fold who WOULD have had an Ace (8 cards gone) now your first card will be an Ace 4 out of 44 or 1/11.
The "four people in a row" is about as an extreme example as it gets, and the increase FOR AN ACE doesn't go up that much. And the bunching factor drops off to nothing quite quickly for cards less than an Ace.
Unless you are adopting a very precise frequency count strategy for starting hands (e.g. you decide to play 21.4% of hands in a particular situation, and who does that) then forget the bunching factor: you have much more worthy investments for your mental energy.
UTG in a 5 handed game is the same as 6th seat in a 10 handed game when 5 people fold.
- Louie
I didn't mean to send this topic off on tangents. My only question is this: is it not true that in a 5-handed game, the likelihood that someone holds a premium hand (pre-flop) is less than in a full game?
Put another way, could you not say that the more hands that are dealt out, the greater the chances that someone will receive a premium hand? Therefore, a full game in which there are 5 remaining players in a particular hand is not truly a "shorthanded" game, is it? In such a game, the chances of one of the reamining players having been dealt a premium hand are much greater, it would seem, than in a 5-handed game.
And in the 5-handed game, don't you have to consider that fact (the fewer the hands dealt, the fewer premium starting hands)? Wouldn't that fact--plus position, the frequent blinds, and the ability of the field to play shorthanded--cause you to play in a very different fashion than you would in a 10- or 11-handed game with 5 remaining players?
Am I correct in my thinking here? Or am I all wet?
>>I didn't mean to send this topic off on tangents.
I think the responses are pertinent to your question.
>>My only question is this: is it not true that in a 5-handed game, the likelihood that someone holds a premium hand (pre-flop) is less than in a full game?<<
Yes it is true.
>>Put another way, could you not say that the more hands that are dealt out, the greater the chances that someone will receive a premium hand? <<
Yes it is.
>>Therefore, a full game in which there are 5 remaining players in a particular hand is not truly a "shorthanded" game, is it? <<
Yes it is the same situation as a short handed game.
>>In such a game, the chances of one of the reamining players having been dealt a premium hand are much greater, it would seem, than in a 5-handed game. <<
Not true according to the simulations.
>>And in the 5-handed game, don't you have to consider that fact (the fewer the hands dealt, the fewer premium starting hands)?<<
Since the odds of someone holding a premium hand are approximately the same in a 5 handed game as they are in a 10 handed game after 5 people have folded the considerations are the same.
>>Wouldn't that fact--plus position, the frequent blinds, and the ability of the field to play shorthanded--cause you to play in a very different fashion than you would in a 10- or 11-handed game with 5 remaining players?<<
No, your strategy should basically be the same but of course people do play differently in a short handed game. If people play looser in a 5 handed game than in a 10 handed game after 5 people have folded you should try and steal more in the 10 handed game after 5 people have folded.
>>Am I correct in my thinking here? Or am I all wet?<<
It depends on what you call a premium hand. Lets say it is a group 1 or 2 for the sake of discussion.
A,A = .45% K,K = .45% Q,Q = .45% J,J = .45% T,T = .45% A,Ks = .3% A,Qs = .3% A,Js = .3% K,Qs= .3% A,K = .9%
Please check my math and my recollection of groups 1 and 2. For arguments sake, the number of premium hands is 4.35%. In a 10 handed game someone will have a premium hand 36% of the time. In a 5 handed game someone will have a premium hand 20% of the time. So right there you can see that most of the time someone will not have a group 1 or 2 hand. Now when there are five people left including yourself and the two blinds, after 5 people have folded, is it still 20% of the time that someone has a premium hand? If what you are suggesting is true, then it would be considerably greater than 20%. If there were a significant bunching factor, then indeed the number would be much greater than 20%. Mason Malmuth and David Sklansky have described simulations that show that the chances of someone having a premium hand, in this case group 1 or 2, are not significantly greater than 20% in a 10 handed ring game after 5 people have folded. Intuitively, to me, this seems to be right. Therefore if the chances are approximately the same in a 5 handed game of someone holding a premium hand as they are in a 10 handed game when 5 people have folded, your strategy should be the same in my mind. Again I would suggest reading the discussion on the post in August of the archives:
Button play: Number of folds matter?
There was a lot of discussion on the frequency of the blinds coming around, etc.
Tom--
Thanks for your very thoughtful response to my question.
In your response, you agreed that there is a greater chance of a premium hand being dealt out in a 10-handed game than in a 5-handed game. This being the case, how can it not follow that after 5 players have folded in the full game, that greater chance still exists that one (or more) of the remaining players would have a good hand?
I don't mean to appear dense on this subject, but I just can't get past the fact that in a full game, it's quite routine for seven or eight people to fold (pre-flop), most of them holding subpar hands. A real shorthanded game obviously can't afford that kind of attrition; players will generally stay with lesser hands than they would in a full game.
Look at it this way: you calculated a 36% chance of a premium hand being dealt in a full game, and a 20% chance of such an occurrence in a 5-handed game. Those figures are probably pretty close to correct. In the full game, after 5 players fold, it's improper to ask "What are the chances now?" because the cards have already been dealt (with the 36% chance). The number of players who fold does not in any way affect the chances that someone was dealt a good hand, because the cards were out and the hands were seen before any betting or folding took place.
Since it's nearly twice as likely (36%-20%) for someone to hold a good hand in a full game as in a 5-handed game, then I would say that the full game can't truly be called "shorthanded" after 5 players have folded. And as such, shouldn't the 5-handed game be played differently?
>> In the full game, after 5 players fold, it's improper to ask "What are the chances now?" because the cards have already been dealt (with the 36% chance). The number of players who fold does not in any way affect the chances that someone was dealt a good hand, because the cards were out and the hands were seen before any betting or folding took place. <<
From what I understand the simulations took into account typical strategies for calling, raising, and folding. The hands that players folded supposedly, again I intuitively feel that this is correct, did not significantly affect the 20% number. I guess to satisfy yourself as to what the chances were, you would have to construct some scenarios of typical opponents in the five seats to the left of the big blind and do some of your own calculations. I am not sure that I understand your point but I think you are saying that the fact that people are folding early does significantly affect the chances of other people have a good hand. Lets say that it is a very loose game where players will always come in with Ax, Kx, or Qx. I hesitate to make this statement because I haven't done any calculations but it would probably mean that it was more likely that someone had a good hand. However, if the players would fold Ax, Kx and Qx, then it seems reasonable that the possiblity of someone holding a good hand hasn't changed because they would be just as likely to get 4x as an Ax. These are just examples of scenarios that you may want to think about.
>>Since it's nearly twice as likely (36%-20%) for someone to hold a good hand in a full game as in a 5-handed game, then I would say that the full game can't truly be called "shorthanded" after 5 players have folded. And as such, shouldn't the 5-handed game be played differently? <<
This would tell me that you should tighten up in early position in a ten handed game. Lets say you are in a 10 handed game, 5 people have folded to the left of the blinds, I think you have to ask yourself how much you should loosen up and how much more aggressive you should be. I guess I'm just a stubborn old guy but my opinion and experience is that the same considerations apply to calling, raising and folding. Again I would suggest reading the post that I recommended from August. I hoped that I helped a little. It just seems that you are going to have to come to your own conclusions as I think you already have. I would suggest that you try some short handed play (perhaps you play a fair amount already) to develop your strategy in these types of games. After you do this try to apply it in a ten handed game when the short handed situation occurs and see if your strategy works as well in the short handed game as in the full game when the 5 players to the left of the blind have folded.
So its not about the bunching factor.
If there are 10 people in a room and the inspector determines that there is a 50:50 chance that one of them has the gun then each has a 5% chance to have it. If you search 4 and don't find it now each remaining person has a little over an 8% chance of having the gun. Notice that the orignal 50:50 chance is indepenant of the number of suspects, in this example.
This is NOT the same as in Holdem. In holdem the "field" is more likely to have a good hand because there are several players, each with a small chance. The large chance someone has is a function of the number who might.
So when 5 people fold we know that THEY do NOT have a good hand. Now the chances are diminished SOMEONE has since there are less people available.
You and your buddies have a 10% chance to hit the can with a rock. Should you wait until they all miss figuring your chance now is greater? No, its not. Your aim didn't get any better once they miss. But, if God gave one of you a magic rock that never misses, and they all miss, then you WILL hit the can.
The chance that the blind has a good hand is indepant of how many hands were dealt. If he got the first two cards off the deck it makes no difference how many other people got cards.
There must surely be a better way to say this.
- Louie
Kandy:
We have had some discussion on this topic before. In our archives there are two threads. One is titled "Note on Short Handed Play," and the other is called "Short handed - expensive lesson." I suggest that you work your way through both of these. If you then have any questions, get back to us.
Against other players who do not adjust much for the short handed pots (such as off duty dealers and other casino workers), what matters more than what you have is what they do NOT have. A whole lot of the time no-one will have a calling hand.
Routinely steal unless you have a reason not to.
Against people who know what they are doing get better advise.
- Louie
The following situation came up recently in a no-limit hold'em tournament. I'd like to get some feedback here in the Two-By-Two forum as to the optimum strategy you would advise. First, I'll convey what happened in the tournament:
We are down to the final 14 players. Prize money is paid to the top 9 places. I am short-stacked with only $1050 in tournament chips. There are three other short stacks remaining (roughly the same chip count as mine). Note that in the preceeding 20 minutes, I have played only ONE SINGLE HAND, K-Q suited -- which I raised all-in with pre-flop, then showed for advertising purposes. Therefore, I presume my opponents looked upon my play as "tight" at this stage.
With about 25 minutes remaining in the $100-200 (blinds) round, I'm on the button. I am dealt Kc 4c. Everyone folds around to me. In the SB is a tight-mathematically-inclined player with 3 times my stack. In the BB is an unknown player with a moderate stack. So, the blinds total $300. I look upon this as a good steal opportunity and move all-in. The SB re-raises all-in driving out the BB. The SB shows pocket kings. I crash and burn and am out of the tournament.
QUESTION: What is advised for stealing blinds with a short-stack? Presuming the SB did not hold pocket Kings, of course, was this a fundamentally solid play on my part?
Since I had $1050 left, I could have seen up to 21 more hands (posting 3 rounds of blinds before escalation). The intent of raising at this point -- and stealing -- is obvioulsy to "BUY" on extra round of tournament life. However, with a short-stack opponents are not nearly as likley to be intimidated into folding.
ANOTHER QUESTION: Would this be a situation where a blind steal would be almost "automatic?" In other words, even if I held a dreaded 7-2 offsuit, might a blind steal be an admittedly bold but recommended play? If not, what hands do you draw the line with.....Group 8, Group 6, etc.
K-4 suited is obvioulsy not the best hand I could steal with in this spot, but I'd like to hear some feedback from others who may have opinions as to recommended strategy for stealing with stealing/bluffing with a short stack. Thanks.
Nolan Dalla
Apologies: Meant to write "TWO PLUS TWO" forum.
Nolan,
You just got a tough break when he had kings. Of course you had to move in and probably it would be the right play with any two cards if the two players left could be counted on to fold their average hands. I may have done it much sooner when I had more chips. You got into a bad situation where you are so low on chips that if you play to last to the money, you give up most hope of winning. I would personally try to run up my chips at all costs to have enough to be able to play a hand out. Good Luck.
Agreed, K-4s is not the strongest hand you could've tried to buy with, but my biggest disagreement is with the move-in bet to buy the blinds. A raise of 300-600 would've been enough to buy if the blinds held no hand -- but enough to allow you to live again if they play back at you.
But the biggest problem you had with your play is its obviousness, i.e., an all-in bet on the button is screaming, "I'm stealing, please don't call me."
I don't think that a raise of less than his entire stack would be a good move. In a NL tournament this screams to me exactly the reason you're advising it, that the player intends to lay it down if played back at. In such a case, I am quite likely to play back with many hands, as long as they're not almost hopeless (i.e., I'd give up 27o, but make this play with J9s, any A, any K, etc.). In a NL tournament, I believe that the normal bring-in should be 3x the big blind, or T600 in Nolan's case. Whenever this normal bring-in is about 40% or more of my stack, I either fold or go all-in preflop, nothing else. This is because I do NOT want to be put to the hard decision of whether to fold if someone plays back at me.
Now, if instead I was going to raise from early/middle position with a good but dominatable hand like AQ, I might raise to T600 if it were about half my stack, because my decision will be made easier depending upon actions from more than 1 person behind me. E.g., it is easier to throw it away if there is a reraise and call behind you, and it is easier to call a reraise if other callers got trapped between (increasing your pot odds).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Earl,
Unless you are sure if you get raised you are up against a bigger pair you cant be throwing away your hand when getting close to 3 to 1 one on the money with no more betting. That style of play tends to get you crying, I was just one out of the money.
To be sure, it is difficult to escape when "pot-stuck," but K-4 suited is nothing but a lame piece of cheese. My experience (and my research) has shown that K-x suited is the hand most likely to get you knocked out of the tournament if you are played with short-stacked and short-handed. It doesn't take much of a hand to beat K-4; you are already beat even versus a bare Ace or a small pair and you're not much of a favorite versus two middle connectors (i.e., J-10, Q-J, etc.).
A more modest raise than your whole stack puts the burden on the other player -- he's committed but you are not. If played back at for your whole stack pre-flop, throw it away and live to fight again. Even if you're beat, I believe Slim once said that, "anyone who can't fold the best hand can't play."
As noted by Nolan, he still had 2000; he's not so short-stacked that he *had* to play this hand -- or play it for his whole stack. (I agree with Greg that a raise of 2x would be better in order to be less likely to be played with). To balance the "survival versus success" scale, this may be the hand to consider laying down the ego in order to have a shot to stay in and win. I'm not recommend laying just anything down on the button when played back at -- on the contrary, with a small pair or a suited Ace, I'd have been more likely to put it all in.
In any event, thanks Nolan for bringing this hand up. It *is* one of the hands not listed as a "trouble" hand in Super/System, but it *is* a hand that's overvalued pre-flop. Far too many players think this is the hand to go all-in with.
Nolan only had T1050. As such, I would vote for folding or going all-in. If he had had T2000, I would vote for folding or raising to a total of T600.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Excuse me while I wipe the egg off my face .... I agree on both accounts.
In Hold'em Poker For Advanced Player,it says "If you are dead last......If you have a small pair and are against four or five callers, the correct play is to sometimes raise. This is another example of making the pot larger so that if you hit your hand, your opponents may be more inclined to call you with just overcards on the flop. In addition, they all may check to you, thus giving you a free card and another (small) chance to make your set."
I have trouble understanding this. A pair has an 11.8% of flopping three of a kind or better, so you lose one small bet 88.2% of the time. To break even, you need to win 7.5 small bets on average when you do hit.
If you raise, you now need to win 15 small bets to break even. Assuming five callers(do you count the BB?), six players incluing myself, that's only 5 more small bets from the pre-flop raise. And that's assuming you always win. Where do you expect to win 2.5 more bets? Opponents will chase more, maybe more than 2.5 bets, but again you won't always win. I'm not sure how to analyze this by including a win rate.
Opponents might check more, giving you a free card and a very small chance( 2 out of 47), but this is off-set by opponents chasing more. They will sometimes get lucky and you will win less pots.
Please help me with this. How often is sometimes raise? Four or five callers? Is more players always better? More specifically, how much does your EV go up?
*** If you raise, you now need to win 15 small bets to break even. Assuming five callers(do you count the BB?), six players incluing myself, that's only 5 more small bets from the pre-flop raise. And that's assuming you always win. Where do you expect to win 2.5 more bets? ***
When I first read that strategy, my thought was that against "aware" players, they will tend to put you on a big pair or big cards. So, when you flop a set they are likely to play against you and be drawing almost dead. For instance, they might stay with middle pair hoping to make two pair or trips to beat your (probable) overpair. You, of course, are rooting for them to make their draw!
I'll be interested to see what the authors have to say here.
Danny,
Why 15 to 1? You are at least going to call so a raise is only half a bet, so we are back to 7.5 to 1. Also, it says sometimes to raise. If you always play the same way it has to cost you money somewhere. If the other players are timid and dont raise back and bet at you on the flop then this play works. Getting the free card adds value to the hand, especially when you pick up a draw. When you hit and they call drawing dead to overcards your gain really grows. Of course, if you do this play all the time it is a losing play. Good Luck.
Ray,
Thanks very much for your response. What I am trying to say is that 88.2% of the time you will lose one bet because you don't hit. If you raise, now you will lose two bets 88.2%, so on the 11.8% when you do hit, you need to win 15 bets.
2 * 88.2% = 15 * 11.8%
So are you saying that this play gives value only because you are varying your play? You might get a free card. You can gain or save a bet because you are more unpredictable. But, this really depends on your table image. If others already think you're loose-aggresive, they will chase you anyway. I think the real question is, how much more will opponents chase you because you raised the pot? I tend to think, not very much. And it seems, they would need to chase a lot more to make this play profitable.
Thank you again.
Danny:
I think that you are missing a point here. Part of the value of this play is that sometimes everyone will check to you, the raiser, and you get a fourth card. This is like getting a four card flop. Now your chances of making a set go up approximately 4 percent. That is instead of it being approximately 7.5-to-1 to make a set it is now approximately 5.5-to-1 to get a set. Thus you don't need as many bets in the pot as you indicate. Keep in mind that the more likely they all are to check to you, the better this play becomes.
Mason:
Thank You Very Much. That free card really makes the difference. 5.5-to-1 if it's always checked to you. Assuming half the time, it would be 6.3-to-1, which might still be profitable. Thanks.
Hi Dave, No offence taken. Just sticking up for the place I work. BTW our new poker room is fantastic. and the players are coming back. Where we used to have 5 games we now have 9-10 going every day. Also the PL is getting stronger. I see new faces every week. 5 or 6 of the regulars are millionairs and play for the entertainmnet factor. Best off all they are a very good bunch of players and fun to deal to. Hope to see you soon. Chuck Ferry
Ray,
After a couple years of deviating from my better games in an attempt to learn Omaha Hi-Lo, I bought your book "High-Low-Split Poker." My goal in learning Omaha Hi-Lo was so that I could add variety to my tournament play and not always end up playing against the same bunch of EV rocks at my best live game (I don't even live there, but I'm already tired of seeing the same faces at the 20-40 stud tables in the Mirage).
One concept that slowly has come to me is that perhaps you will play more hands pre-flop, but throw away a lot more hands post-flop than you will in Hold-Em. Is this an accurate (if simplistic) characterization?
In High Omaha, I understand that amongst the better players, there exists a difference of opinion about what might be called the "best" starting hand. In Hi-Lo, I understand what a premium hand is, but if you had to pin it down to one hand, what would be considered the best?
As I said, I don't live in Las Vegas anymore, so I only play Omaha 3 or 4 times a year. How would you classify the games that are available in town now (tight or loose), and other than the Mirage and at Binion's during the WSOP, are there other medium-limit Omaha games available?
Finally, I've got the Hoyle Casino software -- how would you rate the Omaha Hi-Lo play in that game?
Thanks for any insight you can give. Maybe I'm just getting older, but it seems like Omaha Hi-Lo has more trickiness (and at times, just plain luck!) to learn how to cope with than any other game. I won't elaborate on the number of times I've seen dealers screw up splitting the pots ....
I hope Mr. Zee doesn't mind me jumping in here, but I'd like is comments on this as well.
The best Omahaha hi/lo hand is AA23 double suited. Its got three nut high combos and three nut low combos. A234 suited has only one high nut combo (flush), and realistically maybe a wheel. Extra nut low combos after 3 aren't worth that much. In this case its only worth a lot if both a 2 and a 3 are going to come.
No, you cannot see a bunch of flops with marginal hands expecing to fold most on the flop. Omahaha h/l is a game of nuts. If your starting hand cannot make enough nuts then don't play it at all.
Speaking of combos; hi/low starting hands are best evaluated by looking at the two card combinations; and determining which can make the nuts, and which can make fools nuts.
High nut combos are AA, KK, QQ, Axs, and three face cards including an Ace. Nut low combos are A2, 23, and A3; figuring to catch the card you need. The best combos A2 and AA are generally worth twice the others.
Fools nut high combos are JJ, TT, 99, Axxs, Kxs, Qxs, and a King and two other face cards or tens NOT including an Ace. Fools nut low combos are of course A4, 24, and 34; figuring to catch one card you need and still pray.
Additional value combos are how 3rd or 4th cards relate to your 2-card combos; including any pair or 5 or 6 with a nut low combo, any three babies, any 4 in a row, AK2, and a very few others, including a 4th card bigger than 8. Don't go overboard here.
Fools nuts and additional value combos are worth about 1/2, premium combos 1, and AA and A2 2. Raising hands must include a nut high combo; or there is little reason to narrow the field. There's nothing sicker than making the double nut low, just to have some clown call you down with his pocket Ts to win the high; cause he "knew" you were going low.
There are few if any playable hands that do not include at least one nut combo; and fewer that do not include an Ace.
Notice that ranks 56789 and T are routinely bad cards.
For an easy game I'd guess you need 3.5 points early, 2.5 points middle, and 1.5 points to play in late position. For a tough game add .5 points.
Raise with enough high hands to disquise the routine raises with premium+ low hands.
All low combos decline when someone else raises (due to splits). High combos do not; except the K and Qxs. Identify the players that ONLY play A2, as well as the ones that bet like its holdem.
Most of the time you win without the nuts is when you were going for something else. ADDITIONAL value is rarely, if ever, a reason to call unless its in addition to something else. (Yes, you will run into some rare bunch of backdoor draws on the flop)
The only "trick" I know is disguising the nut low so I can steal the high. I'd be "trickier" and play more hands if I had a good sense as to when weak hands were good.
- Louie
What do you think?
Louie,
I'd like to get your opinions on a couple of things here. I have played only a little Omaha Hi-Lo but it seems like it makes a big difference whether the pot is multi-way, short handed, or head up as to the value of your starting hand. Would you agree with this? If the pot is short handed or heads up the high hands would go up a lot in value although it seems like AA23 double suited would still be a great hand no matter what.
I know there is some debate as to the value of coordinated hands that contain KK as opposed to AA. Some say that a set with KK TENDS to be better than a set with AA because the Ace tends to help make low hands. What do you think about this?
I know Omaha Hi-Lo is popular right now. I think that it is a game that anyone that is deriving a significant income from Poker should learn to play at least fairly well.
Most of the omaha split games I see are always to loose and easy to win at. If you can stand the slow pace of the games, a player should be able to almost steal money if he or she takes the time to study the game seriously. Weak players can always find something to draw to, so you can usually count on multiway pots. As the games get looser, one must play quite a bit tighter in this game to survive. An Ace,2,3, and another paired card or card that suits with the ace would be my choice of the premo type of hand to have in a multiway pot. Heads up I lean towards having better high possibilities with any two low cards. Of course this is not against a premium hand. In the book I used the example of kk being better than aa when a set is floped to illustrate how a low card on board can change the value of high hands. Yes, I would rather have a set of kings than aces, but I would most likely have a set of aces as kings end up in the muck much more often. Louie seems to use a point system for his starting hands. If he can relate it to each position and situation it would provide good disipline. I just judge each hand as to if I can or cannot show a profit on it. Louie shows by his thoughts the kind of work needed to be a winner. Tom makes the one of the most important points in poker. All hands in all games have changing values based upon the number of players likely to be in the pot. Good Luck.
My opinions are not particularly good at this game. For opinions stick with the authors. But, since you asked...
Fools nut draws go up in value short handed since there is a reasonable chance you won't need the nuts to win. Having a pretty good high and a pretty good low is pretty good betting hand against two or less opponents, unless one raises and the other calls.
Short handed pots, of course, offer opportunities for superior card sense to prevail. Its not that great in Omahaha Hi/Lo but its MUCH greater than when the pot is multi-way, when the vast majority of the time you are on nut-autopilot.
Against several players you do NOT draw to non-nut hands: A3 low draw is mucked unless there is the 2euce; as is a King high flush. Two 2nd nut draws is a crying call against 5 people: hope you catch the nut card or hope they check.
Yes, a set of Kings is more likely to scoop than a set of Aces. But I'd much rather HAVE a pair of Aces than Kings; since the pair is a little more likely to hold up short handed and of course I'm much more likely to also have a low draw and nut two-flush.
The set of kings, I believe, is just a tad more likely to hold up for high, but with the set of Aces your stiff 2 can still accidentally win if the other low gets counterfeited.
Brain-dead nut-autopilot can win a lot of money against loose bad players, since in Omahaha NOT every two cards can win. There are MANY hands comparatively much worse than 72 in holdem; and MANY MANY apparent flops that the sucker will play, that are worse than flopping bottom pair: the guy calling raises with the 5th nut low draw will not win.
My biggest problem with this game is the pace. You routinely get 1/2 or 1/3 as many hands as in holdem; at least in the "good" games. You can often, if you're quick, go powder your nose and get back without missing a hand. Patience and discipline pay great rewards. Otherwise bring a copy of the National Exaggerator.
BUT PAY ATTENTION. You will occasionally get a great "lead" or "tell" on someone which will give away which direction they are going and whether or not they are drawing or have it. Once in a while you can steal all or half the pot with this information.
Then there was the time this guy was running all over the game. The last hand I saw was when he scooped against 6 players with 269K (top two pair and a "low") having capped it before the flop.....
** Holdem has Good Hands and Bad Flops. Omaha has Bad Hands and Good Flops. **
- Louie
Thanks for the insights everyone -- perhaps I shouldn't mention that I went +$3000 the first time I played a 30/60 Omaha h/l side game at the WSOP .... and split 2 of 4 $2500 satellites ... but I can still honestly admit that I'm struggling with this game.
It looks like the analysis/advise has been going in the wrong direction ...
Nah, I think I cracked 'em with middle pairs ;-) Seriously, when you don't have a clue about how to play a particular game, but have a certain level of poker knowledge, you can be dangerous to other player's BR for a limited period of time. Then you go through the phase where you know enough to be dangerous to your own BR. Only then do we begin to get improve.
It seems to me that there has been more discussion (and confusion) about short- vs full-handed play and the "bunching factor" than any other topic in this forum. Would anyone who has done any simulations or work in that area be kind enough to share the details, particularly as it relates to *how* those simulations were done? Thank you.
The discussion of the "bunching factor" as it applies to short handed hold em has been an interesting one. As counter intuitive as it may seem, this "bunching factor" is just not as important in hold em as it is in draw lowball for the reasons that Mason pointed out. When you are in late position either after most of the field has folded or you are playing short handed, your main consideration should be how tight do the remaining opponents (especially the blinds) play. If you try to complicate your thinking much past this, it may be confusing to the point of distraction.
Mike,
That may be a left brain/right brain issue. I prefer to think that the reads on my opponents come much easier than at the table "distractions" like knowing the probability of a particular outcome. By the time the action comes to me, I know how I'm going to handle my opponents given the situation, but what makes those decisions even quicker and more crystal clear is knowing "the numbers" ahead of time to see exactly what the situation is.
Toward that end, when a difficult situation arises, it's comforting to understand the *how* and *why* someone arrives at a conclusion regarding what appears to be a mathematical contradiction (i.e., given that with 20 cards dealt, the probability that one of your opponents holds an Ace is higher than if 10 cards are dealt).
[An aside: Many people now use the Beyer Speed Figures incorporated in the Daily Racing Form to handicap horses; not so many understand how those figures are put together, what their limitations are, and the inaccuracies involved. Those that *do* understand the difficulties and ambiguities behind the numbers are well ahead of the average player in deciding how/when to put them to use.]
So my question remains: what are the factors involved with the simulation and analysis that the bunching effect is negligible after 8 people have folded in a 10-handed game?
Way back when, when I could still do arithmetic, I did some figuring on Holdem bunching, as follows:
I assumed everyone would play group 4 (as I recall) hands or better. I weighted each hand for probability (6 of each pair, 4 of each suited, 12 of each non-suited) and caluculated the chance for any particular card being in such a player's hand, should this player play. Likewise for when the player doesn't play. (Of the 1326 hands you know exactly which are playable and can count individual cards...)
Then by assuming 7 people fold they must have generally had small cards (since group 4 and up are mostly big cards) and combined their chances in a manner I was sure was correct when I did it.
I concluded from this that when 7 players folded who would have played group 4 or better hands that the each of the remaining 3 players was (about) 10% more likely to have an Ace, 8% more for King, 5 for Queen, 2 for Jack, and negligible difference for T or lower. I did not calculate for deuces.
I did not adjust opening strategies in any useful manner.
- Louie
I recently bought a copy of "The Complete Poker Room" by Chuck Ferry. On page 47 he mentions a game called "lazy pineapple" where players do not discard a card. In other words, it's hold'em with three cards.
I play in a couple of home games (there are no legal poker rooms here in Alaska) where some of the biggest contributors complain when I deal hold'em. They like high-low split games so I decided to modify lazy pineapple by making it high-low eight or better. To make it a little different (difficult?) I decided to make the low hand play like Omaha, i.e. players must use two cards from their hands and three off the board. The high hand can use all eight cards in any combination to make the best five card hand.
I know some of you pros are shaking your heads right about now, probably thinking something like "Geez, buddy, why don't you just call dueces and one-eyed jacks wild while you're at it." Well, if I thought it would make the guys that play in our game happy, I probably would ;-).
Before introducing it to our game, I sat down and dealt out some hands to get a feel for it. First, hands are more hidden than with hold'en or Omaha. I suspect this fact alone will turn off some people, especially the bet-the-nuts-only players. Second, the low hands won't make it as often and when they do they won't tend to be as strong as in Omaha. One less card really makes a difference. Third, you'll see a lot more straights and flushes. Full houses and four-of-a-kinds, too, for that matter. One more card really makes a difference. Because your hand is more hidden, you'll get it paid off more often. And, going back to my second point, the high hand will scoop more often.
If this game sounds at all interesting to you, try dealing out a few hands. Then, the next time you have the guys around the kitchen table for a game, spring it on them. It will take the hold'em and Omaha players a little while to adjust and untill they do, if they do, you'll have a little edge!
I haven't done any sophisticated statistical work on this game and I probably won't. If anyone out is real bored and has nothing better to do, I like to read their results.
Good luck.
Ken Gordon Kodiak Alaska
Ken, Thanks for buying my book. Your new game sounds good and fun. BTW we started to play Chinese and changed it to high low with no 8 or better the pots were always big. Good luck Chuck Ferry
I went down to Tampa this week and played in my first 7 card stud tournament. To me it was a lot of fun, very exciting, and plenty of nice people from all over. It was also the first time for being dealt 4 Aces.
While there I played in 11 tournaments and placed in 7 and am fairly pleased. My play is tight, aggressive.
The table was tight. No nonsense, nobody drunk, mad or on tilt. I won two hands, one against another lower pair, where we both showed, and another against another flush, I hit in 5, an A. We went to 6th street where I was dealt the K of my suit and he folded. I didn't show.
Other than that my hands were rags, which I folded on 3, or if there was a face card, possible flush I would fold if I saw too many on top. I never did chase past 5 cards.
Where I made my mistakes came on the third and last hands. I know now what I did wrong on the last hand it's the third that needs help.
I was in third in chips, one person had busted out. After seeing plenty of folding hands, I was happy to be dealt 10, Q, Q. It was called around to me where I doubled. Two people folded out. Fourth card was a 10. The high card a K bet 25, with no pairs, obvious striaght, flushes showing, I made it 50. Everyone except 2 folded. On 5th street, one more folded. The other person left was one of three somewhat agressive players. His hand was 2 diamonds, no pairs and no obvious connecters. I bet 25 the rest of the way with him staying with me. I took him for 2 pairs. Wrong he hit his flush on the river and I didn't fill up.
I think it would have been better if I had of waited until the 5th card to raise where it wouldn't have been so plain that I had 2 pair or tripes. What do you think?
On the last hand I was in third,in chips, tired and ready to go home. I know now that I had to play,with an Ad,4d, rag no Aces on board I should have played. The way it appeared to me was that I could hold and come in 3rd. Right? Wrong... The leader folded, and then someone who was all in won on a split pot.
Any other help in my play or style would be appreciated.
Lynnda
Lynnda,
Sometimes you are destined to lose a hand no matter how you play it. It appears that the flush draw would go to the end anyway you play it. As to when you should have raised the pot, you must answer that yourself. When you raise you raise for one or more of many reasons. With your particular hand it would be to get more money in the pot or to knock players out. Most likely, the best reason would be to knock someone out. Your raise maybe should have been timed as to give you the best chance to knock out a player. I dont like to play to last or hang on for a place in a tournament. The first place money is too much to give up, but to each his own. Good Luck.
Ray Zee...
I am sure you are right about staying in for first, and will do so in the future, unless I am positive I have 1st. The tournament I was in I am sure was small compared to what most of you play in, in fact it might not be considered a tournament at all by some standards.
Re: The hand I questioned my betting. I felt like I had my hand and couldn't count on it to improve. The reason for betting my hand up front was to fold others who might draw to a better hand. The man who stayed in against me was low on chips, he often went to the river and more often than not lost.
Thank you for your imput, maybe with more experience and reading this list, improvement will come with time.
Lynnda
Good for you.
I just moved to a new area and the only game they play locally is pineapple (2-4 with an automatic kill to 4-8) Game is loose and varies between passive and slightly aggresive.
I have read Ray's book on Omaha split, but the winning hands seem much weaker in this game. I tried to come up with a quick summary of starting hands and play and would appreciate any comment or suggested reading that you would care to make. Thanks.
Starting hands:
Any A 2, A 3, or 2 3 (raise with an A flush draw)
Any A 4 or A 5 with the A or K flush draw
Any pair with an A or K flush draw
Three high cards (J or better) with a flush draw
Any high pair (J or better) preferably with a flush draw (raise with A flush draw)
Consider raising with any of these hands in late position with 5 or more callers.
On the flop:
If you hit the flop (four cards to the nut low or second nut low, four cards to the nut flush or second nut flush, trips, or four cards to the nut straight), continue to bet or raise as appropriate.
If you are not sure how strong your hand is relative to other hands, call if there are no raises in front of you. If the board is paired, do not bet into it unless you have trips or a full boat.
Do not chase if you do not have a fairly strong hand.
On the turn and river:
Play now is determined by your estimate of what your opponents hold relative to the board. If their are 3 cards to a low or a flush or a pair, be very careful how you continue. A this point too much depends on other factors to include in this short summary.
I will appreciate any comments.
Ed Dwyer
Ed,
By how you describe your hands I assume its 3 cards then 2 cards after the flop. Its played differently around the country. But anyway, comparing your game to omaha is tough. In pineapple there are not many draw outs and backdoor draws compared to 4 card omaha, so the best hand stands up more often and big draws do not come into play as much. High hands do much better and weaker lows win. Your play after the flop will determine most of your profits unless you play very badly early on. Your guess to starting hands works fine for loose games and bad players. You could loosen up a bit when you have many players in already, then play most hands that can make the nuts as you will punish them when you hit. Just dont be too rigid in your play by relying on strict rules. Good Luck.
In Mike Caro's latest article in the internet version of the Card Player magazine he says that most pros raise way to often before the flop. He says that this has the effect of driving out hands that could become a great deal of your profits. I often think about this and wonder if raising with AA before the flop every time is wrong. AA is such a powerful hand that does not come around often, so would it be correct to try to maximise the profits by slowplaying this hand? I know that sometimes AA gets cracked by crap but statisticly AA will win more than any other hand. Also most flops you will not hit. Sometyimes but not all the time you will be able to pick up the pot with a bet. But what about those times when you raised and missed the flop but somebody else hit it. Would you save money by waiting to see the flop in most cases before investing, except the instances where you are trying to throw your opponents off?
In a 10- 20 game wouldn't you rather have let's say four opponents putting in $20 before the flop when you have aces than six opponents putting in $10? Ther are many times when you should consider limping with a good hand before the flop as Mike recommends, depending on the kind of game you are in, but it is rarely the right play with aces.
***
In a 10- 20 game wouldn't you rather have let's say four opponents putting in $20 before the flop when you have aces than six opponents putting in $10?
***
Wouldn't you rather have 2 opponents putting in a lot of bets with top pair (against your overpair) after the flop than 1 player?
The question of whether "giving up EV" before the flop is ever balanced by extra money gained after the flop (from foes playing incorrectly due to pre-flop deception) is generally answered as "yes". So the next question is "with what hands, under what circumstances?"
I believe Caro's claim is that the AA frequently picks up enough post-flop money to oftentimes make raising with AA less profitable than calling. I don't think Sklansky's reply addresses disputes this claim at all.
I'm sorry that I've been posting so many contrary sounding notes recently, but I find it difficult to accept "fuzzy", anecdotal explanations as definitive. By the way, I'm not sure if Caro is right, but I haven't yet seen a convincing argument either way.
Calling with two aces can be right in games where players will play a lot more hands for one bet than for two bets. This, however is not the case in the majority of casino games from 10-20 up to 40-80. Furthermore if it is the right play it is not usually because of the deceptive value.
***
Calling with two aces can be right in games where players will play a lot more hands for one bet than for two bets. This, however is not the case in the majority of casino games from 10-20 up to 40-80. Furthermore if it is the right play it is not usually because of the deceptive value.
***
I may have mis-represented Caro's viewpoint. It is too bad he doesn't post on this forum.
Anyway, perhaps he was considering a combination of factors: deception AND poor-post-flop-playing foes.
It is not obvious to me that the money given up by just calling pre-flop with AA is or is not sufficient to cover the amount gained by having more losing players or deceived players post-flop. If the extra players who see the flop put in enough bad bets on the flop, turn, and river then just calling with AA could surely be more profitable. But how do we determine whether this is the case in the game we are in?
Would you please explain how you determined that it is rarely more profitable to just call pre-flop with AA "in the majority of casino games from 10-20 up to 40-80"?
In my experience most players in these size games do not loosen up that much just because no one has yet raised.
The statement that most pros raise too much before the flop is probably true if you include as pros many marginal but regular players. But this doesn't mean that you should virtually never raise before the flop as Caro seems to sometimes advocate.
Here is a situation where I will just call with two aces before the flop. Suppose I am first in early and I believe that most of my opponents are (1) quick to respect my raise and won't give me much action, but (2) the game contains several players who like to isolate anyone (including myself) who limp in early. Now this situation won't occur that often, but when it does you clearly "expect" to make more money by limping in with the aces.
A more interesting, and important situation is "how do you play AQ when you are first in up front. I choose AQ because it is representative of many hands. It turns out that there are four cases. They are as follows:
Case I: Your AQ is not suited and your raise will most likely produce a short handed pot -- It is now correct to come in raising. This will allow you to frequently win the pot without improving.
Case II: Your AQ is not suited and you expect to get many callers even if you raise -- You should now just call. This is because you will almost always need to hit the flop to win. (See pages 22-23, and 77-78 in HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS. Even though we are talking about playing in late position, the concept is the same.)
Case III: Your AQ is suited and you expect to get many callers even if you raise -- Now you should raise. AQ suited plays very well in a large multiway pot.
Case IV: Your AQ is suited and your raise will most likely produce a short handed pot -- Now you should consider just calling to attract players. However, a raise is also OK since the ranks will often allow you to win the pot without improving.
Of course there are some exceptions to the above, but there are many situations where your preflop raise will allow you to frequently win the pot without hitting the flop. Many of these situations are discussed in HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS.
Here are some things to consider. 1. Will your raise keep the pot short handed. 2. Are your opponents (or opponent) "weak tight." 3. Are the players in the blind tight. 4. How well do you play. 5. How well do you play in relation to the other players. 6. How strong is your hand for the situation. 7. When you raise, how will your opponents perceive your hand.
Obviously, the more positively inclined you are on the above the more likely you should be to raise.
Mason Malmuth's Poker Essays II is a fine book.
Most interesting , for me , were Pages 159 to 164.
MM describes how to save paying off at, or before, the end with Card Reading.
Then comes a guest essay why this idea might be wrong.
I would like to see MM's reply to this counter argument.
I'll give six to five he has one.
When I started playing Hold'em, after a few months, I saw that when the flush card hit, and I had NO Flush or Full house myself, I never won.
When I moved up in stakes, my opps noticed I noticed this.
At the new level, I noticed I never won, with an ordinary good hand, when checked raised on the Turn.
When I moved up in stakes, my opps noticed I noticed this.
Now what?
This must happen all the time as the opps get better.
This to me is a really interesting and elegantly phrased question. My compliments to the poster. Have they noticed that you noticed that they noticed ? I venture to say that as you move up in limits the answer to this question will be yes more often as I wonder how often the answer to the question I posed is yes.
The cycle converges to game theory strategy.
I think the answer to this is that part of playing poker well is the ability to constantly adjust, and frequently move to game theory betting and calling frequencies as David Sklansky points out.
Here's a simple example. You have been playing conservatively in a full ten handed hold 'em game which becomes short handed late at night. Now you find yourself frequently in position to attack the blinds and some of the remaining players are very tight, so you adjust and attack away. After about 30 minutes of this you begin to notice that they start to defend. Now you must adjust again.
I have found poker, especially as you move into the higher limits where the players are better, to be like this. Not only will you have to adjust while in the game, but you will need to adjust from day-to-day, week-to-week, etc,
The reason that I reproduced both of the essays on "Psychological Strength" in my book POKER ESSAYS is that I feel that they are both correct. The first one shows how you should play against opponents who are somewhat unaware, and too consistent and predictable in their play. The second one shows what can happen to you if you play that way and are up against the better players. Besides, when you go to "Moongate" wouldn't you rather be eating the lobster than the chow mein.
Is there a listing available of low buy in freeze out type hold em tournaments? I know the Rio has a shootout at 10 AM daily. I'm not ready for the big time yet and would like to get a feel for tournament poker.
See http://www.cardplayer.com
The best tourneys are at the Orleans. Twice a day, every day, noon & 7pm. They all start on time and have good turn outs and good pay outs.
The Luxor has daily 1-2 table HE tournements with a $17 buyin at noon.
I play in a weekly pot-limit game with a bunch of friends. The stakes are small (one blind, 25 cents). We play mostly Omaha for high, sometime Hi-Lo 8 or better. Only two of us (out of seven or so) are really into poker. We talk about it all the time, discussing recent hands played, what we just read in Sklanky, Malmuth, Jones, Zee, etc. Our latest topic of discussion has been check-raising on the flop. Here goes:
Let's say my aware friend has aces in the hole, with other good cards, and I've got something like Ks Js Tc 8h. My friend is UTG and I'm just to the right of the button. The flop comes:
As 3s 5c.
Now, he's got top set, but he doesn't like those two spades, so he'll likely bet the pot (say $4) in this situation to try to protect his hand. But, as we've got three or four calling stations between us, and $4 isn't all that scary, I say it's impossible to deny me the correct pot-odds to call. With two cards to come, it's 2 to 1 against my flush hitting (right?), but since the pot is laying me, at the very least (in our game), three to one, I can call that bet with a smile. So he has failed to protect the pot. In fact, he has made the pot even larger, so if a blank comes on the turn, he will have to spend a much greater amount to protect the pot in that spot. He may be a bit unwilling to do that. And since we have so many callers in our game, it may not even work.
But, if he checks on the flop, there will likely be a bet and several callers by the time it gets back to him. He can then raise the pot, which would be relatively enormous, and probably scare off all the callers, and make me think very hard about folding my nut flush draw. If I call, and a blank comes on the turn, and it's heads-up, I'll have to fold to any bet he's likely to make, and I will have spent a lot of $$$ for nothing.
It gets interesting if we reverse our positions. I'm UTG with the nut flush draw, and he's one off the button with his top set. In this case, I feel that it is correct for *me* to check-raise. Let's say I check, and it gets checked around to my friend with the top set. He bets the pot (again, say $4), button calls, and I raise. I don't raise much, maybe only $2, because I don't want to scare off all the callers after me. But even if I do scare off all but the button and my friend with the set, I'm still getting 3 to 1 from the pot on my raise. Plus, I might be able to get a free card on the turn if a blank falls, or at least I have made it *very* expensive for my friend to protect the pot, which, again, he may be unwilling to do. As I said, the stakes are small, and he's not going to like betting more than $10 into a $22 pot (which he would have to do to scare off the button and cut my implied odds). He might do it, but he'll be plenty unhappy about it, especially if he doesn't have top set, but only top two pair or middle set. If I've got him beat, he risks another check-raise.
So the question is: How does one protect the pot at a table full of calling stations, any one of whom could draw out on you? It seems that, with so many people on various drawing hands, no bet is large enough to overcome their *total* odds, as a group, against sucking out. Is check-raising the right play? Or is there something better? It looks to me like the check-raise is the right play, not only with the best hand, but with a draw to the nuts as well.
Chris Black
To say the least, it's an interesting proposition that you would check-raise with a flush versus a set when you are UTG. Only if you knew you would get a free card on 4th street would that play have merit. What would have potentially more merit would be betting out and expecting to be raised by the button set in order to build the pot. However, with calling stations, the best play would be to play the hand very straightforward: check and call with the best draw. The only hazard you face is if one of the calling stations also got on a big draw or made a set on 4th street. Then you would be facing 2 sets where even if you made your flush, you may get beat -- and get broke.
When you hold the top draw against calling stations, the best play is to take the odds and forget about anything fancy. In fact, in a game like that, one could make money all night by never doing anything but playing big draws very straightforward (I wish that I could get 6-1 every time I identify a horse as a 2-1 or better favorite!). Furthermore, with a lesser investment in the pot, it is easier for you to lay the hand down if necessary to do so on the end.
Ironically, it's the big pairs that constantly have to make the most difficult decisions in those games.
A minor point: you are more likely to lose when facing ONE set than facing TWO, since that's two less cards available to pair the board. However, the sets may raise you out of the pot.
I am very curious about something. You said that when you were under the gun with the nut-flush draw and your friend bet the pot, say $4, you might not raise very much, say $2 dollars??!! Is this allowed--raising less than the bet! If it is I think it is a bad rule, but it really dosen't make much difference especially in a social setting. In fact, now that I think about it, it might work out great!
This game does sound interesting to me though. Especially if it is loose, for several reasons. One, it sounds like fun! Two, I think you could make a nice piece of change--providing!--most of the players have a decent amount of money in front of them. If most of the "guys" buy in for $10 or $20 dollars it loses some of it's money appeal. But, if everyone has at least a couple of hundred dollars on the table, this sounds like a pumpkin patch! Problem is though the bad players will almost never win. Especially when constantly faced with pot size bets from the better players.
I would love to play in a game like this on a social basis because it sounds like the pots could escalate fairly quickly.
In the movie the sting during the famous poker scene. The evil villian calls the $1000 bet and raises $500. I cringed. My question is, does anyone know if this was a common practice in the "olden" days?
You know, I never thought of that. Yes, in our game you *can* raise less than the previous bet. This deviation most likely has popped up because nobody in the group has any casino or other serious poker experience. If the amount of the raise had to be equal to the amount of the bet, then my check-raise on the come would go straight out the window in most cases, as I would knock out even the loosest opponent, and then where would I be?
In regards to your comments about the game, yes, it is very loose, and the players bring whatever amount they feel they can lose and still have fun ($30 to $100 mostly). It can be a lucrative way for a new but serious player (like me) to learn the game. In fact, my poker buddies have more than paid for my growing collection of poker books (2+2, you know). The only little problem is that, because it is a social game made up mostly of not-very-serious players, it can be God-awful slow sometimes.
And, you're right, the bad players almost never win. They still have fun, though.
(There's a funny cash-flow in this game, and I wonder if it's not common in other games, to wit: the mediocre players quickly lose most of their money to the bad players, thinking that because the bad players are so lousy, they can't possibly have any kind of hand, ever. Then the good players, the patient ones, collect all the money from the bad players by the night's end. The dawn usually finds only the best players left at the table, struggling over the loose ends, pushing a couple of dollars back and forth until they just feel silly. Then the post-mortem begins.)
Post mortem's are fine but avoid "current mordem's" while the bad players are there. Yes they may learn something, but more dangerously they are likely to get it through their heads that analysis is good, and they may decide not to play with you professionals.
Better yet, you could engage in "false mortem's" where you deliberately engage in "fuzzy" logic arguments in such a way that's its not obvious. Say things like "Well, threes were running..." or "Wow, Jack high flush!".
** I think I should read all responses before replying. **
- Louie
I'll let others answer the question. But you have a major flaw in your reasoning:
You stated you would call with your flush draw with a smile getting 3-1 for your 2-1 shot. Later you point out you may have to fold for a pot sized bet on the turn getting only 2-1 (for your 3+ to one shot).
So, if you are likely to fold on the turn then you are not really a 2-1 shot to make it on the flop, are you?
The 2-1 chances (its worse than that, since the board cannot pair for you) are only relevant if you are going to go to the river. (Its similar to the advise to calculate your chances of FLOPPING a set with 22 and ignoring the turn and river); and the 3-1 odds you are getting only apply if you are NOT going to the river (since you can ignore an investment on the turn).
In limit its not that bad a mistake, but in pot and no limit it is. Generally calculate your chances of making with just one more card to go, then add a little for the chance of a free turn card. Then add expected bets if you do make it on the turn.
- Louie
No, check raising with your draw seems very wrong, especially if you raise just a little to keep everyone in. The set of Aces is likely to ReRaise the maximum, effectively "arsing" your clever play (can I use that word here??....). Better to bet into the likely callers and call the raise, hoping for more callers. ... All this assuming you know who has the set of Aces ...
Thank you. You are absolutely right about the flaw in my logic. I was effectively acting like a four flush on the flop has odds against making a flush on the TURN of 2 - 1. Even though I talked about fearing having to call a large bet on the turn, I was not working that bet into the math. I think I'm relying too much on the idea that the check-raise may buy me a free card on the turn. This is very unlikely, because even though the bettor may not know for sure if I am drawing to a flush, he still knows he's got the best hand at the moment, so why not bet? He certainly wouldn't fear another check-raise. My little idea was just as full of holes as a swiss cheese. Thanks for the wake-up call.
Chris
I would like to know whether any historical trend can be found relating to the availability and popularity of 7 Stud, Hi-Lo, (with or without qualifier)in major cardrooms.
Of course, I am interested more in the future of this game.
Why 7 Stud, Hi-Lo is nearly always included into tournaments but is very dufficult to find as a regular side game?
Any comment (particularly from David S.) will be very appreciated.
Good luck to everybody,
Leo
The answer is probably because the game is so much more technical than psychological. Thus intuitive non- technicians lose quickly and have no fun. (Omaha hi-lo also puts a premium on technical skill but at least in that game it is a lot easier to get lucky playing hands you shouldn't.) Any game that doesn't give weak players a decent chance to win in the short run, (No Limit Holdem being another example) is usually hard to find.
I have no idea where you live but:
The last time I was In California (august) The Crystal Park casino was spreading a 20-40 7-stud-hi-lo split every day. (the casino is now closed-but I "hear" it is soon to re-open) The Bicycle club also had this game on a daily basis often spreading two. (one of them being a feeder)
This game is normally played with an "action button." Lou Krieger wrote an article one or two issues back for card player describing this feature and explaining the game. In brief, if you "scoop" a two-hundred dollar pot you now get the action button. Unlike a kill you are forced to put $20 into the pot blind. In other words you will be raising when it gets to you because any player that acts before you CAN ONLY CALL THE $5 BRING IN UNTIL YOU ARE FORCED TO RAISE.
This feature has some interesting implications (pro and con) that I don't want to get into here but suffice it to say that most casinos that spread this game usually employ the same rules so there is some consistency from place to place.
By the way: If anyone knows exactly why (I have heard lots of rumors) the Crystal Park Casino closed down and when if ever it will re-open I would greatly appreciate hearing from you. They have the nicest $29 rooms I've ever stayed in!
Hollywood Park has a $3-$6 with a kill (making it $6-$12) Stud Hi/Lo game that goes regularly.
HP also has a $20-$40 S H/L game with the structure described in in the preceding messages. This goes almost every day.
Crystal Park closed because of dubious financial practices, from what I hear. I will not go into any detail because the details I've heard are simply hearsay insofar as I am concerned.
I believe there were one or two articles in the LA Times which might still be found online describing the closing.
It's my understanding that the license for CP was recently voted (by the Compton City Council) to a different person, and various startup dates like December 15th have been floating around.
On the East Coast (AC Casinos, Foxwoods, NYC Cardrooms) Hi/Lo stud is slowly but surely gaining momentum. Sklansky's response about the mechanical/technical nature of this game is profoundly true. Once you learn the in's and out's of Hi/Lo stud, most decisions are automatic - that's the good side. The bad side is that weaker players get severely punished for poor play and thus bust out fater than in other forms of poker. This makes it harder to keep a game alive that contains the usual mix of players, i.e 2 or 3 solid players, 3-4 mediocre players, 2-3 poor players.
I just arrived home from a long trip and logged in about 120 hours of hold'em all at 5-10 except for 20 hours of 10-20. I'm now $400 off at 10-20 and $153.00 dollars up in total 5-10 play. I want to thank all that gave me feedback on my postings. Ray Zee was correct to point out my calling station tendencies. Also the preflop raising added up when not hitting on the flop, but it seems that I'm hitting quite a bit now. With long hours of play a one extra bad bet adds up, and will now only see another card if I feel I can win the pot. Post flop play with pocket nines and tens were a problem, although stiil a problem, has been corrected considerably. Having good starting hands and knowing when to be aggressive seems to my current theme.
Although there is probably much more to poker than are in The Theory of Poker and Holdem for Advanced Players, the rereading of pages after and before play have been extremely valuable and validated. Thanks!
Jack Black wrote:
>With long hours of play a one extra bad bet adds up, and >will now only see another card if I feel I can win the pot
Don't automatically fold hands that have some value but are probably not best at the moment in big pots. You may be getting enough odds to draw to bottom pair, etc. That is make sure the pot is big, and at the limits that you are playing the games are frequently loose enough for this to be the case.
On the other hand, don't use this comment as an excuse to be a calling station. Also, if there are players left to act behind you adjust your "odds" appropriately.
I have been using the table in back of yours and David's book to try to determine if the odds I'm getting warrants staying in. I may have been a little weak-tight on this last trip because I was working on breaking the calling station and following betting patterns to determine if what I have may hold up, but you're right, it's the odds I'm getting that should be a major factor. Even so, when there is a large multi-way pot with many callers- it seems like gambling. However, it is incredible the hands I were generally getting this trip compared to the previous trips. My biggest mistake was probably playing hands too fast because of a fear of being drawn out. Thanks!
WHERE IN LAS VEGAS ARE THEY CONSISTENTLY SPREADING 10-20 /15-30 HOLD'EM AND OMAHA HI/LO GAMES.
I think the only place would be the Mirage and I am not sure if they spread a $15-30 Omaha Hi/Lo game and I have never seen the Mirage spread a $15-30 Hold'em game. I think the Mirage $10-20 Omaha Hi-Lo game has a half kill as well. The Horseshoe has a $10-20 Hold'em and a $15-30 Hold'em game I believe. The Orleans has a $10-20 Hold'em game but I couldn't vouch for the consistency of the game.
As most of you now know, a player was recently caught holding out in one of the $20-$40 hold 'em games in The Mirage on their graveyard shift. On the poker news group much has been written about the incident, and what it means to poker. However, I have yet to see an accurate account of the events, and thus I believe that many of you are drawing the wrong conclusion.
After talking at length to two different managers and the host in the poker room, here are the facts as I understand them. First, several weeks ago an unknown player began to play during the day in the $20-$40 hold 'em games. He appeared to have a "crippled" right hand and always wanted to sit in the seat to the immediate left of the dealer. After playing for a short while, one of the dealers reported to management that they were suspicious that this person might be holding out due to some of the "moves" that he made.
Upon hearing this the shift manager immediately called surveillance and had a camera put on the suspicious player, and then walked over to get a look at him first hand. However, the suspicious player must have felt the scrutiny and immediately quit the game.
A couple of weeks later this player showed up again. Another dealer felt that he was making suspicious moves, and due to the previous entry in the "shift log about the preceding incident" this player was recognized and again placed under surveillance. The graveyard shift manager then took one of the players, (known as a retired police officer from Chicago), and explained to him what the cameras were looking for. This proved to be a great decision, as they shortly caught the suspected player, and discovered that he was in possession of a "hold out device."
I want to make several comments on this incident. First, it was a very serious incident and should not be down played in any way.
Second, you should notice that the facts as I understand them are much different from some of what has been posted on the poker news group. Specifically, Mirage management was on top of the situation very quickly. I have not seen this pointed out in any of the news group posts.
Third, I have argued on these pages that poker rooms are very free of cheating. I have stated that poker room management tries to keep their games clean, and that players "self police" the game. I believe the events at The Mirage bear this out. In fact, this is a classic example as to why it is very safe to be playing poker at an establishment like The Mirage. The players and management worked together to uncover any wrong doing.
All comments are welcome.
In nearly 20 years of playing poker in the public cardrooms of Las Vegas, I'm very surprised to hear of someone cheating in this manner -- much less caught doing it. Doubly surprised because it happened at the Mirage, which, next to Binion's during the tournament, is virtually the best medium-to-high limit place to play poker. In a private game, you're always on your guard for this sort of thing, but it's pretty incredible to see this happening out in public.
What surprises me the most, however, is the idea that a player could even think that they could get away with holding out cards, given what I'd always assumed was strict surveillance of the games by both dealers, staff, and cameras. When I first heard of this, I too was inclined to suspect that inside help was involved.
Now being a "tourist" I've often wondered about the ethical issues for dealers who play, the incredible chuminess amongst locals and staff, and the number of locals I have to deal with at some tables. On at least one occasion, I have been bumped off a hand (in a very obvious play) by local colluders in a 20-40 stud game at the Mirage. Instantly recognizing the situation, I said nothing to the staff, merely "bookmarked" the players and situation in my mind and prepared to exact my revenge; regretably, one of the colluders got up shortly thereafter (although he stayed in the room, roaming around).
I've played during the graveyard shift at the Mirage; apparently this hold-out cheat figured he could get by with his play due to the lesser number of people around. For what it is worth, I believe the Mirage tolerates a small number of uncouth individuals in its cardroom -- and these I have had the dubious pleasure of running into during those late night/early morning shifts. At the same time, I have always been treated scrupulously fair by all the dealers and staff (I've heard the old joke about trying to get a buffet comp at the Mirage, but it must not be true, because a manager once came up to me and offered one unsolicited -- I declined in favor of the WSOP players buffet). Speaking from 1800 miles away, I can say that this incident doesn't lessen my appreciation for playing conditions at the Mirage.
When you have a game with money involved it is inevitable that someone will try to break the rules. I read a little bit about the incident that you are describing and it didn't seem like that big of deal and I was sure that a lot of the posters were speculating on the circumstances of the event. Perhaps I'm naive but I was quite sure that the Mirage staff handled everything well. This incident does not taint the Mirage nor does it taint poker in general in my opinion. The Mirage remains my favorite place to play.
As a relatively new player, I do not find this one incident of"holding out" cards too disturbing i.e. I doubt that it is widespread. What I have gathered from reading the other discussion groups replies/comments is much more concern about collusion in relatively high limit games. This is not the main reason that I have not moved beyond 1-4-88 and small buyin tournaments, but it does appear that such actions would be relatively easy to pull off, and profitalble. So at this point I am confused, will continue to practice and study, and stay within low limit casino poker. Gary
This is an emotional issue with a lot of players so I'll try and be careful in my response. I don’t believe that cheating is widespread or a major threat to one’s bankroll at this point in time. I don’t condone cheating of any kind at poker and I think that public card rooms are the best places to play. I also believe that card rooms should be very diligent in their efforts to weed out the cheaters. A lot of insinuations were made about the Mirage on R.G.P. stating that they were not as diligent as they could be in weeding out the cheaters. A comparison was made between the practices at the Mirage and at Hollywood Park. I really can’t speak to that but I feel that the Mirage has a first rate poker room.
The fact that someone tried to cheat shouldn't be surprising or shocking to anybody. When money is involved the human condition is such that people will inevitably try to gain some sort of unfair advantage. I guess the cynic is coming out in me, but people get cheated every day in all walks of life. If you have a job, is your employer always fair with you as far as your pay is concerned? When you buy a car, is the car lot trying to get as much money out of you as they can? Do lenders try and charge as must interest as they possibly can? Do investors ever trade on inside information? Does the IRS treat people fairly? Is the tax system fair? I could go on and on as it all sucks but you have to deal with it and that is how I see the situation in poker. I am sure that a lot of people will disagree with the following statement. In my opinion there is probably less cheating in poker, relatively speaking, than in the business world. So as reprehensible as cheating is, it is a fact of life. I just don’t think that cheating in public card rooms at this time is a major problem.
This doesn't mean that caution is not advised by me. I have stated previously in other posts that I am cautious and skeptical about certain players (although I have never seen any cheating on their part) and I think that every player should be on their guard.
This post by Tom Haley is very close to what I think is accurate. There is no question that people will come into a cardroom and try to cheat every now and then. Fortunately, between cardroom management and the players, I don't believe that much cheating is ever successful.
I also agree that there is more cheating in the business world than there is in a poker room. Six years ago we discovered that we had a major problem with the printer that was printing all of our books. We were forced to file a law suit and accumulated almost $25,000 in attorney fees before the printer capitulated and settled with us.
I am not one to take cheating lightly. But thanks to the current environment that major poker rooms today operate under I believe that the games are generally very honest.
Finally, there is one more idea that I want to address. For poker games to be successful expert players cannot have an advantage that is too large over non-experts. When this advantage gets too great, the games will cease to exist. This is why no-limit hold 'em is not spread any more. It may have been the "cadillac" of poker games, but the best players just won too often and at too rapid a rate. Specifically, if the "average amount of money stolen from an average honest player in an average $50/$100 poker game is $86.14 an hour" so much money would be leaving the table that the games would cease too exist.
I agree that this type of cheating is rare; nonetheless being cheated by collusion is a very real threat, particularly if the players involved perceive you as a tourist. This year alone, in addition to the hand I mentioned in the above post at the Mirage, I was also crippled during a satellite in the WSOP by two players who were slicing up the entire table while soft-playing each other -- of course on the end they split (I don't have any problems with splitting on the end, but teamwork to get there is unethical). This was the first time that I'd lost due to collusion in a WSOP satellite -- and it will be the last.
I was wondering where the $86.14 an hour came from until I read Mike Caro's post on RGP. Here is the statement by Mike Caro that Mason is referring to:
A portion of Mike Caro post titled "Poker Cheating" on the newsgroup rec.gambling.poker:
>>9. I think, but cannot prove, that the average amount of money stolen from an average honest player in an average $50/$100 poker game is $86.14 an hour. Ridiculous number? You're right, I just made it up because it feels accurate to me at the moment. If the god of poker came down with an envelope containing the answer and you made the line $86.14, booking the action, and asked me to lay 11-to-10 either way, over or under, guess what? I wouldn't bet. <<
$86.14 an hour is a pretty high rate. Seems like statements made on RGP about the HIGH profitibility of cheating in high limit games might encourage people to try cheating even more.
Tom Haley wonders:
>>>I was wondering where the $86.14 an hour came from until I read Mike Caro's post on RGP. Here is the statement by Mike Caro that Mason is referring to:
A portion of Mike Caro post titled "Poker Cheating" on the newsgroup rec.gambling.poker:
>>9. I think, but cannot prove, that the average amount of money stolen from an average honest player in an average $50/$100 poker game is $86.14 an hour. Ridiculous number?
>>>
The timing of these two events (Caro's post and Malmuth's post) should tell the story. Mike Caro has stated first in clear, intelligent fashon that at higher limits there are many opportunities to play against colluders. He further states that these partnerships are very difficult to detect and the punishment when detected is often not enough to keep it from happening again. Everyone should read Mike Caro's post on RGP or e-mail me and I'll fire you off a copy.
I'm happy to see that this forum has taken the time to address the issue. It's obvious that a completely different opinion on the scope and severity of cheating has been reached by Mason Malmuth. I know which opinion I'll believe.
I'm sorry to have one more post on this over-worked subject. I think that the hysteria regarding collusion stems from the fact that it appears that collusion would be very easy to get away with and that people playing for high stakes would have a lot of incentive to involve themselves in such schemes. I just don't think that this is reality, however. I really enjoyed reading the recent posts about strategy and tactics so I guess the forum readers are probably tired (thankfully) of this cheating issue as well. Anyways here it is:
The whole idea of enacting new laws to punish colluders is a bad one in my opinion for the following reasons:
1) The government should be kept out of poker as much as possible. I can see it now, politicians get the idea that cheating is rampant in poker and decide that gambling really is evil and thus make all kinds of political hay off of this. You can bet the ranch that this will not be good for poker. Besides legislatures will have little incentive to draft laws because there would be no strong lobbying group behind such an effort. Even if poker players and poker establishments established lobbying groups( such as political action committees), the resulting laws are not likely to be very good because of the way the legislative process works. By the way, establishing these lobbying groups will require a lot of money.
2) An overburdened legal system will have very little incentive to prosecute these cases. I just can’t imagine a D.A.’s office sinking a lot of taxpayer dollars into building a case against colluders and prosecuting the case. In my opinion it will be a set of laws that are rarely enforced.
3) Even if the laws were enacted and the legal system was zealous about prosecuting the cases, it will take years to establish the legal precedents in the courts. I also think that defending colluders and getting them off would be very easy for defense lawyers to do.
4) Poker establishments will have very little incentive in providing evidence against colluders for fear of being sued if the colluders are eventually exonerated.
5) I don’t think that police departments will be very responsive about or interested in arresting colluders.
6) Sentences would tend to be very light when convictions are won. The overcrowding of prisons and the sentences for more serious crimes such as murder, rape, assault, and robbery are what I base this statement on.
I am sure there are more reasons than this but that is all I have for now.
What about this aspect of collusion...I know personally of two guys that visit a Tunica casino every two weeks that have a arrangement where, if both of them are involved in a pot, the loser gets his money back from the winner. Of course, this only applies when they are in the same game. On one occasion, I went to the casino with them, and was offered this same deal. However, we never got involved in the same pot in a game.
They did not discuss with me raising between them in order to run someone off of a hand. However, I would think arrangements like the one mentioned above are more common than you would think.
I see this kind of stuff all of the time and I think it is wrong. Usually this kind of stuff is what I put into the annoying category. I don't think new laws will help the situation at all. If you feel that some unethical behavior is transpiring then it is your obligation to call it to the attention of the floor person. I agree that friends soft playing each other happens a lot.
I shouldn't say all the time. I should use the word sometimes. When I say friends soft play each other a lot I just mean that it is not a rare occurrance.
Poker is played best when all the players are trying to win all the money. Arrangements like the one above should not be tolerated. If you know these people you should explain to them that what they are doing actually damages the game. My guess is that they do not realize the seriousness of it.
The reason why an arrangement like this is bad is that it can affect the play of the hands. For example, suppose you have a weak hand. Your partner bets. You might now raise instead of fold since you get the money back anyway. If this raise knocks the person out of the pot who would have won it, something has gone wrong.
I might add that at 2000 hours per working year this adds up to a whopping $172,280 a year for each player at the $50/100 level. This would mean that:
1) Honest 50/100 players are getting wiped out quickly as their bank rolls are substantially less than $172,280 I would think.
2) The colluders are getting incredibly rich because this number is per player.
3) There won't be anybody but the colluders at the 50/100 level left and thus no games at this level.
I think that Tom Haley has hit the nail on the head. Here is another way to look at these figures.
In my book POKER ESSAYS I wrote that a good seven-card stud player at the $50-$100 level would make $35 an hour, and a great player in this game would make $90 an hour. (See page 56, second edition.)
When I came up with these estimates, which are based on my experience, and on conversations that I have had with knowledgeable people, I assumed the game was honest. If the $86.14 per hour figure of money being stolen from the honest players is accurate, I don't believe that there would be any honest players winning.
Malmuth:
First, several weeks ago an unknown player began to play during the day in the $20-$40 hold 'em games. He appeared to have a "crippled" right hand and always wanted to sit in the seat to the immediate left of the dealer. After playing for a short while, one of the dealers reported to management that they were suspicious that this person might be holding out due to some of the "moves" that he made.
***
Reuter:
How long did this player play before a dealer reported a suspicion? Hours? Days? Weeks? I would tend to trust players recollections on this question more than management, by the way.
***
Malmuth:
A couple of weeks later this player showed up again. Another dealer felt that he was making suspicious moves, and due to the previous entry in the "shift log about the preceding incident" this player was recognized and again placed under surveillance
***
Reuter:
Again, how long did this player play before he was placed under surveillance? Why didn't the camera (rather than a dealer) pick him up within minutes of sitting down at the game if they had already suspected him of cheating several weeks ago?
***
Malmuth:
Third, I have argued on these pages that poker rooms are very free of cheating.
***
Reuter:
I think this is an irresponsible attitude. It may be true. On the other hand, it may be that for every cheater who is caught, there are 5 or 10 better cheaters who aren't even noticed.
Mike Caro posted to r.g.p about his background in monitoring and working with casinos to combat cheating. What credentials does Malmuth offer that we should take his assertion as the gospel truth on cheating?
Even if it is true that poker is mostly free of cheating, I much prefer the attitude of Caro to that of Malmuth. Caro is trying to persuade poker room management to work harder to indentify cheating and to stiffen the penalties for those caught cheating. I would give my business to a poker room which I knew to exceed its competitors in time and money expended to combat cheating. Now if only one such would do this and stand forward to be recognized...
I respect Mason Malmuth's opinions, so it concerns me when he writes:
>> On the poker news group much has been written about the incident, and what it means to poker. However, I have yet to see an accurate account of the events, and thus I believe that many of you are drawing the wrong conclusion.<<
I believe the account I posted was accurate. Which part of the account I posted do you believe to be a lie? Or perhaps you meant to say "incomplete"?
Mason writes:
>> After playing for a short while, one of the dealers reported to management that they were suspicious that this person might be holding out due to some of the "moves" that he made. <<
This was mentioned in the hearsay section of my post. More specifically, the dealer counted down the deck after a hand, found it came up short, and saw the cheat muck three cards the next hand. That is the dealer's account, but it's still hearsay, since it's secondhand information. (Note that *all* of Mason's information is hearsay, whereas I was directly quoting an eye witness.) The name was deliberately withheld from the posted account because of concerns for this dealer's safety and the court case. I will say that he or she is one of the about three dealers at the Mirage who actually count down the deck close to once per half hour. He or she is a very good asset for the Mirage, management and honest players alike.
Mason writes:
>> Upon hearing this the shift manager immediately called surveillance and had a camera put on the suspicious player, and then walked over to get a look at him first hand. However, the suspicious player must have felt the scrutiny and immediately quit the game. <<
This fact, in a more vague form and without the speculation, was included in my post.
Mason continues:
>> A couple of weeks later this player showed up again. Another dealer felt that he was making suspicious moves, and due to the previous entry in the "shift log about the preceding incident" this player was recognized and again placed under surveillance. The graveyard shift manager then took one of the players, (known as a retired police officer from Chicago), and explained to him what the cameras were looking for. This proved to be a great decision, as they shortly caught the suspected player, and discovered that he was in possession of a "hold out device." <<
This fact about management clueing in a player was deliberately omitted from the account I posted, because of concerns for the legal situation. Let me give you an example...
60 Minutes did a report on polygraph tests. They sent three people to take a lie detector test. They told the testor that someone had stolen a thingy from the company and they were pretty sure it was *this* one of the three. The testor found that one guilty. They repeated the whole thing with another testor while implicating the second of the three. The testor found the second guilty. They repeated the whole thing with a third testor while implicating the third, and of course the third was found guilty.
The point is that preconceptions cloud judgment.
The Mirage told the cop that they suspected the #1 seat player was likely guilty. The cop then found him guilty. There are some inaccuracies in what the cop said at the time, some evidence that preconceptions clouded his judgment, some evidence that he saw what he wanted to see and not what really happened. I'll continue to leave the specific information about this unstated for the sake of the prosecution's case against a clear cheater. Odds are Mason's words will not harm the prosecution's case, but I was just being extra careful myself, and I still shy away from posting it out on rec.gambling.poker, where it will be archived for all time via www.dejanews.com.
Anyway, I regard this fact as relatively minor, and I've now stated the reasons it was omitted from the account I posted, but I apologize to Mirage management if they felt slighted.
Before this incident occured, I saw two major holes in Mirage's poker security. First, the Mirage does not have cameras on most of the games, including 40-80, according to Donna Harris. I'm hoping Donna was not telling the truth about that (not that I want her to be a liar), because the situation is very disconcerting otherwise. Second, they change decks on the 40-80 games every half hour on the half hour and never any other time - the hold-out cheat was finally nailed on the 20-40 when he had to rush a card back in for a random player-requested deck change, and the cop was expecting this move because of the deck change - if the cheat had played the 40-80 and had a half hour to replace the held-out card, it would have been more difficult to catch him. Also, with the right timing on a random deck change, a cheat gets stuck holding his extra card, which apparently happened at least once since he was rumored to still be in possession of an ace of hearts when detained. Not only does this create strong evidence, but also hold-out tables can be fairly quickly identified by counting down the decks after they are removed from the tables. The lack of cameras is probably because of being cheap and being the only game in town. The changing of cards every half hour on the half hour is not because of being cheap, it's because of being stupid. Again, I was quite concerned about both these security holes before this cheating incident.
On the bigger issue as to whether cheating is a problem, first, it was Mirage staff that caused the cheater to be caught - the players were oblivious until one was clued in by Mirage management based on the dealer's suspicions. In California, management sometimes goes to the opposite extreme, ignoring player reports of clear cut cheating and refusing to look at the tapes, perhaps because the cheating players toke enough to the floormen to keep them looking the other way. Mirage management is to be commended for their actions concerning this incident.
Still, Mason is probably right that the players police the games to keep them almost cheat free. And Caro is probably right that collusion is a big problem. How can they both be right? The high percentage of professional players combined with concerned management in Vegas probably helps keep the games clean for Mason. The high percentage of ethnic groups that share languages, a social bond, and often bankrolls combined with (sometimes) laissez-faire management in L.A. probably creates collusional situations against Caro. I'd like to make some sort of dare to Mason about his being able to beat the 60-120 Hold'em game at the Commerce, or to beat the 40-80 Hold'em game at Hollywood Park when his opponents are one four-man team and one three-man team I know of that share bankrolls and speak foreign languages during the hands, but I cannot present it in a workable way so never mind - withdrawn.
Harping on and on about Caro's $86.14 figure sounds a bit Doug Grantian. Caro said that he made it up. He did not mean it to be taken seriously.
In these matters of degree, there can never be exact agreement, nor proof that one is correct. I think everyone agrees that cheating sometimes occurs, and that cheating does not always occur. Past that, people will tend to argue even when they are close to agreeing, or even when they are each close to correct in their own differing contexts.
-Abdul
You're right about the $86.14. That is why I posted the statement on the forum. It is a ludricous statement and I would think that Caro would want to at least modify it. In my opinion, it would be useful if he would make it known the amount of money that he estimates. Then again he has said on the RGP forum that he doesn't want to retract any part of his post. To me his statement reads like he feels the $86.14 is the average number. So what are we to think?
A portion of Mike Caro post titled "Poker Cheating" on the newsgroup rec.gambling.poker:
>>9. I think, but cannot prove, that the average amount of money stolen from an average honest player in an average $50/$100 poker game is $86.14 an hour. Ridiculous number? You're right, I just made it up because it feels accurate to me at the moment. If the god of poker came down with an envelope containing the answer and you made the line $86.14, booking the action, and asked me to lay 11-to-10 either way, over or under, guess what? I wouldn't bet. <<
Please describe to me what constitutes "holding out". Thanks, Leo
Keeping cards in your possesion in order to use them at a later time to improve your hand illegally.
Last week I wrote a post about something that I had read about Mike Caro. My observations about this subject are based on my sessions at the Taj Mahal in AC. It's said that are several reasons to raise before the flop but I don't think that this is really correct anymore. Many opponents won't fold hands that should be folded when there is a raise. They don't care about position. All they want is to play poker. They came to play and to hell with the poker books. Ask them and they will tell you this right to your face. These are the real opponents you want to play with, doubly so if they are calling stations. The nature of hold'em is that many flops will be missed. Their is no way around this. The real raises before the flop should be to pick up blinds and with hands that don't need a flop to hit. I admit that alot depends upon your opponents about this. Most of what is writen about hold'em thats good is geared to playing tough players. I ask my self, why would I want to play against these type of players. MM and DS admit that against these players your expectations will be low or worse. I watch players in AC raise in every position with all kinds of hands trying to be the most deceptive player at the table. I admit that they succeed. But they do not win in the long run. I think that the real reason that most can't win is something that most can't do. And thats to sit there and wait to they have the best of it. Discipline and Patience. Add a strong game strategey and a bankroll and then you can win. I really don't think that this raising revolution before the flop should be in your strategey. Many people when they read this will say bullcrap but I believe it to be correct. I have done well so far. Maybe I have'nt won as much as I should. I have been told that before. But make no mistakes about it. I win.
I remember some of Mike Caro's writings about not raising before the flop. Most of what he said about not raising has been mentioned in the Forum. What has not been mentioned is his statements about raising in later positions with the intention of "stealing the blinds" or because you feel that the remaiining players will fold marginal hands thereby making your hands stronger---if they play better in short-handed pots. He made this statement in the same "Professional Report" that stated that many professionals raise too often before the flop.
I find myself agreeing with your style of pre-flop play. I also find myself agreeing with Mike's suggestion of raising in late position with certain hands.
Mike Caro suggests raising with Pocket Aces only in the Big Blind when everyone is in. Sklansky states elsewhere in this Forum that not raising with Aces in any position is "seldom correct."
Sklansky gives 7 reasons to raise. Most of these reasons do not apply, or barely apply, to pre-flop hold-em (HE) (ex. Raising to drive out worse hands when your own may be second best). One reason that applys to some HE games and not others is raising to drive out opponents. If no one folds, then that reason is invalid. In this case you might not raise with pocket Jacks pre-flop. You may want to raise with JTs in late position if there is already 5 or 6 callers to get more money in the pot. This hand has a good expected value. Plus if you make the hand, the pot is so big that players are more likely to pay you off at the end. I like to raise once a month with 45s and pretend I have pocket aces.
Ray Zee suggests in his 7-card Stud book that stealing the antes in a low-ante stud game is a usless endeavor.
The 15-30 7-card Stud games spread in Southern California usually have a $2 ante and a $5 low-card bring in. I think that this is is a low-ante game and generally restrict attempts at "stealing." A friend of mine, after observing my play, admonished me for passing up opportunities to "steal." He disagrees with Ray Zees suggestion and says that if I don't steal more often then I won't get action when I have big hands.
$2 is not a small ante for 15-30
Barry:
I suspect that you have authors or books confused. In SEVEN CARD STUD FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS which Ray Zee was a co-author there is a very large section on stealing antes, and the model game is $15-$30.
I thought that perhaps you were thinking of HIGH-LOW-SPLIT POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS by RAY ZEE and were confusing the stud eight-or-better section, but upon checking that book there is still discussion of ante stealing although Zee says it is not as important in this game as in other games. Perhaps this is what you remember.
In any case, you will need to do your share of ante stealing in $15-$30 seven-card stud.
Mason is correct! I did have my authors mixed up. The statement that I referred to can be found in the 7-card Stud Section of Bronson's "Super System." While I am apologetic for the misquote, still, I am grateful for the swift response and the answering of my question.
Barry Hope wrote in his original post:
>if I don't steal more often then I won't get action when I >have big hands.
While I agree that this statement is true, you need to steal the antes every now and then simply because you need to win them to beat $15-$30 and higher stud. This is the point that is being made in the excellent stud section of Super/System, and I completely agree with it.
Finding and Making favorable stealing opportunities was a major preoccupation 7 years ago when I was playing in these very games, and I am sure they are tighter now increaing the value of such efforts.
In a full 8 handed 15/30 stud game there is $16 in antes and a $5 bring in and you risk $10 for a hand you intend to call with and $15 for a substandard hand, to win that $21. Your chances of accidentally winning when called is greater than your chances of getting re-raised out (at least it was), so you are effectively getting about 3:2 for your money.
That means you break even if the steal works ABOUT 40% of the time. That comes up often, as I recall. Against real life timid opponents your chances are much better.
Stealing is best, of course, when a few people have folded and you have the highest up card. But there are many other creative stealling opportunites, such as when you have the other Duece: no one would suspect a steal in such a bad situation. Also, stealing from the bring in happens infrequently, when their up cards are matched AND your hole cards matches the others (your hand is DEAD). You have QT4 vrs 588TQ99. This is a great time for a big bring in, so long as you've showed them a couple straight forward aggressive big pairs lately. Its also better if the smaller up cards must act before the higher ones: you MUCH prefer clockwise order 58899TQ than QT99885. But the vast majority of the time be sure to "semi-bluff" steal when you really have SOMETHING, like KJ6 and a two flush. I.E. steal mostly with hands that are almost worth calling the $5 bring in.
I re-emphasise the key phrase in the above paragraph: "straight forward". If you routinely slow play or trap with big pairs then stealling only works against the brain dead.
To the fine 2+2 books: summarized: steal with certain kinds of hands creating favorable frequencies; I add Caro: summarized: steal in such a manner that it looks natural.
Stealing only works against people who will lay down small pairs against a known big pair. There are many people who will routinely go to the river with any pair knowing they are beat. Do not steal against these people. DOH!
------------------------------------------
And now for the controversial opinion:
*** There is more money to be won stealing in 7stud than there is in getting players to call you down with weaker than normal hands ***
That means cultivate a tight aggressive image and use it to steal, rather than steal in order to create a suspicious image in order to get called. Generally try to make them a little suspicious, enough to TEMPT them to call. That moment's hesitation they will experience is GOLD in your pocket: it causes them to play VERY PREDICTABLY. There's nothing like knowing they called with a pair of Tens that they will lay down on 5th.
- Louie
The Gambling Forum November 1997 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo